[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29276-29794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-140503]





    TO APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO 
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-1564
    SIGNED BY GARY REBACK
    2ND STORY of Level I printed in FULL format. Copyright 1994 
Network World, Inc. Network World July 25, 1994 94-1564
    FILED FEB 14 1995
    SECTION: TOP NEWS; Pg. 4
    LENGTH: 724 words
    HEADLINE: Microsoft free at last?;
    Ruling still lets firm incorporate apps in its OSes.
    Clerk, U.S. District Court
    District of Columbia
    BYLINE: Michael Csenger and adam Gaffin
    BODY:
    Washington, DC
    The antitrust settlement Microsoft Corp. reached with the 
Justice Department skirted an issue central to network users, paving 
the way for the software giant to continue integrating applications 
with its desktop and network operating systems.
    The consent decree, announced July 16, focused almost entirely 
on the way Microsoft sold operating systems to hardware vendors. But 
it does not prevent the company from integrating applications into 
the operating system itself.
    Competing software vendors such as Lotus Development Corp. had 
long alleged that Microsoft's applications division received unfair 
information from its operating systems division that gave the 
company a leg up on the competition.
    Some analysts and users said the decree, which also poses 
stricter controls on the royalties Microsoft can collect from 
personal computer vendors, leaves the path clear for Microsoft to 
mop up competitors that sell stand-alone applications, resulting in 
more limited user choice down the road. SKEPTICISM
    But others said Microsoft has yet to prove to the market that it 
has operating systems and networked applications worth betting a 
business on. ``A lot of its networking products are either 
futures or first-generation products,'' said Jamie Lewis, 
president of The Burton Group, a Salt Lake City consulting firm. The 
company faces entrenched and growing user bases for both Novell, 
Inc.'s NetWare operating systems and Lotus'' Notes groupware 
applications, he said. Users also expressed skepticism.
    ``Microsoft promises Chicago and Cairo and a whole lot of 
networking, but the question is, will it work before they run out of 
cities to name these things after?'' quipped a network manager 
whose major brokerage house network runs on Unix.
    windows NT is not a truly open environment, he said, 
``Because if Gates doesn't have it then neither do you, and I'd 
rather not put myself in his hands. That's why we've standardized on 
Unix for our trading floor.''
    Frank Caro, technology transition team leader for Otis Elevator 
Co. in Farmington, Conn., cited interoperability problems with 
Microsoft's current Windows implementation of Transmission Control 
Protocol/Internet Protocol as an example of the company's network 
shortcomings.
    ``We've been trying to get into the networking capability 
of Microsoft's products and find there's one con, non theme: 
NETBIOS,'' Caro said. Microsoft does not yet support native 
TCP/IP, but uses NETBIOS or NETBEUI encapsulated within TCP/IP, he 
said.
    ``we're totally uninterested in any approach like this; it 
can't handle a network of more than 50 users and is terrible over 
the wide area,'' Caro said.
    And Windows NT has proved unable to handle the applications that 
Otis wants to take off its mainframe system, because Windows NT is 
not a multiuser environment.
    But Caro respects Microsoft's ability to change course as 
necessary and awaits the promised native TCP/IP support in Chicago.
    ``That one feature alone is going to cause dramatic change 
in network connectivity,'' said Nick Lippis, principal at 
Strategic Networks Consulting, Inc. in Rockland, Mass., referring to 
Windows'' TCP/IP.
    Native TCP/IP support for Chicago could help Microsoft cut into 
Novell's installed NetWare client base by providing an alternative 
to Novell's Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX) protocol. If the 
desktop operating systems supported TCP/IP directly, ``why 
continue with IPX?'' Lippis asked.
    NOVELL NOT WORRIED
    ``I laugh when I hear people say it's all over for Novell 
now, we should pack up and go home,'' said David Bradford, vice 
president and general counsel for Novell.
    ``Microsoft has come against Novell [several] now with 
their networking products, and we've beat them every time,'' 
Bradford said.
    Bradford also noted that this consent decree does not close 
Microsoft's books forever. ``They will be monitored, perhaps 
even more so than before,'' he said. ``The industry and 
consumers have an ally in the Justice Department.''
    Frank Dzubeck, president of Communications Network Architects, 
Inc., in Washington, DC, agrees that the case may not yet be closed.
    ``If Microsoft gets very aggressive and starts burying 
things in their operating systems, then this whole issue will be 
revisited, he said. But it will require that another company first 
go bankrupt.''
    LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
    LOAD-DATE-MDC: July 27, 1994
    TO APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO 
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-1564
    SIGNED BY GARY REBACK
    Business Day
    M??
    The New Work Times
    Microsoft's Barely Limited Future
    By JOHN MARKOFF
    ??
    SAN FRANCISCO, June 17--Rath?? than reining in the 
Microsoft Corporation, the consent deeree that the Justice 
Department announced over the weekend with Microsoft. the world's 
largest software publisher, frees the company to define the computer 
mudstry's ground ?? through the rest of the decade.
    The agreement leaves ??intouched what many computer in??justry 
executives say is Microsoft's ?? advantage--that it devel??ps 
both the basic operating-system ??oftware that makes personal 
com??ters run, known as MS-DOS. and ??pphactons software, like word-
pro??essing programs or spreadsheets, ??nat perform spec?? ??
    ``Microsoft s whole empire is based in the interlocking 
nature of their ??perating-system and application oftware.'' 
said William Joy, a ??ounder of Sun Microsystems, and the ??uthor of 
one version of the Unix Perating system.
    ??Vol a Central Issue Microsoft officials said Saturday ??nal 
issues related to the relationship ?? their operating software and 
their ??ppicaons programs had not been ??ocus of their ?? 
nego??anons with us??ce Department officials.
    MS-DOS and the Windows proram, which makes DOS easier to ?? are 
installed in millions of com. ?? worldwide White the Jusuce 
??epartiment has decided that Micro?? does have a monopoly in 
opera?? ?? systems, it ?? that the ?? changes the c??unsent decree 
spells ??ut provide a remedy.
    Yet many Microsoft compet??nors ??ce a broader problem, as well: 
the ??ne between where the operating system ends and the 
applications pro??las start is increasingly being ??lurred by 
advances in technology. ??Smaller compe??tors with innovave ideas in 
businesses as diverse as ?? man. ?? compression,
    ?? creates more storage space on disk, and screen savers, which 
pre?? ent damage to mounors, are finding ?? their business is 
evaporating because Microsoft keeps adding such programs to ?? 
operating system as ?? periodically brings out an updated version.
    A Microsoft's operating system scheduled for release next year, 
called Chicago, will acceler?? the process The program will mer??e 
DOS and Windows and will include electronic mail, remote access, 
filesearching functions and screen savers. Since introducing MS-DOS 
in 1981.
    Microsoft has continually campaigned to expand the ?? of what 
computing functions belong inside the computer operating system.
    The early vers?? of DOS were small programs that did ?? more 
than control the storage and ?? of data and start and stop 
applications programs. But in the 14 years that followed, 
Microsoft's ??rating systems have greatly expanded the servtees they 
provide to users and programmers The other important issue not 
specifically addressed in the consent decree is whether Microsoft 
has been able to leverage us virtual monopoly ?? operating systems 
into domination of applications software--a far bigger and more 
lucrative market This matter is of great concern to companies like 
Lotus Development.
    Boarland International and Novell, and its recently acquired 
Wordperfect--which specialize in applications software. About 
half of the 50 million computers that run Windows, for example use 
Microsoft's word processor, called Word, and its spreadsheet, Excel.
    It was for that reason that lawyers at the Federal Trade 
commission toyed two years ago with the idea of breaking Microsoft 
into two companies, More recently, Justice Department investigators 
are believed to have

[[Page 29277]]

studied ways of creating some sort of ``Chinese wall'' 
that might limit the information traveling between the two sides of 
the business. Anne K. Bingaman, Assistant Attorney General in charge 
of annt??rust matters, refused to comment on the issue. But in 
response to a question whether, the department had considered trying 
to split Microsoft, she said Sa??day that her lawyers, bad looked at 
``every possible legal th?? ory ?? Linkage Is Seft-Pedaled??
    In an interview today, Ms. Bingsman: acknowledged that the 
decre?? was silent about any linkage ?? ?? Microsoft's power in 
operating systems and its, growth, in applications software. But she 
also said the Justice Department had decided against pursuing a 
``second range of issues'' that had been raised by the 
F.T.C.'s earlier investigation.
    ``All I can tell you is we filed the complaint based on 
what we decided were the problems that needed to be 
corrected,'' she said.
    What the consent decree announced on Saturday did achieve was 
this: Microsoft agreed to change the way it deals with the companies 
that make the hardware for personal computers, freeing them to offer 
customrs a choice of operating systems.
    Microsoft will also alter its softwarelicensing policies and the 
way it gives information to software developers.
    The expectation is that personal computer makers like Compaq. 
Dell and others will now be more receptive to the operating systems 
made by Novell, international Business Machines and Sun 
Microsystems.
    Software companies will be able to develop versions of their 
programs for Microsoft's operating systems without making exclusive 
commitments to Microsoft, leaving them free to create applications 
for operating systems that other companies have designed.
    Yet while the consensus is that Microsoft's influence will 
continue to increase, computer industry executives are divided over 
whether its power and influence will be good or bad for consumers.
    ``Microsoft has become the I.B.M. of the 1990's'' said 
J. Paul Gravson chairman and chief executive of Mr. crogra??, a 
software publisher it Richardson. Tex ``There are issues for 
anyone who wants to participa?? in this market because of their size 
and scope. Anything the Government does to slow them down would be 
welcome.''
    Believes Bigger Is Better But others in the industry believe 
that Microsoft's strategy is benefiting consumers.
    ``If you really care about improving the personal computer, 
you wan Microsoft to take over all the pieces of the pre,'' 
said Stewart Alsop, edito?? of Infoworld, a weekly computer-in 
dustry newspaper.
    Competitors like Novell, which were otherwise pleased by the 
agreement obtained by the Justice Department, said they were 
disappointed that the Government had not forced Microsoft to 
disclose ??formation about new versions of its operating systems in 
ways that would level the playing field for developers who are 
competing with Microsoft applications.
    The company's competitors have argued that Microsoft has gained 
a special advantage for its applications programs by using hidden 
operating-system features and providing earlier access to technical 
information for its programmers.
    Microsoft officials said the Government had found no evidence 
that such a special advantage existed. ``We don't think this is 
market power in the traditional an??trust sense.'' Said William 
h. Neukom, the company's vice president for law and corporate 
affairs. ``Anyone can come in and upset you with better 
technology. We think it's a ferociously competitive business.''
    While the agreement may aid some companies like Novell, which 
makes a Microsoft-compatible operating system, it will not affect 
Microsoft's power with respect to smaller software developers.
    ``Microsoft will continue to be very powerful,'' said 
Martin Goetz, a cofounder of Applied Data Research, the nation's 
first software company ``The Justice Department hasn't ?? to 
the cries of the software companies.''
    Michael J. Miller
    The World According to Microsoft FILED
    If you think Microsoft is too dominant in today's computer 
industry, a quick look at where the Bill Gates juggernaut is headed 
may prove disheartening. Already the leading provider of operating 
systems and office productivity applications, Microsoft wants to 
carry its success over to other areas, ranging from interactive 
television to financial services. With its recent announcements, 
acquisitions, and introductions. Microsoft is making its goal clear: 
It aims to become a ubiquitous part of tomorrow's information 
infrastructure.
    THE RIGHT TOOLS
    While Intel seems to face more competition than ever, 
Microsoft's position in the operating-system market has gotten 
stronger. The reason for this continued success is twofold. 
Confusion and a lack of focus from OS competitors--such as IBM 
and Apple--certainly helped, but Microsoft also gave itself 
quite a boost by developing tools like Visual Basic and Visual C++.
    Not too long ago, Borland surpassed Microsoft in the quality of 
its tools. But more and more, the big firms I talk to are moving to 
Microsoft tools. This kind of support gives Microsoft the ability to 
decide which technologies to push and which platforms to support, as 
well as which technologies to license and which to keep for itself. 
For instance, Microsoft was first on the market with products that 
really supported OLE 2.0. Now that it wants OLE 2.0 to be widely 
supported, it has done a very nice job of making OLE support easier 
by providing Wizards in its Visual C++ package.
    Microsoft wants OLE to be the object standard, and wants to 
establish it before OpenDoc or Taligent gets off the ground. 
Microsoft even wants to control object standards on other platforms, 
hence its introduction of tools that make it easier for developers 
to take Windows applications and move them to other platforms, such 
as Macintosh, with built-in support for OLE. Not only does this I by 
Mans Bishofs kind of accommodation push Microsoft's APIs. it also 
makes it easy for vendors to use Windows as their primary 
development platform, regardless of what their target system might 
be. This will, of course, lead to code that is optimized for 
Windows. (Okay. Microsoft is a bit confused here. This is because 
part of the company wants to protect the rights of its Word and 
Excel teams by insisting on special terms for using the cross-
platform code for people who write word processors or spreadsheets.)
    TIE RIGHT NETWORK
    The dominance in tools, applications, and operating systems may 
be just the beginning. Consider Microsoft's recent announcements, 
such as Microsoft Network, a new on-line service that will be 
bundled with Windows 95.
    Microsoft Network, once code-named Marvel, may well be the first 
thing users see when they start the new operating system and it may 
be the best way to get Microsoft support. If users choose to 
subscribe to Microsoft Network, the company could wind up getting a 
steady stream of $4 to $5 a month from everyone on its operating 
system, and that could mean several hundred million dollars a year.
    Microsoft isn't the only one with this idea. IBM is doing the 
same thing with OS/2 Warp by bundling in Internet access through its 
Advantis service, which then sets up a continuing monthly fee. In 
fact, you can almost view these two operating systems as loss 
leaders for their suppliers'' on-line services. Since Microsoft 
is in a position where its operating system is dominant, however, 
users will be more likely to try its network service first. In order 
to be successful. Microsoft Network doesn't even have to be the best 
on-line service; it just needs to be good enough and the most 
convenient. And including Microsoft Network with windows 95 will 
certainly help.
    Now take Microsoft's recent plans to acquire Intuit with its 
Quicken personal finance program (which links to a check-paying 
system), and add that to the likelihood of Microsoft Network's 
success. Because of its size. Microsoft is in a better position to 
work out relationships with large banks and other financial players. 
Imagine how Microsoft could extend electronic banking onto an online 
service such as Microsoft Network.
    Microsoft could require just a small service charge on each 
transaction. Or it could make money on the float--the interest 
in the few seconds it takes to move money from one place to another, 
or both.
    Microsoft's success in one area helps it extend its success in 
other areas. Because Windows is so successful, developers must 
develop for it. If Microsoft Network becomes successful, more 
developers and content publishers will support it. The same 
reasoning will apply to Microsoft's Tiger system for delivering 
video and other content to set-top boxes, or even to the far-off 
plan of developing wallet PCs with access to financial information.
    UNCHARTED WATERS
    All this may sound inevidtable, but it isn't. First of all, no 
one--not even Bill gates--is successful with every product 
he introduces. Just think about Microsoft Money. And does anyone out 
there remember the first Microsoft Access, the abortive Crosstalk

[[Page 29278]]

competitor? Not too many folks, obviously, or Microsoft couldn't 
have recycled the name for use on its database.
    Microsoft still has a lot of strong competitors who envision a 
different future. Novell, for instance, is still the clear leader in 
network operating systems and has recently announced plans with 
General instruments, the leader in cable set-top boxes.
    To date, Microsoft's track record in communications products is 
less than stellar, Lotus's cc: Mail and Notes have a larger 
marcompetitor in the world to come. Micro?? is getting into areas 
where it will face ?? competition, in addition to its ?? software 
competitors, from banks to tel?? sion and cable companies. in many 
ca?? these firms have unique relationships ?? customers or content 
that Microsoft ca?? easily duplicate.
    This more Microsoft focuses on pushi?? its existing platforms 
and operating system?? the more likely it is that there will be so?? 
outside force, some new technology, th?? Microsoft either won't see 
or won't comm?? to quickly enough. This would leave roo?? for new 
competitors. Remember, it was?? too long ago that IBM. Digital 
Equipme?? Corp., and Wang were the dominant infor?? mation 
companies, and look what happene?? when the technology changed.
    Still, if you're worried about Micros ?? dominance today, you 
have good reason. ?? may foreshadow a future where Microsoft has a 
hand in every area of your life--from communications to 
entertainment to pay?? ing your bills. the road to this future woo?? 
be easy, but Microsoft is very determined and is certainly in a 
better position tha?? inevitable storms.
    There are 3,462 chances to make a mistake in this document.
    (Typing it in is number one.)
    If the ?? office is here. how come people keep handling you 
pieces of ?? paper, ?? faxes. photo-cop?? and newspaper ?? for you 
to ?? in your report? Even ?? to type if out in is a mistake. But 
it's got to be done one way or ??.
    That's where WordScan Plus 3.0 from C??ro, can help. You see. 
WordScan Plus uses the ?? 32-bit Adaptive Recognition Technology so 
its accuracy rate is unparalleted-- ?? when coupled with the 
enhanced image capabilities of any Hewlett-Packard scanner.
    In fact, Hewteff-Packard's AccuPage 2.0 
technology--including ?? image ?? that lets you read text on 
colored backgrounds, small text support, and ??-zoning--makes 
WordScan Plus ?? for complex mixed-media Input ?? well as straight 
forward type recognition And WordScan Plus's ?? features like de-
skew, the Pop-up Proofer. ?? ?? defina?? page set-up and One?? OCRTM 
?? its as simple to use as it is accurate, it even integrates ?? 
with your Windows ?? ?? thanks to ?? Chameleon Tool ??Tm, e-mail and 
direct fax Capabilities.
    So stop by your local ?? to see for yourself just how quick. ?? 
and ?? WordScan Plus is.
    It could stop mistakes for good.
    PCWEEK
    THE NEWSPAPER OF CORPORATE COMPUTING ?? JULY 25, 1984 VOLUME 11
    NUMBER 29 S3.05
    DOJ accord fosters ``too little, too late'' perception
    NEWS ANALYSIS ``Chinese wall'' sidestepped, but some 
see new opportunities
    BY JANE MORRISSEY
    The justice Department and the European Commission won ?? 
concessions from Microsoft Corp., but ?? doubt the consent decree ?? 
agreed on will ?? much effect on the company or ?? competitors. The 
?? got Microsoft to ?? up per-processor ?? and other business ?? ?? 
and will ?? us compliance for ?? and a half years, bus left ?? its 
ability to ?? share opera?? ??lern ?? with its application ??.
    The consent decree will be open for public comment within the ?? 
60 day, after which a federal judge will offer a final ruling. Legal 
experts expect the court to uphold the decree.
    Although the government could take further action and Microsoft 
could face lawsuits from competitors, mo?? observer?? said both are 
unlikely because of the time and expense involved. Microsoft com?? 
ma?? ?? to live with the outcome, ?? mans are not ??.
    ``Anyone who said this decision went far enough isn't in 
touch with the industry.'' said Ed Zander, president of SunSoft 
Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc, software unit. ``Of the three or 
four issues [the DOJ] could have worked on. they picked the least 
contentions. The `Chinese wall'' is more 
subtantive.''
    But Microsoft officials, citing legal precedents to back them 
up. said ?? were able to convince the government that such 
exclusionary sharing ?? ?? is managers take sides; desplts?? the 
agreement, the government's Anne Bingaman and Microsoft's 
Will??am Neukom still don't sea eye-to-eye; Microsoft financ??als, 
meanwhile, are strong. in their rights. ``We encourage our 
systems people to talk with the apps people about potential new 
operating-systems fea??'' said Chairman Bill Gates
    Operating-system makers such as IBM. Novell Inc.. Taligent inc.. 
(?? and Sun Soil said they were were encouraged that Justice took 
the actions it did on per-processor licensing practices,
    ``We're going to jump all over Otis,'' said Lee 
Reiswing president of IBM's Personal Sof??are Prod?? division, in 
Austin. Texas. ``It means a level playing field for us for the 
first time. We have the op?? to hit the OEMs.
    ``It will help us in the future in not disadvantaging us 
with a pricing mechanism,'' said .Joseph (??. chairman anti CEO 
of Taligent, in Santa Clara, Calif.
    But some said it is too little, too lair''. ``To the 
extent [Microsoft's behavior] prevented other operating systems from 
succeeding. that war is over,'' said Mitchell ??, chairman of 
Powersoft Corp., in Concord, Mass. ``DOS is it and Windows is 
it: The ?? has close to zero impact
    Novell. one of the insugaors of tile government ??. the decree 
is a good first step m addressing its concerns. The Provo. Utah. 
firm will discuss at an upcoming board meeting whether to submit 
objections or ?? litigation.
    ``Sure. I am somewhat disappointed.'' said Novell (?? 
Counsel David Bradford. ``Nevertheless. I understand how the 
justice Department and the EC got to where they did .... They did 
all in their power, wen the political and legal environment.''
    Bradford expects the decree to help Novell fight the 
nextgeneration operating-system battle. ``The 32-bit OS market 
has not been won by anybody.'' he argued. ``This decree 
will al. low for freer competition.''
    A major disincentive, to bringing its own charges against 
Microsoft is Novell's recent desire to forge a better relationship 
with Microsoft. Novell CEO Bob Frankenberg met earlier this month 
with (ales to re-establish ties that had broken off under Novell 
Chairman Ray Noorda.
    ``Noorda called us Nazis and. so far. Frankenberg hasn't 
engaged in that type of thing.'' (axes said. declining to ?? 
rate on any new accords. ``We're not going to conduct this 
phase in a fishbowl.''
    Additional reporting ?? Mary Jo Fol??. Norvin Leach. and Sam W?? 
OEM licensing practices
    ?? no per-processor licensing deals
    ?? no minimum volume commitments required from OEMs
    ?? no contracts longer than one year: no penalty for non-renewal
    ?? no restrictions on OEM's licensing or sale of non-Microsoft 
operating systems
    ?? no requirement mat OEMs license DOS to gain a license for 
Windows
    Non-disclosure agreements
    ?? duration not to exceed the products release, public 
disclosure by Microsoft, . or one year, whichever comes first
    ?? cannot restrict third parties from developing software that 
runs on competing operating systems.
    THE CONSENT DECREE DOES NOT ADDRESS:
    ?? Microsoft benefiting from operating-system knowledge to 
develop applications, such as Microsoft applications group getting 
advance notice on operating-system advancements, and the use of 
undocumented APIs
    ?? Microsoft acquiring technology from third Datives under guise 
of making a deal
    BUSINESS
    Jesse Berst
    Berst
    Mode
    Behind the smoke, Microsoft wins again
    I know you've all heard about the settlement between Microsoft 
and the justice Department. But I thought I'd tell ?? some made 
information that hasn't made it into the press releases and official 
statements.
    ?? ?? MICROSOFT REALLY DECIDE TO SETTLE? Because the Justice 
Department and the European Commission both said they would ??ue 
unless Microsoft agreed by July 11.
    W?? DID THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REALLY DECIDE TO SET- TI.E.? 
Because it got to wave the flag and talk in its most grown-up voice 
about protecting consumers without the risk of lengthy 
litigation--litigation it probably would have lost.
    DOES THE AGREEMENT REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING? No, Microsoft has 
always let hardware manufacturers make other kinds of deals. But the 
price for those deals was so much higher that no one could afford to 
use them. Everybody ended up

[[Page 29279]]

making per- processor arrangements whereby they ultimately paid 
Microsoft rovalues for every machine shipped. There were always 
escape clauses. It's just that nobody could afford to take them. Now 
those escape clauses have been codified into the agreement. Because 
of the economics, however, few will use them, at least not in the 
short term. As for non-disclosure agreements. Microsoft was in the 
middle of creating a new standard agreement an??.
    How pathetic to see Janet Reno prattling on about ``lower 
prices immediately.''
    WILL CONSUMERS REALLY SEE LOWER PRICES? How pathetic to see At- 
Torne?? General Janet Reno prauling on about lower prices 
m??ed??cly. If the decree had come five years ago, when there were 
viable MS-DOS clones, it might have had some immediate impact. Now, 
in a world where MS-DOS is on the way out and Windows has no real 
clones, it will have no short-term effect.
    WHAT CHANGES WILL REALLY COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE SETTLEMENT?
    Very few. It will be slightly easier for computer firms to sell 
Net- Ware-rea?? s??ers without incurring financial penalties from 
Microsoft. In the long term, it may be slightly easier for a firm to 
introduce a new operating system.
    WHO'S THE REAL WINNER? Microsoft. It gets two governmental 
bodies off its back. And it does so without admitting that it was 
wrong, without being forced to divest or break up, and without 
paving a cent in fines or restitution.
    Best of all, it has the opportunity to restore us mage just when 
it needs it most. Microsoft wants to be a dommant plaver in the 
c??terpri??e market. To do that, it must convince global 
corporations that it is a trustworthy long-term partner. That job 
would have been much harder it governments on two contments were 
filing lawsuits. The company might as well have changed its slogan 
to ``Microsoft--the most antitrusted name in the 
business.''
    HOW DO MICROSOFT'S COMPETITORS REALLY FEFL ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT? 
They feel like schoolboys who complained about a bully stealing 
their lunch money and the teacher let the bully keep taking money 
for four more years while ``investigating''--and then 
?? him off with a token promise to be a good boy from now on. And 
the even got to keep the money he had collected.
    Still, I think the announcement will ??mately benefit the rest 
of the m??ustry. It frees them from their silly fantasy that the 
government was going to come riding to their rescue. Now they can 
get back to competing on the basis of better products and features, 
not better lawyers and lobbvis??s. ??
    ?? ??SSF BEFST IS DIRECTOR OF THE WINDOWS SOLUTIONS CONFER-
    ?? EXPOST??. IF YOU WANT ?? TO YOUR ?? CREES. CONTACT ?? 
(JBERST?? OR ??
    PC WEEK JULY 25, 1994
    NOVEMBER 7, 1994 PC WEEK NEWS ??
    Microsoft's Marvel beta leverages Win 95 desktop ?? ?? ?? AND ?? 
??
    The Microsoft Network. Microsoft Corp.'s new on4ine service. is 
taking the first steps toward ??ing the ranks of more established 
services such as CompuServe and America Online by tv- ??g itself 
into Windows 95's navi- ??tional tools.
    Also known by the code name Marvel. Microsoft Network will reach 
beta testers in large numbers as part of the sec- and major beta 
version or Windows 95. due this week PC Week L??bs took a look at 
the on-line service on a late-release candidate of the second beta.
    Microsoft Network's on-line services are well-integrated into 
the Windows 95 user interface. The content is very sparse at this 
??ge. but once populated with ??rmation service providers.
    Microsoft Network may prove to be a valuable information source 
for Windows 95 users. The information that is available is well-
organized into a hierarchy of folders and icons.
    Navigating discussion groups and chat areas was similar to 
navigating local titles and folders. Windows front ends to America 
Online and CompuServe, in contrast. are separate applications. With 
Microsoft Network, we were able to create a link (called a Shortcut) 
to a discussion group and place the link on the Windows 95 desktop, 
where it appeared like any other folder. When we double-clicked on 
the discussion group. Windows 95 automatically re-established our 
connection before opening the icon.
    Shortcut icons can be embedded as Object Linking and Embedding 
2.0 objects, allowing usors to distribute them.
    Messaging services are just as well-integrated. We could use the 
standard Microsoft Exchange E-mail client included with Windows 95 
to compose and send messages. ??
    PCWEEK
    THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPER OF CORPORATE COMPUTING * NOVEMBER 21, 
1994
    VOLUME 11, NUMBER 95 ??.95
    PC vendors allege undue pressure from Microsoft
    ?? IBM, OEMs contend strong-arm tactics
    BY MANY JO FOLSY AND LISA DICARLO
    LAS VEGAS--IBM and other major hardware OEMs are 
complaining that Microsoft Corp. is unfairly pressuring PC vendors 
to refrain from bundling OS/2 and PC-DOS with their PCs.
    Also last week. Microsoft disclosed to hardware OEMs at Comdex 
here the Windows 95 MDA (Market Development Agreement), outlining 
proposed licensing fees, incentives, and compliance criteria.
    Concerning OS/2, the hardware makers claimed that Microsoft 
officials threatened to delav, if not withhold entirely, delivery of 
Windows 95 code: reduce market-development funds: and withhold sales 
and support training for vendors that offer IBM's OS/2 or PC-DOS 
preloaded on their systems, sources said.
    Sources said IBM and the hardware vendors have held periodic 
discussions with the Department of Justice about the alleged unfair 
Microsoft practices. IBM, the Justice Department, and the vendors 
declined official comment.
    ``The [Justice Department] has turned into a Better 
Business Bureau for anvone who wants to shoot off a complaint 
against Microsoft.'' said David Williams, group manager of 
Microsoft's Personal Operating Systems Division, in Redmond, Wash. 
``We've got some salespeople who sometimes can go too 
far.'' Williams said he was unaware of any new filings 
regarding Microsoft with the Jusuce Department.
    ``The playing field is not level.
    SEE BUNDLJNC, PAGE 138
    Bundling from page ??
    and we have a problem with that.'' said an executive with a 
hardware maker, who requested anonvmity. Other hardware vendors, 
fearful of reprisals from Microsoft, also requested an?? nymity.
    One Microsoft customer said further complaints to the Justice 
Department against the company would not affect any business 
dealings. ``We've been through this DOJ stuff with the ?? IBM?? 
said Pete Bavoso, vice president of information systems with The 
Darby Group Co., a medical supplier and PC Week Corporate Partner in 
Westbury, N.Y.
    As for the MDA, several hardware makers complained about the 
high rovalties that could hike PC prices as well as the stiff 
provisions for preloading.
    However, they also said the licensing figure is a mere trial 
balloon floated by Microsoft, with Windows 95 not scheduled to ship 
until mid-1995.
    Also at Comdex, several PC vendors claimed to have been 
discouraged by Microsoft from demonstrating IBM's OS/2 Warp at the 
show. Hewlett-Packard Co. and Packard Bell were among the companies 
that decided at the last minute against showing OS/2 as a result of 
implied and suggested retaliation from Microsoft, according to 
several sources close to the companies.
    Officials with HP, of Palo Alto, Calif., and with Packard Bell, 
in Chatsworth. Calif., declined to comment. Dell Computer Corp. and 
Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. showed OS/2 Warp in their 
booths.
    ``Microsoft has been very aggressive about staving off the 
IBM assault,'' said another OEM source. ``There were 
indications that the smoothness and flexibility of bundling Windows 
95 would have been jeopardized'' if the vendor showed systems 
running Os/2 Warp, said the source.
    ``There's about 15 things in there where you get $3, $2, or 
$1 off if you do things like put the Win 95 logo in national 
advertising,'' said another OEM.
    ``There are strong merchandising incentives [in the 
MDA],'' said Steve Lair. Toshiba vice president of marketing, 
adding that he didn't see anything in the agreement that overtly 
demanded exclusivity to Microsoft's products.
    In the weeks leading up to Comdex. Microsoft made it clear to 
OEMs that it could make the transition to Windows 95 a costly and 
bumpy move, according to one of the sources.
    Hardware and operating-system vendors complained privately that 
despite the proposed justice Department consent decree--which 
required Microsoft to alter its OEM licensing and non-disclosure 
agreement practices--Microsoft has done little to modify its 
behavior.
    With the MDA, ``we are not doing per-system incentives for 
OEMs. That would be in violation of the consent decree,'' said

[[Page 29280]]

Microsoft's Williams. ``Instead, we're offering incentives for 
OEMs who go that extra mile in marketing Windows 95,'' he said, 
specifying financial, training, and joint promotional incentives. ??
    Additional reporting by Neal Boud??. Dan Farber, and John Dodge
    BUSINESS
    Jesse Berst
    Berst
    Mode
    Microsoft's on-line rivals could end up in `cyberia'' 
Microsoft has promised to bundle an on-line service called The 
Microsoft Network ?? Windows ?? next summer on tall. If that 
occu??s, I pre?? that competing on-line services will be sentenced 
to a long, cold w?? of discontent. Microsoft's service will 
have an ??beatable edge over Comp??Serve. Prod?? America Online, and 
other rivals.
    I'm no an export ?? an?? law, so I don't know whether this ?? 
??. But I do know it feels unfair. It feels like Microsoft is ??ing 
a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another, Microsoft may 
change its terms and conditions before the final tele??. But as I 
understand it right now. OEMs will be ?? to include MSN What's more 
?? will not be informed they have a??
    Let's ?? XYZ Co. makes a deal to ?? ??pecial Pro?? package w?? 
?? computer. It even goes to the trouble of ??ing for a Pro?? sign-
on screen to appear the first time the ?? book up.
    When XYZ ships its Win 95 PCs, it will have to include The 
Microsoft Network sign-on XYZ may not ?? to ?? MSN. It may have 
given money ?? consideration to Pro?? in ?? not the bundle. Yet, as 
far as I know, XYZ won the able to turn off the built-in MSN screen.
    In essence. OEMs will be forced to distribute MSN if they want 
to access Windows 95--even it that distribution is to the OEM's 
detriment.
    I also worry that consumers won't real??e they have options. 
It's as if your local phone company were to automatically sign you 
up for AT&T's long-distance service without letting you know 
that you have other choices. And I worry that Microsoft will use the 
MSN ``registration'' procedure to read information about 
customers computer configurations and send that information to a 
Microsoft da??base. At least one other compa??s (Delrina) has used 
on-line registration to scan and store configuration info.
    Now, that would be a competitive advantage--if Microsoft 
knew the names of millions of Windows users and knew exactly what 
hardware and software they owned
    GULAG ??IBROGLIO. I have no evidence that Microsoft intends to 
secretly capture and store contiguration info. But the fact that I 
worry about it points up how Microsoft creates problems for itself.
    These fears are feeding the mounting opposition to Microsoft's 
Int?? purchase and to The Microsoft Network. The Justice Department 
is being press??ed to open another investigation--pressured by 
the same competitors that Microsoft cavalierly dismisses is 
``wh??ers'' ?? quote a Microsoft exec). Luck??ly for 
Microsoft, it has no much money in can alford to waste millions in 
legal fees. It looks like it will get a chance to do just that very 
soon.
    RESPONSE OF THE WEEK: From system Anal??st Jim Ga??nor of 
Columbus. O??io:
    ``The likelihood of a Big Crash on the Internet decreases 
??ail??. Links between one portion of the net and another may 
tempora??y go down, but the Internet is genes??s was in a Department 
of Delense project to create a data network capable of withstanding 
a ??clear attack. Truly crashing the Internet for an extended period 
would require a bankrolled effort on the level of the most 
professional modern terrorism. However, I agree that the tourists 
will start leaving. While Mosa?? may be pretty, interaction requires 
both action and thought, foreign concepts to the pas??ve?? 
entertained masses.'' ??
    ?? JESSE BERST IS THE ?? ?? FOR
    OF W?? WA?? ?? ??
    C??
    ?? MCI (JBERST OR ??
    ??66), Go?? (713372032), ??
    FAX ??
    Put Your Ideas to Work...
    The Easy Way.
    With Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel
    Microsoft Word 6
    Microsoft Word 6 offers you an easier way to do your day-to-day 
work. It has designed to make routine chores go faster and make 
complex tasks simpler. Word features Intellisense 
technology--build-in intelligence that senses what you want to 
do and produces the desired result.
    Microsoft Excel 5
    Microsoft Excel 5 sets a new standard for spreadsheets. Built-in 
intelligence and innovative features let you focus on your analysis, 
not your data. And rich custom development tools help you build the 
solutions you want. It all adds up to an intelligent spreadsheet 
that works the way it should--the way you want.
    And best of all, Microsoft Word and Excel are part of the 
Microsoft Office programs that work alike and work together, so when 
you learn one, you're on your way to learning them all.
    Buying Software the Easy Way
    Microsoft gives you lots of great ways to buy Word 6 and Excel5. 
And Software Spectrum has them all at great prices.
    MS Word 6.0 for Windows Upgrade (comp/version) S89*
    MS Word 6.0 for Mac Upgrade (version) S89*
    MS Word 6.0 for Windows NT Upgrade (comp/version) S125**
    MS Excel 5.0 for Windows Upgrade (comp/version) S89*
    MS Excel 5.0 for Mac Upgrade (version) S89*
    MS Excel 5.0 for Windows NT Upgrade (comp/version) S125**
    For over eleven years, Software Spectrum has been providing 
superior customer service and value to companies just like yours. 
Call Software Spectrum today.
    SOFTWARE SPECTRUM 1-800-824-3323 7am to 7pm 
(Central) In Canada call 1-800-624-6224 
``Software Spectrum price S119, S89 after S30,??in rebate. ?? 
exp?? 1/31/95 **Upgrade from most mo??or word processors at ?? ??. 
Call for det??, Proof of p?? for all upgrades. All prices subject to 
change. Other restrictions may apply.
    All product names are the property of their respect?? owners. 
??1994 Software Spectrum.
    Top of the News
    Microsoft Settles: Business as Usual
    Now that Microsoft's licensing agreements for MS-DOS and Windows 
have been deemed ``unfair'' and ``monopolistic'' 
by the Department of Justice, will other operating systems have a 
fighting chance on the desktop?
    According to computer manufacturers. industry analysts, and end 
users, the outtook is grim for Novell's DOS and IBM's PC-DOS and OS/
2. They say there's not much motivation for PC manufacturers to 
preinstall a competing product, since Windows has millions of users 
and thousands of software applications. And since Microsoft's 
upcoming version of Windows Code-named Chicago) won't require DOS, 
the demand for all flavors of DOS is likely to plummet.
    Has the train for Chicago already left the station? ``I 
think the world of OS/2.'' says Jerry Williams. vice president 
of data operations for Eglin Federal Credit Union in Fort Walton 
Beach. Florida. ``It's a good operating system. However, I 
think the momentum has swung in Windows favor. If you go with OS/2. 
you're kind of stepping off the ladder.''
    ``DOS is starting to go away and Windows is taking over 
everything.'' says Gary Shurman, president of the New Orleans 
Personal Computer Club. ``Unless somebody comes up with 
something earthshattering. I don't think there's a serious 
challenger to Microsoft.''
    Despite the skepticism. Microsoft's competitors may have their 
best chance in years to challenge Bill Gates's desktop domination. 
After a lengthy investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and 
the European Commission (the executive body that governs the 
European Community), Justice Department officials announced in July 
that Microsoft had agreed to end its ``illegal monopolistic 
practices'' and stop using ``unfair contracts that choked 
off competition and preserved its monopoly'' in the PC 
operating system market.
    Terms of the Decree
    Under the terms of the consent decree, Microsoft must change its 
licensing contracts with PC manufacturers (called OEMs). It can no 
longer make ``per processor'' agreements that require OEMs 
to pay a royalty to Microsoft for each PC shipped--regardless 
of whether the preinstalled operating system is from Microsoft or a 
competitor. The company also can't require OEMs to purchase a 
minimum number of Microsoft operating systems or sign a license with 
terms longer than one year (although the OEM can renew the license 
for an additional year).
    Perhaps most optimistic about the Justice Department ruling is 
IBM. Which little success in convin??ing OEMs to preinstall its OS/2 
operating system. ``This has really opened the door. We've ??ut 
proactively, contacting, hundreds of PC manufacturers 
already.'' says John ?? detector of IBM's Personal Software 
Products division in Austin. Texas. While So??ing expects some 
``major North American manufacturers'' to pre??stall OS/
2?? so far Big Blue's ??tories have been in Europe. Soyring says 
that

[[Page 29281]]

German PC makers Vobis and Escom already preinstall OS/2--and 
Escom expects to ship 440.000 ??tems with OS/2 over the next 12 
months.
    Despite the ruling from Justice, Micro soft's influence over PC 
manufacturers remains immense. Most of the leading OEMs contacted 
for this article had little or no comment on the Justice Department 
ruling, other than to say that their relationship with Microsoft 
would stay the same (in other words, they'd still preinstall 
Windows). And many industry pundits sec the consent decree as a weak 
slap on Microsoft's wrist. ``I think Microsoft is thrilled with 
the settlement.'' says Tim Bajarin. president of Creative 
Strategies in San Jose, California. Of course, if Microsoft is too 
aggressive, it is likely to find itself in the sights of regulators 
once again. That's a position even Bill Gates wants to avoid.
    Jeff Bertolucci
    Jan ??rancisco ??ronicle
    THE ?? DAILY CIRCULATION IN HO??THE?? CA??FORMIA
    MONDAY, JULY 18, 1994
    Microsoft Unscathed By Settlement
    Antitrust pact a slap on wrist for software giant
    By Da??id E??ste??
    Ch?? Staff Writer
    Although the government claimed victory in its antitrust battle 
against Microsoft, it appears as if the world's largest software 
maker suffered little damage and in fact should continue to 
steamroller the rest of the industry.
    By agreeing to halt some supposedly monopolistic practices, Bill 
Gates'' giant company has left the door open ever so 
&lightly for competitors to grab some piece of the market for 
operating systems that run moat of today's personal computers. It is 
a market Microsoft dominates with its MS-DOS and Windows programs, 
currently installed on more than 120 million computers worldwide.
    But sometime late this year of early next. Microsoft intends to 
brush away its rivals once again when it introduces Chicago, the 
next generation of Windows. If PC users flock to Chicago as 
expected.
    Gates actually could increase hit hold on the industry he helped 
create in the early 1990s.
    There had been speculation that the Justice Department, which 
took over the Investigation from the Federal Trade Commission last 
year, might have gone so far as to break up Microsoft Just as 
AT&T was split up In 1984.
    But ns the government closed the case late Friday, however, it 
was with a mere slap on the wrist. Microsoft admitted no guilt over 
allegations of monopolistic practices, and faces no fines or 
financial penalties. Its revenues, now over $4 billion a year, 
probably will not suffer.
    No wonder Microsoft officials were happy with the terms of the 
settlement. ``It preserves our ability to do business In a way 
that IS effective,'' said Bill Neukom, vice president of law 
and corporate affairs.
    But Attorney General Janet Reno professed satisfaction with the 
outcome of the first major antitrust case of the Clinton 
administration, saying the settlement ``levels the playing 
field and opens the door for competition'' by curbing 
Microsoft's ``monopollstic practices.''
    Reno talked tough, adding that ``while the company fairly 
and lawfully climbed to the top of the industry ladder, It used 
unfair and illegal practices to maintain its dominant 
position.''
    But the settlement did not address what many competing companics 
consider the real antitrust issue. Microsoft, they say, has used its 
control of DOS and Windows to extend lb hold on the software sector.
    In fact. during the nearly four years the government 
Investigated Microsoft, the Redmond, Washbased behemoth managed to 
be the major player In the market not only for operating systems, 
but also for major applications such as word processing and 
spreadsheet software. And even as the consent decree goes Into 
effect, Microsoft is trying to tighten the screws on its major 
competitors by asking smaller software developers to adopt a 
standard that would make their programs dovetail with Microsoft's 
best-selling ``Office'' suite of applications. U??
    Friday's consent decree, which steers the company and the 
government clear of the courts, includes an agreement to change the 
way Microsoft licenses its operating system. That Issue the 
government felt was its best chance to beat Microsoft had the 
antitrust case gone to court.
    Microsoft no longer will offer PC makers steep discounts on 
volume purchases of DOS and Windows In return for royalities from 
every PC said--whether or not the Microsoft system was actually 
Installed on them. That ``per-processor'' licensing 
strategy had discouraged manufacturers from buying rival products 
such a Novell's version of DOS or IBM's OS/2 operating system, since 
they already were paying for Microsoft's version.
    Novell's general counsel, David Bradford, saw the consent decree 
as a clear victory. ``This has been a long effort by many 
companies for many years.'' he said, ``and this decision 
will provide consumers with Increased choices and more innovative 
products.''
    But the euphoria may wear off quickly. Microsoft's Chicago 
program reportedly will not require an underlying operating system, 
leading Industry experts to predict the irrelevancy or death of DOS 
once Chicago catches on. Industry Standard P??ts
    Competitors may benefit more from Microsoft's agreement 
to'' loosen restrictions on its nondisclosure 
agreements--Industry. standard pacts that software companics 
must sign to get advance copies of new products such as Chicago. 
Microsoft In the past has forced companies to agree not to work with 
other operating systems in return for access to lb programs.
    That may help large companies like Novell, which is updating its 
popular WordPerfect and Quattro Pro programs. But smaller companies 
still may find themselves ti??t- ing at windmills in trying to take 
on Microsoft.
    Ernie Simpson. president of The Wizard Co. in Denton, Texas, 
called the settlement ``a waste of time.''
    ``Microsoft will continue to do as they have been doing, 
only they'll word their contracts a little differently.'' said 
Simpson, whose company develops software for some major Windows 
programs. ``Microsoft Is the de facto industry standard for 
operating systems, and they will continue to control the industry to 
the advantage of Microsoft and the detriment of everyone 
else.''
    Microsoft had Insisted It would never settle antitrust charges 
out of court. Gates was positively adamant about it, complaining 
that the Justice Department was hounding him unreasonably, in the 
end, however, with antitrust charges looking more and more possible, 
the company decided to cut a deal. Judging from the first reviews, 
Gates appears to have done quite well by It.
    Chronicle wiry ser??c?? to this report.
    Sunday, July 24, 1994 C-5
    San Francisco Examiner
    COMPUTERS & TECHNOLOGY
    Microsoft deal: too little, too late
    A few days after the Department of Justice announced the 
settlement of its antitrust investigation of Microsoft, Bill Gates 
told the Wall Street Journal, ``I intend to defy 
gravity.''
    Thanks to the nature of that settlement, it is likely that he 
will.
    The Justice Department press release announcing the settlement 
quoted Attorney General Reno as saying, ``Microsoft's unfair 
contracting policies have denied other U.S. companies a fair chance 
to compete, deprived cop- ??mers of an effective choice ??ong 
competing PC operating systems, and alowed innovation.'' True 
enough.
    She went on to state, ``Today's settlement levels the 
playing field and opens the door for competition.''
    Unfortunately, it is unlikely to do either.
    It is telling that in describing the harm caused to competition 
and innovation by Microsoft's practices, the attorney general used 
the past tense. The particular practices the settlement addressed 
were unquestionably key factors in Microsoft's rise to dominance in 
the 1980s.
    Among other things, Microsoft required PC manufacturers to pay a 
license fee for its MS-DOS and Windows operating system software on 
every PC shipped with an Intel microprocessor under long-term 
agreements--whether or not those PCs actually contained that 
software--and unreasonably restricted independent software 
companies from working with Microsoft compatitors. In so doing, 
Microsoft managed to insinuate its technology into the heart and 
soul of 85 percent of the world's PCs.
    By 1985, these practices had already had their intended effect: 
making Microsoft's operating system the de fact?? PC standard. The 
present source of Microsoft's domination in the PC world derives 
from the status as the standard-holders, not the practices the 
Justice Department condemned and which will now be prohibited under 
the settlement.
    Microsoft, understands this perfectly well, which, of course, is 
why Bill Gates let the settlement happen. Nothing in the proposed 
settlement is likely to have anything other than the most marginal 
effect on Microsoft's future.
    Inherent in the nature of software technology is the concept of 
dependence.

[[Page 29282]]

Operating systems are useless without application programs and vice 
versa. Neither has discrete, stand-alone value.
    But of the two, operating systems software must come first and 
clearly provides the most potential for leverage. To its credit, 
Microsoft understood this earlier than everyone else and exploited 
its insight relentlessly. So technically dependent in the PC 
industry on Microsoft operating system software, that Microsoft 
could afford the luxury of a five-year period in which to perfect. 
Windows after its initial introduction in 1986.
    When Apple introduced the Macintosh ``graphical user 
interface,'' which replaced ob??cure and hard-to-remember 
keyboard commands with easy-to-learn and easy-to-use screen icons 
and a mouse, it marked a watershed in the development of consumer-
friendly computing. In response, Microsoft introduced Windows, which 
was supposed to provide Macintosh-like ease-of-use.
    [See VIEWPOINT, C-6]
    ??VIEWPOINT from C-1
    Too little, too late
    But the first several versions of Windows were so poorly 
designed that very few people wanted them, preferring even the 
archaic DOS with its incredibly difficult keyboard commands. It 
wasn't until 1990, five years after its introduction, that Microsoft 
finally produced a version of Windows that was ready for prime.
    Now, one would think that if genuine competition existed in PC 
operating systems, this five-year gap would have been exploited by 
one or more competitors of Microsoft. Indeed, it's hard to conceive 
that any company could have taken as long as Microsoft did to get a 
basic technology right and still survive.
    Yet, Microsoft not only survived during this period, it 
prospered. The reason is that it was virtually impossible to shake 
free of MS-DOS, even when clearly better alternatives were 
available. The consumer investment in application programs that 
could only run on the Microsoft system was too large and the cost of 
switching to an alternative technology--even a clearly better 
one--too great.
    While this was obvious to everyone by 1985 or 1986, Bill Gates 
understood it in 1980.
    Almost 10 years later, PC manufacturers, consumers and software 
developers are even more tightly bound to Microsoft operatins system 
technologies. The ties that bind are not contractual, they are 
technical, which is why the Jus- rice Department settlement will be 
ineffective.
    And while controlling this standard, Microsoft is free to 
compete on applications based on the standard. Companies that 
develop competing spreadsheet, word processing and other such 
programs have complained for years that Microsoft programmers have 
the unfair advantage of knowing changes to the operating system 
specifications well before anyone else.
    The fact is Microsoft owns-- and closely guards--the 
de facto standard for desktop computers, a critical part of our 
information infrastructure. And at least three steps could be taken 
to ensure fair competition. Microsoft could be required to:
    ??Publicly disclose its operating system interface 
specifications so that designers of competing operating systems 
could have assurance that application programs written for MS-DOS or 
Windows would run efficiently with their operating systems. 
Microsoft should update its specifications in a periodic and timely 
manner.
    San Jose Mercury News
    Se??ng Northern Cal?? Since 1851
    ?? NOVEMBER 13, 1994
    Microsoft, Intel set to define technology
    ?? Duopoly: Apple, IBM, Motorola mounting last-ditch attempt to 
make PC alternative. BY RORY J. O'CONNOR
    Merr??ry News Staff Writer
    Tomorrow, when Silicon Valley's brain trust arrives in Las Vegas 
as part of a 200,000-strong crowd at the computer industry's largest 
trade snow, conversation will almost certainly center on one topic: 
Can anything stop Microsoft and Intel from controlling everything?
    Some fear that as the digital future of the information 
superhighway emerges, an unchallenged Microsoft and Intel will wind 
up in total, undisputed control of the technology upon which the 
country's citizens and economy will depend. And few believe that a 
recently announced alliance between Apple and IBM will prove an 
effective roadblock.
    Who will control COMPUTING'S FUTURE? First in an occasional 
series.
    Today, Microsoft Corp. makes the world's most popular software 
for personal computers, operating systems that control 85 percent of 
the machines in use. Intel Corp.'s microprocessor chips are the 
brains in 75 percent of all the computers made.
    But the personal computer is rapidly becoming a home appliance, 
and the PC is poised to expand from word processing and spreadsheets 
to controlling a myriad of other jobs in our everyday work and 
personal lives. The companies that control personal- computer 
technology are in a position soon to dominate much, much more.
    From video telephones to intelligent fax machines, from office 
to home, from providing digital information and entertainment to 
managing credit-card and other financial transactions, Microsoft and 
Intel are already extending their reach far beyond traditional 
personal computing.
    Both companies have deep pockets to back the technology-- 
and their unofficial partnership is an effective duopoly that could 
let the companies dictate the price of technology, minimize consumer 
choices and slow the pace of technical progress.
    In short, many believe, little stands between the two comparoes 
and technical control of the future.
    ``Increasingly, I'm believing it's all over, and we're 
going to be locked into Microsoft and Intel forever.'' said 
Dataquest analyst Kimball Brown.
    In the 13 years since IBM transformed the PC from hobbyist toy 
to business tool. control of the industry has shifted from IBM and 
Apple to their once-tiny corn- petitors. Now, Apple and IBM, despite 
their combined annual revenues of nearly $75 billion, are the 
underdogs.
    Except for Apple, whose research and development spending 
remains large despite a $100 million cutback in the past year, few 
PC companies invest significant sums in new technology research. The 
bulk of such money is spent by Intel to develop chips and Microsoft 
to further its lead in software.
    Many people in the industry decry this state of affairs, but 
lack the money, the marketing or the technology to force meaningful 
competition. Even the federal government has declined to step in, 
punishing Microsoft with a slap on the wrist after a four-year 
investigation into what Attorney General Janet Reno called 
``illegal, monopolistic'' practices.
    Perhaps the only force large enough to change anything is an 
infant agreement announced last week by Apple, IBM and Motorola to 
build a new kind of personal computer, one that would neither use 
Intel microprocessors nor fea ture Microsoft operating systems.
    The timing of their agreement, one week before the largest 
annual gathering of technology power brokers in the world, is no 
accident.
    Even though the alliance will not produce a product until 1996, 
IBM and Apple need every ounce of momentum they can muster for what 
is probably the last- ditch attempt to topple Intel and Microsoft t 
or even to hope to play a role in defining the technical future.
    But most analysts insist that Apple and IBM are waging the wrong 
war. ``The desktop operating system war is over,'' said 
venture capitalist Ann Winblad, whose Emeryville firm specializes in 
software companies. ``Microsoft has won.''
    Instead. Apple and IBM should be looking to the information 
superhighway for opportunities to sell new technology, expand their 
business and regain the power to force technical competition, said 
Richard Shaffer, publisher of the Technologic Letter in New York.
    That's because there is a potentially more lucrative market in 
the future, one that uses both the personal computer and its 
technology.
    It goes by the catch-all term of information superhighway, but 
it encompasses a host of major changes in the role of personal 
computers at work and at home.
    Some of the latest home, computers are already touted as being 
able to replace nearly everything in a small office except the 
coffee pot.
    Phones and fax machines are becoming smarter, thanks to more-
powerful computer brains. And when people are away from their home 
or office in the future, they may well carry portable devices that 
combine today's cellular phone with ready information access, 
offering yet another umbilical cord to the PC.
    Over the next decade, even television is poised to become 
interactive, offering far more choices, two-way video and fountains 
of information on demand--activities that require heavy use of 
computer chips and sophisticated operating systems and other 
software. Computers will manage nearly all financial transactions, 
and will even be a citizen's primary conduit to the government.
    Some experts envision a single intelligent box in the home, one 
that would use the

[[Page 29283]]

functions of a personal computer to connect the home to information 
and communications lines through phone-company wires or cable-
television hookups.
    There's little doubt that each of these areas will be the site 
of intense competition. In almost every case, Microsoft and Intel's 
dominance of the PC business would give them a crucial advantage.
    If they succeed in controlling key technology in any or all of 
these areas, they will be able to determine much of how the devices 
work, and could even control how people receive information or make 
purchases. And the closer the digital world moves to merging control 
into just one or two boxes connected to monolithic networks, the 
better the chance Intel and Microsoft have to dominate them as they 
have PCs.
    But Apple insists it is not blind to the digital future, despite 
initial failure in one new market-- that for personal digital 
assisrants--and a very slow start for its E-World on-line 
service.
    ``Clearly, there's a feeling at Apple that these other 
technologies are very exciting areas,'' said Rick LeFaivre, the 
head of the company's Advanced Technology-Group. ``But at the 
same time we're making sure not to take our eye off the PC and say 
it's dead. ... The PC side of our business will be by far the 
dominant side for a long, long time.''
    At the same time, Apple's partner is struggling to regain power 
it has lost in nearly every area of its business. Internally, it is 
replacing top managers, revamping its structure, changing key 
technology, laying off workers and trying to figure out how it fits 
into a world it once controlled. Externally, critics say they can't 
fathom the company's strategy, especially in personal computing, 
where it is unclear what software and hardware technology IBM 
considers strategic--and, there, fore, safe for customers to 
buy.
    The problem for Apple and IBM, according to analysts, is that 
they probably have little'' hope of competing effectively in 
the digital future unless they can quickly establish their new 
computer as a viable mauve.
    But to become a PC alternative. the companies must overcome a 
host of difficulties, from wrenching changes in their corporate 
cultures to damaged balance sheets to the improbability of the 
partnership they began with Motorola more than three years ago.
    ``The whole plan in 1991 was daring, kind of like 
chemotherapy,'' stud Shaffer. ``The therapy might kill the 
patient, but the al ternative is certain death.''
    Few believe that Apple, IBM and Motorola can thrive against the 
Microsoft-Intel duopoly short of a move even more unlikely than the 
original IBM-Apple partnership.
    ``Without the merger of Apple and IBM into one corporate 
entity, they are executing separate strategies, no matter what they 
say,'' Winblad said. ``So while some people have called 
this the David and Goliath story, with Microsoft as Goliath, there 
is no David--perhaps a Tom, Dick and Harry.''
    Not everyone believes that a world where two companies control 
most of the technology is a cause for alarm, however. ``What's 
wrong with there being just one operating system? It's supposed to 
be transparent to the user,'' said analyst Doug Kass of the 
Viewpoint Group in Aptos. ``I don't think that will lead to 
huge increases in price. It's not competition among vendors, but 
what the market will bear in terms of price. Consumers look for what 
works, not the cutting edge. If some new (software) is priced beyond 
the glass ceiling of what consumers are comfortable paying, it won't 
sell.''
    Not surprisingly, Microsoft officials share that view
    ``Things are very competitive now,'' said Brad Chase, 
general manager of Microsoft's personal operating systems division. 
``Apple is certainly not an uncompetirive company. IBM is a 
very aggressive company. And the thing about technology is you can't 
rest on your laurels. If you don't keep aggressive, your leadership 
will melt like butter.''
    Tomorrow in Business Monday: How far can Microsoft go?
    San ``Jose Mercury News,'' Wednesday, December 21, 
1994
    MICROSOFT'S DOMINATION
    Microsoft's revenues in the world market for personal computer 
business grew more in 1994 than revenues in the market as a whole, 
according to preliminary estimates by Dataquest Inc. Total revenues 
grow by more than $550 million, while Microsoft's related revenue 
grew by more than$650 million. ``Lotus 1-2-3. 
WordPerfect. dBase.
    Paradox and Harvard
    Graphics once dominated their respective categories.'' said 
Dataquest analyst Karl Wong. ``Today, Microsoft products have 
replaced each of these one-time product category leaders.'' 
(Figures are in millions.)
    ``94 1993 ``93-'94 ``94 ``94 market
    Rink Company Revenue % chg. ,Revenue, share (%)
    1 Microsoft $2.221 +29.4 $2.873
    34.7 District of Columbia.
    2 Lotus 986--1.8 968 1
    I. 7 3 Novell 698 -11.6 617
    7.5 4 Adobe 197 +28.1 253 3.1 5 Symantec 207 +15.2 238
    2,9 6 Clans 160 -t-9.3 175
    2.1 7 Borland 360 -52.8 170
    2.1 8 Intuit 104 +56.9 163
    2.0 9 Corel 105 +41.6 148
    t.8 I0 Delrina 65 +43.1 94
    1.1 Others 2.617 -1.7 2.573
    31.0 Total 7.720 +7.2 8.272
    100.0
    Source: Dataquest Inc
    MERCURY NEWS
    Positive Feedbacks
    in the Economy
    A new economic theory elucidates mechanisms whereby small chance 
events early in the history of an industry or technology can tilt 
the competitive balance Conventional economic theory is built on the 
assumption of diminishing returns. Economic actions engender a 
negative feedback that leads to a predictable equilibrium for prices 
and market shares. Such feedback tends to stabilize the economy 
because any major changes will be offset by the very reactions they 
generate. The high oil prices of the 1970's encouraged energy 
conservation and Increased off exploration, precipitating a 
predictable drop In prices by the early 1980's. According to 
conventional theory, the equilibrium marks the ``best'' 
outcome possible under the circumstances: the most efficient use and 
allocation of resources.
    Such an agreeable picture often does violence to reality. In 
many parts of the economy, stabilizing forces appear not to operate. 
Instead postitive feedback magnifies the effects of small economic 
shifts; the economic models that describe such effects differ vastly 
from the conventional ones. Diminishing returns imply a single 
equilibrium point for the economy, but positive 
feedback--increasing rerums--makes for many possible 
equilibrium points. There is no guarantee that the particular 
economic outcome selected from among the many alter-
    W. BRIAN ARTHUR is Morrison Professor of Population Studies and 
Economics at Stanford University. He obtained his Ph.D ??om the 
University of California. Berkeley, In 1973 and holds graduate 
degrees In operations research, economics and mathematics. Until 
recently Arthur was on leave at the Santa Fe Institute, a research 
institute dedicated to the study of complex systems. There he 
directed a team of economists, physicists, biologists and others 
investigating behavior of the economy as an evolving. complex 
system. by W. Brian Arthur natives will be the ``best'' 
one. Furthermore. once random economic events select a particular 
path, the choice may become locked-in regardless of the advantages 
of the alternatives. If one product or nation in a competitive 
marketplace gets ahead by ``chance.'' it tends to stay 
ahead and even Increase its lead. Predictable, shared markets are no 
longer guaranteed.
    During the past few years I and other economic theorists at 
Stanford University, the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and 
elsewhere have been developing a view of the economy based on 
positive feedback. Increasing-returns economics has roots that go 
back 70 years or mote. but Its application to the economy as a whole 
is largely new. The theory has strong parallels with modem nonlinear 
physics (instead of the pre-20th-century physical models that 
underlie conventional economics), it recluses new and challenging 
mathematical techniques and it appears to be the appropriate theory 
for understanding modem high-technology economies.
    The history of the videocassette recorder furnishes a simple 
example of positive feedback. The VCR market started out with two 
competing formats selling at about the same price: VHS and Beta. 
Each format could realize Increasing returns as its market share 
Increased: large numbers of VHS recorders would encourage video 
outlets to stock more prerecorded tapes in VIIS format, thereby 
enhancing the value of owning a VIIS recorder and leading mote 
people to buy one. (The same would, of course, be true for Beta-
format players.) In this way, a small gain in market share would 
Improve the competitive position of one system and help it further 
increase its lead.
    Such a market is initially unstable. Both systems were 
introduced at about the same time and so began with roughly equal 
market

[[Page 29284]]

shares; those shares fluctuated early on because of external 
circumstance, ``luck'' and corporate maneuvering. 
Increasing returns on early gains eventually tilted the competition 
toward VHS: It accumulated enough of an advantage to take virtually 
the entire VCR market.
    Yet it would have been Impossible at the outset of the 
competition to say which system would win, which of the two 
possible'' equilibria would be seleered. Furthermore, if the 
claim that Beta was technically superior Is true, then the market's 
choice did not represent the best economic outcome.
    Conventional economic theory offers a different view of 
competition between two technologies or products performing the same 
function. An example is the competition between water and coal to 
generate electricity. As hydroelectric plants take more of the 
market, engineers must exploit more costly dam sites, thereby 
increasing the chance that a coal-fired plant will be cheaper. As 
coal plants take more of the market. they bid up the price of coal 
(or trigger the imposition of costly pollution controls) and so tip 
the balance toward hydropower. The two technologies end up sharing 
the market in a predictable proportion that best exploits the 
potentials of each, in contrast to what happened to the two video-
recorder systems.
    The evolution of the VCR market would not have surprised the 
great Victorian economist Alfred Marshall one of the founders of 
today's conventional economics. In his 1890 Principles of Economics, 
he noted that if firms'' production costs fall as their market 
shares Increase, a rum that simply by good fortune gained a high 
proportion of the market early on would be able to best its rivals; 
``what. ever firm first gets a good start'' would corner 
the market. Marshall did not follow up this observation, however. 
and theore??cal economics has until recently largely ignored it.
    Marshall did not believe that mcreasing returns applied 
everywhere; agriculture and mining--the marestays of the 
economies of his time-- were subject to diminishing returns 
caused by limited amounts of fer??le land or high-quality ore 
deposits. Manufacturing, on the other hand. enjoyed increasing 
returns because large plants allowed improved organization. Modern 
economists do not see economies of scale as a reliable source of 
increasing returns. Sometimes large plants have proved more 
economical; often they have not.
    I would update Marshall's insight by observing that the parts of 
the economy that are resource-based (agriculture. bulk-goods 
production, mining) are still for the most part subject to 
diminishing returns. Here conventional economics rightly holds sway. 
The parts of the economy that are knowledge-based, on the other 
hand. are largely subject to increasing returns. Products such as 
computers, pharmaceuticals, missiles, aircraft, automobiles. 
software, telecommunications equipment or fiber optics are 
complicated to design and to manufacture. They require large initial 
investments in research, development and tooling. but once sales 
begin, incremental production is relatively cheap. A new airframe or 
aircraft engine, for example. typically costs between $2 and $3 
billion to design, develop, certify and put into production. Each 
copy thereafter costs perhaps $50 to $100 million. As more units are 
built, unit costs continue to fall and profits increase.
    Increased production brings additional benefits: producing more 
units means gaming more experience in the manufacturing process and 
achieving greater understanding of how to produce additional units 
even more cheaply. Moreover. expenence gained with one product or 
technology can make it easier to produce new products incorporating 
similar or related technologies. Japan-for example, leveraged an 
initial investment in building precision instruments into a capacity 
for building consumer electronics products and then the integrated 
circuits that went into them.
    Not only do the costs of producing high-technology products fall 
as a company makes more of them. but the benefits of using them 
increase.
    Many items such as computers or telecommunications equipment 
work m networks that require compatibility; when one brand gains a 
significant market share, people have a strong incentive to buy more 
of the same product so as to be able to exchange information with 
those using it already.
    If increasing returns are important. why were they largely 
Ignored until recently? Some would say that complicated products-
high technology-for which increasing returns are so Important. are 
themselves a recent phenomenon. This is true but is only part of the 
answer. After all, in the 1940's and 1950's. economists such as 
Gunnar K. Myrdal and Nicholas Kaldor identified positive-feedback 
mechanisms that did not revolve technology. Orthodox economists 
avoided increasing returns for deeper reasons.
    Some economists found the existence of more than one solution to 
the same problem distasteful--unscientific. ``Multiple 
equilibria.'' wrote Joseph A. 5chumpeter in 1954, ``are 
not necessarily useless, but from the standpoint of any exact 
science the existence of a uniquely determined equilibrium is, of 
course, of the utmost Importance. even if proof has to be purchased 
at the price of very restrictive assumptions; without any 
possibility of proving the existence or [a] uniquely determined 
equilibrium-- or at all events, of a small number of possible 
equilibria--at however high a level of abstraction, a field of 
phenomena is really a chaos that is not under analytical 
control.''
    Other economists could see that
    ALL A
    RANDOM WALK on a convex surface illustrates increasing-returns 
competition between two technologies. Chance determines early 
patterns of adoption and so influences how fast each competitor 
improves. As one technology gains mort adherents (corresponding to 
motion downhill toward either edge of the surface), further adoption 
is increasingly likely.
    SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1990 93
    FLORENCE CATHEDRAL CLOCK has hands that move 
``counterclockwise'' around its 24.hour dial When Paolo 
Uccello designed the clock in 1443. a convention for clockfaces had 
not emerged. Competing designs were subject to increasing returns: 
the more clockfaces of one kind were built, the more people became 
used to reading them. Hence. it was more likely that future 
clockfaces would be of the same kind. After 1530. 
``clockwise'' designs displaying only 12 hours had crowded 
out other designs. The author argues that chance events coupled with 
positive feedback. rather than technological superiority, will often 
determine economic developments. theories incorporating increasing 
returns would destroy theft familiar world of unique, predictable 
equilibria and the notion that the market's choice was always best. 
Moreover, if one or a few firms came to dominate a market, the 
assumption that no firm is large enough to affect market prices on 
its own (which makes economic problems easy to analyze) would also 
collapse. When John R. Hicks surveyed these possibilities in 1939 he 
drew back in alarm. ``The threatened wreck. age.'' he 
wrote. ``is that of the greater part of economic theory.'' 
Economists restricted themselves to diminishing returns, which 
presented no anomalies and could be analyzed completely.
    Still others were perplexed by the question of how a market 
could select one among several possible solutions. In Marshall's 
example, the firm that is the largest at the outset has the lowest 
production costs and must inevitably win in the market. In that 
case. why would smaller firms compete at all? On the other hand. if 
by some chance a market started with several identical firms, their 
market shares would remain poised in an unstable equilibrium 
forever.
    Studying such problems in 1979, I believed I could see a way out 
of many of these difficulties. In the real world, if several 
similar-size firms entered a market at the same time, small 
fortuitous events--unexpected orders, chance meetings with 
buyers, managerial whims--would help determine which ones 
achieved early sales and, over time, which firm dominated. Economic 
activity is quantized by individual transactions that are too small 
to observe, and these small ``random'' events can 
accumulate and become magnified by positive feedbacks so as to 
determine the eventual outcome. These facts suggested that 
situations dominated by increasing returns should be modeled not as 
static, deterministic problems 94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1990 
as dynamic processes based on ??ndom events and natural positive 
feedbacks, or nonlinear??ties
    With this strategy an increasingreturns market could be re-
created in a theoretical model and watched as its corresponding 
process unfolded again and again. Sometimes one solution would 
emerge, sometimes (under identical conditions) another. It would be 
impossible to know in advance which of the many solutions would 
emerge in any given run. Still, it would be possible to record the 
particular set of random events leading to each solution and to 
study the probability that a particular solution would emerge under 
a certain set of initial conditions. The idea was simple, and it may

[[Page 29285]]

well have occurred to economists m the past. But making it work 
called for nonlinear random-process theory that cud not exist in 
their day.
    Every increasing-returns problem need not be studied in 
isolation; many rum out to fit a general nonlinear probability 
schema. It can be pictured by imagining a table to which balls are 
added one at a time; they can be of several possible 
colors--white, red, green or blue. The color of the ball to be 
added next is unknown, but the probability of a given color depends 
on the current proportions of colors on the table. If an increasing 
proportion of balls of a given color increases the probability of 
adding another ball of the same color, the system can demonstrate 
positive feedback. The question is. Given the function that maps 
current proportions to probabilities, what will be the proportions 
of each color on the table after many balls have been added?
    In 1931 the mathematician George Polya solved a very particular 
version of this problem in which the probability of adding a color 
always equaled its current proportion. Three U.S. probability 
theorists, Bruce M. Hill of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 
and David A. Lane and William D. Sudderth of the University of 
Minnesota at Minneapolis. solved a more general nonlinear version in 
]980. In 1983 two Soviet probability theorists. Yuri M. Ermoliev and 
Yuri M. Kaniovski, both of the Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics in 
Kiev, and I found the solution to a very general version. As balls 
continue to be added, we proved, the proportions of each color must 
settle down to a ``fixed point'' of the probability 
function--a set of values where the probability of adding each 
color is equal to the proportion of that color on the table. 
Increasing returns allow several such sets of fixed points.
    This means that we can detern the possible patterns or soluti?? 
of an increasing-returns problem by solving the much easier 
challenge of finding the sets of fixed points of its probability 
function. With such tools economists can now define increasing-
returns problems precisely, identify their possible solutions and 
study the process by which a solution is reached. Increasing returns 
are no longer ``a chaos that is not under arialytical 
control.''
    In the real world, the balls might be represented by companies 
and their colors by the regions where they decide to settle. Suppose 
that firms enter an industry one by one and choose their locations 
so as to maximize profit. The geographic preference of each firm 
(the intrinsic benefits it gains from being in a particular region) 
vanes; chance determines the preference of the next firm to enter 
the industry. Also suppose, however, that firms'' profits 
increase if they are near other firms (their suppliers or 
customers). The first firm to enter the industry picks a location 
based purely on geographic preference. The second firm decides based 
on preference modified by the benefits gained by locating near the 
first firm. The third firm is influenced by the positions of the 
first two firms, and so on. If some location by good fortune 
attracts more firms than the others in the early stages of this 
evolution, the probability that it will attract more firms 
increases. Industrial concentration becomes self-reinforcing.
    The random historical sequence of firms entering the industry 
deter. mines which pattern of regional setdement results, but the 
theory shows that not all patterns ate possible. If the 
attractiveness exerted by the presence of other firms always rises 
as more firms are added, some region will always dominate and shut 
out all others.
    If the attractiveness levels off, other solutions, in which 
regions share the industry, become possible. Out new tools tell us 
which types of solutions can occur under which conditions.
    Do some regions in fact amass a large proportion of an industry 
because of historical chance rather than geographic superiority? 
Santa Clara County in California (Silicon Valley) is a Likely 
example. In the 1940's and early 1950's certain key people m the 
U.S. electronics industry--the Varian brothers, William Hewlett 
and David Packard. William Shockley-set up shop near Stanford 
University; the local availability of engineers, supplies and 
components that these early firms helped to create made Santa Clara 
County extremely attractive to the or so firms that followed. If 
these eatly entrepreneurs had preferred other places, the densest 
concentration of electronics in the country might well be somewhere 
else.
    On a grander scale, if small events m history had been 
different, would the location of cities themselves be different? 1 
believe the answer ]s yes. To the degree that certain locations are 
natural harbors or junction points on rivers or lakes, the pattern 
of Ones today reflects not chance but geography. To the degree that 
industry and people are attracted to places where such resources are 
already gathered, small early chance concentrations may have been 
the seeds of today's configuration of urban centers. ``Chance 
and necessity,'' to use Jacques Monod's phras??ract. Both have 
played crucial ro?? the development of urban centers ?? the U.S. and 
elsewhere.
    Self-reinforcing mechanisms other than these regional ones work 
in international high-tech man. ufacturing and trade. Countries that 
gain high volume and experience in a high-technology industry can 
reap advantages of lower cost and higher quality that may make it 
possible for them to shut out other countries.
    For example, in the early 1970's, Japanese automobile makers 
began to sell significant numbers of small cats in the U.S. As Japan 
gained market vol. tune without much opposition from Detroit. its 
engineers and production workers gained experience, its costs fell 
and its products improved. These factors, together with improved 
sales networks, allowed Japan to increase FERROMAGNETS AND REGIONAL 
RAIL GAUGES become ordered in much the way. As a disordered magnetic 
material is cooled (left% the atomic dipoles inside it exert tortes 
on one another, causing neighboring dipoles to align. Eventually all 
the dipoles in a sample line up, but the direction they all take (up 
or down) cannot be predicted beforehand. Similarly, as Douglas 
Puffert of Swarthmore College has shown, neighboring private 
railroads (right) ha the past century adopted the same gauge to 
extend their range mole easily. Eventually all (or most) railroads 
used the Same gauge. Similar equations describe the behavior of 
these two system.5. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1990 95 its share 
of the U.S. ?? as a resuit. workers gained ?? expert. ence, costs 
fell further and quality improved again. Before Detroit responded 
seriously, this posture-feedback loop had helped Japanese companies 
to make serious inroads into the U.S. market for small cars. Similar 
sequences of events have taken place m the markets for television 
sets. rotegrated circuits and other products.
    How should countries respond to a world economy where such rules 
apply? Conventional recommendations for trade policy based on 
constant or diminishing returns tend toward lowprofile approaches. 
They rely on the open market, discourage monopolies and leave issues 
such as R&D spending to companies. Their underlying assumption 
is that there is a fixed world price at which producers load goods 
onto the market, and so interference with local costs and prices 
means of subsidies or tariffs is unp?? ductive. These policies are 
appropriate for the diminishing-returns parts of the economy, not 
for the technology-based parts where increasing rerums dominate.
    Policies that are appropriate to success in high-tech production 
and international trade would encourage industries to be aggressive 
in seeking out product and process improvements. They would 
strengthen the national research base on which hightech advantages 
are built. They would encourage rums in a single industry to pool 
their resources in joint ventures that share up-front costs, 
marketing networks, technical knowledge and standards. They might 
even foster strategic affiances, enabling comparues in several 
countries to enter a complex industry that none could NONLINEAR 
PROBABILITY THEORY can predict the behavior of systems subject to 
Increasing terns, in this model, balls of different colors are added 
to a table; the probability that the next ball will have specific 
color depends on the current proportions of colors (top). increasing 
term-ns occur in A (the graph shows the two-color case: arrows 
indicate likely directions of motion): a red ball is mote likely to 
be added when there is already a hi fib proportion of'' red 
halls. This case has two equilibrium points: one at which almost all 
balls are red; the other at which very few are red. Diminishing 
terns occur in B: a higher proportion or red balls lowers the 
probability of adding another. There is a single equilibrium point. 
A corn. bination of increasing and diminishing returns (C) yields 
many equilibrium points. 98 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1990 tackle 
alone. Increasing-returns theory also points to the Importance of 
timing when undertaking research initiatives in new industries. 
There is little sense in entering a market that is already close to 
being locked-in or that otherwise offers Little chance of success. 
Such policies are slowly being advocated and adopted in the U.S.
    The value of other policies, such as subsidizing and protecting 
new industries--bioengineering, for example-to capture

[[Page 29286]]

foreign markets, Is debatable. Dubious feedback benefits have 
sometimes been cited to justify goveminent-sponsored white 
elephants. Furthermore, as Paul R. Krugman of the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology and several other economists have pointed 
out, if one country pursues such policies, others will retaliate by 
subsidizing their own high-technology industries. Nobody gains The 
question of optimal industrial and trade policy based on increasing 
returns is currently being studied In. tensely. The policies 
countries choose will determine not only the shape of the global 
economy in the 1990's but also its winners and its losers. 
Increasing-returns mechanisms do not merely tilt competitive 
balances among nations; they can also cause economies-even such 
successful ones as those of the U.S. and Japan-to become locked into 
inferior paths of development. A technology that improves slowly at 
first but has enormous long-term potential could easily be shut out, 
locking an economy if. to a path that is both inferior and difficult 
to escape.
    Technologies typically improve u more people adopt them and 
firms gain experience that guides further development. This link is 
a positive-feedback loop: the more people adopt a technology, the 
mote it improves and the more attractive it is for further adoption. 
When two or more technologies (like two or more products) compete, 
positive feedbacks make the market for them unstable. If one pulls 
ahead in the market, perhaps by chance, its development may 
accelerate enough for it to comet the market. A technology that 
improves more rap. idly as mote people adopt it stands a better 
chance of surviving--it has a ``selectional 
advantage.'' Early superiority, however, is no guarantee of 
long-term fitness.
    In 1956, for example., when the U.S. embarked on its nuclear, 
power program. a number of designs were proposed: reactors cooled by 
gas, light water, heavy water, even liquid sodi
    COMPANIES CHOOSE LOCATIONS to maximize profits, which are 
determined by intrinsic geographic preference (shown by color) and 
by the presence of other companies, in this computer-generated 
example, mast of the first few companies set. de in the green 
region, and so all new companies eventually settle there. Such 
clustering might appear to imply that the green region is somehow 
superior. In other runs of the program, however, the red and blue 
regions dominate instead. urn. Robin Cowan of New York University 
has shown that a series of trivial circumstances locked virtually 
the en??e U.S. nuclear industry into light water. Light-water 
reactors were originally adapted from highly compact units designed 
to propel nuclear submarines. The role of the U.S. Navy in early 
reactor-construction contracts, efforts by the National Security 
Council to get a reactor--any reactor-- working on land in 
the wake of the 1957 Sputnik launch as well as the predilections of 
some key officials all acted to favor the early development of 
Light-water reactors. Construction experience led to improved light-
water designs and. by the mid-1960's, fixed the industry's path. 
Whether other designs would, in fact, have been superior in the long 
run is open to question, but much of the engineering literature 
suggests that high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors would have been 
better.
    Technological conventions or standards, as well as particular 
technologies, tend to become locked-in by positive feedback, as my 
colleague Paul A. David of Stanford has documented in several 
historical instances. Although a standard itself may not improve 
with time, widespread adoption makes it advantageous for newcomers 
to a field--who must exchange information or products with 
those already working there--to fall in with the standard, be 
it the English language, a high-definition television system, a 
screw thread or a typewriter keyboard. Standards that ate 
established early (such as the 1950's-vintage computer language 
FORTRAN) can be hard for later ones to dislodge, no matter how 
superior would-be successors may be.
    Until recently conventional economics texts have tended to 
portray the economy as someflung akin to a large Newtonian system, 
with a unique equilibrium solution preordained by patterns of amoral 
resources, geography, population, consumer tastes and technological 
possibilities. In this view, perturbations or temporary 
shifts--such as the oil shock of 1973 or the stock, market 
crash of 1987--are quickly negated by the opposing forces they 
elicit. Given future technological possibilities, one should in 
theory be able to forecast accurately the path of the economy as a 
smoothly shifting solution to the analytical equations governing 
prices and quantities of goods. History, in this view, is not 
terribly important; It merely delivers the economy to its inevitable 
equilibrium.
    Positive-feedback economics, on the other hand, finds its 
parallels in modern nonlinear physics. Ferromagnetic materials, spin 
glasses, solid-state lasers and other physical systems that consist 
of mutua?? elements show the same properties as the economic 
examples I have given.
    They #phase lock'' into one of many possible 
configurations; small perturbations at critical tunes influence 
which outcome is selected, and the chosen outcome may have higher 
enerr/(that Is, be less favorable) than other possible end states.
    This kind of economics also finds parallels in the evolutionary 
theory of punctuated equilibrium. Small events the mutations of 
history) are often averaged away, but once in a while they become 
all-important in tilting parts of the economy into new structures 
and patterns that ate then proserved and built on in a fresh layer 
of development.
    In this new view, initially identical economies with significant 
increasing. returns sectors do not necessarily select the same 
paths. Instead they eventually diverge. To the extent that small 
events determining the overall path always remain beneath the 
resolution of the economist's lens, accurate forecasting of an 
economy's future may be theoretically, not just practically, 
impossible. Steering an economy with positive feedbacks into the 
best of its many possible equilibrium states requires good fortune 
and good timing--a feel for the moments when beneficial change 
from one pattern to an. other is most possible. Theory can help 
identify these states and times, and it can guide policymakers in 
applying the right amount of effort (not too little but not too 
much) to dislodge locked-in structures.
    The English philosopher of science Jacob Bronows??d once 
remarked that economics has long suffered from a fatally simple 
structure imposed on it in the 18th century. I find it exciting that 
this is now changing. With the acceptance of positive feedbacks, 
economists'' theories are beginning to portray the economy not 
as simple but as complex, not as deterministic, predictable and 
mechanistic but as process-dependent, organic and always evolving.
    FURTHER READING MARKET S'TRUCTURE AND FOREIGN TRADE. Elhanan 
Helpman and Paul Krugman. The MIT Press. 1985. PATH-DEPENDENT 
PROCESSES AND EMERGENCE OF MACRO-STRUCTURE W. Brian Arthur, Yu M. 
Ermoliev and Yu M. Kaniovs?? in European Journal of Operational 
Research, Vol. 30. pales 294-303; 1987.
    SELF-REINFORCING MECHANISMS IN ECDNOMICS. W. Brian Arthur in The 
Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Edited by Philip W. Anderson. 
Kenneth J. Arrow and David Pines. Addison. Wesley Publishing Co., 
1988.
    PATH-DEPENDENCE: PUTTING THE PAST INTD THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS. 
Paul David. I.M.S.S.S. Tech Report No. 533, Stanford University; 
November, 1988.
    COMPETING TECHNOLGIES, INCREASING RETURNS, AND LOCK-IN BY 
HISTORICAL ??TS. W. Brian Arthur in The Economic Journal. Vol. 99. 
No. 394, pages 116131; March. 1989.
    SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1990 99
    BYLINE: From LARRY CAMPBELL in Atlanta District of Colum??ia
    BODY:
    NETWORK computing industry leader Novell is bailing out of a 
number of its existing markets and terminating several product 
lines--including Novell DOS 7 to concentrate on new 
``technology initiatives'' and usher in an era of 
``pervasive computing''
    Novell is initially pulling out of the personal computer 
operating system business by stopping production of Novell DOS 7, a 
product it acquired as part of its take-over of Digital Research.
    ``The battle for the office desktop is over and MS-DOS and 
Windows have won,'' Novell chairman and chief executive Robert 
Frankenberg said at last week's Networld+Interop ``94 
conference in Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States.
    ``We will support Novell DOS, but we will not enhance 
it.''
    ``Novell has as much DOS marketshare as Microsoft has 
network marketshare,'' said Novell executive vice-president 
John Edwards.
    ``we are focusing on strong areas.''
    Novell used Networld+Interop ``94 to introduce these strong 
areas, which are part of its vision of the future of computing.
    Novell sees networking as it is today evolving to encompass a 
much wider, global concept. It envisages everyone now owning a 
computer will use networking technology--through the global 
information superhighway, among other things.

[[Page 29287]]

    It also expects a growing number of people using computers for 
the first time in future will also need to connect to information 
hubs to share and exchange information.
    ``Our goal is to take people one step at a time,'' Mr 
Edwards said.
    ``The future is pervasive computing: connecting people to 
allow them to work anytime they want--any way.''
    The term ``Pervasive computing'' is one Novell has 
chosen to define its
    South China Morning Post, September 20, 195 vision for the 
future. To usher it in, the company is turning its attention to a 
range of new products--encompassing operating systems and user 
interfaces--and services.
    Top of the list is SuperNOS, a planned killer operating system 
that will see the best of Novell's existing NetWare network 
operating system being combined with the best of UnixWare--its 
UNIX counterpart.
    There are an estimated 40 million NetWare users on four million 
local area networks (LANs) worldwide--more than double the 
number of users of all other network operating systems combined.
    In addition, there are about 30 million users of UNIX 
applications around the world.
    It is this formidable market that Novell aims to capture with 
SuperNOS, according to Mr Frankenberg.
    ``The time has come for NetWare NOS to provide all the 
services of an operating system,'' he said.
    ``This is why we are evolving a SuperNOS with NetWare and 
UNIXWare on a common Novell microkernel.
    ``We have left the world of the mainframe. Organisations 
have many servers. By ensuring that NetWare and UNIXWare work 
perfectly together, we allow our customers to chose which technology 
they need on which servers.''
    Novell planned to make both products run on a single set of 
hardware, or ``as a single system image on multiple hardware 
sets'' on a network.
    ``You get the best of both and a progressive, evolutionary 
path from today's specialised, robust backend,'' he said.
    ``All applications, trained programmers, tools, 
interoperability, support, and network services continue on without 
change. Perhaps best of all, we build on success, adding 
functionality rather than simply re-writing the old.'' SuperNOS 
is still a ``concept'', according to Mr Edwards.
    ``(It is a) codename for a technology initiative to bring 
the best of UNIX and NetWare together in a common system''
    When complete, the system would be open to licensing and would 
be provided on a wide range of platforms, he said.
    In addition to its focus on the network operating system market, 
Novell is also looking at the client side of the business.
    Last week Mr Frankenberg unveiled plans for an ``advanced 
Novell client interface that will make it compelling to be connected 
networks''
    Featuring a graphical three-dimensional user interface with a 
``world metaphor'', the system would make network 
navigation simple for the first time, he said.
    South China Morning Post, September 20, 199.,
    However, it would not be a new operating system in its own 
right, Mr Edwards said.
    Instead, it would be built on existing systems such as Windows 
95.
    ``We will see over four to six months of demonstrating and 
customer testing of this system (before it is brought to 
market),'' he said.
    ``It will browse the Internet, NetWare and NCS networks and 
live in MS Windows, Chicago, UNIXWare and other desktop operating 
systems,'' Mr Frankenberg said.
    ``It will bring not only these end user services, but also 
compelling consistent NAPIs (network application programmer 
interfaces) for Windows, UNIX and other developers to unlock the 
power of the network from client applications.''
    These new areas of focus do not just see Novell pulling out of 
the desktop operating system market--which was itself a move 
the market ``welcomed'', Mr Frankenberg said.
    In addition, Novell is pulling out of the database business, up 
to a point. Having sold off Btrieve, its database product, the 
company is now only working with partners in the database area.
    It will steer clear of creating vertical applications and, while 
working with information service providers as part of its networking 
technology initiative, it will not become an information service 
provider itself, or attempt to provide communications 
infrastructure.
    ``This frees up a considerable number of people who are now 
making the network fulfil our vision,'' Mr Frankenberg said.
    Hardware would also be an area that Novell would abstain from 
dabbling in, he said.
    ``(Former Novell chairman and chief executive) Ray Noorda 
got us off hardware in the ``80s. I will keep us on the wagon 
in the ``90s,'' he said.
    Microsoft's Operating System and Application Strategy for 
Servers Fine-Tuning Microsoft's Server Strategy
    Microsoft competitors have taken great pleasure in the slow 
acceptance of the much hyped NT. Some of this gloating is certainly 
well deserved. After a long period of anticipatory eulogies for 
competitive operating systems, NT barely shipped 400,000 units in 
its first full year of availability. This is one-sixth the number of 
OS/2 shipments and only marginally higher than Solaris'' 1993 
shipments (see Figure I). Moreover. the majority of NT shipments axe 
either free copies or axe being used for development or evaluation.
    2.400
    4OO*
    Figure 1: Licenses of 32-Bit Operating Systems Shipped in 1993 
(thousands of units)
    Are competitive OS vendors beginning their celebrations too 
soon? After all, consider how much solace Apple took in the slow 
acceptance of Windows. Just as importantly, many NT cynics are 
finding their evidence in the wrong places. They axe looking at the 
small number of total NT units, the minimal acceptance on the 
desktop and the technical deficiencies of the operating system. Many 
of those competitors who view NT as a server operating system are 
focusing on comparisons with and difficulties in displacing NetWare.
    Those who want to objectively assess the prospects for NT should 
instead examine the positioning, capabilities and increasingly high-
profile endorsements of NT as an application server operating 
system. While NT's acceptance as a desktop and file server OS has 
been slow. a growing number of large, leading-edge corporate 
customers see tremendous potential for NT as an application server 
in department-sized environments. More importantly, Microsoft has 
optimized NT's server capabilities by segmenting its development 
focus between desktop and server versions and by introducing a broad 
range of complementary server offerings.
    Meanwhile, most of the leading server application 
vendors--including those introducing client/server versions of 
applications that had been available only on minicomputers and 
mainframes-- have selected NT as one of their first server 
operating systems, and the one offering the largest market 
potential. What are NT's real prospects as a server operating 
system': How can one capitalize on its potential without making 
their company's future too dependent on Microsoft and ,'OT?
    Windows NT: The Rumors of its
    Death Are Premature
    Make no mistake. Windows NT and its successors are Microsoft's 
strategic operating system. As Microsoft Executive Vice President 
Mike Maples states. ``by the end of the 1990s there will be one 
Microsoft operating system--NT-- but there will be three 
of them: NT Advanced Server, NT Advanced Workstation and Windows 
NT'' (see Figure 2) Microsoft views the slow initial acceptance 
of NT as only a relatively minor delay in its quest for global 
software domination.
    As discussed in Summit Strategies'' report, Profiting from 
the Transition from Personal Desktops to Enterprise Desktops, 
initial NT desktop acceptance will Figure 2: Future of the Windows 
Architecture be limited primarily to engineering, publishing, 
software development, trader workstation and a few other specialized 
applications with particular performance. security and reliability 
requirements. This will begin to change as developers write 
applications to Win32. Most of these applications will be optimized 
for Chicago. but they also will provide hative performance on NT 
Workstation and. then, on Cairo.
    The story is very different for NT Server. NT Server is 
Microsoft's future. It is THE FOUNDATION of all of Microsoft's 
target growth markets-- workgroup, department, enterprise. 
advanced consumer and information highway. Microsoft, however, has 
little or no experience or credibility in those markets. It must 
develop them essentially from scratch.
    Microsoft recognizes these limitations and is dedicating 
extensive commitment and resources to its efforts to establish NT as 
a standard server operating system. It has carefully studied the 
factors that made other enterprise and server operating systems 
successful and has developed a strategy that combines some of the 
most important of

[[Page 29288]]

these factors with Microsoft's own unique twists. NT Server as the 
Foundation for Microsoft's Solution Platform Microsoft's most 
obvious work on NT is in the form of Daytona. which will be more 
formally known as Windows ,NT 3.5. Daytona will deliver higher 
performance with smaller memory and will provide better reliability, 
robustness. SMP support and connectivity than version 3.1.
    It will be divided into two optimized versions--one for 
advanced desktop users (NT Workstation) and one for servers (NT 
Server). This division will mark the beginning of separate, but 
still binary compatible code bases that are targeted at separate 
markets. Daytona also will provide a migration path to Cairo I NT 
version 4.0), the scaleable, object-oriented OS that Microsoft plans 
to release by the end of 1995.
    However. as important as all of these operating system 
enhancements may be. they are only the foundation of a much broader 
Microsoft server strategy. This strategy is based on a broad range 
of server applications that Microsoft is developing to run on top of 
NT Server and which will tailor the OS for use in specific 
functions.
    Microsoft plans to ship five server applications that will run 
on top of NT Server. some of which are already shipping: SQL Server. 
SNA Server. Systems Management Server. Exchange Server. and 
``Tiger'' Video Server.
    These server applications will likely be joined by others, 
including a search and navigation engine, server versions of many of 
its client-based Microsoft Ofrice applications and. possibly, some 
``diagonal'' server-based business applications, such as 
accounting, human resources management and sale, automation. 
Microsoft is also developing an online service t code-named Marve?? 
that ,a ill generally compete with Prodigy and America Online.
    Although these server applications are very different from each 
other, all share at least two important factors: They are designed 
as general, extensible frameworks on which partners are encouraged 
to write their own specialized applications: and each is available 
on and optimized for use with NT Server and is designed to work 
seamlessly with all other Solution Platform tools and applications.
    The combination of these factors will make NT Server a unique, 
very formidable server operating environment. Creating a Consistent, 
Universal Server Environment Each Microsoft server applications 
competes with some third-party offerings. SQL Server. for example. 
competes with Oracle7 and Sybase System 10. Exchange competes with 
Lotus Notes and Novell GroupWise.
    ,Microsoft. however, is positioning each of these applications 
as generalized. extensible platforms on top of which smaller, more 
specialized and verticallyfocused applications can be when.
    Like Oracle and Sybase. Microsoft is attracting third-party 
developers to write specialized applications on top of its own 
generalized platforms. Unlike Oracle and Sybase, however, Microsoft 
will not develop these applications itself. It will leave this add-
on market exclusively to third-party partners and has developed a 
number of large, well-funded cooperative technical, marketing, 
distribution and consulting programs to help these partners enter 
and expand their markets. .Microsoft has already attracted more than 
600 partners to write applications on top of SQL Server. more than 
25 to write for Systems Management Server. and 70 partnets to write 
for Exchange Server. SQL Server applications, for example, range 
from diagonal accounting and document management through vertical 
applications for insurance and health care.
    This base of third-party applications will help make the 
generalized Microsoft Server Platform a viable foundation for a 
broad range of highly specialized applications. In and of itself, 
however, this is not different from what is provided by competitive 
OSs (i.e., NetWare and Unix), databases (such as Oracle7) and 
groupware environments (such as Notes). Microsoft. though, takes a 
giant step beyond these competitive environments by:
    Optimizing its applications for, and integrating them closely 
into its OS to provide fast performance, permit the application to 
take full advantage of all operating system capabilities (without 
duplicating them) and provide the basis for integrating important 
application capabilities directly into future versions of the OS.
    Providing a common set of development tools and integration 
protocols that allow third-party applications to be easily 
integrated into and take full advantage of the operating system and 
all Microsoft server applications and to integrate closely with 
Microsoft desktop OSs and applications.
    This integration is critical to Microsoft's entire server 
strategy, it provides developers with a single set or'' APIs 
and communications protocols with which they can develop to all 
Microsoft desktop and server OSs and integrate with all compliant 
Microsoft and third-party applications. It provides customers with a 
modular, comprehensive. ``easy-toown'' server environment.
    Microsoft also is laying out a road map under to make this 
integration closer and deeper. As a result, data semantics and query 
technology will be common across both desktop and server components 
and communications will be facilitated between them.
    More importantly, the OLE object model--already supported 
by all Microsoft and a small, but growing number of third-party 
applications--will form the foundation of Microsoft's next-
generaLion Cairo operating system. In addition. many new Microsoft 
products are based on a technology that will be used in Cairo. This 
will simplify the upgrade path to Cairo and will allow the new OS to 
take over many of the capabilities of previously distinct 
applications.
    Since Cairo will be a pure object-based OS, it will be highly 
modular. Components will be easily added, deleted or replaced, 
making it relatively easy for resellers or customers to customize 
the operating system and incorporate traditionally distinct 
functions into it. In fact, since all Microsoft server applications 
will fit into a single, integrated Cairo model, it will be almost 
impossible to distinguish between the operating system and the 
applications.
    Redefining Server Industry Rules to Match Microsoft Strengths 
Microsoft's approach promises to make NT Server a much more 
comprehensive. integrated server environment than is available from 
any other client/server operating system, relational database or 
messaging backbone vendor. In fact. NT Server will approach the 
level of integration that previously had been available only in 
proprietary mainframe and minicomputer environments.
    In and of itself, this integration will be attractive to large 
numbers of customers. application developers. OEMs and resellers, 
but Microsoft plans to go even further. It will offer these 
capabilities in a new way that no other competitor can directly 
match. It will combine capabilities that had traditionally been 
available only as high-priced, customdeveloped solutions on 
expensive platforms with price levels and distribution channels that 
were available only for basic PC-level solutions. In other words. 
Microsoft plans to redefine the rules of competition in the server 
operating system and applications market.
    It will rewrite these rules in a way that builds on its existing 
business model and makes it difficult, if not impossible, for other 
vendors to follow.
    Summit Strategies believes that Microsoft will execute this 
strategy gradually and in a way that permits the incremental 
extension of its traditional low-overhead, product-oriented, virtual 
company business model.
    It will establish this presence in a niche in which there is 
very little entrenched competition--department-level, decision 
support application servers (see Figure 4). It will position the NT 
server environment as a more functional, scalable application 
platform than NetWare and a less expensive, easier-to-own 
alternative to Unix. While Microsoft plans to ultimately replace 
NetWare and Unix, initially it will coexist with them by emphasizing 
connectivity with Unix and its use as an application server within 
existing NetWare file server environments.
    Enterprise Application Server
    ??
    File/Print
    Workgroup Application Serve,
    Unix Core Market
    ?? Server
    Core Market Core Market
    1993
    2000
    Source: Su?? Strategies, Inc.
    Figure 4 : Microsoft's Trojan Horse Strategy
    Microsoft will use this market as a beachhead from which to 
expand gradually into complementary segments, such as department-
level and branch transaction servers, workgroup application servers. 
file and print servers and eventually, into some division-level 
environments. Summit Strategies expects this strategy to allow 
Microsoft to grow NT's position in the network server operating 
system market from about 2.5 percent in 1993, to almost 15 percent 
by 1997. It will play much larger roles in the application server 
market and. especially, in the lowend to midrange of that

[[Page 29289]]

market. Obstacles to Microsoft's Dominating the Application 
Server--
    Part I
    Microsoft is certainly well-positioned to establish a strong 
position in the application server market. Its success, however, is 
far from assured. The company still faces a number of strong 
competitors and must overcome a number of self-imposed obstacles. 
These obstacles fall into two primary categories: some are product-
based while the others are a result of the company's business model. 
Microsoft's productbased obstacles are:
    The perceived unreliability of
    Microsoft server solutions Everybody recognizes the limitations 
inherent in the Windows desktop environment. Most customers are 
willing to put up with these Limitations in return for the benefits 
of low cost, application availability and standardization. 
Customers, however, are much less willing to accept such limitations 
in application server environments, particularly when they are using 
the servers to run business-critical applications that had 
previously been entrusted only to mainframes and mini-computers.
    On one ban''. NT is relatively robust for a Version 1.0 
operating system. However. it is still immature, unproven and lacks 
many of the complementary tools that will be required for acceptance 
in business-critical environments. Microsoft does promise more 
robust upgrades to its operating system. RDBMS and communications 
software, new versions of needed system management and messaging 
software, and improved fault tolerance and recoverability. However. 
its continual missed shipment deadlines do not instill great 
confidence.
    The limited openness and scalability of the Microsoft solution
    Although Microsoft operating systems may be standards, they are 
not open. This creates a risk, since customers who adopt them will 
have a difficult time migrating to another operating systems, should 
the need arise. This problem will be particularly acute for 
customers who buy into Microsoft's server applications. since these 
applications will be available exclusively on NT Server and will be 
integrally linked to it.
    This lock-in could be particularly dangerous for customers who 
require that their applications be highly scaleable, up through 
enterprise environments. Microsoft solutions currently support 
symmetric multiprocessing and will support clustering and be 
portable to all major processors. However, NT Server is currently 
tuned for single and dual processing. Its next implementation is 
only likely to scale to four processors. which is far below the 16- 
to 30-CPU tuning of a number of versions of Unix. There are, 
however, mitigating factors for each of these concerns. Consider 
robustness. While Microsoft has missed deadlines in shipping 
virtually all of its key products, once they do ship. they are 
reasonably stable and deliver on most of the company's promises. 
When push comes to shove, most customers would prefer to receive a 
stable product late. than a buggy product on time. But. regardless 
of when Microsoft ships. computing environments with overwhelming 
needs for proven, reliable server environments are unlikely to 
select Microsoft products, at least for the next several years.
    As for openness and portability, it is largely a question of 
target markets and tradeoffs. Generally speaking, large corporate 
MIS departments are most likely to demand that their server 
environments be open, flexible and scalable. Most of these MIS 
groups have the capabilities or the resources required to configure. 
develop for and administer these solutions. In contrast, many small 
businesses and department-level customers will be willing to trade 
off such benefits in return for solutions that are easier and less 
expensive to buy, configure and manage, and for which off-the-shelf 
applications are generally available.
    The percentage of the market that will fall into each camp is 
certainly debatable. While everyone says that they want open, 
scalable and robust solutions, when it comes time to make a final 
decision. Summit Strategies believes that many more customers will 
choose easy, cheap and standard.
    Obstacles to Microsoft's
    Dominating the Application
    Server--Part II
    The other, and more difficult obstacles to Microsoft's success 
in the server market are more dependent on the company's business 
model and style of operation, than on its technology. Summit 
Strategies sees three primary. obstacles in this category.
    Microsoft's penchant for making enemies
    Microsoft has always had a way of making enemies due to such 
factors as its sheer market power, position as industry upstart, 
cockiness, and the ruthless way in which it often deals with 
competitors and partners alike. On one hand. vendors have no choice 
but to cooperate with a company that is dominant in the market in 
which they wish to participate (as Microsoft is on the desktop). On 
the other hand. vendors can avoid, or actively help to defeat those 
companies which do not yet have market dominance.
    Microsoft's lack of an enterprise marketing and support 
organization Microsoft developed its business model around a 
product-focused, low-overhead. indirect sales and support model. 
This model was well-suited to the company's initial goal of selling 
high volumes of low-cost, non-mission-critical products into low 
levels of business organizations.
    However, Microsoft is now targeting with its server products 
towards the business solutions market, which developed around a 
totally different business model. Its customers, therefore, have 
very different requirements. Microsoft does not have or plan to 
develop the type of direct sales. Implementation consulting or 7124, 
heterogeneous, on-site support capabilities that many business 
customers expect from their key system software vendors. While 
Microsoft is enhancing its direct marketing, consulting and support 
capabilities, it will rely on third-party partners to provide most 
of these capabilities. There is no evidence to suggest that its new 
target market is ready for this type of ``virtual 
company'' model.
    Microsoft's confusing market messages
    Microsoft doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows 
up. On one hand, it insists that it is preparing to become an 
enterprise solutions vendor.
    It claims that NT Server and its accompanying applications will 
provide the robustness, scaleability, reliability, capabilities and 
features of traditional enterprise solutions. On the other hand, its 
product releases, actions and distri bution and support programs 
suggest that Microsoft is really targeting department- level 
markets. These mixed messages are extremely confusing to customers 
and partners, and damages Microsoft's credibility as a business 
systems provider. Summit Strategies believes that Microsoft will 
ultimately recognize that its most natural and responsive customer 
base, its partner franchise, and its largest potential, most 
strategic market lies in department-level and branch environments. 
It will focus its product development, its marketing resources and 
its partnership programs at this segment.
    Once it captures a dominant and sustainable position in this 
core market, it will expand in both directions--downward into 
file server and workgroup markets and upward into enterprise-level 
markets.
    Microsoft, however, must address a number of other issues before 
it can nope to effectively address even these department-level and 
branch application server markets. It must build the type of in-
house infrastructure required to establish credibility in these 
markets and attract the type of application, distribution, 
integration and support partners that can address these 
customers'' real needs.
    As fully discussed in the next report m this series, Microsoft's 
Market. Channel and Partner Development Strategy for Servers. 
Microsoft recognizes many of these requirements and is making more 
progress in addressing them than is generally recognized.
    In summary, Microsoft will certainly be a force to be reckoned 
with in the application server market. Anyone who hopes to play in 
this market must understand where Microsoft is going and how the 
company will change the rules of competition to its own advantage. 
Only by understanding these critical factors can a company decide 
whether they will partner or compete with Microsoft and what they 
must do to survive this competition or premiership.
    SUMMIT STRATEGIES. INC 360 Newbury Street, Boston. MA 02115 
1o17) 266-9050 Fax (617) 266-7952
    This executive briefing contains a summers, or Summit Strategies 
report. In-depth information is in the actual report. This material 
?? righted and cannot be reproduced ?? written ??remission from 
Summit. Additional copies can be obtained through Summit.

How Microsoft's Server Strategy Will Change the Industry Part II: 
Microsoft's Market, Channel and Partner Development Strategy for 
Servers

    Microsoft's goal is to establish NT Server as the AS/400 of the 
client/server world. It is developing a seamless, optimized, easy-
to-use and administer environment that will provide access to a 
broad range of packaged, business-critical applications.
    The server platform will be sold to the same types of customers 
who have bought

[[Page 29290]]

IBM's AS/400-based business solutions-- a combination of small 
and midsized businesses and departments of larger corporations.
    Similar to the AS/400 which comes stan- dard with its own 
specially tuned and optimized operating system, database and 
management tools, Microsoft is developing a complete suite of base-
level server applications that axe available exclusively on and 
optimized for bit Server. Microsoft, however, cannot provide the 
type of bundled solution that IBM is offering. NT Server must run on 
multiple off-the-shelf servers and must accommodate databases. 
communications, management and other tools from a large number of 
competitive vendors.
    Novell is another network operating system vendor who has 
successfully sold into small and midsized business and departments 
of larger corporations. As with Microsoft, Novell relied on partners 
and third-party partners for distribution and support and had to 
integrate NetWare into heterogeneous environments. However, 
Microsoft will face more difficult challenges than Novell did since 
NetWare is primarily a file server operating system. In general, 
file server LANs are easier to configure and manage and do not 
require the level of integration, earring or solutions- oriented 
sales capabilities that client/server networks do.
    Although Microsoft must provide the value of supporting a broad 
range of platforms and accessory software, it recognizes that too 
many options lead to the same type of confusion that has restrained 
the growth of Unix. Microsoft. therefore, is taking something of a 
middle path by providing customers with the choice to purchase its 
server operating system and applications either as:
    Separate, standalone products that can be integrated with any 
other vendors'' NT Server products or as
    A single, integrated bundle (called Back Office), which includes 
the server operating system and Microsoft server applications as a 
preconfigured, integrated set of tools designed to work together. 
Pricing for this package is 40 percent less than if all packages 
were bought separately. As discussed in the first report of this 
series, Microsoft's Operating System and Application Strategy for 
Servers, all Microsoft server products share a number of important 
factors. Each is:
    Available exclusively on, and optimized for use with NT Server,
    Designed for use with a common set of Microsoft development 
tools and integration protocols;
    Designed to work seamlessly with all other Solution Platform 
tools and applications:
    Positioned as a generalized, extensible framework on which 
partners are encouraged to write their own specialized applications.
    This commonality and integration is critical to Microsoft's 
server strategy. The goal is to attract large numbers of developers, 
resellers and administrators to the broad Microsoft environment, 
facilitate the availability, of hundreds of specialized, packaged 
server applications and to provide customers with a modular, 
comprehensive, easy-to-own server environment. Microsoft plans to 
offer capabilities that have traditionally been available only as 
high-priced, custom- developed solutions on expensive platforms, at 
price points and through channels that were previously associated 
with PCs. The company also will provide migration paths from PCs.
    Thus, Microsoft will redefine the rules of competition in the 
server operating system and applications market. If it succeeds, 
many of Microsoft's competitors will find it difficult--if not 
impossible--to compete.
    Building a Business-Critical Solutions Infrastructure Microsoft 
faces a number of challenges in its bid to enter these new markets. 
Its corporate infrastructure was well-suited to the marketing and 
support needs and the economic mandates of the PC industry. It had a 
small direct marketing organization to promote desktop productivity, 
products to storefront computer dealers and a small telephone-based 
support staff to answer questions. It did not have, however, a large 
customer direct sales force, a consulting or integration group, or 
comprehensive support capabilities to which MIS managers and CIOs 
are accustomed. It could not hope to compete with vendors such as 
IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Oracle in selling bet-your-business server 
products to large corporations. Microsoft, therefore, has begun to 
build new marketing, integration and support infrastructures that 
are intended to improve its credibility and more effectively address 
the needs of new customers. The company built a:
    3,000-person direct marketing organization, 40 percent of whom 
are dedicated to addressing the needs of large corporate customers:
    500-person consulting and systems integration group to help 
large corporate customers plan, design and implement sophisticated 
client/server business solutions around Microsoft products:
    3,000-person, around-the-clock support group, 400 of whom are 
trained specifically on the complexities of server operating systems 
and heterogeneous networking, Premier customers get access to 
higher-level support people, an accelerated escalation procedure, a 
dedicated manager who will help them with proactive planning and, 
in, some instances, access to on-site support capabilities.
    Microsoft also formed a new marketing group, the Organization 
Customer Unit, that is responsible for developing and managing 
ongoing relationships with business organizations. This unit is 
divided into two primary groups: one to manage large cor- porate 
customers, the other to build sales into small and midsized 
companies. The Organizations Unit is responsible for: Managing the 
company's Select volume licensing program, which is intended to make 
it easier for large corporations to buy from Microsoft and to build 
ongoing relationships with them;
    Recruiting and managing relationships with client/server 
application developers and systems integrators who will be most 
important to Microsoft's efforts to sell client/server solutions 
into large corporate accounts;
    Responsibility for the Microsoft's value-added Solution 
Providers programs. It recruits and manages resellers who will be 
capable of selling Microsoft server products and client/ server 
solutions and other partners who are specially qualified to train 
customers on and support these new implementations.
    The Organization Customer Unit also owns Microsoft's Industry 
Marketing group which targets vertical markets that can potentially 
generate large sales of Microsoft-based client/server solutions.
    Defining a New Client/Server
    Business Model
    Microsoft's direct work with corporate accounts, through its 
newly enlarged direct sales force, consulting services and support 
arm, is somewhat similar to that provided by traditional enterprise 
system and software vendors. But there are two major differences 
between Microsoft's approach and those of enterprise vendors. Under 
the Microsoft program:
    Third parties handle all product delivery and much of the 
implementation and actual support requirements. All Microsoft 
product sales, even those under the Select program, are fulfilled by 
third parties. Microsoft's consulting and support groups will 
typically refer customers to third-party partners or bring these 
partners into a project themselves, with the goal of having the 
partner handle the implementation and most of the follow-up work.
    The primary goal in working directly with customers is to 
transfer Microsoft's knowledge to its customers, not to actually do 
the work themselves. For example, the company generally confines 
consulting work to fast-in/fast-out projects where it defines 
architectural requirements, plans transitions and trains or 
supervises customer employees and third parties to provide the 
actual implementation work and to fully handle future projects 
themselves.
    Virtually all aspects of these services have the ultimate goal 
of helping third-party partners address the needs of corporate 
customers without direct involvement by Microsoft. While all product 
fulfillment is handled exclusively through third parties. Microsoft 
is trying to involve appropriate partners directly in the demand 
creation process.
    Microsoft's consulting and support organizations have even more 
formal structures for training and for bringing partners into 
accounts. MCS consultants. for example, dedicate approximately ten 
percent of their total billable hours to helping Microsoft Solution 
Providers (SP) and count on partners for providing more than half of 
all their billable hours in some of its practices.
    This cooperation with SP partners also carries through 
Microsoft's support and training organizations. For example, 
Microsoft Education Services no longer deliver training directly to 
end users. The company has two new channels, Authorized Training 
Centers and Technical Education Centers, that it established 
specifically to deliver courses on Microsoft products and to certify 
partners who have completed specialized training.
    The company's support group, meanwhile, provides only very 
limited support for

[[Page 29291]]

Microsoft products'' connections into heterogeneous 
environments. One class of partners, Authorized Service Centers, 
have been authorized to provide such capabilities. Furthermore, the 
company provides very little on-site work and will not even go on-
site without a Solution Provider. If the customer does not have an 
SP, Microsoft will help it select one and then bring the Solutions 
Provider up-to-speed on the customer's environment.
    Developing Partnerships to Enable Microsoft's Virtual Company 
Model: Phase One
    Every vendor, irrespective of the degree of its horizontal 
integration, relies on partners to help sell its products.
    Microsoft's virtual company model will require much closer 
partnerships with many more types of partners than most other 
companies'' models.
    Various partners will play different roles in the Microsoft 
server business model, but these roles will change significantly as 
the market for client/server solutions matures. During the earliest 
stages of the market, Microsoft must work most closely with 
solutions-oriented systems vendors, systems integrators and software 
developers. After all:
    Systems vendor partners such AT&T GIS and Digital Equipment 
and systems integrators such as Andersen and Business Systems Group 
work directly with large corporate customers to help define the need 
for, develop, implement and support custom solutions;
    Infrastructure software developers will provide the capabilities 
required for more demanding and sophisticated applications such as 
enterprise transaction processing;
    Application vendors develop the solutions that will be required 
to attract customers who cannot or do not want to develop their own 
applications. Microsoft has already gained commitments from vendors 
of leading client/server accounting, MRP, groupware, document 
management, and customer management applications;
    Relational database vendors will play particularly important 
roles in the early stages of this market. RDBMSs are critical 
client/server infrastructure technologies and most of the vendors 
have their own solution-based sales, consulting, application 
development and support capabilities. Moreover, once an RDBMS is 
ported to an operating system, it is relatively easy for all of the 
applications written to these RDBMSs to be ported.
    Microsoft will always want to play a role in the type of large, 
corporate, custom implementations that are handled by large system 
vendors SI. RDBMS and application partners. Therefore, it will have 
a continuing need to work with these first- generation client/server 
partners. However, Microsoft will be ready to shift its primary 
emphasis to a new group of partners once client/server computing 
(especially Microsoft's approach to it) becomes more widely 
understood and accepted and a critical mass of applications become 
available for NT Server.
    Developing Partnerships to Enable Microsoft's Virtual Company 
Model: Phase Two
    Microsoft's primary strength is in selling large quantities of 
standard products to smaller companies and individual customers 
through large numbers of third-party channels. It will attempt to 
apply this same business model to its server business.
    A number of Microsoft partners are already established in and 
committed to this type of business.
    Microsoft is encouraging current server vendor partners 
(everyone from AST through Tricord) to bundle NT Server and the Back 
Office application suite with some of their servers. Some partners 
such as Compaq and Informix will play critical roles as 
``bridge vendor'' partners, helping to 
``repackage'' the capabilities developed and lessons 
learned from direct sales of client/server solutions into third-
party channel programs. (Summit Strategies'' report, The New 
Age of Client/Server Applications, contains a full examination of 
the roles of bridge venders.)
    Microsoft already has signed up almost 6,000 third-party 
Solution Provider resellers, and plans to grow this number to about 
15,000 resellers by rind- 1995. The company is focusing SP 
recruiting efforts primarily at established, successful resellers of 
products including the AS/400.
    Novell NetWare. Sun workstations, Unix RDBMSs and vertical and 
diagonal applications. It is targeting resellers who are best 
situated to address Microsoft's targeted verticals in geographies 
that lack adequate coverage. Microsoft also is devoting extensive 
efforts to training and generating business for these partners. For 
example, it is:
    Establishing large, formal programs (e.g., DevCast, BusCast, 
TechNet and Microsoft Partner Network) to educate and train these 
channels:
    Passing large numbers of leads to these channels, and is 
developing vehicles (e.g., trade shows, road shows and seminars) to 
generate demand;
    Using Microsoft consultants and support engineers to train 
partners to perform functions currently provided by Microsoft 
personnel, and to actively bring these partners into accounts; 
Actively helping high-end, traditionally direct sales system vendors 
(e.g., AT&T GIS and Digital), database vendors (e.g., Oracle and 
Sybase) and application vendors (e.g., SAP and D&B Software) to 
develop and offer their own products through third-party channels;
    Encouraging distributors and aggregators to provide built-to-
order, custom-configured server bundles (that combine Back Office 
back-end, Vertical Office front-end, and specialized third-party 
applications) to their resellers.
    Microsoft plans to use its market position, vendor partnerships 
and aggressive channel development programs to build a broad, third-
party, client/server distribution and support channel well before 
its competitors. It will then try, to lock these channels into 
Microsoft solutions by ensuring that they are familiar and 
comfortable with Microsoft products. Microsoft will do this by 
providing the best technical and marketing support, by using its 
marketing muscle to generate more sales than competitors (with less 
effort and resources from SPs), and by promising never to directly 
compete with its partners (as proprietary and Unix vendors often 
do).
    Microsoft's Prospects for Success in the Client/Server
    Server Market
    Unix vendors will most likely offer client/ server server 
solutions that are more open, robust, flexible and scalable than 
those offered by Microsoft IBM will most likely offer AS/400 
solutions that are more turnkey and easier to manage. Novell will 
most likely offer solutions that are lower priced. Microsoft, 
however, will combine some of the best of all of these capabilities 
with a number of its own unique advantages. For example, it will 
offer:
    The largest base of binary compatible servers and off-the-shelf 
applications of any server environment;
    Access through the broadest range of distribution channels in 
the industry;
    Probably, the lowest cost, best price/ performance application 
servers in the industry (due to a combination of Microsoft's 
aggressive software pricing, availability on all hardware platforms 
and broad distribution);
    A turnkey solution (based on Back Office and Vertical Office) in 
which all of the components will integrate seamlessly with each 
other and support the same APIs (e.g., OLE, ODBC and MAPI);
    A strong development platform to which custom and packaged 
application developers can write using a broad range of Microsoft 
and third-party tools:
    Strong scalability ranging from uniprocessor 486-based PC 
servers to 30 CPU Sequent servers and a broad range of uni- and 
multiprocessor RISC servers; and
    Systems and software that provide reliability, availability, 
manageability, security and robustness that will be suitable for all 
but the most demanding applications and environments.
    Given the strategic importance of the server market to 
Microsoft's future, the company can be expected to compete 
ferociously, and offer the largest, best- funded partner 
recruitment, training, advertising and marketing programs in the 
industry. However, as discussed in the first report of this series 
on Microsoft's NT Server strategy. Microsoft's Operating System and 
Application Strategy for Servers, the company will still be hampered 
by factors such as:
    Novell's strong established position in the channel and in the 
file server and low-end database server markets;
    Unix's perceived (and in many instances, real) advantages in 
areas such as reliability, scalability and openness;
    Microsoft's reputation for ruthlessness and for competing with 
its software partners in a segment of the market in which 
partnerships are critical; and
    Whether the market or channel is prepared for the virtual 
company model on which Microsoft is staking its future. Summit 
Strategies views this last issue as the single most important, most 
open question in assessing Microsoft's prospects for success in this 
new market. Will customers who are accustomed to a single vendor 
solution really accept such a diffuse, nontraditional chain of 
responsibility for support of mission-critical, line-of- business 
solutions?-Will Microsoft's partners be able to address the demands 
that this model will place on them?
    As discussed in a number of our previous reports. Summit 
Strategies believes that this

[[Page 29292]]

model will work and that Microsoft is building the type of 
infrastructure that is required to support it. But even if the 
virtual company model works, there is still a question as to when it 
will work.
    While the virtual company model will almost certainly succeed 
when client/ server technologies and markets become more mature, how 
suitable is it during the early stages of the market? After all, few 
people currently understand how to design, develop or maintain 
client/server solutions, the tools are immature and most 
configurations are still custom developed.
    Microsoft's initial reliance on the virtual company model has 
the potential of effectively locking the company out of the market 
before its business model has a chance to prove itself. This, 
however, is not likely to occur. After all, Phase One partners such 
as AT&T GIS, Digital Equipment Sequent, Andersen, EDS and SAP 
typically assume full responsibility, for their solutions.
    Ultimately, customers anti partners must rely on Microsoft 
rather than on system vendors for the stability of the operating 
system and the foundation server applications. However, this should 
not be much of a problem since no systems integrator or vendor 
(including IBM) assumes full responsibility for every component of a 
solution. Although it may cause some consternation, everybody uses 
some type of third-party products. While the risk may still be 
greater for a Microsoft- based solution than for a vendor-specific 
Unix system, the level of risk will decline as Microsoft's server 
products mature (as with bit Server 3.5) and as implementations of 
leading reference accounts become proven.
    Overall. Summit Strategies is quite optimistic about the 
prospects for NT Server. As fully discussed in the first report Of 
this series, we expect NT Server to account for a rapidly growing 
share of the network operating system market, growing from about 2.4 
percent in 1993 to 14 percent in 1997.
    More important than the raw numbers, are the segments in which 
NT Server will experience its greatest acceptance.
    Penetration will be relatively low in file server and enterprise 
application server markets, yet NT Server is likely to dominate the 
large, highly strategic midrange (large workgroups, departments and 
branch office) application server markets. As shown in Figure 1, 
this entry, will provide a perfect vehicle by which Microsoft will 
be able to extend its penetration downward into the file server and 
workgroup application server markets, and gradually upward into the 
division and enterprise application server markets.
    Opportunities and Threats for- Microsoft Partners and 
Competitors
    Microsoft's likely success in the application server market 
presents some significant opportunities for partners. Each phase of 
the market will offer significant revenue and profit opportunities, 
but the opportunities will vary greatly by type of partner and over 
time.
    During Phase One, turnkey solutions partners who can define, 
develop, implement and support custom applications will have a great 
advantage. In Phase Two, as NT Server and applications become more 
es- tablished in the market, and as client/server solutions become 
poised to enter broader markets and channels, Microsoft will shift 
its attentions to ``bridge vendors'' who can help 
translate the capabilities and lessons of Phase One-implementations 
into the type of ``cookbook'' approaches and solutions 
that will spur broad market, third-party sales. When the market 
enters Phase Three, the lowest cost producers with access to the 
broadest, most effective distribution channels will be best 
situated.
    Divisional Application Server Unix Core Market
    Enterprise Application Server
    Source: Summit Strategies, Inc.
    Figure 1: Microsoft's Server Market and Expansion Strategy
    By this time. Phase One partners will have to either:
    Evolve their business models to play by Phase Three rules:
    Adapt their value-add to ever more specialized, demanding, and 
narrower segments of the market such as distributed, object-based 
transaction processing environments;
    Find another market such as global, enterprise Unix solutions; 
or
    Go out of business.
    All types of partners--hardware vendors, software vendors 
and resellers--will be susceptible to this type of shake-out.
    Microsoft is using its unique product line and market position 
to change the rules of competition in these markets. It is 
optimizing its applications for its NT Server operating system, 
providing the type of bundling incentives and using the type of 
pricing approaches that few, if any, competitors will be able to 
follow.
    Even though Microsoft currently is competing only with vendors 
of the broadest server foundation applications, all partners need to 
beware. As the client/server market grows, previously specialized 
applications will become increasingly mainstream. As discussed in 
previous reports such as Developing and Leveraging Client/Server 
into Broad Markets and Channels. Summit Strategies believes that 
diagonal applications such as accounting and sales automation will 
become just as broad and strategic in the client/server age as data-
base and presentation graphics were in the personal computer age. If 
Microsoft decides to enter these markets, some server application 
vendors may face the same types of options in competing with 
Microsoft that server operating system vendors will face over the 
next several years,
    If Microsoft does succeed in changing the rules of competition, 
few will be able to go head-to-bead with Microsoft products.
    They will be faced with a choice of one of two primary 
strategies: either focus their product and market development 
efforts on segments of the market m which they have a clear 
advantage and can establish a reasonably defensible position; or 
introduce highly focused products that are optimized for a market 
niche that is too narrow to attract the direct (or at least focused) 
attention of Microsoft.
    In summary,, partnering with Microsoft may be as dangerous as 
competing with it. Partners can protect themselves by continually 
adapting their value-add to provide capabilities that Microsoft will 
require during different stages of its server products'' life 
cycle.
    Vendors still have about a three-year window of opportunity 
before Microsoft establishes the level of market power that will 
make it difficult or impossible to compete head-to-head in its core 
market.
    Even after Microsoft attains this level of power, competitors 
will have many opportunities to ``hit Microsoft where it 
isn't'' by targeting segments where Microsoft and its solutions 
are weak or by focusing on niches that are too small or specialized 
to draw Microsoft's focus (future Summit Strategies'' reports 
will address this and related issues in greater detail).
    Although partners and competitors will al- ways have plenty of 
opportunities. every vendor and reseller in the server mar- ket will 
have to learn to play by new rules.
    These rules will be generally defined by Microsoft, around the 
vendor's own capa- bilities, channel strengths and business model. 
For better or worse, the rules of the application server market will 
come to look increasingly like those that currently shape the 
personal computer market.
    SUMMIT STRATEGIES, INC.
    300 New bur','' Street. Boston. MA 02115
    (617) 206-4050 Fax (617 266-7932
    This executive briefing contains a summar?? of Summit Strategies 
report, in-depth information is in the actual report. This material 
is copy-righted and cannot be reproduced without written premission 
from Summit. Additional copies can be obtained through Summit
    NEWS RELEASE
    CONTACT: Albert Coacia
    Visa
    615/432-2039
    Shelly alien or
    Michele Bourdon
    Waggener Edstrom
    206/637-909??
    MICROSOFT AND VISA TO PROVIDE SECURE TRANSACTION TECHNOLOGY FOR 
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
    Secure Transactions Across Networks Mean Lower Costs, Expanded 
Markets
    PARIS, France, November 8, 1994--Microsoft Corporation and 
Visa International today announced that the have signed a letter of 
intent to jointly provide a standard, convenient and secure method 
for executing electronic bankcard transactions across global public 
and private networks. Their secure solution will held expand the 
market for electronic commerce by providing new opportunities for 
consumers, merchants and Visa member financial institutions.
    The secure transaction technology will consist of software that 
supports both the cardholder and merchant sides of a transaction and 
works with the visaNet payment system to authenticate buyers and 
sellers and to secure transactions for clearing and settlement. 
Microsoft and visa wil1 publish specifications that make secure 
transaction technology available to other software vendors and card 
systems to implement themselves or license from Microsoft.

[[Page 29293]]

    The technology will be developed initially for the Microsoft?? 
Windows TM operating system family and is scheduled to be available 
in 1995. It will include extensive encryption capabilities based on 
technology from RSA(r) Data Security, Inc.
    ``The technological leadership of Microsoft, along with the 
global financial reach of visa, allows :he consumer to make payments 
over networks worldwide as easily and safely as payments made in 
person.'' said William L. Chenevich, group vice president. Visa 
International. ``Our relationship with Microsoft will held to 
accelerate the growth of commerce over electronic networks and will 
open up new opportunities for our member institutions, merchants and 
cardholders worldwide. As the information highway becomes defined, 
we must look at a variety of alliances and a variety of ways to 
protect :he financial relationships of our members and their 
cardholders.'' Chenevich also indicated that the two companies 
welcomed the interest and support of other parties.
    ``Right now, we're all street people on the information 
highway; we can't protect our privacy and information: we can't 
prove who we are; we can't buy anything,'' said Nathan 
Myrhvold, senior vice president of Advanced Technology at Microsoft. 
The Microsoft-Visa technology solves these problems by using public- 
key technology Co assure safety and privacy, and easy-to-use client 
software which allows consumers to use their existing bankcards co 
pay for goods and services across multiple applications and 
merchants.''
    Will F. Nicholson, Jr., chairman of the board of directors of 
Visa U.S.A. and president and CEO of Colorado National Bankshares, 
Inc., added that U.S. financial institutions were facing new 
challenges in a changing payments environment to provide their 
customers with service and support, ``with Microsoft, we have 
an opportunity to bring together :ethnology and banking, as 
consumers explore alternative methods of purchasing at new points of 
transactions.'' he said.
    Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software 
for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of products 
and services for business and personal use, each designed with the 
mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people co cake 
advantage of the full power of personal computing every day. 
Microsoft is headquartered in Redmond, Washington, U.S.A.
    Visa, the world's largest consumer payment system, has more than 
I1 million acceptance locations. Visa member financial institutions 
have issued more than 357 million cards worldwide including more 
than 185 million in the U.S. Visa also has the leading global ATM 
network. Visa, headquarters in the U.S., has offices An London 
(Europe region), Tokyo (Asia Pacific region), Toronto, (Canada 
region) and Miami (Latin America region). Microsoft is a registered 
trademark and windows is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
    RSA is a registered trademark of RSA Data Security, Inc.
    ... THE WALL STRRET JOURNAL MONDAY. DECEMBER 5. 
1994,
    Trade Group's Board Cancels Hearing
    On Microdot's Plan to Acquire Intuit
    BY VIVECA NOVAK
    And DON CLARK
    Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    WASHINGTON-An unusual trade-group hearing on Microsoft Corp.'s 
pending acquisition of Intuit Inc., scheduled to take place today, 
was canceled after Microsoft successfully'' pressed for an 
eleventh-hour meeting of the group's board.
    Mike Maples, a Microsoft executive vice president, said the 
Information Tech- nology Association of America board voted 
overwhelmingly Friday to cancel the hearing, after he invoked his 
right as a director to call a board meeting. ``It wasn't a 
Microsoft-driven decision,'' he said.
    But he complained in an interview that scheduled speakers at the 
hearing were all opponents of the Intuit deal who are believed to be 
talking to the Justice Department's antitrust division. That 
division is reviewing the transaction.
    News of the cancellation reverberated. ``It's pretty 
apparent that Microsoft squelched it,'' said Dan Schley, former 
lead of a tax software firm who was ??cheduled to give his views at 
the session. The Industry is clearly up in arms about this.'' 
ITAA's 325 members include such giants as International Business 
Machines Corp. and General Motors Corp.'s Electronic Data Systems 
Corp., as well as Microsoft.
    ``I'm very disappointed,'' said Bernard Goldstein, a 
former chairman of ITAA, ``It was very obvious Microsoft was 
unhappy with this process, but this really is, for the industry, a 
very large issue. It's worthy of venting...''
    ITAA chairman Jim Mann, who formed the committee last month, 
said he believed the group's diverse membership would make for a 
range of opinions.
    Instead of holding today's hearing, the committee will broaden 
its inquiry to evaluate Microsoft's overall impact on the 
information technology industry.
    Rick Crandall, an ITAA board member and chairman of Comshare, a 
software company in Ann Arbor, Mich., said a larger look is needed. 
``The question is, where does the industry stand with regard to 
Microsoft, what are its competitive ``tactics, and are they 
illegal or unhealthy for the industry?''
    The latest developments add to the intensity surrounding the 
review. Justice Department staff are being inundated with The views-
mostly negative-of companies and individuals about the impact of the 
deal beyond the ?? software market that it most directly affects.
    Stephen Case, chief executive of America Online, was to speak at 
the ITAA event today. Two on-line service pro- 
viders--Compuserve Inc., a unit of H & R Block Co.; and 
Prodigy Services Co., a joint venture of International Business 
Machines Corp. and Sears, Roebuck & Co.--have talked to the 
antitrust division about the Microsoft deal.
    Mr. Schley has been a key source of information about the 
personal financial software industry for antitrust division staff. 
He said that in a conference call with seven lawyers and eight 
economists from the division a couple of weeks ago, he told the 
staff that he didn't believe that Microsoft's plan to sell its 
personal finance package, Money, to rival Novell Inc., will lead to 
real competition for Intuit's much more popular Quicken program. 
Microsoft hopes the divestiture will allay govern- ment concerns 
about any anticompetitive effects of its Intuit acquisition.
    B6 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY. DECEMBER 12. 1994
    Microsoft's New Marketing Tactios
    Complaints
    Hard Push to Get Commitments to Windows 95 May Hurt''
    By DON CLARK And LAURIC HAYS
    Staff Reporters of TICZ WALL ?? JOURNAL
    Five months after a controversial settlement with the Justice 
Department. Microsoft Corp. is using aggressive new marketing 
tactics that have angered some key customers.
    The software powerhouse is seeking more money and more marketing 
support from personal-computer companies for Windows 95. a 
fundamental rewrite of the operating system used on more than 100 
million personal computers. Microsoft's proposed licensing terms 
have caused a eborus of complaints from PC maters, who are under 
severe pressure to lower their own prices.
    Microsoft's terms include an extensive list of marketing 
incentives to get PC makers to quickly commit to the new program . 
which could bring more than 81 billion in sales in its first 12 
months.
    Windows 95 also could help Microsoft further undermine 
International Business 1Fdichines Corp.'s 0S/2 program, which has 
about 5% of the market compared with Microsoft's 80%.
    Some computer makers contend the new terms raise an unfair 
barrier to their offering 0S/2 and may violate the spirit of 
Microsoft's consent decree with the Justice Department. Vobis 
Microcomputer AG. Germany's biggest personal-computer maker, also 
has publicly com. plained about Microsoft's proposed licensing terms 
for its previous operating systems and announced plans to start 
loading machines with 0S/2.
    Microsoft insists it is operating strictly within the guidelines 
of the settlement. Several large computer makers, including Compaq 
Computer Corp. and Packard lieu Electronics Inc, also said they see 
no unfair anticompetitive bias m the market. ing incentives.
    Still. the harsth response to its biggest. ever selling job 
suggests that even mighty Microsoft has to tread carefully in prod- 
cling the industry toward a major modernization effort. A serious 
misstep could wind up boosting 0S/2, which IBM is promoting heavily 
to take advantage of delays in shipping Windows 95. There are signs 
that Microsoft already has begun backing away from a major price 
increase for the product.
    ``Now is not a sane time to be unreasonable,'' said 
Steven Ballmer. Microsoft's executive vice president of sales and 
support. ``IBM has never been thumping the drum harder for OS/2 
than they are :. now ....I don't think they're going to be 
successful, but you don't gamble the company on it.''

[[Page 29294]]

    Microsoft doesn't disclose its terms for PC maters. Several PC 
maters said Microsoft representatives mentioned possible prices from 
$55 to S75 before discounts for Windows 95. an increase that could 
be more than 100% over the estimated average for the combination of 
its existing DOS and Windows programs.
    But Michael Culver. senior director of product management at 
Acer Inc.'s PC unit in San Jose. Calif., said Microsoft more 
recently dropped the proposed price sharply and reduced the size and 
number of marketing discounts offered.
    ``The ultimate goal is to have a similar price as what we 
are paying for DOS and windows now,'' Mr. Culver said. 
``In the end, whether they've been forced to be more 
accommodating, or it's just negotiating strategy, I think in the 
end. it's going to work.''
    After the haggling, some analysts believe Microsoft will wind up 
settling for a `Microsoft can kill us,'' the chairman of 
one PC maker said. ``I worry more about my dealings with 
Microsoft than I do about my competitors.'' rice increase of 
15% to 2% over earlier operating systems. Rick Sherlund. an analyst 
at Goldman. Sachs & Co. estimated that computer makers would 
wind up paying about $43 a machine for windows 95.
    The flap is just the latest reverberation from the advent of 
Windows 95. which replaces both DOS and Windows and is scheduled to 
be shipped in the second quarter of next year.
    The stakes are equally high for IBM. which is batting to build 
acceptance for its latest version of OS/2, called Warp. IBM's 
operating system is based on DOS and Windows. and runs application 
programs written for them. But Warp won't run rams tailored for 
windows 95 unless IBM makes some major changes to the program, a 
process that Microsoft expects could take years. The new software 
gap could remove a prop keeping IBM's softwere on the market 
Microsoft believes.
    Mr. Ballmer asserted that IBM is offering computer makers 0S/2 
for free and may be even paying some to take it. An IBM .spokeswoman 
denied both contentions: she wouldn't disclose exact pricing, but 
conceded that IBM is ``going for market share.'' IBM said 
it has sold 500.000 copies of Warp in five weeks, and the 
spokeswoman added that the company viewed the recent friction 
between Microsoft and computer maters as ``an 
opportunity.''
    Complaints about Microsoft's latest tactics come as the Justice 
Department prepares for a final appearance before a federal judge on 
the consent decree this week. Robert Litan. deputy assistant 
attorhey general in the department's antitrust division, declined to 
comment on specific allegations against the company but said he has 
continued to talk to rivals about Microsoft's actions.
    The consent decree, signed in July, ended Microsoft's practice 
of ``per-processor'' licenses, which Justice contended 
excluded competitors by forcing computer makers to pay for every PC: 
they shipped that contained particular microprocessor chips. It also 
prohibited ``minimum commitments,'' under which computer 
makers were compelled to pay for a set number of copies of 
Microsoft's programs, regardless of whether they sold the estimated 
number of computers or not.
    Mr. Ballmer said Microsoft's new marketing incentives for 
Windows 95 were designed to take the place of minimum commitments 
while accelerating the move to the new product. According to a draft 
of one of the ``market development agree menus.'' PC 
maters can choose among a series of ``milestone'' steps 
that can reduce theft royalty payments as much as S20 a machine.
    For example. PC makers can get a L3 discount a system if they 
agree to install Windows 95 on at least 50% of their desktop systems 
within 30 days of the time it appears on the market. They can earn 
another $2 if they sign a license agreement by March 1, another S3 
by completing a certification program to earn a Windows 95 logo by 
next April 1. plus $2 more for putting that logo on PC cases and 
keyboards.
    But some PC maters contend they have little choice but to sign 
the agreements. Executives at these companies, who requested 
anonymity because of potential retaliation from Microsoft, said they 
could face prices for Windows 95 that will put them at a 
disadvantage against competitors if they don't sign up.
    ``Microsoft can kill us.'' the chairman of one company 
added. ``I worry more about my dealings with Microsoft than I 
do about my competitors.*''
    Some exectives said promoting Windows 95 and designing systems 
to win certification for its logo program reduces the money they 
have to spend promoting other operating systems. An executive at one 
PC mater said it already has cut back on his 0S/2 Warp support after 
agreeing to tile Microsoft marketing steps. He said his 
understanding with Microsoft prohibits him from exhibiting Warp at a 
trade show booth alongside Windows, although that restriction isn't 
explicitly stated in the contract.
    ``We have to sit there and swallow it. What else do we 
do?'* said the computer executive. He added in a reference to 
activities permitted under the consent decree, ``Microsoft ham 
just found a new way to skin the cat.''
    Microsoft's Mr. Ballmer rejected such assertions, stating that 
the incentives are entirely voluntary and don't discrete against 
other operating systems. `The amount of work isn't a strenuous 
set of activities.'' he said. ``If there isn't a payback. 
you lust don't do them.''
    Vobis, the German PC maker, claims that Microsoft insisted on 
computing discounts for its existing'' operating systems based 
on Vobis's total PC shipments. In August. just after the consent 
decree was signed. Microsoft proposed a contract to Vobis that 
estimated its annual ship-merits of 88 models at around 475.000 and 
quoted a Windows price of 528 a copy based on that total.
    Theo Lieven. chairman of Vobis, said he wanted a discount based 
on lower estimated sales, so that he could accommodate customers 
that may ask for 0S/2. But Microsoft Wouldn't quote him a price 
based on a smaller number of computer shipments, he said. Instead. 
in oral negotiations. Microsoft said Vobis would have to pay S63 for 
each machine under a so-cailed per-copy license, a more costly 
licensing scheme that doesn't use estimated sales.
    The consent decree permits volume discounts and says they may be 
based on estimates of future sales. Microsoft's Mr. Ballmer said Mr. 
Lieven wasn't being required to put windows on every machine he 
shipped in order to receive the S28 price. Vobis would pay that 
price only on copies it used; if the number wound up to be less than 
475,000, the royalty rate would be renegotiated next year. he said.
    But Mr. Lieven insisted that once he agreed to a price based on 
total shipments. he would be forced to use Windows on that many 
machines, regardless of what customers ended up wanting. Microsoft 
``is doing exactly the same u before'' the consent decree, 
Mr. Lieven charged.
    ``I have everyday negotiations with Microsoft, but it's 
difficult for them to understand that this decade of monopolism has 
ended. We want a choice of operating systems,'' he said.
    4TH STORY of Focus printed in FULL format.
    Copyright 1994 The Washington Post
    July 18, 1994, Monday, Final Edition
    SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1
    LENGTH: 1472 words
    HEADLINE: Microsoft Deal Came Down to a Phone Call; With Bill 
Gates on the Line, Justice Dept. Ends a Lengthy Probe
    SERIES: Occasional
    BYLINE: Elizabeth Corcoran, Washington Post Staff Writer
    BODY: By last Friday afternoon, the dozen lawyers gathered in a 
conference room at the Justice Department were exhausted. They had 
spent the past day and a half wrangling over the terms of a 
settlement that--if signed--would close the most extensive 
antitrust investigation of a software company in history.
    ``Get Bill Gates on the phone,'' demanded Anne K. 
Bingaman, the department's assistant attorney general for antitrust.
    After almost five years of investigation, the Justice Department 
was on the verge of settling its charges of monopolistic practices 
with software giant Microsoft Corp. But not near enough to sign an 
agreement. Two previous negotiating sessions had broken off each 
time in a stalemate.
    Bingaman believed she had to talk to the man at the top, Gates, 
the 38-year-old co-founder and chairman of Microsoft. Over the 
course of 19 years Gates had turned a simple software program into a 
company with $ 4.5 billion in annual sales. For much of the 
industry, he didn't just run the company, he was the company.
    Soon Gates came on the line. Bingaman recalled that after an 
hour's back-and-forth over details of Microsoft's licensing 
practices, Gates said the words she wanted to hear: ``I can 
live with this.''
    Meeting with reporters on Saturday, Bingaman said the settlement 
would end a virtual monopoly by Microsoft with its MS-DOS and 
Windows ``operating system'' software, which controls the 
basic functions of personal computers. It would mean lower prices 
and greater choice for consumers, she said.

[[Page 29295]]

    Microsoft, at its own press conference here an hour later, 
offered a different assessment: ``I'm going to invite your 
attention back to the facts and cut the rhetoric,'' Microsoft 
general counsel William Neukom said. The company had settled a 
costly, bothersome suit; Microsoft's business would not be affected 
by the changes.
    The following reconstruction was based on interviews with 
Bingaman, Gates and others involved in the negotiations.
    After a long winter of studying evidence, Bingaman was convinced 
that Microsoft's licensing practices for its operating system were 
unfair. In mid-June, she informed her boss, Attorney General Janet 
Reno, that she thought there was enough evidence to sue. As as a 
matter of course, Bingaman's office then contacted the company.
    Bingaman asked Microsoft if it was interested in settling. 
Neukom said the company was willing to listen. Microsoft was fed up 
with the investigation, which had begun in 1989 with an inconclusive 
Federal Trade Commission inquiry. The Justice Department picked up 
the case last August.
    Although Microsoft had provided what Gates described as 
``millions of documents and every piece of e-mail,'' or 
electronic mail, for more than four years, it never knew precisely 
what the government was trying to prove, he said. News reports 
floated ideas such as breaking up the company.
    ``In some ways, a lawsuit would have been a more just 
environment,'' Gates said yesterday, because Microsoft could 
have publicaly aired its side of the case. ``Things were just 
so random.''
    Gates had once been proud about having virtually nothing to do 
with Washington politics. But in the past year he had become a more 
frequent visitor to the nation's capital, hiring a local public 
relations firm and calling on journalists and administration 
officials to discuss the software industry, the information highway, 
foreign trade--and the investigation.
    When Bingaman and Neukom finally met in late June, the assistant 
attorney general laid out a narrower case than many of the press 
reports had suggested.
    The Justice Department wanted Microsoft to change licensing 
practices that the department contended unfairly discouraged 
computer makers from buying operating systems from Microsoft's 
competitors. She broached terms for a possible settlement.
    A day or so later Neukom responded. Microsoft was willing to 
negotiate. He requested, however, that the European Commission, 
which was investigating similar charges against Microsoft in Europe, 
be part of the negotiations. According to Neukom, Microsoft did not 
want to finish one battle in the United States, only to face another 
overseas.
    Bingaman and the European Commission agreed to negotiate jointly 
with Microsoft in Brussels.
    Bingaman had a vacation coming up, the week of July 4, which she 
traditionally spent in Silver City, N.M, the hometown of her 
husband, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M). But this year, she would miss 
it. She told only a handful of key staff members she and a team were 
heading across the Atlantic.
    For a week, nine people--three each from the Justice 
Department, Microsoft and the commission--spent hours at a time 
discussing licensing minutia in conference rooms at the commission's 
headquarters in Brussels. ``I'd say the discussions were very 
civilized,'' said Neukom, who headed the Microsoft team.
    ``There was a lot of information to be exchanged.''
    For a week the negotiators met several times a day, often 
picking up again late in the evening so they could cover new 
information or terms that had been faxed from Microsoft headquarters 
in Redmond, Wash., which was nine hours behind Brussels. By Friday, 
they had reached an impasse--the Americans flew home. In 
interviews, neither side would say what had caused the breakdown.
    They had agreed to a telephone conference on July 11, but 
Bingaman was not betting on a happy ending. ``I had to play out 
the hand,'' she said. ``I figured, if it works, great; and 
if not, we gave it our best try.''
    In the conference call, the parties agreed to return to the 
bargaining table. This time the date was set by the Europeans, who 
could not arrive in the United States until late the next day. They 
agreed to convene again last Thursday morning. Although the European 
delegation was down to two, a few more Justice Department lawyers 
had joined the talks.
    Bingaman had not officially threatened a suit, she said, but she 
was ready to file. On Thursday a Justice Department attorney had 
flown to a district where Bingaman wanted to file, a place, she 
later said, ``where the dockets are thin--'' If the 
negotiations fell irreparably apart, all Bingaman needed was a final 
okay from her boss, Reno.
    Neukom was uncertain if Bingaman would take Microsoft to court. 
``People negotiate in lots of different ways,'' he said. 
``But we were confident of our position and felt the courts 
would agree with us.''
    By about 4 a.m. Friday the talks had stalled. Bingaman suggested 
that a call to Gates to try to resolve some of the disputed terms. 
The conversation was brief--and futile. The lawyers quit the 
offices, convinced that their differences were widespread.
    Yet one more phone call from the Justice Department to the 
Microsoft people drew the negotiators back to the table later on 
Friday. By early afternoon, with only a few points unresolved, 
Bingaman again asked to speak to Gates. ``He's the ultimate 
decision maker,'' she said. ``I just wanted to get this 
settled with him.''
    For the next hour or so, Gates talked via speakerphone with 
Bingaman and a small team of Justice lawyers, along with 
representatives from the European Community and Microsoft. They 
gathered near the speakerphone in Bingaman's office, occasionally 
leaving in small groups to debate a point in private.
    ``I sat on the phone for a long time,'' Gates 
recalled. ``People seemed to be coming in and out of the 
room'' where Bingaman was talking.
    Then came the breakthrough, according to Bingaman. ``Bill 
finally said, ``I can live with this,'' and I said the 
same thing.'' The representative from the European Commission 
also agreed.
    ``She asked me if Neukom had the authority to sign for me 
and I said, `Yeah,' '' Gates added.
    The lawyers scrambled to turn dog-eared pages with scribbles in 
the margins into a single document. They finished the set for the 
European Commission first, so the representatives could make the 
last flight back to Brussels, which left at just before a p.m. 
Friday.
    By 9:30 p.m. the signed settlement was filed in the U.S. 
District Court in the District of Columbia, which must now decide 
whether it will be implemented.
    ``I just went home,'' Bingaman said. ``It was a 
weird feeling. Even after 4 o'clock [and the discussion with Gates] 
I wasn't clear it was going to happen.''
    Gates said: ``It's over. I like to work on products. This 
could have been a distraction, we've settled it in a way that 
doesn't affect our business.''
    Gates pointed out that the company has seven divisions that work 
on a variety of products. ``None of the people who run those 
divisions are going to change what they do or think or forecast. 
Nothing. There's one guy in charge of [hardware company] licenses. 
He'll read the agreement.''
    And when Microsoft signs future licensing agreements with 
hardware makers, Bingaman promised, ``we'll be watching.''
    TAB 43
    TO APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO 
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-1564 (SS)
    SIGNED BY GARY REBACK
    SECTION: FINANCIAL; PAGE C1
    94-1564
    FILED
    LENGTH: 663 words
    HEADLINE: Microsoft's Plan To Buy Intuit Raises Concern; Trade 
Group Calls 2 Hearings To Get Industry Opinion on Deal
    SERIES: Occasional
    BYLINE: Elizabeth Corcoran, Washington Post Staff Writer
    BODY: The reach of software giant Microsoft Corp. has so vexed 
some in the computer industry that a major trade association is 
convening two meetings to talk about it.
    Yesterday, the Arlington-based Information Technology 
Association of America (ITAA) said it was asking companies 
throughout the industry to voice their opinions on Microsoft's 
latest proposed conquest--Intuit Inc., the leading maker of 
personal finance software. Microsoft announced on Oct. 13 that it 
planned to buy Intuit for stock worth $ 1.5 billion.
    ``This is a dramatic acquisition by a very elite and 
powerful company,'' said Bernard Goldstein, who will chair a 
special ITAA committee to solicit industry comments on the deal. 
``We want to understand why many firms in the information 
technology industry are agitated by this proposed 
transaction.''
    The ITAA, which represents 325 software and hardware companies, 
plans to turn over relevant comments to the Justice Department, 
which is reviewing whether the proposed deal might squash 
competition. The agency

[[Page 29296]]

must give approval before the deal can be consummated.
    To gather comments, the ITAA plans to host two industry 
hearings, one in Washington and another in San Francisco, in early 
December. The ITAA also will accept written comments submitted by 
Dec. 2.
    In hopes of skirting criticism that the deal might inhibit 
competition, Microsoft plans to transfer its own personal finance 
software package, called Microsoft Money, to Novell Inc. of Provo, 
Utah. As payment, Novell would give Microsoft royalties on every 
copy of Money it sells for a fixed period.
    Microsoft is clearly trading up. Intuit's software, called 
Quicken, is estimated to have 6 million customers while Microsoft 
Money has only about 700,000. Among other points, observers suggest 
that the Justice Department will weigh the market strength that 
Money would have in Novell's hands and whether it would continue to 
offer real competition to Quicken.
    Sources said that about 10 days ago, Justice Department 
representatives met with Microsoft to request additional details on 
the proposed deal. Once the department receives that information, 
law requires that it spend only a few weeks finishing its analysis.
    In the course of its review, the Justice Department would be 
likely to interview industry representatives. But some industry 
players have suggested that few are willing to criticize the 
software giant publicly because so many must work with Microsoft to 
ensure that their software applications will run smoothly on top of 
Microsoft's DOS or Windows operating systems, software that is used 
in most personal computers.
    By offering to accept written comments and promising to keep 
some names confidential, the ITAA hopes to loosen a few tongues. 
``I guess we'll find out how inhibiting a factor that [concern] 
is,'' said Jim Mann, who chairs the ITAA. If no one offers 
criticism of the Microsoft-Intuit deal, he suggested, ``it 
would be responsible to conclude that would be due to business 
relationships with Microsoft. We know there's concern.''
    Other software associations have chosen not to get involved in 
the issue. But the ITAA has not shirked such issues in the past. The 
association offered comments during the government's investigation 
of the business practices of International Business Machines Corp. 
during the 1970s. Within the past year, the association also voiced 
concerns about whether IBM was still honoring the conditions of a 
consent decree it had signed with the government. Both IBM-- 
and Microsoft--belong to the ITAA.
    In July Microsoft tentatively settled another Justice Department 
inquiry by agreeing to end certain licensing practices that the 
Justice Department alleged were anti-competitive. Last week, the 
department released the public comments it had received on the 
proposed settlement, along with its response. The department 
received only five letters, including one arguing that the 
government should leave the company alone.
    TAB 44
    TO APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM OF AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO 
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-1564 (SS)
    SIGNED BY GARY REBACK
    The Washington Post
    Sections
    No 343
    SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1994
    Microsoft Heads Home
    Software Giant Targets Huge Consumer Market With a Host of High-
Tech Innorations
    REDMOND, Wash.
    Behind tall. wooden doors, in a modest building on the grounds 
of software giant Microsoft Crop., visitors can take a peek at the 
company's vision of the future. The doors swing open to a suite of 
subtly elegant rooms--a model home-of-the-future--dubbed 
``the Taj'' by those at Micro-soft. The Taj is filled with 
familiar icons of modern, upper-middle-class life: plush chairs in 
the living room, crayon drawings on the refrigerator, grungy 
sneakers kicked under a table.
    Yet technology has seeped into every corner. In the living room, 
just to the left of the hearth, is a huge video screen. Another 
screen is above the kitchen counter. A children's corner has its own 
computer. The screen in the dining room glows with what could be 
modern art. The home office is ready for a video conference. Lights, 
temperature and music are controlled by central nervous system. 
Microsoft--whose software lions of offices--wants to. Not 
just to the homes of a few, but to as many of the nation's million 
homes as possible. It wants to ofter as a of images and information 
that will fly across screens in every room. And it wants to build 
the invisible software web that will make such systems work.
    Microsoft Seeks Pump Streams of Information Into Homes
    ``Tomorrow in Las Vegas, at the intrade show known as 
Microsoft will offer a of one part of this new con-on-line service. 
rode-named ``Marvel.'' As with existing on-line services 
such as America Online or CompuServe. Marvel customers will use 
their computers and modems to tap into a range o[ discussion groups, 
as well as products and services from Microsoft and others. But 
Microsoft promises its service will be a show-stopper. To woo 
customers, Micro-soft plans to include access to Marvel in every 
copy of its next operating system, Windows 95.
    Gates's Vision
    The new world according to Microsoft will be sketched tomorrow 
morning, when the company's chairman, Bill Gates, delivers a state-
of-cyberspace keynote address at Comdex. tie will describe life in a 
world where people work in ``virtual offices,'' 
collaborating with colleagues around the world via portable 
computing and communications devices. They will use on-line services 
to get medical advice anywhere at anytime. tour the world's art 
galleries without leaving their sofas, and pay for goods and 
services with ``electronic currency.''
    Yet when Gates describes the future. Ins images do not have the 
scientific fuzziness that eventually grounded that other high-flying 
visionary, former Apple Computer Inc. chairman John Sculley. The 
difference is that Gates's audience knows--sometimes from 
hitter experience--that he can turn it into a Winning business.
    ``I'm taking a 10-year horizon, hut everything will be 
within use [in] live years,'' Gates said m a telephone 
interview on Friday. ``We want to be one of the companies 
that's going to make that happen.''
    Gates's hard-nosed pragmatism scares his competitors. ]'hey 
snipe that even though Microsoft now employs some of the country 
brightest software engineers. ,Is work lacks the originality and 
wh??sy of Apple. Such comments irritate Gates. But he can lake 
comfort m the belief that runs through the core of Microsoft: 
Business isn't about formenting cultural revolutions, it's about 
selling products.
    With the thoroughness of an engineering corps, Gates and his 
team of executives have mapped out a strategy that they hope will 
make Micro-soil products as familiar to consumers .is Ivory soap.
    This is no tentative effort. Gates has said lie i.-, willing to 
invest more than a billion dollars over I0 years to develop consumer 
products, lie has committed $100 million to an advertising campaign 
to bolster Micro-soft's brand name so that consumers will remember 
its products. And Gates has just hired a chief operating 
officer--Richard J. Herbold, a former Procter & Gamble Co. 
senior vice president, who is credited with revising P&G's 
pricing strategy to keep it competitive. Tapping the Market
    For Microsoft, the consumer market is tantalizingly large. 
Microsoft is already the biggest computer soft-ware company in the 
world, with revenue of $46 billion in fiscal 1994. But that looks 
puny measured against such consumer products giants as Procter & 
Ga??ble. which had more than $30 billion in sales last year, or even 
video game maker Nintendo Co.. whose estimated worldwide revenue 
will total about $9 billion ties year.
    To get into the consumer market, Microsoft is applying the 
lessons it learned in the computer software business. Gates got his 
start by honing the layer of software called the ``operating 
system,'' which controls the basic functions of the machine and 
also shapes the look of the ``applications,'' or programs 
such as spreadsheets and word processors, that run on top of it.
    When International Business Machines Corp. decided to use 
Gates's disk operating system, or DOS, on its personal computers, 
his software became essential to millions of consumers. Over time, 
Microsoft tightened its hold on the market with the 
``Windows'' operating system, which gave DOS a face that 
was easier to use.
    Microsoft has used tills base to vault into the lucrative 
business o[ building applications, such as Microsoft Word [or word 
processing and Excel for spreadsheets. These and other applications 
now generate a big share of the company's revenue.
    Microsoft's market lead bothers others. ``it's like a 
greyhound race, and the CEOs are all greyhounds.'' said Scott 
McNealy, chairman of Sun Microsystems Inc., in Mountain View. Calif. 
``This guy [Gates] caught the bunny. He's driving the damn 
bunny cart.... No one's supposed to be driving that cart.''
    Microsoft executives shrug off such criticisms. ``There are 
competitors of ours who don't like us. who are envious of our 
success, said Nathan Myrhvold, a senior vice president. ``And 
they've gone to great lengths

[[Page 29297]]

trying to claim that our success is not due to something 
fair.''
    But. he said, ``In every forum that's been raised, it's 
been formally decided that no. that isn't the case.''
    He pointed to the Justice Department's decision m July to close 
its investigation of Microsoft's business
    Microsoft Seeks to Pump Streams of Information Into Homes No 
Slowing Down
    Even the tussle with the Justice Department hasn't slowed Micro-
soft's plans lot growth. ``We said. a computer on every desk 
sad m every home.'' (;ales said. And indeed. the company seems 
poised to make that slogan a reality.
    Michael Maples. executive vice president for products, reels off 
a strategy (or the company's future. Continue the current businesses 
and grow two other divisions, namely, the ``consumer'' 
division (which is now churning out about one new CD-ROM title per 
week) and the ``business systems division.'' which is 
building software for corporate computers. When those businesses are 
maturing lout or bye years from now, Maples predicted. Microsoft's 
investments in future consumer products will begin to ``hit 
their stride.''
    The company's forthcoming online service. Marvel. will he a key 
part of the strategy. What will be different about Marvel.) 
``We think you have to create an economic model where it's 
worth creating content.'' Gales said.
    To do so, Microsoft plans to offer content providers, such as 
newspapers, the tools to build all[active displays [or their on-line 
products and then, effectively price their wares as they please. 
Subscribing to Marvel The software giant is developing a wide range 
consumer products and services with many partners. Among the 
initiatives:
    NON-LNE SERVICE: Code-named ``Marvel,'' details of 
Microsoft's plan to take on Prodigy, CompuServe and America Online 
are to be announced tomorrow Four telecommunications companies me 
expected !o be partners, along with ``content providers'' 
such as newspaper publishers.
    MICROSOFT'S WORLD
    FINANCIAL SERVICES: Proposed acquisition of ?? Inc . maker of 
Quicken personal finance software, would enable on-line banking
    CREDIT CARD SERVICES: Deal announced with Visa International 
seeks to refine the technology for ensuring the privacy of financial 
information transmitted over networks.
    BOOK$ ON-LINE: Microsoft's consumer division is generating about 
one new CD-ROM book per week. Hall of these are done with partners 
Many are aimed at children, such as ``Free Artist'' and 
``Creative Writer'' Plans are m the works to put some of 
these on-line
    BROADBAND SERVICES: To create the Technologies lot 
``broadband'' interactive television and computer 
networking Microsoft would write the software Partners would provide 
the computer hardware lot sending the information, consumer devices 
for receiving and skills to make it work together Tele-
Communications Inc and General Instruments are major partners.
    UNLITY SERVICES: Plans to develop technologies, with partners 
such as Pacific Gas & Electric, that would respond automatically 
to consumers'' energy and other needs.
    Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates Microsoft Seeks to Pump Streams of 
Information Into Homes Phone charges may also be low, as four 
telecommunications companies are expected to say on Monday that they 
are working with Microsoft to make dialing into Marvel a local call 
for many subscribers.
    When subscribers peruse on-line magazines, they will be charged 
by those journals. Like the owner of a mall, Microsoft will exact a 
percentage front what content providers earn via the network. 
Microsoft is not yet saying who those content providers might be.
    The company also has a potent plan for spreading Marvel. 
``We'll give you access to it with Windows 95.'' Gates 
said. ``If [the software] notices you have a modern, it will 
ask you if you want to register electronically.''
    Rick Sherlund, an analyst at Goldman Sachs & Co. in New 
York, estimates that as many as 14 million people may upgrade their 
software to Windows 95 in the first year it ships them. In contrast. 
America On-line Inc. was boasting last month that it had 1.25 
million subscribers. Even if Microsoft includes other on-line 
services in Windows 95, the Microsoft brand name could lure 
customers to Marvel.
    A Wary Word
    Steve Case, president of America Online in Vienna, is wary of 
Gates's plans. Computer operating systems are becoming the 
``dial tone of the computer age.'' he said. Just as the 
government regulates telecommunications, be suggested, the country 
may need new policies to ensure that consumers can easily reach any 
company's products or services through the dominant operating 
system.
    ``Ultimately, customers will prefer broad range of content, 
with an engaging presentation and offered at an affordable 
price,'' Case said. ``There's not yet evidence that 
Microsoft will offer consumers something that they'll want.'' 
he added.
    Meanwhile, Microsoft is fitting other elements of its on-line 
strategy into place. Last week, Microsoft and Visa International 
said they were working on ways to protect on-line information, such 
as credit card numbers. That security will prove handy as people 
begin to use Marvel to buy products on-line.
    Microsoft has other plans for helping people check their bank 
accounts or pay bills remotely. In mid-October. Microsoft made a bid 
to buy Intu?? Inc., the biggest maker of personal finance software, 
for $1.5 billion in stock. Microsoft's homegrown package, called 
Microsoft Money, has only won about 700,000 users since it went on 
sale three years ago. About 6 million people use Intuit's Quicken.
    ```Money'' is really quite a good 
product.'' Maples said. But he explained that Quicken's 
broader customer base would acce??te Micro-soft's entry into 
electronic commerce. One hurdle Microsoft must clear, though, is a 
Justice Department investigation into the possible anticompetitive 
effects of the merger.
    Microsoft has other products it would like to see go live as 
well. Its 660-person consumer division, for example, hopes to 
deliver CD-ROMs via communications networks at some point. But to 
pump information-rich video into consumers'' home will take 
faster and more powerful networks than those Mar vel will use.
    Getting Organized
    Microsoft is working to develop these superhighway-size, broad-
band networks, through its Advanced Consumer Technology group, 
headed by Vice President Craig Mundie. By next June, the group will 
employ more than 500 people, working on the technologies that will 
turn Gate's Comdex address into reality: everything from interactive 
television and utilities that ``know'' when a house is too 
hot or cold, to personal gadgets such as a ``wallet PC,'' 
which could automatically update a bank account, or show a video of 
the kids. For two days in late October,
    Mundie's group covened about 65 companies from around the world 
for an information ``summit.'' In effect, this was a 
meeting of construc tion crews. Behind closed doors. Microsoft 
executives laid out their plans for pumping streams of information 
into consumers'' homes by way of their personal computers, in 
late 1996 or early 1997, and eventually through their television 
sets. More than a dozen companies have pledged to work with 
Microsoft to develop--and commercialize-- the technology. 
They include Alcatel Alsthom SA, Anderson Consulting, Deutsche 
Bundespost Telekom, General Instruments Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., 
Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. and US West Inc.
    According to Mundie, the ``rollout'' of advanced 
networks will begin in the Seattle area late next year. By the end 
of 1996 or early 1997, Mundie hopes the technology will be ready to 
be ``cloned'' throughout the country. Ultimately, if 
consumers like what they see, every room in a home could have a 
connection to the information highway, much like Microsoft's Taj, he 
believes. ``Our view is that in the long run this is a very 
risky but potentially very rewarding business activity.'' 
Myrhvold said. He recalls that it look about five years before 
Microsoft's current operating system. Windows, became a hit. 
``I assert it was a good idea to have done Windows.'' he 
said. ``Today, that is a no-brainer.''
    EXHIBIT 5
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC.
    ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1232 (CKK)
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. )
    ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ) Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. )
    DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    My name is Brian Dautch. I am a law clerk for Peter Peckarsky, 
Esq. I have personal knowledge of the facts testified to below and

[[Page 29298]]

if called as a witness could testify to those facts. I am over the 
age of twenty-one (21) years old.
    2. On January 25, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
800-915-3355 to contact the Dell Computer Corporation 
(``Dell''). I spoke with Ray at extension 61468. Ray 
refused to state his last name. I asked what the price was for a 
Dell Dimension Model 8200 desktop personal computer. Ray said the 
price was $1,577. I asked what operating system was on the machine 
at that price. Ray said the operating systems was a Microsoft 
Windows XP operating system and advised that I could have the Home 
or Professional versions of the operating system. I asked whether I 
could buy the same desktop computer from Dell with any other 
operating system. Ray said that Dell would sell its desktop personal 
computers only with a version of the Microsoft Windows XP operating 
system (Home or Professional). Ray said that Dell would not sell a 
desktop personal computer without an operating system. If Dell were 
willing to sell me a desktop personal computer without an operating 
system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an operating 
system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on the Dell 
desktop personal computer.
    3. On January 27, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
800-915-3355 to contact Dell again. I spoke with Jack at 
extension 58680. Jack refused to state his last name. I asked what 
the price was for a Dell Inspiron Model 8100 laptop personal 
computer. Jack said the price was $1,379. I asked what operating 
system was on the machine at that price. Jack said the operating 
system would be my choice of either a Microsoft Windows XP operating 
system (Home or Professional version) or a Microsoft Windows 2000 
operating system. I asked whether I could buy the same laptop 
computer hardware from Dell with any other operating systems. Jack 
said that Dell would sell its laptop personal computers only with a 
version of the Microsoft Windows XP operating system (Home or 
Professional) or Windows 2000. Jack said that Dell would not sell a 
laptop personal computer without an operating system. If Dell were 
willing to sell me a laptop personal computer without an operating 
system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an operating 
system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on the Dell 
laptop personal computer.
    4. On January 25, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
800-888-0220 to contact the Compaq Computer Corporation 
(``Compaq''). I spoke with Bob at extension 21679. Bob 
refused to state his last name. I asked what the price was for a 
Compaq Presario Model 8000 desktop personal computer. Bob said the 
price was $1,510. I asked what operating system was on the machine 
at that price. Bob said the operating systems was a Microsoft 
Windows XP operating system and advised that I could have the Home 
or Professional versions of the operating system. I asked whether I 
could buy the same desktop computer from Compaq with any other 
operating system. Bob said that Compaq would sell its desktop 
personal computers only with a version of the Microsoft Windows XP 
operating system (Home or Professional). Bob said that Compaq would 
not sell a desktop personal computer without an operating system. If 
Compaq were willing to sell me a desktop personal computer without 
an operating system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an 
operating system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on 
the Compaq desktop personal computer.
    5. On January 27, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
800-888-0220 to contact Compaq again. I spoke with Tim 
at extension 5249. Tim refused to state his last name. I asked what 
the price was for a Compaq Presario Model 2700 laptop personal 
computer. Tim said the price was $1,299. I asked what operating 
system was on the machine at that price. Tim said the operating 
system would be my choice of either a Microsoft Windows XP operating 
system (Home or Professional version) or a Microsoft Windows 2000 
operating system. I asked whether I could buy the same laptop 
computer hardware from Compaq with any other operating systems. Tim 
said that Compaq would sell its laptop personal computers only with 
a version of the Microsoft Windows XP operating system (Home or 
Professional) or Windows 2000. Tim said that Compaq would not sell a 
laptop personal computer without an operating system. If Compaq were 
willing to sell me a laptop personal computer without an operating 
system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an operating 
system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on the Compaq 
laptop personal computer.
    6. On January 25, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
888-999-4747 to contact the Hewlett-Packard Company 
(``HP''). I spoke with Ann at extension 3721. Ann refused 
to state her last name. I asked what the price was for an HP 
Pavilion Model 7966 desktop personal computer. Ann said the price 
was S 1,999.99. I asked what operating system was on the machine at 
that price. Ann said the operating systems was a Microsoft Windows 
XP operating system and advised that I could have the Home or 
Professional versions of the operating system. I asked whether I 
could buy the same computer hardware from HP with any other 
operating system. Ann said that HP would sell its desktop personal 
computers only with a version of the Microsoft Windows XP operating 
system (Home or Professional). Ann said that Dell would not sell a 
desktop personal computer without an operating system. If HP were 
willing to sell me a desktop personal computer without an operating 
system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an operating 
system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on the HP 
desktop personal computer.
    7. On January 27, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
888-999-4747 to contact HP again. I spoke with Jackie at 
extension 3707. Jackie refused to state her last name. I asked what 
the price was for an HP Pavilion Notebook Model N53 10 laptop 
personal computer. Jackie said the price was S 1,349. I asked what 
operating system was on the machine at that price. Jackie said the 
operating systems was a Microsoft Windows XP operating system 
(either Home or Professional version or Microsoft Windows Millenium 
or Microsoft Windows 2000 or Microsoft Windows 98. I asked whether I 
could buy the same computer hardware from HP with any other 
operating system. Jackie said that HP would sell its desktop 
personal computers only with a version of the Microsoft Windows XP 
or Microsoft Windows Millenium or Microsoft Windows 2000 or 
Microsoft Windows 98 operating systems. Jackie said that HP would 
not sell a laptop personal computer without an operating system. If 
HP were willing to sell me a laptop personal computer without an 
operating system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an 
operating system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on 
the HP laptop personal computer.
    8. On January 25, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
888-746-7426 to contact International Business Machine 
(``IBM''). I spoke with Andy at extension 37229. Andy 
refused to state his last name. I asked what the price was for an 
IBM Model M67922EU desktop personal computer. Andy said the price 
was $1,289. I asked what operating system was on the machine at that 
price. Andy said the operating systems was a Microsoft Windows XP 
operating system and advised that I could have the Home or 
Professional versions of the operating system. I asked whether I 
could buy the same computer hardware from IBM with any other 
operating system. Andy said that IBM would sell its desktop personal 
computers only with a version of the Microsoft Windows XP operating 
system (Home or Professional). Andy said that IBM would not sell a 
desktop personal computer without an operating system. If IBM were 
willing to sell me a desktop personal computer without an operating 
system I would be able to endeavor to arrange to use an operating 
system made by a software vendor other than Microsoft on the IBM 
desktop personal computer.
    9. On January 27, 2002, I placed a telephone call to 
888-746-7426 to contact International Business Machine 
(``IBM''). I spoke with Jim at extension 37289. Jim 
refused to state his last name. I asked what the price was for an 
IBM Thinkpad Model 265620U laptop personal computer. Jim said the 
price was $1,099. I asked what operating system was on the machine 
at that price. Jim said the operating system was a Microsoft Windows 
XP operating system (Home or Professional versions) or Windows 2000. 
I asked whether I could buy the same laptop computer from IBM with 
any other operating system. Jim said that IBM would sell its laptop 
personal computers only with a version of the Microsoft Windows XP 
operating system (Home or Professional) or Windows 2000 operating 
system. Jim said that IBM would not sell a laptop personal computer 
without an operating system. If IBM were willing to sell me a laptop 
personal computer without an operating system I would be able to 
endeavor to arrange to use an operating system made by a software 
vendor other than Microsoft on the IBM laptop personal computer.
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 
and correct, executed in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2002.
    Brian Dautch

[[Page 29299]]



MTC-00030631 0255

    EXHIBIT 6
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC.
    HTC-00030631 0594
    HTC-00030631 0595 Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. 
STATE OF NEW YORK, ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al.,
    Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants, V. MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Declaration of 
Paul M. Romer
    I, Paul Michael Romer, declare as follows:
    I. Qualifications and Scope of Testimony
    1. I am the STANCO 25 Professor of Economics at the Graduate 
School of Business, the Dean Witter Senior Research Fellow at the 
Hoover Institution, and the Ralph Landau Fellow in the Stanford 
Institute for Economic Policy Research, all at Stanford University. 
I have also held the position of Assistant Professor in the 
Economics Department at the University of Rochester and Professor in 
the Economics Departments of the University of Chicago and the 
University of California at Berkeley. I received my B.S. degree in 
Physics in 1977 and my Ph.D. degree in Economics in 1983, both from 
the University of Chicago. I am a Fellow of the Econometric Society, 
a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and 
a former member of the Executive Committee of the American Economics 
Association.
    2. My 1983 Ph.D. thesis and my subsequent papers revitalized the 
study of economic growth and were the foundation for a body of work 
known as ``new growth theory.'' My contribution was to 
formalize a theory in which the rate of technological change is 
determined by incentives created in the marketplace. This kind of 
theory lets one trace the effects that social institutions in 
general, and legal institutions in particular, have on incentives, 
and thereby on the rate of technological change. Over time, small 
changes in this rate cumulate into large differences in standards of 
living. As a result, decisions about the law, and especially about 
antitrust law as it applies to high technology industries, can be 
among the most important economic policy decisions that a society 
makes.
    3. The Court's decision in this case will profoundly affect the 
information industry, the most technologically dynamic sector in our 
economy. Because technological change has been the central concern 
in my work, the Department of Justice has asked me to evaluate the 
economic effects of its proposed remedy.
    II. Summary of the Analysis
    4. In its Findings of Fact, the Court found that Microsoft has a 
monopoly in the market for PC operating systems that is protected by 
the applications barrier to entry. By exposing to applications 
developers APIs which were independent of the Windows operating 
system and thereby eroding the applications barrier to entry, 
Netscape's browser and Sun's implementation of Java posed a direct 
threat to this monopoly. In response to this threat, Microsoft 
engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts designed to stifle the 
technological progress and market success of Netscape and Sun. These 
acts directly harmed consumers by, among other things, denying them 
the choice of a browserless operating system, foreclosing 
opportunities by OEMs to make PCs more user friendly, making it more 
difficult for consumers to obtain competing browsers, and by 
preventing some software innovations (Intel's platform-level NSP 
software) from reaching the market. FOF 410.
    5. Most importantly, these acts have interfered with the process 
of innovation in three distinct ways. First, consumers did not get 
the innovative products that the technology being developed by 
Netscape and Sun might have delivered. Second, Microsoft's predatory 
acts had a chilling effect on innovative efforts by all people who 
might have developed other software technologies that Microsoft 
found threatening.
    Third, Microsoft harmed the innovative process because it 
limited competition, and competitive markets are, on balance, the 
best mechanism for guiding technology down a path that benefits 
consumers.
    6. The government's proposed remedy will prevent these harms 
from recurring. The most important element of the remedy is a 
reorganization that creates independent applications and operating 
systems companies. It will deprive the operating systems company of 
some of the tools that Microsoft used to limit competition. It will 
also create an applications company with the incentive and the 
ability to lower the applications barrier to entry in the operating 
system market. The applications company can do this by porting its 
key applications to competing operating systems and by providing new 
middleware that other applications developers can use. This could 
further increase the number of applications available on the 
competing operating systems and thereby lower the applications 
barrier to entry. By lowering the barriers to entry, the creation of 
a separate applications company increases the likelihood of entry in 
the PC operating system market. Even if actual competition in the 
market for PC operating systems does not emerge, the increased 
potential for entry will limit the strategic options available to 
the operating system monopolist. Furthermore, the presence of this 
powerful applications company will lead to larger expected payoffs 
for other innovators in the software industry by providing two 
independent distribution channels. The presence of these two 
independent distribution channels will also increase the likelihood 
that users can choose among alternative technologies on the merits. 
For all these reasons, a reorganization that introduces a 
significant competitor will dramatically reduce the likelihood that 
the harmful acts identified in this case will recur.
    7. This reorganization returns the software industry part way 
toward the competitive environment that prevailed before Microsoft 
took its illegal actions. There is no way to revive the threat posed 
by the specific technologies that Netscape and Sun were developing, 
nor to recover the innovative efforts that were deterred by 
Microsoft over the last five years. The market has moved on. 
Consumers and applications developers have made investment decisions 
that are irreversible. This remedy does, however, return us to a 
point where an important software firm outside of the control of the 
operating system monopolist has an incentive to lower the 
applications barrier to entry and to develop new middleware 
technologies with cross-platform capabilities. This was the state of 
the software industry in the mid 1990s with the entry and early 
successes of Netscape.
    8. In support of the basic strategy of creating independent 
companies, the remedy prohibits specific acts that could frustrate 
the creation of the separate companies or undermine their 
independence. It also prohibits acts that Microsoft has used and 
that the new operating systems company could use to exclude 
potential competitors. Until the reorganization is completed and the 
applications company has had a chance to change the structure of the 
operating systems market, the operating systems monopoly will 
persist. The company that controls this monopoly could limit the 
access to final users by the new applications company or any other 
software developer. These prohibitions apply only for a limited 
period of time. Ultimately, the remedy relies on the market forces 
created by the reorganization to curb anticompetitive behavior.
    9. When I evaluate the potential costs and benefits of this 
remedy, my overriding concern is the effect that it will have on the 
rate of innovation. Information processing is a pervasive activity 
in our economy. Even small changes in the rate of innovation in this 
area can, over time, lead to large productivity gains and big 
improvements in the standard of living. Because of the rapid 
progress in microprocessors, memory chips, data storage systems, and 
communications networks, the hardware infrastructure for information 
processing is vastly more powerful than it was just ten years ago. 
It takes innovative software products like the browser to harness 
this power and put it to use throughout the economy. By creating 
conditions that encourage increased competition in the operating 
system market, this remedy will increase the rate of innovation in 
the software industry and thereby increase the rate of growth for 
the economy as a whole. The lasting stream of benefits that can be 
expected to follow from this remedy will substantially outweigh any 
temporary costs that it might involve.
    10. My detailed analysis of the remedy is divided into four 
sections. The next section, Section III, expands on the harm to 
innovation caused by Microsoft's actions. Section IV looks in detail 
at the effects that the reorganization will have on the incentives 
and behavior of the successor companies and on competing firms. 
Section V shows how the conduct provisions of this remedy support 
the independence of the two successor companies and prevent specific 
anticompetitive acts identified in this case from recurring. Section 
VI examines the benefits and costs of the remedy both for society as 
a whole and for Microsoft's

[[Page 29300]]

shareholders. Section VII presents my conclusion.
    III. How Microsoft Has Undermined Innovation
    11. The Court identified a reduction in the rate of innovation 
as the most serious harm that flowed from Microsoft's illegal acts. 
FOF 411-412. This reduction can take several forms. The first 
type of harm arises because consumers were deprived of new types of 
software or received them only with a lag. Innovative efforts at 
Netscape and Sun were directly impeded by Microsoft's actions. As a 
result, applications developers who could have written programs that 
were complements with the Netscape browser or Java also faced 
substantially reduced incentives to do so. It is impossible to know 
with certainty the types of applications that might have developed 
had innovation continued with full force on both fronts. We do know, 
however, that some types of applications forecast by the advocates 
of the browser and the Java virtual machine are finally emerging. 
For example, companies are only now bringing to market server-based 
applications accessed via a browser that substitute for traditional 
desktop productivity applications. In the absence of Microsoft's 
actions, it is likely that this class of applications would be 
farther down its development path.
    12. The second type of harm springs from the message Microsoft 
sent to developers of potentially competitive software. In the 
browser wars, Microsoft showed that it had the power to reduce the 
return Netscape and Sun earned on their investments in innovative 
technologies and that it was willing to use this power. This reduces 
the expected profits that outside innovators can expect to earn from 
developing technologies that threaten to create additional 
competition for Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
    13. Historically, people working outside of the dominant firms 
in the software industry have been responsible for the development 
and commercialization of many of its most important innovations. 
Notable examples include email, the electronic spreadsheet, the word 
processor, the window based-graphical user interface, the web 
browser, user friendly handwriting recognition on a handheld device, 
and instant messaging. This pattern is not unique to software. In 
many industries, new entrants are a critical source for the 
innovations that take technology in fundamentally new directions. 
Although they may not innovate themselves, dominant firms sometimes 
learn how to exploit the new innovations that do arise.1 Because 
outsiders are such an important source of innovative energy, 
Microsoft's threatening message reduced the rate of innovation in 
the software industry as a whole.
    14. The third and final type of harm is the most familiar and 
fundamental. Microsoft has harmed the innovative process because it 
has limited competition, and competitive markets are, on balance, 
the best mechanism for guiding technology down a path that benefits 
consumers. No system of comprehensive central planning, neither one 
controlled by a government, nor one controlled by the managers of a 
single firm, can hope to be as robust and reliable a mechanism as 
competition among many actual and potential firms for purchases by 
final users. Before the breakup of AT&T, engineers described the 
advantages of having a single firm that produced all the telephone 
desksets that connected to the telephone network. Since the breakup, 
consumers have benefited from the wider range of choice and more 
rapid innovation in the handsets that competition made possible.
    1 According to one Microsoft insider, this has been the pattern 
at the company: ``and let's face facts, innovation has never 
been microsoft's strong suite, we're much better at ripping off our 
competitors. For example, we did not invent either ASP [active 
server pages] or IE, we bought them!'' RX8
    IV. Analysis of the Reorganization
    A. General Characteristics of the Proposed Reorganization
    15. The proposed remedy creates two companies that sell 
different types of software (operating systems and applications) 
with minimal overlap in the product lines that each company would 
offer immediately after the reorganization takes effect. Over time, 
however, each company would be free to develop any new type of 
software product, including the types of software products supplied 
by the other company.
    16. The internet browser is the most important product in the 
initial overlap in the product lines. To handle this case, the 
government's proposal gives the applications company the 
intellectual property associated with Internet Explorer and the 
developers who worked on it. However, because Microsoft has placed 
code that supports browsing in operating system files that contain 
code that supports non-browsing features of the operating system, 
the operating system company will receive a license to use and 
distribute the parts of the code for Internet Explorer that are 
shipped with the Windows operating system product. FOF 164.
    17. The reorganization creates two powerful software companies 
with roughly similar strategic assets. They will each have annual 
revenue of more than $8 billion and annual profits of more than $3 
billion. 2 This is much larger than the revenues and profits for 2 
To be specific, according to Microsoft's 1999 10K filing, the 
Windows Platforms division, which corresponds roughly to the 
proposed operating systems company, had revenue of $8.5 billion. The 
Productivity Applications and Developer division and the Consumer, 
Commerce and Other division together had revenue of $11.2 billion. 
Total profit for the entire company was $7.8 billion. Microsoft does 
not publish profit figures by division, but as a very rough guide, 
we can assume that profits are proportional to revenue. This would 
imply profits of $3.4 billion for the Windows Platforms division and 
$4.4 billion for the remaining units. other companies that 
specialize in selling software for the PC. For comparison, Novell, 
Adobe, Intuit, Symantec, Rational Software, Corel, and Macromedia 
together had total revenue of $3.8 billion and total profit of $0.9 
billion in the most recent year. As the Court has found, the Windows 
operating system has a market share that has been increasing over 
time and that has reached the level of 95% in recent years. FOF 35. 
They also have a comparable presence among users. According to one 
market analyst, Microsoft's Office suite captures 95% of the revenue 
in the office productivity suite business. RX37. Microsoft's CEO 
Steve Ballmer recently claimed that about 80% of all the electronic 
information in most companies is stored in Microsoft Office 
documents. RX14.
    18. After the reorganization is fully implemented, the operating 
systems company will control the Windows user interface. The 
applications company would control the user interfaces presented by 
the Office applications. Hence, each company has a powerful means of 
presenting final users with choices about new software products. For 
example, if they were promoting alternative browsers, the operating 
system company could put an icon that starts its browser on the 
desktop. The applications company could put a choice on its View 
menu that lets a user view a document using its browser.
    19. Each company will have products that present applications 
programming interfaces that can be used by ISVs. The operating 
systems company can continue to offer all of the APIs presented by 
its desktop and server operating systems. On the desktop, the 
applications company will control the APIs supported by Internet 
Explorer and by Office. These APIs are already widely used. 
Declaration of E. Felten, 36. For example, Microsoft claims that 
there are 2.5 million developers who use Office as a platform for 
building applications. RX38. On the server, the programs controlled 
by the applications company expose APIs and communications 
interfaces that let them be linked together as building blocks in 
large server side applications. For example, a corporate developer 
building an e-commerce application can have the application 
company's web server application, IIS, capture data from a customer 
and then transfer it to its database application, SQL Server.
    B. The Emergence of Competition in the Operating System Market
    20. By freeing the applications company, this remedy will reduce 
the barrier to entry faced by a new operating system company. As 
separate entities, the applications and operating systems companies 
will each have an incentive to compete with the other, or at least 
to encourage other firms to do so. The applications company will 
perceive both the opportunity to take revenue away from the 
operating system company and the threat that the operating system 
company will take revenue away from it. This opportunity and threat 
will create incentives for the applications company to write 
versions of its applications that run on other operating systems. By 
itself, this will lower the applications barrier to entry protecting 
the Windows operating system. The opportunity and the threat will 
also create incentives for the applications company to develop its 
products into full- featured, cross-platform middleware products 
that other applications developers can use to develop programs that 
run on multiple operating systems. This will further reduce the 
barrier to entry.
    21. This reorganization places the operating system monopolist 
in a competitive

[[Page 29301]]

situation comparable to that which prevailed in the mid 1990s. At 
that time, Netscape had access to a large fraction of desktops and 
had an incentive to develop its browser into a critical piece of 
middleware on the PC. The reorganization recreates this situation 
with the applications company in the role played by Netscape.
    22. To see why incentives drive these two companies toward this 
outcome, even though they start from positions where they are not 
direct competitors, it is useful to look in more detail at the 
threats and opportunities that each company will perceive when they 
are separate.
    23. The best outcome for the operating systems company would be 
one in which it maintains a dominant position in the operating 
systems market and also captures some (or all) of the profits from 
the sales of applications. If the operating systems company cannot 
achieve this goal, the next best outcome would be to retain its 
dominance of the operating systems market and to induce enough 
competition in the Windows applications business to increase 
innovation in applications. This will increase demand for the 
operating system because, as the Court found, applications are 
critical complements to the operating system. FOF 37. To complete 
this three-way classification, the worst possible outcome for the 
operating systems company would be one in which it faces direct 
competition from companies offering alternative operating systems 
and in which the applications company maintains a dominant position 
as an applications vendor for the various operating system 
platforms.
    24. The ranking of outcomes for the applications company is 
exactly the reverse. It understands that the operating system 
company has an interest in driving down prices for Windows 
applications and trying to capture some of the revenue from the 
applications business. The applications company will therefore 
recognize that it would be a risky strategy for it to continue to 
write applications only for the Windows operating system.
    25. One of the key advantages protecting the application 
company's $10 or $11 billion stream of revenue are the switching 
costs that users would face if they tried to adopt a competing set 
of applications. These users would have to learn the new interfaces 
presented by any new applications. They would also have to convert 
the large amounts of data that are stored on desktops and on servers 
in Microsoft Office file formats. See Declaration of E. von Simson, 
4a. Right now, any user who wanted to switch operating systems would 
have to incur the large costs of switching applications. If, 
however, the new operating system runs the applications that the 
user currently uses, the costs of switching to the new operating 
system will be relatively low compared to the costs of switching 
applications. Hence, the applications company will have an incentive 
to write versions of its applications that run on an alternative 
operating system. It will also want the providers of complementary 
applications to support the alternative operating system. To reduce 
the porting costs for ISVs, the applications company will have an 
incentive to develop its applications into middleware that ISVs can 
use and to sell tools that programmers can use to write cross-
platform software.
    26. The applications company's defensive strategy of porting its 
applications and developing them into full-featured middleware 
products can be converted into an offensive strategy that takes 
revenue from the Windows operating system company. Just as the 
operating systems company can gain by encouraging innovation in 
applications, the applications company can gain by encouraging 
innovation in a critical complement that it does not own, the 
operating system. It can do this by offering its own operating 
system or by supporting an open source operating system such as 
Linux.
    27. Among all existing or potential applications vendors, the 
newly created applications company would be uniquely positioned to 
implement the kind of strategy outlined above. From a defensive 
point of view, it has a much stronger incentive to take acts that 
protect its current revenue stream. In principle, the newly created 
applications company should be willing to spend up to the present 
discounted value of this stream, a sum that could be worth anywhere 
from $40 to $100 billion dollars, if doing so would successfully 
protect this income stream from attack. In addition, the existing 
applications already possess much of the functionality that would be 
required for these applications to serve as middleware that offers a 
complete set of APIs to developers. No other applications vendor has 
such a powerful combination of assets--an incentive to protect 
its existing revenue stream, wide availability on user desktops, and 
existing middleware functionality--for bringing competition to 
PC software.
    C. Advantages of a Second Company Even in the Absence of 
Operating System Competition
    28. Even if the inherent rivalry between the operating systems 
company and the applications company does not lead to actual 
competition in the operating system market, the threat that each 
company poses to the other will profoundly change the dynamics in 
the software industry. To illustrate this point, it is useful to 
consider how events might have turned out if the separation into an 
operating system company and an applications company had taken place 
just before Netscape commercialized the web browser. Imagine that 
neither company had yet taken any steps to threaten the other. In 
particular, the applications company had not yet written versions of 
its products for other operating systems; the applications barrier 
to entry into the operating system market had not been reduced; no 
competition in this market had materialized.
    29. Imagine that in this hypothetical scenario, Netscape is 
initially able to distribute its browser freely and achieves wide 
market penetration. Then, both the operating system and the 
applications company perceive the threat presented by the Internet 
and the browser. The key difference in this scenario is that this 
new threat is superimposed on top of the underlying threats and 
opportunities that the applications and the operating system 
companies present to each other.
    30. In this situation, it is likely that one company would work 
with the new entrant in an attempt to gain an advantage over the 
other. Either company could consider forming an alliance with 
Netscape, giving it an important distribution channel that reaches 
many final users. This strategy might be well worth adopting if it 
increased the likelihood that one incumbent would be able to 
displace the other. The applications company could use the Netscape 
browser as part of its strategy for developing full-featured cross 
platform middleware.3 The operating system company could use the 
Netscape browser as a way to 3 There is evidence that Office 
developers were required to support IE preferentially over competing 
browsers. In a January 1997 email, Bill Gates made clear his 
priorities: ``In one piece of email people were suggesting that 
Office had to work equally well with all browsers and that we 
shouldn't force Office users to use our browser. This is wrong and I 
wanted to correct this.'' GX351 Later, in July 1997, Paul 
Maritz noted in an email to Gates and other executives that the 
Office group (consistent with Gates'' comment in January 1997) 
was going to target certain features of Office for IE, but 
``this was hard decision for them (based on IE's current market 
share).'' GX514. move quickly to a position where it is the 
dominant vendor of a new type of applications suite that relies on 
more server-side computing or a user interface based on the browser.
    31. Looking ahead from today, rivalry between the two companies 
will be particularly important when transforming new technologies 
like the browser arise. In coming years, portable devices, wireless 
communications and voice recognition may obsolete many deeply 
embedded assumptions about when, where, and how users access digital 
information. At the same time, improvements in the bandwidth of 
fiber optic data communications networks and the extension of these 
networks ever closer to the desktop may narrow the gap between the 
capacity of the pipe that connects two different computers and the 
pipe that connects components located inside the case of a single 
computer. Either one of these developments, and especially the two 
of them together, could lay the foundation for new software 
innovations as powerful as the browser and the Web.
    32. Take for example, the Palm operating system, the first 
operating system that could recognize handwriting and run for an 
acceptable period of time on a small battery powered handheld device 
that fit comfortably in a shirt pocket. This new product, which was 
not developed by any of the leading players in the computer 
industry, has already brought very significant benefits to 
consumers. As it evolves wireless links with the Internet and 
tighter links with mobile phones, an entirely new window of 
opportunity opens up. As voice recognition software becomes more 
powerful, the window opens up into an entirely new world of 
unexplored possibilities.
    33. As an integrated company that controls both the Windows 
operating system and the Office productivity suite, Microsoft has a 
powerful set of tools that it is using to

[[Page 29302]]

influence the path of competition in this new space. It is 
developing a substitute operating system, Windows CE, that competes 
with the Palm operating system. It has further indicated a 
willingness to change the details of its Office applications to 
favor devices that run Windows operating systems, even if doing so 
disadvantages its customers who now rely on the Palm Pilot. ``
    REDACTED
    ``RX1 (Bill Gates to senior Microsoft executives, July 11, 
1999).
    34. If the companies were separate, the applications company 
would try to meet consumer demand rather than support the strategic 
goals of the operating system company. It might form an alliance 
with providers of handheld computing devices rather than aid the 
operating systems company in its effort to handicap and defeat them. 
For example, it could develop a client application that runs on the 
Palm Pilot and that communicates efficiently with Exchange, the 
server program that stores email, calendaring, and task scheduling 
information. Because of the popularity of the Palm handheld, these 
features would further solidify the position of Office and Exchange. 
Doing so would also offer larger potential rewards to the developers 
of the Palm platform, and would thereby encourage other new entrants 
to strive to develop equally innovative new products.
    35. The separation might also change the dynamics of the 
competition that is taking place in the server market. Right now, 
Microsoft is using security protocols that discourage the use of 
non-Microsoft servers in enterprises that install Windows 2000 on 
the desktop. See Declaration of R. Henderson, 49, 119-120; 
Declaration of E. Felten, 78-79. If the applications company 
is successful in creating a viable alternative on the 
desktop--a competing operating system, a version of Office that 
runs on it, and a complementary set of applications--these 
enterprises will have the choice of switching away from the Windows 
desktop operating system instead of switching to the Windows server 
operating system.
    36. In fact, the discriminatory security features would increase 
the chances that the competing operating system succeeds. When the 
operating systems company makes Windows 2000 less attractive to 
enterprises with non-Microsoft server operating systems, it 
increases the demand for an alternative desktop operating system. 
The applications company would therefore see a larger payoff from 
porting its applications to the alternative. Other applications 
developers might then try to get an early seat on the new bandwagon. 
The resulting increase in available applications would further 
encourage the adoption of the new operating system.
    37. Working back, we see that if a separate applications company 
existed, the operating system company might refrain from introducing 
these discriminatory security features in the first place. In a 
world where there is no separate applications company, the 
discrimination features increase sales of Windows server operating 
systems without decreasing sales of desktop operating systems. In a 
world with a separate applications company, this strategy could lead 
to significantly decreased sales of desktop systems.
    38. This counterfactual scenario about the development of the 
browser and the forward looking hypothetical scenarios about 
handheld computing and security protocols between the desktop and 
the server suggest several general points. First, the separation of 
the applications and operating systems developers into different 
organizations could increase the rate of innovation that emerges 
from just these developers alone. The threat that the incumbents 
pose to the other could induce technological races that spur the 
rate of innovation achieved on both sides, just as the race with 
Netscape spurred innovation within Microsoft. FOF 135.
    39. Second, the separation would also increase the expected 
returns to outside innovators. It would create two distinct paths or 
channels that a technologically successful new entrant could use to 
reach and maintain contact with final users. Competition between 
these two organizations would give a new entrant like Netscape or 
Palm much more bargaining power than it has when it faces a single, 
monolithic organization. By playing one of the incumbents against 
the other, the new entrant could therefore expect to extract a much 
higher return from its innovative effort and early market successes.
    40. Finally, even an increased possibility of competition in the 
market for operating systems could deter an existing monopolist from 
engaging in some anticompetitive tactics. This benefit arises from 
the mere creation of the independent applications company. To the 
extent that the competition becomes real competition instead of 
potential competition, the monopolist will face even stronger 
incentives not to engage in socially harmful anticompetitive 
practices.
    V. Effects of the Conduct Provisions
    41. In addition to the reorganization, the proposed remedy puts 
in place a number of prohibitions directed at specific types of 
conduct. These prohibitions can be separated into two 
categories--provisions that support the reorganization and 
provisions that keep the company that controls the operating systems 
monopoly from engaging once again in the specific types of illegal 
behavior that Microsoft used before, and that the successor company 
might use again, to limit entry, restrict competition, depress the 
rate of innovation, and distort the operation of the market.
    A. Provisions Designed to Make the Separation Effective
    42. The proposed remedy includes several specific provisions 
that are designed either to maintain the feasibility of a separation 
or to ensure that this separation is a true separation into 
organizations with independent economic interests.
    43. Because its most important assets are software and people, 
Microsoft could take steps that would frustrate the ability of the 
Court to implement a division of these assets. Microsoft has already 
demonstrated to the Court its willingness to impose technical 
linkages on its software code without technical justification in 
order to achieve certain strategic goals (e.g. binding the browser 
to the operating system). FOF 175-77. Between now and the time 
when the reorganization is implemented, Microsoft could use these 
kinds of tactics to present the court with a fait accompli that 
makes it technically impossible to separate existing applications 
from the operating system. Thus, Provision 1 d of the proposed 
remedy requires Microsoft to maintain the separation between the 
operating system business and the applications business that exists 
on the date of entry of the Final Judgment. It further provides that 
Microsoft should take no action that makes the separation more 
difficult.
    44. Once the companies exist as legally separate entities, it is 
important that their managers operate them as economically 
independent entities. Trivially, this requires that one company be 
prohibited from buying the other (Provision 2b). The covered 
shareholder provision has the same intent. It ensures that a 
dominant shareholder cannot force the managers of one company to 
support the financial interests of the other (Provision 2a). For the 
two companies to be economically independent, they must not be able 
to enter into any legal agreement that would require or facilitate 
collusion between them. The proposed remedy therefore requires that 
the operating systems company and the applications company file any 
agreements between them with the Department of Justice (Provision 
2c). It also specifically prohibits the two companies from entering 
into special agreements concerning distribution, discriminatory 
disclosure of technical information, or discriminatory terms for one 
to license the other's products (Provision 2b). The Court has found 
that Microsoft has used these specific acts to limit competition by 
other firms or to induce other firms to participate in its schemes 
to limit competition by other firms. FOF 79, 83-89, 
95-103.
    B. Provisions Designed to Prevent Continued Exploitation of 
Monopoly Power in the Market for Operating Systems
    45. The reorganization that is proposed here will create 
conditions that make it possible for operating system competition to 
emerge, but it does not guarantee that this will happen. For some 
period of time that extends beyond the implementation of the 
reorganization, the operating systems company will continue to be a 
monopolist in the market for Intel-based desktop operating systems. 
The proposed remedy therefore includes specific provisions designed 
to prevent the operating systems company from engaging in the same 
anticompetitive acts that it used against Netscape's browser and the 
Java technology to undermine their competitive potential.
    1. Provisions relating to OEMs
    46. The Court found that Microsoft used its monopoly control of 
the operating system market to induce OEMs to participate in its 
attempts at limiting competition. Among the specific illegal 
measures taken by Microsoft were:
    . making access to technical support or information about new 
programs contingent on an OEM's support in Microsoft's attempts at 
limiting competition (FOF 128- 129);
    . offering reductions in the royalty price for Windows 95 in 
exchange for this kind of support. (FOF 64, 139, 230-241);

[[Page 29303]]

    . threatening withdrawal of its Windows license to OEMs if it 
failed to offer this kind of support. (FOF 203-208);
    . refusing to allow OEMs to reconfigure the start-up sequence or 
the PC in ways that give competitors access to final users. (FOF 
209-227);
    . binding Internet Explorer to the operating system in order to 
make it impossible for an OEM that wanted to support a single 
browser to select a product other than IE. (FOF 175-77, 
191,192).
    47. Because OEMs will be a critical distribution channel for the 
separate applications company in the early years of its existence, 
the operating systems company will be tempted to use the same kinds 
of tactics to limit potential competitors, the most important of 
which will be the newly formed applications company. If the 
operating systems company could succeed in these efforts, it would 
undermine the reorganization that is at the heart of this remedy.
    48. For this reason, the remedy prohibits, for a limited period 
of time, specific types of conduct by Microsoft and the successor 
operating system company. All of these provisions are designed to 
protect the freedom of an OEM to choose the applications and 
middleware that it ships with a Windows operating system in response 
to consumer demand. The first provisions prohibit financial threats 
and inducements. Provision 3aii (Uniform Terms for Windows Operating 
System Products Licensed to Covered OEMs) keeps the operating 
systems company from using changes in the price for an operating 
system license as a means of punishing an OEM that distributes a 
product supplied by another firm or from rewarding the OEM for 
refraining from distributing such a product. Provision 3ai (Ban on 
Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products) keeps the 
operating systems company from using marketing programs or technical 
support to achieve the same end.
    49. The next set of provisions frees OEMs to configure the PCs 
that they sell. Provision 3f (Ban on Contractual Tying) prevents the 
operating systems company from writing licenses for the operating 
system that require OEMs to distribute any other software products. 
Provision 3aiii (OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration) lets the 
OEMs undo choices about such things as the boot sequence, location 
of icons, and menu choices that the operating system company might 
use to force the OEM to feature, and therefore to support, 
applications or middleware supplied by the operating systems 
company. Provision 3g (Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to 
Operating Systems) requires that OEMs and end users have the ability 
to remove end user access to any middleware that the operating 
system company has included with its operating system software. 
Provision 3i (Continued Licensing of Predecessor Version) gives the 
OEMs an alternative way to configure its PCs. It lets them license 
older versions of the Windows operating system and add new features 
by adopting software from independent vendors.
    2. Provision regarding other distribution partners
    50. Microsoft also used its monopoly power to interfere with 
distribution channels other than OEMs. Among the actions taken by 
Microsoft were:
    . giving valuable consideration (e.g. placement on the Windows 
desktop, free licenses to software for customizing IE) at no charge 
to Internet Access Providers (IAPs) who agreed to distribute and 
promote IE and restrict distribution and promotion of competing 
browsers (FOF 242-310);
    . giving Windows promotion to Internet Content Providers (ICPs) 
such as Intuit who agreed to restrict distribution of Navigator and 
payments to Netscape (FOF 311-335);
    . threatening to withhold MacOffice from Apple unless Apple 
distributed IE as the default browser on Macintosh PCs (FOF 
341-356).
    51. Provision 3e (Ban on Exclusive Dealing), which applies to 
any contracts with third parties, is intended to prohibit these and 
similar acts. In particular, it prohibits any agreement that limits 
the distribution of competing middleware or operating system 
products.
    3. Provisions regarding developers and competitors
    52. The Court also found that Microsoft used its monopoly power 
to undermine competing middleware products such as Sun's Java 
technology and Intel's platform level NSP software. Actions taken 
against Java include efforts to create incompatibility between its 
implementation of the Java virtual machine and the Sun 
implementation (FOF 387-394), inducements to ISVs to refrain 
from using use or distributing non- Microsoft Java technologies (FOF 
395-402), and impeding expansion of Java class libraries (FOF 
404-406). Microsoft also threatened to withhold support for 
Intel's next generation of microprocessors unless Intel agreed to 
stop developing platform-level interfaces like NSP that might draw 
support away from interfaces exposed by Windows.
    FOF 94-103.
    53. The Court's findings demonstrate how varied Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior has been in the past. Since the trial, new 
and unexpected acts such as the discriminatory security protocol 
built into Windows 2000 (described earlier in paragraph 35) have 
already come to light. This reaffirms how many possible 
anticompetitive tactics are available and how difficult it will be 
to anticipate the precise form of future tactics. Therefore, the 
proposed remedy includes two provisions that prohibit 
anticompetitive behavior in general terms. Provision 3f (Ban on 
Contractual Tying) lays down a blanket prohibition against contracts 
that are designed to limit competition. Provision 3c (Knowing 
Interference with Performance) prohibits actions that are designed 
to degrade the performance of competing middleware on the Windows 
platform.
    54. The remedy also contains a provision that makes it possible 
for ISVs, OEMs, and independent hardware vendors (IHVs), to uncover 
and ameliorate a wide range of illegal acts. Provision 3(b) 
(Disclosure of APIs, Interfaces and Technical Information) requires 
that Microsoft disclose to these third parties all interfaces they 
need to make their products interoperate effectively with the 
Windows operating system.
    55. Finally, if the operating system company could use these 
kinds of agreements with third parties to discriminate against 
hardware and software vendors who support the middleware strategy of 
the new applications company or any other middleware vendor, it 
could impede the development of operating system competition. 
Provision 3d (Developer Relations) prohibits them from doing so.
    4. General comments
    56. Under the proposed remedy, all of these conduct provisions 
apply only for a limited period of time. Specifically, they are in 
force until three years after the reorganization becomes effective, 
roughly the time it would take for one of the successor companies to 
complete one product cycle. This limitation is appropriate because 
the most reliable and most effective mechanism for preventing 
anticompetitive acts is market competition that erodes, or at least 
threatens to erode, the monopoly power that lies at the heart of the 
problems identified in this case. The conduct provisions support the 
reorganization in its vulnerable early years of life. They raise the 
probability that the reorganization will introduce competition into 
the market for operating systems. This means that the conduct 
provisions will have a social value that is much higher if they are 
used in combination with the reorganization than if they are used 
alone.
    VI. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Remedy
    A. Benefits of the Remedy
    1. More innovation
    57. As the discussion has already suggested, the most important 
benefit for society that will be created by this remedy will come 
from faster innovation. Some of the benefit will arise because 
constraints will be lifted from the creative developers working in 
the applications group. They will no longer be under the control of 
an operating system monopolist whose highest priority is to maintain 
this monopoly. See above footnote 3. The reorganization will free 
them to respond to consumers and adopt new technologies even if they 
encourage competition for the desktop operating system.
    58. Some of the additional innovation will arise because of the 
race that threatens to breakout between the applications and 
operating systems companies. Much of this innovation may be of an 
incremental form, but it can still be very valuable to consumers. 
This kind of race will spur the developers in both the successor 
companies, just as the threat from Netscape spurred innovation at 
Microsoft as a whole. FOF 135.
    59. Finally, this remedy will significantly increase the returns 
that outside innovators, the potential new entrants, can hope to 
earn if they develop and commercialize a powerful new technology 
like the browser. Because outsiders have been a critical source of 
innovative energy for the software industry, this change in expected 
returns has the potential to generate large benefits for society. 
One of the key lessons from the economics of technological change is 
the recognition that even in an undistorted market, innovators earn 
a private return on their efforts that is lower than the social

[[Page 29304]]

return. As a result, too little innovation takes place. This problem 
becomes much worse when a powerful player like Microsoft further 
depresses the return to outside innovators through the tactics that 
it uses to maintain its monopoly.
    2. Price changes
    60. If competition emerges in the market for operating systems, 
this should have the usual effect of reducing the price for the 
operating system. Symmetrically, more competition for office 
productivity applications, which could emerge, should also lead to 
reductions in prices for these products.
    61. These price changes will reduce the extent to which 
consumers are exploited by Microsoft. If so, they will lead to a 
large gain for consumers and to a corresponding reduction in the 
profits Microsoft derives from its exploitation. One of the purposes 
of the antitrust laws is to prevent sellers from using monopoly 
power to achieve this kind of transfer of wealth from producers to 
consumers.
    62. We also know that monopoly pricing leads to reductions in 
social welfare to the extent that it causes some people who might be 
willing to pay more for a good than it costs to produce it are 
deterred from making a purchase. In a market where a monopolist can 
charge different consumers different prices, few such buyers may be 
deterred. In practice, we know that Microsoft currently charges 
different prices for academic institutions, small and large 
businesses, people who do and do not buy the Access database program 
as part of the Office suite, who do or do not buy the operating 
system as part of a package from an OEM, who do or do not buy the 
program as an update to a competitive program, who use the Office 
productivity suite instead of the less complete Microsoft Works 
package, and who do or do not buy a Microsoft provided technical 
support contract, to name just a few examples. As a result, there is 
reason to believe that the reduction in output resulting from 
Microsoft's monopoly pricing may, on net, be relatively small. 
Moreover, current changes in technology mean that in the future, 
software vendors will be better able to use fine-tuned pricing 
mechanisms such as software rental or purchases of specific services 
from an application service provider. In competitive markets these 
mechanisms could bring important benefits to consumers. In markets 
that are under monopoly control, they may further reduce the number 
of willing buyers who are deterred but increase the exploitation of 
consumers.
    B. Costs of the Remedy
    63. There are several potential types of cost associated with 
this remedy. The costs that concern us most are costs to society. 
However, to assess whether the remedy is disproportionately 
punitive, one must also look at the costs from the point of view of 
Microsoft shareholders.
    1. Corporate reorganization
    64. There are real costs such as legal fees, moving expenses, 
marketing and promotional expenses that are associated with a 
corporate reorganization that creates independent business units. In 
the ordinary course of business, firms voluntarily incur such costs. 
Any reasonable calculation of these one-time costs will show that 
these are very small compared to the value to society of the 
increased innovation that can reasonably be expected to follow from 
the reorganization.
    65. This reorganization does means that people who used to work 
for the same legal entity now work for different legal entities. 
However, any communication that could take place between two people 
when they worked for the same firm can still take place when they 
work for different firms. If, for example, close communication 
between operating systems developers and applications developers is 
critical to the success of each, both the operating systems company 
and all of the applications companies, not just the new one created 
by this reorganization, will have an incentive to make sure that 
this communication still takes place. Whether this takes direct 
phone or email contact, or face-to-face meeting in one person's 
workplace, or even in offsite retreats, the companies involved will 
have a large incentive to make sure that these lines of 
communications remain in place. The only change, and this presumably 
is a change that will benefit society as a whole, is that the 
information flows back and forth to applications developers will now 
treat all developers symmetrically and will remove any preferential 
treatment that Microsoft applications developers may now receive.
    2. Conduct provisions
    66. With two major exceptions, the conduct provisions do not 
force Microsoft to undertake any act. These exceptions aside, the 
conduct provisions prohibit Microsoft and the successor companies 
from breaking the law, from taking actions that made it easier for 
it to break the law in the past, or from taking actions that could 
be used to conceal illegal acts in the future. Assuming that 
Microsoft and the successor companies intend to comply with the law, 
these prohibitions should not impose undue costs on their legitimate 
business activities.
    67. The first exception is the mandate that Microsoft continue 
to license, on the original terms, the previous operating system 
product after the release of a major new operating system product. 
See Provision 3i. The direct cost to society from this provision is 
virtually zero because the code already exists. If there are 
additional costs associated with technical support for users of the 
old operating system, Microsoft is free to charge for any technical 
support that it, rather than the OEM, provides.
    68. The second exception is the requirement that Microsoft 
disclose all the information about APIs and interfaces that other 
developers need to be able to interoperate with its operating 
systems. Microsoft has extensive experience with the process of 
designing interfaces to its operating system in ways that make them 
useful and easy to understand for outside developers but that still 
protect any intellectual property associated with the internal 
workings of the operating system. Based on this experience, it 
should, at reasonable cost, be able to provide this information 
about all the interfaces that it uses.
    3. Costs imposed on Microsoft shareholders
    69. A reasonable benchmark for estimating the costs of this 
remedy to Microsoft shareholders is to compare what their wealth 
will be after the remedy has been imposed to the wealth that they 
would have possessed if the company had never engaged in any illegal 
acts. By this standard, this remedy may not impose any costs at all 
on the shareholders. In the mid 1990s, the Netscape browser and the 
Java virtual machine posed a very serious threat that the stream of 
monopoly profits that Microsoft collected from its operating system 
business would be lost. Because it did break the law, it was able to 
preserve and increase these profits up until the present. If it had 
obeyed the law, some of this profit might have been lost to 
operating system competition. The company could therefore be worth 
less than the combined companies will be worth after the 
reorganization. Said another way, even if the top executives at 
Microsoft had known that the course of action that they were about 
to undertake would lead, with certainty but also with a delay of 
between five and eight years, to the imposition of the remedy 
outlined here, they may still have elected to follow their 
anticompetitive course of action. The gains from defeating the 
immediate threat and from postponing the emergence of operating 
system competition by five or more years would have exceeded the low 
costs to shareholders associated with the eventual imposition of 
this remedy.
    70. Of course, the position of the Microsoft shareholders would 
be better still if the company were able to violate the antitrust 
laws. However this additional gain to shareholders imposes large 
costs on society as a whole. It is precisely these social costs that 
antitrust law is intended to prevent.
    VII. Conclusion
    71. In any assessment of the net costs and benefits associated 
with this proposed remedy, one simple fact stands out. Because it 
will raise the rate of innovation for the economy as a whole, the 
remedy creates a stream of benefits that will persist and grow far 
into the future. There is genuine uncertainty about the exact 
magnitudes of the benefits and any costs. But any reasonable 
calculation shows that the expected benefits overwhelm the costs.
    72. Because it will encourage competition and innovation in the 
vitally important software industry, it is my opinion that this 
remedy will have a profoundly beneficial effect on our economy.
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 
and correct. on April 27, 2000 in Washington, DC
    Executed
    Paul M. Romer
    33

HTC-00030631 0627

    72. Because it will encourage competition and innovation in the 
vitally important software industry, it is my opinion that this 
remedy will have a profoundly beneficial effect on our economy. I 
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 
correct. Executed on April 27, 2000 in Washington, DC
    Paul M. Romer
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC. UNITED STATES

[[Page 29305]]

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK, ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants, V. MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
    Declaration of Carl Shapiro
    April 28, 2000

                            Table of Contents
 
                                                                    Page
                                                              No.
 
II...............................................................
                                                                              A..............................................................   

  B..............................................................  

  C..............................................................  

  D..............................................................  

III..............................................................  

  A..............................................................  

  B..............................................................  

  C..............................................................  

  D..............................................................  

    Qualifications and Scope of Testimony........................      1
    General Approach to Remedy and Ultimate Goals................      1
    The Court's Findings and Remedy Objectives...................      1
    Enabling Competition to Windows..............................      3
    Lessons about Entry from Other Markets with Network Effects..      5
    Evaluation of the Economic Effects of Plaintiffs''            8
     Proposed Remedy.............................................
    Proposed Reorganization--1, 2...........................      9
    Lower Entry Barriers into Operating Systems..................      9
    Lessons from the Relationship Between Intel and Microsoft....     11
    Added Competition in Browsers................................     14
    Costs of Reorganization......................................     14
IV. Interim Conduct Remedies--3.............................     16
  A. No Exclusionary Contracts--3(a), 3(d), 3(e), 3(h)......     17
  B. Disclosure of Interface Information--3(b)..............     21
  C. OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration--3(a)(iii)....     24
  D. No Performance Degradation for Rival Middleware--3(c)..     24
  E. Contractual Tying and Binding--3(f), 3(g)..............     25
  F. Licensing of Legacy Code--4(i).........................     26
    Conclusions..................................................     29


    I. Qualifications and Scope of Testimony
    I am Carl Shapiro, the Transamerica Professor of Business 
Strategy at the Haas School of Business at the University of 
California at Berkeley where I have taught for ten years. I also am 
Director of the Institute of Business and Economic Research at U.C. 
Berkeley. I have served as the Editor of the Journal of Economic 
Perspectives, a leading economics journal published by the American 
Economic Association. I am also a Senior Consultant with Charles 
River Associates, an economics consulting firm.
    I am an economist who has been studying antitrust, innovation, 
and network industries for roughly twenty years. My recent book with 
Hal R. Varian, Information Rules.'' A Strategic Guide to the 
Network Economy, discusses competitive strategy in the information 
economy, emphasizing the pricing of information, the creation of 
multiple versions of information products such as software, the 
switching costs and lock-in associated with information technology, 
and network economics.
    I have considerable experience in the application of economics 
for the purposes of enforcing the antitrust laws. I served during 
1995 and 1996 as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics 
in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. I have 
served on several occasions as an expert witness or consultant to 
the Antitrust Division or the Federal Trade Commission. Over the 
years I have also consulted or served as an expert witness on 
numerous antitrust matters for private companies in a range of 
industries, including several companies in the hardware and software 
business. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration. In 
this proceeding I have been asked by the Plaintiffs to offer an 
economic analysis of the likely effects of the Plaintiffs'' 
proposed remedy on competition, innovation, and ultimately 
consumers.
    II. General Approach to Remedy and Ultimate Goals
    A. The Court's Findings and Remedy Objectives
    The Court has found that Microsoft engaged in illegal and anti-
competitive conduct to maintain its monopoly in the market for 
Intel-compatible PC operating systems (``operating 
systems'').
    (Conclusions of Law at 9, 21) The Court also has found that 
Microsoft attempted to monopolize the market for browsers. 
(Conclusions of Law at 24) Consistent with these findings, the three 
primary measures by which I am evaluating the proposed remedy are: 
(1) creating conditions conducive to entry into the market for 
operating systems (or expansion by small firms already in that 
market); (2) preventing Microsoft from using its monopoly over 
operating systems to gain control over adjacent markets, as it has 
attempted to do in browsers; (3) restoring competition in browsers. 
I also consider whether the proposed remedy is likely to create 
inefficiencies that might diminish the benefits it generates to 
competition and innovation.
    Objective (1) is directly driven by the finding that Microsoft 
illegally maintained its monopoly and raised barriers to entry into 
the market for operating systems. Objective (2) flows from the fact 
that entry into the market for operating systems is more difficult 
if Microsoft, the monopolist in that market, also controls products 
complementary to its Windows monopoly, especially complementary 
products such as the browser that it views as strategic threats to 
its Windows monopoly. Objective (2) also follows from the finding 
that Microsoft used its operating systems monopoly to distort 
competition in browsers. Objective (3) follows from the finding that 
Microsoft has attempted to monopolize the browser market and has 
attained its current position in that market using anticompetitive 
means. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As of April 2000, Microsoft's Internet Explorer had 
achieved a browser market share of at least 69%. See RX23 and the 
Declaration of Rebecca Henderson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Remedy is directed towards future competition and innovation, so 
all of my analysis is done on a forward-looking basis, even as it is 
informed by historical experience drawn from this and other markets. 
Microsoft has emphasized repeatedly that the computer industry is 
very fast moving and subject to ongoing technological change. I 
quite agree, and for

[[Page 29306]]

just this reason I urge the Court to embrace a remedy that puts in 
place a market structure conducive to competition and innovation, so 
that consumers can rely as much as possible on market forces rather 
than court orders to serve their interests. Likewise, in this fast-
moving industry any conduct provisions imposed by the Court should 
be broad enough to prevent Microsoft from engaging in a number of 
categories of anticompetitive tactics in the future, precisely 
because the specific tactics that Microsoft might employ in the 
future are hard to predict today in the face of changing products 
and technology. So, for example, several of the provisions of the 
proposed remedy apply to the category of ``middleware,'' 
not just to the specific types of middleware that were featured in 
this case, such as the browser or the Java Virtual Machine. Finally, 
I take as a working principle that the remedy should operate in a 
dual manner: first, to prevent a recurrence in the future of conduct 
by Microsoft akin to its past anti-competitive behavior, and second 
to affirmatively bolster competition, which Microsoft has stifled.
    B. Enabling Competition to Windows
    Given the goal of enabling, but not compelling, competition to 
Windows in the market for operating systems, it is important to 
identify, as best we can, the likely sources of such competition in 
the foreseeable future, both to make sure that Microsoft cannot 
blockade operating systems rivals, and to inform any remedial 
provisions designed positively to foster operating system 
competition.
    Following the traditional steps used by antitrust economists, I 
consider first the current competitors in operating systems, and 
then inquire into barriers to entry and the most likely sources of 
entry into the operating systems market. As the Court found, current 
competition in operating systems is virtually non-existent. In 
addition to Apple, the most promising alternative to Windows today 
is the Linux operating system. Linux, while increasingly popular as 
a server operating system, has limited popularity on the desktop for 
two primary reasons: (1) Linux still is regarded as overly difficult 
to use for many consumers, and (2) many of the most popular 
applications on Windows, including especially Microsoft Office, are 
not available on the Linux platform. \2\ In other words, Linux 
suffers from the applications barrier to entry emphasized by the 
Court in its Findings. And the ability of Linux to challenge Windows 
is limited by the fact that Microsoft controls Office, making the 
barrier to entry even higher than it would be if Office were owned 
separately from Windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Microsoft has stated that ``Linux as a desktop 
operating system makes no sense. A user would end up with a system 
that has fewer applications, is more complex to use and manage, and 
is less intuitive.'' See ``Linux Makes No Sense at the 
Desktop,'' p. 4 of ``Linux Myths,'' available at 
www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moving from actual to potential competitors, and looking farther 
into the future, challenges to the Windows monopoly may come from 
various directions, some of which we surely cannot anticipate today. 
But we can illustrate the principle of ``enabling entry'' 
by looking at two examples of possible challenges that can currently 
be seen on the horizon. \3\ One promising entry path into the 
market for operating systems is via cross-platform middleware. If 
such middleware becomes widely used, more and more applications may 
be written to that middleware, making it far easier for new 
operating systems to run many popular applications. I do not believe 
it is possible to identify today with any confidence the specific 
middleware that will play this role in the next several years. 
Therefore, the remedy chosen by the Court should broadly prevent 
Microsoft from blocking the emergence or widespread distribution of 
middleware. Establishing an entity with strong middleware assets and 
broad distribution that is independent of Windows will clearly help 
support this mode of entry. Another promising route by which entry 
could occur into operating systems, especially in the corporate 
setting (as opposed to residential users), is through the increased 
use of ``thin clients'' or ``network computers'' 
working in conjunction with servers. Microsoft has pointed to such 
client/server architectures as a potential threat to Windows. 
(Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee at 151-153.) Under 
this approach, network computers running non-Microsoft operating 
systems would be linked to servers, many of which run versions of 
the UNIX operating system. Although the network computer has failed 
to live up to its promise so far, network computers could displace 
at least some PCs if they ran the applications desired by 
businesses. And such applications could run in whole or in part on 
servers, placing less burden on the client computer. All of this 
suggests that entry into operating systems will be encouraged if 
applications are made available to run both on servers and on the 
thin clients themselves. \4\ Another way in which entry into 
the market for operating systems may occur is that operating systems 
for handheld devices could be modified to become substitutes for 
desktop operating systems. Microsoft also has noted this source of 
potential competition in the desktop operating systems market. 
(Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee at 154-156.) Again, 
this type of entry will be promoted if key applications are made 
available to run on these ``thin'' operating systems 
outside Microsoft's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The fact that we cannot confidently predict today the 
most significant modes of entry in the future supports the 
structural relief proposed by the plaintiffs, which will serve to 
create a strong new entity (the Applications Company) with the 
economic incentives to promote or support entry into the market for 
operating systems, from whatever source such entry arises.
    \4\ See the Declaration of Rebecca Henderson for a further 
discussion of how the availability of applications on servers would 
promote entry in to the market for operating systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Court's findings regarding barriers to entry 
into the market for operating systems, the key to success for all of 
these possible entrants is their ability to run many popular 
applications currently available on desktop machines running 
Windows. As I discuss below, splitting off Microsoft's Applications 
Business from its Operating Systems Business will create incentives 
for the resulting Applications Company to make important 
applications such as Office available to run on rival operating 
systems, thereby significantly lowering barriers to entry.
    C. Lessons about Entry from Other Markets with Network Effects
    We can learn a great deal about entry barriers in network 
markets, and how they are overcome, from historical experience in 
other markets with network effects in which dominant firms have been 
successfully challenged. Consider the following examples: Nintendo 
vs. Atari in Video Games: Atari was the dominant firm in video games 
during the early 1980s. Nintendo displaced Atari as the dominant 
firm by the late 1980s. Nintendo based its challenge on its 
strengths in two complementary products: games designed originally 
for arcades (rather than home machines) and the provision of video 
game systems in Japan. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Some years ago I studied competition in the video game 
market during the 1980s as part of my work on behalf of Atari 
Corporation in its antitrust case against Nintendo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft Word vs. WordPerfect in Word Processing Software: 
WordPerfect was the leading supplier of word processing software for 
personal computers during the provision of programming tools and 
leadership in object-oriented programming. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ I studied competition in the market for database 
software as part of my work in the early 1990s on behalf of Borland 
in connection with its acquisition of Ashton-Tate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The common lesson from these and other such episodes is this: 
While network monopolies can be very strong, they are most 
vulnerable to attack by firms with a strong position in the 
provision of a widely-used complementary product. In the current 
case involving Microsoft, this principle implies that the strongest 
threat to Windows is likely to come from a company with a strong 
position in widely-used applications software for PCs, middleware 
that runs on Windows, hardware for PCs, and/or operating systems for 
devices other than PCs. Indeed, the liability phase of this case 
focused on the threat posed to the Windows monopoly by one extremely 
popular complementary middleware product running on Windows, namely 
the Netscape browser. What distinguishes the Windows story of 
ongoing monopoly from the examples above of successful entry is that 
Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive conduct to fend off the threat 
posed by Netscape, the dominant browser company circa 1995-96. 
Microsoft is keenly aware of the principle that companies providing 
these complementary products tend to pose the most immediate threat 
to their Windows monopoly. Indeed, Microsoft has long recognized 
that the best way to avoid or defuse challenges to its desktop 
dominance is by controlling more and more functionality surrounding 
its desktop operating system and to limit the development and 
popularity of non-Microsoft middleware. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Findings 68 (``Microsoft was apprehensive that 
the APIs exposed by middleware technologies would attract so much 
developer interest, and would become so numerous and varied, that 
there would arise a substantial and growing number of full-featured 
applications that relied largely, or even wholly, on middleware 
APIs. The applications relying largely on middleware APIs would 
potentially be relatively easy to port from one operating system to 
another. The applications relying exclusively on middleware APIs 
would run, as written, on any operating system hosting the requisite 
middleware. So the more popular middleware became and the more APIs 
it exposed, the more the positive feedback loop that sustains the 
applications barrier to entry would dissipate. Microsoft was 
concerned with middleware as a category of software; each type of 
middleware contributed to the threat posed by the entire 
category.'') Conclusions at 9 (``In this case, Microsoft 
early on recognized middleware as the Trojan horse that, once 
having, in effect, infiltrated the applications barrier, could 
enable rival operating systems to enter the market for Intel-
compatible PC operating systems unimpeded.

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

[[Page 29307]]

    It follows that the Court can greatly facilitate entry and 
competition in operating systems by creating an independent company 
with a strong set of widely-used Windows applications, middleware, 
and other complements to Windows. The Applications Company will be 
most impressive in these respects, with its unmatched complex of 
Windows applications. Put differently, the Applications Company will 
possess assets sufficient to threaten the Windows monopoly, the 
earlier threat from Netscape and Sun having been eliminated through 
anti- competitive means. In addition, the Court can enable entry 
into operating systems by preventing Microsoft from using its 
Windows monopoly to gain control of other complementary products, 
especially server operating systems, ``thin'' operating 
systems, and middleware for the Windows operating system.
    D. Evaluation of the Economic Effects of Plaintiffs'' 
Proposed Remedy
    With these economic principles in mind, I turn now to an 
evaluation of the likely economic effects of the Plaintiffs'' 
proposed remedy. I emphasize the role played by the various 
provisions of the proposed remedy in lowering the barriers to entry 
into the market for operating systems. I also consider whether the 
proposed remedy will inhibit pro-competitive conduct or integration. 
demolish Microsoft's coveted monopoly power. Alerted to the threat, 
Microsoft strove over a period of approximately four years to 
prevent middleware technologies from fostering the development of 
enough full-featured, cross-platform applications to erode the 
applications barrier. In pursuit of this goal, Microsoft sought to 
convince developers to concentrate on Windows-specific APIs and 
ignore interfaces exposed by the two incarnations of middleware that 
posed the greatest threat, namely, Netscape's Navigator Web browser 
and Sun's implementation of the Java technology. Microsofts campaign 
succeeded in preventing--for several years, and perhaps 
permanently--Navigator and Java from fulfilling their potential 
to open the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems to 
competition on the merits.'') Findings 409 (``Microsoft 
also engaged in a concerted series of actions designed to protect 
the applications barrier to entry, and hence its monopoly power, 
from a variety of middleware threats, including Netscape's Web 
browser and Sun's implementation of Java. Many of these actions have 
harmed consumers in ways that are immediate and easily discernible. 
They have also caused less direct, but nevertheless serious and far-
reaching, consumer harm by distorting competition.'') See also 
Findings 411 (``It is clear, however, that Microsoft has 
retarded, and perhaps altogether extinguished, the process by which 
these two middleware technologies [Netscape's Navigator and Sun's 
Java] could have facilitated the introduction of competition into
    Although the proposed remedy must be evaluated as a package, for 
the purposes of exposition I first discuss the reorganization and 
then the conduct provisions.
    HI. Proposed Reorganization--1, 2
    The proposed remedy ( 1, 2) calls for a reorganization of 
Microsoft into two separate companies, an Applications Company 
containing the Applications Business and an Operating Systems 
Company containing the Operating Systems Business. The key economic 
features of the proposed reorganization are that each company be 
operated independently of the other, and that the two companies 
continue to develop, distribute, license and sell their products 
independently.
    My analysis of the proposed reorganization focuses on how the 
economic incentives of these two companies will differ from the 
economic incentives facing a combined company controlling both 
applications and operating systems. Based on these altered 
incentives, and on the limitations under which the two companies 
will operate (2(b)), we can use economic principles to make some 
general predictions about how the proposed reorganization will 
affect competition and innovation. I also consider legitimate ways 
in which the two companies may need to cooperate to offer improved 
products at lower prices, and whether the limitations imposed upon 
them in 2(b) of the proposed remedy will prevent them from achieving 
such pro-competitive ends.
    A. Lower Entry Barriers into Operating Systems
    The overarching economic effect of the reorganization is to 
create a strong company, the Applications Company, that will have 
the ability and incentive to make its offerings more ``cross- 
platform.'' For example, the Applications Company will have a 
greater incentive to make Microsoft Office available to run on non-
Windows platforms, and to enhance the value of Microsoft's Visual 
Studio suite of developer tools for ISVs seeking to develop programs 
for non- Windows operating systems. The improved availability of the 
Application Company's products as complements to rival platforms 
will thus help those actual and potential rivals to Windows to 
overcome the applications barrier to entry that currently protects 
the Windows monopoly.
    The Applications Company unquestionably will have greater 
incentives to facilitate entry and expansion by rivals to Windows by 
virtue of its independence from the Operating Systems Company. 
Currently, Microsoft considers the loss of revenues and profits from 
its Windows monopoly when considering whether its Applications 
Business should cooperate in various ways with actual and potential 
rivals to Windows. After the reorganization, the Applications 
Company will no longer have any incentive to protect the monopoly 
profits associated with Windows. Therefore, to the extent that the 
Applications Business can facilitate or frustrate entry into the 
operating systems market, such entry will be easier and more likely 
as a result of the reorganization,
    Indeed, after the reorganization, the Applications Company will 
positively benefit from the improved quality and lower price of 
operating systems that can be expected to result from lower entry 
barriers into the market for operating systems. This follows from a 
well-known economic principle: the supplier of one product (here, 
Office) benefits if a complementary product (here, Windows) is 
improved or made less expensive as a result of enhanced competition 
for the complementary product.
    As a tangible example of the pro-competitive effects of the 
reorganization, I expect that an independent Applications Company 
today would have an incentive to port at least some aspects of 
Office to Linux. Corel has already ported its Perfect Office suite 
to Linux. There is already a sizeable installed base of Linux users. 
The Applications Company could begin by porting over those aspects 
of Office that are easiest to port and/or have the greatest demand 
on Linux, e.g., Excel and Word. And the Applications Company could 
offer Linux users file compatibility between Office on Linux and 
Office for Windows, a very valuable feature indeed given the size of 
the installed base of Office users. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ GX 514 gives one example of how Office has been used 
by Microsoft to protect the Windows monopoly by favoring Internet 
Explorer in Microsoft's battle with Netscape. This 1997 e-mail by 
Paul Maritz explains that he told the Office group ``that they 
will target their XL and Access publishing features only at IE4, 
this was hard decision for them (based on IE's current market 
share)'' but was done to promote the major goal of getting 
browser share up to 50% or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of how the Applications Company will have 
incentives to facilitate entry by rivals to Windows relates to 
Microsoft's popular Visual Studio suite of programming tools, which 
includes Microsoft's Java development tools, Visual J++. My 
understanding is that these tools are familiar to, and widely used 
by, developers writing to the Windows platform. An independent 
Applications Company will have a greater incentive than does 
Microsoft today to make these tools more valuable for developers 
writing to rival platforms or to cross-platform middleware.
    As a final example of how entry barriers will be lowered by the 
reorganization (and one that is especially fitting given Microsoft's 
antitrust violations found by the Court), the Applications Company 
will have a greater incentive than does Microsoft today to make its 
browser work well with operating systems other than Windows. So, the 
reorganization will help promote the original promise first offered 
by Netscape Navigator, namely cross-platform browsing functionality 
offered by a

[[Page 29308]]

firm that is financially independent of Windows.
    B. Lessons from the Relationship Between Intel and Microsoft
    I believe we can learn a great deal from the relationship 
between Intel and Microsoft about how competition is engendered 
through the healthy tension that exists between two companies that 
are dominant in their respective complementary products, \12\ 
One can think of the reorganization as creating a relationship 
between the Applications Company (with Office) and the Operating 
Systems Company (with Windows) comparable to that which has existed 
for a number of years between Microsoft (with Windows) and Intel 
(with its microprocessors such as the Pentium). Therefore, lessons 
from the Intel/Microsoft relationship should be very valuable in 
understanding how the proposed reorganization will affect 
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ I consulted and testified for Intel during 1998 and 
1999 in the antitrust case brought by the Federal Trade Commission 
against Intel regarding Intel's intellectual property practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The key point is that Intel has repeatedly taken actions to 
strengthen operating systems that hold out the promise of one day 
becoming an alternative to Windows. The most significant example is 
Intel's strong support for Linux. More specifically, Intel Capital, 
the group within Intel that
    I am invests in technology complementary to Intel's 
microprocessor products, has made significant investments in Red Hat 
Software, Inc., TurboLinux, Inc, and VA Linux Systems, 
Inc. \13\ All of these companies market versions of the Linux 
operating system. Following the mission statement for Intel Capital, 
these investments were made to ``create and expand new markets 
for \14\ In addition to investing in Linux companies, Intel 
also writes software drivers for Linux. \15\ Beyond Linux, 
Intel is supporting a broad array of operating systems on its new 
64-bit family of microprocessors, known as IA-64 chips. Intel is 
working with: HP to enable HP-UX as an operating system on IA-64 
chips; a number of companies through the Trillian Project to ensure 
that Linux is available on IA-64 chips; Novell to assist in 
the writing of a new operating system (Modesto) on IA-64 chips; IBM 
and Santa Cruz Operation to create an enterprise-class UNIX 
operating system on IA-64 chips; and Microsoft for the Windows 2000 
operating system on IA-64 chips. \16\ In other words, 
Intel is following its own self interest in working with multiple 
operating systems. In similar fashion, the Applications Company will 
have incentives to be ``platform neutral'' following the 
reorganization, rather than favoring the Windows platform. We see 
the same tendency on Microsoft's part to do an ``end run'' 
around Intel, i.e., to cooperate with Intel's rivals and thus 
encourage competition in microprocessors and reduce Microsoft's not 
currently doing any work on behalf of Intel, and am not relying in 
this Declaration on any confidential Intel information reliance on 
Intel chips. More specifically, Microsoft has repeatedly provided 
support for technologies competitive to the Intel Architecture. For 
example, Windows NT was written to run on Digital's Alpha processor 
soon after the release of Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1. \17\ 
Microsoft expressed its continued support for the Alpha architecture 
in 1998, with its Alliance for Enterprise Computing with Digital. 
This support included concurrent releases of Microsoft server-based 
products for Alpha and Intel systems, as well as the development of 
a complete set of Microsoft C++, Visual Basic, and Visual Studio 
tools on Alpha-based systems. \18\ Microsoft also has provided 
support for AMD microprocessors. For example, in designing its 
DirectX 6.0 software development kit, Microsoft ``optimized 
implementations of the geometry and lighting pipeline for Pentium 
II, MMX instructions, and the new AMD 3Dnow! Instruction 
set.''\19\ In fact, Microsoft recognized that it had an 
incentive to support AMD's new instruction set even though this 
would likely be adverse to Intel's interests. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Intel Capital Investments as of April 1, 2000 as 
listed on http://www.intel.com/capital/portfolio/cspt.htm 
(downloaded 26 April 2000). Intel's investments include owning 5% of 
Red Hat Software at the time Red Hat went public (See Form S- 1 for 
Red Hat Software filed June 4, 1999), owning 10.4% of VA Linux 
Systems, Inc. at the time VA Linux went public (See Form S-1 
for VA Linux Systems filed October 8, 1999), and an undisclosed 
investment in the private company TurboLinux.
    \14\ See http://www.intel.com/capital/about/
goals.htm downloaded 26 April 2000.
    \15\ For example, see Intel Press release ``Intel 
announces new Linux driver for its family of 10/100 megabit-per-
second network adapters and LAN on motherboard products'' dated 
March 15, 2000, available at http://wwwintel.com/network/tech 
bulletins/lin pro 100.htm
    \16\ See ``The Intel IA-64 Processor Family: A Multi-
Operating System Architecture'' for a description of these 
projects, available at http://developer.intel.com/software/
idap/media/pdf/esp/IA-64 OSWP Rev2.pdf
    \17\ See ``A Brief History of the Windows NT 
Operating System'' available at http://www.microsoft.com/
PressPass/features/1998/winntfs.htm
    \18\ See Microsoft Press Release ``Digital and 
Microsoft Announce Expanded Alliance to Accelerate Adoption of 
Windows NT Across the Enterprise'' dated January 28, 1998, 
available at http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/1998/ian98/
digallpr.asp.
    \19\ See ``A Look at DirectX 6.0, Fahrenheit, and the 
Future of Microsoft's Multimedia API's'' released September 4, 
1998, available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/Welcome/dsmsdn/
msdn torborg.htm
    \20\ See GX 290, in which Jim Alchin says he would like to 
support AMD's new instruction set for its K6 processor even while 
noting that Intel will be opposed to such support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final key lesson from the Intel/Microsoft relationship is that 
Intel, based on its strong market position and technical skills, can 
play a special leadership role in promoting new technologies that 
can at least potentially threaten Microsoft. In network markets, 
where consumer confidence can be self-fulfilling and endorsements by 
industry leaders are so valuable, credible leaders can play a 
critical role in breaking down entry barriers. I am very hopeful 
that the Applications Company will, like Intel, be strong enough to 
play such a leadership role and help overcome the chicken and egg 
problem faced by potential entrants into the market for operating 
systems. In fact, Intel and the Applications Company may choose to 
team up in various ways to help promote Linux, or some other partial 
or complete substitute for Windows.
    C. Added Competition in Browsers
    The proposed reorganization also will lead to somewhat greater 
competition in the browser market, by creating two companies 
immediately capable of offering browsing functionality. The 
Operating Systems Company can continue to offer the browsing 
functionality already included in Windows (so long as it does not 
violate the anti-binding provision, 3(g)), and is free to develop 
its own browsing software in the future. The Applications Company 
will own Internet Explorer itself, and will have incentives to 
improve Internet Explorer and to support cross-platform capabilities 
so that Internet Explorer will work well on multiple operating 
systems.
    D. Costs of Reorganization
    The benefits from the reorganization to competition in operating 
systems and in browsers can in principle be weighed against the 
costs of reorganization, which come in two general forms: (1) one-
time costs associated with implementing the reorganization, and (2) 
possible ongoing costs resulting from the separation of Microsoft 
into two business entities.
    I focus here on any ongoing costs, especially costs that might 
cause a reduction in the rate of innovation or an increase in the 
cost of developing software. \21\ In classic economic terms, 
we can ask whether there are significant and genuine efficiencies 
associated with the integration of the Operating Systems Business 
and the Applications Business within a single company. For the 
reasons described immediately below, there are good reasons to 
believe that the collaboration necessary between those developing 
operating systems and those developing applications to achieve pro-
competitive ends can take place across corporate boundaries, so the 
reorganization will not significantly impede the development of 
either applications or operating systems. First, one can ask whether 
development of applications at the Applications Company will be 
impeded by separating applications development from the development 
of operating systems. This does not appear to be a major issue, 
since Microsoft has indicated repeatedly that the Windows platform 
is ``open'' and that Microsoft provides the information 
necessary for ISVs to develop innovative applications on the Windows 
platform. \22\ Conversely, one

[[Page 29309]]

can ask whether the development of operating systems will be impeded 
by the separation of operating systems and applications. Again, 
Microsoft has stated that its operating systems development teams 
are fully capable of incorporating suggestions from ISVs into their 
development process for Windows. \23\ This gives me some 
assurance that the most important
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ I would expect the one-time reorganization costs to 
be modest in comparison with the market value of Microsoft or the 
magnitude of commerce involved in the operating systems market.
    \22\ Bill Gates has written that ``Windows is a piece 
of intellectual property whose ``facilities'' are totally 
open to partners and competitors alike. Windows programming 
interfaces are published free of charge, so millions of independent 
software developers can make use of its built-in facilities (e.g., 
the user interface) in the applications they design.'' See 
``Compete, Don't Delete,'' The Economist, June 13, 1998, 
p. 19.
    \23\ Microsoft's economics expert, Richard Schmalensee, 
has testified that Microsoft ``talks to [independent] 
developers about what features they would like in view [new] 
versions.'' (Trial Testimony of Richard Schmalensee, June 22, 
1999, p.m. Session at 59) Michael Devlin, the President of Rational 
Software Corporation, a Windows ISV, testified at trial (Direct 
Testimony of Michael T. Devlin, at 17) that ``Microsoft often 
seeks input from ISVs and other sectors of the software and computer 
industry when it develops new APIs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft also states: ``Microsoft does not simply disclose 
Windows APIs to third party software developers. Rather, it actively 
``evangelizes'' the Windows APIs to software developers. 
In fact, Microsoft devotes about $100 million per year and 2,000 
employees (nearly 10% of the Microsoft workforce) to developer 
support. No other computer company provides anything like this level 
of support to the developer community. As part of this developer 
support, Microsoft offers a free, dedicated Web Site where 
developers can access information, technical support and Software 
Development Kits. These tools and support all help developers create 
software that can run on the Windows platform. Microsoft takes the 
extra step to have dedicated staff designated to help developers 
quickly absorb and utilize new technologies, and other resources 
such as seminars, training sessions and speakers to communicate the 
information needed to develop the most innovative software.'' 
See ``Competition in the Software Industry,'' January 
1998, p. 10, available at www.microsoft.com/PressPass/doj/
1-98whitepaper.htm
    Microsoft also states that: ``Microsoft runs an elaborate 
program--far and away the most extensive in the 
industry--to solicit input from the computer industry about the 
development of Windows APIs. (Traditionally, third party software 
developers played little role in the development of operating 
systems; their contribution essentially being limited to testing for 
bugs.) Microsoft solicits input and feedback from other software 
developers from the earliest stages of the development process. The 
Win32 APIs, which are the basis for Windows 95 and Windows NT, 
provide a good example. Windows NT, the first operating system to 
implement the Win32 APIs, was released in 1993. But Microsoft had 
provided initial specifications for the Win32 APIs to 25 third party 
software developers three years earlier, in November 1990, and 
obtained valuable feedback from them in a series of meetings that 
followed. During 1991 input from applications developers to those 
writing new versions of operating systems or fixing bugs in 
operating systems can take place across corporate boundaries. Moving 
from product development to pricing, there is a theoretical concern 
that Microsoft today has an incentive to set a lower price for 
Windows and Office together than will the Operating Systems Company 
and the Applications Company setting those prices independently 
immediately following the reorganization. \24\ For the reasons 
articulated above, as a theoretical matter this concern is very 
likely outweighed by the lowering of entry barriers into operating 
systems that the reorganization will cause, especially when one 
considers non-price as well as price considerations, specifically 
the innovation that will be stimulated by the 
reorganization. \25\ In any event, companies selling 
complementary products commonly find ways to solve the 
``complementary monopolies'' problem when necessary, and I 
expect as well the Operating Systems Company and the Applications 
Company would be able to overcome this problem if it proved to be 
commercially significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This theoretical possibility is known as the 
``complementary monopolies'' problem, or as the problem of 
``double marginalization.''
    \25\ So, for example, consumers stand to benefit as a 
cheaper operating system, namely Linux, becomes more attractive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IV. Interim Conduct Remedies-- 3
    The proposed conduct remedies will lower entry barriers into the 
market for operating systems until the reorganization of Microsoft 
has been accomplished and the Applications Business has Microsoft 
provided updates to the Win32 APIs to more than 300 third party 
software developers. By January 1992, the Win32 APIs were posted on 
CompuServe, America Online and the Internet, and in March 1992 the 
Win32 APIs were published by Microsoft Press. By the time Windows NT 
was commercially released in 1993, the Win32 APIs were the most 
thoroughly reviewed set of APIs in history, ensuring quality and 
increasing the likelihood that the APIs would be widely used. 
Updates of the APIs continued through the release of Windows 95 and 
to date.'' See ``Competition in the Software 
Industry,'' January 1998, p. 9, available at www.microsoft.com/
PressPass/doj/1-98whitepaper.htm. had some time, namely three 
years, to help enable competitors to Windows. These interim conduct 
remedies thus serve two related purposes: (1) to force Microsoft to 
halt anti-competitive conduct of the type that the Court has already 
found until the reorganization takes place; and (2) to expressly 
prohibit the Operations System Company from resuming such activity 
during the delicate period following the reorganization when it is 
especially vital that there be no artificial entry barriers into the 
market for operating systems.
    For all of these reasons, I am confident that any costs to 
consumers associated with the proposed reorganization plan will 
easily be outweighed by its pro-competitive benefits.
    A. No Exclusionary Contracts--3(a), 3(d), 3(e), 3(h)
    Microsoft has employed a wide range of contracts that to a 
varying degree are ``exclusive,'' in the sense that they 
prohibit companies dealing with Microsoft from also dealing with 
Microsoft's rivals, or provide financial disincentives to doing so. 
As the Court has found, these contracts have had a significant 
exclusionary impact. \26\ As the trial record shows, 
exclusivity has taken many forms, and Microsoft has applied pressure 
to a wide range of companies, including OEMs, ISVs, IAPs, and ICPs, 
as well as Apple and Intel. Examples of the behavior that the Court 
found include: (1) Exclusionary agreements with the most important 
distribution channels for browsers; \27\ (2) Conditioning ISV 
access to key
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Findings 410 (''...by enticing firms into 
exclusivity arrangements with valuable inducements that only 
Microsoft could offer and that the firms reasonably believed they 
could not do without, Microsoft forced those consumers who otherwise 
would have elected Navigator as their browser to either pay a 
substantial price (in the forms of downloading, installation, 
confusion, degraded system performance, and diminished memory 
capacity) or content themselves with Internet Explorer.'') See 
also Findings 296 (concluding that the ``marked increase'' 
in the proportion of AOL subscribers using AOL software that 
included Internet Explorer (from 34% to 92%) ``resulted in no 
small part from AOL's efforts to convert its existing subscribers to 
the newest version of its client software'' following 
agreements entered into between AOL and Microsoft), and Findings 309 
(stating that Internet Explorer's weighted average share of 
shipments of browsing software by ISPs who agreed to make Internet 
Explorer their default browser was 94% by the end of 1997, compared 
to 14% share for ISPs who made no such agreement).
    \27\ Findings 230-38 and Conclusions at 11 
(``Microsoft used incentives and threats to induce especially 
important OEMs to design their distributional, promotional and 
technical efforts to favor Internet Explorer to the exclusion of 
Navigator.'') and Findings 143 and Conclusions at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. (``The core of this strategy was ensuring that the 
firms comprising the most effective channels for the generation of 
browser usage would devote their distributional and promotional 
efforts to Internet Explorer rather than Navigator. Recognizing that 
pre-installation by OEMs and technical information on exclusive use 
of Microsoft technology through ``First Wave'' 
agreements; \28\ (3) Exclusive agreements with ICPs in 
exchange for coveted placement on the ``Channel Bar;''\29\ 
and (4) Conditioning

[[Page 29310]]

continued development of the Mac Office Suite on Apple's making 
Internet Explorer the default browser in Mac OS software 
releases. \30\ Exclusivity in network industries can be 
especially pernicious, given the importance of complements and the 
self-fulfilling aspects of expectations: consumers can easily lose 
confidence in a new product that is denied access to critical 
complements, and this loss of confidence can then become self-
fulfilling, creating a vicious cycle of decline or disrupting a 
virtuous cycle of increasing adoptions. \31\ Netscape's 
browser faced this threat as a consequence bundling with the 
proprietary software of IAPs led more directly and efficiently to 
browser usage than any other practices in the industry, Microsoft 
devoted major efforts to usurping those two channels.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Findings at 401-02 and Conclusions at 19 
(''...Microsoft impelled ISVs, which are dependent upon 
Microsoft for technical information and certifications relating to 
Windows, to use and distribute Microsoft's version of the Windows 
JVM rather than any Sun-compliant version.'') and Findings 
339-40 (stating that Microsoft promised ``preferential 
support, in the form of early Windows 98 and Windows NT betas, other 
technical information, and the right to use certain Microsoft seals 
of approval, 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. 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 and has increased the likelihood 
that the millions of consumers using these products will use 
Internet Explorer rather than Navigator.'')
    \29\ Findings 311-36.
    \30\ Findings 351, quoting Apple's Technology Agreement 
with Microsoft (``While Apple may bundle browsers other than 
Internet Explorer with such Mac OS system software releases, Apple 
will make Internet Explorer for Macintosh the default selection in 
the choice of all included internet browsers (i.e., when the user 
invokes the ``Browse the Internet'' or equivalent icon, 
the Mac OS will launch Internet Explorer for Macintosh).'')
    \31\ For a further discussion of how exclusive agreements 
can raise entry barriers in network industries, see Carl Shapiro, 
``Exclusivity in Network Industries,'' 7 George Mason Law 
Review 673; David A. Balto, ``Networks and Exclusivity'' 
Antitrust Analysis to Promote Network Competition,'' 7 George 
Mason Law Review 523, and Carl Shapiro, ``Antitrust in Network 
of Microsoft's strategy to deny Navigator access to OEMs and IAPs. 
The economic implication is that an effective remedy should assure 
new entrants into the market for operating systems of access to 
complements (OEMs, ISVs, IAPs, and IHVs) by including a broad ban on 
exclusive dealing by Microsoft. The need for a ban on exclusionary 
contracts is accentuated because Microsoft has already established a 
pattern of employing exclusionary tactics to blockade rival software 
that threatens its Windows monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific provisions in the proposed order relating to 
exclusive dealing all serve to insure that complements are indeed 
available to those offering Platform Software that is competitive 
with Windows. These complements include distribution through OEMs, 
preserved by preventing Microsoft from striking exclusive 
relationships with OEMs, as well as applications software, preserved 
by preventing Microsoft from striking exclusive relationships with 
ISVs. Nothing in the proposed order prevents Microsoft from 
competing on the merits to make it attractive for OEMs, ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, or other companies doing business with Microsoft to support, 
use, or promote Microsoft software, or to develop complements to 
Microsoft software. Nor is Microsoft enjoined from making 
investments in ISVs in order to provide them with the resources to 
develop software that works well with Microsoft's software. The 
purpose of these provisions is simply to prevent Microsoft from 
denying rival Platform Software access to complements.
    1. OEMs-- 3(a)
    With respect to OEM relations, 3(a)(i) prevents Microsoft from 
providing financial incentives that discourage any OEM's action to 
``use, distribute, promote, license, develop, produce or sell 
any product or service that competes with any Microsoft product or 
service.'' Clearly, this provision is closely linked to the 
anti-competitive conduct in which Microsoft has already engaged. 
Microsoft has proven that it can apply enormous pressure to OEMs, 
including IBM, a very large and strong OEM, to prevent OEMs from 
supporting rival software. Industries,'' Antitrust Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, March 1996, available at usdoj.gov/atr/
public/speeches/shapir.mar.
    The requirement of 3(a)(ii) that Microsoft offer uniform terms 
for Windows to the top 20 OEMs, i.e., the requirement of 
``transparent pricing,'' prevents Microsoft from punishing 
a large OEM for supporting rival software. This provision should 
improve the enforcement of the ``no retaliation'' rule 
embodied directly in 3(a).
    2. ISVs and IHVs--3(d), 3(h)
    Section 3(d) of the proposed remedy prohibits Microsoft from 
providing financial incentives that discourage an ISV from 
developing or supporting software that either is competitive to 
Microsoft software or works with non-Microsoft platform software. 
This provision will prevent Microsoft from making promising software 
or hardware unavailable to work with rival Platform Software, and 
thus will prevent Microsoft from continuing to raise entry barriers 
into the market for operating systems.
    Section 3(h) of the proposed remedy prohibits Microsoft from 
inducing any actual or potential Platform Software competitor to 
refrain from offering software competitive with Microsoft platform 
software. This provision operates together with Section 3(d) to 
prevent Microsoft from using its significant resources to pay a 
potential competitor to refrain from challenging Microsoft's 
Platform Software.
    The proposed order permits Microsoft to offer financial 
incentives for ISVs or IHVs to develop software or hardware that 
works with Microsoft's Platform Software, e.g., by helping to fund 
independent development efforts or by taking minority ownership 
stakes in software or hardware development houses. Such investments 
can easily be pro-competitive, so long as the ISV or IHV retains the 
right to make products that work with non-Microsoft Platform 
Software.
    3. General Prohibition on Exclusive Dealing--3(e)
    Microsoft has employed exclusionary contracts with a range of 
companies besides OEMs and ISVs, including IAPs, ICPs, and Apple. 
Section 3(e) of the proposed remedy, which is a general ban on 
exclusive dealing, will prevent Microsoft from interfering with the 
availability of complements for non-Microsoft Platform Software. 
Since Microsoft has dealings with a wide range of companies, and 
since it is difficult to predict precisely which trading partners 
Microsoft might otherwise seek to tie up under exclusive arrangemems 
in the next several years, a general ban on exclusionary contracts 
will serve to lower entry barriers more effectively than would more 
limited provisions directed at specific categories of trading 
partners.
    B. Disclosure of Interface Information--3(b)
    Interfaces typically play a critical role in industries subject 
to network effects. Challengers often seek to interconnect with the 
dominant network to achieve compatibility as a way of overcoming 
barriers to entry based on network effects. For example, 
interconnection has long been important to the survival of smaller 
firms in transportation and communications networks, from railroads 
to telephones to the Internet. In the software industry, Borland 
sought to make its Quattro Pro spreadsheet software compatible with 
the then-dominant Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software 
during the 1980s, and Microsoft made it as easy as possible for 
WordPerfect users to transfer their WordPerfect files and training 
to Microsoft Word when Microsoft was attacking WordPerfect's strong 
position in the market for word processing software. \32\ 
Interface information about Windows \33\ is extremely valuable 
to a wide range of ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs. As a result, Microsoft can 
exert a great deal of influence over the success or failure of 
products that are complementary to Windows by virtue of its control 
over such interface information. Indeed, the Court has found that 
Microsoft strategically withheld interface information to stave off 
competition from platform software that Microsoft regarded as a 
threat to Windows. \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For an extended discussion of compatibility, 
interconnection, and interfaces in network markets, see Chapters 7, 
8, and 9 in Information Rules.
    \33\ See the proposed order for a more precise definition 
of``APIs,'' ``Communications Interfaces,'' and 
``Technical Information.'' From an economic (rather than 
technical) perspective, interface information encompasses all 
information used by Microsoft's own applications and middleware to 
interoperate with Windows. The operative economic principle is that 
ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs should be placed on equal footing to 
Microsoft's own developers for the purposes of developing, 
licensing, and supporting products that interoperate with Windows.
    \34\ Microsoft delayed release of the ``Remote 
Network Access'' API in Windows 95 to Netscape for three months 
while trying to convince Netscape to limit the APIs exposed to 
software developers. Findings 91 (``Despite Netscape's 
persistence, Microsoft did not release the API 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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent Microsoft from disadvantaging rival platform 
software, the proposed remedy requires Microsoft to disclose to 
ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs the information they need to interoperate 
effectively with Windows. The operative principle is equality of 
disclosure between Microsoft's own developers of middleware and 
applications, on the one hand, and outside companies seeking that 
information on the other hand.
    This disclosure requirement directly addresses the Court's core 
concern about barriers to entry by non-Microsoft Platform Software 
in two ways, which I now discuss in turn.
    1. Enabling Non-Microsoft Software to Work Efficiently with 
Windows Mandatory disclosure of interface information will prevent 
Microsoft from disadvantaging rival software by denying it the 
ability to interoperate as effectively with Windows as

[[Page 29311]]

does Microsoft software. As noted above, delay or denial of 
interface information is one method Microsoft has employed to 
discourage the widespread adoption of non-Microsoft middleware, and 
thus raise entry barriers into the market for operating systems.
    2. Preventing Microsoft from Anti-Competitively Controlling 
Complements Mandatory disclosure of interface information also will 
prevent Microsoft from using its Windows monopoly power to gain 
control of complementary applications and middleware. Such anti-
competitive conduct not only raises entry barriers, but denies 
consumers choice of complementary products and stifles innovation 
surrounding the Windows platform. Two especially important software 
products today that are complementary to the Windows operating 
system on personal computers are operating systems on handheld 
devices and operating systems on servers. As many observers have 
noted, and as Microsoft has pointed out, ongoing hardware 
improvements, along with the increased networking of computers, 
combined with the increased use of wireless technologies, are 
greatly expanding the possibilities for both handheld devices and 
client-server architectures. Thus, PCs running Windows are 
increasingly communicating with servers and handheld devices.
    As a result of these shifts in the technology of computing and 
communications, Microsoft can greatly advantage its own operating 
systems for servers (Windows 2000 Server) and for handheld devices 
(Windows CE) by introducing proprietary links between Windows on the 
desktop and Windows for servers or Windows for handheld 
devices. \35\ In this context, and looking forward to 
competition over the next several years, the disclosure by Microsoft 
of interface information called for specifically in 3(b)(iii) of the 
proposed remedy is vital to prevent Microsoft from using the power 
associated with its Windows monopoly on the PC to gain control over 
two critical adjacent software products: operating systems for 
servers and/or operating systems for handheld devices. Indeed, a 
good case can be made that the most significant threat to Windows in 
the next several years will come from client/server architectures. 
Making sure that Microsoft cannot subvert this threat using 
undisclosed proprietary interfaces is thus central to an effective 
remedy in this case. Provision 3(b)(iii) in particular will operate 
to prevent such anti-competitive conduct by Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For more information on Microsoft's incentives to use 
its Windows monopoly to prevent threats emerging from software 
running on servers and handheld devices, see the Declaration of 
Rebecca Henderson. Microsoft's recent tactics regarding Kerberos, 
which are described by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Feasibility and Enforcement of Mandatory Disclosure
    As I noted above, Microsoft has clearly stated that its APIs are 
``open,'' i.e., disclosed to ISVs, and Microsoft has well-
established procedures for the release of APIs and the provision of 
associated technical support to ISVs. Therefore, Microsoft will not 
need to construct a new business regime to implement API disclosure, 
and mandatory disclosure of APIs should not impose any significant 
burden on Microsoft. Having said this, I do not expect a regime of 
mandatory disclosure of interface information to be free of disputes 
and difficulties, especially since timeliness and completeness of 
Microsoft's disclosures are very important to ISVs. There is a very 
real and practical danger that Microsoft will strategically delay 
disclosure, or disclose only part of the information needed by ISVs. 
For just this reason, I regard the secure facility provided for in 
3(b) of the proposed remedy as very helpful for the purposes of 
insuring the Microsoft meets its disclosure obligations.
    C. OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration--3(a)(iii)
    Microsoft has used its monopoly power to control the boot 
sequence and the user interface offered by OEMs. These restrictions 
have made it more difficult for rival middleware to gain presence on 
the desktop and thus compete more effectively with Microsoft 
middleware. The Court has found that these restrictions go beyond 
the protections afforded to Microsoft as a result of its Windows 
copyright. \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Conclusions at 13 (``Microsoft has presented no 
evidence that the contractual (or the technological) restrictions it 
placed on OEMs'' ability to alter Windows derive from any of 
the enumerated rights explicitly granted to a copyright holder under 
the Copyright Act.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By insuring that OEMs have much greater flexibility to configure 
their products than Microsoft has permitted them in the past, 
3(a)(iii) of the proposed remedy will stop Microsoft from blocking 
or impeding the OEM distribution channel for non-Microsoft software. 
The result will surely be greater choice for consumers in terms of 
the look and feel of their computers, and greater opportunity for 
innovative software to reach consumers and thus face a market test 
undistorted by the exercise of Microsoft's monopoly power.
    D. No Performance Degradation for Rival Middleware--3(c)
    Microsoft has demonstrated its ability and incentive to hinder 
the adoption of rival middleware through a variety of exclusionary 
tactics such as it employed against Netscape's browser. Once 
Microsoft is enjoined from employing the tactics it has already 
used, Microsoft will have an incentive to switch to new, substitute 
tactics having the same effect. One such tactic is to intentionally 
degrade the performance of rival middleware interoperating with 
Windows)7 Section 3(c) of the proposed remedy will make it more 
difficult for Microsoft to evade the proposed remedy by degrading 
the performance of rival middleware. Given the danger that Microsoft 
might repeat this conduct, but recognizing that some such 
degradation may be difficult Professor Henderson, are an excellent 
example of how Microsoft is able to use Windows proprietary 
interfaces strategically.
    E. Contractual Tying and Binding--3(]), 3(g)
    1. Ban on Contractual Tying--3(f)
    Microsoft has anti-competitively tied middleware to Windows by 
contract, both to defend its Windows monopoly and in an attempt to 
monopolize the market for browsers. (Findings of Fact 
 158-60) Section 3(f) of the proposed remedy 
prohibits such tying, and thus forces Microsoft's products to 
compete directly on the merits with rival software products. This 
provision should enhance OEM and consumer choice of software, and 
encourage innovation in software categories complementary to 
Windows.
    2. Restrictions on Binding Middleware to Operating 
Systems--3(g)
    There has been a great deal of talk about ``technological 
tying'' in this case. Microsoft has argued strenuously that its 
right to improve its operating system should not be compromised. 
Holding aside the specifics of how Microsoft added browser 
functionality to Windows, I accept the proposition that innovation 
often takes place in the computer industry through the integration 
of various capabilities or functions into a single piece of hardware 
or software. However, if such integrated capabilities are indeed 
beneficial to consumers, there is no need to force users to adopt 
all of the functions offered in an bundled product.
    I believe that 3(g) strikes an excellent balance between the 
consumer benefits that can arise when Microsoft adds functionality 
to its operating system and the benefits that consumers enjoy when 
new and improved software is developed independently of Microsoft, 
especially if that software may serve a role in eroding Microsoft's 
monopoly position. By allowing OEMs to choose whether to make 
Microsoft's Middleware Products or rival software directly available 
to end users, OEMs will have the incentive to experiment to best 
serve consumers'' interests. If a particular piece of Microsoft 
software is superior to rival offerings, OEMs will simply load on 
their machines a version of Windows that includes End-User Access to 
that software. If some consumers prefer the Microsoft software and 
others do not, OEMs can configure their machines to suit the tastes 
of their customers, or allow customers to configure their own 
machines using add-remove utilities. And if the non-Microsoft 
software is clearly superior, OEMs will presumably insist that 
Microsoft provide them a version of Windows in which End-User Access 
to the Microsoft software can be removed, and offer End-User Access 
to the superior, non-Microsoft product. This is competition at work.
    I understand that requiring Microsoft to offer a version of 
Windows in which all means of End-User access to middleware can be 
readily removed by OEMs and by end users will not impose any 
significant costs on Microsoft or prevent Microsoft from adding new 
capabilities to its Operating System Products.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See the Declaration of Edward W. Felten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In my opinion, 3(g) will clearly promote innovation. It should 
be evident that this provision will increase the incentives of ISVs 
to develop middleware, knowing that OEMs will have an incentive to 
adopt their middleware if it offers superior performance to 
Microsoft's competitive Middleware Product. At the same time, 
Microsoft will have an even stronger incentive to innovate

[[Page 29312]]

if it is forced to compete to provide new functionality to users. 
Plus, Microsoft is not prohibited from making improvements by 
integrating more capabilities into the operating system if that 
integration serves consumer interests. Ultimately, Microsoft will be 
pushed to make better software because it will be forced to compete 
to win consumer adoptions of its Middleware Products. Provision 3(g) 
is pro-competition and pro-innovation.
    F. Licensing of Legacy Code--4(0
    Microsoft has asserted that it must continue to innovate to 
compete effectively against its own installed base. (Direct 
Testimony of Richard Schmalensee, (60) To date, competition between 
Microsoft and its own installed base of Windows has been modest at 
best since most Microsoft Windows sales are for new machines.\39\ 
Clearly, buyers of a new PC require an operating system for that 
machine, and Windows licenses do not permit the user to transfer the 
O/S from a previous machine.\40\ We also observe that Microsoft 
raises the price and/or reduces the availability of previous 
versions of Windows when a new version is released.\41\Through this 
pricing and distribution strategy, Microsoft can be assured that the 
functions it offers in its latest release of Windows are widely used 
and distributed, whether or not consumers prefer the newest version 
of Windows with those features to a prior version of Windows, 
perhaps used in conjunction with rival middleware that Microsoft is 
attempting to displace. Section 3(i) of the proposed remedy requires 
Microsoft to continue licensing the predecessor version of Windows 
(without raising the royalty rate) when a major new version is 
released. This provision will give OEMs, and thus consumers, the 
choice of using the predecessor version, perhaps in conjunction with 
rival middleware, or the newest Microsoft operating system. This 
provision will encourage innovation in two ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Findings 10 (``The largest part of its 
MS-DOS and Windows sales, however, consists of licensing the 
products to manufacturers of PCs (known as ``original equipment 
manufacturers'' or ``OEMs'), such as the IBM PC Company 
and the Compaq Computer Corporation ('Compaq').
    \40\ Findings at 57 (``The license for one of 
Microsoft's operating system products prohibits the user from 
transferring the operating system to another machine, so there is no 
legal secondary market in Microsoft operating systems.'')
    \41\ Findings at 62 (''...Microsoft raised the price 
that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the 
same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to 
releasing the newer product.'') and Findings at 57 
(``Microsoft takes pains 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 enhanced incentives to develop 
middleware will tend to lower the entry barriers into the market for 
operating systems and make it more likely that successful cross-
platform middleware will emerge in the years ahead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, 3(i) will encourage software developers to create 
middleware that is complementary to Windows: the return to such 
development activities is increased by the assurance that the 
current version of Windows will continue to be available for OEMs 
and consumers to load onto new PCs for at least three years, and 
even after Microsoft introduces a major new operating system release 
that incorporates some of the functionality offered by the software 
developer. As a bonus, these
    An OEM typically installs a copy of Windows onto one of its PCs 
before selling the package to a consumer under a single 
price.'') See Direct Testimony of Frederick R. Warren-Boulton 
at n. 7, citing Appendix B to Microsoft's Responses to 
Interrogatories, March 23, 1998 (``In 1997, 87.6% of all copies 
of the Microsoft's [sic] Windows 95 operating system product were 
installed by OEMs, while 7.3% were sold through retail channels as 
upgrades. Windows 95 is available at retail only as an upgrade from 
a Microsoft licensed operating system.'')
    Second, 3(i) also will encourage innovation by Microsoft, since 
Microsoft will have to add valuable new functionality to support an 
increase in the price of Windows: unless the new release of Windows 
offers new functions that consumer truly value, consumers will 
simply pick the predecessor version of Windows at the prevailing 
price. Effectively, Microsoft has enhanced incentives to improve its 
Windows product to compete against its own predecessor version. 
Finally, this legacy code provision should make it more difficult 
for Microsoft to use its Windows monopoly power to gain control over 
adjacent markets: if a new version of Windows favors Microsoft's 
complementary products, OEMs and consumers will at least have the 
choice to use the predecessor version, perhaps in conjunction with 
non-Microsoft complementary products.\42\part, by increasing the 
price to OEMs of older versions of Windows when the newer versions 
are released.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For example, consumer choice would be enhanced, and 
Microsoft's opportunities for using its desktop monopoly power to 
gain control over server operating systems using Windows 2000. would 
be diminished, if Microsoft were required to continue to license 
Windows NT 4.0 for three years after the release of Windows 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    V. Conclusions
    The remedy entered by the Court in this matter will have a major 
influence on the nature of competition and the path of innovation in 
the information technology sector of the economy. In my opinion, the 
primary objective of the remedy should be to lower entry barriers 
into the market for PC operating systems and thus start to remedy 
the harm to competition caused by Microsofl's anti-competitive 
conduct. As explained above, there are strong reasons to 
believe-- based on economic principles and based on the 
experience of this and other industries--that the proposed 
reorganization of Microsoft into separate applications and operating 
systems businesses will lower entry barriers, encourage competition 
and promote innovation.
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 
and correct. Executed on April 28, 2000 in Washington, DC
    V. Conclusions
    The remedy entered by the Court in this matter will have a major 
influence on the nature of competition and the path of innovation in 
the information technology sector of the economy. In my opinion, the 
primary objective of the remedy should be to lower entry barriers 
into the market for PC operating systems and thus start to remedy 
the harm to competition caused by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
conduct. As explained above, there are strong reasons to 
believe-- based on economic principles and based on the 
experience of this and other industries--that the proposed 
reorganization of Microsoft into separate applications and operating 
systems businesses will lower entry barriers, encourage competition 
and promote innovation.
    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 
and correct. Executed on April 28, 2000 in Washington, DC
    EXHIBIT 8
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC.
    AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN V. TUNNEY
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS:
    COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
    JOHN V. TUNNEY, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes 
and says:
    1. The following facts are known to me of my own personal 
knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently 
testify thereto.
    2. From 197I to 1977, I represented the State of California as a 
United States Senator in Congress.
    3. While serving as a member of the 3udiciary Committee of the 
United States Senate during the 93rd Congress, I authored that 
certain bill described below, and acted as the Floor Manager of the 
legislation during its consideration by the full Senate. That 
legislation was passed by Congress and signed into law by the 
President of the United States. That portion of the law to which I 
refer below is codified as Section 2(g) of the Antitrust Procedures 
and Penalty Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(g), arid is a subsection of the law 
now commonly referred to as the ``Tunney Act.'' This 
legislation was signed into law December 21, 1974.
    4. I authored the following language, which was included in the 
final version of the legislation:
    Not later than 10 days following the date of the filing of any 
proposal for a consent judgment under subsection (b), each defendant 
shall file with the district court a description of any and all 
written or oral communications by or on behalf of such defendant, 
including any and all written or oral communications on behalf of 
such defendant, or other person, with any officer or employee of the 
United States concerning or relevant to such proposal, except that 
any such communications made by counsel of record alone with the 
Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone 
shall be excluded from the requirements of this subsection. Prior to 
the entry of any consent judgment pursuant to the antitrust laws, 
each defendant shall certify to the district court that the 
requirements of this subsection have been complied with and that 
such filing is a true and complete description of such 
communications known to the defendant or which the defendant 
reasonably should have known.
    5. Recently, I was asked to review the Tunney Act and certain 
public documents on

[[Page 29313]]

file in the ease of the United States vs. Microsoft Corporation, 
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK), in the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia. Among the documents I reviewed 
was one filed by Microsoft Corporation entitled, ``Defendant 
Microsoft Corporation's Description of Written or Oral 
Communications Concerning The Revised Proposed Final Judgment and 
Certification of Compliance Under 15 U.S.C. See. 16(g),'' 
purportedly to comply with the provision set forth in paragraph 4, 
above.
    6. With respect to this provision of the Antitrust Procedures 
and Penalties Act, it is clear that Congress intended that there 
should be full disclosure of all communications by a defendant or on 
behalf of a defendant with any officer or employee of the United 
States, except for communications made by counsel of record alone 
with the Attorney General or the employees of the Department of 
Justice. It is equally clear that by ``government 
official,'' Congress meant ``members of the Executive, 
Legislative, and Judicial branches of government''. Congress 
specifically intended to cover communications by officers of a 
defendant corporation, lawyers of such corporation, lobbyists of 
such corporation, or anyone else acting on behalf of such corporate 
defendant. If I had not been satisfied this was the plain meaning of 
the statute, I, as the principal author of the legislation, would 
not have pressed the legislation through to final passage. I am 
satisfied that the clear language of the statute ensures disclosures 
of the type described in this paragraph. The legislative history and 
intent of its author buttress these conclusions.
    7. In my opinion, it is essential that all discussions between 
the defendant corporation and the government (with the specific 
exception noted in paragraph 6, above) in an antitrust case that 
might have led to a proposed settlement decree be disclosed. If a 
defendant corporation did not have to disclose any contacts or 
communications with the government until such-time as there is an 
actual decree, the very purpose of the disclosure would be defeated. 
The Tunney Act was never intended to allow for a situation where, in 
theory, prolific lobbying could be conducted by the defendant prior 
to the time the presiding judge has ordered settlement negotiations, 
without public disclosure. If allowed, the Tunney Act would not have 
reformed the practices utilized in settlement of the ITT case, which 
in significant fashion demonstrated the need for the legislation in 
the first instance. The disclosure provisions were designed to help 
ensure that no defendant can ever achieve through political 
activities what it cannot obtain through the legal process. Failure 
to comply with these provisions raises an inference or, at a 
minimum, an appearance of impropriety.
    8. Contrary to some press reports, the Tunney Act was not 
intended in any way to prevent the Department of Justice from 
entering into settlements in antitrust suits, especially before 
trial where litigation risk is generally present. The Act in fact 
recognized the propriety of such settlements, and merely proscribed 
procedures to ensure that such settlements were reached on the 
merits.
    9. The legislative history and plain language make clear that 
Congress intended that a judge make an independent assessment of 
whether any such settlements are in the public interest, precisely 
because the policy objective was to ensure that lobbying contacts 
did not influence the law enforcement function of the Antitrust 
Division of the Department of Justice. I remain convinced that the 
policy objective was correct.
    10. The language of the Act was clearly drawn and was intended 
to be inclusive and not exclusive. In my opinion, the filing of 
``Written or Oral Communications'' by Microsoft 
Corporation, referred to in paragraph, 5, above, is inadequate to 
satisfy the clear language and intent of the Tunney Act.
    FURTHER, AFFLANT SAYETH NAUGHT. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before 
this day of .2002.
    NOTARY PUBLIC in and for said County and State ELEANOR McKENNA 
Natary Public, State of New York; No. 31-4973011 Qualified in 
New York County. Commission Expires October 40459139.1
    EXHIBIT 9
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC.
    Congress of the United States
    Washington, DC 20515
    August 9, 2001
    The Honorable John Ashcroft
    U.S. Attorney General
    Department of Justice
    Tenth Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Mr. Steve Hallmer
    Chief Executive Officer
    Microsoft Corporation
    ONe Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    The Honorable Tom Miller
    Iowa Attorney General
    Department of Justice
    1305 E. Walnut Street
    Des Mones, IA 50319
    Dear Sirs:
    Following the recent Court of Appeals decision, we are pleased 
that all sides in the Microsoft antitrust litigation have begun 
settlement discussions. Today we write to encourage these 
discussions with the hope that a settlement can be reached at the 
earliest possible date and on reasonable terms that support 
competition and innovation. Antitrust enforcement should be about 
protecting the American consumers, not deciding ?? and loacers among 
wealthy competitors. Now is the time for all parties to the 
litigation to address the remaining issues and provide some finality 
that protects consumers and allows the American high-tech industry 
to innovate an prospect. This industry offers extraordinary promise 
to ?? exciting new technologies to the American consumer and the 
global marketplace, and the resolution of this protracted litigation 
will greatly serve to further that goal.
    While not expressing a view on the merits, we respectfully urge 
all parties to reach a just and speedy conclusions to this case.
    Best Regards,
    Signatories Of Letter In Favor Of Settlement
    Jennifer Dunn -R
    Jay Inslee -D
    Dick Armey--R
    Henery Hyde -R
    Anna Eshoo -D
    Stophen Horn--R
    Charles Taylor--R
    Charles Norwood--R
    Thomas Petri--R
    Sonny Callahan--R
    Timothy Johnson--R
    Deborah Pryce--R
    Mark Green- R
    Ernle Fletcher--R
    Pat Toomey--R
    Anne Northup--R
    Phil English--R
    George Nethercult Jr.-R
    Greg Walden- R
    Eric Cantor -R
    J.C. Watts-R
    Rick Keller-R
    Ron Kind -R
    Tim Holden- D
    Maurice Hichey-D
    Barney Frank--D
    Louis Gtierrez-D
    Cal Dooly--D
    Mike Ross-D
    Lane Evans--D
    Henry Waxman--D
    Robert Matsui--D
    Michael McNulty- D
    Gene Green--D
    Bud Kramer--D
    Norman Dicks--D
    Baron Hill--D
    Wm Lacy Clay- D
    Virgil Goods- I
    Joel Hefley--R
    Richard Porabo--R
    Mark Foley--R
    Melissa Hart--R
    Kay Granger- R
    Jim Gibbons--R
    Dave Hobson--R
    Jim Greenwood--R
    John Shadegg--R
    Henry Bonilla--R
    Alicee Hastings--D
    John Doolittle--R
    Bob Goodlatte- R
    Steve Buyer--R
    Charlie Bass--R
    Sam Farr--D
    J. Randy Forbes--R
    Shelley Moore Capito -R
    Roy Blunt--R
    Steve Chabot--R
    Chip Pickering -R
    C.L. Otter--R
    Earl Blumenauer-D
    Ted Strickland-D
    Eddie Bernice Johnson- D
    Gary Ackerman- D
    David Phelps-D
    John Sprati- D
    Mike Mclntyre -D
    Jim Moran--D
    Tammy Baldwin-D
    Allen Boyd-D
    Steny Hoyer- D
    John Lewis -D
    Jim Matheson-D
    Jim McDermott-D
    Rick Larsen-D

[[Page 29314]]

    Gregory Mecks-D
    Elijah Cummings-D
    James Harcia-D
    John Oliver-D
    Nancy Pelosi-D
    Bill Detahunt -D
    Patrick Kennedy-D
    Martin Frost-D
    Tom Sawyer-D
    EXHIBIT 10
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC., IN THE UNITED 
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) Defendant. ) 
Filed: January 24, 2002
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1232 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., Plaintiffs, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1233 (CKK)
    Next Court Deadline: March 4, 2002 ) Pre-hearing Conference
    MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF 
RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC. FOR LIMITED PARTICIPATION AS AN AMICUS 
CURIAE AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
                                                                                 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................                                             ii
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES...................................                                             iv
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................                                              1
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............................                                              2
III. ARGUMENT....................................................                                              7
  A. THE TUNNEY ACT REQUIRES FULL DISCLOSURE BY MICROSOFT 7......
    1. Mr. Rule's Undisclosed Conversations Prior To November 15,                                              9
     2001 Are Not Exempted From Disclosure.......................
      a. Mr. Rule Was Not Counsel Of Record For Microsoft Prior                                                9
       To November 15, 2001......................................
      b. Mr. Rule Was Not Counsel Of Record For Microsoft Even                                                11
       After November 15, 2001...................................
    2. The Undisclosed Conversations Of Microsoft's Other                                                     13
     Lobbyists With Executive Or Legislative Branch Officials Are
     Not Exempted From Disclosure................................
    3. Additional Undisclosed Conversations May Have Caused A                                                 16
     Predawn Telephone Call From A Senior Aide To The Attorney
     General To A Lobbyist.......................................
  B. THE TUNNEY ACT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT AN ABUSE OF POWER IN                                              18
   THE CURRENT SITUATION.........................................
    1. The Lawful $200,000 ITT Pledge Related To One Of The                                                   18
     Impeachable Abuses Of Power In The Early 1970's Was
     Equivalent To About $650,000 In 2001 Dollars Which Amount Is
     Vastly Exceeded By Over $23 Million Microsoft Has Lawfully
     Spent On Federal Campaign Contributions And Lobbying Since
     1997........................................................
      a. The ITT Litigation and the Kleindienst Nomination.......                                             18
      b. The Impeachment Resolution..............................                                             20
      c. Since 1997 Microsoft Has Spent Over $23 Million On                                                   21
       Federal Lobbying And Campaign Contributions...............
    2. The Tunney Act Was Intended To Protect The Consuming                                                   21
     Public From The Type Of Forces At Work Today In Connection
     With The RPFJ...............................................
  C. ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO                                              23
   COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 2001, REQUIRING
   CERTIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH TUNNEY
   ACT PROCEDURES................................................
  D. THE COURT SHOULD AGAIN ODER FULL DISCLOSURE, ALLOW FULL                                                  23
   DISCOVERY OF HE NECESSARY FACTS, AND EXTEND THE TIME FOR
   COMMENTS OR TERMINATE CONSIDERATION OF THE RPFJ...............
  E. IF THE COURT DOES NOT ORDER FULL DISCLOSURE NOW, ENTRY OF                                                24
   THE RPFJ COULD BE REVERSED ON APPEAL FOR THAT REASON ALONE;
   HOWEVER, IF THE COURT ORDERS ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE AND THEN
   ENTERS THE RPFJ, THERE WOULD BE A LOWER POSSIBILITY OF
   REVERSAL DUE TO DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
   DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE TUNNEY ACT.......................
  F. RELPROMAX AS THE ONLY PARTY OR PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE WITH                                               24
   AN EXPRESSED INTEREST IN OBTAINING FULL DISCLOSURE FROM
   MICROSOFT SHOULD BE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO LIMITED PARTICIPATION
   AS AN AMICUS CURIAE IN THE TUNNEY ACT PROCEEDINGS.............
REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING.........................................                                             27
EXHIBIT LIST.....................................................                                             28
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES...................................
CASES............................................................
  U.S. v. Microsoft, 84 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.DC 1999)..................                                             14
  U.S. v. Microsoft, 87 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.DC 2000).................                                             14
  U.S. v. Microsoft, 97 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.DC 2000).................                                             14
STATUTES.........................................................
  2 U.S.C.  1602(9)..................................                                              3
  2 U.S.C.  1603 (Section 4 of the Lobbying                                                        3
   Disclosure Act of 1995).......................................
  2 U.S.C.  1603(a)(2)...............................                                              3
  2 U.S.C.  1604 (Section 5 of the Lobbying                                                    4, 13
   Disclosure Act of 1995).......................................
  15 U.S.C.  16(b)-(h) (Antitrust Procedures and                 1, 7, 8, 15, 18, 20,21, 23-26
   Penalties Act (Tunney Act))...................................
  15 U.S.C.  16(b)...................................                                           2, 8
  15 U.S.C.  16(d)...................................                                              8
  15 U.S.C.  16(e)...................................                                              8

[[Page 29315]]

 
  * 15 U.S.C.  16(f)(3)..............................                                             26
  15 U.S.C.  16(f)(5)................................                                             27
  * 15 U.S.C.  16(g).................................          2, 4-6, 8-10, 23-24
RULES............................................................
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5..............................                                             15
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)...........................                                          5, 12
  * Local Civil Rule 83.6(a).....................................                                             12
OTHER AUTHORITIES................................................
  Cong. Rec., Senate, July 18, 1973, pp. 24597-8...........                                             22
  Cong. Rec., Senate, July 18, 1973, p. 24599....................                                             27
  Cong. Rec., Senate, December 9, 1974, p. 38585.................                                             21
  Statement Of Information, Hearings Before The Committee On The                                              18
   Judiciary House Of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress,
   Second Session, Pursuant To H.Res. 803, Book V, Part I,
   Department Of Justice ITT Litigation--Richard Kleindienst
   Nomination Hearings...........................................
  House Report 93-1305, August 20, 1974, pp. 139-183.                                             20
 

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,) 
Defendant.
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1232 (CKK) Filed: January 24, 2002
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., ) Plaintiffs, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,) Defendant.
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1233 (CKK)
    Next Court Deadline:
    March 4, 2002
    Pre-hearing Conference

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF 
RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC. FOR LIMITED PARTICIPATION AS AN AMICUS CURIAE 
AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

I. INTRODUCTION

    The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act) was 
signed on December 21, 1974, to remedy one of the many abuses of 
power which led to the adoption of the second of three Articles of 
Impeachment of the President by the Committee on the Judiciary of 
the United States House of Representatives on July 27, 1974, and to 
the only Presidential resignation in the history of our nation on 
August 9, 1974. The Tunney Act is not merely some procedural nicety. 
The Tunney Act is discussed in greater detail below (see section 
III.B., pp. 18-22, The Tunney Act Was
Intended To Prevent An Abuse Of Power In The Current 
Situation'').
    Defendant Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft'') has 
not complied with the disclosure requirements of the Tunney Act, 
specifically 15 U.S.C.  16(g), or this Court's Order 
dated November 8,2001. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(b) and 
(g), anyone has the statutory right to comment on the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment (``RPFJ'') in captioned Civil 
Action 98-1232 for fifty (50) days after Microsoft complies 
with 15 U.S.C.  16(g). Relpromax Antitrust Inc. 
(``Relpromax'') hereby asserts its statutory right, which 
is also the statutory right of all Americans, to consider for fifty 
(50) days a true and complete disclosure by Microsoft pursuant to 15 
U.S.C.  16(g) and then to file with the United States 
such written comments as it deems appropriate with respect to the 
RPFJ in light of the information disclosed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
 16(g).
    Accordingly, Relpromax seeks an order:
    1) granting Relpromax status as an amicus curiae with the right 
of limited participation in proceedings so it can assist, if 
necessary, in obtaining, inter alia, the statutorily required (and 
Court ordered) disclosure;
    2) compelling Microsoft to comply with the statute and the 
November 8, 2001, order; and,
    3) extending the time for comments to provide Relpromax and all 
interested parties with their statutory rights.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    From 1993 through 1996, Microsoft contributed a total of about 
$366,000 to federal parties and candidates) Declaration of Brian 
Dautch (``Dautch Dec.''), 2- 3 and Attachments 1 and 2. (A 
copy of the Dautch Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
    The total includes contributions directly to candidates or 
political action committees reported as made by individuals who 
listed Microsoft as an employer.
    On May 18, 1998, these civil actions were filed.
    From 1997 through July 31, 2001, Microsoft contributed a total 
of over $6.8 million to federal parties and candidates. Dautch Dec., 
2, and Attachment 1.
    From 1997 through June 30, 2001, in addition to about $6.8 
million in contributions Microsoft spent an additional $17.6 million 
on lobbyists who contacted many federal agencies and Members of the 
House and Senate seeking support for Microsoft's antitrust policies. 
Dautch Dec., 2, and 8-42 and Attachments 1, and 9-43. 
Given that Microsoft contributed to the campaigns of 38 U.S. 
Senators and 124 U.S. Representatives in 2001 alone (a non-election 
year), it is even possible that some of the federal legislators 
contacted by Microsoft about its antitrust problems had received, 
and/or may have been seeking, Microsoft campaign contributions. 
Dautch Dec., 2 and Attachment 1.
    On July 6, 1998, Charles F. Rule, Esq., became a registered 
lobbyist for Microsoft. From approximately 1986 to 1989, Mr. Rule 
was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust 
Division of the United States Department of Justice. Dautch Dec., 4, 
and Attachment 7. In 1998, Mr. Rule was a partner with the lobbying 
firm 2 of Covington & Burling of Washington, DC On July 6, 1998, 
Covington &Burling filed a Lobbying Registration, pursuant to 2 
U.S.C.  1603(a)(2), indicating that Mr. Rule was among 
the firm's ``employees'' who had acted or expected to act 
as lobbyists for Microsoft Corporation.3 On page 2 of the Lobbying 
Registration, Covington & Burling reported that the lobbyists 
expected to lobby on issues including [c]ompetition matters 
affecting See 2 U.S.C.  1602(9).
    3. The Lobbying Registration (dated June 29, 1998) is known as 
Form LD-1 which is required to be filed by 2 U.S.C. 
 1603 (Section 4 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995). The Lobbying Registration was filed with the Office of the 
Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. A copy of this Lobbying 
Registration is Attachment 4 to the Dautch Dec.
computer industry software.''
    On August 12, 1999, Covington & Burling filed a mid-year 
1999 Lobbying Report (Form LD-2) indicating that for the period from 
January 1, 1999, through June 30, 1999, the firm received $40,000 
from Microsoft for lobbying. On page 6 of the form, Covington & 
Burling reported that Charles F. Rule lobbied the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the U.S. Senate for Microsoft on 
``[c]ompetition issues affecting computer software 
industry.''
    On September 28, 2001, this Court docketed an order requiring 
the parties to engage in intensive settlement negotiations until 
November 2, 2001. A copy of the order is attached hereto as Exhibit 
B.
    From on or about October 1, 2001, to November 6, 2001, according 
to written unsworn testimony by lobbyist Rule, he was one of the 
principal representatives for Microsoft in the negotiations with 
respect to the RPFJ. Dautch Dec., 4 and Attachment 3.
    On November 6, 2001, the United States and Microsoft filed a 
Stipulation and attached form of Revised Proposed Final Judgment. 
The Stipulation was signed on behalf of the United States by Charles 
A. James, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust 
Division of the United States

[[Page 29316]]

Department of Justice. (A copy of the Stipulation is attached hereto 
as Exhibit C.) In the Stipulation, Microsoft agreed to make the 
disclosure required by 15 U.S.C.  16(g). Stipulation, 3.
    The Lobbying Report (dated August 10, 1999) is on a form known 
as Form LD-2 which form is required to be filed by 2 U.S.C. 
 1604 (Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995). The Lobbying Report was filed with the Secretary of the 
United States Senate. The Lobbying Report is Attachment 23 to the 
Dautch Dec.
    The Stipulation was also signed on behalf of certain plaintiffs 
in the companion Civil Action No. 98-1233 (i.e., the States of 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, ,North 
Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin) (hereinafter referred to as 
``Settling States'').
    On November 8, 2001, this Court ordered Microsoft to make the 
disclosure required by 15 U.S.C.  16(g) ``within 
ten days of the publication of the proposed Final Judgment in the 
Federal Register.'' (A copy of the Court's Order dated November 
8, 2001, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.)
    On November 15,2001, lobbyist Charles F. Rule, Esq., apparently 
attempted to become a counsel of record for Microsoft in Civil 
Action No. 98-1232 pending before this Court. On November 
15,2001, a document titled ``Notice Of Entry Of 
Appearance'' for Charles F. Rule was filed with this Court and 
is recorded as electronic docket entry number 29 in Civil Action No. 
98-1232. (A copy of the Notice Of Entry Of Appearance is 
attached hereto as Exhibit E.) According to the court docket for 
Civil Action No. 98-1232, the Notice Of Entry Of Appearance 
for Mr. Rule was signed and filed by Bradley Smith and not by Mr. 
Rule. According to the official docket, no document filed on behalf 
of Microsoft in this civil action (or Civil Action No. 
98-1233) from November 15, 2001, through January 18, 2002, has 
been signed by Mr. Rule on behalf of Microsoft.
    On November 16, 2001, an item appeared on the front page of The 
Wall Street Journal which item stated in full:
    LEGAL LOOPHOLE: Microsoft tries to shield its top Washington 
lawyer, Charles F. Rule, from having to reveal some contacts with 
the administration before the negotiated the company's controversial 
antitrust settlement. He was formally named a counsel of record 
yesterday, exempting him from disclosures otherwise demanded under a 
1974 law requiring court review of antitrust deals.
    There is no indication in the electronic docket, which is the 
only docket available for this stage of Civil Action No. 
98-1232, that Mr. Rule has signed any pleading described in 
Rule 7(a), F.R.Civ.P., in ink and then caused the document to be 
filed electronically by someone else with the Court.
(A copy of the item from The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2001, 
page 1, is Attachment 5 to the Dautch Dec.)
    On November 28, 2001, the RPFJ was published in the Federal 
Register along with a copy of a document titled ``Competitive 
Impact Statement which was filed with this Court on November 15, 
2001.
    On December 10, 2001, Microsoft filed Defendant Microsoft 
Corporation's Description Of Written Or Oral Communications 
Concerning The Revised Proposed Final Judgment And Certification Of 
Compliance Under 15 U.S.C.  16(g) (``Microsoft's 
Description''). (A copy of Microsoft's Description is attached 
hereto as Exhibit F.) The Description purported to reveal ``any 
and all written or oral communications by or on behalf of'' 
Microsoft ``with any officer or employee of the United States 
concerning or relevant to'' the RPFJ with the exception only of 
``communications made by counsel of record alone with the 
Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone 
[emphasis added].'' Microsoft Description, pp. 1-2. 
Microsoft's Description reveals only: 1) that unnamed ``counsel 
for Microsoft'' (n.b. as opposed to ``counsel of record 
for Microsoft'') met with plaintiffs'' representatives and 
mediators from September 27, 2001, through November 6, 2001, and 
that a Mr. William Poole of Microsoft participated in some of the 
meetings from October 29, 2001, through November 2, 2001; and, 2) 
that at an October 5,2001, meeting, technical questions were 
discussed by Ms. Linda Averett, and Messrs. Michael Wallent, Robert 
Short, and Chad Knowlton (all of Microsoft) with plaintiffs'' 
representatives and plaintiffs'' technical expert Professor 
Edward Felten. Microsoft certified that with the submission of the 
Microsoft Description, Microsoft ``has complied with the 
requirements of 15 U.S.C.  16(g) and that this 
submission is a true and complete description of such communications 
known to Microsoft.''
    Microsoft's Description was electronically signed by John 
Warden, Esq., of the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. The name 
of Charles F. Rule appears on the document apparently as Counsel for 
Microsoft. There is no signature line on the document for Mr. Rule's 
signature. Other than the appearance of Mr. Rule's name well below 
and to the left of Mr. Warden's name, there is no mention of Mr. 
Rule by name in the Microsoft Description or of any communications 
Mr. Rule had on behalf of Microsoft with any officer of employee of 
the United States concerning or relevant to the RPFJ (for example, 
oral or written communications or promises during the course of the 
intensive month-long negotiations which led to the RPFJ or drafts of 
proposed language for the RPFJ).
    On December 12,2001, Mr. Rule appeared (along with Assistant 
Attorney General Charles
    A. James and others) and submitted written testimony (not under 
oath) on behalf of Microsoft concerning the RPFJ before the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate. Dautch Dec., 
4, Attachment 3. In this testimony concerning the captioned civil 
actions, Mr. Rule (referring to the RPFJ as ``PFJ'') 
stated (p. 1, sentences 3-4):
    ``As this committee is aware, I am counsel to Microsoft in 
the case [n.b. Civil Action Nos. 98-1232 and 98-1233] 
and was one of the principal representatives for the company in the 
negotiations that led to the proposed consent decree. The PFJ was 
signed on November 6th after more than a month of intense, around-
the-clock negotiations with the Department and representatives of 
all the plaintiff states.''

III. ARGUMENT

A. THE TUNNEY ACT REQUIRES FULL DISCLOSURE BY MICROSOFT

    The relevant portions of the Tunney Act are now codified as 
Title 15 U.S.C.  16(b)-(h).
    The Tunney Act applies to the current proposal for a consent 
judgment (RPFJ) by the United States in captioned Civil Action No. 
98-1232 which was brought by the United States under the 
antitrust laws. 15 U.S.C.  16(b). To cast sunlight on 
any potential abuse of power, to provide the public with information 
necessary both to understanding the full context of the RPFJ and to 
providing as insightful comments as possible (as allowed by 15 
U.S.C.  16(d)), and to provide the Court with 
information the Court must have prior to determining whether entry 
of the RPFJ is in the public interest (as required by 15 U.S.C. 
 16(e)), Microsoft must make the disclosures required by 
15 U.S.C.  16(g) which provides in full that [emphasis 
added below]:
    ``Not later than 10 days following the date of any proposal 
for a consent judgment under subsection (b) of this section, each 
defendant shall file with the district court a description of any 
and all written or oral communications by or on behalf of such 
defendant, including any and all written or oral communications on 
behalf of such defendant, or other person, with any officer or 
employee of the United States concerning or relevant to such 
proposal, except that any such communications made by counsel of 
record alone with the Attorney General or the employees of the 
Department of Justice alone shall be excluded from the requirements 
of this subsection. Prior to the entry of any consent judgment 
pursuant to the antitrust laws, each defendant shall certify to the 
district court that the requirements of this subsection have been 
complied with and that such filing is a true and complete 
description of such communications known to the defendant or which 
the defendant reasonably should have known.''
    Both the Tunney Act and this Court's November 8, 2001, Order 
setting forth the schedule to be followed to comply with the Tunney 
Act in this case clearly grant the public fifty (50) days to prepare 
and file comments on the RPFJ after defendant's true and complete 
disclosure of all communications specified by 15 U.S.C. 
 16(g).
    As is shown below, the Microsoft Description of December 10, 
2001, did not meet the requirements of 15 U.S.C.  16(g).
    There are at least five broad categories of communications which 
should have been disclosed: 1) oral or written communications by or 
on behalf of Mr. Rule acting in any capacity for Microsoft; 2) oral 
or written communications in Mr. Rule's presence (these 
communications were not made by counsel of record alone); 3) oral or 
written communications which may have induced the Deputy Chief of 
Staff to the Attorney General of the United States (David Israelite, 
who recused himself from any involvement

[[Page 29317]]

with Microsoft matters due to a conflict of interest) to place a 
predawn telephone call on October 9, 2001, to a lobbyist for a 
Microsoft competitor complaining about the competitor's support for 
the retention of independent private counsel by the States suing 
Microsoft in Civil Action No. 98-1233; 4) oral or written 
communications or promises by Microsoft lobbyists (other than Mr. 
Rule) or Microsoft personnel to officers or employees of the United 
States; and, 5) communications made at Microsoft's request or 
suggestion to officers or employees of the United States (e.g., 
communications by Members or employees of either House of Congress 
to officers or employees of the Executive Branch).
    1. Mr. Rule's Undisclosed Conversations Prior to November 15, 
2001 Are Not Exempted from Disclosure
    a. Mr. Rule Was Not Counsel Of Record For Microsoft Prior to 
November 15, 2001
    The statute, 15 U.S.C.  16(g), exempts from 
disclosure only two types of oral or written communications with any 
officer or employee of the United States. First, the statute exempts 
communications between counsel of record and the Attorney General 
alone (i.e., outside the presence of Microsoft personnel and other 
Justice Department officers or employees). Second, the statute 
exempts communications between counsel of record and employees of 
the Department of Justice alone (i.e., outside the presence of 
Microsoft personnel and non-employees of the Justice Department). 
The statute does not provide for a lobbyist (or other person who is 
not counsel of record) to conduct negotiations with the Attorney 
General and/or Justice Department employees and then, after reaching 
agreement on a consent judgment, convert from a lobbyist into a 
counsel of record in order to shield from disclosure communications 
and negotiations conducted when he was not counsel of record.
    At a minimum, the term ``officer or employee'' in 15 
U.S.C.  16(g) should include any officer or employee of 
the Executive Branch. It is clear that offices and employees of the 
Executive Branch are within the scope of the statute because the two 
classes of exclusions are of officers or employees of the Executive 
Branch (i.e., the Attorney General and employees of the Department 
of Justice). Arguably, the term ``officer or employee'' in 
15 U.S.C.  16(g) could also include any ``officer 
or employee'' of the Legislative Branch. The precise scope of 
the term ``officers and employees'' within the meaning of 
15 U.S.C.  16(g) appears to be a matter of first 
impression in this Court. Given the control of the Justice 
Department budget by the Congress, the importance of disclosing 
communications by Microsoft with Members of Congress or their staff 
concerning or relating to the RPFJ is manifest. In any event, the 
statute makes clear that any communication concerning or relating to 
the RPFJ made on behalf of Microsoft (whether by Microsoft, a 
Senator, or anyone else) to an Executive Branch officer or employee 
must be disclosed under 15 U.S.C.  16(g).
    Mr. Rule was not a counsel of record prior to November 15,2001. 
Accordingly, any oral or written communications made by him, or on 
his behalf, concerning or relevant to the RPFJ to any officer or 
employee of the United States must be disclosed. Clearly, 
communications made in the negotiations which resulted in the RPFJ 
both concern the RPFJ and are relevant to the RPFJ.
    Mr. Rule was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 
Antitrust Division long after the Tunney Act became the law. While 
the disclosure requirements of 15 U.S.C.  16(g) would 
apply to Mr. Rule's client even if Mr. Rule were totally unfamiliar 
with antitrust law, the disclosure requirements should be applied 
strictly given that Mr. Rule was the principal law enforcement 
officer of the United States charged with enforcing this precise 
statute for about three (3) years.
    If Mr. Rule's testimony to the effect that he was a principal 
negotiator on behalf of Microsoft of the RPFJ is accurate, then 
there are clearly undisclosed communications made by Mr. Rule or in 
his presence.
    Typically, a principal representative in negotiations would have 
made oral comments to the negotiators for the United States. 
Further, the principal negotiator would have submitted written 
drafts of language (whether in electronic, magnetic, or paper form) 
to be used in the RPFJ.
    Also, there is the matter of Lobbyist Rule's contacts with the 
Administration which contacts were reported by The Wall Street 
Journal. What precisely does Microsoft want to conceal? Why does 
Microsoft want to conceal these communications? Discovery (or a true 
and complete disclosure under 15 U.S.C.  16(g)) is 
needed to provide the American people and this Court with the answer 
to these questions.
    b. Mr. Rule Was Not Counsel Of Record For Microsoft Even After 
November 15, 2001
    If Microsoft's position is that Mr. Rule's communications prior 
to and during settlement negotiations did not have to be disclosed 
because on the date the Microsoft Description was filed Mr. Rule was 
a counsel of record, that position is both untenable and, as 
discussed above, contrary to the plain language of the statute.
    Local Civil Rule 83.6(a) governs the process by which an 
attorney becomes a counsel of record and provides in full that:
    ``An attorney eligible to appear may enter an appearance in 
a civil action by signing any pleading described in Rule 7(a), 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or by filing a written notice of 
the entry of an appearance listing the attorney's correct address, 
telephone number and bar identification number.''
    As mentioned above, as of the date of this Memorandum, Mr. Rule 
has not in connection with the captioned civil actions signed any 
pleading described in Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure (i.e., basically, various types of complaints and 
answers).
    The typical written notice of entry of an appearance is signed 
by the attorney entering the appearance. For example, when 
appearances were entered by Douglas Davis, Esq., Steven Kuney, Esq., 
and Brendan Sullivan, Esq., each of these attorneys signed and flied 
a written notice of appearance containing the necessary information. 
(Copies of the notices of appearance for Messrs. Douglas, Kuney, and 
Sullivan are attached hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I, respectively.) 
Mr. Rule did not sign or file what purports to be his written notice 
of entry of appearance. The written notice attempting to enter an 
appearance for Mr. Rule was signed and filed by Bradley Smith, Esq., 
of Sullivan & Cromwell.
    As noted above, Mr. Rule has not, in connection with the 
captioned Civil Actions, signed any pleading described in Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a).
    Thus, arguably Mr. Rule was not a counsel of record even when 
the Microsoft Description was filed on December 10, 2001. 
Accordingly, any oral or written communications Mr. Rule had with 
officers or employees of the United States concerning or relating to 
the RPFJ must be disclosed.
    2. The Undisclosed Conversations of Microsoft's other Lobbyists 
With Executive Or Legislative Branch Officials Or Employees Are Not 
Exempted From Disclosure
    Even if Mr. Rule's testimony to the effect that he was a 
principal negotiator on behalf of Microsoft of the RPFJ were 
inaccurate and even if Mr. Rule had absolutely no oral or written 
communications at any time of any type, kind, or description with 
any officer or employee of the United States (whether in the 
Executive or Legislative Branch), it is still likely that there were 
other undisclosed oral or written communications made by or on 
behalf of Microsoft concerning or relevant to the RPFJ.
    In addition to Mr. Rule, Microsoft has a substantial number of 
other inside and outside federal lobbyists who were paid on the 
order of $17,645,000 from 1997 through June 30, 2001.
    A partial list of some known lobbying expenditures and contacts 
includes the following:
    1. From January 1, 1999, through June 30,2001, according to the 
official reports required by Section 5 of the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1604, the lobbying firm of Barbour Griffith 
& Rogers, Washington, DC, reported receiving $1,380,000 from 
Microsoft for lobbying the House and Senate concerning issues 
including ``the Justice Department's Antitrust inquiry.'' 
Dautch Dec.,  8-12 and Attachments 9-13.
    2. The official reports show that from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 
2001, the lobbying firm of Clark & Weinstock, New York, New 
York, received $1,480,000 from Microsoft for lobbying the House and 
Senate concerning issues including Microsoft's position on the 
Department of Justice antitrust suit against Microsoft. Dautch Dec., 
 13-19 and Attachments 14-20.
    3. The official reports show that from January I, 1998 to June 
30, 1999, the lobbying firm of Covington & Burling received 
$140,000 from Microsoft for lobbying the House and Senate 
concerning, inter alia, competition issues affecting the computer 
software industry. Dautch Dec.,  20-22 and 
Attachments 21-23.
    4. The official reports show that from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 
2001, the lobbying firm of Downey Chandler, Inc. (at times known as

[[Page 29318]]

Downey McGrath Group), received $560,000 from Microsoft for lobbying 
the Office of the Vice President, the Departments of Justice, State, 
and Commerce, and the House and Senate concerning issues including 
the Department of Justice's antitrust suit against Microsoft. Dautch 
Dec.,  23-30 and Attachments 24-31.
    5. From July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001, the official reports show 
that McSlarrow & Associates, at times known as McSlarrow 
Consulting, L.L.C., received $200,000 from Microsoft for lobbying 
the House and Senate concerning issues including competition in the 
software industry. Dautch Dec.,  32-35 and 
Attachments 33-36.
    6. From January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000, the official report 
shows that Microsoft itself spent $3,340,000 on lobbying the 
National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Senate, 
House, the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Defense concerning 
issues including competition in the software industry.7 Dautch Dec., 
 36 and Attachment 37.
    7. From July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2001, the official reports show 
that Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds received $1,380,000 
from Microsoft for lobbying the White House, the Vice President, the 
National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
National
    7 On November 5, 1999, this Court entered Findings of Fact 
adverse to Microsoft. U.S. v. Microsoft, 84 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.DC 1999). 
On April 3, 2000, this Court entered Conclusions of Law holding 
Microsoft to be in violation of the antitrust laws. U.S. v. 
Microsoft, 87 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.DC 2000). On June 7, 2000, this Court 
entered an order requiring Microsoft to devise a plan to split 
itself into an operating systems business and an applications 
business. U.S. v. Microsoft, 97 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.DC 2000).
    Security Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Trade Representative, 
the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, 
the Departments of Justice arid Commerce, and the House and Senate 
concerning issues including competition in the software market. 
Dautch Dec.,  37-42 and Attachments 38-43.
    The massive amount of money spent on lobbying raises a number of 
issues relevant to the Tunney Act disclosure Microsoft should have 
made including, but not limited to, those mentioned below.
    First, given that Microsoft was ably represented by accomplished 
in-house counsel and the distinguished law firm of Sullivan & 
Cromwell upon whom all opposing parties were required to serve all 
documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, why was it 
necessary to spend over $1.3 million for Barbour Griffith & 
Rogers to monitor the same civil action? Where did the money really 
go? What did the money really buy? Did Barbour Griffith & Rogers 
discuss the Microsoft antitrust litigation with any officer or 
employee of the United States while the RPFJ was being negotiated?
    Second, as of June 30, 2001, Microsoft, its employees, and its 
outside lobbyists had spent upwards of $20,000,000 over several 
years lobbying, and where possible making campaign contributions, to 
many officers and employees of the United States. It is difficult to 
believe that when negotiations intensified and were conducted 
around-the-clocks in October, 2001 not one of the legions of 
Microsoft lobbyists in whom the company invested millions made a 
single call to any officer or employee of the United States 
concerning or relevant to the RPFJ. In particular, it is difficult 
to imagine that no United States Representative and no United States 
Senator was asked
    8 Statement of Charles F. Rule to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, US. Senate, December 12, 2001 (Dautch Dec., Attachment 3, 
 2).
    to contact the Executive Branch in support of Microsoft.
    3. Additional Undisclosed Conversations May Have Caused A 
PredawnTelephone Call From A Senior Aide To The Attorney General To 
A Lobbyist
    The New York Times of November 2, 2001, reported (``States 
Biding for Time to Study Microsoft Settlement Plan'' by Stephen 
Labaton, pp. C1 and C4) that:
    ``Some of Microsoft's largest competitors voiced bitter 
disappointment about the terms of the proposed deal and asserted 
that the company had used its political influence with a Republican 
administration to try to quickly put an end to the case.''
    ``The rivals said that during court hearings that will be 
required on the proposed settlement, they intended to provide 
evidence of what they say was an improper discussion between a 
senior aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft who had been a top 
official in the Republican Party and a Republican lobbyist for 
AOL--Time Warner that demonstrated Microsoft's political 
muscle. In a statement issued today, Representative John Conyers 
Jr., Democrat of Michigan, also indicated that he would be examining 
that incident, word of which has been circulating widely in recent 
days among lawyers, lobbyists and executives following the 
case?''
    ``The aide to Mr. Ashcroft, David Israelite, had been the 
political director of the Republican National Committee, which 
received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Microsoft during the 
2000 presidential campaign. Mr. Israelite, now Mr. Ashcroft's deputy 
chief of staff, has recused himself from any involvement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case because he owns 100 shares of Microsoft 
stock.''
    ``The lobbyist involved in the discussion was said to be 
Wayne Berman, who is also a top Republican fundraiser.''
    ``According to the notes of a person briefed about the 
conversation on Oct.
    9, the day it is said to have occurred, Mr. Israelite called Mr. 
Berman.''
    ``Are you guys behind this business of the states hiring 
their own lawyers in the Microsoft case?'' Mr. Israelite asked 
Mr. Berman in the predawn conversation, according to the notes. 
``Tell your clients we wouldn't be too happy about that.''
    ``...According to people who were later briefed 
on the conversation by an AOL executive, Mr. Israelite then 
complained that AOL, a leading Microsoft rival, had been trying to 
``radicalize'' the states to oppose a settlement.'' 
(A copy of the article from The New York Times of November 2, 2001, 
is Attachment 8 to the Dautch Declaration.)9
    Given the impact of the RPFJ on an important sector of the 
economy and the over-riding importance of maintaining public 
confidence in the integrity of both public officials and the 
judicial process, it would be reasonable to inquire of both Messrs. 
Israelite and Berman either at a hearing before the Court or at a 
deposition whether any conversation such as that set forth in the 
article published on November 2, 2001, by The New York Times ever 
occurred. The conversation, if it occurred, was not privileged. 
Because Mr. Israelite is recused from taking official action with 
respect to Microsoft, the inquiry would also not require any 
intrusion into the reasons for any of his authorized official 
actions. If the conversation occurred at the request of Microsoft, 
this Court and
    9 In addition to the Microsoft stonewall, the Justice Department 
is apparently stonewalling the ranking minority member of the House 
Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., concerning the reported 
Israelite-Berman predawn conversation. On Nov. 6, 2001, Rep. Conyers 
wrote a letter to the Attorney General inquiring about the alleged 
conversation. (A copy of a press release containing the text of the 
letter from Rep. Conyers is Attachment 44 to the Dautch Dec.) As far 
as can be determined, no response had been received by Rep. Conyers 
from the Attorney General as of January 22, 2002.
the public have a statutory right to know that fact. B. THE TUNNEY 
ACT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT AN ABUSE OF POWER IN THE CURRENT 
SITUATION
    1. The Lawful $200,000 ITT Pledge Related To One Of The 
Impeachable Abuses Of Power In The Early 1970's Was Equivalent To 
About $650,000 In 2001 Dollars Which Amount Is Vastly Exceeded By 
Over $23 Million Microsoft Has Lawfully Spent On Federal Campaign 
Contributions and Lobbying Since 1997
    a. The ITT Litigation and the Kleindienst Nomination
    In 1969, the United States filed three civil antitrust actions 
against the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation 
(``ITT'') challenging the acquisition by ITT of three 
corporations (Canteen Corporation, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 
and Grinnell Corporation).
    Statement Of Information, Hearings Before The Committee On The 
Judiciary House Of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress, Second 
Session, Pursuant To H. Res. 803, Book V, Part I, Department Of 
Justice ITT Litigation--Richard Kleindienst Nomination Hearings 
(``Statement Of Information'' or ``OI''), pages 
3-4. (A copy of the basic statement of facts in the Statement 
Of Information is attached as Attachment 45 to the Dautch 
Declaration.)
    Attorney General John Mitchell was recused because his former 
law firm had represented an ITT subsidiary; Deputy Attorney General 
Richard Kleindienst acted as Attorney General in connection with the 
litigation and sought and received approval from Counsel to the 
President John

[[Page 29319]]

Ehrlichman before filing the first civil action. SO1, p. 3.
    On December 31, 1970, ITT won a judgment in the Grinnell case 
after a trial. SOI, p. 13.
    From April to June, 1971, a substantial amount of political 
pressure was applied by the President and his assistants to Deputy 
Attorney General Kleindienst and Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Antitrust Division Richard McLaren to convince them to 
forego an appeal and settle the ITT cases. SOI, pp. 17-31.
    On July 21, 1971, ITT-Sheraton pledged up to $200,000 to bring 
the 1972 Republican National Convention to San Diego, California. 
SOI, p. 32. There is no suggestion that this contribution by itself 
was illegal.
    On July 31, 1971, a settlement of the ITT litigation was 
announced. SOI, p. 34.
    On February 15, 1972, the President nominated Richard 
Kleindienst to be Attorney General. SOI, p. 36.
    On February 29, March 1 and March 3, 1972, three columns by 
columnist Jack Anderson were published alleging a connection between 
the ITT-Sheraton pledge and the ITT antitrust settlement and 
alleging the involvement of Messrs. Mitchell and Kleindienst. SOI, 
p. 39. (Copies of the Anderson columns and a memorandum allegedly 
written by an ITT lobbyist, Ms. Dita Beard, all of which were 
included in the evidentiary material supporting the Statement Of 
Information are attached as Attachment 46 to the Dautch 
Declaration.) As a result of publication of the first two Anderson 
columns, Mr. Kleindienst asked that his confirmation hearings be re-
opened. SOI, p. 39.
    At the hearings in 1972 on his nomination to be Attorney 
General, Mr. Kleindienst denied talking to all the President's men 
other than casually about the ITT matter and also denied receiving 
any suggestions from them about the action the Justice Department 
should take in the ITT cases. SOI, p. 42.
    On June 12, 1972, Richard Kleindienst became Attorney General. 
SOI, p. 61.
    On May 16, 1974, Richard Kleindienst pleaded guilty to one count 
of refusing or failing fully to respond to questions propounded to 
him by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary during the hearings in 
1972 on his nomination to be Attorney General. SOI, p. 66.
    On August 9, 1974, the President resigned.
    b. The Impeachment Resolution
    The second Article of Impeachment (adopted by a vote of 
28-10 in the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974) 
charged the President with using the powers of his office in 
violation of his constitutional oath, disregarding his 
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed, and repeatedly engaging in five (5) types of conduct 
violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due 
and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful 
inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the 
executive branch and the purpose of those agencies.
    The specification of the fourth type of allegedly improper 
conduct stated in full with respect to the President that (emphasis 
added):
    ``He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully 
executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that 
his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful 
inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative 
entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the 
Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and 
concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the 
confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the 
United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the 
break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign 
financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the 
President.''
    House Report 93-1305, August 20, 1974, pp. 139-183.
    (the Tunney Act), Senator Tunney said:
    ``The genesis of this legislation came during the hearings 
held by the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Richard 
Kleindienst, the hearings which quickly became known as the ITT 
hearings, because the major issue involved allegations that a 
massive behind-closed-doors campaign resulted in halting the Justice 
Department's prosecution of the ITT case and its hasty settlement 
favorable to the company. During these hearings, I became concerned 
with the apparent weaknesses of the consent decree process, which 
could allow this kind of corporate pressures to be exercised.'' 
Cong. Rec. Senate, December 9, 1974, page 38585.
    c. Since 1997 Microsoft Has Spent Over $23 Million On Federal
    Lobbying And Campaign Contributions
    As mentioned above, since 1997, Microsoft has spent in excess of 
$23,000,000 on federal campaign contributions and lobbying with 
substantial effort devoted to lobbying concerning the captioned 
civil actions. The ITT pledge of $200,000 in 1971 is the equivalent 
of about $650,000 in 2001 dollars. Dautch Dec.,  43.
    There is no suggestion that any of Microsoft's expenditures by 
themselves are illegal.
    In the instant matter, the Justice Department won at trial and 
on appeal. The Department has agreed to what some have characterized 
as a ``sweetheart'' settlement negotiated behind closed 
doors by a lobbyist for Microsoft which, so far, has not revealed 
information the Tunney Act (and this Court's order) require it to 
reveal.
    2. The Tunney Act Was Intended To Protect The Consuming Public 
From The Type Of Forces At Work Today In Connection With The RPFJ
    The point is not that an unfortunate chapter in our nation's 
history has repeated itself or might repeat itself precisely but 
rather that the same type of economic forces at work in connection 
with the ITT litigation are at work today. In the United States, the 
presence of strong economic forces tends to bring about the 
involvement of political forces.
    In 2001 dollars, the amount ITT pledged to buy influence and 
access in 1971 is greatly exceeded by the amount spent by Microsoft 
in the last few years on lobbying and campaign contributions. The 
impact ITT had on the 1971 economy while substantial pales in 
comparison to the impact Microsoft and its products have on the 2002 
economy. The forces at work today may be stronger than those in play 
thirty years ago.
    The problem was aptly summarized in the following quotations (by 
Senator Tunney during Senate debate) from testimony before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee by United States Circuit Judge J. Skelly 
Wright, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit:
    ``By definition, antitrust violators wield great influence 
and economic power. They often bring significant pressure to bear on 
government, and even on the courts, in connection with the handling 
of consent decrees. The public is properly concerned whether such 
pressure results in settlements which might shortchange the public 
interest ... Because of the powerful influence of 
antitrust defendants and the complexity and importance of antitrust 
litigation, the public reasonably asks in many instances whether in 
reaching a settlement, the government gave up more than it need have 
or should have. Some response to this public concern is desirable, 
in my opinion, not only to ensure that the compromise struck by the 
Justice Department is fair from the public's point of view, but also 
to alleviate fears which, even if unfounded, are unhealthy in and of 
themselves.''
    Cong. Rec. Senate, July 18, 1973, pp. 24597-24598.
    C. ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO 
COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 2001, REQUIRING 
CERTIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH TUNNEY ACT 
PROCEDURES
    On November 8, 2001, this Court ordered the United States to 
file, when appropriate, a certification of compliance with the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act). Given the 
apparent failure of Microsoft to comply with the Tunney Act and the 
United States'' knowledge of this apparent compliance failure, 
it would appear to be difficult, if not impossible, for the United 
States to provide the required certification in good faith. This 
difficulty provides another reason for the Court to order compliance 
by Microsoft with the terms of 15 U.S.C.  16(g).
    D. THE COURT SHOULD AGAIN ORDER FULL DISCLOSURE, ALLOW FULL 
DISCOVERY OF THE NECESSARY FACTS, AND EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMMENTS 
OR TERMINATE CONSIDERATION OF THE RPFJ
    Even if Microsoft chooses to amend the Microsoft Description in 
an attempt to comply with a second court order (after defying the 
first court order) with respect to 15 U.S.C.  16(g), the 
Court should consider allowing limited discovery by Relpromax 
Antitrust Inc., as an amicus curiae, into the communications 
revealed and into the issue of whether all communications were in 
fact revealed in order to avoid the prospect that Microsoft's 
initial reticence infects a disclosure which purports to be in 
accord with the terms of a second disclosure order.
    Alternatively, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court 
may terminate all

[[Page 29320]]

consideration of the RPFJ at this time and deny entry of the RPFJ on 
the grounds that the Court has not been provided with the 
information the statute requires the defendant to provide as a 
condition precedent to approval of a consent judgment in these 
circumstances.
    E. IF THE COURT DOES NOT ORDER FULL DISCLOSURE NOW, ENTRY OF THE 
RPFJ COULD BE REVERSED ON APPEAL FOR THAT REASON ALONE; HOWEVER, IF 
THE COURT ORDERS ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE AND THEN ENTERS THE RPFJ, 
THERE WOULD BE A LOWER POSSIBILITY OF REVERSAL DUE TO DEFENDANT'S 
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE TUNNEY ACT
    Given the procedural history of this case (i.e., Judges Sporkin 
and Jackson were removed from this case or its predecessors by the 
Court of Appeals), it would indeed be unfortunate if the Court were 
to allow Microsoft to withhold information to which the public has a 
statutory right, determine that entry of the RPFJ is in the public 
interest, and then be reversed on appeal due to the failure of 
Microsoft to comply with 15 U.S.C.  16(g) (necessitating 
re-commencement of the Tunney Act procedures with respect to the 
current RPFJ several years from now). Alternatively, if the Court 
were to order full compliance with the Tunney Act now, the delay 
would be minimal (on the order of sixty (60) days) and (assuming 
Microsoft made a true and complete disclosure) any decision to enter 
the RPFJ could not be reversed due to Microsoft's failure to comply 
with its disclosure obligations under the Tunney Act.
    F. RELPROMAX AS THE ONLY PARTY OR PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE WITH AN 
EXPRESSED INTEREST IN OBTAINING A FULL DISCLOSURE FROM MICROSOFT 
SHOULD BE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO LIMITED PARTICIPATION AS AN AMICUS 
CURIAE IN THE TUNNEY ACT PROCEEDINGS
    Clearly, Microsoft, the United States, and the Settling States 
have little or no interest in inquiring into the communications 
Microsoft should have disclosed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
 16(g) or into the adequacy of the Microsoft 
Description. Their only interest (explicitly expressed so far) is in 
obtaining Court approval of the RPFJ as fast as possible. In 
particular, the United States Department of Justice presumably 
already has knowledge, at a minimum, of certain undisclosed 
communications made to the Justice Department by Microsoft lobbyist 
Charles F. Rule from on or before October 1,2001, through November 
6, 2001.
    The Litigating States10 (the governments which did not settle in 
Civil Action No. 98-1233) are not parties to Civil Action No. 
98-1232. While they and their citizens of course have Tunney 
Act rights, the Litigating States have, so far, expressed little 
interest on the record of Civil Action No. 98-1232 in 
obtaining for their citizens'' consideration during the comment 
period the information from Microsoft to which the public is 
entitled under the Tunney Act.
    Given his responsibility for the Antitrust Division and his 
signature on the Stipulation filed with the RPFJ on November 6, 
2001, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust 
Division knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have 
known, that lobbyist Rule was one of Microsoft's principal 
representatives during the negotiations which led to the RPFJ and 
was not, at the time, counsel of record for Microsoft. As far as can 
be determined from the public court record of this case, the United 
States has not exerted itself in any way to obtain a proper 
disclosure from Microsoft or to encourage Microsoft to amend the 
Microsoft Description.
    The attitude of the Justice Department has changed under the 
leadership of Attorney General John Ashcroft.\11\ The Department's 
attitude toward this civil action was perhaps best expressed by 
Assistant Attorney General James at the December 12,2001, Senate 
Judiciary Committee hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ David Israelite, Mr. Ashcroft's Deputy Chief of 
Staff, reportedly owns 100 shares of Microsoft stock worth about 
$6,610 at the close of trading on January 18, 2002. Dautch Dec., 44 
and Attachment 8. David Israelite recused himself from any 
involvement in the antitrust suit against Microsoft. The President's 
campaign, his Inaugural fund, Attorney General Ashcroft, and his 
various campaign committees received about $180,000 in contributions 
from Microsoft and its employees in 1999 and 2000. Dautch Dec., 
 2 and Attachment 1. Mr. Ashcroft has not recused himself from 
any involvement in the antitrust suit against Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to a roll call vote, Mr. James was given just a few moments 
for his opening remarks of the day.
    The Litigating States are the District of Columbia, California, 
Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, 
and West Virginia.
    The first point he chose to make was ``some argue that the 
case never should have been filed.'' \12\
    Another reason for the statutory requirement of fifty (50) days 
to consider the defendant's communications is that the significance 
of any individual communication in light of the RPFJ may only be 
apparent to one person or a few persons. The consideration time 
allows interested persons either to consult with others or experts 
or to conduct additional informal or (with the Court's approval) 
formal inquiries into the facts in order to be able to advise both 
the United States and the Court of the full implications of the 
disclosures in light of the RPFJ. Given the carefully crafted 
statutory arrangement, the Congress realized that the Court on its 
own can not be expected either to uncover or understand all the 
implications of Microsoft's communications for the RPFJ without the 
assistance of persons at least interested enough in the RPFJ, the 
nule of law, and/or the avoidance of another impeachment inquiry due 
to, inter alia, an abuse of the antitrust settlement power to devote 
their time to the public interest in this matter.
    Given that Relpromax is an interested person and, in particular, 
interested in obtaining the information to which it has a statutory 
right pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(g), it would be 
appropriate and in the public interest for the Court to enter an 
order, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(f)(3), in the form 
submitted herewith authorizing limited participation by Relpromax in 
proceedings before the court.
    The Court has extended itself to make all of Microsoft's 
communications available to the entire nation by instituting 
electronic filing for the captioned civil actions. This means that 
anyone anywhere with Internet access and a PACER (``Public 
Access to Court Electronic Records'') account is able to read 
Microsoft's Description of its communications concerning and 
relevant to the RPFJ without having to travel all the way from one 
end of the country to the courthouse.
    The full preliminary transcript is attached as Attachment 49 to 
the Dautch Dec. The remarks referred to appear on page 10.
    It is now time for Microsoft to comply with the statute.
    In Senate debate which preceded adoption of the Tunney Act, Sen. 
John Tunney quoted the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis 
to sum up the meaning and purpose of the Act: ``Sunlight is the 
best disinfectant.'' \13\
    REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING
    The Court may order an oral hearing on this motion pursuant to 
15 U.S.C.  16(0(5) which provides in full that:
    ``In making its determination under subsection (e) of this 
section, the court may--.. (5) take such other action in 
the public interest as the court may deem appropriate.'' It is 
in the public interest that the proper statutorily required 
disclosure be made. It is further in the public interest that the 
public be allowed their statutory right to consider the full 
ramifications of the RPFJ for fifty (50) days after a true and 
complete disclosure by Microsoft of all non-exempt communications 
with officers or employees of the United States concerning or 
relevant to the RPFJ.
    Accordingly, pursuant to 15 USC sec. 16(f)(5), movant requests 
an oral hearing on this motion at the Court's earliest convenience.
    Respectfully submitted
    January 24, 2002
    Peter Peckarsky (DC Bar No. 266171)
    1615 L Street, NW, Suite 850
    Washington, DC 20036
    Telephone: (202) 785-0100
    Telecopier: (202) 408-5200
    Attorney for Relpromax Antitrust Inc.
    13 Cong. Rec. Senate, July 18, 1973, p. 24599.
    EXHIBIT LIST
    Exhibit ADeclaration of Brian Dautch dated January 23, 
2002
    Exhibit BOrder docketed September 28, 2001
    Exhibit CStipulation dated November 6, 2001
    Exhibit DOrder dated November 8, 2001
    Exhibit ENotice Of Entry Of Appearance for Charles F. Rule 
dated November 15, 2001
    Exhibit FDefendant Microsoft Corporation's Description Of 
Written Or Oral Communications Concerning The Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment And Certification Of Compliance Under 15 U.S.C.  
16(g) dated December 10, 2001
    Exhibit GAppearance of Douglas Lee Davis dated December 
12, 2001
    Exhibit HAppearance of Steven R. Kuney dated November 
1,2001

[[Page 29321]]

    Exhibit IAppearance of Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. dated 
November 1, 2001
    EXHIBIT A
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1232 (CKK)
    Plaintiff, V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel.
    Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al.,
    Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1233 (CKK)
    Next Court Deadline:
    March 4, 2002
    Pre-hearing Conference
    DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    1. My name is Brian Dautch. I am a law clerk for Peter 
Peckarsky, Esq. I have personal knowledge of the facts testified to 
below and if called as a witness could testify to those facts.
    2. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a copy of an article dated 
September 6, 2001 and titled ``Microsoft Antitrust Case: An 
Update on the Company's Lobbying and Campaign Contributions'' 
and related information which was downloaded from the website 
(www.opensecrets.org) of The Center For Responsive Politics 
(``CRP''). The chart on page 2 of Attachment 1 shows that 
Microsoft an its employees contributed about $6.8 million to 
national political parties and federal candidates from 1997 through 
July 31,2001. The chart on page 3 of Attachment 1 shows that 
Microsoft spent about $17.1 million on federal lobbying from 1997 
through December 31, 2000. The CRP reported it had found $161,250 in 
contributions from Microsoft or its employees to the Bush campaign 
or the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund. The CRP also reported it had 
found $19,250 in contributions in 1999 and 2000 to the campaign of 
Attorney General Ashcroft and to the Ashcroft Victory Committee. The 
listings and dates for $19,000 of these contributions are shown in 
Attachment 1 hereto.
    3. Attached hereto as Attachment 2 is a copy of a copy of the 
mission statement of the Center For Responsive Politics which was 
downloaded from the website (www.opensecrets.org) of The Center For 
Responsive Politics.
    4. Attached hereto as Attachment 3 is a copy of the unsworn 
Statement of Charles F. (Rick) Rule, presented on December 12,2001, 
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Attached hereto as Attachment 4 
is a copy of a Lobbying Registration for registrant Covington & 
Burling dated June 29, 1998. Attached hereto as Attachment 7 is a 
copy of Charles F. ``Rick'' Rule's resume, which I 
obtained from the website of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and 
Jacobson (www. friedfrank.com).
    5. Attached hereto as Attachment 5 is a copy of an item from the 
front page of the A section of The Wall Street Journal, dated 
November 16, 2001.
    6. Attached hereto as Attachment 6 is a copy of the preliminary 
transcript of the December 12,2001 Senate Judiciary Committee 
hearing concerning the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case.
    7. Attached hereto as Attachment 8 is a copy of an article 
titled ``States Biding for Time to Study Microsoft Settlement 
Plan'' by Stephen Labaton which appeared in The New York Times, 
November 2, 2001, on pages C1 and C4.
    8. Attached hereto as Attachment 9 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 5, 1999, in which Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers 
(``BGR'') reported that during the first half of 1999, it 
received $300,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    9. Attached hereto as Attachment 10 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 13, 2000, in which BGR reported that during the last 
half of 1999, it received $320,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    10. Attached hereto as Attachment 11 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated August 12, 2000, in which BGR reported that during 
the first half of 2000, it received $300,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    11. Attached hereto as Attachment 12 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated February 14, 200 I, in which BGR reported that 
during the last half of 2000, it received $240,000 from Microsoft 
for lobbying.
    12. Attached hereto as Attachment 13 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated August 14, 2001, in which BGR reported that during 
the first half of 2001, it received $220,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    13. Attached hereto as Attachment 14 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated February 6, 1998, in which Clark and Weinstock 
(``CW'') reported that during the last half of 1997, it 
received $80,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    14. Attached hereto as Attachment 15 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated August 4, 1998, in which CW reported that during 
the first half of 1998, it received $160,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    15. Attached hereto as Attachment 16 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated February 11, 1999, in which CW reported that during 
the last half of 1998, it received $220,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    16. Attached hereto as Attachment 17 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated August 9, 1999, in which CW reported that during 
the first half of 1999, it received $220,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    17. Attached hereto as Attachment 18 is a copy of Form 
LD-2 dated August 11, 2000, in which CW reported that during 
the first half of 2000, it received $280,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    18. Attached hereto as Attachment 19 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 9, 2001, in which CW reported that during the last 
half of 2000, it received $280,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    19. Attached hereto as Attachment 20 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 9, 2001, in which CW reported that during the first 
half of 2001, it received $240,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    20. Attached hereto as Attachment 21 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 4, 1998, in which Covington & Burling 
(``CB'') reported that during the first half of 1998, it 
received $40,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    21. Attached hereto as Attachment 22 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 4, 1999, in which CB reported that during the last 
half of 1998, it received $60,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    22. Attached hereto as Attachment 23 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 10, 1999, in which CB reported that during the first 
half of 1999, it received $40,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    23. Attached hereto as Attachment 24 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 13, 1998, in which Downey Chandler, Inc. 
(``DCI'') reported that during the last half of 1997, it 
received $60,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    24. Attached hereto as Attachment 25 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 7, 1998, in which DCI reported that during the first 
half Of 1998, it received $80,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    25. Attached hereto as Attachment 26 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 16, 1999, in which DCI reported that during the last 
half of 1998, it received $60,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    26. Attached hereto as Attachment 27 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated July 30, 1999, in which DCI reported that during the first 
half of 1999, it received $80,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    27. Attached hereto as Attachment 28 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 14, 2000, in which DCI (now called Downey McGrath 
Group, Inc., or ``DMG''), reported that during the last 
half of 1999, it received $100,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.''
    28. Attached hereto as Attachment 29 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 11, 2000, in which DMG reported that during the first 
half of 2000, it received $80,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    29. Attached hereto as Attachment 30 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 14, 2001, in which DMG reported that during the last 
half of 2000, it received $40,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    30. Attached hereto as Attachment 31 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 14, 2001, in which DMG reported that during the first 
half of 2001, it received $60,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    31. Attached hereto as Attachment 32 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 14, 2000, in which Lackman & Associates, L.L.C., 
(``L&A'') reported that up to June 30, 2000, it 
received $17,500 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    32. Attached hereto as Attachment 33 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated January 21, 2000, in which McSlarrow & Associates, L.L.C. 
(``MA'') reported that during the last half of 1999, it 
received $40,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    33. Attached hereto as Attachment 34 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 10, 2000, in which MA (now known as McSlarrow 
Consulting, L.L.C., or ``MC'') reported that during the 
first half of 2000, it received $40,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    34. Attached hereto as Attachment 35 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 2, 2001, in which MC reported that during the last 
half of 2000, it received $60,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    35. Attached hereto as Attachment 36 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 12, 2001, in which MC reported that during the first 
half of 2001, it received $60,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.

[[Page 29322]]

    36. Attached hereto as Attachment 37 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 11, 2000, in which Microsoft reported that during the 
first half of 2000, it spent $3,340,000 for lobbying.
    37. Attached hereto as Attachment 38 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 17, 1998, in which Preston, Gates, Ellis, & 
Rouvelas Meeds, L.L.P. (``PGERM'') reported that during 
the last half of 1997, it received $220,000 from Microsoft for 
lobbying.
    38. Attached hereto as Attachment 39 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 14, 1998, in which PGERM reported that during the first 
half of 1998, it received $360,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    39. Attached hereto as Attachment 40 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 14, 2000, in which PGERM reported that during the 
last half of 1999, it received $200,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    40. Attached hereto as Attachment 41 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 14, 2000 in which PGERM reported that during the first 
half of 2000, it received $220,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    41. Attached hereto as Attachment 42 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated February 14,2001, in which PGERM reported that during the last 
half of 2000, it received $260,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    42. Attached hereto as Attachment 43 is a copy of Form LD-2 
dated August 14, 2001, in which PGERM reported that during the first 
half of 2001, it received $120,000 from Microsoft for lobbying.
    43. On January 14, 2001, I called the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
to inquire about changes in the Consumer Price Index. The BLS 
advised me that a Consumer Price Index of 100 on January 1, 1972 
would equate to a CPI of 326 on January 1, 2001.
    44. According to the Wall Street Journal of January 21,2002, p. 
C8, the closing price of Microsoft common stock on January 18, 2002 
was $66.10 per share.
    45. Attached hereto as Attachment 44 is a copy of a press 
release dated November 6, 2001, from Congressman John Conyers, Jr., 
which appears to contain the text of a letter dated November 6, 
2001, from Rep. Conyers to The Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney 
General of the United States.
    46. Attached hereto as Attachment 45 is a copy of the basic 
statement of facts in the Statement Of Information, Hearings Before 
The Committee On The Judiciary House Of Representatives, Ninety-
Third Congress, Second Session, Pursuant To H. Res. 803, Book V, 
Part I, Department Of Justice ITT Litigation--Richard 
Kleindienst Nomination Hearings.
    47. Attached hereto as Attachment 46 are copies of pages 
614-615, 634-636 from the Supporting Evidence in 
Statement Of Information, Hearings Before The Committee On The 
Judiciary House Of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress, Second 
Session, Pursuant To H. Res. 803, Book V, Part II, Department Of 
Justice ITT Litigation--Richard
    Nomination Hearings. A two (2) page memorandum dated June 25, 
1971, from D. D. Beard to W. R. Merriam is on pages 614-615. 
Columns by Jack Anderson dated February 29, 1972, March 1, 1972, and 
March 3, 1972, appear on pages 634-636, respectively.
    I declare under'' penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 
true and correct, executed in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2002.
    Brian Dautch
    ATTACHMENT 1
    TO THE
    DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
News Alert 9/6/01: Microsoft
    The Who's Who'sGetNews andNOME 
 DONATE
    BasicsGivingGettingLocal! IssuesSEARCH
Tracking the Payback  Issue Profiles
Alerts  Press Releases
Newsletter  Publications
    Online I
    Publications for Sale MONEY I POLITICS A; Sept. 6, 20 Vol. 6, 
No.
    Alerts: Current Congress, Alert List Signup, Alerts: 106th 
Congress, Alerts: 105th Congress Alerts: 104th Congress Holly Bail 
202-857-202-857
    Microsoft Antitrust Case: An Update on the Company's Lobbying 
and Campaign Contributions After more than three years of 
investigations, litigation and intensive lobbying, the Justice 
Department today announced it Prepared would no longer seek a break-
up of the computer giant Microsoft, ending one aspect of a landmark 
case that sent the company's campaign contributions soaring and 
formally introduced the computer industry to Washington politics.

FORMAT TO PRINT

E-MAIL TO A FRIEND

    The decision by the Bush administration to vacate the lawsuit 
that was first initiated in 1998 by the Clinton Justice Department 
is considered a major victory for Microsoft, which nearly tripled 
its campaign contributions and more than doubled its lobbying 
expenditures during its fight against the antitrust case.

THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS

    During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Microsoft contributed 
more than $4.7 million in soft money, PAC and individual 
contributions to federal candidates and parties--almost three 
times what the company contributed during the previous three 
election cycles combined. More than half that money went to 
Republicans.
    The Bush campaign reported $61,250 in contributions from 
Microsoft employees during 1999-2000. Attorney General John 
Ashcroft, a former U.S. Senator from Missouri, reported just $9,250 
in contributions from Microsoft during the last elections, though 
the company did contribute $10,000 to the Ashcroft Victory 
Committee, a soft money account run jointly by the Ashcroft campaign 
and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
    But that's not all the money that Microsoft has thrown around 
Washington in recent years. During the calendar year 2000 alone, 
Microsoft spent almost $6.4 million to lobby Congress and the 
Clinton administration, according to reports filed with the U.S. 
Senate. That's a significant increase over the $4.9 million in 
lobbying expenditures the company reported in 1999. And Microsoft 
also was a major contributor to the Bush- Cheney Inaugural Fund, 
donating $100,000 to the gala last January.
    Just months into the 2001-02 election cycle, Microsoft 
already ranks as a significant contributor, giving just over 
$700,000 to federal parties and candidates, split almost evenly 
between the two major parties. (This includes contributions reported 
to the FEC through the end of July.)
    However, the lawsuit's most significant impact on campaign 
finance extends beyond Microsoft itself. The antitrust lawsuit 
proved to be a major turning point in the tech industry's 
involvement in Washington politics.
News Alert 9/6/01: Microsoft Page 2 of 2
    Shortly after the Justice Department launched its lawsuit, 
Microsoft became one of the first computer companies to open 
lobbying offices in Washington and was one of the first to 
contribute major soft money dollars to the political parties. By the 
year 2000, computers and Internet companies ranked No. 7 on the list 
of the biggest industry givers on the federal level, contributing 
more than $39.7 million. Since 1997, Microsoft has been the 
industry's biggest contributor.
    Click here for a look at Microsoft's contributions to:

Members of the House in 1999-2000
Members of the House in 2001
Members of the Senate in 1995-00
Members of the Senate in 2001
    And click here for the company's lobbying expenditures dating 
back to 1997.
    Microsoft Soft Money, PAC & Individual Contributions to 
Federal Parties and Candidates, 1993-2001* ??
    *Based on FEC data downloaded 9/1/01. The totals for the 2002 
election cycle ``including fund-raising numbers reported to the 
FEC through July 31,2001.
    Microsoft Antitrust Case

             Microsoft Lobbying Expenditures, 1997-00*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Calendar year                         Lobby total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 $2,120,000.........................................
1998 $3,740,000.........................................
1999 $4,860,000.........................................
2000 $6,360,000 ........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on filings with the US Senate.


                   Contributions to the Senate, 2001*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Name                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Allard (R-Colo)........................................     $1,500
Max Baucus (D-Mont)..........................................      1,000
Evan Bayh (D-Ind)............................................      2,000
Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah)...................................      1,000
Joseph R. Biden Jr (D-Del)...................................      1,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)......................................     35,250
Jean Carnahan (D-Mo).........................................      1,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga)...........................................      1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)................................      1,000
Thad Cochran (R-Miss)........................................      3,000
Susan Collins (R-Me).........................................      2,000
Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho).....................................      2,000
Pete V. Doreen c (R-NM)......................................      2,000
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND).......................................      1.000
Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill)....................................      1,000

[[Page 29323]]

 
Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo)......................................      1,000
Phil Gramm (R-Texas).........................................      1,000
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).................................      1,000
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb)..........................................      2,000
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)..........................................      1,000
Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark).......................................      4,000
James M. Inhofe (R-Okla).....................................      1,000
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii)..................................        500
Tim Johnson (D-SD)...........................................      2,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La)......................................      3,500
Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt)......................................        250
Carl Levin (D-Mich)..........................................      3,000
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-Ark)..............................      1,000
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).......................................      9,750
Patty Murray (D-Wash) (......................................     3,000)
Jack Reed (D-Rl).............................................      1,000
Pat Roberts (R-Kan)..........................................      1,000
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WVa)...............................      1,000
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala)........................................      3,000
Gordon Smith (R-Ore).........................................      4,000
Robert C. Smith (R-NH).......................................      1,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mic??)...............................      1,000
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).......................................     6,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on FEC data downloaded 9/1/01.


               Contributions to the Senate, 1995-00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Name                                Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $48,236................................
John McCain (R-Ariz).........................................     47,449
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)......................................     25,350
Conrad Burns (R-Mont)........................................     20,250
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)...................................     15,000
Bill Frist (R-Tenn)..........................................     12,500
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)...................................     12,000
Jon L. Kyl (R-Ariz)..........................................      2,000
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).........................................     12,000
Rick Santorum (R-Pa).........................................     11,000
Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Corm..........................     10,500
John Ensign (R-Nev)..........................................     10,000
Mike OeWine (R-Ohio).........................................     10,000
Max Baucus (O-Mont)..........................................     10,000
Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)...................................     10,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich)................................      8,250
Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt)......................................      7,150
Ron Wyden (D-Ore)............................................      6,000
Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)....................................      6,000
Trent Lott (R-Miss)..........................................      6,000
George Allen (R-Va)..........................................      5,500
Kent Conrad (D-ND)...........................................      5,500
Max Cleland (D-Ga)...........................................      5,250
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La)......................................      5,000
Ben Nelson (D-Neb)...........................................      5,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)................................      5,000
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)....................................      5,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD)...........................................      5,000
Robert C. Smith (R-NH).......................................      4,500
Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn).................................      4,000
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)...............................      4,000
Phil Gramm (R-Texas).........................................      3,800
Jack Reed (D-R??)............................................      3,500
Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho)...................................      3,500
James M. Jeffords (R-Vt).....................................      3,250
Sam Brownback (R-Kan)........................................      3.000
Zell Miller (D-GA)...........................................      3,000
Mitch McConnell (R-KY).......................................      3,000
Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind).....................................      3,000
Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R??)....................................      3,000
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND).......................................      2,500
Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii)...................................      2,500
Gordon Smith (R-Ore).........................................      2,500
Arlen Specter (R-Pa).........................................      2,500
Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark).......................................      2,000
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif)......................................      2,000
Evan Bayh (D-Ind)............................................      2,000
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb)..........................................      2,000
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).......................................      2,000
Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill)....................................      2,000
Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)......................................      2,000
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WVa)...............................      2,000
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala)........................................      2,000
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).................................      2,000
Robert F . Bennett (R-Utah)..................................      2,000
Jim Bunning (R-Ky)...........................................      1,500
George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio).................................      1,500
Robert C, Byrd (D-WVa).......................................      1,500
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-Ark)..............................      1,500
Thomas R. Carper (D-Del).....................................      1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass)..........................................      1,250
Carl Levin (D-Mich)..........................................      1,250
Bill Nelson (D-Fla)..........................................      1,000
Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo)...................................      1,000
Fred Thompson (R-Tenn).......................................      1.000
John B. Breaux (D-La)........................................      1,000
Bob Graham (D-Fla)...........................................      1,000
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)........................................      1,000
Larry E, Craig (R-Idaho).....................................      1,000
Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md)......................................      1,000
Don Nickles (R-Okla).........................................      1,000
Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-Ill)..................................      1,000
Robert G. Torricelli (D-N))..................................      1,000
Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska)................................      1,000
Tim Johnson (D-SD)...........................................      1,000
Wayne Allard (R-Colo)........................................      1,000
Judd Gregg (R-NH)............................................      1,000
Craig Thomas (R-Wyo).........................................      1,000
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo).............................     1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on FEC data downloaded 9/1/01.


                    Contributions to the House, 2001*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Name                                Total*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Armey (R-Texas).........................................     $2.500
Spencer Bachus (R-Ala).......................................      1,000
Joe L. Barton (R-Texas)......................................      1,500
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif).....................................        500
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas)........................................      1,000
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif)...................................      1,000
Michael Bilirakis (R-FIB)....................................      1,000
Henry Bonilla (R-Texas)......................................      1,000
Mary Bono (R-Calif)..........................................      1,000
Rick Boucher (D-Va)..........................................      1,500
Kevin Brady (R-Texas)........................................        500
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).......................................        500
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn)...........................................      1,000
Richard M. Burr (R-NC).......................................      1.500
Steve Buyer (R-Ind)..........................................      2,500
Lois Capps (D-Calif).........................................      1,000
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)........................................      1,500
Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo)........................................      2,000
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham (R-Calif)................      1,500
Jim Davis (D-FIB)............................................        500
Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va)...................................        500
Diana Degette (D-Colo).......................................      1,000
Peter Deutsch (D-FIB)........................................      1,000
Norm Dicks (D-Wash)..........................................      4.000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich).....................................      1,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif).........................................      4,500
Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash).......................................      2,000
Chet Edwards (D-Texas).......................................      1,000
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr (R-Md)..................................      1,000
Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo)........................................        500
Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif)......................................      2,000
Bob Etheridge (D-NC).........................................      1,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif)...........................................      1,000
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ).........................................        500
Mark Foley (R-FIB)...........................................      1,000
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va).......................................      1,000
Harold E. Ford Jr (D-Tenn)...................................     52,000
Vito J. Fossella (R-NY)......................................      1,000
Martin Frost (D-Texas).......................................      1,000
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif).....................................      1,000
George W. Gekas (R-Pa).......................................        500
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo)...................................      5,000
Jim Gibbons (R-Nev)..........................................        500
Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY)....................................      1,000
Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va)...................................      1,000
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn).........................................      1,000
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)........................................      4,500
Sam Graves (R-Mo)............................................      2,000
Mark Green (R-Wis)...........................................      1,500
Jane Harman (D-Calif)........................................        500
Melissa A. Hart (R-Pa).......................................      1,500
Dennis Hastert (R-Ill).......................................      1,000
David L. Hobson (R-Ohio).....................................      1,000
Rush D. Holt (D-NJ)..........................................      1,500
Mike Honda (D-Calif).........................................      1,000
Arno Houghton (R-NY).........................................      2,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md)........................................      1,000
Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo).........................................      1,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash)..........................................     28,500
John H. Isakson (R-Ga).......................................        500
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).................................      1,000
William J. Jefferson (D-La)..................................      1,000
Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn)....................................      2,000
Sam Johnson (R-Texas)........................................      1,000
Ric Keller (R-Fla)...........................................      1,000
Mark Kennedy (R-Minn)........................................        500
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI)....................................      1,000
Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz)...........................................      1,500
Rick Larsen (D-Wash).........................................     15,500
John B. Larson (D-Conn)......................................        500
Sander M. Levin (D-Mich).....................................      3,000
berry Lewis (R-Calif)........................................      1,000
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif)........................................      1,000
William P. ``Bill'' Luther (D-Minn)................        500
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif)...................................      2,000
Jim McDermott (D-Wash).......................................      2,000
Scott Mc??nnis (R-Colo)......................................      1,000
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)......................................      1,000
George Miller (D-Calif)......................................      1,000
Dennis Moore (D-Kan).........................................      1,000
James P. Moran (D-Va)........................................      1,000
Sue Myrick (R-NC)............................................      1,000
George Nethercutt (R-Wash)...................................      2,000
Bob Ney (R-Ohio).............................................      2.000
Jim Nussle (R-Iowa)..........................................      1,000
Douglas A. Ose (R-Calif).....................................      1,000
C. L. ``Butch'' Otter (R-Idaho)....................      1,000
Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio)....................................      1,500
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif).......................................      1,000
Charles W. ``Chip'' Pickering Jr...................      1,000
(R-Miss).....................................................  .........
Earl Pomeroy (D-NO)..........................................      1,000
David E. Price (D-NC)........................................      1,000

[[Page 29324]]

 
Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio).......................................      1,000
Jim Ramstad (R-Minn).........................................        500
Denny Rehberg (R-Mont).......................................        500
Harold Rogers (R-Ky).........................................      1,000
Mike Rogers (R-Mich).........................................        500
Ed Royce (R-Calif)...........................................        300
Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis).........................................      3,000
Max Sandlin (D-Texas)........................................        500
Tom Sawyer (D-Ohio)..........................................      2,000
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr (R-Wis)............................      1,000
John Shadegg (R-Ariz)........................................      1,000
John M. Shimkus (R-Ill)......................................      1,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash)..........................................     10,500
Lamar Smith (R-Texas)........................................      1,000
Cliff Stearns (R-Fla)........................................      1,000
Charles W. Stenholm (D-Texas)................................      1,000
John E. Sununu (R-NH)........................................      3,500
John Tanner (D-Tenn).........................................        500
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif)..................................      2,000
W. J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (R-La)......................      2,500
Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan)..........................................        500
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)........................................      2,000
Fred Upton (R-Mich)..........................................      2,000
Greg Walden (R-Ore)..........................................      1,500
J. C. Watts Jr (R-Okla)......................................      1,000
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif)....................................      1,000
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)........................................        500
Jerry Weller (R-Ill).........................................      1,000
Edward Whitfield (R-Ky)......................................      1,000
Heather A. Wilson (R-NM).....................................      1,000
Frank R. Wolf (R-Va).........................................      1,000
Don Young (R-Alaska).........................................     1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on FEC data downloaded 9/1/01.


               Contributions to the House, 1999-00*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Name                                Total*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Inslee (D-Wash)..........................................   $131,600
Brian Baird (D-Wash).........................................    $39,900
Rick Larsen (D-Wash).........................................    $35,600
Adam Smith (D-Wash)..........................................    $31,750
Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash).......................................    $15,450
Cal Dooley (D-Calif).........................................    $12,500
Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va)...................................    $11,750
George Nethercutt (R-Wash)...................................    $10,000
Richard ``Doc'' Hastings (R-Wash)..................     $9,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash)..........................................     $7,500
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif)..................................     $7,500
Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif)......................................     $7,000
Roy Blunt (R-Mo).............................................     $7,000
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY).....................................     $7,000
Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo)........................................     $6,500
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif)...................................     $6,500
James P. Moran (D-Va)........................................     $6,500
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)........................................     $6,000
Martin Frost (D-Texas).......................................     $6,000
Dick Armey (R-Texas).........................................     $5,000
John T. Doolittle (R-Calif)..................................     $5,000
Tom DeLay (R-Texas)..........................................     $5,000
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo)...................................     $5,000
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn).........................................     $5,000
John Conyers Jr (D-Mich).....................................     $5,000
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)......................................     $5,000
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif)........................................     $5,000
Ed Bryant (R-Term)...........................................     $5,000
Thomas M. Davis Ill (R-Va)...................................     $4,500
John D. Dingell (D-Mich).....................................     $4,500
Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz)...........................................     $4,500
Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill)........................................     $4,000
George W. Gekas (R-Pa).......................................     $4,000
Tim Roamer (D-Ind)...........................................     $4,000
Charies W, ``Chip'' Pickering Jr (R-Miss)..........     $4,000
Heather A. Wilson (R-NM).....................................     $4,000
Bob Etheridge (D-NC).........................................     $4,000
James E. Clyburn (D-SC)......................................     $4,000
Howard Coble (R-NC)..........................................     $4,000
David Vitter (R-La)..........................................     $4,000
Christopher R. Cannon (R-Utah)...............................     $3,500
Lois Capps (D-Calif).........................................     $3,500
Harold E. Ford Jr (D-Tenn)...................................     $3,500
Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis).........................................     $3,500
Adam Putnam (R-Fla)..........................................     $3,500
Ed Schrock (R-VB)............................................     $3,500
Jim McDermott (D-Wash).......................................     $3,500
Nancy L. Johnson (R-Corm)....................................     $3,500
Anne Northup (R-Ky)..........................................     $3,500
Jim McCrery (R-La)...........................................     $3,000
Rick Boucher (D-Va)..........................................     $3,000
Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass)....................................     $3,000
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif)...................................     $3,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas)........................................     $3,000
William P. ``Bill'' Luther (D-Minn)................     $3,000
Spencer Bachus (R-Ala).......................................     $3,000
Mary Bono (R-Calif)..........................................     $3,000
Richard M. Burr (R-NC).......................................     $3,000
Steve Buyer (R-ind) S3,000...................................
Chris John (D-La)............................................     $3,000
Ralph M. Hall (D-Texas)......................................     $3,000
Mark Green (R-Wis)...........................................     $3,000
Bud Cramer (D-Ala)...........................................     $3,000
Philip M. Crane (R-Ill)......................................     $3,000
Jim Gibbons (R-Nev)..........................................     $3,000
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham (R-Calif)................     $3.000
Diana Degette (D-Colo).......................................     $3,000
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif).....................................     $3,000
Vito J. Fossella (R-NY)......................................     $3,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis).............................................     $3,000
John Shadegg (R-Ariz)........................................     $3,000
Edward Whitfield (R-Ky)......................................     $3,000
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)........................................     $3,000
Bennie Thompson (D-Miss).....................................     $3.000
Bill Thomas (R-Calif)........................................     $3,000
W. J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (R-La)......................     $3,000
John Tanner (D-Tenn).........................................     $3,000
E. Clay Shaw Jr (R-Fla)......................................     $3,000
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)........................................     $2,750
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr (R-Wis)............................     $2,749
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif).....................................     $2.500
Harold Rogers (R-Ky).........................................     $2,500
Melvin Watt (D-NC)...........................................     $2.500
Jim Davis (D-Fla)............................................     $2,500
Cliff Stearns (R-Fla)........................................     $2,500
Darrell Issa (R-Calif).......................................     $2,500
Mike Honda (D-Calif).........................................     $2,500
Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo).........................................     $2,500
Tom Sawyer (D-Oh(o)..........................................     $2,500
Porter J. Goss (R-Fla).......................................     $2,500
Sam Farr (D-Calif)...........................................     $2,500
 Melissa A. Hart (R-Pa)......................................     $2,500
 Constance A, Morella (R-Md).................................     $2,500
 Dennis Hastert (R-Ill)......................................     $2,500
 C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla)....................................     $2,500
 Gene Green (D-Texas)........................................     $2,000
 Ric Keller (R-Fla)..........................................     $2,000
 Robert Adernolt (R-Ala).....................................     $2,000
 Thomas Gerard Tancredo (R-Colo).............................     $2,000
 William J. Jefferson (D-La).................................     $2,000
 Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)................................     $2,000
 Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas).............................     $2,000
 Felix J. Grucci Jr (R-NY)...................................     $2,000
 Mark Kennedy (R-Minn).......................................     $2,000
 Charles W. Stenholm (D-Texas)...............................     $2,000
 Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md).......................................     $2,000
 Darlene Hooley (D-Ore)......................................     $2,000
 Chet Edwards (D-Texas)......................................     $2,000
 Jane Harman (D-Calif).......................................     $2,000
 Jeff Flake (R-Ariz).........................................     $2,000
 Robin Hayes (R-NC)..........................................     $2,000
 Mark Foley (R-Fla)..........................................     $2,000
 Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill).......................................     $2,000
 Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif)...................................     $2,000
 Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis).......................................     $2,000
 Joe L. Barton (R-Texas).....................................     $2,000
 Dennis Moore (D-Kan)........................................     $2,000
 Gary G. Miller (R-Calif)....................................     $2,000
 Dan Miller (R-Fla)..........................................     $2,000
 Richard W. P0mbo (R-Calif)..................................     $2,000
 Earl Pomeroy (D-ND).........................................     $2,000
 Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla)...................................     $2,000
 David E. Bonior (D-Mich)....................................     $2,000
 Adam Schiff (D-Calif).......................................     $2,000
 Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI)...................................     $2,000
 J. C. Watts Jr (R-Okla).....................................     $2,000
 Ron Lewis (R-Ky)............................................     $2,000
 H. James Saxton (R-NJ)......................................     $2,000
 Bob Clement (D-Tenn)........................................     $2,000
 Sander M. Levin (D-Mich)....................................     $2,000
 Fred Upton (R-Mich).........................................     $2,000
 Steve Largent (R-Okla)......................................     $2,000
 Jim Langevin (D-R??)........................................     $2,000
 Christopher Cox (R-Calif)...................................     $2,000
 Don Young (R-Alaska)........................................     $2,000
 Douglas A. Ose (R-Calif)....................................     $2,000
 Richard E. Neal (D-Mass)....................................     $2,000
 Donald L. Sherwood (R-Pa)...................................     $1,500
 Pete Sessions (R-Texas).....................................     $1,500
 Greg Ganske (R-Iowa)........................................     $1,500
 Robert L. Ehrlich Jr (R-Md).................................     $1,500
 Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich)...................................     $1,500
 John E. Sununu (R-NH).......................................     $1,500
 Jo Ann Davis (R-Va).........................................     $1,500
 Barney Frank (D-Mass).......................................     $1.500
Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla).......................................     $1,500
C. L. ``Butch'' Otter (R-Idaho)....................     $1,500
Greg Walden (R-Ore)..........................................     $1,500
Henry Brown (R-SC) 51,500....................................
Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio)....................................     $1,SO0
Charles Bass (R-NH)..........................................     $1,500
Charlie Norwood (R-Ga).......................................     $1,500
Rush D. Holt (D-NJ)..........................................     $1,500
Jim Ryun (R-Kan).............................................     51.500
Amo Houghton (R-NY)..........................................     $1.500
Scott Mc??nnis (R-Colo)......................................       $500
J. D. Hayworth (R-Ariz)......................................     $1.500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif)....................................     51,500
iron Paul (R-Texas)..........................................     51,250
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga).......................................     51,000
Edward J. Markey (D-Mass)....................................     $1.000
Dan Burton (R-Ind)...........................................     $1,000
Jim Ramstad (R-Minn).........................................     $1.000
Ken Lucas (D-Ky).............................................     $1,000
Eric Cantor (R-Va)...........................................     $1.000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif)......................................     $1,000
Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio).......................................     $1,000
John Lewis (D-Ga)............................................     $1,000

[[Page 29325]]

 
Todd Akin (R-Mo).............................................     51,000
William ``Lacy'' Clay (D-Mo).......................     $1,000
Jerry Lewis (R-Calif)........................................     51,000
Iledna Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla)..................................     $1,000
Mark Udall (D-Colo)..........................................     $1.000
Jim Turner (D-Texas).........................................     $1.000
Brad Carson (D-Okla).........................................     $1,000
Roger Wicker (R-Miss)........................................     $1,000
Thomas M. Barrett (D-Wis)....................................     $1,000
John P. Murtha (D-Pa)........................................     $1,000
Albert R. Wynn (D-Md)........................................     $1,000
Mike Pence (R-Ind)...........................................     $1,000
Frank R. Wolf (R-Va).........................................     $1,000
Jack Quinn (R-NY)............................................     $1,000
David E. Price (D-NC)........................................     $1,000
Leonard L. Boswell (D-Iowa)..................................     $1,000
Henry Bonilla (R-Texas)......................................     $1,000
Karen McCarthy (D-Mo)........................................     $1,000
Mike Ross (D-Ark)............................................     $1,000
Sue Myrick (R-NC)............................................     $1,000
Bob Ney (R-Ohio).............................................     $1,000
James A. Barcia (D-Mich).....................................     $1,000
Marion Berry (D-Ark).........................................     $1,000
Bill Jenkins (R-Term)........................................     $1,000
Lamar Smith (R-Texas)........................................     $1,000
Vic Snyder (D-Ark)...........................................     $1,000
Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo)........................................     $1,000
Baron P. Hill (D-Ind)........................................     $1,000
David L. Hobson (R-Ohio).....................................     $1,000
 John M. Spratt Jr (D-SC)....................................     $1.000
Gary A. Condit (D-Calif).....................................     $1.000
Jack Kingston (R-Ga).........................................     $1.000
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ).........................................     51.000
Lincoin Diaz-Balart (R-Fla)..................................     $1.000
Lane Evans (D-Ill)...........................................     $1,000
John M. Shimkus (R-Ill)......................................     $1,000
Bart Stupak (D-Mich).........................................     51,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif).......................................     $1,000
John Thune (R-SD)............................................     51.000
Frank Pallone Jr (D-NJ)......................................     $1,000
:Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas)..................................     51,000
Marge Roukema (R-NJ).........................................     51,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla)........................................     51,000
John Culberson (R-Texas).....................................     $1,000
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif)..............................     $1,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis)........................................     $1,000
Brian D. Kerns (R-Ind).......................................     $1.000
Sam Johnson (R-Texas)........................................     $1.000
Jim Nussle (R-Iowa)..........................................     $1.000
Nathan Deal (R-GB)...........................................     $1,000
John L. Mica (R-FIB).........................................       $500
Paul E. Gillmor (R-Ohio).....................................     $500''                                                                      
Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif).......................................       $500
Max Sandlin (D-Texas)........................................       $500
Wally Herger (R-Calif).......................................       $500
Sanford D. Bishop Jr (D-Ga)..................................       $500
Robert Wexler (D-FIB)........................................       $500
 Anthony Weiner (D-NY).......................................       $500
John H. Isakson (R-Ga).......................................       5500
Dave Camp (R-Mich)...........................................       5500
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md)....................................       $500
Eva Clayton (D-NC)...........................................       $500
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)........................................       $500
Brad Sherman (D-Calif).......................................       $500
Peter T. King (R-NY).........................................       5500
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)......................................        500
 David Wu (D-Ore)............................................      5250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on FEC data downloaded 9/1/01.

    Results: Presidential Donors Search
    75 records found in .0g seconds.
    SEARCH
    CRITERIA:
    O Sort by Name
    Donor name: (all contributors)
    Donor zip code: (any zip) (,--) Sort by Date
    Donor employer/occupation: Microsoft
    Election cycle(s): 2000 Sort by Amount
    J Change Sort Order
    Start another search
    Records I--49:
    ContributorOccupation Date AmountRecipient 
Bush, George
EISLER, CRAIG, REDMOND, WA 98053, MICROSOFT, 7/14/1999 $2,000 W
MATHEWS, MICHELLE J, MICROSOFT CORP 7/22/1999 $2,000 Bush, George, 
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
PETERS, G CHRISTOPHER, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 7/14/1999, $2,000 
Bush, George W MEDINA, WA 98039
FERNANDEZ, ROLAND L MR, WOODINVILLE, WA, 98072, MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION/ENGINEER, 2/29/2000, 52,000 Bush, George W.
BRESEMANN, JOHN K MR, MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE ENGINEER, 10/12/2000, 
$2,000 Bush, George W, REDMOND, WA 98053
NIELSEN, TOD MR, MICROSOFT/VICE PRESIDENT, 12/27/1999, $2,000 George 
W. Bush, REDMOND, WA 98053
SIMONYI, CHARLES DR, MICROSOFT, 8/17/1999, $1,000 Bush, George W. 
BELLEVUE, WA 98009
SHAW, GREGORY M, MICROSOFT, 7/14/1999 51,000 Bush, George W. 
BELLEVUE, WA 98004, I
SAMPLE, WILLIAM J, MICROSOFT, 7/14/1999, $1,000 Bush, George, 
REDMOND, WA 98053
MICROSOFT DAVID, MICROSOFT, 7/14/1999 $1,000 Bushs' George, SEATTLE, 
WA 98112
KOSS, MICHAEL C, MICROSOFT, 7/14/1999, $1,000 W, BOTHELL, WA 98052
EMANUELS, BRIAN D, Bush, George, MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040, MICROSOFT, 
8/17/1999, $1,000
BRUNTON, DEBORAH, MICROSOFT, 7/21/1999, 51,000 Bush, George, 
KIRKLAND, WA 98033
HURLBUT, CLARK K, MICROSOFT, 6/24/1999, 51,000 Bush, George, RENO, 
NV 89511
FLAAT, CHRISTOPHER, MICROSOFT, 3/31/1999, 51,000 W-s George, 
BELLEVUE. WA 98007
SPENCER, WILLIAM A, MICROSOFT/MARKETING MANAGER, 11/8/1999 $1,000 
Bush, George REDMOND, WA 98052
MR BRYAN WILLMAN, MICROSOFT/PROGRAMMER, 3/7/2000 $1,000 W, KIRKLAND, 
WA 98034
MR WOODRUFF, BRYAN A, MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE DESIGN ENGINEER, 2/29/2000, 
$1,000 Bush, George W, REDMOND, WA 98053
WORLEY, TERENCE MR, PLEASANTON, CA 94566, MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE, 
ENGINEER, 5/17/2000, $1,000 Bush, George W
BARON WERNER MR, MICROSOFT, Bush, George, REDMOND, WA 98052, 
CORPORATION/MARKETING, 2/28/2000, $800
MASTERS, JERRY R, Bush, George, WOODINVILLE, WA, MICROSOFT, 8/4/
1999, $500, W, I, 98072
Bush, George,
JORGENSEN, ERIK M, MICROSOFT, 7/16/1999, $500 W; SEATTLE, WA 98101, 
Bush George
HERBOLD, ROBERTJ, MICROSOFT CORP, 7/14/1999, $500 W; BELLEVUE, WA 
98015
WOODINVILLE, WA, MICROSOFT CORP, 7/27/1999, $500 Bush George, 98072
BERENSON, HAROLD & BUSH GEORGE, MR MICROSOFT CORP./ENGINEER, 1/
20/2000, $500 W, WOODINVILLE, WA, 98072, I
HERBOLD, ROBERT J, MICROSOFT CORP./EXECUTIVE VP & I Bush, George 
MR CO0, 1/12/2000, $5O0, I, w
BELLEVUE, WA 98015, SHAUGHNESSY, Bush, George MICROSOFT CORP./
PRODUCT & 7/14/2000, $500 W
WILLIAM T MR, BUSINESS, REDMOND, WA 98052, Bush, George, 
SHAUGHNESSY, MICROSOFT CORP./PRODUCT & 2/29/2000, $500 W
WILLIAM T, MR BUSINESS, REDMOND, WA 98052
KESTER, CHARLES G, MR MICROSOFT CORP./TEAM MANAGER, 3/8/2000, $500 
Bush, George, LAKE FOREST PARK, W, WA 98155
MCEACHRON, BRIAN L MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 7/14/1999, $500 ! Bush, 
George, REDWOOD, WA 98052, W
    Nest set of records 2000 cycle data downloaded from FEC on 
November 1, 2001. Date of request: January 2, 2002
WORLEY, TERENCE, PLEASANTON, CA, MICROSOFT, 6/30/1999, $1,000 Bush, 
George W, 94566, Bush, George
SPIX, GEORGE A, MICROSOFT CORP, 7/14/1999, $1,000 W, REDMOND, WA 
98052
SANDERSON, JEFFREY, P, MICROSOFT CORP, 8/12/1999, $1,000, Bush, 
George W, BELLEVUE. WA 98004
PIMENTEL, ALBERT, Bush, George, MONTE SERENO, CA, MICROSOFT CORP, 7/
8/1999, $1,000, W, 95030
MURPHY, R BARRY, MICROSOFT CORP, 7/13/1999, $1,000 Bush, George, 
REDMOND, WA 98052 W
HARTNECK, RALF, MICROSOFT CORP, 8/11/1999, $1,000 Bush, George, 
SEATTLE, WA 98144 W
FIRMAN, THOMAS R, MICROSOFT CORP, 7/14/1999, $1,000 Bush, George, 
BELLEVUE, WA 98005, W
ASHMUN, D STUART, MICROSOFT CORP 8/10/1999, $1,000 W, SEATTLE, WA 
98177
BERENSON, HAROLD, Bush, George, MR MICROSOFT CORP./ENGINEER, 6/15/
2000, $1,000 W, WOODINVILLE, WA 98072
HARTENECK, RALF MR, MICROSOFT CORP./VICE PRESIDENT, 5/11/2000, 
$1,000 Bush, George, SEATTLE, WA 98144 W
BOYLE, MICHAEL P, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 7/21/1999, $1,000 Bush, 
George, BELLEVUE, WA 98005, W
DERMODY, CHARLES W, MR MICROSOFT CORPORATION/ENGINEER, 6/26/2000, I, 
$1.000 Bush, George, w, REDMOND, WA 98052

[[Page 29326]]

PIMENTEL, ALBERT, MR MICROSOFT, MONTE SERENO, CA, 7/31/2000, $1,000 
Bush, George, CORPORATION/EXECUTIVE, W, !95030
SHERWOOD, DAVID E, Bush, George, WOODINVILLE, WA, MICROSOFT/
ATTORNEY, 6/8/2000, $1,000 W, ! 98072
BLANKENBURG, ERIC P, Bush, George, MR MICROSOFT/CONSULTANT, 2/24/
2000, $1,000, W, ! CARNATION, WA 98014
HERBOLD, ROBERT J, MR MICROSOFT/COO, 11/22/1999 $1,000, Bush. George 
W, BELLEVUE, WA 98005
MASTERS, JERRY R MR, Bush, George, WOODINVILLE, WA, MICROSOFT/
FINANCE, 7/31/2000, $1,000,
W, 98072
SANDERSON. JEFFREY, Bush, George, P, MR, MICROSOFT/MARKETING, 5/17/
2000, $1,000, W, `BELLEVUE, WA, 98004,
MATHEWS, MICHELLE, Bush, George, !MRS, MICROSOFT/MARKETING, 5/17/
2000, $1,000, W, BELLEVUE, WA, 98004
DOUGLAS, DEDO, MR' MICROSOFT/MARKETING, MANAGER, 3/30/2000, $1,000, 
Bush, George, REDMOND, WA, 98053, W,
    SEARCH, CRITERIA:
    Donor name: (all contributors)
    Donor zip, code: (any zip)
    Donor employer/occupation: Microsoft
    Election cycle(s): 2000
BRIAN, MCEACHRON, I Bush, MICROSOFT, CORPORATION, 4/14/1999, $500, 
George, W, J!REDWOOD', WA 198052,
PEASE, MATTHEW, Bush, M MICROSOFT INC, 9/30/1999, $500, George, W, 
WALNUT, CREEK, CA 94595
KELLY, JOHN, MR, Bush, KIRKLAND, WA, MICROSOFT/ATTORNEY, 2/29/2000, 
$500, 98033, George, W
NIELSEN, TOD, MR, Bush, REDMOND, WA, MICROSOFT/DEVELOPING/MARKETING, 
12/23/1999, 5500, George, W .98_53o,
RAVANI, ANTHONY, Bush, MR MICROSOFT/EXECUTIVE, 2/29/2000, $500, 
George, W
NIXON, TOBY, L, MR, KIRKLAND, WA, MICROSOFT/MANAGER, 2/29/2000, 
S500, Bush, George, W, 98034
YANG, LIANMR, WOODINVILLE, WA, MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE, DESIGN ENGINEER, 
112412000, $500, Bush, George, W, 98072
JAKSTADT, ERIC, MR, Bush, WOODINVlLLE, WA, MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE 
DEVELOPER, 3/7/2000, $500, George, W, 98072 ....., I, I
JAKSTADT, ERIC J, MR MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE DEVELOPER, I, 1/31/2000, 
$500, Bush, WOODINVILLE, WA, George W, 98072
GREGG, DIANNE L, `Bush, SUDBURY, MA, MICROSOFT INC, 9/14/1999, 
$400, George, W, 01776
HOKE, STEVE J, :Bush, tKIRKLAND, WA, MICROSOFT, 6/30/1999, $300, 
George W, 98034 I
!HARRISON, Bush, ARTHUR, B, MR MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE ENGINEER, t, 2/29/
2000, $300 I, George W, CHARLOTTE, NC 28277, MICROSOFT CORP/
ENGINEER, Bush
LINDELL, STEVE MR, 10/11/2000, $250, BELLEVUE, WA, George W j98008
WARD, I MR JAMES I, CHARLOTTE, NC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION/TECHNICAL 
MAN, 3/8/2000, $250 Bush, 28270, George W
REMALA, RAO V, Bush, WOODINVILLE, WA, MICROSOFT INC, 9/30/1999, $250 
!98072, George W
WURDEN, $250 Bush, FREDERICK L MR, MICROSOFT/MANAGER, 2/29/2000, 
REDMOND, WA, jGeorge W, J98053, I
NIXON, TOBY L MR, KIRKLAND, WA, MICROSOFT/MANAGER, 4/13/2000, $200 J 
Bush, 98034, J George W
MASTERS, JERRY R, MR MICROSOFT/FINANCE, 9/18/2000, -$500 Bush, 
WOODINVILLE, WA :George W, 198072
EISLER, CRAIG,
Bush, REDMOND, WA, MICROSOFT, 8/4/1999, -$1,000, 98053, George 
W
MATHEWS, MICHELLE J, MICROSOFT CORP, 8/12/1999, -$1,000, Bush, 
BELLEVUE, WA, George W, 98004
BERENSON, HAROLD MR Bush, MICROSOFT CORP., 8/1/2000, -$1,000, 
WOODINVlLLE, WA, George W, 98072
PETERS, G CHRISTOPHER Bush, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 8/18/1999, 
-$1,000 MEDINA, WA, George W, 98039
FERNANDEZ, ROLANDLMR, Bush, MICROSOFT CORPORATION/ENGINEER, 4/21/
2000, -$1,000, WOODINVILLE, WA,George W, 98072
BRESEMANN, JOHN, ] Bush, REDMOND, MR WA MICROSOFT/SOFTWARE ENGINEER, 
11/6/2000, -$1,000, George W 98053
NIELSEN, TOD MR J, REDMOND, WA, MICROSOFT/VICEPRESIDENT, :2/2/2000, 
-$1,000, Bush, t George W, 98053
    2000 cycle data downloaded from FEC on November 1, 2001. Date of 
request: January 2, 2002
Opensecrets.org--PAC Contributions to John Ashcroft (R)

THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS 2000 CYCLE I 2002 CYCLE

John Ashcroft (R) 1999-2000 PAC Contributions: $2,025,323
    Based on data released by the FEC on Thursday, November 01, 
2001.
Agribusiness $154,937
Communic/Electronics $204,899
I
Printing & Publishing $27,000
1-V/Movies/Music $47,499
Telephone Utilities $60,450
Telecom Services & Equipment $26,450
Electronics Mfg & Services $6,000
Computer Equipment & Services $37,500
3 Corn Corp $1,000
Amazon.com $1,000
AmericaOnline $5,000
Cable & Wireless USA $1,000
Ceridian Corp $2,00C
Compaq Computer $1,000
Computer Sciences Corp $2,00,(2
EDS Corp $1,00c
Gateway Inc $4,50C
Intel Corp $3,00C
Microsoft Corp $9,00C
3/2/1999 $1,00C
6/16/1999 $1,00C
6/28/1999 $1,0,0C
9/29/1999 $1,000
12/9/1999 $I,00*
2/9/2000 $1,006
5/12/2000 $1,000
6/20/2000 $1,00C
9/712000 $1,00C
Oracle Corp $1,000
Storage Technology Corp $1,000
Sun Microsystems $2,000
Technology Network
Federal PAC
Construction
Defense
Energy/NatResource
Finance/Insur/RealEst
Health
Lawyers 8, Lobbyists
Transportation
Misc Business
Labor
Ideology/Single-Issue
Other
Unknown
$2,00C
$3,00(;
$123,00C
$17,000
$210,550
$329,208
$140,00(;
$69,023
$2O9,O5(;
$304,666
$9,000 $251,89C I $1,10C $1,00
Contributor, Occupation, Date, Amount, Recipient

MICROSOFT

WASHINGTON, DC, 4/16/2001, $15,000, DNC/Non-Federal Corporate 20036
612712000, $100,000, RNC/Repub National State, REDMOND, WA 98052 
Elections Crate
3/31/2000, $55,000, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State 1/6/2000, $35,000, Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
i6/30/2000, $5,000, Ashcroft Victory Cmte Non-Federal REDMOND, WA 
98052
WASHINGTON, DC 20036 7/29/1999, $5,000, DNC/Non-Federal Corporate
RNC/Repub National State 1011712001, $25,000, Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 10/13/2000, $25,000, Elections Cmte, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 611612000, $25,000, Elections Cmte, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Cmte to Preserve, 4/12/2000, $5,000, Eisenhower Ctr, REDMOND, WA 
98052
RNC/Repub National State, 5/5/1999, $25,000, Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 12/31/1999 $45,000 NRSC/Non-Federal
12/31/1999, $32,500, DCCC/Non-Federal Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
10/13/2000, $20,000, RNC/Repub National State, REDMOND, WA 98052 
Elections Crate
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 8/10/2000, $15,000, DNC/Non-Federal Corporate
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 813111999,

[[Page 29327]]

$15,000, DNC/Non-Federal Corporate
REDMOND, WA 98052, 51611999, $15,000, DNC/Non-Federal Corporate
613011999, $15,000, DNC/Non-Federal Corporate, REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 12/17/1999, $15,000, Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
9/23/1999, $10,000, DCCC/Non-Federal Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
1012011999, $10,000, DCCC/Non-Federal Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
3110/1999, $10,000, DCCC/Non-Federal Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 31612001, $5,000, Elections Cmte, REDMOND, 
WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 12/16/1999, $10,000 Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 7/29/1999, $10,000, Elections Cmte, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
RNC/Repub National State, 13112001, $7,900, ``Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
1/25/2001, $10,000, RNC/Repub National State, REDMOND, WA 98052, 
Elections Crate
RNC/Repub National State, ``2/1512001, $10'000 Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 6/27/2001, $10,000; DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

MICROSOFT CORP

111712001, $15,000, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
9/26/2001, $20,179, NRSC/Building Fund, REDMOND, WA 98052
3/30/2001, $50,000, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
REDMOND, WA 98052, 5/17/1999, $60,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
RNC/Repub National State, 911412000, $5,831, Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 612812000, $30,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
6/712000, $321, National Abortion Rights Action League, REDMOND, WA 
98052
1012612000, $25,000, NRSC/Non-Federal REDMOND, WA 98052
10/26/2000, $25,000, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
REDMOND, WA 98052, 3/30/2001, $25,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
REDMOND, WA 98052, 6/4/2001, $25,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
REDMOND, WA 98052, 6/4/2001, $25,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
REDMOND, WA 98052, 8/17/1999, $25,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 8/11/2000, $50,000, NRSC/Non-Federal
WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 7/11/2000, $200, NRSC/Non-Federal
1/29/2001, $202, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
1/18/2001, $250, DSCC/Non-Federal Mixed, REDMOND, WA 98052
2/12/2001, $250, DSCC/Non-Federal Mixed, REDMOND, WA 98052
5/23/2001, $40,000, 2001 President's Dinner/Non-Fed Trust, REDMOND, 
WA 98052
8/21/2001, $50,000, RNC/Repub National State, Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
3/30/2001, $50,000, DSCC/Non-Federal Corporate, REDMOND, WA 98052
    2000 cycle data downloaded from FEC on November 1, 2001.
    2002 cycle data downloaded from FEC on January 1, 2002. Date of 
request: January 20, 2002.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/cgi-win/indivs.exe
DSCC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052, 61812001, $50,000, Corporate
NRCC/Non-Federal, WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 6/16/1999, $350, Account
DSCC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052, 10/20/2000, $60,000, Corporate
NRCC/Non-Federal, WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 3/30/2000 $35,000, Account
REDMOND, WA 98052, 4/11/2000, $33,690, NRSC/Non-Federal
4/4/2000, $30,000, 2000 Republican HIS, REDMOND, WA 98052, Dinner 
Trust Non-Fed
1999 Republican S/H, 7/26/1999, $30,000, Dinner Trust Non-Fed, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
REDMOND, WA 98052, 12/31/1999, $5,000, Ashcroft Victory Cmte, Non-
Federal
DSCC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052, 313012001, $2,500, Corporate
DSCC/Non-Federal, 911311999, $5,000, Mixed, REDMOND, WA 98052
DSCC/Non-Federal, 11/29/1999, $25,000, Corporate, WASHINGTON, DC 
20036
DSCC/Non-Federal, 11/3/1999, $25,000, Corporate, REDMOND, WA 98052
DCCC/Non-Federal, 8/2/2000, $2,500, Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
NRCC/Non-Federal, 8/30/2000, $25,000, Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 3/27/2000, $25,000, Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 10/22/1999, $25,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 3/23/1999, $25,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 6/22/2000, $2,500 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 312311999, $2,500 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
4/21/2000, $698 : NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
NRCC/Non-Federal, 6/30/2000, $5,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
RNC/Repub National, 111312000, $25,000' State Elections Cmte, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
DCCC/Non-Federal, 3/28/2001, $25,000 Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
NRCC/Non-Federal, 412412001, $100,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
NRCC/Non-Federal, 10/11/2000 $75,000, Account I, WASHINGTON, DC 
20036
4/11/2000, $51,832, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
DCCC/Non-Federal, 3/30/2000, $56,542, Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
DSCC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052, 6/30/2000, $50,000 Corporate
2/26/1999, $50,000, DSCC/Non-Federal, Corporate REDMOND, VA 98073
RNC/Repub National, 10/26/1999, $50,000, State Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
DSCC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052 4/17/2000, $40,000 Corporate
RNC/Repub National, 2/1612000, $40,000, State Elections Crate, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
NRCC/Non-Federal, 6/30/2000, $22,500 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
DCCC/Non-Federal, 4/17/2000, $15,000, Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
NRCC/Non-Federal, 6/30/2000, $20,000 Account WASHINGTON, DC 20036
4/21/2000, $453, NRSC/Non-Federal, REDMOND, WA 98052
I NRCC/Non-Federal, 3/27/2000, $15,000 I Account, WASHINGTON, DC 
20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, WASHINGTON, DC 20036 3/23/1999, $15,000 Account
5/24/2000, $8,985, 2000 Republican HIS, REDMOND, WA 98052, Dinner 
Trust Non-Fed
DSCC/Non-Federal, 12/31/1999, $500 Mixed REDMOND, WA 98052
NRCC/Non-Federal, 3/23/1999, $7,500 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
DCCC/Non-Federal, 2/29/2000, $10,000, Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052
DSCC/Non-Federal, 6/8/2000, $250 Mixed, REDMOND, WA 98052
DSCC/Non-Federal, 6/8/2000, $250 Mixed, REDMOND, WA 98052
DSCC/Non-Federal, 8/24/1999, $250 Mixed, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 3/7/2000, $10,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 3/23/1999, $10,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20036
NRCC/Non-Federal, 6/25/2001, $5,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
NRCC/Non-Federal, 6/25/2001, $5,000 Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
RNC/Repub National, 9/27/2001, $10,000, State Elections Cmte, 
REDMOND, WA 98052
    2000 cycle data downloaded from FEC on November 1, 2001.
    2002 cycle data downloaded from FEC on January 1, 2002. Date of 
request: January 21, 2002
1/16/2001, $10,000, NRCC/Non-Federal Account, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
5/11/2001, $10,000, DNC/Non-Federal, Corporate RICHMOND, WA 98052
6/18/2001, $10,000, DCCC/Non-Federal, Account 1, REDMOND, WA 98052

MICROSOFT CORPORATION PAC

PAC 5/11/2001, $1,000 New Democrat Network ARLINGTON, VA

MICROSOFT EXCEL

NRCC/Non-Federal, FAIRVIEW, NC 28730 7/27/1999, $500, Account

    2000 cycle data downloaded from FEC on November 1, 2001.
    2002 cycle data downloaded from FEC on January 1, 2002. Date of 
request: January 21, 2002

ATTACHMENT 2

The Center for Responsive Politics
1101 14th St., NW * Suite 1030
Washington, DC 20005-5635
(202) 857-0044 * fax (202) 857-7809
[email protected] [email protected]
General Inquires: ``
[email protected]
Media Contact: Steven Weiss
[email protected]
    The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit 
research group based

[[Page 29328]]

in Washington, DC that tracks money in politics, and its effect on 
elections and public policy. The Center conducts computer-based 
research on campaign finance issues for the news media, academics, 
activists, and the public at large. The Center's work is aimed at 
creating a more educated voter, an involved citizenry, and a more 
responsive government.
    Support for the Center comes from a combination of foundation 
grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no 
contributions from businesses or labor unions. You can support the 
work of the Center directly by contributing through opensecrets.org. 
http://www.opensecrets.org/about/index.asp
    ATTACHMENT 3 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH



MTC-00030631 0753

Statement of Charles F. (Rick) Rule
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
Counsel for Microsoft Corporation
Before the Committee on the Judiciary.
United States Senate
December 12, 2001
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. It is a 
pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of Microsoft 
Corporation to discuss the proposed consent decree or Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment (the ``PFJ'') to which the U.S. 
Department of Justice and nine of the plaintiff states have agreed. 
As this committee is aware, I am counsel to Microsoft in the case 
and was one of the principal representatives for the company in the 
negotiations that led to the proposed consent decree.
    The PFJ was signed on November 6th after more than a month of 
intense, around-the-clock negotiations with the Department and 
representatives of all the plaintiff states. The decree is currently 
subject to a public interest review by Judge Kollar-Kotelly under 
the Tunney Act. Because we are currently in the midst of that review 
and because nine states and the District of Columbia have chosen to 
continue the litigation, t must be somewhat circumspect in my 
remarks. However, what I can -- indeed, must--stress is 
that, in light of the Court of Appeals'' decision last summer 
to ``drastically'' reduce the scope of Microsoft's 
liability and in light of the legal standards for imposing 
injunctive relief, the Department and the settling states were very 
effective in negotiating for broad, strong relief. As the chart in 
the appendix depicts, ever since the Department and the plaintiff 
states first filed their complaints in May 1998, the case has been 
shrinking. What began with five claims, was whittled down to a 
single monopoly maintenance claim by a unanimous Court of Appeals. 
Even with respect to that surviving claim, the appellate court 
affirmed Judge Jackson's findings on only about a third (12 of 35) 
of the specific acts which the district court had found support that 
claim.
    Given that history and the law, there is no reasonable argument 
that the PFJ is too narrow or that it fails to achieve all the 
relief to which the Department was entitled. In fact. as these 
remarks explain. the opposite is true--faced with rough, 
determined negotiators on the other side of the table, Microsoft 
agreed to a decree that goes substantially beyond what the 
plaintiffs were likely to achieve through litigation. Quite frankly, 
the PFJ is the strongest, most regulatory conduct decree ever 
obtained (through litigation or settlement) by the Department. Why 
then, one might ask, would Microsoft consent to such a decree? There 
are two reasons.
    First. the company felt strongly that it was important to put 
this matter behind it and to move forward constructively with its 
customers, its business partners, and the government. For four 
years, the litigation has consumed enormous resources and been a 
serious distraction. The constant media drumbeat has obscured the 
fact that the company puts a premium on adhering to its legal 
obligations and on developing and maintaining excellent 
relationships with its partners and customers. Litigation is never a 
pleasant experience, and given the magnitude of this case and the 
media attention it attracted, it is hard to imagine any more costly, 
unpleasant civil litigation.
    Second. while the Department pushed Microsoft to make 
substantial, even excessive concessions to get a settlement, there 
were limits to how far the company was willing or able to go 
(limits, by the way, which the Department and the settling states 
managed to reach). Microsoft was fighting for an important 
principle--the ability to innovate and improve its products and 
services for the benefit of MTC-00030631--0754 consumers. 
To that end, Microsoft insisted that the decree be written in a way 
to allow the company to engage in legitimate competition on the 
merits. Despite the substantial burdens the decree will impose on 
Microsoft and the numerous ways in which Microsoft will be forced to 
alter its conduct, the decree does preserve Microsoft's ability to 
innovate, to improve its products, and to engage in procompetitive 
business conduct that is necessary for the company to survive.
    In short, at the end of the negotiations, Microsoft concluded 
that the very real costs that the decree imposes on the company are 
outweighed by the benefits, not just to Microsoft but to the PC 
industry and consumers generally.
    The Court of Appeals'' ``Road Map'' for Relief In 
order to evaluate the decree, one must first appreciate the h/story 
of this case and how drastically the scope of Microsoft's liability, 
was narrowed at the appellate level. When this case began with the 
filing of separate complaints by the Department and the plaintiff 
states in May of 1998, it was focused on Microsoft's integration of 
browsing functionality, called Internet Explorer or lie into Windows 
98, which the plaintiffs alleged to be an illegal tying arrangement.
    The complaints of the Department and the states included five 
separate claims: (1) a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act that 
the tie-in was per se illegal; (2) another claim under section 1 
that certain promotion and distribution agreements with Internet 
service providers (ISPs), Internet content providers (ICPs), and on-
line service providers (OSPs) constituted illegal exclusive dealing; 
(3) a claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act that Microsoft had 
attempted to monopolize Web browsing software; (4) a catch-all claim 
under section 2 that the alleged conduct that underlay the first 
three claims amounted to illegal maintenance of Microsoft's monopoly 
in PC operating systems; and (5) a claim by the plaintiff states 
(but not part of the Department's complaint) under section 2 that 
Microsoft illegally ``leveraged'' its monopoly in PC 
operating systems. As discovery got underway, the case dramatically 
expanded as the plaintiffs indiscriminately began identifying all 
manner of Microsoft conduct as examples of the company's illegal 
efforts to maintain its monopoly. But then, the case began to 
shrink.
    ``In response to Microsoft's motion for summary judgment, 
the district court dismissed the states'' Monopoly leveraging 
claim (claim 5). ``After trial, Judge Jackson held that the 
plaintiffs failed to prove that Microsoft's arrangements with ISPs, 
ICPs, and OSPs violated section 1 (claim 2). ``Judge Jackson 
did, however, conclude that the plaintiffs had sustained their 
claims that Microsoft illegally tied IE to Windows (claim 1), 
illegally attempted to monopolize the browser market (claim 3), and 
illegally maintained its monopoly (claim 4), basing his decision on 
35 different actions engaged in by Microsoft.
    ``In a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals sitting 
en banc. the court reversed the trial court on the attempted 
monopolization claim (claim 3) and remanded with instructions that 
judgment be entered on that claim in favor of Microsoft. ``The 
unanimous court also reversed Judge Jackson's decision with respect 
to the tie-in claim (claim 1 ). The appellate court held that. in 
light of the prospect of consumer benefit from integrating new 
functionality into platform software such as Windows. Microsoft's 
integration of IE into Windows had to be judged under the rule of 
reason rather than the per se approach taken by Judge Jackson.
    The Court of Appeals refused to apply the per se approach 
because of ``our qualms about redefining the boundaries of a 
defendant's product and the possibility of consumer gains from 
simplifying the work of applications developers [by ensuring the 
ubiquitous dissemination of compatible APIs].'' The court's 
decision did allow the plaintiffs on remand to pursue the tie-in 
claim on a rule of reason theory; however, shortly after the remand, 
the plaintiffs announced they were dropping the tie-in claim.
    ``With respect to the only remaining claim (monopoly 
maintenance--claim 4), the Court of Appeals affirmed in part 
and reversed in part the lower court and substantially shrank 
Microsoft's liability. After articulating a four-step burden-
shifting test that is highly fact intensive, the appellate court 
reviewed the 35 different factual bases for liability and rejected 
nearly two-thirds of them. e In the case of seven of those 35 
findings (concerning such conduct as Microsoft's refusal to allow 
OEMs to replace the Windows desktop, Microsoft's design of Windows 
to ``override the user's choice of a default browser,'' 
and Microsoft's development of a Java virtual machine (JVM)

[[Page 29329]]

that was incompatible with Sun's JVM), the appellate court 
specifically reversed Judge Jackson's decision. c The Court of 
Appeals dismissed sixteen of the remaining findings by reversing 
Judge Jackson's holding that Microsoft had engaged in a general 
``course of conduct'' that amounted to illegal monopoly 
maintenance--the so-called ``monopoly broth'' theory.
    * With respect to the remaining twelve findings (concerning such 
things as Microsoft's refusal to allow PC manufacturers (OEMs) to 
remove end-user access to IE, Microsoft's exclusive arrangements 
with ISPs, and its ``commingling'' of software code to 
frustrate OEMs ability, to hide access to IE), the court did affirm 
Judge Jackson's findings as not being ``clearly 
erroneous.'' And even as to those twelve, a number were 
practices--for example, the arrangements with ISPs-- that 
Microsoft had already ceased.
    As a result, when the case was remanded to the district court 
and reassigned to Judge Kollar-Kotelly, four-fifths of the original 
claims were all but gone. With respect to the sole surviving claim, 
nearly two-thirds of the supporting findings had been rejected by 
the Court of Appeals. In the words of the Court of Appeals, its 
decision ``drastically altered the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    The Relevance of the Drastic Narrowing of Liability
    The Court of Appeals'' decision makes clear the critical 
significance of the drastic reduction in the scope of Microsoft's 
liability in terms of the relief to which the plaintiffs are 
entitled. As the court noted in instructing the lower court on how 
the remand for remedy should be handled. ``A court.., must base 
its relief on some clear ``indication of a significant causal 
connection between the conduct enjoined or mandated and the 
violation found directed toward the remedial goal intended.'' 3 
PHILLIP E. AREEDA & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW 653(b), at 
91- .92 (1996). In a case such as the one before us where sweeping 
equitable relief is employed to remedy multiple violations, and 
some--indeed most--of the findings of remedial violations 
do not withstand appellate scrutiny, it is necessary to vacate the 
remedy decree since the implicit findings of causal connection no 
longer exist to warrant our deferential affirmance .... In 
particular, the [district] court should consider which of the 
decree's conduct restrictions remain viable in light of our 
modification of the original liability decision.''
    At the time Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into 
intensive negotiations, she clearly recognized the importance of the 
drastic alteration to the scope of Microsoft's liability. The judge 
informed the government that its ``first and most obvious task 
is going to be to determine which portions of the former judgment 
remain appropriate in light of the appellate court's ruling and 
which portions are unsupported following the appellate court's 
narrowing of liability.'' The judge went on to note that 
``the scope of any proposed remedy must be carefully crafted so 
as to ensure that the enjoining conduct falls within the [penumbra] 
of behavior which was found to be anticompetitive.'' The judge 
also stated that ``Microsoft argues that some of the terms of 
the former judgment are no longer appropriate, and that is correct. 
I think there are certain portions where the liability has been 
narrowed.''
    Before discussing the negotiations and the decree itself, I 
would like to make three other points about the crafting of 
antitrust remedies that also are relevant to considering the relief 
to which the plaintiffs were entitled. First, the critics of the PFJ 
routinely ignore the fact that the Department has long acknowledged 
that Microsoft lawfully acquired its monopoly position in PC 
operating systems. Indeed, the Department retained a Nobel laureate 
in the first Microsoft case in 1994 to submit an affidavit to the 
district court opining that Microsoft had reached its position in PC 
operating systems through luck, skill, and foresight. It is tree of 
course that Microsoft has now been found liable for engaging in 
conduct that amounted to illegal efforts to maintain that position: 
however, there is precious little in the record establishing any 
causal link between the twelve illegal acts of ``monopoly 
maintenance'' and Microsoft's current position in the market 
for PC operating systems. Thus, contrary. to the critics'' 
overheated rhetoric, there is no basis for relief designed to 
terminate an ``illegal monopoly.''
    Second, decrees in civil antitrust cases are designed to remedy, 
not to punish. All too often, the critics of this decree speak as 
though Microsoft was convicted of a crime. It was not. This is a 
civil case, subject to the rules of civil rather than criminal 
procedure. To the extent the plaintiffs tried to get relief that 
could be deemed punitive, that relief would have been rejected.
    Third, a decree must serve the purposes of the antitrust laws, 
which is a ``consumer welfare prescription.'' I realize we 
are in the ``season of giving,'' but an antitrust decree 
is not a Christmas tree to fulfill the wishes of competitors, 
particularly where that fulfillment comes at the expense of consumer 
welfare. Calls for royalty-free licensing of Microsoft's 
intellectual property, or for imposing obligations on Microsoft to 
distribute third party, software at no charge, or for Microsoft to 
facilitate the distribution of an infinite variety of bastardized 
versions of Windows (and make sure they all run perfectly) are great 
for a small group of competitors who know that such provisions will 
quickly destroy Microsoft's incentives and ability to compete (not 
to mention violate the Constitution's proscription against 
``takings''). Such calls, however, are anathema to 
consumers'' interests in a dynamic, innovative computer 
industry. Twenty. years ago, my old boss and antitrust icon, Bill 
Baxter, warned about the anticompetitive consequences of antitrust 
decrees designed simply to ``add sand to the saddlebags'' 
of a particularly fleet competitor like Microsoft. it's a warning 
the courts would certainly heed today.
    To their credit, the negotiators for the Department and the 
settling states understood these three fundamental antitrust 
principles. While we may have had to remind the other side of these 
principles from time to time. we did not have to negotiate for their 
adherence to them. Taxpayers and consumers can be proud that their 
interests were represented by honorable men and women with the 
utmost respect for the rule of law. For others to insinuate that. by 
agreeing to a decree that honors these three fundamental principles, 
the Department and the settling states ``caved'' or 
settled for inadequate relief is as offensive as it is laudable.
    The Negotiations
    It is against the background I have sketched that. on September 
27th, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into intensive, 
``around the clock'' negotiations. Microsoft had already 
indicated publicly its strong desire to try to settle the case, and 
so it welcomed the judge's order. As has been widely reported, all 
the parties in the case took the court's order very seriously. 
Microsoft assembled in Washington, DC, a core team of in-house and 
outside lawyers who have been living with this case for years, and 
who spent virtually all of the next five weeks camped out in my 
offices down the street.
    Microsoft's top legal officer was in town during much of the 
period directing the negotiations. Back in Redmond, the company's 
most senior executives devoted a great deal of time and energy to 
the process, and we were all supported by a large group of dedicated 
lawyers, businesspeople, and staff.
    From my vantage point, the Department and the states (at least 
those that settled) made an equivalent effort. As the mediator v, 
Tote after the process ended, ``No part'' was left out of 
the negotiations .... Throughout most of the mediation the 19 states 
(through their executive committee representatives) and the federal 
government (through the staff of the antitrust division) worked as a 
combined ``plaintiffs'' team.'' Jay Himes from the 
office of the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Beth 
Finnerty from the office of the Ohio Attorney General Betty 
Montgomery, represented the states throughout the negotiations, 
putting in the same long hours as the rest of us. At various points 
Mr. Himes and Ms. Finnerty were joined by representatives from other 
states, including Kevin O'Connor from the office of Wisconsin 
Attorney General James Doyle.
    The negotiations began on September 28th and continued virtually 
non-stop until November 6th. During the first two weeks, we 
negotiated without the benefit of a mediator. As the{time} '' 
say in diplomatic circles, the discussions were ``full and 
frank.'' The Department lawyers and the state representatives 
in the negotiation were extremely knowledgeable, diligent, and 
formidable.
    Microsoft certainly hoped to be able to reach a settlement 
quickly and before a mediator was designated. However, the views on 
all sides were sufficiently strong and the need to pay attention to 
every sentence, phrase, and punctuation mark so overwhelming that 
reaching agreement proved impossible in those first two weeks. Eric 
Green. a prominent mediation specialist, was appointed by the court 
and with the help of Jonathan Marks spent the next three weeks 
helping the parties find common ground. As Professor Green and Mr. 
Marks wrote after

[[Page 29330]]

the mediation ended, ``Successful mediations are ones in which 
mediators and parties work to identity and overcome barriers to 
reaching agreement. Successful mediations are ones in which all the 
parties engage in reasoned discussions of issues that divide them, 
of options for settlement, and of the risks. opportunities, and 
costs that each part), faces if a settlement isn't reached. 
Successful mediations are ones in which, settle or not. senior 
representatives of each party have made informed and intelligent 
decisions. The Microsoft mediation was successful.''
    Working day and night virtually until the original .November 2 
deadline set by the judge. Microsoft and the Department agreed to 
and signed a decree early on November 2. The representatives of the 
states also tentatively agreed, subject to an opportunity from 
November 2 until November 6 to comer with the other states that were 
more removed from the case and negotiations. During that period, the 
states requested several clarifying modifications to which Microsoft 
(and the Departmet) agreed. From press reports, it appears that 
during this period the plaintiff states also were being subjected to 
intense lobbying by a few of Microsoft's competitors who were 
desperate either to get a decree that. would severely cripple if not 
eventually destroy Microsoft or at least to keep the litigation (and 
the attendant costs imposed on Microsoft) going. Notwithstanding 
that pressure, New York, Wisconsin, and Ohio--the states that 
had made the largest investment in litigating against Microsoft and 
in negotiating a settlement--along with six other plaintiff 
states represented by a bipartisan group of state attorneys general 
signed onto the Revised PFJ on November 6.
    The Proposed Final Judgment
    Throughout the negotiations, Microsoft was confronted by a 
determined and tough group of negotiators for the Department and the 
states. They made clear that there would be no settlement unless 
Microsoft went well beyond the relief to which, Microsoft believes, 
the Court of Appeals opinion and the law entitles the plaintiffs. 
Once that became clear, Microsoft relented in significant ways, 
subject only to narrow language that preserved Microsoft's ability 
to innovate and engage in normal, clearly procompetitive activities. 
Professor Green, the one neutral observer of this drama has noted 
the broad scope of the prohibitions and obligations imposed on 
Microsoft by the PFJ, stating during the status conference with 
Judge Kollar-Kotelly that ``the parties have not stopped at the 
outer limits of the Court of Appeals'' decision, but in some 
important respects the proposed final judgment goes beyond the 
issues affirmed by the Court of Appeals to deal with issues 
important to the parties in this rapidly-changing technology.''
    I do not intend today to provide a detailed description of each 
provision of the PFJ; the provisions speak for themselves. It may 
come as something of a surprise in light of some of the uninformed 
criticism hurled at the decree, but one of Microsoft's principal 
objectives during the negotiations was to develop proscriptions and 
obligations that were sufficiently clear, precise and certain to 
ensure that the company and its employees would be able to 
understand and comply with the decree without constantly engendering 
disputes with the Department. This is an area of complex technology 
and the decree terms on which the Department insisted entailed a 
degree of technical sophistication that is unprecedented in an 
antitrust decree. Drafting to these specifications was not easy, but 
the resulting PFJ is infinitely clearer and easier to administer 
than the conduct provisions of the decree that Judge Jackson imposed 
in June 2000.
    If, as one might suspect would be the outcome in a case such as 
this, the PFJ were written to proscribe only the twelve practices 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the decree would be much shorter 
and simpler. The Department and settling states, however, insisted 
that the decree go beyond just focused prohibitions to create much 
more general protections for a potentially large category of 
software, which the PFJ calls ``middleware.'' But even 
these expansive provisions to foster middleware competition were not 
sufficient to induce the Department and the states to settle; 
rather, the?'' insisted that Microsoft also agree to additional 
obligations that bear virtually no relationship to any of the issues 
addressed by the district court and the Court of Appeals. And lastly 
they insisted on unprecedented enforcement provisions. I will 
briefly describe each of these three sets of provisions.
    1. Protections for ``Middleware''
    The case :hat the plaintiffs tried and the narrowed liability, 
that survived appellate review all hinged on claims that Microsoft 
took certain actions to exclude Netscape's Navigator browser and 
Sun's Java technology from the market in order to protect the 
Windows operating system monopoly. The plaintiffs successfully 
argued that Microsoft feared that Navigator and Java, either alone 
or together. might eventually include and expose a broad set of 
general purpose APIs to which software developers could write as an 
alternative to the Windows APIs. Since Navigator and Java can run on 
multiple operating systems, if they developed into general purpose 
platforms, Navigator and Java would provide a means of overcoming 
the ``applications barrier'' to end, and threaten the 
position of the Windows operating system as platform software.
    A person might expect that a decree designed to address such a 
monopoly maintenance claim would provide relief with respect to Web-
browsing software and Java or, at most, to other general purpose 
platform software that exposes a broad set of APIs and is ported to 
run on multiple operating systems. The PFJ goes much further. The 
Department insisted that obligations imposed on Microsoft by the 
decree extend to a range of software that has little in common with 
Navigator and Java. The decree applies to ``middleware'' 
broadly defined to include, in addition to Web-browsing software and 
Java. instant messaging software, media players, and even email 
clients--software that, Microsoft believes, has virtually no 
chance of developing into broad, general purpose platforms that 
might threaten to displace the Windows platform. In addition, there 
is a broad catch-all definition of middleware that in the future is 
likely to sweep other similar software into the decree. This 
sweeping definition of middleware is significant because of the 
substantial obligations it imposes on Microsoft. Those 
obligations--a number of which lack any correspondence to the 
monopoly maintenance findings that survived appellate 
review--are intended to create protections for all the vendors 
of software that fits within the middleware definition. Taken 
together, the decree provisions provide the following protections 
and opportunities: ``Relations with Computer Makers. Microsoft 
has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system. ``Computer Maker Flexibility. Microsoft has agreed to 
grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with features 
of Windows. Computer makers will now be free to remove the means by 
which consumers access important features of Windows, such as 
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger. 
Notwithstanding the billions of dollars Microsoft invests developing 
such cool new features, computer makers will now be able to'' 
replace access to them in order to give prominence to non-Microsoft 
software such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNerworks. 
(Additionally. as is the case today, computer makers can provide 
consumers with a choice --that is to say access to Windows 
features as well as to non-Microsoft software programs.)
    ``Windows Design Obligations. Microsoft has agreed to 
design furore versions of Windows, beginning with an interim release 
of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer 
makers, consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft 
software within Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or 
remove access to features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft 
software. Consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their 
configuration at any time.
    ``Internal Interface Disclosure. Even though there is no 
suggestion in the Court of Appeals'' decision that Microsoft 
fails to disclose APIs today and even though the Court of 
Appeals'' holding on monopoly power is predicated on the idea 
that there are tens of thousands of applications written to call 
upon those APIs. Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows operating system products.
    ``Relations with Software Developers. Microsoft has agreed 
not to retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop 
or promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on 
software that competes with Windows. ``Contractual 
Restrictions. Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreements 
obligating any third part?, to distribute or promote any Windows 
technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to certain 
narrow exceptions that apply to agreements raising no competitive 
concern. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into agreements 
relating to Windows that obligate any software developer to refrain 
from developing or

[[Page 29331]]

promoting software that competes with Windows.
    These obligations go far beyond the twelve practices that the 
Court of Appeals found to constitute monopoly maintenance. One of 
the starkest examples of the extent to which these provisions go 
beyond the Court of Appeals decision relates to Microsoft's 
obligations to design Windows in such a way as to give third parties 
the ability, to designate non-Microsoft middleware as the 
``default'' choice in certain circumstances in which 
Windows might otherwise be designed to utilize functionality. 
integrated into Windows. As support for his monopoly maintenance 
conclusion, Judge Jackson had relied on several circumstances in 
which Windows was designed to override the end users'' choice 
of Navigator as their default browser and instead to invoke IE. The 
Court of Appeals, however, reviewed those circumstances and reversed 
Judge Jackson's conclusion on the ground that Microsoft had 
``valid technical reasons'' for designing Windows as it 
did. Notwithstanding this clear victory, Microsoft acceded to the 
Department's demands that it design future versions of Windows to 
ensure certain default opportunities for non-Microsoft middleware.
    2. Uniform Prices and Server Interoperability
    Nevertheless, agreeing to this ,side range of prohibitions and 
obligations designed to encourage the development of middleware 
broadly defined was not enough to get the plaintiffs to settle. 
Instead, the?'' insisted on two additional substantive 
provisions that have absolutely no correspondence to the findings of 
monopoly maintenance liability that survived appeal. ``Uniform 
Price List. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers (who collectively 
account for the great majority, of PC sales) on identical terms and 
conditions, including price (subject to reasonable volume discounts 
for computer makers who ship large volumes of Windows).
    ``Client/Server Interoperability. Microsoft has agreed to 
make available to its competitors, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms, any protocols implemented in Windows desktop 
operating systems that are used to interoperate natively with any 
Microsoft server operating system. In the case of the sweeping 
definition of middleware and the range of prohibitions and 
obligations imposed on Microsoft, there is at least a patina of 
credibility to the argument that the penumbra of the twelve monopoly 
maintenance practices affirmed by the Court of Appeals can be 
stretched to justify those provisions, at least as ``fencing 
in'' provisions. There is no sensible reading of the Court of 
Appeals decision that would provide an{time} '' basis for 
requiring Microsoft to charge PC manufacturers uniform prices or to 
make available the proprietary protocols used by Windows desktop 
operating systems and Windows server operating systems to 
communicate with each other. Nevertheless. because the plaintiffs 
insisted that they would not settle without those two provisions. 
Microsoft also agreed to them.
    Before mining to the enforcement provisions of the PFJ, I want 
to say a word about the few provisos included in the decree that 
provide narrow exceptions to the various prohibitions and 
obligations imposed on Microsoft. Those exceptions were critical to 
Microsoft's willingness to agree to the sweeping provisions on which 
the plaintiffs insisted. Without these narrowly tailored exceptions, 
Microsoft could not innovate or engage in normal procompetitive 
commercial activities. The public can rest assured that the settling 
plaintiffs insisted on language to ensure that the exceptions only 
apply when they promote consumer welfare. For example, some 
companies that compete with Microsoft for the sale of server 
operating systems apparently have complained about the so-called 
``security carve-out'' to Microsoft's obligation to 
disclose internal interfaces and protocols. That exception is very 
narrow and only allows Microsoft to withhold encryption 
``keys'' and the similar mechanisms that must be kept 
secret if the security, of computer networks and the privacy of user 
information is to be ensured. In light of all the concern over 
computer privacy and security, these days, it is surprising that 
there is any controversy, over such a narrow exception.
    3. Compliance and Enforcement
    The broad substantive provisions of the PFJ are complemented by 
an unusually strong set of compliance and enforcement provisions. 
Those provisions are unprecedented in a civil antitrust decree. The 
PFJ creates an independent three-person technical committee, 
resident on the Microsoft campus, with extraordinary powers and full 
access to Microsoft facilities, records, employees and proprietary 
technical data, including Windows source code, which is the 
equivalent of the ``secret formula'' for Coke. The 
technical committee provides a level of technical oversight that is 
far more substantial than any provision of any other antitrust 
decree of which I am aware. At the insistence of the plaintiffs, the 
technical committee does not have independent enforcement authority; 
rather, reports to the plaintiffs and, through them, to the court. 
The investigative and oversight authority of the technical committee 
in no way limits or reduces the enforcement powers of the DOJ and 
states: rather, the technical committee supplements and enhances 
those powers. Each of the settling states and DOJ have the power to 
enforce the decree and have the ability to monitor compliance and 
seek a broad range of remedies in the event of a violation.
    Microsoft also agreed to develop and implement an internal 
antitrust compliance program, to distribute the decree and educate 
its management and employees as to the various restrictions and 
obligations. In recent years, Microsoft has assembled in-house one 
of the largest, most talented groups of antitrust lawyers in 
corporate America. They are already engaged in substantial antitrust 
compliance counseling and monitoring. The decree formalizes those 
efforts, and quite frankly adds vet?'' substantially to the in-
house lawyers'' work. As we speak, that group, together with 
key officials from throughout the Microsoft organization, are 
working to implement the decree and to ensure the company's 
compliance with it.
    As with the substantive provisions, Microsoft agreed to these 
unprecedented compliance and enforcement provisions because of the 
adamance of the plaintiffs and because of the highly technical 
nature of the decree. Microsoft, the Department, and the settling 
states recognized that it was appropriate to include 
mechanisms--principally, the technical committee--that 
will facilitate the prompt and expert resolution of any technical 
disputes that might be raised by third parties, without in any way 
derogating from the government's full enforcement powers under the 
decree. Although the enforcement provisions are unprecedented in 
their stringency and scope, they are not necessitated or justified 
by any valid claim that Microsoft has failed to comply with its 
decree obligations in the past. In fact. Microsoft has an 
exemplar?.'' record of complying with the consent decree to 
which the company and the Department a agreed in 1994. In 1997, the 
Department did question whether Microsoft's integration of IE into 
Windows 95 violated a ``fencing in'' provision that 
prohibited contractual tie-ins, but Microsoft was ultimately 
vindicated by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft has committed itself 
to that same level of dedication in ensuring the company's 
compliance with the PFJ.
    Conclusion
    The PFJ strikes an appropriate balance in this complicated case, 
providing opportunities and protections for firms seeking to compete 
while allowing Microsoft to continue to innovate and bring new 
technologies to market. The decree is faithful to the fact that the 
antitrust laws are a ``consumer protection prescription,'' 
and it ensures an economic environment in which all parts of the PC- 
ecosystem can thrive.
    Make no mistake, however, the PFJ is tough. It will impose 
substantial new obligations on the company, and it will require 
significant changes in the way Microsoft does business. It imposes 
heavy costs on the company and entails a degree of oversight that is 
unprecedented in a civil antitrust case.
    For some competitors of Microsoft, however, apparently nothing 
short of the destruction of Microsoft -- or at least the 
ongoing distraction of litigation--will be sufficient. But if 
the objective is to protect the interests of consumers and the 
competitive process, then this decree more than achieves that goal.
    Finally, for all those who are worried about the furore and what 
unforeseen developments may not be covered by this case and the 
decree, remember that the Court of Appeals decision now provides 
guideposts, which previously did not exist, for judging Microsoft's 
behavior, and that of other high technology companies, going 
forward. Those guidelines, it is true, are not always easy to apply 
ex ante to conduct; however, now that the Court of Appeals has 
spoken, we all have a much better idea of the way in which section 2 
of the Sherman Act applies to the software industry. In short, what 
antitrust law'' requires of Microsoft is today much clearer 
than it was when this case began. We have all learned a lot over the 
last four years, and Microsoft has every

[[Page 29332]]

incentive to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

ATTACHMENT 4

    Secretary of the Senate
    Clerk of the House of Representatives
    LOBBYING REGISTRATION
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 4)
    Check if this is an amended registration []
    For Official Use

REGISTRANT

    1. Name of Registrant Covington & Burling Address 1201 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW City Washington, State DC, Zip 20004
    2 Principal place of business (if different from line 1) City 
Same State/Zip (or Country)
    3. Telephone number and contact name (202) 662-6000 
Contact Stuart Stock
    4. General description of registrant's business or activities 
Law Firm CLIENT A lobbying firm is required to file a separate 
registration for each client An organization employing in-house 
lobbyists will indicate ``Self'' on line 5 and proceed to 
line 8.
    5. Name of Client Microsoft Corporation
Address One Microsoft Way
City Redmond State WA Zip 98052
    6. Principal place of business (if different from line 5)
City Same State/Zip (or Country)
    7. General description of client's business or activities 
Computer software company

REGISTRANT EMPLOYEES

    8. Name and title of each employee of the registrant who has 
acted or is expected to act as a lobbyist for the client identified 
on line 5. Indicate any employee who served as a ``covered 
executive branch official'' or ``covered legislative 
branch official'' within 2 years before the date that the 
employee first acted or will act as a lobbyist for the client, and 
state the executive or legislative branch position(s) in which the 
employee served. Attach Lobbying Registration Addendum if necessary.

E. Jason Albert, Associate
Victoria A. Carter, Associate
Charles F. Rule, Partner
Laurie C. Self, Of Counsel

    Form LD-1 (1/96)

LOBBYING ISSUES

    9. General lobbying issue areas (select applicable codes, listed 
in instructions and on reverse side of Form 1.D-l, page ])
CPICPTTRD
    10. Specific lobbying issues (current and anticipated)

* Protection of intellectual property rights, including copyrights,
* Electronic commerce matters.
* Competition matters affecting computer software industry.

AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS

    11. Name, address, and principal p{time} ace of business of any 
entity other than the'' client that contributes more than 
$10,000 to the lobbying activities covered by this registration in a 
semiannual period, and in whole or in part plans, supervises, or 
controls the registrant's lobbying activities. If none, so state.
    Name
    Address
    Principal place of business
    (city and state or country)
    None

FOREIGN ENTITLES

    12. Name, address, principal place of business, amount of ,'my 
contribution of more than $10,000, and approximate percentage of 
equitable ownership in the client of any foreign entity that:
    a)
    b)
    c)
holds at least 20% equitable ownership in the client or in any 
organization identified on line 11 ; or directly or indirectly, in 
whole or in major part, plans, supervises, controls, directs, 
finances or subsidizes the activities of the client or any 
organization identified on line 11; or is an affiliate of the client 
or any organization identified on line 11 and has a direct interest 
in the outcome of the lobbying activity. If none, so state.
    Name
    Address Principal place of business
    Amount of contribution
    Ownership
    (city and state or country)
    for lobbying activities
    percentage
    in client
    None
    Signature
    Date 6/29/98
    Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner

ATTACHMENT 5

    WALL STREET JOURNAL.
    ??? 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2001
    The Northern Alliance battled 31,000 Tal- iban and allied 
fighters encircled in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, while 
Pash- tun fighters fought to control Kandahar in the south. Mullah 
Omar, the Taliban leader, spoke by satellite phone with the BBC and 
vowed to fight to the death and seek Ameri- ca's 
``extinction.'' The British marines are to secure Bagram 
airport for an expected growing deployment of foreign troops. Tim 
U.S. also prepared to insert more soldiers to aid in the hunt for 
Osama bin Laden. New in- telligence on his possible whereabouts, as 
well as chilling data on the weapons he was hoping to develop, came 
to light. (Articles in Column 1 and on Pages A3, A8, A9 and A10)
    The Northern Alliance wants credit for securing the release of 
eight foreign aid workers, including two Americans, the Taliban was 
holding. So does Libya. An airport-security deal was sealed as Bush 
blessed an accord reached by House and Senate negotiators on the 
issue of feder- alizing screening workers. Alter a one-year 
transition, the government is to take over that job. Meanwhile, 
airlines braced for the first Thanksgiving under tightened secu- 
rity procedures. (Articles on Pages A3 and B1)
    ?? investigators are looking into the ??libility that Flight 587 
pilots may A Haggler's Christinas From small boutiques to Saks, a 
surprising number of stores are letting some customers name their 
price. How to get in on the holiday deals. When Every Show's a 
Survivor This fall, bad ratings aren't enough to sink new shows. Why 
``Emeril'' is still cooking.
    `Harry Potter'' Arrives
    Will the Wizard of Hoywarts fly on the big screen? Joe 
Morgenstern's review.
    Nations Supporting Jihads of Yesteryear Now Close Borders Yemen, 
for One, Won't Let Men Bent on Joining the Fight Go Off to Wage a 
``Holy War'' By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV Staff Reporter of 
``rife WALL STREET JOURN?? SANA, Yemen-Asked what he th?? about 
the war in Afghanistan, Abdu??
    Washington Wire
    A Special Weekly Report From
    The Wall Street Journal's
    Capital Bureau
    DIRECTOR DANIELS gets GOP votes for ``worst ever'' 
relations with Congress. Sen. Stevens, the Senate Appropria- tions 
Committee's top Republican, says so publicly of Bush's budget chief; 
others complain privately to the White House that they can't deal 
with Daniels. They charge he is trying to score political points at 
Con- gress's expense, to aid a run for the Senate from Indiana 
later.
    Ire erupts after Interviews in which Daniels belittles Congress. 
Cheney goes to the Capitol to rescue a $40 billion emer- gency-
spending bill-and soothe House Ap- propriations Chairman Young. 
Danieis's office says it asked Cheney to go; Republi- cans say that 
is because Daniels wasn't welcome. With deputy Scan O'Keefe mov- ing 
to head NASA, long)free GOP budget staffer Bill'' Hoagland 
rejects overtures about the job.
    With Congress still in town, in speeches Daniels quotes the 
song, ``How can I miss you ii you won't go away?'' 
PENTAGON PLANS for big Increases, but hasn't enlisted the budget 
office.
    The services are told to build increases of about $15 billion 
annually into their plans for the budgets of the next two years. 
Such rises, inconceivable before Sept. 11, would drive overall 
military spending to $360 billion by 2004. On the ish list: 
intelligence-gathering sensors and spy drones-in high demand in Af- 
ghanistan but low supply.
    Last Call?
    Under Rising Pressure;
    AT&T's CEO Tries
    To Hold On to an leon
    Loaded Down With Debt,
    Hit by Competition, Firm
    * May Be Sold Off in Pieces
    A Losing Battle With the Bells
    . By DEBORAII SOLOMON
    ,Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK-C. Michael 
Armstrong has spent four years of furious deal making in a bid to 
push AT&T Corp. beyond its long-distance roots and back on top 
of the telecommunications landscape.
    Now, the chief executive and his top lieutenants are working 
frantically just to keep control of the company's destiny. Publicly, 
they insist that AT&T is better off than most of its peers 
struggling to survive the telecom meltdown. But privately, amid 16-
hour days crisscrossing the nation in corporate jets, even they 
acknowledge that the end of an independent AT&T may well be in 
sight. Paced with a massive debt load

[[Page 29333]]

and a deteriorating cash position, AT&T is on the verge of 
selling parts or all of the business icon. That could Include the 
two cable companies Mr. Armstrong spent $100 billion ??ulre in hopes 
of building an altern cy spending. (Articles on Pages A2 and A14)
    Weaknesses remain in the health system's preparations for 
terrorist attacks, administration officials told Congress. 
Meanwhile, lawmakers unveiled a $3.2 billion plan to fight 
bioterrorism. A top FBI official said recent Pennsylvania raids are 
unlikely to aid the anthrax inquiry. (Article on Page A6) * * * .
    Ararat called for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza 
Strip and east Jerusalem in a speech on the 13th anniversary of his 
declaration of Palestinian independence. Israeli raids left a 
Palestinian dead as Arafat's police freed two militants detained 
after the assassination of all Israeli cabinet minister.
    Serb police guarded government buildregs after a mutinous 
secret-police unit, angry at Belgrade's dealings with the Hague, 
refused to accept civilian control. Separately, Kosovo votes 
tomorrow in a first, ii symbolic, step toward independence from 
Serbia.
    Macedonia's parliament approved constitutional reforms 
underpinning a peace deal. The vote came after a long period of 
pressure by Western envoys to codify new rights for ethnic Albanians 
after rebels disbanded.
    A federal judge dismissed all remaining charges against two 
former Utah Olympic officials accused of buying votes to win the 
2002 Winter Games for Salt Lake City. The judge had thrown out four 
key counts in July. * * *
    Cancer researchers have developed a method of encapsulating 
single atoms of radioactive material in injectable molecules that 
can find and destroy tumor cells. Human trials may begin soon. 
(Article on Page B3)
    Two freight trains collided head-on about 25 miles northwest of 
Detroit, killing two crewmen, injuring two others and forcing nearby 
evacuations. Investigators focused on a switching malfunction or bad 
weather. * * *
    Peace Corps workers were recalled from Zimbabwe after the 
government refused to issue permits for new volunteers. Harare 0.77; 
2.2179 has been reducing the presence of international agencies 
ahead of elections next year.
might end up in Afghanistan. Pakistan, once a welcoming gateway for 
Arab mujahedeen, has also closed Afghan frontier crossings in recent 
weeks and carefully screens all Arab visa applicants, submitting 
their names to local security agencies.
    Across the Middle East, hundreds of presumed jihad organizers, 
who openly worked out of mosques and even government offices to send 
fighters to Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 
1990s, have been rounded up since the Sept. 11 killings in New York 
and Washington. ``Back in the past; going to jihad in 
Afghanistan was a big thing, something to be celebrated by 
everybody,'' explains Jareal Khashoggi, a Saudi newspaper 
editor who frequently met Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan while 
covering the war in the 1980s. ``Now, if you're a Saudi and 
you're going to fight there for the Taliban, you're joining the 
enemy.''
    In part, that's because few Arab governments want to upset the 
U.S. and end up a target in the Bush administration's war on 
terrorism. More important, the Afghan jihad campaign against the 
Soviets badly boomeranged on its Middle Eastern sponsors. Returning 
Afghan veterans such as Mr. bin Laden have helped destabilize much 
of the Arab world, fueling terrorist groups such as Egypt's Islamic 
Jihad, Algeria's GIA and the Aden Abyan Islamic Army in Yemen.
    FIRST LADY Laura Bush will sub for her husband in tomorrow's 
national radio address, to kick off a campaign highlighting the 
Afghan Tallban's abuse of women. Also involved: Jay Leno's wife, 
Mavis, and Britain's Cherie Blair. Yesterday, at the Bush ranch, 
Russia's President Putin agreed the women need help, but the 
``end result'' must not be that ``a lady would turn 
into a man.''
    TERRORISTS'' FUNDS are Treasury Secretary O'Neilrs target 
in Ottawa today, as he presses the G-20 group of nations to form 
money-laundering surveillance units. The units would join the global 
Egmont Group intelligence exchange; among G-20 nations that don't 
belong are Saudi Arabia, China, Germany, Indonesia and India. 
Countries meeting in Canada have agreed to an antiterrorism agenda 
but not to specific actions.
    JOB REFERENCE: The White House as early as today may grant 
Senate Majority Leader Daschle's wish and name his aide, Jonathan 
Adelstein, to one of two Democratic seats on the Federal 
Communications Commission. The vacancy has left the FCC with a 
3-1 GOP edge.
    LEGAL LOOPHOLE: Microsoft tries to shield Ill; top Washington 
lawyer, Charles F. Rule, from having to reveal some contacts with 
the administration before he negotiated the company's controversial 
antitrust settlement. He was formally named a counsel of record 
yesterday, exempting him from disclosures otherwise demanded under a 
1974 law requiring court review of antitrust deals.
    GOP'S GILMORE is safe through 2002, White House advisers say.
    . The party chairman will stay on through the critical midterm 
elections, they are telling Republicans; many are unhappy about the 
GOP's loss last week of the governorships in New Jersey and
    Gilmore's Virginia.
    Democrats gloat they have won ``the main event'' in 
redistricting after a federal court panel approves a plan favorable 
to Texas's majority-Democratic House delegation. GOP Leader Delay of 
Texas had predicted gains of as many as eight seats; the party still 
says it can add two.
    Republicans urge ex-Rep. Lazio, who lost a Senate race to 
Hillary Clinton. to seek his old House seat back phone companies 
enter the long-distance market at a rapid clip, AT&T faces the 
prospect of heavy new competition.
    The situation AT&T now finds itself in ``is a little 
bit like Gen. Cornwallis surrendering to Revolutionary 
forces,'' says Tom Evslin, chief executive of Internet 
telephony firm ITXC Corp. and a former AT&T executive. The Parts 
or the Whole?
    While many have speculated whether Mr. Armstrong would 
ultimately be removed from the helm of AT&T, ii appears instead 
that AT&T is slowly being taken away from him. The company's 
directors, and Mr. Armstrong himself, had reluctantly come to the 
realization that AT&T is worth more in pieces than as a 
struggling whole when they announced a plan to break it into four 
pieces a year ago. Now, it appears the company will not be able to 
hold on to those different parts. ``Times have changed,'' 
says a person close to Mr. Armstrong. Now, the thinking is, 
``If you're going to break up, why not just sell the pieces and 
get some long-term value for shareholders?''
    With several trips to Washington a month, Mr. Armstrong, the 63-
year-old former head of General Motors Curp.'s Hughes Electronics, 
is pleading with regulatots to order relief. Taking an even more 
visible role is the company's chief financial ofricer, Charles 
Noski, who is trying to juggle the various credit-rating agencies, 
the equity and debt markets, AT&T's board and Wall Street as 
well as heading negotiations for the company's cable-TV unit.
    Mr. Armstrong argues AT&T is better off today than it was 
when he took over, pointing to the building of wireless and cable 
franchises. ``In 1997 we didn't know if AT&T had a future. 
But today we've got the assets, we've got the businesses, we've got 
the management team. We've got a future,'' says Mr. Armstrong. 
Hopes of Keeping It Together
    He and other AT&T officials hold out the possibility of 
keeping the empire together, But he acknowledges that AT&T may 
not stay intact: ``If it's In a form of stand-alone companies 
or in the form of further industry consolidation, those assets and 
those people and those customers will still be AT&T/''
    Some of AT&T's woes reflect those across the 
telecommunications industry, which Is imploding in the wake of a 
massive glut of capacity and retrenchment of once-abundant 
investment dollars. But AT&T's plight was aggravated b?? s of 
deals struck by Mr. Armstron. I-

ATTACHMENT 6

    COMMITTEE: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
    HEADLINE: U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT) HOLDS HEARING ON 
``THE
    MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE.''
    SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), CHAIRMAN
    LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC
    WITNESSES: CHARLES JAMES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST 
DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JAY HIMES, ANTITRUST BUREAU 
CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLES RULE, COUNSEL, 
MICROSOFT CORPORATION LAWRENCE LESSIG, PROFESSOR, STANFORD LAW 
SCHOOL MARK COOPER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF 
AMERICA JONATHAN ZUCK, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF COMPETITIVE 
TECHNOLOGY MATTHEW SZULIK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RED HAT, INC. MITCHELL 
KERTZMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES BODY:

[[Page 29334]]

    U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON THE MICROSOFT 
SETTLEMENT
    SPEAKERS:
    U.S. SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-V-F) CHAIRMAN
    U.S. SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY (D-MA)
    U.S. SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. (D-DE)
    U.S. SENATOR HERBERT KOHL (D-WI)
    U.S. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA)
    U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI)
    U.S. SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER (D-NY)
    U.S. SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL)
    U.S. SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA)
    U.S. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)
    U.S. SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH (R-UT)
    RANKING MEMBER
    U.S. SENATOR STROM THURMOND (R-SC)
    U.S. SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY (R-IA)
    U.S. SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA)
    U.S. SENATOR JON KYL (R-AZ)
    U.S. SENATOR MIKE DEWINE (R-OH)
    U.S. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL)
    U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
    U.S. SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY)
    LEAHY: I just want to do a little housekeeping here. I want to 
make sure the chairman and ranking member of the Antitrust 
Subcommittee are here--Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine -- 
both of whom have done a superb job for years in handling antitrust 
matters.
    I told Senator DeWine earlier--now this would probably 
cause a recall petition for the Republican Party in Ohio, but what a 
terrific job he did as chairman and what a terrific job Senator Kohl 
has done as chairman on antitrust matters in pointing out that 
they're issues of great complexity, very important to everybody here 
in the Senate. I've look at the proposed settlement the Department 
of Justice and nine states have transmitted to the District Court. 
The reason that they planned for the conclusion of what has really 
been a landmark antitrust litigation. But now, it's going to pass 
the legal test set out in the Tunney Act if it's going to gain court 
approval. That test is both simple and broad, and requires an 
evaluation of whether the proposed settlement is in the public 
interest.
    There is significant difference of opinion over how well the 
proposed settlement passes this legal test. In fact, the states 
participating in the litigation against Microsoft are evenly 
split-- - nine states joined in the proposed settlement and 
nine non-settling states presented the court with an alternative 
remedy.
    As the courts wrangle with the technical and complex legal 
issues at stake in the case, this committee is conducting hearings 
to educate ourselves and to educate the public about what this 
proposed settlement really means for our high-tech industry and for 
all of us who use computers at work, at school, and at home.
    Scrutiny of the proposed settlement by this committee during the 
course of the Tunney Act proceeding is particularly important. The 
focus of our hearing today is to examine whether the proposed 
settlement is good public policy and not to go into the legal 
technicalities. The questions raised here and views expressed may 
help inform the court. I plan with Senator Hatch to forward to the 
court the record of this hearing for consideration as the court goes 
about the difficult task of completing the Tunney Act proceedings 
and the remedy solved by the non-settling states.
    I am especially concerned that the District Court takes the 
opportunity seriously to consider the remedy proposal of the 
nonsettling states but to consider them before she makes her final 
determination on the other parties'' proposed settlement.
    The insights of the other participants in this complicated and 
hard-fought case are going to be valuable additions to the comments 
received in the Tunney Act proceeding. I would hope that it would 
help inform the evaluation whether the settlement is in the public 
interest, a matter of which for many people is still an open 
question.
    The effects of this case extend beyond simply the choices 
available in the software marketplace. The United States has long 
been the world leader in bringing innovative solutions to software 
problems, in creating new tools and applications for use on 
computers and the web, and in driving forward the flow of capital 
into these new and rapidly growing sectors of the economy.
    This creativity is not limited just to Silicon Valley. My own 
home area, Burlington, Vermont, ranks seventh in the nation in terms 
of patent filings. Burlington has 38,000 people. It's in a county of 
about 130,000 people. It is not per capita. This is actual 
filings--seven in the nation.
    So, whether the settlement proposal will help or hinder this 
process, and whether the high tech industries will play the 
important role that they should in our nation's economy, is a larger 
issue behind the immediate effects of this proposal. So, with that 
in mind, I intend to ask the representatives of the settling parties 
how their resolution of this conflict will serve the ends that the 
antitrust laws require.
    Our courts have developed a test for determining the 
effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman Act case: The remedy must end 
the anti-competitive practices, it must deprive the wrongdoer of the 
fruits of the wrongdoing and it must ensure that the illegality 
never recurs.
    The Tunney Act also requires that any settlement of such a case 
serve the public interest. These are all high standards, but they 
are reasonable ones and people have dealt with them for years. In 
this case, the DC Circuit, sitting en banc and writing unanimously, 
found that Microsoft had engaged in serious exclusionary practices, 
to the detriment of their competitors and, thus, to all consumers. 
So, we have to satisfy ourselves that these matters have been 
addressed and redressed, or if they have not, why not. I have noted 
my concern that the procedural posture of this cas
    e not jeopardize the opportunity of the non-settling states to 
have their day in court and not deprive the District Court of the 
value of their views on appropriate remedies in a timely fashion. In 
addition, I have two basic areas of concern about the proposed 
settlement.
    First, I find many of the terms of the settlement to be either 
confusingly vague, subject to manipulation, or worse, both. Mr. Rule 
raised an important and memorable point when he last testified 
before this committee in 1997 during the important series of 
hearings that were convened by Senator Hatch on competition in the 
digital age, hearings that have shaped a lot of thinking in the 
Senate.
    Testifying about the first Microsoft-Justice Department consent 
decree, Mr. Rule said, quote: ``Ambiguities in decrees are 
typically resolved against the government. In addition, the 
government's case must rise or fall on the language of the decree; 
the government cannot fall back on some purported 
``spirit'' or ``purpose'' of the decree to 
justify an interpretation not clearly supported by the 
language.''
    LEAHY: So, we take seriously such counsel, and would worry if 
ambiguity in the proposed settlement would jeopardize its 
enforcement.
    Secondly, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism 
described in the proposed decree lacks the power and the timeliness 
necessary to inspire confidence in its effectiveness. Particularly 
.in light of the absence of any requirement that the decree be read 
in broad remedial terms, it is especially important that we inquire 
into the likely operation of the proposed enforcement scheme and its 
effectiveness.
    Any lawyer Who has litigated cases, and Mr. James, I would 
certainly include you, any business person knows how distracting 
litigation of this magnitude can be and appreciates the value that 
reaching an appropriate settlement can have not only for the parties 
but also for consumers, who are harmed by anti-competitive conduct, 
and the economy. I'm the first one to say that we'd like some 
finality, so everybody involved, all companies, can know what the 
standards are and all consumers can know what they are.
    Because of that, I do not come to this hearing prejudging the 
merits of this proposed settlement but instead as one who is ready 
to embrace a good settlement that puts an end to the merry-go-round 
of Microsoft litigation over consent decrees.
    But the serious questions that have been raised about the scope, 
enforceability and effectiveness of this proposed settlement leave 
me concerned that, if it's approved in its current form, it may 
simply be an invitation for the next chapter of litigation. I want 
an end to this thing. I think everybody wants at end to it, but we 
want an end to it where we know what the rules are going to be. If 
we don't know what the rules are going to be, as sure as the sun 
rising in the East, we're going to face these issues again.
    On this point, I share the concern of Judge Robert Bork, who 
warns, in his written submission, that the proposed settlement 
``contains so many ambiguities and loopholes as to make it 
unenforceable, and likely to guarantee years of additional 
litigation''.
    I look forward to hearing from the Department of Justice and the 
other witnesses

[[Page 29335]]

here. I will put into the record a series of letters, one, a letter 
to myself and Senator Hatch from James Barksdale, another letter to 
Assistant Attorney General James and Senator Hatch and a letter to 
Senator Hatch from Assistant Attorney General James, letters to 
myself and Senator Hatch and Robert Bork, a letter to myself and 
Ralph Nader with two enclosures, written testimony of the Computing 
Technology Industry Association; written testimony of Catfish 
Software, Inc.; and written testimony of Mark Havicek (ph) of 
Digital Data Resources, Inc.
    I yield to Senator Hatch who has been such a support of hearings 
on this issue earlier.
    HATCH:
    Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
    As you know, we conducted a series of hearings, as you've 
mentioned, in this committee in 1997 and 1998 to examine the policy 
implications of the competitive landscape of the then burgeoning 
hightech economy and industry, which was about to explode with the 
advent of the Internet.
    Those hearings focused on competition in the industry, in 
general, and, more specifically, complaints that Microsoft had been 
engaged in anti-competitive behavior that threatened competition and 
innovation to the detriment of consumers. Our goal was, and I 
believe today is, to determine how best to preserve competition and 
foster innovation in the hightechnology industry.
    Although the committee, and I, as its chairman--then 
chairman, was criticized by some, I strongly believed then, and 
continue to believe now, that in a robust economy involving new 
technologies, effective antitrust enforcement today would prevent 
the need for heavy-handed government regulations of business 
tomorrow.
    My interest in the competitive marketplace in the high-
technology industry was animated by my strong opposition to 
regulations of the industry, whether by government, or by one or few 
companies.
    As we may remember, the hearings before the Judiciary Committee 
developed an extensive record of Microsoft's conduct, and evidenced 
various efforts by the company to maintain and extend its operating 
system monopoly.
    These findings, I would note, were reaffirmed by a unanimous, 
and ideologically diverse Court of Appeals. The Microsoft 
case--and its ultimate resolution--present one of the most 
important developments in antitrust law in recent history, certainly 
in my memory. As I have emphasized before, having a monopoly is not 
illegal under our laws. In fact, in a successful capitalist system, 
striving to be one should be encouraged, as a matter of fact. 
However, anti-competitive conduct intended to maintain or extend 
this monopoly would harm competition and could possibly be violative 
of our laws. I believe no one would disagree that the DC Circuit 
Court's decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle that a 
monopolist-- even a monopolist in a high-tech industry like 
software--must compete on the merits to maintain its monopoly, 
which brings us to today's hearing. We are here to examine the 
policy implications of the proposed settlement in the government's 
antitrust litigation against Microsoft.
    Mr. Chairman, rather than closing the book on the Microsoft 
inquiry, the proposed settlement appears to be only the end of the 
latest chapter.
    The settling parties are currently in the middle of the so-
called Tunney Act process before the court. And, the non-settling 
parties have chosen to further litigate this matter and last week 
filed their own proposed settlement.
    This has been a complex case with significant consequences for 
Microsoft, high-tech entrepreneurs and the American public as well. 
The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department 
and nine of the plaintiff state attorneys general is highly 
technical.
    We have all been studying it, and its impact, with great 
interest. Each of us has heard from some, including some of our 
witnesses here today, that the agreement contains much that is very 
good. Not surprisingly, we have also heard and read much criticism 
of the settlement. These are complex issues, and I would hope 
today's hearing will illuminate the many questions that we have.
    I should note that about two weeks ago, I sent a set of detailed 
and extensive questions about the scope, interpretation, and 
intended effects of the proposed settlement to the Justice 
Department, naturally seeking further information on my part.
    First, I want to commend the department for getting the 
responses to these questions to me promptly. We received them 
yesterday. ! think the questions, which were made public, and the 
Department's responses, could be helpful to each member in forming 
an independent and fair analysis of the proposed settlement.
    To that end, and for the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to make both the questions and the department's answers 
part of the record for this hearing, so I would ask unanimous 
consent that they be made part of the record.
    As I noted in my November 29 letter to the department, I have 
kept an open mind regarding this settlement, and continue to do so. 
I have had questions regarding the practical enforceability of the 
proposed settlement and whether it will effectively remedy the 
unlawful practices identified by the DC Circuit, and restore 
competition in the software marketplace. I am also cognizant of both 
the limitation of the claims contained in the original Justice 
Department complaint by the DC Circuit, as well as the standards for 
enforcement under settled antitrust law.
    I believe that further information regarding precisely how the 
proposed settlement will be interpreted, given DC Circuit case law, 
is necessary to any full and objective analysis of the remedies 
proposed therein. I hope that this hearing will result in the 
development of such information that would supplement the questions 
that I put forth to the Department.
    Mr. Chairman, one important and critical policy issue that I 
would hope we can address today, and that I would like all of our 
witness to consider as they wait to be empaneled so that they can 
discuss, is the difficult issue of the temporal relation of 
antitrust enforcement in new high-technology markets.
    It cannot be overemphasized that timing is a critical issue in 
examining conduct in the socalled ``new economy''. Indeed, 
the most significant lesson the Microsoft case has taught us is this 
fact. The DC Circuit found this issue noteworthy enough to discuss 
in the first few pages of its opinion. And I will quote from the 
unanimous court:
    ``What is somewhat problematic is that just over six years 
have passed since Microsoft engaged in the first conduct plaintiffs 
alleged to be anti-competitive. As the record in this case 
indicates, six years seems like an eternity in the computer 
industry. By the time the court can assess liability, firms, 
products, and the marketplace are likely to have changed 
dramatically. This, in turn, threatens enormous practical 
difficulties for courts considering the appropriate measure of 
relief in equitable enforcement actions.'' The Court goes on to 
say that ``Innovation to a large degree has already rendered 
the anti-competitive conduct obsolete, although by no means 
harmless'' unquote.
    This issue is one that is relevant for this committee to 
consider as a larger policy matter, as well as how it relates to 
this case and the proposed settlement we are examining today. Let me 
just say that one of things that worries me is what are the 
enforcement capabilities of this settlement agreement? It was only a 
few years before these matters arose that Microsoft had agreed to a 
consent decree--to a conduct decree that many feel that they 
did not live up to.
    I think it's a legitimate issue to raise as to how well the 
agreement that the Justice Department has worked out with Microsoft 
and nine of the plaintiffs, how will it be enforced if 
anticompetitive conduct continues.
    In that regard, let me just raise Mr. Barksdale's letter which I 
believe you put into the record.
    LEAHY: I did, I did.
    HATCH: Let me raise it, because he does make some interesting 
comments in his letter and if I can read them, I think they might 
be--at least part of opening up the questions in this matter. 
I'll just quote a few paragraphs.
    He says: ``These developments have stiffened my resolve to 
do all I can to ensure that competition and consumer choice are 
reintroduced to the industry. It is vitally important that no 
company can do to a future Netscape that Microsoft did to Netscape 
from 1995 to 1999. It is universally recognized that the 1995 
consent decree was ineffective. I respectfully submit that the 
proposed final judgment, PFJ, is the subject of the hearing would be 
even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 decree in restoring 
competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior. Accordingly, 
Senator Leahy, I'm going to follow your suggestion that I help the 
committee answer one of the central questions. If the PFJ had been 
in effect all along, how would it have affected Netscape? More 
important, how will it affect future Netscapes?''
    He describes the impact on future Netscapes as follows and let 
me just read a couple of paragraphs in this regard: ``As

[[Page 29336]]

discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous conclusion is 
that the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice had been in existence in 1994, Netscape would have never 
been able to obtain the necessary venture capital financing. In 
fact, the company would have not come into being in the first place. 
The work of Mark Andresson's team at the University of Illinois in 
developing the Mosaic browser would likely have remained an academic 
exercise. An innovative, independent browser company simply could 
not survive under the PFJ and such would be the effect on any 
company developing the future technologies as innovative as the 
browser was in the mid-1990s.''
    He goes on to characterize whether or not Microsoft could have 
developed itself, but let me just read the last two paragraphs of 
this letter: ``If the PFJ's provisions are allowed to go into 
effect, it is unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure 
venture capital financing to compete against Microsoft. This would 
be a tragedy for our nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that 
the PFJ is, quote, ``good for the economy'', unquote. If 
the PFJ goes into effect, it will subject an entire industry to 
dominance by an unconstrained monopolist, thus snuffing out 
competition, consumer choice and innovation in perhaps our nation's 
most important industry. And worse, it will allow them to extend 
their dominance to more traditional businesses, such as financial 
services, entertainment, telecommunications and perhaps many others.
    Four years ago, I appeared before committee and was able to 
demonstrate, with the help of the audience, that Microsoft 
undoubtedly had a monopoly. Now it has been proven in the course 
that Microsoft not only having a monopoly, but they have illegally 
maintained that monopoly through a series of abusive and predatory 
actions. I submit to the committee that Microsoft is infinitely 
stronger in each of their core businesses than they were four years 
ago, despite the fact that their principal arguments have been 
repudiated eight to zero by the federal courts. Now, if you'll keep 
these thoughts in mind during your hearing, let me send a more 
detailed analysis of my views as followed''.
    Well, the importance of that letter is basically, Barksdale was 
one of the original complainants against Microsoft and was one of 
the very important witnesses before this committee in those years 
when we were trying to figure out what we're doing here. And I don't 
think you can ignore that, so these questions have to be answered 
that he raises, plus the questions that I had given as well.
    So, that's the--you put that letter in the record?
    LEAHY: I have and also I understood you wanted those letters 
(inaudible).
    HATCH: I appreciate it.
    Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful that you're 
continuing the committee's important role in high technology policy 
matters, and I as I would expect you to do, because I know that you 
take a great interest in these matters, as do, I think, every 
individual person on this committee and as does every individual 
person on the committee.
    HATCH: I certainly look forward to hearing our witnesses today 
and I'm going to keep an open mind on where we're going here and 
hopefully they can resolve these matters in a way that is beneficial 
to everybody, including those who are against Microsoft and 
Microsoft itself.
    Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
    LEAHY: Thank you.
    Senator Kohl?
    KOHL: Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this hearing here 
today. This is a crucial time for competition in the high tech 
sector of our economy. After spending more than three years pursuing 
its groundbreaking antitrust case against Microsoft, the government 
has announced a settlement.
    But the critical question remains, will this settlement break 
Microsoft's stranglehold over the computer software industry and 
restore competition in this vital sector of our economy. I have 
serious doubts that it will.
    An independent federal court, both a trial court and a court of 
appeals found that Microsoft broke the law and that its violation 
should be fixed. This antitrust case was as big as they come.
    Microsoft crushed a competitor, illegally tried to maintain its 
monopoly and stifled innovation in this market. Now, after all these 
years of litigation, of charges and countercharges, this settlement 
leaves us wondering, ``Did we really accomplish 
anything?'' Or, in the words of the old song, ``Is that 
all there is?''
    Does this settlement debate a Supreme Court mandate that it must 
deny the antitrust violator the fruits of its illegal conduct? It 
seems to me and to many, including nine of the states that joined 
the federal government in suing Microsoft, that this settlement 
agreement is not strong enough to do the job to restore competition 
to the computer software industry, It contains so many loopholes; 
qualifications and exceptions that many worry that Microsoft will 
easily be able to evade its provisions.
    Today, for the vast majority of computer users, the first thing 
they see when they turn on their machine is the now familiar 
Microsoft logo placed on the Microsoft start menu. And all of their 
computer operations take place through the filter of Microsoft's 
Windows operating system.
    Microsoft's control over the market is so strong that today, 
more than 95 percent of all personal computers run under Windows 
operating system, a market share high enough to constitute a 
monopoly under antitrust law.
    Its share of the Internet browsing market is now over 85 percent 
and reported a profit margin of 25 percent in the most recent 
quarter, a very high number in challenging economic times. Microsoft 
has the power to dictate terms to manufacturers who wish to gain 
access to the Windows operating system and the ability to leverage 
its dominance into other forms of computer software. Microsoft has 
never been shy about using its market power.
    Are we here today really confident that in five years, this 
settlement will have had any appreciable impact on these facts of 
life in the computer industry? I am not.
    We stand today on the threshold of writing the rules of 
competition in the digital age. We have two options. One option 
involves one dominate company controlling the computer desktop 
facing minor restraints that expire in five years, but acting as a 
gatekeeper to 95 percent of all personal computer users.
    The other mile is the flowering of innovation and new products 
that resulted from the breakup from the AT&T telephone monopoly 
nearly 20 years ago. From cell phones to faxes, from long distance 
price wars to the development of the Internet itself, the end of the 
telephone monopoly brought an explosion of new technologies and 
services that benefit millions of consumers every day. We should 
insist or nothing less in this case.
    In sum, any settlement in this case should make the market for 
computer software as competitive as the market for computer hardware 
is today. While there is nothing wrong with setting, of course, we 
should insist on a settlement that has an immediate, substantial and 
permanent impact on restoring competition in this industry.
    I thank our witnesses for testifying today and we look forward 
to hearing your views.
    LEAHY: Thank you.
    Senator DeWine? DEWINE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 
holding this very important hearing concerning the Department of 
Justice's proposed final judgment in its case against Microsoft.
    Mr. Chairman, as we examine this judgment and attempt to imagine 
what it will mean for the future of competition in this market, we 
must keep in mind the serious nature of this case. According to the 
DC Circuit Court, Microsoft did, in fact, violate our antitrust 
laws. Their behavior hurt the competitive marketplace. This is 
something that we must keep in mind as we examine the proposed final 
judgment.
    This hearing is particularly important at this time, because 
federal law does require the District Court to examine the proposed 
settlement and determine if it is, in fact, in the public interest.
    Federal law clearly allows the public to be heard on such 
matters. I believe that this forum today will further that process 
of public discussion.
    The Court of Appeals in this case, relying on established 
Supreme Court case law, explained when appropriate remedy in 
antitrust case, such as this one, must seek to accomplish. It should 
unfetter the market and anti-competitive conduct, terminate the 
illegal monopoly and deny the defendant the fruits of its 
violations.
    It's important, Mr. Chairman, that we examine where the proposed 
decree would, in fact, accomplish these goals. There seems to be a 
great deal of disagreement about what the competitive impact of the 
decree will be. While the proposed settlement, correctly, I believe, 
focuses primarily on the market for middleware, there has been a 
great deal of concern raised about the mechanism for enforcing such 
a settlement. Specifically, I think we need to discuss further 
whether the public interest would be better served with a so-called 
special master or some sort of administrative mechanism or whether 
the Justice Department can be more effective in enforcing the decree 
on its own.

[[Page 29337]]

    In addition to the Department of Justice's proposed final 
judgment, we also have the benefit of another remedy's proposal 
which has been submitted to the court by nine states that did not 
join with the antitrust division's proposal. I would like to hear 
from our witnesses about the role they believe this alternative 
proposal should play in the ongoing Tunney Act proceedings.
    As I mentioned early, Mr. Chairman, the Court of Appeals 
directed that any remedies should seek to deny Microsoft the fruits 
of its illegal activities. One clear benefit Microsoft derives from 
its violations was the effective destruction of Netscape as a 
serious competitor and a decrease in Java's market presence.
    It's obviously impossible to go back in time and resurrect the 
exact market structure that existed, but it is important to discuss 
how the proposed settlement deals with this problem. I'd also like 
to note for the record that Microsoft will be represented today by 
one of their outside counsel, Rick Rule, rather than an actual 
employee of the company. Mr. Rule is an outstanding antitrust 
lawyer. He is well qualified to testify on this issue and we 
certainly look forward to hearing his testimony today.
    However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am disappointed that 
Microsoft chose not to send an actual officer of the company because 
it does not appear to represent, frankly, the fresh start that I 
think we're all hoping to begin today.
    Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Hatch and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Kohl for all of your hard 
work in putting this hearing together and all of your work on this 
issue generally, over the last year.
    I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and the 
committee's continuing oversight of this very important issue.
    LEAHY: Mr. James, there's a vote on the floor. I think there's 
about two or three minutes left in the roll call vote. We're going 
to suspend while we go to vote, but I think...
    JAMES: I have a really brief statement. Could I make that before 
you adjourn?
    LEAHY: You can.
    JAMES: Let me just say that at this hearing and the accompanying 
media spectacle indicate that Microsoft case is a subject of 
significant public interest and debate. Some argue that the case 
itself never should have been filed to begin with. Now, after nearly 
four years of litigation, Microsoft, the Department of Justice and 
nine states, have reached a settlement. I just want to commend the 
parties for their tireless effort and countless hours in reaching 
the compromise. Settlement is nearly always preferable to litigation 
and regulation by the market is nearly always better than regulation 
by litigation or the government, for that matter.
    As far as what the public thinks, just this week a nationwide 
survey indicated U.S. government and Microsoft agreed to settle the 
antitrust case, however, nine state AGs argued that the antitrust 
case against Microsoft should continue. Which statement do you agree 
with?
    U.S. economy and consumers would be better off id the issue 
where we settle as soon as possible, 70 percent; the court should 
continue to investigate whether Microsoft should be punished for its 
business activities, 24 percent. Not that the public is always 
determinative, but I thought that would be an interesting 
observation to add.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    LEAHY: I think, Mr. James, I think you'd know from the comments 
that we're across the board here. Everybody, or the majority of the 
people favor a settlement, but I must say that I don't think the 
majority of the people favor any settlement. They favor a good 
settlement and that's what the questions will be directed at and 
that's why nine attorneys general have expressed concern. Nine 
agreed with the settlement, nine disagreed with the settlement.
    These are all very good, very talented people.
    So, in your testimony when we come back, you've heard a number 
of the questions that have been raised and we look forward to you 
responding to them.
    We'll stand in recess while we vote.
    (RECESS)
    LEAHY: Sorry for that.
    LEAHY: Mr. James, I should put on for the record, Mr. James has 
served as the assistant attorney general for the antitrust division 
since June 2001. He previously served as deputy assistant attorney 
general for the Antitrust Division for the first Bush administration 
from 1989 to ``92. He served as acting assistant attorney 
general for several months in ``92. He was then the head of the 
antitrust practice of Jones Day Reavis & Pogue in Washington. 
Not knowing what the Senate schedule might be, Mr. James, we'll put 
your whole statement in the record, of course. I wonder if you might 
summarize it, but also with some reference to the charge made in the 
letter to Senator Hatch and myself by Mr. Barksdale, who said. had 
this been the ground rules--we never would have been able to 
get Netscape off the ground had it been the ground rules at the time 
they began Netscape, they would have never been able to create 
Netscape. If that is accurate, of course, we've got a real problem,
    So, Mr. ,lames, it's all yours.
    JAMES:
    Thank you,
    Senator Leahy and good morning to you and members of the 
committee. I'm pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 
proposed settlement of our still pending case against Microsoft 
Corporation.
    With me today are Deborah Majoris (ph), my deputy, and Phil 
Malone (ph), who has been the lead staff lawyer on the Microsoft 
case from the very beginning. I note their presence here because 
they were the ones who responded to the judge's order that we 
negotiate around the clock and I think they've recovered now.
    As you know, on November 2, the department and nine states 
entered into the proposed settlement. We're in the midst of the 
Tunney Act period, as you know, and that will end at the end of 
January at which point the District Court will determine whether the 
settlement is in the public interest. We think that it is.
    I'm somewhat limited in what I can say about the case because of 
the pendency of the Tunney Act proceeding, but of course, I'm happy 
to discuss this with the committee for the purpose of public 
explication.
    When thinking about the Microsoft case, from my perspective, 
it's always important to distinguish between Microsoft, the public 
spectacle and Microsoft, the actual legal dispute. We look, in 
particular, to what the department alleged in its complaint and how 
the court ruled on those allegations.
    The antitrust division complaint had four counts: attempted 
monopolization of browser market in violation of Section II; 
individual and competitive acts; and a course of conduct to maintain 
the operating system monopoly in violation of Section II of the 
Sherman Act; tying it's own browser to the operating system in 
violation of Section I; and exclusive dealing in violation of 
Section I.
    I would note that a separate monopoly leveraging claim brought 
by the states was thrown out prior to trial and that the states at 
one time had alleged in their complaint monopolization of Microsoft 
Office market and that was eliminated by the states through an 
amendment.
    There was, of course, a trial before Judge Jackson, at the 
conclusion of which Judge Jackson found for the government on 
everything but exclusive dealing and ordered Microsoft to be split 
into a separate operating system and applications businesses after a 
one year transitional period under interim conduct remedies.
    On appeal, however, only the monopoly maintenance claims 
survived unscathed. The attempt at monopoly claim was dismissed. The 
time claim was reversed and remanded for further proceedings under a 
much more rigorous standard and the remedy was vacated with the 
court ordering remedial hearings before a new judge to address the 
fact that liability findings had been, in their words, drastically 
curtailed.
    Even the monopoly maintenance claim was cut back in the Court of 
Appeals decision. The Court of Appeals found for Microsoft on some 
of the specific practice and rules against the government on the so-
called ``course of conduct theory'' of liability.
    I recount all of this history to make two basic points that I 
think are important as we discuss the settlement.
    First, the case, even as initially framed by the Department of 
Justice, was a fairly narrow challenge. It was never a direct 
assault on the acquisition of the operating system monopoly itself.
    Second, and perhaps much more important, the case that emerged 
from the Court of Appeals was much narrower, still focusing 
exclusively on the middleware threat to the operating system 
monopoly and specific practices, not a course of conduct found to be 
any competitor. The Court of Appeals decision determines the reality 
of the case as we found it in the department when I first arrived 
there in June as you noted. The conduct found to be unlawful by the 
court was the sole basis of relief.
    It's probably worth talking just briefly about the monopoly 
maintenance claim. The claim alleges that Microsoft engages in 
various anti-competitive practices, the NT, the development of rival 
web browsers and lava. These products came to be known as

[[Page 29338]]

middleware and was thought to pose a threat to the operating system 
monopoly because they had the potential to become platforms for 
other software applications.
    The court noted that the middleware threat was nascent, that is 
to say that no one could predict when, if ever, enough applications 
would be written to middleware for it to significantly displace the 
operating system monopoly.
    A few comments about the settlement itself. In general terms, 
our settlement has several important points that we think fully and 
demonstrably remedy the middleware issues that were at the heart of 
the monopoly maintenance claims,
    In particular, are our decree contains a very broad definition 
of middleware that specifically includes a forms of platform 
software that have been identified as potential operating system 
threats today and likely to emerge as operating system threats in 
the future, in the broadest terms types of contractual restrictions 
and exclusionary arrangements the Court of Appeals found to be 
unlawful.
    The defense is in those prohibitions where the appropriate 
nondiscrimination and non-retaliation provisions and it creates an 
environment which middleware developers can create programs that 
compete with Microsoft on a function--like function basis to a 
regime of mandatory API documentation and disclosure.
    The most simple terms we believe our remedy will permit is the 
development and deployment of middleware products without fear of 
retaliation or economic disadvantage. That is what we believe and 
what the court found that consumers actually lost through 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct and that is what we think the consumers 
will gain through our remedy. With specific reference to what Mr. 
Barksdale said, if I may. I've not reviewed Mr. Barksdale's letter. 
I know that in this particular situation with so much at stake in 
this particular settlement that I've seen lots of hyperbolic 
statements. I certainly wouldn't necessarily characterize his in 
that vein without having read it in some detail.
    I would note, however...
    LEAHY: Mr. James, we're going to give you an opportunity to do 
that, because I want you to look at it. You can feel free to call it 
hyperbolic or however, but I would ask that you and your staff look 
at his letter, which does raise some serious questions and I would 
like to see what response you have for the record.
    JAMES: I will be happy to do so.
    And with that, I'd be happy to answer your questions.
    LEAHY: Did you have more you wanted to say on the letter before 
you...
    JAMES: No, sir. I'm happy to respond to what you folks want to 
talk about.
    LEAHY: The Department of Justice has been involved in litigation 
against Microsoft for more than 11 years. I am one of those who had 
hoped throughout that that the parties might come to some 
conclusion. I think that it's in the best interest if you can have a 
fair conclusion; it's the best interests of the consumers, the 
government, Microsoft, competitors and everybody else.
    I have no problem with that, but that presupposes the right kind 
of settlement. Over the course of those 11 years, the parties 
entered into one consent decree and that just ended up with a whole 
lot more litigation over the terms of that consent decree.
    I mention that because you take this settlement and its already 
being criticized by some for the vagueness of its terms and its 
loopholes. Judge Robert Bork warned that it's and I think I'm 
quoting him correctly, ``likely to guarantee years of 
additional litigation''.
    Now, what kind of assurances can you give or what kind of 
predictions can you give that if this settlement is agreed to by the 
courts, that we're going to see an end to this litigation, we're 
going to have to stop this kind of merry go round of Microsoft 
litigation concerning compliance or even the meanings of the consent 
decrees. I notice a lot of people in this room on both sides of 
issue. I have a feeling they are here solely because of their 
interest in government and not because and not because the meter is 
running.
    A lot of us would like to see this thing end, but why do you 
feel that this decree, this settlement is so good that it's going to 
end?
    JAMES: Well, Senator, that's certainly a legitimate question and 
I understand the spirit in which it was asked. One, I think, the 
facts of life is that one of the reasons we have so many antitrust 
lawyers and perhaps why there are so many of them in this room, is 
that firms with substantial market positions very often are the 
subject of appropriate antitrust scrutiny and so it is with 
Microsoft and so it should be.
    Our settlement here is a settlement that resolves a fairly 
complex piece of litigation. It, by it's terms, is going to be a 
complex settlement in as much as it does cover a broad range of 
activities and has to look into the future prospectively in a manner 
that benefits consumers. Some of that consumer benefit certainly 
will come from the development of competing products. Some of that 
consumer benefit, however, will come from competition from Microsoft 
as it moves into other middleware products, et cetera.
    We think that the terms of the decree are certainly enforceable. 
I think so much of what has been called a loophole are things that 
are carve-outs necessary to facilitate pro-competitive behavior and 
we certainly think that the enforcement power embodied in this 
decree, I would say an unprecedented level of enforcement power, 
three tiers of enforcement power, are sufficient to let the 
Department of Justice...
    LEAHY: But keep in mind that usually these kinds of decrees, if 
it's not specifically laid out, the courts tend to decide the vague 
questions against the government, not for. Fortune Magazine called 
it and said even the loopholes have loopholes, a pretty strong 
statement from a very pro-business magazine.
    The settlement limits the types of retaliation Microsoft can 
take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or promote non-
Microsoft software, but some would say that gives a green light to 
other types of retaliation.
    Now, I don't know why doesn't the settlement ban all types of 
retaliation. It has no--the Court of Appeals, it said twice you 
commingle the browser and operating system code you violate Section 
II of the Sherman Act. The proposed settlement contains no prohibit 
on commingling code. There is no provision barring the commingling 
of browser code with the operating code.
    So, you've got areas where they can retaliate. You don't have 
the barring of this commingling of code. I mean, are 
these--Fortune Magazine, Judge Bork and others justified in 
thinking there are too many loopholes here, notwithstanding the 
levels of enforcement.
    JAMES: Let me take your points in order--first on the 
subject of retaliation.
    Retaliation is a defined term in this decree. It's a term that 
we are using to define a sort of conduct that Microsoft can engage 
in when it engages in ordinary commercial transactions. I don't 
think that there is any scope in the bounds of this case to prohibit 
Microsoft from engaging in any form of collaborative conduct with 
anyone in the computer industry. Certainly, the types of 
collaborative conduct that are permitted, the so-called 
``loopholes'', are the type of conduct that is permitted 
under standard Supreme Court law embodied in decisions like 
broadcast music and NCAA, also embodied in the Federal Trade 
Commission-Department of Justice joint venture guidelines that 
sanction forms of conduct, so that we think that antitrust lawyers 
certainly can understand these types of issues and that we think the 
courts can understand these types of issues.
    JAMES: Secondly, with regard to your more particular point about 
commingling code--it's certainly the case that the Court of 
Appeals following upon the District Court decision found that 
Microsoft had engaged in an act of monopolization in that it 
commingled code for the purpose of preventing the Microsoft browser 
from being removed from the desktop. That's certainly the finding of 
the Court of Appeals.
    Now, in the process of going through my preparations for this 
hearing, I went back and looked at the Department of Justice 
position with regards to this throughout the course of the case and 
even in the contempt proceeding involving the former (inaudible), it 
has always and consistently been the Department of Justice's 
contention that it did not want to force Microsoft to remove code 
from the operating system. They said that over and over again in 
every brief that's been filed in this case.
    What the Department of Justice wanted was an appropriate as a 
remove functionality that would give consumers the choice between 
middleware functionalities. That is exactly the remedy we have here 
and we think it's an effective remedy.
    We've gone beyond that particular aspect of this by including 
into our decree a specific provision that deals with the question of 
defaults, in other words, the extent to which a Microsoft 
middleware--a non-Microsoft middleware product can take over 
and be (inaudible) both automatically in place of a Microsoft 
middleware product. That's something that was not in the earlier 
decree. It's a step beyond what was included in Judge Jackson's 
order.
    We think that we have addressed the product integration aspects 
of the Microsoft monopoly made in this claim in exactly the terms 
that the department has always

[[Page 29339]]

pursued with regard to that particular issue and we're completely 
satisfied with that aspect of the relief.
    LEAHY: Well, I will have a follow up on--as you probably 
expect that my time is up and I want to yield to Senator DeWine. 
Actually, I have a follow up on the retaliation also, but I do 
appreciate your answer.
    Senator DeWine?
    DEWINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This case has certainly been very controversial and inspired a 
great deal of discussion regarding the effectiveness of the 
antitrust laws, especially within the high tech industry. Netscape, 
for example, vocally opposed Microsoft during this litigation and 
many of Netscape's complaints really were validated by the courts. 
And yet, Netscape ended up losing battle.
    This sort of result has led some to question whether our 
antitrust laws can be effective in this particular industry and I 
personally believe the antitrust laws are essential to promoting 
competition within the industry and throughout the country.
    But I would like to hear what your views are on this subject. 
What lessons do you think this case teaches us in regards to that 
and what do we say to people like Netscape?
    JAMES: Well, it's certainly the case that our judicial system 
very often can provide a crude tool for redressing particular issues 
quickly. I would note that this particular case was litigated on a 
very fast track and the people at the Department of Justice ought to 
be really commended for pushing this case along at even the speed 
that it's taken, considering the comparable speed of other cases.
    I think, however, that the case stands for an important 
proposition and that is that the Department of Justice is up to 
meeting the challenge, that it has the tools at its disposal to 
investigate unlawful conduct, to understand and appreciate the 
implications of what complex technical matters involve, to bring the 
resources to bear in order to litigate these cases to a successful 
conclusion and, where appropriate, to reach a settlement that's in 
the public interest.
    One of the things that I think is an important issue to note 
here is that there is certainly a time difference between litigating 
a matter of individual liability and litigating a matter involving 
compliance with a term of a decree.
    We think that the enforcement powers that are involved here are 
appropriate ones. We think that enforcement by the Department of 
Justice is the appropriate way to proceed in these matters and we're 
confident that this provides the sort of best mechanism for dealing 
with a complex matter in complex circumstances.
    DEWINE: One provision of the proposed final judgment requires 
Microsoft to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable 
access to competing products. However, to qualify for these 
protections, it must have had a million copies distributed in the 
United States within the previous year.
    This would seem to me to run contrary to traditional antitrust 
philosophy promoting new competition. Why are these protections 
limited to larger competitors?
    JAMES: I'm actually glad you asked that question, Senator, 
because that's one of the prevailing, I think, misconceptions of the 
decree.
    The provisions of the decree that require Microsoft to allow a 
OEM placed middleware product on the desktop apply without regard to 
whether or not that product has been distributed to I million 
people. That is an absolute requirement.
    The million-copy distribution provision relates solely to the 
question of when Microsoft must undertake these affirmative 
obligations to create defaults, for example, for a middleware 
product, to provide other types of assistance to someone who has 
developed that product. The fact of the matter is that this is 
something that requires a great deal of work, particularly these 
complex matters of setting defaults, which is very important to the 
competitive circumstances here. It would be very difficult to impose 
upon Microsoft the responsibility for making these alterations to 
the operating system and making them for every subsequent release of 
the operating system to be automatic in the case of any software 
company that shows up and says, ``I have a product that 
competes''.
    But I want to be very clear here, Senator. Every qualifying 
middleware product without regard to how many copies its 
distributed, an OEM can place that product on the desktop 
immediately without regard to this I million threshold. And quite 
frankly, in today's world, 1 million copies distributed is not a 
substantial matter. I think in the last year I might have gotten 1 
million copies of AOL 5.0 in the mail.
    So, I don't think that that's really a very large impediment.
    DEWINE: Can I ask one last question?
    You've mentioned in a number of provisions the settlement will 
(inaudible) beyond the four corners of a case. But Microsoft agreed 
to these conditions anyway. What are they and what is the goal of 
these provisions?
    JAMES: Well, I think one of the most important one is the 
default provision. As of the time of our original case, these 
middleware products were fairly simple, operating in a fairly simple 
way. You went--you clicked onto that product, you evoked that 
product and then you used it in whatever way was appropriate.
    In today's world, software has changed. We see what they call a 
more ``seamless user interface user experience'', and it's 
necessary for people to operate deeply within the operating system 
on an integrated basis.
    There were allegations that Microsoft overrode consumer choice 
in these default mechanisms in the case. With regard to each and 
every one of those instances alleged by the Justice Department, the 
Justice Department lost. The court found that count for Microsoft. 
Notwithstanding that as a matter of fencing in and improving the 
nature of this decree, we have included into this issue the subject 
of defaults.
    Another important area, I think, is a question of server 
interoperability and that's a very, very important issue as we see 
going forward. If you go back and read the complaint in this case, 
you will find the word ``server'' almost virtually never 
appears. There's no sort of very specific allegations that go to 
this.
    We thought that this was an important alternative platform 
issue. We thought it was important to stretch for relief in this 
area and we did so and got, I think, relief that is very effective 
in preserving this as people go into an environment of more 
distributive web processing.
    So, we think that that's a very powerful thing and I think these 
are two issues that the Department of Justice would have had a very, 
very difficult time sustaining in court to the extent that the court 
was inclined to limit us to the proof that we put forward, so I 
think these are very positive manifestations of the settlement.
    DEWINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    LEAHY: We're checking one--and I mentioned this to Senator 
Kohl and Senator Sessions and Senator Cantwell (inaudible) been here 
to answer questions. We're finding out from the floor (inaudible) 
there may have been a (inaudible). Any senator has a right under 
Senate rules to object to committees meeting more than two hours 
after the Senate goes in session. We're on the farm bill and a 
number of appropriations and other central matters so that I've been 
told that a senator has objected, as every senator has a right to 
do, to its continuance. And as a result, the good senator said they 
want us to, contrary to what is going on in the Senate floor, we 
have to respect the rules of the Senate. I do, and we're going to 
have to recess this hearing at this time. I'm going to put into the 
record the statements of all those who have come here to testify.
    Senator Hatch and I will try and find a time we might reconvene 
this hearing because both Senator Hatch and I feel this is a very 
important hearing. Statements will be placed in the record. The 
record will be open for questions that might be submitted.
    I apologize to everybody. We did not anticipate this. With 100 
senators, every so often somebody exercises that rule. I emphasize, 
senators have the right to exercise that rule, especially when we're 
in the last three weeks of the session. I think we're going to break 
for Christmas Day, but we're in the last three weeks of this session 
and I think senator (inaudible) wants to make sure senators pay 
attention to (inaudible).
    HATCH: Mr. Chairman?
    LEAHY: Senator Hatch, we really technically out of time.
    HATCH: Mr. Chairman, we are out of time. Any Senator can invoke 
a two-hour rule and a senator has done that. Fortunately, I think it 
was against the finance committee markup today, but we reported out 
to bill anyway right within the time constraint. That's where I 
went.
    But both Senator Leahy and I apologize to the witnesses who put 
such an effort in being here today, because this is an important 
hearing. These are important matters for both sides, to all sides, I 
should say. There are not just two sides here, and these matters 
have a great bearing on just how positively impactful the United 
States is going to be in these areas. So, I hope that we can 
reconvene within a relatively short period of time and continue this 
hearing, because it is a very, very important hearing and we 
apologize to you that this happened.
    LEAHY: It's out of our hands, but I would normally recess until 
tomorrow, but

[[Page 29340]]

tomorrow we have this time for an executive committee meeting of the 
Judiciary Committee to do as we've done many times already, to vote 
out a large number of judges.
    So, with that, we stand recessed.
    (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, just a matter of procedure. I am 
troubled by what I understand to be a decision to send this 
transcript to the court as an official document from Congress in the 
middle of a litigation that's ongoing. I would think that anybody's 
statement that they gave could be sent to the court. Any senator can 
write a letter to the court.
    LEAHY: I appreciate--we need to be...
    (UNKNOWN): I haven't studied it fully, but as a (inaudible) it 
troubles me to have a...
    LEAHY: That record is open to anybody who wants to send anything 
in. Senator Hatch and I have made that decision and that will be the 
decision of the committee.
    We stand in recess.
    (UNKNOWN): I will be recorded as objecting. END NOTES:
    ????--Indicates Speaker Unknown
    ----Indicates could not make out what was being said. 
off mike--Indicates could not make out what was being said.
    PERSON: PATRICK J LEAHY (94%); EDWARD M KENNEDY (72%); JOSEPH R 
BIDEN (57%); DIANNE FEINSTEIN (56%); RICHARD J DURBIN (55%); HIKE 
DEWINE (55%); ORRIN G HATCH (54%); STROH THURMOND (54%); JOHN 
EDWARDS (54%); ARLEN SPECTER (53%); JON L KYL (53%); JEFF SESSIONS 
(52%); HITCH MCCONNELL (51%); HERB KOHL (50%); RICHARD MICHAEL 
DEWINE (50%);

ATTACHMENT 7

FRIED FRANK HARRIS SI??RIVER & JACO??SON
Alphabetical Attorney Listing
Attorney D??
    Charles F. (Rick) Rule is a partner resident in Fried Frank's 
Washington, DC and New York offices and head of the firm's antitrust 
practice. He joined the firm in 2001.
    Mr. Rule's practice focuses on providing U.S. and international 
antitrust advice to a variety, of high-profile corporations. 
counseling, structuring joint ventures (including business-to- 
business exchanges) and representing major corporations in 
connection with investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, 
the Federal Trade Commission and the European Commission. Mr. Rule 
has represented clients such as Eli Lilly & Company, Microsoft 
Corporation, US Airways Inc., WorldCom, Inc., the National 
Basketball Association, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., and Air 
Products and Chemicals, Inc. He has also been involved in the 
antitrust clearance of some of the highest-profile mergers in recent 
years, including advising NYNEX in its merger with Bell Atlantic 
(now known as Verizon Communications) and serving as Exxon's lead 
counsel in its successful merger with Mobil Oil Corporation (now 
known as ExxonMobil Corporation).
    Mr. Rule served as William Baxter's special assistant, in 1982, 
in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. He served as 
acting head of the Division for almost half of 1985 and was 
appointed to the job permanently in late 1986, becoming the youngest 
person ever to be confirmed to the position of Assistant Attorney 
General in charge of the Antitrust Division. Mr. Rule continued as 
the Assistant Attorney General through the remainder of the Reagan 
Administration and for the first several months of the George Bush, 
Sr. Administration. He received the Edmund J. Randolph Award from 
the Department of Justice in 1988. Following his departure from the 
Justice Department in 1989, Mr. Rule was a partner and head of the 
antitrust practice at the Washington, DC law firm of Covington & 
Burling.
    Mr. Rule has served as a distinguished adjunct professor of law 
at American University's Washington College of Law. He was the 
inaugural chair of the Corporations, Securities and Antitrust 
Practice Group of the Federalist Society, and, from 1989-91, 
was chair of the Economics Committee of the ABA Antitrust Section. 
He is currently a member of the Advisory Board of BNA's Antitrust 
& Trade Regulation Report and also a member of the advisory 
boards of the Washington Legal Foundation and the Landmark Legal 
Foundation.
    Mr. Rule is included among the world's leading antitrust lawyers 
in the Chambers Global 2000-2001 listing. His biography 
appears in Who's Who in America. Who's Who in the East. Who's Who in 
American Law and similar publications.
    Mr. Rule has written extensively and is a frequent lecturer on a 
variety, of antitrust and regulatory topics, and he contributes a 
regular column on antitrust issues to the Daily Deal. (See attached 
publications list.)
    Mr. Rule received his JD in 1981 from the University of Chicago 
Law School and his BA, summa cure laude, in 1978 from Vanderbilt 
University. He served as a law clerk for Chief Judge Daniel M. 
Friedman of the old United States Court of Claims (now the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit). He is on the Visiting Committee 
for the University of Chicago Law School. He is admitted to the bar 
in the District of Columbia.

ATTACHMENT 8

    The New York Times
    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2001
    By STEPHEN LABATON
    WASHINGTON, Nov. 1--The 18 states involved in tile 
government's landmark antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft rebuffed 
repeated request,'' today by Microsoft and the Justice 
Department to join the tentative settlement they reached a day 
earlier.
    Concluding a series of meetings in Washington and cross-country 
telephone calls, the slate prosecutors instead agreed among 
themselves to ask the federal judge overseeing tile case for time to 
examine the details of the proposed deal.
    The judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Federal District Court for 
the District of Columbia, has ordered the lawyers In the case to 
appear before her on Friday morning to report progress in the 
mediation proceedings that she set up five weeks ago.
    Today Microsoft and senior Justice Department officials engaged 
with a mediator in shuttle diplomacy, vigorously pressing the states 
to adopt the agreement, people involved in the case said.
    Under that pressure, leaders of the group struggled to hold 
together a fragile alliance that was being led from Washington by 
Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, and Richard Blumenthal, 
the attorney general of Connecticut. Working from the headquarters 
here of the National Association of Attorneys General, the two were 
Joined by lower-level lawyers from * other states, including New 
York and California.
    After a conference call this afternoon, the states agreed to 
have their newly hired lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, ask the judge for 
more time to consider tile request. The decision was described as 
unanimous. Pressing hardest for the delay were representatives from 
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin, 
according to one lawyer Involved in the case.
    Participants described the state officials as wary of accepting 
a deal before scrutinizing the text of any proposed consent decree, 
particularly in light of the history of the case. ``The last 
time I saw a public policy issue as important and difficult as 
Microsoft decided under impossible time constraints and without a 
chance for adequate public review was when California passed its 
electricity deregulation bill,'' said Bill Lockyer, the 
California attorney general. ``I'm not about to stand by and 
see that happen again.''
    It was an inartfully drawn consent decree in 1994 that became 
the center of the initial lawsuit filed by the Justice Department 
against Microsoft. In that case, Microsoft was accused of violating 
the terms of the decree by integrating its Internet Explorer browser 
software into its Windows operating system. The company replied that 
it had done nothing improper because the decree did not explicitly 
constrain it from such integration.
    The state prosecutors today faced a difficult legal calculation. 
Several of them were described as being skeptical of the proposed 
deal but also uncertain whether they would be able to proceed as a 
group at odds with the federal government.
    A break between the states and the Justice Department would 
throw the cas?? uncharted and .possibly ?? legal waters. No 
agreement ca?? effect without the approval of a??ral judge, and it 
is impossible to predict how Judge Kollar-Kotelly might react to the 
concerns of the states.
    Nor is it certain whether her approval of a settlement would 
prevent the states from proceeding with their own antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft To approve the proposed deal struck with the 
Justice Department, Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have to find that it 
was in the public interest.
    Today's developments capped a remarkable week of behind-the 
scenes negotiations in Washington. For Microsoft, the main 
negotiator has been Charles F. Rule of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver 
& Jacobson, a former assistant attorney general in charge of 
antitrust during the Reagan administration, where he got to know a 
young colleague working on antitrust issues at the Federal Trade 
Commission named Charles'' A. James. Mr. James, the current 
head of the antitrust division, is leading the federal government's 
effort to settle the case.
    News of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department

[[Page 29341]]

propelled the company's stock and contributed to a broader rally in 
the markets. Microsoft shares rose 6.4 percent, or $3.69, to $61.84.
    Some of Microsoft's largest competitors voiced bitter 
disappointment about the terms of the proposed deal and asserted 
that the company had used its political influence with a Republican 
administration to try to quickly put an end to the case.
    The rivals said that during court hearings that will be 
``required on the proposed settlement, they intended to provide 
evidence of what they say was an improper discussion between a 
senior aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft who had been a top 
official in the Republican Party and a Republican lobbyist for AOL-
Time Warner that demonstrated Microsofts political muscle. In a 
statement issued today, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of 
Michigan, also indicated he would be examining that incident, word 
of which has been circulating widely in recent days among lawyers, 
lobbyists and executives following the case.
    The aide to Mr. Ashcroft, David Israelite, had been the 
political director of the Republican National Committee, which 
received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Microsoft during the 
2000 presidential campaign. Mr. Israelite, now Mr. Ashcroft's deputy 
chief of staff, has recused himself from any involvement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case because he owns 100 shares of Microsoft 
stock.
    The 1obbyist involved in the discussion was said to be Wayne 
Berman, who is also a top Republican fundraiser.
    According to the notes of a person briefed about the 
conversation on Oct. 9, the day it is said. to have occurred, Mr. 
Israelite called Mr. Berman.
    ``Are you guys behind this business of the states hiring 
their own lawyers in the Microsoft case?'' Mr. Israelite asked 
Mr. Berman in the predawn conversation, according to the notes. 
``Tell your clients we wouldn't be too happy about that.''
    Mr. Israelite purportedly told the AOL lobbyist that the Supreme 
Court would probably deny a Microsoft appeal later in the day, as 
the court in fact did, clearing the way for the Justice Department 
to push hard for a settlement with the company. According to people 
who were later briefed on the conversation by an AOL executive, Mr. 
Israelite then complained that AOL, a leading Microsoft rival, had 
been trying to ``radicalize'' the states to oppose a 
settlement.
    In recent interviews, both Mr. Israelite and Mr. Berman denied 
that they had had any conversations about the Microsoft case or that 
they had talked at all that day.
    ``I find it offensive if someone has suggested that I 
violated the terms of my recusal, because I take that very 
seriously,'' Mr. Israelite said.
    But an AOL executive said he was notified by Mr. Berman about 
his conversation with Mr. Israelite on Oct. 9, the day it was said 
to have occurred. Nevertheless, this executive and others at AOL 
said that upon re-examination of Mr. Berman's initial description of 
the conversation with Mr. Israelite, the company concluded that the 
account of the conversation might not have been reliable enough to 
justify filing an ethics complaint.
    But other industry executives and lobbyists said they thought 
the conversation had occurred and would ask Judge Kollar-Kotelly to 
order an inquiry. Today Edward J. Black, president of the Computer 
and Communications Industry Association, a trade group whose members 
include many of Microsoft's corporate adversaries, said he and other 
groups would be raising the incident as part of a court proceeding 
to consider the merits of the settlement.
    ``Something is very rotten here,'' Mr. Black stud. 
``Israelite is a recused official. He holds Microsoft stock. He 
raised a lot of money from Microsoft. He steered money into critical 
states that helped win the election. And then he takes action to 
help facilitate getting Microsoft out of trouble in an enforcement 
action.''
    Alter more than three years of litigation, repeated courtroom 
setbacks and failed settle- ly on whether an appeals court ruling m 
June was interpreted broadly or narrowly.
    Some Legal scholars pointed to the prece- dents establishing the 
standard that monopoly remedies should eliminate the monopoly, deny 
with innovation.''
    The tentative settlement would prohibit Microsoft from entering 
into pricing deals and contracts with personal computer makers that 
effectively force them to favor Microsoft prod-

ATTACHMENT 9

Clerk of the House of Representative
Secretary of the Senate
Legislative* Resource Center
Office of Public Records
B-106 Cannon Building
232 HartBuilding
Washington, DC 20515
Washington, DC 20510
RECEIVED
99 AUG-9 PM 2:38
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name Barbour Griffith & Rogers
2. Registrant Address
Check if different than previously reported Address
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Tenth Floor
City Washington State/Zip (or Cottony) DC 20004
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City State/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name Will Milligan
Telephone (202)-661-6320
E-mail (optional) [email protected]
5. Senate ID # 5357-416
6. House ID # 31564040
7. Client Name Self Microsoft Corporation
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 1999 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year End (July I-
December 31) ??
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report ??
10. Check if this is a Termination Report
Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: Less than $10,000 $10,000 or more $300,000.00
Income nearest $20,000)
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000 of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all payments 
to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on 
behalf of the client).
13. Organizations
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were: Less than $10,000
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033C0)(8) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code signature
Date 8/5/99
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr. Managing
Page 1 of 2
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers Client Name: 
Microsoft Corporation LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as 
necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant 
engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting 
period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as 
requested. Attach additional page(s) as needed.
* 15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
H.R. 775, Y2K Act,
S.314, Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act,
In connection with the Justice Department's Antitrust inquiry. 17. 
House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ID Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    New
Barbour, Haley............................  No
Griffith, Jr., G.O........................  No
Monroe, Loren.............................  No
Rogers, Ed................................  No
Thompson, Brent...........................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr. Managing Partner
Date 8/5/99

ATTACHMENT 10

Clerk of the House of Representatives
Legislative Resource Center
B-106 Cannon Building

[[Page 29342]]

Washington, DC 20515
Secretary of the Senate
Office of Public Records
232 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of I995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name Barbour Griffith & Rogers
2. Registrant Address
Check if different than previously reported Address
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Tenth Floor
City Washington state/zip (or Country) DC 20004
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City State/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name Evan Rikhye
Telephone 202-333-4936
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID # 5357-416
7. Clint Name Self Microsoft Corporation 31564040
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 1999 Midyear (January 1-June 30)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report Termination Date
OR
Year End (July 1-December 3 I)
11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $
$320,000.00
Income (nearest 520,000)
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000 of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all payments 
to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on 
behalf of the client).
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Managing Partner
13. Organizations
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(bX8) of
the Internal Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the
Internal Revenue Code
Date 01/13/2000
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code LAW (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
H.R. 775, Y2K Act,
S.314, Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act,
In connection with the Justice Department's Antitrust inquiry.
17, House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    New
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jo.--Managing Partner
Date 01/13/2000

ATTACHMENT 11

Clerk of the 11ouse of Representatives
Secretary of the* Senate
Legislative Resource Center
Office of Public Records
B-106 Cannon Building
232 Hart Building
Washington, 20515
Washington. DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complet??
1. Registrant Name Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
2. Address
Check if different than previously reported 1275 Pennsylvania 
Avenuc, NW, Tenth Floor, Washington DC 20004
3. Principal Place of Business (if different form line 2)
/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name Evan Rikhye
Telephone 202-333-4936
E-mail (optional)
Client Name Self Microsoft Corporation
5. Senate ID# 5357416
6. House ID #. 31564040
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 2000 . Midyear (January 1-June 30) OR Year End (July 
1-December 31)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? ?? Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Aetivity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
INCOME; relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $300,000.00
Income (nearest $20,000)
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000 of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all payment 
to the registrant by any other emily for lobbying activities on 
behalf of the client).
13. Organizations
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were:
Less than $ 10,000
$10,000 or more $
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expanse accounting 
method. Sec instructions for description of options.
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(81 of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(c)of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature--
Primed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Dale 8/12/20(10
Registrant Name: Barbour Graffity & Rogers, Inc.
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. Gelleral issue area code IMM (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
H.R. 3767, Visa Waiver Permancent Program Act,
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
IIouse of Representatives
Senate
18. Name cfr each individual who acted a lobbyist in this issue area
Griffith, Jr., G.O.
Rogers, Ed.
Barbour, Ilnley
Monroc, Loren
Thompson, Brent
Covered Official Position (if applicable)
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues issue on 
line.. 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title --G.O. Griffith, Jr..-Chief Operating 
Officer
Date 8/12/2000
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Client. Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code LAW (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues Monitor The Justice Department's 
Antitrust inquiry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives

[[Page 29343]]

Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    New
Griffith, Jr., G.O........................  No
Rogers, Ed................................  No
Barbour, Haley............................  No
Monroc, Loren.............................  No
Thompson, Brent...........................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Date 8/12/2000
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation --.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
H.R. 4444, US. China Trade Relations Act of 2000,
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in Otis issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griffith, Jr. G.O.........................  No
Rogers, Ed................................  No
* Barbour, Haley..........................  No
Thompson, Brent...........................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Date 8/12/2000

ATTACHMENT 12

Clerk of the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate
Legislative Resource Center Office of Public Records
B-106 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515
232 Hart Building Washington, DC 205 10
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Address 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Tenth Floor Washington DC 
20004
Check if different than previously reported
Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City State/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name Evan Rikhye
Telephone 202-333-4936
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID # 5357-416 6. House ID # 31564040
7. Client Name Self Microsoft Corporation
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 2000 Midyear(January 1-June30) Year End(July 
1-December31)
OR
9. Check if this filing amends a previously flied version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $ $240,004).00
Income (heart $20.000)
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000 of all 
lobbying related income from the client (including all payments to 
the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf 
of the client).
13. Organizations
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Date 2/14/2001
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code LAW (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues Monitor the Justice Department's 
Antitrust inquiry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griffith, Jr. G.O.........................  No
Rogers, Ed................................  No
Barbour, Haley............................  No
Monroe, Loren.............................  No
Thompson, Brent...........................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Date 2/14/2001
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in Which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
H.R. 4444., US-China Trade Relations Act of 2000,
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    New
Griffith: Jr., G.O........................  No
Rogers, Ed................................  No
Barbour, Haley............................  No
Thompson, Brent...........................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr. -Chief Operating Officer
Date 2/14/2001
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
H.R. 4444, US-China Trade Relations Act of 2000,
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal/agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives

[[Page 29344]]

Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    New
Griffith: Jr., G.O........................  No
Rogers, Ed................................  No
Barbour, Haley............................  No
Thompson, Brent...........................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Date 2/14/2001

ATTACHMENT 13

Clerk of the House of Representatives
Legislative Resource Center
B-106 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515
Secretary of the Senate
Office of Public Records
232 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
2. Registrant Address
Cheek if different than previously reported Address 1275 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Tenth Floor
City Washington State/Zip (or Country) DC 20004
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City State/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name Evan Rikbye
Telephone 202-333-4936
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID # 5357-416
6. HOUSE ID # 31564040
7. Client Name Self Microsoft Corporation
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 2001 Midyear (January 1-June 30) OR Year End (July 
1-December 31)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report Termination Date No 
Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 Or Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this 
reporting
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                period was:                         period were:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000.........................  Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $ $220,000.99.............  $10,000 or more $
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Income (nearest $20,000)
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest METHOD. 
Check box to indicate expense $20,000 of all lobbying related income 
from the client Sec instructions for description of options. 
(including all payments to the registrant by any other entity 
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only for lobbying activities 
on behalf of the client). amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of
14. REPORTING accounting method. Method A. Method B. Reporting the 
Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 
162(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
Signature
Date 8/14/2001
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
    ATTACHMENT 14
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc.
Client Name: Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
5. General issue area code LAW (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
Monitor the Justice Department's Antitrust inquiry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted Check if 
None
 House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
Name
Barbour, Haley
Griffith, Jr.,
Monroe, Loren
Rogers, Ed
Thompson, Brent
Covered Official Position (if applicable)
New
No
N0
Yes
No
No
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Printed Name and Title G.O. Griffith, Jr.--Chief Operating 
Officer
Date. 8/14/2001
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act (Section 5)
1. Year 1997
2. Report type (check all that apply) Midyear(January 1-June 
30)
Year End(July 1-December 31)
Amended report
Termination report
No activity (registration to remain In effect) ??
REGISTRANT
3. Name of Registrant Clark & Weinstock
4. Telephone number and contact name (212) 953-2550 Contact 
Anthony Ewing
CLIENT Lobbying firms file separate reports for each client. An 
organization employing in-house lobbyists indicates 
``Self.''
5. Name of Client Microsoft Corporation
INCOME OR EXPENSES Answer line 6 or line 7 as applicable.
6. LOBBYING FIRMS. Income from the client during the reporting 
period other than income unrelated to lobbying activities, was:
Less than S10,000
$10,000 or more ??
If $10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the 
nearest $20,000, of all income from the client during this reporting 
period. Include any payments by any other entity for lobbying 
activities on behalf of the client. Exclude income unrelated to 
lobbying activities.
Income $, 80,000
Total for year (if Year End report) $ 80, 000
7. ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYING IN-HOUSE LOBBYISTS. Expenses incurred in 
connection with lobbying activities during the reporting period 
were:
Less than $10.000
$10.000 or more
    If S 10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to 
the nearest $20,000, of the total amount of all lobbying expenses 
incurred by the registrant and its employees during this reporting 
period.
Expenses $
Total for year (if Year End report) $
Optional Expense Reporting Methods
    A. Registrants that report lobbying expenses under section 
6033COX8) of the Internal Revenue C may provide a good faith 
estimate of the applicable amounts that would be required to be 
disclosed under section 6033COX8) for the semiannual reporting 
period, and may consider as lobbying activities only those defined 
under section 4911(d) of the Internal Revenue Code If selecting this 
method, check box and (i) enter estimated amounts on the 
``Expenses'' line above; or (ii) attach a copy of the IRS 
Form 990 that includes this reporting period. ??
    B. Registrants subject to section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue 
Code may make* a good faith estimate of all applicable amounts that 
would not be deductible under section 162(e) for the semiannual 
reporting period, and may consider as lobbying activities only those 
activities the costs of which arc not deductible pursuant to section 
162(e). If selecting this method, check box and enter estimated 
amounts on the ``Expenses'' line above. ??
    Clark & Weinstock
    Registrant Name
    Client Name Microsoft Corporation
    LOBBYING ISSUES. On line 8 below, enter me code for one general 
lobbying issue area In which registrant engaged in lobbying 
activities for the client during this reporting period (select 
applicable code from list in the instructions and on the reverse 
side offers LD-2, page I). For that general issue area only, 
complete lines 9 through 12. If the registrant engaged in lobbying 
activities for the client in more than One general issue area use 
one Lobbying Report Addendum page for each additional general issue

[[Page 29345]]

    s. General lobbying issue area code (enter one) CPI
    9. Specific lobbying issues (include bill numbers and specific 
executive branch actions) Support for Microsoft's position across a 
wide range of issues, including intellectual property rights,., 
taxes, encryption, and other matters * affecting the computer-
software industry.
    10. Houses of Congress and Federal agencies coasted
    U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
11. Name and title of each employee who acted as a lobbyist
Via Weber, Partner ``
Andrew Goldman, Managing Director
Deirdre Stach, Director
Ed Kutler, Managing Director
Kent Knutson, Director
12. For registrants identifying foreign entities in the Lobbying 
Registration (Form LD-1 line 12) or any updates: Interest of each 
such foreign entity in the specific lobbying issues listed on line 9 
above
This report includes Addendum pages.
Printed Name and Title Harry W. Clark III, Managing Partner

ATTACHMENT 15



MTC-00030631--0817
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE LOBBYING REPORT Lobbying 
Disclosure Act (Section 5)
1. Year 1998
2. Report type (check all that apply) Midyear (January 1-June 
30) Year End (July 1-December 31)
Amended report ??
Termination report
No activity (registration to remain in effect) ??
REGISTRANT
3. Name of Registrant Clark & Weinstock Inc.
4. Telephone number and contact name
(212)953-2550
Contact Anthony Ewing
CLIENT Lobbying firms file separate reports for each client. An 
organization employing in-house 1obbyists indicates 
``Self.''
5. Name of Client Microsoft Corporation
INCOME OR EXPENSES Answer line 6 or line 7 as applicable.
6. LOBBYING FIRMS. Income from the client during the reporting 
period, other than income unrelated to lobbying activities, was:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
    If $10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to 
the nearest $20,000, of all income from the client during this 
reporting period. Include any payments by any other entity for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the cheat Exclude income unrelated 
to lobbying activities.
Income $ 160. 000
Total for year (if Year End report) $
7. ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYING IN-HOUSE LOBBYISTS. Expenses incurred in 
connection with lobbying activities during the reporting period 
were:
Less than $10,000 ??
$10,000 or more ??
    If $10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to 
the nearest $20,000, of the total amount of all lobbying expenses 
incurred by the registrant and its employees during this reporting 
period.
Expenses S
Total for year (if Year End report) $.
Optional Expense Reporting Methods
    A. Registrants that report lobbying expenses under section 
6033(bX8) of the Internal Revenue Code may provide a good faith esti 
of the applicable amounts that would be required to be disclosed 
under section 60330oX8) for the semiannual reporting period, may 
consider as lobbying activities only those defined under section 491 
l(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. If selecting this method, check 
box and (i) enter estimated amounts on the ``Expenses'' 
line above; or (ii) attach a copy of the IRS Form 990 that includes 
this reporting period. ??
    B. Registrants subject to section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue 
Code may make a good faith estimate of all applicable amounts that 
would not be deductible under section 162(o) for the semiannual 
reporting Period, mad may consider as lobbying activities only those 
activities the costs of which are not deductible pursuant to section 
162(e). If selecting this method, check box and e?? estimated 
amounts on the ``Expenses'' line above. ??



MTC-00030631--0818
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ISSUES. On line 8 below, eater the coat for one general 
lobbying area in which the registrant engaged in lobbying activities 
for the client during this reporting period (select applicable code 
from list in the instructions and on the reverse side of Form LD-2, 
page 1.). For that general issue area only, complete lines 9-through 
12. If the registrant engaged ha lobbying activities for the client 
in more than one general issue area, use one Lobbying Report 
Addendum page for each additional general issue area--
8. General lobbying issue area coda (enter one) , CPI
9. Specific lobbying issues (include bill numbers and specific 
executive branch actions)
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, and. 
other matters affecting the computer software industry;.''
(HR3736, S.1723, S.2107)
(HR2368, HR2372,'HR2991)
10. Houses of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
11. Name and fide of each employee who acted as a lobbyist
Vin Weber, Partner
Andrew Goldman, Managing Director
Ed Kutler, Managing Director
Deirdre Stach, Director
Kent Knutson, Director
Mimi Simoneaux, Director
12. For registrant identifying foreign entities in the Lobbying 
Registration (Form LD-I, line 12) or any updates: Interest of each 
foreign entity in the specific lobbying issues listed on line 9 
above
This report includes Addendum pages.
Signture
Printed Name and Title Harry W. Clark, Managing Partner


MTC-00030631--0819
    ATTACHMENT 16


MTC-00030631--0820
Clerk or the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate ??
Legislative Resource Center
Office of Public Records
B-t06 Cannon Building
232 Hart Building ??
Washington, DC 20515
Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT //
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name
Clark & Wainstock Inc.
2. Address Check if different than previously reported
1775 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
3. Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: New York
State/Zip (or Country) NY
4. Contact Name
Tel(plume
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID
Anthony Ewing
(212) 953-2550
9443-381
6. House ID #
7. Client Name Self
Microsoft Corporation
31698027
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 1998 Midyear (January l-June 30) [] OR Year End (July l-
December 31)
9. Chk if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report XX
10. Check if this is a Termination Report Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: period were:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
Less than $ 10,000
$10,000 or more $ 220,000
Expenses
(nearest ??20.000)
Income (nearest S20.000{time} 
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options. of all lobbying 
related income from the client (including all
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20.000,
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to 
the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf 
of the client).
Method B. Reporting amounts under section

[[Page 29346]]

6033(b)(S)of the Internal Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
    Signature
    Printed Name and Title


MTC-00030631--0821
Registrant Name Clark & Wainstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry. (HR. 
3736, 2368, 2372, 2991, 695, 947, 1689; S. 2067, 405, 1260, 507, 
1723; House/Senate Treasury Appropriations Act of 1999; Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 
Act of 1999; Department of Commerce, Justice and State, The 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 1999)
17 House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
[] Check if None
Senate
House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name              Covered Official Position (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Kutler....................  8/95--8/97, Assistant to the Speaker
                                of the House Of Representatives, Rep.
                                Newt Gingrich(R-GA)
Mimi Simoneaux...............  1/96-1/97, Legislative Asst. for
                                Rep. Billy Tauzin(R-LA) for Rep.
Andrew Goldman...............  1/97-2/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deirdre Stach
Vin Weber
19 Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title


MTC-00030631_0822
Registrant Name Clerk f Weinstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
Information Update Page. Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Clienit new prinicipal of business (if different from line 20)
City
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activitis
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as alobbyist for the client
Kent Knutson
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFLIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Pricipal Place of Business
(city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27 Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business
Amount of contribute Ownership
(city and since or country)
for lobbying activities
percentage in
client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the restraint, client e:
affiliated organization
Name and Title Harry W. Clark III, Managing Partner


MTC-00030631--0823
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested, Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
tract trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry. (HR. 
3736, 2368, 2372, 2991, 695, 947, 1689; S. 2067, 405, 1260, 507, 
1723; House/Senate Treasury Appropriations Act of 1999; Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 
Act of 1999; Department of Commerce, Justice and State, The 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 1999).
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
Senate
House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as lobbyist in this issue are

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Covered Official Position
                   Name                            (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Kutler.................................  8/95--8/97 Assistant to
                                             the Speaker of the House of
                                             Representatives, Rep. Newt
                                             Gingrich (R-GA)
Mimi Simoneaux............................  1/96--1/97 Legislative
                                             Asst. for Rep. Billy Tauzin
                                             (R-LA)
Andrew Goldman............................  1/97-2/98
Deirdre Stach.............................
Vin Weber.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19 Interest of each foreign entity in the specific listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc. Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20 Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
City State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Kent Knutson
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of
Business
(city end state or country)
26 Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27 Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business
Amount of contribution Ownership
for lobbying activities
percentage
(city and state or country)
client
28 Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the register, client e: 
affiliated organization
Name and Title: Harry Clark III, Managing Partner
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation

[[Page 29347]]

LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry. (HR. 
3736, 2368, 2372, 2991, 695, 947, 1689; S. 2067, 405, 1260, 507, 
1723; House/Senate Treasury Appropriations Act of 1999; Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 
Act of 1999; Department of Commerce, Justice and State, The 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 1999).
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
Senate
House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name               Covered Official Position (if applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Kutler....................  8/95-8/97 Assistant to the Speaker
                                of the House Of Representative, Rep.
                                Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
Mimi Simoneaux...............  1/96-1/97 Legislative Asst. for
                                Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
Andrew Goldman...............  1/97-2/98 Legislative Dir. for Rep.
                                Billy tauzin (R-LA)
Deirdre Stach
.... Vin Weber
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if
None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc. Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
Information has changed.
20 Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for [,he client
Kent Knutson
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business
(city and state or country)
26 Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant
 or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business
Amount of contributio
Ownership
(city and share or country)
for lobbying activities
percentage is
client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client o: 
affiliated organization
Name and Title harry
aging: Partner
Registrant Name. Clark & Weinstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code
TRD .. (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    Support of Microsoft's position across a Wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry. (HR. 
3736, 2368, 2372, 2991, 695, 947, 1689; S. 2067, 405, 1260, 507, 
1723; House/Senate Treasury Appropriations act of 1999; Foreign 
Operations, Exporting Financing, and Related Programs Appropriation 
Act of 1999; Department of Commerce, Justice and State, The 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 1999).
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
[2] Check if None
Senate
House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name               Covered Official Position (if applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Kutler....................  8/95-8/97 Assistant to the Speaker
                                of the House Of Representative, Rep.
                                Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
Mimi Simoneaux...............  1/96-1/97 Legislative Asst. for
                                Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
Tauzin (R-LA)..........  1/97-2/98 Legislative Dir. for Rep.
                                Billy
Andrew Goldman
Deirdre Stach
Vin Weber
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
City
State /Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Kent Knutson
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business
(city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Name

[[Page 29348]]

Address
Principal place of business
Amount of contribute: Ownership
(city and since or country)
for lobbying activities
percentage in
client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client e:
affiliated organization
gnature..
Date
dd Name and Title
Clark III, Managing Partner
..??-2 (Rev. 6/98)
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc. Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested, Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code BUD (.one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry. (HR. 
3736, 2368, 2372, 2991, 695, 947, 1689; S. 2067, 405, 1260, 507, 
1723; House/Senate Treasury Appropriations Act of 1999; Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 
Act of 1999; Department of Commerce, Justice and State, The 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 1999).
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None
Senate
House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name              Covered Official Position (if applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Kutler....................  8/95--8/97
Mimi Simoneaux...............  1/96--1/97 Legislative Asst. for
                                Rep. Billy Tauzin(R-LA
Andrew Goldman...............  1/97--2/98 Legislative Dir. for Rep.
                                Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
Deirdre Stach
Vin Weber
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title


MTC-00030631 0830
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Inc.
Client Nameo Microsoft Corporation
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Client new principal place o[ business (if different from Line 
20)
City
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Kent Knutson
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business
(city end state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27 Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business
Amount of contributio?? Ownership
(city and state or country) for lobbying activities percentage i??
client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the register, client e: 
affiliated organization
ed Name and Title Harry
Clark III, Managing Partner
0-2 (Rev. 6/98)

ATTACHMENT 17



MTC-00030631 0832
RECEIVED
??ATIVE.??
99 AUG 11 AM 10:51
Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate 
Legislative Resource Center
Office of Public Records, B-106 Cannon Building, 232 Hart Building, 
Washington. DC 20515 Washington. DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name
Clark & Weinstock
2. Address Check if different than previously reported
1775 I Street, NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: New York
State/Zip (or Country) NY 10017
4. Contact Name
Telephone
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate D #
Cheryl Faunce (202) 261-4005 [email protected] 
9443--381
7. Client Name Microsoft Corp ``316-98027
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year 1999 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year End (July 
I-December 3l)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
Check if this is a Termination Report ?? ?? Termination Date.
11. No
Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: period were: Less than $10,000 [] Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more ?? ?? $
$10,000 or more ?? ?? $ 220,000.00 Expenses (nearest $20,000)
Income (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options.
of all lobbying related income from the client (including all
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to 
the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf 
of the client).
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Title Vic Fazio--Partner
??-2 (REV, 6/98)


MTC-00030631 0833
Registrant Name Clark &--Weinstock
Client Name Microsoft Corp.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code. provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code BUD (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 2490, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    H.R 2606, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,

[[Page 29349]]

    H.R. 850, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000.
    S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, Internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software Industry.
17. House(z) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
White House
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Covered Official Position (if applicable)
             Name                                 New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainwol Mitch................  Ch of Staff, Sen. Mack
Goldman, Andrew..............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Rep. Conf
Kutler, Ed...................  Asst. to the Speaker, U.S. House
Simoneaux....................  Dir of Rep. Tauzin
Stach, Deirdre
Stuart, Sandi................  Asst. Sec. of Defense (DOD)
Weber, Vin
Fazio, Vic (Exec. Branch       Member, U.S. House of Reps.
 Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
fine 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/99
Printed Name and Title for vic Fazio--partner


MTC-00030631--0834
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock
Client Name Microsoft Corp.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many code as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code. provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(z) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 2490, Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act--2000,
    H.R. 2606, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    H.R. S50, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry;
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted House of 
Representatives
?? Check if None
Senate
White House
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Covered Official Position (if applicable)
             Name                                 New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainwol, Mitch...............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Mack
Goldman, Andrew..............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Rep. Conf
Kutler, Ed...................  Asst. to the Speaker, U.S. House
Simoneaux Mimi...............  Leg Dir for Rep. Tauzin
Stach, Deirdre
Stuart, Saudi................  Asst. Sec. of Defense (DOD)
Weber, Vin
Fazio, Vic (Exec. Branch       Member, U.S. House of Reps
 Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/99
Printed Name and Title Vic Fazio--partner


MTC-00030631 0835
Registrant Name Clark g Weinstock
Client Name Microsoft CORP.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 2490, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    H.R. 2606, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    H.R. 850, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, Internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software Industry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
White House
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Covered Official Position (if applicable)
             Name                                 New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainwol Mitch................  Ch of Staff, Sen. Mack
Goldman, Andrew..............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Rep. Conf

[[Page 29350]]

 
Kutler, Ed...................  Asst. to the Speaker, U.S. House of Reps.
Simoneaux, Mimi..............  Dir for Rep Tauzin
Stach, Deirdre
Stuart, Sandi................  Asst. Sec. of Defense (DOD)
Weber, Vin
Fazio, Vic (Exec. Branch       Member, U.S. House of Reps.
 Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
fine 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/99
Printed Name and Title Vic Fazio--Partner
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock
Client Name Microsoft Corp.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many code as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code. provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(z) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 2490, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    H.R. 2606, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    H.R.S50, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry:
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
White House
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Covered Official Position (if applicable)
             Name                                 New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainwol, Mitch...............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Mack
Goldman, Andrew..............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Rep. Conf
Kutler, Ed...................  Asst. to the Speaker, U.S. House of Reps,
Simoneaux, Mimi..............  Leg Dir for Rep Tauzin
Stach, Deirdre
Stuart, Saudi................  Asst. Sec. of Defense (DOD)
Weber, Vin
Fazio, Vic (Exec. Branch       Member, U.S. House of Reps
 Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/99
Printed Name and Title Vic Fazio--Partner
Registrant Name Clark g Weinstock Client Name Microsoft CORP.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 2490, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    H.R. 2606, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    H.R. 850, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000, Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual property rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, interact tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software Industry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
White House
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Covered Official Position (if applicable)
             Name                                 New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainwol, Mitch...............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Mack
Goldman, Andrew..............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Rep. Conf
Kutler, Ed...................  Asst. to the Speaker, U.S. House of
                                Reps.,
Simoneaux, Mimi..............  Leg Dir for Rep Tauzin
Stach, Deirdre
Stuart, Sandi................  Asst. Sec. of Defense (DOD)
Weber, Vin
Weber, Vin
Fazio, Vic (Exec. Branch       Member, U.S. House of Reps.
 Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None

[[Page 29351]]

Signature
Date 8/9/99
Printed Name and Title Vic Fazio--Partner
Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock Client Name Microsoft Corp,
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TMM (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 2490, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000,
    H.R. 2606, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    H.R. 850, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000,
    S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2000, Support of Microsoft's position across a wide range of issues, 
including intellectual properly rights, taxes, encryption, fast 
track trade authority, normal trade relations, internet tax freedom, 
and other matters affecting the computer software industry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None
House of Representatives
Senate
White House
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Covered Official Position (if applicable)
             Name                                 New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bainwol, Mitch...............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Mack
Goldman, Andrew..............  Ch of Staff, Sen. Rep. Conf
Kutler, Ed...................  Asst. to the Speaker, U.S. House of Reps
Simoneaux, Mimi..............  Leg Dir for Rep Tauzin
Stach, Deirdre
Stuart, Sandi................  Asst. Sec. of Defense (DOD)
Weber Vin
Weber, Vin
Fazio, Vic (Exec. Branch       Member, U.S. House of Reps.
 Only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature Date 8/9/99
Printed Name and Title Vic Fazio--Partner
ATTACHMENT 18
Legislative Re-source Center
Office of Public Records
B-106 Cannon Building 232 Hart Building
Washington. DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page??
1. Registrant Name Clark & Weinstock
2. Address ?? Check if different than previously reported
1775 1 Street NW, Ste 700 Washington, DC 20006
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City of New York, State/Zip (or Country)
City of New, State/Zip (or Country) NY 10017
4. Contact Name Lisa Simpson Microsoft Corp
Telephone 202-261-4025 316-98027
E-mail (optional) [email protected]
5. Senate ID # 9443.381
``YPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2000 Midyear(January l-June30) ?? OR 
Year End(July l-December31) ??
Check if this filing amends a previously flied version of this 
report ??
10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> Termination 
Date 11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms 13, Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: Less than $10,000 ?? period were: Less than $10,000 ??
$10,000 or more ?? >>$
$280,000.00
$10,000 or more 7'1 >>$
Income (nearest S20.000)
Expenses (nearest S20,000)
 REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
$20,000 of all lobbying related income from the client (including 
all payments to the registrant by any other entity
?? Method A. Reporting mounts using LDA definitions only for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client).
?? Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Date 8/11/2000
Dated Name and Title Vin Weber-Partner


MTC-00030631--0840
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying On 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues See attached page.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kutler, Ed.................  No..................
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  No..................
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
Fazio, Vic Member,..........  U.S. House of         No
                               Representatives.
Stuart, Sandi...............  Asst. Sec. of         No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch
                               Only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date 8/11/2000
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner

[[Page 29352]]

Page 2 of 7


MTC-00030631--0841
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
Description Data
16 Lobbying Issues
Lobbied the following legislation dealing with digital signatures:
* H.R. 1572, To require the adoption and utilization of digital 
signatures by Federal agencies and to encourage the use of digital 
signatures in private sector electronic transactions.
* H.R. 1685, To provide for the recognition of electronic signatures 
for the conduct of interstate and foreign commerce, to restrict the 
transmission of certain electronic mail advertisements, to authorize 
the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules to protect the 
privacy of users of commercial Internet websites, to promote the 
rapid deployment of broadband Internet services, and for other 
purposes.
    * H.R. 1714, To facilitate the use of electronic records and 
signatures in interstate or foreign commerce.
Educated members of Congress regarding Microsoft's position on 
instant messaging.
Educated members of Congress regarding various Internet privacy 
issues, Lobbied the following legislation dealing with clarifying 
hyperlinks to the Internet:
    * S. 247, A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to 
reform the copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions 
of broadcast signals, and for other purposes.
* H.R. 768, To amend title 17, United States Code, to reform the 
copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions of broadcast 
signals, and for other purposes.
    * H.R. 1027, To provide for the carriage by satellite carriers 
of local broadcast station signals, and for other purposes.
    * H.R. 1554, To amend the provisions of title 17, United States 
Code, and the Communications Act of I934, relating to copyright 
licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite. Page 3 of 
7


MTC-00030631--0842
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??ngaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code GOV (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues Informed members of Congress regarding 
Microsoft's position on the Department of Justice's antitrust suit.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None House of Representatives Senate
8. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
Fazio, Vic..................  Member, U.S. House    No
                               of Representatives.
Stuart,.....................  Sandi Asst. Sec. of   No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch
                               Only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if None ??ignature Date 8/11/2000
??tinted Name and Title Vin Weber-Partner


MTC-00030631--0843
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
??OBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??gaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues Lobbied the following legislation 
dealing with H1-B visas:
    * S. 1563, A bill to establish the Immigration Affairs Agency 
within the Department of Justice, and for other purposes.
    * H.R. 2687, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
establish a 5-year pilot program under which certain aliens 
completing a postsecondary degree in mathematics, science, 
engineering, or computer science are permitted to change 
nonimmigrant classification in order to remain in the United States 
for a 5.year period for the purpose of working in one of those 
fields.
* H.R. 3983, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote 
a fairer and more efficient means for using highly skilled workers, 
to improve the collection and use of H-1B nonimmingrant fees, and 
for other purposes.
17.
House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Contacted
?? Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
Fazio, Vic..................  Member, U.S. House    No
                               of Representatives.
Stuart,.....................  Sandi Asst. Sec. of   No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch
                               Only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if None
??gnature
Date 8/11/2000
??rated Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 5 of 7


MTC-00030631--0844
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
??OBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??gaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
    Lobbied the following legislation dealing with Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations (PNTR) with China:
    * H.J. Res. 57, Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of the 
People's Republic of China.
    * S. 2115, A bill to ensure adequate monitoring of the 
commitments made by the People's Republic of China in its accession 
to the World Trade Organization and to create

[[Page 29353]]

new procedures to ensure compliance with those commitments.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
Fazio, Vic..................  Member, U.S. House    No
                               of Representatives.
Stuart,.....................  Sandi Asst. Sec. of   No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch
                               Only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

??Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if None ??nature
Date 8/11/2000
??nted Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 6 of 7
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
??formation Update Page , Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
City State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Bainwol, Mitch
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Principal Place of Business
Name
Address (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Principal Place of Business
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities
Ownership % in client
Name
Address (city and state or country)
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client, or 
affiliated organization
??gnature
Date 8/11/2000
??nted Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 7 of 7

ATTACHMENT 19

01 Fed-9 PM 2:46
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, 
B-106 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515
Secretary of the Senate??, Office of Public Records?? 232 Hart 
Building?? Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are
Required to Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name
Clark & Weinstock 2. Registrant Address
?? Check if different than previously reported
Address 1775 I Street NW, Ste 700
city Washington, Staler/Zip (or Country) DC 20006
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2) City New 
York, State/Zip (or Country) NY 10017
4. Contact Name Telephone E-mail (optional) 5. Senate ID #
Lisa Simpson 202-261-4025 [email protected] 
9443-381
7. Client Name ?? Self
Microsoft Corp316-98027
TYPE OF REPORT 8. year 2000 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year 
End (July 1-December 31)
Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report ??
?? Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> Termination 
Date 11. No Lobbying Activity 71
INCOME OR EXPENSES-Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: period were: Less than $10,000 ?? Less than $10,000 ??
S10,000 or more ?? >> $
$280,000.00
$10,000 or more ?? >> $
Income (nearest S20,000) Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense Provide a good 
faith estimate, rounded to the nearest accounting method. See 
instructions for description of options. $20,000 of all lobbying 
related income from the client (including all payments to the 
registrant by any other entity
?? Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client). ?? Method B. Reporting 
amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code
?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Date 2/9/01
??Name and Title Vin Weber-Partner Page 1 of 7
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
??OBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??gaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide iformation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
 15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues See attached page.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None House of Representatives Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fazio, Vic..................  Members, U.S. House   No
                               of Represenatives.
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Stuart, Sandi...............  Asst. Sec. of         No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch.
Urban, Anne.................  Legislative           Yes
                               Director, Sen.
                               Robert Kerry.
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ?? Check if None
Signature Date 2/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 2 of 7

[[Page 29354]]

Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
Item Description Data
Lobbying Issues Lobbied the following legislation dealing with 
digital signatures:
    * H.R. 1572, To require the adoption and utilization of digital 
signatures by Federal agencies and to encourage the use of digital 
signatures in private sector electronic transactions.
    * H.R. 1685, To provide for the recognition of electronic 
signatures for the conduct of interstate and foreign commerce, to 
restrict the t miss on of certain electronic mail advertisements, to 
authorize the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules to protect 
the privacy of users of commercial Internet websites, to promote the 
rapid deployment of broadband Internet services, and for other 
purposes.
    * H.R. I714, To facilitate the use of electronic records and 
signatures in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Educated members of Congress regarding Microsoft's position on 
instant messaging.
Educated members of Congress regarding various Internet privacy 
issues.
Lobbied the following legislation dealing with clarifying hyperlinks 
to the Internet:
* S. 247, A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to reform 
the copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions of 
broadcast signals, and for other purposes.
* H.R. 768, To amend title 17, United States Code, to reform the 
copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions of broadcast 
signals, and for other purposes.
* H.R. 1027, To provide for the carriage by satellite carriers of 
local broadcast station signals, and for other purposes.
    * HR. 1554, To amend the provisions of title 17, United States 
Code, and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright 
licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite.
    Educated members of Congress on the competition In the software 
market. Page 3 of 7
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code GOV (one 
per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
    Informed members of Congress regarding Microsoft's position on 
the Department of Justice's antitrust suit.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None House of Representatives Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fazio, Vic Member,..........  U.S. House of         No
                               Representatives.
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................   No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Stuart, Sandi...............  Asst. Sec. of         No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch
                               Only.
Urban, Anne.................  Legislative           Yes
                               Director, Sen.
                               Robert Kerrey.
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ?? Check if
None
Signature
Date 2/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber--Partner Page 4 of 7
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide iformation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
Lobbied the following legislation dealing with H1-B visas:
    * S. 1563, A bill to establish the Immigration Affairs Agency 
within the Department of Justice, and for other purposes.
    * H.R. 2687, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
establish a 5-year pilot program under which certain aliens 
completing a postsecondary degree in mathematics, science, 
engineering, or computer science are permitted to change 
nonimmigrant classification in order to remain in the United States 
for a 5-year period for the
    purpose of working in one of those fields.
    * H.R. 3983, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
promote a fairer and more efficient means for using highly skilled 
workers, to improve the collection and use of H-1B nonimmigrant 
fees, and for other purposes.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None House of Representatives Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fazio, Vic Member,..........  U.S. House of         No
                               Representatives.
Kutler,.....................  ....................  Ed No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Stuart, Sandi...............  Asst. Sec. of         No
                               Defense,
                               Legislative Branch
                               Only.
Urban, Anne.................  Legislative           Yes
                               Director, Sen.
                               Robert Kerrey.
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ?? Check if None
Signature Date 2/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 5 of 7
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ngaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide formation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
Lobbied the following legislation dealing with Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations (PNTR) with China:
    * H.J. Res. 57, Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of the 
People's Republic of China.

[[Page 29355]]

    * S. 2115, A bill to ensure adequate monitoring of the 
commitments made by the People's Republic of China in its accession 
to the World Trade Organization and to create new procedures to 
ensure compliance with those commitments.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fazio, Vic Member,..........  U.S. House of         No
                               Representatives.
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................   No
Simoneaux, Mimi.............  ....................  No
Simpson, Lisa...............  ....................  No
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
Urban, Anne.................  Legislative           Yes
                               Director, Sen.
                               Robert Kerrey.
Weber, Vin..................  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if
None
Signature Date 2/9/01
??inted Name and Title Vin Weber--Partner
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20) City State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Simoneaux, Mimi
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s) Principal Place of 
Business Name Address (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities
Ownership% Name Address in client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client, or 
affiliated organization
Signature
Date 2/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber--Partner

ATTACHMENT 20

Clerk of the House of Representatives Legislative Resource Center, 
B-106 Cannon Building, CENTER, Washington, DC 20515
Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building 
LEGISLATIVE-RESOURCE Washington, DC 20510
??2001 AUG 13 AM 11:48
LOBBYING REPORT ??
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
 1. Registrant Name
Clark & Weinstock
2. Registrant Address
Check if different than previously reported
Address 1775 I Street NW, Ste 700
City Washington, Sate/Zip (or Country) DC 20006
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City New York, State/Zip (or Count) NY 10017
Contact Name Lisa Simpson Telephone 202-261-4025 E-mail 
(optional) [email protected] 5. Senate ID # 9443-381
7. Client Name Microsoft Corp ?? ?? Self 6 House ID #
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2001
Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year End (July 1-December 31) ??
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version Of this 
report ??
10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> Termination 
Date 11. No Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
113. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: period were: Less than $10,000 ?? Less than $10,000 ??
$10,000 or more ?? >>$ $240,000.00 $10,000 or more ?? 
>>$
Income (nearest $20.000)
Expenses (nearest $20.000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
$20,000 of all lobbying related income from the client (including 
all payments to the registrant by any other entity
?? Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client).
?? Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature Date 8/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber--Partner Page 1 of 9
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
See attached page.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None
Department of Commerce
Department of Treasury
Executive Office of the President
House of Representatives
Office of the Vice President
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area Name Covered Official Position (if applicable)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bieron, Brian...............  Policy Director,      Yes
                               House Rules
                               Committee.
Fazio, Vic..................  ....................  No
Gribben, Dave...............  ....................  Yes
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Matthews, Jim...............  ....................  Yes
Morrison, Timonthy..........  Associate Director,   Yes
                               Presidential
                               Personnel.
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29356]]

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ?? Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber--Partner
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Item                 Description                        Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     16   Lobbying Issues.....................  Help develop strategy
                                                 and company policies on
                                                 privacy law, including
                                                 matters related to
                                                 Windows XP and .NET and
                                                 instant messaging
                                                 through the following
                                                 legislation:
                                          H.R. 1017, Anti-spamming
                                                 Act of 2001, to
                                                 prohibit unsolicited e-
                                                 mail know as spam
                                          S. 2606, Consumer
                                                 Privacy Protection Act
                                          S. 197, Spyware Control
                                                 Privacy Protection Act,
                                                 to provide for the
                                                 disclosure of the
                                                 collection of
                                                 information through
                                                 computer software and
                                                 for other purposes
                                                 Intellectual Properties
                                                 issues--providing
                                                 cyber and intellectual
                                                 property enformement:
                                                 Senate Report
                                                 107-42
                                          S. 1215, Departments of
                                                 Commerce, Justice,
                                                 State, Judiciary and
                                                 related Agencies
                                                 Approprations Act 2002


                                          H.R. 2500, Departments
                                                 of Commerce, Justice,
                                                 State, Judiciary and
                                                 related Agencies
                                                 Approprations Act 2002


                                          H. AMDT. 192 Walters
                                                 Amendment, to provide
                                                 that none of the funds
                                                 designated for the
                                                 Office of the U.S.
                                                 Trade Representative
                                                 may be used to initiate
                                                 a proceeding in the WTO
                                                 challenging any law or
                                                 policy of a developing
                                                 country that promotes
                                                 access to HIV/AIDS,
                                                 pharmaceuticals or
                                                 medical technologies to
                                                 the population of the
                                                 country
                                                H. AMDT. 194 Walters
                                                 Amendment 2, to
                                                 prohibit use of funds
                                                 to initiate a
                                                 proceeding in the WTO
                                                 challenging any law of
                                                 a country that is not a
                                                 member of the OECD
                                                H. AMDT. 193 Kucinich
                                                 Amendment, prohibits
                                                 the use of funds in the
                                                 bill to initiate a
                                                 proceeding in the WTO
                                                 challenging any law of
                                                 a country that is not a
                                                 member of the OECD
                                                 relating to HIV/AIDS
                                                 pharmaceuticals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Item           Description Data
-----------------------------------------
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Stuart, Sand??
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  ..............................
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Urban, Anne
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  Legislative Director, Sen.
                                           Robert Kerrey
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Weber, Vin
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  ..............................
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code GOV (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues Informed members of Congress regarding 
Microsoft's position on the Department of Justice's antitrust suit.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None
 House of Representatives
 Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bieron, Brian...............  Policy Director,      Yes
                               House Rules
                               Committee.
Fazio, Vic..................  ....................  No
Gribbin, Dave...............  ....................  Yes
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Mathews, Jim................  ....................  Yes
Morrison, Timothy...........  Associate Director,   Yes
                               Presidential
                               Personnel.
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 5 of 9
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Item              Description                        Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Stuart, Sandi

[[Page 29357]]

 
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  ..............................
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Urban, Anne
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  Legislative Director, Sen.
                                           Robert Kerrey
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Weber, Via
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  ..............................
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp.
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific Lobbying issues
Lobbied the following legislation dealing with Trade Promotion 
Authority Act of 2001
    * H.R. 2149, To extend trade authorities procedures with respect 
to reciprocal trade agreements
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if 
None House of Representatives Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bieron, Brian...............  Policy Director,      Yes
                               House Rules
                               Committee.
Fazio, Vie..................  ....................  No
Gribbin, Dave...............  ....................  Yes
Kutler, Ed..................  ....................  No
Mathews, Jim................  ....................  Yes
Morrison, Timothy...........  Associate Director,   Yes
                               Presidential
                               Personnel.
Stach, Deirdre..............  ....................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Date 8/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber- Partner Page 7 of 9
Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Item              Description                        Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Urban, Anne
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  Legislative Director, Sen.
                                           Robert Kerrey
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
    18a   Lobbyist Name.................  Weber, Vin
    18b   Covered Official Position.....  ..............................
    18c   New Lobbyist..................  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrant Name: Clark & Weinstock
Client Name: Microsoft Corp
Information Update Page . Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
 20. Client new address
 21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20) City State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
 IMM
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
 Principal Place of Business
 Name
 Address (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
 Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
 Amount of contribution
 Ownership % in client
 Name for lobbying activities
Address
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client, or 
affiliated organization
Signature
Date 8/9/01
Printed Name and Title Vin Weber--Partner Page 9 of 9


MTC-00030631--0864

ATTACHMENT 21

RECEIVED
Clerk of the House of Representatives
    B-106 Cannon Building 232 Hart Building
98 AUG -7 am 9:51
Legistive Resource Center, B-106 Cannon Building, CL?? Washington, 
DC 20515
Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
    Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are Required 
To Complete This Page
Lobbying
1. Registrant Name
Covington & Burling
2. Address ?? Check if different than previously reported
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: Washington
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20004
4. Contact Name Stuart C. Stock
Telephone 202-662-5384
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID # 11195-672
7. Client Name ?? Self ??
31827064
Microsoft Corporation
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 1998 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year 
End (July 1-December 31) ??
9. Check if this filing attends a previously filed version of this 
report ??
10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? ?? Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either

[[Page 29358]]

Line 12 OR Line 13
12. lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting lobbying 
activities for this reporting period was: Less than $10,000 ??
EXPENSES relating to period were: Less than $10,000 ??
$10,000 or more ?? ??
$10,000 or more ?? ?? $ 40,000
Expenses (nearest $20, 000)
Income (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
of all lobbying related income from the client (including all
?? Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments 
to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on 
behalf of the client).
?? Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)of the 
Internal Revenue Code
?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
    Signature
    Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
    LD-2 (REV. 6/98)
    Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??ngaged hi lobbying on 
behalf of the client during tile reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Competition issues affecting computer software industry.
17. Houses) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Official Position
        Name Covered             (if applicable)             New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles F. Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if
None
Signature Date August 4, 1998
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
Form LD-2 (Rev.6/98) Page 2 of 4
Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    Electronic commerce matters relating to international electronic 
signature proposals.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None
Department of Commerce
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None Signature Date August 4, 1998
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
Form LD-2 (Rev.6/98)


MTC-00030631--0868
Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide ??formation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPT (one per page)
16. Specific lobbing issues
--Protection of intellectual property through proposed federal 
action.
--Protection of intellectual property in World Bank lending 
programs.
17. Houses) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None Senate
House of Representatives
Department of Commerce
Department of Treasury
Office of Management and Budget
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Jason Albert
Laurie C. Self
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
Check if None
Signature
Date August 4. 1998
??rinted Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
Form LD-2 (Rev.6/98)


MTC-00030631--0869

ATTACHMENT 22



MTC-00030631--0870
(Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center,
Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 
Building, Washington, DU 20510 10 M 9:07 B-106 Canon Building, 
Washington, DU 20515 LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page.
1. Registrant Name
Covington & Burling
2. Address ?? Check if different than previously reported.
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: Washington
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20004
4. Contact Name Stuart C. Stock
Telephone 202-662-5384
Email (optional)
5. Senate ID # 11195-672
7. Client Name ?? Self
6. House ID # 31827064
Microsoft Corporation
....... 318
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 1998 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR 
Year End ??
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report ??
10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? ?? Termination Date 11. 
No Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: Less than $10,000
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were: Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more $60,000
$10,000 or more $
Income (nearest $20,000)
Expenses (nearest $20.000)
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
of all lobbying related income for the client (including all 
payments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying 
activities on behalf of the client.)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See

[[Page 29359]]

instructions for description of options.
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(bX8) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under 162(e) of the Internal Revenue 
Code
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner


MTC-00030631--0871
Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested, Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Competition issues affecting computer software industry.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
House of Representatives
Senate
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles F. Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner


MTC-00030631--0872
Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code ------TRD (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Electronic Commerce matters relating to international electronic 
signature proposals.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
Department of Commerce
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Jason Albert
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner


MTC-00030631--0873
Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY, Select as many codes as necessary to reflect tile 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page 
for each code, provide information as requested. Attach additional 
page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code ------CPT (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
- Protection of intellectual property through proposed federal 
action and implementation of Computer Software Piracy Executive 
Order.
- Protection of intellectual property in World Bank lending 
programs.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
Department of Commerce
Department of Treasury
Office of Management and Budget
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Jason Albert
Stuart C. Stock
Laurie C. Self
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title Stuart C, Stock, Partner


MTC-00030631--0874
Registrant Name Covington & Burling
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
City
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Victoria A. Carter
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business (city and state or country)
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities
Ownership percentage in client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or 
affiliated organization
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner

ATTACHMENT 23

Back
LOBBYING REPORT
Signature
Date August 10, 1999

[[Page 29360]]

Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
Back
Signature
 Date August 10, 1999
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
Back
Signature
Date August 10, 1999
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner
Back
Signature
Date August 10, 1999
Printed Name and Title Stuart C. Stock, Partner

ATTACHMENT 24

Secretary of the Senate
Clerk of the House of Representatives
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)
1. Year 1997
For Official Use
2. Report type (check all that apply) Midyear (January 1-June 
30)--Year End (July 1-December 31)
Amended report
Termination Report
No Activity (registration to remain in effect)
REGISTRANT
3. Name of Registrant DOWNEY CHANDLER, INC.
4. Telephone number and contact name
202 789 1110
Contact Kathleen Tynan McLaughlin
5. Name of Client Microsoft Corporation
31805008
INCOME OR EXPENSES Answer line 6 or line 7 as applicable
6. LOBBYING FIRMS. Income from the client during the reporting 
period, other than income unrelated to lobbying activities, was:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
If $10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the 
nearest $20,000, of all income from the client during this reporting 
period. Include any payments by any other entity for lobbying 
activities on behalf of the client. Exclude income unrelated to 
lobbying activities.
Income $ $60,000
Total for year (if Year End r epor0 $ 140,000
7. ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYING IN-HOUSE LOBBYISTS. Expenses incurred in 
connection with lobbying activities during the reporting period 
were:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
If $10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the 
nearest $20,000, of the total amount of all lobbying expenses 
incurred by the registrant and its employees during this reporting 
period.
Expense $
Total for year (if Year End report) $
    A. Registrants that report lobbying expenses under section 
6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code may provide a good faith 
estimate of the applicable amounts that would be required to be 
disclosed under section 6033(b)(8) for the semiannual reporting 
period, and may consider as lobbying activities only those defined 
under section 4911(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. If selecting 
this method, check box and (i) enter estimated amounts on the 
``Expenses'' line above; or (ii) attach a copy of the IRS 
Form 990 that includes this reporting period.
    B. Registrants subject to section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue 
Code may make a good faith estimate &all amounts that would not 
be deductible under section 162(e) for the semiannual reporting 
period, and may consider as lobbying activities only those 
activities the costs of which are not deductible pursuant to section 
162(e). If selecting this method, check box and enter estimated 
amounts on the ``Expenses'' line above.
Form LD-2 (1/96) Page
Registrant Name DOWNEY CHANDLER, INC.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation 31805008
LOBBYING ISSUES. On line 8 below, eater the code for one general 
lobbying issue area in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
activities for the client during this reporting period (select 
applicable code from list in the instructions and on the reverse 
side of Form LD-2, page 1). For that general issue area only, 
complete lines 9 through 12. If the registrant engaged in lobbying 
activities for the client in more than one general issue area, use 
one Lobbying Report Addendum page for each additional general issue 
area.
8. General lobbying issue area code (enter one) CPT
9. Specify lobbying issues (include bill numbers and specific 
executive branch actions)
Intellectual Property Rights
Patent Reform
Internet issues
Encryption
Immigration
Anti-trust issues
10. Houses of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
Office of the Vice President
Department of Justice
11. Name and title of each employee who acted as a lobbyist
Thomas J. Downey, Chairman
Rod Chandler, President
Daniel T. Bross, Vice President
Margaret M. McCloud, Director
12. For registrants identifying foreign entities in the Lobbying 
Registration (Form LD-1, line 12) or are/updates: Interest of 
each such foreign entity in the specific lobbying issues listed on 
line 9 above
NA
This report includes 0 Addendum pages.
Signature
Printed Name and Title Thomas J. Downey Chairman
Form LD-2 (1/96)

ATTACHMENT 25

Clerk of the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate Legislative Resource Center, Office of 
Public Records, B-106 Cannon Building, 232 Hart Building, 
Washington, DC 20515, Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name
2. Address
?? Check if different than previously reported
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
4. Contact Name
Telephone
E-mail (optional) 5. Senate ID #
6. House ID #
7. Client Name ?? Self
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 1998 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year 
End (July 1-Decembe 31) ??
9. Cheek if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report--Termination Date
11. No
Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting activities 
for this reporting period was Less than $10,000
EXPENSES relating to lobbying period were: Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
10,000 or more
(Income (nearest $20,000)
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all ??
Method A.Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to 
the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf 
of the client).
    Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
LD-2 (REV. 6/98)
Registrant Name
Client Name
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code_(one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
Name
Covered Official Position (if applicable)
New
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above

[[Page 29361]]

Check if None
Signature Dale
Printed Name and Tide
Form LD-2 (Rev.6/98)
Registrant Name
Client Name
LOBBYING ACTIVITY, Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
5. General issue area code-- (one per page)
6. Specific lobbying issues
I7. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
Name
Covered Official Position (if applicable)
New
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
Registrant Name
Client Name
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code_(one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
Name
Covered Official Position (if applicable)
New
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date

ATTACHMENT 26

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, 
B-106 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515
 Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 
Building, Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
1, Registrant Name
2. Address
Check if different than previously reported
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City:
State/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name
Telephone
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID #
6. House ID #
7. Client Name Self
TYPE OF REPORT
8. Year_Midyear (January 1-June 30)--OR Year End (July 
1-December 31)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report--Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting activities 
for this reporting period was: period were: Less than $10,000
EXPENSES relating to lobbying Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
$10,000 or more
Income (nearest $20,000) (Expenses (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
of all lobbying related income from the client (including all using 
LDA definitions only payments to the registrant by any other entity 
for lobbying activities on behalf of the client).
Method A. Reporting amounts
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature Date
Printed Name and Title
Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code ---------- (one 
per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
Name
Covered Official Position (if applicable)
New
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code -------- (one per 
page)
Specific lobbying issues
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
Name
Covered official Position (if applicable)
New
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues, listed 
on line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code [MM (one per page)
Specific lobbying issues
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
City
State/Zip (or County)
Z. New leaera4 description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITLES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Name for lobbying activities
Address (city and state or country)
Principal place of business
Amount of contribution Ownership percentage in client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or 
affiliated organization
Date 2-16-99
Printed Name and Title
Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)

ATTACHMENT 27

RECEIVED
Clerk of the House

[[Page 29362]]

Legislative Resource Center, B-106Cannon Building, Washington, DC 
20515
Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510
99 JUL 30 PH 4:28
OFFICE OF TIE CLERK
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LOBBYING REPORT??
bying Disclosure Act Of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
Registrant Name
DOWNEY CHANDLER, INC
2. Address
Check if different than previously reported
1225 I STREET NW SUITE 350
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
cid: Washington
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20005
4. Contact Name
Telephone
E-mail (optional)
5.
Senate ID #
Kathleen Tynan McLaughlin
202 789 1110
12573-253
7. Client Name
Self 6.
House ID ID # 31805
Microsoft Corporation
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 1999 Midyear (January I -June 30) ?? OR Year 
End (July I -December 31) ??
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report 1-11 * Termination 
Date
11 I. No
Lobbying Activity %62
I
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting activities 
for this reporting period was: Less than S10,000 ??
EXPENSES relating to lobbying period were: Less than $10,000 ??
$10,000 or more ?? = $
$10,000 or more ??--$80,000
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
Income (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options.. of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all ?? Method 
A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client).
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(g)of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Tide
Registrant Name DOWNEY CHANDLER, INC
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 6n 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide ??nation as requested. Attach additional 
page(s) as needed.
1??neral issue area code TEC (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Broadband
Information Technology
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick
Tom Downey
Rod Chandler
Thomas P. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Registrant Name DOWNEY CHANDLER, INC
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
antitrust
education technology
communications issues
patent reform
Microsoft trial
intellectual property
encryption
R & D tax credit
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Office of the Vice President
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick
Tom Downey
Rod Chandler
Thomas P. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
LD-2(Rev. 6/98)
Registrant Name??
Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed,
20. Client new address
Client new principal place of business (if different from line 20)
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
Rod Chandler
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address

[[Page 29363]]

Principal place of business (city and state or country) for lobbying 
activities
Amount of contribution
Ownership percentage in client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or 
affiliated organization

ATTACHMENT 28

RECEIVED
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Secretary of the Senate,
Legislative Resource Center, B-106 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 
20515
Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
V
I. Registrant Name
DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
2. Address ?? Check if different than previously reported
1225 ISTREET NW SUITE350
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: Washington
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20005
4 Contact Name Kathleen Tynan McLaughlin
Telephone 202 789 1110
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID 12573-253
7. Client Name ?? Self
6. Microsoft
House ID # 31805008
TYPE OF REPORT s. Year 1999 Midyear (January 1 -June 30) ?? OR Year 
End (July 1 -December 31)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report ??
0. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? * Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR. EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting activities 
for this reporting period was: Less than $10,000 ??
EXPENSES relating to lobbying period were: Less than$10,000 ??
$10,000ormore ?? * $
$10,000 or more ?? * $100,000
Expenses (nearest S20,000)
Income (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to 
the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf 
of the client).
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(g)of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Tide
LD-2 (REV 6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??aged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide ??rmation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
General issue area code TEC (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Broadband
Information Technology
business issues
Satellite Home Viewer Act
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Small Business Administration
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Emerick
Tom Downey
Ray McGrath
Thomas P. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
??m LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??gaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide ??rmation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
antitrust
Digital signatures
education technology
Technology changes
communications issues
Digital Divide
Microsoft trial
intellectual property
encryption
R & D tax credit
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
??m Downey
Ray McGrath
Kelli Emerick
Thomas P. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
??-2 (Rev.6/98)


MTC-00030631_0907
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC. Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant ??gaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide formation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
General issue area code LBR (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Digital Divide
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
??Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a

[[Page 29364]]

lobbyist in this issue area

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Covered Official Position (if
                 Name                           applicable)                               New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?? am Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ?? Check if None
Signature ??
??nted Name and Title Thomas J. Downey, Chairman
 ??LD-2 (Rev 6/98)

ATTACHMENT 29

Clerk of the House or Representatives,
Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Resource Center, Office of 
Public Records, B-106 Cannon Building, 232 Hart Building, 
Washington, DC 20515, Washington, DC 20510
HAND DELIVERED
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
I. Registrant Name
DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
2. Address
Check if different than previously reported
1225 I STREET NW SUITE 350
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City. Washington State/Zip (or Country,) DC 20005
4. Contac! Name Telephone E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID #
7 Client Name ?? Self
Microsoft (31805008)
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2000 Midyear (January 1--June 30) ?? OR 
Year End (July I--December 31) ??
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of(his 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? * Termination Date I 1. 
No Lobbying Activity ??
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: Less than $10,000
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were: Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more * $
$10,000 or more ?? * S 80,000
Expenses (nearest S20,000)
Income (nearest $20.000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options.. of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all ?? Method 
A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client).
[?? Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)of the 
Internal Revenue Code
?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(c) of(he Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Tide
LD-2 (REV. 6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
5. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
antitrust
communications issues
intellectual property
encryption
R&D tax credit
digital signatures
digital divide
privacy
17. ??louse(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
!'-I Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Office of the Vice President
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K??lli Emerick
m Downey
Ray McGrath
Thomas P. Scott
E??aine Acevedo
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
5. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
II-IB Visas
17. l louse(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
I''1 Check if None
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Emerick
homas P. Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if
None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Form LD-2 (Rev.6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, IN
Chent Name Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where 
registration information has changed.
20. Client new address
Client new principal place of business (if different from line 20)
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's

[[Page 29365]]

business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client Kelli Emerick
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client t!
FOREIGN ENTITLES
27. Add the following foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business (city and state or country) for lobbying 
activities
Amount of contribution
Ownership percentage in client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or 
affiliated organization

ATTACHMENT 30

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, 
B-106 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515
Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Fart 
Building, Washington, DC 20510
ATIVE RESOURCE
CENTER
2001 FEB 14 AM 2:23
LOB B YIN
Lobbying Disclosure Act Of 1995 (Sections 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
I. Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
2. Address
Check if different than previously reported
1225 I STREET NW SUITE 350
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: Washington
State/Zip (or Count) DC 20005
4. Contact Name
Telephone 202-789-1110
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID # 12573-253
Kathleen Tynan McLaughlin
7. Client Name Self
Microsoft
TYPE OF REPORT s. Year 2000 Midyear (January 1-June 30) OR 
Year End (July 1-December 31)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report, Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting activities 
for this reporting period was: Less than $10,000
EXPENSES relating to lobbying period were:
Less than S10,000
$1 0,000 or more
$10,000 or more $40,000
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
income (nearest $20,000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all Method A. 
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client),
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Tide
LD-2 (REV. 6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
    General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
antitrust
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Name
-----------------------------
  Covered Official Position            New
       (if applicable)
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas P. Scott
Tom Downey
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
LD-2 (Rev.6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC. Client Name Microsoft 
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
General issue area code TRD (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
F1 Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Name
-----------------------------
  Covered Official Position            New
       (if applicable)
---------------------------------------------------
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above Check if
None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and
Title
LD-2 (Rev.6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC
Client Name Microson Corporation
Information Update Page- Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
20. Client new address
21. Client new principal place of business (if different from line 
20)
City
State/Zip (or Country)
22. New general description of client's business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported

[[Page 29366]]

individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the 
client
Thomas P. Scott
Ray McGrath
Elaine Acevedo
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Name
Address
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country)
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer 
affiliated with the registrant or client
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following, foreign entities
Name
Address
Principal place of business (city and state or country)
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities
Ownership percentage in client
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer 
owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or 
affiliated organization
Signature
Date February 14, 2001
Printed Name and Title Thomas J. Downey, Chairman
Form LD-2 (Rev. 6198)

ATTACHMENT 31

01 AUG 1 0 AH 10:00
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, 
B-106 Cannon Building, Washington. DC 205 IS
Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 
Building, Washington. De 20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1 995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name
DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
2. Address
Check if different than previously reported
1225 I STREET NW SUITE 350
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City: Washington
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20005
4. Contact Name Senate ID #
Telephone 202-789-1110
E-mail (optional) 5.
Kathleen Tynan McLaughlin
12573-253
Client Name Self
6 House ID # d 31805008'2
7. Microsoft
TYPE OF REPORT s. Year 2001 Midyear (January 1-June 30) OR 
Year End (July 1-December 31)
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this 
report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report, Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting activities 
for this reporting period was: Less than S10,000
EXPENSES relating to lobbying period were: Less than $10,000 El
$10,000 or more
$10,000 or more $60,000
Expenses (nearest S20.000)
Income (nearest $20.000)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest S20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all Method A. 
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client). 6033(b)(8)of the Internal Revenue Code
Method B. Reporting amounts under section
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Tide LD-2 (REV. 6/98)
Registrant Name DOWNEY McGRATH GROUP, INC.
Client Name Microsoft
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide formation as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
General issue area code CPI (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Internet privacy
intellectual property issues
Microsoft case--Department of Justice antitrust suit
R & D tax credit
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hn Olinget
Tom Downey
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Printed Name and Title Thomas J. Downey, Chairman
Form LD-2(Rev.6/98)

ATTACHMENT 32

Clerk of the House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Secretary of the Sea
THE SENATE
00 AUG 14 PH 27
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
Registrant
7. Client Name Self
6. H ID
TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2000 Midyear (January 1-June 30) OR 
Year End (July1-December
9. Check if this filing a previously filled version of this report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report, Termination Date
11. No Lobbying Acti
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR 13
12. Lobbying Firms
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20.000 of all 
lobbying related income from the client (including all payments to 
the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf 
of the client).
13. Organizations
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were:
Less than $10,000
$10,000 or more
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
Method A Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(c) of
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the regist engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page far each code, pro information as requested. Attach additional 
page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code---------- (one 
per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
?? Check if None
18. Name of each individual who acted as a 1obbyist in this issue 
area
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
?? Check if None
Printed Name and Title

[[Page 29367]]

ATTACHMENT 33

Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate 
Legislative Resource Center, Office of Public Records, B-106 Cannon 
Building 232, Hen Building, Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 
20510
LOBBYING REPORT
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
1. Registrant Name
McSlarrow & Associates, L.L.C.
2. Address ?? Check if different than previously reported
14842 North 18th Place, Phoenix, Arizona 85022
3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
City:
State/Zip (or Country)
4. Contact Name Alison H. McSlarrow
Telephone (602) 482-3150
E-mail (optional)
5. Senate ID # 48703-12
    Microsoft Corporation
    34541 002 /
    TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 1999 Midyear(January l-June30) ?? OR Year 
End(July t-December31)
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report
    10. Check if this is a Termination Report
    Termination Date
    11. No Lobbying Activity
INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
12. Lobbying Firms
13. Organizations
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: Less than $10,000 ??
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
were: Less than $10,000 ??
$10,000 or more ?? ?? $
S10,000 or more ?? ?? $ 40,000
Expenses (nearest $20,000)
Income (??rest $20,00)
14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense of all lobbying 
related income from the client (including all payrolls to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client).
Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options.
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 60330o)(8)of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
Signature
Printed Name and Title
LD.2 (REV. ??98) PAGE t or 4
Registrant Name McSlarrow & Assoc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code COM (one per page)
16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 247, Satellite Home Viewers Improvements Act, provisions 
relating to video streaming
    H.R. 1554, Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer 
Protection Act, provisions relating to video streaming
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Leader Trent Lott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if, None
January 21 2000
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Alison H. McSlarrow, President
Form LD-2 (Rev.??/98)
Registrant Name McSlarrow & Assoc.
Client Name Microsoft Corporation
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the 
general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code, provide information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code CPI (one per gage)
16. Specific lobbying issues
Competition in the software industry
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
Check if None
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
area

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Covered Official
            Name                  Position (if               New
                                   applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison H. McSlarrow.........  Deputy Chief of       Majority Leader
                               Staff to Senate.      Trent Lott
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above
Check if None
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
Form LD-2 (Rev.??98)
Registrant Name McSlarrow & Assoc.
Clint Name Microsoft Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. Genera[ issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 761, Millenium Digital Signature Commerce Act, all provisions
    H.R. 1774, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act, all provisions
    H.R. 775/S. 96 (P.L. 106-37), Year 2000 Readiness and 
Responsibility Act, all provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official
    Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison H. McSlarrow, Deputy Chief of Staff to Senate
    Majority Leader Trent Lott
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ?? Check if None
    Signature ??
    Printed Name and Title _--Alison H. McSlarrow, 
President
    Form LD-2 (Rev ??/98)
    ATTACHMENT 34
    TO THE
    DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    Clerk of the House of RepresentativesSecretary of the 
Senate
    Legislative Resource Center Office of Public Records
    B-106 Cannon Building 232 Hart Building, Washington, DC 
20515 Washington, DC 20S 10

[[Page 29368]]

    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
    1. Registrant Name
    Mcglarrow Consulting L.L.C. (formerly McSlarrow & Associates 
L.L.C.)
_6551 Kristina Ursula Court, Falls Church, Virginia 
22044------------------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City:State/Zip (or Country)
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate
    ID #
    Alison H. McSlarrow (703) 658-013848703-12
    6. House ID #
    7. Client Name ?? Self
    Microsoft Corporation??34541002??
    TYPE OF REPORT
    8. Year 2000 Midyear(January 1-June30)?? OR Year end (July 1 
December 31)??
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report ??
    10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? ?? Termination Date
    11. No
    Lobbying Activity ??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Firms
    13. Organizations
    INCOME relating: to lobbying activities for this reporting
    EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    period was:
    period were:
    Less than $10,000 [2:]
    Less than S10,000 ??
    $10,000 or more ?? ?? $
    S10,000 or more ?? ?? $40.000
    Expenses (nearest $20,000)
    Income (nearest $20.000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options. of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all ?? Method 
A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client)
    Method B Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
    Signature.
    Printed Name and Title
    I.D.2 ??
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues Competition in the software 
industry
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New ]
    Alison H. McSlarrow
    Deputy Chief of Staff to _ * Senate Majority
    Leader Trent Lott
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    form LD-2 (Rev.6/98)
    McSlarrow Consulting
    Microsoft Corporation
    Registrant Name
    Client Name
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 761, Millenium Digital Signature Commerce Act, all provisions
    H.R. 1714, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act, all provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New /
    Alison H. McSlarrow; Deputy Chief of Staff to _ Senate 
Majority Leader Trent Lott
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    LD-2 (Rev.??/98)
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, all 
provisions
    H.R. 3983, Helping Improve Technology Education and Achievement 
Act, all provisions
    H.R. 4227, Technology Worker Temporary Relief act, all 
provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
_-------------------------------------------------------
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    Form LD-2 (Rev ??/98) Page 4 of 5
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    Information Update Page- Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
    20. Client new address
    21. Client new principal place of business (if different from 
line 20)
    City
    State/Zip (or Country)
    22. New general description of client's business or activities
    LOBBYIST UPDATE
    23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
    ISSUE UPDATE
    24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
    COM
    AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
    25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
    Name
    Address
    Principal Place of Business
    (city and state or country)

[[Page 29369]]

    26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no 
longer affiliated with the registrant or client
    FOREIGN ENTITLES
    27. Add the following foreign entities
    Name
    Address
    Principal place of business
    Amount of contribution Ownership
    (city and state or country)
    for lobbying activities percentage in
    client
    28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no 
longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, 
client or affiliated organization
    Signature
    Date August 10, 2000
    Printed Name and Tile Alison H. McSlarrow, President
    Form LD-2 (??ev. 6/98)
    ATTACHMENT 35 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE CENTER
    I 2001 FEB 15 PM 3:26
    Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate; 
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
    Legislative Resource Center; Office of Public Records; U.S. ?? 
REPRESEHTATIVES; B-106 Cannon Building Washington, De20515
    232 Hart Building Washington, DO20510
    FEB 12 2001
    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This
    Page
    1. Registrant Name
    McSlarrow Consulting L.L.C.
    2. Address ?? Check if 4liferent than previously reported
    6551 Kristina Ursula Court, Falls Church, Virginia 22044
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City:
    State/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate ID #
    Alison McSlarrow 703-658-0138
    48703-12
    Microsoft Corporation (
    34541002 2
    TYPE OF REPORT
    8. Year 2000 Midyear(January l-Seine30) ?? OR Year End(July 1-
December31)
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report O
    10. Check if this a Termination Report ?? ?? Termination Date 11 
No Lobbying Activity [-'1
    INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Firms
    13. Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting 
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    period was:
    period were:
    Less than $10,000 ??
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,000 or more ?? ?? $
    $10,000 or mor3 ?? ??
    $60,000
    Expenses (nearest $20,000)
    Income (nearest $20,000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD, Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options.. of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all ?? Method 
A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments to the 
registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of 
the client).
    Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
    Signature
    Printed Name and Title
    LD-2 (REV. 6/981
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    Competition in the software industry 17. House(s) of Congress 
and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check if None U.S. Senate U.S. 
House of Representatives 18. Name of each individual who acted as a 
lobbyist in this issue area Name Covered Official Position (if 
applicable) Alison McSlarrow Deputy Chief of Staff to ?? Senate 
Majority Leader Trent Lott 19. Interest of each foreign entity in 
the specific issues listed on line [6 above ?? Check if None 
Signature Date February 2, 2001 Printed Name and Title Alison H. 
McSlarrow, President Form LD-2 (Rev.O/q8) Page 2 of 4
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to 
reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in 
lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using 
a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code IMM 
(one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, all 
provisions
    H.R. 3983, Helping Improve Technology Education and Achievement 
Act, all provisions H.R. 4227, Technology worker Temporary Relief 
Act, all provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None U.S. Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name Covered official Position (if applicable) New [ ?/ Alison 
H. McSlarrow Deputy Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Trent 
Lott
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature Date P
    rinted Name and Title
    Form I.D-2 (Rev.6/98)
    Page 3 of 4 7'' ``''
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to 
reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in 
lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using 
a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TEC (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    Interoperability of instant messaging
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None U.S. Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area Name Covered Official Position (if applicable) New Alison 
H. McSlarrow Deputy Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Trent 
Lott
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature Date February 2, 2001
    Printed Name and Title Alison H. McSlarrow, President
    Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
    Page 4 of 4
    ATTACHMENT 36 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    AUG 14 2001
    Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate
    LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE CENTER
    Legislative Resource Center Office of Public Records B-106 
Cannon Building 232 Hart Building 2001 AUG 15 PM 12:58 Washington, 
DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 ??
    U.S. ??REPRESENTATIVES LOBBYING REPORT --''
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page 6
    1 Registrant Name
    McSlarrow Consulting L.L.C.
    2. Address ?? Check if different than previously reported
    6551 Kristina Ursula Court, Falls Church, Virginia 22044
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City: Stale/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name Telephone E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate ID #
    Alison McSlarrow 703-658-01 38 48703-12
    7. Client Name ?? Self 6.
    House ID #-- Microsoft Corporation 34541 002??
    TYPE O17 REPORT 8. Year 2001 Midyear (January [-June 30) ?? OR 
Year End (July 1-December 31) ??
    9 Check if this fling amends a previously filed version of this 
report ?? t0. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? Termination 
Date 11. No Lobbying Activity ??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES- Complete Either Line 12 OR Line I3

[[Page 29370]]

    12. Lobbying Firms 13. Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting 
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was: period were: Less than $10,000 ?? Less than $10,000 ?? 
$10,000ormore ?? ?? $ $10.000 or more ?? ?? $ 60,000 Expenses 
(nearest $20,000) Income (nearest S20.000) 14. REPORTING METHOD. 
Check box to indicate expense Provide a good faith estimate, rounded 
to the nearest $20,000, accounting method. See instructions for 
description of options. of all lobbying related income from the 
client (including all ?? Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA 
definitions only payments to the registrant by any other entity for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client). ?? Method B. Reporting 
amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code ?? 
Method C Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code Signature Printed Name and Tide LD-2 (REV. 6/98) PAGE 1 
of 5
    McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft Corporation 
Registrant Name
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues Competition in the software 
industry
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name Covered Official Position (if applicable) New 
Alison.--.. McSlarrow ??
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ?? Check if None Signature Date Printed Name 
and Title Form LD.2 (Rev.6/98) Page 2 of
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    Alison McSlarrow; Deputy Chief of Staff to
    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line [6 above
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date February 2, 2001
    Printed Name and Title Alison H. McSlarrow, President
    Form LD-2 (Rev.O/q8)
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, all 
provisions
    H.R. 3983, Helping Improve Technology Education and Achievement 
Act, all provisions
    H.R. 4227, Technology worker Temporary Relief Act, all 
provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered official Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison H. McSlarrow; Deputy Chief of Staff to
    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    Form I.D-2 (Rev.6/98)
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TEC (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues Interoperability of instant 
messaging
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered
    Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison H. McSlarrow; Deputy Chief of Staff to
    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date February 2, 2001
    Printed Name and Title Alison H. McSlarrow, President
    Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
    ATTACHMENT 36
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    AUG 14 2001
    Clerk of the House of Representatives Secretary of the Senate
    LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE CENTER
    Legislative Resource Center, B-106 Cannon Building, Washington, 
DC 20515
    Office of Public Records, 232 Hart Building, Washington, DC 
20510
    2001 AUG 15 PM; 12:58
    U.S. ??REPRESENTATIVES
    LOBBYING REPORT --''
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This
    1 Registrant Name
    McSlarrow Consulting L.L.C.
    2. Address 6551 Kristina Ursula Court, Falls Church, Virginia 
22044
    Check if different than previously reported
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City:
    Stale/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate ID #
    Alison McSlarrow 703-658-01 38
    48703-12
    7. Client Name ?? Self 6.
    House ID #_
    Microsoft Corporation
    34541 002??
    TYPE O17 REPORT 8. Year 2001 Midyear (January [-June 30) ?? OR 
Year End (July 1-December 31) ??
    9. Check if this fling amends a previously filed version of this 
report ??
    10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? Termination Date
    11. No
    Lobbying Activity ??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES- Complete Either Line 12 OR Line I3
    12. Lobbying Firms
    13. Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    period was: period were:
    EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    Less than $10,000 ??
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,000ormore ?? ?? $
    $10.000 or more ?? ??
    $60,000 Expenses (nearest $20,000) Income (nearest S20.000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000, 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options. of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all
    Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only payments 
to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on 
behalf of the client).
    Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    Method C Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
    Signature
    Printed Name and Tide
    LD-2 (REV. 6/98)
    McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft Corporation
    Registrant Name
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)

[[Page 29371]]

    16. Specific lobbying issues
    Competition in the software industry
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison._.. McSlarrow
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    Form LD.2 (Rev.6/98) Page 2 of
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPT (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues Software piracy, counterfeiting, 
and protection of intellectual property rights
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison H. McSlarrow
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    Form LD-2 (Rev. 6/98)
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period, Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    Internet privacy
    S. 803, E-government Act of 2001, all provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    U.S. Senate
    U.S. House of Representatives
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered
    Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison H. McSlarrow
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date
    Printed Name and Title
    Form LD-2 (Rev.6/98)
    Registrant Name McSlarrow Consulting Client Name Microsoft 
Corporation
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    S. 532, Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act, all provisions
    S. 589, A bill to make permanent the moratorium on the 
imposition of taxes on the Internet, all provisions
    S. 664, New Economy Tax Fairness Act, all provisions
    S. 41, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 
extend the research credit, all provisions
    H.R. 1836, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2001, research and development tax credit provisions
    17 House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    U.S. Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    Alison H. McSlarrow
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date August 12, 2001
    Printed Name and Title Alison H. McSlarrow, President
    Form LD-2 Rev.6/98)
    ATTACHMENT 37
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    B.106 C?? B??, Washington, DC 20?? 15
    ?? H?? Building, Washington, DC 20510
    AUG
    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required To Complete This Page
    Microsoft Corporation
    2.1 D??nt Circle, NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
    City: Redmond
    state/Zip ?? WA 98052
    Jack ??rumholtz
    202-263-5900 25204-12
    7. Ciieat Name ?? Se??
    6. House ID # 31174000
    TYPE OF REPORT 3. Year 2000 Midyear (January 1-June 30) ?? OR 
Year End (July 1-December
    9. Check it this filing amends a previously filed version of 
ibis report
    10. Check if this is a Term??ation Report ?? ?? Ter??nation Date
    I l, No Lobbying A??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES-Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Fie?? 13.
    Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    period was:
    period were:
    Less than $10.000 ??
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10.000 or more ?? ?? $3,340,000
    I??come ?? $20,000
    14. REPORTING
    ??IETHOD, Check box to indicate expen??
    Provide a good ??ith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000. 
accounting method. See instructions for description of options of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all
    Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions o?? payments 
to the registrant by any other en??y for ??obbying activities on 
behalf of the client??.
    Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8)C Internal 
Reve??oe Code
    Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of th Internal 
Revenue Cod???
    Signature
    Printed Name and Title Jack Krumholtz, Director of Federal 
Government Affairs,
    Registrant Name Microsoft Corporation Client Name Se??
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY''. ?? as many codes as necessary to 
reflect, the general issue areas in which the Regis?? engaged in 
lobbying on behalf of the client during the reposing period. Using a 
separate page for each code prov?? information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed,
    General issue area code IMM (one per page)
    16. Specific l??bbying issues
    H.R. 3983, Helping Co Improve Technology Education and 
Achievement Act of 2000
    H.R. 4227, T??chnology Worker Temporary Relief Act
    S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century 
Act of
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    Senate
    House of Representatives
    Department of Commerce
    National Economic Council
    Office of the President
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Jack Krumholtz
    Eric Koenig
    Chief of Staff
    Kent Knutson, Deputy Asset. Sec. for Intergovernme??
    Tom Jurkovich, Affairs(. US Dept. of Commerce
    John Sampson, Associate Director, Senate Democrat
    James Houton, Steering, and Coordination Committe??
    Ira Rubinstein
    Julie Inman

[[Page 29372]]

    19. Interest of each foreign entity in (he specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    Check if None
    Printed Name and Title Jack, Associate General Counsel
    Regis?? Name Microsoft Corporation Client Name Self
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the regist?? engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code. ?? information as requested. Attach additional 
page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue code CPT (one per pace{time} 
    16, Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 354, Collections of Information Antipiracy Act
    H.R. 4690, Departments of. Commerce, Justice and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, relating 
to copyright and patent issues
    House Amendment 889 to H.R. 4690, Amendment to increase funding 
for US Patent and Trademar?? offices ``
    Software Piracy, Counterfeiting and Copyright Protection
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies con??acted
    Cheek if None
    Senate
    House of Representatives
    Nabions1 Economic Council
    Office of the Vice President
    Department of Commerce
    Department'' of State
    United States Trade Representative
    ??Department ??
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    Jack Krumholtz
    Eric Koenig
    Chief of Staff
    Kerry Knott
    House Majority Leader Richard Ar??
    Kent Knutson
    Tom Jurkovich, Affairs,. US Dept. off Commerce ,.
    -John Sampson Associate Director, senate Democrat
    19. ?? of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Printed Name and Title Jack ``??
    Director of Federal Government Affairs, Associate General 
Counsel.
    Registrant Name Microsoft Corporation Cli?? Name Self
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY- Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue ar?? in which the re?? engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for each code. prov?? Information as requested. Attach 
additional page(s) as needed.
    15. ??
    Filing Images
    Microsoft Corporation
    General Issue Area: TAX :
    Foreign Sales Corpora=ion Dispute Pending at %/TO
    Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
ar??
    Marc Berejka
    Julie Inman
    Bill Sample
    http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr--gifviewer.exe?
    Filing Images
    Associate General. Counsel
    http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/oprgifviewer.exe?
    Filing Images
    ?? Name Microsoft Corporation ?? Name Self
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the regist?? engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client ?? the reporting period. Using a separate page 
for each code, prov information as requested. A?? additional page(s) 
as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R. 4246, Cyber Security Information Act
    S. 2448, Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Act of 2000
    competition in the Software Industry
    Promoting Protection of Critical Infrastructures
    7. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ??
    Check if None
    S??nate
    House of Represe??tatives
    Department of Justice
    National Security Agency
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Department of Commerce:
    Department of Defense
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    C?? Official Pos?? (if ??)
    Jack Krumho??
    Eric Koenig
    Chief of Staff Kerry Knott House Majority Leader Richard Arm
    Kent Knutson
    Deputy Asst. sec. for Intergovernme??
    Tom Jurkovich, Affairs, US Dept. of Commerce:
    John Sampson
    Associate Director, Senate Democrat
    James Houton
    ??
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Printed Name and Title J?? Director of Fe?? fairs,
    Associate General
    Counsel
    http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr--gifviewer.exe?
    Filing Images
    Microsoft Corporation
    General Issue Area: CPI
    Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
are;
    Marc Berejka
    Bill Guidera
    Ira Rubinstein
    Mike Egan
    John Kelly
    Ed Tobin
    Filing Images ??
    ?? Name Microsoft Corporation Client Name Se?? LOBBY??G 
ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general 
issue areas in which the regist?? engaged in lobbying on behalf of 
the client during the reporting period. ??sing a separate page for 
each code, prov?? information as requested, Attach additional 
page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R, 1714, ELectronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act.
    S. 761, Millennium Digital Commerce Act (Digital Signatures)
    S. 2063:; Secure Online Communication enforcement. Act of 2000
    S. 854, Electronic Rights for the 21st ?? Century Act
    S. 2448, Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructures 
Protection Act. of 2000
    S. 2606, Consumer Privacy Protection Act:.
    H.R. 4049, Privacy Commission Act
    H.R. 1685, Internet Growth and Development Act
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    Senate??
    House of Representatives
    White House
    Department of Commerce
    Federal Communications Commission
    Federal Trade Commission
    Department of state
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyis?? in this 
issue area ??
    Jack Krumholtz
    Eric Koenig
    Chief of Staff
    Kerry Knot t, House Majority Leader Richard Arm??
    Kent Kn??tson Deputy Asst. Sec. for Intergovernme??
    Tom Jurlovich Affairs, US Dept. of Commerce
    John Sampson, Associate Director, Senate Democrat
    James Houton Steering and Coordination Committes
    19. Interest of each foreign ??ity in the Specific issues listed 
on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature Date
    Printed Name and Title Jack ??umholtz, Director of Federal 
Government Affairs,
    Associate General Counsel
    http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr-- gifviewer.exe?
    Filing Images ??
    Microsoft Corporation
    General Issue Area: CSP
    Specific lobbying issues
    International Online Consumer Protection, Privacy and
    Jurisdictional Issues
    Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue 
are
    Marc Berejka
    Bill Guidera
    http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr--gifviewer.exe?
    Filing image ??
    Registrant Name Microsoft Corporation Client Name Se??
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary co reflect 
the general issue arena in which the regist?? engaged in lobbying on 
behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate 
page for

[[Page 29373]]

each tacit, prov?? information as requested. Attach additional 
page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code LBR (one per page)
    16. Specific lobbying issues
    H.R, 3462, Wealth through the Workplace :Act of 1999
    H.R. 1102, Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform 
Act
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    Senate
    House of Representatives
    Department of Labor
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Jack Krumholtz
    Eric Koenig
    -Kerry Knott Chief of Staff
    Kent Knutson
    Deputy Asst. Sec. for Intergovernme??
    Tom Jurkovich Affairs,. US Dept. of Commerce
    John Sampson
    Associate Director, Senate Democrat
    James Houton Steering and Coordination Committe??
    Julie Inman
    Bill Sample
    19. I?? of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on 
fine [6 above ?? Check if None
    Associate General Counsel
    http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr--gifviewer.exe?
    ATTACHMENT 38
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH SECRETARY OF THE SENATE CLERK 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    LOBBYING REPORT 31355019
    Lobbying Disclosure Act (Section 5)
    For Official Use
    1. Year 1997
    2. Report Type (check all that apply)
    Midyear(January l-June30) ?? Year End (July 1-December 31)
    Amended report ?? Termination report ??
    No activity (registration to remain in effect) ??
    REGISTRANT
    3. Name of Registrant PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS 
LLP [
    4. Telephone number and contact name
    (202) 6282-1700 Contact Rosanne Phillips
    CLIENT Lobbying firms file separate reports for each client. An 
organization employing in-house lobbyists indicates 
``Self.''
    5. Name of Client MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    INCOME OR EXPENSES Answer line 6 or line 7 as applicable.
    6. LOBBYING FIRMS. Income from the client during the reporting 
period, other than income unrelated to lobbying activities, was:
    Less than $10,000 ?? S10,000 or more ??
    IFS10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the 
nearest $20,000, of all income from the client during this reporting 
period. Include any payments by any other entity for lobbying 
activities on behalf of the client. Exclude income unrelated to 
lobbying activities.
    Incomes 220.000.00 Total for year (if Year End report) $ 
380.000.00
    7. ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYING IN-HOUSE LOBBYISTS. Expenses incurred 
in connection with lobbying activities during tile reporting
    period were:
    Less than $10,000 ?? $10,000 or more ??
    If $10,000 or more, provide a good faith estimate, rounded to 
the nearest $20,000, of the total amount of all lobbying expenses 
incurred by the registrant and its employees during this reporting 
period.
    Expenses $
    Total for year (if Year End report) $
    Optional Expense Reporting Methods
    A. Registrants that report lobbying expenses under section 
6033(bX8) of the Internal Revenue Code may provide a good faith 
estimate of the applicable amounts that would be required to be 
disclosed under section 6033(b)(8) for the semiannual reporting 
period, and may consider as lobbying activities only those defined 
under section 491l(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. If selecting 
this method, check box and (i) enter estimated amounts on the 
``Expenses'' line above; or (ii) attach a copy of the IRS 
Form 990 that includes this reporting period. ??
    B. Registrants subject to section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue 
Code may make a good faith estimate of all applicable amounts that 
would not be deductible under section 162(e) for the semiannual 
reporting period, and may consider as lobbying activities only those 
activities the costs of which are not deductible pursuant to section 
162(e). If selecting this method, check box and enter estimated 
amounts on the ``Expenses'' line above. ??
    Form LD-2 (1/96)
    Registrant Name PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ISSUES. On line 8 below, enter the code for one general 
lobbying issue area in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
activities for the client during this reporting period (select 
applicable code from list in the instructions and on the reverse 
side of Form LD-2, page 1). For that general issue area only, 
complete lines 9 through 12. If the registrant engaged in lobbying 
activities for the client in more that one general issue area, use 
one Lobbying Report Addendum page for each additional general issue 
area.
    8. General lobbying issue area code (enter one) CPI
    9. Specific lobbying issues (include bill numbers and specific 
executive branch actions)
    Bills:
    H.R.695; Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act;
    S.377; Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era (Pro-
CODE) Act of 1997;
    S.909; Secure Public Networks Act; Congressional Issues: 
Competition in the Software Market
    10. Houses of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    11. Name and title of each employee who acted as a lobbyist
    HELM, BRUCE--ATTORNEY
    BRANDT, WERNER--GOVT. AFFAIRS COUNSELOR
    CARLSON, AMY--ATTORNEY
    STEPHENS, DENNIS--GOVT. AFFAIRS ANALYST
    GARVIE, PAMELA--ATTORNEY
    MOSHER, SOL--SR ADV. FOR FED. AFFAIRS
    BERGER, AMY--Attorney
    12. For registrants identifying foreign entities in the Lobbying 
Registration (Form LD-I, line 12) or any updates: interest of each 
such foreign entity in the specific lobbying issues listed on line 9 
above
    **NONE**
    Printed Name and Title TIM PECKINPAUGH--ATTORNEY
    Date 2117/98
    Form LD-2 (1/96)
    ATTACHMENT 39
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH ??
    Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource 
Center, I3-106 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515
    Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 
Building, Washington, DC 20510
    96 AUG 14 PM 3:33
    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
    1. Registrant Name
    PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    2. Address ??Check if different than previously reported 1735 
NEW YORK AVENUE, SUITE 500, NW WASHINGTON DC 20006-5209
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City
    State/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional) 5.
    Senate ID #
    ROSANNE PHILLIPS 202-628-1700 313355019
    7. Client Name ?? Self
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 1998 Midyear(January l-June 30) ?? OR 
Year End (July
    l-December 31) ??
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report ??
    10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> 
Termination Date 11. No
    Lobbying Activity??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Firms
    13. Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    period was:
    period were:
    Less than $10,000 ??
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,000 or more ?? >> $ $360,000.00
    $10,000 or more ??>> $
    Income (nearest $20,000
    Expenses (nearest $20.000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box W indicate expense

[[Page 29374]]

    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
    $20,000 of all lobbying related income from the client 
(including all payments to the registrant by any other entity ??
    Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client). ??
    Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code ??
    Method C, Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code
    Signature
    Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS--ATTORNEY
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide ??nformation as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.695, Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act, all 
sections
    S.2067, Encryption Protects the Rights of Individuals from 
Violation and Abuse in Cyberspace
    (F-PRIVACY) Act, all sections
    S.376, Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1997, all 
sections
    S.377, Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era 
(Pro=CODE) Act of 1997, all sections
    S.909, Secure Public Networks Act, all sections Senate Judiciary 
Committee Hearings on Competition in the Software Market.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ??
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    OSTP NSC USTR DOJ FBI NEC DOC CIA OMB NSA
    Senate
    Vice President
    White House
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Coveted Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    O'NEIL, MICHAEL,
    Gen. Counsel, CIA -Chief of Staff-CIA
    No
    SLOMOWITZ, ALAN
    Adm. Asst. -Rep. Robert Borski
    Yes
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    Yes
    MILDER, BENJAMIN, Leg. Corres.--Sen. Hatfield
    Yes
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    CARLSON, AMY
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line
    16 above ??
    Check if
    None
    Signature Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS--ATTORNEY Page 2
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LIP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item                 Description                  Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18a Lobbyist Name...  STEPHENS, DENNIS........
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  MOSHER, SOL.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18n.................  Lobbyist Name...........  BERGER, AMY.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  ABRAMOFF, JACK.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
181.................  Lobbyist Name...........  MASHBURN, JOHN.
lab.................  Covered Official          LEG. DIR. SEN. JOHN
                       Position.                 ASHCROFT.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  PIZZELLA, PATRICK.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  PECKINPAUGH, TIM.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  JARRELL, WILLIAM.
18b.................  Covered Official          Deputy Chief of Staff-
                       Position.                 Pep. Tom DeLay.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  ROUVELAS, EMANUEL.
18b.................  Coveted Official          xl
                       Position.
I8c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPT (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 2281, WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act, all 
provisions
    S.2037, Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, all provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name Coveted Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    Yes
    MILDER, BENJAMIN Leg. Corres.--Sen. Hatfield
    Yes
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    MASHBURN, JOHN LEG. DIR. SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    CARLSON, AMY
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line I6 above ?? Check if
    None
    Signature
    Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS--ATTORNEY
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item                 Description                  Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  BRANDT, WERNER
18b Covered Official  ........................
 Position.
I8c.................  New Lobbyist............  No
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  STEPHENS, DENNIS
18b.................  Covered Official          ........................
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  JARRELL, WILLIAM
18b.................  Covered Official          Deputy Chief of Staff-
                       Position.                 Rep. Tom DeLay
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Page 5
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue

[[Page 29375]]

areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the 
client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each 
code, provide information as requested. Attach additional page(s) as 
needed.
    15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.3736, Workforce Improvement and Protection Act of 1998, all 
provisions relating to the
    H1-B visa program.
    S.1723, American Competitiveness Act, all provisions rebating to 
the H1-B visa program.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    IS. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    CARLSON, AMY
    No
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    O'NEIL, MICHAEL Gen. Counsel, CIA -Chief of Staff-CIA
    Yes
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    No
    JARRELL, WILLIAM Deputy Chief of Staff- Rep. Tom DeLay
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ?? Check if
    None
    Signature
    Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS--ATTORNEY
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item                 Description                  Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  MASHBURN, JOHN.
18b.................  Covered Official          LEG. DIR. SEN. JOHN
                       Position.                 ASHCROFT.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  SLOMOWITZ, ALAN.
18b.................  Covered Official          Adm. Asst. -Rep. Robert
                       Position.                 Borsk??
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  Yes.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  PECKINP AUGH, TIM
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  Yes
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  PIZZELLA, PATRICK
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  WALKER, FRANKLIN
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  MILDER, BENJAMIN
18b.................  Covered Official          Leg. Corres.- Sen.
                       Position.                 Hatfield
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.1054, Internet Tax Freedom Act, all provisions
    H.R.4105, Internet Tax Freedom Act, all provisions
    S.442, Internet Tax Freedom Act, all provisions
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name Covered Official Position Of applicable)
    New
    MASHBURN, JOHN LEG. DIR. SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    yes
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    CARLSON, AMY
    No
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ?? Check if
    None
    Signature Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS- ATTORNEY
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TEC (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if
    None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name Covered Official Position (if applicable) New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    CARISON, AMY
    No
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    STEPHENS, DENNIS No
    JARRELL, WILLAM, Deputy .Chief of Staff- Rep. Tom
    DeLay
    No
    MASHBURN, JOHN, LEG. DIR. SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT
    No
    SLOMOWITZ, ALAN, Adm. Asst. -Rep. Robert Borski
    Yes
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS--ATTORNEY
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item                 Description                  Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  PIZZELLA, PATRICK.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  PECKINPAUGH, TIM.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
184.................  New Lobbyist No.........  xl
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  ROUVELAS, EMA??.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
1Be.................  New Lobbyist No.........  xl
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  BERGER, AMY.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  WALKER, FRANKLIN.
18b.................  Covered Official          xl
                       Position.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  No.
18a.................  Lobbyist Name...........  MILDER, BENJAMIN.
18b.................  Covered Official
                       Position Leg.
                       Corres.--Sen.
                       Hatfield.
18c.................  New Lobbyist............  Yes.
16..................  Lobbying Issues.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29376]]

    Carriage of the Transmission of Digital Television Broadcast 
Stations, FCC Dkt, 98-120
    Access to Telecommunications Services and Equipment for Persons 
with Disabilities, FCC Dkt 96-198
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
    20. Client new address
    21. Client new principal place of business (if different from 
line 20) State/Zip (or Count)
    22. New general description of client's business or activities
    LOBBYIST UPDATE
    23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
    MEEDS, LLOYD
    ISSUE UPDATE
    24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain
    SCT
    AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
    25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
    Principal Place of Business
    Name
    Address (city and state or country)
    26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no 
longer affiliated with the registrant or client
    FOREIGN ENTITIES
    27. Add the following foreign entities
    Principal Place of Business Amount of contribution Ownership %
    Name
    Address (city and state or country) for
    lobbying activities In client
    28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no 
longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, 
client, or affiliated organization
    Signature
    Date 8/14/98
    Printed Name and Title EMANUEL ROUVELAS--ATTORNEY
    ATTACHMENT 40
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH ??
    Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource 
Center, 13-106 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515
    Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 
Building, Washington, DC 20510
    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
    I. Registrant Name
    PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    2. Registrant Address ?? Check if different than previously 
reported
    Address 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 City WASHINGTON 
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20006-5209
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City
    Slate/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate It) #
    ROSANNE PHILLIPS, 202-628-1700,
    32098-366
    7. Client Name ?? Self
    6. House
    ID #
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    313550i9 %
    TYPE OF REPORT
    s. Year 1999 Midyear(January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year End (July I-
December 31)
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report ??
    10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> 
Termination Date ....... 11. No Lobbying Activity??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Firms
    13. Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting 
EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was:
    period were:
    Less than $10,000 ??
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,000 or more
    ?? >> $
    $200,000.00
    $10,000 or more El >> $
    Income (newest $20,000)
    Expenses (nearest $20,000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest
    accounting method. See instructions for description of options. 
$20,000 of all lobbying related income from the client (including 
all payments to the registrant by any other entity
    ?? Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client). F1 Method B. Reporting 
amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code
    ?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e)of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    Signature ??
    Date 02/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.3194, Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act, relatig to 
patend and copyright issues.
    H.R.775, Year 2000 Readiness & Responsibility Act,
    H.R.850, Security And Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
    S.314, Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act,
    S.6998, Y2K Act,
    S.798, Promote Reliable On-Line Transactions to Encourage 
Commerce and Trade (PROTECT) Act of 1999, competition in software 
industry
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    White House
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BERGER, AMY
    Yes .......................
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    FUNDERBURK, DAVID
    CONGRESSMAN
    Yes
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob
    Smith
    Yes
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature ??
    Date 02/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code --CPT---- (one per 
page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.1761, Copyright Damages improvement Act of 1999,
    H.R.1858, Consumer and Inventors Access to Information Act of 
1999,
    H.R.1907, American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, 
(engrossed).
    H.R.2654, American Inventors Protection Act of 1999,
    H.R.354, Collection of Information Antipiracy Act,
    S. 1257, Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages 
Improvement Act of 1999,
    Software piracy and count??rfiting.
    17. House(s) &Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? 
Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area Name--Covered
    Official Position (if applicable) New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No

[[Page 29377]]

    * HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Printed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    1t.R.1714, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act,
    S.761, Third Millennium Digital Commerce Act,
    S.809, Online Privacy Protection Act of 1999,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK No
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature Date ??
    Printed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON CATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.2687, Bringing Resources of Academia to Industry Act,
    H.R.2968, S.1440, New Workers for Economic Growth Act,
    S.1645, Helping Improved Technology Education (HITECH),
    S. 180, 21st Century Technology Resources and Commercial 
Leadership Act,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ??
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER .
    No
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK ----
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 2488, S. 1429, Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999,
    H.R. 3194, Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act,
    H.R. 835, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit and to adjust the alternative 
incremental credit rates,
    S.542, New Millennium Classrooms Act,
    S.680, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 
extend the research credit, and for other purposes,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    Yes
    WALKER, FRANKLIN ....
    19. Interest preach foreign entity in the specific issues listed 
on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature ...??
    Date--02/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TEC (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 1554, Satellite Copyright Competition Protection Act of 
1999,
    H.R. 1685, Internet Growth and Development Act of 1999,
    H.R. 1686, Internet Freedom Act,
    H.R.2420, Internet Freedom and Broadband Development Act of 
1999,
    S.877, Broadband Internet Regulator)'' Relief Act,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    WALKER, FRANKLIN --.----
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature--
    Date--
    02/1--4/2----.--000 .....
    Primed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TRD ---- (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    Normal Trade Relations with China WTO provisions of The 
Agreement on Trade-Related 1PR (TRIPs) Seattle WTO Ministerial 
Meeting (1999) and related issues.
    17. l louse(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    HEIMAN, BURCE
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date. 02/14/2000

[[Page 29378]]

    Printed Name and Title JONATHAN BLANK- PARTNER
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
    20. Client new address
    21. Client new principal place of business (if different from 
line 20)
    City
    State??.ip (or Country)
    22. New general description of client's business or activities
    LOBBYIST UPDATE
    23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
    JARRELL, WILLIAM
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    O'NEIL, MICHAEL
    WALKER, FRANKLIN
    ISSUE UPDATE
    24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain BUD, SCI
    AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
    25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
    Principal Place of Business
    Name
    Address
    (city and state or country)
    26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no 
longer affiliated with the registrant or client
    FOREIGN ENTITIES
    27. Add the following foreign entities
    Principal
    Place of Business Amount of contribution Ownership %
    Name
    Address (city and state or country{time}  for lobbying 
activities in client
    28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no 
longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, 
client, or affiliated organization
    Signature
    Date 02/14/2000
    Printed Name and ?? JONATHAN BLANK--PARTNER ....
    ATTACHMENT 41
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    Clerk of the House of Representatives
    Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Resource Center, Office of 
Public Records, B-106 Cannon Building Washington DC 20515, 232 
Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510
    HAND DELIVERED
    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete This Page
    1. Registrant Name
    PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    2. Address
    Check if different than previously reported 1735 NEW YORK AVE, 
NW, SUITE 509, WASHINGTON DC 20006
    Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City
    State/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate ID #
    ROSANNE PHILLIPS 202-628-1700 32098-366
    7. Client Name ?? Self
    6. House ID #
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    TYPE OF REPORT
    Year 2000
    Midyear(January 1-June 30) ?? OR Year End (July 1-December 3l) 
??
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report ??
    19. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> 
Termination Date
    11. No Lobbying Activity??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Firms
    13. Organizations
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting
    period was:
    period were:
    Less than $10,009 ??
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,090 or more
    ?? >> $ $229,000.00
    $19,900 or more ?? >> $
    Income (nearest $20,000)
    Expenses (nearest S20,000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
    $20,000 &all lobbying related income from the client 
(including all payments to the registrant by any other entity
    ??Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only for 
lobbying activities on behalf of the client{time} . ?? Method B. 
Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue 
Code
    ?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    Signature
    Date 08114/2900
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE-OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    S. 2448, Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Act of 2000,
    H.R. 4246, Cyber Security Information Act, Competition in the 
software industry.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ??
    Cheek if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    BERGER, AMY
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE-OF COUNSEL Page
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPT (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 354, Collection of Information Antiprivacy Act,
    H.R. 4690, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, relating 
to copyright and patent issues. House Amendment 889 to H.R. 4690, to 
increase funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted E3
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature ??
    Date
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP

[[Page 29379]]

    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    S. 854, Electronic Rights for the 21st Century Act,
    S. 2448, Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructures 
Protection Act of 2000,
    S. 2063, Secure Online Communication Enforcement Act of 2000,
    S. 761, Third Millennium Digital Commerce Act,
    H.R. 1714, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce 
Act,
    17. House(s) &Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? 
Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the-client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code IMM ---- (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century 
Act of 2000,
    H.R. 4227, Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act,
    H.R. 3983, Helping to Improve Technology Education and 
Achievement Act of 2000,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    SLOMOWITZ, ALAN
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature Date 08/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code LBR (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 3462, Wealth Through the Workplace Act of 1999,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ??
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    Yes
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    Yes
    VALENTINE, STEVEN Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line I6 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
    I6. Specific Lobbying issues
    S. 2775, Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act,
    S. 2401, New Economy Tax Simplification Act (NETSA),
    H.R. 4462, Fair and Equitable Interstate Tax Compact 
Simplification Act of 2000,
    H.R. 4460, Internet Tax Simplification Act of 2000,
    H.R. 4267, Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act of 2000,
    H.R. 3709, Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (it applicable)
    New
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature ??
    Date 08/14/2000
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TEC (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 1686, Interact Freedom Act,
    H.R. 1685, Internet Growth and Development Act of 1999,
    FCC Dkt. No. 99-168, Service Rules for the 746-765 
and 776-794 MH Bands and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ??
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered
    Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None

[[Page 29380]]

    Signature
    Date 0811412000
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE- OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    S. 2277, To terminate the application of title IV of the Trade 
Act of ! 974 with respect to the People's Republic of China,
    S. 2645, China Nonproliferation Act,
    H.R. 4444, To authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 
(normal trade relations treatmen0 to the People's Republic of China, 
World Trade Organization (a) Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual 
Property Rights (b) Post-Seattle WTO Ministerial Meeting related 
commerce and trade issues.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    SLOMOWITZ, ALAN
    Yes
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above ??
    Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2000 Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE- OF 
COUNSEL
    ATTACHMENT 42
    TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    Clerk of the House of Representatives, Secretary of the Senate, 
Legislative Resource Center, Office of Public Records, B-106 
Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515 232 Hart Building, Washington, 
DC 20510
    LOBBYING REPORT
    Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5)--All Filers Are 
Required to Complete. This Page
    1. Registrant Name PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    2. Registrant Address ?? Check if different than previously 
reported Address 1735 NEW YORK AVE, NW, SUITE 500, City WASHINGTON 
State/Zip (or Country) DC 20006
    3. Principal Place of Business (if different from line 2)
    City State/Zip (or Country)
    4. Contact Name
    Telephone
    E-mail (optional)
    5. Senate ID #
    ROSANNE PHILLIPS, 202-628-1700, 32098-366
    7. Client Name ?? Self
    6. House ID # 31355019
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2000 Midyear (January l-June 30) ?? OR 
Year End (July l-December 31)
    9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of 
this report ??
    10. Check if this is a Termination Report ?? >> 
Termination Date
    11. No Lobbying Activity ??
    INCOME OR EXPENSES--Complete Either Line 12 OR Line 13
    12. Lobbying Firms
    INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period 
was:
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,000 or more ?? >> $ $260,000.00
    Income (nearest $20,000)
    Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $20,000 of 
all lobbying related income from the client (including all payments 
to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on 
behalf of the client).
    13. Organizations
    EXPENSES relating to lobbying activities for this reporting 
period were:
    Less than $10,000 ??
    $10,000 or more ?? >> $
    Expenses (nearest $20,000)
    14. REPORTING METHOD. Check box to indicate expense accounting 
method. See instructions for description of options.
    ?? Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
    ?? Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033COX8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    ?? Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code
    Signature
    Printed Name and Title
    STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Date 02/14/2001
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPI (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.4246, Cyber Security Information Act,
    H.R. 5024, Federal Information Policy Act of 2000,
    H.R.5658, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001,
    S.2448, Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Act of 2000, Competition in the software industry.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted ?? Check 
if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BERGER, AMY
    No
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    IVEY, GLENN
    Yes
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    Yes
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 02/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CPT (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.354, Collection of Information Antiprivacy Act,
    H.R.4690, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, relating 
to copyright and patent issues. House Amendment 889 to H.R. 4690, to 
increase funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    P1ZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature

[[Page 29381]]

    Date 02/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 1685, Internet Growth and Development Act of 1999,
    H.R.4049, Privacy Commission Act,
    S.2063, Secure Online Communication Enforcement Act of 2000,
    S.2448, Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructures 
Protection Act of 2000,
    S.2606, Consumer Privacy Protection Act,
    S.2928, Consumer Internet Privacy Enhancement Act,
    17, House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 02/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code IMM (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.3983, Helping to Improve Technology Education and 
Achievement Act of 2000,
    H.R.4227, Technology Worker Temporary Relief Act,
    S.2045, American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act 
of 2000,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    ROUVELAS, EMANUEL
    No
    SLOMOWITZ, ALAN
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    Yes
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 02/14/200I
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code LBR (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.1102, Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform 
Act,
    H.R.3462, Wealth Through the Workplace Act of 1999,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    [13 Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    PIZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 02/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.3709, Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000,
    H.R.4267, Internet Tax Reform and Reduction Act of 2000,
    H.R.4460, Internet Tax Simplification Act of 2000,
    H.R.4462, Fair and Equitable Interstate Tax Compact 
Simplification Act of 2000,
    S.2401, New Economy Tax Simplification Act (NETSA),
    S.2775, Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    I-1 Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    BRANDT, WERNER
    No
    HEIMAN, BRUCE
    No
    P1ZZELLA, PATRICK
    No
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 02/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. Genera
    Position (if applicable)
    New
    IVEY, GLENN
    Yes
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    Yes
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Regisitrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue

[[Page 29382]]

areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the 
client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each 
code, provide ??nformation as requested. Attach additional page(s) 
as needed.
    15. General issue area code CSP (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.2458 and S.803, E-Government Act of 2001, relating to 
Internet privacy.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    Department of Justice
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    IVEY, GLENN
    Yes
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    Yes VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob 
Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOF F CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TAX (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R. 2526, Internet Tax Fairness Act of 2001,
    H.R. 1410 and S.512, Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act,
    H.R. 1552 and S.288, Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act,
    H.R.2421, Jurisdictional Certainty Over Digital Commerce Act,
    S.245, A bill to make permanent the moratorium on the Federal 
imposition of taxes on the Internet.,
    S.246, A bill to extend the moratorium on the imposition of 
taxes on the Internet for an additional 5 years.,
    S. 41, A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit and to increase the rates of 
the alternative incremental credit,
    S.89, A bill to make permanent the moratorium on the imposition 
of taxes on the Internet.,
    S.664, NET FAIR Act,
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    IVEY, GLENN
    Yes
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    Yes
    VALENTLNE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item                 Description                  Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Lobbying Issues.........  S.777, Internet Tax
                                                 Nondiscrimination Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TEC (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    FCC Dkt. No. 99-168, Service Rules for the 746-765 
and 776-794 MH Bands and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    New
    IVEY, GLENN
    Yes
    STEPHENS, DENNIS
    Yes
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect 
the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying 
on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a 
separate page for each code, provide information as requested. 
Attach additional page(s) as needed.
    15. General issue area code TRD (one per page)
    16. Specific Lobbying issues
    H.R.2149 and S.$99, Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001, 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) of China.
    17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies contacted
    ?? Check if None
    House of Representatives
    Senate
    18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this 
issue area
    Name
    Covered Official Position (if applicable)
    Now
    IVEY, GLENN
    Yes STEPHENS, DENNIS
    Yes
    VALENTINE, STEVEN, Leg. Dir & Gen. Counsel Sen. Bob Smith
    No
    19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues 
listed on line 16 above
    ?? Check if None
    Signature
    Date 08/14/2001
    Printed Name and Title STEVEN VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    Information Update Page--Complete ONLY where registration 
information has changed.
    20. Client new address
    21. Client new principal place of business (if different from 
line 20)
    State/Zip (or Country)
    22. New general description of client's business or activities
    LOBBYIST UPDATE
    23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer 
expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
PIZZELLA, PATRICK
ABRAMOFF, JACK
BRANDT, WERNER
SLOMOWITZ, ALAN

ISSUE UPDATE

    24. General lobbying issues previously reported that no longer 
pertain

AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS

    25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
    Name
    Address
    Principal Place of Business
    (city and state or country)
    26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no 
longer affiliated with the registrant or client

FOREIGN ENTITIES

    27. Add the following foreign entities
    Principal Place of Business Amount of contribution Ownership % 
Name Address

[[Page 29383]]

(city and state or country) for lobbying activities in client
    28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no 
longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, 
client, or affiliated organization ??inted Name and Title STEVEN 
VALENTINE--OF COUNSEL 08/14/2001 Page 9 of 10
    Registrant Name: PRESTON GATES ELLIS & ROUVELAS MEEDS LLP
    Client Name: MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    Item Description Data
    Lobbyist Update
    BERGER, AMY
    Page I0 of 10
    ATTACHMENT 44 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    PRESS RELEASE
    Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
    Fourteenth District, Michigan
    Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
    Dean, Congressional Black Caucus
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: November 6, 2001 Dena Graziano: 
(202) 226-6888
    CONYERS OBJECTS TO REPORTS OF INFLUENCE AND IMPROPRIETY IN THE 
PROPOSED MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT, SEEKS INFORMATION FROM ASHCROFT
    Today, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the 
House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General, John 
Ashcroft complaining of reports of political influence and 
impropriety by Justice Department employees in the proposed 
settlement of the U.S. v. Microsoft case. A copy of the letter 
follows.
    November 6, 2001
    The Honorable John Ashcroft
    Attorney General of the United States
    U.S. Department of Justice
    10th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
I am writing to express my very se?? concerns regarding reports of 
po?? inflnence and impropriety by Justice Department employees in 
the proposed ?? of the U.S. v. Microsoft case. I am also deeply 
troubled by your office'' s ?? to respond to my earlier 
requests for ??on set forth in my September 6, 2001 letter to you.
    As I am sure you are aware, a number of reservations have been 
raised with the proposed settlement by consumer groups, trade 
associations, ?? attorneys general, and antitrust experts. I too am 
very concerned the proposed agreement represents a weakling in our 
go??ment's resolve to protect competi??, preserve consumer welfare, 
and foster continued ??on, particularly given the res??ng and clear 
cut Legal ??s achieved by your predecessor in office. Wherever one 
comes out on the merits or demerits of the proposed settlement, I do 
not believe the Department is at all served by continuing to 
stonewall inquiries into legitimate and credible allegations of 
political impropriety raised by the press and the public. I would 
therefore encourage your office to respond to my ealier letter and 
the additional questions raised in this correspondence by no later 
than November 23, 2001.
    At the outset, let me note that my earlier expressed concerns 
about inappropriate political influence have only been heightened by 
recent media reports fiat your own Deputy Chief of Staff David L??, 
cone cared with outside 1obbyists in an effort to convince them to 
alter their clients'' views regarding the role of the states in 
the case. This inappropriate and possibly illegal contact is 
reported to have occurred after Mr. Israelite had recused himself 
from the case because of co?? of interest concerns. AS a result, I 
would like to receive an itemization of any and all contacts between 
Mr. Israelite and any representatives of any outside party 
(including representatives of AOL/Time W??) having any interest in 
the Microsoft case, as well as a detailing of any b?? or other 
``communications'' (meant to include all notes, e-mails, 
documents, memoranda, phone records and any other types
of ??, audio, or ??ions) involving the Microsoft case which are in 
any way associated with, w??en to or sent from Ms. Israelite. If the 
allegations reported by the media are true, such active ?? by a 
focused public official could violate federal conflict of interest 
laws ?? Executive Branch employees.
    Among other things, Mr. Israelite would be ?? from taking any 
significant action if the matter will have a ``direct and 
predictable'' effect on his interest In a similar r??, I am 
troubled by the po?? that additional staff who have ?? recused from 
the Microsoft case have been and will continue to be called onto 
offer services and judg?? which implicate the case.
    For example, it has been reported that Mr. W??asky, who has 
previously written, amicus curiae legal briefs supporting 
Microsoft's legal position and opposing the Department has been 
appointed to be Deputy Attorney General for International A?? Given 
that one of his principal responsibilities will be d?? with the 
European Union, which is itself in the midst of a ?? antitrust ?? 
Microsoft, it would seem difficult, if not ?? for him to discharge 
Iris ?? without in some way taking an action impacting Microsoft. ?? 
we eau only consider and scrutinize these conflicts if we learn of 
the persons in the Department who have ??eroselves, This is why I am 
so troubled ?? Four office has refused to turn over a list of 
political ??ees at the Dep??t who have re?? the M?? case.
    ??, the press has also reported that many career attorneys and 
staff at the Depa??t were either cut out of the final negotiations 
or raised objections to it that were over??. As a ?? I would also 
like to receive copies of any and all ``communications'' 
(as denned above), by any Department employees or consultants 
regarding a possible settlement or proposing any suggestions or 
differing terms than those you agreed to. I am also concerned that 
political appointees within the Department may have threatened 
career employees far failing to ``toe the company line'' 
in this mallet and support the settlement As a result, I would also 
like to receive copes afar ``co??s'' between any political 
appointees and career staff regarding file Microsoft case which 
could in any way be seen as th??g or inti??. Given the thousand upon 
thousands of hours devoted by career staff at the Department, I 
believe it is counterproductive to totally subordinate their 
considerable efforts and input at this critical stage in the pro??g. 
Surely, public disclosure of these matters will contr??e w the 
public's knowledge and understanding of this matter. Thank you for 
your time and attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    cc: lion. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
    Mr. Daniel Bryant
    John Conyers, Jr.
    Ranking Member 107-97
    See 18 U.S.C.  208(a); 5 C.F.R 2635.401-403. 
See also, Ethical Rules for U.S. Attorneys, Sections 
3-2.170-171, 3-2.220.
    ATTACHMENT 45 TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN DAUTCH
    By Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the 
Judiciary
    On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives adopted by a 
vote of 410-4 the following House Resolution 803: RESOLVED, 
That the ?? on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any aub??tee 
thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in 
accordance with the Rules of the Co??ttee, is authorized and 
directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient 
grounds exist for the House of Represe?? to exercise its 
constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the 
United States of America. The co??ttee shall report to the House of 
Representatives such resolutions, articles of i??peach??, or other 
reco?? it deems proper.
    Beginning in November 1973, ?? under resolutions referred to the 
Co??ittee by the Speaker of the House and with a special 
appropriation, I had be??n to organize a special staff to inv??e 
set, otto charges ?? the President of the United States.
    On Kay 9, 1974, as Che??n of the Co??ittee on the Judiciary, I 
convened the Con. tree for hearings to re?? the results of the Iup?? 
??ry staffs i??ation. The staff began its initial presentation the 
?? day, in executive session, pursuant to the Com??ee's I??chent 
Inquiry Procedures adopted on May 2, 1974.
    By Ju?? 21, the Inquiry staff had concluded its initial 
presentar. ion.
    On J?? 25, the Co??ittee voted to eke public the initial 
presentation ?? substantially all of the supporting ??

(III)

presented at the hearings. The Co??ittee also voted to make public 
the President's response, which was presented to the Committee on 
June 27 and June 28 in the same form and manner u the Inquiry 
staff's initial pre??.
    Statements of information and supporting evidentiary material 
were compiled by the Inquiry staff in 36 notebooks and furnished in 
this form to each Member of the Co??ittee. The notebooks presented 
material on several subjects of the Inquiry: the Watergate break-in 
and its after??h, III, dairy price supports, domestic ??e, abuse of 
the IRS, and the activities of the Special Prosecutors. In each 
notebook a statement of information relating co a par?? phase of the 
investigation was I??diately followed by supporting evidentiary ??, 
which included copies of documents and testiBony (much already on 
public record), transcripts of ?? conversations and affidavits.
    The staff also presented to the C??tee written reports on 
President N?? intern tins, Presidential inpoun??nt of funds

[[Page 29384]]

appropriated by Congress, and the bombing of C??n.
    Book V, presented to the Commitee under the general heading of 
``??,'' dealt with two areas of the Inquiry. First, 
material van presented ??h respect to the possible relation ??een 
the 1971 settlement of three antitrust cases filed against III and 
IIIs pledge of financial assistance to the San Dingo Convention and 
Tourist Bureau for expenses related Co the 1972 Repub?? ??onal 
Convention. Second, material no presented rich respect to the 
testimony of
    Every effort was lade to preclude inferences in the presentation 
of this ??. A de??e and scrupulous abstention from conclusions, even 
by ??, was observed.
    With respect to the Presidential recorded conversations, the ?? 
?? Co hear the recorded conversations in their entirety. The 
Presidential recorded conversations were neither paraphrased nor ?? 
by the Inquiry staff. Thus, no inferences, or conclusions Were drawn 
for the Cou??ee. During the course of the hearings, Members of the 
Co??ttee heard each recurding and s??aneously followed transcripts 
prepared by the Inquiry staff. Each of these transcripts is 
reprinted under the appropriate Statement of Infor??ion.
    During the course of the hearings, the Co??ttee found it 
necessary to issue a ?? to President Richard ??on requiring Cape 
recordings of 19 Presidential conversations related Co the ITT 
??atters before the C??ttee. The Committee also subpoenaed the 
President's copies of daily news statuaries which were co??iled by 
??e House staff ??bers, from February 22, 1972 through June 9, 1972. 
The President has not yet responded co this subpoena.
    Prior to the Co??ttee's, issuance of the subpoena on June 24, 
1974, the President furnished to the Co??ttee an edited transcript: 
of a meeting he held rich H. R. Halde??n and John Mitchell on April 
4, 1972 at: which the Kleindienst no??nation bearings were 
discussed.

(v)

    In few instances, ?? Me??ber Mr. Hutchinson and I determined, 
pursuant to authority granted us by the Co??ttee, to defer the 
release of evidentiary ??ater?? or to delete it for one of the 
following reasons:
    l) Because the public interest in making the material public was 
out??hed by the potential prejudice to the rights of defendants 
under ??g trill.
    2) Because the infor??tion was classified or otherwise required 
confidential treatment,
    3) Because the ??aterial was only ??rginally pertinent and was 
considered to be def??tory, degrading or e??barr??ing, or,
    4) Because the ?? ns not pertinent to Presidential respoas??y 
??u the outer ??iits of an i??peachable offense within. the meaning 
of the Constitution.
    The Co??ttee on the Judiciary is working to follow faithfully 
itc mandate ``to investingate fully and completely'' 
whether OF not sufficient grounds exist to reco??end chat the House 
exercise its constitutional power of ??.
    I believe Chat the readers of Chase volumes will see chat the 
Co??ittee's effort in carrying out its ??ndate has been to obtain an 
objective, impartial presentation which will enable each Me??ber of 
the ?? to make an infor??ed Judgment in fulfilling his or her 
con??titutional responsibility.

(VI)

    also believe that the publication of the record of these hear- 
?? ?? provide readers with a clear idea of the particulars of the 
inves??ion and that the prox?? of the evidence will assure them that 
no s?? of information is offered without supporting evidentiary 
??terial. July 1974

(vii)

    1. By ?? urn dated April 23, 1969 from Deputy Attorney Genera ?? 
Kleindienst, acting as Attorney General*, mid A??tant Attorney 
General Richard ??aren, head of the Antitrust Division, to John 
Ehrlich??, Counsel Co the President, Kleindienst and McLaren urged 
approval of the co?? of an antitrust action against the 
International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT) challenging 
its acquisition of Canteen Corporation. Co??ent of the stoic no 
approved and on April 28, 1969 the suit was begun in the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
    *Because Attorney General John Mitchell's former law firm had 
represented an ITT subsidiary, Mitchell recused hi??elf and Deputy 
Attorney General Kleindienst acted u Attorney General in connection 
?? the litigation.

 
                                                            
 
N??rand?? from ?? and Richard NeL??u Co John ??, April 23, 1969     Page
 with attached draft complaint (received from White Home)             7O
 ............................... ...............................
1.2 ?? from Richard McLaren to Richard Kleindisuse, April 25,         88
 1969, 3 Kleindienst Confirmation Hearings (KCH) 1237
 ...............................................................
1.3 United States v. International Telephone and Talegraph            89
 Corporation, Civ. No. 69c-924, Docket, 1-2 ..............
1.4 ??hard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 96. ....................      91
1.5 John Mitchell testit??y, 2 KCH. 539-40                  92 (s)
 ...............................................................
2. On August 1, 1969 two ??t suits s?? to the Canteen suit were
 ?? in the United States D??ct Court for the ??ct of Connecticut
 challenging ITT's acquisition of the Hartford Fire Insurance
 Company and Grinnell Corporation...............................
2.1 Page........................................................
United States v. International Telephone end Tele?? Co oration       102
 and Grinnell Co??, Civ. No. 13319, Docket, 1-2                2.2
 ...............................................................
United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph               104
 Corporation and Hartford Fire Insurance ?? Civ. No. 13320,          2.3
 Docket, 1-2 .............................................
?? from Richard McLaren for the Attorney General, June 20, 1969      106
 (received from Department of Justice)                            2.& ......................................... .....................      
??orandum from Richard McLaren for the Deputy Attorney General,      120
 approved July 25, 1969 (received from Department of Justice),
 ...............................................................
3. During 1969, 1970 and 1971, Harold S. Geneen, President of
 ITT, ?? on numerous occasions with White House staff members,
 other Administration officials and members of both houses of
 Congress to discuss various hatters, including international
 monetary policy, the Office of Foreign Direct Investment
 policy, antitrust policy, balance of payments, revenue sharing
 and expropriation by foreign governments. During the sunsnet of
 1969 Geneen sought a personal meeting with the President to
 discuss the ITT antitrust cases. His request was denied because
 the President's advisers thought that such a meeting was
 inappropriate..................................................
3.1 Harold Geneen testimony, 2 KCH 776-80                      132
 ...............................................................
3.2 Memorandum from Hugh Sloan to John Ehrlichman, June 30, 1969     137
 (received from White House) ...................................
3.3 Me??orandum from Dwight Chapin to Peter Flanigan, July 16,       138
 1969 (received from White House) ..............................
 


 
                                                            
 
3.4 White House ``White Paper,'' The ITT Anti-Trust       139,
 Decision, January 8, 1974, 1, 3 ...............................     (5)
During September 1969 Colonel J??s Hughes, Military Assistant to     4.1
 the President, spoke with Dita Beard, an ITT lobbyist, about
 the pending antitrust suit. Hughes reported on the conversation
 in a memo- randum to Ehrlich??n dated September 19, 1969.......

[[Page 29385]]

 
?? from James Hughes to John Ehrlichman, September 19, 1969          142
 (received from White House)                                         (6)
 ...............................................................
In August 1970 officials and representatives of ITT held five     ......
 with Administration officials, including Vice President Spiro
 Secretary of Commerce Maurice Scans, Assistant Attorney General
 and White House counsel John Ehrlichman and Charles Colson to
 cuss antitrust matters in general and the ITT antitrust
 litigation particular. In another meeting, Geneen and Attorney
 General Mitchell to discuss overall antitrust policy with
 respect to conglomerates. these meetings and in subsequent
 letters and memoranda ITT officials bought to persuade
 Administration officials that McLaren's antitrust views, as
 reflected in his conduct of the ITT litigation, were ill-
 advised and inconsistent with the Ad??ration's antitrust
 policy.........................................................
5.1 Memorandum from Tod Hullin to John Ehrlichman, August 4,         145
 1970 (received from White House) ..............................
5.2 Letter from Richard McLaren to Tod Hullin, July 30, 1970,        147
 with attached memorandum from Richard McLaren to John
 Ehrilchman (received from White House)
 ...............................................................
5.3 Memorandum from Richard McLaran to Tod Bullin, August 3,         153
 1970, with attachment] (received from White House)
 ...............................................................
5.4 Letter from ``Ned'' [Edvard Gerrity] to Vice           163
 President Spiro Agnew, August 7, 1970, with attached memorandum
 (received from House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee)
 ...............................................................
5.5 Memorandum from John Poole to Files, August 7, 1970              166
 (received from Department of Justice) .........................
5.6 M??randum from Tod Hullin to Richard McLaren, August 10,         168
 1970 (received from White House) ..............................
(8).............................................................  ......
5.7 Letter from Thorns Casey to Charles Colson, August 7, 1970,   ......
 with attach??nt (received from White House)....................
5.8 M??orandum from Charles Colson to John Ehrlichman, August        177
 10, 1970 (received from White House) ..........................
5,9 ?? from Ted Hullin to John Mitchell, August 11, 1970             178
 (received from White House) ...................................
5.10 John ?? testimony, 2 KCH 540, 542-43, 546,                179
 549-50 ..................................................
5.11 ??orandum from Edward Gerrity to John Ryan, August 10, 1970    185!
 (received from ??el Mitchell).. ....... ,......................
5.12 ??dum from John Ryan to William Merr??, Aug?? 24, 1970,         186
 House Interstate and Foreign Commerce ??, Special Subco??tee on     (8)
 Investigations, Hearings on Legislative Overoish?? of SEC:
 Inquiry into Withholding and Transfer of Agency Files
 Pertaining to ITT, 154-56 ...............................
6. On September 15, 1970 the trial in ITT-Grinnell began. In      ......
 ??oranda dated September 17, 1970 from ?? to Attorney General
 Mitchell and October l, 1970 from Colson to Ehrlichman, the ITT
 litigation was discussed. Ehrlichman and Colson stated their
 concern that McLaren's conduct of the ITT cases constituted an
 attack on ``bigness per se'' contrary to the
 Administration's expressed antitrust policy....................
6.1 United States v. International Telephone and Telesraph           190
 Corporation and Grinnell Corporation, Civ. No. 13319, Docket, 5
 ...............................................................
6.2 Memorandum from John Ehrlicman to John Mitchell, September       192
 17, 1970 (received from White House) ..........................
6.3 Memorandum from Charles Colson to John Ehrlichman, October       193
 1, 1970, with attachment (received from White House)                (9)
 ...............................................................
7. The trial of ITT-Grinnell was completed on October 30, 1970    ......
 and the case was taken under advisement. A Judgment for ITT on
 the merits was rendered on December 31, 1970. A notice of
 appeal was filed on March 1, 1971..............................
7.1 United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph           214
 Corporation and Grinnell Corporation, Civ. No. 13319, Docket,
 1,6-7 ...................................................
7.2 United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph           217
 Corporation, Opinion, December 31, 1970, 324 F. Supp. 19
 ...............................................................
8. On March 3, 1971 at ITT's request Geneen and Willis Merriam,      256
 ITT Vice President and Director of Washington Relations, met
 with Ehrlichman to discuss antitrust matters. 8.1 John
 Ehrlichman log, March 3, 1971 (received from SSC)
 ...............................................................
8.2 Letter from William Nerriam to John Ehrlichman, March 4,         257
 1971 (received from White House) ..............................
8.3 William Merriam testimony, 3 KCH 951 .......................     258
9.0 On March 20, 1971, on the motion of Solicitor General Erwin      260
 Gziswold, the time for the government to perfect ice appeal in
 ITT-Grinnell by filing its Jurisdictional statement was
 extended from March 31, 1971 to April 20, 1971. 9.1 United
 States v. International Telephone and ??h to ration,
 Application for Extension of Time and Order of the Supreme
 Court, March 20,'' 1971, and letter from the --Deputy
 Clerk of the Supreme Court to Solicitor General Erwin Griswold
 (received from Department of Justice) .........................
9.2 On March 30, 1971 Merriam sad Thom Casey, ITT Director of     ......
 9.3 Planning, met with Peter Peterson, Assistant to the
 President 10. ??ational Economic Affairs, to discuss a wide
 range of subjects ?? antitrust matters.........................
10.1 Peter Peterson affidavit, April 29, 1974. .................    268.
10.2 Letter from William Merriam to Peter Peterson, April 7,         271
 1971 (received from Peter Peterson) ...........................
11. It the request of Ehrlichman who said he spoke for the        ......
 President, Peterson met with Geneen end Merriam on Friday,
 April 16, 1971. They discussed various subjects relating to
 economic policy, including overall antitrust policy related to
 bigness. At the end of the meeting, Geneen and Merriam
 discussed ITT's specific antitrust problems, including the fact
 that the deadline for the government to perfect the ITT-
 Grinnell appeal was the following Tuesday, April 20. After the
 meeting Peterson telephoned Ehrlichman and reported on the
 meeting including the discussion of the ITT-Grinnell appeal.
 Ehrlichman indicated to Peterson that action was under way to
 postpone the appeal. The following week Peterson reported to
 the President on the meeting and his subsequent telephone call
 to Ehrlichman..................................................
11.1 Peter Peterson affidavit, April 29, 1974 ..................     278
11.2 Memorandum from Peter Peterson to the President, April 23,      281
 1971 (received from. White House) .............................
12 Also on April 16, 1971 Lawrence Walsh, a member of a law firm  ......
 had lens represented ITT, telephoned Deputy Accorue7 General
 Klein-.........................................................
11.4 Pursuant to that telephone conversation Walsh caused to be.  ......
11.5 to Kleindienst a letter and memorandum urging that before    ......
 the of Justice decided to pursue the ITT-Grinnell appeal to the
 Court it should undertake a review by all interested federal of
 the economic consequences of a Supreme Court decision
 favor??ble to the government. Copies of the rajah letter and
 memorandum were later that day to Peterson and Ehrlichman......
12.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 250 ........... ......     284
12.2 Lawrence Walsh testimony, 3 KCH 1038-39                   285
 ...............................................................

[[Page 29386]]

 
12.3 Letter from Lawrence Walsh to Richard Kleindienst, April        287
 16, 1971 rich attached ??orandum of (received from white House;
 reprinted at 2 KCH 26S-.68.....................................
12.4 Memorandum from William Merriam to Peter Peterson, April        304
 16, 1971 rich attached letter (received from Peter Peterson)
 ...............................................................
Letter from William Merriam to John Ehrlichman, April 16, 1971       305
 rich attached letter and memorandum of Law (received from White
 House) ........................................................
 


 
                                                            
 
13. On Monday morning, April 19, 1971 Kleindienst told Walsh by
 telephone that Kleindienst did not think the ITT-Grinnell
 appeal would be delayed, In a memorandum dazed April 19, 1971
 to Kleindienst, McLaren disputed the position taken by Walsh in
 his letter and memorandum of April 16 and urged that the ITT-
 Grinnell appeal not be delayed.................................
13.1 Lawrence Walsh testimony, 3 KCH 1039.......................     308
13.2 Memorandum from Richard McLaren to Richard Kleindienst,         309
 April 19, 1971 (received from Department of Justice)...........
14. Beginning at 3:03 p.m. on the afternoon of April 19, 1971
 the President met with Ehrlichman and George Shultz, Director
 of the Office of Management and Budget. The antitrust actions
 against ITT were among the subjects discussed. Ehrlichman said
 that the deadline for the ITT-Grinnell appeal was the following
 day and he reported that, despite his attempts to give the
 Justice Department ``signals,'' the appeal was being
 pursued. The President then telephoned Kleindienst and ordered
 him to drop the appeal. After the telephone conversation the
 President expressed his concern that McLaren's actions with
 respect to conglomerates were contrary to the Administration's
 antitrust policy...............................................
14.1 Tape recording of conversation among the President, John        312
 Ehrlichman and George Shultz, April 19, 1971,
 3:03--3:3& p.m., and House Judiciary Committee
 transcript thereof.............................................
14.2 Tape recording of telephone conversation between the            346
 President and Richard Kleindienst, April 19, 1971,
 3:04--3:09 p.m., and House Judiciary Com- mittee
 transcript thereof.............................................
15. After the President's telephone call Kleindienst met with
 McLaren and Solicitor General Erwin Griswold and directed that
 the Solicitor General apply to the Supreme Court for another
 extension of time. At 4:30 p.m. Kleindienst telephoned Walsh
 and informed him that the Solicitor General was arranging for
 an extension of time for the government to perfect its appeal..
15.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 250...................     350
15.2 Richard McLaren testimony, 2 KCH 252.......................     351
15.3 Ervin Griswold statement, 2 KCH 242-43...............     352
15.4 Erwin Griswold testimony, 2 KCH 373, 378-80..........     354
15.5 Lawrence Walsh testimony, 3 KCH 103g.......................     358
16. on Tuesday, April 20, 1971, on the motion of Solicitor
 General Griswold the time for the government to perfect its
 appeal in ITT-Grinnell by filling its Jurisdictional
 statement was extended from April 20, 1971 to May 20, 1971.....
16.1 United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph          360
 Corporation Application for Extension of Time filed by the
 Solicitor General and Order of the United States Supreme Court,
 April 20, 1971, with letter from the Deputy Clerk of the
 Supreme Court to Solicitor General Ervin Griswold (received
 from Department of Justice)....................................
16.2 United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph          365
 Corporation, Supreme Court Docket Apr/1 19 20 1971.............
17. Also on April 20, 1971 Felix Rohatyn, an investment banker       368
 who was a director of ITT, met with Kleindienst to discuss the
 economic and financial fabrications of divestiture of the
 Hartford Fire Insurance Company by ITT. At the meeting Rohatyn
 asked to present these arguments to McLaren, and such a
 presentation was later arranged for April 29. 17.1 Richard
 Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 96-97.......................
17.2 Felix Rohatyn testimony, 2 CKCH 114........................     370
18, On April 21, 1971 the President met with Attorney General
 Mitchell and discussed, among ocher things, the ITT-Grinnell
 appeal. The President said that he did not care about the
 aeries of the case but that the business community believed
 that the Administration was being even rougher on it in
 antitrust matters than had previous admin- istrations. Mitchell
 argued that it was a political mistake to inter- fete with the
 appeal. The President agreed to heed Mitchell's advice to
 permit the appeal to be perfected..............................
18.1 Tape recording of the end of a meeting between the              372
 President and John Mitchell, April 21, 1971, 4:18--6:13
 p.m., and House Judiciary Committee transcript thereof.........
19. During the 1eat ten days of April 1971 Geneen and Merriam of
 ITT wrote four letters to Administration officials --- one
 to Secretary of the Treasury John Connally and three to Peter
 Peterson--containing references to antitrust matters. Two
 of the letters commented favorably on the ITT-Grinnell appeal
 delay..........................................................
19.1 Memorandum from William Merriam to Peter Peterson, April        378
 22, 1971, with attached letter from Harold G??neen to Peter
 Peterson, April 22, 1971 (received from Peter Peterson)........
19.2 Letter from William Neff/am to 3ohu Connally, April 22,         386
 1971 (received from white House)...............................
19.3 Memorandum from Peter Peterson to John Ehrlichman Dick          388
 [sic] Krogh, April 27, 1971, with attached letter from William
 Merriam to Peter Peterson, April 26, 1971 (received from White
 House).........................................................
19.4 Memorandum from Peter Peterson to John Ehrlich??an sad Dick     391
 [sic] Krogh, May 3, 1971, with attached letter from William
 Merriam to Peter Peterson, April 30, 1971 (received from White
 House..........................................................
20. On April 28, 1971 Ehrlichman wrote a memorandum to the
 President criticizing McLaren for failure to follow the
 Administration's antitrust policy, then under study by a
 Domestic Council Task Force, and recom- mending action to be
 taken. The President approved Ehrlichman's recon- ??dations....
20.1 Memorandum from John Ehrlichman to the President, April 28,    20.2
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
Memorandum from John Ehrlichman to Members of the Domestic          20.3
 Council, February 19, 1971 (received from Department of
 Justice).......................................................
Memorandum from Egil Krogh to Richard McLaren, Apr11 30, 1971       20.4
 (received from White House)....................................
Memorandum fro.- John Ehrlichman to John Connally, John              21.
 Mitchell, George Shultz, Paul McCracken, Peter Peterson, and
 Peter Flanigan, September 14, 1971 (received from Department of
 Justice).......................................................
On April 29, 1971 Rohatyn accompanied by four ITT
 representatives ??et with Kleindienst, McLaren and Antitrust
 Division and Treasury Depart- ment staff members. The ITT
 representatives presented ITT's position that there would be
 adverse economic and financial consequences if the divestiture
 of Hartford were required. Following the meeting McLaren caused
 these arguments to be submitted to the Treasury .Department and
 to Richard Ramsden, an independent financial consultant who had
 previously rendered advice to the Antitrust Division...........
21.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 98....................     404

[[Page 29387]]

 
21.2 Richard McLaren test , 2 KCH 102-03,.................     405
21.3 Felix Rohatyn testimony, 2 KCH 114-16................     407
21.4 Richard Kleindienst notes of Apr11 29, 1971 meeting             410
 (received from Department of Justice)..........................
21.5 Letter from Felix Rohatyn to Richard McLaren, Nay 3, 1971       419
 (received from Department of Justice)..........................
22. Beginning in April 1971 Mitche11, Haldeman, Lawrence Higby,
 Gordon Strschan, William Timmons, Jeb Magruder and Robert Odle
 participated in the initial planning of the 1972 Republican
 National Convention and began to consider San Diego as a
 possible site. A memorandum from Higby to Strachan dated April
 29, 1971 states that Haldeman discussed the pos- sibility of a
 San Diego convention with California's Lt. Governor. Ed
 Reinecke. The memorandum states that Reinecke would, as a
 result of his discussion with Haldeman, cause a proposal for
 San Diego to be the con- vention size to be made to the
 Republican National Committee..................................
22.1 Memorandum from William Timmons to H. R. Haldeman, April        425
 20, 1971 (received from White House)...........................
22.2 Memorandum from Lawrence Higby to H. g. Haldeman, April 20,     426
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
22.3 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman, April        427
 21, 1971 (received from White House)...........................
22.4 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. ``R. Haldeman,       428
 April 23, 1971 (received from White House).....................
22.5 Memorandum from Lawrence Higby to Cordon Strachan, April        429
 29, 1971 (received from White House)...........................
22.6 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldemam, Nay 11,      430
 1971 with attached memorandum from William Tim??ons to H. R.
 Haldeman, Hay 6, 1971, and attached report (received from White
 House).........................................................
22.7 Memorandum from Robert Odle to Jet) Magruder, Hay 19, 1971      448
 (received from White House)....................................
22.8 Memorandum from Robert Odle to William Timmons, May 20,         454
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
22.9 Letter from Ed Reinecke to Will/me Timmons June 2, 1971         455
 (received from White House)....................................
22.10 Memorandum from Robert Odle to Jab Magruder, June 15, 1971     456
 (received from White House)....................................
22.11 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman, June        458
 23, 1971 with attached memorandum from Robert Odle to Jab
 Hagruder, June 22, 1971, and attached memorandum from William
 Timmons to H. R. Haldeman, June 21, 1971 (received from White
 House).........................................................
22.12 Memorandum from Cordon Strachan to H. It. Haldeman, June       464
 25, 1971 (received from White House)...........................
22.13 Memorandum from Cordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman, June        465
 29, 1971, with attached memorandum from Jeb Magruder and
 William Timmons to John Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman, June 26,
 1971, and attachments (received from White House)..............
23. In a memorandum dated Hay 5, 1971 Ehrlichman informed            526
 Mitchell that he desired to meet with McLaren about the ITT
 cases to achieve the agreed-upon ends discussed by the
 President and Mitchell. 23.1 Memorandum from John Ehrlichman to
 John Mitchell, Hay 5, 1971 (received from White House).........
24. On May 12, 1971 ITT President Geneen discussed rich              528
 Congressman Bob Wilson, whose district included part of San
 Diego, the possibility of ITT financial support for a San Diego
 convention bid. 24.1 Harold Geneen testimony, 2 KCH
 647-48...................................................
24.2 Bob Wilson testimony, 3 KCH 866-67...................     530
25. On May 17, 1971 the government's appeal in
 ITT-Grinnell was perfected by the filing of a
 Jurisdictional statement.......................................
25.1 United States v. International Telephone and Telegraph          534
 Corporation, Notice of Docketing of Appeal, United States
 Supreme Court, Hay 17, 1971 (received from Department of
 Justice).......................................................
26. By report dated Nay 17, 1971 Richard Ra??sden reported his
 findings on the ITT position with respect to the financial
 ramifications of divesti- ture of Hartford.....................
26.1 Ramsden Report, International Telephone and Telegraph           538
 Corporation, May 17, 1971, 2 KCH 103-10..................
26.2 Richard McLaren testimony, 2 KCH 103, 110..................     546
27. On June 17, 1971 McLaren recommended to Kleindienst that the
 ITT suits be settled. His proposed settlement included the
 requirement that 1TT divest itself of Grinnell, Canteen, and
 certain other ITT subsidiaries, but per??tted ITT to retain
 Hartford Fire Insurance Company, The basic terms of the
 settlement offer were put to ITT on a take it or leave it basis
 and were accepted. Details of the settlement Were then
 negotiated among ITT and Antitrust Division lawyers,...........
27.1 Memorandum from Richard McLaren to Richard Kleindienst,         550
 June 17, 1971 (received fro,, Department of Justice)...........
27.2 Richard McLaren testimony, 2 KCH 110-13..............     553
27.3 Felix Rohatyn testimony, 2 KCH ll5.........................     557
27.4 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 98-99...........     558
28. San Diego's convention bid was authorized by the San Diego
 City Council on June 29, 1971. On July 21, 1971 ITT-Sheraton's
 President, Howard James, confirmed by telegram his company's
 commitment to the San Diego Convention and Tourist Bureau of
 $100,000 for convention- related expenses plus an additional
 $100,000 if and when $200,000 was raised by the Bureau from
 other non-public sources. The pledge was subject to the
 condition that the Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel, then under
 construction, be used as Presidential convention headquarters.
 The decision for San Diego to be the convention site was made
 within the Administration and transmitted to the Republican
 National Committee. On July 23, 1971 the Republican National
 Committee selected San Diego as the 1972 convention site.......
28.1 San Diego City Council resolution, June 29, 1971 (received      563
 from San Diego City Council)...................................
28.2 Memorandum from Jeb Magruder to John Mitchell, June 30,         568
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
28.3 Memorandum from Herbert Klein to H. R. Haldeman, June 30,       569
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
28.4 Memorandum from William Timmons to Jeb Magruder, July 3,        574
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
28.5 Memorandum from Herbert Klein to the President, July 19,        575
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
28.6 Memorandum from William Timmons to the President, July 19,      576
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
28.7 Memorandum from Jo Good to Robert Dole, July 19, 1971           578
 (received from White House)....................................
28.8 Memorandum from Jeb Magruder Co 3ohm Mitchell, July 28,         582
 1971 with attached memorandum from Robert Odle to Jeb Magruder,
 ,July 27, 1971 (received from White House).....................
 


 
                                                            
 
28.9 Telegram from Howard James to Bob Wilson, July 21, 1971, 2      588
 KCH 678-79...............................................
28.10 Harold Geneen testimony, 2 KCH 648-49...............     590
28.11 Resolution on Selection of the Site for the 1972               592
 Republican National Convention, July 23, 1971..................
29. On July 31, 1971, after riff and Antitrust Division lawyers
 had negotiated details of the settlement of the ITT litigation,
 the settlement no announced....................................
29.1 Richard NcLaren testimony, 2 KCH 110-14..............     596
29.2 Pelix Rohatyn testimony, 2 KCH 115.........................     601

[[Page 29388]]

 
29.3 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 99....................     602
30. A Sheraton Harbor Island Corporation check for $100,000
 dated August: 5, 1971 and representing the non-contingent
 portion of ITT's pledge yes delivered to r. he San Diego
 Convention and Tourist Bureau..................................
30.1 Photograph of check from Sheraton Harbor Island Corporation
 to the San Diego Convention and Tourist Bureau printed in
 Washington Post. March 16. 1972................................
A13.............................................................     604
31. On February 15, 1972 the President no??inated Richard G.
 Kleindienst to be Attorney General Co succeed John Mitchell who
 yes leaving the Department of Justice and who later became
 Campaign Director of the Committee for the Reelection of the
 President. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings
 on the nomination and reco??endation on February 24, 1972 that
 the nomination be confirmed,...................................
31.1 Announcement of President's Intention Co Nominate Richard      606,
 Kleindienst to be Attorney General, 8 Presidential Documents
 440, 448.......................................................
31.2 Letter from President Nixon Co John Mitchell, February 15,      608
 1972, 8 Presidential Decuments 439.............................
31.3 S. Exec. Rept. 92-19, Nomination of Richard               609
 Kleindienst, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)........................
31.4 Chicago Tribune, February 25, 1972, Section 2A, l..........     612
32. On February 22, 1972 columnist Jack Anderson obtained from
 an ITT source a memorandum dated June 25, 1971 purportedly
 written by ITT lobbyist Dita Beard addressed to ITT Vice
 President Merriam regarding the ITT-Sheraton convention pledge
 and settlement of the ITT antitrust cases. Anderson's
 investigative reporters contacted first Dita Beard Co discuss
 and confirm the memorandum's validity sad then ITT and
 Administration officials co discuss and attempt to confirm the
 events reported in the memorandum. On February 24, 1972 ITT
 personnel destroyed documents in the Washington office files...
32.1............................................................
32.2............................................................
32.3............................................................
32.&........................................................
32.5............................................................
32.6............................................................
Purported memorandum from Dita Beard to William Merriam, June        614
 25, 1971, (received. from White House) reprinted in 2 KCH
 447-48...................................................
Jack Anderson Testimony, 2 KCH 449..............................     618
Brit Hume testimony, 2 KCH 408-14.........................     619
Felix Rohatyn testimony, 2 KCH 115-16.....................     626
Washington Post, March 3, 1972, D15.............................     628
Howard Aibel testimony, 2 KCH 704-05......................     629
33. In a February 28, 1972 Department of Justice press release
 Mitchell said he had met Dita Beard only once, at a party given
 by Governor Louis Nunn of Kentucky in May 1971, Mitchell denied
 allegations that he had discussed the ITT antitrust cases with
 her. He also denied in the press release that he had discussed
 the ITT matter with the President..............................
33.1 John Mitchell statement, Department of Justice press            632
 release, February 28, 1972 (received from Department of
 Justice).......................................................
On February 29, March 1 and March 3, 1972 there were published
 three columns by Jack Anderson based in part on the Beard
 memorandum. The articles alleged a connection between the ITT-
 Sheraton pledge and the ITT antitrust settlement and purported
 Co involve both Mitchell and Kleindienst. As a result of the
 publication of the first two articles Kleindienst asked that
 his confirmation hearings be reopened..........................
34.1 Washington Pose, February 29, March 1, March 3, 1972.......     634
34.2 Washington Post, March 1, 1972, Al.........................     637
35. General, Mitchell again denied talking to the President
 about ITT or any other antitrust case, On March 1, X972 during
 his final press conference as Attorney.........................
35.1 John Mitchell press conference, Hatch 1, 1972, 1-2     6&
 (received from SSC)............................................       0
On or about March 1, 1972 a member of the staff of the SEC that
 ITT produce documents in the files of ITT's Washington, D.C.
 office. The SEC staff member contended that production of the
 documents was called for by subpoenas previously issued In
 connection With SEC proceedings. Attorneys for ITT collected
 documents believed to be included in the SEC demand............
36.1 Michael Mitchell affidavit submitted to House Judiciary         646
 Committee, Hay l, 197&, with attachments...................
37. On Thursday 14arch 2, 1972 pursuant to Kleindienst's request
 the confirmation hearings resumed and Kleindienst, testifying
 under oath, denied talking other than casually to the White
 House and White House staff about the ITT matter. He denied
 receiving any suggestions from the White House as to the action
 that the Justice Department should take in the ITT cases.......
37.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 95-96, 157......     678
On the same day an ITT attorney delivered copies of one or more
 of the documents collected by ITT attorneys from ITT's
 Washington office files to White House aide Wallace H. Johnson.
 The document or documents were the conveyed by Johnson to John
 Mitchell. During the following week copies of other documents
 taken from the ITT Washington office which mentioned the ITT
 antitrust suits and contacts between ITT and administration
 officials were delivered by ITT attorneys to Johnson...........
38.1 Michael Mitchell affidavit, submitted co House Judiciary        682
 Committee, May 1, 1974, with attach-mats,......................
38.2 Wallace Johnson affidavit, April 25, 1974,.................     713
38.3 John Mitchell log, March 2, 1972 (received from SSC).......     717
39. On the evening of Hatch 2, 1972 Dita Beard, having spent two
 days at the ITT offices in New York City, left Washington by
 airplane for Denver, Colorado en route to West Yellowstone,
 Montana. During the flight she became ill and on the evening of
 Hatch 3, 1972 she was admitted to a Denver hospital............
39.1 Dita Beard statement, 2 KCH 741-42...................     720
39.2 Edward Gerrity testimony, 3 KCH 1167.......................     722
39.3 United Air Lines passenger ticket, issued to D. Beard for       723
 Flight 175, Hatch 2, 1972 (received from United Air Lines).....
39.4 Stewardess report on passenger illness of Mrs. Beard,        72&
 occuring on Flight 175, March 2, 1972 (received from United Air       
 Lines).........................................................
39.5 Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to Chairman James o. Eastland,      725
 March 5, 1972, 2 FCH 213.......................................
39.6 Medical Report by Dr. Joseph Snyder, Hatch 13, 1972, 2 KCH      726
 637-39...................................................
 


[[Page 29389]]


 
                                                            
 
On Friday, March 3, 1972 Kleindienst, in his testimony before
 Senate Committee on the Judiciary, denied consulting with,
 reporting or getting directions from anybody at the White House
 about the ITT trust cases, He also testified that he did not
 recall why on April1971 the Department of Justice requested a
 delay in the appeal of the ITT-Grinnell case Co the Supreme
 Court. 40.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 95, 181, 191,
 203-04...................................................
On the afternoon of Sunday, March 5, 1972, the President and
 Haldeman returned to Washington, DC from Kay Biscayne. On
 Monday, March 6, 1972 the President had conversations with
 Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Colson. At about 1:30 p.m., shortly
 after leaving the President's office, Ehrlich?? met with SEC
 Chairman Casey.................................................
41.1 John Ehrlichman log, March 6, 1972 (received from SSC).....     736
41.2 Meetings and conversations between the President and John       737
 Ehrlichman, March 6, 1972 (received from White House)..........
41.3 Meetings and conversations between the President and H. R.      739
 Haldeman, March 1, March $ and March 6, 1972 (received from
 White House)...................................................
41.4 Meetings and conversations between the President and            741
 Charles Colson, March 6, 1972 (received from White House)......
41.5 John Ehrlichman log, March 21, 1972 (received from SSC)....     742
41.6 William Casey testimony, House Interstate and Foreign        7&
 Commerce Committee, Special. subcommittee on Investigations,          3
 Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC: Agency Independence
 and the ITT Case, Jun 27, 1973, 261-64, 309-30.....
41.7 William Casey calendar, March 6, 1972 (received from U.S.       749
 Attorney, Southern District of New York).......................
42. On Tuesday, March 7, 1972 in a prepared statement given
 under oath before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
 Kleindienst described the circumstances surrounding the request
 for an extension of time to appeal ITT-Grinnell. He omitted
 mention of the President's order to drop the case made during
 their telephone conversation o April 19, 1971..................
42.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 95, 249-50......     752
43. On March 8, 1972 Kleindienst testified before the Senate
 Committee an the Judiciary and denied again that he was
 interfered with, pressured, importuned or directed by anybody
 at the white House in connection rich the discharge of his
 responsibilities in the ITT cases,.............................
43.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 95, 323, 353..........     756
In early March 1972 a White House cask force, consisting of
 Khrlichman, Colson, Moore, Dean, Fielding, Johnson, Assistant
 Attorney General Robert C. Mardian and others, was established
 Co follow the Kleindienst hearings; its activities continued
 throughout the month. was given the responsibility of reviewing
 White House files and collecting all documents relating to ITT,
 which he proceeded to do.......................................
44.1 Charles Colson testimony, House Interstate and Foreign       760''
 Commerce Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations,
 Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC: Agency Independence
 and the ITT Case, 218..........................................
44.2 Richard Moore testimony, 5 SSC 1947-48...............     761
44.3 Wallace Johnson affidavit, April 25, 197&..............     763
44.4 Robert Mardian testimony, 6 SSC 2348.......................     767
44.5 John Dean testimony, House Interstate end Foreign Commerce      768
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Agency Independence and the ITT
 Case, 66, 6&...............................................
On March 14, 1972 John Mitchell appeared before the Senate
 Committee on the Judiciary and trice denied under oath that he
 talked to the President about the ITT antitrust litigation or
 any antitrust litigation. On the evening of March 14, 1972 the
 President and Mitchell had a telephone conversation which,
 according to Mitchell's logs, was their only telephone
 conversation during the month..................................
45.1 John Mitchell testimony, 2 KCR 539, 552, 571...............     772
45.2 John Mitchell log, March 14, 1972 (received from SSC)......
On March 15, 1972 E. Howard Hunt met rich Colson. Johnson and It
 was determined that Hunt should interview Hoe. Beard the
 authenticity of the purported Beard memorandum. Hunt flew to
 Denver and interviewed Mrs. Beard in her hospital room. On
 March 17, after his return Co Washington, he ?? a detailed
 e??ary of the interview........................................
46.! Charles Colson calendar, March 15, 1972 (received from SSC)     778
46.2 ??. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3734-35,                 780
 3752-53..................................................
46.3 Charles Colson testimony, House Interstate and Foreign          784
 Commerce Committee, Special Subco??ee on Investigations,
 Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC: Agency Independence
 and the ITT Case, 201-03.................................
46.4 Memorandum regarding Dita B?? March 17, 1972 (received from  787'
 White House)...................................................
47. ``ITT'' is written on Colson's calendar for the
 morning of March 18, 1972. Colson had three telephone
 conversations with ??he during the morning. That afternoon the
 Pre??ent and Colson met for more than two hours................
47.1 Charles Colson calendar, Hatch 18, 1972 (received from SSC)     796
47.2 John Mitchell log, March 18, 1972 (received from SSC)......     797
47.3 Meetings and conversations between the President and            798
 Charles Colson, Hatch 18, 1972 (received from White House).....
8. On March 24, 1972 the President held his only news conference
 during the period of the ??eindienst nomination hearings. He
 stated that nothing had happened in the Senate hearings that
 shook his confidence in Kleindienst as an able, honest wan
 fully qualified to be Attorney General. He also praised the
 actions of Richard McLaren, and the ??, in having moved
 effectively to stop the growth of ITT..........................
48.1 President Nixon news conference, March 24, 1972, 8              800
 Presidential Documents 673 75 *................................
49. On the morning of Hatch 30, 1972 Colson, Haldeman and
 NacGregor met. That afternoon Colson sent a memorandum to
 Haldeman stating that certain factors should be taken into
 account in determining whether to continue co support, or to
 withdraw, Kleindienst's nomination, including the possibility
 that documents would be revealed tending to show that the
 President yes involved in the ITT situation in 1971 and
 contradicting statements made by Mitchell under oath during the
 hearings. Haldeman and Colson each had several conversations
 with the President on that day.................................
49.1 Memorandum from Charles Colson to H. R. Haldeman, Hatch 30,     805
 1972, 55C Exhibit No. 121, 8 S5C 3372-76.................
&9.2 Letter from William Merriam to John Connally, April 22,     810
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
49.3 Letter from William Merriam to Peter Peterson, April 30,        812
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
49.4 Letter from ``Ned'' [Edward Gerrity] to Vice          813
 President Spiro Agnew, August 7, 1970, with attached memorandum
 (received from House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee)
49.5 Memorandum from John Ryan to William Merriam, August 24,        816
 1970, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Special
 Subcommittee on Investigations, Legislative Oversight of SEC:
 Agency Independence and the IT? Case, 154-56, and partial
 handwritten copy of memorandum (received from White House).....
49.6 Memorandum from Herbert Klein to H. R. Haldeman, June 30,       820
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
49.7 Memorandum from Richard Kleindienst and Richard McLaren to      821
 John Ehrlichman, April 23, 1969 (received from White Home).....

[[Page 29390]]

 
49.8 Memorandum free Ted Hullin to Richard McLaren, August 10,       827
 1970 (received from 9hire Home)................................
49.9 Memorandum from ??ohn Ehrlichman to John Mitchell,              828
 September 17, 1970 (received from White Home)..................
 


 
                                                            
 
49.10 14urnrandom from John Ehrlichman to John Mitchell, May 5,      829
 1971 (received from White House)...............................
&9.11 Memoranda ``from John Ehrlichman to the               830
 President, April 28, 1971 and Nay 3, 1971 (received from White
 House).........................................................
49.12 a. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3216, 3218-19.......     834
49.13 H. R. Haldeman calendar, March 30, 1972 (received from         837
 SSC)...........................................................
49.14 Meetings and conversations between the President and H. R.     838
 Haldeman, March 30, 1972 (received from White House)...........
49.15 Meetings and conversations between the President and           839
 Charles Colson, March 30, 1972 (received from White House).....
50. On April 4, 1972 Mitchell returned co his office after about
 two weeks in Florida. That afternoon he met with the President
 and Haldeman at the White House. According to Haldeman's
 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential
 Campaign Activities, notes Oaken during the meeting indicate
 that the Kleindienst hearings were discussed...................
$0.1 John Mitchell log, March 21--April 4, 1972 (received       842
 from SSC)......................................................
50.2 Meetings and conversations between the President and H. R.      845
 Haldeman, April 4, 1972 (received from White House)............
50.3 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 7 SSC 2866, 2881.................     846
On April 27, 1972, the final day of the Kleindienst
 confirmation, Kleindienst, referring co his earlier testimony
 about commin-with persons at the White House, testified that if
 someone had him to instruct him on the handling of the ITT
 case, he would such a call. Kleindienst said that no such
 conversation...................................................
51.1 Richard Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 95, 3 KCH 1673. 1682..     850
51.2 Richard Kleindienst statement, October 31, 1973, reprinted      853
 in New York Times, November 1, 1973, 33........................
$2. The press provided extensive news coverage and frequent
 editorial commentary on the Kleindienst confirmation hearings.
 John Mitchell's denials that he discussed the ITT cases with
 President Nixon were reported. Richard Kleindienst's
 descriptions of his role in the ITT-Grinnell appeal and
 settlement were also reported; these descriptions omitted
 reference to the President's order that the appeal be dropped..
52.1 Newspaper articles from The New York Times and The              856
 Washington Poet, February 25--June 28, 1972, regarding
 hearings on the Nomination of Richard Kleindienst to be
 Attorney General...............................................
52.2 The Washington Post, March 10, 1972, A-l, A-12.     857
52.3 The New York Times, March 15, 1972, 1, 34..................     858
52.4 The Washington Post, April 27, 1972, A-l, A-7..     859
52.5 The Washington Post, April 28, 1972, A-l, A-6..     860
By letter dated April 25, 1972 from Senator Eastland, Chairman
 the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, co SEC Chairman William
 Casey, Eastland requested access co ITT documents in the
 possession of SEC. This request was denied by Chairman Casey.
 If* Chairman Casey complied with the Senate Judiciary
 Committee's request the SEC would the Committee with, along
 ocher things, the following not obtained by the Comic tee
 during the course of the Kleindienst hearings:.................
1. Letter dated April 22, 1971 from Harold Geneed Co Peter
 Peterson concerning their April 16, 1971 nesting rich
 memorandum on antitrust policy attached........................
2. Letter dated April 22, 1971 from William Merriam co John
 Connally relenting to the ITT antitrust litigation.............
3. Letter dated April 26, 1971 from William Merriam ??o Peter
 Petersou referring to planned antitrust legislation............
&. Letter dated April 30, 1971 from William Merriam to Peter
 Peterson referring to Solicitor General Griswold's request for
 am extension of time Co perfect the ITT-Grinnell appeal. Letter
 dated August 7, 1970 from Thomas Casey of ITT co Charles Colson
 discussing the pending ITT antitrust litigation................
6. Letter dated August 7, 1970 from ``Ned'' [Edward
 Gerrity] Co Vice President Spiro Agnew with memorandum about
 ITT antitrust ??gat/on attached................................
7. ITT Later-corporate memorandum dated August 10, 1970 from
 Edward Gerrity co John Ryan discussing, among ocher things,
 Richard McLaren and the Admini-aeration's merger policy........
8. ITT inter-corporate memorandum dated August 24, 1970 from
 William Merriam to John Ryan discussing, among other things,
 the ITT antitrust litigation, Richard McLaren and contacts with
 the Administration.............................................
53.1 Letter from Senators Kennedy, Bayh, Hart, Burdick and           865
 Tunney to Chairman James Eastland, April 19, 1972, 3 KCH 1664..
53.2 Letter from William Casey to Chairman James Eastland, April     866
 26, 1972, 3 KCH 1664...........................................
53.3 Letter from Edward Kennedy to Chairman Harley Staggers,
 December 13, 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Sub-committee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into Withholding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT,....................
28-29.....................................................     867
53.4 Michael Mitchell affidavit, submitted to House Judiciary        869
 Committee, May 1, 1974, with attachmute........................
On June 8, 1972 the Senate confirmed Kleindienst's nomination.
 On June 12, 1972 he became Attorney General. 10154.1...........
54.2............................................................
Congressional Record, June 8, 1972, S9114-15..............     902
President Hixon remarks at swearing-in ceremonies for Richard        904
 Kleindienst as Attorney General, June 12, 1972, 8 Presidential
 Documents 1024.................................................
(61)............................................................
55. On three occasions in September 1972 Congressman Harley
 Staggers, Chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, requested
 from SEC Chairman William Casey access to material received
 from ITT by the SEC in connection with the SEC's investigation
 of ITT. Chairman Casey discussed Chairman Staggers''
 request with Mitchell, Dean and Colson. By letters to Chairman
 Staggers, Chairman Casey refused the requests. The ITT material
 was transferred by the SEC to the Department of Justice on
 October 6, 1972. In addition, an envelope containing other
 documents obtained from ITT which reflected contacts in 1970
 and 1971 between representatives of ITT and Administration
 officials was delivered separately by the SEC to the office of
 Deputy Attorney General Erickson...............................
55.1 Letter from Chairman Harley Staggers to William Casey,          907
 September 21, 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into Withholding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT, 5..................
55.2 Chairman Harley Staggers statement, House Interstate and        908
 Foreign Coerce Committee, Special Subcommittee on
 Investigations, Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC:
 Inquiry into Withholding and Transfer of Agency Files
 Pertaining to ITT, 23..........................................

[[Page 29391]]

 
55.3 Letter from Chairman Harley Staggers to William Casey,          909
 September 28, 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into Withholding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT, 6-8..........
55.4 William Casey testimony, House Interstate and Foreign           922
 Commerce Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations,
 Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC: Agency Independence
 and the ITT Case, 230, 235, 241, 250-51, 260-62....
(62)............................................................
55.5 Letter from William Casey to Chairman Harley Staggers,
 September 26, 1973, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into Withholding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT,....................
5-6.......................................................     920
55.6 Letter from William Casey to Chairman Harley Staggers,
 October 6, 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into Withholding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT,....................
8-9.......................................................     922
55.7 Letter from William Casey to Ralph Erickson, October 5,
 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Special
 Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on Legislative
 Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into Withholding and Transfer of
 Agency Files Pertaining to ITT,................................
135-36....................................................     924
55.8 Charles Mallory testimony, House Interstate and Foreign
 Commerce Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations,
 Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry into
 Withholding and Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT,....
86-89.....................................................     928
55.9 Ralph Erickson testimony, House Interstate and Foreign          930
 Commerce Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations,
 Hearings on Legislative Oversight of SEC: Agency Independence
 and the ITT Case, 128-30, 149-64...................
In 8 letter dated October 17, 1972 Chairman Staggers requested
 from Deputy Attorney General Erickson access to the ITT
 materials referred to the Department of Justice by the SEC.
 Erickson denied the request on the grounds that disclosure
 might prejudice any future criminal proceedings................
56.1 Letter from Chairman Harley Staggers to Ralph Erickson,         950
 October 17, 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Lagislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry Into With holding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT, 9-10.........
56.2 Letter from Ralph Erickson to Chairman Harley Staggers,         952
 October 26, 1972, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
 Committee, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Hearings on
 Legislative Oversight of SEC: Inquiry Into Withholding and
 Transfer of Agency Files Pertaining to ITT, 10-11........
57. On January 8, 1974 the Office of the White House Press Secre-
 issued a ``White Paper'' entitled, ``The ITT
 Anti-Trust Decision,'' describing the President's role in
 the ITT antitrust cases and their settlement...................
 

    57.1 White House ``White Paper'', The ITT Anti-Trust 
Decision. January 8, 1974 ............................... 956
    58. On May 16, 1974, Richard Kleindienst pleaded guilty to one 
count of refusing or failing fully to respond to questions 
propounded to him by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 
2, 3, 7, and 8 and April 27, 1972.
    58.1 United States v. Kleindienst information, May 16, 1974, 
with attached Watergate Special Prosecution Force press release 
........................................ 966
    58.2 Letter from Leon Javorski to Herbert J. Miller, May 10, 
1974 (received from Watergate Special Prosecution Force) 
......................................... 969
    PURPORTED DITA BEARD MEMORANDUM, JUNE 25, 1971,
    PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
    Washington Office
    1707 L Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    Tel. (202) 296-6000
To: W.R. Merriam
Date: June25, 1971
From: D.D. Beard
Subject: .San Diego Convention
    I just had a long talk with EJG. I'm so sorry that we got that 
call from the White House. I thought you and I had agreed very 
thoroughly that under no circumstances would anyone in this office 
discuss with anyone bur participation in the Convention, including 
me. Other than permitting John Mitchell, Ed Reinecke, Bob Haldeman 
and Nixon (besides Wilson, of course) no one has known from whom 
that 400 thousand committment had come. You can't imagine how many 
queries I've had from ``friends'' about this situation and 
I have in each and every case denied knowledge of any kind. It would 
be wise for all of us here to continue to do that, regardless of 
from whom any questions come; White House or whoever. John Mitchell 
has certainly kept it on the higher level only, we should be able to 
do the same.
    I was afraid the discussion about the three hundred/four hundred 
thousand committment would come up soon. If you remember, I sug- 
geared that we all stay out of that. other than the fact that I told 
you I had heard Hal up the original amount.
    * Now I understand from Ned that both he and you are upset 
about- the decision to make it four hundred in services. Believe me, 
this is not what Hal said. Just after I talked with Ned, Wilson 
called me, to report oh his meeting with Hal. Hal at no time told 
Wilson that our donation would be in services ONLY. In fact, quite 
the contrary, There would be very little cash involved, but 
certainly some. I am convinced, because of several conversations 
with Louie re Mitchell, that our noble committment has gone a long 
way toward our negotia- tions on the mergers eventually coming out 
as Hal wants them. Cer- tainly the President has told Mitchell to 
see that things are worked out. fairly. It is still only McLaren's 
mickey-mouse we are suffering.
    We all know Hal and his big mouth.* But this is one time he 
cannot tell you and Ned one thing and Wilson (and me) another! I 
hope dear Bill. that all of this can be reconciled--between Hal 
and Wilson--if all of us in this office remain totally ignorant 
of any committment ITT has made to anyone. If it gets too much 
publicity. you can believe our negotiations with Justice will wind 
up sho?? down. Mitchell is definitely helping us, but cannot let it 
be known. Please destroy this, huh??
    EXHIBIT B
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    ORDER
    In light of the recent tragic events affecting our Nation, this 
Court regards the benefit which will be derived from a quick 
resolution of these cases as increasingly significant. Accordingly, 
to avoid the expenditure of the parties'' financial resources 
on litigation costs which will surely be incurred if these cases 
continue to be litigated, the Court will order the parties into 
settlement for a fixed period of time, commencing as of the date of 
this Order and expiring on November 2, 2001. The Court expects that 
during this time the parties and counsel will fully expend and 
concentrate all of their resources upon resolving these cases 
through a fair settlement for all parties. If the cases have not 
been fully resolved through settlement by November 2, 2001, then the 
Court will proceed with the scheduling order

[[Page 29392]]

to be addressed at the September 28, 2001, scheduling conference and 
entered immediately thereafter.
    The parties have indicated that if the cases are to be settled 
they can best resolve these cases without the assistance from a 
mediator. It has been three months since the appellate court 
rendered its decision with no resolution reached by the parties. The 
Court will give the parties until October 12, 2001, to settle the 
cases on their own. However, if at the end of that time, they have 
not been fully successful, the parties shall submit to Chambers, on 
October 12, 2001, the name of an agreed-upon individual to act as 
facilitator/mediator to assist the parties in their efforts. If the 
parties cannot agree upon an individual, then the Court will appoint 
such an individual to act as their facilitator/mediator. Any payment 
due the facilitator/mediator shall be borne equally among the three 
parties. At ten-day intervals, without disclosing or discussing the 
contents of the settlement discussion, the parties Shall participate 
in a conference call to apprize the Court of their progress in 
settling the cases. The Court will not entertain any requests for 
extensions of the deadlines.
    The Court cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of making 
these efforts to settle the cases and resolve the parties'' 
differences in this time of rapid national change. The claims by 
Plaintiffs of anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft arose over six 
years ago, and these cases have been litigated in the trial and 
appellate court for over four years. As the Court of Appeals has 
noted, the relevant time frame for this dispute spans ``an 
eternity in the computer industry.'' The Court expects that the 
parties will act in good faith and will engage in an all-out effort 
to settle these cases, meeting seven days a week and around the 
clock, acting reasonably to reach a fair resolution.
    Based on the foregoing, it is this day of September, 2001, 
hereby
    ORDERED that all proceedings in the above captioned cases are 
stayed until November 2, 2001; and it is further
    ORDERED that during this time, counsel shall focus all of their 
attention on the settlement of these cases; and it is further
    ORDERED that the parties shall be permitted to proceed without a 
facilitator/mediator until October 12, 2001, and thereafter until a 
facilitator/mediator is appointed; and it is further
    ORDERED that if no resolution is reached by October 12, 2001, on 
that date, the parties shall submit to Chambers the name of an 
agreed-upon individual to serve as a facilitator/mediator;
    if the parties axe unable to agree upon such an individual, the 
Court will appoint such an individual to serve as a facilitator/
mediator; and it is further
    ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a conference call 
to Chambers on October 12, 200 I, and on October 22, 2001, wherein 
the parties shall report the status of their negotiations to the 
Court.
    SO ORDERED.
    COLLEEN KOLLAK-KOTELLY
    United States District Judge EXHIBIT C
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOK THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
    vs.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel.
    Filed: 6, 2001
    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    Attorney General ELIOT SPTTZER, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    Next Court Deadline: November 6, 2001
    Status Conference
    STIPULATION
    Ptaintiffs United States of America (``1.Trilled 
Stales'') and the Slates of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and 
Defendant Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft''), by and 
through their respective attorneys, having agreed to the entry of 
this Stipulation, it [.s hereby stipulated and agreed that:
    A Final Judgment in the form attached hereto may be filed and 
entered by the Court. upon the motion of any party or upon the 
Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with the 
requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. 15 
U.S.C. * 16, and without further notice to any party or other 
proceedings, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its 
consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the revised 
proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on Microsoft and 
by filing that notice with the Court.
    2. Unless otherwise provided in the revised proposed Final 
Judgment, Microsoft shall begin complying with the revised proposed 
Final Judgment as it was in full force and effect starting on 
December 16, 2001. Subject to the foregoing, Microsoft agrees to be 
bound by the provisions of the revised proposed Final Judgment 
pending its entry by the Court. If the United States withdraws its 
consent, or if (a) ``the revised proposed Final Judgment is not 
entered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (b) the time has 
expired, for all appeals of any Court ruling declining to enter the 
revised proposed Final Judgment, and (c) the Court has not: 
otherwise ordered continued compliance with the terms and provisions 
of the revised proposed Final Judgment, then all of the parties 
shall be released from all further obligations under this 
Stipulation, and the making of this Stipulation shall be without 
prejudice to any parry in this or any other proceeding. 3. Pursuant 
to 15 U.S.C.  16(g), within ten (10) days of the 
submission of the revised proposed Final Judgment, Microsoft will 
file with the Court a description of any and all written or oral 
communications by or on behalf of Microsoft, or other person, with 
any officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant 
to the revised proposed Final Judgment, except that any such 
communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney 
General or the employees of the United States Department of Justice 
alone shall be excluded from this requirement.
    4. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(b), on or before 
November 16, 2001, the United States will file with the Court a 
Competitive Impact Statement explaining the terms of the revised 
proposed Final Judgment. The United States will publish the revised 
proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the 
Federal Register.
    5. The United States will publish a notice informing the public 
of the revised proposed Final Judgment and public comment period in 
the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News, for seven days 
over a period of two weeks commencing no later than November 15, 
2001.
    6. Members of the public may submit written comments about the 
revised proposed Final Judgment to a designated official oft he 
Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for a 
period of 60 days after publication of the revised proposed Final 
Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
    7. Within 30 clays after the close of the 60-day public comment 
period, the United States will file with the Court and publish in 
the Federal Register any comments it receives and its response to 
those comments.
    8. Once the aforementioned procedures have been compiled with, 
the United States viii file with the Court a certification of 
compliance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C.  16, and a 
Motion for Entry of Revised Proposed Final Judgment, unless it 
withdraws its consent to entry of the revised proposed Final 
Judgment pursuant to paragraph 2, above. At any time thereafter, and 
at the conclusion of any further proceedings ordinal by the court 
pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(f), the Court may then enter 
the revised proposed Final Judgment, provided that the Court 
determines that entry of the revised proposed Final Judgment will 
serve the public interest.
    DATED this 6th day of November, 2001
    FOR PLAINTIFF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
    Antitrust Division
    United Slates Department of Justice
    901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington DC 20530
    (202) 514--2,401
    FOR PLAINTIFFS THE STATES OF NEW YORK, OHIO, ILLINOLS, KENTUCKY, 
LOUISIANA. MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NORTH CAROLNA AND WISCONSIN:
    Eliot Spitzer.
    Attorney General of New York
    120 Broadway
    New York, New Yolk 10271
    (212) 416-8282
    FOR. DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION: ??
    ?? & Cromwell
    123 Broad Street
    New York. NEW York 10004
    (212) 558-4000
    EXHIBIT D
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    ORDER

[[Page 29393]]

    Pursuant to the status hearing held on November 6, 2001, it is 
this eighth day of November, 2001, hereby
    ORDERED that the above-captioned cases shall proceed on two 
independent tracks:
    ``Track I'' is the label the Court shall use to refer 
to the Court's review, pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), of the proposed 
Final Judgment which reflects a settlement of Civil Action No. 
98-1232 in its entirety and a partial settlement of Civil 
Action No. 98-1233.
    ``Track II'' is the label the Court shall use to refer 
to the remaining litigation between the States proceeding to 
litigation and Microsoft concerning an appropriate remedy in Civil 
Action No. 98-1233.
    Accordingly, with regard-to Track I, it is hereby
    ORDERED that the States choosing to join the settlement shall 
inform the Court not late than November 9, 2001, of the identity of 
the individual(s) who will serve as their representative(s) in 
future proceedings before the Court; \1\ and it is further
    ORDERED that the United States shall inform the Court of the 
anticipated date of publication of the proposed Final Judgment and 
Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register as soon as such 
date is available; and it is further
    ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(b), the proposed Final 
Judgment, in its final form, and Competitive Impact Statement shall 
be filed with the Court not later than November 15 2001; and it is 
further
    ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(g), within ten days of 
the publication of the proposed Final Judgment in the Federal 
Register, Microsoft shall file with the Court a description of any 
and all written or oral communications by or on behalf of Microsoft, 
or other person, with any officer or employee of the United States 
concerning or relevant to the proposed Final Judgment, except that 
any such communications made by counsel of record alone with either 
the Attorney General or the employees of the United States 
Department of Justice shall be excluded from this requirement; and 
it is further
    ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(c), the United States 
shall publish in the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, and 
the New York Times a notice containing a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the Court is aware that the requirements of the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act) apply only to 
proposals for ``consent judgment[s] submitted by the United 
States,'' 15 U.S.C. 16(b), the Court presumes that the States 
which have chosen to enter into a settlement agreement with 
Microsoft will play an active role in advocating the entry of the 
consent judgment proposed in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    summary of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, a summary 
of the Competitive Impact Statement, and a list of materials and 
documents which the United States shall make available for purposes 
of meaningful public comment and the place where such materials and 
documents are available for public inspection. Such publication 
shall continue for seven days over a period of two weeks, commencing 
not later than November 15, 2001; and it is further
    ORDERED that members of the public may submit written comments 
concerning the proposed Final Judgment to a designated official of 
the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice 
for a period of 60 days following publication of the proposed Final 
Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register; 
and it is further
    ORDERED that, within thirty days after the close of the 60-day 
public comment period, the United States shall file with the Court 
and publish in the Federal Register its responses to any comments 
received; and it is further
    ORDERED that, simultaneous with the filing of its response to 
the comments of the public, the United States shall file any 
appropriate legal briefing with the Court; and it is further
    ORDERED that upon completion of the above procedures, the United 
States shall file with the Court a certification of compliance with 
the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act 
(Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h).
    As discussed at the November, 6, 2001, hearing, following the 
close of the 60-day public. comment period, the Court will hold a 
status conference wherein the parties shall address the nature and 
need for a hearing concerning the proposed final judgment.
    With regard to Track II, it is hereby
    ORDERED that any and all motions in limine shall be filed not 
later than February 22, 2002; and it is further
    ORDERED that a Pre-heating Conference shall be held on March 4, 
2002, at 9 a.m.
    SO ORDERED.
    As discussed at the hearing on November 6, 2001, following the 
filing of the parties'' proposals for remedial relief in early 
December, the Court will require the parties proceeding along Track 
II to file a Joint Status Report which addresses any remaining 
issues concerning the nature of the remedy hearing. Thereafter, the 
Court will set a date for a status conference.
    COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
    EXHIBIT E
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex. rel.
    Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
    Next Court Deadline: March 4, 2002 Status Conference
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
    Please enter the appearance of Charles F. Rule (Bar No. 370818) 
as counsel for defendant Microsoft Corporation.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Charles F. Rule (DC Bar #370818)
    Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
    1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800
    Washington, DC 20004-2505
    Telephone No. 202-639-7300
    Dated: November 15, 2001
    Attorney for Defendant
    Microsoft Corporation
    EXHIBIT F
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff,
    V,
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex. rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., Plaintiffs,
    Civil Action NO. 98-1233 (CKK)
    V.
    Next Court Deadline: March 4, 2002 Status Conference
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S DESCRIPTION OF WRITTEN OR ORAL 
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT AND 
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE UNDER 15 U.S.C. 16(g)
    In conformance with Section 2(g) of the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act (``APPA''), 15 U.S.C. 16(g), defendant 
Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft'') respect- fully 
submits the following description of ``any and all written or 
oral communications by or on behalf of'' Microsoft ``with 
any officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant 
to'' the Revised Proposed Final Judgment filed in these actions 
on November 6, 2001. In accordance with the requirements of the 
APP& this description excludes only ``communications made 
by counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the 
employees of the Department of Justice alone.''
    Following the Court's Order dated September 27, 2001, and 
continuing through November 6, 2001, counsel for Microsoft met on a 
virtually daily basis with counsel for the United States and the 
plaintiff States in Washington, DC After the Court appointed 
Professor Eric Green of Boston University School of Law as mediator 
on October 12, 2001, Professor Green and his colleague Jonathan 
Marks participated in many of those meetings. From October 29, 2001 
through November 2, 2001, Will Poole, a Microsoft vice president, 
also participated in some of the meetings.
    On October 5,2001, counsel for Microsoft met with 
representatives of the United States and the plaintiff States in 
Washington, DC to answer a variety of technical questions. Linda 
Averett, Michael Wallent, Robert
    Short and Chad Knowlton of Microsoft attended this meeting, as 
did Professor Edward Felten of Princeton University, one of 
plaintiffs'' technical experts.
    Microsoft certifies that, with this submission, it has complied 
With the require- ments of 15 U.S.C.  16(g) and that 
this submission is a true and complete description of such 
communications known to Microsoft.
    Dated: Washington, DC
    December 10, 2001
    Respectfully submitted,
    William H. Neukom
    Thomas W. Butt
    David A. Heiner, Jr.
    Diane D'Arcangelo
    Christopher J. Meyers

[[Page 29394]]

    MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, Washington 98052
    (425) 936-8080
    Dan K. Webb
    WINSTON & STRAWN
    35 West Wacker Drive
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    (312) 558-5600
    Charles F. Rule (Bar No. 370818)
    FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER
    & JACOBSON
    1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Suite 800
    Washington, DC 20004-2505
    (202) 639-7300
    John L. Warden (Bar No. 222083)
    Richard J. Urowsky
    Steven L. Holley
    Michael Lacovara
    Richard C. Pepperman, II
    Ronald J. Colombo
    SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
    125 Broad Street
    New York, New York 10004
    (212) 558-4000
    Bradley P. Smith (Bar No. 468060)
    SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
    1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 956-7500
    Counsel for Defendant
    Microsoft Corporation
    EXHIBIT G
    AO 458 (Rev. 8/98 DC) .APPEARANCE
    United State District Court for the Distri??t of Columbia
    CASE NUMBER: 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et 
al., Plaintiffs,
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    APPEARANCE
    To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:
    Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for
    The State of West Virginia
    by Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.
    W. Va. 5502 Douglas Lee Davis
    BAR IDENTIFICATION NO. Print Name
    P.O. Box 1789
    Address
    Charleston, WV 25326
    City Sate Zip Code
    (304) 558-8986
    Phone Number
    US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    RENEWAL APPLICATION
    (PLEAS PRINT OR TYPE)
    Name
    Last * Davis First Douglas
    Middle Lee Generation (Jr., Sr., etc.)
    DC/Federal Bar Identification Number Social Security Number 
286-56-8106
    (If Federal. Bar, please state name of court): Address
    Firm Office of the West Virginia Attorney General
    Building & Suite P. O. Box 1789
    Street 812 Quarrier St., 4th Floor
    City Charleston State WV
    Zip 25326 Phone (304) 558-8986
    Unit (within firm or agency) Consumer Protection and Antitrust
    Status
    Criminal Justice Act Attorney (Yes) (No)
    * U.S. District Court Admission Date Sept. 25, 1990, S.D.W.Va.
    Employed by the United States Government (Yes) (Not X
    GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS who practice and file pleadings before the 
US District Court should complete this form. Renewal Fees may be 
waived.
    CHANGE OF ADDRESS:
    This form may serve as written notification to the Clerk's 
office of address change under the requirements of Local Rule 
706(c). However, this notification fulfill the PRAECIPE requirement 
of the Ride. 706(c) requires that, ``(t)he attorney shall also 
within 10 days file a praecipe reffecting such change in each case 
which the attorney has pending before this Court serving a copy upon 
each of the attorneys in these cases.''
    FAILURE TO RENEW
    An attorney who fails to file the??and pay the renewal fee will 
be provisionally removed from the list of members in good standing, 
The name of the attorney will be restored to the list of members in 
good standing: upon the filing of the required certificate and 
payment of the delinquent fee within five years after the done date. 
At the end of the five years from the dues date, the attorney's name 
will be permanently removed from the roll, without prejudice to an 
application for admission as a new member [??Rule.701.1(c)].
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that on this 12th day of December, 2001, copies 
of my Notice of Appearance was served upon the following by first-
class mail. postage prepaid, to:
    Brendan V. Sullivan, Ir., Esquire
    Williams & Connolly, LLP
    725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
    Washington, D. C. 20005
    John L. Warden, Esquire
    Sullivan & Cromwell
    125 Broad Street, 31st Floor
    New York, NY 10004-2498
    Bradley P. Smith, Esquire
    Sullivan & Cromwell
    1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor
    Washington, D.C. 20006-5805
    William H. Neukom, Esquire
    Law and Corporate Affairs
    Microsoft Corporation, Building 8
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052-6399
    Dan K. Webb, Esquire
    Winston & Strawn,
    35 West Wacker Drive
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Charles F. Rule, Esquire
    Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
    1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
    Washington D.C. 20004-2505
    Philip S. Beck, Esquire
    Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott
    Courthouse Place, Suite 300
    54 West Hubbard Street
    Chicago, IL 60610
    Renata B. Hesse, Esquire
    United States Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division
    601 .D Street, N.W., Suite 1200
    Washington, D.C. 20530
    Jay L. Himes, Esquire
    Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York
    120 Broadway, Suite 260I
    New York, NY 10271
    Kevin J. O'Connor, Esquire
    Office of the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin
    P. O. Box 7857
    123 West Washington Avenue
    Madison, WI 53703-7857
    Beth Finnerty, Esquire
    Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio
    140 East Town Street, I2th Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    Blake Harrop, Esquire
    Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois
    100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Douglas L. Davis
    Assistant Attorney General
    State of West Virginia
    EXHIBIT H
    AO 458 (Rev. 6/98 DC)--APPEARANCE
    United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    CASE NUMBER: 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs,
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    APPEARANCE
    To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:
    Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for
    Plaintiff States New York, California, Connecticut, F1orida, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, 
Wisconsin and the District of Columbia
    November 1, 2001
    253286 Steven R. Kimey,
    BAR IDENTIFICATION NO. Print Name
    Williams & Connolly LLP.
    725 Twelfth Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20005
    202-43&--5000
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that on this 1st day of November, 2001, copies 
of Notices of Appearance for Brendan V. Sullivan, Steven R. Kuney 
and John E. Schmidtlein were served by facsimile and first-class 
marl, postage prepaid, to:
    John L. Warden, Esq.
    Sullivan & Cromwell
    125 Broad Street
    31st Floor
    New York, NY 10004-2498
    Bradley P. Smith, Esq.
    Sullivan & Cromwell
    1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    7th Floor
    Washington, D.C. 20006-5805
    William H. Neukom, Esq.
    Executive Vice President
    Law and Corporate Affairs
    Miscrosoft Corporation
    Building 8
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052-6399
    Counsel for Defendant Microsoft

[[Page 29395]]

    Philip S. Beck, Esq.
    Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
    Courthouse Place
    Suite 300
    54 West Hubbard Street
    Chicago, IL 60610
    Renata B. Hesse, Esq.
    United States Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division
    601 D Street, NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, D.C. 20530
    Counsel for Plaintiffs
    John E. Schmidtlein
    EXHIBIT 1
    United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    CASE NUMBER: 98-1233 (CKK)
    STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs,
    v.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    APPEARANCE
    To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:
    Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff States 
New York, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
North Carol, Ohio, Utah, Wisonsin and the District of Columbia
    November 1, 2001
    12757 Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr.
    Williams & Connolly LLP
    725 Twelfth Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20005
    202-434-5000
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that on this 1st day of November, 2001; copies 
of Notices of Appearance for Brendan V. Sullivan, Steven R. Kuney 
and John E. Schmidtlein were served by facsimile and first-class 
mail, postage prepaid, to:
    John L. Warden, Esq.
    Sullivan & Cromwell
    125 Broad Street
    31st Floor
    New York, NY 10004-2498
    Bradley P. Smith, Esq.
    Sullivan & Cromwell
    1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    7th Floor
    Washington, D.C. 20006-5805
    William H, Neukom, Esq.
    Executive Vice President
    Law and Corporate Affairs
    Microsoft Corporation
    Building 8
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052-6399
    Counsel for Defendant Microsoft
    Philip S. Beck, Esq.
    Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
    Courthouse Place
    Suite 300
    54 West Hubbard Street
    Chicago, IL 60610
    Renata B. Hesse, Esq.
    United States Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division
    601 D Street, NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, D.C. 20530
    Counsel for Plaintiffs
    John E. Schmidtlein
    EXHIBIT 11
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff,
    V.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. )
    Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al., Plaintiffs, )
    v.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1232 (CKK)
    Filed: January 28, 2002
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-1233 (CKK)
    Next Court Deadline: March 4, 2002 Pre-hearing Conference
    MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF 
RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC. FOR LIMITED PARTICIPATION AS AN AMICUS 
CURIAE AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE UNITED 
STATES HAS NOT PROVIDED A COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE 
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 15 U.S.C. 16(b)
    Plaintiff, the United States of America, has not complied with 
the disclosure requirements of the Tunney Act, specifically 15 
U.S.C. 16(b), or this Court's Order dated November 8,2001.
    Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(b), anyone has the statutory right to 
comment on the Revised
    Proposed Final Judgment (``RPFJ'') in captioned Civil 
Action 98-1232 for sixty (60) days after the United States 
complies with the requirement for a Competitive Impact Statement 
(``CIS'') set forth in 15 U.S.C. 16(b). Relpromax 
Antitrust Inc. (``Relpromax'') hereby asserts its 
statutory right, which is also the statutory right of all Americans, 
to consider for sixty (60) days a CIS which meets the requirements 
of 15 U.S.C. 16(b) and then to file with the United States such 
written comments as it deems appropriate with respect to the RPFJ in 
light of the information disclosed in the CIS pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
16(b).
    Accordingly, Relpromax seeks an order:
    1) granting Relpromax status as an amicus curiae with the right 
of limited participation in proceedings so it can assist, if 
necessary, in obtaining, inter alia, the statutorily required (and 
Court ordered) CIS;
    2) compelling the United States to comply with the statute and 
the November 8, 2001, order; and,
    3) extending the time for comments to provide Relpromax and all 
interested parties with their statutory rights.
    II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On November 15, 2001, the United States filed a CIS.
    On November 28,2001, the CIS was published in the Federal 
Register.
    III. ARGUMENT
    The Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)(3), (4), and (6) requires in 
pertinent part a CIS which provides:
    ``(3) an explanation of the proposal for a consent 
judgment, including an explanation of any unusual circumstances 
giving rise to such proposal or any provision contained therein, 
relief to be obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on 
competition of such relief;
    (4) the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs 
damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for 
the consent judgment is entered in such proceeding; and
    (6) a description and evaluation of alternatives to such 
proposal actually considered by the United States.''
    In violation of 15 U.S.C. 16(b)(3), the CIS does not contain 
anything approaching an analysis of the effects of the RPFJ on 
competition.
    In violation of 15 U.S.C. 16(b)(4), the CIS does not analyze or 
explain the effect of the RPFJ on private litigants.
    In violation of 15 U.S.C. 16(b)(6), the CIS does not contain a 
full evaluation of all alternatives to the RPFJ actually considered 
by the United States. The CIS mentions, but does not evaluate, 
numerous other alternatives.
    Further, no documents considered determinative in formulating 
the RPFJ throughout the negotiation process were disclosed as 
required by 15 U.S.C. 16(b).
    Accordingly, entry of an order in the form submitted herewith is 
respectfully requested.
    REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING
    An oral hearing on this motion is requested pursuant to 15 
U.S.C. 16(0(5).
    Respectfully submitted,
    January 28, 2002
    Peter Peckarsky
    1615 L Street, NW, Suite 850
    Washington, DC 20036
    Telephone: (202) 785-0100
    Telecopier: (202) 408-5200
    Attorney for Relpromax Antitrust Inc.
    EXHIBIT 12
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITRUST INC. ARTICLES AND 
FEATURES
    The Real Microsoft Case and Settlement
    BY CHARLES A. JAMES
    United States v. Microsoft, the first major monopolization case 
of the 21st century, has transformed antitrust from an \1\ 
legal discipline into a broad public dialogue about the role of 
competition in our society and our national tolerance for economic 
power. The case has all of the trappings of a media event. It 
involves the signature product of the digital age, the Windows 
operating system, through which the vast majority of computer users 
worldwide interact with what has become a basic appliance in burnan 
life. It pits the power of the U.S. government against one of the 
country's most successful corporations, led by one of its wealthiest 
and most visible citizens. It became a contest between one of the 
nation's most skilled and flamboyant trial lawyers and a company 
with the resources to purchase all the legal talent money could buy. 
Additionally, the case became a contest between Microsoft and the 
other lions of the information technology industry. Never before in 
the history of the Antitrust Division have competitors of a firm 
under prosecution invested so heavily in the outcome of one of our 
cases. By virtue of its control over the operating system, Microsoft

[[Page 29396]]

enjoys distinct advantages in competition for adjacent markets. With 
huge amounts of money on the line, Microsoft's competitors hired 
scores of lawyers and lobbyists to press their views of the case and 
to insist that the remedy be crafted so as to advance their 
interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 3.4 (DC 
Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Microsoft was the first major antitrust case to be 
tried in the age of 24-hour news and, as such, came to be covered 
like the Super Bowl, complete with play-by-play reporting, color 
commentary, player interviews, and endless expert analysis. 
Antitrust lawyers and academicians suddenly became television 
personalities, providing blow-by-blow commentary on every 
development in the litigation, A nine-hour court of appeals 
arguments was broadcast live over the Internet, and, miraculously 
enough, ordinary people listened to lawyers debating the finer 
points of technology trying and market definition. The general 
public actually formed opinions about the appropriate outcome of an 
antitrust case.
    Under the circumstances, it was very easy for the antitrust case 
itself to become mere substext--i.e., to become completely 
submerged beneath the show business, pontification, and self-
interested advocacy. Antitrust, after all, is about the application 
of technical legal principles to highly complex economic 
circumstances. The types of issues that actually matter in antitrust 
analysis are far less glamorous and intriguing than the issues 
usually discussed in connection with the Microsoft case. One bedrock 
principle of antitrust law--that a firm might lawfully obtain a 
monopoly and exercise the power it affords--is almost counter-
intuitive to the American psyche and presents difficult line-drawing 
exercises even for the antitrust cognoscenti. Thus, care must be 
taken to distinguish between ``Microsoft, the antitrust 
case'' and ``Microsoft, the public spectacle.'' The 
two have developed quite differently.
    In this article, I address what I consider to be the real 
Microsoft case--the antitrust dispute fought out in the courts. 
In particular, I wish to refocus attention on the legal allegations 
charged in the complaint, how those allegations were resolved in the 
courts, and the remedies in the proposed Final Judgment presently 
undergoing Tunney Act review (the ``proposed decreed''). 
That the Microsoft litigation that emerged from the court of appeals 
was a far narrower antitrust case than was originally brought seems 
to have gone largely unnoticed. Viewed purely as an antitrust 
matter, we believe the remedy presently under consideration by the 
district court fully and demonstrably resolves the monopoly 
maintenance finding that the court of appeals sustained. Underlying 
the monopoly manintance claim was proof that Microsoft took actions, 
among other things, to discourage the development and deployment of 
rival Web browsers and Java technologies, in an effort to prevent 
them from becoming middleware threats to the operating system 
monopoly. The settlement extends the product definition to all 
manner of present and future middleware products, prohibits in the 
broadest terms the practices found to be unlawful, deprives 
Microsoft of the means of disciplining firms that might develop or 
deploy competing middleware products, and requires disclosure of 
proprietary interfaces and protocols so that rival firms may create 
middleware that can compete on a function-by-function basis with 
Microsoft's integrated products. The prescribed relief is supported 
by an unprecedented level of enforcement power, including a full-
time, on-site, independent compliance team and the power to extend 
the decree in the event of serious violations. In strict antitrust 
terms, by any serious reading of the court of appeals ruling, the 
settlement represents a big win for the government.
    Charles A. James is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of 
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The 
Antitrust Division commenced its case against Microsoft on May 18, 
1998. A coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia, with 
New York as the lead plaintiff ?? their lawsuit on the same day, and 
the two cases were consolidated and prosecuted jointly. Nice 
estates, including New York, have joined with the United States in 
propesing a settlement. The views expressed herein are the author's 
and relate to the Antitrust Division's case and settlement and do 
not purport to represent the views of any state plaintiff.
    The Real Microsoft Case
    A dose of reality is in order. Microsoft occupies a critical 
place in the the worldwide computer industry. Its proprietary 
Windows operating system exists as the de facto standard for the 
entire realm of IBM-compatible peronal computers. In rough terms, 
operating systems perform certain basic computing 
functions--drawing a box, opening a file, executing print 
commands, etc. These functions are accessed by software running on 
the operating system through application programming interfaces 
(APIs). The operating system is said to ``expose'' APIs. 
To facilitate the development of programs that run on the Windows 
operating systems, Microsoft discloses some, but not all, of those 
APIs to the software development community. Tens of thousands of 
software programs are written to the Windows operating system, a 
fact that has become a seemingly self-perpetuating basis for 
Microsoft's monopoly over the operating system market. Because 
computer users want their operating system to be a stable platform 
for present and future applications programs, new operating systems, 
whatever their technological merits, have difficulty gaining 
patronage. This is a ``applications badrrier to entry.''
    The Microsoft operating system monopoly, fortified by the 
applications barrier to entry, is very durable, and gives Microsoft 
distinct advantages in competing in downstream markets for 
applications software, hardware, and Internet services. These has 
never been any serious contention, however, that Microsoft obtained 
its operating system monopoly through unlawful means, but rather 
that it unlawfully maintained it. Thus, under our antitrust laws, 
the existence of the operating system monopoly is not subject to 
direct attack and was not challenged in this case.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Even the structural remedy proposed by the government 
and ordered by Judge Jackson would have permitted Microsoft to 
retain its operating system monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, the Antitrust Division, nineteen states, and the 
District of Columbia commenced their respective antitrust cases 
against Microsoft.\3\ The complaints alleged: (1) that Microsoft 
engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to maintain its monopoly 
position in the market for operating systems designed to run on 
Intel-compatible personal computers, in violation of Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act; (2) that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the Web 
browser market, also in violation of Section 2; (3) that Microsoft 
illegally tied its Web browser, Internet Explorer (IE), to its 
operating system, in violation of Section 1; and (4) that Microsoft 
entered into exclusive dealing arrangements that also violated 
Section 1. After a full trial on the merits, the district court 
sustained all claims save for exclusive dealing.\4\ The court of 
appeals, however, narrowed the liability findings, sustaining only 
the monopoly maintenance claim, but with fewer anti-competitive 
actions than the district court had found.\5\ The court of appeals 
reversed with respect to eight of the twenty anticompetitive acts 
the district court had sustained as elements of the monopoly 
maintenance claim. The court of appeals reversed the attempted 
monopolization and tying conclusions, remanding the latter claim for 
further proceedings under the more rigorous rule of reason 
standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 3 United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 
98-1232 (D.DC ?? May 18, 1998); State of New York v. Microsoft 
Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1233 (D.DC ?? May 18, 1998).
    \4\ (United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp.2d 30, 
56-57 (D.DC 2000).
    \5\ Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 50-80.
    \6\ Id. at 96. The Court also held that although if it 
pursued the tying claim the tying government had the burden to show 
an anticompetitive effect in the browser market, it was precluded 
from arguing any theory of harm that depends on a precise definition 
of browsers or barriers to entry ....? Id. at 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And, of course, the court of appeals vacated the Final Judgment 
that had set forth the break-up remedy and interim conduct 
remedies.\7\In its own words, the court of appeals 
``drastically altered the District Court's conclusions on 
liability.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 119.
    \8\ Id. at 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The surviving portion of the case focused primarily on the so-
called ``browser war'' and allegations that Microsoft 
engaged in various anticompetitive pratices to maintain its 
operating system monopoly. For all of its claimed technological 
prowess and industry foresight, Microsoft had fallen behind in the 
race to commercialize Web browser technology. An upstart company 
called Netscape had beaten the mighty Microsoft to the punch and 
quickly gained a respectable market share as the preferred 
technology for navigating the then-burgeoning Internet. More 
importantly, Netscape proponents were touting the prospect of a new 
world of Internet computing that would make operating systems less 
relevant, if not virtually irrelevant. Netscape touted its Web 
browser as a new category of software that came to be known as 
``middleware,'' a form

[[Page 29397]]

of software that, itself, exposed a broad range of APIs to which 
software developers could write applications. Assuming that Netscape 
Navigator could become fairly ubiquitous, that large numbers of 
developers wrote programs to it, and that Netscape, itself, ran on 
multiple operating systems, operating systems other than Windows 
could become viable. In this sense, the browser was a 
``nascent'' threat to the operating system monopoly.
    Microsoft took this middleware threat seriously. The trial 
record disclosed a corporate preoccupation with thwarting Netscape 
and displacing the Netscape Navigator with IE as the prevailing Web 
browser in the industry. This campaign featured a host of strong-arm 
tactics aimed at various computer manufacturers, Internet access 
providers, and independent software developers. Even the decision to 
integrate its own browser into the operating system--in effect, 
giving it away for free--had an element of impeding the growth 
of Netscape and once was described as taking away Netscape's oxygen. 
Microsoft went so far as to make it more difficult to remove its 
browser from Windows in the apparent recognition that computer 
manufacturers would fear that the presence of two Web browsers on 
the desktop would cause consumer confusion and prompt expensive 
service calls.
    The government's case against Microsoft focused heavily on the 
browser war--and a relatively narrow aspect of that 
war--the consumer's experience the very first time he or she 
boots up a brand new computer. a consumer with some basic level of 
computer knowledge and a small amount of effort, could elect to use 
the Netscape browser. Just like any form of computer software, 
alternate browsers were available through download and other forms 
of retail distribution. The underlying assumption of the browser 
war, however, was that most consumers become wedded to the first 
products to which they are exposed and those the computer 
manufacturer makes it easiest to deploy. Thus, desktop placement and 
other forms of ``first-sighting'' were important market 
movers.
    The district court based its monopoly maintenance liability 
finding on the government's proof that Microsoft had engaged in a 
series of exclusionary acts. Those acts involved, in sum, the 
integration of IE into Windows, while closing off access for 
Netscape; various dealing with original equipment manufacturers, 
independent software providers, Internet access providers, and 
Internet hardware providers; effort to thwart Java technologies; and 
a course of conduct as a whole.\9\ While Judge Jackson had sustained 
the government on most of the claims, the court of appeals was a bit 
more selective. It ruled that certain of Microsoft's 
practices--for example, Microsoft's practice of preventing 
computer manufacturers from substitution their own user interfaces 
for the Windows interface supplied by Microsoft--were justified 
and thus lawful.\10\ The court of appeals also explicitly rejected 
the course of conduct theory.\11\ Under that theory, we, in effect, 
argued that the whole was greater than the sum of the 
parts--that Microsoft's individual practices, rather than being 
judged on their individual merits, should be evaluated as part of a 
grander scheme of monopolization, providing an independent basis for 
monopolization liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 58.
    \10\ Id. at 50-80.
    \11\ Id. at 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we found ourselves victorious on the monopoly maintenance 
claim, albeit with less underlying conduct to remedy. The attempted 
monopolization count was gone and, based on the court of 
appeals'' decision and the need to move to the remedy phase as 
quickly as possible, we dropped the tying claim. Those two claims 
had been a direct assault on Microsoft's ability to compete outside 
of the operating system--in particular, its ability to 
integrate new functions into Windows. But the court of appeals had 
made it clear that, albeit with some limits, Microsoft could 
lawfully integrate new functions into the operating system and use 
the advantages flowing from its knowledge and design of the 
operating system to compete in downstream markets. What was left in 
the case was a series of individual practices directed against 
competing browser developers and others, which the court of appeals 
found to be unlawful because of their potential to protect the 
operating system monopoly. That was the conduct to be remedied; not 
the existence of the Microsoft operating system monopoly itself and 
not the prospect that Microsoft might come to dominate other 
downstream markets for reasons unrelated to its conduct protecting 
the operating system franchise.
    Dropping the Structural Remedy. Having taken the helm of the 
Antitrust Division just weeks before the court of appeals decision, 
for me the prior history of the case had to be just that history. 
The court of appeals decision was the new reality. It set forth the 
rules of the game. Judge Jackson's order to separate Microsoft's 
operating system business from the appliations business had received 
a chilly reception, at best, in the court of appeals decision.\12\ 
By admonishing that a structural remedy would only be appropriate if 
the government proved a more direct causal connection between 
Microsoft's exclusionary practices and maintenance of the operating 
system monopoly (a connection that Judge Jackson said he could not 
find), it was clear that a structural remedy was not favored.\13\ 
Moreover, even in the absence of the court of appeals'' 
cautionary language about a structural remedy, its adverse 
conclusions on the tying and attempted monopolization claims 
undercut any real basis for separating the operating system and 
applications businesses. After all, the court of appeals declined to 
hold that Microsoft could not lawfully integrate appliations 
functions into the operating system. Given what was left in the 
case--essentially a series of heavy-handed contracting 
practices with computer manufacturers and software developer, 
unlawful when undertaken to protect the operating system 
monopoly--a conduct remedy seemed all that could be secured, 
let alone justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. at 105-06
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eliminating structure from the remedial picture was also an 
important tactical issue as we moved into a remedy hearing before a 
new judge. The new judge obviously would take into account the court 
of appeals not-so-subtle message regarding structural relief, and 
likely would have little patience for some quixotic effort to press 
for that remedy, even as a mere bargaining chip. Moreover, the 
question of structural relief would have greatly complicated the 
remedy phase of the case. Microsoft would have been entitled to 
raise a raft of issues regarding the impact of such relief. This 
would have substantially protracted the discovery phase of the 
remedy proceeding, eliminating any prospect for a quick resolution, 
either in the district court or otherwise. Even if we had persuaded 
the trial court to impose structural relief, we would have found 
ourselves right back before the court of appeals, which already had 
said that it would review structural relief with considerable 
skepticism and under stringent legal k standards. Finally, from my 
own personal perspective, the structural remedy that Judge Jackson 
had ordered, i.e., a break-up into two companies without ongoing 
line-of-business restrictions--might have been a hollow, short-
lived solution. Without the types of continuing line-of-business 
restrictions found to be hopelessly complicated and regulatory in 
the AT&T decree, Microsoft easily could have kept its operating 
system monopoly and reasonabled its appliations businesses through 
acquistion and internal development in a matter of years, if not 
months. Presenting the case for line-of0business restrictions would 
have been yet another complication. Taking structural relief off the 
table at the outset of the remedy proceeding before the new judge 
enabled us to get favorable procedural rulings that were essential 
to moving quickly to a prompt resolution.
    The Conduct Remedy
    An antitrust remedy for a Section 2 violation must stop the 
offending conduct, prevent its recurrence, and restore competition. 
While prohibiting the exact conduct found to be unlawful in the 
court of appeals decision would be relatively simple work, 
addressing the broader questionof monopoly maintenance was more 
difficult. Preventing recurrence must involve proactivesteps to 
address conduct of a similar nature. Restoration requires 
prospective relief to create lostcompetition and may involve actions 
to disadvantage the antitrust offender and/or favor its rivals. The 
relief, however, must have its foundation in the offending conduct. 
The monopoly maintenance finding, as sustained by the court of 
appeals, was not a mandate to range broadly across the computer 
industry purporting to solve unproven problems unrelated to the 
middleware threat to the operating system. Indeed, Judge Kollar-
Kotelly stated in open court that she expected the government's 
proposed remedy to reflect the fact that portions of the 
government's case had not been sustained.
    At the outset of the remedies proceedings, we stated that our 
proposed relief would be modeled upon the interim conduct

[[Page 29398]]

provisions of Judge Jackson's (now-vacated) Final Judgment. Those 
provisions were ``interim'' because they were intended to 
remain in place only during the year in which Microsoft was 
preparing to be broken into two companies. the government itself had 
proposed those interim remedies, and thus they provided a base from 
which to develop appropriate remedies. We were cognizant, however, 
that those remedies provided relief based on Judge Jackson's 
liability findings, including the attempted monopolization and tying 
claims and portions of the monopoly maintenance claim that were not 
upheld by the appellate court. In addition, because those remedies 
had never been subjected to the rigors of an adversarial 
proceedings, and had been prepared without any meaningful 
consultation with Microsoft, certain practical issues had never been 
fully vetted. This was a real danger, because the remedies had to be 
fully capable of being put into practice, anything else would be an 
enforcement nightmare.The interim remedies had also been based upon 
a trial record developed largely in 1998 and 1999. The industry had 
changed significantly since then. Among other things, by most 
accounts, Microsoft had essentially won the browser war, relief to 
revive Netscape Navigator as a middleware threat may have too 
little, too late. In addition, the character of potential middleware 
platforms had largely changed. It is unclear whether another general 
middleware threat like the browser will ever again emerge. The 
middleware war of today appears to focus on more specialized types 
of software, such as instant messaging systems and media players-
systems that might be platforms for families of related functions, 
but whose potential to be a platform for a broad range of 
application remains to be seen. Today, one would not necessarily 
predict that a software developer would write a financial services 
program, for example, to run on either a messaging system or a media 
player. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the operating system 
world has changed. At the time the case was filed, the browser was 
designed to sit on top of the operating system like any other 
application that had to be ``opened'' manually. In the 
ensuingyears, the technology evolved so that browser functions 
increasingly were integrated into the operating system and invoked 
automatically to create a more seamless user experience. This made 
middleware products easier for consumers to use, but placed greater 
demands on competitors to create products that could function as 
seamlessly as Microsoft's.
    Enjoining the Unlawful Conduct. There was no question that any 
proposed Final Judgment had to include prohibitions to enjoin the 
offending conduct that the district court had found and the court of 
appeals had sustained. I must note, however, that the affirmative 
prohibitions contained in the proposed decree go considerably beyond 
the literal findings of the court of appeals. The decree broadly 
bans exclusive dealing, gives computer manufacturers extensive 
control of the desktop and initial boot sequence, and prohibits a 
broad range of retalitory conduct. There can be no question that 
Microsoft must fundamentally change the way in which it deals with 
computer manufacturers, Internet access providers, software 
developers, and others under the proposed decree.
    The middleware definition was a very complex issue and would 
have been fought hard in a litigated remedy proceeding. The team has 
no accepted industry or technical meaning, and one might reasonably 
distinguish between products that might function as middleware 
(i.e., an intermediate software program between an operating system 
and an application) and products that actually might threaten the 
operating system monopoly. At the time of trial, the term middleware 
was used to describe software programs that exposed APIs. In today's 
world, by virtue of the extensive degree to which software programs 
interact with each other, a very broad range of programs--large 
and small, simple and complex--expose APIs. Obviously, all 
software that exposed APIs could not qualify as middleware for 
purposes of the case.
    As middleware is defined in the proposed decree, it captures, in 
today's market, Internet browsers, e-mail client software, networked 
audio/video client software, and instant messaging software. On a 
going forward basis, it also provides guidelines for what types of 
software will be considered middlewares for purposes of the decree. 
These guidelines are critical because, while it is important that 
future middleware products be captured by the proposed decree, those 
products will not necessarily be readily identified as such.
    Preventing Recurrence. Having addressed the basic prohibitions, 
the more formidable tasks of addressing recurrence, restoration, and 
enforcement confronted us. Because of the critical role Microsoft's 
Windows operating system plays within the computer industry, the 
company has at its disposal a broad array of potential means of 
projecting its will upon manufacturers anddevelopers. Many in the 
computer industry believe that Microsoft can influence product 
development and deployment decisions by other firms through a 
variety of carrots and sticks, and there was evidence in the trial 
record that Microsoft had used a number of such tactics to impede 
the emergence of competing Web browsers. By the same rocken, not all 
forms of collaborationbetween Microsoft and other industry 
participants are anticompetitive, and some actually benefit 
competition and consumers. To cover the broad range of potential 
strategies Microsoft might deploy, we sought to address the 
recurrence issue through the broad concepts of non-discrimination 
and non-retaliation, rather than by simply enumerating a list of 
specific prohibitions that we can identify today.
    Restoring Lost Competition. With regard to restoration, we had 
to begin from the premise that the middleware threat to the 
operating system monopoly was a nascent one. It is said that some 
70,000 applications currently run on Windows, making the 
applications barrier to entry quite formidable. At the very peak of 
our advocacy in the case, unfortunately not even we could 
hypothesize a point at which so many applications would be written 
to middleware APIs that there would be a meaningful threat to the 
Windows operating system, and the fact was noted in the court of 
appeals decision. Thus, the task in the restoration aspect of the 
decreed was to restore the potentiality of middleware. As had been 
the case in the mediation before Judge Posner and in Judge Jackson's 
order, our preferred approach was to ensure that middleware 
developers had access to the technical information necessary to 
create middleware programs that could compete with Microsoft in a 
meaningful way. This would have been a difficult undertaking in the 
earliest phases of the case, and it became even more difficult with 
the evolution of operating systems toward more integrated and 
seamless functionality.
    API disclosure apparently had been a very difficult obsta??e to 
resolution of the case at every stage. Press reports of the 
mediation before Judge Posner indicated that the scope of API 
disclosure was the sticking point that doomed earlier efforts to 
settle. There had never been any allegation in the case that Windows 
was an essential facility, the proprietary technology for which had 
to be openly shared in the industry. Further, failure to disclose 
APIs sufficient to create interoperable software was not a critical 
underpinning of the case; after all, we argued successfully that the 
70,000 applications written to Windows contributed so the strength 
of the monopoly. That is not to say that disclosure had not been 
used selectively by Microsoft, the government showed that Microsoft 
had sought agreements with middleware developers to refrain from 
developing competing products in exchange for preferential access to 
proprietary technical information. Such agreements, however, would 
have been facially unlawful, without regards to Microsoft having 
some inherent legal obligation to disclose APIs. Technical support, 
in that sense, was merely consideration for an otherwise unlawful 
agreement. There is a duality in Microsoft's position on API 
disclosure. The company frequently argues thatit has strong 
incentives to make broad disclosures of APIs and other technical 
information because it wants developers to write applications 
programs to its operating system. Nonetheless, the company is forced 
to acknowledge that many important Windows functions rely upon 
undisclosed APIs. Moreover, it seemed fairly clear that Microsoft's 
reluctance to disclose those APIs was based upon more than a concern 
about the burden of administering the disclosure regiment. The 
simple fact is that certain of the undisclosed APIs relate to 
cutting-edge functions and applications, many of them integrated 
deeply into the operating system, that could be meaningful points of 
differentiation between Windows middleware products and those 
offered by third parties. Thus, we believed that we were on strong 
legal ground in seeking to require Microsoft to disclose its 
undisclosed APIs as a means of restoring competition in the 
middleware industry.
    The decree's provisions for API disclosure will be critical in 
enabling independent developers to match Windows'' 
functionality in their middleware products. Simply stated, if 
Microsoft middleware products rely on an API, that API must be 
disclosed. API

[[Page 29399]]

disclosure of this type has become all the more critical as the 
operating system has evolved to include more deeply integrated 
functions that are invoked automatically in connection with other 
applications. But for detailed API disclosure, many middleware 
functions offered in third-party software would be more difficult to 
implement than Microsoft's integrated functions. Independent 
middleware vendors also will be aided by the decree's provisions 
that require Microsoft to create and preserve``default'' 
settings, such that certain of Microsoft's integrated middleware 
functions will not be able to over-ride the selection of a third-
party middleware product. This is yet another respect in which 
changes in the technology required us to go beyond the relief 
contemplated in Judge Jackson's order. By giving middleware 
developers the means of creating fully competitiveproducts, 
requiring the creating of add/delete functionality that will make it 
easier for computer manufacturers and users to replace Microsoft 
middleware functionality with independently developed middleware, 
and making it absolutely clear that computer manufacturers can, in 
fact, replace Microsoft middleware, the decree will do as much as 
possible to restore the nascent threat to the operating system 
monopoly that browsers once represented.
    The disclosure of communications protocols for servers was 
another matter entirely. Very clearly this was a by-product of the 
negotiated resolution of the case that would have been highly 
contentious and by no means a certainty had the remedy been fully 
litigated. In recent years, Microsoft has moved aggressively into 
the network server market, competing with firms, such as IBM, 
Novell, and other. Servers tend to communicate through fairly 
standard communications protocols. Nonetheless, all server 
manufacturers have implemented their own proprietary communications 
technologies, working in tandem with the standard protocols, that 
each server line employs to differentiate itself from other brands 
ad models in terms of features and performance. In network 
computing, these proprietary technologies are implemented through 
software code residing at both ends of the communications link, 
i.e., on the desktop operating system or ``client'' and on 
the server itself. Anyone who has ever worked in a network computing 
environment it familiar with the process of the network 
administrator loading new software in the form of annoying updates, 
downloads and overnight system changes. While other server 
manufacturers must load all of their client software independently, 
Microsoft ships some of its client-server interoperability 
technology on Windows itself.
    Competing server manufacturers complain that Microsoft has an 
inherent advantage in server competition in that it has a superior 
knowledge of the operating system and possesses the ability to embed 
within the operating system secret technology that gives its servers 
more features and better performance than servers offered by other. 
Although these claims have never been fully discovered or litigated, 
it seems intuitively correct that Microsoft would behave in this 
manner. Yet there is a clear body of case law that a vertically 
integrated firm, even one that is a monopolist, might rationally and 
lawfully gain a competitive advantage in one market from its 
strength or monopoly power in another. In other words, there is no 
legal rule of antitrust law requiring distinct businesses within a 
single firm to act as though they are complete strangers to each 
other. The connection between the ``secret sauce'' 
argument in the server market and the monopoly maintenance claim in 
this case may not be obvious. To establish the connection on even 
the theoretical level, one must hypothesize a number of 
circumstances concerning the future economic course of the server 
market. To use the Berkeley School ``econo-phrase,'' 
Microsoft's practices of embedding secret technology in the Windows 
operating system would have to cause the server market to 
``tip'' in its favor, such that competing servers would no 
longer provide a platform threat to the desktop operating 
system.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Beriety Photk, Inc. v. Eastman Kodark Co., 
603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir.1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, this issue developed primarily since the trial--it 
was barely raised and never litigated in the proceedings before the 
district court. Indeed, the word, ``server'' never 
appeared in the complain and was mentioned only a handful of times 
in the findings of fact--in those instances mostly in the 
context of discussing the browser as a component in network 
computing. In fact, the most cogent statement of the server theory 
appears in a series of proposed findings of fact we submitted that 
actually were not adopted by Judge Jackson. 15 Undoubtedly, 
Microsoft would have argued strenuously in the remedy proceeding 
that server issues had never been litigated in the case and provided 
no basis for relief.
    Notwithstanding any difficulties the government might have faced 
in pursuing server relief in the remedies proceeding, the potential 
competitive consequences in this area are substantial. If it is 
true, as many seem to believe, that serverbased applications might 
be the next important threat to the operating system monopoly, this 
would be an area in which it is important to stretch for relief, 
whether or not the issue was fully fleshed-out in the liability 
phase of the case. The proposed decree, therefore, requires 
Microsoft to disclose communications protocols embedded in the 
operating system, but preserves for the company the ability to 
deploy proprietarycommunications technology provided separately. 
Though this does not fully negate Microsoft's inherent advantages as 
the designer of the operating system, it requires Microsoft to 
compete as other server manufacturers do by separately providing 
client-side communications technology. Enforcement. It has been 
suggested that no ``conduct'' remedy could be effective 
because Microsoft is a defiant company that cannot be trusted to 
comply with an antitrust decree. Our practice with regard to 
enforcement, however, is never influenced by the extent to which we 
``trust'' a defendant. Rather, the decree must stand on 
its own as an enforcement vehicle. Thesettlement in this case 
contains some of the most stringent enforcement provisions ever 
contained in any modern consent decree. In addition to the ordinary 
prosecutorial access powers, backed up by civil and criminal 
contempt authority, this decree has two more aggressive features. 
First, it requires an independent, full-time, on-site compliance 
team--complete with its own staff and the power to hire 
consultants--that will monitor compliance with the decree, 
report violations to the Department, and attempt to resolve 
technical disputes under the disclosure provisions. The compliance 
team will have complete access to Microsoft's source code, records, 
facilities, andpersonnel. Its dispute resolution responsibilities 
reflect the recognition that the market will benefit from rapid, 
consensual resolution of issues, more so than litigation under the 
Department's contempt powers. The dispute resolution process 
complements, but does not supplant, ordinary methods of enforcement. 
Complainants may bring their inquiries directly to the Department if 
they choose.
    The decree also contains a provision under which the team may be 
extended by up to two years in the event that the court finds 
serious, systematic violations. Assuming that Microsoft will want to 
get our from under the decree's affirmative obligations and 
restrictions as soon as possible, the prospect that it might face an 
extension of the decree should deter violations and provide an extra 
incentive to comply. We opted for this three-part compliance regime, 
not because of the assumption that Microsoft would act in bad faith, 
but rather because of the inherent complexity of the decree, which 
seeks to address Microsoft's interactions with firms throughout the 
computer industry. Under the circumstances, ongoing supervision 
backed up by tough penalties was in order.
    Reaction to the Settlement. In our view, the proposed decree 
fully remedies the violations upheld in the court of appeals 
decision. No conceivable remedy could guarantee that middleware 
products will emerge as a palpable threat to the operating system 
monopoly. However, the decree, if entered, creates an environment in 
which Microsoft will have to compete on the merits and will be 
prevented from using anticompetitive means to impede the emergence 
of competing middleware products. In the short term, computer 
manufacturers will be able to offer consumers choices with respect 
to popular middleware programs free of interference from Microsoft. 
To the extent that the decree prevents Microsoft from unduly 
influencing the natural propagation of middleware technologies, it 
will have accomplished an important purpose, whether or nor any 
particular middleware product ultimately grows into a meaningful 
threat to the operating system. Not surprisingly, the settlement has 
its critics. Some of the criticism, however, heartfelt and 
passionate, can be dismissed as failing to reflect a real 
appreciation for the underlying law.
    Generalized claims that Microsoft's operating system monopoly 
should have been taken away as ``punishment,'' or that the 
government should have obtained monetary relief, will not be 
seriously debated in antitrust circles. The remaining critics tend 
to fall into two categories. The loudest and most vocal critics, 
understandably, are Microsoft's competitors--some of which

[[Page 29400]]

hoped the case would bring about a wholesale emasculation of 
Microsoft, while providing their own companies specific strategic, 
technological, and financial advantages. A second group, which again 
includes competitors, raises questions as to whether a remedy of 
this scope and complexity reasonably can be expected to correct the 
unlawful conduct in which Microsoft has been found to have engaged. 
Questions of that nature are entirely appropriate and we hope will 
be raised and addressed in the Tunney Act process.
    The Microsoft case is unique in the level at which competitors 
have sought to assist in andinfluence the government's liability and 
remedial determinations. From the very outset of thelitigation, 
virtually every significant player in the computer industry, 
directly or through coalitions, hired a team of antitrust lawyers 
(and sometimes lobbyists) to advance their views ofthe case. Support 
from competitors was extremely helpful to us during the liability 
phase, in thatit gave the government ready access to discovery 
materials, technical expertise and otherassistance. This support 
also was helpful in conceptualizing the remedy and testing the 
likely competitive effects of various remedial approaches.
    Nonetheless, the government still had to make judgments based 
upon its own assessment of the marketplace, rather than solely or 
even predominantly from the perspective of competitors. 
Onceliability had been established, a sense of entitlement set in 
among some firms that had rendered assistance. Firms in the industry 
became very aggressive in pressing for all manner of relief,whether 
or not it had anything to do with the antitrust liability that had 
been established.16 The Specter of the Microsoft 
operating system monopoly overhangs every level of the information 
technology industry and very clearly imposes serious challenges upon 
firms seeking to compete in adjacent markets. One can easily 
hypothesize any number of governmental actions constraining 
Microsoft or bestowing advantages upon its rivals that might be said 
to ``level the playing field'' upon which Microsoft must 
compete with other firms. The Antitrust Division,however, has no 
mandate to ``regulate'' competition divorced from 
remedying specific antitrust violations. Thus, from a law 
enforcement perspective, the relief had to be tailored to proven 
violations; it could not be a laundry list of unrelated requirements 
competitors might find useful.In this regards, it is useful to 
consider some of the principal concerns expressed publicly by 
competitors and others, in light of both the court of appeals 
decision and the proposed decree.Probably the single most widely, 
publicly expressed criticism relates to the questions of product 
bundling and commingling of software code. Firms in adjacent markets 
very clearly wanted the decree to restrict, if not prohibit, 
Microsoft from competing outside of the operating system market. 
That is one of the reasons that the structural remedy was so popular 
among competitors.Rules prohibiting Microsoft from integrating 
products into the operating system would benefit competitors. The 
court of appeals, however, refused to establish a rule of antitrust 
law that outlaws Microsoft's integration of new functions or 
products into the operating system. We had to accept that we had 
lost on that issue in the context of four separate claims; the 
contempt proceeding under the 1995 decree, and in the monopoly 
leveraging, tying, and attempted monopolization claims of this case. 
Given the manner in which the courts have treated this issue,it is 
surprising that there has been any suggestion that the settlement is 
deficient because it does not restrict bundling.
    Equally surprising is the public criticism that the proposed 
decree should have required Microsoft to sell a la carte versions of 
Windows with the middle ware priced separately. As an initial 
matter,this would have been a remedy most appropriate for the tying 
claim, rather than for monopoly maintenance. Even more 
fundamentally, where is the consumer benefit in this relief 
proposal?Computer manufacturer tout the fact that their products 
include the Windows operating system,and consumers reasonably expect 
that a Windows operating system will include the Windows features. 
The proposed decree provides the computer manufacturer the option of 
featuring alternative middleware products, which consumers might 
accept or reject as they see fit. We saw no public benefit in 
depriving consumers of that choice.
    Similar issues have been raised with regard to the commingling 
of code. At trial, the government challenged Microsoft's actions to 
prevent removal of its browser--in particular, eliminating the 
browser from the list of programs that could be removed by the 
computer manufacturer or end user with the add/remove function, and 
making it impossible to remove the Microsoft browser without 
removing related operating system code and thereby losing necessary 
operating system function. Our proposed decree addresses both issues 
by requiring that Microsoft redesign windows to include an effective 
add/remove function for all Microsoft middleware products and to 
permit competing middleware to take on a default status that will 
override middleware functions Microsoft has integrated into the 
operating system. In tandem, these provisions provide an unimpeded 
choice to select an alternative middleware product. We have never 
read the court of appeals decision with regard to commingling to be 
an attempt by the court to articulate an affirmative rule of 
software design under which all commingling would have been 
prohibited.This aspect of the court's opinion very clearly addressed 
the subject of consumer choice, which has been fully addressed in 
the proposed decree. Those seeking a broad ban on commingling appear 
to be seeking to reduce consumer choice, not increase it.
    Public critics also express concern that the proposed decree 
does not address Microsoft's incursions into new markets and 
services, such as e-commerce, Internet services, or content.They 
contend that, left unabated, Microsoft will unfairly gain control 
over those markets from its base in operating systems. Given 
Microsoft's market power in operating systems, its movement into 
adjacent markets will almost always merit careful antitrust 
scrutiny. That said, the rulings in this case provided no basis for 
attempted monopolization or monopoly leveraging remedies that would 
proscribe Microsoft actions that do not have the purpose and effect 
of protecting the operating system monopoly. Once again, with the 
monopoly maintenance claim as the only surviving basis for relief, 
the remedy has to focus on middleware or middleware-type treats to 
the operating system, nor the prospect that Microsoft might come to 
dominate other markets.It has been reported that critics also claim 
that the proposed decree is riddled with 
``loopholes,''particularly with respect to carve-outs from 
the exclusive dealing and non-retaliation provisions.Those carve-
outs, which are stated in phraseology borrowed from well-established 
Supreme Court joint venture law, afford Microsoft a limited ability 
to engage in collaborative conduct that would be plainly lawful 
under the established precedents. We can understand why some would 
prefer that Microsoft be prevented from engaging in any 
collaborative conduct. Among other things, such relief would 
constrain Microsoft in its ability to more into new 
technologies,products, and markets, isolating the company into a 
world of internal product development. But we never alleged that all 
of the scores of types of agreements into which Microsoft routinely 
enters contributed to illegal maintenance of the operating system 
monopoly. Indeed, many developers actually benefit from their 
collaborations with Microsoft and the prospect that their products 
might be commercialized through, or with, Microsoft. Consumers 
benefit to the extent that such collaborations bring such new 
products and services to the market. A flat prohibition would have 
prevented such collaborations without regard to their potential 
procompetitive benefits. It might also have prevented Microsoft, for 
example, from offering a promotional allowance in connection with a 
new product to one developer unless it provided the allowance to 
all. Requiring Microsoft to provide those allowances to firms that 
did not even sell the product would have been nonsensical. For these 
reasons, an absolute ban on collaborative activity would have been 
overkill under the circumstances of this case.
    Many competitors and others in the industry strongly favored a 
remedy that required Microsoft to disclose its source code in its 
entirety. There is within the computer science 
community,particularly among devotees of other platforms, a 
generalized notion that Microsoft unfairly foists inferior software 
upon the public by maintaining the protected proprietary quality of 
its operating system. Proponents of that view believe that 
innovation would accelerate, and Microsoft itself would be forced to 
compete on the merits, if Windows could be transformed into an open 
source code platform.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For ??, in a recent Washington Post article, Sun 
Microsystems is reported to have argued that all of Microsoft's 
formats and all of its communications protocols should be 
``turned into open, published standards,'' U.S. Settlement 
Leaves Microsoft More??, WASH.Post. Nov. 9, 2001, at E1.

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

[[Page 29401]]

    While competitor demands for access to source code are often 
stated in terms of interoperability,there is no question that such 
access would benefit competitors in other ways, as well. Access to 
the source code would provide competitors free access to Microsoft's 
programming approaches and innovations, allowing firms to imitate, 
copy, or clone products and services Microsoft offers.The proposed 
decree assures disclosure without providing an easy way for 
competitors or even hackers to misappropriate intellectual property 
and trade secrets for themselves. To the extent that the secure 
facility provided in Judge Jackson's order was to ensure adequate 
disclosure and documentation under the decree, we elected the 
effective but less intrusive approach of providing the compliance 
team, a group of computer science experts, with access to the source 
code. If a developer believes that there has been a failure of the 
disclosure regime, the compliance team will be able to determine 
quickly whether Microsoft has met its obligations under the decree. 
If it has failed, it may either cure the problem or risk contempt 
sanctions. There being no basis under the court of appeals decision 
to order Microsoft to disclose its intellectual property to 
undermine the operating system monopoly, it would have been a 
significant stretch to require open access simply to police a 
restorative provision. Our proposed decree provides an effective 
mechanism for developers to receive source code assistance, 
consistent with our remedial goals, without the danger of 
misappropriation of Microsoft's intellectual property.
    With regard to compulsory licensing to computer manufacturers, 
again, the court of appeals ruling is a constraining factor. Judge 
Jackson ordered this disclosure upon the assumption that the tying 
and attempted monopolization decisions had been sustained, providing 
a basis for separating middleware products from the operating 
system. Those findings, of course, were reversed by the court of 
appeals, calling into question whether computer manufacturers could 
lawfully reconfigure Windows by stripping out Microsoft middleware 
products in their entirety.Moreover, one would have to question the 
practicality of having computer manufacturers redesigning Windows 
for their own purposes. As it is, the proposed decree provides the 
computer manufacturer considerable control over the Windows desktop 
at initial boot-up and beyond.Requiring Microsoft to design 
effective add/delete and default functions into new versions of 
windows would seem far superior to inviting computer manufacturers 
to create do-it-yourself versions. Last, a compulsory licensing 
regime would have raised many of the same security concerns as the 
secure facility.
    In sum, it is understandable why competitors would want 
Microsoft to unbundle its integrated products, refrain from all 
collaborative activity, and widely disseminate its proprietary 
intellectual property. Those requirements, however, are largely 
beyond the scope of the court of appeals decision or otherwise do 
not advance public goals. The antitrust laws protect competition, 
not competitors. We believe that the relief we have negotiated fully 
addresses the legitimate public goals of prohibiting Microsoft's 
unlawful conduct and restoring competition.
    EXHIBIT 13
    TO THE COMMENTS OF RELPROMAX ANTITURST INC., THE WASHINGTON POST
    Enron Executives contributed to Ashcroft Campaigns
    By Dan EGGEN
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    One week before John D. Ashcroft suffered he biggest defeat of 
his political career, a $25,000donation arrived at the Ashcroft 
Victory Committee, one of the Missouri senator's fundraising 
committees for the 2000 race.
    The donor was Kenneth L. Lay, head of a rapidly growing Houston 
energy company called EnronCorp., whose executives contributed more 
than $50,000 to Ashcroft's Senate campaign in 1999and 2000.
    The contributions prompted Ashcroft to recuse himself yesterday 
from a criminal investigation into Enron's collapse by the Justice 
Department, which he heads s attorney general.Ashcroft's decision 
was based on ``the totality of the circumstances of the 
relationship between Enron and the attorney general,'' and 
Ashcroft ``has not been involved in any aspect of initiating or 
conducting any investigation involving Enron,'' the Justice 
Department said in a statement.Chief of Staff David Ayres, who ran 
Ashcroft's failed reelection bid, also will divorce himself from the 
Enron probe, officials said. In Houston, U.S. Attorney Michael 
Shelby said his entire office has removed itself from any matter 
involving Enron because he and other prosecutors have relatives 
affected by the company's collapse. The Justice Department had named 
Houston on Wednesday as one of three U.S. attorney's offices that 
would participate in the investigation.Ashcroft and his aides have 
determined that no other top Justice officials in 
Washington,including several who have played prominent roles in 
Republican politics, had direct involvement with Enron, officials 
said.
    Deputy Chief of Staff David Israelite and new Communications 
Director Barbara Comstock came to Justice after working at the 
Republican National Committee, which received more than$700,000 from 
Enron and its executives in 1999 and 2000, records show.
    ``It was determined that all the people [from] RNC, 
including David and Barbara, had no involvement with Enron,'' 
an official said.
    The Ashcroft campaign received $57,499 in 1999 and 2000 from 
Enron and its executives,according to records compiled by the Center 
for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group.
    Rep. Henry A. Waxman (DCalif.), in a letter to Ashcroft 
yesterday, complained that Lay's$25,000 gift ``was many times 
greater than the maximum allowable contribution by individuals to 
federal candidates'' and said the gift may have ``thwarted 
the intent of election laws.''The Ashcroft Victory Committee, 
like many similar committee formed by parties and candidates in the 
last election, was structured to avoid rules that limit individual 
contributions to $20,000and bar corporate donations.
    The Enron probe will be overseen by Deputy Attorney General 
Larry Thompson and the Justice Department's criminal division chief, 
Michael Chertoff, officials said.



MTC-00030632

    Sent By: zambeel; 510 9790314; Dec-19-01 10:36AM; Page l/l 
Peter van der Linden 185 West Portola Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94022 
Dec 19, 2001 Dear Madam,
    I have worked in the computer industry for 25 years, and I have 
seen first hand the adverse effects on the industry and consumers of 
Microsoft's monopoly on desktop operating systems. For example, for 
at least six years, it has not been possible to get venture capital 
funding for any technoloqy ideas in areas that Microsoft considers 
its own ``turf''. Microsoft meets regularly with venture 
capital companies to tell them areas that it considers it 
``owns''.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of serious antitrust violations 
stretchinq over several years, and the finding has been upheld by a 
Federal appeals court. The proposed settlement does nothing to 
remove Microsoft's ``ill-gotten gains''. It does nothing 
to redress competitors like Netscape, Sun Microsystems, Apple 
Computer, and Intel who were hurt by Microsoft. The settlement does 
practically nothing to prevent future abuses by Microsoft, such as 
their recent attempt to lock out the competitive Opera browser from 
its web site.
    Any remedy must as a starting point do the following:
    1. Ship the Java language from Sun with every Microsoft desktop 
OS.
    2. Make public the specifications of the present and future file 
formats of all Microsoft products.
    3. Make public, and subject to IETF approval, all Microsoft 
network protocols. IETF is an independent public interest network 
industry technical body.
    As Microsoft has said, the national interest is involved here. 
That interest demands that a single company within a critical 
industry not be allowed to dominate and restrict available products 
by continuing to abuse its monopoly.
    Yours faithfully,
    Peter van der Linden
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, 
Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530; (by 
fax 202-616-9937)



MTC-00030633

Dec 17 01 03:04p Richard S. Vann 336-722-2895 p.1 
Rhoades Contracting, Inc Fax Cover Sheet
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
From: Dewitt Rhoades
Rhoades Contracting
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dec 17 01 03:04p Richard S. Vann 336-722-2895 p.2 
From the Desk of Dewitt

[[Page 29402]]

Rhoades Renata Hesse Trial Attorney Antitrust Divisions Department 
of Justice 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing today to urge Judge Kollar Kotelly to approve the 
settlement, which has been struck between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and Microsoft in their anti-trust case. I am pleased that 
the attorney general of my home state of North Carolina has signed 
the settlement agreement and will subject the taxpayers of our state 
to no further pain. I am hoping that the judge will do the same on 
the national level.
    As a member of the board of trustees of Forsythia Technical 
Community College for 17 years, I am familiar with legal cases 
involving government entities and the private individuals or 
companies, From my experience, it is always best when litigation is 
settled and parties may get on with the business they do best 
whether it is government, private companies or educational 
institutions. Even though my experience with the federal government 
is limited to serving on the National Advisory of the Small Business 
Administration, I am convinced it is in the best interest of all 
concerned on the federal level when parties settled. That is because 
litigation in federal courts, particularly when the federal 
government is involved, tends to go on endlessly, sometimes for 
years. That is definitely in no one's best interest.
    I know that in any settlement that both sides get a bit of what 
they want and some of what they do not want. That is why from what I 
have read that this settlement is fair both to Microsoft and to the 
U.S. Department of Justice as well as to the attorneys general who 
signed it. It is unfortunate that certain of Microsoft's competitors 
continue in the media to be critical of this settlement. Their 
purpose, I believe, is to gain through government fiat what they 
have not been able to achieve in the marketplace. Please do not be 
misled by such attempted misdirection.
    Thank you for your kind consideration of my remarks.
    Sincerely,
    ss
    Dewitt Rhoades
    4587 Old Winston Road, Kemersville, NC 27284



MTC-00030634

From: Prigan by arrangement
To: Trial Attorney, Renata Hesse
Date: 12/17/01Time: 2:04:56 PM Page 1 of 1 5649 Great Woods 
Blvd. Columbus, OH 43231-3173 Tel-D 523-2120 
[email protected] December 17, 2001 Renata Hesse, Trial 
Attorney Suite 1200--Antitrust Division Department of Justice 
601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20530 RE: NO!!! to Microsoft 
Settlement Proposal
    I am writing to strenuously oppose the proposed settlement with 
the Microsoft Corporation. I think that it is extremely unwise, 
after a judgement that Microsoft has indeed abused its monopoly 
power, to then turn around and reward Microsoft by giving them a way 
out of responsibility which furthers their penetration of the 
academic market.
    This generosity to Microsoft is ludicrous. It would be much more 
just were Microsoft to be required to establish an enormous trust 
fund from which schools could draw funds to purchase hardware, 
services, and software of their own choosing. Further, allowing 
Microsoft to ``give'' in-kind contributions of their own 
software allows Microsoft to arbitrarily determine the 
``value'' of what they give out undoubtedly at a factor of 
many times their actual expense, so that the ``value'' of 
the settlement can be inflated for public relations purposes.
    At this time there are many more cost-effective (and democratic) 
possibilities for software in academic settings. Linux and the BSDs 
are better operating systems, created in a collaborative manner that 
is more in tune with ideal academic and democratic principles. The 
choices presented by these alternatives are needed to stimulate the 
creativity of the next generation of cyber scholars and programmers. 
The manner in which they are developed models the community-minded 
creativity we want from young citizens. Should we really just 
surrender to the Microsoft monopoly? More may be at stake here than 
just ``where do you want to go today!''
    In the long struggle between the Department of Justice 
(representing the American people!) and Microsoft, Microsoft has 
relied on the rapid nature of change in technology to outrun their 
responsibility for abuse of their monopoly power, employing delaying 
tactics and legal shenanigans coupled with well-funded 
misinformation. Many superior software products have been destroyed, 
sometimes even in very subtle ways such as by changing underlying 
code in ways that causes the competitor's programs to crash or 
suffer display problems. Two of my favorites, Netscape, and Word 
Perfect are superior software that is now headed for oblivion. 
(Although ironically Netscape may rise from the dead in the free 
Mozilla project!) Quicken, Palm and Java are on MS's hit list. MS 
seeks as well to leverage their OS monopoly to control the internet 
through such devices as NET and C#. And now that MS has 
determined open source to be a threat one encounters in the press 
almost daily misinformation concerning open source alternatives to 
MS.
    It is time to call Microsoft to be responsible, not through 
corporate welfare by way of giving them assistance in taking over 
the schools market; but through going back to the good fight to 
achieve a fair judgement or settlement that will help our nation, 
and not just reward Microsoft's arrogance at the expense of the 
future competitiveness of American technology. It is important to 
keep in minds that Microsoft has actually invented very little, 
dating back to their fist DOS. They have generally squeezed out and 
overtaken the competition. A corporation employing these kinds of 
tactics is definitely not who we want to be in charge of our 
nation's agenda for computing innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Rev. R. Scott Prigan



MTC-00030635

    DEC-17-01 14:36 FROM:KINKOS LACUNA NIGUEL ID:9493621957 
PAGE l/2 DECEMBER 17,2001 FAX TO: UNITED STATES ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL CHARLES JAMES
    202 307-1454 202 616-9937 202-616-2645 
FAX FROM: NATHANNA GODFREE P.0. BOX 2584 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 
92690
    DEAR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES
    I AM (E PLURIBUS UNUM) OF MR. & MRS. UNITED STATES OF 
AMERlCA AND AS SUCH I AM PERSUADED THAT WE THE PEOPLE BY THESE 
TRUTHS WHICH ARE SELF EVIDENT THAT OUR UNITED STATES FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT IS OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.
    OUR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT 
DEPARTMENTS WHO SPEAKS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PEOPLE, 
REPRESENTING ALL UNITED STATES PEOPLES AND COUNTRYMEN HAS SPENT A 
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DEDICATED TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY--TAXPAYER 
MONEY REPRESENTING US ALL TO ( THE LETTER OF THE LAW) HAS ALREADY 
RESOLVED AND SETTLED THE MICROSOFT CORPORATION ANTlTRUST CASE.
    ANY AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL PENALTIES ARE PURELY POLIITICAL 
BUREAUCRACY, PERSONAL AND DRIVEN BY CORPORATE PERSONAL ENDEAVOURS 
AND OPINIONS. OUR UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT OF THE 
MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE IS ( NOT) A ``CONFUSINGLY VAGUE, 
SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION OR BOTH'' AS CHAIRMAN SENATOR PATRICK 
LEAHY PERSONALLY OPINIONATED IN THE USA TODAY NEWSPAPER THURSDAY 
DECEMBER 13,200l ON PAGE 2B. HIS WORDS IN ESSENCE PUTS IN QUESTION 
THE STATE OF MIND,
    DEC-17-01 14:36 FROM:KINKOS LACUNA NIGUEL ID:9493621957 
PAGE 2/2 THE INTEGRITY, PROFESSIONALISM AND CHARACTER OF YOU OUR 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. CONTINUE: DECEMBER 17,200I FAX TO: UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
ANTITRUST CHARLES JAMES 202 307-1454 202 616-9937
    CONTINUE FROM PAGE 1:
    IF ANYONE SHOULD TAKE HIS WORDS FOR TRUTH THEY WOULD ALSO 
QUESTION: IF THE SETTLEMENT IS INDEED CONFUSINGLY VAGUE, SUBJECT TO 
MANIPULATION OR BOTH, IT WOULD STAND TO REASON THE GOVERNMENT IS 
ALSO CONFUSINGLY VAGUE, SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION OR BOTH.
    ALL UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL ARE 
DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST, FROM THE 
SUPREME COURT TO THE JANITORS. IT IS WITH THIS CONFIDENCE THAT OUR 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ELECTED OFFICIALS, DULY SWORN WARDS OF OUR 
COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM THEY WILL ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE 
PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE, LET THE MICROSOFT ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT 
STAND ( AS IS ) WHAT IS

[[Page 29403]]

ALREADY RESOLVED AND SETTLED. PLEASE REMEMBER THIS CASE IS ALREADY 
PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS AND THOSE NINE OTHER STATES TAXPAYERS ARE 
PAYING TWICE ( FOR WHO'S BENEFIT ? )
    THANK YOU,
    NATHANNA GODFREE
    NG



MTC-00030636

DEC-14-2001 14:48
CHASE IT DEPT 216 479 2573 P.01 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO FAX NUMBER:
202-616-9937
TO: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
PHONE NUMBER:
LOCATION: Antitrust Division, Dept. of Justice
REMARKS: Please consider this Public comment on the US vs. Microsoft 
Anti-trust case.
FROM: Cvetan Pavloski
FAX NUMBER: 216-479-2573
DATE: 12/14/01
PHONE NUMBER: 216-479-2500 x5016
    TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 3 INCLUDING THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO NOT 
RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT 
THE ABOVE LISTED NUMBER.
    THANK YOU. DEC-14-2001 14:48 CHASE IT DEPT 216 479 2573 
P.02
    I've been reading some rather disturbing articles centered on 
the great US vs. Microsoft debate. While I agree with the decision 
of overturning their breakup, I do believe that stiffer penalties 
than the current settlement need to be considered. As much as a 
necessity to today's economy as Microsoft is, I believe they are a 
threat to many of the values that we as American's stand for.
    Part of being an American is the freedom to choose. With 
Microsoft in control of the software there is no freedom to choose 
what operates your computer anymore (at least on the PC side). 
Microsoft has gained some of this monopoly through some innovation, 
but has gained far more through things that the general public never 
sees. Its new operating system represents a great step toward the 
future of computing, but also harbors many unseen pieces that force 
customers to register their computer configurations with Microsoft, 
and apply for a ``passport'' (Microsoft's idea for a one 
login for everything system). The storing of computer configurations 
is used for Microsoft's new product activation feature. While it 
will curb piracy, it doesn't seem like Microsoft explored all of the 
options for curbing said piracy. Intel made similar claims with its 
processor serial number they release in early Pentium III chips, but 
the general public rebuked Intel and what was perceived as a way to 
track average individuals. I could go on for a long time about the 
things that Microsoft does to keep it's position as a monopoly, but 
that's not the main reason I'm writing.
    A recent development stems from an article I read yesterday on 
www.news.com. It involves Microsoft having its Windows Media 
Technology put into the chips of several major manufacturers to 
drive windows media from DVD disks and regular compact discs. This 
move alone needs to looked at closely especially from an anti-trust 
point of view. I can't see how this will benefit a consumer at all, 
as current DVD players already play regular CDs and DVDs legally. 
Windows media on a DVD player can only be another way that Microsoft 
makes inroads to the home. We have computers which are run by 
Microsoft, now a Gaming console from Microsoft (Xbox), a Digital 
Video Recorder (Ultimate TV), and now they will be invading DVD 
players, too?
    I would ask you to consider these facts. Windows Media is behind 
in use compared to the MP3 standard, which is an open standard that 
supports Fair Use. If Microsoft were able to allow their Windows 
Media into home DVD players, most companies may not choose to 
include MP3 support in the future in favor of the Windows Media. The 
reason for that is that Windows XP now only encodes windows media at 
the highest quality. MP3 recording in Windows XP only records at 
half the quality needed for good recordings. Once again Microsoft is 
leveraging their position in the market to get people to switch to 
their supported technology. People didn't choose Microsoft Internet 
Explorer over Netscape because it was better; they chose it because 
Microsoft made it convenient. That is not a bad thing for a 
consumer, but now businesses need to buy Microsoft's server software 
to take full advantage of Internet Explorer. Now the average 
consumer will think that Windows Media is better than MP3 because of 
the way that Microsoft cripples the format in Windows XP. This is 
unfair and dirty politics. This fact would cause manufacturers to 
choose the proprietary Windows Media for DVD players instead of MP3, 
the fair and open standard, A move that would cause Microsoft to 
have more control of another piece of hardware in your living room. 
A motive that they have stated publicly for some time now. They want 
control over your entire home, from the TV to the microwave.
    It is in Microsoft's best interest to do this, as that is what 
they want, and of course they make more money from their licensing 
schemes. Please don't let Microsoft get away with something like 
this. The penalties need to occur now in order to stop them from 
going so far out of control that we may never be able to reign them 
in.
    Thank you,
    Cvetan Pavloski
    5686 Broadview Rd. #2617
    Parma, OH 44134



MTC-00030637

12/14/01 FRI 00:57 FAX 3103016032 BIGFISH 001
Thomas A. Johnson
8336 Westlawn Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90045
December 14, 200l
Renata Hesse Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
(facsimile) 202-616-9937
(telephone) 202-307-1545
(email) [email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse.
    As a professional in the computer industry, who began writing 
code for Internet applications in 1984, and the founder and Chief 
Scientist of an Internet Security Service company, I have followed 
the Microsoft case very closely over the last several years. 
Microsoft's antics during the original anti-trust trial were comical 
to those of us who understand the truth behind their technology and 
competition claims, But I was encouraged by the government's ability 
to sort through the majority of these games and, to prevail in the 
original judgment.
    But I have been quite upset by the current governments seeming 
lack of interest in imposing any meaningful remedies in this case. 
The proposed settlement leaves loopholes big enough for even the 
most amateurish company to drive a truck through, and we all know 
that Microsoft is far from an amateur when it comes to exploiting 
these sorts of situations.
    Microsoft's proposal to quell the class-action lawsuits by 
donating hardware and software to schools makes me shudder. 
Education is one of the last arenas where Microsoft's monopoly is 
less secure. Providing Microsoft software to these schools will, in 
effect, lock them into this platform. California Attorney General 
Bill Lockyer was right when he said ``It's a little like Big 
Tobacco being found guilty of selling cigarettes to minors, and the 
remedy is for them to agree to give them free cigarettes.'' The 
proposed settlement is very weak, and will do little to reduce the 
control that Microsoft holds over this industry. I join Matthew 
Szulik, the CEO of RedHat, Inc., in my astonishment that a firm with 
a 96% market share, who has a terrifying track record for destroying 
competitors, and whose guilt has already been established is being 
offered the improved terms of this proposed settlement.
    I believe that any settlement that hopes to remedy the issue 
before us must at minimum:
    1. Provide a guarantee that all Microsoft networking and client/
server protocols be published in a full and complete manner, and 
verified by an independent third party, and further, be provided to 
the public at the time it is provided to their own internal 
programmers and application developers.
    2. Microsoft should not be able to offer incentives or threaten 
punishment to computer manufacturers or resellers that results in 
Microsoft software being included by default in all system 
purchases, In the past, I have purchased equipment that was bundled 
with MS software--a request to unbundled the software resulted 
in absolutely no price difference, or at most a few dollars. This 
must stop to encourage competition. 12/14/01 FRI 00:58 FAX 
3103016032 BIGFISH December 14.2001
    3. All Microsoft document file formats (present and future) must 
be public and complete, to allow other operating systems and 
software to read and write files in these formats.
    4. Microsoft must not the party that is allowed to determine 
what software is part of the Windows operating system.

[[Page 29404]]

    5. Microsoft must provide all information and specifications, 
not just to commercial entities, but to the public at large, to 
enable the creation of compatible or competitive software and 
systems by open-source proponents, and non-profit corporations or 
organizations, as well as individual programmers working on their 
own. For example, the requirement that to qualify as a middleware 
product under the terms of the settlement, the competitor must have 
distributed at least 1 million copies of the software in the 
previous year. This allows Microsoft to annihilate start-up 
companies and individual developers at will.
    6. The settlements provision that Microsoft need not 
``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'', provides 
them with another one of those truck-sized loopholes.
    It is well known and accepted in the academic and open-source 
world that peer review of code and protocols results in more secure 
systems. This is a blatant attempt by Microsoft to create a loophole 
that will allow them to stifle competition.
    7. The definition that an ISV is ``is engaged in the 
development or marketing of software products designed to run on a 
Windows Operating System Product'' allows Microsoft to deny 
rights to those of us who develop systems for other operating 
systems such as Linux, which require access to the APls and code 
that should be made public.
    In summary, I have to believe that a settlement that is truly 
good for the industry and good for America would place a real remedy 
above expediency.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Johnson



MTC-00030638

Dec 14 1 04:09p Richard S. Vann 336-722-2895 P. 1
OEM Sales Corporation
336-924-0090
Fax Cover Sheet
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Fax No: 202-616-9937
From: William Miller, Owner
OEM Sales Corporation
Dec 14, 01 04:lOp Richard S. Vann
336-722-2895 P-2
OEM Sales Corporation
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a small businessman many of whose clients are in the business 
of making computers, I want to commend to Judge Kollar Kotelly the 
settlement which has been reached in the Microsoft case.
    First of all, it is my believe that there has never been any 
consumer harm by any action taken by Microsoft and that so many of 
that company's innovations have led to big benefits both to users at 
home and in businesses. During the prosecution of the case, it was 
very clear that Microsoft's competitors played a major hand in 
trying to work against Microsoft's position with members of 
Congress, the media and tried to move the verdict against Microsoft. 
That battle actually cost taxpayers $30 million which is far too 
much. Because the economy is in the shape it is in, the last thing 
that we need is more litigation, expensive court fights and endless 
funds wasted on attorneys. Both the industry and the government 
attorneys need to focus on other matters, in my opinion. As chairman 
of the Republican Party of Forsyth County, the fourth largest in the 
state, I tend to hold those views strongly.
    As I view the elements of the settlement, I believe it to be 
fair to both side with Microsoft guaranteeing certain provisions and 
the government getting enforcement provisions never before seen in 
an anti-trust settlement. I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves 
this settlement.
    William P. Miller
    President
    5640 Clinedale Court, Pfafftown, NC 27040



MTC-00030639

To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Pages:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax: 202-307-1545
Charles Jenkins
112 Nasson LN
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Fax; 865-675-1241
Comments on the Remedy Phase of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial
December 14, 2001
    I'm submitting this letter to you for inclusion in the public 
comments, as provided for by the Tunney Act, on the proposed 
settlement of the United States of America vs. Microsoft, I sent a 
copy of these comments via postal mail before I learned that fax or 
email comments are preferred; I'm now sending this copy via fax in 
order to comply with the request that appeared in the Federal 
Register. I have also corrected some omissions, so if you would, 
please accept this version of my letter instead of the one sent 
through the Postal Service.
    The point of illegal, monopolistic behavior is to frustrate 
consumer choice. Competitors suffer as a side-effect. I believe that 
the goal of an antitrust remedy should be to restore consumer 
choice. If the settlement focuses on punishing Microsoft or giving 
some kind of boost to its competitors, the long-term effect will be 
negligible and the anti-competitive situation will remain.
    The fundamental flaw in the remedy proposed by the Department of 
Justice is that it puts mild restrictions on Microsoft's behavior, 
with plenty of loopholes to allow Microsoft to escape the few 
provisions--like revealing Windows Application Program 
Interfaces (API's) to competitors--that could make some 
difference. This is especially egregious because the biggest threat 
facing Microsoft comes from open-source and free software, and 
Microsoft has been allowed to negotiate a remedy that defines its 
competitors in terms of sales revenue--thus allowing it to 
escape disclosing Windows API's to the real competitors who have the 
best chance of providing alternatives to Microsoft's monopoly. 
Basically, it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of 
companies that could meet this remedy's definition of a competitor 
are Microsoft's corporate partners!
    Since Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally maintaining 
its monopoly in the market for computer operating systems, a verdict 
reaffirmed on appeal, I believe that now is the time to go forth 
cautiously, carefully crafting a remedy with the overt goal of 
restoring consumer choice,
    The lynchpin of Microsoft's operating system dominance is the 
link between Microsoft Office and Windows. New personal computers 
come preloaded with Windows, and Office is usually included 
``free'' or for a small, fee. I was formerly the network 
administrator at my company, and I have seen first-hand the 
deleterious effect of this situation.
    Microsoft Office programs use proprietary file formats that 
change with each new version of Office, I believe Microsoft makes 
changes to these formats for three reasons: To add new features; to 
frustrate competition by preventing competitors'' efforts to 
develop up-to-date ``import filters'' that will allow 
their software interpret Office files and thus exchange data 
gracefully with users of Microsoft Office; and to make it difficult 
for an individual company to standardize on an older version of 
Office which cannot read new versions of the files. This wouldn't be 
such a problem, except that businesses automatically become 
``infected'' with new versions of Office as computers are 
upgraded. A Corporate Information Systems (IS) department simply 
must to learn to support new versions of Office, because there is no 
way to keep them out.
    Microsoft Office takes over, because companies are faced with 
the choice of getting Office ``free'' or paying for 
competing products. Even if competing products are extremely low-
cost or free themselves, IS has to support Office because they can't 
keep it out of the door. In this environment, how can a company 
justify spending money supporting and retraining for a second office 
suite to be used in parallel? In the end, only companies with anti-
Microsoft zealots in powerful positions can avoid becoming dependent 
upon Office, and therefore upon Widows.
    Restoring Choice
    Microsoft Office and Windows are linked in two ways: By 
technical links and by artificial links.
    The technical links exist because Office is written to run on 
Windows, This is reasonable and appropriate.

[[Page 29405]]

    The artificial links traditionally have included discounts, 
benefits, and even punishments offered to personal computer 
manufacturers to encourage them to bundle Office on new computers. 
They also include things like Microsoft licensing and support 
agreements that lump operating system software and business software 
together for the companies who purchase those agreements.
    It is these artificial links that stifle consumer choice and 
software competition, and therefore, the remedy for Microsoft's 
illegal behavior should be to sever these artificial links as 
thoroughly and permanently as possible.
    In a nutshell, whether sold separately or together as Microsoft 
Office (or by any other name), Microsoft's business software should 
be sold to every end user for the same price, whether purchased in 
conjunction with a computer or not. (And any ``home'' or 
``personal'' version of business software should be 
treated the same way.) CompUSA should pay the same per-copy price; 
for the Microsoft business software that they stock on their shelves 
as Dell pays to pre-load it on new PC's, Also, Microsoft should not 
be able to offer/threaten any discount, benefit, or punishment to 
computer sellers in order to encourage them to purchase or pre-load 
Microsoft business software, Microsoft should not be allowed to 
``integrate'' business software into the operating system 
and sell it as one product.
    Support and upgrade/licensing agreements for the Microsoft 
operating system and business software product lines should be kept 
entirely separate, with no discounts or incentives for customers who 
purchase agreements for multiple product lines. These restrictions 
should either be in effect permanently, or until a healthy level of 
competition is achieved in both the business and operating systems 
software markets. Consumers should not become dependent upon 
Microsoft Office because it comes with the monopoly operating 
system, and they should not be forced to use Microsoft Windows 
because they need it to run the monopoly office suite.
    This will force the Microsoft business software applications, 
whether sold together or separately, to compete based on price and 
performance.
    How will this restore choice? On the face of it, these 
restrictions appear to do no more than add to the end user's cost, 
but the fact is, if everyone has to pay the same price for Office, 
we are likely to see that price drop dramatically, as Microsoft will 
suddenly have to face real competition. The corporate Chief 
Information Officer will have to justify expenditures on Microsoft 
Office, weighing real costs and benefits against competing software, 
instead of simply facing the inevitability of supporting Office.
    Companies and individuals who purchase computers will no longer 
receive Office by default; if they want it preloaded on a new PC, it 
will be an add-on option that costs the same as going down to Wal-
Mart and buying Office separately. This gives the consumer the 
option to perform a cost-benefit analysis, If Office is no longer 
``free,'' is it worth what we pay? Are there other 
products that might serve us better? This will restore competition 
for business software, and also restore competition to the operating 
system market as well: Companies and individuals who choose not to 
use Office are likely to find that they are no longer locked in to 
Windows, either.
    At the same time, this solution would not put an undue burden on 
Microsoft, There are indeed many customers who are happy with things 
pretty much the way they are now, and who don't realize how the 
ordinary consumer is injured by Microsoft's monopoly. If they had to 
pay a retail price for Office instead of receiving it 
``free'' on new computers, they would choose to do just 
that in order to continue using a familiar product whose 
shortcomings they've learned to accept. This situation is fine; in 
fact, it is desirable. If it turns out that Windows and Office can 
compete well against other platforms in an environment of real 
consumer choice, then they deserve all the market share they can 
get. I and a great many others would like to see the result of that 
experiment; We would like to exist in an environment with real 
consumer choice.
    In Conclusion
    On December 12, forgetting that Brer Rabbit is supposed to say 
``please don`t throw me into that briar patch,'' 
Microsoft filed a motion vigorously supporting the remedy being 
considered by the court. I know that the law is a complex matter, 
and that this case is especially difficult, but I think it is a 
telling point that the defendant company, having been found guilty 
of illegal acts, now loudly and enthusiastically supports a remedy 
that they (Microsoft) are happy with, a remedy that they helped to 
create.
    I respectfully ask the court to implement a remedy that will go 
much farther toward restoring consumer choice than does the one 
currently under consideration, and I ask that the final remedy be 
written without loopholes that would allow Microsoft to escape its 
provisions-especially in regard to open-source software systems that 
need to interoperate gracefully with Microsoft operating systems and 
business software in order to become viable alternatives.
    Sincerely
    Charles Jenkins



MTC-00030640

Renata Hesse, Trail Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC U.S.A. 20530
Anthony J. Kocurko
23 Burling Crescent
St. John's. Newfoundland
Canada A 1 E 5H3
Officer Phone: 709-737-8898
Office FAX : 709-737-2589
E-mail : [email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a U.S. citizen living in Newfoundland and employed as a 
systems manager in a research department of a university, I have a 
keen interest in the Microsoft antitrust case. To be succinct. I 
believe that the complete details of the formats, including syntax 
and lexical interpretation, of both the data files and the network 
communications protocols of Microsoft products should be made 
public. That is the short of it.
    Here is the long of it, although not very long. It is not 
uncommon for me to be asked by researchers. who do not happen to be 
using Microsoft operating systems, to help in deciphering e-mail 
attachments sent to them from colleagues or institutions using 
Microsoft products. (In fact. amazingly, there have been instances 
of researchers, who do use Microsoft operating systems. receiving c-
mail text attachments and being unable to read them because they do 
not have the same Microsoft program that produced them.) Most often, 
we end up asking the sender to recreate the attachment in an open 
format such as Rich Test Format, for example, for which there are 
available readers for non-Microsoft computer systems. On the 
networking side, if it were not for the existence of the Samba 
software (http://www.samba.org). we would have a very hard time 
sharing our research data among our Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
systems. My fear, as a systems manager of a heterogeneous facility, 
is that Microsoft will use the proposed terms of the settlement to 
make it impossible for third parties to produce open source software 
that will allow the fluent interchange of data between Microsoft and 
non-Microsoft products.
    In thinking about this issue, I usually return to several 
situations to which almost anyone could relate. At the moment. I can 
pick up my phone and talk to a person anywhere in the world, 
regardless of the manufactures of the phones and regardless of any 
fancy extensions that either phone may have. Similarly, I will be 
able to FAX this note to you without wondering whether the company 
that made your facsimile machine has so arranged things that only a 
FAX machine by the same company can send to yours. Again, I can make 
a recording on my VHS VCR and not have to concern myself with the 
VHS system on which it is re-played. Now, one may argue that no 
company would be so foolish as to create a phone that only phones of 
the same manufacturer can call, but, if that phone manufacturer 
controlled 90% of the phone market, it could well be tempted to do 
just such a thing.
    It is my opinion that what goes on within the strict confines of 
a computer is up to that computer's operating system, but when the 
produce of that software leaves the computer, either as e-mail or a 
data file or a network transmission, then it has entered the public 
airways, so to speak, and its format should be readable by anyone on 
that airway. To put it in an almost ridiculously simple form, it is 
one thing to write a program that adds two numbers, but it is quite 
another to write such a program with an interface that requires that 
the two numbers be supplied to the program in some secret 
proprietary language.
    Sincerely Yours,



MTC-00030641

To: Renata Hesse
From: Kevin Walsh
Fax: 202-616-9937 Pages: 1
Phone:
Date: 12/14/2001
Re: Mircrosoft Settlement CC:

[[Page 29406]]

    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a travesty 
of justice. The settlement does not address any of the pertinent 
issues such as: The specifications of Microsoft's present and future 
document file formats Microsoft's networking protocols Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly
    I propose that at least the following recommendations be taken 
into account
    ï¿½Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of 
Microsoft's monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra options 
in the purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish 
to purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the 
price differential between a new computer with Microsoft software 
and one without a computer seller must offer the software without 
the computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that 
the difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    ï¿½The specifications of Microsoft's present and 
future document file formats must be made public, so that documents 
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other 
makers, on Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in 
addition to opening the Windows application program interface (API, 
the set of ``hooks'' that allow other parties to write 
applications for Windows operating systems), which is already part 
of the proposed settlement
    ï¿½Any Microsoft networking protocols must be 
published in full and approved by an independent network protocol 
body. This would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of 
the Internet I then point out that if the national interest is at 
issue, as I believe it is and as the judge has suggested it is, it 
is crucial that Microsoft's operating system monopoly not be 
extended, and in this I quote the study released a year ago by the 
highly respected Center for Strategic and International Studies, 
which pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually poses 
a national security risk. In closing, I say that all are surely in 
agreement that the resolution of this case is of great importance, 
not just now but for many years to come. This suggests a careful and 
deliberate penalty is far more important to the health of the nation 
than is a hasty one.
    Thank you,
    Kevin C. Walsh



MTC-00030642

DEVELOPERS CHOICE
``Southeastern Michigan's Internet Provider''
December 14, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Aintitrust Division
US.Derpartment of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 2O530-0001
Via Fax (202) 616-9937
Renata B. Hesse Esq.
    First of all I would like to offer my support for the candidacy 
of Steve Satchell for the Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance Committee. 
Mr. Satchell seems to, have all of the requisite experience and, 
knowledge to do the job along with intestinal fortitude to take on 
Microsoft if need be, I don't believe there is a better choice!.
    Secondly I would like to voice my objections, to the proposed 
settlement offer. This offer is a basically a capitulation to 
Microsoft. There is no effective barrier in the agreement to 
Microsoft continuing their current practices. Let me explain.
    Microsoft argues that they must be allowed to continue to 
integrate their applications into their operating system. What will 
the ultimate result of this be? Microsoft's complete domination of 
the software business both, operating systems and applications. This 
will be accomplished by incorporating all of the Microsoft 
applications into the operating system. Since most non-technical 
users have little idea how to eliminate programs from their 
computers the mere ability is not enough--the user should have 
the options presented to them in a forthright and direct manner 
forcing the customer to make choices--either Microsoft or 
someone else. I am currently forced to use Microsoft to be 
compatible with the rest of the world--I would rather use 
something else as I dearly hate the way the program works. Alas, I 
can't as Microsoft has become the default word-processor of the 
world with the notable exception of banks and law firms it would 
seem. How did this happen--whenever you bought a new computer a 
few years ago Microsoft Office was nearly offered as a no or low-
cost option--nearly everyone took it . The result is that 
Microsoft no longer has any effective competition in the 
``productivity'' software arena and Office is no longer 
free--in fact it is quite expensive. Do you think they will 
back off from this type of business tactic--not as long as the 
sun shines and the birds chirp!
    Another issue I have with the proposed settlement is the 
restrictions that are placed on the entities, with which Microsoft 
must share their API's. In the explanations I have seen of the 
proposed settlement these entities are restricted 
``commercial'' ventures, implying for--profit status. 
This is simply wrong and way too restrictive, I believe that to be 
truly effective the parties with whom Microsoft should share their 
API's and the like should broadly defined, maybe something like 
``any party or entity that could potentially benefit from such 
information''. In other words this information should 
essentially be in the public damain.
    I could go on and on, about the questionable and underhanded 
tactics Microsoft has used, over the years to further their monopoly 
but I think you see my point. This a company that will stop at 
nothing to completely dominate the software industry--and now 
they have their sights set on my industry--the Internet. It 
would indeed be a shame if this opportunity to rein in this out-of-
control behemoth were squandered. The Justice Department fought a 
good fight until the proposed settlement--please don't make the 
same mistake that former President Bush made in Iraq and stop the 
war before its objective has been reached. March on Redmond and 
don't stop until the scoundrels are cornered and say uncle! Then you 
need to keep a close eye on them to make sure that they mind their 
p's and q's.
    Yours truly,
    David DeFord, C.P.A.
    Chief Financial Officer
    Gateway Online



MTC-00030643

Sent By: TRACEANALYSIS;
14 Dec'Ol 12:46; Job 628;Page 1/2
Trace Analysis, Inc.
6701 Aberdeen Avenue, Suite H Lubbock, Texas 79424 800 378 1296 806 
794 1296 FAX 806 794 1296
4725 Ripley Avenue, Suite A El Paso, Texas 79977 800 588 3443 915 
585 3443 FAX 915 585 3443
E-Mail:[email protected]
TRACE ANALYSIS,INC
A Laboratory For Advanced Environmenal Research and Analysis
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Renata Hesse
COMPANY: Dept, of Justice
DATE: 12-14-2001
FAX NO: 202-616-9937
202-307-1545
NO OF PAGES FOLLOWING: 1
FROM: Steve Rudeseal
MESSAGE: Comments on Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Important: This message is intended for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged. confidential and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is 
not the recipient or the employee, or an agent responsible for 
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone 
and return the original message to us at the above address via 
regular postal service.
    Thank you.
    Environmental Research and Analysis
    Sent By: TRACEANALYSIS; 7941298; 14 Dec'01 12:47; Job 628;Page 
2/2
    Requiring that Microsoft donate software to schools does nothing 
to remedy their illeqal business practices. What it does in fact, is 
allow Microsoft an unfair advantage in a market in where Apple is 
competing successfuly. The proposed final judgement does nothing to 
address the fact that Microsoft is guilty of attempting to maintain 
its monopoly.
    Microsoft has become a de facto standard throuqh both legal and 
illeqal means. Therefore, they bear the burden of ensuring 
interoperability with other systems. Microsoft's competitors consist 
of both businesses and communities of individuals. Companies like 
Apple, Sun, Netscape and Red Hat compete directly with Microsoft in 
the buisness arena. But, there is also the open source and free 
software communities which are not related directly to any given 
company. Open source projects like the Apache server and Samba file 
server have been very successful in competing with Microsoft. The 
proposed remedy does nothing to ensure that these Open Source 
competitors will be able to compete in the future.
    To ensure that both companies and open source communities are 
able to compete fairly with Microsoft, two measures must be

[[Page 29407]]

taken. First off, Microsoft must not be allowed to pre-install and 
bundle its software onto new systems. The consumer should be allowed 
to choose what software they want on their system. Microsoft would 
still be able to offer volume pricing to vendors, but would not be 
allowed to attach restrictions on how the software is used by the 
vendor. Secondly, to ensure that there is other software available, 
Microsoft should be compelled to release the documentation on their 
protocols, APIs and file formats. Doing so would allow other 
competitors, both companies and communities, to compete on a level 
playinq field. This solution would not require Microsoft to open up 
its source code, but it would ensure interoperability with 
competitors products.
    Steve Rudestal, Programmer, Administrator.
    Justin Shepherd, System Administrator.



MTC-00030644

11 Dez 01 22:lO lain Brodie
+49 89 4358 9382 s. 1
To/An: Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FAX COVER SHEET
From/Von:
Iain Brodie Tel. Work/Biiro: +49 (0)89 9392 2705
Baumkirchner Str. 22 Home/Privat: +49 (0)89 43 1 5792
8 1673 Muenchen Fax: +49 (0)89 4358 9382
Germany Email: [email protected]
Date/Datum: 11. Dec. 2001
Ref./Betr.: Microsoft Settlement
No. of Pages (incl. cover sheet) 1
/Anzahl der Seiten (inkl. Deckblatt):
    Dear Sirs:
    I am afraid that the ``penalties'' currently proposed 
will not prevent Microsoft enacting future misdemeanors.
    Yours faithfully,
    Iain Brodie



MTC-00030645

NOV-14-2001 12:14
VIA FAX 202 616-2645
DOJ/ANTITRUST DIV.
202 514 0306 P.01/01
Thomas C. Willcox Post it
Attorney-At-Law Fax Note R7673
601 Indiana Avenue, NW To Renata Hesse
Suite 500 Fax# 7-1454
Washington, DC 20004 From Dave Wates
Office: (202) 638-7541 Phone# 5-3055
Fax: (202) 628-2881
Member, District of Columbia
Pennsylvania Bars
November 13, 2001
VIA FAX 202 616-2645
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    I submit this letter pursuant to the Tunney Act as a comment on 
the Microsoft settlement.Based on the comments discussed in more 
detail below that I heard Antitrust Chief CharlesJamesoffer in mid-
October, in my opinion, the court should not approve the settlement.
    I am an antitrust lawyer and solo practitioner in the District 
of Columbia. On October 16 ofthis year, in the late afternoon, I 
lunched at a table outside the Manhattan Deli, just north of 
theNavyMemorial on Pennsylvania Avenue. As I sat, I noticed 
Antitrust Chief James in conversationwithanother gentleman, about 
fifteen feet away from me. I heard Mr. James express some 
frustrationabout the Microsoft case, although I did not hear his 
exact words on that topic.
    Then, I heard him say ``It is going to take years to undo 
the damage done by Klein andPitofsky.'' I was stunned by this 
comment Antitrust Chief James seemed to be saying his plans for 
theAntitrust Division include not just relaxing antitrust 
enforcement, but subvertingaccomplishmentssuch as last summer's 
ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that 
Microsofthadabused its monopoly power. Such a philosophy clearly 
contradicts the testimony offered by ChiefJames during his 
confirmation hearings.
    Two Fridays ago, less than a month later, Antitrust Chief James 
announced a settlement ofthe Microsoft case. In my view, given the 
attitude towards antitrust enforcement I heardexpressedlast month, 
he should recuse himself from the case, and career Justice lawyers 
should determineitsfuture.
    Sincerely yours
    Thomas C. Willcox



MTC-00030646

PO1
Australian Union of Students
P.O. Box 123
Roma Street
BRISBANE Qld. 4003
Telephone: (07) 3321 3069
facsimille: (07) 3311 2090
Email: [email protected]
November 17. 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I refer to the case against Microsoft Corporation in the 
UnitedStates District Court for the District of Columbia, 
referenceCivil Action No. 98-1232 and No. 98-1233. In 
accordance withthe Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, the 
United StatesGovernment is required to consider submissions from 
members ofthe public about its proposed settlement with 
MicrosoftCorporation. Please take into consideration the 
accompanyingsubmission of our association, which we are making on 
behalfof our members who are United States citizens.
    Cordially,
    Geoff Bird
    National President
    SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TOTHE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE 
ANTITRUST CASEAGAINST MICROSOFT CORPORATIONAUSTRALIAN UNION OF 
STUDENTSNOVEMBER 2001
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    1.The proposed settlement will not end litigation against 
Microsoft, as it neglects to punishMicrosoft for unlawful conduct 
and compensate those affected.
    2.lf the proposed settlement goes ahead, it will deprive the 
United States Government ofinfluence over the settlement that 
Microsoft will ultimately reach with the EuropeanUnion.
    3.Accordingly, our association, on behalf of our members who are 
American citizens,wishes to propose an alternative settlement.
    4.Microsoft should be required to publish the source code for 
its operating systems.
    5.Microsoft should be required, by way of a punishment, to set 
up a venture capitalcorporation, and to transfer a proportion of its 
assets to this corporation,
    6.The assets which Microsoft should be required to transfer 
should be equal to thestockholders'' equity in Microsoft, less 
the stockholders'' equity that Microsoft would haveif it had 
complied with the law.
    7.The venture capital company should be required to invest in 
business start-ups in acountry in proportion to the amount that 
residents of the country have spent onMicrosoft products.
    8.Stockholders in Microsoft should be issued with stock in the 
venture capital company inproportion to their holding in Microsoft.
    9.The United States Government should be required to use its 
best efforts to persuadeforeign governments to enact legislation 
excusing Microsoft for any illegal actioncommitted prior to 2002.
    l0.If a government of a foreign country does not enact the 
legislation, the venture capitalcorporation should not be required 
to invest in the country.
    SUBMISSION
    The United States Government has brought an anti-trust action 
against MicrosoftCorporation. Following the election of President 
Bush with the assistance of donationsfrom Microsoft, the Justice 
Department has reached a settlement with Microsoft.According to the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, the details of the 
settlement haveto be published in the ``Federal 
Register''. Members of the public have sixty days to 
makewritten submissions on the proposed settlement. This submission 
is being made inaccordance with the statute.
    Our association, the Australian Union of Students, has standing 
to make a submission onthe following basis. We have a number of 
United States citizens as members. Under theconstitution of our 
association, we have the power to make representations togovernments 
on behalf of our members, without necessarily consulting the 
membersbeforehand. Accordingly, this submission should be treated as 
though it was made byAmerican citizens. We could, if necessary, 
provide to the United States Government, inconfidence, the names and 
addresses of the members concerned.
    We are against the proposed settlement. It is not that we are 
unsympathetic to Microsoft.The management of Microsoft are very much 
respected in Australia, and are held out by our association as 
examples who young people in Australia should copy. Nevertheless,the 
proposed settlement will be of limited usefulness to Microsoft, and 
will

[[Page 29408]]

not settle existing litigation by American states, and proposed 
litigation by European Union countries. This litigation will go 
ahead, and there will in time be settlements or judgments,which may 
not be beneficial to Microsoft or the United States.
    From the point of view of the United States Government, 
Microsoft has been held to have broken the law, and to have gained 
substantial financial benefits as a result. The Justice Department 
is of the view that it would be undesirable to break up Microsoft 
into smaller corporations, or to require that Microsoft pay fines. 
We agree with this. At the same time,Microsoft should have to make 
up for its illegal actions in some way, so as to discourage other 
corporations from breaking the law.
    The advantage of an out-of-court settlement is that Microsoft 
can be made to do things that it otherwise cannot be made to do. A 
court is limited in what it can order. But an out-of-court 
settlement can contain anything within reason. As an example, an 
out-of-court settlement could contain a requirement that Microsoft 
executives must wash their hair each day. An out-of-court settlement 
should be a ``wish list'' of things that Microsoft should. 
The Justice Department has not been imaginative enough in 
formulating its ``wish list''.The Justice Department's 
``wish list'' must meet two requirements. First, it must 
end the illegal conduct by Microsoft. Secondly, it must compensate 
the people adversely affected by Microsoft's actions. The Justice 
Department should be asking the question, `What can Microsoft 
do that would be most beneficial to users of its operating 
systems?'' This should not necessarily be limited to things 
that Microsoft can do in its capacity as a supplier of operating 
systems, but should include anything that Microsoft can do.
    For example, an out-of-court settlement could include Microsoft 
making donations to charities. No distinction should be made between 
a donation made by Microsoft and a donation made by its 
stockholders. Past charitable donations certainly go some way to 
making up for Microsoft's actions, and should be taken into 
account in deciding whether to accept an out-of-court settlement.
    To end the illegal conduct by Microsoft, we propose that 
Microsoft should publish the source code written by its programmers, 
that is used to compile its operating systems,from DOS up to and 
including Windows XT. This should include comments by programmers 
put in to explain what the code does. But it should not include code 
for functions that are for national security purposes.
    The publication of the source code would not make piracy of 
Microsoft operating systems any easier, The software can already be 
copied illegally. Anyone compiling the operating system from the 
source code, and using the software without paying a royalty could 
still be prosecuted.
    The advantage of publishing the source code would be that 
software developers could produce operating systems that are 
functionally equivalent to Microsoft operating systems.If Microsoft 
refused to allow its distributors to bundle software with its 
Windows operating systems, Microsoft would run the risk that a 
distributor would use an equivalent operating system from some other 
software developer.Microsoft operating systems have a similar status 
to human DNA. The information is essential for everyday life. It is 
surely unsatisfactory that information that is essential for 
everyday live should be controlled by Microsoft. Certainly Microsoft 
developed the information, at great expense, so is entitled to a 
royalty. But they should not be able to prevent further development 
and improvement of the information.
    In formulating its out-of-court settlement, the Justice 
Department appears to have thought that Microsoft can best 
compensate consumers for its illegal actions by continuing to 
develop operating systems. We disagree. We think Microsoft's talent 
can be used to greater effect in the field of Venture Capital. Of 
course, if Microsoft was complying with the law, it would be up to 
them how they use their resources. But since they have broken the 
law, it is up to the government. The terms of an out-of-court 
settlement are up to the government.
    We propose that Microsoft should be required by a settlement to 
set up a venture capital corporation. This corporation would invest 
in and provide advice to business start-ups.Microsoft would be 
required to transfer a large part of its assets to this corporation. 
Its Stockholders would be issued with stock in the new corporation, 
in proportion to their holding in Microsoft. The corporation would 
be required by its charter to invest an amount in each country that 
is proportional to the amount that has been spent in that country on 
Microsoft products. This would be advantageous to the European 
Union, and so they would be likely to agree to such a settlement.
    To make sure they do, the United States Government should lobby 
the European Union and other countries on Microsoft's behalf for 
legislation to excuse Microsoft from any illegal action committed 
prior to 2002. It should be included in the out-of-court settlement 
that the government must use its best efforts to secure such 
legislation. Such legislation should be a pre-requisite for the 
venture capital corporation being required to spend any money in a 
country.
    The amount that Microsoft should have to invest in the venture 
capital corporation would be set so as to compel Microsoft to down 
size to the size they would have reached if they had complied with 
the anti-trust statute. In other words, their stockholders'' 
equity should be reduced to a level that it would be if they had 
complied with the statute. Microsoft will as a result have to scale 
down the extent of its activities and lay off staff. These people 
will be able to set up businesses in areas of Information Technology 
that Microsoft was previously involved in. Hence there will be 
greater competition.
    We are suggesting that the Justice Department try to compel 
Microsoft to transfer its capital into the Venture Capital Industry. 
This is based on a number of considerations.Microsoft has expertise 
in taking an industry which is disorganized, and organizing it. The 
Information Technology Industry was disorganized in 1975, but after 
Microsoft released its Windows 98 operating system, it became 
organized on a comparable basis with other industries. In our view, 
it is a waste of resources for Microsoft to continue being 
exclusively involved in this area. Cars made in 2001 are not much 
better than cars made in 1971, and Windows XP is not much better 
than Windows 98.
    There are a number of industries which are disorganized compared 
to other industries.The Venture Capital Industry is disorganized in 
most countries, and is organized only on the West Coast of the 
United States. Other industries that are particularly disorganised 
are the Entertainment Industry, the Property Development Industry, 
and the Genetic Engineering Industry. By getting involved in Venture 
Capital, Microsoft can bring its organizational ability to bear on 
helping set up businesses in Information Technology,Entertainment, 
Property Development, and Genetic Engineering. This will be of 
incalculable benefit to consumers. Microsoft already acts as a 
venture capital corporation,so it has staff who can be transferred 
to the proposed corporation.
    The Justice Department's proposed solution certainly prevents 
future breaches of the anti-trust statute by Microsoft. But it is 
not as imaginative and beneficial as our proposed solution. Of 
course, the staff of the Department of Justice work under great 
pressure, in circumstances that are not conducive to imagination. 
That is why the United States Congress made provision for the 
Department of Justice to consider public submissions, in order to 
arrive at a more imaginative solution. We hope our submission is of 
some assistance.
    Our telephone number including country code is +61 7 3321 3059, 
and our facsimile number is +61 7 3311 2090, while our e-mail 
address is [email protected], and our postal address is 
Australian Union of Students, P.O. Box 123, Roma Street, 
Brisbane4003, Queensland, Australia.



MTC-00030647

Sent By: Century 21 Three Rivers;
559 561 3169;
Nov-25-01 18:ll;
Page 1/2
November 25, 200l
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax 202-307-1454 or 202 616-9937
Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    Attached please find a comment to the proposed settlement. If 
there are any questions, please contact me at 559 284-2704 or 
e-mail me at
[email protected].
Thank you,
Pete van Gilluwe
43275 Kaweah River Drive
Three Rivers, CA 93271
Sent By: Century 21 Three Rivers;
Comments on the Proposed Settlement between the United States and 
Microsoft
    I have read the details of the proposed settlement and note that 
only 14%of students

[[Page 29409]]

in schools receive any benefit from this proposed settlement.As an 
technology coordinator in a small K-8 school in Central California, 
it is my opinion that all students, whether disadvantaged or not, 
have the same opportunities to learn and succeed once they enter a 
public school.In reality, they shed their socio-economic status at 
the school gate and are treated like all other students.
    There are currently many federal (and state) programs that give 
assistance to `disadvantaged'' schools, including Title 
l/2/4/6 funds, free and reduced rate breakfasts and lunches, EIA 
funds, SIP funds, as well as the E-Rate program and others. Many 
private foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 
and the Packard Foundation give funds to`disadvantaged'' 
schools and programs.
    Many schools, both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged have 
technology needs that are not met by any federal or local grant, 
particularly in the software area. Schools that have small numbers 
or no students in the`disadvantaged'' category do not 
receive any special funding that puts them ahead of other schools, 
and in fact, many `non-disadvantaged'' schools are 
falling behind in the technology area due to programs like E-Rate.My 
recommendation regarding this settlement is to request that the 
Microsoft Company institute an ongoing program to give operating 
systems, educational and productivity software and use licenses to 
all K-12schools, thus giving all students the tools needed to 
progress and succeed in the world of technology. This is a win-win 
answer for students, schools and the marketplace.
    Pete van Gilluwe
    43275 Kaweah River Drive, Three Rivers, CA 93271
    559 561-3168
    [email protected]



MTC-00030648

Mathemaesthetics Inc. 3034400504
1140 Linden Ave.
Boulder CO 80304
November 27th, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
By Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or l-
202-616-9937
Number of Pages: 1
    Re: Microsoft Anti-trust Comments
    The recent proposed Microsoft settlement is ridiculous in its 
lack of accountability for Microsoft,in its advantageousness to 
their court-declared monopoly and in the minimal nature of the 
penalty for their illegal behavior. Their ``punishment'' 
of giving their software to schools is nothing but a standard 
marketing expenditure that fortifies their monopoly position.
    The entire proposal flies in the face of the very point of the 
trial, which they were held to be a monopoly for illegal tactics 
that were specifically meant to increase their market share, for 
bundling to increase market share, and for illegally blocking 
others'' products in order to maintain or increase 
Microsoft's market share. But now, a good portion of 
settlement specifically increases their market shares of both the OS 
and their bundled products.
    Where in this settlement is there any incentive for Microsoft to 
change its behavior in the future?The proposed settlement directly 
harms competition in the computer industry, which competition of 
course is what the anti-trust laws and the and the various Attorney 
Generals whose jobs are to enforce those laws, are there to protect 
in the first place.
    The current settlement proposal does not serve justice. I 
believe Microsoft's settlement offer should be declined.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas M. McKenna



MTC-00030649

11/28/2001 13:56 8183660370 Postal Plus Page 01
PostalPlus
Fax Cover Page
Date: 11-28-01
To: Judge Renata B. Hesse--Antitrust Div.
US Dept. of Justice
601 ``D'' St. NW. Ste 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Sheila Small
Fax Number: (202) 616-9937 or (202) 307-1454
    Message: Dear Judge Hesse:
    I am writing to you to request that you do not destroy 
Microsoft. As an ``end user'' of Microsoft as well as a 
student, and as a member of the public, I want you to know that I 
use their products because they are the only ones that are up to a 
usable standard. If I had any complaint, I would change, or 
complain, etc. The fact that Microsoft has grown from nothing to the 
largest on earth is caused from the superiority of their products as 
well as the useless and amateur products being produced by its 
competitors. (The plaintiffs in this case have to use an attack on 
Microsoft to gain market share because they have nothing else to 
depend on.
    They are a bunch of greedy no-talent frauds that are hoping they 
can intimidate and fool you into thinking they are telling the 
truth.
    I have read the trial transcript and attempted to use the 
plaintiffs'' products and I am confident that what I am saying 
is true. Microsoft has done nothing to the business world except 
make the best product in its field. These people are responsible for 
their own failure and I hope you will keep that in mind. I am 
praying with all my heart that my tools won't be hurt by your 
decision.
    Sincerely,
    Sheila Small
    Granada Hills, CA



MTC-00030650

11/29/01 09:55 FAX 01
cc: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax: l-202-307-1454 or l-202-616-9937
E-Mail: [email protected]
cc: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Tel: (202) 354-3340
November 28, 2001
Tunney Act--Submission of Public Opinion
Civil Action Nos. 98-1232 and 98-1233
    Please file these comments in the Federal Registry as pursuant 
to the Tunney Act.After thoroughly reading the Microsoft vs. 
Department of Justice settlement, I find it to be a political 
settlement that is not at all in the public's interest. As the US 
Department of Justice takes the side of Microsoft, and not the side 
of the American entrepreneur it is publicly endorsing Microsoft's 
unethical, predatory,illegal and monopolistic behavior. Microsoft 
has already been found to be guilty of these things in a US Court of 
Appeals, and the Department of Justice completely overlooks this.
    The US Department of Justice's settlement will make things worse 
for competitors of Microsoft, like myself, because it says, 
``Microsoft's behavior does not warrant serious action and does 
not matter.'' The Department of Justice is painting a model of 
acceptable business ethics in the outline of Microsoft's behavior 
and it is accepting, endorsing, and condoning such behavior.
    According to the DoJ's Competitive Impact Statement, the DoJ 
settlement aids in: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 middlewareuses to interoperate with the Windows 
operating system.
    I am a software developer competing directly with a Microsoft 
product (Microsoft Operations Manager'', and I am unsure what 
``software developers'' the DoJ is referring to, because 
it certainly isn't me.
    Microsoft's fundamental powers reside in the following 
principals:
    1. Microsoft's core business model is the ``embracing and 
extending'' of third party or publicly originated standards, 
ideas, designs, and technologies.
    2. Through court described ``monopoly maintenance,'' 
Microsoft has been able to create and maintain several monopolies in 
software markets including operating system software and office 
suite software.
    3. Microsoft can sit around and wait for new things to happen. 
They wait for others to do the hard work of inventing, proving, and 
designing a concept.Microsoft then copies and integrates these 
features into one of its monopoly products. A typical entrepreneur 
has to spend 3 years or more proving anew product before it can get 
to even 10% market share. By virtue of it's existing monopoly, 
Microsoft can copy someone else's work, and have a monopoly in that 
new market within 6 months. It is this case that the Sherman Act was 
created, and it is this problem that a US Court of Appeals Found 
Microsoft guilty on all major counts.
    Microsoft most certainly does not innovate, develop, or create 
original concepts or ideas. Not one of Microsoft's successful 
products was invented or created by the company. Consider the word 
processor, spreadsheet, presentation software,command prompt, 
operating system, publisher, e-mail client scheduler, webbrowser, 
mouse, window, GUI, database, SQL Server, or any of the other 
Microsoft tools you may use. Microsoft didn't invent even a single 
one of these.They copied the ideas from other companies. The patent 
system is supposed to protect

[[Page 29410]]

entrepreneurs from this kind of thing, but it is failing miserably 
in this case.
    The reality is, most entrepreneurs in the software industry have 
a mutual respect for each other and their work. They want their work 
to be appreciated and respected and they sometimes copy each other 
ideas, but never to the breadth,depth, and scale that Microsoft 
does.
    After agreeing to the settlement with the Department of Justice, 
Microsoft's Chairman, Bill Gates, went on camera and promised to 
``act more responsibly''with partners and competitors.
    I wish to illustrate the problems with Microsoft a software 
entrepreneur has by focusing on an existing fact, and an existing 
problem we are having with the company. For the benefit of the judge 
and the public I will try to make this example issue as simple and 
clear as possible. First, a description of the problem:In Windows NT 
3.5, Microsoft allowed networking software to have up to 100network 
connections waiting on ``backlog''. The number of backlog 
connections is critical in determining how well a given piece of 
networking software can work.
    With the release of Windows NT, 2000, and XP, Microsoft made the 
number of allowed connections on Workstation (Desktop) versions of 
its software 5. And Server versions of the software can have up to 
200 backlogged connections. The following picture shows this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number
                     Microsoft product                         backlog
                                                             connections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows NT 3.5.............................................         100
Windows 95x................................................           5
Windows NT 4.0.............................................           5
Workstation................................................
Windows NT 4.0 Server......................................         200
Windows 2000 Professional..................................           5
Windows 2000 Server........................................         200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This in and of itself is actually quite harmless. It seems like 
a perfectly fine way to try and differentiate your products. Buy the 
more expensive server products and you get better backlog 
connections and you can create better network software,right?
    First let me explain that there is no difference in programming 
an operating system that supports 5 or 200 backlog connections. It 
is simply a number that you change and it may use a little bit more 
memory but there is no technical or labor related issue to change 
this number.
    The troubling part becomes visible when you ask yourself, how 
does Microsoft networking software on Workstation, 95x, and other 
operating systems create these kinds of connections? These products, 
when running on workstation/desktop versions must be subject to the 
same limits, correct? We setup, as a trial case, IISon Windows 2000 
Professional (Workstation version with a backlog limit of 5)and we 
hammered it with parallel requests. We could take bring the IIS 
down, but it was far beyond the limit of 5 backlogged connections. 
Our product, which uses the connection backlog, in its most simple 
test case, can barely handle a single user session before starting 
to drop connections (kind of like when you visit a website that is 
down{time} .
    So the troubling question is, if our software is limited to 5 
connections on Workstation versions of Microsoft software, why isn't 
Microsoft's competing software limited to the same?
    I am an open-minded person and wanted to give Bill Gates the 
benefit of the doubt. So the week of November 20, 200l several weeks 
after his ``we will work better with everyone'' public 
statement, I contacted Microsoft. In fact I contacted Microsoft 
Premium Support Services and opened a paid, premium incident based 
on my troubling example issue. Maybe it is just our software I kept 
thinking?Microsoft wouldn't intentionally block our software from 
running well, while allowing Microsoft software to work well would 
they?
    I told premium support services that if they find a solution, I 
would happily pay the price to provide me with it. Most software 
companies would be thrilled to be treated as well as I was treating 
Microsoft. This is an absolutely real case. The support incident was 
assigned SRXO11114602 in Microsoft Windows 2000Premium Support 
Services. After spending three quarters of a day on hold,working 
through 14 people in Microsoft support I did eventually reach 
peoples killed enough to at least understand the problem. Once I 
reached these people, the``Technical Router'' (the person 
responsible for the incident) said that more senior people had 
agreed to take up the incident, and they won't be charging me for 
it.He marked it closed, even though I was being very clear that it 
wasn't.Microsoft's Premium Support Service response was the 
following:They acknowledge the limit, and that my software was 
subject to it.They don't know how their web server is able to avoid 
the backlog limit on Workstation software, and if they did know, 
they wouldn't tell me.They said the API I was using was the lowest 
level API that Microsoft was willing to provide me with.
    I followed up the next day and got an arrogant response from the 
Technical Router ``I can't give you contact information to the 
person helping you.''The person that was providing information 
said they would get back to me on it. It's more than a week later 
now, and not a peep.
    The net effect is that Microsoft can sell networking software 
that runs on Workstation versions of their platform that cost $200, 
but my networking software, by virtue of the enforced backlog limit, 
and the limited API they are providing, requires a Server version of 
Windows, costing $1000 or more. By virtue of its monopoly and by 
virtue of blocking the APIs from us Microsoft has added $800 to the 
cost of my product and I am forced to compete with Microsoft with 
this monopoly created, anti-competitive, and unavoidable cost 
disadvantage.
    This is one specific example of many problems we have with 
Microsoft, on an on-going basis. We have many ways around this, and 
are working with our customers to make special concessions in order 
to insure the cost of a Server license doesn't impact them. Some of 
them have been absolutely wonderful and offered to purchase Server 
versions outright, and I thank them and solute them. There is a 
wonderful team spirit in the world outside of Microsoft that works 
to handle and deal with the problems and issues it creates.
    I submit that the Department of Justice's settlement does not 
even remotely address these issues in an effective manner. We have 
many other such problems with Microsoft. Microsoft does not 
understand what it means to be an ethical,effective, and responsible 
member of the business community. It doesn't understand how to be an 
asset to society. These are very basic values that my engineering 
professors taught me at the University of Florida. It is a shame 
Bill Gates didn't finish college, as I am sure his professors at 
Harvard would have taught him the same.Because his education in 
working ethically and in fairness with people fell short, it is up 
to the government to correct the problems he has created.Some of the 
possible solutions to the Microsoft monopoly:
    1. A complete, unrestricted release of the Windows source code 
to any competing third party ISV that requests it, including the 
right to create derivative works from the source (but not 
necessarily to create a new operating system, just to make our 
applications work better), or
    2. A break-up of the company into two companies, and Application 
company and an Operating System company, or
    3. The creation of a new intellectual property mechanism that 
can protect entrepreneurs in the software market while their 
software comes to life, they win investment, and they develop the 
market. This mechanism should allow start-ups to compete amongst 
themselves, but companies with monopolies like Microsoft should not 
be allowed to develop for or enter these markets for an extended 
amount of time (I recommend a period of 7 years).
    In solution 1, this would solve the problems without a 
structural remedy. There is a rumor that Windows may include 
unlicensed or ambiguously obtained source code, such as source code 
from projects created at universities (without obtaining permission 
from the university), and source code licensed under the GPL. This 
is a totally unsubstantiated claim, and I would be surprised if it 
is true, but I have heard it talked about. True or not, it does 
represent one plausible explanation as to why Microsoft is so 
protective of it's source and why it is unwilling to make it easier 
for third parties to create great applications on their 
platform.Solution 2 would also actually help level the playing field 
as application developers would no longer have to be in bed working 
with their biggest ally at the same time as divulging everything to 
their biggest competitor.
    Solution 3 is what I favor, because all of us entrepreneurs are 
smart, we just need a little shelter in the open market for a time 
before Microsoft can come in and steal our ideas from us. We need a 
fighting chance to get to the up phase of start-up.The one solution 
we can`t have is the Bush Administration`s political 
settlement.The Swiss cheese like settlement the Bush

[[Page 29411]]

administration made with Microsoft will make things worse. I feel it 
is also important to disclose that I have heard rumors that George 
Bush owns a great deal of Microsoft stock. This raises interesting 
questions. But more importantly it means the Bush Administration's 
settlement is colored and born of a huge conflict of interest.
    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many state 
attorney generals and members of the Department of Justice that did 
not sign on to the settlement. I want you to know that we appreciate 
the hard work and time spent trying to truly solve this very real 
problem. I am sorry the Bush administration has turned it's back on 
America's software entrepreneurs, I won't be voting for them again.
    I am not seeing the America I grew up as a kid in Bar Harbor, 
Maine believing in.the America I know is a country of fairness, free 
enterprise, and the reasonable availability of opportunity. We need 
to restore competition, free enterprise, and the reasonable 
availability of opportunity in the software market if we wish 
America's high tech industry to continue to be great.
    If we don't, we will become an America, without an American 
Dream.
    Kyle Lussier, [email protected]
    President, AutoNOC
    Tel 770 222-0991 x15 Fax 770 222-0998
    htttp://www.AutoNOC.com



MTC-00030652

November 29, 200 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
Washington, DC
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Comments under the Tunney Act
    We believe that the U. S. Department of Justice and the 
Attorneys General of the various states, in particular, California 
and Connecticut, have abused their power by misleading the American 
public. Under the guise of ``protecting the American 
consumer''from the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, their 
real aim has been to protect Microsoft's competitors, particularly 
Sun Microsystems, Oracle Corporation and AOLTime Warner. It is 
appalling that the U.S. government has wasted its resources and 
taxpayer dollars trying to destroy a successful American company. 
The above competitors through their lobbying efforts, have 
successfully used the government for their own gains. The government 
should be more forthright and declare their real purpose in pursuing 
Microsoft.
    We wholeheartedly support the recent November, 2001 settlement 
with the U.S.Department of Justice. The economy and the entire 
technology sector, including Microsoft's competitors, large and 
small, will be aided by Microsoft's strength in the marketplace. A 
rising tide lifts all boats, and as we have seen, a falling tide has 
done just the opposite, hurting innovation in the entire tech 
sector, including small, upstart tech firms, many of which have gone 
out of business.
    The American people have been harmed more by the drop in the 
stock price of Microsoft Corporation and, as an indirect result, the 
subsequent drop in the prices of various technology companies'' 
stock over the last 20 months, than by any possible overcharge by 
Microsoft. Many Americans would have preferred to spend an extra 
amount of money on a Microsoft product, than lose thousands and 
millions of dollars in their portfolios and 401 K plans. Microsoft 
is a premier American company and the leader of American technology 
companies. The drop in its stock price has affected many others on 
the NASDAQ. It is core holding of many institutional funds and a 
core holding in many American's 401 K plans and personal portfolios.
    Average Americans have lost trillions of dollars of wealth in 
the last 20 months,much of it in technology stocks. Some of this 
loss can be in part attributed to the Government's relentless 
pursuit of Microsoft, and the subsequent precipitous drop in the 
stock prices of many other technology companies. Also, Fed Chairman 
Greenspan's desire to quell the ``irrational exuberance'' 
of stock market investors by raising rates in2000, even as the 
market had already started to fall on its own, did additional damage 
to the financial markets. The government is not doing the consumer 
``any favors'' by interrupting the natural free flow of 
the capital markets. (The government did not help Microsoft in its 
fledgling existence in an Albuquerque strip mall from the vagaries 
of IBM corporation, did it? Microsoft managed to become a great 
American company on its own.
    Most importantly, the government's actions actually impeded 
innovation and competition in technology by hurting the stock prices 
of technology companies nationwide. Many of these new 
companies'' stock has fallen 90, 95, even 99%. Even the prices 
of established technology companies have fallen to prices of 
3-5 years ago, before the recent ``tech bubble''. 
Many small innovative companies have gone bankrupt, or if they are 
still in business, cannot raise the capital necessary to continue as 
going concerns.The market capitalization of these companies have 
fallen so precipitously that not only they cannot raise capital, but 
many American citizens are having liquidity problems. In summary, 
the government should be more concerned about the severe impact of 
the lack of capital spending by businesses, which precipitated the 
severe drop in stock prices. This abrupt halt in capital spending by 
businesses and the inability of companies to raise capital have 
resulted in layoffs of millions of American workers. The stock 
portfolios of American citizens have fallen 50--90% and more. 
Americans are having nervous breakdowns, are losing or selling or 
mortgaging their homes to raise cash necessitated by the severe 
losses suffered in the stock market and loss of jobs. Formerly 
wealthy individuals cannot afford to spend and provide jobs to lower 
income individuals,which, in turn, hurts their families. Americans 
have been more harmed by these issues than by Microsoft possibly 
overcharging.
    Some of the State Attorney Generals are holding out on the 
settlement, preferring to go to court, and wasting still more 
taxpayer dollars. Why not put this to a vote of every American 
citizen? Let each and every American decide, instead of letting 
their elected officials pursue their own interests under the guise 
of ``protecting'' the American consumer.
    Carol H. and Dennis F. Buss
    3 19 Ravine Park Drive
    Lake Forest, Illinois 60045
    (847) 234-l 119



MTC-00030653

CASTLEBERRY FOOD CO
PAGE 01
`Subj: Lets go On !!
Date: 11/30/2001IO:41:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Clamguy300
To: [email protected]
    Haven't you spent enough of your taxpayers money on this case, 
lets get off Microsoft and get on a positive horse that will benefit 
the economy. This has gone way too far and hasn't produced one 
positive since this case began.Let me decide what I want, IF I MONT 
WANT A MICROSOFT PRODUCT I WONT BUY IT!Please let the consumer 
decide! ! Not your court
    Mike Wieltschnig
    Issaquah,Wac.
    Friday, November 30, 200l America Online: Clamguy300



MTC-00030654

Phone Tools
I
Phone: 206 529-9336
Fax: 206 529-9336
Message :
re: Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    Please accept these reasoned views under consideration in 
drafting a revised settlement offer.The security of the United 
States can be tied to settlement in which relief is provided by 
opening the source code to the public,an action which will result in 
effective competition whereby the consumer will benefit by increased 
customization, far more value than a $10 rebate to every Californian 
or a copy of Linux to every school wastebasket. Not responding 
publically to these suggestions, and others, has exposed the Justice 
Department to deserved criticism, unintended no doubt, but criticism 
that should be addressed.
    Thank you,
    Karel Lambert, MS MT(ASCP)
    CTO, Chimerex Inc
From: Chimerex.com
To: Department of Justice
Karel J Lambert MS MT(ASCP) Antitrust Counsel



MTC-00030656

Dec-01-01 12:23P Dick Marble
425-453-5029
RICHARD A. MARBLE
9937 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. NE
BELIVUE, WA 98001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street Suite 1200
Washington, DC
Fax 202-616-9937
Fax 202-302-1454
    Comments re Microsoft Anti Trust Case
    I would like to comment on the DoJ/Microsoft settlement of the 
Microsoft

[[Page 29412]]

AntiTrust Case As a consumer of Microsoft product I strongly endorse 
the agreement This case has been manuvered from the start by 
Microsoft's competitors in a very sophisticated manner, staring with 
Joel Klein's visit lo Pallo Alto at the invitation of Scott McNealy 
and other competitors of Microsoft in that area to plan an attack on 
Microsoft. Very little has ever been said from the consumers 
standpoint. They have expressed their support by buying the 
Microsoft products which have set today's standard of computer 
usage. I am attaching letters sent to Business Week Magazine of 
December 10th in response to an article Business week had run on 
Scott McNealy and his vendetta against Microsoft I have included all 
of these consumer letters and they all support Microsoft.
    The States' cases against Microsoft are a crass money grab based 
on the amazing change that their citizens have been charged too much 
for their computer products. It IS hard to imagine someone fairly 
establishing what Microsoft should have charged. The consumer.again 
has had alternative choices lot most of his needs and has supported 
Microsoft by his purchases of their products.
    The opportunity to comment on this case and it's ramifications 
is appreciated. I would urge the court to accept your settlement 
plan and remove this distraction from the industry.
DECEMBER 10, 2001
    What Mankind Needs: Less Whining from Scott McNealy
    Sun Microsystems CEO Scott G. McNealy thinks mankind needs a 
break from MicrosoftCorp. (``Face-off,'' Cover Stony, Nov. 
19). What mankind really needs is a break from McNealy'sincessant 
whining,. Many people and businesses complain about Microsoft's 
monopoly None has bothered to offer a superior product Instead,they 
have used the government as a strategic weapon to cover their 
inability to develop something better. Microsoft may have a monopoly 
with Windows and Office, but it hasn't come close to the same level 
of domination on the Web. lf it had, America Online Inc. wouldn't 
still be around.
    Technology writers from many publications have pointed out many 
flaws,weak areas, poor designs, and glitches in Microsoft products. 
What does it say about the rest of the software industry that 
Microsoft was able to achieve a monopoly with such imperfect 
products'? Innovation won't happen just because the government 
suppresses Microsoft
    William A. Kirsten
    Gaylord, Mich.
    We have been reading Scott McNealy's ``trash talk'' 
for years. I would suggest he start concentrating on his own 
company's failings.
    W. Donald Sally
    Lake Forest, III.
    If McNealy could just hold on for a few years, perhaps he could 
find another Administration like that of Bill Clinton. He could 
again donate heavily to the Democratic Party and again get them to 
shackle his competition.
    What Mankind Needs Less Whining from Scott McNealyto work full-
time. We in the industry hope that McNealy got the message
    Jonathan Zuck
    Association for
    Competitive Technology
    Washington
    What if that softie [antitrust chief ] Charles James limited 
what Business Week could charge at the newsstand?
    Patrick M. Code
    Alpena, Mich.
    What Mankind Needs: Less Whining from Scott McNealy
    Come on McNealy. Suck it up, and compete like a big boy!
    Joe R Donathan
    Centennial, Colo.
    Scott McNealy's outlandish attacks on Bill Gates and Microsoft, 
and his `sophomoric humor, make one wonder why Sun 
Microsystems stockholders put up with this overgrown child
    Write the Right Laws to Rein in Software Makers
    Animals that prey on others are usually successful only against 
the old and the lame That is all that Microsoft has done 
(``Settlement or sellouts?''Cover Story, Nov. 19) 
WordPerfect failed to innovate, so Word won Lotus failed to 
innovate, so Excel won. Netscape never stood a chance as a stand-
alone, so lnternet Explorer won Microsoft had nothing with which to 
compete when it took these entities on, so it beat them fair and 
square.
    Microsoft has nor beaten Real Audio, Adobe Systems, Intuit, 
Norton, and many others, because those companies innovated and 
improved their products. We the consumers and users have only stood 
to gain by letting the better innovator vanquish the lesser. 
Microsoft should use everything in its arsenal to compete. That is 
inherent in our economic system
    Richard S. Mimick
    Highland Park. N.J
    It'lawmakers had made software developers accountable for the 
operation of their wares, the Microsoft debacle could have been 
avoided Microsoft would have had to recall products that crashed. It 
would have been less tempted to develop ``bloat ware'' and 
bundle others'' products into its own,lest it cause crashes. 
Taxpayers would have saved a. lot of money.
    Tony Payne
    Hong Kong
    ``Slapping Microsoft's wrist'' (Editorials, Nov. 
19) relies heavily on Scott McNealy's constant mischaracterizations 
of the Microsoft settlement. The piece recites the vague and 
sometimes blatantly inaccurate complaints about the settlement that 
are often cited by Microsoft's largest rivals Coming after three 
years of litigation, the settlement between the Justice Dept. and 
Microsoft should finally allow the software industry to get back 
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_5O/
c3761023.htm



MTC-00030658

Dec 04 01 01:43p
Ben and Virginia Riva 1-425-454-5188
FAX COVER SHEET
Microsoft Settlement
    SEND TO:
    Company name:
    I-- mm I
    U.S. Dept. of Justice
    Attention: R.B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
    Office location: Washington, DC
    Fax number: l-202-307-1454 Virginia Riva
    Date: 12/4/01 location: Bellevue, WA
    Phone number: 425-454-5180
    December 4, 200l
    As a `Consumer'' in the United States vs. Microsoft 
action, I feel compelled to comment on the proposed settlement, an 
opportunity provided by the Tunney Act. I am a Consumer because my 
husband and I purchased a Hewitt-Packard computer with Windows 95 
software, a monitor, printer, etc. in 1997. We did not feel that we 
paid too much at that time, nor have we felt that we were 
overcharged since. In fact, we have been very happy with Windows and 
all of our Microsoft products. In fact, we are now considering 
upgrading with XP.
    However, we feel that we hove been severely damaged, not by 
Microsoft, but by the Justice Department's suit against Microsoft in 
general and by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's very clearly biased 
rulings in particular. You see, we are retired. We are both in our 
70s and are both very active, both mentally and physically, for 
which we are very grateful. We have raised a large family and have 
worked hard all of our lives, looking forward to the ``Golden 
Years'' of retirement. Well, the Justice Department (under 
Janet Reno) and Judge Jackson managed to tarnish these years for us 
in a big way. You guessed it--our IRAs and retirement finds 
containing our ``nest egg'' were heavily weighted with 
tech stocks, especially Microsoft. Joel Klein and Judge Jackson 
managed to destroy our financial security that was supposedly 
sufficient to see us through another 15--20 years, God willing, 
without ``damage to consumers'' by Microsoft ever having 
been proven as nearly as we or any of our tech-savvy acquaintances 
can find.
    What kind of JUSTICE is that? The Appeals Court apparently 
upheld Judge Jackson's finding that Microsoft is a monopoly. But it 
is our understanding that it is not illegal to be a monopoly. We are 
now admittedly in a recession and are also a nation at war. The 
lives of all Americans have changed in the last few months. The 
settlement proposed now by the Justice Department (under Attorney 
General Ashcroft) appears to be a very adequate punishment for 
whatever Microsoft's misdeeds have been. Isn't it now time to GET 
OVER IT and GET IT OVER WITH and move ahead with matters of far 
greater importance to the country at this time? Those States still 
dragging their heels and withholding approval appear only to be 
trying to hang onto a ``Cash Cow'' and, possibly, make 
some more trial lawyers even richer, at our expense. We owned and 
operated our small business for over 25 years and we had to Compete 
to make good We did not, and could not, rely on the government to 
make us successful. In fact, the government made it more difficult 
for us to compete with affirmative action laws in effect at that 
time. Our biggest competitor's owner was classified as a Minority 
and, as such, was entitled to contracts that we could not even bid 
on or be awarded. The fact that

[[Page 29413]]

he was retired from the NFL and was also benefitting from a very 
sizeable NFL pension was irrelevant. But we did manage to compete by 
providing good work and good service. Microsoft's competitors should 
be encouraged to succeed in that same way. Let's hear it for 
``INNOVATION over LITIGATION'', accept the proposed 
settlement, and let all of us get on with our lives and, hopefully, 
put a little life back into the retirement funds of ordinary hard-
working citizens. And for all the computer users out there, you'll 
find that the options and choices are already endless--- no 
need to struggle through further class action suits to be rewarded 
in the end by a payoff of an estimated $5.00 per person.
    Respectfully Submitted,



MTC-00030659

CREATIVE BEGINNINGS
December 5,2001
Attorney Renata Hesse
Division of Antitrust
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Submitted bu Fax,
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I believe the proposed attachment in the case U.S.v Microsoft is 
a good idea and hope it will be approved. This company's technical 
advances have led to great efficiences in the workplace and at home. 
Given that the antitrust laws were passed to protect consumers, it 
is obvious that the government is persuading a company whose actions 
have only benefited consumers. I urge you to approve this settlement 
as quickly as possible. Thank you for your attention in this 
important matter.
    Sincerely,
    MJ Marcucci
    President



MTC-00030660

MYOR ROSEN
Myor Rosen
12800 Oak Knoll Drive
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
5 December 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my support for the November 2, 2001 
settlement in the antitrust case between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. The time for litigation is over, and I feel the 
settlement should be completed and no further action should be 
promoted.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft is not getting preferential 
treatment. The company Will share more information with competitors; 
furthermore, it will open up space on its operating system software 
that allows competitors to place their components on the system. 
Never before has a software company been forced to give so much 
information and access to its competition. I hope your office will 
end this case with the November 2, 2001 settlement and allow the 
information technology industry to focus on business and not 
litigation.
    I appreciate your efforts this year concerning this case. Please 
work hard to make sure this suit finally ends so that the American 
technology sector can get back to what it does best: being number 
one in the world.
    Sincerely,
    Myor Rosen



MTC-00030661

PENCOM SYSTEMS
TEL: 212 227 1854
40 Fulcon Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: 212.513.7160
Fax: 212.513.7001
TO: Attorney General Ashcroft
From: Joe Sabrin
Fan: (202) 307-1454
Phone:
Date: 12/6/2001
RI: Microsoft Settlement cc;
    Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle 
Comments:
40 Fulcon Street, 19th Floor
New York,NY 10038
Tel: 212.513.7160
Fax 212.513.7001
December 5, 200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to comment briefly on the settlement that was 
reached between the Justice Department and Microsoft in the 
antitrust case. It is in America's best economic interest, and it 
will help get Microsoft's focus back where it belongs--on 
technology.
    This case has kept Microsoft tied up with litigation for three 
years. It does not make economic sense to do this to someone who is 
guilty only of offering the best, most innovative product to the 
marketplace. The settlement has been carefully negotiated, and 
addresses the concerns of competitors who felt that they were 
unfairly shut out of the market.
    it is time for the country to get back on track economically. 
Lawsuits and litigation are not the way to achieve this goal.



MTC-00030662

    James M Cox
    516-399-8166
    44 Carlin Drive
    Mastic, NY 11950
    December 6, 2001
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my sentiments regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that your office has reached a fair settlement 
that will finally provide certainty about the new rules imposed on 
the IT sector. I do not see any benefit in pursuing further 
litigation at the federal level; I am happy to see that your office 
will be free to pursue the more urgent matters affecting our nation.
    I feel that this lawsuit has had a direct impact on both the 
federal and states' budgets. These budgets are presently challenged, 
and it doesn't make sense to spend scarce resources on a battle that 
has already been won. In short, it is time to move on. We must 
ensure that the technology industry returns its focus to innovation 
rather than litigation. The longer this battle lasts, the better the 
chance that we may lose our competitive advantage in the world 
technology market.
    The settlement will benefit all sectors of the economy. 
Resumption of competition will stimulate our economy and give 
consumers more choices. As far as the competition is concerned, 
Microsoft will change the way it develops, licenses, and markets its 
software in order to accommodate independent vendors. We don't need 
more federal litigation to keep Microsoft in check. Under the 
settlement, competitors can sue Microsoft if they don't think the 
company is complying with the terms of the agreement. The complaints 
that brought about the lawsuit have been addressed, and your office 
has set up protocol on how to handle future problems. The Justice 
Department has done its job. Now it is time to let businesses 
compete in the marketplace, not special interests in the Senate. I 
want to let you know that I approve of your settlement, and I 
appreciate your taking the time to hear my opinions on the matter.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030663

2477 Fairgrove Court
Cincinnati, OH 45244
December 6,200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to thank you and all those with whom you worked for 
your successful efforts at settling the lawsuit against Microsoft. I 
realize that there are some who disagree with your decision for 
bringing this lawsuit to a close, but there are also many of us who 
appreciate the simpler, more integrated way that software works in 
the Windows environment.
    There are some who laugh at the Microsoft ``freedom to 
innovate'' slogan. However, I remember the days of the text 
only ``green screen'' when IBM was the provider of PC 
operating systems. Microsoft did indeed ``bet the 
company'' on development and marketing of its Windows operating 
system. The company is truly a ```' David 
defeats Goliath'' story. You can only do this if you provide a 
quality product at a reasonable price and you are a very strong 
competitor. Perhaps, Microsoft became an overzealous competitor, but 
if we had yielded to some of the punishments requested by the 
Microsoft competitors then we would have set legal precedents that 
could extinguish the innovate entrepreneurial spirit that brought us 
the Windows OS and the Internet.
    I hate to think of the potential ramifications had this suit 
ultimately broken Microsoft into smaller pieces. The software market 
that depends on Microsoft established standards would have been in 
chaos, and many typical computer users, such as myself, would have 
suffered.

[[Page 29414]]

    Because of your foresight, however, this eventuality will not 
happen. For this I am thankful.
    Sincere1y
    Lewis Stepp



MTC-00030664

TO:
FROM : ALBERT & RHU KIGHT
FAX: 913-851-8521
TEL: 913-897-9709
COMMENT:
ALBERT & RHU KIGHT
12613 Flint Street Overland
Parka KS 66213
December 6, 200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you this letter today to express my support for the 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. After three long years of tedious 
court battles it is time to move on. This settlement is fair and 
reasonable it will change the way that Microsoft does business by 
giving other companies greater opportunities in the IT field, but at 
the same time Microsoft will be allowed to continue providing 
quality products to American consumers.
    The U.S. economy is on shaky ground, and I feel that this 
settlement will help give it a much-needed boost. We need to focus 
our time and resources on matters of greater necessity. I feel that 
the decision of some of the states to continue this litigation was 
imprudent especially when you consider the deficits that have been 
projected in many of these states.
    I would like to applaud the foresight that you have demonstrated 
in your decision to settle this case on the federal level. Thank you 
for all the hard work and diligent deliberation that you have put 
into this case.
    Sincerely,
    Albert Kight



MTC-00030665

TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM: Robert J. Berger UltraDevices, Inc.
257 Castro Street, Suite 223 Mt. View CA. 94041
Email: [email protected] http://www.ultradevices.com
Voice: 650-237-0334 Fax: 408-490-2868
    SUBJECT: Comments on Microsoft Settlement (Don't be like Brer 
FOX) It is critical that the current wording in the settlement that 
wording in the settlement that requires Microsoft to only deal with 
commercial companies for some of the remedies needs to be opened up 
to non-commercial, open source and governmental entities as well. 
For instance, 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.
    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, 
...''
    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.
    With this wording, 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. SO YOU can see that the current wording 
actually helps to reinforce Microsofts Monopoly. Please don't let 
Microsoft use the ``Brer Rabbit Briar Patch'' trick 
(http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm if you are not already 
familiar with it) to get exactly what they want. --



MTC-00030666

Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    As a consumer I would like to think that there exists adequate 
protection from both State and Federal government to ensure that we 
are not subject to the whims and abuse of the marketplace bully.
    In today's transportation highway a virtual monopoly exists in 
the oil industry. We have seen no alternative that has succeeded in 
the marketplace dominated by such friendly competitors. Choice is a 
sad joke in this area.
    We cannot afford to allow the same mistake to happen on the 
information highway. We have seen Microsoft market defective 
products and charge us for patches to correct them . We have seen 
them bully their way and intimidate potential innovators to either 
sellout or enter niches that tag on to their monopoly.
    Apple's existence is at Microsoft's pleasure. It serves them to 
have the lame dog still in the dog race. We need remedies in place 
to ensure that real competition and choice develops. One would think 
that the taunting and ridiculous self-serving proposals that 
Microsoft has offered would be sufficient to convince the DOJ that 
any handcuffs or self -monitoring. punishments are nothing but a 
joke to Microsoft. They feel that the laws were not written for them 
and so far they have been right.
    What is needed are forceful punishments such as forfiture of 
sales, not profits, obtained through non-compliance plus a fine 
sufficient enough to jar the share price. This is the only action 
that Microsoft understands. Anything less is like trying to placate 
a carnivore with tofu.
    We have spent a great deal of PUBLIC money to arrive at a 
finding that Microsoft engages in monopolistic activities. The 
public deserves a significant return on its investment. Anything 
less is making a mockery of the process and will fuel the further 
disconnect of the people from their government.
    I believe that Microsoft is well able to compete in a leveled 
playing field and I will continue to buy their products as I have in 
the past. My only fear is that without forceful government oversight 
and expensive damages for abusive behavior my interest in their 
products will move from a decision of minuscule choice to a decision 
of no-choice.
    I urge you to fight this battle, figuratively speaking, till 
your last breath for the benefit of all of us.
    Respectfully,
    Jack G. Simke



MTC-00030667

From :
Phone : (925) 933-6569
Robert F. Andrews
Fax : (925) 933-8991
To : UD DOJ Antitrust Division Phone
Renata B Hesse Fax : 1-202-307--1454
Date : 12/08/2001
Time : 15: 15
    Attached are my comment regarding the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft Lawsuit
    Bob Andrews
    1864 Castle Oaks Court
    94595 Walnut Creek
Robert F. Andrews
1864 Castle Oaks CT.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
925-933-6569
December 8, 200l
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement
    I support the current settlement with Microsoft by the 
Department of Justice and half of the states involved in this 
lawsuit.
    I do not think any more severe penalties are warranted. 
Microsoft probably deserved a little hand slapping because of the 
way they dealt with the computer manufacturers. But the issue 
surrounding the operating system improvements and add on's is 
frivolous. The Internet Explorer was a needed part of the operating 
system and add on's such as these should be allowed. It was also 
very easy for others to use Netscape if they wanted to. Bottom line 
is that Internet Explorer wound up being the best browser. I believe 
that a large part of the fuss on this issue is being made by 
Microsoft's competitors who have wound up second and third best and 
have tried to compensate for their under performance by supporting 
the antitrust law suit against Microsoft. I believe that a major 
motivating force for the hold out states is purely political as it 
relates to companies in their area and political contributions. As a 
consumer, I believe that Microsoft has been good to us. They have 
provided outstanding products at reasonable and decreasing prices.

[[Page 29415]]

Some states would prefer that consumers buy all of the add on's and 
that could be big down the road. Where Microsoft has been dominate 
in a particular software application, prices have fallen. I also 
believe that Microsoft has contributed mightly to the US economy. 
They have probably been the biggest contributor in the last 10 
years. They should not be punished for being good to consumers and 
the economy. I might also add that Microsoft is a good corporate 
citizen.
    It is time to settle this suit as the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft have proposed. The more harsh remedies that are being 
proposed by the non agreeing states should be rejected.
    Sincerely
    Robert F. Andrews



MTC-00030668

From My Plumber
Sun Dec 9 04:51:37 2001
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Please deliver this facsimile to:
US DEPT. OF JUSTICE
Page 1 of 2
From: [email protected]
From MyPlumber
Sun Dec 9 04:51:37 2001
    The Microsoft settlement does NOT go far enough. Microsoft 
should be divided into at least 2 separate companies--operating 
system and applications, or 3 companies--1angua ges, operating 
system, applications.
    I was a programmer/system designer. Given this settlement, there 
will soon be no way to survive as an independent software producer 
(if indeed there is a way now--especia lly not-for-profit 
organizations like the U.S. GOVERNMENT which Microsoft can deny ac 
cess to the APIS)
    Steve Satchell, a pioneer from the Arpanet days, should be 
appointed to the 3 person oversight committee, even if the above 
remedies are not implemented.
    John D. Gleason
    Livonia MI
    309-416-5842



MTC-00030669

12/9/2001 11:27 FM FROM: Fax TO: l-202-307-1454 PAGE: 
001 OF 001
Commerce & Administration Students'' Association
L'Association des etudiants et etudiantes en commerce et en 
administration
DATE: December 9, 2001
TO: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 
(fax:1-202-307-1454 )
FROM: Nicolai Michel, CASA computer lab manager
SUBJECT: Microsoft 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? Why is the settlement full of 
loopholes?
    Rather than repeating what has already been said, I refer you to 
more informed and eloquent critics, such as Ralph Nader, Robert X. 
Cringely, and eWeek Magazine. To me, 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? Concordia



MTC-00030670

17817350581 2001-12-10 05:33:38 (GMT), page 1
FAX COVER SHEET
TO
COMPANY
FAX NUMBER
FROM
1-202-307-1454
markus diersbock
DATE 2001-12-09
RE Microsoft Settlement
COVER MESSAGE
Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Greetings,
    Microsoft is like the greedy kid at the birthday party who sits 
at the table and grabs all the other kid's cake. He doesn't grab all 
the pieces because he's hungry, he just doesn't want anyone else to 
eat. So birthday party after birthday party Billy kid steals the 
cake while the others kids stare.
    Some people will say, ``But who cares that little Billy 
steals everyone's cake, he gives a couple of pieces to the 
poor.''
    Well what about the other kids at the table? This analogy has 
played on throughout the life of Microsoft. With a stranglehold on 
PC manufactures to sign exclusionary OS contracts they lockout their 
competition, not only in the OS market, but any other market that 
can be reduced to an icon sitting on the consumer's desktop.
    So the OEMs are forced to bundle unrelated products together to 
sell to the consumer. The padded price is then funneled to Redmond. 
Those don't comply get ``punished'' through jacked-up 
pricing or non-renewal of their contracts.
    ``Protection fee''--isn't this what the mob does?
    I'm a programmer and have used computers since the Apple ][+. 
And I REALLY LOVE Microsoft development tools, but here's the rub.
    Microsoft told the development community in the late 80's 
``Come write for Microsoft Windows, look at all the great 
things you can do, blah, blah, blah.'' The reason being that 
more applications you have for an OS the more people want the OS and 
thus greater adoption of Windows over other OS's.
    But Microsoft didn't want ONLY their OS PIECE of Cake they 
wanted the WHOLE cake. After Windows was pretty well-entrenched 
Microsoft turned around and started writing their own competing 
applications using secret hooks (Undocumented APIs) that gave their 
applications better power then the 3rd party developers they had 
been courting years earlier.
    They ran company after company out of business going after one 
market then the next. They were pretty successful in crushing 
everyone except AOL in online and Intuit in personal finance 
software. Basically giving the birthday party, inviting everyone in, 
and when the presents arrived, booted everyone out with no cake.
    So there those same people are again, ``Well Microsoft 
gives money to the Poor, blah, blah, blah.'' Well what about 
the employee's families of the companies that Microsoft ran out of 
business?
    Microsoft has NO friends. They screw everyone. The developers, 
their partners, even the customers. How many in the tech community 
came to their aid during these court proceedings? Probably just as 
many who came to the aid of Standard Oil. So here we are again, 
years later. Billy has cake frosting all over his face, he didn't 
get a spanking for his past misdeeds and he's on his way to the next 
birthday party. Hmmm, wonder if he'll be better behaved THIS time?
    Markus Diersbock
    Contract Programmer
    http://www.crowdshare.com/profile.asp



MTC-00030671

10 December 2001
Plaza Mikado Bldg. 303
2-14-5 Akasaka
Tokyo, Japan 107-0052
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    We are three American citizens writing to express our 
dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final Judgment of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. The current wording allows Microsoft to exclude 
Open Source and Free Software projects and organizations from the 
list of groups to whom they must disclose the information needed for 
interoperability. Like many small software companies, we depend on 
Open Source and Free Software to leverage our development resources 
against larger competitors.
    Specifically, Section III(J)(2) says that Microsoft need not 
describe nor-license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business.
    Section III(D) says that Microsoft must disclose to several 
types of organizations the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows. However, the legal definitions for these organizations 
specify commercial concerns only.
    We urge you to correct this oversight.
    Sincerely,
    D, Silver Egg Technology
    Leif'Mortenson, Chief Architect
    Silver Egg Technology
    Silver Egg Technology



MTC-00030672

December 10, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
re: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 29416]]

    The proposed Microsoft settlement Is a ghastly piece of work 
that:
    Does not serve the public good, Does not punish Microsoft for 
its past transgressions (for which it was found guiIty), Does not 
provide adequate remedies to prevent future illegal and/or monopoly 
activities
    ï¿½Actually has the potential to increase Microsoft's 
dominance of the marketplace. I urge you to discard the current 
proposed settlement and start over with something that more properly 
addresses the court's concerns, creates opportunities for other 
companies to compete against Microsoft, and provides better 
protection for non-profit Open Source
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Michael Cohill, Ph.D.
    Director



MTC-00030673

To: Justice Department of U.S.
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Earl Sapp, 2010 Glennridge Drive, Tallahassee, FI. 32308
Fax # 850477-7484 Telephone #850-877-5581
    I protest what several states have done to try to block the 
Microsoft settlement with the Justice Department. Their demands are 
unreasonable and not in the best interests of consumers. It is 
obvious that what they call for is the opposite to the intention and 
whole purpose of anti-trust laws. What the States want seems to 
destroy and devastate the competitive spirit of the great company 
that built the platform for the Internet. This is overkill! This is 
a shot that aims at the central theme of the whole American free 
enterprise system, fair competition. Antitrust laws should try to 
protect not to disrupt fair and reasonable competition. WHAT THE 
STATES WANT SEEMS TO BE TO PROTECT MICROSOFT `S COMPETITORS 
FROM THE RESPONSlBlLlTY OF INVENTING BETTER TECHNOLOGY TO BETTER 
COMPETE. I notice that the location of the states that won't 
sign off on the settlement seems significant.
    The Justice Department settlement was a recognition that this 
case has dragged on too long. This has already hurt the American 
economy and non-settlement will continue to harm the already 
weakened economy. Ultimately if it hurts the economy, it will weaken 
the ``War on Terrorism.''
    I have never been convinced of the accusation that Microsoft has 
ever charged too much for its products. I have never heard any 
consumer accuse Microsoft of this; only competitors have accused 
them. I am confident that the new Judge who presides over this case 
will recognize this as well. It appears to me that competitors are 
trying to become guilty of the very same error for which they blame 
Microsoft, seeking an unfair advantage.
    I strongly urge the Justice Department to stand FIRMLY and 
STEADFASTLY on the adequate agreement already hammered out by the 
two parties in the present settlement. If you do this, the Justice 
Department, the free enterprise system and the American consumer 
will be the winners.



MTC-00030674

Dec 12 01 09:11am David Updegraff 218 529 9475
P. 1
From: Dave Updegraff, 5130 Washburn Rd, Duluth, MN 55803, [ 
[email protected] 1
Re. : Microsoft Settlement, Public Comment.
To: 202-616-9937 / 202-307-1545
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
suite 1200,
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Greetings.
    Please register my strong objection to the current (as of Dec. 
2001) settlement reached with Microsoft regarding its anti-
competitive behavior(s).
    My objections are :
    1. That when purchasing new consumer grade computers the 
presumption of a need for a Microsoft operating system remains so 
entrenched that no opportunity exists to permit real competition nor 
even to make the consumer aware that any options exist. In my view 
it is very important that the licensing fees for these operating 
systems be both optional and also appear as explicit line items such 
that the consumer is aware of what they are buying.
    2. That the extent of the Microsoft monopoly not be effectively 
extended and legitimized by the very terms of the settlement: i.e. 
by Microsoft being given a special channel to supply public schools 
with the software of its choice. Public schools--more than any 
other place-- should be places where we learn of many options, 
thence to make our own choices more intelligently.
    Microsoft operating systems--as I'm sure you can guess from 
this note-- are not my own choice for computing tools. I 
believe that Microsoft's aggressive anti-competitive behavior 
warrants that any settlement at least TRY to make consumers more 
aware of the choices they are making: that those choices exist at 
all! The argument for not doing so can only be that consumers 
``needn't worry their pretty little heads..'' or that they 
may actually avail themselves of other choices.
    Please craft a settlement that really boils down to simple truth 
in labeling. Consumers do actually read. Make sure consumers know 
what they are buying, what it is costing, and--most Importantly 
for an educated choice--what alternatives may exist.
    Thanks for your time.



MTC-00030675

12/12/2001 14:27 FAX 678 375 3436
CHECKFREE CORPORATION
Engineering
4411 East Jones Bridge Road
Norcross, Georgia 30092
(678) 375.3000 Corporate Direct
(678) 375.3436 Fax
wwv.checkfree.com
CHECKFREE CORPORATION
12 December 2001
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Washington DC
    Ms. Hesse:
    I write to you as a computer professional of twenty-five years 
experience to comment on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case per the Tunney Act provisions.
    After being found guilty of anti-competitive behavior, the 
settlement as described does not seem to impose any onerous 
penalties on the company, nor noticeably restrict their ability to 
leverage their position to dominate other markets. In fact, on this 
date the computer trade press is trumpeting a deal between Microsoft 
and numerous manufacturers of DVD players to have those units 
support Microsoft's streaming media format in future models. I'm 
sure Real Networks and Apple's Quicktime division are less than 
thrilled with this, but they lack Microsoft's clout.
    Microsoft has traditionally used `hidden'' 
programming features in Windows to give their own applications, such 
as Office, an edge over competitors'' products. In fact, the 
original plan to split Microsoft would have broken this information 
pipeline between system and application programmers. Developers of 
third-party software packages must reverse-engineer the interfaces 
to and from Windows to provide compatible packages for other 
environments, such as the Macintosh or the increasingly popular 
Linux system.
    Along the same line, Microsoft has used their dominant position 
in the office software market to pull consumers into a unending 
cycle of upgrades. A new version of Office emerges, with subtle 
differences in the format of documents created. One user at a 
company upgrades, which drives colleagues to follow along to be able 
to exchange files with one another, This has been referred to in the 
trade press as `viral upgrading'. It also forces 
competitors in the office software market to lose time chasing the 
latest updates since, because of its monopoly position, any 
competing products must maintain Microsoft compatibility.
    The proposed settlement makes some effort to open up Microsoft's 
protocols to the public, but loopholes in the provisions make its 
impact questionable. For example, the SAMBA project is an open-
source, volunteer-staffed software package to provide file-and-print 
services to Windows desktops, using servers running on the open-
source Linux operating system. To do this, they had to reverse-
engineer the protocols for logging into Windows servers, remote disk 
mounts, etc. It would appear at first glance that the DoJ settlement 
would ease this problem. However, in an open letter to the 
development community, the Samba team leaders made these comments:
    The Samba Team would welcome Microsoft documenting its 
proprietary server protocols. Unfortunately this isn't what the 
settlement stipulates. The settlement states:
    ``E. Starting nine months after the submission of this 
proposed Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available 
for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating 
with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms (consistent with Section II.I), any 
Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final 
Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented in a Windows 
Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) 
used to

[[Page 29417]]

interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition of software code 
to the client or server operating system products) with Windows 2000 
Server or products marketed as its successors installed on a server 
computer.``
    Sounds good for Samba, doesn't it. However, in the 
``Definition of terms'' section it states :
    ``Communications Protocol'' means the set of rules for 
information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product on a client computer and Windows 
2000 Server or products marketed as its successors running on a 
server computer and connected via a local area network or a wide 
area network. These rules govern the format, semantics, timing, 
sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network. 
Communications Protocol shall not include protocols used to remotely 
administer Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as its 
successors. ``
    If Microsoft is allowed to be the interpreter of this document, 
then it could be interpreted in a very broad sense to explicitly 
exclude the SMB/CIFS protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC calls 
needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with 
Windows 2000. They would claim that these protocols are used by 
Windows 2000 server for remote administration and as such would not 
be required to be disclosed. In that case, this settlement would not 
help interoperability with Microsoft file serving one bit, as it 
would be explicitly excluded.
    This hardly seems to fit the intent of the settlement. The 
alternative settlement proposed by the dissenting state attorneys 
general would appear to offer more stringent provisions to assure 
inter-operability between Windows and competing products. I would 
suggest the following provisions to keep Microsoft from squeezing 
out their competitors:
    (a) The alternative settlement proposes that Microsoft license 
the source code for Office to allow its adaptation 
(``porting'') to other operating platforms. This simply 
spreads the problem noted above of ``viral upgrades'' to 
these other platforms, What would make more sense is to compel 
Microsoft to document, FULLY, all file formats used in Office, and 
to require a reasonable (3-6 months?) notice of changes to 
allow competitors time to update their products accordingly.
    (b) Addressing the issue above of communications protocols, 
Microsoft should be compelled to disclose ALL programming interfaces 
and protocols used between Windows desktops and servers. This would, 
again, allow competitors to build compatible products for alternate 
platforms without the need to `chase'' changes by 
Microsoft. Given the current spate of security issues that have 
arisen with Microsoft products, this disclosure could in fact assist 
in ``hardening'' their products by allowing a wider 
audience to examine the interfaces for security gaps. In the current 
climate, this is definitely called for.
    These provisions should be enforced by requiring Microsoft to 
release the source code for any product they fail to fully document. 
This documentation must exist in Microsoft's facilities for their 
own staff to use in development. It should be straightforward enough 
to make this documentation available for others to scrutinize. The 
plethora of ``Windows Secrets'' books available on the 
market suggest that the public and internal documentation of Windows 
interfaces have some differences. Given their confirmed monopoly 
status, it seems reasonable they should demonstrate a higher level 
of transparency in their business dealings.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proceedings, I 
remain,
    Robert K Halloran III
    892 Trinidad Rd
    Jacksonville FL 32216 004
    Phone 904-723-5520
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00030676

December 12, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Let me begin by saying that the period of public comment is a 
wonderful nay to let everyday people express their opinions on 
topics usually handled by career politicians. Three years of 
Microsoft antitrust dispute has been long enough. It is time to let 
Microsoft return their focus to innovation, rather than litigation. 
Your office has produced a just settlement that has positive 
implications for software publishers, consumers, and the rest of the 
IT industry. I am grateful for this.
    Our economy has suffered from this lawsuit, and I hope that no 
more federal funding is allocated to this inane case. State budgets 
are also hurting, and yet proceedings continue in some states. We 
must allow the IT industry to resume its former pace. The longer 
this lawsuit drags on, the more likely it is that our country may 
lose its lead in the world technology market.
    The Justice Department's settlement is the best solution. 
Competitors are protected under your agreement, and consumers will 
find better software compatibility. Further pursuit of litigation 
benefits no one.
    Our country and our economy need stability. Settling this case 
now is just one step in achieving that. I would like to thank your 
office for the comprehensiveness of the agreement, and to thank you 
for considering my thoughts on the subject.
    Sincerely,
    Adelaide W. Revnyak
    27398 Cottonwood Trail
    North Olmsted, OH 44070



MTC-00030677

2001/12/12 21:49 John D. Hardin (+1 360 668 5342) --) 
1-202-307-1454 p. 1/2
17014 Broadway ave.
Snohomish, WA 98296-8031
(360) 668-5342
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax: 1-202-307-1454/
1-202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing you to register my comments on the proposed 
settlement in the Antitrust case of U.S. v. Microsoft. I hope they 
will be considered. First off, I want to gently remind you that 
Microsoft has been found guilty in a court of law of committing 
crimes, in that they repeatedly violated the Antitrust laws and 
engaged in many acts of illegal anticompetitive behavior. Please do 
not lose sight of this fact when considering the settlement.
    Microsoft has violated the law, and as such, they must be 
punished. Punishment involves causing the criminal SO much 
discomfort and pain that they regret having committed their crimes, 
and do not wish to repeat them. Otherwise it is not punishment. Any 
settlement where Microsoft does not squeal loudly and publicly about 
how unfair it is, is not punishment. Thus I find it disheartening 
that the Justice Department is even talking to Microsoft about what 
form the punishment shall take: ``Will this hurt too much? Oh, 
sorry. Okay, how about this. 7''--would this be done with 
any other criminal?
    Where is the justice for the public in this? Please don't forget 
you are on my side, defending my rights, not Microsoft's The terms 
of the current settlement do little or nothing to punish Microsoft. 
In effect, Microsoft is being given an opportunity to spend a small 
portion of their enormous cash reserves to gain a powerful entry 
into and lock on a new market (that of disadvantaged schools), and 
is in the process being given protections against the competitors 
that do the most to threaten their business. How does this punish 
them?
    Any solution to the problem of Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior must strike at the roots of that anticompetitive behavior: 
their constant and recurring exclusionary practices. These most 
often take the form of dictating OEM behavior and engaging in 
gratuitous blocking of software interoperability. The current 
proposed settlement does not effectively address these practices. 
Charles James'' comment that the proposed settlement will fully 
and demonstrably resolve'' all problems is the worst kind of 
wishful thinking, and shows that he is not acting in the public's 
best interest.
    (1) Microsoft must not be permitted to dictate what software 
OEMs may or may not install on the computers they build and sell, 
including most importantly Operating Systems. OEMs must be able to 
build and ship so-called ``Boot'' systems without 
incurring any penalties or punishment from Microsoft. OEMs must also 
be able to ship computers without any Microsoft operating system at 
all without incurring any penalties or punishment from Microsoft.
    (2) Microsoft must be required to publicly, freely and 
completely document the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), 
communications protocols and data storage formats (file formats) 
used by all products they offer (for example, Microsoft Word and 
Microsoft Windows itself). In this manner, competing products, 
including those created by non-commercial sources, will be able to 
interoperate with Microsoft products. This documentation must be 
published well

[[Page 29418]]

before the release of any new product or upgrade, and must be freely 
available without fee or registration or restriction on use.
    It is vitally important that there be no restrictions on the use 
of this documentation, for if there are any restrictions at all, 
Microsoft will find a way to use those restrictions to their 
advantage to stifle fair competition. See Section III(J)(2) and 
Section III(D) for their current attempt to do this; these sections 
would have the effect of allowing Microsoft to determine who they 
deign to provide interoperability information to. Remember, your 
goal is to punish Microsoft. Let them compete based on the quality 
of their products, not the obscurity of their APIs, communications 
protocols and file formats. Microsoft's ubiquity and ability to 
produce de-facto ``standards'' demands that their software 
interfaces be fully, publicly and freely documented. This is the 
price of their having a monopoly.
    (3) Microsoft's products must be held to their documented 
interfaces. If a Microsoft product is found to use an undocumented 
extension to an API, communications protocol or file format, then 
the extension must immediately be documented under the above terms, 
and Microsoft must be fined and the offending product removed from 
sale until the documentation has been updated or the use of the 
extension removed. The same punishment should apply if a product is 
found to use a wholly undocumented interface.
    In conclusion, The current proposed settlement is a very light 
slap on the wrist to Microsoft, and if it is enacted then in five 
years we will be right back where we are now all over again, just as 
we are now going through yet another penalty phase of yet another 
anticompetitive practices trial today because of the weak Consent 
Decree imposed in the mid-1990s.
    The only difference is in five years Microsoft will be yet 
larger, more arrogant, and harder to effectively punish. I hope that 
the Justice Department will inflict meaningful punishment upon 
Microsoft. I hope that the currently proposed settlement is not 
enacted; it seems to me to be nothing more than Public Relations 
window dressing intended to hide the fact that the Justice 
Department cannot effectively enforce the law upon a wealthy 
company.
    Please don't prove yet again that Money Talks, and that 
Microsoft is above the law.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    John Hardin
    [email protected]
    CC: mail, email, fax
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
Microsoft is being amply reprimanded and reigned in with the 
settlement reached. It is our understanding that under the Tunney 
Act, the public has 60 days to provide input for consideration by 
the parties involved regarding this settlement.
While we appreciate the idea of the government looking after the 
best interest of its citizens, nearly four years, $35 million 
dollars and the terms of the settlement are enough. It is more than 
time for this issue to be put to rest.
We strongly urge you to support the settlement. Please take the 
actions necessary to keep the process rolling to get the settlement 
through all the channels and put in place.
    Sincerely,
    Lou Gomez, Executive Director
    Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    1401 19th Street, Suite 110
    Bakersfield, CA 93301
    661-633-5495
    Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1121. Bakersfield, CA 93302-1121
    FAX 661-633-5499



MTC-00030679

DEC-12-01 13:56 FROM:KINKOS LAGUNA NIGUEL ID:9493621957
PAGE 1/7
FAX TO: EXECUTIVE: RENATA B. HESSE:
ACCEPTING PUBLIC RESPONCES OF
MICROSOFTANTITRUST CASE RESOLVED
202, 307-1454
202, 616-9937
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (ANT/TRUST DIVISION )
FAX FROM: NATHANNA GODFREE
P.0. BOX 2584
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92690
    DEAR EXECUTIVE HESSE & ANTITRUST DEPARTMENT
    I AM ( E PLURIBUS UNUM ) OF MR. & MRS. GENERAL PUBLIC AND AS 
SUCH I HUMBLY WANT YOU TO KNOW THE QUESTIONS OF MY THOUGHTS.
    ON NOVEMBER 6, 200l ON TELEVISION NEWS AS I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE 
THAT MY HOMELAND THE GREAT AND SWEET STATE OF CALIFORNIA WOULD BE 
PERSUING A CASE AGAINST THE MICROSOFT CORPORATION EVEN THOUGH THE 
UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CASE IS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED. FOR 
OUR OWN UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE BEHALF OF ALL UNITED 
STATES RESIDENCE AND PEOPLE HAS VIGOROUSLY SPENT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT 
OF DEDICATED TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY--TAXPAYER MONEY 
RESPRESENTING ALL AND HAS RESOLVED THIS CASE.
    I FAXED AND CERTIFIED A LETTER TO MY GREAT GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS 
AND MY UNITED STATES SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN WITH THESE QUESTIONS; 
THAT OUR GREAT STATE IS YET IN PROCESS OF RECOVERING FROM 
ELECTRICITY SHORTAGES AND BLACK-OUTS WHILE RECCESSION IS PROGRESSING 
AND OUR COUNTRY IN THE STATE OF WAR; MY QUESTION IS IT PRUDENT TO 
AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CALIFORNIANS TO PERSUE SUCH WHICH IS 
ALREADY RESOLVED. MY QUESTION TO YOU--
    DEC--12-0
    1 13:57 FROM:KINKOS LACUNA NIGUEL
    ID:9493621957
    PAGE 2/7
    (PAGE2)
    FAX TO: EXECUTIVE: RENATA B. HESSE
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    ACCEPTING PUBLIC RESPONCES OF THE MICROSOFT
    CORPORATION ANTITRUST CASE.
    202, 307-1454
    202, 616-9937 FAX FROM: NATHANNA GODFREE P.O. BOX 2584 
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92690 CONTINUE.
    TO YOU UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVES, IS IT 
PRUDENT AND IN THE BEST INTREST OF THE UNITED STATES PEOPLES THAT WE 
THE TAXPAYERS PAY IN EFFECT TWICE. EACH STATE WHO IS DISSATISFIED 
WITH THE RESOLVEMENT OF THE MICROSOFT CASE IS PUTTING THE LUXURY OF 
ITS TAXPAYERS TO FOOT THE BILL OF THESE PROCEEDURES HOW EVER LONG 
THEY MAY BE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE 
PEOPLE.
    IT IS WITH THIS CONFIDENCE IN YOU OUR GREAT GOVERNMENT AND 
ELECTED LEADERS THAT YOU WILL AGREE TO LET STAND WHICH IS ALREADY 
RESOLVED WITHOUTANYMORE HESITATION AND SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS. I AM 
FAXING WITH THIS LETTER A COPY OF THE FAX TO MY GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS 
AND HIS RESPONSE ALSO A COPY OF MY LETTER TO MY UNITED STATES 
SENATOR DIANNE FElNSTEIN AND POSTAL CONFIRMATION.
    NATHANNA GODFREE
    NG
    MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR DEC-12-01 13:57 
FROM:KINKOS LAGUNA NIGUEL ID:9493621957 PAGE 3/7 FAX TO: GOVERNOR 
GRAY DAVIS 916, 445-4633 STATE CAPITOL FAX TO: UNITED STATES 
DEPT. OF JUSTICE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 ANTITRUST DIVISION 
EXECUTIVES RENATA B. HESSE FAX FROM: NATHANNA GODFREE 
949,362-1957 202 307-1454 202 616-9937
    DEAR GOVENOR DAVIS
    MAY I FIRST SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT DILIGENCE AND HARD WORK 
IN CONTINUING SOLVING OUR GREAT STATE `S `ELECTRICITY 
SHORTAGE CRISIS AS TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
    I FEEL IT IS TRUE THAT WE THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOES NOT THANK OUR 
ELECTED OFFICIALS HARDLY ENOUGH, BUT I AND MY SON, WE THANK YOU. 
WITH THIS IN MIND AND OTHER CONCERNS OF WHICH ON TELEVISION NEWS 
YESTERDAY--THEY ARE SAYING AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT OUR STATE 
WILL BE SPENDING TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO PURSUE AN SEPARATE CASE 
AGAINST THE MICROSOFT CORPORATION AFTER THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED. IN OVER STATE'S CURRENT, YET 
STILL IN PROGRESS RECOVERING OF ELECTRICITY SHORTAGES AND THE 
RECESSIONARY INDICATORS LOOMING ECONOMIC RECESSION,--MY 
QUESTION IS--IS IT

[[Page 29419]]

PRUDENT AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CALIFORNIANS AND OUR GREAT STATE 
TO PURSUE AND BE IN SUCH A POSITION AS THAT ? AND WHAT IS THE 
GREATER PROFIT OF SUCH FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS (DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR) ? 
AND WHAT CALIFORNIANS WILL AGREE TO SUCH A MEASURE FOR TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS TO BE SPENT WITH NO CLEAR GAIN ? IT IS WITH THIS CONFIDENCE 
IN YOU OUR GOVERNOR AND OUR ELECTED LEADERS, AS GREAT SOLVERS OF 
GREAT ISSUES THAT YOU ALL WILL LOOK PRUDENTLY AT THIS EXPENSE AND 
AGREE TO SAVE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
    THANK YOU,
    NATHANNA GODFREE
    NG
    MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2584, MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92690 
DEC-12-01 13:57 FROM:KINKOS LAGUNA NIGUEL ID:9493621957 PAGE 
4/7 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR December 4, 2OOl FAX TO: THE UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--ANTITRUST DIVISION EXECUTIVES: 
RENATA B. HESSE 202 307-1454 202 616-9937 Ms. Nathanna 
Godfree Post Office Box 2584 Mission Viejo, California 92690
    Dear Ms. Godfree:
    Thank you for sharing your views.
    Please be assured that your opinions will be taken into 
consideration. As Governor, my job is made easier when citizens take 
the time to share any thoughts regarding issues of importance to 
them.
    Again, thank you for writing. Government works best when people 
remain active and express their views to elected officials.
    Sincerely,
    GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814--(916) 
445-2841 CALIFORNIA FAX TO: UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED 
STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION EXECUTIVES DIANNE 
FEINSTEIN RENATA B. HESSE 202 307-1454 202 616-9937 
DISTRICT OFFICE IIII SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE 915 LOS ANGELES, 
CALIFORNIA 90025
    DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN
    ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 6, 200l ON TELEVlSlON BUSINESS NEWS TO MY 
UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT OUR STATE WILL BE SPENDING TAX PAYER DOLLARS 
TO PURSUE AN SEPARATE CASE AGAINST THE MICROSOFT CORPORATION AFTER 
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED.
    IN THE WAKE OF THAT WE CALIFORNIANS HAVE A SERIOUS ELECTRICITY 
SHORTAGE IN PROGRESS AND IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF RECOVERING AS 
SUCH. THIS BEING SAID, MY QUESTION IS--IS IT PRUDENT AND IN THE 
BEST INTEREST OF CALIFORNIANS AND OUR GREAT STATE TO PURSUE AND BE 
IN SUCH A POSITION AS THAT? AND WHAT IS THE GREATER PROFIT OF SUCH 
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS (DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR) ? AND WHAT CALIFORNIANS 
WILL AGREE TO SUCH A MEASURE FOR TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO BE SPENT WITH 
NO CLEAR GAIN WITH RECESSIONARY INDICATORS LOOMING ECONOMIC 
RECESSION ?
    IT IS WITH THIS CONFIDENCE IN OUR GOVERNOR AND YOU OUR SENATOR 
AND ELECTED LEADERS AS GREAT SOLVERS OF GREAT ISSUES THAT YOU WILL 
LOOK PRUDENTLY AT THIS EXPENSE AND AGREE TO SAVE OUR TAX PAYERS 
DOLLARS.
    THANK YOU.
    NATHANNA GODFREE
    NG
    MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2584, MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92690
    TEM. TEL: 949,347-8520, ext. 313
    WITHOUT SOUNDING TOO ``CORNNY'' I HAVE GOT TO SAY, YOU 
INSPIRE ALL CALIFORNIA WOMEN GREATLY. ``THANKS'' 

MTC-
00030680 12-12-2001 3:11PM FROM WSFO BIRMINGHAM AL 205 
664 7821 P.1 Facsimile Transmission from NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 
465 Weathervane Road, Calera, AL 35040 (205) 664-3010 FAX: 
(205) 664-7821
Date:
To: Dept of Justice Location: Microsoft anti-trust Fax Number: 
202 616 9937
From:
    To whom it may concern,
    I am an IT Officer with NOAA. We use open source software a lot 
and feel the DOJ/Microsoft settlement has loopholes that Microsoft 
can use to eradicate its only real competition right now...the Open 
Source Software Movement.
    FIRST:
    There are certain file and document saving protocols Microsoft 
uses to save documents. These documents are deciphered into human 
readable text by Microsoft products. These document formats should 
be published and open so anyone can write an application to read 
them and display and manipulate them. By closing the document format 
Microsoft has a lock on the sole application that can read them. 
This is bad and perpetuates Microsoft's natural monopoly. By 
opening these document formats, competitors whether open source or 
commercial vendors, can all write software to read these document 
files. Some examples of Microsoft applications that create closed 
format document files are: Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word and 
Power Point and there are others such as spread sheets etc. The main 
issue here is the software can remain closed and protected and can 
compete based on its usability, functionality and security 
aspects... but NOT on its file format... which should not be a 
legally patentable entity in a competitive environment.
    ACTION: Force Microsoft and any future companies writing 
proprietary closed software to publish file and document formats, 
for current and future applications, to the extent that ANY software 
developer whether for profit or non-profit could write an 
application to view and modify that document and resave it in the 
same format.
    BENEFITS: This prevents natural monopolies from forming in the 
first place. Forces microsoft to write better and more secure 
software; because, if the does not (since the doc formats are opened 
up) someone else will. Competition and choice is open up and playing 
field is level. Other software writers can have access to the file 
formats and can focus more on writing good software instead of 
trying to figure out how Microsoft document files are saved. This 
will naturally eliminate Microsoft's monopoly in the Office 
applications environment and will stop or significantly reduce what 
are surely national security risks in Microsoft Outlook email 
software by bringing real competition to this now proprietary 
(Microsoft) product.
    SECOND:
    We often buy computers and put ``non-Windows'' 
operating systems on them. This is a very technical office and 
expertise in UNIX and computing in general. Finding a supplier that 
sells an OEM computer with a ``non-Windows Operating 
System'' or ``no operating system'' as you could do 
in the early and mid 90's... is impossible today. Microsoft 
essentially demands OEM's to include Windows on every machine they 
ship out the door. This also perpetuates Microsoft's natural 
monopoly. We as an organization need a choice when we buy an OEM 
computer. I would like to see a scenario much like the early and 
middle 90s'' where you purchased the computer and Operating 
System separately. This eliminates all the back rubbing and hidden 
costs that go into today's OEM computers from Dell, Compaq and 
others.
    ACTION: Make it illegal for an Operating System developer to 
bundle or require any OEM computer supplier to bundle their 
operating system with any OEM computer. Leave it only to retailers 
or consumers to install the operating system of choice. OEM's shall 
not be involved in operating system installation. This is a conflict 
of interest and a road block to competition in the market place. 
Much like you choose which cell phone you choose to use with your 
provider, or which TV you choose to watch your cable service with.
    BENEFITS: Again brings competition back to the computer 
operating system market. The operating system will have to stand on 
its own merits based on consumer perceptions of reliability, 
usability for a specific purpose, security and costs. This also 
allows upstarts to get a foothold in the marketplace by dis-allowing 
Microsoft the ability to ``force'' OEMS to install Windows 
on all computers. 12-12-2001 3:12PM FROM WSFO BIRMINGHAM 
AL 205 664 7821 P.4
    THIRD:
    Networking protocols!!! This is a biggie. This is the future of 
not just the internet but e-commerce of the future. No company and I 
mean NO COMPANY should be able to patent or close any networking 
protocol to block out other competitive Operating Systems. 
Networking protocol should be approved by and independent body and 
be published so that any computer operating system can communicate 
with any other computer operating system at the most fundamental 
level. Right now microsoft has their own internal networking 
protocol that is closed. This is to prevent rival operating systems 
from communicating with the Windows operating system. This locks 
corporations, organizations and businesses into the Microsoft 
platform. There is a project called SAMBA which is a not for profit 
organization that has tirelessly and painfully

[[Page 29420]]

tried to figure out how Microsoft's networking protocol works so 
that other computer operating systems like HP-Unix and Linux can 
communicate and exchange information with Windows and NT servers and 
desktops. The DOJ solution does not insure that Microsoft will 
publish these networking protocols and will essentially give 
Microsoft LEGAL means to kill the SAMBA project which our 
organization depends on to function. We also need Apache the free 
web server used by most of the Internet Service Providers. The lack 
of strong working in the DOJ solution give Microsoft new LEGAL 
grounds to shut down apache servers and put into their place... 
Microsoft products. This certainly does not halt the Microsoft 
monopoly but instead perpetuates it!
    ACTIONS: Force Microsoft and any rival operating system they 
create to release networking protocol for review by an official body 
of experts and publish this protocol so any software developer 
whether commercial or not for profit can use this information to 
write networking software that is more secure and more functional 
that Microsoft's that will fully communicate with Microsoft products 
and services and allow them to work with rival operating systems. 
BENEFITS: Opens up competition in the server and networking 
environment. Allows all software vendors access to the operating 
systems core communication network protocol so more secure and 
stable server and networking software can be written.
    I hope these additions can be added to the DOJ solution to the 
Microsoft trial. I feel at
    the present rate of expansion of Microsoft products and, the 
severe lack of competition, is leading to national security 
nightmare. Microsoft is not being held accountable for huge security 
loop holes simply because there is no competition. This lack of 
competition allows Microsoft to slack off on refinement of essential 
networking and software issues that are so central to security. By 
incorporating these changes into the settlement, we can have real 
competition in the Operating System market place and will again see 
progress made in the computer market. The days of closed formats is 
over. Protecting the software with patents is fine... writing and 
re-writing core networking, communication and file format protocol 
and patenting that to lock out competition is wrong and is against 
all the principles this country was founded on. Microsoft will 
continue to change its file formats and networking protocol and will 
force users to upgrade to lock out competitors unless these issues 
are addressed. Please consider them.
    Gregory Machala
    Information Technology Officer,
    National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
    404 Savannah Cove Calera, AL 35050



MTC-00030681

12-12-2001 04:lOpm
From-WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
+2158875404 T-827 P.OOl/OOl F-267
Dec. 12,2001
fax: 202-6 16-9937
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200 Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorneys:
    I am responding to the invitation for public response in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. As an experienced user of Microsoft 
Windows, Microsofti Office, and Internet Explorer, and one with some 
acquaintance both with Microsoft practices and with other operating 
systems, I must say that I am greatly disappointed with the terms 
being offered in the proposed settlement. The court has pronounced 
Microsoft guilty of practices involving maintaining monopoly 
position.
    Yet the proposed penalties have virtually no teeth. All computer 
desktop users could benefit from more open competition yet the 
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to go its own way at crucial 
points.
    At a minimum, the settlement should stipulate the following: 
Microsoft must publish in full the API for the Windows operating 
system, making it available for free to all, not just available to 
those who meet its own criteria
    Microsoft must publish full descriptions of its file formats 
(e.g., for Word, Excel, PowerPoint). It is well known that the 
secrecy of these formats helps Microsoft preserve monopolist control 
of the Office market. Microsoft must publish full descriptions of 
network interfaces. Without these, Microsoft uses it current 
dominant position to make incompatibilities that push firms into 
using nothing but Microsoft operating systems on every computer in 
the network. Microsoft must have sales arrangements with computer 
wholesalers and retailers that allow them to sell their computers 
without a windows operating system as well as with it. And the price 
differential must be the same as what it would cost to obtain the 
windows operating system without the hardware. This alone assures a 
level playing field, in which Microsoft does not use its market 
dominance to bully computer companies into offering no other options 
than Windows.
    Ongoing compliance must be monitored by an independent group not 
containing Microsoft employees.
    These moves are fair penalties that specifically target 
monopolistic practices. They would, moreover, strengthen the U.S. 
computing market by allowing genuine competition. And they would in 
the long run encourage Microsoft itself to do better by making 
better products rather than using its resources and ingenuity to 
produce more unfair practices.
    Vern S. Poythress, Ph.D.
    510 Twickenham Rd.
    Glenside, PA 19038-2033



MTC-00030682

Dec-12-01 09:06P
Debora Millson
770-414-8206
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, DOJ
From Michael G. Millson
Dec-12-01 09:07P Debora Millson
Phone: 770-414-8206
AableTech Solutions, Inc.
December 12, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
REF: U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation Proposed Settlement
    To the Department of Justice;
    As the CEO of AableTech Solutions, Inc. and a Web Systems 
Engineer with 7 years of Internet experience and 20 years of 
programming experience, I am very familiar with the technologies and 
issues at hand in the Microsoft antitrust case. I have witnessed 
firsthand the negative impact that Microsoft's monopoly has had on 
our industry, and the proposed settlement is not an adequate 
response to the antitrust violations that Microsoft has committed.
    Microsoft has already been found guilty of maintaining an 
illegal operating system monopoly, and now should be the time to 
enforce a penalty that accounts for Microsoft's past illegal 
activities and prevents further monopolistic behavior. However, I 
find the proposed settlement contains no substantial penalties and 
will only serve to advance Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
    I believe a just penalty would contain the following remedies:
    Microsoft's operating system should not be allowed to be coupled 
with computer hardware. Instead, the operating system should be an 
additional charge. Consumers should be able to purchase a computer 
without an operating system at a lower price than a computer with an 
operating system, and they should be allowed to choose the operating 
system that is installed.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to bundle non-operating system 
related software such as Web browsers, e-mail programs, and media 
players with the operating system. These products should be offered 
as stand-alone products at a cost above and beyond the operating 
system to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use its operating 
system monopoly to take over new markets.
    Microsoft should be forced to FULLY publish all its networking 
protocols and file formats in addition to publishing its operating 
system APls to allow competitors to build products that will 
interrupt with Microsoft's software and prevent Microsoft from 
seizing control of the Internet.
    Microsoft should have to pay monetary damages to the companies 
such as Netscape, IBM, and countless others that have suffered or 
been driven out of business as a result of illegal activity. 
Microsoft has unjustly filled its coffers, and a percentage of this 
money should be distributed to the companies and individuals who 
have been wronged.
    I do not believe the current state of the tech economy should be 
interpreted as a signal to enforce a light penalty on Microsoft, In 
fact, it is crucial to the national interest that Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly not be extended. In the report entitled 
``Cyber Threats and Information Security: Meeting the 21st 
Century Challenge,'' the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies concluded that use of Microsoft software actually poses a 
national security risk.

[[Page 29421]]

    Microsoft's activities over the last 10 years have substantially 
stunted the growth of the computer industry. Without any real 
competition, the software that Microsoft has produced has been 
riddled with security holes and productivity sapping bugs, and many 
truly innovative companies have been driven out of the marketplace. 
Consumers have been left with no other choice but a blase fare of 
sustaining, yet hardly remarkable products from Microsoft.
    I support and commend the 9 states that have refused to agree to 
the proposed settlement. In order to breath new life into the 
technology sector and safeguard the future of the United States and 
the computer industry, stricter penalties and restrictions must be 
placed on Microsoft.
    Sincerely, Michael G. Millson CEO Web Systems Engineer AableTech 
Solutions Inc. http://www.atsga.com/ 3658 WINDY CT . TUCKER. GA 
30084 PHONE (770) 414-8834 FAX (770) 414-8206



MTC-00030683

the Kompany.com
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 12001
Antitrust Division Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW
Washington. DC 20530
(facsimile) 202-616-9937 or 202-307-I 545
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I'm writing you to submit my comments with regard IO the 
Microsoft penalty currently under consideration. Let me provide you 
some brief background to establish my credentials for commiting. I 
have been developing software for 23 years now. my experience with 
Microsoft goes back to the very early I. days. I had an experience 
as a beta tester of Windows 3.1 using DR DOS instead of MS DOS. this 
worked tine during the beta. but in the final release wouldn't work 
at all, turned out that Microsoft had put code in specifically to 
disable it working with DR DOS. Microsoft recently paid out a 
settlement of about $ 150 Million to Caldera to satisfy this claim. 
I'm sure you've heard the old stories that use to go around 
Microsoft that ``DOS isn't done till Lotus won't run''. I 
can assure you that this was indeed the case.
    For the last several years I've been running a software company 
whose primary business is on the Linux peraring system. We also 
support MS Windows and Mac OS. but the MS environment is so 
inherently unstable and full of security holes. we prefer to not we 
that environment if at all possible. Now the recently proposed 
penalty is in fact nothing of the sort, there is no penalty here 
that causes any fundamental change. As a Limux software enthusiast I 
am forced to build computer systems because it is almost impossible 
to buy a PC that doesn't have Windows on it. and I don't want to pay 
For Windows as I'm not going to use it. The only equitable way to 
deal with this is have hardware manufactures, offer hardware at a 
reduced price without Windows. This price should be the same price 
that I can buy Windows from them for. So if they are going to 
discount only SI0 to remove Windows. then I should be able lo go 
back and buy Windows from them for S10.
    Microsoft needs to open up their file formats and API to Windows 
so that everyone has a fair chance to compete. As someone that has 
to develop import filters for Microsoft tile formats, I can tell you 
that the constantly changing versions and forced march to purchase 
upgrades is simply an expensive and manipulative nightmare.
    To sum up. I don't believe that Microsoft should be broken up, 
but they have an unhealthy stranglehold on the computing industry 
that is causing enormous problems now (look at all the worms and 
viruses over the last few years,) and it will only get worse and 
more dangerous if this is allowed to continue.



MTC-00030684

Chester A. Barr
11722 31st Dr. S.E.
Everett, WA. 98208-6117
Nov 20, 2001
Reneta Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U. S. Department of Justice
601 D. St., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Honorable Hesse,
    I am an ordinary American citizen whose use of the computer is 
for home use and a treasurer for a church. I have been watching with 
much interest the unfolding of the Antitrust Case with Microsoft 
from the newspaper reporting. I am greatful for the privilege to add 
my feeling over what I see as a sell out of the American people to 
Microsoft by our Justice Department.
    In family life when you have a child bent on doing wrong, even 
crime, parents have a responsibility to do all possible to correct 
that wayward child If the child continues in his wayward crimes, he 
usually becomes a case for public correction, and at the cost to the 
public. This is the way I see Microsoft. To this day Microsoft do no 
accept that they have exercised monopoly power over their 
competitors to the harm and denial to those of us who use computers 
desiring to see more innovative software and more control over their 
own computers.
    I respectfully disagree with the U.S. Department of Justice's 
settlement with Microsoft. First, because in the name of ``U.S. 
economy'' and pressure from the Bush Administration is not 
reason to pat Microsoft's hands and turn them loose again to 
continue their monopoly practices. They have been found guilty of 
exercising monopoly power, so how can our government and our Justice 
Department, for the sake of money, to improve the economy, justify 
to turn them loose with only a tap of the hand. If our government 
and Justice Department, who are charged to meat out justice, act for 
reasons not fitting the crime, how then can the American public feel 
they have representation?
    I have observed Microsoft officials using their money power to 
buy their way with legislators and with those holding high office, 
meeting with them, dining with them, contributing to their political 
interest. I ask the question, how can the consumers in this industry 
compete for hearing, seeing such money flowing, and our politicians 
reaching for the grab.
    Eighteen of our State Attorney Generals have come forth 
representing Microsoft competitors. Believe nine of them have agreed 
to accept the Justice Department's deal with Microsoft. Some of them 
have given in to avoid time and expense that their respective state 
I governments deem they cannot afford. I praise the other nine State 
Attorneys who have stayed the course for justice and for more 
realistic restrictions on Microsoft.
    I note Bob Lade, an antitrust expert at the University of 
Baltimore allegedly said, ``it's odd that the Justice 
Department--at the end of the filing--outlined stricter 
remedies that it had considered without explaining why those 
remedies were not pursued'' and continued by saying, 
``This is, of course, the case of the generation so I would 
have expected more''.
    I do not believe for a moment that the settlement the Justice 
Department has arrived at with Microsoft will remedy the monopoly 
power. As earlier stated Microsoft have not recognized that they 
have been a monopoly or acted with monopoly power over their 
competition so why would they change course.
    In closing if fair and competitive opportunities are going to be 
available, the deal that has been cut will not do it, and I urge 
stricter remedies, that will give equal opportunities for all and 
customers have a choice what is on their computers.
    Respectfully submitted,



MTC-00030686

10/28/2001 05:02 3157881018
ROBERT DELL PAGE
01 946 Franklin St.,
Watertown, NY 13601-3858
(315) 788-2417
www. northern-ny.net
mail to: [email protected]
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
December 13,200l
    As an individual with over twenty years experience in the 
personal computer industry, I would ask you to consider my comments 
on the case U.S. v. Microsoft. The proposed settlement does not 
remedy the antitrust violations of which Microsoft has been found 
guilty, and in fact could extend their monopoly.
    A proper settlement would create competition in the operating 
system market and impose a real penalty on the defendant without, 
however, forcing significant disclosure of intellectual property. 
Microsoft's domination of the operating system market began with 
their Windows 3.1 product. With the release of Windows 95 and then 
with Windows 98, their monopoly was secure.
    Microsoft no longer ships or supports Windows 3.1 and Windows 
95. Their present products, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, use what 
they call `New Technology'' and are a significant 
departure from the earlier products Microsoft has recouped all 
development costs for Windows 3.1 and

[[Page 29422]]

Windows 95, and has, as a result of their monopoly, made very 
significant profits from these products.
    A settlement that would mandate a transfer to the public domain 
all source code for Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 would allow 
competition in the operating system market and penalize Microsoft.
    Although the defendant may argue that the loss of this 
intellectual property will significantly impair the present and 
future viability of the products they develop, such a statement 
cannot be considered with any credence.
    Any settlement must address both competition in the operating 
system market, and a penalty Shipping free goods that increases the 
future dependence on the monopolist IS NOT a penalty. Allowing 
limited access to some source code. so that more products may be 
developed that can only be used with the monopolists products, is 
not a penalty I beg the court to consider that the key to a just and 
equitable settlement is increasing competition in the operating 
system market. The people are being held hostage by Microsoft and 
are suffering for it
    Sincerely yours,



MTC-00030687

DEC-14-01 FRI 12:06 AM
RKFD PROCESS CONTROL FAX NO, 8159662026 P. 01
Attorney Renata Hesse
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Washinqton, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse;
    I would like to submit some comments regarding the issue of the 
proposed settlement of the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust case.
    I am an Information Systems professional and I have very grave 
concerns about the proposed settlement. The Microsoft Corporation 
has been found guilty of violating certain parts of the Sherman Act, 
yet the settlement proposed does almost nothing to curb future 
violations by this illegal monopoly and nothing at all to punish 
them for their past illegal actions. In fact it is a commonly 
considered opinion among those in my profession that the proposed 
settlement gives Microsoft license to continue their monopoly with 
impunity. As I see it, the Microsoft Corporation will continue to 
unfairly control and extend their monopoly if tho terms of this 
settlement are accepted. I would like to propose the following 
modifications to the settlement:
    * The sale of Microsoft products must be placed on a level 
playing field with their competitors. Forbidding Microsoft from 
requiring exclusive contracts from new computer manufacturers and 
resellers is a start. But to be truly Competitive, Microsoft 
products must be offered as extra cost items just ,as any other 
competitive software or hardware product in a new computer sale. Not 
only should consumers have a choice of software products installed 
on new computers,they must also be presented with the true cost of 
their selection.
    * Microsoft has: a monopolistic lock on the use of desktop 
office applications. This lock is extended by the use of proprietary 
file formats that prohibit documents created with their products 
from being effectively read or modified by competitive products. 
Until this strangle hold is stopped there can be no effective 
competition in the area of desktop office applications. Forcing 
Mircosoft to open the APIs (Application Program Interfaces) more 
fully is a start, but the proposed settlement seems to allow 
Mircosoft the choice of who gets the benefit from this. Microsoft 
should be forced to fully release the specifications for all of 
their current. and future proprietary file formats used in desktop 
office applications.
    * The method that Microsoft employed to establish their 
proprietary formats in the area of desktop office applications is 
also being used to create proprietary network protocols. Already the 
use of proprietary extensions to network protocols by Microsoft is 
threatening to extinguish the open standards that the Internet was 
built upon and substitute proprietary standards useable only by 
Microsoft products. In fact Microsoft has already admitted this as a 
strategy to eliminate competition (www.opensource.org/ /halloween/
halloween1.html). If this continues, Microsoft will have wrested 
control of the Internet and established their products as the de 
facto standard. To prevent Microsoft from leveraging their monopoly 
in this way they must be required to submit all proposed networking 
protocols to an independent network protocol body for approval, 
complete with details that will allow competitors to use those 
protocols effectively.
    I have read comments from various sources that indicate that the 
proposed settlement should be accepted as a matter of national 
interest. Though this is a legitimate reason to settle the case, it 
is not a legitimate reason to accept this settlement. The Microsoft 
Corporation has shown that it will settle for nothing less than 
complete domination of the software industry and all that it 
entails. Further, they have demostrated that they are willing to use 
illegal means to achieve that end. It is in the national interest 
that no single entity be allowed to control something so important 
as our nation's information systems infrastructure. The 
capitalistic model that our country's economic system is built upon 
requires competition and the proposed settlement does little to 
encourage future competition with the current monopolist. Though it 
may be tempting to accept the proposed settlement in these economic 
times, the long range effect will benefit Microsoft's interests 
above those of the nation.
    Respectfully submitted,
    CLaude Horsman
    616 E. Jackson St.
    Belvidere, IL. 61008
    December 13, 2001



MTC-00030688

12/13/01 THUR 11:O7 FAX 858 452 4410
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
DOJ
Michael Bergknoff
Computer Architect
3655 Caminito Carmel I Landing
San Diego. CA 92130
December 13. 2001
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue. NW
Washington DC 2OOl
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
    I wish to add my voice co many others in disagreement with the 
proposed settlement. Rather than repeating the arguments you have 
assuredly read many times I will just point to one of the first 
commentaries I read that. I was in agreement with. It was written by 
Ralph Nader and James Love on November 5, 2001. It is available at 
the web address http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/doj12kollar/kotelly/
nov5.html
    In addition Nader's commentary I have a few additional items 
that I feel strongly about.
    Any remedy seeking to prevent an extention of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers. so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without. a computer seller I must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in additton to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API. the set of 
``hooks'' that. allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating system ), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    Any Microsoft networking protocol must be published in full and 
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent 
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the internet. Microsoft 
should not be allowed to dictate which parties have access to the 
specifications.
    Sincerely.



MTC-00030689

12/ 14/ 01 09:54
FAX 9133108348
JOHN DEERE IT
December 14, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I wish to make some comments on U.S. v. Microsoft. I work in the 
computing industry as a progammer. I have been a programmer for 22 
years. I don't -think the settlement as proposed adequately remedies 
the antitrust violations of which Microsoft has been found guilty. I 
would propose the following additional features to the settlement.
    1. Make all Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers.

[[Page 29423]]

Publicize that users are not forced to buy Microsoft products. The 
price difference between a computer with Microsoft products and 
without Microsoft products must be the same as the extra-cost 
options above.
    2. Microsoft must make public all document file formats both now 
and in the future. A prime element of Microsoft maintaining their 
monopoly has been the secret nature of their file formats. By 
publicizing these formats in a clear, easy-to-read manner, it would 
allow other companies and individuals to develop competing software.
    3. Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full. 
Also, these protocols should be reviewed and approved by an 
independent network protocol body. This will prevent Microsoft from 
controlling the Internet with proprietary protocols. In addition, it 
will allow competing software to be written to replace Microsoft's 
software seamlessly on individual's computers. I believe these 
recommendations that I have outlined would help to contain 
Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive behavior both now and in the 
future.
    Donald W. Price
    12114 Bluejacket
    Overland Park, KS 66213



MTC-00030690

12/14/2001 10:34
ADVICEFRAMEWORKS
12826169937PP2418 NO. 35701
December 14, 2001
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX: (202) 616-9937
RE: Public Comment AGAINST Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    I am writing this comment to express my voice AGAINST the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a Microsoft Certified Solution 
Developer, one of the first 500 certified under their new track, one 
of the fit 5000 Microsoft Certified Professionals, and one of the 
first 300 Microsoft Certified Professionals + Site Building. Because 
of my background as a software developer using Microsoft 
technologies, I am uniquely qualified to express an insiders point 
of view on the efforts Microsoft takes in preventing competition. It 
is from that experience that I URGE THE COURT TO DISAPPROVE fhe 
proposed settlement.
    Although Microsoft's domination of the desktop operating system 
market was earned, they continue to USC this monopoly to channel 
upon consumers sub-standard, insecure applications. IF A CONSUMER 
PRODUCT GAlNS A NEAR MONOPOLY MARKET POSITION, IT MUST. BE EARNED, 
NOT lNHERITED. As a software developer focused on integrating data 
from multiple platforms and multiple companies, I am constantly 
frustrated by the bottlenecks that Microsoft has put in place 
deliberately to enhance their position at the expense of other 
products that are superior to theirs.
    This cut-rent proposed settlement relies upon Microsoft's 
integrity as it deals with the Court. When has Microsoft ever 
demonstrated integrity with the Court? Take for example (one of 
many) the case in which they were ordered by the Court to ship me 
Java Native Interface with Internet Explorer and they deliberately 
disobeyed it with the excuse that it made download time longer. 
Hence, THE COURT CANNOT TRUST MICROSOFT to honor its obligations. IT 
MUST BE FORCED as was proposed in the solution that broke apart 
Microsoft's operating systems groups from the applications groups.
    Microsoft has become an expert at maintaining their tyranny 
through manipulation of our legal system. It is time to bring this 
institutional evil to an end. Hence, THE COURT MUST DISAPPROVE the 
proposed settlement and pursue one that correctly separates their 
operating system monopoly from their applications domain.
    n Charles Walker, MCSD, MCP+SB, MCP
    6614 Ronda Ave
    Charlotte NC 28211
    (704) 367-9341



MTC-00030691

    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to express my concern over the latest settlement 
proposed by the Department of Justice in the Microsoft Antitrust 
case. As introduction, I am a software developer who builds 
applications primarily for the Windows platform.
    One of my primary concerns with the proposed settlement is that 
it ignores the damages done by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior 
to rival technologies. While I am pleased that Microsoft's future 
actions are to be regulated by the settlement, I feel that much of 
the damage has already been done. Simply enforcing certain 
prohibitions on Microsoft's business practices will not repair many 
of the companies that have suffered because of Microsoft's predatory 
activities. Granted, it would be a difficult task to quantify all 
the damages done by Microsoft to every company, but the fact that so 
many companies have been affected suggests that the current 
settlement is not appropriate. While I will not propose specific 
alternative settlements, I do suggest measures that will impose 
damages on Microsoft tantamount to those it imposed on its 
competitors.
    I take greatest exception to the idea that a quick settlement 
will be in the interest of the people. Its monopoly in the Operating 
System market has allowed Microsoft to expand to new areas such as 
Internet retailing, broadcasting, and entertainment. Given that the 
current settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist, Microsoft will 
have no impediment to extending its stranglehold to these new 
domains.
    Thank you for your attention.
    good@ pare.xerox.com
    589 Oak Street
    Mountain View, CA 94041



MTC-00030692

    Russell Cage
    1615 Morton
    Ann Arbor Ml 48104
    14 December 2001
Renata Hesse, `Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
202-616-9937 FAX
[email protected]
    It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has 
reached a proposed settlement with Microsoft in the matter of the 
recent anti-trust suit. Despite the established guilt of Microsoft, 
this settlement calls for only a token cash outlay, no fines, few 
conduct penalties and great freedom on the part of Microsoft to 
continue doing business as it wishes.
    In my humble opinion, such a settlement is unconscionable. Not 
only does it fail to remedy the effects of past monopolistic 
behavior or prevent the same or worse in the future, it leaves the 
victims of the monopoly without a remedy. Worst of all, it may 
present a threat to national security.
    Certain terms of the proposed settlement, such as the provision 
of $900 million in Microsoft software to schools, do nothing to 
ameliorate the damage done by previous monopolistic behavior. It has 
been argued that this would only extend the monopoly into an area 
where Microsoft is currently weak. This should not be allowed. By 
all means allow Microsoft to make up some of the damage the company 
has done to schools with its marketing practices, but make them do 
it in cash. The disposition of the cash should be overseen by people 
charged with getting the most benefit to the schools; benefit to 
Microsoft should not be a consideration. For this reason stock is 
inferior to cash; the value of the stock can be affected by the 
purchasing decisions of the schools, and Microsoft's welfare 
should not be a factor in the decision.
    Other terms leave much to be desired. Microsoft has been proven 
to ignore conduct restrictions imposed on it by consent agreements. 
What is to prevent Microsoft from doing what it pleases regardless 
of the terms of this settlement? For this reason, I believe that the 
court was premature in ruling out a structural remedy.
    But the most important issue may be national security. 
Microsoft's dominance in desktop operating systems means that most 
businesses run it on most or all of their computers. The 
vulnerability of Windows and other utilities such as the Outlook 
mail agent to viruses, worms and Trojan horse software has made both 
the global Internet and company intranets subject to being swamped 
with traffic and even crashed.
    Even crude viruses such as the Love Bug required eradication 
efforts amounting to billions of dollars world-wide. This 
vulnerability is almost entirely due to Microsoft's 
``integration'' of unwanted functionality into Windows and 
its related utilities. Once such functionality is 
``integrated'', users and companies alike have few ways to 
remove or disable it if it becomes a liability. If an intelligent 
and determined enemy were to exploit many such liabilities, the cost 
to the USA could be far greater than the September 11 disaster.
    For this reason, any settlement must stop Microsoft from 
``integrating'' utilities and ``middleware'' 
with the operating system. Microsoft should be required to package, 
sell,

[[Page 29424]]

install and remove software functionality in distinct, related 
units. If functionality such as an insecure web browser can he 
removed and replaced, the damage from an attack on that utility's 
vulnerability `is limited. The effect on competitors to 
Microsoft may be one of the smaller issues; if such functionality 
cannot be removed and replaced because it is 
``integrated'' by Microsoft, the entire Internet can 
potentially be shut down by a single security flaw.
    Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.



MTC-00030693

STERLING GILLILAND
(408) 377-6374
Fax to: (202) 616-9937
Renate Hess
Trial Attorney: Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. St. NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Microsoft Penalty
    Gentlemen I am a `home' computer user that uses 
Microsoft's Windows 98 for eMail, snail mail correspondence, 
and occasional web browsing. I am not an accomplished high-tech 
user. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the recently published 
recommendations of the various dissenting states, for solution of 
the Microsoft case. The particular part that interests me, and I 
would imagine would interest others, is the following:
    `Have Microsoft offer a lower-cost, striped-down version 
of the Windows Operating system without Microsoft's multi-
media software, Internet Explorer Browser or email program.'
    I choose to use other sources for these parts of my computing, 
but am interfered with by the Windows parallel programs. I am not 
qualified to comment on other recommendations of the dissenting 
states.
    I would also hope that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly applies some 
stringent restraints to Microsoft to eliminate the scorn that 
Microsoft's management has shown for U.S. antitrust laws.
    743 Briar-wood Way
    Campbell, CA 95008-5527
    408-369-9487
    Fax 408-377-6374



MTC-00030694

December 15, 2001 II:11 AM
From: Software Marketing
Fax #: 614-459-1790
Software Marketing Center, LLC
4149 Winfield Road
Columbus, OH 43220
December 15, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe that it was a tremendously important and beneficial 
decision for the Department of Justice to have settled the case 
against Microsoft. Having spent the past twenty years in the 
software business, I can attest to the positive impact that 
Microsoft and other innovative companies have had in contributing to 
the remarkable productivity gains which helped to generate a robust 
national economy for many years. Without this leadership and 
technological advantage, our country would be far less able to 
succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
    I think that the current settlement is fair to both sides. I was 
happy to learn that The State of Ohio is ready to settle the case. 
Further litigation and congressional hearings would benefit no one 
but Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Bogart
    President
    Software Marketing Center, LLC



MTC-00030695

December 6, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a user of Microsoft, I fully support the current settlement 
in the Microsoft Antitrust case, Microsoft has endured three long 
years of legal action, and it is time that legal action against 
Microsoft is stopped.
    I am following the economic recession, and am concerned that 
continued legal action against Microsoft would only foster the 
current economic climate. We need Microsoft to get back to business 
and out of the courts.
    Stopping this legal action is best for the economy, the consumer 
and the software industry, Thank you.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030697

Dec 18 01 10:25a
Richard S. Vann
336-722-2895
Fred F. Steen III
Town of Landis, NC
December 18, 2001
Fax Cover Sheet
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice
From: Fred Steen
Mayor of Landis, NC
Fred F. Steen, IX, Mayor
Town of Landis, NC
Rennet Hess
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divison Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I would like to urge that Judge Kollar-Kotelly approve the 
settlement that the U.S. Department of Justice has worked out with 
Microsoft as well as nine other attorneys general including our 
attorney general in North Carolina As an elected official, I have 
always been wary of government lawsuits against private business and 
I was an opponent of this particular lawsuit from the start. But now 
that the parties have come to an agreement, I think it is important 
for everyone to move on particularly considering the state of our 
economy.
    There can be nothing gained by continuing on with a trial 
against one of the finest companies in America, which makes the 
products that, just about every computer user in the country 
benefits from. I cannot see where there has ever been any consumer 
harm because of Microsoft since their prices have not gone up 
greatly and on some products and the price has actually gone down. I 
am saddened that nine states will continue to press their case even 
though I believe in the end that Microsoft will prevail



MTC-00030698

November II, 2001
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
325 7th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata,
    I would like to express my concern over the proposed settlement 
in the DOJ--Microsoft case. I understand I may not be getting 
the whole story, but from what I understand, there are no provisions 
for anti-competitive pricing on the part of Microsoft. No matter how 
`open'' the market is to other middleware developers, if 
Microsoft can just bundle their middleware in with the operating 
system, how likely is it that a consumer will have the know-how or 
inclination to remove a bundled piece of software such as instant 
messaging or a web browser, and then have to shop around and 
purchase a competing product. It is a well-known fact that com- 
puter users get comfortable with products and don't change 
them often unless they are causing some kind of problem: If 
competing products are only on-par or even just a little better, 
there is no real incentive for some- one to spend money on a 
competing product.
    The only way I can see this deal working is that Microsoft 
cannot be allowed to give away products that com- peting companies 
have to charge for. If Microsoft software is as good as they say it 
is, consumers will have no problem paying for it. Each piece of 
software Microsoft makes should be able to stand on its own. If the 
only reason, people: are-using it, is because it was free and 
`not that bad'' in comparison to the competition, then 
this whole lawsuit was. for nothing except to waste taxpayer money.
    I am also concerned that people are talking about the technology 
market sector as being a factor in settling this case. The law is 
the law, and money is money The idea behind having laws is to 
protect the public good. If Microsoft broke the law then they should 
be punished and no amount of money should be able to change that, 
including the stability of the stock market. The market goes up and 
down as the economy does. No matter how large Microsoft is, they are 
not the sole factor in the stock market's health. The only 
thing that should be of concern is. if justice is being served.: the 
law is supposed to be the great equalizer, where everybody is the 
same. If the law treats this case differently because of financial 
concerns, then Justice is not being served.
    Citizen and avid computer user



MTC-00030699

Trevor Carlson
132 North Valley bad
Naselle, WA 98638
    I have personally felt the heavy oppression of Microsoft's 
monopoly, forced to buy

[[Page 29425]]

Windows, unable to get a program that can perfectly interpret Word 
files, and unable to remove Internet Explorer; and therefore I 
followed with interest the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. I am 
disappointed with the proposed settlement however, and was glad to 
learn I could give suggestions.
    In order to allow competition to flourish, three features must 
be included in the antitrust agreement. Each is meant to address the 
Microsoft monopoly in one area.
    I. Windows must be included as an extra-cost option in all 
computers.
    People who do not want to purchase Microsoft Windows are still 
forced to do so because of agreements between Microsoft and computer 
manufacturers. As it stands now, the perceived cost of Windows to 
consumers buying a computer is exactly nothing, giving an incredible 
burden to anyone who dares to compete with Microsoft in the area of 
Operating Systems. In order, to restore competition in this area, 
computers will need to be offered without Windows.
    That means that Microsoft cannot sign exclusive deals with 
computer manufacturers, the cost of the operating system must be 
visibly included with computers, and the operating system must be 
available at that price without having to buy a computer.
    2. Windows file formats must be available for people to copy.
    There are people who are forced to buy Microsoft Word, not 
because it is the best software for the job, but because everyone 
else has it. They do not want to loose business just because they 
cannot understand a file that was sent to them by a customer. While 
almost every Word replacement includes a converter to get 
information from Word files, they do not work all that well because 
Microsoft has not revealed how Word files are stored, forcing them 
to use guesswork to determine the format. Of course, if people have 
to buy Word anyway, they have no need to buy a product that does the 
same thing as Word.
    Forcing Microsoft to reveal the file format used in their 
products would let their products compete on merits, not on market 
share
    3. The third and final features is not meant to address a 
current monopoly, but one that may develop in the future and must be 
prevented.
    If Microsoft were to change networking protocols, (the language 
used to communicate between computers) they could force everyone on 
the Internet to choose a side; between Microsoft and their protocol 
and everybody else. This would almost certainly force everybody to 
bow to Microsoft in order to communicate to anybody else, allowing 
`Microsoft to seize complete and utter control over the 
Internet.
    The solution to this is to force Microsoft to reveal networking 
prtocols, and to keep them from changing unless approved by au 
independent network protocol governing body. These three features 
will destroy Microsoft's grip on the computing world if 
implemented. Although they may seem radical, they must be the only 
moves that will stop Microsoft.



MTC-00030700

American Homeowners
Grassroots Alliance
December 18, 200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., #1200
Washington, DC 20530
By fax and Email: [email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    We are writing to comment on issues in the settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. We also wish to commend the Department of 
Justice for negotiating a fair and reasonable Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment in the case, and to urge the Department to resist efforts 
of Microsoft competitors to undermine the proposed settlement of the 
case.
    The American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance is the national 
advocacy organization representing, along with its sister 
foundation, the nation's 70 million homeowners since 1983. Our 
interest in this case comes from the fact that nearly 60% of homes 
have one or more computers. Those tools are increasingly important 
to homeowners who depend on them as tools for personal and business 
communications, financial management and planning, adult and 
children's education, and also to manage the rapidly growing number 
of home-based businesses. In the early history of the personal 
computer industry there were many choices for operating systems, 
much as there are in cellular telephones in the U.S. today. The 
utility of personal computers was undermined by the inability of 
software written for one operating system to work on a different 
operating system, just as the incompatibility of today's cellular 
telephone operating systems is a limiting factor in their value to 
consumers. Over time the development of many types of software for 
the Windows operating system lead more and more consumers to select 
the Windows operating system. Consumer preference for a wide variety 
of software applications, convenience, and ease of use also lead to 
a consumer preference for the integration of software applications 
into the Windows operating system,
    The evolution of the Windows operating system into an industry 
standard through consumer choice is the most valuable consumer 
benefit of Windows. Actions taken to address Microsoft behavior 
should, in no case, undermine the current right of consumers to 
select Microsoft operating systems and popular arrays of integrated 
software applications. We believe the revised proposed final 
judgment strikes the right balance in effectively addressing 
Microsoft's unacceptable practices and also preserves consumer 
choice. The agreement calls for uniform pricing and allows computer 
makers flexibility to configure Windows and promote non-Microsoft 
programs. Both interfaces and protocols necessary for other software 
to work with Windows must disclosed, and both retaliation and 
exclusive agreements are prohibited. An independently appointed 
permanent technical committee will monitor compliance and assist 
with dispute resolution. The U.S. or any of the states have a right 
to inspect all Microsoft documents and all source code for any 
Microsoft program, interview any Microsoft employee, and order 
Microsoft to prepare any report under oath regarding any issues 
relating to the final judgment. Any person may complain regarding 
noncompliance to the Justice Department, the states and/or the 
technical committee and the plaintiffs can immediately initiate 
proceedings to hold Microsoft in contempt. We see no loopholes in 
this remedy.
    Our members have not urged us to support more stringent 
sanctions against. Microsoft. In fact we believe there is little or 
no consumer opposition to the revised proposed final judgment. We 
oppose many of the suggestions of Microsoft competitors, directly or 
through their influence of federal legislators, state attorney 
generals, or third party organizations, for settlement provisions 
designed to increase their market share. These companies do not 
represent consumers, and consumers have made their preference for 
the Windows operating system known by their actions in the 
marketplace.
    We thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Beth Hahn
    President



MTC-00030701

Dec 19 01 04:26p Richard S. Vann 336-722-2895 p.1
Vernon Robinson
South Ward Alderman
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Fax Cover Sheet
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Microsoft Case Comment for Federal Register Dec 19 01 04:27p Richard 
S. Vann 336-722-2895 p.2
Vernon Robinson
South Ward Alderman
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As an elected official who represents taxpayers, I am pleased 
that Judge Kollar Kotelly has before her a settlement agreement, 
which has been reached between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of 
Justice. I hope that this agreement will be signed off on soon.
    As one who has urged fiscal restraint in all matters and less 
government involvement in people's lives and businesses where 
possible, I have been displeased with what I believe to have been 
the unwarranted pursuit of Microsoft, not to mention the $30 million 
in taxpayers money used to prosecute this case which was so quickly 
overturned by the Court of Appeals.
    However, since the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft plus 
several attorneys general have sought to end this sad affair, I 
would certainly endorse this settlement

[[Page 29426]]

rather than pushing on year after year and devouring even more 
taxpayer dollars. I know that in any settlement, both sides will get 
what they think are victories but not get everything they want. That 
is also true of compromises which come up at the city level upon 
which I must vote each month.
    As an alderman, there is one thing I have learned about endless 
litigation. It is not good for anyone. When our city is sued, it 
takes time and resources that should definitely be spent on other 
matters. It often means hiring of outside counsel which is 
expensive. Eventually, if the city is plagued with too many 
lawsuits, it begins to affect our budget and brings about increased 
need for higher taxes.
    I encourage approval of settlement in this case for the sake of 
the taxpayers.
    Sincerely yours,
    Vernon Robinson
    South Ward Alderman
    2713 Edinburg Drive, Winston-Salem, NC 27103



MTC-00030702

19/19/01 15:04
FAX 330-678-1007
KINKO'S KENT OH 002
1026 H Allerton St.
Kent, OH 44240
December 19, 200l
Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Hesse,
    The American ideal is to have products thrive in an open market 
where competition fosters improvements and new technologies. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of violating this ideal by illegally 
maintaining a monopoly on its Windows operating system. To remedy 
this situation I feel that Microsoft should be compelled to do the 
following:
    ï¿½Microsoft should be required to make Microsoft 
0ffice available on at least five other non-Microsoft operating 
systems without price differences between the Microsoft and non-
Microsoft versions.
    ï¿½Microsoft's present and future document file 
formats must be made public so that documents made in Microsoft 
applications can be read by other applications on other operating 
systems.
    ï¿½The Microsoft networking protocols and Windows 
application program interface (API) should be made publicly 
available.
    ï¿½Microsoft should not be allowed to retaliate 
against computer manufacturers that sell personal computers with a 
non-Microsoft operating system. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
illegally maintaining its monopoly and the current phase in the 
lawsuit is to determine Microsoft's penalty. Any settlement must be 
punitive and insure Microsoft's cooperation in the American ideal.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Jarecke



MTC-00030703

Sent By: NORDIC SERVICES INC: 2065249014: Dec-19-01 9:51AM:
Pane \1/2\
CD CHUCK BATIS, PC
December 17, 2001
Reneata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft vs. Public
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my frustrations which again today have 
been piqued by the United States Government
    I would like to suggest three parts of of what I think should be 
included in my effective remedy: (1) Enjoin the U.S. Government and 
governmental agencies from requiring us to use Microsoft products to 
conduct business in the Unites States;
    (2) Prohibit maufacturers from preloading any operating system 
on these products;
    (3) Include ALL offenders in the remedy.
    As for part one. We are required by the Congress to file taxes 
with the IRS electronically. The only viable provision the IRS has 
made to accomplish this feat requires us to use Windows. 
Additionally, today I received notice from the U.S. Postal Service 
that they will no longer publish the national zip code directory in 
hardcopy but we can order an electronic version--of course the 
electronic version (of which all businesses will require at least 
one copy) only works on Windows.
    This amounts to a direct U.S. Government subsidy of Microsoft 
and requires all business to ``invest'' in Microsoft 
crapware--supporting that monopolistic empire. The court should 
put a stop to this nonsense by requiring U.S. and said governmental 
agencies to release all software in form that is free of dependence 
upon the presence of the Windows API-software that can run on a 
variety computing platform. If the Government wants to use Microsoft 
products that is up to the people the Government has to make those 
decisions. But government employees should not be allowed to require 
those of us in business to use Microsoft products if we citizens 
choose to use other computing environments. No use of the Windows 
API should be allowed in governmental software release. Please 
require the government to release all future applications for 
multiple platforms and retrofit all current applications within a 
period of two years to eliminate calls so the Windows API.
    Part two: I manufacturers were required to ship their product 
``naked'' a whole new economic boom would. Third parties 
would spring up to in still the customer's choice of operating 
system and software applications. There is certainly for this in the 
IBM anti-trust settlement of past decades. This would mean all 
software application developers would have an equal opportunity to 
market share through value added resellers. Furthermore, I can think 
of no other single section which would give an much improved 
usability of both hardware and software components. If either 
hardwre or software were difficult to use resellers would choose to 
install alternative components other providers. This would stimulate 
competition in the marketplace like no other option than I have 
heard suggested. Microsoft would have to compete on an even playing 
field with all other providers.
    Finally, the manufacturers were the other side of the equation! 
IBM, Compaq, Gateway, Dell and Micron (and all the others) all knew 
the licensee were illegal but chose to sign anyway. They were 
complicit in the illegal activities of Microsoft and should share in 
the pain. They should be at least required to refund, to any 
customers who requests that retail value of the Windows licenses 
they forced unwilling customers to purchase in order to other 
hardware products. This action would put businesses (a legal 
position expense and promoted by Congress at every session).
    Please include in the settlement whatever it takes to allow 
business to be conducted in the United States with both federal and 
state governmental agencies the Microsoft -free environment. The 
government should not be allowed to require businesses Microsoft 
products in order to conduct business in the United States. 
Currently the U.S. Government is schricopherenic--one segment 
ones Microsoft for monopolies tactics while the rest of the 
government requires us to purchase Microsoft products. Only the 
Government can possibly be that disoriented!
    Thank you for any relief you choose to provide U.S. based 
businesses.
    Very truly yours,
    Chuck Davis, CPA



MTC-00030704

    Attn Charles A. Jones
    this letter pertains to the ownership and lawsuit with 
microsoft. I own microsoft. I have no understanding how you can file 
lawsuit against the co. without me representing the co. or making 
sure the co is properly reprresented. I don't understand how you can 
file lawsuit against this co. Did you investigate any to know who 
owns microsoft. I've called you people and told you this more than 
once. I would like a reply.
    Kevin Olland W6763 Co. Rd A
    Spooner, Wi. 54801
    715-635-8837 10pm-2pm
    Mon-Fri



MTC-00030705

12/20/01 THU 10:20 FAX 001
December 19, 200l
Renatta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    I am writing this letter to you in support of the Consent Decree 
proposed by the Department of Justice in the case of US v. Microsoft 
and pursuant to the Tunney Act, which allows public comment on such 
matters. I believe the settlement proposed by the Department of 
Justice is fair and should be accepted by the court.
    I work in the technology industry and have watched this case 
very closely since it first began some three years ago. Though I 
didn't agree with all of the assertions made by Microsoft's 
competition, there was some validity to their position. It was 
important to have the issue heard in a court of law and allow the 
facts to come out. But when Judge Jackson pushed for breaking up 
Microsoft

[[Page 29427]]

and the hi-tech industry started a rapid decline, I felt the case 
had gotten out of hand. It is now time to resolve the matter and 
move forward.
    The settlement proposed by the Department of Justice should be 
accepted because it is fair. The remedies proposed in the settlement 
will address future issues and are adept at fixing any challenges 
which may arise from rapid technological innovation. It ensures 
competition by forcing Microsoft to disclose information on the 
operating system. They can no longer enter into agreements of 
exclusivity and they cannot retaliate against manufacturers for 
helping to develop competing software.
    The current agreement proposed by the Department of Justice will 
remedy past violations by Microsoft while ensuring the technology 
industry remains innovative and competitive. Solutions being 
suggested by Microsoft's competitors will not make the industry more 
competitive.
    Though I realize closure is not the issue for the courts, I do 
hope they will take into account what settling the case against 
Microsoft will mean to the technology industry. As this case drags 
on, so does the insecurity of the hi-tech industry. I currently work 
for a dot-com company. Since the day Judge Jackson ordered a break 
up, things have not been the same. Because many in our industry are 
nervous about the impact to Microsoft, our ability to plan for the 
future is difficult. If US v. Microsoft is settled, we will get back 
some sense of security in our industry. It is the sort of boost we 
desperately need right now.
    As I mentioned before, the case against Microsoft may have been 
justified in the beginning. But Judge Jackson, the break up, and the 
extreme politicizing practiced by competitors has caused the issue 
to get completely out of hand. The settlement is a fair and prudent 
one, I hope the courts will accept it and the case so we in the hi-
tech. industry can restart the expansion where it left off.
    Brenda J. Zamzow
    Senior Vice President
    Internet Directories USA, Inc.
    2461 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 408
    Santa Monica, CA 90404
    Tel: 31O-453-3455
    Fax; 31O-453-7553
    Email: [email protected]
    www.idusa.com



MTC-00030706

DEC 20 ``01 18:24 FR BROADCOM
949 450 0244 TO 12023071454
P. 01/03
    To DOJ,
    I'm writing to express my anger over Microsoft and the current 
state of Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. The US government is too easy 
on Microsoft. Microsoft must be much more severely punished to bring 
a more competitive marketplace into the software industry. There are 
more examples than I can write to demonstrate the harms Microsoft 
have done to the software industry and consumers. I will only list a 
few here:
    1. Before Microsoft Outlook email software, it is SIMPLY 
IMPOSSIBLE to spread virus through emails. There have been at least 
two serious virus spread (Melissa, etc.) through Microsoft Outlook 
software. Due to the extremely unthoughtful construct of their email 
software and operating system, a third party software that is 
attached in the email can easily gain control of the desktop 
systems. To my personal knowledge, no other email software/platform 
can spread and get virus except Microsoft Outlook.
    2. Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence in 
writing secure and bug-free software. The latest release of Window 
XP has such a serious security flaw that a hacker can gain the 
control of the personal computer as soon as the personal computer 
gets onto internet (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nf/20011220/tc/
15458 l.html. Unfortunately this is not the first serious problem, 
nor probably won't be the last. The number of patches to their 
different versions of operating systems have been just endless. 
Without bringing in a more fair competition into the operating 
system marketplace, and software in generally, we would wait in 
eternity for Microsoft to improve on their quality of product.
    3. The stronghold on operating system by Microsoft has enabled 
this shameless company to expand into one software market after 
another. In the last few years, I have personally witnessed the 
disappearance of other great software company one after another. By 
withholding critical documentation and information on their 
operating system, Microsoft was able to produce much better products 
than its competitors. Since all other software must interface with 
the operating systems to do anything with the computer screen or 
keyboard or mouse or any devices, in general it is close to 
impossible to write software without sufficient documentation on a 
certain operating system. Throughout the years, I have seen the 
dwindling or disappearance of WordPerfect (word processor), Borland 
(software compilers), Lotus 1-2-3 (spreadsheets) companies. In 
every case, I have witnessed that these companies were not able to 
provide a fancier graphics on the screen or easier controls at the 
same time as Microsoft put their products out. It is simply an 
outrage when Microsoft compilers won over Borland compilers with 
inferior constructs, but better graphics. I will not elaborate on 
the technical details, but to simply state that Microsoft initial 
compiler products on C++ language is close to a joke.
    This Microsoft company created such a laughable product that 
basically shows their ignorance on C++ language.
    Even after so many generations (Win 2.0, Win 3.0, Win 3.1 Window 
3.2, Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, Win XP) of their operating systems, 
their operating systems still hang without notice. I don't know when 
it would be the time that I don't need to unplug my notebook battery 
to be able to reset my notebook simply because my Win 98 hangs. The 
lost time and wages to maintain faulty systems of Microsoft is just 
unimaginable. Now that Microsoft wants to settle this lawsuit by 
donating 1 billion dollar of their faulty product (which will cost 
them only 140 million according to their latest financial report), 
and plus that they probably get a tax write-off of 1 billion dollar. 
At their -30% tax bracket, it would translate into 300 million tax 
saving. And would they end up with 160 million dollars gain after 
settlement? Even if the tax write-off is calculated using 140 
million, their out-of-pocket expense would only be 60% of the 140 
million which is 84 million. So is US government telling their 
citizens that Microsoft will be punished with a paltry 84 million 
dollars or even 160 million gain in another calculation, after all 
of these? With this donation, Microsoft would obviously be making a 
lot of inroads so swiftly into the education market which was/is 
entrenched by Apple company, and that the schools will probably end 
up paying so much more for Microsoft monopoly.
    Till this day, the price of every single component inside a PC 
has gone down by probably more than 80%, except Microsoft operating 
system and its software. Microsoft is the only company that still 
enjoy a gross margin of more than 80%. Only when there are 
meaningful competitions, we can start to see any price erosions. And 
the worst of the worst about the Microsoft monopoly is that we the 
consumers will pick up their faulty products without any choice and 
suffer all the inconveniences.
    Sincerely yours,
    Sean Lee
    [email protected]
    ** TOTAL PAGE.03 **



MTC-00030707

12/21/01 01:31 714 368 6610
UNIT 1 OPERS A72
001/001
December 21, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
    I have a few comments I would like to express regarding the 
proposed final settlement of the U.S. vs. Microsoft Corp. case.
    Microsoft Corp. has been found guilty of ``illegally 
maintaining an operating system (OS) monopoly.'' The function 
of the court is to now determine the penalty for the crime. The 
current proposed settlement does nothing to prohibit Microsoft from 
continuing their campaign of monopolizing the computer software 
market.
    I was amazed to see the Microsoft proposal that they be 
``punished'' by giving away their software to schools. As 
Mac/Apple has long been the OS of choice in US schools, this 
punishment is nothing more than a Microsoft attempt to gain a larger 
share of school exposure. This and they will be able to write off 
the cost of this ``punishment'' to further their monopoly. 
I find it laughable that the guilty party is allowed to 
``suggest'' their punishment. Any true punishment to 
Microsoft must limit their ability to continue their monopoly. In 
order to do this I propose the following as a just and reasonable 
penalty;
    Microsoft products must be made an extra-cost option in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. There are several viable OS's 
now on the market. The industry (Microsoft) should no longer be 
allowed to choose which OS is installed for you. In order to make 
the

[[Page 29428]]

playing field even, allow the end user to decide which OS they 
desire. Allow market conditions (price/value) of the OS dictate 
which one an end user purchases.
    Installing Microsoft Internet Explore must be made optional. Not 
pre installed in any sense of the word. Remove all links which 
attempt to make this the Browser of choice (default) after loading 
it. Allow equal access to other Internet Browsers without favor.
    I realize this is a very complex issue and you are not treating 
it lightly. However, this decision will impact the future of the 
entire computer industry. Microsoft has created many valuable 
innovations in the industry. That does not give them to right to 
dictate history. That is the role of the court.
    Thank you for taking the time to understand my point of view.
    Doug Lahann
    26633 Guadiana
    Mission Viejo, CA.
    92691-5904



MTC-00030708

Dec-24-2001 02: 58pm From-
T-557 P.001/002 F-482
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Suite 1200
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Jens Gecius
53 Sherwood Drive
Larchmont. NY 10538
FAX 202-307-1454--two pages
    Dear Trial Attorney Renata Hesse:
    I am writing you today in response to the invitation of public 
comment on the proposed Settlement of the Mircrosoft Anti-Trust 
case.
    I am an amateur systems application developer and enthusiastic 
computer user, familiar with many aspects of programming and 
administering a computer system as well as following the development 
of the computer Industry.
    I have also been following the Microsoft Anti-Trust case and 
like to take the opportunity to comment on the case. I cannot see 
that the proposed settlement is a remedial action for the illegal 
maintenance of a monopoly Microsoft has been found guilty of. I do 
not see any penalties in the proposed settlement for Microsoft, 
actually, even enhancing the current monopoly Microsoft has been 
found guilty of maintaining Monopolies have never proved to benefit 
the public and national interest.
    As a minimum of a remedial action, I would see four penalties:
    1. Full disclosure of all Windows Application Program Interfaces 
(API) and other specification documents for Microsoft products to 
the public using a license to enable everybody to write 
applications, system-drivers, and API and such, to enable third 
parties to develop any such program, driver, or API being compatible 
with Microsoft's current, former and future products. Such a license 
has to be free of royalties and discrimination of any kind. 
Microsoft must be prohibited to extend any such API or other 
specification without proper publication.
    2. Necessity to show the Microsoft operating system as an extra-
cost option for buyers of a new computer. This would facilitate 
buyers of a new computer to choose an operating system themselves, 
or buy a computer without an operating system, using an existing 
license or another operating system. Futhermore, it would enable 
buyers of a new computer system to make an informed decision about 
which operating system to buy or use, using all information 
available in regard of stability, security and compatibility.
    3. Networking protocols and protocols for new applications of 
Microsoft must be published to the public and approved by an 
independent protocol body. This would prevent Microsoft to extend 
its existing monopoly by seizing other areas and enable users of 
other operating systems to use such enhancements.
    4. Forcing Microsoft to open all current and future patents 
involved in the operating system business to the public and to grant 
a public license free of royalties and discrimination on such 
patents. Nowadays in the computer business, patents are the perfect 
tools to monopolize any future developments in that industry, 
preventing enhancements by other developers. This would prevent 
Microsoft to extend its current monopoly into areas of future 
computer industry development, be it Hardware or Software.
    Finally. I would like to point out that this Anti-Trust case is 
in the national interest, and that I believe that it is crucial that 
Microsoft's monopoly will not be extended. Even the highly respected 
Center for Strategic and International Studies recently pointed out 
that the use of Microsoft software actually poses a national 
security risk. The latest serious security flaw in Windows XP shows 
once again how ruthlessly Microsoft acts. It is outright declining 
to send a simple email reminder to its customers, hence putting at 
risk computers of their own customers as well as other computers 
world-wide due to ``hijacked'' computers running this 
again insecure version of Windows.
    Microsoft would be more diligent to get all affected computers 
fixed if it would not be a monopoly In conclusion, everybody agrees 
that the resolution of this case is of great importance, not only 
for now but also for many years to come. Therefor, I suggest a 
careful and deliberate decision is worth far more for the national 
interest than a hasty one.
    Thank you for considering my comment.
    Yours sincerely,
    Jens Gecius
    53 Sherwood Drive
    Larchmont, NY 10538



MTC-00030709

insario 14354 Morht Frank Lloyd
Wright Blvd
Suite 21
Scottsdale, AZ 85280
480-281-1582
December 21, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Like many other people. I have often felt that Microsoft's anti-
competitive stance may have been a little restrictive, but I am not 
sure that it has really ever risen to the level of a lawsuit. The 
computer technology business is largely comprised of people who 
would rather see a freer exchange of information. Microsoft plays a 
little closer to the vest and this annoys some. However, I have 
always believed that a lawsuit like this will end up just as harmful 
for the entire technology market as it ever would for any one 
company.
    This is why I believe that the settlement between the Department 
of Justice end Microsoft is a good one and should be sustained 
throughout this public comment and review period.
    I am hoping that we can all get through this review period 
without initiating any further action. Any such action will most 
certainly hurt the entire computer technology market even more than 
it has already been hurt. Our country is only now beginning a slow 
recovery back to relative normalcy. I would hope that our national 
and state leaders would do nothing untoward to dampen this recovery.
    Josh Kewley
    VicePresident



MTC-00030710

Claude David Baldwin
1212 Haig Circle
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-1613
December 19,2001
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am writing to express my opinions on the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation.
    Microsoft Corporation was found guilty at trial of having 
maintained an illegal operating system monopoly and of having 
illegally tied its Internet Explorer to its monopoly operating 
system. When Microsoft appealed the appellate court threw out the 
guilty verdict as pertains to the browser but said yes, Microsoft 
did in fact illegally maintain an operating system monopoly. In 
light of the appelllate court finding I feel the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation is 
lacking in several key areas.
    If the purpose of the sertlement is to remove barriers illegally 
maintianed by Microsoft to competition then I feel the following 
changes need to be made to the proposed settlement:
    1. Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsocft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that

[[Page 29429]]

the difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way. In my career I have 
purchased many computers each of which came supplied with Microsoft 
products although I do not and have not for some time use Microsoft 
products I was given no option to purchase the computer hardware 
without the Microsoft products installed. Thus I paid Microsoft for 
products I had no intention of using. A ``hidden'' tax 
that went directly to Microsoft.
    2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers on 
Micorsoft's or other operating systems. By keeping these file 
formats secret and changing them frequently, Microsoft stifles 
competing programs.
    3. Opening the Windows application program interface (called the 
API, the set of ``books'' that allow other parties to 
write applications for Windows operating systems), which is already 
part of the proposed settlement. Microsoft has in the past only 
provided this information to its internal staff and close 
development partners thereby putting all other software developers 
at a disadvantage. Only by opening this interface will true 
competition be possible.
    4. All Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent and inter-national network protocol 
body. Bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), 
ECMA, or the World Wide Web Consortium(W3W) are examples of such 
bodies. This would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control 
of the Internet.
    In addition to these comments I would like to add that Microsoft 
has, in the past, agreed to certain restraints on its behavior and 
failed to do so. In any settlement there must be immediate and 
severe enforcement remedies to insure compliance with the terms of 
agreement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I hope 
you will take my comments into consideration. A level playing field 
is the only way this country can contribute to innovate in the 
computer software industry and insure continued economic and 
national success.
    Sincerely
    Claude David Baldwin
    PS: In light of the events of September 11, 2001 and the 
subsequent anthrax attacks via the United State Post Office I am 
also sending this letter by email to insure that you will receive it 
prior to the end of the comment period. I will send the email with 
my PGP signature. You may verify my signature a any of the public 
PGP keyservers, e.g. http://certserver.pgp.com/



MTC-00030711

    12/25/01 TUE 18:05 FAX 617-258-8321
WHITEHEAD INST. 4TH FL
Jonathan Singer
19 Wyatt St
Somerville. MA 02143
Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW., W
Washington, DC 20530
202-616-9937
    Dear MS Hesse,
    I am writing in reference to the proposed Department of Justice 
settlement with Microsoft. While I am not hostile to Microsoft (I am 
writing this in Microsoft Word), I am concern that the proposed 
settlement is far too weak. Despite the fact that the company has 
been found to have abused a monopoly position, it is effectively 
being let off with no punishment and minimal oversight to avoid 
future violations. This is all the more troubling since a previous 
deal was struck several years ago, and Microsoft brazenly flouted 
it.
    I am not in favor of the proposed breakup of the company's 
software operations. I do support policies along the following 
lines:
    * Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and 
approved by an international standards body.
    * Past and future Microsoft document formats must be published 
in full.
    * Microsoft Internet content and service properties should be 
broken into a separate business.
    Finally, it must be made clear that any portion of the 
settlement that requires information to be made available requires 
that it be made available to all requesters. That includes 
independent software developers and hobbyists, not only corporate 
entities.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Singer



MTC-00030712

25736 Yucca Valley Rd.
Valencia, CA 91355
21 December 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
FAX: 202-307-1454 or 202-616-9937
    To the Public Servants of the Department of Justice:
    I wish to share with you a prediction of Microsoft's plan for 
the Internet. I wish you to ask yourselves if the settlement to the 
United States v. Microsoft anti-trust case could prevent such a 
scenario.
    As you may be aware, in the mid- 1990s Apple Computer was in a 
difficult financial position. Microsoft aided Apple Computer with a 
large purchase of non-voting stock. In exchange for this stock 
purchase, Apple Computer was required to make Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer the default Macintosh browser application.
    You are also aware that Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive 
behavior captured dominance in the network browser application 
market from Netscape Navigator.
    I predict that Microsoft will eliminate Sun Microsystems'' 
Java through the use of its monopoly strength and browser 
application. Because a network browser is the primary interface 
between Java and the computer, this is feasible. I believe they will 
do this through the deployment of the C# (C Sharp) programming 
language, which has elements to replace Java.
    Microsoft has used their monopoly strength to establish their 
network browser as the default for both Windows and Macintosh 
computers. There is strong evidence that Microsoft designs elements 
into their operating system and applications to disadvantage users 
of non-Microsoft products.
    I predict that Microsoft will use its Internet Explorer browser 
application to disadvantage users of Java. Microsoft will then 
subsequently offer its C# language to users who are frustrated 
with Java's problems under Internet Explorer.
    Do you believe that the settlement of the United States v. 
Microsoft anti-trust case can prevent such a scenario? If not, the 
settlement stands in need of revision.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Wilkinson
    cc: Michael H. Morris, General Counsel, Sun Microsystems, Inc.



MTC-00030713

MIS-On-Call, Inc.
P.O. Box 5746 Santa Clara, CA 95056-5746
December 21, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Since 1982 I have used computer software regularly for work, 
school, and personal reasons. During this time I witnessed most 
major changes in software products by Microsoft, IBM, Lotus, and 
Corel. In an effort to address my needs for the best product over a 
period of ten years, I had switched back and forth from one 
company's product to another company's product. Around 1992 I had 
settled in with most of Microsoft's product lines and have used them 
continuously ever since. My reason for choosing Microsoft's product 
is truly because Microsoft's products offer what I need and in most 
cases more than what I could ever use. With this in mind I know 
Microsoft has invested and added value in their products beyond what 
consumers could have received from Microsoft's competitors.
    I have very quickly concluded that this lawsuit against 
Microsoft by our government has been a great injustice. Since the 
great industrial revolution period there were various other such 
antitrust actions that have occurred throughout the years, and this 
is a prime example of creating a public crisis out of good. I know 
our nation must balance economic concerns with social concerns and I 
believe Microsoft understands these concerns and know their value as 
well.
    I am relieved to see that the government and Microsoft have 
agreed to a settlement of this suit. The settlement appears fair, I 
suppose, from the government's standpoint. I am hoping that this 
period of public comment will sustain the settlement so that we can 
put this entire unfortunate business behind us.
    Throughout this entire process, I am at least appreciative of 
the current leadership at the Department of Justice that has seen 
fit to settle this thing. I am certainly hopeful that no further 
federal action will be taken.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29430]]

    Joseph Hanlon, CPA, CIS, MCP, A+
    President and Chief Executive Officer.



MTC-00030714

Dec 21 01 03:12p p.1
Michael Green
811 Chicago Ave. #5O8
Evanston IL 60202
December 14,200l
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530;
(facsimile) 202-616-9937
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am a computer programmer and consider myself knowledgeable of 
the computer industry. I am writing concerning the proposed 
Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice. Since Microsoft 
has already been found guilty, I consider the existing settlement to 
be severely lacking in several areas.
    As it is currently written, the settlement will not prevent 
Microsoft from continuing their anti-competitive behavior. Also, it 
provides no penalty for Microsoft's past behavior. A meaningful 
settlement needs, at a minimum, the following:
    ï¿½Both the Windows API and Microsoft document formats (MS 
Word, MS Excel, etc) must be made freely available to anyone who 
wants them.
    ï¿½Microsoft networking protocols must be standardized by a 
standards body. This will prevent Microsoft from using their 
private, proprietary protocols to seize control of new applications 
used on the Internet.
    ï¿½Microsoft products should be provided only as extra-cost 
options on personal computers,
    The software should also be available for the same price as the 
difference between a computer loaded with Microsoft products, and 
one without any Microsoft products. This will prevent Microsoft from 
``bundling'' an entire kitchen sink of applications with 
Windows, increasing the price of Windows (either directly or 
indirectly), and preventing competition.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Green
    Concerned, Informed Citizen



MTC-00030715

12/21/2001 18:02 2023314212
AGRI WASHINGTON
PAGE 01
Ms. Renata Hesse, Esq.
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW (Room 1200)
Washington, DC 20530
10732 Hampton Road
Fairfax Station, VA 22039
20 December 2001
F : 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Renata:
    As I express views following, please do not misconstrue them as 
personal but directed toward larger issues of government's role in 
national affairs. I am not a particular admirer of Microsoft and 
find fault with many of their practices. But it was a sad day for 
America when Department of Justice intruded into the private sector 
with intent to coerce Microsoft into an inferior position. Federal 
penchant for control and intervention has cost our country dearly.
    Harassment by Justice shook Microsoft so that public investors 
lost money in that protracted process, Great public expense is 
accrued as Justice continues the process of ``negotiating a 
settlement'', an exercise that keeps federal lawyers employed 
at taxpayers'' expense. This DOJ exercise is especially 
egregious because it does not add to national wealth or benefit and 
is a net decrement because federal employees do not pay taxes, only 
recycle taxes revenues originated solely by the private, profit-
making sector.
    Most federal employees do not know how the private sector works 
but insist on policies to inject government into private affairs 
causing harm to the US economy and offense to taxpayers, most of 
whom are not dependent on government. My view of you and the 
Antitrust Division is similar to my urgings to former President 
Clinton and his retinue; GO AWAY ! Stop doing harm to my country and 
taxpayers who are coerced to support frivolous federal behavior.
    Sincerely
    R. Barry Ashby



MTC-00030716

December 21,2001
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
Fax (202) 616-9937
Rc: US v. Microsoft Settlemcnt
    To Ms. Hesse:
    The settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft should be accepted 
by the courts and I am writing to express my support.
    My letter comes to you as a professional female executive, 
mother, and (most importantly) civic activist. I have been extremely 
involved in the Orange County, California community. First, as the 
regional representative for Governor Pete Wilson and now, as the 
President of a company specializing in local community relations. My 
business serves the needs of numerous ethnic communities including 
Hispanic, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
    Over the last five years, I have seen the financial stability of 
many in these ethnic communities rise to levels unimaginable before 
the technology boom. New jobs were created, wages increased, and 
quality of life dramatically improved. Many in the second and third 
generations of these communities are now training for jobs in the 
technology industry. But, in the last six months, their financial 
stability has begun to erode. The technology companies in Orange 
County have stopped hiring. Wages are beginning to go down. Many 
members of the different ethnic communities are concerned and 
beginning to look for financial assistance they didn't need just one 
year ago, Why am I saying all this in a letter about the case 
against Microsoft? Because settling the case against Microsoft, in 
my opinion, is going to give a shot of adrenaline back into the 
economy. It will also free up some resources for the assistance 
needed by many of the people I work with.
    In my discussions with some corporate clients, I have learned 
that many of the technology companies are waiting for a settlement 
before making new investment decisions. Computer training centers 
across Orange County are turning out hundreds of Microsoft certified 
technicians who won't find work until the case is settled. The 
examples of the economic impact of this case are endless.
    As you are also aware, California is facing a budget deficit. I 
don't think it is fair that the schools attended by many in these 
ethnic communities may go without books, yet the government is 
considering spending millions more on the case against Microsoft.
    I support settling the case against Microsoft from two differing 
perspectives. As an executive, I believe the case is damaging to our 
economy. More importantly, as a civic activist working with ethnic 
communities, I know this case is having a negative impact. I hope 
the case will be settled.
    Sincerely,
    Suzanna Tashiro-Choi



MTC-00030717

    12/26/01 WED 15:46 FAX 7O4 541 0259
    FAX 001
    Thomas Paul Weldon, PhD, P.E.
    9026 Roseton Lane
    Charlotte, NC 28277
    December 26, 200l
    Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
    Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
    Department of Justice,
    601 D Street NW,
    Washington, DC 20530;
    Fax 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545;
    e-mail [email protected]
    I must vigorously oppose the Department of Justice settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust case, since I feel that the remedies are 
woefully insufficient.
    I ask that the Department of Justice and Judge consider the long 
history of abuse of Microsoft's monopoly, even though this long 
history may not have been included as part of the trial. The long 
list of innovative companies and products that have been eliminated, 
primarily due to Microsoft's monopoly on their operating system 
include word processing (Word-Perfect), spreadsheets (Lotus 123), 
web browsers (Netscape), etc. It is somewhat ridiculous that 
Microsoft presents itself as an innovator, when the initial 
commercial success of these product areas was driven by the 
aforementioned companies. It is now clear that the demise of these 
companies was primarily accomplished through monopolistic power in 
the operating system, and not by any superior innovation at 
Microsoft.
    In light of the unfortunate history of Microsoft in abusing its 
monopoly, it is imperative that the department of justice seek real 
remedies that subdivide microsoft into separate units and that 
provide forced supervision of internal practices, with legal power 
and sanctions to prevent and penalize future abuses. Too much of the 
current settlement is vague, leaves much to interpretation, and 
allows Microsoft to determine its own level of compliance.
    The situation is all the more critical as Microsoft enters the 
internet arena. We cannot afford to have the same monopolistic 
abuses stifle competition on the internet,

[[Page 29431]]

since the internet will play a very important role in the economic 
future of our nation.
    It seems to me that the settlement will also encourage future 
monopolies to abuse their power, when they see that Microsoft got 
less than a slap on the wrist. Finally, the government has seemed to 
be influenced by the financial institutions and investors with great 
sums of money invested in Microsoft. Unfortunately, the government 
is not considering the great many investors whose investments were 
lost due to Microsoft monopolistic practices. What about the people 
who lost their investments in Lotus 123, Word-Perfect, Netscape, 
etc? Who will speak for those who were unfairly deprived of their 
investment and those who were unfairly deprived of their 
entrepreneurial opportunity? The department of Justice MUST speak 
for them, loudly. Thomas
    Paul Weldon, PhD, PE
    NC Licensed Professional Engineer 023548
    North Carolina
    Professional Engineer
    Thomas Paul Weldon Seal
    Q23648



MTC-00030718

12/27/01 THU 12:27 FAX 617 258 6321
WHITEHEAD INST. 4TH FL 001
 Jonathan Singer
19 Wyatt St Somerville,
MA 02143
Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney
 Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, W
Washington, DC 20530 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I am writing in reference to the proposed Department of Justice 
settlement with Microsoft. While I am not hostile to Microsoft (I am 
writing this in Microsoft Word). I am concerned that the proposed 
settlement is far too weak. Despite the fact that the company has 
been found to have abused a monopoly position, it is effectively 
being let off with no punishment and minimal oversight to avoid 
future violations. This is all the more troubling since a previous 
deal was struck several years ago, and Microsoft brazenly flouted 
it.
    I am not in favor of the proposed breakup of the company's 
software operations. I do support policies along the following 
lines:
    ï¿½ Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an international standards body.
    ï¿½ Past and future Microsoft document formats must be 
published in full.
    ï¿½ Microsoft Internet content and service properties should 
be broken into a separate business.
    Finally, it must be made clear that any portion of the 
settlement that requires information to be made available requires 
that it be made available to all requesters. That includes 
independent software developers and hobbyists, not only corporate 
entities.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Singer



MTC-00030719

FROM : CASH FAX NO. : 434 384 6614 Dec. 27 2001 12:55PM Pl
December 27,200l
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I understand that public comments on the Microsoft settlement 
are to be brought to your attention. I offer the foliowing:
    For Microsoft, for consumers, and for thousands of information 
technology businesses that rely upon the Windows platform, this 
settlement offers the chance to get back to work. It's regrettable 
that this settlement goes beyond the issues upheld on appeal. In 
addition, we may all regret having a committee and the Court 
supervise the future of software design. Nevertheless, this 
settlement would bring to an end the most disruptive competitor-
driven antitrust campaign in our nation's history, and that, more 
than anything else, is something for everyone to celebrate.
    Let me close by saying that given that the economy is now in 
recession, the last thing we need is more litigation and regulation 
of the high-tech industry.
    Sincerely yours,
    Mary-Margaret P. Cash
    201 Colonial Court
    Lynchburg, VA. 24503



MTC-00030721

12-28-2001 9:36AM FROM 000000000000
CREDIT CAR AMERICA 001
12-28-2001 8:48AM FROM 000000000000
CREDIT CAR AMERICA December 27, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to offer comments on the Microsoft case settlement. 
As I understand it, under the proposed settlement, all new Microsoft 
operating systems, including Windows XP, would have to include a 
mechanism that readily allows end users to remove or re-enable 
Microsoft's middleware products. Those include the Internet browser, 
instant messaging tools, media player, and email utilities. While 
end users can already remove Microsoft middleware from Windows XP, 
this settlement would make it easier for users to switch end compare 
among competing middleware products. As an end user. I fee1 that 
this provision guarantees me flexibility.
    May I also add that settlement of this case is in everyone's 
best interests--the technology industry, the economy and 
consumers.
    Sincerely yours,
    John E. Mohrman
    7300 Brook Road
    Richmond, Virginia 23227



MTC-00030722

12-28-2001 9:21AM FROM 000000000000
December 27,200l
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, Microsoft's largest rivals 
were disappointed when the Appeals Court took breakup off the table. 
However, you may be assured that they will find ways to use this 
settlement to inhibit Microsoft from competing in markets they 
dominate today, (like Internet access, high-end servers, and instant 
messaging.) The enforcement provisions of this settlement agreement 
would make it effortless to slow innovation and delay product 
launches by filing multiple complaints, much like these competitors 
attempted to do with Window XP. For AOL Time Warner, Oracle, and 
Sun, opportunities abound to hinder Microsoft by abusing the 
settlement agreement. There has been no consumer harm as a result of 
any actions taken by Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft's innovation has 
led to tremendous benefits for consumers, such as better products 
and lower prices. Antitrust law is supposed to be about consumer 
harm, and on that key issue, the government has failed to show any 
harm whatsoever.
    Yours truly,
    Goy Martin



MTC-00030723

12/28/01 07:23 714 368 6610
UNIT 1 OPERS A72
001/001
December 27,2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
    I have a few comments I would Like to express regarding the 
proposed final settlement of the
    U.S. vs. Microsoft Corp. case. Microsoft Corp. has been found 
guilty of ``illegally maintaining an operating system (OS) 
monopoly.'' The function of the court is to now determine the 
penalty for the crime. The current proposed settlement does nothing 
to prohibit Microsoft from continuing their campaign of monopolizing 
the computer software market.
    I was amazed to see the Microsoft proposal that they be 
``punished'' by giving away their software to schools. As 
Mac/Apple has long been the OS of choice in US schools, this 
punishment is nothing more than a Microsoft attempt to gain a larger 
share of school exposure. This and they will be able to write off 
the cost of this ``punishment'' to further their monopoly. 
I find it laughable that the guilty party is allowed to 
``suggest'' their punishment.
    Any true punishment to Microsoft must limit their ability to 
continue their monopoly. In order to do this I propose the following 
as a just and reasonable penalty:
    Microsoft products must be made an extra-cost option in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. There are several viable OS's 
now on the market. The industry (Microsoft) should no longer be 
allowed to choose which OS is installed for you. In order to make 
the

[[Page 29432]]

playing field even, allow the end user to decide which OS they 
desire. Allow market conditions (price/value) of the OS to dictate 
that choice.
    Installing Microsoft Internet Explore must be made optional. Not 
pre installed in any sense of the word. Remove all links which 
attempt to make this the Browser of choice (default) after loading 
it.
    Allow equal access to other Internet Browsers without favor.
    I realize this is a very complex issue and you are not treating 
it lightly. However, this decision will impact the future of the 
entire computer industry. Microsoft has created many valuable 
innovations in the industry. That does not give them to right to 
dictate history. That is the role of the court.
    Thank you for taking the time to understand my point of view.
    Doug Lahann
    26633 Guadiana
    Mission Viejo, CA.
    92691-5904
    [email protected]



MTC-00030724

DEC-28-2001 11:43 OVERFELT 573 636 6846 P. 01/01
Post Office Box 1336
Missouri Retailers Association
(573) 636-5128
Jefferson City, MO 65102
The Voice of Retailing
Fax (573) 636-6846
E-mail: [email protected]
December 28,2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney-Anti Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington DC, 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the recently reached settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice.
    The agreement is pro-consumer helping the technology sector of 
our economy contribute new and better jobs at this time of economic 
uncertainty This settlement brings to an end the most disruptive 
competitor-driven antitrust campaign in our nation's history. This 
is something all consumers can celebrate.
    Dave S. Overfelt
    President
    TOTAL P.01



MTC-00030725

12/28/01 10:56 FAX
KINKOS GOLDEN
00l
501 Golden Circle #103
Golden, CO 80401
December 23, 2001
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    To Renata Hesse,
    As a US citizen, and in accordance with the invitation posted in 
the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 229, p. 59452), I wish to have my 
comments concerning the proposed final judgment in the United States 
v. Microsoft Corporation case added to the Federal Register.
    First, I think it is important to re-state the gist of the of 
case: Microsoft Corporationhas been found guilty of illegally 
maintaining a software (operating systems) monopoly inviolation of 
section 2 of the Sherman Act. This judgment has be reaffirmed upon 
appealand now stands.
    Given this judgment, I think any reasonable individual would 
find the terms of the pro-posed settlement wholly inadequate. The 
proposed restrictions (including opening of APIs,formation of an 
independent review board, and some requirements for licensing) do 
little ornothing to address the underlying problem-that Microsoft 
continues to illegally maintainand extend their monopoly position.
    In the trial, the term ``barrier to entry'' was often 
used to describe this effect and the detailsbear further discussion. 
Microsoft continues to trap both users and software 
developersthrough a ``web of software dependencies'' that 
is, for many, nearly impossible to escape.The ``web of software 
dependencies'' that I refer to is the combined effect of:
    1. secretive, restrictive, and anti-competitive licensing 
policies;
    2. intentionally undisclosed, incompatible, and ever-changing 
specifications for file for-mats, network protocols, and APIs; and
    3. destructive ``embrace and extend'' strategies 
designed to corrupt existing formats andprotocols.
    Once users and developers employ Microsoft products, they 
generally find that their data,time, and effort becomes locked 
within, for example, file formats which they cannot effec-tively 
access through non-Microsoft software or on non-Microsoft platforms.
    These dependency problems are pandemic. As the trial 
demonstrated; the vast majority ofpersonal computer users in the 
United States (both companies and individuals) are alreadyensnared. 
And even as the court considers options to remedy the situation, 
Microsoft hascontinued their practices and released new operating 
systems (the ``Windows XP'' family)that seek to further 
extend their exclusionary control. One of the most brazen of 
theseactions is Microsoft's current attempt (called ``.NET My 
Services'') to become the solegateway for authentication and 
payment systems for all on-Line transactions.In summary, the 
proposed settlement does little or nothing to fix the illegal and 
damagingbehavior that has been clearly and repeatedly outlined 
during the case. What is needed isa court-ordered remedy that truly 
solves the problem. Here, I propose three requirementsthat any final 
remedy must include. These restrictions would immediately and 
directlybenefit the US citizens and intuitions that have been 
victimized by the defendant's illegalactions. They are as follows:
    1. Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Mi- crosoft products as extra-cost options in 
the purchase of new computers. Thus, a buyer who does not wish to 
purchase Microsoft products with new computer hard- ware is not 
forced to do so. This requirement will have the effect of ending 
some of Microsoft's restrictive and anticompetitive licensing 
policies for new computer sales. And it has the added benefit of 
clearly itemizing the cost of the Microsoft products for consumers 
which would prevent Microsoft or computer sellers from claiming that 
any differences in price are insignificant. The ending of anti-
competitive Licensing terms for new computer sales is a critical and 
illegal choke-hold on the market that must be broken if competition 
is to flourish.
    2. The specfications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in ad- dition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement. This would help put an end to the trap of 
intentional incompatibilities and forced upgrades that Microsoft 
currently perpetrates.
    3. All networking protocols used by current and future Microsoft 
products must be pub- lished in full and approved by an independent 
network protocol body. This is both a reasonable and workable 
requirement. The Internet was built and has famously flour- ished 
upon free and open standards and protocols. This requirement would 
prevent Microsoft from further extending its software monopoly by 
seizing de facto control of the Internet through proprietary 
protocols and through corruption (eg. incompatibleextensions) of 
existing open protocols and standards.
    The effect of these restrictions would be the commoditization of 
many kinds of software. Likeother mature markets which support 
healthy competition, Microsoft and any competitorswould be driven to 
produce compatible products. Strategies would turn from the 
currentwasteful processes of intentional incompatibility and 
proprietary lock-in towards competitionbased primarily upon the 
quality, price, and timeliness of the competitors'' 
implementations.All parties wronged by the current lopsided monopoly 
situation would benefit as competitionflourishes.
    In view of the ever-increasing dependence of our country upon 
software for commerce, health,communication, transportation, and 
security, I urge the court to take a firm stance. Mi-crosoft 
continues to demonstrate that it cannot be trusted to obey the law. 
Their continuedgrowth into new markets creates an unhealthy software 
mono-culture which, as demon-strated by recent events, poses a 
significant risk to national security. Therefore, the courtshould 
take this opportunity to prevent future problems by reigning in 
Microsoft's monopolyand enforcing the antitrust laws that are in the 
best interest of this country.I wish to thank the court for 
consideration of these recommendations.
    Sincerely,
    Edward H. Hill III, Ph.D.

[[Page 29433]]



MTC-00030726

DIRECTORS
Edmundo Alire
TDW Construction
Armando Solis
Solis Chiropractic
Julio Correa
Vision Latino Magazine
Mike Martin
RMC Enterprises
December 28, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Microsoft is being amply reprimanded and reined in with the 
settlement reached. It is ourunderstanding that under the Tunney 
Act, the public has 60 days to provide input forconsideration by the 
parties involved regarding this settlement.
    While we appreciate the idea of the government looking after the 
best interest of itscitizens, nearly four years, 35 million dollars 
and the terms of the settlement are enough.It is more than time for 
this issue to be put to rest.
    The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Contra Costa County, 
California, strongly urgesyou to support the settlement. Please take 
the actions necessary to keep the process rollingto get the 
settlement through all the channels and put in place.
    Sincerely.
    Pedro E. Babiak
    Vice-President
    Web Page: www.h5c.org
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00030727

FROM:
FAX NO. :
Jun. 26 2001 03:25AM P1
December 17,2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to register my hope that the government will work in a 
productivefashion with Microsoft and other technology interests in 
crafting a positiveworking relationship. I felt as though the 
federal government's positionagainst Microsoft was excessive and 
anti-business.
    After all, without Microsoft, what would the American workplace 
look like?How would it function without their useful products? 
Things would be lessfunctional, and less efficient.
    Microsoft is the market leader, and other companies sought to 
gain bypromoting additional legal action against Microsoft. Lawyers 
and lobbyistsfrom other companies ought not determine the shape of 
the tech industry,consumers should.
    The provisions of the settlement make it easy for other 
companies to havemarket access. Every new Microsoft operating system 
will have to include amechanism that readily allows end users to 
remove or re-enable Microsoft'smiddleware products.
    While end users can already remove Microsoft middleware from 
Windows XP,this settlement would make it easier for users to switch 
and compare amongcompeting middleware products,
    I sincerely hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the 
settlement.
    Regards,
    Mark Fleming
    Executive Director
    Wake Forest
    Chamber of Commerce



MTC-00030728

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jun. 26 2001 03:27AM P1
Harnett Tractor Company
1500 South Clinton Avenue
Dunn, NC 28335
December 17, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
601 D St. NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Many of us don't realize how many people benefit from 
Microsoft's products since so manypeople use them at home and at 
work. Therefore, when the government comes down hard on acompany 
that is so important to everyone, it has a substantial effect on the 
economy.
    In Fact, announcement of the first judgement against Microsoft 
and the sudden decline in thatstock traces almost exactly to the 
large declines in the NASDAQ as a whole, according toeconomistsand 
brokers.
    There has not been any consumer harm as a result of Microsoft's 
business practices. In fact,Microsoft's innovationhas led to 
tremendous benefits for consumers, as a better product andlower 
prices. Antitrust law is supposed to be about consumer harm, and on 
that key issue, the government has failed to show any harm 
whatsoever.
    The last thing the technology industry needs are government 
lawyers, bureaucrats and judgeswatching over the industry, 
attempting to micromanage it--which is exactly what 
Microsoft'srivalslobby for on a regular basis.
    I realize that tech is ``the new frontier'' of 
American business, but that shouldn't givecompanies license to 
``muddy the waters'' regarding Microsoft's impact of 
consumers on aperpetualbasis. I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly will 
approve the settlement, and that all tech firms canworkon developing 
new products to make businesses operate more efficiently in the 
twenty-firstcentury.
    Thank you,
    David R. Leewis, CEO



MTC-00030729

TECH5 CORPORATION
MARK HILTON, PARTNER
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Ms. Hesse:
    As a tech professional, I am pleased that the United States 
Justice Department is settling with Microsoft. We use Microsoft 
products everyday to enhance our business services, and I am 
relieved to know that wewill be able to continue to purchase these 
products at a fair price.The tech industry ought to be operated by 
highly creative techprofessionals, not government bureaucrats. With 
over $30 million intaxpayer funds having been spent on the case, I 
sincerely hope we'veseen the last of this issue.
    I serve in the North Carolina Legislature, and believe that 
North Carolinians would be better off if this federal tax money came 
back to the states.
    At least consumers and IT businesses that rely upon the 
Windowsplatform can get back to work. It's regrettable that this 
settlement goesbeyond the issues upheld on appeal.
    I have no question that Microsoft's competitors have lobbied to 
cause Microsoft much grief throughout this unfortunate process.
    I hope Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the settlement.
    Regards,
    Mark Hilton
    Representative Mark Hilton



MTC-00030730

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jun. 26 2001 11:15AM P2
Mason Properties Company
December 17,200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am pleased with the settlement of the Microsoft case because I 
believe that the terms ofthe agreement will benefit the United 
States tremendously.It seems to me that Anti-trust laws were 
intended to protect consumers, not to protectcompanies from 
legitimate market competition. It's high time that tech companies 
otherthan Microsoft work on building their products up, rather than 
tearing down Microsoft'squality products.
    AOL Time Warner, Oracle and other companies will have many 
opportunities to hinderMicrosoft by abusing the settlement 
agreement. These competitors were disappointedwhen the Appeals Court 
took breakup off the table, but they'll find ways to use 
thissettlement to inhibit Microsoft from competing in markets they 
dominate today, likeInternet access, high-end servers, and instant 
messaging.
    The enforcement provisions of this settlement agreement could 
enable these companies toslow innovation and delay product launches 
by filing multiple complaints. Enough already!

[[Page 29434]]

    With the economy in bad shape, now is not the time for more 
litigation over this issue. I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly 
approve the proposed settlement, and I hope thatMicrosoft's 
competitors will act in good faith under its terms.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Earl Mason
    Former State Representative



MTC-00030731

MARVIN V. ANDERSEN, M.D.
7 Perth Drive
Wilmington, DE 19803
Phone: (302) 478-3115 Fax: (302) 478-5528
e-mail: [email protected]
December 29,200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20530.
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in awe every time I think of how our society has been 
transformed bycomputers. Truly, the world is a completely different 
place than it was from eventen years ago because of computers. This 
great innovation has been led by a greatAmerican company, Microsoft. 
Thanks to them, computers have become anaccessible technology for 
many millions of people. The efforts and innovation ofMicrosoft 
should be applauded rather than punished.
    The antitrust lawsuit has plagued the technology industry and 
disturbed furtherinnovation in technology. Like many computer users, 
I believe that the motivationfor the lawsuit has been greed and 
jealously on the part of Microsoft's competitorsand the government. 
The proposed settlement is fair, it penalizes Microsoft forthe times 
that they have crossed the line, and it will provide more 
competition inthe long run.
    That is why I would like to see an end to the lawsuit as soon as 
possible. The economy cannot afford to have one of its biggest 
players not participating at fullstrength. As soon as the suit is 
finally settled, the technology industry can returnto normal and 
life can move on. Please accept the settlement and let us move on 
tomore important issues facing our great country.
    Sincerely,
    Marvin V. Andersen MD.



MTC-00030732

Dec.31 2001 11:12AM ATRA DATA No.2030 P. I
DENNIS MICHAELREE
P.O.Box 1720
Lake Ozark, MO. 65049
December 31,2001
Ms. Renta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to you to voice my support for the recent 
settlement between Microsoft andthe United States Department of 
Justice.
    I believe it is time to stop the litigation against Microsoft 
and proceed with what appearsto be a fair compromise.
    The many innovations that have been made over the years by 
Microsoft have been ofgreat benefit to consumers. Let's bring this 
matter to a close by proceeding with thesettlement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft and end the court proceedings.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Michaelree



MTC-00030734

Dec 31 01 01:20p Edward Zimmerman 937-878-9622 p.1
EDWARD ZIMMERMAN
1448 POPLAR DRIVE o FAIRBORN o OHIO o 45324
December 29,200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a voting constituent, I have great concern about the 
Microsoftantitrust case. I feel that after three long years of court 
battles, it is time toallow the company to get back to software 
innovation. The settlement is fair,and it should be finalized.
    Our economy is in a recession. It is companies like Microsoft 
that fuelthe success of our nation's economy. Pursuing further 
government action, atthe federal level, against Microsoft will only 
foster the economic downturn. Microsoft's willingness to agree to 
terms that extend beyond termsinitially in question, in conjunction 
with the physical during of this suit, is morethan enough reason to 
settle at this point. Please continue to work to convince others 
about the appropriateness of this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Zimmerman



MTC-00030735

AtFreeWeb.com AtFreeWeb.com
801 Calle Mar Vista
Oxnard, CA 93030
Tel: 805 278 9548
Fax: 805 278 9554
http://www.atfreeweb.com
December 31, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
CC: Representative Elton Gallegly
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write this letter in accordance with the Tunney Act expressing 
my support of the settlementbetween Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. I believe that this settlement will be beneficial 
toboththe IT industry and the consumer, but continuing on with more 
court nuisance is a fleecing of theAmerican taxpaying citizen. To 
prevent this from continuing any further, the D.O.J. shouldfinalize 
thesettlement as soon as the Tunney Act comment period is over.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable. If anything, Microsoft 
was treated a little spitefully. Afew terms of the agreement follow, 
which should underscore the severity of this settlement: theDOJ 
willestablish an Independent technical committee, monitoring 
Microsoft's compliance with thesettlement;Microsoft also cannot 
retaliate against computer makers that may ship software that 
wouldcompetewith the Windows operating system; and Microsoft will 
open up their vault of secrets concerningsystemInteroperability to 
competition.
    Even though the settlement prevents laissez-faire economics, the 
right thing to do is to settlethe suit now and work to ensure that 
the industry and the economy can move forward again.Microsoftmust be 
allowed to return to innovation, rather than litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Alex H. Qu
    President



MTC-00030736

DEPT OF JUSTICE 1/6
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. LET FREE
    ENTERPRISE WORK AND BE ENCOURAGE
    Joseph Bona
    117 52 9597
    BCSS Owner
    407 925-3508 Cell
    767-7472 Hm
    [email protected]



MTC-00030737

From MyPlumber
Sun Dec 30 21:27:51 2001
    I think that, in the settlement of the U.S. vs Microsoft 
federalcase, the example of the settlement criteria proposed by 
another suitbrought by 7 states in a class action action against 
Microsoft should befollowed. This would be more like what a 
settlement should be, with amore significant penalty for violations 
Microsoft has been found guiltyof.
    In addition, since the software is free, Microsoft 
softwaredevelopers should be required to work closely with 
developers of Linux.Especially the Linux developers working on WINE, 
the Windows emulator forLinux. More of the economically 
disadvantaged would get a better break ifLinux could run Windows 
programs.
    Frank Starr
    13014 N. Dale Mabry
    #204
    Tampa, Florida 33618



MTC-00030738January 2, 2002

Bryan Carey
11700 Fairgrove Industrial Blvd.
Maryland Heights, MO. 63043
Ms. Renta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As President of a St. Louis area company, I am in full support 
of the settlement that hasbeen reached between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a very important part of the technology sector of 
our economy and we mustdo everything possible to strengthen all 
parts of the American economy. Further litigation will accomplish 
nothing to stimulate the economic growth that we need. Competition 
has helped to create an American economy that is the envy of the 
world. We must seek to increase competition

[[Page 29435]]

in our economy because that is the key toincreased demand for our 
products and services. Continued legal action against Microsoft will 
not increase competition.
    Further litigation against Microsoft should cease.
    Very truly yours,
    Bryan Carey



MTC-00030739

613 Andover Road
Wilmington, DE 19803
December 29, 200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This Microsoft lawsuit has dragged on long enough. I understand 
thatwe are now in the public comment period of this lawsuit and, 
hopefully, oncethat is done, this ill-advised lawsuit will be as 
well.
    I have heard that there are various Microsoft detractors that 
want thislawsuit continued on the federal level and so will try to 
find some way to derailthe settlement. I am respectfully asking that 
you resist these efforts, stay thecourse for the Justice Department, 
and continue to guide this settlement to asuccessful end.
    Microsoft has no doubt done many things that have rankled 
theircompetitors, but these are not enough to have brought about the 
wrath of theentire federal judicial system. Now that this settlement 
has been reached, weshould accept it and move on. There simply are 
too many other moreimportant issues that need our attention than 
this. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John Allabashi



MTC-00030740

HEALTH CARE
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in support of the recently reached settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice.
    The agreement is pro-consumer helping the technology sector of 
our economy contribute new and better jobs at this time of economic 
uncertainty.This settlement brings to an end the most disruptive 
competitor-driven antitrust campaign in our nation's history. This 
is something all consumers can celebrate.
    Sincerely,
Stephen B. Hoven
Vice President
Public Affairs
SH/jmm
SSM Health Care Missouri Quality Award
477 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63141-7832
www.ssmhc.com
(314) 994 7800 phone
(314) 994 7900 fax



MTC-00030741

Representative Kitty Rhoades
30th Assembly District
Phone: (608) 266-1526 * Toll Free:
1-888-529-0030 * Fax: (608)282-3630 * E-
mail:
[email protected]
Fax Cover Sheet
To: Renata Hesse
From: Rep. Kitty Rhoades
Fax: 202-616-9937 Pages: 2 (including Cover Sheet)
Phone:
Date: January 2, 2002
Re: CC:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
Comments
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Please contact my office (608-266-1526) should you have 
any questions.
Kitty Rhoades
1-2-02 : 10:16AM : Wisconsin Assembly : 608 266 2133 
#2 2
State Representative 30th Assembly District
Kitty Rhoades
State Representative
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
DOJ
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to voice my support of the recent Microsoft 
settlement, and encourage you to approve the settlement as soon as 
possible.
    Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will provide over 
one billion dollars in computer related assistance, which will open 
numerous doors and opportunities for all American students. This is 
an unprecedented opportunity for both our country as well as our 
education system, and should be approved as soon as possible.
    Furthermore, I believe that it is time to put this legal 
wrestling to a close. With our nations economy struggling, making 
sure that companies based in the technological sector are free to 
develop and advance new products, in the overall hopes of bringing 
new life, to an economy that has been tarnished by the terrorist 
acts of September 11th.
    Thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful consideration 
on this very important issue.
    Sincerely,
    Kitty Rhoades
    State Representative
    30th Assembly District
    P.O. Box 8953 * Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8953 * 
(608)266-1526 * Toll-Free: (888) 529-0030
    * [email protected]
    Home: 708 4th Street o Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 o (715) 
386-0660



MTC-00030742

Brandon Galbraith
380 South Hickory Avenue
Bartlett IL 60103
December 14, 200l
Reneta B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
    Dear Madam:
    This letter is to the proposed Microsoft settlement. In reading 
through the settlement, I noticed that provisions are made to help 
commercial competitors of Microsoft get the information they need to 
write applications for the WindowsTM operating system. Whil this is 
a step in the right direction, specific language needs to be added 
to the settlement agreement to allow not-for-profit competitors of 
Microsoft the same access to Microsoft intellectual property as 
commercial competitors. The reason for this is that some of the 
fiercest competition to Microsoft software comes from open source 
software being developed by not-for-profit organizations. One 
example of this is the Apache web server. The Apache web server, 
which is an open source software package, dominates the Internet 
server market. It is also a direct competitor of Microsoft's IIS or 
Internet Information server (which is also a web server).
    For there to be a level playing field between Microsoft and its 
competitors, not-for-profit groups who develop open source software 
that competes with Microsoft products should be given the same 
access to Microsoft's intellectual property as commercial 
competitors of Microsoft. Without this provision in the Microsoft 
settlement, not-for-profit groups would be effectively cut out of 
the picture, which would be a devastating loss.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon Galbraith
    System Administrator



MTC-00030743

FROM : AMERICAN FINANCIAL ADVISORS
PHONE NO. : 530 223 2230
Jan. 02 2002
10:23AM P1
To: The Department of Justice
From: Dorothy Palfini
Date: January2, 2002
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice should settle the case of Microsoft 
ASAP. The government should not penalize a company that is 
successful and has helped the economy roar. If government does not 
interfere, the market place will decide what company offers the best 
and most efficient product. Competitors will compete and eventually 
find a way to excel in the business.
    The lingering litigation has caused havoc with the US economy 
and the effects have been felt overseas as well. We need to get the 
economy going fast, so let's get on with business at hand.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Palfini
    3011 Victor Avenue
    Redding, CA 96001
    530-223-2195



MTC-00030744

PRESERVATION WORCESTER
Preserving Neighborhoods For People
December 31, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney

[[Page 29436]]

Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to comment on the impending settlement in the 
Microsoft suit. It is imperative that the government reaches a 
settlement in this case as soon as possible. Our economy is in tough 
shape and we don't need this lingering case to drag us down further.
    I believe that the settlement will be beneficial to small non-
profit community organizations such as the one I head. The potential 
donation of computers and software will be invaluable. The money we 
save with this potential donation will free us to spend more in our 
community.
    I urge the Justice Department to settle this matter as soon as 
practical.
    Sincerely your,
    James W. Igoe
    Executive Director
    10 Cedar Street * Worcester, Massachusetts 01609 * 
(508)754-8760 Fax
    (508)798-0693



MTC-00030745

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Innovative Green Architecture
DATE 01/02/02
PROJECT
CONTACT Narendra Patel, A. I. A.
69-730 Highway 111, Suite 118
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-2873
Ph #: 760-328-8221 Fx #: 
760-328-8887
WebSite: www.patelarchitect. com
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ATTENTION TUNNEY ACT [email protected]
PHONE#
DESTINATION FAX # 1-202-307-1454
PAGES TO FOLLOW 1-202-616-9937
SUBJECT MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
PURPOSE PLEASE REVIEW
--PLEASE REVIEW AND CALL BACK--AS REQUESTED--FOR YOUR 
RECORD--URGENT
COMMENTS Dear Justice Department, Please call if you have any 
questions.
    We fully support Micorsoft's position in this issue of Tunney 
Act. Department of Justice needs to stop all allegation and release 
MICROSOFT from alleged charges
SUBMITTED BY
69-730 Highway 111, Suite 118, Rancho Mirage, CA 
92270-2873
TEL. 760-328-8221 FAX. 760-328-8887 
www.patelarchitect.com
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Innovative Green Architecture
Subj: USDOJ Comments
Date: 10/9/011:21:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: PatelARCH
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
    Dear Justice Department,
    Can some one please think logical and get off the Microsoft's 
case and get after the real terrorists in our country. I simply do 
not understand why our justice department is wasting so much time on 
punishing a great company like microsoft who has contributed 
immensely to the growth of US economy as well as raising standards 
of human life to a much higher level. There are thousands of Bin 
Ladin's followers in this country to go after and punishing them. 
This does not take a PHD to figure out.
    We are very upset with the way Justice department is going after 
Microsoft and the effect it has on the stock market. This needs to 
stop immediately. Our country has suffered enough as result of 
neglecting the real threat from the terrorists since they first 
attacked WTC in 1993.
    Narendra Patel
Proud US citizen
69-730 Highway 11 1, Suite 118, Rancho Mirage, CA 
92270-2873
TEL. 760-328-8221 f A X. 760-328-8887 
www.patelarchltect.com
JAN-01-2002 12:20 P.03 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Innovative Green Architecture
Subj: Jutice Department
Date: 10/10/017:14:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: PatelARCH
To: [email protected]
    Dear Mr. President,
    Can you please have some one in your department stop our Justice 
Department from punishing Microsoft. As you well know, It will take 
all of the staff from Justice Department and more to track down 
terrorists in our own country. We do not have a luxury to stabb our 
own company like Microsoft in times like this or for ever.
    They should be rewarded for all the contribution they have done 
to bring our country to a cutting edge in technology.
    Narendra Patel. Proud US citizen
780 328 8221
Forwarded Message:
Subj: USDOJ Comments
Date: 10/19/011:21:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: PatelARCH
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
    Dear Justice Department,
    Can some one please think logical and get off the Microsoft's 
case and get after the real terrorists in our country. I simply do 
not understand why our justice department is wasting so much time on 
punishing a great company like microsoft who has contributed 
immensely to the growth of US economy as well as raising standards 
of human life to a much higher level. There are thousands of Bin 
Ladin's followers in this country to go after and punishing them. 
This does not take a PHD to figure out.
    We are very upset with the way Justice department is going after 
Microsoft and the effect it has on the stock market. This needs to 
stop immediately. Our country has suffered enough as result of 
neglecting the real threat from the terrorists since they first 
attacked WTC in 1993.
    Narendra Patel
    Proud US citizen
    69-730 Highway 111, Suite 118, Rancho Mirage, CA 
92270-2873
    TEL. 760-328-8221 FAX. 760-328-8887 
www.patelarchitect.com
    TOTAL P.03



MTC-00030746

Lewis Stepp
From: Lewis Stepp [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 3:30 PM
To: [email protected]''
cc:[email protected]''
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2477 Fairgrove Court
Cincinnati, OH 45244
January 2, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing you to submit comments about the antitrust 
settlement against Microsoft (United States v. Microsoft Corp., 
Civil No. 98-1232) pursuant to the Tunney Act. I am a retired 
US citizen and a software user whose only links with Microsoft are 
400 shares of stock in my IRA retirement account. Before retirement, 
I was an information technology consultant for Computer Sciences 
Corporation and Spherion Corporation.
    I appreciate the excellent operating system and office software 
that Microsoft has created and how their products have contribution 
to jobs in the information technology sector and to increased 
efficiency throughout the business sector. Microsoft was not known 
as a monopolist when they introduced the Windows operating system. 
Indeed, they had some formidable competitors and they ``bet the 
company'' on development and marketing of an innovative new 
operating system and other office software. They won the market 
because they offered ``world class'' software at an 
affordable price with consumer benefits and features that no one 
else matched. For several years, I was a subscriber to the Microsoft 
Developer Network (MSDN) which, as a systems consultant, provided me 
with lower cost software and better training than was available from 
any other software vendor.
    Microsoft customers and stockholders have been the beneficiaries 
of Microsoft's success. Microsoft competitors and some of their 
customers may have suffered, but that is the nature of our 
enterprise system. It is not something for which Microsoft should 
now be punished. Indeed, Microsoft is deserving of public respect 
for developing and providing a low cost ``standard'' 
operating system that has enabled large numbers of software 
developers to bring significant networking and productivity 
improvements to our lives and to our economy.
    In a recent meeting of the Senate Judicial Committee, the court 
rulings were interpreted to say that Microsoft ``did in fact 
violate anti-trust laws and did hurt the market place''. It may 
be true that Microsoft was an ``overzealous competitor'' 
who, in a very competitive situation, did harm its competitors to an 
extent that violated some laws, but it is obvious to most software 
users that they did not hurt the software market place. Indeed, 
Microsoft's development of an advanced and broadly accepted PC 
operating system brought swift changes to the software market and 
grew the market. The improvements that they brought to PC

[[Page 29437]]

operating systems are remarkable compared to the much less friendly 
and text oriented PC operating systems previously introduced by IBM 
and others. As a result, almost everyone today is able to be a 
computer and software user.
    Based on a misguided interpretation of the court rulings, a 
member of the Senate Judicial Committee stated that Microsoft 
actions resulted in the effective destruction of Netscape and Java, 
Yet Netscape was sold to AOL for billions of dollars and Java is 
still a popular programming language supported by many major vendors 
such as Borland and Sun. A version of the Netscape browser was 
always available for free. In its formation years, Netscape 
developed many competitors who also offered their products for free. 
Every operating system eventually included a free browser. It is 
reasonable for the court and public to question if there ever was a 
true browser market. The district judge in the Microsoft case said 
that there was no evidence that Java would be successful as an 
alternative ``platform'' to the Windows operating system, 
Indeed, time may prove that Java was a flawed concept. The prophecy 
of competitors should not be considered fact.
    The Judicial Committee questioned if the settlement was in the 
public interest. Certainly the public wants to see this case 
settled. The current district judge asked the parties to work night 
and day to reach a settlement. Mr. James, from the Justice 
department, has indicated that the settlement goes beyond the court 
rulings to include other restraints on Microsoft that would not 
prevail in a court decision since they were not considered in the 
trial. These include restraints on server operating systems for 
which Microsoft does not possess monopoly power. Only Microsoft 
competitors, not the public, want more.
    The Justice Department and Microsoft have reached a fair 
settlement in this case. Microsoft needs to move forward and to 
continue serving its customers and stockholders. There is no 
justification for the courts to continue to investigate and punish 
Microsoft when there are other companies and market place problems 
that need greater attention in our legal system, such as the Enron 
debacle.
    The court made a wise decision not to dismantle Microsoft. 
According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the US Postal 
Service revenues are more than those of Microsoft, McDonald's and 
Coca Cola combined. No one wants to dismantle the US Postal Service 
simply because it operates as a monopoly or protects its monopoly. 
We need a universal standard operating system for our computers in 
much the same way that we need a universal standard mail service for 
our homes and business. I hope that this case can conclude without 
destruction of one of the most innovative and successful American 
companies. We only wish that the US Postal Service was equally 
innovative and efficient.
    Sincerely,
    Lewis Stepp



MTC-00030747

Farm
Family
Glenmont, NY
David S. Wyman
Senior Agent
117 Highbridge St
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Bus: (315) 637-0284
Fax: (315)637-0822
Claim: (800) 871-3326
Res: (316)682-3540
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am in support of the settlement of the above captioned case 
and for the following reasons; I hope you will be as well.
    The antitrust laws of this country were put in place to protect 
consumers, not other corporations who do not like the way Microsoft 
does business. The fact that my business and industry are more 
efficient and competitive in the marketplace can be directly linked 
to computer innovation and products like Microsoft sells. In 
addition, no direct consumer harm can be linked to Microsoft. In my 
twelve years in business, I have personally seen computer technology 
in every sense of the word, become less expensive while doing more 
for my bottom line. Microsoft certainly deserves as much credit as 
any other business for that. In conclusion, I would hope that the 
agreed upon settlement would be left in place. Further litigation 
will only cost the taxpayers more money and likely provide no better 
solution.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    David S. Wyman



MTC-00030748

Eugene J. Michael
1327 West 28th Street
Lorain,OH 44052-4504
PH: (440) 282-8377
FAX (440) 960-5976
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to urge you to continue supporting the settlement 
that was reached on November 2, 200l between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department. I believe this settlement is fair and that no 
further legal action should be taken on the federal level. The 
settlement has teeth and requires Microsoft to make significant 
concessions. For example, computer manufacturers were granted new 
rights to configure systems with access to various Windows features. 
And to ensure compliance, the government created an ongoing 
technical oversight committee to test Microsoft on whether they are 
meeting the agreement's requirements.
    This settlement is good for our economy, consumers, and the 
computer industry. After three years of litigation, it is time to 
move forward and support the settlement. On a personal note, I'd 
also like to say I think you're doing a superior job as Attorney 
General and I strongly support your point of view and value system. 
Keep up the good work and God Bless.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene Michael
    1327 W 28th Street
    Lorain, OH 44052



MTC-00030749

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
325 7th Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I am pleased that an agreement has been finally made with 
Microsoft Corporation. For disclosure purposes, I am not a 
shareholder of Microsoft, nor have I ever been. However, I find in 
the agreement that was posted at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/
November/01 at 569.htm on November 2, 200l did not carry enough 
teeth at the end of the agreement. I have cut and pasted the portion 
I do not agree with and believe that if this agreement remains 
intact the way it was written you will have accomplished nothing to 
deter Microsoft.
    ``The proposed Final Judgment will be in effect for a five 
year period and may be extended for an additional two-year period if 
the Court finds that Microsoft has engaged in multiple violations of 
the proposed Final Judgment.''
    The portion that I strongly disagree with is in the last part of 
this sentence. ``... if the Court finds that Microsoft has 
engaged in multiple violations of the proposed Final 
Judgment.'' This portion should read, and I might add, would 
put some teeth into the agreement, ``if the Court finds that 
Microsoft has engaged in any violations of the proposed Final 
Judgment.'' The word that precedes this statement MAY still may 
remain as MAY [...and may be extended....] which give you the out to 
pursue or not. However, and finally, with out the changing of this 
word from multiple to any allows Microsoft ``the ability'' 
to continue to violate antitrust laws with the vague assurance that 
nothing will happen if they do.
    This is my 2 cents worth.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen A. Frlekin
    28608 Montereina Drive
    Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275



MTC-00030750

01/02/2002 01:57
From: Robert J Sobon
FAX
189 Old Ashley Loop
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a resident of South Carolina, I am concerned about further 
Capitol Hill involvement in the Microsoft antitrust case. It is 
clear that Microsoft has agreed to a fair and reasonable settlement; 
the settlement should be final, and further federal action against 
the company represents nothing short of anti-business posturing by 
the government.

[[Page 29438]]

    As you know, the economy is in a recession. Microsoft is a major 
contributor to the nation's economy, and it is imperative that the 
company is allowed to innovate in the software industry. Any further 
action would be negative for the consumer and the IT industry.
    I appreciate your support in ending this legal action, and 
putting this case behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Sobon
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00030751

FROM : HOWARD A WILCOX JP
PHONE NO. : 9127570907
Jan. 02 2002 09:48AM p1
Subj: Settlement
Date: 1/2/022:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Popedo711
To: [email protected]
    It is hoped that those people in official capacity positions 
realize that our economy started slipping around the time President 
Clinton's jealous liberal Government paid team members first 
attacked Microsoft. Damage is felt by every voter and tax payer in 
our United States.
    Let the current settlement stand and get back to free enterprise 
practices that built our great nation in the first place.
    Thank you in advance for listening to one little self employed 
renovation contractor in Macon, Georgia USA.
    Howard A Wilcox, Jr. Voter, tax payer, Christian, husband, 
parent, step parent, grandparent.



MTC-00030752

WAINWRGHT INDUSTRIES
WAINWRIGHT INDUSTRIES, INC.
17 Cermak Boulevard St.
Peters, Missouri 63376
636-278-5850 Fax:636-278-8806
www.wainwrightindustries.com
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Anti-trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Enough is enough when it comes to all the hoops Microsoft has 
had to jump through even in the wake of the recent settlement 
reached through extensive negotiations with the Department of 
Justice. The high-tech industry must get back to normal in order to 
help small businesses utilize technology to open new markets and to 
better serve their customers--many of which are the largest job 
creators across the nation.
    I ask your help in ending this prolonged regulatory debate that 
is denying workers the technology necessary to do their jobs in the 
best way possible.
    Microsoft and their competitors should go toe-to-toe in the 
marketplace--not in the courtroom. A thriving high-tech sector 
of our economy is a key to future business development and the key 
to a stronger economy and better jobs.
    I support the reached settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft.
    Very truly yours,
    Arthur D. Wainwright
    Chairman/CEO



MTC-00030753

Date: 1/2/0212:56:07 PM Central Standard Time
From: [email protected] (ShellUser MAILER-DAEMON)
To: [email protected] -
Date: Wed,2 Jan 2002 13:55:34 EST
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
    From all that I have read concerning the Microsoft Settlement, 
the judgment rendered by the various courts are in my opinion, more 
than fair. Because of a few unhappy competitors who want to upset 
the settlement without legitimate reason, other than greed. seems to 
me to be most unfair. Microsoft is one of the finest and best run 
companies in the USA, known world wide for it's innovation and 
useful output and whose foreign as well as domestic sales add 
millions to the GNP. Now some less efficient and less innovative 
companies want Microsoft penalized further, so they can take 
advantage of the very market created by Microsoft. And the States 
that want more money need to stop their own inefficiencies and not 
try to balance an out of kilter budget be getting a freebie from 
some other entity, while they fritter away on boondoggles, the taxes 
they receive.
    Sheldon L. Mesirow
    [email protected]
    I tried it!!
    So Here It is



MTC-00030755

Herbert Maar
801 Augusta Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
December 29, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been extremely concerned over the regrettable lawsuit 
against Microsoft; I believe that Microsoft has been--and still 
is--one of the most instrumental American businesses to drive 
and sustain the longest running and strongest economic expansion in 
recent memory. I also believe that unless there is some real threat 
to the American free enterprise system, the government should always 
refrain from interfering in business. There seem to be two 
diametrically opposed guiding principles at work: On the one hand, 
the government seems to do its best to provide free (tax-supported) 
services to any it can find, while the American business ethic 
demands quality and efficiency. Mixing the two--as was done 
with this lawsuit--only results in havoc and confusion.
    More specifically, where the American consumer is greatly aided 
in Microsoft's efforts to integrate its software with its operating 
system, the government--no doubt spurred on by less successful 
Microsoft competitors--sees a phantom threat of 
``monopolization.'' For those of us that actually spend 
our hard-earned money on the necessary hardware and software needed 
to be even a little productive in this computer age, you had better 
believe that we look for integration rather than confusion.
    I am writing this letter as a citizen invoking the Tunney Act, 
and I would like to respectfully request that you continue to do 
everything that is possible to protect the terms of this settlement. 
Do not let those parties, looking for excuses to derail it, succeed. 
We as consumers deserve better than that. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Herbert Maar



MTC-00030756

NOTICE: This telecopy transmission and any accompanying documents 
may contain confidential or privileged information They are intended 
only for use by the individual or entity named on this transmission 
sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized 
to disclose, copy, distribute or use in any manner the contents of 
this information. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange 
retrieval of the faxed documents.
Douglas B. Schaper
3 10 East 44th Street; #1509
NYC, NY 10017
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
C/O Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105-2294
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    My introduction to computer software came in the winter of 1973 
when I narrated a media presentation for BASIC computer language.
    Since that time I have used many softwares for many purposes 
personal and professional, some commercial some proprietary.
    I am writing you this letter to decry the recent agreement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft, and in support of the actions of the 
nine states before you.
    President Kennedy, in 1961, proposed that we land on the moon 
with our science. Eight years later We achieved that goal.
    By way of comparison Microsoft went public in 1986--fifteen 
years ago, and software is still in the dark ages. Every single day 
that I use Microsoft product I curse its inefficiencies. I recently 
asked a computer salesman at J&R Computers in NYC about an 
alternative to Microsoft product. He looked at me like I was 
sprouting wings and new heads on the moment.
    I worked in venture capital for a company in New York 
City--there are no funds for competition to Microsoft product. 
This says a lot about a tax regulatory environment reinforcing 
competition to Microsoft product--a situation these nine states 
are attempting to address. It also says a lot-- particularly in 
light of our moon exploration--about Microsoft's pursuit of 
``quality'' product.
    Microsoft has not pursued quality product-at least not from the 
standpoint of the consumer. Quality to Microsoft has meant quality 
of its control over the marketplace, which until this opportunity to 
open it up has been absolute-all because of one sale to IBM and the 
company's ensuing

[[Page 29439]]

determination, successful until now (we hope), To maintain control 
over that marketplace. Look around you. What altermative to 
Microsoft is there? Standardizing product, in light of 110 volt 
electricity for the home, 220 for heavy machinery, 12 volts the car, 
3/8 inch pipe for plumbing, #2 pencils, size 8s for women and so 
many other examples in manufacturing, design and service, comes out 
of pressure from the consumer and the marketplace--not from one 
company exercising control over that marketplace and any 
competition.
    Microsoft product is an abomination in terms of its quality for 
the consumer and since there is no real alternative to it there can 
be no argument about that fact or the control-from somewhere-of both 
the product and the market. You must know that if we had a 
competitive marketplace arena for software, Microsoft product would 
be much better and there would be alternatives to it The company's 
primary focus has been not on quality--but on control. And in 
this, and in this alone, it has been successful.
    I deeply. nay--more than deeply, hope you will help 
everyone--including Microsoft--by ruling in favor of these 
nine states. I am desperate for better software--we ALL are.
    DBS



MTC-00030757

QSE--Quality Software Engineering, Inc.
Quality Software Engineering, Inc.
10820 Sunset Office Drive
Suite 302
St. Louis, Missouri 63127
(314) 965-7800
December 31,2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three strange years of court, Microsoft andthe Department 
of Justice have reached a settlement. Both the IT industry and the 
consumer will benefit from it, and as such, it's best if we work to 
put this issue behin us, and consider the future instead.
    Even though the settlement steps a bit outside of the notion of 
free enterprise, settling the case now is the right thing to do to 
help the industry and the economy move ahead. This agreement is 
pragmatic and reasonable even employing a mediator at the end to 
negotiate the final details.
    The abuse of the American tax-dollars has gone on long enough. 
To prevent this from continuing any further, all action that is 
taking place at the federal level must be stopped at the end of the 
comment period. It is time to let Microsoft go back to innovation, 
rather than litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Donald R. Kossman
    President
    cc: Representative Dick Gephardt
    10820 Sunset Office Drive Phone: (314) 965-7800
    Suite 302 FAX: (314) 965-7802
    St. Louis, MO 63127-1037 e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00030758

From: Patrick Settle
Note: DOJ--202-616-9937
Jan-02-02 14:13 From-WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE
+2022967365
T-846 P.O2/03 F-566
Patrick Settle
5221 42nd Street NW Apt. B
Washington, DC 20015
Friday, December 28, 2001
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Greetings,
    As an Information Technology professional, and user of Microsoft 
products, with over six years of professional experience in the 
computer industry, I have seen the negative impacts to the computer 
industry brought upon it by Microsoft. Their unethical business 
practices which allowed them to evolve into a monopoly, and their 
current attempts to maintain that monopoly has stifled a great deal 
of technology innovations, along with damaging business 
opportunities for other companies.
    I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even pretends 
to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been 
found culpable. Microsoft has already been found in violation, and 
this is the penalty phase of the case, but the settlement contains 
no penalties and actually advances Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly.
    A just penalty, would at barest minimum include three additional 
features:
    * Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    * The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    * Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    As the judge has suggested the national interest is at issue 
here, therefore it is crucial that Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly not be extended. Allowing Microsoft's Monopoly to stand 
weakens our national security by the creation of an information 
monoculture. As Paul A Strassmann states, ``Info-terrorists and 
criminals will continue to take advantage of the ever-growing 
proliferation of flaws in the gigantic Microsoft system, consisting 
of hundreds of millions of lines of failure-prone code.'' In 
closing, the outcome of this case will affect us not only to day but 
the future of information technology, and the nation. A thorough and 
though out penalty is far more important to the health of the nation 
than is a hasty one.
    Thank you for your time,
    Patrick Settle
    5221 42nd Street NW Apt.B
    Washington, DC 20015
    202-321-7370
    [email protected]



MTC-00030759

To: U.S. Department of Justice
Company: United States Government
City: Washington, DC
Fax Number: 202-307-1454
Phone Number
From Virginia C. Sullivan
Direct Dial Phone 312-558-5337
Client/Matter Number 7325378-00043
Document Description
    Message
    If this transmission is incomplete, please call 312 
558-6294.This document is intended only for the addressee(s) 
named above and may contain information that is privileged, 
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any 
use, dissemination or copying of this communication other than by 
the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone 
and return the original facsimile to us by mail. Thank you.
    Virginia C. Sullivan
    88 W. Schiller St., Apt. 2503 Chicago, IL 60610
    January 2, 2002
    United States Department of Justice
    1Oth Street and Constitution Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Justices:
    I believe it is in the public interest to settle the Microsoft 
case with the settlement that is being proposed now and upon which 
the Department of Justice is requesting public comment between now 
and January 28, 2002.
    I am a legal secretary who has been working for 40 years. I 
started out with an IBM electric typewriter. I have used over the 
years six different word processing systems--none of them 
Windows-based, all of them difficult. In all my 40 years of working 
one thing stands out above all else and that is the great 
contribution Microsoft has made to the workplace. I have the 
greatest respect for Microsoft. I love to use their products, e.g., 
Word 97, Excel 2000, and PowerPoint. I am sure millions of other 
people feel the same. The product that they have developed in the 
Microsoft Office Suite is of the highest merit and has had a 
positive impact on the life of millions over the years, making their 
work easier and even pleasurable. As far as Windows is concerned, I 
want to use the Windows operating system for the rest of my life. To 
me, it is one of the greatest inventions of all time. I believe that 
if Microsoft will provide for other companies, e.g., Netscape 
Navigator, to be an option in regard to

[[Page 29440]]

internet browsers they will have come a long way toward equal 
opportunity for intermet navigation.
    I just wanted you to know that I will always have the deepest 
gratitude and highest regard for the Microsoft company. Please help 
to make sure that no more money is wasted on litigating this matter. 
Microsoft deserves our thanks, not our condemnation. Thank you very 
much.
    Respectfully yours,
    Virginia C. Sullivan



MTC-00030760

ARCHIVES/MUSEUM
Fax: 1-617-825-3613
Jan 2 2002 15:36
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Archives 
Facility
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date: 1-2-02
To: Dept. of Justice
FROM:
PHONE NUMBER: 617-727-9150
FAX NUMBER: 617-825-3613
TIME:
Message: Re: Microsoft
THIS FAX CONTAINS 2 PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET.
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston. Massachusetts 02125. (617) 
727-9150
ARCHIVES/MUSEUM
Fax: 1-617-825-3613
Jan 2 2002 15:36 P.02
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Archives 
Facility
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to urge the Justice Department to expeditiously 
reach an equitable settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    According to what have read about this case, over $30 million in 
taxpayer money has already been spent on this case. This has caused 
more harm to American taxpayers than anything Microsoft may have 
done. It is time to end this folly.
    Let's allow Mcrosoft to do what it does best-create jobs and 
move the hi-tech industry and the American economy forward. With the 
economy so fragile, now is not the time to selectively pursue 
American business.
    I urge the Court and the Justice Department to support the 
settlement in this case.
    Yours truly,
    Richard M. Sundstrom
    Director, Massachusetts State Archives
    220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125--(617) 
727-9150



MTC-00030761

Kelly Jones
1008 Telegraph Station Lane
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I wish to give you some comments on the Microsoft settlement, In 
terms of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. the agreement 
provides adequate resources, access, and authority to quickly 
respond to camplaints about Microsoft's compliance. In addition, it 
creates an independent Technical Committee with the power to hire 
unlimited staff, on-site at Microsoft's campus and entirely at 
Microsoft's expense. While the agreement positions the U.S. Justice 
Department us the sole enforcement authority, the state Attorneys 
General may insist on being able to escalate complaints to the 
Court. Therefore. for those who doubt Microsoft would comply with 
the settlement agreement, they need only look at the unprecedented 
enforcement) mechanism.
    It is a shame. however, that rather than competing in the 
marketplace, Microsoft's rivals felt compelled to use their lawyers 
and lobbyists to petition the government to intervene and regulate 
the high-tech industry. Thank you for the opportunity to present my 
views.
    Sincerly,
    Kelly Jones



MTC-00030762

JAN-02-2002 16:08 ROSS
312 527 4166 P. 01/01
Real Estate
154 West Hubbard
Suite #2OO
Chicago, IL 60610
312-527-4747
312-527-4166 Fax
17-18 Old Bond St.
London WlX 3DA
01-493-1613
Telex: 28407
*FACSIMILE TRANSMlTTAL FORM *
DATE: 1/2/02
ADDRESSEE: [email protected]
COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER: 202-307-1454
SENDER: Frederick B. Rolison
TITLE: Executive Vice President
NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED: 1
    Operator:
    Please deliver this document IMMEDIATELY to addressee. If there 
is any problems with this transmission, please notify the sender at 
(312) 527-4747. Thank you.
    Comments: I believe the Microsoft Settlement is fair and just. 
For all parties concerned.
    Thank you,
    Fred Rolison



MTC-00030763

FROM : SUZANNA TASHIRO CHOI AND ASSOC PHONE NO. : 9496535713 Jan. 01
2002 01:42PM P1
Vietnamese--American Political Action Committee
PO. BOX 836 . GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92642--0836
TELEPHONE : (714) 286-7710
REC ID # 00028198--STATE ID # 923472
KY NGO , CHAIRMAN
    January 2, 2002
    Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    Attn: Renata Heese
    601 D Street, NW Ste. 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Fax (202) 616-9937
    The Justice Department vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse and Whom It May Concern:
    I have been following the antitrust case against Microsoft for a 
number of years and understand we are close to a settlement. It has 
been brought to my attention we are within the Tunney Act's 60-day 
deadline to submit public comments and I'd like to extend my support 
of the proposed consent decree.
    Yes, it is true the courts have ruled Microsoft engaged in 
violation of the Sherman Act. But it is also true The Justice 
Department vs. Microsoft can't go on forever, as some of Microsoft's 
competitors may wish.
    Our nation is now officially in a recession. The significance of 
accepting this decree can't be emphasized enough. Millions of 
dollars and time have already been spent on this case. A proposed 
consent decree has been submitted. It is now in our national 
interest to accept this settlement and move forward.
    For the Vietnamese community in particular, this issue is of 
great concern. Many are employed in everything from programming to 
distribution. Over the years of this case, we have seen thousands of 
jobs lost and distribution numbers drastically reduced. While the 
outcome of this case remains pending, so does our economy and 
livelihood. In addition, the success of the hi-tech industry has a 
ripple effect which opens the door for other good people from 
Vietnam to come to the United States. Many in our community believe 
settling this case and allowing the technology industry to continue 
its growth will be extremely positive for all of us (here or 
abroad).
    It is my opinion the settlement is fair and benefits consumers. 
I encourage you to accept this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ky Ngo



MTC-00030764

FROM: DICK ELDER CPA PHONE NO.: 425 653 0840 Jan. 02 2002 02:13PM P1
MEMO FROM DICK ELDER R.H. ELDER, CPA--Small Business Consultant 
5372 Highland
Dr. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Voice (425) 643 8522 FAX: (425) 653.0840 
Wireless (425)
442.0376 Email: [email protected]
To: Dept of Justice Date Jan 2, 2002 Time: Telecom#: 202/
307-1454
    US GOVT. MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I believe the best interests of the American People and the 
economics of Free Enterprise, and Capitalism, which we have chosen, 
is best served by ending the litigation with Microsoft quickly. The 
settlement reached is fair and further litigation and stalling 
tactics by competitor corporations is unfair. Please have the 
District Court confirm the settlement agreement.
    Richard H. Elder

[[Page 29441]]



MTC-00030765

TIM A.VANCE
838 GREEN DRIVE
COSHOCTON, OHIO 43812
(740) 622-5883
(740) 622-8311--OFFICE
TIM A. VANCE
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft.
    I am writing to encourage your continued support for the 
settlement recently reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. It would seem in the best interest of Microsoft users, the 
Department of Justice, and Microsoft to discontinue any further 
legal action against the company.
    Microsoft is an innovative leader in the computer software 
industry and as such the company has brought many benefits to 
computer users. I believe Microsoft, if given the opportunity, will 
continue to accrue benefits for every computer user and others in 
the computer and software industries. I do not believe further 
litigation against this company will be of any benefit to the 
American taxpayers. Please let the free enterprise system work 
without undue government intervention.
    As a taxpayer and user of Microsoft products, I think everyone 
would be better served if the settlement reached between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice is supported. Thank you for all the 
work you do on behalf of the citizens of the United States.
    Sincerely,
    Tim A Vance



MTC-00030766

330 376 7886
12846 Troyer Ave.
Uniontown, OH 44685
December 29, 2001
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft
US DoJ
950 Penna. Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of court battles Microsoft and Department 
of Justice have reached an agreement regarding the antitrust suit. 
This settlement will be beneficial to both the IT industry and the 
consumers alike. It is necessary that those who are involved in the 
suit put aside their differences and work to put this issue behind 
them. This settlement will help strengthen the economy during this 
difficult time and ensure that the industry continues to deliver 
advanced technology to the market. Your office has thus done well in 
offering a reasonable settlement, and I think you should see it 
through to the end. I appreciate the hard work you have done on this 
case.
    It is time for you to stop all action taking place at the 
federal level regarding this case.
    Let Microsoft get back to innovating and stop wasting its time 
litigating. Your settlement offer is fair and balanced, please don't 
back out on it now.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Parker



MTC-00030767

January 2, 2002
Deptment of Justice
Washington, DC
    I'm very disappointed at the prolong case against Microsoft and 
that 9 states are still fighting the case even though I thought an 
agreement had been reached. The only winners here are the lawyers as 
they have won in so many cases at the expense of the consumer. Not 
only are they paid endorsement fees, but the CONSUMER made up the 
LOSER! Eventually all cost of defending the cases are passed on to 
the CONSUMER!
    From what I can determine with the information available the 
settlement is FAIR!!!!
    Please let's not have another IBM fiasco, where alot-of-money 
was spent and the case was dismissed. Let's move on with this case 
and force the states to accepted the agreement so that business can 
go on.
    Sincerely,
    Gene Pizzato
    6007 E. Harvard Street
    Scottsdale, Az 85257



MTC-00030768

Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-0677
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Phone: (425) 882-8080
Fax: (425) 93MSFAX (936-7329)
Internet: http://www.microsoft.com
MSFACSIMILE
TRANSMITTAL FORM
To:
From: Don Holtzinger
Fax Number:
Company: Dept Of Justice
Phone Number:
Date: Wednesday,January 02, 2002
Time: 11:25:43 PM
Pages: 1
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Note:
    Dear Department Of Justice.
    I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find 
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes 
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards 
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth. 
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved.
    Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special 
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their 
names in the public spotlight.
    Thank you
    Sincerely,
    Don Holtzinger
    17605 NE 101st Court
    Redmond, WA 98052
    STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information in this facsimile 
message is legally privileged and confidential information and 
intended only for the use of the addressee listed on this cover 
sheet. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by 
telephone at the number listed on this cover sheet and return the 
original message to us at the above address via the United States 
Postal Service. We will reimburse any costs you incur in notifying 
us and returning the message. Thank you.



MTC-00030769

Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:55 PM
CHARLES E. KESSLER 206 725 3279 P.01
Attention:
Date: l/2/02
Company: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Number of Pages: 2
Fax Number: 1-202-307-1454
Voice Number:
From: CHARLES E. KESSLER
Company:
Fax Number: 2067253279
Voice Number: 2067253279
Subject:
Comments:
Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:55 PM
CHARLES E. KESSLER 206 725 3279
FAX
January 2, 2002
Department of Justice
FAX 1-202-307-1454
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    My family or I have never worked for or had any connection to 
the Microsoft Co. and I do not own any Microsoft stock. My only 
connection is that I have a personal computer that uses Microsoft 
software.
    It has always been my opinion that to penalize Microsoft for 
improving its software for the benefit of its customers is crazy. 
The freedom to innovate and provide better software should be 
rewarded not penalized.
    The only reason for these lawsuits is to benefit the attorneys 
and the politicians who support Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Kessler
    3000 S Graham St.
    Seattle, WA 98108
    206-725-3279



MTC-00030770

WED, JAN-02-02 9:24PM SHIRLEY KRATZER 6109656132 P.01
3324 Berger Street
Allentown, PA 18103
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of legal battles, Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice thankfully reached a settlement in their 
antitrust dispute. This settlement is going to be very good for both 
American industry and American consumers. It offers something for 
everybody, and fosters the kind of competition that creates jobs and 
better products that cost less. Therefore, it is necessary that all 
those involved in the suit work to enact this historic settlement.
    This settlement is fair. At the end of the negotiations, a 
mediator worked to finalize

[[Page 29442]]

the details at the government's behest. But not only is this 
settlement fair; it will also help strengthen the economy, and 
ensure that the industry continues to deliver advanced technology to 
the market.
    The flagrant abuse of American taxes needs to be ended. All 
action that is taking place at the federal level must be stopped. It 
is time that Microsoft went back to focusing on innovation, rather 
than litigation. Thank you for your work in bringing this settlement 
about. Now we can finally get our economy back on target.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley Kratzer



MTC-00030771

January 2, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: The Microsoft Anti-trust settlement
    I am an independent computer consultant in the Chicago area. My 
client base includes several small to medium-size companies that 
have the need for a computer consultant, however, do not have the 
need to hire a full time staff member dedicated for their IT 
solutions. I have over 14 years experience working with computers 
(mainframes, servers, workstations, and desktop computers) with a 
variety of operating systems.
    Working with small to medium-size companies, I receive the 
entire spectrum of requests for computer support: building computer 
systems, installing operating systems, installing application 
software, networking computers together for local and wide area, 
making software recommendations, designing and writing custom built 
software applications. From my clients'' direction, the two 
most required features of an operating system for a computer 
solution is price and reliability. Price is obvious: the lower the 
cost, the better for the client. The more reliable a computer system 
is, the less maintenance time the client will have (which directly 
lowers the total cost of the computer solution).
    For my clients, I have purchased and installed open source 
software for the operating system and file/print services (i.e., 
Linux and Samba). Though many of my customers use Microsoft Windows 
based desktop on the client side, Linux and Samba comprise the 
server side. With regards to the small to medium-size company, below 
are my grievances with the proposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement.
    1. Microsoft application developers will still be able to 
practice unfair competition. Windows Application Programming 
Interface (API) allows Microsoft applications to integrate 
seamlessly with Microsoft operating systems. Competitive products do 
not integrate well with a new release of Microsoft operating 
systems. Rather competitive products must go through an upgrade to 
work with a new Microsoft operating system. The root cause is that 
Microsoft application developers have access Windows APIs (both 
documented and undocumented). To remedy this problem, Microsoft 
should be split into three companies: application software, 
operating system software and network services (i.e. MSN). All 
Windows APIs must be revealed to the competition, as well as 
Microsoft application developers. Only at the time of a new 
operating system release will application developers (Microsoft 
application developers and the competition) get access to the new/
updated Windows API details.
    2. Network protocol interfaces must be completely released and 
the ability for non-Microsoft entities to integrate their network 
protocols into the same Windows API as Microsoft network protocols. 
By revealing the network protocols, Microsoft Windows desktops can 
be easily integrated into non-Microsoft servers (i.e., Linux and 
Samba). By providing the ability for non-Microsoft entities to 
integrate their network protocols into Microsoft operating systems, 
competition for better network communication protocols will benefit 
Microsoft operating system desktop users.
    3. File formats of all Microsoft application software need to be 
disclosed and changes to the file format released at their product 
release. Interoperability of Microsoft software and competitive 
software needs to be maintained, such that, when Microsoft releases 
a new version of their software, competition's software has the 
ability to read Microsoft file formats. Without file formats being 
detailed, the competition's software may not access files created by 
Microsoft applications, thus, requiring Microsoft applications to 
also be installed to access the information contained within (and 
again, eliminating the competition).
    4. Recent deployment of Windows XP and the resulting security 
breach clearly identifies that Microsoft cannot be an operating 
system company, an application company and a network services 
company. A convicted monopoly must insure that the security and 
efficacy of their operating system does not jeopardize the network 
computing community. If security is breached when a new Microsoft 
operating system is released, then Microsoft should pay a fine. The 
message to Microsoft is simple: Pay for your research and 
development up front or pay for it in the back as a fine. Consumers 
are not your test bed for under developed operating systems.
    5. With the release of Windows XP, Microsoft is still up to its 
monopolistic practices of integrating similar competitive 
applications into its operating system releases to eliminate 
competition. Two products that have been added to the latest Windows 
operating system are: remote administration ability and CD-RW 
ability (burn CDs). Both of these products were available from the 
competition, however, by bundling these features into the operating 
system Microsoft again eliminates its competition, similar to what 
Microsoft did when it bundled its Internet Explorer browser into its 
operating systems. The Anti-trust settlement does not go far enough 
to stop the predatory practice.
    6. The actual cost of the bundled software when purchasing a 
computer system must be listed on the computer invoice, and must be 
permitted to purchase the same computer without the software 
(unbundled). Currently, when a computer consumer goes to purchase a 
new computer, only Microsoft operating systems are bundled with the 
computer. A special order computer must be made to purchase a 
computer without a Microsoft operating system.
    7. Microsoft should pay, in the form of a fine, for the time to 
register and activate its new operating system and application 
software releases. Why should users pay the bill to register and 
activate an operating system feature that users never requested? I 
realize Microsoft is trying to reduce or eliminate software piracy, 
however that should not encroach on the user's time or expense to 
provide this service to Microsoft without being compensated. When 
trying to activate operating systems or application software on 25, 
50 or over 100 desktops, this cost becomes large. Microsoft, the 
initiator of the act, should be burdened for the time and expense.
    8. In October of 2001, Microsoft owned and operated web sites 
would only work with Internet Explorer. The Anti-trust settlement 
does nothing to insure that non-Microsoft browsers will be locked 
out of Microsoft owned web sites. Again, another predatory tactic of 
Microsoft to insure their monopoly by eliminating any non-Microsoft 
browser from connecting to their web sites.
    9. Developing web sites that put Microsoft in a negative light 
is not allowed in the license agreement the user must acknowledge 
when using Front Page 2001, a Microsoft web site development tool. 
If this type of licensing is permitted (and enforceable), then the 
government is acting as a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, and 
allowing violation of the Freedom of Speech by a convicted monopoly. 
The Anti-trust settlement does not address this issue.
    10. Microsoft's direction to annually tax for the use of their 
operating system and its application software means user's work 
developed today may not be accessible in the future, if the 
Microsoft annual fee is not paid. This amounts to extortion. The 
Anti-trust settlement does not curtail this Microsoft practice. If 
this practice is allowed, then it must clearly be labeled before a 
user purchases a Microsoft product to decide whether or not the 
terms are acceptable. If the terms of the agreement are not 
disclosed before opening the software box, after opening the 
software, often the user is not allowed to return the software.
    11. I chose the words entities and competition throughout this 
list of grievances, because I advocate that competition does not 
solely come from for-profit companies. However, competition does 
also appear in the form of open source solutions as well (i.e., 
Linux and Samba). The current Anti-trust settlement favors Microsoft 
by eliminating the requirement to share its Windows API, networking 
protocols, file formats, and any information detailed in the 
settlement with open source groups or non-profit organizations.
    12. Historically, the government has split monopolies up to 
insure competition and protect the people from abuse of the 
monopoly. I strongly think Microsoft should be split into three 
companies: applications software, operating system software, and 
network services. Since Microsoft is convicted of being and acting 
as a monopoly, yet the government does not want to split Microsoft 
up, I think a new remedy must be

[[Page 29443]]

imposed on Microsoft. That remedy is Microsoft must list the words 
``A Monopoly'' with all their Microsoft brandings of their 
products, services, web sites, etc. Anywhere Microsoft lists the 
words Microsoft Corporation, the clause ``A Monopoly'' 
must also be listed.
    In my humble opinion,
    Kenneth Cobler 9943 Drury Lane Westchester, IL 60154



MTC-00030772

FROM: STENGEL BROS INC
FAX NO.: 6104331793
Jan. 03 2002 09:50AM Pl
213 Shelf Street # B12
Lower Paxton, PA 17109
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC, USA 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust 
case. The settlement was hammered out after negotiating with a 
court-appointed mediator, and was apparently good enough for nine 
states to approve. Microsoft is currently working with the remaining 
states to reach a resolution to the lawsuit. I support the 
settlement, and I encourage you to continue working to enact it.
    The settlement allows competitors to sue Microsoft if they feel 
that it is not complying with the terms of the agreement, and the 
government created a technical oversight committee to review 
Microsoft's codes and books. The federal budget is tight, and it is 
a bad idea to spend scarce resources on a problem that has already 
been solved. In short, three years has been long enough I ask that 
you work to allow the settlement the time to prove itself.
    Sincerely,
    John Stengel
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Representative George W. Gekas



MTC-00030773

ELITE PERSONNEL AGENCY 202 353 8856 No. 955 P.01
FAX COVER SHEET
ELITE PERSONNEL AGENCY
940 The Terminal Tower Phone-(216)771-7810
50 Public Square Fax.(216)348-7086
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
e-mall: [email protected]
Check us out on the Web/: www.elltepersonnelinc.com
0 Urgent 0 Reply ASAP 0 Please comment O Please review 0 For your 
information
Comments:
Re: Tunney Act
    Please accept the following letter as my opinion regarding the 
Microsoft case
    Sincerely
    Valeri Stephens-Ellis
1444 West 10th Street Apartment 401 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
December 20, 2001
Sen. Mike DeWine
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Senator DeWine:
    As a resident of Ohio, I am writing to express my relief that 
the government has finally settled its case against Microsoft. I am 
sorry that the case was ever brought against them in the first place 
but now that it has been resolved, I hope that it will not be long 
before they will able to get back to business.
    I have supported Microsoft from the beginning because of the 
influence it has on our economy. As a major player in the stock 
market, any boon to Microsoft will be a good windfall for the rest 
of the market and the IT industry as a whole.
    I hope that you will listen to the opinions of your constituents 
on this matter and support Microsoft and the Department of Justice's 
decision. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing back 
from you on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Valeri Stephens-Ellis



MTC-00030774

JAN. 3. 2002 8:04AM HIVNET STATS CENTER
NO. 1451 P. 1
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
3 Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
re: United States of American v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action 
No. 98-1232
To whom it may concern:
    I am writing as a private citizen to express my concerns about 
the revised proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation and Competitive 
Impact Statement which has been filed with the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of 
America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232.
    It is my opinion that nothing in the above referenced proposal 
addresses the unfair advantage Microsoft has gained by being the 
creator of both operating systems and application software. In 1990, 
Lotus 1-2-3 was a dominant spreadsheet package and Word 
Perfect a widely used Word Processor. dBASE was a widely used 
database and Novell was beginning its rise as a way to network 
individual PCs. None of these companies has been able to complete 
with Microsoft. Why? They had to wait for Microsoft to release an 
new operating system before they could adapt to it. By the time they 
had adapted to Windows 3.1, Microsoft was getting ready to release 
Windows 95 and by the time Microsoft got to Windows 98, they were 
dead or dying. Users had little interest in software that was a step 
behind the cutting edge.
    About the time Apple released the Macintosh operating system, it 
also released Word Processing and database software. Few others even 
tried to complete. The market was small and anyone could see the 
significance of Apple's advantage in it. By contrast, Microsoft 
never tied to sell application software of any sort until 
MS-DOS was well-established in the marketplace, and its 
initial entries were not well-received. Other companies had already 
done a good job of creating software for a character-based 
interface. But, when Microsoft began to pair its applications with a 
graphical user interface, both the operating system and the 
application software quickly overwhelmed all competition.
    There is no way any maker of application software will ever 
compete successfully with a company that also makes both 
applications and operating systems. As long as Microsoft is allowed 
to sell both operating systems and application software, it will 
continue to enjoy monopoly power no matter what other remedies the 
court might impose.
    I ask the court to give serious consideration to a remedy which 
separates Microsoft's operating system and applications development, 
such as that proposed by California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, 
Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia and the 
District of Columbia. Nothing less will give any other maker of 
operating systems or applications a chance to erode Microsoft's 90% 
plus share of the software marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Phillip L. Kirsch
    20421 SE 157th Street
    Renton, WA 98059-9041



MTC-00030775

Admiral Integration
8564270600
01/03/02 11:39A P.OO1
Admiral Integratian, Inc.
1950 Old Cuthbert Rd.
Suite L
Cherry Hill,NJ 08034
Phone (856) 429-6700 Fax (856) 427-0600
December 31, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice; 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that this regrettable suit against Microsoft has been 
settled, I am hoping that the public comment portion will indeed 
sustain the wisdom of the settlement. I do not believe that any 
further federal action would do anything more than to further 
fragment our nation's business community and further erode any 
economic progress now under way.
    There are times where it is a good thing to have our government 
possess the power to radically alter a large, monopolistic company 
so that it becomes more responsive to the American consumer. But 
this case against Microsoft was not one of those times. Microsoft 
has been extremely responsive to customers, and that is exactly why 
it has been successful. Microsoft is not an ossified giant. While 
Microsoft may well have exhibited tendencies toward safeguarding its 
technology, this is and of itself did not, in my opinion, approach 
the level of federal intervention.
    With so many other more important issues facing our country 
today, this sort of thing ought to be the last on our growing list 
of priorities.
    Sincerely,
    Mike McEntee
    General Manager
    [email protected]



MTC-00030776

CARPET & INTERIORS UNLIMITED

[[Page 29444]]

602 SLATER STREET
KINGS MOUNTAIN,NC 28086
704/739/7234
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: DOJ
FAX#: 1-202-307-1454
FROM: Carpet + Interior
DATE: 1/3/01
TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 2
MESSAGE:
CARPET & INTERIORS UNLIMITED
602 SLATER STREET
KINGS MOUNTAIN,NC 28086
(704)739-7234
    I think all states should settle with Microsoft ASAP--Will 
be good for folks
    HA



MTC-00030777

FROM : JERRY R MODRE
PHONE NO. : 205 822 2960
Jan. 03 2002 11:32AM P1/1
Jerry R. Moore
513 Lansdowne Place
Vestavia Hills, AL 35226
(205) 822-2960
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Cc: Representative Spencer Bachus
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a big fan of Microsoft, I write you in reference to the 
recent settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I 
am pleased to see that a settlement has been reached; I encourage 
any action by the government that would put this issue behind us.
    Being an ``old dog'' trying to learn new tricks, I 
found Microsoft very helpful in making me comfortable with using a 
computer. Thanks to their ``point and click'' 
instructions, I felt right at home, as were many of my friends. It 
is technology such as this that we need to support. During these 
times of financial troubles, our country has to support the 
competitive process, and let our technology industry continue to 
grow.
    Since this settlement is beneficial to consumers, the IT sector 
and our economy as a whole, it seems foolish to waste scarce 
resources in reexamining a settled case. Let us support the growth 
of our technology Industry, and put a stop to any further hearings 
against the Microsoft settlement.
    Thank you for taking the time to hear my positive outlook: on 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry R. Moore



MTC-00030778

Date: January3, 2002
From: Henry Balboni
1329 Doylin Dr.
Cary, NC 2751l-5844
To: U. S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this case and allow one of the nation's finest 
companies to get back to business. I am retired now but worked for a 
competitor of Microsoft. It was common knowledge in my 
company--and others in the computer industry--that 
Microsoft got to where they were because they had the vision to see 
the future, its potential, and the talent to get them there.
    The government is certainly in no position to tell anyone how to 
run a business. And if you look at the damage that DOJ has caused to 
some of our major industries over the last 70 years it raises 
serious questions about the value of DOJ to the United States. For 
example: The U.S. had one of the world's best shoe industries in the 
early 1900's. The USMC (United Shoe Machinery Corporation) was the 
reason for it. Complaints from other countries--who found it 
difficult to compete in the U.S. against the USMC caused the DOJ to 
bring a ``Monopoly'' suit against them, which, among other 
things, forbid them to lease their equipment. This put most of our 
shoe manufacturers out of business, and, eventually, drove the great 
USMC out of existence. We no longer have a shoe industry or a shoe 
machinery industry.
    The ill-conceived suit against IBM (because they were too good 
at creating and building THEIR OWN industry) cut the company's value 
and stopped their growth cold. They nearly went out of business. It 
forced them to do things no other competitor had to 
do--announce their new products 6 months in advance, give 
competitors DRAWINGS and hookup information 6 months in advance, 
prevented bundling of services and products, etc. No one else had to 
play by these rules. I don't know how they survived.
    The breakup of AT&T is another example. This is the company 
founded by Alexander Graham Bell--the INVENTOR of the 
telephone. If the FCC did their job they could have directed lower 
rates to consumers (like they need to do now to the cable companies) 
and the `reason' for the breakup would have disappeared. 
Of course, that would be too quick and too efficient--words not 
known to the Federal Government.
    Yours truly,
    Henry A. Balboni



MTC-00030779

Max Sperry
52 Sunset Drive
Ottsville, PA 18942
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to encourage our government to agree to the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. The current settlement 
was reached after much deliberation and effort. It calls for changes 
in Microsoft's business practices, creating new rules that 
allow for more competition in the IT sector. I see no need for 
federal hearings and lawsuits when the states have already had their 
say. Big-Brother government should keep its nose out of business and 
concentrate on fighting our wars.
    I have had extensive experience in dealing with Microsoft, 
working for years in the broadband communications industry, I am 
currently retired but do some engineering consulting, whereby all of 
the software I use is integrated with Microsoft's internal systems 
(e,g. MS office tools, etc). I agree that some of their practices 
are designed to keep their business rolling, but what business isn't 
looking out for their future interests? If people or businesses do 
not like their practices or products, they can simply choose not to 
buy or use them. It is not the government's job to determine 
individuals' preferences or best interests. Our country's 
economy is based on capitalism, and should continue in the same 
fashion by leaving Microsoft alone. Again, I ask that you please 
continue the Justice Department's present course of action and enact 
the settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Max Sperry
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030780

M & T PROPERTIES
602 SLATER STREET
KINGS MOUNTAIN, NC 28086
(704) 739-2756
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
NAME: DOJ
FAX#: 1-202-307-1454
FROM: M&T Properties
DATE:
NUMBER OF PAGE BE FAXED: 2
MESSAGE:
M & T PROPERTIES
602 SLATER STREET
KINGS MOUNTAIN, NC 28086
(704)739-2756
    I Think All States Should Settle With Microsoft it Fair An Good 
For Folk
    DR



MTC-00030781

J. Frederick Laucius M.D.
1025 Arboretum Road
Wynote, PA 19095-21O9
Department of Justice
Dear Sir or Madam:
January 3, 2002
RE Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement negotiated by the United States 
Department of Justice is fair. Further litigation is a waste of the 
country's resources to benefit only a few. The current products 
provided by Microsoft have proved productive in my practice of 
medicine. I believe that the distraction thus far has been 
disruptive. I hope this information is helpful to you in your 
decision.
    Sincerely yours,
    J. Fredcrick Laucius M.D.



MTC-00030782

WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
January 3. 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
VIA FACSIMILE: 1-202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Wisconsin Education Association Council represents the 
public policy, labor and professional interests of its 92,000 
members. WEAC is a strong voice, advocating for Great Schools for 
its members and for the 800,000 children in Wisconsin public

[[Page 29445]]

schools. Every child deserves to attend schools that are wired and 
equipped with technology and to have teachers trained to effectively 
use technology in the classroom. WEAC supports the goals set forth 
in the proposed Microsoft class action settlement agreement to 
establish an independent foundation comprised of educators that will 
distribute technology funds, computers and software to the country's 
poorest schools and provide for teacher training.
    These funds will be critical to Wisconsin, especially schools in 
our poor, small rural districts and some of our larger urban areas. 
Overall, Wisconsin falls below the national average in the 
categories of the percentage of fourth-grade and eighth-grade 
students in schools that make computers available in all classrooms 
and hours of training for teachers, according to ``Technology 
Counts 99'', a report issues by Education Week. In addition, a 
1999 survey of our members showed that only about half believe they 
receive sufficient training to run the computers and software in 
their districts and only 40 percent get sufficient help from their 
district to integrate the new technology into curriculum.
    The proposed settlement will address both needs--to get 
computers into the classrooms and to train teachers on how to 
integrate them into the curriculum. WC encourage the Department of 
Justice to accept the proposed settlement. Every child deserves a 
Great School, a school that is wired for the future.
    Sincerely,
    Stan Johnson President
    Wisconsin Education Association Council
    Stan Johnson, President
    Michael A. Butera, Executive Director
    33 Nob Hill Drive PO BOX 8003 Madison, WI 53708-8003 [608] 
276-7711 [800] 362-8034



MTC-00030784

William McDonough
384 Waltham Street
West Newton, MA 02465
January 3, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse,
    It is my understanding that you are accepting public comment 
with regard to the MICROSOFT ANTITRUST case, and the settlement 
proposal now before Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly. I would like to 
express my hope that the Settlement is accepted and that this case 
can end. I do not know the intricacies of antitrust law, but I can 
infer from what I read that much of this is subjective in nature: 
more gray area than black and white. As such, I believe the 
settlement process is an appropriate way to settle the case and get 
this out of the counts.
    If I might be somewhat optimistic at this point, I think much 
good can come of this. consider the Justice Department achieves a 
means to regulate and monitor Microsoft's activity; microsoft be 
allowed to continue the business model that has worked so well for 
them; the other companies bringing complaint receive some measures 
of remedy; the public, especially investors and those in related 
industries, get some much-needed certainty in the settlement; and 
ideally the national economy will take the settlement as something 
of a spark to get us out of the recession.
    Perhaps I am too hopeful, but I would guess not. This settlement 
proposal is evidence that disagreeing parties in the corporate and 
legal worlds can reach accommodation at times. And that in itself is 
good news. I hope the settlement is approved, and with dispatch.
    Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion on this 
matter.
    Very truly yours,
    William McDonough



MTC-00030785

Hydratecs Injection Equipment Inc.
430 Morgan Avenue
Akron, Ohio 44311 USA INTERNET www.rubberworld.com/hic
Phone (330) 773-049 I
Fax No. (330) 773-3800
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express support for the settlement to the 
antitrust dispute negotiated by Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. I think it is in the best interest of everyone involved 
if the District Court Judge accepts the agreement, and this case is 
brought to closure.
    The settlement is sensible, just, and addresses many of the 
problems that people had with Microsoft to begin with. Important 
steps will be taken to ensure that others have reasonable access to 
the market. At the same time, it recognizes the contributions that 
Microsoft has made to the computer industry and the U.S. economy. 
For example, Microsoft will still be able to sell licenses to 
computer makers, but only at a set standard price, meaning that 
Microsoft can't play favorites or retaliate if another company's 
software is also being put on a computer. The settlement also allows 
Microsoft to continue to use the integrated technology that has made 
it a world leader. Other firms will also be able to access this 
technology, so computers will become even more integrated, and 
consumers will end up with even more creative choices.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment on this. I hope that the 
settlement will be final.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Chiofolo
    President



MTC-00030786

526 Doral Drive
Bethany Beach, Delaware 19930
January 3, 2OO2
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thanks for settling the antitrust case against Microsoft. The 
settlement is fair for all parties involved. We are all fortunate to 
have this case behind us. In my opinion Microsoft conceded more than 
they initially intended, but the state of our Nation's economy was 
more important to Microsoft than the stipulations agreed upon, The 
new rules now require that Microsoft turn over information to their 
competitors about how they, Microsoft, design their Windows 
operating systems. In essence, Microsoft has agreed to give-up its 
intellectual property to competitors who are neither as smart nor 
technologically advanced.
    Hopefully we can now move on to issues that are vitally 
important to the safety and security of our nation--as opposed 
to those issues directed at undermining America's business 
competitiveness. Again, thanks for your prudence in settling this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Hatch



MTC-00030787

724-746-7012 Sherwood Valley Pools
672 P01
1943 Route 980
Canonsbura, Pennsylvania 15317
January 2, 200l
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I feel that the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department is fair and should be accepted by all eighteen of the 
original suing states. It is my opinion that the government should 
leave well enough alone, and let Microsoft get back to business. I 
do not feel that this is, or ever has been, a government issue. It 
is matter of business, and since we are a society built upon the 
ideals of free enterprise and hard work, business should be the last 
of the government's worries.
    Microsoft owns the rights to some of this country's greatest 
technologies, and now other companies are jealous. Instead of 
creating products that can compete with Microsoft's, these other 
companies have aligned themselves with outside interest groups. I 
have four PC's at home and use Microsoft products daily. I am free 
to use whatever software I choose, and Microsoft simply provides me 
with the most consistent quality.
    Microsoft is one of this nation's largest employers, and it is 
truly one of America's greatest corporate assets. As such, it should 
be allowed to continue doing business the way business was intended 
to be in America, free of government control and interference.
    Thank you for settling this case; I appreciate your belief in 
free enterprise.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Darlene Barni



MTC-00030788

CINCINNATI INSURANCE
65 Twin Lakes Drive
Fairfield, OH 45014
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 29446]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It recently came to my attention that the Justice Department is 
accepting public comment on the Microsoft antitrust case for a 60-
day period. The settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice makes a lot of sense, and it should be 
implemented as soon as the formality of the comment period is over.
    It appears to me that the problems that brought about the 
lawsuits in the first place have been addressed, and that guides are 
in place to protect smaller companies from future injustices. There 
is no need for more wasted time on the federal level. Personally, I 
think the issues in question were non-issues to begin with.
    In short, it is time to move on our country has more serious 
matters to deal with then the practices of Microsoft. Although new 
government guidelines w-ill be placed on the IT sector, this 
settlement will provide certainty about the new rules and bring 
stability to the industry, This will ensure that our country can 
continue to introduce advanced American technology to the world 
market. I thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts, and 
I wish you luck with the other matters your office is handling.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Lupinetti



MTC-00030789

ANDOVER STRATEGIC ALLIAN 978 470 4800
Unit 2 Cromac Wood
Ormeau Road
BELFAST
Tel: 028 9051 2000
Fax:028 9051 2080
January 2,2002
    Please accept these comments in support of the settlement 
proposal in the Microsoft antitrust case. I support the arrangement 
agreed to by the government attorneys and Microsoft to end the 
litigation, and impose certain sanctions and competitive 
protections. I do not support any further intrusion into the private 
marketplace as is sought by Microsoft's competitors. The agreement 
serves the public interest: the increased (illegible) only serve 
special interests.
    Millions of us in private industry, as well as consumers at 
home, use and appreciate Microsoft product. We are also not unaware 
of the competitive nature of the information technology business. 
Microsoft no doubt play:; rough, but so do its many competitors. It 
does not seem to me that any monopolistic force is at work in that 
very volatile market. The free-market system appears alive and well.
    The antitrust laws are an important protection for American 
consumers and the economy as a whole. It is good that the Justice 
Department acts when it perceives a violation. And it is even better 
when they recognize it is time to compromise and settle.
    That time is now.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia (illegible)
    Canal Street, Lawrence, Massachusetts 01843
    Tel: (978) 686-2907



MTC-00030790

Arthur J. McCabe & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I offer my comment in 
support of the settlement agreement reached in the case United 
States v. Microsoft. As an attorney and small businessperson 
involved in economic development projects, I believe this to be a 
fair and reasonable settlement of the complaints brought forward in 
federal court. To the extent that Microsoft violated law, this seems 
to be an equitable settlement for consumer and competitor alike. And 
in the interests of the business community as a whole, a decisive 
resolution is a very welcome prospect.
    Microsoft and the information technology sector as a whole have 
contributed a great deal to daily life, and to the growth of the 
national economy. A resolution of this case as detailed in the 
settlement agreement will allow that beneficial growth and 
development to continue.
    I appreciate your time in considering my opinion in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur J. McCabe
    One Elm Square, P.O. Box 990, Andover, MA 01810 
tel978-470-0200--fax 978-470



MTC-00030791

William J. Cunningham
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to go on record in support of the settlement 
negotiated between the Justice Department and Microsoft to settle 
their ongoing antitrust case. Too much time, energy and money have 
been expended in pursuit of this case already, and it is clearly 
time to end things now. Whatever perceived public interest there 
might have been in litigating this case certainly is achieved in the 
terms of the settlement, Microsoft is punished for its apparent 
wrongdoings, and the high-tech sector of the economy is now to be 
more closely monitored.
    It is hard to imagine what further public good would be achieved 
by more stringent measures than those outlined in the agreement, but 
sadly that is what Microsoft's competitors are seeking. I believe it 
would be a dangerous precedent for the government to assume a role 
of daily arbiter in the workings of an industry that by its nature 
needs freedom to innovate. The Justice Department should hold its 
ground and seek to end this case: it is not the purpose of antitrust 
litigation to reward competitors in an industry.
    Please accept my thanks for your work in resolving this case, 
and for considering my input. I hope Judge Kollar Kotelly will act 
with dispatch and see the wisdom in this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    William Cunningham
    P.O. Box 1992--Andover, MA 01810--Telephone 
978-475-3444--Fax 978-948-5135 
[email protected]



MTC-00030792

PAUL GLAVEY
LITTLETON SELECTMAN
January 3, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    As a local official serving a community with many high-tech 
employees, I would like to take this opportunity during the public 
comment period to offer my thoughts on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. The region where I am from is home to many high-tech 
companies, both established and start-ups, and so I am able to see 
the ramifications of the two-plus year case against Microsoft as it 
is manifest in the local economy. The litigation is certainly not 
the only factor, but it is decidedly a big factor in the evident 
slow down in the information and related technology sectors.
    I support the settlement because I believe the case was 
misguided, because I think it was bad for the economy, and because I 
think it is a sensible time to end all this with a compromise. I 
believe it was wrong to prosecute Microsoft for antitrust violations 
because everything my own experiences tell me say that the 
information tech industry is nothing if not volatile, and that the 
end product of that volatility has been inexpensive and efficient 
products. I think the case has been bad for the economy because the 
nature of the industry is that freedom to evolve is essential, and 
the litigation portends a more restricted marketplace for ideas and 
technology. And I think it is best to settle now because a 
settlement has been reached between two opposing forces (Microsoft, 
and the DOJ) at a time when the economy could use some good news.
    All this suggests to me that the calls for a more stringent set 
of conditions are unwise and fraught with risk. I urge the 
Department of Justice attorneys to stick to your position and urge 
the Judge to accept the proposed settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paul J. Glavey



MTC-00030793

VALLERIS
Phone: 310-473-2858
Fax: 310-388-1240
www.valleris.com
Technology Solutions for Business
January 2,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 29447]]

    I am writing this letter per Tunney Act criteria expressing my 
support of the Department of Justice settlement reached against 
Microsoft. I also hold the view that this being a free country, 
everyone has the right to free enterprise, and that government 
involvement should be as minimal as possible in such cases as the 
antitrust suit. The settlement that was reached will be beneficial 
to the entire IT industry, not to mention end users of 
Microsoft's--and other IT companies''--products,
    There need not be any more restrictions imposed upon Microsoft. 
The settlement is far and reasonable, and, more than anything else, 
it is comprehensive. The establishment of a ``Technical 
Committee,'' which will monitor compliance to the settlement, 
will also arrange enforcement of the settlement. Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against any computer-makers that may ship software that 
would compete with the programs that compete with Microsoft 
products. In light of this extremely punitive settlement, the 
company deserves a break from spending more time in the courtroom.
    Even though settlement seems to curb free enterprise, it is 
necessary to settle the case now to help strengthen the economy and 
end this tax-funded witch-hunt. This has been a real misuse of 
American taxes and a federal settlement will demonstrate what it 
means to do the right thing. Thank you for your effort in bringing 
about the settlement, and please continue to see it through to 
fruition.
    Microsoft CERTIFIED Partner
    Sincerely,
    Shahin Kohan
    CTO
    11040 santa monica boulevard, los angeles, ca 90025



MTC-00030794

Systems Integration
Network Synergy
126 Monroe Turnpike, Trumbull CT 06611 Phone (203) 261-2201 
Fax (203) 261-2935
31 December 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Like many others in the high technology business, I have 
sometimes found Microsoft's business dealings a bit protective and 
overzealous. However, I am not sure that this attitude should have 
ever warranted the strong-arm government intervention of the kind 
that we have seen over this federal lawsuit against Microsoft. Of 
course, one of the greatest fears in the IT community has been a 
back-of-the-mind fear that if the government's case against 
Microsoft had succeeded with the enthusiasm once considered, that 
other companies within the IT community would soon find themselves 
subsequent targets, as well.
    Now that a reasonable settlement has been reached, it is my hope 
that it will be upheld through the review process, and that we can 
all get on with the obviously more important issues facing the 
nation this new year.
    I am writing this letter to voice my support for the settlement. 
I hope that others will follow. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dana Gargano
    President



MTC-00030795

Joseph and Ann Rosenthal
4712 Meadowview Boulevard
Sarasota, Florida 34233
January 3,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice last 
November. I am glad to see that this case is finally coming to a 
close.
    Microsoft has agreed to grant its competitors new rights that 
will allow computer makers to configure the Windows operating system 
so that non-Microsoft software can be promoted within Windows. The 
company has also stated that it will not retaliate against any 
hardware or software developer that develops products that compete 
with Windows. Microsoft has even agreed to let a three person 
technical committee oversee its business operations to ensure that 
the company complies with all terms of the current settlement. These 
tenets all combine to guarantee a fair and workable settlement that 
will address the concerns of all involved parties.
    I support the settlement between Microsoft and the United States 
Department of Justice. It is a reasonable solution to a legal battle 
that has been draining resources for too long.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Rosenthal 1/3/02



MTC-00030796

Folks:
Re: Microsoft Inc.
    Get Off Their Backs- Get our economy on track-- If not for 
Microsoft, MEL Many more people would not find it easy to use a 
computer !! They are the Best ! Stop Holding Them Back With
    New Ideas !!
    Thank You
    P.S.
    Winners Admire Other Winners--
    Losers Resent Winners !!
    Marvin Epstein
    234 Uxbridge
    Cherry Hill, NJ 08034



MTC-00030797

RENET CONSULTING, INC
10175 SW Barbur Blvd.
Suite 201B
Portland, OR 97219
Phone: 503-517-0472
Fax: 503-517-0474
Email: [email protected]
We Help You Find a Way In a Labyrinth of Technology
Microsoft CERTIFIED Partner
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my support for the recently negotiated 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I am of 
the opinion that this lawsuit had been generated more because of 
Microsoft's direct competitors, rather than from any sense of 
altruistic justice that the government was hoping to achieve. In 
fact, when the courts erroneously suggested that carving Microsoft 
up into littler, more manageable pieces was a good idea, any concept 
of justice had long since departed the discussion.
    At long last, there is a fair and equitable settlement in sight. 
It obliges Microsoft to program successive versions of Windows with 
a mechanism to promote non-Windows products on Windows, and gives 
hardware companies flexibility with what software they want to ship 
on their computers to dealers and purchasers. The settlement will 
force improved interoperability between Windows and non-Microsoft 
programs as well, so the settlement includes and affects every 
company in the IT community. It is my hope that this settlement will 
ultimately prevail, and that all of us can turn our collective 
attention back upon the task of re-strengthening our faltering 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    Alexander Altotsky
    President



MTC-00030798

FROM : Respondus, Inc.
FAX NO.: 425-861-3839 Jan. 03 2002 O5:20PM P1
Respondus
17127 NE 83rd Ct., Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: 425-497-0389--Fax: 435-881-3329
Email: [email protected]
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to let you know that my colleagues and I were pleased 
with the settlement that was reached between Microsoft Corporation, 
the Department of Justice, and several States. I believe that the 
settlement addresses the key issues that are of concern to consumers 
and most software development companies. Moreover, I think it is in 
the best interest of the software development industry, if not the 
nation, to put this matter behind us. The entire technology 
community has lacked direction and has had to deal with a great 
amount of uncertainty for the past two years. I think this 
settlement is the best way to end this lawsuit and to put the 
technology industry back on track.
    Sincerely,
    David J. Smetters
    President
    Testing, Assessment, and Survey Applications for the e-Learning 
Market



MTC-00030799

CHANGE
NEW YORK
TELEPHONE: (518) 383-2696
FAX: (518) 383-2841
FAX TRANSMISSION

[[Page 29448]]

TO: Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice
FAX #: 202-616-9937
FROM: Bennard T. Brooks
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (including this cover sheet): 2
COMMENTS:
NOTE: If you experience any problem with this transmission,
please call the CHANGE NY office at (518) 383-2696 
immediately.
Thank you
P.O. Box 720, Clifton Park, New York 12065
CHANGE
NEW YORK
January 3, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
SENT VIA FAX:202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As New York State's largest taxpayer organization, CHANGE-NY 
encourages Judge Kollar Kotelly to adopt the settlement as proposed 
in the case of the United States v. Microsoft. We believe that such 
a settlement now would benefit New York, one of the states that was 
a party to the original lawsuit.
    Taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for the case against 
Microsoft while surveys of New Yorkers show that 64 percent support 
a settlement or dropping the case altogether.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bernard J. Brooks
    Statewide Coordinator
    P.O. Box 720--Clifton Park, New York 
12065--618-383-2696



MTC-00030800

Sent By: Ultra Inc;
502 241 2535;
Jan-4-02 11:09AM;
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Date: January 4, 2002
To: Mr. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Fax #: 1-202-307-1454
From: John Swinney
Number of pages (including this form): 2
If you have not received all of the pages, or if transmission has 
been faulty, please call (502) 241-2530.
Message: Regarding the Microsoft settlement
Sent By: Ultra Inc;
Jan-4-02 11:lOAM;
John Swinney
6813 W Highway 22--Crestwood, KY 40014
January 3,2002
Mr. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I wanted to express my appreciation for your support toward 
Microsoft in the antitrust suit battle between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft.
    The three year long battle has finally ended, only to find out 
that those parties who are still trying to hold up the process. It 
is obvious many of Microsoft's competitors are trying to utilize the 
legal system to gain some sort of competitive edge. I am opposed to 
these tactics.
    Since there are many more important issues currently facing our 
country it is important to enact the settlement and support our 
technology industry by letting the process move forward and by 
allowing the competitive process to take hold. The people being 
harmed by this delay include not only those in the IT sector, but 
also consumers and our economy as a whole.
    I urge you to continue your support of the settlement, and help 
make sure that no more action is taken against this agreement. Let 
us move forward and allow the American consumer to fully benefit 
from the high-end technology that we can surely provide, with a 
settlement that improves business practices as well as design 
improvements in Windows and other Microsoft programs.
    Sincerely,
    John Swinney



MTC-00030801

Jan 04 02 09:58a
FrankVan Overstraeten 864 944 7146 p.1
22 Cardinal Point
Salem, SC 29676
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has come to my attention that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
has finally settled its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a 
strong and binding agreement that will permanently change the 
software industry. I applaud the decision to end this lengthy 
lawsuit, because our economy needs a break, and Microsoft is a big 
part of the economy.
    This settlement is a common-sense compromise, and court-
appointed mediators worked with the DOJ and Microsoft around the 
clock to make this settlement work, It grants all sorts of 
privileges to Microsoft competition concerning business dealings and 
trade-secret protection. In my opinion, it would be a waste of 
America's tax dollars to pursue this case in court beyond this 
agreement.
    The settlement grants computer makers broad new privileges to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs 
that compete with programs included within Windows. Computer makers 
will now be free to remove the means by which consumers access 
various features of Windows. They can also replace access to those 
features with access to non- Microsoft software.
    On top of that, Microsoft has also agreed to design future 
versions of Windows XP to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to do these non-Microsoft 
promotions within Windows, The new Windows version will make it easy 
to add or remove access to features built in to Windows or non-
Microsoft software. Consumers will have the freedom to choose to 
change their configuration at any time.
    What else could Microsoft's competitors want? Enough is enough. 
My hope is that the DOJ will not get involved in any more lawsuits 
against Microsoft after this agreement. I hope the DOJ will work on 
the obviously more pertinent issues it faces in this world.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Van Overstracten
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00030802

TO. Administrator
COMPANY: Department of Justice
FAX NUMBER: 202-307-1454
Or 202-616-9937
FROM: James W. Bushee
DATE: 01/04/02
NUMBER OF PAGES 1
SENDER'S FAX NUMBER: 703-281-2931
RE: Microsoft Settlement YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
x URGENT FOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE
Notes/Comments:
    Gentlemen;
    I was pleased that a settlement with Microsoft was worked out by 
your Department. While the terms weren't as permissive as Microsoft 
would have chosen, they obviously weren't as onerous as Microsoft's 
competitors would have chosen. I fully support the settlement and 
hope we, as a Nation, can get on to more productive (than making 
lawyers rich by litigating) issues.
    Jim Bushee
    315 EAST STREET, NORTHEAST
    VIENNA, VlRGINIA 22180-3619
    E-MAIL: [email protected]



MTC-00030803

249 Beverly Road
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
January 4, 2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    My personal feelings about the Microsoft case are: The case is 
drawn out too long. We need the economy to move in positive 
directions as all indicators are now leaning to. MSFT has done much 
for the American economy. Put the issue to bed The settlement is 
more than fair. Lets move the American economy forward to benefit 
all Americans and all people.
    Yours truly,
    Elaine Ross



MTC-00030804

GOLIATH NETWORKS
THINK BIG
January 4th, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to lend my support to the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This 
lawsuit is just a way for competitors of Microsoft to feel good 
about their lack of success and block any further achievements of 
Microsoft. Even though I believe this suit should not have been 
brought about, it is better to resolve this issue and move ahead, 
rather than spending another three years in court.
    Microsoft has earned its success along the way. It has provided 
its consumers with quality care and service, which has tremendously 
helped in its worldwide

[[Page 29449]]

accomplishments. Microsoft opponents have suggested terms that 
appear to stifle trade, such as uniform licensing price agreements. 
Even so, Microsoft has acknowledged the terms so that it can move 
on.
    This waste of American tax dollars is pointless. To stop this 
from continuing any further, all action that is taking place at the 
federal level be brought to an end.
    Sincerely,
    Tareq Saddiq
    Senior Network Architect
    Goliath Networks Inc.
    cc: Representative Tammy Baldwin
    goliath.com
    1966 South Stoughton Rd
    Madison, WI 53716
    tel: 608.278.7866
    fax: 608.224.0788
    1110 N. Old World Third St
    Milwaukee, WI 53203
    tel: 414.272.0265
    fax: 414.278.6019
    207lD Lawrence Dr
    DePere, WI 54115
    tel: 920.964.640
    fax: 920.964.1046



MTC-00030805

JAN-04-02
FRI 12:15
CURT LONG
RICHARD ZAHNER
10101 Howe Street
Leawood, KS 66206
January 4, 2002
Ms. Renta Hesse
Trial Attorney--Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street Northwest
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have been involved in the management of various aspects of the 
construction industry for many years in the Kansas City Area. 
Technology is playing a very significant role in our industry today.
    We must do everything possible to promote the continued growth 
of technology. I believe we must end the litigation against 
Microsoft and proceed with the terms of the recent agreement between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This agreement will promote 
fair competition and serve the best interests of consumers 
throughout our country.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Zahner



MTC-00030806

WATNE'S
EMELTZER'S
BIKE SUPERSTORE
2714 Erie Blvd. E. Syracuse, NY 13224
www.waynesbikes.com
P (315) 446-6816 F (315) 446-1156
January 4, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, D.C 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am the owner of one of the largest bicycle stores in Syracuse, 
NY. My business has been family-owned for more than thirty years, 
and has been able to thrive because of our reliance upon affordable 
and up-to-date technology.
    Currently, Wayne's and Mellzer's Bike Superstore operates solely 
on Micrsoft software. We depend on our software capabilities to 
handle everything from billing to inventory control. Many of our 
vendors such as Trek, Schwinn, Raleigh and Giant require us to do 
business with them using the latest technology.
    The antitrust laws meant to protect consumers, not for powerful 
companies to protect themselves from market competition. ProComp, 
AOL, Time Warner, Sun and Oracle should stop encouraging the 
government to fight their battles for them in court and fight in the 
marketplace. where this battle belongs.
    Our national economy is currently in a State of recession and 
the last thing business owners need is to have the price of 
technology and software skyrocket due to litigation and regulation 
of the high-tech industry.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel W. Venditti
    Owner



MTC-00030807

JAN-05-2002 12:33 AM
RAY. RICHARD&ASSOCIATES
954 435 8629 P.01
Helen L. Richard
17415 NW 10th St
Pembroke Pines, Fl. 33029
04 January, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the settlement 
reached in the Microsoft antitrust case in early November. I believe 
the government should focus its attention on more important matters 
rather than filing claims against Microsoft and prolonging 
unnecessary litigation. Contrary to popular belief the terms of this 
settlement were more than reasonable. The company agreed to terms 
that go beyond the products and procedures at hand as well as 
several product developments that were not found to be unlawful by 
the Court of Appeals. This demonstrated the willingness of Microsoft 
to comply with the standards set forth in order to prevent future 
antitrust violations.
    As in the AT&T case, I sincerely believe that the government 
has wasted time and money on litigation. We have not had a decent, 
understandable phone system since the breakup of AT&T. 
Therefore, I urge that the government devote itself to ridding the 
United States of terrorists and threats of terrorist attacks.
    Thank you for your time and willingness to hear comments from 
the public.
    Sincerely,
    Helen L. Richard



MTC-00030808

01/04/2002 12:47 6165383444
PARIS MOTORS INC.
PAGE 01
PARIS MOTORS INC.
Honest Value Since 1960
James Niewiek
4112 S. Division
Grand Rapids, MI 49548
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Dept of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    As a small business owner, I write you in support of the recent 
Microscft settlement. After more than three years of court battles, 
I am happy to hear that the Department of Justice and Microsoft have 
finally reached an agreement. Microsoft agreed to terms that extend 
way beyond the products and procedures that were actually an issue 
in the suit in the first place. Under the terms of the agreement, 
Microsoft has agreed to subject itself to constant review by the 
government, and will license out protocols, codes, and interfaces 
for Windows and other software so that other software companies can 
compete more effectively. I fail to see how anyone could purloin 
anything else from Microsoft.
    Owning my own business makes me very aware of the recession our 
nation is going through. The IT industry needs to move on and get 
the competitive process rolling. It is time for our economy to 
prosper, by getting back to business as usual.
    Sincerely,
    James Niewiek
    4112 South Division Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Phone (616) 
538-9220 Fax (616) 538-9444



MTC-00030809

FACSTORE TM
354 North Avenue
East Cranford, NJ 07016
Tel .: (908) 653-4500
Fax (908) 653-4511
E-Mail: [email protected]
31 December 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Democracy functions best when our elected representatives are 
responsive to the perceived majority demand from our nation, rather 
than the well-financed voice of those who are special interest 
groups. We have seen a bit of a breakdown of this principle 
regarding the Microsoft lawsuit instituted by the Department of 
Justice. Here, we experienced a handful of Microsoft's most ardent 
competitors and critics attempting to use the power of the federal 
government to scale back the effectiveness of one of our country's 
most successful and innovative companies. I
    agree that oftentimes it appears as if Microsoft takes an 
extreme anti- competitive position regarding their closest-held 
trade secrets, but this is only prudent and certainly has never 
risen to the level of federal lawsuit status. At long last, this 
regrettable suit has been settled. I am hopeful that this will bring 
to an end one of the saddest chapters in American business, with no 
further federal action contemplated. Now is the time to look

[[Page 29450]]

to our nation's leaders to strengthen our country's businesses, 
rather than listening to the special interest groups'' desire 
to tear them apart. Thank you for you attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Schram
    President Jan-04-02 02:08P FACSTORE, INC 906534511 P.01



MTC-00030810

JAN. 4. 2002 12:21PM
NO. 4637 P.1/2
January 4, 2002
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
To: Renata Hesse
Fax Number: 202.616.9937
From: Kim Lambert
user: 3035
Code: 999100-0100
xxx.xxxxxx.xA
JAN. 4.2002 12:21PM NO. 4637 P. 2/2
KIM M. LAMBERT
5311 Forest Lawn Circle
McFarland, WI 53558
January 4,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, #1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to express my full support of the Microsoft 
Settlement recently reached with the Department of Justice.
    There has been no consumer harm as a result of any actions taken 
by Microsoft. Consumers have enjoyed tremendous benefits due to 
Microsoft's innovation. The government has failed to show any ham to 
consumers.
    I believe this case has continued far too long. With over $30 
million already spent by our taxpayers, it is time to stop the 
litigation. Thank you for you attention to this urgent matter.
    Sincerely,
    Kim M. Lambert 003.336576.1



MTC-00030811

JAN. 4.2002 12:21PM
NO.4638 P. 1/2
January 4, 2002
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
To: Renata Hesse
Fax Number: 202.616.9937
From: John Matthews
User: 3035
Code: 999100-0100
XXX.XXXXXX.XA
JAN. 4.2002 12:21PM NO.4638 P.2/2
JOHN W. MATTHEWS
4238 Savannah Court
Middleton, Wisconsin 53562
January 4,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, #1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    1 am writing to express my full support of the Microsoft 
Settlement recently reached with the Department of Justice.
    The settlement is appropriate in scope because it addresses only 
those items upheld by the courts. It is now in the best interest of 
the technology industry, our fragile economy and our consumers to 
finally resolve this case, which has cost our taxpayers over $30 
million.
    Thank you for your concern in this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    John W. Matthews 003.334570.1



MTC-00030812

JAN-04-2002 15:57
VERIZON PA PRESIDENTS OFC
215 466 8515 P.01/01
January 2,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Finally, after three protracted years of legal battles, 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice settled their increasingly 
tedious antitrust dispute. The settlement reached will benefit the 
IT industry as well as the American consumer, not to mention the 
stability it will bring to our tenuous economy. This case has been a 
gross misuse of American tax dollars, and I hope that this 
settlement will bring this nonsense to a close after the public 
comment period.
    This legal battle has seriously damaged the IT industry as well 
as the U.S. economy in general. The settlement will help strengthen 
the economy, and ensure that the IT sector will continue to deliver 
cutting-edge technology to the market. This settlement is fair, and 
should appease all parties involved in the dispute. Only those 
companies who feel that they cannot succeed without the help of the 
government would still be pursuing this case in the face of this 
settlement.
    I am ardently opposed to any further legal action against 
Microsoft. Microsoft needs to focus on delivering innovative 
products to the market. As for the government, I am sure that there 
are other issues to focus on. Thank you for the work that you have 
done to ensure that this case is brought to a swift end. I look 
forward seeing it completely resolved.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel J. Whelan 247 S. 7th Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19106
    cc Senator Rick Santorum
    TOTAL P.O1



MTC-00030813

Syracuse Fitness
2716 Erie Boulevard East
Syracuse, NY 13214
P (315) 446-4136
F (315) 446-1156
www.syracusefitness.com
January 4, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to you in regards to U.S. vs. Microsoft. I'd like 
to take a moment your time to tell you why I am in favor of the 
settlement of this case. The national economic recession we are 
currently dealing with will not be helped with continuing litigation 
against Microsoft, as well as regulation of the high technology 
industry Our economy needs the high-tech sector to be strong and 
prosperous in order to aid in economic recovery.
    I firmly believe that there has been no harm done to consumers 
as a result of any action, taken by Microsoft. Being a sole 
proprietor, I can safely say that in my experience Microsoft's 
innovation has led to tremendous benefits for consumers, such as 
improved products with lower price tags.
    I urge Judge Kollar Kotelly to be an advocate of business and 
economic recovery by supporting the settlement of this case.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully yours,
    Andrew Venditti
    Owner
    Syracuse Fitness 3154465611 16:16 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 16:16 
3154465611 PAGE01



MTC-00030814

02/19/1995 01:39 3156877564
LBD ENTERPRISES PAGE 01
1174 Fylor Rd.
Kirkville, NY 13082
LBD Enterprises
January 4, 2000
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Re: U.S. vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As an entrepreneur who has grown his business exponentially 
throughout the past ten years, I can say that my business would not 
have been able to thrive if I had not had affordable access to 
Microsoft software. As the founder and President of a successful 
waste management business and the owner of 4 farms throughout 
upstate New York, I can personally say that operating a successful 
business during a time of economic recession can be challenging. 
Continuing further litigation against Microsoft will only hurt 
business owners by adversely affecting the economy and driving up 
the price of software that is essential to the operations of 
numerous companies.
    Over $30 million dollars in taxpayer trends have been spent on 
U.S. vs. Microsoft Agreeing to the settlement of this case is in the 
best interest of the technology industry, the economy, and 
consumers.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Louis B. DeMario
    President



MTC-00030815

01/84/2002 14: 14:18 3156824992
OLEARY LAW PAGE 01/01
Robert P. O'Leary, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
104 Pleasant Street--Post Office Box 57
Manlius, New York 13104
Telephone: 315-682-9131
Fax: 315-682-4992
Admitted to practice law in New York and Florida
January 4, 2002

[[Page 29451]]

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. vs. Microsoft
    Dear Renata:
    In light of recent developments I thought it beneficial to write 
you in regard to the referenced matter.
    I believe settlement of this case is in everyone's best 
interest. The settlement being reviewed by Judge Kollar Kotelly 
while entirely satisfying to none, includes something for everyone. 
Given that the economy is now running at a much slower pace the last 
thing we need is more litigation and regulation of the high-tech 
industry.
    I believe that the break-up of America's most successful company 
is not in the best interest of consumers, the economy or the future 
of technology development. Microsoft's innovation has led to 
tremendous benefits for the public, such as better products and 
lower prices. Antitrust law is supposed to be about consumer harm, 
in my opinion the government has failed to show any harm at all.
    Thank you for your time and interest.
    Very truly yours,
    Robert P. O'Leary



MTC-00030816

JAN-04-02 FRI 13:20
CURT LONG
314 636 6919 P. 01
    RICHARD ZAHNER
4200 Gardner
Kansas City, MO. 64120
January 4, 2002
Ms. Renta Hesse
Trial Attorney--Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street Northwest
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have been involved in the management of various aspects of the 
construction industry for many years in the Kansas City Area. 
Technology is playing a very significant role in our industry today.
    We must do everything possible to promote the continued growth 
of technology. I believe we must end the litigation against 
Microsoft and proceed with the terms of the recent agreement between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This agreement will promote 
fair competition and serve the best interests of consumers 
throughout our country.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Zahner



MTC-00030817

JAN-04-2002 13:28
COLORADO TECH SF
1 605 361 5954 P.01/03
FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM
Date: 1/4/02
Company Name: Dept of Justice
Fax Number: 202-616-9937
Please Deliver
To: Renata Hesse
Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 3
Sender: Clark Cutler
Colorado Technical University--Sioux Falls
3901 W. 59th Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57108
(605) 361-0200
Fax (605) 361-5954
www.colotechu.edu
JAN-04-2002 13:28
COLORADO TECH SF
1 605 361 5954 P.02/03
Joni M. Clark Cutler, Attorney at Law
3901 W. 59th Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57108
605-361-0200 x114
Fax 605-361-3954
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is to address the proposed settlement agreement in 
U.S. v. Microsoft, and to express my support for it as an advocate 
for children and families, and as an educator and attorney in South 
Dakota. Microsoft has been a responsible partner for strengthening 
our nation's economy, as well as for the development of information 
technologies in our state's effort to wire its public schools and 
buildings for high-speed internet access. One of the Bill and 
Melinda Gates Foundation's many contributions to children and 
education was a $670,000 matching grant to our state to foster IT 
education in our state's school systems. The Microsoft Corporation, 
I believe, has been a responsive company by delivering software 
products which make access to information technologies affordable 
and easier to use for consumers, and that has had a tremendous 
affect on our nation's economy. If an anti-trust case is designed to 
protect consumers, I think it's important to note that there has 
been no consumer harm proven in this case which involved any of 
Microsoft Corporation's actions.
    Microsoft has been a creative and aggressive company in 
exploring and developing new and better software technologies to 
empower the American consumer, breaking down the barriers of cost 
and function for users. As a result, the company is a major factor 
in our nation's economic strength because it has been so successful 
meeting and anticipating the needs of American consumers and 
consumers throughout the world. I believe the anti-trust case has 
fully run its course and continuation of it seems to serve no useful 
purpose to consumers nor to fairness to the IT industry as a whole. 
I believe the settlement, which has been sought by the Justice 
Department and nine of the states.
JAN-04-2002 13:28
COLORADO TECH SF
1 605 361 5954 P.03/03
Joni M. Clark Cutler
Attorney at Law
3901 W. 59th Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57108
605-361-0200 x114
Fax 605-361-3954
    involved in the anti-trust suit is fair and highly beneficial to 
our nation, to the cause of better education and to our children's 
futures. Most importantly, the settlement does address the issues, 
which have been upheld by the courts as being valid. It is time this 
case is declared finished. A sensible agreement is at hand which is 
fair and highly beneficial to everyone, despite the nagging wishes 
of Microsoft's corporate enemies who want to achieve an unearned 
advantage by keeping this case active.
    Our nation's economy needs to move ahead, and Microsoft and the 
rest of the technology industry need to move forward and help our 
nation's economy rebuild. Thank you for your consideration of my 
views on this case.
    Sincerely,
    Joni Clark-Cutler



MTC-00030818

P. 1
December 31, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    There are a great many important issues that we as Americans and 
our nation ``s leadership are dealing with today that are 
virtually unprecedented As time moves on toward the new year, we are 
all struggling with issues of our national economy, our national 
security, and our ability to emerge from a slight economic downturn.
    With all of these critically important tasks, I am hoping that 
we do not unnecessarily slow ourselves down with the playthings of 
yesterday, such as this ill- advised lawsuit against Microsoft. 
There is, I believe, an excellent settlement at hand, and it would 
benefit us all for this settlement to be accepted, with no further 
action against Microsoft.
    Microsoft did employ aggressive tactics at protecting both its 
position as a technology leader, as well as its proprietary Windows 
coding, but this only makes good business sense, despite the fact 
that Microsoft's competitors may have sobbedfor their relative lack 
of similar innovative leadership. Blaming Microsoft for these 
shortcomings is a bit excessive; convincing the federal government 
to institute a federal lawsuit is just plain vengeful. Let's be done 
with this, Let's move on. Let's accept the settlement and hope that 
we can all play better together.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Speer
    President 917-576-1537



MTC-00030819

Sanford Krasnoff
417 South Broad Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
504.822.4877
Office 504.822.3407-Fax
FAX COVER SHEET
To: Renata Hesse
From: Sanford Krasnoff
Date: 1-4-2002Pages Including Cover: 2
Phone: Fax:
Message:.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
    This facsimile transmission (and/or the documents accompanying 
it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender. 
The information is intended only for

[[Page 29452]]

the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by 
telephone to arrange for return of the documents.
Jan. 4 2002 3:57 PM No. 0820 P.1
Jan 04 02 02:56p
SANFORD KRASNOFF
OFFICES OF SANFORD KRASNOFF
417 SOUTH BROAD STREET
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119
Telephone: (604) 822-4877
Fax #: (604) 821-4853
January 2, 2002
VIA FAX: (202) 616-9937
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms, Hesse:
    It is time we settle this case once and for all, Over thirty 
million tax dollars have been spent and it is time that we move on 
to closing this case and letting the technology industry compete 
openly again.
    Microsoft is a great American success story and its competitors 
need to fight with them in the marketplace and not in the courtroom. 
Our economy could use some help and ending this drawn out and 
expensive case would sent the right signal. Protect consumers and 
keep the market place open by approving the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    SANFORD KRASNOFF SK/blb Jan. 4, 2002 3:57PM No. 0820 P.2



MTC-00030820

212-1238 Seymour St.
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3N9 Canada
January 4, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department Of Justice
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    As a self-employed PC user, many aspects of my livelihood depend 
on the smooth functioning of my home computer and my freedom to 
choose the appropriate software to meet the needs of my business. 
Microsoft's actions have caused undue frustrations and increased 
workload on my part in its efforts to illegally maintain monopoly 
power in the PC operating system market. For example, by binding its 
Internet Explorer Web Browser with its Windows operating system, 
Microsoft has forced me, the consumer, to take extraneous measures 
to exercise my right to choose the appropriate browser software for 
my needs. The Court has found that Microsoft has not acted in this 
way to benefit the consumer, or even to competitively increase 
revenues, but to illegally maintain its monopoly power. in effect, 
Microsoft has illegally victimized consumers for its own 
preponderance. I find this infuriating and in direct contradiction 
to the laws and basic principles of the competitive free market that 
has made the United States of America what it is today.
    As an international consumer of products originating in the 
United Stats, I feel I speak for my peers in expressing deep concen 
that the lenient sentence passed on to Microsoft will allow 
Microsoft to continue to rob consumers of their right to choose and 
to illegally propogate its monopoly as it has freely done so. 
Moreover, a monopoly of this kind will, as it has in the past, 
result in retardation of technological advancement and economic 
turmoil due to inflated prices and unhealthy market conditions. The 
consumer is the lowest common demoninator in the entire economic 
system, as we know it today. If this lenient sentence is ratified, 
it will sacrifice the rights of consumers worldwide; and that is a 
trajedy that will have grave consequencs for years and years to 
come.
    I urgently plead for a much more stern, much more responsible 
and appropriate sentence in the case of the United States of America 
v. Microsoft Corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Yee Jee Tso 014/04/2002 14:11 6046826668 INTERNET COFFEE PAGE 01



MTC-00030821

01/04/02 17:3 0
FAX 7854840191
THE SOURCE 01 THE Source maximum creativity
FAX TRANSMITTAL #PAGES: 2 (including cover)
TO: Renata Hesse
COMPANY: USDOJ
FAX#: 202-307-1454
FROM: K. Van Meteron
DATE: 1/4/02
MESSAGE: See Attached Letter
PO BOX 2034
TOPEKA, KS 66601
PH.905.484.0192
FAX.785.464.0194
01/04/02 17:30 FAX 7854840194 THE SOURCE 02
SOURCE
January 3, 200l
Judge Kollar Kotelly
Attn: Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar Kotelly:
    The time has come to bring closure to the Microsoft case. 
Thankfully, President Bush's Department of Justice has come to an 
agreement with the Microsoft Corporation that settles this case and 
addresses the concerns of the complaint.
    The costs of this case to the American taxpayers have been 
astronomical. To date the federal government has, spent in excess of 
$35 million dollars chasing Microsoft and this figure does not 
include the millions that the states have invested in this lawsuit. 
Taxpayer dollars were spent needlessly on a case in which the 
government has yet to prove consumer harm. Rather than be harmed, 
Americans have benefited in their use of the world's most advanced 
and affordable software. At this moment in history, our nation is 
faced with serious economic concerns on both the national and state 
levels. It is crucial that all taxpayer dollars are spent in the 
most responsible manner. The continued prosecution of this case is 
not, in my opinion, an example of responsible use of government 
revenues.
    Based on reports that I have read, the proposed settlement 
offers an evenhanded resolution to this case. This, combined with 
today's economic realities, argues strongly for your approval of 
this settlement. As an independent businessman and taxpayer, I 
encourage you to accept this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Kristen D. Van Meteron, General Partner POST OFFICE Box 2034 
TOPEKA KANSAS 66601-2034 PHONE 785.484.0192 FAX.785.484.0194 
[email protected] www.MAXIMUMCREATlVITY.COM



MTC-00030822

01/02/2002 16:21
COVER PAGE
TO:
FAX: 12023071454
FROM: SUMMIT GROUP INC
FAX: 5044862317
TEL: 5044862317
COMMENT :
0l/02/2002 16:21 5044862317 SUMMIT GROUP INC PAGE 01
Summit Consulting Group Inc.
614 N St. Patrick Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft POST-IT FAX NOTE:7671 DATE:1/4/02 
# of Pages 1-1
US Department of Justice TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM: Ben Claassen
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW CO/DEPT: CO: SCG1
Washington, DC 20530 PHONE#: PHONE#
FAX#: 202 307 1454 FAX#: 504 486-2317
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you to make you aware of my support for the recent 
settlement regarding Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I was 
happy to hear that the case had been settled. We need to let this 
settlement move forward and let our technology industry continue to 
provide us with the high quality products that help small businesses 
to compete.
    Furthermore, this settlement seems to be quite reasonable. The 
terms not only allow other software manufacturers to have access to 
various Windows interfaces, but allow other companies to access new 
licensing and marketing terms. All of this will promote the use of 
non-Microsoft programs within the Windows operating system.
    As a small business owner involved in electric utility 
consulting, I strongly value Microsoft's place in our economy. Since 
I am pro-competition, I see Microsoft actions inviting more 
competition to the IT industry. This was the original goal in the 
anti-trust suit, and now we that we have achieved this goal we 
should forward,
    Sincerely,
    Ben Claassen



MTC-00030823

FROM : FAX NO. : 8037763093 Jan. 06 2002 01:52PM Pl

[[Page 29453]]

104 Emerald Lake Road
Columbia, SC 29209-4243
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my happiness upon hearing the DOJ has 
ended its three- year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a 
strong settlement. I support Microsoft and am anxious to see this 
agreement between Microsoft and the government finalized. I believe 
this settlement is more than fair to both Microsoft and its 
competition, and I really do hope that there will be no further 
action taken against Microsoft at the federal level.
    This settlement has been reached after extensive negotiations. 
This settlement allows Microsoft to continue designing and marketing 
its innovative software, while benefiting the technology industry as 
a whole. Among other regulations, under the settlement Microsoft 
will be unable to take retaliatory measures against hardware 
companies for putting Microsoft software on a computer that also has 
non-Microsoft programming on it. This way, hardware makers can be 
more responsive to their clientele.
    Microsoft has pledged to carry out all provisions of this 
agreement, and the government has created a technical oversight 
committee to test Microsoft compliance.
    I believe that this settlement will benefit the economy, the 
computer industry, and consumers. I believe that it will be most 
productive to allow Microsoft to devote its resources to innovation, 
rather than litigation. Please see to it that the settlement is 
finalized and enacted as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Wilbur Goodwin
    cc: Senator Thurmond



MTC-00030824

12/29/2001 03:55 0015832224 Haskell Prochnow PAGE 01
7108 Killyons Canyon Lane
Salt Lake Citv, Utah 84108
January 4, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the settlement that has been reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice and want to take this 
opportunity to comment on this issue. It is time for this suit to 
come to an end. From an economic standpoint, the suit is costing 
taxpayers money at a time when we should promote our economy. Under 
the terms of the agreement Microsoft will drastically change the way 
they do business, they have agreed to disclose information about the 
internal interfaces of their Windows operating system, and they have 
agreed to make Windows compatible with non-Microsoft software.
    If there is any fear that Microsoft will infringe on antitrust 
laws, or that they will not comply with the terms of the settlement, 
the appointed government oversight committee will certainly take 
care of it. We need to move on.. There are issues of greater 
importance that we should concentrate our efforts on such as 
economic stimulus. Thank you in advance for your decision to settle 
this case as more litigation would, at this point, be imprudent. I 
appreciate your time and hard work in Washington.
    Sincerely,
    Janet Haskell



MTC-00030825

From: Duncan McGregor
To: Attorney Genera Ashcroft
Date: l/6/2002Time: 9:58:36 AM Page 1 of 1
Duncan D. [email protected]
313 Curtis Road--Chesterfield, SC 
29709--1043--USA--Phones: Home & Office: (843) 
623-2597 Fax: (843) 623-3123
January 6, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express my happiness upon hearing about the Department 
of Justice (DOJ) decision to end its antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. This decision will be a boost to Microsoft which will 
benefit our economy at a time that when it's greatly needed.
    The DOJ and Microsoft have been involved in this case for more 
than three years now. After much consideration, the parties agreed 
to settle. The settlement has many heavy sanctions against 
Microsoft, but is simply not enough for those that wish to harm 
Microsoft for more than just antitrust reasons.
    The settlement requires Microsoft to document and disclose, for 
use by its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows' operating system products--a first in an antitrust 
settlement. It also forces Microsoft to make available to its 
competitors any protocols in Windows'' operating system 
products that are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft 
server operating system. These will make other companies'' 
products run more efficiently on Windows, increasing competition.
    Now that all of this is finally over, the government should let 
this agreement fall in to place. In my opinion, the federal 
government needs not take any more action against Microsoft beyond 
this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Duncan D. McGregor
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00030826

Jan 06 02 12:43a Sandi Wiemers 1-785-632-6240
721 Franklin
Clay Center, KS 67432
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I find the possibility that the Department of Justice could 
revive its case against Microsoft to be ridiculous. Millions of 
dollars have been spent on this case and a reasonable settlement has 
been crafted; pushing this case on would be rather excessive.
    There is no reason to extend this expensive and time-consuming 
case.
    Once again I ask that you please support the Microsoft 
settlement agreed to on November 2,2001. Your restraint and good 
judgment in this case is appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra Wiemers



MTC-00030827

Jan 05 02 06:48p Arthur W. Miller 425 316-0306 P.1
3309 97th Place SE
Everett, WA 98208-4371
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I wanted to let you know that I am in favor of the settlement 
that Microsoft and the Justice Department agreed to recently.
    Government should not be getting involved in business disputes 
in private enterprise. This was simply a nuisance suit that should 
never have been brought in the first place. It frankly reminds me of 
the tobacco suits where some states were able to extort money from 
private enterprise.
    Continued litigation is bad for business and bad for investors. 
Microsoft needs to be able to innovate. This is what has made them 
the flagship of the U.S. computer industry, which is second to none 
in the world. The settlement is reasonable, and it will allow 
independent companies to promote their software within the Windows 
operating system. Because there will be a three-person technical 
committee to oversee Microsoft and restrict the company from any 
further behavior that hinders competition, it is my opinion that 
this case has been won by the government and should not be pursued 
past this point.
    Thank you for letting me explain my position, and I look forward 
to a hasty end to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur W. Miller



MTC-00030828

Jan 05 02 06:46p Arthur W Miller 425 316-0306 P.1
Arthur Miller
3309 97th Place SE
Everett, WA 98208
December 10, 2001
Senator Maria Cantwell
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Senator Cantwell:
    I wanted to let you know that I am opposed to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee holding hearings on the fairness of the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. It is my hope that you will be able 
to have these hearings canceled. The Government should not become 
involved in a business dispute, especially when the suit should 
never have been brought forth in the first place.
    This is primarily a nuisance suit reminiscent of the tobacco 
suits, where

[[Page 29454]]

several states were out to extort as much money as they could by 
filing frivolous law suits against the tobacco companies. This type 
of law suit stifles creativity which not only hurts the industry but 
drives up cost to consumers. Continuing this antitrust litigation is 
bad for all American businesses, for Microsoft, for the consumer and 
for the country. Microsoft must be allowed to innovate. This is what 
has made them the flagship of the U.S. computer industry, which is 
second to none in the world.
    Thank you for letting me voice my opposition to these hearings.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Miller



MTC-00030829

@A
From: ROLAND OLAF PETERSON
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 2002/01/05
Time: 8:13:22 PM Page 1 of 1
22 Ravenswood Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02453
2002 January 5
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my feelings on the settlement 
that was reached on 2001 November 2, between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I believe that this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am anxious to see this dispute resolved.
    This settlement allows Microsoft to devote its resources to 
designing and marketing its innovative software, rather than 
litigation. At the same time, Microsoft has pledged to engage in 
activities that will benefit competing companies, such as: sharing 
more information and giving consumers more choices. An oversight 
committee will be assigned by the federal government to monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement, and competitors have the 
option to sue Microsoft if they feel Microsoft is not complying with 
the settlement.
    After three long years of litigation, I believe it is time to 
allow Microsoft to devote its resources to creating advances in 
technology, rather than litigation. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Roland Peterson



MTC-00030831

10/17/2001 07:43 9419230154 SCOTT GOLDBERG PAGE 01
Sharon Doyle
4021 Las Palmas way
Sarasota, Florida 34238
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing to express my support for the 
settlement that was concluded in November between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department. This settlement represents the best opportunity 
to move forward. The settlement will require `Microsoft to 
make significant changes in they way they operate. In a first for an 
antitrust settlement, Microsoft has agreed to disclose for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows' operating system products.
    To assure its compliance with the settlement, Microsoft has 
agreed to be monitored by a Technical Committee. The Technical 
Committee will be comprised of three experts in software 
engineering. Thereafter, if any third party believes Microsoft is 
not complying with the settlement's terms, that party can 
lodge a complaint with the committee. Most importantlv, the speed 
with which the new cultures of technologica1 development, 
entrepreneurship and global competition are progressing mav require 
new governance however this is a larger legislative issue and not 
Microsoft specific. The damage done to Microsoft and its investors 
should have been avoided. The competitive delay caused by this suit 
was damaging to our overall economy in mv opinion.
    In summary, this settlement is the right choice for the federal 
government at this time. It is also in the best interest of citizens 
and consumers like myself. I hope you will continue supporting this 
settlement and commend your office for the efforts so far to bring 
this case to a close.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Doyle
    [email protected]



MTC-00030832

FROM: VELCO ENGINEERING INC PHONE NO. : 281 398 3741 P01 VELCO 
ENGINEERING INC.
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
To: U.S. Department of Justice FAX No. 
1-202-307-1454
From: M. A. Vela PE No. of Pages incl. cover 2
    Comments:
    As a personal and business user of Microsoft products for about 
twenty years I agree completely with the editorial page article in 
the Jan 4 Houston Chronicle article attached. Microsoft: products 
are generally low priced consumer products aimed at the home user. 
Competitors such as Oracle, Sun and others are higher priced 
producers targeting large corporations. I shudder to think what 
prices would be like if Microsoft had not been around and the 
absence of standards would further compound the users problems.
    I have been a practicing Consulting Chemical Engineer for about 
25 years.
    M.A. Vela
    VELCO Engineering, Inc.
    64 Kelliwood Courts
    Circle Katy, Texas 77450
    FROM : VELCO ENGINEERING INC. PHONE NO. : 281 398 3741 P02
    Competition is best way to regulate Microsoft DESPITE the 
settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department, nine states 
continue to seek stronger restrictions and penalties. We advise the 
states'' attorneys general to settle and not waste more public 
money on further legal efforts. Their fight for additional legal 
regulations outlooks the extensive evidence that Microsoft must 
continue to innovate or it will lose its leading position.
    The case against Microsoft is based on the belief that market 
leaders are entrenched, self-serving monopolies that stymie superior 
products of smaller rivals. This belief is supported by elaborate 
augments but scant empirical evidence.
    In contrast, our decade-long research of 66 markets refutes the 
prevailing logic about the entrenched position of market leaders.
    Consider how often market leadership has changed in just a few 
categories. In video games, market leadership changed from Magnavox 
to Atari to Nintendo to Sega and now to Sony.
    Similarily, in personal computers, market leadership changed 
from Apple to Tandy to IBM to Compaq and now to Dell. In on-line 
service providers, market leadership switched from CompuServe to 
Prodigy to America Online.
    Some of these changes came quickly. Their frequency indicates 
that a market leader cannot easily hold its position. What triggers 
these changes? In most cases, it is the superior quality or the 
substantially lower price offered by innovative companies.
    Many people attribute the success of Microsoft's software 
applications to the domi nance of its Windows operating system. 
However, the the facts support an alternative explanation.
    Word, Excel and PowerPoint were all unsuccessful when first 
released, even though they were tied to Microsoft proprietary 
operating system. They became successful only through relentless 
innovation to produce better versions.
    Even the Internet browser market, which triggered the case 
against Microsoft, demonstrated the same pattern. Before Netscape, 
Mosaic was the dominant browser. However, Netscape's superior speed 
and features enabled it to quickly overtake Mosaic.
    Microsoft's initial release of Internet Explorer did not succeed 
because of its poor performance. Persistent improvements in features 
won the endorsement of reviewers and led to its market leadership. 
In our research, we did not find a single market where a non-
innovative leader was able to maintain its dominance.
    Many people assume that market Pioneers or first movers will be 
enduring market leaders. Instead, we found that such companies lead 
in only six of the 66 markets studied, and innovation is essential 
to their sustained leadership and prof itability.
    For example, Intel and Sony maintain their leadership in 
microprocessors and CD players by regularly introducing inno vative 
products, even when they cannibalize still-successful older 
prpducts. Coca-Cola Sustains its lead in the cola market by seizing 
new distribution channels and continually updating its advertisings. 
In the other 60 markets, innovation toppled established leaders.
    In 1959, Kodak and 3M led the copier market. Analysts believed 
Xerox (then the Haloid Corp.) had almost no chance to succeed. Yet 
its revolutionary copier was an immense success and propelled Xerox 
to market dominance.
    Even in the mundane category of disposable diapers, Johnson 
& Johnson's

[[Page 29455]]

Chux brand was overtaken by the superior features and lower price of 
Procter & Gamble's Pampers. Then Kimberly Clark's further im 
improvements enabled Huggies to wrest market leadership from 
Pampers. In all of these markets, costly and distracting antitrust 
actions were unnecessary. Innovative competitors discovered better 
ways to serve customers with improved products and lower prices. The 
results were unequivocal, they cost the public nothing and they were 
more exacting than legal remedies.
    So it will continue to be for Microsoft and ocher market 
leaders. They too will begin their own demise the day they cease to 
innovate. Nimble, innovative rivals at the gate, ready to administer 
the law of the market far more effectively than the Justice 
Department or states can prosecute antitrust cases.



MTC-00030833

Sent By: FULCRUM PROPERTIES; 111 1111;
Jan-5-02 3:00PM;
Page 1/1
145 Scottsdale Square
Winter Park, Florida 32792
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
BY FAX 202-307-1454
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to say that I don't feel that the settlement is as fair 
toward Microsoft as it should have been. Microsoft has had to make 
many concessions that I think are unreasonable in this whole matter. 
It will have to be reviewed by a technical committee, and share 
critical software code information with its competitors, for 
example. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that the Justice 
Department has finally resolved this case.
    While the case should never have come against Microsoft in the 
first place, I'm glad to see that after three years, the government 
has finally come to it's senses. I hope that it will think twice 
before pursuing hard working, American companies simply for being 
successful in the future.
    I appreciate you hearing my opinion on this matter and I hope 
that you will take it into account before finalizing the terms of 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Andrews
    cc: Representative Ric Keller
    BY FAX 202-225-0999



MTC-00030834

Jan 05 02 11:36a
Michael H. Brannon 864-281-1360
Michael H. Brannon, M.D.
7 Foxglove Court
Greenville, SC 29615-5505
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to express how happy I am to hear that the Department of 
Justice has ended its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a 
strong agreement. Microsoft has been a leader in technology and 
innovation for at least the past decade, and I see no reason for the 
federal government to punish them for that. America's economy was 
founded upon the competitive free enterprise system. Government 
involvement in the day-to-day workings of a company completely 
undermines this country's economic foundation. The agreement calls 
for Microsoft to document and disclose for use by its competitors 
various interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system 
products--a first in an antitrust settlement. Microsoft has 
also agreed to design future versions of Windows to provide a 
mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and 
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to 
features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Consumers 
will have the freedom to choose to change their configuration at any 
time.
    Enough is enough What more could Microsoft's competitors want? 
My hope is that the federal government takes no further action 
against Microsoft beyond this agreement, so that it can work to 
tackle the truly pressing-issues of the day.
    Sincerely,
    Michael H. Brannon, M.D.
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00030835

10/18/2001 09:01 802-896-9766 JERRY CAILOR PAGE 01
P.O. Box 162
West Wardsboro, Vermont 05360
January 4, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to give my utmost support to Bill Gates and 
Microsoft. My husband and I live in Wardsboro, Vermont, a town with 
a total of 500 registered voters. If you blink, you miss our town. 
WC had a goal of making our town library into something special. The 
library was bequeathed a house by a resident, so we had the space, 
but we had no computer capabilities. We applied to the Gates 
Foundation, figuring all we could lose from doing so would be a 
piece of paper and the cost of postage. To our surprise, Mr. Gates 
gave us a grant; a complete software on-line integration package, 
printer connectivity, and on-site software training for our 
librarian. People are now lined up to use our computers.
    Bill Gates did not have to do this. He did not have to establish 
his foundation, Yes, he makes millions of dollars, but he gives away 
millions of dollars to those who desperately need funds to provide 
computer capability to their small towns. Everyone lauds small 
towns, but very few are there when those small towns need financial 
help. Bill Gates stepped in when no one else would, We are now on 
our way to having a viable, working library, making it an integral 
part of the community, and giving our children a place to go and 
learn.
    Microsoft is taking a big hit with this lawsuit, but it is 
willing to accept a lot of restrictions in order to settle. How many 
businesses would be willing to share their sensitive information 
with their competitors like Microsoft is doing with the internal 
interfaces of Windows under this settlement? Microsoft and Bill 
gates were there for Wardsboro. Now I support Microsoft by 
supporting the antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce Cailor



MTC-00030836

Jan 04 02 07:00p Gunnar Sevelius 650-366-4115 P.1
58 Austin Avenue
Atherton, California 94027
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am very pleased that the Justice Department has reached an 
agreement with Microsoft and has finally settled it's three year 
long antitrust dispute with the company. It is my strong personal 
belief that the suit against Microsoft should never have been 
brought against them in the first place. I feel the finalization of 
this settlement will provide a boost to the struggling national and 
global economies. The settlement is both fair and reasonable, and it 
is in the best interest of the American public.
    I appreciate your attention to this matter and I hope you do 
will continue to make decisions that will benefit the United States 
of America. Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Gunnar Sevelius



MTC-00030837

3280 Sportsman Club Road
Bourbonnais, Illinois 60914
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania: Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to take some time to express my opinion about the 
settlement that was reached between, the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft last November. The settlement brought an end to the three-
year antitrust dispute, and was fair and just. I also hope that 
there will be no further legal action against the Microsoft 
Corporation.
    I simply do not understand why American taxpayer dollars have 
been misused in the pursuit of litigation against Microsoft. Now 
more than ever, America needs to spend its money more carefully. The 
economy is still suffering from the beginning of this whole dispute, 
and the stock market is in disrepair. Microsoft has done so much for 
the economy, providing jobs, and has completely changed the face of 
the computing and technology industries. They need to be allowed to 
continue with innovation and bringing new and useful products to the 
marketplace. Even with restrictions like having to share its 
software information and allowing being

[[Page 29456]]

reviewed by a government committee, Microsoft can still be a 
powerful economic force.
    I appreciate your time and consideration with this issue. I am 
happy with the settlement that was reached in the beginning of 
November. I believe this settlement will benefit all of us.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Burlison
    01/07/2002 08:27 FAX SHORT MILLING 001/001



MTC-00030838

01/05/2002 16:17 FAX 513 421 0244 STUDIO ART SVCS p.1
613 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 421-8040 FAX 
(513) 421-0244
Friday, January 4, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing to express our feelings in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. We support Microsoft in this dispute. We 
have seen the great positive impactful benefit that Microsoft has 
had on American Business with our own eyes... by adding to business 
productivity.
    We are writing you today to urge you to do your part to stop 
further action against Microsoft at the federal level.
    Specifically, Microsoft has agreed to be monitored by a 
technical committee to ensure its compliance with the settlement. In 
our opinion, this is the most important term of the agreement. 
Additionally, Microsoft will share information and parts of its 
software coding with competitors to increase compatibility with its 
Windows operating system, and revamp its marketing and licensing 
practices to increase competition. We sincerely hope that there will 
be no further action against Microsoft at the federal level. Please 
support the Microsoft settlement. Thank you for your attention to 
this matter.
    We wish you and yours a prosperous New Year.
    Respectfully,
    Philip Holt
    Jillian Chamberlain Holt
    cc: Representative Steve Chabot



MTC-00030839

JAN-5-02 11:10 AM 1 510 794 8797 P.01
Waste Watcher Inc
P.O. Box 3535
Premont, California 94539
Alameda Phone (510) 794-8797
Fax (510) 894-0486
Email [email protected]
Member Northern California Coalition for Limited Government
January 5, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney-Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
    Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is to indicate the support. of my organization for 
the settlement of US v, Microsoft. I understand the settlement being 
proposed by the Department of Justice is waiting for public. comment 
and I would like this letter to be included with 1 those comments. 
Our organization, WASTE WATCHERS INC. is a grou of citizens from 
Northern California working to ensure our government is NOT wasting 
taxpayer money, Because of our location and proximity to the Silicon 
Valley, our membership is very familiar with the technology industry 
and details surrounding the Microsoft case. It is our firm belief 
that the United States government have spent far too much time and 
money on the case against Microsoft case. It is estimated that the 
states and federal government have spent at least $37 million on 
this issue. With a settlement on the table, the country finally has 
an opportunity to end this extremely costly endeavor. $37 million is 
really only a fraction of what US v. Microsoft has cost the American 
people. Since the day the case began, we have seen the technology 
industry plummet. The domino effect of the tech crash went from the 
Nasdaq to the New York Stock exchange and almost brought our entire 
economy to a grinding halt. For our organization, the greatest 
reason for concern is the budget deficits now being faced by most 
states. In California, we are going to be billions of dollars short 
of reaching the budget for the next year. That shortfall, when 
combined with competing political needs, wil inevitably result in 
tax increases. We already pay among the highest taxes in the 
country, and the Fiasco of the Davis Adminstration in our state 
embelishes the whole mess. It is important also realize that housing 
prices have not come down and thousands of our neighbors are losing 
their jobs because of the tech crash.
    Tax Action Network Affiliate of Council of Citzens Against 
Government Waste 1301 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 
20036 1-800-BE-ANGRY--http://www.cagw.org 
JAN-05-02 11:10 AM 1 510 794 8797 P.02
    Ms. Renata Hesse
    All of this does not add up to strong financial conditions, We 
are not arguing that settling the Microsoft case will end our 
economic woes and fill Californis'a coffers up again. That will 
require a fically ``sane'' administration and legislature 
in Sacramento. But we are saying that it is time for our Country to 
begin taking steps which help the economy grow and expand. Settling 
the Microsoft case is one step closer to the sort of economic 
environment we need to create. And may we also add that we think it 
about time, yes long overdue, for the Government to stop their 
crusade of ``punishing'' the successful and damning 
innovation and hard work, It is organizations such as Microsoft that 
provide the jobs and the work places for earning power of 
we--the citizens, who ultimately pay the taxes that fund this 
government in the final analysis.
    The settlement proposed in US v. Microsoft is good. More 
importantly, it is time to stop wasting millions of dollars to 
continue this case. Our economy is no longer strong enough to 
withstand litigation over innovation.
    The facade being used by many politicians to paint organizations 
such as Microsoft as the ``bad'' guys must come to an end. 
As said before, these ``bad'' guys PROVIDE millions of 
jobs and millions of pay checks to purchase homes, groceries, cars 
and etc. These things do not come from ``government.'' The 
``government needs to get out of the way and let us get on with 
the business of providing all the things mentioned above for 
millions of ``citizens''!
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth D. Steadman, President
    Richard Ahern, Vice President



MTC-00030840

01/04/2002 06:27 +000000000 PAGE 01
JAN-03-2002 09:25AM Carrie McKinley 916 441 6857 P.02
Carrie McKinley
Fundraising and Event Planning
821 (illegible) Street Suite D
Sacremento, CA 09814
Phone (916) 441-0865
Fax (916) 441-6857
    Renata Hesse
    December 29, 2001
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The last things that our economy and the technology industry 
needs right now are government lawyers, bureaucrats and judges 
watching over the industry and attempting to micromanage it. The 
federal government and Microsoft have reached a fair agreement that 
addresses the majority of the antitrust charges and complaints.
    Now that a fair settlement has been reached, it is time for the 
federal government to focus its attention and its limited resources 
on other issues. I urge you to join me in supporting the settlement.
    Yours truly,
    Carne McKinley



MTC-00030841

01/04/2002 06:25 +000000000 PAGE 01
MSI Mailing Systems Inc
THE DIRECT MAIL EXPERTS
P.0. Box 429 o Rancho Cordova, California 95741
o Phone (916) 631-7400
o Fax (916) 916-7488
o e-mail: [email protected]:www.msimail.net
January, 2 2002
Renata. Hesse
Trial Attorney Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the antitrust case 
with Microsoft. I believe that this case should be settled and that 
the remedies proposed are in the public good.
    Seeing that the economy is currently in recession, a strong 
technology sector led by Microsoft could lead us back to the 
prosperity we recently experienced. The last thing we need is for 
this case to drag on and lead to more regulation of our high tech 
industry. In short, I feel the settlement proposed is good for the 
country.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29457]]

    Doug Muraki
    CFO



MTC-00030842

01/04/2002 06:22 +000000000 PAGE 01
FROM: FAX NO: JAN.03 2002 07:34PM P1
Tracy Pillows
December 29, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
605 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I can't believe this anti-trust case is still going on. The 
government has spent over $30 million dollars of the taxpayers' 
money on this case. I can think of many important programs that 
could be funded with that money, especially during this time of 
economic uncertainty since the country is currently facing a 
recession and a huge budget deficit.
    I am glad to see that the federal government has finally agreed 
to a settlement. Settling this case is in the best interest of all 
involved, the technology industry, the economy and most importantly, 
the consumers.
    I urge you to please approve the settlement so that all of the 
parties involved can move on.
    Cordially,
    Tracy Pillows
    8006 Pocket Road, Apt. 226
    Sacramento, CA 95831
    916/424-5652



MTC-00030843

ALLIED PRINTING CO.
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    This letter is in following the Tunney Act and the opportunity 
for the public to offer an opinion on the settlement reached between 
the government and Microsoft. These lawsuits have gone on for so 
long and become so mired down in political agendas that it is a 
difficult and arduous task for the public to follow, It bothers me 
that the general public, for whose protection this whole lawsuit was 
started has been squeezed out of the process. I feel strongly enough 
to write this letter.
    Microsoft is a successful company. They didn't utilize fair 
business practices to attain that success and will pay the 
consequences for that and be monitored for years to come to make 
sure that from here on out, they do `play fair'.
    Now the only hold up is getting the settlement through the 
channels. Please take this letter and the sentiments behind it into 
consideration and support the settlement on the table.
    Thank you for your time on this matter.
    Respectfully,
    Matt Zellmer
    1912 `0' Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Ph.(916) 
442-1373 FAX 442-7655 email
    [email protected]
    Ph. (9l6) 442-1373
    FAX 442-7655



MTC-00030844

01/04/2002 06:19 +000000000 PAGE 01
    Leading Edge
    Data Services
    P.O. BOX 6008 o Stockton. CA 95206
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Why is the federal government still spending our tax dollars 
trying to break up Microsoft? Please accept the settlement that has 
been reached between all of the parties and stop wasting tax payer's 
money.
    With everything going on overseas and with our own economy in a 
recession, isn't there something more important that we could be 
spending our tax dollars on?
    I support ending the class action lawsuits against Microsoft and 
urge you and the Department of Justice to do the same.
    Sincerely,
    Jess Cervantes
    (800) 390-3233 o (209) 948-6232--Fax (209) 
466-9260



MTC-00030845

    Wyman Design Graphics
    2830 Audubon Circle
    Davis, California 95616
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington. DC 20530
    Dear MS. Hesse,
    The Microsoft lawsuit and the money and time pouted into it have 
served their pur- pose. The government sought to protect the 
consumer from unfair business practices by Microsoft. The settlement 
reached by the federal government, nine of the states and Microsoft 
is an acceptable compromise to all parties. It's time now to turn 
our attention to more pressing priorities. The recession, the war, 
problems with our education system (especially in California) call 
for both immediate and focused efforts.
    Please support the settlement between the government and 
Microsoft. Thank you for your time on this important matter.
    Cordially,



MTC-00030846 01/04/2002 18:56 6053328722 DAKOTA NETWORKS PAGE 01

    Patsy Henry Butler, M.Ed., NCC
    School Counselor, Patrick Henry Middle School
    316 E, 32nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57105
    January 2, 2002
    Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have served as a counselor for many years at Patrick Henry 
Middle School in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where the neighborhood 
is financially well-to-do and where internet access at home is 
fairly common. As an educator and counselor, I am concerned with 
students in other parts of Sioux Falls and in South Dakota where 
incomes are low and children are disadvantaged when it comes to 
internet access, particularly outside of the school systems. For 
that reason, I am very pleased with the provisions in the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement which will target these kids and their schools 
for software and hardware support and enable them to compete with 
school systems all over the nation.
    Microsoft Corporation has been a helpful partner in the 
development of information technologies in South Dakota's public 
schools. The state a few years ago began a program to make the state 
the ``most wired state'' per capita than any other state 
in the nation. Governor Janklow's ``wiring the schools'' 
program linked schools of all sizes and income types to the 
internet. Microsoft pitched in with a large grant to help the 
education portion of the comprehensive project. As a result, the 
settlement will be an additional advancement for the students whose 
schools have been wired for high-speed access.
    My knowledge of the antitrust case is from the news media. What 
I have learned about the issues involved in the case seem to have 
been resolved in the settlement agreement, What is most important, I 
believe, is the fact that the issue of consumer harm was never 
established in this case, which makes me wonder why an antitrust 
issue was pursued so vigorously and for so long. It seems 
appropriate after all of this time and the taxes spent on this case 
that it has reached a settlement. I hope that the settlement is 
allowed to go through, and that schools and students will soon 
appreciate the benefits.
    Thank you very much for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Patsy Henry Butler



MTC-00030847

    TO:
    FROM : DAKOTA NETWORKS
    FAX: 6053328722
    TEL: 6053316937
    COMMENT :



MTC-00030848 01/04/02 17:28 FAX 7854840194 THE SOURCE 01

    Post Office Box 626
    Topeka, Kansas 66601-0626
    (785) 484-0195
    (785) 484-0194 fax
    [email protected]
    WWW.ks-ra.org
    January 4, 2001
    Judge Kollar Kotelly
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Ste 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar Kotelly:
    I understand that you are currently considering the merit of the 
United States Department of Justice's proposed settlement of its 
antitrust case against Microsoft. I am aware chat federal law allows 
for a period of public comment before you make your final ruling and 
appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on this important 
issue. I recently wrote an opinion editorial in my home state of 
Kansas in which I outlined several reasons why I am opposed to the

[[Page 29458]]

continuation of this case by either state or federal entities. I 
clearly state in this editorial my disappointment that Kansas 
Attorney General Stovall has nor chosen to settle this case.
    I have no doubt that this settlement is in the best interest of 
all involved. Even Microsoft opponents have to admit that this 
agreement finds remedies for the complaints of the lawsuit. For 
example, Microsoft will be required to share technical information 
and requires absolute flexibility of all new Microsoft operating 
systems. This settlement even creates an enforcement mechanism that 
Microsoft must answer to if a complaint is filed stating that the 
company is not following the provisions of the settlement.
    There appears to be no reason that this settlement should not be 
approved particularly in light of our current economic condition. 
With the current state of our national economy we do not need the 
threat of more unreasonable government regulations and litigation 
hanging over the high tech sector which, as you know, has become 
such an important part of our economy.
    Please carefully consider my comments when you are making your 
decision about this important settlement.
    Sincerely,
    James W. Mullins, President
    Kansas Republican Assembly



MTC-00030849

    Jim & Joan Harvey
    PO Box 461 Isle of Palms, SC 29451
    Yahoo! Mail for [email protected] Yahoo!-My Yahoo! Options-
    Sign Out-Help
    Mail
    Attachment View--Powered-by Isle of Palms, SC, 29451
    Back to Message
    P.O. Box 461
    Isle of Palms, SC 29451 ``
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to drop a quick letter to you congratulating you on the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. It was more than fair, and I do not want or need to see any 
more action against Microsoft at the federal level. Please move 
forward with the terms that have been agreed to in the settlement. 
The agreement calls for Microsoft to document for its competitors 
various interoperability protocols inherent in the Windows'' 
operating system. That incredible amount of disclosure alone should 
revitalize the competitive energies of many companies, since it 
could theoretically make all products work equally well on any 
computer with Windows. America is in the middle of a recession, and 
hampering Microsoft's abilities, as well as other firms'' 
abilities, to bring innovative products to the marketplace is not 
the way to save our economy.
    This whole mess started when the suit was brought against 
Microsoft three years ago, and now we have passed the point of 
return. Allowing Microsoft to get back to business as usual, while 
abiding by the terms of the settlement, is the best way to rescue 
America's economy. The legal actions by the government have affected 
more people than was anticipated, and it is time to right that 
wrong. Thank you for your time and consideration, and please allow 
the terms of the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and 
the DOJ to fall in to place. It will prove wise in the long run.
    FROM : RV CONSULTING INC
    1 Wl-bsIU! IVlUll
    FAX NO. :
    Jan. 06 2002 05:52PM P2
    James Harvey
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00030850

    01/(06/02 SUN 19:03 FAX 5323785 Perry L. Staley 001
    Perry L. Staley
    411 Orchard Street
    Ironton, OH 45638
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is unfortunate that there had to be this lawsuit between our 
government and Microsoft. I am sure that Microsoft had been 
aggressive in their business practices, but I am not so sure that 
the line was crossed so as to have made them a target of a suit like 
the antitrust case. In any case, after plenty of wrangling and even 
more posturing there is finally a settlement that will end this 
case. I am writing to ask that you keep sustaining your support for 
settlement.
    The suit will profoundly restrict Microsoft's business 
practices. Microsoft cannot demand exclusivity of Microsoft products 
from computer manufacturers installing software before shipping the 
computers to dealers or customers. They cannot seek retribution from 
software companies that develop software designed to compete with 
Microsoft, which should be a cornerstone of a successful business.
    Enough damage to our economy has been accomplished by all this 
court action and time-consuming legal work. After an ample amount of 
expense and worrying, both sides are finally ready. I hope you will 
see that the settlement reached in early November 2001 is brought to 
completion by your office. I sincerely thank you for your time and 
effort in seeing this through to its end.
    Respectfully yours,
    Perry Staley



MTC-00030851

    @A
From: ROLAND OLAF PEIERSON
To: John Ashcroft
    Date: 2002/01/06Time:
    6:57:30 PM PAGE 1 of 1
    22 Ravenswood Road
    Waltham, Massachusetts 02453
    2002 January 6
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I am writing you today to 
express my feelings on the absurdity of continuing the war against 
certain drugs. A free America will never be a drug-free America, as 
any reasonably intelligent person knows. America is becoming a 
terrorist nation because of the property forfeiture laws and other 
laws associated with the drug war. I know you know this. The time is 
ripe for a change of policy.
    Sincerely,
    Roland Peterson



MTC-00030852

    01/06/02 sun 18:50 FAX 5323782 Perry L. Staley 001
    January 6, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    It is unfortunate that the Enron melt down took place at this 
time, when the news of 911 obscures the facts .
    I feel that you should put this on the front burner of all your 
investigations. For a few insiders to take as much money as they did 
is criminal and to not investigate at once is in my opinion an abuse 
of your powers, I am writing to ask that you use the power of your 
office to see that justice is done in a swift and final manner.
    I sincerely thank you for your time and effort in seeing this 
through to its-- end.
    Respectfully yours,
    Perry L. Staley
    411 Orchard Street
    Ironton, Ohio 45638- 1166



MTC-00030853

    Jan-07-02 10:37A Tatum Bros Lumber Co 904 782-1448 
P.01
    Tatum Bros. Lumber Co., Inc.
    P.O. Drawer A Lawtey, Florida 32058-0701
    (904) 782-3690 Fax (904) 782-1448
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The lawsuit that was filed against Microsoft was, quite frankly, 
crazy. It never should have happened in the first place, and I am so 
glad that it was finally resolved just last November. The Justice 
Department does not need to waste time and resources, which the 
taxpayers have to foot the bill for, any further on this pursuit. 
There is a resolution and it is a resolution that addresses all of 
the key issues and even ones not mentioned in the original lawsuit.
    This agreement stipulates that Microsoft cannot retaliate 
against any computer company that promotes or distributes non-
Microsoft software, which helps to increase competition. It also 
provies a uniform pricing list for companies that would enter into 
licensing contracts with Microsoft, which provides economic 
protection from smaller computer manufacturers. The Microsoft 
settlement even goes so far as to require Microsoft to provide 
interface data to its competitors, which is a first in antitrust 
settlements. This is a settlement that addresses all of the issues 
at stake here and more.

[[Page 29459]]

    Therefore, it is time that the litigation is stopped. As I said, 
this entire lawsuit was crazy to start with. Well, it's time the 
craziness ended. I urge you to make no further changes. Microsoft 
has been penalized. I hope you will do what is good for the economy. 
The buck stops with you.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Tatum



MTC-00030854

    Stanley Kneppar
    8IO9 Hibiscus Circle
    Tamarac, FL 33321
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my support for the settlement in the 
Microsoft case.
    This is a balanced agreement, painstakingly negotiated with a 
court appointed mediator. Microsoft will have to make some critical 
concessions, while being allowed to use the technology that has made 
it the gold standard for computer innovation.
    I am convinced that Microsoft's success comes from the 
simplicity and superiority of its product, I briefly used the 
Netscape Navigator before switching to the Microsoft Internet 
Explorer, and I found the latter to be very preferable. The company 
does not deserve to be punished with litigation just for being a 
success. I anticipate that as Microsoft is forced to open up its 
codes for Windows to improve interoperability, we will see the 
competition and Microsoft improve such soft ware as browsers and 
media players. In turn, that is good for consumers.
    I sincerely hope the District Court Judge deems the settlement 
to be in the public's best interest.
    Sincerely,
    Stanley Kneppar
    cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00030855

    P. 0. Box 23093
    Anchorage, KY 40223
    January 5, 2OO2
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am writing in regards to 
the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I am sorry that there was a case 
to begin, with but I'm happy that there's finally a settlement in 
this whole matter. It's a good settlement ``tough but 
fair'' nature. The penalties for not abiding by the terms are 
strong; contempt of court is a very serious charge, and there are 
many different ways that the suit might be broken. Every facet of 
Microsoft's operation, from licensing to marketing to software 
design is affected by the settlement in some way.
    I am happy to see that Microsoft will finally be able to get 
back ho business and help out our economy in this recess ion.-- 
They are an example of a good American company and have 
unfortunately been persecuted for outdoinq their competitors with a 
better product.
    I hope that you consider my opinion as well as those of other 
people who write in to you supporting Microsoft and please pass on 
our opinions as well as the terms of your settlement to the nine 
states and the DC government, who still refuse to settle their case 
against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Stanley Kimmel



MTC-00030857

SENT BY: 1-5-02; 9:32 PM. JERRY MARTIN ASSOC. 202 353 
8856; # 1
21 Edgewater Alley
Isle of Palms, South Carolina 29451
January 5 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my opinion concerning the Microsoft 
antitrust case that was recently settled with a strong and binding 
settlement I urge you to please stop any further Federal government 
intervention beyond this settlement There have already been 
settlements reached between various states and Microsoft, all of 
which involved mediators and a great deal of negotiation. The 
settlement forces Microsoft to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or hardware 
developers who develop or promote software that competes with 
Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
    I am retired, but have previously been involved in ``big 
business.'' I see the hardships Microsoft is facing on the side 
of a businessman and an everyday computer user. It seems to me that 
this drawn-out lawsuit has become a victim of politics and money 
lust Microsoft has contributed much to this country, creating jobs, 
bringing technology and donating a great deal of products to schools 
and other charities.
    Don't allow our economy to drift further into recession. Please 
allow Microsoft to get back on their feet again.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Martin



MTC-00030858

JAN-06-2002 08:20 PM BERT MCLACHLAN 800 213 4181 P.01 
Bert McLachlan
3524 West 97th Place
Leawood, Kansas 66206
1-800-213-4181 [email protected] 
January 7, 2002
Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 (Four pages total)
    Beyond a doubt, it is time to settle the Microsoft case and get 
it over with, not letting it be dragged on and on just because of a 
few obstinate state attorneys general. Don't let the tail (the state 
AGs) wag ``the dog'' (this case). As one lawyer said, 
``the issues in this case have been beaten to death by people 
who are worn out.'' There is no case, so be done with it.
    This was a political case from the beginning: Senator Orrin 
Hatch and his buddy, Joel Klein, helping Novell and other software 
companies (from Hatch's state) try to accomplish through the courts 
what they couldn't accomplish in the marketplace with their 
products. It is a case against one of the most customer-beneficial 
business successes ever. The case would never have been brought by a 
Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration does not want it 
pursued. Neither does the worldwide public, which is the very happy 
beneficiary of everything that Microsoft has done for our lives and 
our economies. Judge Jackson made the case a ridiculous circus. It 
has cost people billions already. Settle this misguided suit. Get it 
over with. Move on to something relevant. The two accompanying fax 
pages, (1) a Wall Street Journal editorial of March 1, 2001, 
``The Microsoft Appeal'', and (2) a September 7, 2001 
article, ``Justice Bows to Reason'', both express my views 
on this. Particularly in the latter, please note that ``the (DC 
Circuit's) opinion includes important admonitory language about the 
grave problems of pursuing antitrust claims in quickly evolving 
industries, such as software and other high-tech industries, which 
neither the prosecutors nor the courts know much about.''
JAN-06-2002 08:20 PM BERT MCLACHLAN 800 213 4181
The market takes care of these things. Learn a little something from 
the federal government's decade or more of earlier similar misguided 
efforts with IBM.
A Consumer,
Bert McLachlan
JAN-06-2002 08:21 PM BERT MCLACHLAN 800 213 4181 P.02
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2001
The Microsoft Appeal
    For a while you couldn't sit down with a Japanese or German or 
British CEO without them wanting to shake their heads over the 
spectacle of the U.S. government seeking to destroy one of America's 
most successful and important companies. The further you got from 
American political culture. The weirder the Microsoft lawsuit 
seemed.
    Most Of the local Washington press bought it, thought, because 
Joel Kleln was a shrewd judge of the reach of his Permission slip in 
beat up the world's richest man. His hireling David Bojes has gone 
on to represent Napster; Mr. Klein has joined Bertelsmann, the 
German media and music giant that struck a deal with Napster. And 
their Mi. crosoft case this week basically collapsed.
    Lawyers for both sides left the appeals Court knowing there 
would be no breakup, andl probably not much of a case once the 
appeals bench gets done throwing out everything that was unproved. 
counterfactual or lacking in coherence. The telling remark was Chief 
Judge Harry Edwards's comment about ``sleights of hand'' 
over whether Microsoft was accused of trying to create a browser 
monopoly (for a product it was giving away free? Or seeking to 
protect its Windows monopoly (how does making a better browser and 
distributing it free protect Windows?).
    Let us confess some sympathy for Judge Jackson. Who was knocked 
around by the appeals panel for his apparent bias as trial

[[Page 29460]]

judge. With every action since the start he seemed to betray 
reservation about whether the matter really belonged in court. Why 
this came to be projected into resentment of Microsoft and Bill 
Gates is a question for his memoirs. He called Mr. Gates 
``Napoleonic.'' which might be accurate if he meant 
someone who had achieved a great deal at a young age. And what a 
group of DC drug peddlers. The Newton Street Crew, did to merit 
comparison to Microsoft we'll never know. But Microsoft's real 
offense was clear: It declined to cop a plea so everyone could go 
home and brag about the big trophy for the rest of their lives. 
Instead, the company kept insisting it had done nothing wrong. By 
the time he got around to offering the most drastic remedy 
imaginable for Microsoft's alleged wrongs, dismemberment of the 
company, Judge Jackson was hilariously agnostic on whether the end 
result would he good or bad, saying the question wasn't even worth 
taking testimony on: I'm outta here. Then he blabbed to the press. 
Surely these actions served their purpose: Whatever the appeals 
bench decides. U.S. v. Microsoft most likely won't be coming back to 
Judge Jackson's courtroom.
    The puck now has been slapped to a new Administration. NYU 
economist Lawrence J. White, a former chief economist of Justice's 
antitrust division, proposed in a New York Times oped that the 
Bushies ``save face'' by letting Microsoft go with a $10 
billlion fine. Huh? Mr. Bush has no need to save face. He didn't 
bring this misguided lawsuit. This was Clintonera handiwork, a 
vestige of a weird time when the White House and senior Justice 
officials had unhealthy stakes in each other. Mr. Klein had been Mr. 
Cliton's deputy White House counsel. His boss. Janet Reno, didn't 
have much to look forward to beyond her job as attorney General. Mr. 
Clinton was keen not to be investigated for campaign finance 
scandals. They found a modus vivendi, and Microsoft was collateral 
damage.
    Events this week seal the case for withdrawing whatever is left 
or the original lawsuit when the appeals court gets done with it. 
The best way for the government to ``save face'' is to 
pronounce this sorry adventure a mistake to begin with.
JAN-06-2002 08:21 PM BERT MCLACHLAN 800 213 4181 P.04
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL FRODAY SEPTEMBER 7, 2001 JUSTICE BOWS to 
REASON
By George L. Priest
    The Justice Department has decided to drop its further 
prosecution of Microsoft and this will come as no surprise to those 
who examined with care the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals in 
June. After all, thr DC Circuit's unanimous ruling provided a 
virtual road map to thw lower court to find that Microsoft's tying 
of its browser to Windows was unobjectionable, and that a breakup of 
the company could not be justified.
    So, put bluntly, the Justice Department yesterday dropped the 
tying claim, as well as the breakup remedy, because it faced a zero 
chance of success. Thus, what has been widley dubbed as the greatest 
antitrust case of the last 50 years ends with a whimper.
    Antitrust Jurisprudence Quoting the Supreme Court, the DC 
Circuit had stated that ``it is far too late in the history of 
our antitrust jurisprudence to question the proposition that certain 
tying arrangements pose an unacceptable risk of shifting 
competition.'' But in the next sentence, the appeals court 
added, ``But there are strong reasons to doubt that the 
integration of additional software functionality into an OS 
[operating system] falls among those arrangements.'' Still 
later, the court instructed that ``because of the prevasively 
innovative character of platform software markets, tying in such 
markets may produce efficiencies that courts have not previously 
encountered.''
    The D.C. Circuit was equally clear about the inappropriateness 
of the breakup remedy. It cautioned the lower court that a break up 
was generally an effective remedy only for monopolies that had been 
created by the merger of former competitors, and not for the unitary 
companies like Microsoft. In addition, the court severely questioned 
whether there was any casual connection between Microsoft's 
exclusionary conduct and its monopoly market share, adding that 
``If the casual connection between Microsoft's exclusionary 
conduct and the company's position in the OS market, it may well 
conclude that divestiture is not an appropriate remedy.''
    Where does this leave the case? In its press release yesterday, 
announcing that it was dropping the tying anf breakup charges, the 
Justice Department stated that it would seek an order ``modeled 
after the interim conductrelated provisions'' of U.S. District 
Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Final Judgement. Some of these 
rememdies, through less damaging than a breakup, were nonetheless 
draconian. Among other remedies, Judge Jackson would have required 
Microsoft to disclose portions of its source code, to provide price 
discounts to Original Equipment Manufacturers (or OEMs) according to 
how many of Windows'' features they deleted, and to generally 
treat all vendors and customers equally, regardless of their 
actions.
    But there is no basis in the Court of Appeal's opinion for 
conduct remedies of this nature, and the lower court is not likely 
to approve them. According to the Court of Appeals, the only 
justifiable conduct remedies are an injunction prohibiting Microsoft 
from entering various exclusive dealing contracts and compelling it 
to redesign Windows to allow a customer to delete the browser if 
there are any customers who would want such a thing. Remedies of 
this nature will not affect Microsoft's operations in any 
significant way, and, indeed, were largely accepted by Microsoft 
prior to trial.
    The Justice Department also hinted that it wanted discovery to 
determine whether there are any violations associated with the 
forthcoming introduction of Windows XP. The statement was only a 
hint, but it may prove troublesome if either the Justice Department 
or any of the state attorneys general still in the case choose to 
take the matter seriously. According to the DC Circuit's analysis of 
tying, the full integration in Windows XP of features such as Media 
Player or Instant Messaging should be perfedctly permissable. The 
court's opinion, however, contains one cryptic conclusion regarding 
``code commingling'' that may make the outcome unclear. 
Though it may take some time, if the lower court carefully works 
through the DC Circuit's basic analysis, there are unlikely to be 
any serious obstacles to Windows XP.
    Does this mean that the entire Microsoft prosecution was a 
waste? Surely, it has caused substantial harm. Many have pointed out 
that the collapse of the dotcom industry dated almost exactly from 
the release of Judge Jackson's, ``Findings of Fact,'' most 
have which have been vacated. Microsoft's decline, in market 
capitalization was accelerated by Jude Jackson's ``Conclusions 
of Law,'' among all of which have been vacated. There have been 
millions of hours of hours of academic analysis, with a cast volume 
of litigation still in the wings. The claim of waste is hard to 
reject.
    Important Analysis But some rays of light have resulted. The DC 
Circuit's opinion, through unsupported and weakly defended on 
exclusive dealing, contains an important analysis of tying 
arrangements and bundling that substantially advances the laew 
beyond the current jurispreudence of the Supreme Court. In addition, 
the opinion includes important admonitary language about the grave 
problems of pursing antitrust claims in quickly evolving industries, 
such as software and other hightech industries, which neither the 
prosecuters not the courts know much about. The Justice Department's 
action yesterday acknowledges the truth and significance of these 
warnings.
    Finally, the Court of Appeals opinion and the Justice 
Department's retreat should serve as a cautionary guide to actions 
against Microsoft threatened by the European Commission 
____ to may 
____ who may 
____ stubborn on 
____ These are small benefits and are 
hardly worth the accumulated social cost 
-------- as wasteful 
____ been, if 
____ still can be 
____ if prosecutors learn 
____ not to bring such 
____ in the future.
    Mr. Priest teaches law and economics at Yale Law School and has 
served as a consultant for Microsoft.



MTC-00030859

January 7, 2002
United States Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Isn't it about time Washington caught up with the rest of 
America? Perhaps those within the Beltway haven't heard President 
Bush. We are at War. Accordingly, let's put to bed this case against 
Microsoft. All have had their opportunity to spend their ``day 
in court.'' As we see it, no one won. Politics being what it 
is, those who have never worked to meet a payroll, would like this 
ease to drag out for the benefit of their own private agendas. If 
the green envious competitors of Microsoft have better to offer, let 
us hear form them. The silence has been deafening.
    It appears that some attorneys at the State level think they 
will benefit from delaying closure on this matter. You know what 
Shakespeare said about the legal profession!
    Henry and Eleanor Langworthy
    CC: Microsoft

[[Page 29461]]

    01/07/2002 12:40 718-667-7135 Langworthy Investor 
PAGE 01



MTC-00030860

01/06/2002 00:25 5152431028 DDR PAGE 01/01
MARK ALAN HAVLICEK
1513 Sixty Sixth Street + Windsor Heights, lowa 5031I United States 
of America
Phone 515-243-3622; Fax 515-243-l282 + Home 
Phone 515-274-3582 + Email
[email protected]
Hon. Judge Ko1ar Kottely
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Attention: Renata Hesse
    Dear Hon. Judge Kolar Kottely:
    I am the President of Digital Data Resources in Des Moines, 
Iowa. I have been involved in the technology industry for several 
years, and it is my hope that the Microsoft case, will be settled. 
The fiscal outlook for 2002 is grim. From coast to coast, revenue 
growth has slowed, spending is exceeding budgeted Ievels, and many 
states are looking at large budget cuts. After September 11, we saw 
a plunge in the technology sector. Instead of being tied up in 
court, technology entrepreneurs should at work developing products 
and charting new territory with never before imagined products and 
services.
    Giants like Apple, IBM, and Microsoft provide the stable 
atmosphere for the myriad small firms to create, develop, and 
release new cutting-edge technologies. The small companies work in 
concert, and competition at times, with these giants. This mutually 
dependent relationship is the lifeblood of the industry.
    Over the past 20 years, we have seen computers go from the size 
of a refrigerator to the size of a deck of cards. And in tandem with 
those leaps forward, we have seen declining prices, better and 
faster technology, and increasingly more efficient methods of 
delivery to consumers. It takes a competitive spirit to survive in 
this exceptionally aggressive industry of ours, especially in the 
case of small or emerging businesses. We spend our days watching 
competitors, finding markets, and keeping a watchful eye on the 
economy. And it seemed the storm has passed, both figuratively and 
in the eyes of the stock market, when a settlement was announced 
last year.
    But the states which remain involved have argued for tougher 
enforcement provisions, including a court-appointed ``specia1 
master'' to oversee Microsoft's compliance. And we have found 
through experience that there is no remedy discrete to Microsoft 
when it's the nucleus of a tech sector that operates as its own 
economy.
    The states, including my own state of Iowa, are not right to 
push ahead for further prosecution of Microsoft. The proposed 
settlement goes the distance in addressing the concerns of business 
people like me who are in the technology industry. The time to take 
a hard line is over. The hold-our states are holding out to the 
detriment of their state economies and out national economy at a 
time when actions like this are not at all useful. It is a 
frightening prospect to see another dollar of precious development 
resources diverted to paying attorneys'' fees instead of 
rippling through our industry. Money that could have launched a new 
product or created new opportunities for a small business on the 
brink in has disappeared into the abyss of this lawsuit. The 
settlement is a positive step in putting it all behind us and 
opening a new chapter in the life of the technology industry.
    I applaud Assistant Attorney General Charles James for his role 
in bringing the case this far. The settlement agreement is a strong 
one. It will have an enormous impact on the future of the entire 
software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Havlicek
    President
    DIGITAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.
    Des Moines, Iowa



MTC-00030861

Jan-07-2002 12:50pm From: HMH PHARMACY + 2707061768 
T-299 P OOl/OOl
F-719
HMH
Hardin Memorial Hospital
A Regional HealthCare Center
January 7,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to comment on the settlement with Microsoft. While 
I am sorry that any suit was brought against Microsoft in the first 
place, I am happy that this situation is resolved.
    I hope that the rest of the states will fall in line and get 
behind your settlement. It's fair and reasonable and should solve 
everyone's problems with Microsoft. Microsoft will share information 
regarding the internal workings of Windows, and computer makers will 
be able to use this information to more easily install their own 
software on Windows based operating systems. I hope that they really 
are in it not just to make money off of Microsoft's hard work.
    Thank you for taking the time to listen to me concerning this 
matter. I appreciate your settling this matter and for hearing the 
public's opinion on this case, especially considering the huge 
impact Microsoft has on the average American.
    Sincerely,
    John Sandusky
    913 N. Dixie Avenue o Elizabethtown, KY 42701-2599 o 
Phone: 502-737-1212



MTC-00030862

7-22-1995 3:56 AM FROM P. 1
To: The Department of Justice January 7, 2002
From James D. Murphy
7725 La Cosa Dr.
Dallas TX 75248
ofc 972 774 1603
fax 972 774 9975
email [email protected]
Regarding Microsoft Settlement
Summation of My View
    The settlement should be left as is and not changed as being 
sought by 9 states.
    Comments
    I have been a stockholder of IBM, Oracle, Computer Associates 
and Microsoft over the past 15 to 20 years. I invested in this area 
of technology because I believed that U.S. industry could compete in 
software, but would find it almost impossible in hardware due to 
countries like Japan and China and Korea having significant 
advantages in the hardware arena. (I have done well, and as it turns 
out, I may also have done well in U.S. hardware, but software was my 
plan, and I stayed with it.) My view of the software baffle is that 
IBM lost, my view I repeat is Microsoft did not win. IBM lost--
    The reasons IBM lost were of IBM'S doing . . . can you believe a 
monster monopolist manufacturer who bought LOTUS in order to defeat 
Microsoft--and they lost, and then figured out the only way to 
get back in was the Government. In my view those involved in the 
software wars of that past time period continue to view IBM's 
mistakes as unbelievable and those mistakes resulted in Microsoft 
becoming, I guess, what the court has decided is a monopoly. But not 
a monopoly created illegally, and in my view not a monopoly created 
by Microsoft.
    Nobody liked Microsoft then anymore then than they do today, but 
it turned out that we valued IBM's product even less,
    Does anybody remember who IBM put in charge of LOTUS.
    As we proceed on from those past days to the more current events 
surrounding the vast worldwide communications arena, I am at a 
complete loss as to how Microsoft can be judged to be acting 
illegally because it is a monopoly but that it would not be so 
judged if it were not a monopoly. What other country in the world, 
past or present, would view such a performing asset as a monopoly, 
if it were their own, and try to inhibit its growth and 
aggressiveness.
    And I suggest that the court somehow make all aware that just 
making a finding yesterday that Microsoft was a monopoly last year 
does not make it so this year or even yesterday. And so in that 
legal tangle, I suggest that if one can become a 
``monopoly'' without prior legal notice then the opposite 
must also be true and, so since in my view today Microsoft is not a 
monopoly, it should now conduct it's business in that manner, no, it 
must conduct it's business in that manner.
    In the overall world of business, my charts show Microsoft ranks 
125th in Revenue, and in it's competitive world it is not even a 
third of IBM, and less than half of AT&T. It is not a fourth of 
GE. It seems to mush around the likes of Brit Telecom, Dell 
Computer, Compaq, France Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, and is 
a third of Siemens, Verizon, and half of SBC, and maybe some 70% of 
Nokia and AOL.
    Is there some belief that these corporations are not 
competitive--it seems to me Microsoft is the little guy in the 
schoolyard being punished because he does his homework, Aha, someone 
says, the gauge should not be Revenue, it should be EBITDA. Well I 
suggest the court make all aware of the gang ahead of Microsoft in 
that category. Number one is NTT, proud owner of

[[Page 29462]]

DoCoMo, some five times Msoft size and good old GE three times, and 
even struggling IBM a third larger. All larger and with competitive 
WEB intent are VERIZON, ATT, SBC and close by are BELL SOUTH, 
TELEFONICA, and the French and Italians.
    I believe these bigger guys are trying to push Microsoft on down 
the communications pile and intend to hold themselves on top, and 
since it is unlikely that the prior court decision will be reversed 
let us end it now, and let little old Microsoft continue to compete 
in the world marketplace.
    Repectfully
    James D. Murphy



MTC-00030863

File No. 869 01/07 ``02 14:19 ID: FAX: PAGE 1
Date: 1-702
To: John Ashcroft Fax: 1-202-307-1454
Company:
From: Diana Kilgure Phone:
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Total Pages (including cover page): 2 O Urgent O For Review O Please 
Reply
Comments:
File No.869 01/07/02 14:19 ID: FAX: PAGE 2
MAIL BOXES ETC.
19885 Detroit Road, Rocky River, OH 44116
PH: 440.333.4810 FX: 440.333.4812
21011 Maplewood Avenue
Rocky River, OH 44116
January 3,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that was 
reached in the Microsoft antitrust case, which I consider to be very 
reasonable. Microsoft must now make significant changes in its 
business model, such as uniform prices for hardware dealers, and 
provide more information to competitors. Further litigation at this 
point is a waste of money and serves only to hobble a company that 
some consider too successful.
    As part of the settlement, Microsoft will have to share 
information making it easier for competitors to use non-Microsoft 
software with the Windows program. This includes disclosure of 
various interfaces internal to the Windows operating system. The 
settlement will result in more options for consumers as well as more 
access for competitors.
    I hope you will see tit to approve the settlement and allow 
everyone involved to get back to the computer business.
    Sincerely,
    Diana Kilgore



MTC-00030864

Jan 07 02 12:25p Gary Pearce 9197878031 P. 1
8282522437 McGuire Wood 875 P02 JAN 02 ``02 12:10
McGUIRE, WOOD & BISSETTE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
DRUMOR BUILDING
48 PATTON AVENUE 20001
RICHARD A. WOOD, JR. POST OFFICE BOX 2180 RICHARD A.
W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR. ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28802-3180, 
FREDERICK S. HARBOUR, DOUGLAS O THIGDEN, JOHN N. FLEMING & GAI 
JOSEPH P. McGUIRE INC & GAI HARBOUR, DORIS PHILLIPS LOOMIS, 
TELEPHONE: (828) 284-8800, SARAH SPARBOE THORNBURG &
M. CHARLES CLONINGER, FACSIMILE. (828) 252-2438, HEATHER 
WHITAKER GOLDSTEIN
THOMAS C., e-mail, DOUGLAS JAMES TATE, T. DOUGLAS WILSON, JR INC 
& CAI WEB SITE WWW.MWBAVI.COM, MARY E. FULER INC & ALI
JANUARY 2, 2002
Via Facsimile--(202) 616-9937
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Departrncnt of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530 [email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an attorney and a former three-term member of the Asheville 
City Council, I have had an invaluable opportunity to see both the 
good and the bad that can result from government action. As a 
result, I have been concerned for some time about the impact of the 
antitrust suit that the federal government and a number of states 
were pursuing against Microsoft I am glad to see now that a 
settlement has been tentatively reached. I was also heartened by the 
decision of North Carolina's Attorney General, Roy Cooper, to remove 
our state from the suit. He looked long and hard at the issue, and 
he obviously concluded that the settlement deals adequately with 
Microsoft's misdeeds and provides sufficient remedies to prevent 
future misdeeds.
    According to reports I have seen on the proposed settlement 
agreement, Microsoft could not penalize computer manufacturers that 
distribute competing software. and the manufacturers would be free 
to install or promote non-Microsoft products and services. This 
seems to me to protect against anti-competitive behavior and make 
the settlement extremely fair and reasonable. At a time when our 
nation is at was with terrorism and our economy is in recession, it 
would be wise to reach a settlement in this matter. Both the public 
and private sectors must get about the business of rebuilding a 
vital. growing economy. I sincerely hope that the federal courts 
will approve this settlement and put this matter behind us
Jan 07 02 12:25p Gary Pearce 9197878031 P.2
82522437 MCGUIRE WOOD 875 P03 JAN 02 `02 12:l0
MCGUIRE WOOD & BISSETTE, P.A.
Ms. Renata Hesse
January 2, 2002
Page 2
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
M. Charles Cloninger
MCC:es



MTC-00030865

P.O. Box 670, 6881 COURT STREET ROAD
SYRACUSE, NY 13206
TEL: 315-463-0062 FAX: 315-463-3352
www.countrybest.com
January 7,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department f Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As the Plant Manager for County Best, located in Syracuse, NY, I 
am writing to YOU in regards to U.S. vs. Microsoft, I'd like 
to take a moment of your time to tell you why I am in favor of the 
settlement of this case. Currently, the technical operation of 
Country Best depends on the latest technology, much of which has 
been deve!oped by Microsoft. We depend on the software we useb to 
handle the critical coordination of produce shipments from all areas 
of the nation, in and out of our facility. Not only are Microsoft's 
products vital to our business, but the continued innovation of 
these products is essential to our company, as well.
    I encourage Judge Kollar Kotelly to consider the national 
economic climate of the United States and the negative impact that 
allowing further litigation against Microsoft will have. The 
settlement of this case will by far be in the best interest of all 
businesses throughout New York State.
    Thank you for your time,
    Sincerely,
    James Giuffre
    Plant Manager
    Country Best
    JAN-07-2002 12:03 PM COUNTRY BEST 315 463 4432 P.01



MTC-00030866

FROM: FAX NO.: Jan. 07 2002 11: 16AM P1
KEHOE-FRANCE
SCHOOL-CAMP-CHILDREN CENTER
DEO-PATRIAE-DISCIPLINE
720 ELISE AVENUEoMETAIRIE, LA 70003 (504) 733-0472oFAX (504) 
783-3446
January 7, 2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
    It is my understanding that Judge Kelly will be reviewing 
comments on the proposed Microsoft settlement. Please know that my 
feeling is that this settlement is in the best interest of the 
economy and consumers. The technology sector needs a boost and so 
does our economy. This case has gone on long enough and plenty of 
our dollars have been spent on it. We need to encourage competition 
but we don't need the courts so involved in an industry that it 
discourages growth and innovation.
    Let's settle this and encourage more companies to get out there 
and compete. It is Microsoft's rivals that want to see this go on 
and on. As for consumers we like our choices.
    Sincerely,
    KYLE M. FRANCE
    KMF:rl
    ``Now in our second generation.''

[[Page 29463]]



MTC-00030867

01/06/2002 00:24 5152431028 DDR PAGE 01/01
Mark Alan Havlicek
1513 Sixty Sixth Street +Windsor Heights. Iowa 50311 + United States 
of America
Phone 515-243-3822 + Fax 5l5-243-1262 + Home 
Phone 515+274-3582 + Email
[email protected]
Hon. Judge Kolar Kottely
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
Attention: Renata Hesse
    Dear Hon. Judge Kolar Kottely:
    I am the Pesident of Digital Data Resources in Des Moines, Iowa. 
I have been involved, in the technology industry for several years, 
and it is my hope that the Microsoft case will be settled. The 
fiscal outlook for 2002 is grim. From coast to coast, revenue growth 
has slowed, spending is exceeding budgeted levels, and many states 
are looking at large budget cuts. After September 11, we saw a 
plunge in the technology sector. Instead of being tied up in court, 
technology entrepreneurs should at work developing products and 
charting new territory with never before imagined products and 
services.
    Giants like Apple, IBM, and Microsoft provide the stable 
atmosphere for the myriad small firms to create, develop, and 
release new cutting-edge technologies. The small companies work in 
concert, and competition at times, with these giants. This mutually 
dependent relationship is the lifeblood of the industry.
    Over the past 20 years, we have seen computers go from the size 
of a refrigerator to the size of a deck of cards. And in tandem with 
those leaps forward, we have seen declining prices, better and 
faster technology. and increasingly more efficient methods of 
delivery to consumers. It takes a competitive spirit to survive in 
this exceptionally aggressive industry of ours, especially in the 
case of small or emerging businesses. We spend our days watching 
competitors, finding markets, and keeping a watchful eye on the 
economy. And it seemed the storm has passed both figuratively and in 
the eyes of the stock market, when a settlement was announced last 
year. But the states which remain involved have argued for tougher 
enforcement provisions, including a court-appointed ``special 
master'' to oversee Microsoft's compliance. And we have found 
through experience that there is no remedy discrete to Microsoft 
when it's the nucleus of a tech sector that operates as its own 
economy.
    The states, including my own state of Iowa, are not right to 
push ahead for further prosecution of Microsoft. The proposed 
settlement goes the distance in addressing the concerns of business 
people like me who are in the technology industry.
    The time to take a hard line is over. The hold-out states are 
holding out to the detriment of their state economies and our 
national economy at a time when actions like this are not at all 
useful. It is a frightening prospect to see another dollar of 
precious development resources diverted to paying attorneys'' 
fees instead of rippling through our industry. Money that could have 
launched a new product or created new opportunities for a small 
business on the brink instead has disappeared into the abyss of this 
lawsuit. The settlement is a positive step in putting it all behind 
us and opening a new chapter in the life of the technology industry.
    I applaud Assistant Attorney General Charles James for his role 
in bringing the case this far. The settlement agreement is a strong 
one. It will have an enormous impact on the future of the entire 
software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Havlicek
    President
    DIGITAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.
    Des Moines, Iowa



MTC-00030869

Jan 07 02 12:28p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
12/27/2001 13:48 919-676-1536
BRACHMAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 01
BRACHMAN ASSOCIATES
8605 Devishire Drive
Raleigh NC 27615
(919) 870-1982 (919) 676-7536 fax
December 27, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
Subject: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    For the last 30 years as a senior management consultant to such 
companies as IBM, Kodak, Xerox, Burger King, Glaxo,
    Federal Express and others I have had the opportunity to work 
side by side with our corporate leaders to build a stronger US 
economy. In the last 10 years, I have seen that economic base erode 
due to our government's priority focusing on international trade, 
free enterprise, and deregulation. The result has been a significant 
decline or near collapse in the US in our transportation industry, 
our steel industry, our textile industry, our utilities industry, 
and others. The most successful and greatest era of growth in the 
last 10 years has been in the information and communications 
industry that has provided the foundation for increased 
productivity, consumer and business knowledge, military intelligence 
and millions of new jobs in almost every industry from finance to 
healthcare. The one company that has contributed the most to the US 
leadership in the world through its establishment of technology 
standards and integration of functionality has been Microsoft 
Corporation.
    Now our Government leaders at both the Federal and State leaders 
are ready to undermine the one company who has provided this country 
that global leadership position through lawsuits and constraints 
that will undoubtedly allow foreign companies once again to gain a 
competitive advantage in our own country. I see Asian-based 
companies building a foundation that will dominate the hardware 
sector of our information industry. I see European companies doing 
the same in telecommunications. Microsoft Corporation's continuing 
expansion of its integrated technologies and application platforms 
allow companies of all sizes from the smallest to the largest to 
benefit from that leadership role and strategy. I know because those 
companies are my clients in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and 
other sectors of our business economy.
    Please reflect on what our government has done in the past 10 
years and do what you can to make the next decade one in which our 
government leaders support those companies like Microsoft 
Corporation who is doing its best to maintain a global leadership 
position for the good of our nation and its people. Do not let the 
lobbyists, the politically motivated, and the Microsoft competitors 
drive our government legislators and attorney generals to prosecute 
and persecute the one company that is still the brightest star in 
our economic arsenal fighting to maintain our economic survival in 
the ever growing world of foreign-based terrorism and protectionism.
    The proposed settlement agreement that is now before the federal 
courts will provide adequate protections to all involved in this 
industry--Microsoft itself, its competitors, computer 
manufacturers, information technology providers and, most important 
of all, the consumer and end-user. It is time to accept this 
agreement, as the State of North Carolina has wisely done, and move 
forward.
    Fred Brachman
    President, Brachman Associates, Inc.



MTC-00030870

Jan 07 02 12:29p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
12/20/01 FRI 14:40 FAX 704347408080 AON CONSULTING 002
AON CONSULTING
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
CONSULTING GROUP
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-61 6-9937
microsoft.atr@usdoc gov
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    One of the fantastic things about being an American is the 
ability to take a venture you started in your garage, a creation you 
built in your backyard or an idea you formalized your apartment and 
transform it into the largest, most profitable business in the 
world. It is this promise of fortune that led most of our ancestors 
to this great country in the first place. This reward of innovation 
has inspired and driven our most successful entrepreneurs to craft 
inventions that have revolutionized our world and make our lives 
better.
    This very ideal of freedom and innovation has been under attack 
in the federal government's lawsuit against Microsoft. At one point, 
Microsoft was the whimsical dream of an ordinary American. But 
through keen strategy, tireless effort and enormous risk, it 
blossomed into the most successful software company in history. As 
we see with our financial markets daily, with risk comes reward, and 
Microsoft reaped the benefits. But the federal government has been 
trying

[[Page 29464]]

to step in and limit that growth. This intervention not only has 
been needless, but also a waste of taxpayers'' money. Aren't 
there more important issues to address, such as combating global 
terrorism, providing quality education to our children and taking 
care of our senior citizens?
    I am writing to urge you our government to end its lawsuit and 
its efforts to regulate Microsoft's software products. Neither the 
already weakend economy nor the innovative spirit of America needs 
to be stifled by a continuation of this litigation. I have seen an 
analysis of the proposed consent decree, an analysis prepared by the 
Association for Competitive Technology. It appears that the 
settlement guarantees flexibility for computer manufacturers, 
guarantees to information technology providers access to technical 
specifications, guarantees flexibility to users and guarantees 
everyone involved the chance to get out of the courtroom and back to 
work It is time to do JUSt that.
    Sincerely,
    Brook Seaford
    AON CONSULTING, INC.
    101 South Tryon Street Suite 2550 Charlotte, North Carolina 
28280 tel (704) 347-4080 fax (704) 347-2375



MTC-00030871

Jan 07 02 01:59p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
Lisa Pace
319 Yadkin Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
December 31, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-6 16-993 7
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    For many months, I have carefully followed the progress of the 
U.S. government's lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. As a 
business consultant and active community volunteer, I work with a 
broad range of businesses and organizations that depend heavily on 
computer hardware and software, I have seen first-hand the 
importance of affordable and usable technology.
    Microsoft, clearly has been an aggressive competitor in the 
marketplace. But Microsoft's products and services have made an 
invaluable contribution to the growth and success of many small 
businesses and organizations. It appears that the proposed consent 
decree in this matter strikes the proper balance between punishing 
Microsoft and providing remedies for computer manufacturers, 
Microsoft's competitors, IT providers and--most important of 
all--business and residential end-users.
    It does not help Microsoft, its customers or our economy to 
continue this costly and time-consuming legislation. Our nation 
faces a security crisis and an economic crisis, and it is time to 
put all of our efforts to meeting these two challenges. A settlement 
in this matter now would be a blessing to all concerned. I am 
pleased that North Carolina's Attorney General, Roy Cooper, saw fit 
to agree to the settlement that had been negotiated. He is a leader 
of rare intelligence and integrity, and I have great confidence in 
his judgment, I hope that the presiding judge in this matter will 
bring it to a quick close. Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa Pace



MTC-00030872

Jan 07 02 02:03p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p. 1
FROM : FAX NO. : Dec. 26 2001 01:01PM P2
Jane Lentz
344 Tyler Lane
Boone, NC 28607
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement agreement in 
U.S. v. Microsoft. The proposal presents a good compromise between 
Microsoft and its competitors. While it does not provide remedies 
that are completely satisfactory, it does allow flexibility and some 
middle ground for each side.
    Microsoft's competitors will be allowed access to have technical 
information so that software developers, service providers and 
hardware vendors are not penalized In developing or selling products 
that. compete with the Windows operating system.
    The other remedies provided in the suit will allow the 
technology industry to focus on developing innovative products thus 
getting the economy back on track. Consumers will benefit from the 
renewed competition.
    Sincerely,
    Jane Lentz



MTC-00030873

Jan 07 02 02:2lp Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
Sent by: CORPOHATE MEDIA SVC 7043772905 12/17/01 12:43 Job 726 Page 
1/ 1
CMS
December 17 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse
    I am writing to comment on the settlement of the Microsoft case. 
As a small business owner I believe the settlement will start 
rebuilding our economy and at the same time allow a significant 
investment in educating children. Microsoft has benefited consumers 
and business owners by providing an integrated software system that 
is easy to use. Our economy depends on competition and ongoing 
innovation that is not discouraged by litigation and regulation. A 
settlement will allow Microsoft and other companies to again focus 
their efforts on developing technology that will provide new 
opportunities for consumers and the technology industry. The 
settlement will also provide much needed training and software for 
our schools.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Summers
    President
    Corporate Media Services
    632 West Summit Avenue,
    Charlotte, NC 28203
    Phone (704) 377-1601 FAX (704) 377-2905, email 
[email protected]
    Visit our website at www.corporatemedia.com



MTC-00030874

1-07-2002 3:09PM FROM 000000000000 P.1
:98486007 #2/2
Norma J. Smith
9367 Brighter Tower Court, #1304
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
January 3, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite
1200 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Whenever there is a settlement agreement to a court case, the 
question arises how the terms of the agreement will be enforced. 
With the Microsoft case there should be no doubt on this question. 
An independent Technical Committee is being created that has the 
power to hire unlimited staff. They will be on-site at Microsoft 
Corporation their expenses will be paid for by Microsoft. The 
agreement specifies the U.S. Justice Department as the sole 
enforcement authority, In short, the settlement agreement provides 
resources, access, and authority to quickly respond to complaints 
about Microsoft's compliance. This is an enforcement mechanism with 
teeth. It should put to rest any doubts about compliance.
    I am glad that this case looks like it is well on the road to 
being settled, Our economy is now in a recession and the high-tech 
industry can hopefully lead us on the road to recovery.
    Sincerely yours,
    Norma J. Smith



MTC-00030875

JAN-07-2002 13:40 BIXBY TELEPHONE CO. 918 366 6610 P.01/01
ED GUSTAFSON
P.O. Box 98
BIXBY, OK 74008
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Av, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing this letter in accordance to the Tunney Act to 
express my opinion in support of the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and Department of Justice regarding the antitrust suit. 
This settlement will finally bring a close to the more than three 
years of dubious court actions. It pleases me to see the Justice 
Department settle this case, and I hope the settlement is enacted 
promptly after the comment period.
    This settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations with 
a court-appointed mediator present. Microsoft is not getting the 
sweet-deal settlement that its competitors say it is getting. It is 
being

[[Page 29465]]

scrutinized at all times by an independent committee to guarantee 
adherence to the settlement, and any time a competitor believes that 
Microsoft has overstepped its bounds, they can sue.
    Even though I have reservations about the settlement's anti-
entrepreneur bias, it is far preferable to breaking the company up. 
The decision to finalize the settlement and put this suit behind us 
is agreeable to me. Microsoft needs to be allowed to return to 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Gust&on
    cc: Senator Don Nickles
    TOTAL P.01



MTC-00030876

January 4. 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trail Attorney
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street N W, Suite 1200
Washingron, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a business executive who represents 103 small business owners 
in the Dallas, Texas area, I'm writing this letter to illustrate my 
support of the proposed Microsoft settlement. I could write a letter 
with all the ``fancy words and phrases'' that would 
describe how unfortunate this entire situation with Microsoft and 
its competitors has come about and precisely why US government 
should end its pursuit of Microsoft However, I chose to simply state 
what I believe is reality in this case:
    I believe our government...and Microsoft's competitors who 
apparently can't compete for whatever reason..have forgotten about 
the ``rights of American business'' to pursue and operate 
their business in the spirit of a free enterprise system. That's the 
bottom-line on this whole affair,.. Let's end this pursuit of 
Microsoft Ms. Hesse. Our government has spent more than enough of 
the taxpayer's dollar in its quest to satisfy competitors who lack 
the knowledge to understand customer needs in the marketplace, Rule 
1 in Marketing 101.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    W.J. Thomas



MTC-00030877

The Rockford Group
718 Brentwood Lane Richardson TX 75080
Phone: 214-478-1028 Fax: 972-669-1017
December 27, 2OOl
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Over the course of the next 30 days, you will receive comments 
from both aides of the Microsoft settlement issue. Many will ask 
that you continue efforts to dismantle or seriously disrupt 
Microsoft Corporation's advantage in the marketplace, I think that 
would be a mistake. I have read an analysis of the settlement and 
find that it seems to answer most if not all of the questions raised 
by the lawsuit. Though the settlement does not completely satisfy 
Microsoft's competitors, it does appear to be crafted in a way that 
will let the market continue to produce innovative products with 
minimal government regulation. And, perhaps most important of all, 
the consumer will benefit the most. As a concerned citizen and 
consumer of high tech products, I ask that you accept the terms of 
this settlement and put an end to lengthy and wasteful, pursuit of 
Microsoft Corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Parris



MTC-00030878

ABC Coin
8524 Fifth St,
Frisco, TX 75034
800-752-7277 972-377-7100 FAX 
972-335-3960
WWW.ABCCOIN.COM [email protected]
December 27, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    With the announcement by the United States Department of Justice 
that it will not continue to pursue antitrust litigation against 
Microsoft, it is time for government lawyers and state attorneys 
general to put this entire episode behind us. A recent poll by 
Americans for Technology leadership shows that the overwhelming 
majority of the American people want this case to come to an end 
Nearly 75% believe the case should be resolved quickly.
    I am writing because I believe that a settlement is the most 
efficient remedy for this case. Further litigation or regulation 
would result in fewer choices and higher prices. Small and minority 
business would be unable to afford new innovative products thus 
leaving them at a great disadvantage in the market place. 
individuals and home pc users would shift their already declining 
resources elsewhere, American industry would no longer be the 
preeminent leader in globe1 technology. This is not the vision I 
have of America's technology future. I. am disturbed by the 
misguided attempt to interfere with the advancement of American 
technology. That is why I am writing in support of the settlement 
negotiated between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I think 
that the voices of American consumers should be heeded.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Fox



MTC-00030879

Jan-04-02 03:31P cc I Ik-cc I Jk 972 503 2545 P.01
CCLIK-Computer Certification Learning Institute of Knowledge
972-934-2545 FAX
972-503-2545 www.ccik.com
3961 Beltline Road Addison, Texas 75001-4306 OPPORTUNITY 
DOESN'T KNOCK IT CCLIK'S A+, MCSE, CNE, CCNA
December 27, 2001
Renanta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I applaud the recent decision by the Department of Justice to 
drop the monopoly and tying lawsuit against Microsoft. Now, it is 
time to settle the remaining issues and move on. The harm done to 
the technology industry by ever expanding litigation and that threat 
of government regulation will soon be felt by every consumer or 
high-tech products. Microsoft has invested tremendous resources to 
develop products like the new XP operating system. It is unfortunate 
that some competitors think it is more valuable to lobby the 
government in an attempt to gain market advantage rather than focus 
on developing innovations, such as xp.
    For the sake of the American consumer and our preeminence in the 
global marketplace. I am writing in support of the settlement 
negotiated by the Department of Justice. It is time to settle all 
remaining issues and let healthy competition return to the high-tech 
industry.
    Sincerely,
    H.N. Symonds
    CEO



MTC-00030880

COMPLETE TECHNICAL REPRESENTATION, Inc.
CTR INC.
January 4, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse.
    I have been an executive in the aerospace business for the past 
37 years and I do not see that a continuation of the Microsoft 
lawsuit will do any more than spend many additional dollars of the 
taxpayer's money. The settlement, as it now stands, may not 
completely satisfy, all parties involved, but it appears that the 
most logical and certainly the most cost savings to the taxpayer 
would be accomplished if the present settlement were accepted. There 
comes a time when the continuation of a lawsuit destroys the 
foundation of the United States business approach in that it does 
away with compensation to the innovative individual or company that 
designs, produces and markets their product. I propose that you 
accept the terms of the Microsoft settlement thus saving future 
unnecessary taxpayer's dollars.
    Sincerely,
    H. N. Symonds
    CEO
    8304 Esters Blvd., Suite 880 o Irving, TX 75063 o Metro (972) 
621-1111 . Fax (972) 621-1616
    o E-mail: ssymo [email protected]



MTC-00030881

Pintail Technologies, Inc.
January 7, 2002
Renata Hesse

[[Page 29466]]

Trail Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    The case against Microsoft has gone on too long, cost taxpayers 
too much money and inflicted too much harm on the economy It is time 
for this entire case to come to an end accepting the recently 
negotiated settlement.
    The last thing country needs is government run high-tech. I am. 
writing to ask that the Department of Justice and the courts let the 
market continue to produce low-cost, high quality innovative 
produces. No one is forced to buy a contain brand. there are plenty 
of choices. Let the consumer be the best judge of high-tech 
products--not the government
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Bibbee
    CEO--President
    3700 GRANITE PKWY--SUITE 320 PLANO, TX 75024 EMAIL:
    [email protected]
    EMAIL: [email protected]
    PHONE: (972) 464-5830 FAX: (972)-464-5835



MTC-00030882

14645 Woodland Road
Athens, AL 35613
To: Mr. John Ashcroft Fax: l-202-307-1454
From: Mrs. Adair McCook
Date: 01/03/02
Re: Microsoft Settlement Page: 1 plus cover
cc:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
Confidential
FROM: FAX NO.: 2562337505 Jan.07 2002 04:10 PM P1
14645 Woodland Road
Athens, Alabama 35613
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to show my support for the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice in November. The agreement has teeth, It requires Microsoft 
to design future versions of Windows to make it easier to install 
non-Microsoft software and to disclose information about certain 
internal interfaces in Windows. It also requires significant changes 
in the way Microsoft develops licenses and markets its software, as 
well as new ways of working with independent software vendors. This 
agreement changes the software industry permanently. The 
government's settlement is more than fair. A technical oversight 
will monitor Microsoft to ensure that it adheres to the settlement's 
terms. For these reasons, I support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Adair McCook
    FROM: FAX NO.: 2562337505 Jan. 07 2002 04:10 PM P2



MTC-00030883

JAN-07-2002 04:36 IVS COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY 6618358619 P.01
3839 Stockdale Highway
Phone (661) 831-3900
Fax: (661) 835-8819
IVS COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Pamela Quattlebaum
Fax: l-202-307-1454 or Pages: 2
Phone.
Date: 0l/07/2002
Re: Proposed Microsoft Settlement cc:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
o Comments
JAN-07-2002 04:36 I IVS COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
6618358619 P.02
3839 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 588-2904 Fax: (661) 835-8639
IVS Computer Technology
Partnerships That Provide Solutions
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    One of my greatest concerns over this Microsoft lawsuit is that 
we--and all Microsoft customers and partners--will lose a 
degree of technical support if this antitrust case is pursued. In 
our business, support is very important. We serve the educational 
community and deal with people who invariably do not have the 
computer proficiency that any number of software engineers would 
have. In our 10 years in the industry we have realized the value of 
strong companies that over time have a successful track record in 
innovative products and services.
    It is therefore important for me--and my clients--to 
rely on the expertise of technical support among all our software 
solutions providers. I am hoping that the recently negotiated 
settlement will be sufficient and will be supported throughout this 
review process. After all, the settlement is realistic, and will 
benefit the software companies that we work with. They will be able 
to develop more effective programs, since Microsoft has agreed to 
redesign Windows, and disclose its internal interfaces, which will 
help software companies come up with creative programs that offer 
more options and function better on the Windows OS.
    I am appreciative of having this opportunity to voice my support 
of this settlement, and further hope that no further federal action 
will be required. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Pamela Quattlebaum
    Vice President Marketing and Business
    TOTAL P. 02



MTC-00030884

Sent By: ccc; 408 776 3451 Jan-7-02 5:47 PM; PAGE 1/2
Coyote Creek
Consulting
50 Airport Parkway. San Jose CA 95110
Office:408-451-8410 Fax 408-351-9525
To: John Ashcroft
From: Michael R. Faster
Fax 202-307-1454 Pages: 2 including cover sheet
Phone: Date 1/7/2002
Re: Microsoft cc:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
Comments:
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please see the attached letter regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    Thanks,
    Michael R. Faster
    President
    Sent By: ccc; 408 776 3451; Jan-7-02 5:47PM; Page 2/2
    Coyote Creek
    Consulting
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washlngton, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is a better alternative to have this Microsoft lawsuit 
settled than having it drag on in the federal courts. Ultimately, I 
believe that any anticipated break-up of Microsoft anticipated by 
the federal prosecutors would have had serious repercussions on the 
Information Technology business at large. At the very least, most 
would have to retool the way they had done business with Microsoft. 
This would have distracted businesses from concentrating on 
servicing their client bases and expanding their businesses. In the 
IT business, this distraction can have serious consequences.
    Ultimately, I am no sure what benefit the terms of the 
settlement will have on most IT businesses. The hardware 
manufacturers and the software publishers may benefit by virtue of 
the fact that the terms of the settlement are centered around either 
freeing up more of the Windows code. or creating greater flexibility 
among the various OEMs as to pre-installing the Microsoft OS.
    In start the settlement is basically a good thing and hopefully 
will be sustained throughout this review process. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Faster
    President
    CC: Representative Zoe Lofgren
    50 Airport Parkway San Jose, CA 95110 Voice (408) 451-8410 
Fax (408) 351-9525
    Microsoft
    GOLD CERTIFIED
    Partner



MTC-00030885

From: Robert Elmore
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/7/2002Time: 10:21:12 PM
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Robert Elmore
Sent: l/7/2002 at 10:21:10 PM Pages: 2 (including Cover)
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Robert Elmore
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/7/2002Time: 1O:21:12 PM
5604 West Pages Lane
Louisville, Kentucky 40258
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice

[[Page 29467]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to you in support of your settlement with Microsoft in 
the ongoing antitrust case. I am happy to see that you have all 
agreed on a resolution after three long years and I hope that the 
other states can be brought into line as soon as possible.
    Microsoft has done a lot for our economy and for the IT industry 
as a whole. I hope now that it will be able to continue to do the 
same after this settlement and I wish Microsoft well. The settlement 
thankfully did not require it to break up, but it will, I think, be 
enough to convince Microsoft's competitors that it did not get off 
easy.
    Thank you for hearing me out and taking my opinion into 
consideration. I support the settlement and hope to see it finalized 
soon.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Elmore



MTC-00030886

JAN 08 2002 08:51 FR ENGINEERING/OSB 321 867 2167 TO 82026169937 P. 
01/01
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    In November, the long-fought battle between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department finally saw a resolution. It was a resolution 
that was long overdue. Vast time and resources were spent to reach 
this resolution, and I see no need to continue further litigation.
    The provisions in the resolution were extensive and included 
items that were not even a factor in the original lawsuit. The 
settlement also has some terms that are unprecedented for this type 
of lawsuit. For example, the Microsoft settlement requires Microsoft 
to provide to its competitors interface information about its own 
software. To enhance market competition, there are terms in this 
settlement that restrict Microsoft from entering into any agreements 
with computer manufacturers that would stifle competition. This will 
mean that hardware makers can install other products, keeping 
Microsoft responsive to the market for more efficient products.
    The November settlement is plenty good enough, and I see no need 
to spend more taxpayer money further litigating this suit. I urge 
you to leave the suit as is. The economy would benefit the most if 
this issue was finally resolved. I thank you for your time and am 
sure that you will do what is best for all parties involved.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Payne
    3402 Caraway Street
    Cocoa, FL 32926



MTC-00030887

l-07-2002 7:36PM FROM 000000000000 P. 1
DIANE DODD-McCUE, D.B.A.
January 2, 2OOl
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing you about the Microsoft settlement.
    I find that the Microsoft settlement goes beyond the issues 
upheld on appeal, which may result in questionable future outcomes 
to individual users, companies, and industry. I find it hard to 
comprehend having a committee and the Court supervise the future of 
software design. The software industry, like many in our nation's 
long history of business successes, has-soared because of the free 
market system, entrepreneurial spirit, and innovation, 
``Supervised'' development could likely hinder this spirit 
and innovation in the future. Consumers have not been harmed by 
Microsoft's actions. To the contrary, innovations by Microsoft have 
given us better products and lower prices.
    With 2002 comes reason for optimism as a nation, after the 
horrors of September, and optimism for the economy. The Microsoft 
settlement, while limited by the previously mentioned factors, still 
may serve as an impetus to move forward as opposed to remain bogged 
down in lengthy court actions. We all need to get back to work.
    Yours truly,
    Diane Dodd-McCue
    8107 University Drive Richmond, VA 23229 (804) 673-9723 E-
Mail [email protected]



MTC-00030889

Jan-08-02 04:20A U. S. Postal Service--P1 706 562 1786 
P.01 4521 Hedingham Lane Columbus, GA 31907
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am disappointed at the delays arising from more talk and less 
action about the Microsoft settlement. I cannot understand how a few 
special interest can manage to clog up the process indefinitely. To 
me, the settlement is demonstratively fair, and if anything, it is 
unfairly casligatory is Microsoft.
    Microsoft is already abiding by the terms, and has been since 
November 16th, so I'm sure that we'll get to see the influence of 
the settlement soon. This means that the even though the settlement 
hasn't been enacted, even while Microsoft's competitors benefit from 
such measures as interest services and licensing changes, they can 
still actively work to destroy Microsoft altogether in fits of 
jealousy.
    It is (illegible) that this charade has gone on long enough. The 
government must stop action at the federal level. Now what the 
proverbial cat is out of the bag, and Microsoft is directly giving 
up its intellectual property, the company should be allowed to 
return to business.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Gittings



MTC-00030890

01/08/2002 01:12 2158226040 WETHERBEE PAGE 01
Charles D. Wetherbee
19 Farber Drive
Chalfont, PA 18914-1472
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned American citizen, I am writing to voice my 
displeasure regarding the antitrust case between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft Corporation. I believe that Microsoft 
should not have had to endure three years of litigation for alleged 
antitrust violations. I support the products that Microsoft has 
developed and will continue to develop.
    Their products are of high quality and are user friendly. It is 
in the best interests of the Justice Department to settle with 
Microsoft, and not continue with litigation against them. This case 
has been ongoing for there years. It is time for all parties to move 
onto other matters.
    Furthermore, the settlement is both fair and reasonable to all 
parties. Microsoft will be making specific changes in response to 
the settlement. These changes include the following: computer makers 
can replace access to Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, and 
Internet Explorer with access to non- Microsoft software.
    Sincerely,
    Charles D. Wetherbee
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Senator Arlen Specter
    Rep. James Greenwood



MTC-00030891

Jan 07 02 08:04p Larry Goldrstein 215 4894046 p.1
Goldstein Educational Technologies
Mathematics and Technology in Higher Education
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a father of a Microsoft employee and an avid supporter of 
Microsoft products and services, I am writing to express my support 
of the recent settlement in the antitrust case between Microsoft and 
the US Department of Justice. I had disagreed with the government's 
interference and am glad that it will finally be over. From my 
knowledge of the concessions Microsoft has agreed to make, I see 
that they will be disclosing Interfaces to competitors, licensing 
its windows operating system products, increasing computer maker 
flexibility, and easing retaliations against computer makers.
    These actions reflect a more than adequate compromise and should 
be seen by Microsoft's opponents as indications of Microsoft's 
desire to do whatever is necessary to facilitate technology growth 
and aid a faltering American economy and injured technology sector.
    I look forward to Microsoft's growth in the future and feel 
confident its presence will remain a powerful force for our economy 
and a positive example for others to follow.

[[Page 29468]]

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Larry Joel Goldstein
    President
    Goldstein Educational Technologies
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    4 Bittersweet Dr. Doylestown, PA 18901 Phone (215)-
489-4045
    FAX (215)-489-4046 e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00030892

Jan 07 02 06:07p JW 3602634403 p.1
31103 NW 18th Avenue
Ridgefield, Washington 98642
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement pending in the Microsoft antitrust case currently 
represents the best available solution to this case. It is time to 
stop wasting resources on a battle that has already been resolved.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to be watched closely 
by an oversight committee that will make sure it complies with all 
of the terms of the agreement. Some of these terms include Microsoft 
designing future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism to make 
it easy for computer makers and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft software within Windows, disclosing information about how 
Windows works, and not retaliating against its competitors'' 
lawsuit. This will provide more choices for consumers, and stronger 
competition within the industry. The result will be beneficial to 
the IT industry.
    I support this settlement and hope it is finalized in the very 
near future.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Walker



MTC-00030893

From Edward S. Barba to l-202-307-1454 at l/7/2002 6:07 
PM Pg 00l/0
304 Franklin Avenue
    Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19460
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to support the antitrust settlement between 
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. The settlement was 
reached after many long hours of negotiation, and represents the 
best viable solution to the antitrust dispute. I think it is a waste 
of resources and time for any states to oppose such a settlement and 
hope that Microsoft is allowed to focus on making a positive 
contribution to the technology sector as soon as possible without 
being harassed further by politicians and lawmakers.
    Some may say that the settlement goes too easy on Microsoft. 
This is simply not the case. Microsoft will have to share 
information about internal interfaces within Windows, allowing the 
companies to tinker with Windows and install their own software on 
the operating system. Additionally, Microsoft will be prevented from 
retaliating against companies that distribute or promote products 
made by Microsoft's competitors. It is for all these reasons and 
more that I support the settlement and hope to see it implemented 
soon.
    Sincerely,
    Edward S. Barba
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030894

FROM : STARCOM FAX NO. :214 821-7137 Jan 05 2002 04:24PM P4
Dallas
LNESC
National Educational
Service Centers, Inc.
1527 W. Colorado Blvd. Dallas, TX 78208
fax: (214)821-7137
Renat Hcsse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The U.S. Department of Justice and nine state attorneys general 
decided to settle the Microsoft antitrust case. A recent survey done 
by Americans for Technology Leadership, a broad-based coalition of 
technol- ogy professionals, found that 70 percent of American 
consumers agreed with that decision. Yet the pursuit of Microsoft 
continues. It seems that a handful of Microsoft's competitors have 
pre- vailed upon the remaining nine state attorneys general to 
reject any settlement--be it reasonable or not--and 
continue to chip away at Microsoft. Their eventual goal seems to be 
leveling the playing field by bringing Microsoft down to their 
level.
    If Microsoft's competitors think this will result in consumers 
rushing to buy their products. maybe they should examine some 
additional results from this survey. Of the 1001 individuals 
contacted in early November, 82 percent said that Microsofts 
competitors should compete by creating new products rather than 
lobbying for the government to stop Microsoft's new products. 
American leads the world in technological innovation thanks in large 
part to Microsoft. Let's not lose that advantage because we're 
afraid to let one corporation get too far ahead in the market place. 
I say, settle this case quickly and let's get back to what made 
America great--competition.
    Sincerely,
    Renato De Los Santos Director



MTC-00030895

l-07-2002 5:49PM FROM 000000000000 P.1
JAN-02-2002 09:25 NANCY MILES MAUPIN 804 353 4496 P.01
NANCY MILES MAUPIN
1514 PARK AVENUE
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220
December 31, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the public is allowed to comment on 
the Microsoft settlement. What follows are my comments on this 
proposed agreement.
    I understand that the agreement specifies that Microsoft would 
have to promptly disclose technical information that enables any 
Windows operating system to communicate with Microsoft servers and 
with all Microsoft middleware products. To encourage more non-
Microsoft middleware, the settlement forces Microsoft to license any 
intellectual property rights that others might need to compete with 
Microsoft. And as with computer manufacturers, Microsoft could not 
penalize any software developer, service provider, or hardware 
vender that develops or sells products that compete with Windows and 
Microsoft middleware. The net result is that all information 
technology providers, including Microsoft's competitors, are 
guaranteed access to technical specifications.
    I would add that the antitrust laws were meant to protect 
consumers, not for certain powerful companies to protect themselves 
from market competition. ProComp, AOL Time Warner, Sun and Oracle 
should stop encouraging the government to fight their battles for 
them in court and tight in the marketplace, where this battle 
belongs.
    Yours truly,
    Nancy M. Maupin
    TOTAL P.O1



MTC-00030896

FROM : STARCOM
FAX NO: :214 821-7137
Jan. 05 2002 03:44PM P2
Starcom Consultants, Inc.
Communications--Marketing--Government Relations
January 4, 2002
Renata Hesse Trail Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Despite all the hoopla over the announcement that the Microsoft 
case had been settled, it is my understanding that it still has to 
be approved by a judge. I am writing as an avid user of Microsoft 
products and a supporter of the settlement. I oppose the efforts of 
the nine state attorneys general who want no part of the settlement 
preferring instead the complete dismantling of Microsoft. To his 
credit, Texas Attorney General John Cronyn wisely'' declined to 
drag our state into this technological boondoggle. In hindsight, 
Cornyn's decision could benefit Texas.
    A quick look at the proposed settlement should make Texans 
anxious to move forward. The settlement avoids long g costly 
litigation. It will restore healthy competition to the technology 
industry which is growing rapidly in Texas. Terms of the settlement 
will allow computer manufacturers flexibility with desktop 
configurations, an unprecedented concession on proprietary 
materials. But perhaps most important of all, the consumer will have 
access to Microsoft's innovative products with the option to switch 
easily to other products.
    What more can you possibly ask for? This settlement appears to 
be in everyone's best interest. It is time to accept it and move on.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29469]]

    Jake Fuller
    President
    4314 North Central Expwy--Dallas, TX 75206
    (214) 821-7002--fax (214) 821-7137--email: 
[email protected]



MTC-00030897

FROM : STARCOM FAX NO. : 214 821-7137 Jan. 05 2002 04:23PM P2
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZEN Councilivo . Dallas, Texas
January 4, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Four years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice and 18 state 
Attorneys General brought suit against Microsoft claiming their 
preeminence in the software market created an unfair advan tage over 
their competitors. Now, after millions of wasted taxpayer dollars 
and countless attempts to halt the technological advances of 
Microsoft, the Department of Justice and 9 attorneys general have 
agreed to settle the case. So whats the hold up?
    Could it be that Microsoft ``s competitors are shaking in 
their corporate boots because they have not kept up with the rapidly 
moving technology market and are doing everything they can to bring 
Microsoft down to their level by thwarting a settlement? It is 
ironic that Microsoft's competitors are leveling charges of unfair 
market practices when it is they who are practicing the worst kind 
of anti-competitive tactics. Instead of using their money to create 
new innovative products for the American consumer, they are throwing 
millions of dollars into lobbying efforts to bring innovation to a 
halt until they have time to ``catch-up''.
    As a high-tech consumer, I find it disgusting that corporations 
who regularly oppose any type of government regulation by hiding 
behind the ``free market'' banner are suddenly calling for 
more government intervention I have a simple solution. Stop your 
whining. Get back to work producing new and innovative products that 
consumers want to purchase. That's what Microsoft has done. It seems 
to work for them.
    Sincerely,
    Joe R. Campos
    President
    4314 N. Central Expressway--Dallas, TX 75206--fax(214) 
821-7137--email:
    [email protected]
    Members
    Joe Alcantaz
    Patricia Asip
    Michelle Bahadillo
    Adelfa Callejo
    Bill Callejo
    Joe Campos
    Roseanna Costillo
    Gil Chavez
    Frank Cortes
    Del Cruz
    Mary Devile
    Ken Fleischer
    Steve Fleischer
    Hector Flores
    Jake Fuller
    Alex Garcia
    Guillermo Golindo
    Gilbert May
    Gil Herrera
    Alex Jimenez
    Tom Lazo
    Lena Lavario
    Rene Martinez
    Michael Manoya
    Brenda Reyes
    Dr. Jim Rodriguez
    Jim Salinas
    Richard Saminano
    Gloria Torres



MTC-00030898

JAN-08-2002 10:09 P. 01/01
1101 East First Street
Sanford, Florida 32771
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to write that I support the settlement 
that was reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I 
believe ending this litigation is in the best interest of consumers 
and the consumer industry. Although I did not support commencing 
this litigation in the first place, it is time to move forward. The 
agreement incorporates many of the changes Microsoft's competitors 
desired. This includes granting computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software that 
compete with programs included within Windows.
    I have been in the computer industry for forty years and 
understand the importance of Microsoft and their products. The 
industry would still be extremely inefficient if not for the 
leadership of Microsoft. Freeing Microsoft to concentrate on 
bringing the latest technology to the market will continue making 
the computer industry a powerful engine to our economy.
    Hopefully this settlement will be one of the last steps in 
bringing this entire affair to a conclusion. Thank you for the 
opportunity to have my voice heard.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Allen
    IT Administrator
    Seminole County Tax Collector
    TOTAL P. 01



MTC-00030899

Jan-08-02 09:02A
Lewis Larsen 312-861-0831 p.01
Lewis G. Larsen
I75 North Harbor Drive, Suite #3205
Chicago, IL 60601-7346
Tel: (312) 861-0115 Fax: (312) 861-0831
E-mail: [email protected]
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Via Facsimile to 202-307-1454
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After years of litigation, I was pleased to hear that the 
government has made the wise decision to settle with Microsoft in 
regards to the antitrust lawsuit. I hope that no further litigation 
will be pursued in the future. I feel that this settlement is fair 
and reasonable, considering it was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court appointed mediator. While new government 
regulation will be imposed on the IT sector, this settlement will 
provide greater certainty about the new rules and thereby ensure 
that our industry can continue delivering advanced technology to the 
marketplace. Microsoft will, for example, be required to share 
information about the internal workings of Windows with its 
competitors so they can more easily place their own software on 
Windows-based systems.
    With other pressing national priorities, it does not make any 
sense to spend scarce DOJ resources and taxpayer dollars on further 
litigation with Microsoft. As a participant in the software 
industry, I am well aware of Microsoft's hyper-competitive, hard-
nosed business tactics. If anything, Microsoft has been guilty of 
being a super-competitor; its market dominance is a direct result of 
strong management talent, incredibly focused business tenacity, and 
an enormous willingness to keep pouring money into its products 
until it ``gets them right'' for its customers. By 
contrast, a predatory super-monopolist attempts to minimize capital 
spending and uses its market dominance to maintain or raise the 
prices of its products.
    Microsoft's behavior has never met the definition of a 
monopolist --- adjusted for inflation and major increases in 
useful features that are embedded in Windows, the price of Microsoft 
operating system software has never been lower than it is right now! 
Furthermore, Microsoft's software has made immeasurable 
contributions to the growth of the U.S. economy over the past 15 
years and made our country the undisputed world leader in computer 
technology. Punish Microsoft for that? You have to be kidding me. It 
makes no sense. Thanks to you and your DOJ team for making the 
choice to settle---in doing that you are truly protecting the 
interests of our country's consumers and citizens.
    Sincerely,
    Lewis G. Larsen



MTC-00030900

01/08/2002 09:55 18173550882 GATTEN PAGE 01
1108 El Camino Real Apt. 233
Euless, Texas 76040
January 7,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Last November finally saw the resolution of the three-year long 
antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft. Much time and many 
resources were spent to get to this final resolution, and I believe 
that no more needs to be spent. The resolution that was reached in 
November is just fine the way it is. It includes provisions to 
protect the smaller software companies trying to compete with the 
much larger Microsoft. It has provisions within it to keep the 
competition strong and

[[Page 29470]]

healthy in the information technology market. Some of these 
beneficial provisions are as follows. Microsoft will now issue 
unified pricing lists so that companies entering into licensing 
contracts with Microsoft will all receive the same treatment. 
Microsoft has agreed to not include in any new contractual 
restrictions that would limit competitors'' ability to promote 
software. This settlement even has a provision that would require 
Microsoft to disclose any interface information to a software 
company that would require such interfaces to work with Windows. 
These extensive provisions are quite enough.
    As I said, enough time has already been spent resolving this 
issue. Therefore, I urge you to leave the current settlement in 
place with no substantial changes. I thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Gatten



MTC-00030901

LEKTRONIK DEVICES CO.
1712 Poinciana Ln.
Plano, Tx 75075
972-423-2028
Fax: 972-423-6088
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
department of Justice
601 D Street NW, suite 1200
Washington, DC 205030
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please do all that you can to get the responsible court to 
accept the Microsoft agreement to settle the lawsuit brought by the 
Department of Justice. Our high-tech industry has suffered greatly, 
partly due to the millions of dollars spent on legal wrangling over 
this suit that, in my opinion should not have occurred. The suit was 
brought in part by HP and Sun Microsystems who had developed systems 
using software that was not user friendly; even engineers found it 
difficult to use. The simplicity of the Microsoft software propelled 
their products to the top of the market.
    The proposed settlement, as I understand it, would require 
Microsoft to disclose technical information to its competitors, 
guarantee flexibility to computer manufacturers for desktop 
configuration, and make it easier for consumers to switch to non -
Microsoft software. This seems to me to be more than fair for any 
competitor who believes success lies in the power of his/her ideas 
rather than through litigation.
    Let's bring this wasteful pursuit of Microsoft to an end, so 
that the money can be spent on innovation rather than litigation. 
Innovation helps our nation; litigation helps only a few trial 
lawyers to the detriment of our nation. END IT NOW!
    Yours truly,
    Bruce Leake



MTC-00030902

JAN-07 02 15:28 FROM:MAREK R MOLDAWSY 4198910315
TO: 202 353 8856
PAGE: 01
662 Centerfield Drive
Maumee, OH 43537
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement reached with Microsoft 
two months ago. This settlement is fair and reasonable. I am 
relieved that this three- year- long dispute is resolved.
    I am an instructor at a community college, and am very familiar 
with Microsoft products. Microsoft has provided simplicity and 
standardization to America's computer industry, and the company is 
the primary reason that we set the standard in this field. The 
settlement will allow for even more standardization. It will 
obligate Microsoft to disclose interoperability protocols to their 
competitors, so that non- Microsoft software will be more effective 
on a Windows platform, and hardware makers can install non-Microsoft 
programs onto their computers before shipping them to dealers and 
customers without fear of retaliation from Microsoft.
    This settlement will strengthen our economy by allowing 
Microsoft to devote its resources to creating its innovative 
software. Thank you for settling with Microsoft; keep up the good 
work as Attorney General.
    Sincerely,
    Marek Moldawsky



MTC-00030903

Jan 08 02 04:25p AMS-JWS/NAPLES 941-593-1646
JACK W. SUMLIN
2289 Arbour Walk Circle, Apt. 322
Naples, FL 34109
January 8, 2002
US DOJ, Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to show my support for ending the litigation, and 
enacting the Microsoft antitrust settlement, Having been a very avid 
supporter of AT&T in the past, I strongly oppose further 
interference from the government in this case. Like AT&T, 
Microsoft was an excellent company with an even more impressive 
product. In AT&T's case, Americans paid dearly for it, so it is 
important that we don't allow Microsoft and its customers to end up 
the same way. The government has interfered in the software industry 
long enough, and it is time for Microsoft to be done with this 
settlement so that they can move forward with developing new 
products.
    Given the terms of the settlement, I am positive that these 
constraints and commitments will be sufficient to foster the 
software market back to fair competition. Microsoft has included in 
this agreement grants to makers to configure Windows as to promote 
non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to share protocols native 
to the Windows'' operating system in order to promote 
compatibility.
    In addition, I hope the government and any disagreeing parties 
will be comforted by the agreement to establish the Three-Person 
Technical Committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with 
the settlement and will be expected to lodge a complaint should any 
part of the agreement be violated. Microsoft has clearly been 
checked in all facets of this lawsuit, and thus further litigation 
would be a waste of time and money. The only beneficial solution for 
the public is the end of this settlement.
    Thank you for your time and consideration on this lengthy 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Sumlin



MTC-00030904

01-08-2002 03:51PM FROM SAEED FALLAH 
203-431-3413 TO12023071454 P.01
32 Banks Hill Place
Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Under the Tunney Act, the DOJ is required to accept comments on 
antitrust settlements for a period of 60 days, and I am submitting 
my opinion. I support the settlement that was reached last November 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    The federal government should have never gotten involved with 
Microsoft in the first place, and I am glad to see that the issue is 
coming to an end. Microsoft actually had to concede more than they 
would have liked, but with the best interests of the economy in 
mind, they settled as soon as possible. Now the company will share 
information about the internal workings of Windows, and will let its 
competitors install their own software on Windows-based system. 
Let's not forget that the whole economic downturn began when the 
antitrust suit against Microsoft was launched.
    I appreciate your time, and again, am going on record that I 
support the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Saeed Fallah
    TOTAL P.01



MTC-00030905

01/08/2002 14:34 513332655529 CINCINNATI PAGE 01/02
ICX CORPORATION
11260 Chester Road Suite 305
Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
513.326.5520--Voice
513.326.5529--Fax
Fax
To: Atty Gen. John Ashcroft From: Gary Gross
Fax: 20/307-1454
Phone:
Re:
Pages: 2
Date:
Cc:
    Urgent For Review
    Please Comment
    Please Reply
    Please Recycle

[[Page 29471]]

    See attached letter.
01/08/2002 14:34 513332655529
CINCINNATI
PAGE 02/02 8290
Farwick Court
Cincinnati, OH 45249
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As the stipulations of the Tunney Act mandate, I am writing to 
express my unwavering backing for the antitrust settlement against 
Microsoft. The settlement is eminently fair, and there should not be 
any reason as to why the government should pursue any further action 
against Microsoft. I am therefore going on record as supporting the 
settlement.
    The proposed agreement requires significant changes in the way 
Microsoft develops and licenses its software. The settlement 
requires the uniform allocation of licensing agreements to the top 
twenty computer manufacturers, and is charged with redesigning 
Microsoft Windows XP to be more accommodating to non-Microsoft 
products. While new government regulation will be imposed on the IT 
sector, this settlement will provide certainty about the new rules 
and thereby ensure that our industry can continue delivering 
advanced technology to the marketplace.
    I fully support the settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Thank you for your time, 
and I appreciate this comment opportunity.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Gross



MTC-00030906

an 08 02 12:58p (817{time}  927 1605 p.1
David B. McReynolds, M.D.
1500 S. Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76104 (817) 927-1171
Fax
TO: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
FAX: (202) 616-9937
FROM: David B. McReynolds, M.D.
PHONE: (817) 927-1171
an 08 02 12:58p (817) 927 1605 p.2
David B. McReynolds, M.D.
1500 S. Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76104 (817) 927-1171
December 27,200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my concern that the government is trying 
to take too big a role in the technology industry. For the past 
several years, the Department of Justice and some state Attorneys 
General have tried to prove that Microsoft was a monopoly. In the 
process, they have cast a pall over the entire industry with the 
specter of government regulation.
    It would appear to me that the best approach is to settle all 
remaining issues and quickly remove the government from interfering 
with the market. If this is not done expeditiously, I fear the 
consumer will soon pay the price for higher cost software, less 
efficient operating systems and increased incompatibility among 
competitors. True competition in the market will allow continued 
innovation which in turn will mean increased efficiency and lower 
costs. After reviewing terms of the Microsoft settlement, I have 
come to the position that it is in the best interest of our nation's 
technology industry and consumer s to accept the negotiated terms 
and get on with business of real competition.
    Sincerely,
    David B. McReynolds, M.D.



MTC-00030907

Jan 08 02 12:53p 00000000 p.1
AMISTAD TEXAS LLC
Fax
To: Renata Hesse
From: Reinaldo Rosas
Fax: (202)616-9937 Pages: 2
Re: Microsoft Settlement Cc:
204 W. Central Av. o Fort Worth TX 76106 o 817.705.1018 o 
[email protected]
Jan 08 02 12:53p 00000000 p.2
AMISTAD TEXAS LLC
January 4, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: Microsoft just released its new XP operating 
system. If some competitors had their way, this new innovative 
product would have been tied up in federal court and never released. 
It is really unfortunate that the United States government, and one 
or two envious competitors, are plotting to stifle innovation within 
the high-tech industry. When new products are placed on the market, 
consumers will be the ultimate beneficiaries as they gain greater 
access to new and emerging technology. Consumers always win when 
they are given innovative products that give them more choices and 
more control of their computing experience. Settling the Microsoft 
case will force technology companies to get back to work and create 
new and innovative products that will compete for a share of the 
market. If the negotiated terms of the settlement are not accepted, 
the result will be millions of industry and taxpayer dollars being 
directed toward litigation instead of innovation. This will only 
serve to diminish the superior quality of American technology.
    It is time to settle all remaining issues before any more harm 
is done to the industry.
    Sincerely,
    Reinaldo Rosas,
    President 204 W. Central Av. * Fort Worth TX 76106 * 
817.706.1018 * [email protected]



MTC-00030908

01/08/2002 TUE 13:59 FAX 3217295605 SYSTEMS 001
INTERSIL
intersil
KARL McCALLEY
Vice President
Phone:(321)729-5709
Fax: (321)729-5605
(321)729-1104
Date: January7,2002
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Fax: (202)307-1454
From: Karl McCalley
Phone: (321)724-7386
Number of pages to be sent including cover page Two (2) Comments:
01/08/2002 TUE 14:00 FAX 3217295605 SYSTEMS 002
intersil Karl McCalley
Vice President, IT
2401 Palm Bay Road
MS-53-225
Palm Bay, FL 32905
January 5,2002
Attorney General, John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr, Ashcroft:
    Like most consumers of technology products, I was happy to learn 
that Microsoft and the Department of Justice have finally come to a 
settlement agreement that can forever end the antitrust lawsuit at 
the federal level. The premise that Microsoft exercised monopoly 
power was flawed from the start. In a monopoly environment, the 
consumer is hurt. In the IT industry, the consumer only benefited 
from Microsoft's size and large market share. Microsoft's 
competitors, not their consumers, were hurt. In any other industry, 
what Microsoft did would be called savvy business practices, not a 
monopoly.
    In the end, the government's involvement in the affairs of 
Microsoft will hurt consumers of technology products. Microsoft has 
already been hurt enough by having to share information about the 
internal interfaces in Windows and not being able to react when a 
company promotes non-Microsoft products. I support the settlement 
that is currently on the table. The IT industry and the American 
people deserve an end to this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Karl McCalley
    Vice President
    lntersil Corp.



MTC-00030909

From: Richard Rubin
To: Renata B. Hesse Date: 18/2002Time: 10:03:50 AM Page 1/2
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Renata B. Hesse
Sent: 1/8/2002 at 10:03:48 AM
From : Richard Rubin
Pages : 2 (including Cover)
Subject : Microsoft penalty: one users experiences
From: Richard Rubin To: Renata B. Hesse Date: 1/8/2002Time: 
10:03:50 AM Page 2 of 2
    One captive users comments re:Microsoft (Sent to Microsoft)
    ONCE AGAIN I must purchase the OVERPRICED Full Install of a 
Microsoft

[[Page 29472]]

Windows product (XP) because my previous OEM install of Windows (Me, 
with ``free upgrade to Xp'' offered by Compaq, but never 
received) has DEGRADED, despite my cautious grooming and care, to 
become a WORLD OF MALFUNCTIONS and CRASHES.
    To ``Upgrade'', even ``for free'' would be 
to import your broken soft-machinery from the past. And the 
corporate claim is, once again that Xp is more stable than YOUR OWN 
OLD PRODUCT, which therefore, I infer, had a stability problem? And 
you have strong-armed your Compaq OEM contract to provide no relief 
on your DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. Little-Me will let my thoughts be known 
to appropriate ears in the penalty decisions pending for your 
creative, but overaggressive and undergenerous corporation.
    Richard Rubin
    10407 McClemont Ave
    Tujunga, CA 91042
    818-951-0255
    [email protected]



MTC-00030910

The Computer Department, Inc.
510 East Allen Street Phone: (217) 788-8234
Springfield, IL 62703 Fax: (227) 788-8121
tcdinfo@computer-dept .com
http://www.computer-dept.com
fax
facsimile
To: `Mr. John Ashcroft'
Company:
Fax Number: +1 (202) 616-9937
Business Phone:
From: Ed Russell
Fax Number: +1 (217) 788-8121
Business Phone:
Home Phone:
Pages: 2
Date/Time: 1/8/02 11:23:34 AM
Subject:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
    The documents accompanying this telecopy transmission contain 
CONFIDENTIAL information belonging to the sender. This information 
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named 
below. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of 
action in reliance upon the documents of this telecopied information 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, 
please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for the return 
of the original documents to us.
The Computer Department, Inc.
Programming Networks Systems Consulting Internet Help
January 7,2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    There is no real, clear consensus among those in the IT industry 
as to what impact would there have been had this lawsuit against 
Microsoft proceeded to the end. It would have taken years for the 
full effect of the lawsuit ``remedies'' to have been felt, 
but this much is immediately clear: As soon as any breakup of 
Microsoft would have taken effect, there would most certainly have 
been wide-ranging disruption in both services and support. 
Additionally, even before any breakup, there would have been a 
serious depression in software and services sold as most people 
would have adopted a ``wait-and-see'' attitude.
    All this, however, is both speculative and unnecessary, now that 
this settlement has been reached. The settlement will benefit 
consumers with its many provisions concerning Microsoft's 
relinquishing of intellectual property to competitors and the 
government. It will mean that hardware makers will be able to 
install non-Microsoft software more conveniently on computers with a 
Windows OS, and furthemore, they can do so with impunity, knowing 
that Microsoft is forbidden to coerce them to do otherwise.
    I am hoping that this settlement prevails through the review 
process. As it is now, the entire IT business, along with the rest 
of the country's economy, is experiencing slower growth. I would 
expect that, at least insofar as the IT industry is concerned, once 
this settlement is affirmed, these doubts will be banished and 
hopefully the IT business community will recover to once again lead 
our country's economy out of this recession.
    I am appreciative of this opportunity to express my opinion in 
this way. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Russell
    President
    610 East Allen--Springfield, IL 67763--P# 
217-788-TCDI (8234)--Fx 217-788-8121--
    www.computer-dept.com



MTC-00030911

    Sent By: DICOM Financial, 972 562 9931 Jan-8-02 10:08AM; 
Page 1/1
    DiCom
    Providing Solutions Since 1969
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney Antitrust Div
Deparment of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms.Hesse
    Our company uses Microsoft software products on all of our 
computing systems. These systems allow our small business to serve 
our customers with the same high quality and efficiency offered by 
much larger competitors in our marketplace. Microsoft products 
enable our employees to do their tasks with inexpensive and highly 
reliable tools, once only available at tremendous costs through 
specialized programming experts.
    I wholeheartedly believe In the old saying ``build a better 
mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door''. 
(Microsoft has done just, that and should not be penalized by the 
government, but judged In the free narktplace where they will 
succeed or fail on their merit and practices--supported or not 
by their customers. Antitrust laws are designed to protect 
consumers, yet at no time has the government shown that any consumer 
were hurt by Microsoft's size or marketing. It is time to put an end 
to this costly and competitor-driven lawsuit. I cannot imagine what 
the effect on American technology would be if the federal government 
micromanages this market, but I can envision having my high-tech 
needs serviced by the same attitude that serves me at the driver 
license bureau! Please consider the small businessperson's position 
as you go forward. Our survival hinges on our ability to serve our 
customers effectively. Micorsoft has pionerred the products and 
tools that allow us to provide the highest quality service today and 
I believe in the future.
    Sincerely,
Paul K. Haubrich
President
PKHl/ict
DiCom Financial Corporation .
2204 St. Andrews Court.
McKinney, Texas 75070
Phone: 972 578 0118.
Fax 972 562 9931.
E-mail: DiComFinancial.com



MTC-00030912

Toon & Associates
1727 Carllsie
Irving, TX 75052
January 7, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Madam:
    I am writing this letter in support of the Microsoft settlement. 
It is my opinion that to continue the vast resources of Microsoft 
will benefit no one except a handful of envious competitors. Ending 
the case will benefit the American consumer. Doesn't it make more 
sense to put the vast resources of Microsoft to productive use 
rather than mete out punishment that will at best force the company 
to offer rebates to software purchasers?
    I for one would rather see Texas high tech industry continue to 
have access to innovative products produced by corporations like 
Microsoft than to have innovation quashed by greedy competitors and 
taxpayer funded lawsuits. They act like we have limited resources in 
this country. I implore you to convince the Court to accept the 
terms of the settlement and let Microsoft begin implementing the 
full terms of this historic agreement.
    Sincerely,
    David Douglas Toon, Esquire



MTC-00030913

Jan 07 02 (illegible) Sterling Commerce BSD 972 716 3201 P.01
William W. Hymes
President
January 7, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Let's finalize the Microsoft settlement as proposed. I am 
opposed to the government ``pursuing extensive remedies'' 
after finally agreeing to a settlement. The government should find 
other things to do besides trying to destroy Microsoft.

[[Page 29473]]

    Sincerely,
    William W. Hymes
    President, Banking Systems Division
    Sterling Commerce (Northern America), Inc.
    15301 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Addison, Texas 75001-4687



MTC-00030914

JAN-08-02 TUE 12:05 P-01
8024 SE Double Tree Drive
Hobe Sound, Florida 33455
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
settlement that was reached in November between Microsoft and the 
federal government. I feel this settlement is fair and reasonable, 
and I am relieved that this issue has been resolved.
    Microsoft has contributed an enormous amount to the technology 
sector and the economy. At the present time when our economy is 
struggling, it would be in the best interest of the public to end 
this case permanently and stop restricting Microsoft. The settlement 
punishes Microsoft enough, requiring the company to share key 
information about how Windows works and forcing it to agree to non-
retaliation clauses against companies that promote non-Microsoft 
products. These restrictions are more than enough.
    This settlement will benefit the economy and consumers. This 
settlement needs to be finalized. I wholeheartedly support it.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel H. Hochman



MTC-00030915

January 4, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have just become aware of the terms of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. It is clear to me that most, if not all, competitor 
complaints have been addressed and resolved. Microsoft is willing to 
give up proprietary information on their operating system, allow 
computer manufactures discretion over desktop configuration, and 
make it easier for consumers to remove or switch Microsoft products 
for competitor software. These are tremendous concessions to their 
competitors and valuable offers to the general consumer! Why would 
anyone balk at this sort of proposal from one of our nation's 
premier high-tech companies?
    A recent news story cited a plantiffs'' attorney as saying 
that if the settlement is rejected and the lawsuit if pushed 
forward, the most anyone will benefit from the judgment would be 
$10. Who in their right mind would trade these unprecedented offers 
for ten bucks? Doesn't it make more sense to make Microsoft's money 
work for us rather than offer a token rebate to the estimated 65 
million Microsoft software purchasers? I ask the Court to dismiss 
the remaining lawsuits and clear the way for the full acceptance of 
the proposed settlement. It is time to move on.
    Sincerely,
Personnel
Decisions
International
Ann Johnston
Client Relations Representative
Suite 1700, LB 142
600 East Las Celinas Boulevard
Irving, Texas 73639
Direct 972 407 8130
Phone 972 407 3190
Fax 972 407 3193
www.personnelvisions.com



MTC-00030916

01/08/2002 02:46 8647180602 KATHLEEN KOJIS PAGE 01
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    While I am not happy that the federal government took three 
years to sue Microsoft in court, I am happy to see that the Attorney 
General has put an end to the case with a strong and binding 
agreement. I wholeheartedly applaud this decision.
    Since a settlement was finally reached after three years of 
protracted and extremely costly court battles, it should be accepted 
and finalized as soon as possible. The agreement requires Microsoft 
to make its protocols and access mechanisms available to 
competitors; these are the protocols used in Windows' operating 
system products, and the mechanisms are used to encourage non-
Microsoft products. The company also agreed not to retaliate against 
software or hardware developers who develop or promote software that 
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows.
    Microsoft's tremendous contribution to the United States' 
economy, and that of the entire world for that matter, goes without 
saying and requires no elaboration. Not only will the settlement 
help our economy escape from its current slump, but it will also 
give Microsoft's competition a hand up. This is why the federal 
government should not pursue any litigation beyond this agreement. 
The company should now be left alone once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Kojis
    35 Lighthouse Way
    Salem, SC 29676
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00030917

January 8, 2002
10:55 PM
From: Bill Schoenherr
Fax #: (330) 425-9223 Page 1 of 1
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you to explain my defene of the Microsoft 
settlement. It is more than adequate, and I wish to be on record as 
believing such. Years of litigation and millions of dollars in 
court-related costs have sufficiently chastised the corporation and 
the proposed settlement agreement will more than adequately right 
the supposed wrongs of Mr. Gates and company. The settlement will 
force Microsoft to open itself and its systems up to access by its 
competiton. It establish, as you know, an oversight committee to 
assure the company does not foreswear its obligations It will no 
doubt open up the industry to more marketplace competition to the 
benefit of consumer and the entire industry. Why then would anybody 
not support it?
    With a declining economy, thousands of industry jobs lost and 
more in jeopardy, the country does not need to further constrain a 
vital corporation like Microsoft. I fully support the settlement. 
Thank you for you time and hard work on this isuue.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Schoenherr



MTC-00030919

FROM : GPR FLORIDA PHONE NO. : 305 936 1401 Jan. 08 2002 1l:l5AM P1
Gerald Rosenberg
3530 Mystic Pointe Drive, # 2115
Aventura, FL 33180-4541
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to voice my opinion in regards to the Microsoft 
settlement issue. I support the settlement that was reached on 
November 6th. I feel that this settlement is fair and reasonable, 
and I am relieved that this issue is resolved.
    Due to this settlement, Microsoft has pledged to share more 
information with other information tech companies, Microsoft will 
follow procedures to make it easier to install non-Microsoft 
software and will disclose information about software codes in order 
to do this, and a Technical Committee (TC) will enforce the 
provisions at Microsoft's expense.
    This settlement will make it easier to compete with Microsoft. I 
have been a user of Windows since the inception. From a personal 
standpoint, I want to say that no supplier of software to the 
computer gives better support to their customers. If you read the on 
line responses from users around the country you would see that the 
vast majority of negative comment about Microsoft only comes from 
their competition. Any one that offers a better program will capture 
the market. Let me enjoy my computer in peace and let Microsoft be 
there for me and others..
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030920

JAN-08-02 11:29 PM Waters Office 610 469 0699 P.01
Alice H. Waters and S. Collar Waters
1320 Warwick Furnace Road
Pottstown, PA 19465
January 5, 2002

[[Page 29474]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my dismay over the government's 
crackdown on Microsoft and state my relief in the settlement that 
was reached in November.
    At a time when a substantial amount of commerce and industry has 
been lost lo overseas venues, Microsoft is a hugely successful US 
company in which the country should take pride, not attempt to crush 
it.
    In particular, it occurs to me that Microsoft has achleved this 
success in a competitive, but honorable manner. Unlike certain other 
highly profitable US firms, Microsoft has not made its profit on the 
backs of underpaid and marginally legal labor nor has it poisoned 
the environment or gouged the sick and elderly to make its profit.
    Isn't it about time that we, as a county, reward this US success 
story instead of those who would manipulate the legal system to 
generate windfall profits for themselves and state governments.
    The US should be proud of Microsoft and support its growth, I 
look forward to the continued success of Microsoft both as a user 
and fan of US technological growth.
    Very truly yours,
    Alice Waters
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030921

2100 Indian Creek Blvd East, Apt. A-119
Vero Beach, Florida 32966
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are now in a new year, one that, I know, all of us wish to be 
one of peace and forward progress. We are progressing in our quest 
to end terrorism but now, I think, we need to re-establish our 
economic footing. Microsoft and the Department of Justice recently 
ended the three-year long antitrust case brought by the Department 
of Justice. My sentiments on the correctness of this suit are not 
relevant; suffice it to say, I am glad it is over. I believe the 
settlement, while not easy for Microsoft, was fair. Microsoft 
acquiesced to demands that were not even at issue in the suit. It is 
time to move on.
    Which is why I am writing to you now. I am urging you, as an 
American anxious to get this country going again, to let stand the 
settlement reached by Microsoft and the Department of Justice. To 
nitpick every little thing in this settlement is very counter-
productive. There has already been established a ``Technical 
Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's compliance. 
Additionally, any third party may lodge a complaint with an Internal 
Compliance Officer at Microsoft, or the Department of Justice, if 
they believe Microsoft is not complying with any provision of the 
settlement.
    What more can be asked? Are to cave in to every demand by those 
whose only desire is to cripple Microsoft, not by any innate desire 
for justice? Bill Gates has carried the technological explosion on 
his shoulders for far too long. Those questioning this decision wish 
only to drag him and Microsoft down. Do not give in to such 
pettiness. I urge you to finalize this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Gertrude Gross



MTC-00030922

Jan 08 02 1l:l5a Computer Zone 712-362-5532 p.1
COMPUTER ZONE
January 7, 2002
Attorney Gerneral John Ashcroft
The U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is my opinion that it is monumentally absurd for our 
government to try itsits dead level best to shut down one of our 
country's most successfuI companies. Everyone seems to have an 
opinion as to whether they think that Microsoft is too big, or too 
bureaucratic, or too unresponsive. But these are all complaints that 
would have probably ironed thcmselves out as Microsoft. found that 
its marketlplace was becoming more competitive. What this really 
boils down to is that a handful of Microsoft's fiercest competitors 
convinced an unsympathetic government to punish Microsoft for its 
successes, utilizing arcane laws and overzealous government lawyers 
to attempt what amounts to a government takeover of an independent, 
private business. Thankfully, this folly has been ended by a 
proposed settlement, which appears more than fair for Microsoft's 
competitors. They should take it and be grateful. The settlement 
gives computer makers and vendors the opportunity to preinstall non-
microsoft software on Windows without fear of reprisal from 
Microsoft, and the company will redesign Windows so that non-
microsoft products can be installed easier well. I am hoping that 
this settlement marks the end of hostilities between our government 
and the American business community.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Lynch
President/owner
622 Central Avenue--
Estherville, Iowa 613342241
712-362-7808 o 888-527-1106.
FAX: 712-362-5532
1609 18th Street--
Spirit Lake, Iowa 51360-1023
712-336-3030 o 888-891-3359 o
FAX: 712-336-3131



MTC-00030923

01/08/200214:28 FAX
001 4177 Eastway Road, Cleveland, OH 44121
January 8, 2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am extremely disturbed when I see all of the time and money 
that has been spent in gratuitous pursuits like the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit. This suit has been injurious to both the American 
economy and the technology industry. The settlement that has been 
reached in this case must be upheld, and I am writing to go on 
record as supporting the settlement.
    Frankly, this case is mind-boggling; I do not understand the 
rationale behind this suit. In my option, Microsoft has never done 
anything to harm its consumers. Microsoft's competitors have brought 
this case, not consumers. Indeed, all of the consumers that I have 
spoken with love what Microsoft stands for, it is honorable in its 
business endeavors, and has an incredible outreach program in the 
community. This company is being penalized for being successful, and 
this suit flies in the face of everything that we believe as 
Americans. The settlement will give the government oversight of 
Microsoft's business dealings, and ensure that Microsoft avoids 
unfair retaliatory measures against companies that engage in 
competition against Microsoft.
    I think that the government should be spending the 
taxpayers'' money helping Americans rather than wasting it in 
the unwarranted pursuit of this case. I support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Victor Bendersky



MTC-00030924

Jan 08 0212:56p 0107020 p.1
Fernando Garcia, M.D., P.A.
December 27, 200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Sent via fax to (202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please accept this letter as my comment in support of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. The government recently came out and 
said that they plan to pursue extensive remedies against Microsoft 
for its illegal ``monopoly maintenance'' activities. In my 
opinion, this could only mean that the consumer will be asked to pay 
higher prices, accept poorer quality and be deprived of innovations.
    It is time to drop the government's quest to destroy Microsoft. 
The Department of Justice recently said they could find no harm done 
to the consumer by Microsoft's practices. Now, there is talk of 
pursuing ``extensive remedies'' which could only mean more 
government regulation of the high-tech sector.
    Consumers are hungry for new technology. The last thing we need 
to do is bring more action against companies that are developing 
cutting-edge products. This whole thing smacks of competitor envy. 
These industry complainers need to begin determining what the 
consumer wants, not preventing the consumer from getting what they 
need.
    Sincerely,
    Fernando Garcia. M.D., PA P.O.
    Box 2373 Fort Worth, TX 76133 (817) 927 0003



MTC-00030925

FROM :
FAX NO. :

[[Page 29475]]

Jan. 08 2002 01:10PM Pl
24 Cambridge Road
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter today so that I may be able to go on 
record and give my support to the settlement that was reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. It had been a long 
time coming, but both sides finally agreed to terms, which would end 
the three-year antitrust lawsuit. I can remember the days before 
Microsoft came out with the Windows operating system, and computing 
was a debacle. Now, computers all over the globe can communicate 
with one another, and Microsoft is responsible. If it hadn't been 
for Microsoft, there is a great chance that I would not be able to 
send this letter out as easily as I have.
    I fully support the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice, and hope to see it finalized and implemented 
soon.
    Sincerely,
    Cosmo Lamacchia



MTC-00030926

HP
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Fax: 202.616.9937
Attention: Attorney General John ashcroft
From: Michael Levy
Date: January 8, 2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Pages: 2
fax memo
Michael Levy
Vice President
Healer Products, Inc.
120 South Columbus Avenue
Mt. Vernon, NY 10553
Phone: 800.223.5795
Fax: 888.289.5162
E-Mail: [email protected]
January 8, 2002
HP
Healer Products, Inc.
120 South Columbus Avenue
Mount Vernon, NY 10553
Voice:
800.2235765
Fax:
888.289.5162
Email:
[email protected]
Internet:
http://www.healerprod.com
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    As a concerned businessman, I am writing to express my opinion 
towards the recent Microsoft settlement. I have supported this 
settlement in the past, and it concerns me to see that its execution 
is being further delayed.
    As I have followed the progress of this settlement, it seems 
that all parties involve benefit from its terms. Because Microsoft 
has agreed to disclose information about certain internal interfaces 
in Windows, and to design future versions of Windows for easier 
installation of non-Microsoft software, this settlement ensures that 
the technology Industry--including other software 
companies--can move forward.
    During this time of recession, we cannot afford any delays in 
economic advancement. At the same time, we cannot allow our scarce 
resources to be spent on delaying a case that has already been 
settled, It is time to let things move forward and let the years of 
extensive negotiations speak for themselves. This country's 
technology industry has been delayed long enough and is ready to 
advance as a team. I strongly urge that we do not allow for any more 
delays.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Levy
    Vice President



MTC-00030927

JAN-08-02
TUE 05:29 PM
R0LAC C0NTRACTING INC
FAX NO. 7018396581 P. 01/01
Ronald R. LaCount
P.O. Box 1872
Minot, North Dakota 587O2
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to go on record to express my satisfaction with the 
settlement that ends the antitrust lawsuit between the Department of 
Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. I feel that the settlement 
goes a little further in placing restrictions on Microsoft than it 
should have, but all in all, I am happy with the results.
    Microsoft did not get off easy. The settlement was arrived at 
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. 
Microsoft agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were actually at issue in the suit, sharing software 
information and accepting government oversight, for example. This 
was done just to get all or the litigation over with, and now allows 
Micorsoft to divert all of their resources to producing innovative 
products and improving the economy.
    The settlement is good for all parties involved. Thank you.
    Sincerely
    Ronald Lacount
    cc: Senator Byron Dorgan



MTC-00030928

01/08/200215:53 9416246954
AMERICAN EXPRESS PAGE 01
Heather M. Forte
812 Tamiami Trail #3
Port Charlotte, Florida 33953
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft. I genuinely hope that 
no further action is being considered at the federal level. Taking 
into account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft has agreed to 
document and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces 
that are internal to Windows'' operating system products. This 
is a first in an antitrust settlement. Microsoft has also agreed to 
make available to its competitors, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms, any protocols used by Windows'' operating 
system products when they interact with programs of non-Microsoft 
origin. With the many terms of the agreement, I feel that pursuing 
any further litigation would be a waste of time and money.
    Sincerely,
    Heather M. Forte



MTC-00030929

    01/08/200228:18 7176567794 JP PAGE 01
To: Department of Justice
Reference: Tunney Act Comments--Microsoft Settlement
January 8, 2002
    With respect to the Microsoft antitrust settlement, I believe 
that the idea that the consumer has suffered is a false premise. I 
consider myself a consumer having used a computer at work and at 
home.
    I purchased my first IBM computer at home and used the IBM 
computers at work. My initial computer had two floppies drives with 
limited data storage, no memory manager, no graphics, no modem and 
poor software uniformity.
    I used several software programs at work such as MultiMate, 
Display Writer, Word Perfect and Lotus 1 2 3. Each of our company 
plants had their own favorite software and communication and 
exchange of data and reports were difficult.
    Our company was purchased by a foreign company and the new owner 
had a policy of using Microsoft software programs within the 
company. The hodgepodge of software programs and poor communications 
ended.
    Standardization made our company more efficient and more 
profitable. For this improvement the DOJ must punish Microsoft for 
making our company successful.
    I have retired and I find that my pension plan is under attack 
by the DOJ and several states seeking additional punishment of 
Microsoft. The decline of the value of Microsoft stock and the 
computer related industries can be traced to the DOJ finding that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. To this date my pension plan has not 
recovered because of the continuing legal cloud over Microsoft and 
the threat of the government controls over the computer industry.
    In the meantime there are many monopolies in the United States 
that are more harmful to consumers when compared to Microsoft.
    The postal service, ground transportation at airports, teacher 
unions and civil servant are harmful to consumers because of poor 
service end costs. These monopolies do not promote efficiency, 
reduce costs or compete globally.
    Microsoft made standardization efficient, profitable and created 
the Internet.

[[Page 29476]]

    I read in the paper that the DOJ cost for pursuing the Microsoft 
litigation is over 30 million dollars. I have no idea how much money 
was used by the states. All the dollars used were from taxpayers. 
Are not the taxpayers in the real world consumers?
    Please reach a settlement that will allow our computer 
industries do their work without interference from Silicon Valley 
lobbyists, Congress and ambitious state politicians for the good of 
our nation.
    Joseph J. Piascinski
    305 Pleasant Valley Drive
    Leola, PA 17540



MTC-00030930

Hiteq
Computer Systems
Jan-08-0204:46P M.K. ``GAZ'' GAZIANI
January 7, 2002.
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 2053
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the owner of small technology business, I am writing to 
express my concern about the government's ongoing pursuit of 
Microsoft. In my opinion, the case should be settled as soon as 
possible. I am encouraged by the recent announcement that the 
monopoly and tying aspects of the lawsuit have been dropped and 
proposed settlement has been worked out between Microsoft and the 
U.S. Department of Justice. Now it is time to bring this episode to 
an end and ratify a11 the terms of the settlement.
    A settlement would be in the best interest of all concerned-not 
just small businesses but the individual consumer as well. Let's 
also not regulate ourselves out of the competitive edge we now have 
in the global market.
    Please add my voice to those who want to continue the innovative 
advances made by the companies like `Microsoft over the past 
decade.
    Sincerely,
M.R., ``GAZ'' GAZIANI
Vice President, Sales & Marketing
Hiteq Computer Systems
13440 T.I. Blvd.,
Suite 4
Dallas, Texas 75243-1500*Ph
972.437.0637F
AX 972.437.3836



MTC-00030931

January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    This letter is to urge settlement of the Microsoft case as soon 
as possible.
    I am the president and sole stockholder of this company; I 
founded this business 24 years go and have been somewhat successful. 
However, the; Microsoft/DOJ battle battle has hurt my business. 
I'm not taking sides but I can assure you that prompt 
settlement will allow that portion of our business to Improve. The 
event of Sept 11 has further deteriorated business; I am convinced 
that putting the Microsoft case behind us will allow full attention 
to be devoted to the business at hand.
    My business has prospered under technical leadership and 
unification of standards provided by Microsoft. Let us get on with 
business by settling now.
    Sincerely,
Charlott A. Ladd, President
Clone Computer Corporation
14839 Inwood Road
Addison, Texas.75001-3721
Sales: 972-934-2200
TollFree: 800-388-6636
Service: 972-934-2219
Fax: 972-991-2003
e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00030932 Page 1 of 2

    From: Morriss Davis To: John Ashcroft
Date: l/8/O2Time: 10:28:40 PM
DCS Davis Computer Services
P.O. Box 527
Iola, Texas 77861
936-394-6102 Fax 936-394-1738
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Like most people in Texas who follow the IT industry, I was 
pleased to hear that a settlement has been reached between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. I believe that the PC as we 
know it can be largely attributed to Microsoft and its products. The 
great success experienced by Microsoft is well deserved and has 
become the envy of the IT industry. Because of Microsoft's 
unprecedented success, it has been an easy target for their many 
competitors and the federal government.
    The settlement shows that Microsoft has been unfairly treated as 
a business. The federal government should never be party to 
punishing an American business for being successful, yet, that has 
been the case from the start in this lawsuit.
    I support Microsoft's position in the suit and hope that the 
proposed settlement becomes a reality as soon as is legally 
possible. The Department of Justice owes Microsoft and the American 
people a quick resolution to this lawsuit, and that resolution can 
come by formalizing the settlement agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Morris Davis
    President



MTC-00030933

01/08/0223:36
BUSINESS DEVELOPEMENT 2025149082
NO.301 P001
15508 Fairfield
Livonia, MI 48154
Ph: 248-624-5200 x 1971 (day)
Fax: 248-669;5018
    To: Renata Hesse
From: David P. Hudyma Jr.
Fax: 202-307-1454
Pages: 2
Phone:
Date: 01/08/02
Re: Microsoft Settlement Comment CC:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle . 
Comments:
    The attached letter expresses my opposition to the currently 
proposed DOJ settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
01/08/0223:36
BUSINESS DEVELOPEMENT 2025149082
NO. 301 P002
David P. Hudyma Jr.
15508 Fairfield
Livonia, MI 48154
[email protected]
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement in the U.S. 
vs. Microsoft anti-trust case.
    After reading the proposal and the opinions of those with a more 
complete understanding of the legal issues involved, I can do 
nothing but oppose the settlement. It amounts to a token punishment 
without any real enforcement and worse it may serve as tools for 
Microsoft expand their monopolies through creative interpretation of 
the clauses as they did with the original DoJ agreement.
    Any remedy to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior must disable 
the ability to leverage their monopolies in desktop operating 
systems and office software. The most attention needs to be given to 
the areas of application programming interfaces (API's), 
communications protocols and file formats. In addition, the chosen 
remedies must be strictly enforced and include full public 
disclosure. First, Microsoft must publicly disclose all Windows and 
related API's; Changes to the API's need to be released six months 
before the software and should be administered by an independent 
standards body. This will prevent Microsoft from disabling competing 
software through careful manipulation and changes to the Windows 
API's; It is critical that all of this information be released 
publicly to ensure that anyone; from corporations to individuals, 
can write fully compatible Windows software.
    Second, the use of proprietary communications protocols by 
Microsoft must be prevented. This is something they have done often 
in the past. They are doing it again by creating proprietary XML, 
and Kerberos formats in support of their .NET initiative. This 
potentially puts control of the flow of information online into the 
hands of a single corporation already convicted of illegal 
practices. Therefore, Microsoft should only be allowed to use 
industry standard communications and authentication protocols as 
established by an independent standards body.
    Finally, due to the nearly universal adoption of MS Office 
products by home and business users these products have resulted in 
their own standard communications format embodied by the .doc, .xIs 
and .ppt files generated by the applications. To communicate 
effectively by computer in business and even at home one is required

[[Page 29477]]

to own the latest copy of Office. Therefore, the details of the file 
format used by Word, Excel and PowerPoint must be released to the 
public domain and be monitored by an independent standards body. 
This allows the development of competing, 100% compatible office 
products and offers the best chance of restoring competition to a 
market stifled by Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David P. Hudyma Jr.
    15508 Fairfield
    Livonia, Ml 48154
    [email protected]



MTC-00030934

JAN-9-02
WED 7:56 AM
TZANGAS, PLAKAS &
MANNOS FAX NO. 330 455 2108 P.1
3914 Willowdell Drive, NE
Canton, OH 44714
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you regarding the recent 
settlement. I feel that the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is the best thing that could have happened 
under the circumstances.
    The terms of this agreement are not only fair, but truly benefit 
all parties involved. By agreeing to these terms, stipulating such 
orders as avoiding its alleged practice of retaliation against 
hardware firms that wanted to include non-Microsoft programs on a 
Windows platform, Microsoft is helping to open up the competitive 
market. This practice helps our technology industry to continue to 
grow. It is time to let these terms speak for themselves, and allow 
the IT sector to move forward and help our economy grow.
    The settlement has obviously been well thought out, and can only 
benefit consumers, the IT sector and our country's economy as a 
whole I support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Chung Lee



MTC-00030935

JAN-9-02 WED 7:57 AM
TZANGAS, PLAKAS & MANNOS FAX NO> 3304552108
Tzangas,Plakas,
Mannos&Recupero
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
George I. Tzangas January 7, 2002
Lee. L. Makas
James G. Mannons
James R. Recupeto
Elizabeth A. Rajes
James M. McHugh
Gary A. Conolo
David L. Dungwell
Christopher M. Huryn
DeNise K. Houston
Cheryl S. Lee
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Canton Office
454 Stark Country Building
110 Central Plaza South
Canton, Ohio 44702
350-455-5466
Akron Office
2500 First National Tower
106 South Main Street
330-784-5466
Akron, Ohio 44306
FAX 330-455-2108
www.lawlion.com
e-mail [email protected]
    As an attorney and a supporter of Microsoft, I write to you to 
give my support to the recent Microsoft settlement. Using both 
Professional XP, and Home XP, I can only praise the work that 
Microsoft has done to make the technology industry so accessible. 
Not only has Microsoft been beneficial to both consumers and the IT 
sector alike, but it has also been beneficial to our economy as a 
whole. I would truly welcome any support towards the recent 
agreement, in hopes that we can allow our technology industry to 
move on.
    After three long years of court battles, it seems that It is 
time to let this well thought out settlement move forward. The terms 
of the agreement are fair and benefit all parties involved. Since 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice have agreed upon terms that 
will open up the competitive market, I think it is time to let the 
terms, information sharing, non-retaliation agreements, government 
oversight, etc, speak for themselves.
    I fully support the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice, and hope to see it implemented soon. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
Cheryl S Lee



MTC-00030936

01/08/200219:52 2038748093 COMPASS PAGE 01
167 Cherry Street # 404
Milford, CT 06460
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the US Government should 
never have gotten involved with taking legal action against 
Microsoft.Nevertheless, I am happy to see that the settlement in the 
antitrust case has occurred and I hope that the concessions 
Microsoft will be making will turn out to be in the best interest of 
the American public.Microsoft has been the leading innovator of 
technology for over a decade now and has set the standards for 
product and service development in the industry. They should not be 
penalized, but rather praised for their efforts and vision.
    I sincerely hope that no further litigation comes against them 
and that Microsoft is able to focus on business, and not forced to 
spend time on legal strategy.
    Sincerely,
    Wally Hauck



MTC-00030937

Sent By:;
801 76O 8753;
Jan-9-02 12:30AM;
Page l/l
Michael J. Nelson
11861 Abercorn Court
Reston, Virginia 20191
[email protected]
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    I write to express my opinion in regards to the settlement that 
was reached between Microsoft and the United States. This case has 
gone on long enough, anti embrace this long overdue settlement.
    This agreement not only allows Microsoft to remain together and 
continue designing innovative software, but it also will benefit 
other companies andentrepreneuurs that yearn to compete. Microsoft 
must disclose never-before-seen technical information other 
companies and must be monitored by a government committee for 
compliance. It also must change its licensing methods vis-&-
visother companies.
    Microsoft should not be penalized for doing its job well and 
bring successful. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Michael S. Nelson



MTC-00030939

01/08/200221:28 9413833574
PATRICK
PAGE 01
350 Gulf of Mexico Drive, Apt. 223
Longboat Key, Florida 34228
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has recently come to my attention that the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft have reached a settlement in the antitrust 
case. Microsoft is making a good faith effort to reach an end to 
this suit, and the terms of the settlement are more than just a slap 
on the wrist.
    Under this settlement Microsoft has agreed to disclose internal 
interfaces, which were formerly top secret for Microsoft. By doing 
this, Microsoft will allow competitors to create better software and 
more openness in the IT industry. An IT company has never agreed to 
such a drastic disclosure. Sadly, opposition to the settlement 
exists, and they believe that this new openness by Microsoft is not 
enough. The opposition to the settlement consists mainly of those 
with an anti-Microsoft bias. But more than three years in court have 
damaged Microsoft touch already, it is time for this antitrust case 
to end.
    Thank you for taking the time to consider my views on these 
matters. Once again,I support this settlement, and look forward to 
seeing it implemented soon.
    Sincerely,
    Stephanie Patrick



MTC-00030940

JAN 9, 20029:04AM CHESTNUTT,

[[Page 29478]]

CLEMMONS & THOMAS PA
NO. 7574 p.1
FACSMILE TRANSMISSION
TO: US Dept. of Justice/Antitrust Div.
ATTN: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
FAX: 202-307-1454
DATE: 1-9-02 TIME: 9:14
FROM: Senator Scott Thomas
CLIENT: N/A
RE: Microsoft Settlement
NO. PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 2
MESSAGE:
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW? X YES NOin mail today
    This facsimile is intended ONLY for the person whose name 
appears above. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please contact us at the phone number below immediately.
CHESTNUTT, CLEMMONS & THOMAS, P.A.
P.O. BOX 12530
225-C BROAD STREET
NEW BERN, N.C. 28561
TELEPHONE: 919-633-6868
FAX: 919-637-2460
JAN. 9.20029:04AM CHESTNUTT, CLEMONS & THOMAS PA NO. 7574 
P. 2
North Carolina General Assembly
Senate Chamber
SENATOR SCOTT E. THOMAS
3RD DISTRICT
RALEIGH: 622 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NC 27601-2808
(919) 733-6275
(919) 838-0209 FAX
E-MAIL: [email protected]
DISTRICT: PO BOX 12530
NEW BERN. NC 28961
(252) 633-6868
(252) 637-2450 FAX
    COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY II (VICE CHAIR)
APPROPRIATIONS
JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE
AGRICULTURE ENVIRONMENTAL/NATURAL RESOURCES
EDUCATION/HIGHER EDUCATION
INSURANCE & CONSUMER PROTECTION
REDISTRICTING
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATION
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via facsimile: (202) 307-l454
Re: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that the 
Department of Justice and several states, including north Carolina, 
have reached with Microsoft.
    I will be pleased to see this matter resolved because it will be 
a boost for the technology sector, a larger force in the North 
Carolina economy. I believe that the certainty of the settlement 
will promote new investment in technology and will enhance 
competition in all aspects of the technology industry which will 
benefit consumers.
    With this litigation settled, the technology industry can 
continue its recovery and growth.The settlement represents a 
reasonable compromise that has earned bipartisan support. I urge the 
department of justice and the court to approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Senator Scott Thomas
    ST/cbj



MTC-00030941

01/09/200218:20 7033231582 FOREMAN AND ASSOC PAGE 01
Rhythm & Cheer Studios
8350 Alban Road, Suite 500 Springfield, Virginia 22150 703.866.2318
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I am a strong supporter of the Microsoft and Government 
settlement.
    Like many, I have followed the case the federal government has 
pursued against Microsoft for quite some time. For years now, the 
government and the state attorney generals have filed legal action 
after legal action to penalize this high tech leader and their 
efforts have caused great harm to the high tech industry.
    Instead the state attorney generals have only succeeded in 
ushering in a downturn in our economy, which is heavily reliant 
lately on a strong technology sector. It's time to bring an end to 
this case and this sort of litigation.
    Sincerely
    Sheryl Olecheck



MTC-00030942

JAN-9-02WED 18:53 P.01
7426 Granny Valley Road
Gloucester, VA 23061
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to express my opinion on the Microsoft 
settlement issue. I feel that this settlement is long overdue. This 
settlement is both fair and reasonable, and keeping Microsoft 
together will serve in the best public interest.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft must share more information with 
other companies and give consumers more choices. Microsoft must 
disclose information about certain internal interfaces in Windows, 
as well as software books and codes. Microsoft must also design 
future versions of Windows to make it easier to install non- 
Microsoft software. This will make it easier for companies to 
compete.
    Most importantly, I feel this settlement is beneficial, because 
it ends three years of litigation. Microsoft's precious resources 
should go towards more fruitful activities. Thank you for settling 
with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Harvey Herring



MTC-00030943

Jan-09-2002 07:28am From-NCR
+8584852032
T-549 P. 001/001 F-700
Teradata A division of NCR
Teradata Test Engineering
17095 Via del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127-1711
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    There has been much discussion and controversy generated over 
this Microsoft lawsuit. What I find amazing is that the idea that 
Microsoft's success has so offended a few of its competitors in the 
IT community that these competitors actually successfully prevailed 
upon our government to file this suit to begin with. It is a good 
thing that this settlement has been reached. Our legal system and 
our country will be spared the inevitable embarrassment of picking 
apart one of our country's most successful companies.
    I am writing to voice my support for this settlement. Whatever 
might bethought of Microsoft's attitude, it cannot be said that 
their products are being forced upon anyone who does not want them. 
What's more, the settlement ensures that there is no way for 
Microsoft use its Windows OS to unfairly get an advantage for its 
programs. It is important for us as a country to refocus our 
priorities upon more important issues than this.Let's put an end to 
this lawsuit by accepting the settlement. Let's move on.
    Sincerely,
    Steven L Smith
    Software Engineer



MTC-00030944

01/09/200211:18 2033342610 JOE MANCINI PAGE 01
487 Stratfield Road
Fairfield, CT 06432
January 8,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    When I heard that I had the opportunity to express my opinion 
about the Microsoft antitrust case resolution, I was quite excited. 
The resolution that was reached was a fair and equitable one that I 
think is beneficial to all parties involved, and I would like to 
that resolution become the final result of the three year long 
litigation.
    Many things within this settlement make it beneficial. First, it 
provides equal terms, conditions, and prices to all hardware 
companies dealing with Microsoft. It Also prevents Microsoft from 
taking retaliatory measures against any company that promotes 
software other than Microsoft software. This settlement even 
requires that Microsoft provide interface information to companies 
in order that the technology playing field may be more level. No 
more guidelines could possibly be levied without becoming unhealthy.
    Therefore, I urge you to leave the resolution as is, change it 
no further. The Current settlement will provide all the

[[Page 29479]]

protection needed to the smaller companies while still preserving 
competition to the utmost.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Mancini



MTC-00030945

JAN 0902 11:34AM UMD ASTRONOMY P.1/5
University of Maryland at College Park
Department of Astronomy
Fax Transmission from 301-314-9067
To: Renata B. Hesse
Fax No: 1-202-307-1454
Date: 9January 2002
From: Nicholas L. Chapman
    Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 5
    Message/Note: Public Comment on the proposed settlement of the 
Antitrust Lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation.
JAN 09--02 11:34AM UMD ASTRONOMY
P. 2/5
4508 Fordham Lane, APT 6
College Park, MD 20740
January 9, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To Whom It May Concern:
    I am deeply disappointed by the proposed settlement of the 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. It has been proven 
and upheld on appeal that Microsoft holds a monopoly in operating 
systems and that it has illegally maintained that monopoly in 
flagrant violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Despite this, the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft is a farce. It is weak, 
ineffectual, and does not address the best interests of 
consumers.Any settlement that would be truly just and beneficial to 
consumers should accomplish two things:
    1. Microsoft should be denied the benefits of their lawbreaking.
    2. Competition in the marketplace must be restored for the 
present and for the future.
    The current settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its 
actions. This is not about revenge, merely common sense. Without 
punishment, Microsoft has no incentive to obey the law in the 
future. If Microsoft actually benefits from its lawlessness, what is 
to prevent them, or other corporations, from doing the same thing 
again?
    The settlement needs to address this problem by: 1) requiring an 
admission of guilt from Microsoft, 2) imposing monetary fines on 
Microsoft, and 3) im-posing other non-monetary punishments. Without 
these sorts of sanctions,Microsoft will surely continue is lawless 
behavior. Massachusetts Attorney
    JAN 0902 11:35AM UMD ASTRONOMY
    P. 3/5
    General Thomas F. Reilly commented on this settlement saying, 
``Five minutes after any agreement is signed with Microsoft, 
they'll be thinking of how to violate the agreement. They're 
predators. They crush their competition.They crush new ideas. They 
stifle innovation. That's what they dol. I have no doubt 
in my mind this is exactly what Microsoft will do if they are not 
punished.
    For years, Microsoft has used its monopoly to block or inhibit 
middle ware products that could potentially threaten the Windows 
monopoly. The cur-rent settlement agreement is an attempt to curtail 
many of these abusive tactics. However, the proposed remedies are 
full of loopholes meaning little,if any, real change will occur. 
Senator Patrick Leahy voiced his concern for the proposed 
settlement: ``I find that many of the terms of the settlement 
are either confusingly vague, subject to manipulation or both. 
Second, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism described in 
the proposed decree lacks the power and timeliness necessary to 
inspire confidence in its effectiveness'' 2. Some of the 
dubious remedies that concern me are:
    The settlement attempts to give OEM's3 control of the middleware 
included on the computers they sell. However, several loopholes 
prevent real competition from resulting.

--Microsoft is prohibited from non-monetary retaliation against 
OEM's who include non-Microsoft middle ware. Monetary rewards for 
using Microsoft middleware, however, are allowed. With Microsoft's 
huge cash reserves, they could easily outspend their 
competitors,preventing them from gaining a significant hold on the 
desktop market.
--The settlement only protects middle ware made by third 
parties that competes with an existing Microsoft product. If you 
create a new product before Microsoft does, they can still exclude 
you from the desktop since Microsoft does not yet compete with you.
--Additionally, middleware is only protected if the company 
distributed one million copies in the last year. This means that 
small, independent software developers (who are most in need of 
protection) do not get any.

    1 Speech given by Matthew Szulik before the U. S. Senate, 12 
December 2001
    2 The New York Times, 12 December 2001
    3 0riginal Equipment Manufacturer of personal computers
    Jan 09 ``02 11:35am UMD Astronomy
    P.4/5
--Under the settlement, OEM'S may change the default middleware 
application launched when a Microsoft alternative would normally 
run. However, if a particular requirement is not met by the 
alternative, the Microsoft middleware will still be launched. I can 
imagine Microsoft adding new features that require Microsoft's 
middleware to run properly. Sounds farfetched? Recently, Microsoft 
blocked many browsers made by third parties from accessing msn.com 
claiming these browsers could not provide the fulluser experience.
--Under the settlement Microsoft must disclose its API's4 to 
developers-provided developers have a reasonable need for them. Who 
gets to determine what is reasonable need? Microsoft. Even worse, if 
a developer actually uses Microsoft's API's, they must submit the 
program for approval by Microsoft. In effect, Microsoft gets free 
reign to use any innovation created by a third party developer.
--Microsoft does not have to release its own API's until the 
last beta stage on a product is reached. This gives Microsoft's 
developers a hugehead start over third party developers, resulting 
in significant time-to-market advantages.
--Microsoft chooses, in part, the Technical Committee set up by 
the settlement. to police Microsoft. As a result, the overall 
effectiveness of this committee is doubtful.
    Competition is the cornerstone of the free market system. This 
competition drives innovation and productivity, while reducing costs 
to consumers.The goal of any settlement should be to restore 
competition in the software industry. The proposed settlement does 
not meet this goal. In 1994, the justice Department entered into an 
agreement with Microsoft. It was the violation of this agreement 
that lead to the current antitrust litigation in1998. History tells 
us that Microsoft will violate this new decree, leading to future 
litigation. Senator Leahy worries about the same thing. 
```The serious questions that have been raised about the 
scope, enforceability and effectiveness of this proposed settlement 
leave me concerned that, if approved in its4 Application Programming 
Interfarescurrent form, it may simply be an invitation for the next 
chapter of litigation'' 5. The government won the case. 
Microsoft used its monopoly power to crush competition and harm 
consumers. The government should press for a true settlement, not 
this ineffectual decree.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas L. Chapman
    5 The New York Times, 12 December 2001
    JAN 09 0211:36AM UMD ASTRONOMYP.5/5



MTC-00030946

01/09/02WED 10:38 FAX 806 371 5370 001
AMARILLO COLLEGE ADMIN
67l3 Admiral Ct.
Amarillo, Texas 79124
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you in support of Microsoft and the settlement 
you have reached. I think that the settlement is reasonable to both 
parties and answers many of the problems that Microsoft's 
competitors had with outputting too much of a strain on Microsoft. 
Microsoft will, for example, not adhere to a uniform price list when 
licensing Windows out to the 20 largest computer makers in the 
United States.
    I'm glad to see this since Microsoft is such an important part 
of our economy and most American's daily lives. Many people and 
small businesses depend on their products for various aspects of 
their lives and it's nice to see that they can continue to do so.
    I would like to thank you for taking the time to hear my option 
on this matter and I hope that you will take it into account, along 
with others who feel the same, regarding the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Brant Hatler

[[Page 29480]]



MTC-00030947

Anna M. Hudock
540 N Franklin Street
Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 18702
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my strong opinions in 
regards to the Microsoft antitrust issue. I support Microsoft in 
this dispute, and I also am in favor of the settlement that was 
reached on November 6, 2001. This settlement ends a dispute that I 
feel has drawn on for long enough.
    This settlement contains provisions that not only will allow 
Microsoft to get back to the business of innovative software design, 
but it will also make it easier for competing companies to conduct 
business. Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make 
it easier to install non-Microsoft software and must disclose more 
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows.
    This settlement comes at a time when we are having economic 
difficulties. We must do all we can to boost our lagging economy. I 
support the Microsoft settlement and hope to se it finalized soon.
    Sincerely,
    Anna M. Hudock
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030948

Jan 08 0205:37P Strategic Software Technologies Inc. p.1
1414 E. Young
Temple, TX 76501
254/791-5191
FAX 254/791-5192
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Dept. of Justice
601 D St.NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft settlement. I know I am 
only one voice out of many but I do have an opinion that I wish to 
express. Being a software developer, Microsoft products are part of 
my arsenal of tools, as are IBM products, that I must use and rely 
on everyday when trying to develop business solutions for my 
clients. Although I am sure that Microsoft leveraged its strength in 
every way possible and probably exceeded some ethical boundaries, I 
do not believe the punishment should be a breakup of the company or 
even a disruption of business. You may not remember in the late 80's 
and early 90's how terribly convoluted the software industry was. 
Nothing worked together and many vendors were involved when trying 
to create a suite of tools to work with. I applaud Microsoft for 
FINALLY getting most of that behind us. And as a developer, I know 
that in order to accomplish it successfully, many of those pieces 
had to be closely tied to the operating system. I also know that if 
you want to install another product in place of a Microsoft product 
you can. Anyway, to be brief, I would recommend acceptance of the-
negotiated settlement, and let things get rolling again.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Lewis
    President



MTC-00030949

TEXAS EAGLE FORUM
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The government should cease its open-ended pursuit of the high-
tech industry.
    The previous administration was misguided in its attempt to 
break up Microsoft Corporation. Even though the lawsuit was dropped, 
an even more ominous threat would be for the government to regulate 
the entire industry.
    This attempt is misguided because Microsoft was and still is 
competitor driven. No consumer or end user of Microsoft products is 
a party to this attempt to quash innovation and interfere with 
market-driven competition.
    It is past time to settle all remaining issues between Microsoft 
and the government and let the technology industry get back to the 
business of providing high quality products to the American consumer 
in a FREE MARKET, SMALL GOVERNMENT way.
    Thank you for considering my request.
    Sincerely,
    Cathie Adams, President
    P.O. Box 795354
    Dallas, TX 75379
    Phone 972-250-0734
    Fax 972-380-2853
    email
    [email protected]
    web page
    texaseagle.org



MTC-00030950

01/09/200212:00 5024951409 FRANK ARKFELD PAGE 01
Frank Arkfeld
2612 Carterton Way
Flower Mound, TX 75022
972-355-7283 (Voice)
972-355-2683 (Fax)
To: Attorney General Ashcroft Fax: 1-202-616-9937
From: Frank Arkfeld
Date: 1/9/2001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Pages: 2
CC:
Richard Armey
Fax: 202-226-2028
01/09/2002 12:00 5024951409
FRANK ARKFELD
PAGE 02
Voice: (972) 355-7283
2612 Carterton Way
Fax: (972) 355-2683
Flower Mound, TX 75022 (972)
E-mail: [email protected]
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has recently come to my attention that there has been a 
settlement reached in the case against Microsoft by the Justice 
Department. I agree with this settlement wholeheartedly, and I ask 
you to finalize it at the end of the comment period.
    This case has been ongoing for the past three years. The Justice 
Department should end its persecution of Microsoft based on its 
worldwide success. It serves no useful purpose to continue on with 
the case, since doing so would waste a vast amount of time, tax 
dollars, and human resources, all of which can be better spent on 
the current needs of the country. The settlement is fair, and 
changes many of Microsoft's business practices, especially those 
found unsavory by competitors and consumers alike, such as 
retribution against companies that tack non-Microsoft software onto 
Windows before shipping a computer to the customer. I ask that the 
government resolve to put an end to this lawsuit by deciding to take 
no further action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Arkfeld
    cc: Representative Richard Armey



MTC-00030951

Jan 09 0201:06p Irlando
(817) 535 6656 p.1
GIANINA M. IRLANDO
4218 Kenwood Court
Fort Worth, TX 76103
817.535.4593 Fax 817.535.6656
To: RenataHesse
From: Gianina Irlando
Fax: (202) 616-9937
Pages: 2
Phone:
Date:
1/9/2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement
CC:
Jan 09 02 01:06p Irlando
(817) 535 6656
P.2
GIANINA M. IRLANDO
4218 Kenwood Court
Fort Worth, TX 76103
817.535.4593 Fax 817.535.6656
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the federal antitrust settlement 
agreed upon between Microsoft Corporation and the US Department of 
Justice is currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals. I am 
writing this in order to register my support for the settlement and 
ask the Court to rule accordingly.
    For three years, this case has been disputed without any 
reasonable legal remedies. The proposed settlement effectively 
eliminates the need for further litigation-which would be at 
tremendous expense to taxpayers-and offers a fair and reasonable 
compromise.

[[Page 29481]]

    Microsoft is a leading innovator of high tech products. Their 
products have made business computing simple, effective and 
productive. It is because of their continued pursuit of excellence 
in the market and ongoing quest for consumer satisfaction, that they 
have become such a giant in the industry. It would be a shame to 
sanction them for their cutting-edge innovations.
    My quick review of the settlement terms persuaded me to write. 
Microsoft has shown good faith in this agreement. In fact, I would 
say they have gone beyond what should be required of any business 
operating in our so-called ``free market''. It is time to 
accept the settlement and move on.
    Sincerely,
    Gianina lrlando



MTC-00030952

JAN-09-200217:38 TRIBUTE INC
3306563464 P. 01/01
Tribute Software for Successful Distributors
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my support for the Microsoft the 
settlement. I feel strongly that any American business ought to have 
the right to release to its competitors as much or as little of its 
proprietary trade secrets as it feels appropriate, rather than to 
have our government dictate disclosure through the courts.
    I certainly feel that Microsoft should have done a better job 
with both industry and government relations regarding such 
disclosures. Indeed, failure to release ``source code'' 
appropriately would be a strategic mistake for Microsoft. Our 
industry has grown on cooperation and sharing of innovations. 
However, our industry's health also depends on the safeguarding of 
intellectual property. As such, the final decision regarding release 
of ``source code'' to competitors should have Microsoft's, 
and not that of a federal judge.
    I realize that this is only one of many issues in this case, but 
this issue is the one that has me most concerned because of the 
potential impact on the efficacy of intellectual property rights. I 
am therefore pleased that this settlement has been reached, and that 
Microsoft was not forced into any involuntary disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy Reynolds
    President
    TOTAL P.01



MTC-00030953

FROM: Parts & Fasteners FAX No.: Jan. 09 200203:48PM P1
3956 La Hacienda Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92404-2041
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    For more than three years now Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have engaged in an expensive, time consuming, and drawn out 
antitrust case. Thankfully a settlement has been reached. I am 
writing to state my support for the settlement and opposition to any 
continuation of this case.
    The Government and Microsoft have spent millions of dollars and 
thousands of hours on this case. The settlement that has been 
reached will allow both entities to get back to important matters 
that this case has distracted them from. This settlement places some 
rather severe restrictions on Microsoft, but nevertheless Microsoft 
supports the settlement because it would like to return to get back 
to business.
    Your support of the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case 
is greatly appreciated. Allow our technology industry to once again 
have as its main concern technological development and not expensive 
court conflict.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Lou Hays



MTC-00030954

6545 Lansdowne Avenue
Philadelphia. PA 19151-3317
Phone 215.477.0384 Fax 215.477.3246
E-mail [email protected]
www.iaestaimports.com
Iatesta Imports
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned United States citizen, I would like to voice my 
thoughts on the settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft Corp. I believe that Microsoft was treated unfairly by 
having to defend itself in court for alleged antitrust violations, 
when it was simply putting out a good product. However, I,do believe 
that the settlement is in the best interests of all parties 
involved, including the American public. This case has been in 
litigation for three, years now. It should be brought to a close so 
everyone involved can attend to the more'immediate needs that are 
affecting our great nation currently. The terms of this settlement 
are reasonable, and require a number of specific changes from 
Microsoft. For example, computer makers will have the option to 
remove the means by which the consumer can have access to features 
of Windows such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and 
Windows Messenger. They will then be able to replace them with 
access to products like Netscape's browser, or AOL IM. Furthermore, 
a ``Technical Committee'' will monitor Microsoft's 
compliance with the settlement. These changes should be sufficient 
to end any future litigation from the federal government and 
individual states.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Iatesta
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030955

01/09/200214:28 FAX 7023621675
RICHARD C HANSEEN 001
C H RICHARD C. HANSEEN, CPA
Management & Financial Solutions
Businesses & Individuals
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a Microsoft user and shareholder, I am writing to express my 
opinion of the recent antitrust case settlement between Microsoft 
and the U.S. Department of Justice. I have felt all along that the 
government should keep out of this matter and let free enterprise 
take its course.
    Microsoft has been instrumental in creating a powerful business 
that has been innovative and vision-oriented. Microsoft's work has 
set standards for the industry and has proved that the tech sector 
is a formidable force that is here to stay. Unfortunately, Microsoft 
has been hindered in the past three years by litigation, which in 
many cases is unjustified. The settlement corrects the alleged 
wrongs from the alleged lawsuit, and enables companies to sue 
Microsoft if they feel that it is taking liberties with the 
settlement. Moreover, the government-run Technical Committee will 
also help to ensure that Microsoft refrains from retaliatory or 
predatory actions that would undermine the settlement.
    I hope that no further litigation is brought to suit and that 
the best interests of the American public are served by the 
government's future action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Richard C. Hanseen, CPA, PFS
    cc: Senator Harry Reid
    2820 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 28 o Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 o 
702.362.3123 o Fax 702.362.1675
    [email protected] www.hanseen-cpa.com



MTC-00030956

01/09/200213:04 9496614830 JUNE PLACE PAGE01
33751 Windlass Drive
Monarch Beach, CA 92629
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It is nice see that the trust and loyalty I have placed in this 
government for many years have been merited. Thank you for coming to 
a formal agreement with Microsoft. It does not make sense to revisit 
this issue.
    It is necessary for us to work more efficiently during a very 
difficult period in the country. It is wise to allocate our funds to 
improve morale and boost the private and public sector. We only need 
to turn on the nightly news to see that the unemployment rate is at 
an all time high. There is no need to drag this issue out any 
further. Microsoft is willing to compromise to reach a good 
settlement.
    I support the settlement, and look forward to seeing it in place 
soon.
    Sincerely,
    June Place



MTC-00030957

1-9-02;3:45PM; Raw Materials ;6106942063 #1/1
1721 Millard Street

[[Page 29482]]

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18017
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe the government has no business interfering with 
Microsoft in its pursuit of success. The concessions Microsoft is 
making are too harsh and unjustified.
    Microsoft worked hard to create new technology and ideas. They 
have brought new products and services to market that outshone all 
their competitors. They should not be penalized for their superior 
performance, but instead praised. Instead, Microsoft is forced to 
share information about critical interfaces with Windows with its 
competitors, crippling its ability to compete, and will be made 
subject to a government oversight committee, putting the company's 
every action under intense scrutiny.
    I hope that no further litigation is brought against Microsoft 
and I look forward to the IT sector making a comeback which can only 
happen if Microsoft is allowed to pursue business interests, not 
politics.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Felix
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030958

Doherty
TEL:1-215-736-8959 Jan 09'' 02 15:26 No. 001 
P.01
707 Ardsley Court
Yardley, PA 19067
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to you today so that my opinion may 
become public record.
    I am very happy that a settlement was finally reached in regards 
to the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Three long years of litigation 
have finally produced a settlement that I believe is going to be 
very advantageous to all parties, 2002 involved. For the smaller 
computer manufacturing companies there are guarantees that Microsoft 
will not take any kind of retaliatory measures against them for 
promoting software from Microsoft's competitors. There is also a 
provision that restricts Microsoft from entering into any kind of 
contractual agreement that would retard the development of 
competitors'' software or the competitors'' ability to 
compete with Microsoft. There is even a provision in this settlement 
that requires Microsoft to disclose Windows interface information to 
other software developers if requested. This provision is a first 
for a settlement of its kind. Truly, this settlement is uniquely 
tailored to this situation.
    No further changes to the settlement need be made. If Microsoft 
and the Justice Department are both happy with this settlement, and 
it is my understanding that they are, then we should leave it as is. 
I support the settlement, and hope to see it finalized soon.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Doherty
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030959

Minority Educational Resource Center Inc. (M.E.R.C.L)
Telephone/FAX (972) 874-3996 E-mail: 
[email protected]
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing this letter to express my support for the recently 
negotiated settlement of the Microsoft case. For the past several 
months, I have watched as the Department of Justice and several 
state Attorneys General have relentlessly pursued a frivolous 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. As a user of Microsoft 
products, I think it is time to bring this issue to a conclusion.
    The threat of government regulation has caused tremendous harm 
to the industry, consumers and the entire economy, At a time when 
the economy is heading into difficult times, the last thing the 
technology industry needs is more litigation and government 
regulalion.
    Further litigation will not improve quality or increase 
innovation. On the contrary, attempts to place limits on any part of 
the tech sector-not just Microsoft--will inhibit innovation, 
increase costs, and place America's technology at a disadvantage in 
the global market.
    I think it is time to settle this matter and let the industry, 
and Microsoft, continue to develop affordable, innovative products.
    Sincerely,
    J. Edwin Hudspith



MTC-00030960

JAN-09-2002 WED 03:52 PM
FAX NO.
P.01
Robert D. Corsaro
Home (301) 705-7586
5921 Walleye Court,
Office (202) 767-3537
Waldorf, MD 20603
[email protected]
[email protected]
January 9, 2OO2
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530;
(facsimile) 202-616-9937.
    As a personal computer user for over 30 years, both at home and 
work, I have witnessed or experienced adverse effects of Microsoft's 
antitrust violations. In my opinion the settlement that is proposed 
will nether remedy nor discourage future antitrust violations of the 
type for which Microsoft has been found culpable.
    The company has repeatedly and blatantly operated as a monopoly 
using unfair practices to eliminate competitors. It has already been 
found in violation. Yet I am dismayed to find that the 
``penalty'' proposed actually enables Microsoft to advance 
its operating system monopoly. I am particularly concerned with the 
level of intrusion and personal data-gathering afforded by the close 
coupling of Microsoft's operating system and its Web dominance. If 
appropriate action is not taken at this time, I am convinced that 
the public interest and privacy will suffer for many years to come. 
The most appropriate remedy is to fully separate the 
``system'' and ``software'' operations into 
separate and independent companies, where networking software is 
assigned to the latter. Even then, rigorous oversight would be 
required to ensure that there is no collusion. While this would be 
severe. I feel that Microsoft has not earned the very basic level of 
public trust that any other solution would require.
    Sincerely



MTC-00030961

01/09/200201:56 9722220013 GLORIANA JOHNSON PAGE 01
Gloriana Johnson
Shannon Road
Mesquite, Texas 75181
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to inform you of my opinion in regards to 
the Microsoft settlement that was reached on November 6. I feel this 
settlement is fair and reasonable, and I am a strong Microsoft 
supporter.
    I believe Microsoft has accomplished a great deal in the last 
decade. Microsoft offers quality products to consumers at reasonable 
prices. Microsoft will now allow itself to be monitored by a 
technical oversight committee created by the settlement in order to 
ensure that Microsoft doesn't engage in any anti-competitive 
behavior. The technological boom we have experience is due to 
Microsoft for the most part. This company should not be punished for 
being successful at what they do.
    I support the settlement and hope to see it in place soon. Thank 
you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Gloriana Johnson



MTC-00030962

Jan. 09 20022:46PM Foundation for Economic E 9896879088 P.1
James E. Kostrzewa
2698 North Peterson Drive
Sanford, Michigan 48657
(989) 687-9555
FAX Cover Sheet
To: United States Department of Justice
Fax number: 202-307-1454
Pages to follow: 0
Date: January 9, 2002
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Case
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please settle the Microsoft case! Every day I hear jokes about 
the fact that the U.S. Government is spending exponentially more on 
useless programs like trying to control American businesses than it 
spends on real threats like terrorism. But it is no joke--you 
are! Please stop.
    Please listen to our founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson who 
said, ``The government

[[Page 29483]]

that governs least governs best.'' I, like our founding 
fathers, am a ``Classical Liberal.'' I believe in self-
reliance, limited government, respect for private property and 
individual liberty, and the rule of law. I urge you to take a lesson 
from the state of Michigan from 1851 when the Michigan state 
legislators amended the state constitution to ``get out of the 
business of business.'' This public policy change is what lead 
to businesses flocking to the cold climate of Michigan to make it 
one of the manufacturing Mecca's of the world, Please leave business 
to the free market and we will all be infinitely more 
prosperous--including you.
    Respectfully,



MTC-00030963

01/09/02WED 15:1? Fax 1 954 771 2223 HORNER EQUIPMENT ADMIN. 
001
Tandy Garay--IT Director
Horner Equipment of Florida, Inc.
5755 Powerline Road
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my feelings on the Microsoft 
settlement that was reached in November. I believe this agreement 
will have long-term beneficial effects on our lagging economy. For 
this reason, I feel this agreement will be in the best interest of 
the public.
    This agreement contains provisions that will foster competition.
    Microsoft has pledged to share more information with other 
companies about Microsoft software codes and books. Microsoft must 
also make it easier to install non-Microsoft software. These steps 
will give third party vendors more opportunity for growth and allow 
consumers a greater choice in applications. This is a win-win 
situation all around.
    These provisions and many others will have a positive impact on 
the technology industry and is a great victory for consumers as 
well. Thank you for settling this suit with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Tandy Garay



MTC-00030964

P-01
Jose Navarro
1814 Brookside Avenue
Oxnard, CA 93035-3319
2 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the opportunity granted by the Tunney Act to 
express my opinion about the recent Microsoft settlement. I am fully 
in support of the settlement. It is realistic and reasonable, and it 
allows increased monitoring to ensure fair competition.
    In this current state of economic downturn, it is absolutely 
critical that the government stops litigation against Microsoft. 
Microsoft adds productivity and innovation to the economy and should 
be allowed to participate in a free market. Stopping litigation 
against Microsoft is best for the economy and consumers.
    Thank you for orchestrating this settlement; it is truly the 
best thing for the America of today, and the America of tomorrow.
    incerely,
    Jose Navarro
    cc: Representative Elton Gallegly



MTC-00030965

Jan 09 0201:00p
YesterTec Design Company 610-838-1937 p.1
David W. Beer
1490 Spring Valley Road
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following litigation for the last three years 
against Microsoft and am happy to see that the matter was settled in 
November in the antitrust case. I am happy to see that Microsoft is 
not being broken up, and that true innovation can continue. This 
business simply cannot be regulated in any way that discourages 
innovation, especially since the business models change so 
frequently.
    Microsoft has been a huge asset to my business and particularly 
to our country through product and service development, employment, 
education, and philanthropy. It is our opinion that Microsoft has 
done much more good for our nation's economy than bad.
    Because of their contributions they should be rewarded, and they 
have been monetarily rewarded in the past, but I hope the penalties 
address only the practice of business and not the practice of 
innovation. In this context, penalties should be enforced for 
malicious law breakers, and not for aggressive but law abiding 
business practices.
    I am particularly annoyed with Sun Microsystems. We all have 
competitors, and they have, in the long run, benefited from the 
competition. I hope the nine states in opposition to settlement will 
end their quarrels and let private enterprises return to focusing on 
business, innovation, and not politics.
    Sincerely,
    David Beer



MTC-00030966

Jan-09-02 11:47A Dick Ross 16102507809 P.01
Richard Ross
1607A Briarwood Lane
Bethlehem, Pa. 18017
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three years of litigation in federal court, a settlement 
agreement that can end the Department of Justice's lawsuit against 
Microsoft is more than welcome. After three years, all the issues 
surrounding the case have been considered and all the involved 
parties have been able to express their points of view on the 
matter. After three years, the settlement is more than fair to the 
Microsoft's competitors and to the federal government. It gives the 
red-carpet treatment to software developers that wish to create 
software that works in a Windows operating system.
    Considering all the points of the settlement, such as allowing 
hardware makers to reconfigure parts of Windows, it is obvious that 
Microsoft will lose some of its market share when the settlement is 
formalized. The issue at stake now is whether the consumer will 
benefit from the proposed settlement or not.
    The enormous cost that the suit has been on Microsoft and on the 
entire IT industry will inevitably be absorbed by the consumer in 
the form of artificially higher prices for years to come. If the 
suit is not settled now, the cost to the IT industry and Microsoft 
can only increase, which means that the cost to consumers in the end 
can only increase. This is most certainly not in the public 
interest.
    Now is the time to end the suit and allow the IT industry and 
Microsoft to return to their functions as innovators and service 
providers to the millions consumers of technology products. For the 
good of all involved parties, I urge you to see that the proposed 
settlement become formal as soon as possible. Sincerely,



MTC-00030967

01/09/02 12:28 404 952 1558 MICROSOFT CORP. 01
Eric Cobaugh
6909 Rainwater Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I respcct the Ieadership in this country. Especially now, when 
challenges our facing this nation as never before, those in national 
leadership should set an example of cooperation and high-minded 
action.
    I believe the recently reached settlement between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice embodies this ideal of high-minded 
cooperation. The settlement is fair, and it would be tragic to allow 
the government to continue its ill-advised campaign to fragment and 
effectively render irrelevant one of our nation's greatest and most 
productive companies.
    The settlement affects the health of the entire information 
technology industry. Manufacturers and designers of hardware and 
software must be able to rely on Microsoft and it's competitors to 
incorporate technology innovations into their products as rapidly as 
commercially viable. This is best accomplished through unfettered 
competition NOT by government committees choosing winners and 
losers.
    I am hopeful that the Department of Justice will endorse the 
terms of the settlement to the other branches of government and will 
stem any further pursuance of this matter.

[[Page 29484]]

    Sincerely,
    Erie Cobaugh



MTC-00030968

1-09-20023:12PM
FROM 000000000000 P.1
10:24 GARDNER GROUP
804 741 3344 P.01/01
THE GARDNER GROUP
January 9, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    As a small businesswoman and a Microsoft investor, I was most 
pleased to learn, that a proposed settlement is under consideration. 
I have been advocate for an end to this litigation for a number of 
months, so I was pleased to hear that the end may be near and all 
concerned can expend their energies elsewhere.
    I have absolutely no doubts that this suit has negatively 
impacted my investment in the Company. From the news reports I have 
read on this issue, the case seemed to be driven by some of 
Microsoft's competitors. The economy has been backsliding for months 
now, and the September 11 and subsequent events have weakened it 
furhter. We need to take every action possible to spur the economy, 
not the opposite. As President Bush has said, we all need to spend 
money and travel. When it comes to the technology sector, people 
will spend money on new and innovative products. Costly lawsuits, 
take up a company's time and energy--time and energy that could 
be spent on more productive endeavors. The proposed settlement 
should put concerns of competitors to rest. I understand that future 
versions of Windows will have a simple way for computer and software 
makers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. I don't 
know how much more fair you can get.
    Thank you for the opportunity to bring my views to your 
attention. Sincerely yours,
    Kay Gardner
    Meeting Management form Concept to Conclusion
    152 W. Square Place, Richmond , Virginia 29233
    (804) 784-5111



MTC-00030969

JAN-09-0202:13 PM P.01
Rebecca G. Waugh
P.O.BOX 402
New Ipswich, NH 03071 
FLOWERSANTIQUES
(603)878-4279
January 8,2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washlngton DC, 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to contribute my opinion during the public comment 
period for the draft settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I 
support the settlement as a much-needed end to this drawn out court 
case. Microsoft has hurt neither its competitors nor the consumers 
with its actions, In fact their products, which continually Improve 
at affordable prices, are a great benefit to small businesses such 
as my own.
    The Justice Department must have more important things to do in 
this day and age, and I'm sure the millions spent on prosecution can 
be better spent elsewhere. There is a recession going on in this 
country, and we need companies like Microsoft to be focused on 
creating jobs and wealth in order to bounce back.
    I hope the Judge sees the wisdom in the settlement offer, and 
that this opportunity to get things back on the right track is not 
missed.
    Thank you for entertaining my opinion on this case.
    Very truly yours,
    Rebecca Waugh



MTC-00030970

Jan 09 02 01:09p
817 428 6599 p.1
MAIEVE GALLUP
5792 FALL CREEK DRIVE, FORT WORTH, TX 76137 (817) 428-6590
January 9,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Sent via fax to (202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Last November, Microsoft Corporation and the Department of 
Justice reached an historic settlement of what has been a protracted 
and expensive lawsuit. It is now time for the Court to dismiss all 
remaining complaints against Microsoft and let the consumer be the 
final judge as to whether Microsoft has harmed them.
    The choice seems to be clear. Either the Court accepts the 
settlement and competitors continue to innovate, or the Court orders 
the continuation of the lawsuits and competitors continue to 
litigate. If the latter course is taken, Microsoft will not be the 
big loser-it will be the consumer. What is the motivation to 
continue the lawsuit? Is it driven by competitors who haven't been 
as innovative as Microsoft and are afraid of losing their share of 
the market? Shouldn't the legal eye of the Court and the remaining 9 
state attorneys general be trained at the market tactics of 
Microsoft's competitors? Surely, you will find some unsavory market 
practices in their portfolios, if nothing else, they most certainly 
appear guilty of ``obstructing'' the advancement of 
technology in America's marketplace.
    I encourage the Court to stop this costly charade by Microsoft's 
competitors and let them all get back to true competition where it 
counts most-in the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Maieve Gallup



MTC-00030971

JAN-09-2002WED 14:01 ID:KINKOS TEL: 972 964 0412 
P:01
Fax Cover Sheet kinko's
2301 Preston Rd., Ste. B
Plano, Texas 75093
Tel: (972) 964-0801
Fax: (972) 964-0412
Comments:
Date: 9Jan 02
To: Attorney Gernal Ascroft
Company: Gox
Fax: 202 307 1454
From: Ed O'Donnell
Company:
Tel: 972 407-1076
Number of pages including this one:
Jan-09-2002 WED 14:01 ID:KlNKOS
TEL:972 964 0412 P:02
1413 Mockingbird Drive
Plano, Texas 75093
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express to you my support of the settlement that 
was agreed upon between Microsoft and the federal government. I 
sincerely hope that this is the end of any more litigation on the 
federal level.
    Taking into account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft 
certainly did not get off with just a warning. In fact, Microsoft is 
now left to make several significant changes in the way that they 
handle their business. For example, Microsoft has agreed to make 
available to its competitors any protocols implemented in 
Windows'' operating system products that are used to 
interoperate natively with any Microsoft server operating system. 
Microsoft has also agreed to disclose and document for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products. That alone is a first in an antitrust 
settlement.
    With the many terms of the agreement, there should be no reason 
for the government to consider pursing further litigation on any 
level.
    Sincerely,
    Ed O'Donnell



MTC-00030972

01/10/200209:43 5703562366 ABRACZINSKAS NURSERY PAGE 01
Susan
ABRACZINSKAS
346 NUMID IA DRIVE,
CATAWISSA PA 17820
HONE(570)356-2323
FAX(570)356-2366
TO: Attorney General FROM:
COMPANY
DATE:
FAX NUMBER:
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
RE:
URGENT
FOR REVIEW
PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY
PLEASE RECYCLE
01/10/200209:43 5703562366 ABRACZINSKAS NURSERY
PAGE 02
Susan Taddeo Abraczinskas
739 Mifflinville Mainville Road
Nescopeck, PA 18635
January 9,2002

[[Page 29485]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    My father died last July. He came from Italy when he was young; 
he worked hard every day all his years to make a better life for 
himself and his family. His was the quintessential American success 
story. To make sure his grandchildren had a base for their lives, he 
invested in Microsoft. My children lost thousands of dollars that 
would have been used for their education. I put the blame for this 
at the feet of former President Clinton. He evidently believes that 
anyone who works hard and makes a success of his life should be 
punished. Government should not exist to stifle success.
    The lawsuit against Microsoft was unfathomably groundless. It 
should be over. Microsoft has made numerous concessions to computer 
manufacturers, such as changing the ways Microsoft licenses its 
software and its software's configurations. There is even a 
technical committee that will oversee Microsoft's adherence to the 
settlement. I wonder if the other firms would do as much. But they 
are not as successfu1 as Microsoft and hence, immune from such 
demands.
    What I ask of you is to leave the decision reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice stand. Are we to cater to 
everyone and anyone who does not like a particular judicial 
decision? We need to concentrate on our economy now, and letting 
Microsoft get back to business is one way to do this.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Taddeo Abraczinskas
    Cc: Sen. Rick Santorum



MTC-00030973

1-10-20029:19AM
FROM 000000000000
ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION
PAGE 01
January 9, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    With regards to the Microsoft proposed settlement: The 
technology industry is extremely competitive. Some of the very best 
minds in the country are involved in the technology sector. Some of 
those minds work for Microsoft. I believe that the ability that 
allowed this company to become a leader in its industry will also 
help them comply with the terms of this agreement. They will have to 
be more flexible and more open to the needs of other firms. But 
moving beyond this lawsuit will allow the company to continue to 
provide innovative products like they have in the past. The 
settlement seems to be very equitable. For example, the provision 
that the 20 largest computer makers will be able to obtain Windows 
under the same terms conditions and price is a very fair provision. 
The time has come to settle this case. I look forward to hearing 
that good news in the near future.
    Yours truly,
    Lydia E. Grammer
    3131 Hanover Ave. #12
    Richmond, VA 23221



MTC-00030974

JAN.10.20028:50AM
GUY CARPENTER OF PA. 215 864 3798 NO. 243 P. 1/1
GUY CARPENTER
Guy Carpenter & Company of Pennsylvania
Two Logan square Telephone (215) 864-3600
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Facsimile (215) 636-9929
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing concerning the settlement negotiated between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department.
    After three long years of litigation, this settlement represents 
an opportunity to move forward.
    The entire IT sector is ready to move on and get back to 
business, but it seems that there are those who still want to hold 
up the process.
    This settlement is very strong and requires Microsoft to make 
many changes. For example,
    Microsoft will be required to disclose information concerning 
certain internal interfaces in Windows.Microsoft's competitors will 
also be free to sue Microsoft if they feel the company is not 
complying with the agreement. Beyond that, Microsoft has agreed to 
be monitored throughout the entire process to ensure that they are 
following proper procedure.
    The concessions that Microsoft has made speak volumes to the 
fact that they want to help the IT sector get back to business. Let 
us help support the agreement by letting the terms speak for 
themselves.
    Let us help not only our technology industry, but all industries 
which utilize technology such as insurance and finance, move forward 
and help get our economy back on track.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Sherman, CPCU, ARe
    Senior Vice President
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030975

01/09/2002 21:48 HOUSE SPEAKER- JIM BLACK 82023071454 NO.210 01
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
JAMES B. BLACK
RALEIGH 27601-1096
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via facsimile: (202) 307-1454
Re: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that the 
Department of Justice and several states, including North Carolina, 
have reached with Microsoft. The settlement is reasonable and has 
bipartisan support. I believe that Microsoft has agreed to make many 
significant changes in their business practices and that the company 
is committed to becoming a more responsible industry leader.
    The technology industry is a vital force in our North Carolina 
economy. Settling this lawsuit will allow the industry to continue 
to rebound and expand. I urge the Department of Justice and the 
court to approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    James B. Black, Speaker
    North Carolina House of Representatives
    JBB/jg
    0086360.01
    LIB:
    STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING o RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 
.27601-1096 o TEL
    (919) 733-3451 o FAX (919) 715-0772



MTC-00030977

JAN 10 ``02 02:14 D.L. CURTIS CO.
17023232885
TO:
202 353 8856 PO1
Dennis Curtis
185 Brooktrail Drive
Reno, NV 89509-2180
January 7,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to articulate my support in regards to the 
antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of 
Justice. As a conservative Republican, I know free enterprise should 
be given more freedom to operate and innovate, instead of being 
pulled under the reign of the federal government, as has happened 
with the antitrust case. At any rate, I am happy to see that the 
issue is being settled and I really hope that no further action is 
brought against Microsoft, particularly as the settlement opens the 
door for increased competition. The settlement will make non-
Microsoft software more efficient on a Windows platform as 
programmers become more familiar with the aspects of the Windows 
operating system that were a secret up until now.
    I also look forward to future product growth and development 
from Microsoft as well as its competitors. I believe this settlement 
will facilitate that end. Thank you for your time, and the work you 
have done to bring this about. This administration is like a breath 
of fresh air and I believe you are doing a great job. Thanks!
    Sincerely,
    Dennis L. Curtis
    cc: Senator John Ensign
    cc: Senator Larry Reid



MTC-00030978

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jan. 09 2002 10:43PM P1
105 Zernich Drive
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 29486]]

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regard to the 
recent settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I 
am a staunch supporter of Microsoft, and I feel this settlement is 
fair and reasonable. After three years of court battles, I would 
truly like to see this dispute resolved.
    This settlement contains provisions that are beneficial to the 
entire technology industry. Under this agreement, Microsoft must 
design future versions of Windows to make it easier to install non- 
Microsoft software.Microsoft must also disclose information about 
certain internal inter faces in Windows. With all of this, Microsoft 
has even agreed to be monitored during this entire process to make 
sure that they are following procedure.In my opinion, Microsoft and 
Bill Gates have contributed positively to our economy and country. 
During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities should 
be to improve our lagging economy. Allowing Microsoft to devote its 
resources to innovation, rather than litigation, will help our 
economy a great deal. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030979

JAN-9-2002 10:35P FROM:E J ALPIN CO 215 943 2336
TO:12023071454
P:l/l
E.J. ALPIN & ASSOCIATES
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to take advantage of the Tunney Act, 
and have my opinion go on record. I was not in favor of any 
litigation against the Microsoft Corporation in the first place, but 
since a settlement has finally been reached, we need to move on. The 
settlement is as fair as it could be, and I wish to see no further 
legal action taken against Microsoft.
    There are still nine states that are continuing with litigation 
against the Microsoft Corporation, and they are just wasting their 
budgets and angering their citizens. I was relieved to see that the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft could agree to terms, but wish 
it never had to come to that in the first place. The settlement was 
actually reached after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed 
mediator, and Microsoft agreed to terms that extend way beyond what 
was at issue in the lawsuit.
    A settlement has been reached and it is time to put this behind 
us.
    Sincerely,
    Gene Alpin
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    16 Limewood Road, Levittown, PA 19056 215/547-5678 FAX: 
215/943-2336



MTC-00030980

01/09/200219:05 480-513-4638 GORSKI
PAGE 01/01
16420 N. Thompson Peak Parkway Unit 2141
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the recent settlement 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine of the 
participating states. While I did not agree with the original 
litigation against Microsoft, deeming it frivolous and an 
unnecessary persecution of a successful company, this settlement has 
the interest of competition and fair business practices at heart. 
The terms of the settlement are broad, and go beyond the scope of 
what the original grievances filed by the government.
    This settlement contains a series of provisions that do nothing 
but increase the sharing of information with the expected result of 
increasing knowledge, innovation and industry advancement. One of 
these terms require Microsoft to license intellectual property 
instead of vigorously protecting it, doing this in order to ensure 
that Microsoft does not monopolize key technology. Additionally, 
Microsoft has now agreed to a uniform pricing standard for computer 
manufactures, and to allow software distributors to enhance, change 
or remove Microsoft products from the software without the threat of 
retaliatory business practices. Perhaps most importantly is 
Microsoft's willingness to submit to a government appointed 
technical oversight committee that will work to ensure that the 
company is complying with all of the above terms of the settlement.
    For these reasons, I support the settlement and hope to see it 
implemented soon.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Gorski



MTC-00030981

JAN-10-200214:06508 799 1015 P.O1
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Renata Hesse
Company Department of Justice
Phone
Fax: 202-616-9937
From: Andrea Glass
Office of the City Council
City:Hall-Room 112
455 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01608
Phone: 508-799-l049
Fax: 508-799-1015
Date: 1/3/02
Pages including this cover page: 2
Letter from Councillor-at-Large Dennis Irish.
    The Information contained in this facsimile message is 
privileged or confidential information intended only for the use of 
the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible 
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication 
is neither a11owed nor intended. If you have received this 
communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 
the above number, and return the original message to us at the above 
address via the U.S.Postal Service or Federal Express, at our cost. 
Thank You**
JAN-10-2002 14:06 508 799 1015 P.02
CITY OF Worcester
MASSACHUSETTS
DENNIS L. IRISH
COUNCILLOR-AT-LARGE
36 Server Street
Worcester, MA 01609
Telephone
Home: (508) 798-5729
Office: (508) 799-1049
Fax: (508) 799-1015
E-mail:[email protected]
January 10,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to comment regarding the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft lawsuit.As a City Council, I represent an older city, 
which is the second largest city in Massachusetts.I would like to 
add my voice to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit. I 
fully support the Agreement's approach of directing part of the 
settlement towards public schools. Scores of children attend schools 
with scant resources, which undermine the educational process.
    We have all heard about the digital divide that exists along 
socio-economic lines. This divide has an adverse effect on public 
education. Recent research claims that 82% of classrooms in higher 
income communities have Internet access while classrooms in poorer 
communities have a 60% connection rate.
    I support the aims of the Settlement Agreement that has been 
proposed, for these reasons.This agreement will provide some of our 
poorer students with access to technology. The ]agreement, which 
calls for Microsoft to provide 200,000 computers to eligible schools 
at almost no cost, will be a great resource to older school 
districts.
    I urge the Court to approve the proposed Agreement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Dennis L. Irish
    Councillor-at-Large
    DLI/alg TOTAL P 02



MTC-00030982

Sent By: Town of Littleton;
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC, 20530
978 952 2718; Jan-10-02 13:59;
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
 January 8.2002
Page 1
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to take this opportunity under the federal Tunney 
Act review provisions to voice my opinion regarding the pending 
Microsoft antitrust case. It is my

[[Page 29487]]

understanding that Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly is presently 
considering the merits of a settlement agreement to end the case 
that has been reached between Microsoft and the government lawyers. 
It is also my understanding that this settlement is opposed by 
Microsoft's industry competitors. Let me state my support for the 
proposed agreement,and my hope that it is adopted.
    My perspective is twofold in that I work in the finance 
department of a small software company, and I also serve on the 
Finance Committee of my hometown, a community whose economy is very 
much effected by the information technology sector.From both these 
vantage points, I am able to see the negative impact of the case, or 
more importantly the potential positive impact of its conclusion. 
The industry at present is tentative in many ways, high tech 
companies having suffered disproportionately the effects of the 
current recession. The promise of an even greater government 
presence in the market does not help, even if it is Microsoft who is 
being targeted.
    The prospect of a settlement however could have a very positive 
impact on the psyche of the high-tech world: not only would 
Microsoft, and her competitors be free to get back to business, but 
the threat of more regulation would be abated, encouraging more 
entrepreneurship. I believe the outcome would be profoundly 
beneficial to the industry and to the economy as a whole.
    It is for these reasons that I ask that the Justice Department 
recommit itself to settling the case.
    Sincerely,
    William Ingham



MTC-00030983

Sent By: Town of Littleton;
978 952 2718;
Jan-10-02 13:57;
Page 1/1
John S. Adams
31 Snow Drive
Littleton, Massachusetts
01460
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Dept. of Justice / Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I am a senior citizen, and an investor who is upset with the 
actions of our government in the Microsoft case. I know what 
antitrust law is there for, and I don't believe harassing one of our 
most important companies at the behest of their competitors is the 
reason.
    I hope that judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly sees the wisdom in 
ending the case. The proposed agreement is a great chance to stop 
this errant mission, and give the economy a chance to recover. I 
support the settlement, and I ask those of you in the decision-
making process to consider the needs of retirees such as myself who 
have invested in America, and are depending on pensions and stocks 
to get by.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to have my opinion heard in 
this debate.
    Regards,
    John Adams



MTC-00030984

Sent By: Town of Littleton;
978 952 2718;
Jan-10-02 13:56;
Page 1\1
J & P CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
JOEL PRUITT, President P.O. BOX 293, SUDBURY, MA 01776
TELEPHONE: (508) 443-0260, (617) 243-7530
January l0,2002
Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
610 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Re: Microsoft antitrust case
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is now taking 
publiccomments regarding the Microsoft antitrust case, and the 
settlement agreement that has been worked out. Let me say that I am 
in full support of the settlement agreement, and am opposed to 
continuing the case any further.
    My small business like many others uses products made by 
Microsoft and other companies, I have always found that the industry 
is competitive and innovative. There is never any shortage of 
options or new ideas, and the competition is evident in the 
increased efficiency that has come along with attractive prices. It 
doesn't seem clear where the monopoly is; I think it looks like a 
lot of other companies trying to get the government to do their 
bidding.
    What this country needs is not a bigger role for the government 
in picking sides in the software industry. What it needs is for 
Microsoft and everyone else to get back to making products, and 
growing the economy. Believe it or not, it really effects small 
construction outfits like mine.
    I hope the Justice Department will stick to their proposal, and 
urge the judge to accept the deal to end the court battle.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Pruitt



MTC-00030985

JAN-10-02 12:33 PM DAMICO 5087999819 P. 01--
Gerard D'Amico
358 Salisbury Street
Worcester, MA 01609
January 10,2002
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSlMlLE 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to add my comments to the record regarding the 
impending settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a Former State Senator, who was chairman of the Senate 
Education Committee and Director of the Massachusetts Literacy 
Campaign, I saw the effects of the digital divide first hand. Scores 
of children attend schools with scant resources, which undermine the 
educational process. Unfortunately, the digital divide also effects 
working class parents as well.
    I would like to ad my voice to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft lawsuit. I fully support the Agreement's approach of 
directing part of the settlement towards public schools. We have all 
heard about the digital divide that exists along socio-economic 
lines. This divide has an adverse effect on public education. 
Research States that 82% of classrooms in higher income communities 
have Internet access while only 60% of classrooms in poorer 
communities are connected.
    This inequity is creating two classes of people, those with 
computer skills and those without. In this day and age we cannot 
afford to have students or workers whose computer skills are 
lacking.For this reason, I support the aims of the Settlement 
Agreement that has been proposed. This agreement will provide 
students with access to technology. The agreement calls for 
Microsoft to provide200,000computers to eligible schools at almost 
no cost.
    I urge the Court to approve the proposed Agreement.Sincerely 
yours,Gerard D'Amico



MTC-00030986

FROM : HILL TAX
PHONE NO.: 715 834 7383
Jan. 09 2002 01:10PM P1
January 10. 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel that this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am anxious to see this dispute resolved. I believe 
it will be in the public interest to stop litigation against 
Microsoft.
    As an IRS Enrolled Agent, I have been using Microsoft products 
since the early 80's. Have been very satisfied with the quality of 
Microsoft software. Interference from the government on this issue 
will result in lesser benefits to myself as a consumer. This 
settlement will allow Microsoft to devote its precious resources to 
designing innovative software, rather than paying court fees. 
Microsoft has offered to grant its competitors access to information 
on Windows, and it will not retaliate if other independent companies 
promote their software within Windows. There will be an oversight 
committee that will ensure Microsoft complies with all of the agreed 
upon terms of the current settlement. This will benefit the economy, 
the technology industry, and consumers.
    I support this settlement and hope the federal government will 
discontinue litigation against Microsoft at the federal level. 
Please do your part to look out for consumers,Thank you for your 
support.
    Sincerely



MTC-00030988

9206 Tiverton Way
Louisville, Kentucky 40242
January 7,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 29488]]

    I want you to know that I support Microsoft and think that it's 
high time that you all leave that company alone. I hope that the 
Justice Department sticks to their settlement and can do whatever it 
can to get the rest of the states to agree to it as well. Microsoft 
will help its competitors use Windows with non-Microsoft software, 
and will be subject to the review of a governmental oversight 
committee, and that's enough for any company.It's good that 
Microsoft can use its time and resources on more important matters, 
like improving their current products. And since they have such a 
direct impact on our economy, it will be nice to have them back to 
help in this recession.
    Thank you for taking time to hear the public's opinion in this 
matter. I think that more people should hear what the average person 
has to say about issues like this and not just their legislators.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Borie
    01/10/2002 13:34 FAX 502 933 7490 P&P SOUTHWEST 001



MTC-00030989

Joshua Virkler
1431 Bullis Rd.
Elma, NY 14059-6956
January l0,2002
Attorney General
John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to let you know that I support the settlement being 
considered in the MicrosoftAntitrust case.It is my understanding 
that you are taking comments from consumers on how this will 
affectthem, since this case is theoretically being brought on behalf 
of us. I have been opposed to the case against Microsoft from 
beginning, and now I feel strongly that it is in the best interest 
of everyone to make this whole thing go away as soon as possible.
    Consumers have been harmed far more by the prosecution of this 
antitrust case than anything ]Microsoft could have done to harm 
them. The only true monopoly in this country is the Federal 
Government. It is the only entity that can enforce it's will with 
force. Every business in this nation must provide a product or 
service that people want, at abetter price than anyone else,in order 
to have any influence upon anything. The same cannot be said about 
government.
    Thank you for your time and consideration. Also, thank you very 
much for the way you have conducted yourself in office so far. You 
have been a model of integrity, and have very closely mirrored my 
views on issues that you have faced. Keep up the good work!
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Virkler



MTC-00030990

JAN-10-2002 01:03PM PATRICIA A ARNOLD
212 862 1306
P. 01
P.O. Box 8064
New York, NY 10116-8064
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Your stellar decision to finally end the Clinton 
Administration's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft is much 
appreciated. In my opinion, no more action should be taken at the 
federal level.
    The settlement makes quite a difference. Under the 
agreement,computer manufacturers are granted new rights to configure 
systems with access to various Windows features. Also, Microsoft is 
required to design future versions of Windows to make it easier to 
install non-Microsoft software and to disclose information about 
certain internal interfaces in Windows.
    Your leadership is exemplary. Your decision is correct, After 
all,competitors can also sue Microsoft if they don't think the 
company is complying with the agreement. Taxpayers'' money 
should be spent for better causes.
    Sincerely yours,



MTC-00030991

Jan 10 02 10:50a BUSY BEE PRINTERS
5206251022
p.1
Bob & Vi Greene
108 E. El Viento
Green Valley AZ 85614
(520)393-0635
[email protected]
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear that a settlement has been reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This settlement was reached 
after three years of litigation and with the assistance of a court 
appointed mediator and should be allowed to pass through public 
review.Microsoft, in my view, has agreed to more than enough, and 
has compromised more than any other company has ever been asked to. 
Microsoft has agreed to share even more information about their 
software design. In addition,Microsoft has agreed to be under the 
constant monitoring of a government created technology committee, 
which will review Microsoft's software codes and books. This 
committee will ensure that Microsoft abides by the agreement.Our 
federal government and Microsoft have been in battle for three 
years.Allowing Microsoft to create and innovate, not litigate, would 
be a huge step in that direction. Beyond the good of Microsoft, this 
settlement is in the public interest, allows the fostering of 
competition across the entire industry and sets a positive benchmark 
for future similar issues.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Greene



MTC-00030992

01/10/2002 13:27 5704769235 GEORGE ANDREWS
PAGE 01
*P.O. Box 8A*East Stroudsburg*Pennsylvania*18301*
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been asked so submit my opinion regarding the Microsoft 
litigation.I thoroughly believe that litigation against Microsoft in 
the antitrust case was unjustified and not in the best interest of 
the American public. I am happy to see that Microsoft will not be 
broken up which could have lead to another Ma Belldebacle. However, 
it still makes concessions to its opponents to bring an end to the 
suit.
    Microsoft should have not to document and disclose various 
interfaces that arc internal to its Windows'' operating system 
with out receiving a fee from the prospect wanting to run on 
Microsoft's platform. Microsoft worked long and hard to create this 
technology and owns the rights to it. Microsoft should not be aloud 
to prevent manufactures from promoting competitive products nor 
should Microsoft be bared from negotiating agreements that are 
exclusive to them. It is not the government's place to force a 
business to not take part in promotions that will compete for market 
share. This would be to tie the hands of a companies sales and 
marketing efforts.
    These are concessions that seem to go against many of the 
principles on which the free enterprise system was founded. As 
restrictive as the concessions may be if Microsoft supports the 
settlement, then I guess I can too. However I believe it sets a bad 
precedent
    Sincerely,
    George Andrews
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030993

01/10/200212:22 7327872166
GWSCLACEY
PAGE 01
91 Beacon Boulevard
Keansburg, NJ 07734
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to go on record as being a supporter of the 
settlement that was reached last November between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department, which brought an end to the antitrust lawsuit.
    For three long years the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
engaged in costly litigation, and finally a settlement was reached. 
Although the restrictions that have been placed on Microsoft are 
harsh and undeserving, I am just glad to see this come to an end. I 
hope that the settlement will encourage the states that have yet to 
settle to change their minds.
    I appreciate your time, and again, I support the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29489]]

    Suzanne Lacey



MTC-00030994

FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
PHONE NO. : 650 588 9176
Jan. 10 2002 10:45AM P1
150 Minorca Way
Millbrae, California 94030
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write to you with appreciation of 
the settlement that has been reached in the antitrust battle between 
this company, and the Department of Justice. After three years of 
negotiating, it seems that all voices have been heard, and the 
agreement is beneficial to all involved.
    During this time of strained economy, it is evident that we need 
to support our industry, and let business get back to business. The 
stage has been set for the competitive process to take hold, and it 
is time to let the IT sector get back to work. Our Technology 
Industry needs our support so that it may continue to hold its 
position in the world marketplace. By further reviewing the terms of 
the agreement we delay the process even longer.
    Why should we use our precious resources on an issue that is 
been over-discussed? Thank you for letting us support our technology 
industry, and our economy as a whole, by making sure that no more 
legal action is taken against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Beardsley



MTC-00030995

FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
PHONE NO. : 650 588 9176 Jan. 10 2002 10:46AM P2
150 Minorca Way
Millbrae, California 94030
January 8, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
    I wanted to write to thank you for the work that you have done 
in the Microsoft antitrust dispute, and for the role that you played 
in reaching the long overdue settlement that finally came to 
fruition.
    Since the anti-trust suite has been settled in the interest of 
all parties I hope there will be no further legal action taken 
against Microsoft. After all, the terms of the settlement Were well 
thought-out and are very reasonable, including increased government- 
oversight of Microsoft's business practices and uniform rules for 
licensing Windows to computer makers.
    Our economy has suffered a great deal, and it is time to support 
it by letting our technology industry get back to business. This 
agreement will benefit both consumers as well as the IT sector as a 
whole. I support this settlement, and hope to see it implemented 
soon.
    Sincerely,
    Helen Beardsley



MTC-00030996

TO JAN-10-2002 12:54
FROM WAYTEK INC
Waytek, Inc.
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It must be agreed by all that Microsoft has always maintained an 
attitude of arrogance with respect to its OEMs and to software 
developers. but this attitude should never, in my opinion, have 
facilitated an actual lawsuit against them by our government. 
Certainly, as the IT community matures, there will be enough 
competitive pressure brought to Microsoft to have forced them into a 
position of greater cooperation.
    It is my belief that these kinds of issues do not fall under the 
purview of our government.
    This lawsuit has created a tremendous amount of anxiety and 
uncertainty within the IT community that it has been responsible, in 
part, for the recession that is with us even today.
    This settlement, however. signals the end of the government's 
hostility towards Microsoft and will aid the entire IT community by 
dispelling the uncertainty. It will improve licensing and 
contractual agreements, so that they cannot be used as leverage 
against other companies.
    Moreover, the settlement will be enforced by a Special Technical 
Committee, whose sole purpose is to watch Microsoft. I am hopeful 
that this review process will vindicate the settlement.
    Sinerely,
    Daniel Safeer
    P.O. Box 10,
    West Berlin, NJ 08091
    (856) 346-9310
    Fax (856) 346-0557



MTC-00030997

MASTECK
Corporate Office
1340 Reynolds Avenue
Suite 105
Irvine, CA 92614.5502
949.851.2279
800.248.6279
Fax 949.851.1779
www.MastechInc.com
Houston Branch
12602 Pine Bough Ln
Cypress,TX 77429-2241
281.373.5759
Fax281.373.9501
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Much has been said about this lawsuit between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. Now that it has reached a settlement stage, 
it is my hope that we can put this entire unfortunate episode behind 
us.
    There is a public perception that Microsoft may we11 have been a 
bit too protective of both its software and its use by its OEM 
customers. This may be true, but the terms of the settlement 
adequately address this. OEMs are well-protected by this settlement, 
since the settlement requires Microsoft to design Windows so that 
OEMs can easily reconfigure Windows to add access features to non-
Microsoft software. They are also protected by the new licensing 
arrangement.
    It is time to turn our attentions to more relevant and important 
issues facing us today. It's time to put this behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Marone
    IT Director
    Jan. 10. 2002 12:25PM MASTECH9498511779 No.2341 P. 1



MTC-00030998

FORM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM
PHONE N0. : 7042589930
Jan. 10 2002 03:55PM P1
556 Crowfields Lane
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to thank you for allowing Microsoft to get back 
to work.
    The settlement plan for Microsoft's antitrust case is more than 
an adequate remedy to the complaints of Microsoft's competitors and 
critics. Microsoft will share information with its competitors about 
Windows, and this will allow them to more easily install their own 
software on the operating system. Ultimately this will benefit all 
of the technology industry.
    At a time of a weakening economy I think it is only sensible to 
end this controversy. Further sanctions for or restrictions on 
Microsoft will prove to be counterproductive. This country needs 
this company to continue to thrive and to lead the Information 
Technology Industry into this new and dangerous century.
    I thank you for supporting this company and for reaching a fair 
and just settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Gerd Smith



MTC-00030999

FROM : HILL TAX
PHONE NO. : 715 834 7383
Jan. 10 2002 08:59AM P1
Randal J Hill
811 Garden St
Eau Claire WI. 54703
715 834 7379
January 10, 2002
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel that this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am anxious to see this dispute resolved. I believe 
it will be in the public interest to stop litigation against 
Microsoft.
    As an IRS Enrolled Agent, I have been using Microsoft products 
since the early 80's. I have been very satisfied with the quality of 
Microsoft software. Interference from the government on this issue 
will result in lesser benefits to myself as a consumer. This

[[Page 29490]]

settlement will allow Microsoft to devote its precious resources to 
designing innovative software, rather than paying court fees. 
Microsoft has offered to grant its competitors access to information 
on Windows, and it will not retaliate if other independent companies 
promote their software within Windows. There will be an oversight 
committee that will ensure Microsoft complies with all of the agreed 
upon terms of the current settlement. This will benefit the economy, 
the technology industry, and consumers.
    I support this settlement and hope the federal government will 
discontinue litigation against Microsoft at the federal level. 
Please do your part to look out for consumers.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Randall Hill



MTC-00031001

JAN-11-2002 09:13 AM
REP. VINCENT A. PEDONE
508 791 7400 P.01
VINCENT A. PEDONE
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
ROOM 540
TEL: (617)722-2080
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
House of Representatives
State House, Boston 02133-1020
Committees:
Ways and Means
Energy
Housing and Urban Development
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSlMILE
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to add my comments to the record and add my voice 
to those in support of the proposed settlement in the ongoing 
Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a State Representative from Worcester, Massachusetts who 
represents an older urban district, including some of the poorest 
areas of the city, I felt it is important for me to offer some 
thoughts regarding the proposed settlement.
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made educating our 
children the top priority. Over the past seven years, the 
Massachusetts legislature has redoubled its efforts relative to 
funding of the public education system in the state.
    This was in response to a commitment by the legislature to bring 
the Massachusetts Public School System into the 21st'' century.
    With this in mind, we have also made available capital funds and 
grants to upgrade our schools computer systems and school 
technology. However, because of new and innovative advances in 
computer systems software and internet connections, systems that 
were purchased just five years ago are obsolete. Staying ahead of 
the technology curve is attainable, but very costly.
    Although I am not familiar with the intricacies of the 
agreement, I do know that there is one component of the agreement 
that will help scores of school children in the city of Worcester: 
Microsoft will provide 200,000 computers to eligible schools at 
almost no cost. I applaud the Agreement's approach of directing part 
of the settlement towards public schools.
    We have all heard about the digital divide that exists along 
socio-economic lines. This divide has an adverse effect on public 
education. Research states that 82% of classrooms in higher income 
communities have Internet access while only 60% of classrooms in 
poorer communities are connected.
    For this reason, I support the aims of the Settlement Agreement 
that has been proposed. This agreement will provide students in my 
district, as well as throughout the Commonwealth, with access to 
technology that has been to costly for communities to purchase.
    Thank you for your time and consideration on this manner.
    Sincerely yours,
    Vincent Pedone
    State Representative



MTC-00031003

Jan.1O. 200211:13AM 7144450201 EMS
No.3169 P. l/l
7026 Via Ostiones
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6614
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    The antitrust lawsuit leveled against Microsoft by the Federal 
Government was completely unfounded and totally unjustified. 
However, since a settlement was reached between the parties, it 
should be accepted and finalized by the courts as soon as the public 
comment period ends. I personally feel the main tenets of the 
settlement go too far, are not fair to Microsoft and hurt the ideals 
of free enterprise and capitalism. Microsoft could easily go on 
fighting this thing out in the courts for years. However, Microsoft 
has very nobly agreed to accept and abide by the terms of the 
settlement instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in round 
after round of court battle with the Federal Government.
    For all intents and purposes the Federal Government won this 
case and should be very pleased with the outcome. The fact that 
Microsoft will now be forced to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs included in Windows is proof 
that the Federal Government has met its objective. Additionally, 
Microsoft will be forced to document and disclose its various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system 
products--a first in an antitrust settlement. Furthermore, 
Microsoft must make available to its competitors any protocols 
implemented in Windows'' operating system products that are 
used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft server operating 
system. Finally, Microsoft has agreed to a three-person Technical 
Committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement and assist with dispute resolution. The government did 
the same thing to Bell Telephone Company back in the late 1970's. 
The results were tragic and I fear that the government did not take 
into account the future impact and this too will have a tragic 
effect on technology and the entire world. It appears that the 
Federal Government, at taxpayer's expense, won't stand for progress 
and will do everything it can to penalize or destroy the guy 
``out front,'' such is the case with Microsoft. Microsoft 
has transformed the face of the planet for the better and should be 
left alone once and for all. Please finalize this settlement as soon 
as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Golden



MTC-00031004

Jan 11 02 10:08a p.1
FAX COVER SHEET
LINDA AND JERRY LEADS
722 POMELO DRIVE
VISTA, CA 92083
(760) 724-3433
fax (760) 724-7749
SEND TO
Company name ATTORNEY GENERAL
From
JERRY LEADS
Attention
MR. JOHN ASHCROFT
Date
1/11/02
Office location
WASHINGTON DC
Office location
VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Fax number
1202-3071454
Phone number
760 724-3433
Urgent Reply ASAP Please comment X Please review For your 
information
Total pages, including cover: 2
COMMENTS
    I strongly URGE you to cease all Federal action against 
Microsoft now that a settlement has been reached. Thank you for your 
help in this matter
    Sincerely
    Jerry Leads
    Jan 11 02 10:09a
    P.2
    LEADS
    Linda and Jerry Leads
    722 Pomelo Drive
    Vista, California 92083
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    January 10, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft;
    As a user of Microsoft's software and component product, and as 
a supporter of their mission and phi-losophy, I strongly urge you to 
oppose any additional federal action against Microsoft now that a 
settlement has been reached. After three+ years of dealing with 
frivolous litigation, Microsoft and the department of Jus- tice have 
come to an agreement that is fair, judicious, and reasonable, and 
should be

[[Page 29491]]

allowed to stand on its own merits. I passionately disagree with any 
attempt by any government official to delay the implementation of 
this settlement agreement or to enter into any further litigation 
with Microsoft. While Microsoft continues to innovate the premier 
operating system and office productivity software in the industry, 
this settlement an- swer many, if not all, of the government`s 
concerns with Microsoft's business practices. the agreement 
pro- vides for a government technical oversight committee, which 
will be responsible for monitoring the company's business, marketing 
and licensing practices.
    Additionally, the settlement's terms require Microsoft to allow 
computer manufacturers to configure their systems individually and 
forces Microsoft to design future software versions so that non-
Microsoft soft- ware can be easily added to the computers. Perhaps 
most importantly, this settlement allows Microsoft's competitors, 
including Apple, SUN Microsystems and IBM to sue Microsoft if they 
believe that the company is not abiding by the terms of the 
settlement.
    This antitrust settlement provides the ability for Microsoft to 
continue to innovate and to lead the in- dustry, while at the same 
time correcting some of the perceived wrongs committed in the past.
    During this time of shaky economies, and an unstable 
international environment, I am glad that you and your colleagues 
will now be concentrating on greater national priorities besides the 
legal dealings of a successful corporation.
    Thank you for not supporting any federal intervention into this 
settlement.
    Sincerely
    Jerry Leads
    Phone: (760) 724-3433
    Fax:(760)724-7749



MTC-00031005

01/11/11/2002 13:03 7274460170 DATA MANAGEMENT
PAGE 01/01
DATA MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS INC.
Solutions You Can Depend Upon
1051 Cephas Drive o Clearwater, FL 33765
Tel. 727.443.4700 o Fax. 727.446.0170
www.dmsus.com
e-mail: lnfo @dmsus.com
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that Microsoft has done much to advance and yet 
simplify the information age, not for just this country, but 
worldwide. It is a shame to see the government interfere with 
Microsoft's freedom to innovate and Microsoft's ability to continue 
to improve its products Moreover, The Justice Department is causing 
harm to the entire Information Technology industry by trying to 
break up a ``world class'' company that has done so much 
to make this country the dominant technological leader of the world. 
Fortunately, Microsoft has reached a settlement with the Department 
of Justice regarding the antitrust suit.
    This settlement will tackle the issues involved in the original 
suit as well as others that arose over the past three years. The 
settlement states that Microsoft must not enter any contracts that 
may prevent software developers from developing or promoting 
software that competes with Microsoft, For hardware makers, 
Microsoft has agreed to provide rights to its Windows operating 
system to the 20 largest at equal terms and conditions, including 
the price.
    It is necessary that those who are involved, in the suit put 
aside their differences and work to resolve this issue swiftly. The 
government has intervened in this case for too long; it is time to 
stop all action at the federal level and get back to the business of 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Riddle Ph.D.
    Vice President



MTC-00031006

From Michael H. Ohl 610.837-3157 To John Ashcroft
Date l/11/02--Time 10:49:56AM
Page 1 of 1
Vectors & Layers
Tel. (610) 837-7409
Fax (610) 837-7409
508 HILLDALE DRIVE, BATH, PA 18014-9143
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in response to the outcome of the antitrust suit 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. As both a home and 
workplace user of Microsoft products I am anxious to see a final 
resolution to the antitrust case. I understand that although a 
settlement has been reached it is still up for debate as to whether 
or not it will be permanent. I am in agreement with the current 
settlement, and do not wish to see any further action taken against 
Microsoft.
    As a user of both Microsoft and their competitors'' 
products I have on the whole been greatly satisfied with the quality 
and flexibility of Microsoft products over others. In fact, my 
business is having problems with other companies Windows 
peripherals, such as Netscape Communicator not being able to read 
HTML content sent through Outlook Express.
    Legal action against Microsoft affects a lot of people outside 
Microsoft itself. Right now more than ever we need a strong economic 
backbone in the IT industry. That is why I fully support the current 
antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Michael H. Ohl
    Owner, Vectors & Layers
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    508 HILLDALE DRIVE o BATH, PA o 18014-9143
    PHONE: (610) 837-7409 o FAX: (610) 837-3157



MTC-00031007

Jan 11 02 10:43a
John M. Gorman
732 922 0636
p. 1
John M. Gorman
14 Red Fox Court
Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07753
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was recently informed that there might be even further action 
against the Microsoft settlement. Three years of well thought out 
negotiations should prove themselves. Microsoft has bent over 
backwards to accommodate other software companies, and is still 
being dragged through the mud. It is time to let the system move 
forward. Let the terms of the agreement speak for themselves.
    During this time of economic strain, we must work together to 
focus on our economy. Companies have to work together to keep our 
place in the global market. Let's not tear our IT sector apart, by 
encouraging war between these companies. Let us support our 
technology industry in its time of need. Please help support this 
settlement and encourage our technology industry to work together. 
We need to make sure that no further action is taken against this 
agreement. I am counting on your support.
    Sincerely,
    John Gorman



MTC-00031008

01/11/02 FRI 11:34 FAX 440 895 1568 NEITZEL LUKE ASSOC. 001
MARK NEITZEL
3790 E Surrey Court
Rocky River, OH 44116
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I feel very strongly that the government has unduly and unfairly 
prosecuted Microsoft for supposed antitrust violations. This ordeal 
has gone on long enough and I am writing to give my support and 
endorsement to the settlement that was proposed between Microsoft 
and the Justice Department.
    The states that do not support the federal settlement should not 
be allowed to undermine it, nor should Microsoft's business 
adversaries. The settlement is fair and reasonable, even making 
Microsoft give up trade secrets concerning its interfaces and 
protocols to the competition, and forcing Microsoft to be 
straitjacketed into a stringent licensing agreement. If the 
competitors have problems, they can file more lawsuits, which I 
understand they intend to do. Therefore, the states that settled 
should be allowed to move forward with it. It is their right to do 
so and should not be hindered by politics.
    It goes without saying that settlement is preferable to 
litigation and that this lawsuit has had a very negative impact on 
the country's economy as well as the technology sector. This is a 
fact. It is also very ironic because the government's presumed 
objective of breaking up Microsoft in order to help the 
``little guy'' who couldn't compete successfully against 
Microsoft has had the

[[Page 29492]]

opposite effect, and everyone is now suffering.
    I support the settlement that was reached. It is good for the 
economy, the IT industry, and consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Neitzel



MTC-00031009

FROM : eHIRE
FAX NO. : 2126790704
Jan. 11 2002 10:38AM P1
eHire
40 Fulton Street 19th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Tel. 212.513.7160
Fax: 212.513.7001
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to comment briefly on the settlement that was 
reached between the Justice Department and Microsoft in the 
antitrust case. It is in America's best economic interest, and the 
public interest to execute this settlement and move on. This case 
has kept Microsoft tied up with litigation for three years. It does 
not make economic sense to do this to someone who is guilty only of 
offering the best, most innovative product in the marketplace. The 
settlement has been carefully negotiated by court appointed 
moderator, and goes beyond addressing the concerns of competitors 
and the government who felt unfairly shut out of the market.
    It is time for everyone in the computer industry to stop 
spending their resources on litigation, to accept this settlement as 
nine good states have, and get back to the business of innovation 
for American leadership.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Sabrin



MTC-00031010

01/11/2002 11:23 6144519599 LORMS AND BELFRAGE PAGE 01/01
Morris
Real Estate Service
1900 Crown Park Court
Columbus, Ohio 43235 P 614.536.2628 F 614.451.9599 E
[email protected]
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to express my satisfaction of the fact 
that the Justice Department finally settled the antitrust suit with 
Microsoft. The dispute lasted much too long, and in that time, the 
economy went from thriving to stagnant and stuck in a recession. I 
would like to go on record as supporting this long overdue 
settlement.
    I have worked in the Real Estate business for 35 years, and run 
my own commercial agency. Microsoft has been invaluable to my 
employees and me by simplifying and standardizing computing. Windows 
is an outstanding operating system offered at a very reasonable 
price that any small business can easily afford. If Microsoft's 
competitors are not capable of or unwilling to produce a comparable 
system that is competitively priced why should consumers like me be 
penalized? It seems to me this is why they have spent more money and 
time on lobbying legislators than on research and development. This 
has obviously worked since one of the terms in the settlement is 
that Microsoft is going to have to turn over source code and 
information about the design of Windows.
    I appreciate the fact that my opinion can go on record, and 
again, I fully support the Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Morris



MTC-00031011

    01/11/2002 11:23 7046678312 G
PAGE 01
002
Dee Ann Henderson
21 Fairfield Drive
Candler, North Carolina 28715
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to hear that the Department of Justice had settled 
its antitrust case against Microsoft. The case had gone on for far 
too long, and the nation had suffered for it. There is no need to 
waste taxpayer dollars on this topic anymore, especially when there 
are many other important issuer at hand. I fully support the 
settlement that has been reached.
    Some of Microsoft's critics may say the settlement isn't hard 
enough on Microsoft, but they would be incorrect. Under the 
settlement, Microsoft will share information with its competitors, 
which will allow them to more easily place their own software on 
Microsoft's operating system. This measure alone would greatly 
immense competition in the technology market, but Microsoft has 
agreed to even more. Microsoft will also agree to adhere to a 
uniform pricing list when licensing Windows out to the twenty 
largest computer manufacturers in the country, forgoing standard 
market pricing mechanisms. Additionally, Microsoft will be monitored 
full time by a technical review committee to ensure that it follows 
the dictates of the settlement.
    For these reasons, I am in full support of the settlement, and I 
look forward to seeing an end to this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Dee Ann Henderson



MTC-00031012

95 Ordale Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA 15228-1523
412) 343-1572 e-mail [email protected]
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 8, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my feelings about the recent 
antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of 
Justice. I feel that this settlement is fair and is in the best 
interest of the public. I strongly support the end of this 
litigation.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft must share more information with 
other companies to make it easier to compete. Microsoft must also be 
monitored closely for compliance to this agreement. This settlement 
also allows Microsoft to devote its resources and time to designing 
innovative software, rather than litigation which will benefit all 
of us.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be improving our slowing economy. Restricting Microsoft will 
not achieve this but also waste valuable time and resources. Thank 
you for settling with Microsoft. cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Egon Dezubay Sc. D., P.E.



MTC-00031013

01/11/2002 13:59 7245377806
CLAUDE G MYERS
PAGE 01/01
    Horace Mann
    Insuring America's Educational Community
    Retirement Annulzies and
    Life, Auto, Homeowners and Group Insurance
The Horace Mann Companies
721 Spring St.
Latrobe, PA 15650-2023
Bus./Fax (724) 637-7806
Claude G. Myers, Representative
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
settlement that was reached on November 6, 2001, between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice. I believe this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am anxious to see this dispute resolved. I 
sincerely hope that there will be no further action against 
Microsoft at the Federal level.
    This settlement contains provisions that foster competition and 
are beneficial for the technology industry. Microsoft has pledged to 
share more information with other companies, create more 
opportunities for other companies, and give consumers more choices. 
Under this agreement, Microsoft must design future versions of 
Windows to make it easier to install non- Microsoft software and 
must disclose information about certain internal interfaces in 
Windows.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be boosting our lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will 
not achieve this end. Please do not punish Microsoft for pursuing 
the American dream. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Claude Myers
    Representative
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    www.horacemann.com



MTC-00031014

JAN 11 2002 (FRI) 02:31

[[Page 29493]]

EXEC OFFICE 724 656 4171 PAGE l/l
Robert Wushinske
Rural Route 2
New Wilmington, Pennsylvania 16142
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this is to address the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft settlement. This was settled after a long, litigious 
battle costing both parties time and money. I do not believe 
Microsoft was culpable of any antitrust practices. The lawsuit is 
more a product of envious competitors than actual misdeeds. 
Microsoft did acquiesce to demands by the Department of Justice, 
opening up their source codes to computer manufacturers and 
competitors, giving more flexibility to computer makers to install 
non-Microsoft programs, expanding Windows'' operating system 
products, and even allowing a technical committee to monitor 
Microsoft adherence to the settlement. This is far more than any 
other firm would have done.
    But the history behind the case is no longer relevant. A 
decision has been reached and I do not want to second-guess 
decisions reached by both parties. Microsoft had very good counsel; 
an equitable agreement was reached. It is now time to move on. We 
should not get into the habit of criticizing judicial decisions 
simply because they do not please everybody. It sets a bad precedent 
and undermines any future decisions.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Wushinske
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031015

FROM : CHUCK PHONE No. : 12086228700
Jan. 11 2002 10:17Am P1
P.O. Box 212
Sun Valley, Idaho 83353
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This letter is to add my support to the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft settlement. I applaud the ending of what, to me, was a 
great injustice done to Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates is a very successful 
man, who created a very successful company. He has made a great deal 
of money, but he has given a great deal of money away. Mr. Gates is 
someone who this country should be very proud of; unfortunately, the 
petty jealousy of his competitors have accomplished what they could 
not do on their own--that of damaging both his company and him 
in an antitrust suit. The suit was settled, with Microsoft giving 
away far too much. What company would allow computer makers to 
configure their product to promote another product? This is what 
Microsoft has done, allowing computer makers to promote non-
Microsoft software programs within Windows and even agreeing to 
design future software programs in a way as to make it easier for 
computer makers and programmers to promote non-Microsoft software. I 
wonder if any other firm in another industry would so willingly give 
away its secrets. Yet, Microsoft agreed to this in order to end the 
lawsuit, wanting to get on with business. I admire Microsoft for 
dealing with a very bad situation and trying to go forward, putting 
this case behind them. Which is why I am writing to ask that you do 
also.
    Microsoft is but one of the thousands of companies that have 
made this country. He has merely succeeded too well. But I wonder 
what effect this lawsuit will have on future entrepreneurs, people 
who have a dream or vision of their own, but are afraid to pursue 
for fear of having the government breathing down their necks if they 
become too successful. It would be such a shame if we clip our 
children's wings even before they are given a chance to fly.
    Support the agreement reached between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Bohlke
    Charles R. Bohlke
    cc: Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00031016

Jan. 11. 2002 11:12AM No. 7089 P. l/l
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to add my comments, regarding the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Presently, it appears that our economy is either in a recession 
or quickly heading in that direction. Consumer spending and consumer 
confidence is down. The one thing we should not be doing right now 
is putting roadblocks in the way of American industry. Microsoft and 
America's Hi-tech industry have been able to prosper and create 
much- needed jobs, because they are innovative and competitive. What 
they don't need right now is government interference, over-
regulation and being forced to spend money on lawsuits. That money 
could be better spent creating new products.
    These new products would benefit American consumers in a couple 
of ways. First, they would make our jobs easier and improve 
productivity. Secondly, they would create new jobs in the technology 
sector of our economy.
    Let's put a quick end to the lawsuits. Let's get America back to 
work. Yours truly,
    Bernard Whitmore
    Worcester, Massachusetts



MTC-00031017

JAN-11-2882 10:46 PM P.01
Linda Tomlinson
December 20, 2001
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Corporation
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    According to the American Electronics Association, New Hampshire 
has the highest concentration of high-tech workers in the nation. We 
also have a tradition of placing the uppermost priority on limited 
government involvement in the market place. Also, Money Magazine 
cites many of our cities as the ``best places to live'' in 
the nation.
    It is for these reasons that I feel passionately about the 
Microsoft case and believe that acceptance of the proposed 
settlement is in everyone's best interest. My state is a shining 
example of how limited government, combined with high technology, 
can create an extraordinary environment for consumers to live, work 
and raise a family.
    High technology is forever changing and evolving. For the 
federal government to attempt to analyze its operations and punish 
the company because of its success is just not reality. 
Unfortunately, the federal government gave too much credence in the 
first place to Microsoft's competitors -who prefer to use lobbyists 
and bureaucrat intervention to make up for their inability to 
compete in the marketplace.
    Over $30 million in taxpayer funds have already been used on 
this case alone! It's time to settle and remove the federal 
government from the equation. It is only then that the marketplace 
can thrive and adequately fulfill consumer needs.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Tomlinson
    209 Lower Straw Road Hopkinton New Hampshire 03229



MTC-00031018

From 336-922-1214 to 1/11/2002 10:15 AM 001/001
Russell L. Smith, Jr.
4216 Thorn Ridge Road
Winston Salem,North Carolina 27106
336-922-1214 [email protected]
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express to you my views regarding the antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. After years of legal battles, I'm happy 
to see a settlement was finally agreed upon. Spending any more time 
and effort on this issue is not only a waste of taxpayers money, but 
a waste of time that should be spent moving forward in the future of 
technology.
    Prior to my retirement, I worked in the IT sector of the 
manufacturing industry and saw the advances that Microsoft has been 
able to create with its innovative technology. It is unfortunate 
that Microsoft was punished for its capabilities.
    The settlements terms, sharing code, changing licensing 
practices, allowing oversight, etc., are definitely fair and 
reasonable. I support your decision to settle, as well as the agreed 
upon terms and sincerely hope that no further action will be taken 
at any level against Microsoft related to this lawsuit.

[[Page 29494]]

    Sincerely,
    Russell Smith



MTC-00031019

JAN-11-2002 08:53 PM P.01
Andrew M. Hoffman, DVM
74 Mount Vernon St.
Boston, MA
01208
December 28, 200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    It has come to my attention that the government is now accepting 
public comment in the case of U.S. v Microsoft. I'm writing to 
express my support for this settlement. Millions of dollars have now 
been spent to arrive at this settlement. Although it was beneficial 
to the American people to investigate the business practices of such 
a large company, no harm to consumers was elucidated. It is now time 
to stop spending taxpayers'' money and let the decision be 
final.
    Over the past several months Americans have suffered great 
losses. These losses have been both emotional and financial. 
Although the government cannot help us with much of what has been 
lost, it can help us to get the economy back on track. Punishing 
Microsoft for contributing to the American economy and tying up the 
courts'' time is not the way to accomplish this.
    Allowing Microsoft to continue to be a leader in innovative 
technological products will help immensely in getting this country 
back on it's feet. Recession is a difficult time for all of us. 
Microsoft's contribution to the economy should not be seen as 
antagonistic to each of our financial goals but rather as 
complementary and beneficial.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew M. Hoffman



MTC-00031020

JAN-11-2002 08:50 PM P.02
Elizabeth T. Marcucci
December 27, 200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I support the settlement proposed in the case of U.S. v. 
Microsoft. As a consumer, I feel it is time for the government to 
stand back and allow the Microsoft settlement to stand as is. Much 
time, effort and money has been spent reaching this settlement. 
Further money and time can be better spent elsewhere, especially in 
these difficult times. It is now necessary for the government to 
allow Microsoft to expend its energies producing first quality and 
innovative products. Microsoft's business is technology, not harming 
consumers. Microsoft should not be continually subject to antitrust 
legislation. With the current economic situation in mind, the 
government should support American business.
    It should work towards helping the American people and economy 
become strong once again. This necessitates supporting large 
companies such as Microsoft and allowing them to help consumers and 
contribute substantially to the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth T. Marcucci
    One Winthrop Street Hamilton, Massachusetts 01982-1325



MTC-00031021

JAN-11-2002 08:50 PM P.01
December 28, 200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I am writing in support of the Microsoft settlement. At this 
time the country needs to support large and small businesses alike. 
Penalizing Microsoft and spending more time and money in the court 
system is not helping the economy or individual consumers. 
Microsoft's contribution to the economy and technology is enormous 
and should not be thwarted because of a perceived harm to the 
American people. This is not the purpose of antitrust laws, As an 
American consumer of Microsoft and other computer products, I 
appreciate Microsoft's contribution to the computer and technology 
industries. Microsoft has supplied us with excellent products and 
service. It is not logical to use inferior technology at higher 
prices merely for the sake of compliance with well-meaning but 
misguided legislation.
    Please stop spending American dollars needlessly and allow the 
Microsoft settlement to stand. Our tax dollars are too valuable to 
be spent in this manner especially considering the events of the 
last few months.
    Sincerely,
    Seth Ross
    30 Spruce St.
    Acton, MA 01720



MTC-00031022

    JAN-11-2002 8:07AM RAID INC NO.146 P.l/l
RAID
INCORPORATED
January 2, 2002
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorny Hesse:
    I would like to take this opportunity under the public comment 
period of the Tunney Act provisions to offer my support for the 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case presently before the 
court.
    This case should never have been pursued in the first place, as 
the basic conditions of anti-trust violation were never met. The 
information technology industry that Microsoft supposedly 
monopolized continues to thrive, with new companies and technologies 
emerging nearly every day. And the consumer, on whose behalf the 
case was theoretically brought, has benefited enormously from 
Microsoft and only stands to lose if the company is regulated to 
death.
    I am a small businessman who understands the great advances 
Microsoft has brought not only to the national economy, but also to 
the abilities of thousands of small businesses to prosper 
independently. I am not sure that those who seek Microsoft's demise 
appreciate the harm it would do to small businesses like mine. We 
depend on the affordable, universally-integrated, and innovative 
products that Microsoft delivers. I have little sympathy for her 
complaining competitors, who are every bit as aggressive in the 
marketplace, and less successul.
    Please use this time period to reiterate the Justice Departments 
call for settlement, and urge Judge Kollar Kotelly to accept the 
agreement reached in November. I thank you for the opportunity to 
voice my opinion in this matter.
    Very truly yours,
    /mjd/
    Marc DiZoglio



MTC-00031023

1681 NE 10th Avenue
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-4805
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
settlement that was reached early last November between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice. I feel this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I would like to go on record as supporting the 
settlement.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft has agreed to share more 
information with other companies, create more opportunities for 
them, and give consumers more choices. Microsoft must disclose 
information about certain internal interfaces in Microsoft and must 
share software codes and books with a technical oversight committee 
created by the government for review.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be to boost our lagging economy. Restricting Microsoft will 
not achieve this. I fully support the settlement between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Meche
From: NORTHWEST BOARD PHONE No.: 360 675 3753 Jan.10 2002 10:46PM 
P01



MTC-00031024

JAN-10-02 THU 08:30 PM DALOIA 913 437 3723 P.01
Trackside
John D'Aloia, Jr.
311 West Alma Street o St. Marys, KS 66536 o Phone/Fax 
785-437-3723
January 10,2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice

[[Page 29495]]

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Settling the Microsoft anti-trust case is of great importance to 
our economy and the principles of justice. The Clinton 
Administration decided to sue Microsoft for anti-trust violations.
    I always assumed that a necessary element for such a suit is 
evidence of consumer harm. So far, there has been no evidence that 
Microsoft's business practices have caused consumer harm, rather, 
the case has become an example of excessive government interference 
in the market place.
    I suspect that this is one of the reasons the Department of 
Justice settled with Microsoft, I was very disappointed when Kansas 
Attorney General Carla Stovall refused to sign on with the proposed 
settlement. Stovall's unwillingness to agree to this settlement is 
purely political, a tax-payer funded publicity play to keep her name 
in the press while she runs for governor. She and the others who are 
continuing to pursue this case are apparently more interested in 
making headlines at the expense of the taxpayer then doing what is 
right for their constituents and for the vitality of the economy. I 
have written Attorney General Stovall to let her know that I was 
adamantly opposed to her wasting taxpayer dollars while gaining for 
Kansas an anti-business reputation.
    It would appear that the business climate is getting better and 
the economy shows signs of shaking off the recession. I urge the 
Department of Justice to accept the settlement and so recommend to 
Judge C. Kollar-Kotelly.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031025

01/11/2002 08:34 8647180602 KATHLEEN KOJIS PAGE 01
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    While I am not happy that the federal government took three 
years to sue Microsoft in court, I am happy to see that the Attorney 
General has put an end to the case with a strong and binding 
agreement. I wholeheartedly applaud this decision.
    Since a settlement was finally reached after three years of 
protracted and extremely costly court battles, it should be accepted 
and finalized as soon as possible. The agreement requires Microsoft 
to make its protocols and access mechanisms available to 
competitors; these are the protocols used in Windows'' 
operating system products, and the mechanisms are used to encourage 
non-Microsoft products. The company also agreed not to retaliate 
against software or hardware developers who develop or promote 
software that competes with Windows or that runs on software that 
competes with Windows.
    Microsoft's tremendous contribution to the United States'' 
economy, and that of the entire world for that matter, goes without 
saying and requires no elaboration. Not only will the settlement 
help our economy escape from its current slump, but it will also 
give Microsoft's competition a hand up. This is why the federal 
government should not pursue any litigation beyond this agreement. 
The company should now be left alone once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Kojis
    35 Lighthouse Way
    Salem, SC 29676
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00031026

01/11/2002 10:13 616-659-8824 RGB NETWORK SERVICES PAGE 
01/01
RGB
Network Services, Inc.
903 North Clay, Suite E
Sturgis, MI 49091
Phone: 616.651.9037
Fax: 616.659.8824
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is a shame that the government has attacked Bill Gates for 
following his vision and the American Dream. If you recall, he 
basically started Microsoft in a garage on nothing more than a wish 
and a promise. And because he worked very hard to develop, produce 
and market an outstanding operating system his company grew to 
become the standard and leading technology innovator in the world.
    I am totally opposed to the governments'' actions against 
Microsoft, for they were unjust, misguided and politically 
motivated. However, the fact that a settlement was ultimately 
reached is a very positive development because settlement is 
preferable to years of continued litigation, especially in this 
matter.
    One aspect of the settlement that strikes me as profound is 
Microsoft's agreement to disclose for use by its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system 
products. I understand this is unprecedented in an antitrust 
settlement.
    This alone should end all claims that Microsoft monopolizes the 
industry. If that weren't enough, Microsoft has also agreed to make 
available to its competitors, additional codes implemented in 
Windows. Anyone who thinks Microsoft escaped any serious measure of 
punitive retribution is remiss.
    Continued litigation will only serve to further distract the 
technology industry from innovating. Please finalize this settlement 
as soon as possible.
    If you want to go after an industry that is corrupt than 
investigate the large oil companies.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Black Owner, President



MTC-00031027

FROM: UPT Consulting PHONE NO.: 281 480 2414 P01
Richard and Beverly Stroud
14515 Wisteria Hollow Lane
Houston, TX 77062
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is high time we wrap up this lawsuit between Microsoft and 
the Justice Department. It has dragged on for three years now and it 
is time that we saw its resolution. A settlement is now on the table 
and only needs to be agreed upon by all parties. I see no reason 
that this settlement should be changed.
    There are several very good provisions within this settlement. 
One of the most beneficial provisions included within the settlement 
is one that prevents Microsoft from taking any kind of retaliatory 
measures against a company that would promote software not developed 
by Microsoft. This greatly enhances competition in the market and 
also helps the smaller software companies compete. Furthermore, 
there are provisions that prevent Microsoft from entering into any 
contracts that would restrict or hinder competition in the market by 
forcing a computer manufacturer from only promoting Microsoft 
software with their product. These are provisions that will benefit 
the information technology market.
    I worry that any more restrictions will begin to hinder the 
market and the ability of companies to operate freely. In addition, 
the next step in restrictions could very well be the break up of the 
Microsoft Corporation, which is no way a good thing. Therefore, I 
urge you to leave the settlement in its current form. There is no 
reason to alter it. It does what needs to be done and nothing more. 
I thank you for your time and I am sure you will do what is best for 
this country.
    Sincerely,
    Richard and Beverly Stroud



MTC-00031028

01/11/02 FRI 08:08 FAX 215 822 0813 GIS Environmental 001
35 Douglass Road
Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of legal battles, Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice have come to a settlement regarding the 
antitrust suit. I believe this settlement will be beneficial to both 
the IT industry and our economy as a whole. The only thing this suit 
has done is cause the misuse of American tax-dollars, and it has 
severely affected Microsoft stockholders and brought down the value 
of the stock market itself.
    Microsoft's products are by far more innovative than any 
competitors-- comparing Windows to Linux is like comparing the 
21st century to the dark ages--there is no comparison for the 
average consumer or small businesses. The various suits have been 
distracting to consumers and Microsoft alike. As shareholders (small 
and large) we have been punished enough. The continuation of these 
suits is not good for business, consumers or Microsoft.

[[Page 29496]]

    This settlement is fair and reasonable, and was reached after 
extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. Even though 
the agreement goes further than what Microsoft would have liked, it 
believes that settling the case now would be the right thing to do 
to help the industry and economy move forward. By delaying the 
practice of this settlement, we only harm our place in the global 
market.
    All action that is being taken at the federal level needs to 
stop. It is about time Microsoft went back to innovating rather than 
litigating.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Graves
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031029

Jan-11-02 08:llam From- T-266 P.Ol/Ol F-187
Michele Meyers
6090 Shepherd Hills Avenue
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18106
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was happy to learn that the Justice Department has decided to 
settle its antitrust case against Microsoft. The legal battle has 
drained the country's resources for more than three years now, and 
it is time to get our national focus back on more important issues.
    The settlement is eminently fair, and should address the 
concerns of all involved parties. Any criticism of the settlement 
coming from Microsoft's competitors stems purely from their own 
self-interest. Microsoft has given more than what was asked by the 
Department of Justice. First, Microsoft has agreed to increase 
competition in the marketplace by granting their competitors access 
to information about the internal workings of Windows. With this 
information, the competitors will be able to install their own 
programs on the Windows operating system, enabling them to compete 
with Microsoft on Microsoft's ``own turf.'' Additionally, 
Microsoft will agree not to take any action against any company that 
sells, uses, or promotes products made by non-Microsoft companies. I 
wonder if any of Microsoft's competitors would be as generous.
    This settlement gives us a viable opportunity to get past this 
messy legal conflict and move on to more pressing issues. I support 
it, and hope it is implemented soon.
    Sincerely,
    Michele Meyers
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031030

01/10/2002 22:23
TO:
FROM : PHILIP W ICE
FAX: 8085236089
TEL: 8085236089
COMMENT :
01/10/2002 22:23 8085236689 PHILIP W ICE PAGE 01
Philip Ice
1325 Wilder Avenue, #13 Makai
Honolulu, HI 96822
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
c/o The U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Mr. Ashcroft:
    From the beginning of US vs. Microsoft three years ago, I have 
thought the suit against Microsoft has been an embarrassment to 
American business. Punishing Microsoft for alleged monopoly power 
was a rediculous, unfair, and unequal act. In the United States, 
there are other companies and industries that have practiced for 
years, truly predatory pricing and market power. The airlines are a 
classic and glaring example. For years it has been common knowledge, 
that they have actively lowered prices in areas where smaller 
airlines are operating to crush competition, then raise their own 
prices after their competition is eliminated. By ignoring these and 
other examples, it is quite evident to me that the Department of 
Justice chose to pick on Microsoft for reasons other than actions 
that could be be construed as predatory, or because of restraint of 
trade. I can see no equality of treatment or justice for all in this 
action.
    The proposed settlement is a way for the IT industry and 
Microsoft to recover from three years of unnecessary government 
attack. For starters, it will prevent Microsoft retaliation if a 
computer manufacturer decides to install a competing company's 
software before shipment, and will allow the computer companies to 
configure the Windows operating system to promote non- Microsoft 
software products.
    I hope that the Department of Justice sees the damage it has 
done to the IT industry and the economy by pursuing Microsoft. If 
the Department of Justice is honest with itself and its actions, it 
will see that a speedy end to the lawsuit is needed. I urge the 
Department of Justice to formalize the settlement and move onto more 
pressing matters.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Ice



MTC-00031031

FILE No.553 01/10 `02 21:23
ID: FUHER AND ASSOCIATES FAX:
PAGE 1
Powering the (Insurance) Industry XDimensional Technologies, Inc.
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
USDOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am the CEO of a firm that works with Microsoft to develop 
software that is used in the insurance industry. I believe that 
continuing litigation because of the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft may be detrimental not only to my firm but also to several 
companies across the nation. The settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is a well-designed accord 
that will be beneficial to both the IT industry of which we are a 
part, and consumers alike.
    The past three years spent in court battles have encouraged the 
government to reach into taxpayers'' pockets. The suit has 
harmed an already staggering economy, and rendered an entire 
industry dormant. The settlement obligates Microsoft to make all 
future versions of Windows to be able to easily have computer 
makers, and consumers integrate non-Microsoft software into Windows. 
Microsoft has also agreed not to return fire on software and 
hardware developers that may ship products that compete with the 
Windows operating system.
    I suggest that you work to conclude this settlement, so that our 
business and the IT industry can begin to rebound and create jobs to 
help revive the economy. Microsoft has made the technological 
progress for our country possible and has been a key to our success 
as a small business for the past seven years. It is time to get back 
to business as usual; no more time and money should be wasted.
    Sincerely,
    Craig W. Fuher
    Chairman & CEO
    XDimensional Technologies, Inc.
    145 S State College Blvd. Suite 160 Brea, CA 92821 (800) 
789-2567 Fax (714) 672-8908
    www.xdti.com



MTC-00031032

Jan-10-02 05:42p Benard Riechers 
724-941-1196 p.1
130 Scenery Circle
Canonsburg, PA 15317
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As an avid supporter of Microsoft products and services and a 
proponent of free market enterprise, Microsoft should be exonerated 
of all wrongdoing. I am happy to see that Microsoft will not be 
broken up, but I do believe the concessions they are making are too 
harsh. It is unfair that Microsoft is obligated to disclose 
intellectual property, such as interfaces and protocols to just to 
serve another software company. However, if Microsoft can tolerate 
the settlement, I support them.
    Over the last decade, Microsoft has been the leading innovator 
in technology products and services. They have forced their own 
people and competitors to grow at unprecedented rates. Even in a 
faltering American economy, Microsoft has proven that it can 
maintain its vision.
    I look forward to no further litigation against Microsoft and 
hope that the IT sector will be allowed to focus on business, which 
is in the best interest of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Bernard Riechers
    Cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031033

Jan 10 02 05:25p p.1
FRONTIERS OF FREEDOM INSTITUTE
12011 LEE JACKSON MEM. HWY. 3rd FLOOR
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22033

[[Page 29497]]

Phone(703)246-0110 * (888)8-RIGHTS
Fax(703)246-0129 * www.ff.org
US. Senator Malcolm Wallop (ret.)
Chairman
January 10, 2002
    To whom it may concern:
    There is real and credible evidence that the Congress and our 
representative democracy are under attack--not from anthrax or 
some other terrorist plot. This is a different kind of 
enemy--one that is aimed at destroying our cherished democratic 
institutions. This plot is not carried out by terrorists or bombs, 
but by greedy and power hungry lawyers who seek to essentially over 
throw our representative democracy and the rule of law and install 
in their place a system governance by litigation--with lawyers 
and unelected judges as our rulers. Under their plan, litigation is 
used to effectively enact legislation, promulgate regulations, and 
impose new taxes. This has been the trend since the tobacco 
litigation. Now we see the same modus operandi in the Microsoft 
litigation. The nine states and the District of Columbia who insist 
that the Justice Departments settlement with Microsoft isn't tough 
enough, continue to base all of their expectations and all of their 
arguments on the trial judge's rulings, which were resoundingly 
overturned on appeal.
    The fact is the settlement is like virtually every other 
settlement. Each party got something it wanted and each party had to 
give-in to things that it did not want. So why do they continue to 
claim they cannot support the settlement? Why do they continue to 
misstate the law and the facts? Why do they continue to pretend to 
be protecting consumers? Its all about money. Justice has nothing to 
do with it.
    Americans are already taxed to the hilt so new taxes are not 
popular. Thus when politicians go on pork spending sprees, they are 
often afraid to raise taxes any higher to pay for their excesses. 
Therefore, free spending states often opt for an alternative revenue 
source--shaking down deep-pocketed industries or companies 
through litigation. Hence, taxation through litigation.
    Taxation through litigation is a favorite way for states to 
cover large budget deficits. It is no coincidence that the states 
that persist in suing Microsoft all have large projected budget 
deficits--totaling more than $11 billion. Despite the fact that 
the vast majority of states either settled their claims along with 
the federal government or opted not to get involved in the first 
place, a few states spend taxpayer money pursuing continued 
litigation in hopes that Microsoft, like the tobacco industry, will 
become their next cash cow. Its all about money! We are slowly 
surrendering our constitutional representative democracy to a 
cancerous system of lawyer-run governance. Our forefathers pledged 
their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to obtain freedom and throw 
off the shackles and unjust burdens of an unelected, life-tenured 
king. Did General Washington and his army make those sacrifices 
merely to have trial lawyers and unelected, life tenured judges take 
the king's place, sack the rule of law, and turn our representative 
democracy into governance by litigation? I think not.
    Sincerely,
    George C. Landrith,
    President,
    Frontiers of Freedom Institute



MTC-00031034

From: Thomas Klinect
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/10/2002Time: 2:05:48
PM Page 1 of 2
TPI Inc.
2650 Jamacha Rd. #147-13
El Cajon, CA. 92019
Tel: 619-303-3292
Fax: 619-670-6157
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Thomas Klinect
Fax#: 1-202-307-1454
Fax #: 619-670-6157
Tel #: 619-303-3292
Company: United States
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
sent: 1/10/2002 at 2:05:46 PM
Pages: 2 (including cover)
MESSAGE:
    Sir,
    The following letter discusses TPI's views, in general, on the 
remidies for the Microsoft settelment. Please take some time to 
review and take a small business mans point of view into your final 
decision on this matter. v/r
    Thomas J. Klinect
    TPI Inc.
    619-303-3292
    [email protected]
    This fax is strictly confidential and intended solely for the 
addressee. It may contain information which is covered by legal, 
professional, or other privilege. If you are not the intended 
addressee you must not use, disclose, or copy this transmission.
    From: Thomas Klinect
    To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Date: 1/10/2002
    Time: 2:05:48 PM Page 2 of 2
    TPI, Incorporated
    2650 Jamacha Road #147, PMB 13
    EL Cajon, CA 92019
    FAX: 619-670-6157
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney Gerneral John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Justice 
Department lawsuit against Microsoft. If this lawsuit had succeeded 
to the extent envisioned by government lawyers, Microsoft's 
competitors, and some on the federal bench, the real penalty would 
have devolved to the entire IT industry, and thus to the American 
economy and people. Just because Microsoft's competitors have been 
unable to develop products that are comparable with Microsoft's 
products in value to the consumer, it does not follow that the 
government should step in and, in effect, ``dumb down'' 
Microsoft in an effort to make those less innovative companies more 
competitive with Microsoft. We have seen this principle tried with 
regard to our national educational policies, and it simply does not 
work.
    It is good for a company like Microsoft to stand on a principle 
of unapologetic excellence. If its products and innovations are 
better than anyone else's then that is its reward for it's work 
ethic, perserverance, and technical excellence. No laws are violated 
when a company develops superior products. Similarly, if Microsoft's 
products and innovations slip into second, or third place, then that 
is where Microsoft deserves to be. That is the essence of the 
competitive marketplace. To have the government attempt to subvert 
the role of these competitive forces can serve only to upset the 
natural dynamic of the marketplace.
    The settlement now in place, one in which Microsoft has agreed 
to an equal pricing stucture for licensing preinstalled software to 
hardware makers, provides a reasonable basis for closure of this 
matter, and I urge the Department of Justice to seek acceptance by 
all parties. I believe that this will best serve the interests of 
the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Klinect
    Chief Executive Officer
    PMB 13 2650 Jamacha Rd. #147 El Cajon, CA 92019-4319
    phone 619.303.3292 fax 619.670.6157 www.tpi-inc.com



MTC-00031035

01/10/2002 17:24 9089640304 STEPHEN J. LA MONT PAGE 01
O1/10/02 THU 16:38 FAX 800 641 2255
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000l
    I must say that I am not surprised to learn that the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is being delayed 
even further. Not only was the suit ridiculous to begin with, but 
now that a settlement has been reached, there are those who still 
want to hold up the process. I think it is time we let things move 
forward, and let the agreement speak for itself.
    During these times of economic strain, it seems foolish to waste 
valuable resources on fighting another court battle, particularly 
one that has been settled. Microsoft has not only agreed to rework 
licensing and marketing agreements, but has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows for even easier installation of non-Microsoft 
software. At this point, Microsoft has made many concessions to open 
up the competitive market, but the process is being delayed. Let us 
help get the technology industry back on track, by having this 
agreement move forward.
    I urge you to support this settlement as it is, and help stop 
any further action against it. Let us help the IT sector get back to 
business, by letting the terms of this agreement speak for 
themselves.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Lamont
    Stephen Lamont
    988 Stuyvesant Avenue
    Union, NJ 07083-6906



MTC-00031036

1-10-2002 4:07PM
FROM EHD 717 291 1154 P.1

[[Page 29498]]

TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft
TOTAL # OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 2
FROM: Engle Hambright & Davies Realtors
2122 Marietta Avenue, Lancaster, PA 17603
Phone: 717-291-1041
Fax No: 717-291-1154
As you requested
X For your information
Please complete
Please return
Please handle
J. Scott Ulrich
Name
1/10/02
Date
COMMENTS:
1-10-2002 4:07PM FROM EHD 717 291 1154 P. 2
J. Scott Ulrich
2122 Marietta Avenue
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen of this great nation, I would like to 
inform you about my thoughts regarding the settlement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft. I support the settlement that has 
been reached by all of the parties involved.
    From what I have read in the newspapers, the settlement seems to 
be both reasonable and fair. It should be able to bring the three-
year case against Microsoft to a close this year. Microsoft's 
critics would try and lead you to believe that Microsoft is getting 
off easy with this settlement. I do not believe this to be the case. 
Microsoft will be making changes in their business practices and its 
product development.
    For example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows operating system products. Also, a three person technical 
committee will be established to monitor Microsoft`s 
compliance with the settlement. I urge that no more legal action 
take place by the federal government against Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    J. Scott Ulrich
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031037

Jan 11 02 02: 59p (502) 243-9035 p.1
K
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have always had a great deal of respect for those who have 
undertaken the heavy burdens of serving in public office, 
particularly at the federal level. Naturally, there are times when 
those so situated in government make decisions with which I simply 
do not agree. Our government's decision to bring this shortsighted 
lawsuit against Microsoft was one of those times.
    It is true that the larger and more successful that Microsoft 
got, the less responsive and consumer-oriented they became. While 
this attitude may have been regrettable, it certainly did not 
warrant action--especially by our government. The Justice 
Department never let market forces get even half a chance to act.
    There seems to be a happy ending here. The recently negotiated 
settlement is fair and reasonable. It is my hope that it will 
survive the public comment part of the lawsuit, and that no further 
federal action will be brought against Microsoft. I think that they 
have learned their lesson. After all, the settlement already forces 
Microsoft to be more accountable to the government and the 
competition by virtue of a new ``Technical Committee'' 
designed to make sure that Microsoft maintains its licensing 
agreements with hardware makers, and, more importantly, its design 
obligations. These obligations open up Windows codes for the 
competition so that competitors'' products will run faster and 
more efficiently on the Windows platform.
    Thank you for your continuing defense of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Landgrave
    Chairman/Chief Executive Officer
    KOINONIA COMPUTING
    10001 Linn Station Road, Suite 205 o LouisvilIe, KY 40223
    Phone: (502) 243-9227 o FAX: (502) 243-9035
    www.koincompute.com o e-mail: [email protected]
    Microsoft
    CERTIFIED
    Partner
    CITRIX
    GREAT PLAINS PARTNER



MTC-00031038

01-10 02 15:53 DIETRICH T:6102967217 P:01
David Dietrich
2070 Saint Andrews Dr.
Berwyn, PA 19312-1972
David Dietrich
2070 Saint Andrews Dr.
Berwyn PA 19312-1972
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It pleased me to hear last November that a settlement was 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in its 
antitrust case. I am writing you today to express my sincere opinion 
that this settlement be implemented, any further litigation dropped, 
and most importantly, that this whole matter be resolved quickly and 
without further delay.
    It seems to me that, although Microsoft certainly did not get 
off easy, it is fair and reasonable, and seems more than adequate to 
accomplish the stated goals of the antitrust case: namely to 
increase competition within the IT Industry. The broad series of 
restrictions and obligations that Microsoft has agreed to under the 
settlement will definitely reduce anti-competitive behavior and 
allow its competitors to more easily market software that competes 
with Windows operating systems. All this will be verified and by a 
technical committee.
    Therefore it seems to me that this settlement is sufficient, and 
any further litigation will counter-productive. In today's slowing 
economy, progress and innovation within the IT industry will be 
vital. I believe that we should allow Microsoft to get back to work, 
and that the whole issue be resolved forgotten. Please approve the 
November settlement and do not waste America's time and money with 
unnecessary federal action.
    Sincerely,
    David Dietrich
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031039

01/10/2002 15: 45 319-435-2157
HARVEY W FASCHER PAGE 01/01
1/10/2002 1:43 PM
FROM: fax TO: 13194352157,,,,,131.
PAGE: 003 OF 003
5680 N Highway 13
Coggon, Iowa 52218
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft anti-trust issue. I believe the settlement that was 
reached on November 2, 2001, is fair and reasonable. I support 
Microsoft and am pleased to see this dispute resolved. In the past 
months our economy has taken quite a hit, and I think that this 
settlement will really jump-start the technology industry, which 
would in turn help the entire economy. The concessions that 
Microsoft has made, information sharing, non-retaliation agreements 
and the like, are certainly sufficient for a settlement, and I hope 
that this case has really come to an end.
    Continuing on with this case is a waste of the government's 
momey and Microsoft's money, and I think funds would be better spent 
on other issues. Thank you for ending this three-year-long dispute
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Fascher



MTC-00031040

Jan 10 02 03:OOp Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.2
Mary L. Kurek
Personal Coach
P.O. Box 1962
Atlantic Beach, NC. 28512
252-726-7648
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case and to urge the

[[Page 29499]]

judge in this matter to approve it. The agreement not only provides 
guarantees for computer manufacturers and information technology 
providers who want to use products that compete with Microsoft, but 
also establishes an unprecedented enforcement mechanism to deal with 
any complaints that Microsoft is engaging in anticompetitive 
behavior. I doubt any corporation in our nation's history has been 
subject to such strict competitive constraints.
    Over $30 million in taxpayers'' money has been spent on 
this case, and no harm to the consumer has ever been proven. It is 
clear that the lawsuit was filed at the instigation of Microsoft's 
competitors, and I believe it has been not only a waste of money, 
but also a dangerous distraction to our nation and a hindrance to 
our economy, Given all that is happening in the world and in our 
nation in this time of crisis and recession today, it is vitally 
important that our government focus on building for the future, not 
settling scores for business competitors. I am certain that AOL Time 
Warner, Sun, Oracle and the other companies that have lobbied so 
hard to continue this litigation will make themselves heard, but I 
hope that our government will listen just as closely to the 
taxpayers and consumers who believe it is time to end this 
proceeding and get on with business.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031041

Jan 10 02 03:OOp Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
FROM: FAX NO.: Dec. 14 2001 04:17PM P2
Coaching Perspective, Inc.
7913 Fairlake Drive
Wake Forest, NC 27587
December 14, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to comment on the settlement of the Microsoft case. 
As a small business owner I believe the settlement will start 
rebuilding our economy and at the same time allow a significant 
investment in educating children. Microsoft has benefited consumers 
and business owners by providing an integrated software system that 
is easy to use. Our economy depends on competition and ongoing 
innovation that is not discouraged by litigation and regulation.
    A settlement will allow Microsoft and other companies to again 
focus their efforts on developing technology that will provide new 
opportunities for consumers and the technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    JoAnn Feligno



MTC-00031042

FROM : FAX NO. : 7537804 Jan. 10 2002 11:54AM P1
Joseph M. Capone
592 Franklin Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01604
January 10, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX
    Dear Attorney Hesse
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input, regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a small businessman, I understand competition. Competition is 
healthy for the American economy. I use Microsoft products in my 
business and they have been a great help to me. They have allowed me 
to better serve our clients and to manage our business.
    I believe that the settlement in this case is in everyone's best 
interest. It would certainly help consumers. But, it is also my 
understanding, that Microsoft is being generous in the settlement 
and will make computers available to public school students 
throughout the country. Our business is in an older industrial city. 
This donation will be a great benefit to our inner city schools.
    I urge a quick settlement in this case.
    Sincerely yours,
    Joseph M. Capone



MTC-00031043

01/10/2002 10:45 FAX 804 7866310 VA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 001
Virginia House of Delegates
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
FAX COVER SHEET
To: Ms. Reneta Hesse
Organization: Department of Justice
FAX Number: (202) 616-9937 Phone Number: ( )
Local
Long Distance
Number of Pages including this cover sheet: 2
From: Delegate Albo
Room Number: 527 Telephone Number: (804) 698 1042
Comments:
If you have any problems with this transmission, please call the 
House Fax Center at: (804) 698-1558
Our Fax Number is (804) 786-6310
01/10/2002 10:45 FAX 804 7866310 VA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 002
Reneta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am strongly supportive of the settlement the federal 
government and Microsoft reached and I feel it was a step in the 
right direction for continuing growth and prosperity in the high 
technology sector of the United States. Consumers will benefit 
greatly from the provisions in the settlement that allows only 
Microsoft and not the government to decide which products and 
features to provide to the public and how to price them. It would be 
unjust for the government to interfere with Microsoft's business 
because of their success over other competitors. The high tech 
industry will receive a boost from the release of the Windows XP 
operating system, which should increase computer sales in the next 
year. In addition to providing a boost in the technology sector, 
there will be a felt improvement in the economy.
    I strongly feel that the Microsoft Antitrust case was 
unnecessary. It is not Microsoft's fault that they make a bettor 
product than other smaller business and have prospered and grown 
because of the products. It is just easier to use the Microsoft 
applications than other applications. As a user of the programs, I 
hope that the various states cease their suits against Microsoft so 
they can better serve the public. I appreciate you for the 
opportunity to present my views on this case.
    Delegate Dave Albo



MTC-00031044

01/10/2002 11:06 5084863455 GLAVEY AND GLAVEY PAGE 04
FAX NO. P. 02
GOODMAN INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES
MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C.
Real Estate Management & Development
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to add my voice to those who have called for an end 
to the federal government's case against Microsoft. The case has 
gone too far and too long. I support the settlement agreement 
reached as a means to end this regrettable action as soon as 
possible.
    Many small business people such as myself feel that Microsoft 
and its products have brought great benefit to individual businesses 
and to the economy as a whole. And as one who must outperform 
competitors daily, I have little sympathy for the 
``aggrieved'' competition. They have every opportunity to 
succeed if they sell quality products.
    Although I am no expert in antirust law, I can't believe it was 
written to allow government regulatory agencies to pick one company 
over another in a competitive market, or to stymie the forces of 
freedom.
    Let's get businesses back to business, and settle the case. We 
will all be better for it.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Goodman
    133 Pearl Street Suite 400 Boston MA 02110 (617) 292 0101 tel 
(617) 202 0130 fax



MTC-00031045

01/10/2002 11:06 5084863455
GLAVEY AND GLAVEY PAGE 03
Liz Chase Marino
109 Savin Street
Malden, MA 02148
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 29530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I am respectfully submitting my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case in

[[Page 29500]]

accordance with the Tunney Act public comment period. I support the 
settlement agreement that has been reached between Microsoft and the 
government, and urge the Judge in the case to accept the Justice 
Department recommendation. As both a consumer and a businesspeson, I 
can attest to the great efficiencies and freedoms that Microsoft and 
its products have created. I for one do not see the great injustice 
that supposedly has been visited upon the consuming public. All I 
see are falling prices new products, a variety of vendors, and a 
heathy competition. Perhaps a reconsideration of how the antitrust 
statutes are prosecuted is in order. In any event I trust the 
American public will use this opportunity to speal out and let the 
court know what it feels. My feelings are strong and unambiguous: 
the nation would be best served if the settlement is accepted and 
the case is ended.
    I truly appreciate this chance to express my opinion on this 
matter.
    Very truly yours,
    Liz Chase Marino



MTC-00031046

01/10/2002 11:06 5084863455 GLAVEY AND GLAVEY PAGE 01
Marie P. Sweeney
51 Fiske Street
Tewksbury MA 01876
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    I would like to offer my opinion during the public comment 
period for the Microsoft antitrust case. I wholeheartedly support 
the settlement agreement that has been negotiated between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft and encourage Judge Kollar Kotelly 
to accept the proposal. I have been an active citizen, both in the 
private sector and in public life. I fully support the use of 
antitrust statutes by the DOJ to protect public interests I also 
recognize that industries which rely on innovation need the freedom 
to act more or less unhindered. Microsoft must play by the rules of 
commerce the same as any other company, but they shouldn't be 
subjected to conditions set by their rivals. The agreement reached 
works in this spirit; the more stringent terms sought by the 
competitors does not.
    I'm sure I am like a lot of Americans when I say that I think 
enough is enough. The case has gone on too long, and cost too much. 
Now we need to put it behind us, and move forward. The economy and 
the country in general both need to have the case settled, so that 
everyone involved can get back to business, I appreciate your 
consideration of my thoughts on the issue.
    Respectfully,
    Marie P. Sweeney



MTC-00031047

JAN.-10 ``02 (THU) 11:O1 LEGG MASON--LANC. TEL: 717 
560 0100 P.001
206 Granite Run Drive, Suite 150
Lancaster, PA 17601-6805
Ph # 717-560-6800 or 
1-800-873-0990
Fax # 717-560-0100
LEGG MASON
FAX
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Doug Trower
Fax: 202-307-1454 Pages: 2
Phone:
Date: Re:CC:
    Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
    Comments:
JAN.-10'02(THU) 11:01 LEGG MASON--LANC. TEL:717 560 0100 
P.002
1934 Northbrook Drive
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601
January 8, 2000
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want you to know that I back Microsoft's position in the 
antitrust matter. Why they are being persecuted for being 
successful, I really don't know, but I hope that this case will 
finally be ended with this settlement. I would ask you to stress the 
terms of the settlement to the states who still haven't settled 
their cases yet and get them to join in, I feel that they are in it 
simply trying to get a buck out of Microsoft, which I don't agree 
with at all. Since most people depend on Microsoft, they would agree 
with the decision you have reached. The compromises made by 
Microsoft in the settlement, information sharing regarding Windows 
and uniform price listing when licensing software, are more than 
enough for me to lend my support to this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Trower
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031048

JAN-10-2002 10:55 FROM: IMPERIUM SOLUTIONS 2032211330 
TO:202 353 8856 P.001
IMPERIUM
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft;
    It is in the best interest of the country, the economy and the 
IT sector generally for the settlement between Microsoft and the 
government to be accepted and finalized by the court as soon as 
possible. Continued litigation will only serve to further harm all 
of the aforementioned.
    Settlement is a far better alternative to continued litigation 
and the goal of some who are pushing very hard to have Microsoft 
broken up by the government. The settlement should make even 
Microsoft's biggest adversaries concur because it includes many 
things that go well beyond the scope of the original lawsuit. On a 
more basic level it systematically addresses and resolves all of the 
major grievances of Microsoft's adversaries. For example the 
settlement insures that Microsoft will grant computer makers 
extensive new rights to reconfigure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs. This should make Microsoft's 
competitors ecstatic. I will refrain from going through each section 
of the settlement, as I am confident you are aware of its terms. 
However, please know that most people believe it is fair and 
equitable.
    The sooner the settlement is finalized, the sooner technological 
innovation can get back on track and the U.S. economy can begin to 
recover. Thank you
    Sincerely,
    Marshall C. Harrison
    Chairman, CEO
    164 Kings Highay North Westport,CT 06880 Tel 203.221.1500 Fax 
203.221.1330



MTC-00031049

FROM : KOHN PIRRI JR
PHONE NO. : 864 379 2454
JAN. 10 2002 10:35AM Pl
Dr. John Pirri, Jr.
1204 GreenviIle Church Road--Donalds, South Carolina 29638
Tel/Fax 864-379-2454
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20539
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice has already worked out an antitrust 
lawsuit agreement with Microsoft. The company is still trying to 
work out an acceptable agreement with many of the states. I think 
it's high time that the federal government allows this agreement to 
fall into place and let Microsoft get back to business.
    Microsoft is being punished for pursuing the American Dream. 
Bill Gates has worked hard and deserves what he has. Microsoft has a 
direct impact on many small businesses that make up a large part of 
this country's economy. By continuing to distract Microsoft, you are 
only driving this country deeper into recession.
    The settlement has enough stipulations to remedy any qualms by 
competitors and is fair to both the government and Microsoft. It 
requires Microsoft not to retaliate against computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system. It also forces Microsoft to design future versions of 
Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. Additionally, the company had to make numerous other 
compromises.
    As a good loyal Republican please work to finalize the 
Department of Justice's settlement and let Microsoft get back to 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. and Mrs. John Pirri, Jr.
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Congressman Lindsay Graham



MTC-00031050

Danny Young/FLO/NA/ESAB@ESAB
12/17/00 10:07 PM
To: Danny Young/FLONAESAB@ESAB
cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.esab.com/html/
drequest.html

[[Page 29501]]

Full Name: Steve sandstrom
Company: sandstrom services inc.
Street: 90 lexington st
City: bristol
State: ct
Zip:
Phone: 860 584 9920
Fax: 860 589 3218
Reply To: [email protected]
Country:
Date: 12/17/00
Time: 10:07:43 PM
Remote Name: 64.252.5.219
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
FROM: TIMMONSVILLE POST OFFICE 29161 FAX NO.: 8433467581 Jan. 10 
2002
09:21AM P1
Letter illegible
FROM: TIMMONSVILLE POST OFFICE 29161 FAX NO. : 8433467581 Jan. 10 
2002
09:21AM P2



MTC-00031051

TBA
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
NASHVILLE/LONDON/LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK/DALLAS
CHICAGO/PHOENIX/SAN DIEGO/SALT LAKE CITY/ATLANTA
INDIANAPOLIS/OMAHA/SEATTLE
a business unit of TBA Entertainment Corporation (AMEX: TBA)
1100 JORIE BLVD., STE. 300/OAK BROOK, IL 60523
TEL (630) 890-2500/FAX (630) 990-0594
TO
COMPANY Attorney General John Ashcroft
PHONE #
FAX# 202-307-1454
SENT BY Robert Sheridan
EMAIL [email protected]
TIME 3:17 PM
DATE January 11, 2002
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET 2
01/11/200216:15 6309900457
TBA CHICAGO PAGE 01/02
Robert M. Sheridan
3909 Rugen Road
Glenview, IL 60025
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement case. I feel the settlement that was reached in 
November is a complete and thorough agreement. After three years of 
litigation, it is time we move on and face other pressing issues.
    This settlement not only allows Microsoft to remain together, 
but it also contains provisions that will foster competitive 
activity. Microsoft has pledged to carry out all provisions of this 
agreement, including: sharing more information with other companies 
and being monitored by a technical oversight committee. Microsoft 
has in good faith agreed to terms that go beyond the original issues 
of the lawsuit, for the sake of resolution.
    Again I support this settlement and sincerely hope this issue 
will be permanently resolved. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Sheridan
    01/11/2002 16:15 6309900457
    TBA CHICAGO PAGE 02/02



MTC-00031052

01/11/02FRI 15:14 FAX 801 227 9016
GENEVA FINANCE 001
GENEVA STEEL
P.O. BOX 25OO, PROVO, UTAH 84603
PH. (801) 227-9166
FAX.(801)227-9016
To: ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT
DATE: 1/11/O2
FAX: (202) 307-1454
RE:
SENDER: JOSEPH A. CANNON
    GENEVA STEEL COMPANY
    YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 2 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
    IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL LORI PETERS 
@ (801) 227-9054
    PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY
    Confidentiality and Privilege Notice. This facsimile (including 
attachments) (1) contains confidential informaiton, (2) may be 
protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and 
(3) constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only 
to the designated recipient(s).
    If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this 
facsimile, including attachments, and notify me by return mail, 
facsimile or by phone (801) 227-9054. The unauthorized use, 
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this facsimile, 
including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
    Geneva Steel Company
    10 South Geneva Road
    Vineyard, UT 84058
    Telephone: (801) 227-9054
    Facsimile (801) 227-9016
    Email: [email protected]
    01/11/02FRI 15:15 FAX 801 227 9016
    GENEVA FINANCE 002
    GENEVA STEEL
    P.O. BOX 2500
    TELEPHONE: (801) 227-9000
    PROVO, UTAH 84603
    FAX: [801] 227-9090
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Congratulations on successfully completing the negotiations 
between your department and the Microsoft Corporation. Finding the 
balance and fairness for both the Microsoft Company and their 
competitors was difficult and technical. It seems that if Microsoft 
can accept the parameters your have given them, the industry will be 
ready to move ahead with innovations and new products.
    Everyone knows that the future is information, and information 
needs aggressive technology. Our economy and businesses rely on 
technology for communication and data management systems to manage 
their products. It is good timing to settle the issue and define the 
acceptable marketing practices for not only Microsoft but also other 
potential leaders in the technology industries.
    Again, I support your department and their efforts to settle 
this lawsuit. Thank you for bringing the issue to closure.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph A. Cannon
    Chairman
    Geneva Steel Company
    JC:lp
    -bsFaxgate 
-bs Users 
-bsLPeters 
-bsUSER 
-bsManagers-bsGen
eral John Ashcroft Ltr-Joe Cannon.doc
    EQUAL OPPORTUNITY--AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER



MTC-00031053

JAN.-11'02(FRI) 16:39
LEGG MASON
TEL:412 833 9106 P.001
2589 Washington Road
Suite 420
Pittsburgh, PA 15241-2566
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this short letter to express my support for the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
I believe the settlement is a good decision and will be a good 
development for consumers.
    The agreement requires significant changes in the way Microsoft 
conducts its business. The changes include agreeing that if a third 
party's exercise of any options provided for by the settlement would 
infringe any Microsoft intellectual property right, Microsoft will 
provide the third party with a license to the necessary intellectual 
property on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Like many of 
the other terms in this agreement, this is a significant concession. 
The government should view this as a good agreement for Americans.
    The settlement will also be good for the American economy. It 
will provide some certainty to the computer industry and give 
consumers more freedom in choosing the products they desire. So I 
believe this agreement is good for the public and should have 
continued support at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Mack in
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031054

01/11/200216:44 502-561-5154
TARC IT DEPT PAGE 01/01
1918 Palatka Road
Louisville, KY 40214
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a computer programmer and Microsoft user, I am writing to 
express my opinion of

[[Page 29502]]

the recent antitrust case settlement between Microsoft and the US 
Department of Justice. Although I am happy to see that Microsoft 
will not be broken up, I do think the settlement as it stands is too 
harsh.
    Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology in the 
tech industry over the last decade, They have created and refined 
systems that have benefited the whole industry. While I do think 
that Microsoft should maintain better relations with computer makers 
and software developers, they should not have to disclose the 
secrets of their technology.
    I am happy to know that this matter is being settled and I hope 
that no further litigation will be brought against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Wanda Doherty



MTC-00031055

Jan 11 02 03:09pDon Read
610-970-5567 p.1
Evergreen Consignment Company, Inc
810 Spruce Street
Pottstown, PA 19464-4218
610-970-9925
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It is in the best interest of the American public for the 
Department of Justice to finalize settlement with Microsoft in the 
antitrust case and for your office to urge the none states in 
opposition to settle as soon as possible.
    A number of the concessions violate Microsoft's rights in a free 
market. For instance, to restrict Microsoft from entering into third 
party agreements for exclusive or fixed percentage distribution 
inhibits their ability to compete. Service companies such as Pepsi 
and Coca-Cola rely on these third party agreements to gain market 
share.
    I also believe that Microsoft should be rewarded for its 
innovation in the tech sector. Much time and money has been spent on 
redeveloping Microsoft's superior products and services and to have 
to disclose that information violates their intellectual property 
rights. Microsoft is also one of the few companies who constantly 
updates and improves it software. I have a whole shelf of software 
from other companies that they are either impossible to get a hold 
of or was just interested in selling you the initial program. I know 
my Microsoft products are going to be usable and upgradeable for a 
while.
    Our nation's government should be focusing on ways to ensure 
security for our people and help us lift out of recession. Hindering 
our industrial powerhouses will only hurt our economic recovery. I 
urge your office to do the right thing and suppress opposition and 
finalize the settlement.
    I also want to thank you for your services to this Country 
during these unprecedented times and Americans fully support your 
efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Don Read President
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031056

Jan 11 02 01:14p Richard Woodrow 970-945 7114 p.1
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax 1-202-307-1454
    Dear Mr Attorney General:
    It seems like only yesterday you were in the United States 
Senate and we both lived on Justice Court across from the Hart 
Senate Building. I was a staffer then for Senator Stevens of Alaska. 
Unable to chat going and coming from work now, I am writing this 
letter instead.
    I am one of the many Americans who believe that the antitrust 
case against Microsoft should have never been initiated or brought 
to trial. However, now that Microsoft has accepted the settlement in 
this case, I trust you will continue to support the settlement and 
end this case.
    In my view the settlement creates more openness and competition 
in the IT industry by giving competitors greater access to Microsoft 
designs and codes. Microsoft's disclosures to competitors under this 
settlement are unprecedented. Nevertheless, anti-Microsoft forces 
may try to derail the settlement and have the base brought back to 
trial. Considering the expense and unfairness of this case from 
beginning, I hope you won't allow this to happen and will see the 
settlement completed.
    Again, I ask that you do your best to end the federal case 
against Microsoft.
    With best wishes and congratulations for the fine job you are 
doing with the President.
    Shirley Woodrow
    401 W Yale Circle
    Glenwood Springs, Co
    81601-2851



MTC-00031057

01/11/200213:23 6304430047
NOVIX NET SPEC INC PAGE 01
NOVIX
NETWORK SPECIALISTS INC.
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I am happy to see your office reach a 
settlement after such little time given the preceding 
administrations actions.
    Microsoft has generated standards where there were none. The 
United States would not be the dominant player that it is in this 
arena without the de facto standards created by Microsoft.
    Although the remedies in the settlement may not be perfect, 
breaking this company up would is the wrong answer. Uniform pricing 
requirements (please!) and non-retaliation agreements beat 
dissolution any day. I believe we should let this company move 
forward and focus on business. Let the cry babies work instead of 
relying on an inherently inefficient system to help them compete.
    I feel it will serve in the best public interest to end 
litigation against Microsoft. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Erich Schoen
    cc: Representative J. Dennis Hastert
    P. 0. Row 149. Geneva, IL 60134 Phone (630) 443-0036
    FAX: (630) 443-0047



MTC-00031058

01/11/02FRI 11:21
FAX 801 994 7991
UPP 001/001
Rob Bishop
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter comes to you in support of the settlement proposal 
for the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. Good Republican principles 
allow businesses to seek their own markets and compete fairly. The 
settlement appears to address concerns from AOL, Sun Microsystems, 
Oracle, IBM, and Apple. These companies should be pleased with the 
work you have done.
    Your office is doing a great job in behalf of America's 
citizens.
    Thank you,
    Rob Bishop
    Former Utah Republican Party Chair
    74 North 300 East
    Brigham City, Utah 84302



MTC-00031059

01/11/02FRI 15:02
FAX 801 994 7991
COMMUNICATIONS 001/001 W
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I want to take this opportunity during the open public comment 
period to forward my support for the settlement the department 
negotiated with the Microsoft company on the anti-trust lawsuit. 
Intervention by the federal government into the information 
technology industry has slowed the American economy and 
unfortunately caused financial losses to major investors. Bringing 
the case to closure will be greatly appreciated in the financial 
community. The points of agreement have given fairness to the 
industry and have defined how information technology companies can 
market their products. We live in an information age and 
transferring and using this information is reliant on the superior 
computer technology products we enjoy.
    Ending this lawsuit will allow product developers and marketers 
to move into the future with a new understanding of the laws that 
govern their industry.
    Again, I urge your support for the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Wright
    President
    W Communications

[[Page 29503]]



MTC-00031060

Sent by: Ron and Dee Stephens
757-523-7003
1/11/20025:04 PM
Page 1 of 1
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In regards to the settlement that was reached in November 
between Microsoft and the government, I feel this settlement is fair 
and reasonable, and I believe it is time to finally end this 
dispute. It will benefit the technology industry and consumers.
    Microsoft is a company that has impacted our society and lives 
in the last fifteen years. Thanks to innovative design and 
persistence, Microsoft has gone from a fledgling company to a giant 
enterprise. Microsoft should not be penalized for this. To end this 
litigation, Microsoft has agreed to provisions that go way beyond 
the original issues of the lawsuit.
    It is time to allow Microsoft to focus its energies on more 
productive activities than litigation. Please do your part to ensure 
there will be no further action against Microsoft at the federal 
level.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Stephens
    641 E Fox Grove Court
    Virginia Beach, VA 23464



MTC-00031061

JAN-11-200202:45 P.01
BLANKENSHIP CONSTRUCTION, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 460--BUTTE, MONTANA 59703
Telephone (406) 494-3450 Fax (406) 494-3960
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
settlement that was reached with Microsoft on November 2, 2001. I 
believe this settlement is fair and complete, and I am happy to see 
this dispute come to an end.
    I do not feel that Microsoft got off easy on this settlement. In 
fact, Microsoft agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products 
and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit, for the sake 
of wrapping up this suit and being allowed to get back to business 
as usual.
    This settlement will benefit the technology industry, the 
economy, and consumers. After three long years of litigation, it 
will be refreshing to see Microsoft's resources and time go to 
innovation, rather than litigation. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Bernice Blankenship
    P.O. Box 460
    Butte, MT 59703
    TOTAL P.01



MTC-00031062

Jan 11 0204:35 p
TIMS INC 4404605424 p.1
T. I. M. S.
digITal business works
301 Alpha Park
Highland Hts. OH 44143
phone: 440-461-8467
fax: 440-460-5424
www.timsol.com
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing because I am concerned about the status of the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the federal government. I 
understand nine states and DC were party to the lawsuit, but refuse 
to join the settlement, and that they and Microsoft's business 
adversaries are trying to scuttle it in order to continue suing 
Microsoft. To allow this to happen would be a miscarriage of justice 
as well as cause a potentially devastating impact on the technology 
industry.
    The government went too far -when it filed charges against 
Microsoft and the lawsuit should have never taken place. However, 
the settlement is a much better alternative to continued, 
protracted, and costly litigation at the taxpayers' expense. 
Settling this matter will also allow Microsoft to re-focus its 
attention.
    Interestingly enough, the issues at hand are out of date because 
Microsoft had already taken steps to improve its relationships with 
its vendors and OEM's. In spite of this, Microsoft's adversaries 
proceeded with the lawsuit. Their intentions were not pure and 
consequently led to a three-year-long court battle that negatively 
impacted the technology industry with respect to innovation.
    The settlement is totally fair and should be accepted by all of 
the parties involved. It addresses and resolves all of the 
complaints against Microsoft. In fact, it goes above and beyond the 
scope of the original complaints. I urge you, as a member of the IT 
Industry, to move forward with finalizing the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Kirk
    Project Manager
    100 OUTSTANDING GROWTH COMPANY
    North Coast ORACLE Resource Service
    Microsoft CERTIFIED Partner Cleveland Chicago



MTC-00031063

01/14/200219:32
9133419697
WARSHAWSKY PAGE 01
Susan M. Warshawsky
8101 Nail Avenue
Prairie Village, KS 66208 4946
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am concerned that the antitrust settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is not yet concrete. Nine 
states now, including Kansas, are actively seeking to overturn the 
terms of agreement and bring further litigation against the 
Microsoft Corporation. Our American IT industry has come to a 
standstill while this decision has been drawn out.
    Sir, as you are well aware, Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice came to this agreement after a long process of negotiation 
overseen by a court-appointed mediator. The terms of this settlement 
are equitable, both from the standpoint of Microsoft and its 
competitors. Microsoft has agreed to a broad range of terms, 
including, but not limited to, the disclosure of various integral 
line code, protocols, and interfaces within the Windows operating 
system, as well as reasonable, non-discriminatory licensing of 
applicable intellectual property rights.
    I do not believe it is necessary to keep the case open any 
longer. I am satisfied that justice has been done. For the good of 
the American economy and the American IT industry, I urge you to let 
the settlement be approved.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Warshawsky



MTC-00031064

01/11/200217:53 2152421475
FORDE G AND J PAGE 01
George S. Forde, Jr.
[215] 242-1475 (facsimile)
[215] 242-8332 (voice)
[email protected]
PA Atty. ID # 02820
Fax
To: Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
Fax: 202-307-1454 Pages 3 (including cover sheet)
Phone
Date: Friday, 11 January, 2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement
cc: Hon. Rick Santorum
MS Freedom to Innovate Network
--Urgent--for Review
--Please Comment
--Please Reply
--Please Recycle
Comments:
See Attached
01/11/200217:53 2152421475
FORDE G AND J PAGE 02
8401 Seminole Street PHILADELPHIA, PA 19118-3725
[215] 242-8332 (voice)
[215] 242-1475 (facsimile)
[215] 284-1739 (cellular)
[email protected]
PA Atty. ID # 02820
FACSIMILIE & E-Mail 1
Friday, 11 January, 2002
Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear General Ashcroft,
    Public opinion regarding the settlement of the antitrust case 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice has been 
solicited. I offer this opinion as one who has been an interested 
user of computers for personal and business purposes since 1978 
(before there was a Microsoft). This has made me a bit of a student 
of industry and, eventually, an investor in technology. So, I must 
admit to

[[Page 29504]]

significant [for me] holding in MSFT--as well as in companies 
that might be considered to be its antagonists in this matter. 
Still, I am not an apologist for Microsoft and believe that, on 
balance, I must agree with the presentation of this settlement made 
to the Judiciary Committee by Mr. James of your office on 12 
December,
    Microsoft is a monopoly. Paradoxically, I believe it got there, 
in part, with the help of competitors like Apple, 2 IBM 3 and others 
who just failed to properly market sometimes superior product. 
Contrary to its claims, 4 the company is not particularly 
innovative, and its first offerings of its [E.g., MultiPlan, DOS, 
Windows, Excel, Explorer, and so on] have been acquired and, at 
first, poorly implemented compared to others [Such as VisiCalc, 
Lotus, or Resolve; CP/M and MacOS; Netscape... ].
    However, Microsoft rather than being anti-competitive is hyper-
competitive. It learns from its mistakes and is increasingly better 
at execution of the ideas, whatever the source, and it continually 
improves on them. It delivers what the consumer demands [eventually] 
at a [hopefully] reasonable cost. For it own good, Microsoft cannot 
afford to have the rivals all go away, though many have. Neither the 
Department nor the defendant got all the marbles at end of
    * Note: Due to the Excite@Home bankruptcy, this address 
will be inoperative after 2/28/02, from 3/l/02 forward (possibly 
earlier), please use [email protected].
    1 Signed original available on request
    2 Which bundled the MS spreadsheet ``MultiPlan'' with 
the first Macs.
    3 Which opened the PCJr to DOS
    4 But do really like Mr. Gates, based on a couple of brief 
encounters at a local users' group and more distant 
observation over the years. He and Microsoft have done a great deal 
for all computer users.
    01/11/200217:53 2152421475
    FORDE G And J PAGE 03 this case. That's the nature of a legal 
settlement. What has been crafted seems, to me, to serve the best 
interests of the public and the industry.
    One thing to remember is that, while the focus of the case has 
been the ``Wintel World,'' and allegations of maintenance 
of the OS monopoly; however, the market is much larger than that. 
For example, while I use both Widows and MacOS, I very much prefer 
the latter, but I use the same Microsoft applications [I.E. and 
Office] on both platforms.
    I am concerned, therefore, that a separate settlement by the 
non-joining states--if it follows the path offered to them by 
Microsoft--would actually weaken the effect of this settlement 
by making those states accomplices in plan to cannibalize the Apple 
[and other] share of the education market. No need to spell out the 
obvious here, but, if the states want compensation, it should be 
paid outright or in the form of grants to technological projects and 
spending not defined by the defendant. If possible, those states 
should not be allowed to make a separate peace that would undermine 
this one.
    Sincerely,
    George S. Forde, Jr.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    (facsimile only)
    Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate Network
    (facsimile only)



MTC-00031065

1/11/20022:48 PM FROM: Fax TO: +1 (202) 307-1454 PAGE: 
001 OF 001
JRE CONSULTING, INC.
Computer & Software Sales--Small Business Specialists
216 N. Tillamook St., Portland, OR 97227
(503) 28I-3291
FAX (503) 288-3087
Email [email protected]
WomanBusiness Enterprise, SBA Hubzone
January 11, 2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
US Justice Department
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I understand how many could assume that Microsoft has been a bit 
overprotective regarding its software, and this may have led to the 
perception that Microsoft was trying to monopolize the market. 
However, much that has been said regarding their so-called 
``monopolistic'' tendencies is simply rhetoric. What 
Microsoft has done to protect its proprietary products is both 
prudent and reasonable.
    I therefore believe that the origins of this lawsuit are more 
because of Microsoft's competitors' efforts at using our legal 
system to force Microsoft to give up part of its own product code, 
rather than from any actual unfair monopoly. This is but one area 
that the recent settlement addresses.
    While I have not had the time nor the motivation to pore over 
every detail of this settlement, at first blush it appears to cover 
all the points of the lawsuit--and then some. If anything, the 
settlement may have gone too far, but since both parties have agreed 
to it, then it is better to get on with it. I am therefore writing 
this letter to urge its final acceptance.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Engel--President



MTC-00031066

From Charles W Harris to 1-202-307-1454 at 01/11/
20026:26 PM Pg 002/002
2303 Chatam Avenue Southwest
Decatur, AL 35603-1815
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you regarding the recent Microsoft settlement. Just when 
I thought that it was settled, I find out that the settlement is 
being further investigated. It seems that after three years of court 
battles, that the fairness of this settlement is still being 
questioned. This seems to simply be delaying the process.
    Since the settlement requires Microsoft to disclose information 
about Windows interfaces, as well as restructure both licensing and 
marketing campaigns, it seems that it can only be beneficial to all 
involved. By allowing this settlement to stand, as is, our 
technology industry can continue to grow, and help get our economy 
back to normal.
    It seems foolish to spend scarce resources on delaying the 
enactment of this, well thought out, settlement. As we continue to 
delay the competitive process, we continue to delay the growth of 
our IT sector. Let us support the technological growth of our 
country by allowing the market to move on. Let us make sure that no 
more action be taken against the settlement so that we can allow our 
technology industry to focus on business today. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Harris



MTC-00031067

GREGORY BEDNAR TEL NO. 330-493-4843 Jan 11.0220:15 
P.01
3728 Edgehill Circle NW
Canton, Ohio 44709-2232 U.S.A.
Voice/Fax 330-493-4843
E-mail: [email protected]
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I support the settlement of the antitrust litigation against 
Microsoft. Continuation of this suit does not serve the best 
interests of consumers or the economy. I would appreciate your 
consideration of the following items.
    I am a retired police lieutenant. As I am retired, I spend a 
great deal of time on the computer, and on the internet. I have used 
Microsoft software since the early days of DOS. Microsoft has 
continually produced quality, user-friendly products. As a result of 
Microsoft's innovations, consumers have had available to them the 
very best technology. Over the years, other companies, such as IBM 
and Linux, have produced software, which simply cannot compete with 
Microsoft's products. Microsoft's success has resulted in the 
government's needless meddling in our free market. The problem is 
not that Microsoft has engaged in predatory business practices. 
Rather, this suit was brought as a result of the failure of other 
companies to compete at the same level as Microsoft.
    The antitrust case should not have been brought against 
Microsoft in the first place, I believe political factors, more than 
merit, played an integral role in the initial decision to file this 
suit. During this time of economic recession and the threat of 
terrorism, the government's resources should be allocated to 
pursuits other than needless litigation. Similarly, Microsoft's 
should be free to engage in what it does best--innovation of 
new and better products for its consumers. When this happens, the 
economy will surely benefit.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Bednar



MTC-00031068

01-11-0218:22 From--FINANCIAL PACIFIC 
9166303889 T-300 P.O1/O1 F-914
FINANCIAL PACIFIC
Direct Dial Direct Facsimile
(916) 386-3833 (916) 386-3889

[[Page 29505]]

January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Even though the effects of this Microsoft lawsuit would not have 
had any immediate effect upon my company, eventually public 
confidence in the entire computer industry could have eroded to the 
point where most software developers would have been distracted from 
their core business of new software development and forced to 
concentrate on marketing and sales concerns.
    As such, the settlement is an important decision. I ask you to 
continue to support it through the comment period, and preserve the 
spirit of free enterprise and the pragmatism of consumer confidence. 
The settlement clarifies what constitutes unfair behavior in the 
marketplace, and Microsoft has agreed to end its retaliatory actions 
toward software companies that write programs that compete with 
Microsoft's, and toward hardware companies that load non-Microsoft 
software onto their computers before shipping.
    The IT industry has led our national economy through one of the 
longest running periods of economic expansion in our country. I am 
looking forward to the settlement as a signal that once again, our 
economy can recover with the IT industry leading the way. I support 
this settlement, and I hope that no further federal action will be 
contemplated against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy N. Blaede
    Vice President, Information Services
    FINANCIAL PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY
    P.O. Box 292220
    Sacramento, California 95829-2220



MTC-00031069

JAN 11, 20025:48 PM SUMC STRUCTURAL BIO NO. 8502 P.1
STANFORD
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Stanford University Medical Center
DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
10 January 2002
    To whom it may concern:
    The following is a comment on the proposed settlement in the 
United States vs. Microsoft case.
    The intent of our statement is to bolster the comments of the 
alternative software camps, such as the Open Source Movement, the 
Free Software Foundation, Linux, the Samba group, et. al. We wish to 
support the issues and suggestions that these groups will present to 
this court.
    We are scientists who use computers to investigate fundamental 
questions of molecular biology. In our work we use a wide range of 
computers and operating systems. However, the overwhelming majority 
of our experiments are done on UNIX operating systems, such as 
Linux, IBM's AIX, Compaq's Tru64 and SGI's Irix. Linux clusters are 
the workhorses of our research. Using Microsoft products to crunch 
genetic codes would not be a question of cost, it would simply be 
impossible. Microsoft and Microsoft products severely restrict the 
users' ability to access low-level system functions necessary to 
develop large-scale scientific applications. These restrictions are 
completely understandable from a business perspective, and we are 
not expecting the situation to change, Microsoft Windows and 
Microsoft products are targeted to businesses and consumers, and not 
to a relatively narrow but important community of scientists who 
crunch numbers and run molecular and genetic simulations. Our needs 
are met very well by the proprietary Unix variants, as well as by a 
vast collection of programs copyrighted under the Gnu Public License 
and its related variants.
    We are worried, however, that in its quest for dominance in new 
and emerging markets, Microsoft will severely endanger the very 
survival of the solutions mentioned in the preceding paragraph. If 
our tools are forced out of existence through increasing isolation 
and propriatorization of standards. We will have no replacement, and 
science will be greatly harmed as a result. Our case quite different 
from, say, Microsoft Word displacing Word Perfect as the dominant 
word processor with help of superior programming or better business 
marketing. The issue that Open Source software should be protected 
by the First Amendment (although an important one) is not entirely 
on point to this litigation. In this comment we would like to point 
out that some of Microsoft's business practices can and will degrade 
the ability of alternate software solutions to communicate with each 
other and with the vast majority of the worlds computers running 
Microsoft Windows. We are especially concerned with the continuing 
ability for different computer systems to coexist and share 
resources, such as file systems, Internet protocols, printing, 
programming languages, data formats.
    Sherman French Building
    Stanford CA 94895-5128
    659 723 6791
    800 723 9124
    http://structuralbiology/stanford.edu

JAN 11, 20025:48 PM SUMC STRUCTURAL BIO NO. 8502 P.2
    STANFORD SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
    Stanford University Medical Center
    DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
    We do not know which of the possible outcomes of this lawsuit 
will serve the scientific community best. We simply want to remind 
the court to consider our interests in any remedy that it shall 
prescribe.
    This statement is not intended to list the exact technical 
issues that would threaten the software solutions that are important 
to our research. Rather, we request that the court listen to 
suggestions from the following groups on the settlement:
    Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.orq Samba Group http://
www.samba.org.
    IBM Corporation http://www.ibm.com SGI (Silicon Graphics) http:/
/www.sgi.com Red Hat Corp. http://www.redhat.com
    SuSE http://www.suse.com
    Sincerely,
    Boris Fain PhD [email protected]
    Michael Levitt [email protected]
    David Saunders [email protected]
    Patrice Koehl PhD [email protected]
    Chris Summa [email protected]
    Nizar Batada [email protected]
    Computational Structural Biology group, Stanford University 
http://csb.stanford.edu
    Sherman French Building Stanford CA 94895-5128
    659 723 6791 800 723 9124 http://structuralbiology/stanford.edu



MTC-00031070

01/15/199519:31 216400 CAROL WHITE Page 01
1-11-02
    Justice department should leave Microsoft alone. A good 
settlement for this company is in the best interest for America. 
This Company provides good jobs & is run by good people. It's 
time to do the right & good things for our country.
    Carol L. White
    Everett, Wa. 98203



MTC-00031071

Friday, January 11, 20028.24 PM John O'Flaherty 360 825 0302 
p.01
FAX
ATTN. Mr. John Ashcroft
Fax Number 12023071454
Phone Number
FROM John O'Flaherty
Fax Number 360 825 0302
Phone Number 360 825 2977
Number of Pages 2
Date 1/11/2002
MESSAGE:
Friday, January 11, 20028.24 PM John O'Flaherty 360 825 0302 
p.02
DOROTHY O'FLAHERTY
42822 257th PLACE SE
ENUMCLAW, WA 98022
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the 
settlement reached last November. Three years have past in which 
Microsoft has been subjected to legal harassment at both the state 
and federal level. I believe that the settlement is beneficiary in 
that it will allow Microsoft to focus on business.
    The lifting of contractual restrictions under the terms of this 
settlement will have a major impact on the technology industry. 
Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any contracts with vendors or 
manufacturers that would favor Windows technology exclusively or at 
a fixed percentage. In addition, Microsoft will not enter into 
contracts that would obligate software developers to develop only 
Microsoft software.
    These agreements should appease Microsoft competitors. I am just 
happy to see an end to this nonsense.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy O'Flaherty



MTC-00031072

From PETER HOLDEN to 1-202-307-1454 at 1/11/
0210:45 PM Pg 001/001
19312 East Eldorado Drive
Aurora, Colorado 80013

[[Page 29506]]

January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Justice Department have come to an agreement 
in the antitrust case. This agreement has led to a settlement that 
could finally put this case to rest. It is my hope that you will 
strongly support the settlement and ensure it is put into put into 
place so this case can end at the federal level.
    I have worked in the software industry since the early 1980's 
and saw the popularity of Microsoft products raise not because of 
monopolistic practices but because of their ease of use. Because of 
Microsoft millions of average persons are able to use computers, and 
not just hobbyists and professionals. The settlement is on the table 
will help to alleviate any concerns about competitiveness in the IT 
industry. What is most beneficial about the settlement is that it 
will end this case and allow the IT industry to start focusing on 
software and not court cases.
    I support this settlement, and look forward to seeing the case 
resolved.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Holden



MTC-00031073

JAN-1-12-02 12:00 AM 728 32746 510 429 0968 P. 02
FAX MESSAGE
To To ATTNY General John Ashcroft From From Pat Faria
Tel. 510-429-0968
Fax. 510-489-3214
    Number of pages (including coversheet 2 Date Jan. 11, 2002 Time 
10:30 Am
    Message box
    Attached is letter re: Microsoft
    Please read
    This fax was generated and transmitted by computer using 
software from Trio Information Systems



MTC-00031074

FROM: the Parks FAX NO.: +1-650-369-3291 Jan. 11 
2002 11:34PM P1
3149 Page Street
Redwood City, California 94063
10 January 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a home and office computer user, I'm writing to express 
several concerns with the proposed settlement. The ``PLAINTIFF 
LITIGATING STATES'' RE-MEDIAL PROPOSALS'' dated December 
7, 2001, are excellent; I would focus on a few points.
    My first concern is in article III (Prohibited Conduct) section 
B, paragraph 3: ``market development agreements''. Did not 
such market development agreements provide the means by which 
Microsoft illegally leveraged its operating systems monopoly into 
other areas?
    A second concern is in III,J,l, where Microsoft is excused from 
disclosing anything that might compromise ``security''. 
This is far too broad an exemption! You may be aware that Microsoft 
altered the Kerberos security protocol in undocumented ways. Does 
not this clause allow them to keep those modifications hidden in the 
name of security? In fact, this exemption would allow them to 
continue excluding non-Microsoft servers.
    Indeed, as CNET News analyst John Borland says, Despite those 
restrictions, the agreement would not force Microsoft to change its 
own software-a critical omission that critics say makes the deal 
relatively toothless. The provision would allow the new XP operating 
system to remain as is, and it would allow Microsoft to continue to 
add new features that compete with independent companies'' 
products, such as audio and video players, instant messaging, or 
voice telephony features. That means Microsoft would retain its 
platform for putting virtually any software function only a mouse-
click away from consumers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.adnetindia.com/news/specials/mstrial/
stories/42900.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, having read through Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact, 
and the order from the Court of Appeals, I find it offensive in the 
extreme that ``this Final Judgment does not constitute any 
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law'' 
(preamble of Proposed Final Judgment). The Appellate court upheld 
Judge Jackson's findings of fact, and they also agreed unanimously 
that Microsoft illegally leveraged their monopoly power in Operating 
Systems into other areas.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Very truly yours
    Collin Park
    Reply fax
    360-351-0021



MTC-00031075

JAN-12-02 12:00 AM 728 32746 510 429 0968 P. 01
372 Tropicana Way
Union City, CA 94587-4122
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-000l
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of court battles, Microsoft and the 
government have settled an antitrust lawsuit that has profound 
implications for all software publishers, the rest of the 
Information Technology industry and consumers. The settlement they 
came up with is more than fair and reasonable, and was arrived at 
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator.
    Under the agreement, computer manufacturers were granted new 
rights to configure system with access to various Windows features. 
Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make it easier 
to install non- Microsoft software and to disclose information about 
certain internal interfaces in Windows. The government created an 
onqoing technical oversight committee to review Microsoft software 
codes and books, and to test Microsoft compliance to ensure that 
Microsoft abides by the agreement.
    Microsoft made many more compromises that will significantly 
benefit its rivals. Further federal litigation against Microsoft 
would be considered by many as nothing more than harassment. It's 
time for the government to let the settlement fall into place.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Farin



MTC-00031076

01/12/02 10:16 516 360 2176 ROGER TEURFS P. 01
Roger Teurfs
7 Partridge Lane
P.O. Box 477
Saint James, New York 11780
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. I feel this 
settlement is adequate to address the issues of this anti-trust 
dispute. It is time to let drop this issue and move on to more 
pressing concerns facing us today.
    The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations and is 
complete. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions in this 
document, including: disclosing more information to competing 
companies, being closely monitored for compliance with the terms of 
the settlement, using uniform pricing when licensing Windows, and 
non-retaliation agreements with vendors.
    This settlement will benefit the economy and do a lot of good. I 
sincerely hope there will be no further action against Microsoft at 
the federal level. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Teurfs



MTC-00031077

01/12/2002 09:31 217-536-5250 JAMES R BOND PAGE 01
P.O. Box 954
Effingham, Illinois 62401
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justlce
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I wanted to let you Know what I thought of the case against 
Microsoft, This case was totally unnecessary, and I am writing you 
today to express my opinion on the Microsoft settlement issue. I 
feel the settlement that was reached on November 2. 2001, is fair 
and reasonable. I am glad this three-year-long dispute is finally 
resolved.
    Microsoft is a company that has done much for our economy and 
has made many contributions to the technology industry This company 
should not be punished for being successful and creating quality 
products. Microsoft should be able to devote its time and resources 
to creating and marketing its innovative software, rather than 
litigation.
    I am very pleased with your decision to settle with Microsoft 
This decision is a step in the right direction towards an improved 
economy Thank you for your support

[[Page 29507]]

    Sincerely,
    James Bond



MTC-00031078

FROM : Fred Marklund FAX NO. : 0000000000 Jan. 12 2002 07:18 AM P1
Fred Marklund
263 North Shore Rd
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3807
January 12, 2002
RENATA B. HESSE
ANTITRUST DIVISION
US DEPT. OF JUSTICE
601 D STREET, NW., #1200
WASHINGTON DC 20530
Re: Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The federal government won the case and then just 
``pissed'' it away in the last couple of months.
    Microsoft is a true monopoly. The company is a reflection of its 
corporate officers. There ore no morals, ethics, integrity, or sense 
of fair play. Those boys and girls reflect the motto, ``He who 
dies with the most toys wins.''
    Windows'' source code needs to be in the public arena. 
Microsoft is entitled to payment for the source code each time it is 
used, but their products cannot have secret ``hooks'' into 
Windows that no other company has. It needs to run Java, too.
    Management of Microsoft has nothing but contempt for the rule of 
law. They have abused the first court case a number of years ago. 
You can be darn certain they will abuse this decision.
    I think Windows, NT, and Internet Explorer need to be broken off 
into a separate entity with a strong master overseeing every move 
they make. Again the leadership of Microsoft is totally and 
irrefutably unscrupulous. They are the Mafia of the software 
industry. Would you trust the Mafia?
    Sincerely,
    Fred Marklund
    CC: Bob Williams at EFF



MTC-00031079

01/12/02 SAT 11:17 FAX 800 641 2255 001
To: Renata B. Heese
202-307-1454
Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
0l/l2/02 SAT 11:17 FAX 800 641 2255 002
3705 Purks Court
Alexandria, Virginia 22309
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John A&croft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter so that I may go on record as 
supporting the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. Although I am not happy with all of the 
details in the settlement, I am glad to see that the antitrust suit 
has been terminated. Microsoft should have never have had to go to 
court and defend itself against ridiculous charges of antitrust 
violations. Apparently three years back, the Department of Justice 
had nothing better to do than to chase after Bill Gates and his 
successful corporation. Microsoft has been extremely beneficial to 
America. They helped give us the most successful economy in history, 
only to have it derailed by the DOJ. Remember, the economy started 
to slide when the lawsuit was announced, and now we are in a 
recession. Now that there is a new administration, please correct 
the wrongs that were committed against us by the Clinton years and 
approve the settlement as soon as possible.
    Microsoft has been incredibly beneficial to America, and this 
settlement will help them get back to where they used to be. A 
healthy Microsoft equals a healthy economy, which equals a healthy 
America.
    Sincerely,
    Adrian Sobie



MTC-00031080

Douglas P. Fields
100 Midwood Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
TEL: (203)661-2978
FAX: (203)661-2996
[email protected]
By Fax: 1 202 307 1454 or 1 202 616 9937
By Email: [email protected]
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe that the antitrust case against Microsoft was 
inappropriate from its very inception and that the government should 
not have interfered with one of our country's most successful and 
innovative private businesses on the basis represented by the 
antitrust suit. I am pleased that the Justice Department has finally 
decided to reach a settlement in this case. It has been three long 
years.
    Microsoft has given up a lot in this settlement. It has agreed 
to make future versions of Windows easier to use non-Microsoft 
software, and it has agreed to disclose a lot of information on the 
internal operating system, which is a first as far as I know.
    I am certainly happy that government has decided to limit its 
involvement in Microsoft's business affairs, at least for now. I 
hope that continues to be so. Thank you for taking the time to read 
my opinion on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas P. Fields
    JAN-12-2002 11:14 PSC/TDA GREENWICH OFFICE 
2036612996 P.01/01



MTC-00031081

The McClure Company, Inc.
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement reached in November. This settlement is fair 
and reasonable, and I for one am tired of this on-going debate. It 
is time to end this litigation and deal with more pressing concerns.
    I am a believer in free enterprise, and I do not believe 
Microsoft should be punished for doing its job successfully. This 
settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. Microsoft has 
agreed to all terms of the agreement; terms that extend well beyond 
the issues of the original lawsuit, all for the sake of moving on 
from this continued litigation. Microsoft will, for example, share 
information with its competitors regarding the nature of Windows, 
which will all them to place their own programs on the operating 
system.
    We are facing economic difficulties at the present time, and it 
would not be productive to waste our time on this issue. We must do 
all we can to boost our economy. Restricting Microsoft will not 
accomplish this. This fight should have never been started. But now 
that it has, let's end it and go forward.
    Thank you,
    George McClure
    P.O. Box 1231
    Woodstock, GA 30188
    (770) 591-1808
    FAX (770) 924-6246



MTC-00031082

Jan 12 02 11:07a James M Cox 516-399-8166 p.1
James M Cox
44 Carlin Drive
Mastic, NY 11950
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my sentiments regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that your office has reached a fair and 
reasonable agreement that will provide certainty about the new rules 
imposed on the IT sector. I do not see any benefit in pursuing 
further litigation at the Federal level, and am happy to see that 
your office will be free to pursue more urgent matters affecting our 
nation.
    The settlement will benefit all software publishers, the IT 
industry as a whole, and consumers. The resumption of competition 
will stimulate our economy, while giving the consumers more choices. 
As far as the competition is concerned.
    Microsoft will change the way it develops, licenses, and markets 
its software in order to accommodate independent vendors. 
Furthermore, Microsoft is required to make available its technology 
to a competitor, should that competitor infringe on its intellectual 
property.
    We don't need more federal litigation to keep Microsoft in 
check. Under your settlement, competitors can sue Microsoft if they 
don't think the company is complying with the terms of the 
agreement. I think that the complaints that brought about the 
lawsuit have been addressed, and that your office has set up 
protocol on how to handle future problems. Your office has done its 
job, and now it is time to let businesses compete. I want to let you 
know that I approve of your settlement agreement, and I appreciate 
your taking the time to hear my opinions on the matter.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29508]]

    James Cox



MTC-00031083

Jan 12 02 12:09p milt ackerman 954-763-1244 p.1
Richard Ackerman
140 Elm Drive, Roslyn, New York 11576
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a business owner, I am quite familiar with how nonproductive 
expenses can hurt your business and, in turn, your customers. The 
amount of money that has been wasted on the Microsoft vs. US suit 
escapes reason. Both the federal government and Microsoft have spent 
millions of dollars on the suit; money that could have been better 
spent, in the case of the Department of Justice pursuing true 
criminals and in Microsoft's case, creating better technology 
products for the consumer. The problem that the federal government 
has created in the economy and in the IT industry with this lawsuit 
will take years to repair.
    Like many residents of New York, I am relieved that the lawsuit 
may have finally found a resolution at the federal level. The end to 
this entire matter cannot come soon enough. The suit has become a 
burdensome ordeal for all the involved parties. For Microsoft, the 
task of having to defend itself as a business before the federal 
government for working in the same way any other business might is 
an embarrassment to the American way of doing business. It is time 
that the Department of Justice ends this suit once and for all. The 
terms of this settlement allow for the public interest to be 
represented. Please move on and end this judicial debacle.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Ackerman



MTC-00031085

1/10/02 THU 15.44 FAX 800 641 2255 002
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was very glad to see that after three long years of legal 
battles, Microsoft and the Department of Justice came to a 
settlement on the anti- trust suit. The current agreement requires 
Microsoft to compromise on many issues while still allowing for a 
competitive market. While Microsoft may be giving up a great deal, 
it believes that to settle the suit now would be beneficial to the 
IT industry.
    Those that continue to seek further litigation are only spending 
tax dollars on a battle that has already been won. This settlement 
is fair and reasonable to Microsoft competitors and consumers alike. 
Microsoft will allow its competitors access to sensitive coding and 
software information. This access will make it easier for computer 
manufacturers to remove Microsoft programs from Windows and replace 
them with other companies'' products. The settlement will 
create an oversight board that will ensure Microsoft complies with 
the settlement.
    It is apparent that Microsoft isn't gettlng off easy with this 
settlement. I support the agreement, and hope it is implemented as 
quickly as possible so that Microsoft can reclaim its leadership 
role in the information technology sector.
    Sincerely,
    John Harland
    6850 Old US Highway 45 S
    Paducah, KY 42003



MTC-00031086

Jan 12 02 03:19p Carl Associates 860-763-2110 p.1
Harry R. Plander II
24 Still Meadow Lane
Somers, CT 06071
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am extremely happy to see that there has finally been a 
settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft in 
regards to the antitrust case. The government had no right to file 
suit in first place, and I only hope that the concessions Microsoft 
will be making will ultimately turn out to be in the best interest 
of the public.
    The settlement certainly forces Microsoft to make ample 
concessions. Microsoft will need to redesign XP--and other 
versions of Windows--to be more accommodating to non-Microsoft 
products. Even end users will find it easier to configure and 
reconfigure their desktops, as their circumstances change. Microsoft 
will also have to make concessions to hardware manufacturers; 
regardless of what programs are put on the Windows platform, there 
will only be one regulated price for licensing for all hardware 
manufacturers.
    I support Microsoft in many ways and believe that their products 
and services have greatly influenced al of our lives in positive 
ways. I sincerely hope no further legislation is brought against 
Microsoft and that they are allowed to focus on 
business--instead of politics--in the near future.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Plander
    ``Let's Roll America''



MTC-00031087

JAN-12-02 TUE 02:37 PM MARK COLLINS 504 277 0221 P. 01
3220 Corinne Drive
Chalmette, LA 70043-3841
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
As a Microsoft supporter, I have followed the litigation process 
closely. I believe that Microsoft has made many concessions during 
this process. I am glad to finally see the end, so that Microsoft 
can return to focusing on what it does best-information technology.
    Again, Microsoft has made several concessions under this 
settlement. Most striking of which is Microsoft's agreement to have 
a technical oversight committee regulate their compliance with 
settlement policies. This inclusion of a third party watchdog agency 
assures Microsoft's commitment to the settlement.
    Microsoft has done more for the American economy than any other 
corporation in our nation's history to date It is time we allow 
Microsoft to return to business.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Collins



MTC-00031088

JAN-12-2002 12:49 PM DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE 520 579 3448 P.01
8301 N. Westcliff Drive
Tucson, AZ 85743
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my strong approval of the recent 
settlement in the three-year antitrust dispute between Microsoft and 
the federal government. After three long years of litigation and 
three intensive months of negotiation with a court appointed 
moderator, this settlement offers the country the chance to end this 
messy affair.
    The terms of the settlement were fair and reasonable. The new 
government regulations being imposed will hinder Microsoft, but the 
settlement will allow Microsoft to get back to innovation and the 
development of technology for the future. These new regulations 
include forcing Microsoft to submit to a three person, government 
appointed technical oversight committee, whose role it is to ensure 
Microsoft's compliance with this settlement agreement. Furthermore, 
the agreement requires Microsoft to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs included within Windows. This 
provision will allow consumers to have the freedom to choose to 
change their software configuration at any time.
    As a computer professional with 22 years of experience in the 
computer field, and with Bachelor's and Master's degrees in computer 
science, I am very aware of the technical and business issues 
involved in the case and the settlement. I firmly believe that 
continuing to protract this case will have an adverse effect on the 
PC industry and other segments that depend on it. I also feel it 
would be a waste of time and taxpayer money to do anything at this 
point other than to implement the terms of the settlement and move 
forward.
    With the current state of our economy, we don't need to be 
hamstringing one of the strongest companies in the nation. This 
settlement will allow Microsoft to focus on business, rather than 
legal strategy, and for that reason, I support it.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth S. Gregg



MTC-00031089

01/12/2002 15:35 3014241545 ALPHA SIDING INC PAGE 01

[[Page 29509]]

11501 Alcinda Lane
North Potomac, MD 20878-2400
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter is to address the issue of the settlement between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I want to give my support 
to this agreement.
    I also understand that Microsoft has not gotten off very easy. I 
do not believe the initial lawsuit was justified, but Microsoft has 
conceded to the Department of Justice's demands, agreeing to, among 
other things, to design future versions of Windows to make it easier 
for computer makers, computer programmers and others to promote non-
Microsoft software within Windows. Further, Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose--for use by their competitors--various source 
codes that are internal to Windows'' operating system products. 
This could be a first in antitrust settlements. Microsoft has gone 
far beyond what was demanded in the initial suit.
    I urge you to approve this settlement and allow us go forward.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Clio Koutzoumis



MTC-00031090

64209 E Greenbelt Lane
Tucson, AZ 85739-1205
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you in reference to the recent Microsoft settlement, and 
to express my concern with its delay. This is a settlement that is 
the result of three months of intense negotiations, mediated by a 
court appointed moderator. The settlement contains provisions that 
extend beyond the government's original grievance list. In fact, 
this settlement agreement forces Microsoft to submit to a government 
appointed, three-person, technical oversight committee whose 
responsibility it is to ensure Microsoft's compliance. Additionally, 
Microsoft is forced to document and disclose the various interfaces 
of Windows'' operating system to its competitors, a requirement 
that is a fit in anti-trust litigation. This settlement appeases ail 
parties.
    The settlement that has been reached, speaks to the restoration 
of a competitive market and continued growth in our technology 
industry. The IT sector has been ready to move on, while the 
government has been delaying the process. Not only does our 
technology Industry benefit from this settlement, but our economy as 
a whole. Just when our country needs support, we are holding it back 
from further development.
    Let us not waste our resources in further delaying a settlement 
that has already been agreed on. Help support this settlement and 
our economy by making sure that no further action is taken.
    Sincerely,
    Ernie Levy



MTC-00031091

Fred C. Buhler
8095 Fernwood Dr.
Augusta, Michigan 49012
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    My purpose in writing is to address the antitrust settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department, I am in 
agreement with the current settlement and I wish to see Microsoft 
freed of further legal wrangling. Bringing a swift end to the 
antitrust case is of the utmost importance given our current 
economic situation. We have already poured a great deal of resources 
into these proceedings and now is the time to move forward, not 
continue rehashing a three-year-old issue.
    The terms of the settlement with the Department of Justice seem 
both punitive and reasonable. Microsoft will have to open relevant 
portions of its Windows code to software suppliers and competitors, 
permit computer makers to configure Windows with other software and 
give competitive browsers a more equal footing. I believe that 
future computer users are being awarded protections from the 
violations that were raised as issues in this proceeding.
    I have been opposed to this proceeding from the start. It 
troubles me to see companies like Microsoft have their competitive 
edge dulled by interminable antitrust intrusion. Nevertheless, I now 
sense that the settlement is a correct course of action. We need to 
put this unfortunate episode behind us and hope that Microsoft can 
get back to the challenge of creating new and better products rather 
than languishing in court.
    Sincerely,
    Fred C. Buhler



MTC-00031092

01/12/02 SAT 17:54 FAX 800 641 2255 001
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: 1/12/02
TO: Renata Hesse
FAX: 1-202-307-l454
FROM: Todd Benjamin
PHONE: 703-243-4002
Number of pages including cover sheet: 2
Comments: Microsoft Settlement
1/12/02 SAT 17:54 FAX 800 641 2255 002
Todd Benjamin
844 North Frederick Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. The antitrust case has gone on for too long, and it has 
drained significant resources on each side. The settlement offers an 
opportunity to put this mess behind us, and we need to take that 
opportunity.
    Critics of Microsoft say that the settlement is too weak, but 
that is not the case. The settlement, unlike many antitrust 
settlements before it, has real enforcement power. Under the 
settlement, Microsoft will be forced to share code with its 
competitors. Armed with the knowledge of how Microsoft operates, 
other companies will be able to place their programs on the 
operating system, and compete with Microsoft on its on 
``turf.'' Additionally, the tenets of the settlement will 
be enforced by a technical review committee. This committee will 
monitor Microsoft full time, making sure that the company's business 
practices do not stray come anywhere close to being anti-
competitive.
    The settlement strikes me as being overly big-brotherish, but if 
Microsoft is willing to accept these terms, then I am as well. I 
support the settlement, and look forward to the day when this 
lawsuit is no longer an issue.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Benjamin



MTC-00031093

FROM : ED AND Z KIRDAR
PHONE NO. : 602 838 1953
Edib Kirdar Associates
EK ASSOCIATES
1725 E. La Jolla Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85282-5780, USA
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone. (480) 838--l953
Facsimile: (480) 775-2539
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January l0, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter in support of the November 2, 200l 
settlement reached by the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
However, I would like to state that I continue to be opposed to the 
antitrust case itself. I feel that Microsoft's operations didn't 
warrant the lawsuit. But, I am very pleased that a settlement has 
finally been reached.
    Microsoft has provided a new vision for the technology industry. 
In addition, Microsoft has given a new and greater understanding of 
computers to the public. I can't begin to imagine what the 
government found wrong with the way Microsoft conducts its business. 
I feel the government was wrong to target Microsoft and also for 
trying to break apart this company. Our government should spend its 
time and resources, which are funded by taxpayers like myself. on 
matters that directly affect the public. Making Microsoft share its 
programming information with competitors by disclosing their 
internal interface codes, and being under the constant eye of the 
Federal government with a three-person monitoring committee is 
totally unnecessary.
    In our great country, we shouldn't penalize individuals or 
companies that make strides above the rest. In fact, our government 
should do the exact opposite, and encourage more growth and 
innovation from private businesses, This will only strengthen our 
weakened economy. Microsoft has the ability to provide our country 
with endless innovation.
    Please allow them to do so
    cc: Representative Jeff Flake

[[Page 29510]]

    Sincerely,
    Edib Kirdar



MTC-00031094

Beryl Lerner
23 Stone Pine Court
Pikesville, Maryland 21208
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the settlement reached between Microsoft and 
the federal government. Microsoft went beyond what was required or 
initially sought by the government in this settlement.
    For example, Microsoft will provide third parties with a license 
to the necessary intellectual property should said third party want 
to design a program that will interact with Windows. Its decision 
not to enter into any agreements obligating any third party to 
distribute or promote any Windows exclusively and not to retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
programs in its Windows operating system show that Microsoft is 
willing to compromise.
    In closing, this settlement provides consumers with additional 
safeguards, while helping Microsoft's competitors in the process. I 
hope this is the last chapter in the government's playbook, and that 
Microsoft can get back to business. I support the settlement, and 
look forward to the end of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Beryl Lerner



MTC-00031096

Mary Douglass Brown
641 North Woodlawn, #55
Wichita, Kansas 67208
January 10, 2002
Judge Kollar-Kotelly
c/o Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Over the last several years I have watched with interest as the 
federal government and others have sued the Microsoft Corporation 
for various reasons. I greatly appreciate that your court has opened 
the door for comment on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case.
    In December I wrote a letter to your colleague in Maryland, 
Judge Motz encouraging him to approve a settlement reached by 
Microsoft and the Product Pricing Class Action suit. I am 
encouraging you to accept the settlement of this anti-trust case for 
many of the same reasons I outlined in my letter to Judge Motz.
    This agreement brings to an end an anti-trust case that is 
already over four years old and if it is not settled soon threatens 
many more years of unnecessary litigation. This would be a continued 
drain our already overloaded court system. From what I have read the 
Bush Department of Justice, the nine states that approved the 
settlement and Microsoft all consider this settlement to be a fair 
one. I understand that it addresses those items of the lawsuit which 
have been upheld other courts.
    As one who was surprised by the federal and state government 
decision to go after Microsoft in the first place and I am further 
surprised that some are not satisfied with this settlement. If this 
settlement is approved Microsoft will be required to share its 
intellectual and technological property. Additionally, a committee 
will be in charge of making sure that Microsoft is complying with 
all aspects of this settlement.
    The settlement of this case is long overdue and it appears that 
the agreement on the table is the best for all involved. I urge you 
to support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Douglass Brown, Former Member
    Kansas Sate Board of Education



MTC-00031097

Link Logic Craft 2002-01-13 02:56:18 (GMT), page
5719 Narcissus Avenu
Baltimore, MD 21215-3551
Fax 410-510-1212
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the current settlement between Microsoft and 
the government. There are some rare instances in which the 
government needs to step in and level the playing field when one of 
the players of our free market economy both becomes exaggeratedly 
strong and uses its strength abusively to destroy its competition. 
Even in cases in which the government needs to level the playing 
field, the government must be careful not to make companies afraid 
to come out with the best products and services at the best prices.
    My concern is that Microsoft, like IBM and other companies that 
experienced government intervention will not be as innovative as 
they can due to fear of being declared monopolistic. When I did some 
software contract work inside IBM, I saw for myself how law-suit 
phobic IBM became. Today, IBM never has the best laptop or best 
desktop computer. Their computers always lag the market late and are 
a little slower and have slightly less memory, etc., than competing 
brands. I am sure that IBM does this deliberately. This is a result 
of their corporate experience with IBM competitors using the 
government to suppress IBM.
    I've read that in the current settlement, Microsoft agrees not 
to enter into any agreements obligating any third party to 
distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a 
fixed percentage; not to retaliate against computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system; or against software of hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with Windows.
    Mr. Ashcroft, when I buy Windows and other Microsoft products, 
no one is holding a gun to my head to force me to buy Microsoft. I 
keep looking for alternative products. These days, Microsoft simply 
has the best products.
    The government should do only enough to make sure companies 
compete based on products, services, and price, and that companies 
do not eliminate competitors by abuse of strength. I think the 
current settlement is enough. Requiring more would go overboard.
    I think your approving this settlement will level the playing 
field without Microsoft becoming afraid to be the best. I urge you 
to accept it after the public comment period is concluded.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Lewis



MTC-00031098

JAN-12-02 07:19 PM COLLETT 714 8320869 P.01
6353 W Hill Lane
Glendale, Arizona 85310
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to support the current proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice, in hopes of expressing the 
views of the general public. While I have never supported the 
federal government's attempts to bring litigation against Microsoft, 
this proposed settlement goes above and beyond what Microsoft needed 
to do. It provides for increased competition and accountability 
where none had existed before and should be allowed to be executed 
at the federal level. As a result of several months of intense court 
mandated negotiations; the settlement that was reached is fair, 
judicious and reasonable.
    The terms of this settlement include a system of accountablity 
and competition fostering provIsions that go beyond the scope of the 
government's original grievances. The key parts of this settlement 
include: Microsoft's licensing of its intellectual property instead 
of allowing Microsoft to pursue intellectual property protection 
Additionally. the settlement requires Microsoft to change its 
relationships with computer and software manufacturers in order to 
allow these companies to install non-Microsoft products and change 
the Windows operating system without Microsoft enacting 
discriminatory or retaliatory clauses in a contract. Perhaps most 
importantly, this settlement creates a three-person technical 
oversight committee to ensure that Microsoft is complying with all 
parts of the settlement
    After several years of litigation and three months of 
negotiations, this settlement represents the best chance for an end 
to this judicial debacle This agreement represents the public 
interest and that no further federal action should be taken.
    Sincerely,
    Horace Pereira



MTC-00031099

FROM: THE MAC'S FAX NO. : 2636323 Jan. 12 2002 07:43PM P2
131 Popoia Road

[[Page 29511]]

Kailua, HI 96734-3166
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    From the start of the U.S. vs. Microsoft lawsuit, three long 
years ago, I have been confused as to why our federal government 
would choose to pursue and punish one of the most beneficial 
companies in America today. Microsoft has done more for the world of 
computing than any other single entity in the world. Without their 
products, the enormous marketplace for IT products that exists today 
would simply not be around--not at all
    Included in the proposed settlement are many points that are 
punitive towards Microsoft. One point requires Microsoft to open its 
proprietary software interfaces to other software manufacturers. 
This is an amazing affront to Microsoft and its lifetime investment 
in its own product, and a first in an antitrust lawsuit. Yet, 
Microsoft is willing to renounce this and many others of its fair 
business practices to see an end to this unfortunate lawsuit.
    For the millions of Microsoft stockholder and consumers of 
Microsoft products, an end to the suit cannot come soon enough. For 
many, the government's prolonging the suit has already hurt 
financially. In the end, I wonder who will benefit from all of this 
wrangling. The Department of Justice owes all involved parties an 
end to this suit. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Anne Marie



MTC-00031100

JAN 13 2002 8:12AM HP LASERJET 3200 p.1
Art Blumenthal
11 Stoneybrook Lane
Malvern, PA 19355
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my opinion in the tentative antitrust 
case settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of 
Justice. Although I believe the government has gone a little too far 
in bringing litigation against Microsoft, I am happy to see that 
some concessions will be made to keep Microsoft in check.
    Microsoft should not be broken up by any means, but its lack of 
relations with software developers and computer makers does inhibit 
the industry from growing at a rate that it is capable of. That is 
why I believe in some of the pressure being put on Microsoft to keep 
them under check. This is what this settlement intends to and will 
do by making licensing rates equal and giving guarantees to software 
companies that Microsoft will not take any drastic action against 
them for designing products intended to compete with Microsoft 
products.
    At any rate, I think the American Government must look out for 
the best interests of the public; at this time it is necessary to 
settle this thing quickly and efficiently and to allow Microsoft and 
other IT industry leaders to go back to focusing on business instead 
of political quarrels. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Art Blumenthal
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031101

01/13/2002 23:05 630-548-9497 ROSEMARY ZURAW PAGE 01
1448 Heatherton Drive
Naperville, IL 60563-2251
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter because I would like to go on record, 
per the Tunney Act, as being in favor of the Microsoft settlement. 
Last November, the Justice Department and Microsoft finally agreed 
to a settlement that would end the three-year antitrust lawsuit. 
This settlement stands to benefit the technology industry and the 
economy.
    Competition in the IT industry will foster, resulting in an 
improved economy because of this settlement. Microsoft has agreed to 
grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs 
included within Windows. Computer makers will now be free to remove 
the means by which consumers access various features of Windows. 
This will encourage competition in the IT industry and bolster the 
economy. What more could anyone ask for? The settlement that was 
reached last November between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice is fair and reasonable, and I support it 100%.
    With sincere regard for justice,
    William Zuraw



MTC-00031102

Jan 13 02 12:14p Robert Wentzel 6104390926 p.1
    1650 Honeysuckle Lane
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This lettcr is to address the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I applaud this decision. I 
believe the decision was fair and equitable. Microsoft has broadened 
its accessibility, allowing computer makers to add or subtract 
Microsoft software, allowing competing software to be installed, and 
giving consumers a wide choice of software from which to choose. 
Microsoft has even agreed to disclose its source code for 
Windows'' operating system products. Microsoft has more than 
compensated for any alleged unfair busincss practices.
    I hope this settlement stands. We do not need to revisit the 
decision, nor do we need to split up Microsoft. We split up AT&T 
and our phone system has been a mess ever since. The consumer is 
pretty much left to his or her own devices to figure out just what 
cxactly they want. People today pretty much have to be a mini-expert 
in every field today. Bill Gates explained computers. He made 
software easy to understand. You did not have to be a computer 
programmer to install a Microsoft software package. Which was nice.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Wentzel
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031103

Dec 14 01 12:55p Mrs. Debra J. Seretean 561-883-2592 p.1
Debra J. Seretean
8724 Via Ancho Rd.
Boca Raton, Fl. 33433
561-852-1650
fax: 561-883-2592
email: [email protected]
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was very disappointed when the Justice Department brought 
Microsoft to court three years ago in the antitrust case. I do not 
believe that Microsoft is a monopoly; it is simply a company that 
has made superior products.
    Nevertheless I was pleased to hear a settlement has been reached 
in this case that will finally bring this litigation to an end. I 
fear that groups that stand against Microsoft may try to interfere 
with the settlement process. The settlement will create many changes 
in IT, despite their contentions that the settlement is flawed. This 
settlement stipulates that Microsoft will disclose its internal 
interfaces to competitors that is something never been done before. 
With this disclosure and many other major disclosures, competitors 
will have the ability to compete with Microsoft on an equal basis. 
Most importantly this settlement will end this case and get the 
legal system off Microsoft's back.
    Please show definitive backing of this settlement and conclude 
this case.
    Sincerely,
    Debra Seretean cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00031104

01/13/2002 13:42 14073022170 PAGE 01
Jack L. Sperry y
Loretta M. Sperry
1575 Stone Trail
Enterprise, FL 32725
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    I have to say that I'm relieved that his whole antitrust case is 
almost at and end. I can'tunderstand why the government ever felt it 
was their responsibility to go after Microsoftfor being successful. 
I just hope that they never try it again with other 
businesses.Microsoft did not get away easy, as most people think, 
Though they didn't have to splitup, they still had to open up a

[[Page 29512]]

great deal of their products for use by their competitors, inorder 
to increase the level of Windows compatibility in many programs.
    I hope that more people are made aware of the terms of this 
settlement so they can seejust how much Microsoft gave up. I know 
that many people will be happy to see the casefinally over.
    Sincerely,
    Jack & Loretta Sperry
    Phone: 407-324-4056
    Fax: 407-302-3170
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00031105

Sadler's Cove Farm
Jose and Patricia Martin
9160 Quail Run road, Saint Michaels, Maryland 21663
Main house: 410 745 6049 (Voice) 410 745 3799 (Fax)
[email protected]
Property Caretakers: Al & Marjorie Henckle 410 763 8558
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In reference to the legal actions that have transpired against 
Microsoft, I am afirm believer that Microsoft should never have gone 
to Court. Although Microsoft'ssuccess has been accompanied by a 
notable amount of wealth, I find it necessaryto mention the generous 
donations to public schools. The Gates foundation hasdone a lot for 
the education of our children and it is disconcerting that 
Microsoftshould be punished for its contribution to the community as 
well as the advancedtechnologies it has introduced to our society.
    lt is for these reasons that I support Microsoft's antitrust 
settlement bedone as soon as possible.
    The terms reached in the settlement are more than fair and 
reasonable asthey encompass a large range of issues both related to 
the case as well as issuesthat were not found unlawful by the Court. 
Microsoft has agreed to change anumber of business methods that 
include making it easier to reconfigure Windowsfor all users. In 
this way, Microsoft will enable the competitor to be promoted 
withinthe software program.
    Included in the settlement are also terms that address future 
anticompetitivebehavior. These terms require to a promise not to 
retaliate against competitors aswell as the establishment of a 
Technical committee that will make sure thatMicrosoft does not stray 
from the settlement's terms.
    Sincerely,
    Jose and Patricia MartinFROM: JOSE FAX NO. :4107453799 Jan. 13 
2002 02:04 PM P1



MTC-00031106

Jan-13-02 11:32A DON TRANDUM 206-746-1049 P.01
17413 NE 10th. Street
Bellevue, WA 98008-3811
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion that I support for the 
recentantitrust settlement between Microsoft and the US Department 
of Justice.Not only has the case dragged on too long, but also, 
millions of taxpayerdollars have been wasted on these lawsuits.
    The terms of the settlement are harsh and so should be more 
thanenough to satisfy lawmakers and politicians. Microsoft is 
offering uptechnology on internal interfaces and server 
interoperability that will allowcompetitors to create products that 
are compatible with Microsoft. Theyare also forming three-person 
team to monitor compliance with thesettlement. These terms show 
Microsoft's willingness to compromise andare more than necessary 
concessions to an already flawed lawsuit.
    Ever since litigation began, the American IT sector and the 
economystarted turning sour. I am not saying there is a direct 
correlation, but it isapparent to me that before Microsoft and the 
IT sector see the growth theydid over 3 years ago, all litigation 
must end. These lawsuits have sloweddown the industry, so it is in 
the best interest of the American public andthe economy for the 
settlement to be finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Don Trandum



MTC-00031107

Margaret Kuhnemund
P.O. Box 181
Ligonier, PA 15658
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe the litigation against Microsoft should have ended 
long ago.Microsoft is a victim of political interest groups that 
have little bearing on oureconomy, and these special interests put 
their agenda above the public good. I amglad to see under the terms 
of the settlement that Microsoft will not be broken up, butI do 
think most of the penalties imposed are extremely unwarranted.
    Microsoft spent a huge amount of money and time to develop the 
technologythey did. They should be rewarded for the innovation they 
brought to thetechnology industry instead of punished. Bill Gates 
lived the American Dream andonly worked by the rules our free market 
economy set for him. The fact thatMicrosoft must disclose internal 
interfaces to their competitors and create a uniformprice list with 
computer makers is absurd.
    I want to see this settlement, although flawed, become a reality 
as soon aspossible so that our IT sector and economy can return to 
normal. Thank you foryour time.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Kuhnemund
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    P.S. Bill Gatesrepresents whatAmerica offers tothose with a 
goodmind. How darewe try to punishhim, his company,and our country 
for hisbeing bright enough to besuccessful?
From Ed Grenzig
Fax: +1(631)366-5215
To AGO John Ashcroff Fax (202)307-1454
Page 2 of 2 Sunday, January 13, 2002 2.49 PM
15 Michael Place
Nesconset, NY 11767-1039
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to tell you how I feel about the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I am veryglad to see that a settlement has finally 
been reached in this seemingly endless andmoney-wasting lawsuit. 
However, given that there were court-appointed mediatorsinvolved in 
the settlements, I don't see how there is even an issue that the 
settlementdoes not serve the public interest. I think Microsoft has 
served the public interest fromthe very beginning. 99 percent of 
America's computer users use Microsoft products andare happy with 
them. With the settlement, people who are not happy with 
Microsoftproducts will have more freedom to use other products. If 
that is not serving the publicinterest, I don't know what is.
    Granted, Microsoft did dominate the market, but that happened 
because theirproducts were better than any others'' available. 
Under the settlement, competitors willreceive the internal 
interfaces to Microsoft's Windows operating system, and be able 
tomodify Windows to promote non-Microsoft products. The way the 
settlement is now,Microsoft is already handing over too much to 
their undeserving competitors in order to``serve the public 
interest''.
    I am retired and extensively use computers at home. I use 
Microsoft software innearly all of my computer activities. However, 
I am glad to see that the settlement willmake it easier for people 
to use non-Microsoft products if they so desire. This lawsuithas 
been going on for too long a time and this settlement is a good end. 
Pleasemaintain the settlement and allow our economy and the IT 
industry to move forward.Enough is enough already.
    Sincerely,
    Edward W. Grenzig



MTC-00031109

Jan 13 02 01:2lp Don/Tina Leahy
777-882-6057 p.1
 120 Lotus Circle
Carson City, Nevada 89703
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the DOJ have finally reached a settlement in the 
three-year oldantitrust case. I am pleased to see that you have 
accepted the settlement andare prepared to end this costly and time-
consuming case.
    Regrettably some special interests would like this case to be 
continued, and theywould like this settlement to be thrown out. 
Despite the misgivings of specialinterests this is a good 
settlement. This agreement will require Microsoft todisclose its 
top-secret internal

[[Page 29513]]

interfaces to competitors. Competitors will createbetter software do 
better in the marketplace with this provision. Also, thesettlement 
will create a technical oversight committee to make sure 
thatMicrosoft complies with the terms of the settlement.
    Your steadfast support of the settlement is key to ending this 
case. I thank youfor considering my views on this issue.
    cc: Senator Harry Reid
    Sincerely,
    Don Leahy



MTC-00031110

Jan-13-02 03:42P David Sargent520-544-5616P01
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Although I opposed the antitrust lawsuit filed by the US 
Department of Justiceagainst Microsoft, I would like to state that I 
am in favor of the proposedsettlement and against further litigation 
against Microsoft. I strongly feel that toomuch time and too much 
money, from taxpayers, went into this lawsuit. In myopinion 
Microsoft didn't break any laws and jealous competitors are 
targeting itfor persecution.
    Three years and millions of taxpayers'' dollars have been 
wasted on this antitrust case against Microsoft. The very last 
action our struggling economy needs is for more time, money and 
resources spent on its downfall. Our government needs to listen to 
the people and take actions that will lead our country to a secure a 
prosperous future. Hindering one of the largest innovating companies 
in the U.S. simply will not help this cause.
    Reopening an unfair lawsuit that will use more tax dollars just 
can't be allowed to happen. I urge you to allow Microsoft to get out 
of the courtroom. I support the settlement and hope it is quickly 
adopted.
    Sincerely,
    David Sargent
    DAVID F. SARGENT
    7501 N. Calle Sin Desengano
    TUCSON, AZ 85718



MTC-00031111

RICHARD E DAVIS
105 763 3360
385 Nascar Drive
Lincoln, Alabama 35096
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for Microsoft in light of 
recent litigation against them. I strongly believe that the 
Government's interventions have done much to damage the stability of 
the technology industry and I trust that such interventions will 
soon cease so that Microsoft may continue to manufacture quality 
products.
    Microsoft's varied initiatives to honor the terms of the 
agreement have not gone unnoticed. These initiatives have included 
cooperation with competitors, new software programs that encourage 
competition, and the formation of a technical committee to handle 
dispute resolution.
    I appreciate the avenue to voice my opinion that the Tunney act 
has afforded me. I am looking forward to the prompt resolution of 
this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Davis



MTC-00031112

JAN 13 2002 16:01 FR MICROSOFT RECEP # 30 425 936 7329 TO 
912023071454 p.01/01
605 175th Place NE
Bellevue, WA 98008
(425) 830-3961
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax l-202-307-1454 or l-202-616-9937
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support for the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
last November. I believe the settlement is in the best interests of 
consumers, taxpayers, and the IT industry.
    The settlement is fair in that it will benefit consumers and 
contains provisions that will preclude anticompetitive behavior. The 
settlement includes concessions that are unprecedented in antitrust 
litigation. Microsoft has agreed to disclose the application 
programming interfaces that are internal to the Windows'' 
operating system. This information will now be available to 
Microsoft competitors.
    Throughout this process, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to 
resolve this situation. I believe it is time that the issue is 
finally laid to rest.
    Sincerely,
    George Taniwaki
    P.S. As a disclosure, I have been a long-time shareholder of 
Microsoft. I recently became an employee of the company as well.



MTC-00031113

Jan. 13 2001 03:51PM P2
Donald E. Dennis
32727 30th Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, WA 98023-2763
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to express my opinion that the antitrust case 
against Microsoft has been flawed from the start. Microsoft has not 
infringed upon any rights of American people and has just operated 
within the confines by which we set up our free market economy. I 
have yet to hear complaints from consumers about Microsoft's prices 
or practices. In fact I feel that their prices permitted me to have 
a PC at home with software that I could afford and most people I 
know feel the same way. It seems the only complaints are from their 
competitors because they can't keep up.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft will be forced to 
not enter into any third party agreements for exclusive distribution 
rights. That is ridiculous. This is the same as telling Pepsi they 
cannot sign an exclusive agreement with Wendy's. Also, creating a 
uniform price list with the 20 largest computer makers is 
essentially setting up the framework for a monopoly. In fact many of 
the concessions create situations that do violate antitrust laws 
instead of appeasing them.
    It's in the best interest of the American public to end this 
litigation now. Microsoft is a leading innovator of technology and 
we need their growth and leadership to lift the IT sector out of its 
current state. Microsoft has done what other competitors could not 
do, but now it's time to let them play it out in a free market, 
which is what our society, is based upon, not the government 
intervention that has occurred in this case. I urge your office to 
make the settlement a reality.
    Thank you.
    Donald E. Dennis
    Home & Fax (253) 838-0155
    Ce11(253)569-8979
    [email protected]



MTC-00031114

Jan 13 02 11:42p COURTNEY PHILLIPS
[732] 297-3390 p.1
61 Lynn Court
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Early in last November, the Department of Justice and the 
Microsoft Corporation came to an agreement in the three-year-old 
antitrust lawsuit. I believe that the terms of the settlement are 
reasonable, and I am therefore lending my support to the agreement 
that puts an end to this lengthy and extremely costly litigation.
    Microsoft did not get just a slap on the wrist, as evidenced by 
the fact, that the company has been forced to turn over substantial 
portions of its intellectual property to its competitors. Microsoft 
will share with its competitors, information about how Windows 
interacts with other programs and will not retaliate against vendors 
who sell or use non-Microsoft products. Furthermore, as part of the 
settlement, Microsoft will be supervised by a technical committee, 
consisting of three software engineers who will test Microsoft's 
compliance with certain aspects of the agreement.
    I understand also, that other terms were agreed upon that were 
never even an issue in the antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft, however, 
accepted those terms based on the view that the United States 
economy is far more important than pursuing arguments over less 
significant details.
    I completely support the settlement, and would like to go on 
record as doing so.
    Sincerely,
    Courtney G. Phillips

[[Page 29514]]



MTC-00031115

Jan 14 02 07:24a FORESTLAND P.1
15 Partridge Lane
Burlington, CT 06013-2400
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the Justice Department finally coming to terms on 
the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that the settlement, which has 
taken at least three years to hash out, should pretty much be 
acceptable to everyone. So hopefully, both Microsoft and the 
government can move on to more important matters.
    Considering that now Microsoft can't retaliate against the 
companies that don't make Windows software or work on other 
operating systems, and that they are required to be reviewed by a 
federal panel to make sure they are complying with the settlement, I 
feel that along with the other terms of the settlement, most people 
should be happy with it.
    I think that this whole matter should be put behind us and that 
we should move on. I appreciate you considering my thoughts on this 
matter and I hope that you take it into account.
    I have also communicated my opinions to Attorney General of 
Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, as I did several years ago when the 
original anti-trust action began.
    Sincerely,
    James Gillespie



MTC-00031116

01/13/O2 19:55 FAX 8472947194 ANI ATCT 001
1970 Birchwood Avenue
Des Plaines, IL 60018
facsimile transmittal
To: Mr. John Ashcroft
Fax: 202-307-1454
From: Sam Wong
Date: 01/14/02
Re: Microsoft Settlement
cc: Henry Hyde
    Attached is a letter of my opinion of Microsoft settlememnt. We 
should finalized the settlement and move forward.

01/13/02 19:55 FAX 8472947194
ANI ATCT 002
Sam Wong
1970 Birchwood Avenue
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I 
think the settlement is fair and should be finalized as soon as 
possible.
    A number of terms in the settlement are particularly effective 
in reducing Microsoft's ability to strong-arm its opponents. First, 
agreeing to design future Windows versions so that computer makers 
and software developers can promote their own products is a very 
fair concession. Also, the fact that Microsoft has agreed to form a 
three-person team that will monitor accordance with settlement shows 
Microsoft's willingness to appease all parties. And finally, 
Microsoft's disclosure of internal interfaces will allow competitors 
to have the ability to create products compatible with Windows and 
therefore eliminate Microsoft's ability to keep out the competition.
    I think it is in best interest of the states to settle now too 
as soon as possible especially since our economy is ailing and our 
IT sector's growth has slowed to turtle's crawl. I urge your office 
to take a proactive stand on this and let Microsoft be on it way.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Wong
    cc: Representative Henry Hyde



MTC-00031117

01/14/02 04 : 53
ARTBA-> 001
From the Desk of: Christopher J. Akins
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to voice my strong support for the Microsoft 
settlement. Microsoft has agreed to terms that are not only unfair 
to Microsoft, but I feel, could quite possibly have negative 
consequences for Microsoft, a company that has revolutionized the 
software industry and provides thousands of jobs. Any further legal 
action by the states or the federal government is only frivolous and 
punitive.
    In the settlement, Microsoft has already agreed to grant rights 
to computer-makers so that they may configure Windows to remove 
Microsoft products so the computer manufacturer can install its own 
competitive programs or programs from other software makers, such as 
RealNetworks or AOL's Instant Messenger.
    Microsoft has also agreed to make it easier for computer 
manufacturers, consumers, and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft products within Windows. Microsoft has further agreed to 
not retaliate against any software or hardware developers who 
develop software that directly competes with Windows or other 
Microsoft products. In a move that limits its own competitiveness. 
Microsoft will give the necessary license for its own intellectual 
property rights to a third party when that third party exercises 
options within the settlement that infringe on Microsoft 
intellectual property rights.
    For these reasons, I support this flawed settlement in hopes the 
federal government and many states will not pursue any further 
punitive and frivolous legal action that will only result in the 
destruction of intellectual property and the demise of a business 
that has built the existing computer and software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Akins
    7507 Woodside Lane, Apt. #24
    Lorton, VA 22079-2013
    Phone/FAX: 703-339-7244
    Cell Phone: 202-425-4837
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00031118

3457 Marbella Court
Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
January 13,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was happy to hear a settlement has been reached in the 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Bringing this case to a close will 
benefit consumers and our economy alike.
    The terms of the settlement agreement appear to be fair. 
Mechanisms to ensure Microsoft does not engage in anticompetitive 
acts will be implemented. If the settlement is approved, Microsoft 
will no longer enter into agreements obligating computer 
manufacturers or distributors to promote Windows exclusively. This 
will promote competition in the industry, and will result in more 
choices for the consumer. Microsoft has also agreed to make it 
easier for computer manufacturers to remove features of Windows from 
their computers so they will be able to use the competitions'' 
software if they so choose. I believe these concessions are fair and 
reasonable.
    Wrapping up this case has been long over-due. I appreciate your 
efforts to ensure the rapid resolution of this matter.
    Dena Sklaroff



MTC-00031119

FROM: DDSI Phone No.: 724 745-0902 Jan. 14 2002 09:23M P1
209 Roth Street
Houston, PA 15342-1147
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The recent antitrust case settlement has been dragged out way 
too long. I am glad to see that Microsoft will not be broken up, 
because that would be detrimental to the country's tech sector. I 
think many of the concessions Microsoft will be making violate other 
laws.
    Prohibiting Microsoft from entering into exclusive third party 
agreements will inhibit their ability to gain market share. All 
companies try to force distributors into exclusive agreements 
whereby they promote one product or another. That is how Pepsi and 
Coca- Cola operate.
    The best interests of the American public will be served when 
the government stops messing with the private sector and allows 
Microsoft to focus on innovation of new technology instead of 
political warfare. I urge your office to take corrective steps in 
this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Norman Nardo
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031120

From: Penny Temeles
FAX NO. : l-412-4342
Jan. 14 2002 09:28AM P1

[[Page 29515]]

Emporium Group Inc.
Sales Marketing Consulting
100 Oxford Drive #302
Monroewille, Pennsylvania 15146
Ph/Fax: (412)373.4342
email:[email protected]
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is so that I may go on record as 
being a supporter of the settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice last November. The two sides 
had been battling in court for more than three years, and I am glad 
to see that this issue has finally been put to rest at the federal 
level.
    Microsoft did not get off easy, but I feel that the settlement 
is fair enough. They have agreed not to retaliate against software 
or hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows. 
They have also agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who 
ship software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system.
    The settlement is fair, and the time has come to move on to much 
more important issues. I support the settlement, and look forward to 
the conclusion of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Penny Temeles
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031121

JAN-14-2002 10:16 MERRILL LYNCH 248 647 2503 P.01/01
24130 Broadview Street
Farmington. Michigan 48336
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am very happy about the recent settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft. Though the opponents of Microsoft have made varied 
efforts to make it appear as though Microsoft has gotten off easy. I 
completely disagree. In fact, Microsoft has agreed to honor 
obligations that extend to products and technologies that were not 
even at issue in the lawsuits. Though these areas were not initially 
at issue, Microsoft has agreed to comply to these broad terms in 
order to bring the case to a conclusion and to allow the Company to 
move forward with the development of new products.
    In addition to Microsoft compliance with the broaden terms of 
the settlement, they have also agreed to document and disclose 
various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating 
system products. If I may add, this is a first in an antitrust 
settlement. This is just a small indication of the strides that 
Microsoft has taken to satisfy the requirements of this settlement.
    The Tunney Act has provided a very solid avenue to voice my 
opinion on this issue and I am very pleased to know that my opinion 
on this issue matters to you. I support the settlement and look 
forward to the conclusion of this case.
    Sincerely.
    Carol Markey



MTC-00031122

01/14/02 06:46 2087730884
POST FALLS MIDDL
405 East 19th Avenue
Post Falls, Idaho 83854
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years the Department of Justice has finally 
concluded its antitrust suit against Microsoft. A charge, I believe, 
that was wrong in the first place. I am the computer expert in our 
family and I use Microsoft, but I didn't always. I started out with 
AOL, and then switched to Microsoft. I had Windows `95, 
`98, and now `2000. At no time was I coerced to use 
Microsoft. I had complete freedom of choice; therefore, I do not 
understand the charges against Microsoft for monopolizing the 
market.
    I do not know why a suit was brought against a company for 
providing a good product. Would we be suing Henry Ford for 
dominating the auto industry, or Macintosh for being the best in 
computer graphics programs? I think there should be recognition of 
what Microsoft has accomplished. Microsoft has provided enormous 
technical expertise to this country, not to mention, income. Bill 
Gates invented the computer revolution and made the global village 
possible. Globalization is heralded, yet no one seems to recognize 
just how and why this happened. Think back before Microsoft.
    The settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
is now done. It was hard. Even the judge lost patience, ordering 
round-the-clock negotiations to bring about closure. Perhaps, she 
knew when enough is enough. Which is what I am saying. It is time to 
move on, Give your support to this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Cheri Mitton cc: Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00031123

01/14/2002 09:31 PIFER OFFICE SUPPLY -> 12023071454 NO.598 0001
Germaine Frame Gallery
UNIQUE FRAMING
120 W. GERMAIN STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGlNlA 22601
PHONE 682-5846
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel the Microsoft settlement is a 
complete and thorough agreement that will benefit the technology 
industry and the economy. This agreement was reached after extensive 
negotiations. Microsoft has fully agreed to carry out all provisions 
of this agreement and will be monitored by a technical oversight 
committee for compliance. Competing companies can sue Microsoft if 
they feel this company is not complying. I am a believer of free 
enterprise, and I oppose restrictions placed on Microsoft. Please 
end this litigation. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Wallace Wiener



MTC-00031124

01/14/2002 11:12 3192329363
SCOTTS ELECTRIC INC. PAGE 02/02
Steve Jordan
 581 Sheridan Road
 Waterloo, Iowa 50301
January 10, 2002
Judge Kollar-Kotelly
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I am writing to share my support for the proposed settlement 
reached by Microsoft with the Justice Department.
    The great thing about our free market system is that it allows 
all participants to play on a level playing field at the mercy of 
consumers. The consumers can choose the products and services they 
prefer. Like it or not, Microsoft has clearly won this battle. One 
of the reasons the Microsoft's critics have never been able to 
demonstrate consumer harm is because American consumer use and like 
Microsoft products. Plus the successes of Microsoft have resulted in 
more accessible and cheaper technology for Americans.
    Bringing a conclusion to this case is long overdue. The impact 
this case has had on the technology industry has been devastating. 
We have found that when the government attacks an industry leader 
the ripples are felt far and wide. Computer and software sales 
across the board have been hurt throughout the prosecution of this 
case. Please approve the settlement reached by the Justice 
Department and Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Jordan



MTC-00031125

Dixie L. Holtz
ATTORNEY AT LAW
13547 VENTURA BOULEVARD
SHERMAN OAKS. CA 91413
AREA CODE (818)981-1383
January 14,2002
Attorncy General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In writing to you today I wish to express my concern regarding 
the Microsoft settlement. The Department of Justice is now reviewing 
the settlement. I deeply hope that at the end of this review, the 
decision is made that this settlement is in the best interest of the 
nation. I believe this settlement is extensive. Microsoft has made 
many concessions that will inhibit future anticompetitive behavior. 
Foremost among these concessions is the term that guarantees the 
creation of a third-party technical review

[[Page 29516]]

board. The job of this board is to ensure that Microsoft complies 
with the terms of this settlement.
    As I believe this settlement to be equitable. I ask that the 
Department of Justice implement the settlement quickly. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dixie Holtz



MTC-00031126

SENT BY: HEWLETT-PACKARD;
480 315 9239;
JAN-14-02 8:25AM; PAGE l/1
7525 The Greens # 179
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for Microsoft's settlement of 
its antitrust issue with the federal government. Its unfortunate 
that they had to be put through this process, but this settlement 
looks more than reasonable.
    I am especially thrilled to see Microsoft take the lead and 
really go above and beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit. I understand that they have agreed to 
not retaliate against computer makers who ship software that 
competes with anything in its Windows operating system, or against 
software or hardware developers who develop or promote software that 
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows, and has agreed not to enter into any agreements obligating 
any third party to distribute or promote any Windows technology 
exclusively or in a fixed percentage.
    I can only say in closing Mr. Ashcroft that we can agree that no 
other company Microsoft's size would have been so generous in a 
settlement. This is a fair and reasonable settlement and should be 
approved.
    Sincerely,
    Yvonne Cahill



MTC-00031127

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Mary Lou Smith, Director
Jackson County Courthouse
415 E. 12th Street, 2nd Floor
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
COUNTY LEGISLATURE
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI
(816) 881-3302
FAX (816) 881-3340
January 11, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530-0001
Faxed to 1-202-307-1454
    Dear Justice Hesse:
    For the last two days I have attended a business seminar in the 
state of Kansas aimed at getting minorities and women into business 
and keeping them afloat once they have set up. With the today's 
economy this is a major task and extremely hard for minorities and 
women.
    I am writing to you today to convey my support for the Microsoft 
settlement. The United States as well as Kansas is currently going 
through some hard economic times and it is twice as bad for small 
business owners that are minorities or women. Numerous businesses 
and companies are losing money and having to lay-off employees. On 
today's news it was announced that as many as 1.6 would be 
unemployed at the end of 2002. An important factor in bringing about 
a recovery is to allow new and innovative products to stimulate 
growth.
    The Microsoft Corporation is a leading pioneer in technology. 
Microsoft is currently spending billions on new, inventive 
technology and is working to stay competitive. These innovations 
spread economic growth throughout the entire nation. Direct results 
of technological advances have been market expansion, job creation, 
and the production of wealth and capital. These are not easy times 
for our nation; our government should do everything in its power to 
encourage growth and economic expansion. That is why I am sending 
you my support for the recent settlement of the Microsoft case, I 
understand that Microsoft agrees to share its intellectual property 
and creates new relations with hardware and software developers. It 
was the right thing to do and Americans from all walks of life will 
be better off.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
    Sincerely, Mary Lou Smith
    Director
    JACKSON COUNTY LEGIS



MTC-00031128

Ol/l4/2001 10:40 3522719742 PAGE 01
CompTIA CIW Authorized Training Provider New Horizons Computer 
Learning Centers
Microsoft Certified Partner Authorized PROMETRIC Testing Group
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The suit against Microsoft has dragged for the last three years. 
The suit has brought a drop in the stock market, an ambiguity in the 
industry, and challenged governmental budgets at the state and 
federal levels. All of this has been paid for by either the consumer 
on Microsoft's side, or the taxpayer on the government's side. In 
many cases, people end up paying twice! The suit was brought about 
to benefit American consumers and give them more choices; in 
reality, the suit has been a burden.
    I support the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. It addresses the issures very clearly. 
Microsoft has agreed to disclose information regarding the setup of 
Microsoft products, and the company must change its licensing 
agreements with individual computer-makers--even if one of them 
ships software that would compete with the Windows operating system. 
There have been enough financial resources spent on this case. It is 
vital that this is prevented and the settlement is finalized. The 
quicker the settlement is confirmed, the faster the industry can get 
back to focusing on innovation. Sincerely,
    Tim Broom President PO Box 357685 Gainsville, FL 32635 main 
(352) 376-8007 fax (352) 371-9964
    www.nhgainsville.com



MTC-00031129

FROM: NWTILLERS
FAX NO.: 15092483818
Jan. 14 2002 08:41AM PI
Northwest Tillers, Inc.
P.O. Box 10932
Yakima. WA 98909
(509)575-1950
1-800-204-3122
Fax (509) 452-1588
www.nwtiIlers.com
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust suit. I would like to see this case concluded as soon as 
possible. As a small business owner, I am concerned by the fact this 
case was brought against Microsoft at all. Microsoft has been an 
innovative, competitive company. Companies, especially those engaged 
in high-tech endeavors, must remain competitive to remain in 
business. I do not agree with punishing Microsoft for its ability to 
remain competitive.
    I do, however, believe the case should be settled as rapidly as 
possible. To achieve this end, Microsoft has made a variety of 
concessions that go above and beyond the scope of the lawsuit. I do 
not necessarily agree with the concessions made, as they appear to 
be overly restrictive. For example, the creation of a technical 
oversight committee, which will monitor Microsoft's business 
practices, seems overly intrusive to Microsoft.
    Despite my belief that Microsoft is doing more than should be 
required, I support its decision to make such concessions so this 
case will settle. I appreciate your review of my comments, and hope 
to see this case settle as quickly as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Marquis
    President / CEO



MTC-00031130

FROM: MAGNET COM
FAX NO. : Oct. 25 2001 01:12PM P1
Jeffrey R. Hoener
P.O. Box 210334
Montgomery, AL 36121-0334
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to express my support of the Microsoft 
settlement. The settlement that was reached is equitable. I believe 
that Microsoft has been more than generous in the interest of 
resolving this issue.

[[Page 29517]]

    Microsoft's generosity is evident in the new design of future 
versions of the Windows system. The new design that will appear in 
the interim release of Windows XP has a new mechanism. This 
mechanism will enable users to remove and add different aspects of 
the system at their discretion. Users will now be able to remove 
Media Player from their system if they so choose. This is a first 
for consumers and represents Microsoft's generosity.
    The settlement is fair. The Justice Department should enact the 
settlement as quick as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey R. Hoener



MTC-00031131

Jan-14-02 09:22A P.01
Karen and Dave Polen
4460 E. Cortez St.
Phoenix, AZ 85028-2319
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to express my support and encouragement for the 
recent settlement agreement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. This was a settlement that was reached after three months 
of intense negotiation, following three years of what I viewed as an 
unnecessary lawsuit. These negotiations were mediated by court 
appointed individual who allowed both sides to come to a reasonable 
conclusion. This statement should stand on its own merits and I 
believe has the public interest in mind.
    The settlement contains several provisions designed to increase 
competition in the marketplace as well as to keep Microsoft 
accountable to the federal government. This agreement contains a 
provision that requires Microsoft to not retaliate against computer 
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system. There is a similar provision relating to software 
developers, where Microsoft may not retaliate against developers who 
develop or promote software that competes with Windows or that runs 
on software that competes with Windows. Perhaps most importantly, 
however, is that Microsoft has agreed that if a third party's 
exercise of any options provided for by the settlement, would 
infringe on any Microsoft intellectual property right, Microsoft 
will provide the third party with a license to the necessary 
intellectual property on reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. 
This is important because it shows that Microsoft is completely 
willing to increase competition.
    This is a settlement that goes beyond the original government 
interests, and shows Microsoft's commitment to diversity in the 
industry. I strongly urge your office to move on this settlement and 
to take no further federal action.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Polen



MTC-00031132

1/14/2002 3:53 PM FROM: Fax UpdateThis.com
To: l-202-337-1454 PAGE: 002 OF 002
William McCahey
155 W 20th Street Apt. 6K
New York, NY 10011
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is in the best interest of the American Public to end the 
Microsoft lawsuits as soon as possible. Our economy is in recession 
and our IT sector has never returned to normal since lawsuits began. 
We need our government to focus their energy, time, and money 
elsewhere on issues that they can have positive affect on
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair and I do not 
understand why nine states want to continue litigation. Microsoft 
has agreed to disclose interfaces, form three-person team to monitor 
compliance with settlement, improve relations with computer makers 
and software developers, and design future Windows versions so that 
competitors can market their products on its operating systems.
    In my judgment the settlement will be good for IT sector and the 
American economy. I urge your office to finalize it as soon as 
possible and I thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Bill McCahey
    cc: Representative Jerrold Nadler



MTC-00031133 Jan 14 02 03:42p

Daniel & Jackie Hsieh 261 8034 p.1
138--32 68th Drive, Apt. 1C
Flushing, NY 11367
Jan 14, 2002
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Senator Schumer
    As a voting constituent, I would like to express my opinion 
about the Microsoft antitrust case. I have followed this story in 
the New York Times and feel that after three long years of court 
battles, it is time to stop legal action against the company. I 
think that the settlement is fair and should be final.
    I am concerned about the economic recession we are experiencing 
as a nation as well. The IT industry has been one of the sectors of 
the economy that has been the hardest hit in the past several 
months. It is important that we allow Microsoft to get back to 
business and lead the IT industry once again
    Your strong support on this matter is greatly appreciated I urge 
you to put this case behind us.
    Thank you,
    Ching Hsieh



MTC-00031134

Jan-14-2002 03:26 PM don senften 755 4339 P.01
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Aschroft:
    I am writing to support the settlement with Microsoft. Enough is 
enough. It is time to allow the IT industry to get back to business. 
The settlement is fair and reasonable, and will protect us from 
future anticompetitive behavior.
    The settlement imposes many restrictions on Microsoft. One 
example is that Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad 
new rights to set up Windows so that software by other developers 
can be introduced to any computer. Also, Microsoft has agreed to 
license its Windows operating system producst to the 20 largest 
computer makers on identical terms, including price. Plus, Microsoft 
has also agreed to the ``Technical Committee'' that will 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Clearly, these, 
along with the other restrictions will maintain a fair competitive 
balance.
    It is important to let technology sector move forward with 
developing new products as soon as possible. This settlement is in 
the best interest of both the public and the economy. Thank you for 
reading my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Senften P.O. Box 20895, Bradenton, FL 34294-0005



MTC-00031135

Jan-14-2002 03:26 PM
don senften
755 4339 P.01
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Aschroft:
    I am writing to support the settlement with Microsoft. Enough is 
enough. It is time to allow the IT industry to get back to business. 
The settlement is fair and reasonable, and will protect us from 
future anticompetitive behavior.
    The settlement imposes many restrictions on Microsoft. One 
example is that Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad 
new rights to set up Windows so that software by other developers 
can be introduced to any computer. Also, Microsoft has agreed to 
license its Windows operating system products to the 20 largest 
computer makers on identical terms, including price. Plus, Microsoft 
has also agreed to the ``Technical Committee'' that will 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Clearly, these, 
along with the other restrictions will maintain a fair competitive 
balance.
    It is important to let the technology sector move forward with 
developing new products as soon as possible. This settlement is in 
the best interest of both the public and the economy. Thank you for 
reading my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Senften
    P.O. Box 20895,
    Bradenton, FL 34294-0005



MTC-00031136

Jan-14-02 03:53 P.01
4201 Tanglewood Drive
Allison Park, Pa. 15101
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 29518]]

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Today, I am writing you to express my support of the recent 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
I am a long time supporter of the Microsoft Corporation. Thus, I 
would be happy to see the litigation against Microsoft come to an 
end. As a republican I believe in free enterprise and can't imagine 
an administration for which I voted choosing to damage a company 
that has added so much to the economy and growth of our country.
    As a senior citizen, Microsoft has personally impacted my life. 
A few years ago, I was what they call ``computer 
illiterate'' as I did not grow up learning how to ``surf 
the web'' or send electronic mail. I do not think that I would 
have bothered to learn how to use a computer, it is weren't for the 
Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft's products are so user- friendly 
that I was able to master computer applications and thus enjoy the 
age of technology.
    It is these innovations that have enabled Microsoft to rise to 
the top of the technology industry and is my belief that Microsoft 
has earned its position as a leader in its field. It is ridiculous 
for the federal government to punish Microsoft for producing high 
quality products. Please let the settlement stand as it is written. 
( An educational bill was just passed and yet you want Microsoft not 
to supply technology to students who most need assistance to 
participate in todays world. That sounds like leaving `a child 
behind'. Microsoft must be allowed to focus on creating 
innovative software to assist our country continue to lead the world 
in technology.
    Very truly yours,
    Mary M. Hembrock
    cc Rick Santorium



MTC-00031137

01/14/02 15:54 8149428694 CR CASHMAN 001
149 Elm Street
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648-2930
(814)695-9398
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 8, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I don't feel that the government has been fair to Microsoft from 
the start. I think the government should keep its nose out of the 
affairs of business and leave Tree enterprise alone. In my opinion 
there are many more important issues for the govcrnmcnt to spend 
their time and taxpayer money on.
    Microsoft does a lot for this country, giving charity, and 
providing jobs. The government should reward companies that do so 
well, not attack them for simply making a better product. I hope 
that the settlement of this case will discourage government from 
doing things like this from now on. Nonetheless, the terms of the 
settlement are fair especially considering Microsoft is conceding 
much more than necessary in my opinion. They should not have to 
disclose internal interfaces and give away other technological 
information as they have agreed to do.
    I appreciate you taking the time to read this and it's nice to 
know that my opinion will be counted, along with the many others 
that support Microsoft and want to see the government stay out of 
business affairs.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely
    Clifford Cashman



MTC-00031138

Albert W. Veit
32 Dogwood Lane
Grove City, PA 16127
Phone: (724) 458-4096
fax: (724) 458-4096
e-mail: [email protected]
Jan. 14 2002 02:46PM P1
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge your office to suppress all opposition to the recent 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This 
case never should have been brought to court.
    The settlement, though as it is, is in the best interests of the 
IT industry and the economy. Microsoft did not get off easy, but the 
settlement is fair and reasonable, and it will clearly benefit 
consumers and preclude future anticompetitive behavior. To increase 
competition, Microsoft has agreed to allow competitors to place 
their programs on Microsoft's Windows operating systern. This will 
be achieved by Microsoft making available to other companies 
information regarding the internal interfaces of Windows. The 
recession has had a devastating effect on state budgets and the 
federal budget, and it is important that the technology industry be 
allowed to concentrate on business now.
    I sincerely hope no further legislation is brought against 
Microsoft and look forward to a revival of out IT sector.
    Sincerely,
    Albert Veit
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031139

Sent by: Jan-14-02 03:50pm From 61052628869202 353 8856 page 
1/1
Pamela J. Dvorak
612 Woodleave Road
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2921
610-526-2216 / fax 610-526-2886 /
[email protected]
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
January 14, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am pleased that the Microsoft Antitrust case has finally 
nearing completion. After three years of litigation. it is time 
Microsoft can once again focus on what it does best- product 
development driving a successful business
    The broad range of the settlement [restrictions and obligations 
on Microsoft that extend products and technologies not even at issue 
in the original lawsuit] represents Microsoft's willingness to bend 
backward to see this case rectified and settled With Windows XP, 
Microsoft has already carried out modifications listed within the 
agreement, making it easier for computer makers software developers 
and consumers to reconfigure their Windows setup at any time. In 
addition to that Microsoft has also agreed to supply to the 
competition its protocols used to operate Microsoft's server 
operating system, allowing opposing software companies to make their 
products compatible should they choose to do so
    Microsoft's compliance will be monitored carefully thus 
precluding future violations. This may be preaching to the 
choir'', but I never felt that the company should have been 
punished for being competitive- and doing well. The American way is 
for the market to judge the value of the product Not everyone can be 
on top. From my view this Operating System made this technology 
user-friendly and accessible to a great segment of the population.
    Thank you in advance for your support of this [dare I hope] 
final settlement
    Sincerely,
    Pamela J. Dvorak
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum; Senator Arlen Specter



MTC-00031140

Bruce Wynn 9728852507 01/14/02 01:25P P.001
8371 Christie
Frisco, TX 75034-3708
January 11,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000 1
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to inform you of my thoughts regarding the recent 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. I support 
the settlement 100%.
    It is in the best interests of all parties involved to have this 
case settled so that Microsoft can continue to develop products, and 
the government can focus on the more pressing needs of our country. 
I believe that Microsoft is getting a raw deal in this case. 
Microsoft has agreed to divulge its hard earned intellectual 
property in its Windows operating system internal interfaces, grant 
third parties flexibility to modify its well-crafted Windows program 
to promote non-Microsoft programs, and license its intellectual 
property on an open, non-discriminatory basis.
    The terms of the settlement are more then fair and reasonable 
for the government to accept. Please leave Microsoft alone, and not 
pursue any further action against them.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce Wynn
    cc: Representative Richard Armey



MTC-00031141

JAN-14-2002 03:19P FROM:
TO:12023071454
ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
P.O. Drawer 38--Old Town, FL 32680
(352) 542-7942--Fax # (352) 542-3417
January 12,2002

[[Page 29519]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that both the Justice Department, 
and Microsoft have reached a settlement in the three-year antitrust 
case. I am happy to hear about the settlement, and I support it 
100%.
    This settlement will allow computer makers the means to remove 
access to various features of Windows, such as Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer web browser, windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger. 
Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers 
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system.
    In fact, Microsoft has even agreed not to retaliate against 
software developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows. I would like to see this case settled as quickly as 
possible, since further delay would end up hurting the American 
economy. Do not prosecute Microsoft any further!
    Thank you.
    Truly American,
    Cynthia T. anderson



MTC-00031142

01/14/02 MON 15:08 FAX 7176240432
CLIFFORD G ROSBOROUGH
80 Matthew Drive
New Oxford, Pennsylvania 17350
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I am 
happy to see that the case is being settled because I believe it has 
dragged out long enough, to the detriment of the IT sector and the 
American Economy.
    Bill Gates created an innovative and vision-oriented giant that 
has done wonders for our nation. Microsoft should not be punished 
for being successful. It is my opinion that there is a direct 
correlation between the economies woes of the nation and the 
litigation between the government and Microsoft. Under this 
settlement, Microsoft will share information about the internal 
workings of Windows with its competitors, and will allow them to 
place their own software and programs on the Windows operating 
system. The settlement represents the best available solution to 
this seemingly interminable lawsuit. Therefore, I support the 
settlement, and look forward to a day when this case is a distant 
memory.
    Sincerely,
    Clifford Rosborough
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031143

Jan-14-02 10:15A P01
103 Harmony Lane
Port Angeles, WA 98362-8141
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear the government has decided to settle the 
Microsoft case. I don't believe Microsoft should have been sued in 
the first place. However, I think it is in everyone's best interest 
that this case settle, so that Microsoft may continue doing what it 
does best--and that is producing quality products. The 
settlement agrcement appears to be fair, and well thought out. I am 
particularly in favor of the creation of the technical oversight 
committee. The existence of an oversight committee should be able 
allay Microsoft's competitors'' fears that Microsoft will not 
abide by the settlement once it is finalized. Additionally, the 
settlement will allow computer manufacturers more flexibility to run 
software that competes with Windows. Microsoft has really agreed to 
terms beyond what is required of them.
    I strongly support all parties'' efforts to resolve this 
case and resent the nine states that maintain opposition. Thank you 
for your efforts in this regard.
    Sincerely,
    Agnes Anderson



MTC-00031144

JAN-14-2002 01:41 PM IRWIN EAGLE 410 363 7640 P.01
201 Berry Vie Drive
Owings Mills, MD 21117
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20503
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a retired businessman I had my own successful interior 
decorating firm for over thirty five years. It was done by working 
hard and staying ahead of the competition. One such company is 
Microsoft that succeeded in this manner and because of its success 
was targeted by the Department of Justice for an antitrust lawsuit. 
The lawsuit has now settled and I am writing to you to ask that you 
give your approval to this settlement. I was against the suit from 
the start and never have never been able to understand the reasoning 
behind it. To me, Microsoft is a shining example for this great 
country. Here is a man who had a good idea, worked hard and 
succeeded. He is to be commend for his innovation and the way he 
does business, he keeps jobs and people working in this country not 
go overseas for cheap labor. His competitors could not keep up and 
cried foul, succeeding in clipping his wings to some extent, since 
they could not keep up on an even playing field. No one took Henry 
Ford to court for being to smart.
    Do not let small mind prevail in this matter. Give your support 
to the Microsoft settlement and let's get back to business. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Irwin Eagle



MTC-00031145

Sent By: JESKELL INC.
408 744 0603;
Jan-14-02 10:24;
Page 1 /1
TrainSoft
6559 Old Meadow Court, San Jose, CA 95135 (408) 223-6034 
[email protected]
January 12,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I readily admit that Microsoft could have handled itself better 
regarding concessions to allow competitive browsers on its Windows 
OS a lot sooner with a lot less fuss. However, the response by our 
government to this and other complaints about Microsoft were far too 
severe, especially when breaking up Microsoft was under serious 
consideration. Fortunately, the threat of this eventuality has been 
dissipated by this settlement. I am pleased by your efforts to bring 
it about, and I would urge you to go further and work with Attorney 
General Lockyer to have this unpleasant situation in California 
settled as well, since the settlement remedies the question of 
bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, as well as addressing many 
other concerns, such as interoperability.
    While this settlement forces Microsoft into certain concessions 
not envisioned by the original lawsuit, it does have the distinct 
advantage of ending the suit. This is a welcome end, in that we can 
all put this behind us and work towards rebuilding our nation's 
economy through the IT business community itself without fear that 
this lawsuit could yet to more damage.
    I am therefore writing to suggest my support of this settlement, 
as well as share my hope that this sort of thing will not happen 
again.
    Sincerely,
    Hasan Z. Rahim
    President
    cc: Representative Zoe Lofgren



MTC-00031146

Jan 14 02 12:32p
FOWLER AGENCY CORP
616 452-1333 p.1
DAVID E. FOWLER
3120 MADISON SE.
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49348
January 12,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As an avid Microsoft supporter, I write to express my support 
for the Microsoft settlement. I have written previously to express 
my gratitude that the issue was finally reached in November. I write 
again to express my support during this period of public comment. I 
trust that at the end of this sixty-day period, the Justice 
Department will conclude that this settlement is in the best 
interests of the economy and the technology industry.
    Without doubt, the technology has suffered during this 
litigation. IT industry supporters also know the lengths to which 
Microsoft has gone to appease their competitors. Microsoft has 
agreed to design Windows applications so that computer producers 
have increased rights when designing computers. The

[[Page 29520]]

configurers can now install competing programs within Windows. 
Computer makers will now be able to remove the means by which 
consumers access various features of the Microsoft programs. Thus, 
producers can eliminate aspects such as Explorer or Media Player 
from the system. This is evidence of the generosity of the Microsoft 
Company.
    In all, I hope that this period of public comment ends with the 
enactment of this settlement into practice.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031147

JAN-15-2002 12:17 AM KELLEY CONSULTS 334 885 6111 P.01
January 13,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I truly believe that the litigation against Microsoft is in 
total opposition to the concept of free enterprise. I also think 
that it is unfair to penalize Microsoft for its successful attempts 
at surpassing the innovation of its competitors. I am therefore 
writing to ask that the Department of Justice seriously consider 
putting this whole matter to rest right away. I think that this 
lawsuit has done much more harm than good.
    A close look at Microsoft's handling of the settlement thus far 
will reveal nothing but compliance. Microsoft has been true to the 
terms of the settlement in every sense of the word. Microsoft has 
done much recently to enable its competitor's access to Windows. 
They have also agreed to document and disclose various interfaces 
that are internal to Window's operating system products.
    Let's stop the litigation and reinvest in technology. I do hope 
that my views and opinions will be helpful in establishing closure 
in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Kelley
    65561 Highway 22
    Roanoke, AL 36274
    (334) 885-6111



MTC-00031148

01/14/2002 12:21 718-634-3208 GENE SACHSENMAIER PAGE 01
The Business Automation Group
www.tmsgroup.com
HOME OFFICE
404 Bayslde
Breezy Point, NY 11697
Tel: (866) 592-2100
Fax: (718) 634-3208
e-mail: [email protected]
MIDWEST OPERATIONS
21535 West 179th Street
Olethe, Kansas 66062
Tel: (913) 582-2100
Fax:(913) 592-3509
e-mail: [email protected]
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that I 
strongly urge you to support the recent settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. This case has been going on for years and it is high 
time that we stop wasting taxpayers money. Letting Microsoft get 
back to business would help get this country back on track.
    I am a software consultant and I use Microsoft's and other 
companies'' products. Microsoft's ``monopolistic'' 
influence certainly didn't stop me from using other companies'' 
software. I chose to simultaneously use both products, due mainly to 
Microsoft's ease of integration. I see free enterprise as a valued 
ideal in our society.
    This settlement contains provisions and requirements that go 
well beyond the government's original grievances and work to ensure 
fair, honest and responsible competition. This agreement between 
Microsoft and the federal government require Microsoft to submit to 
a three person, government appointed, technical oversight committee. 
Furthermore, this settlement forces Microsoft to give up its 
intellectual property to its competitors and partners in exchange 
for a fair and reasonable license fee. This provision alone will 
advance technology vastly and improve competition tremendously. This 
settlement is the result of intense negotiations over a three-month 
period, helped along by a government appointed moderator. I support 
the settlement, and look forward to seeing the end of this case.
    Sincerley,
    Gene Sachsenmaier
    cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner



MTC-00031150

Jan-14-02 ll:54 Tim Rauscher P01
Carol Rauscher
5132 NW 74th Court
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
January 7,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am a computer user. I believe the ``technological 
revolution'' has allowed greater creativity and innovation than 
ever previously thought, and the one person most responsible for 
this revolution is Bill Gates. Through his hard work and own 
personal vision, he has allowed this country to move faster and 
farther than any previous ``industrial'' revolution. And, 
unfortunately, he is being punished for it. I am talking of the 
antitrust suit brought against Bill Gates by the Department of 
Justice. My feelings with regard to this action is that it was 
brought by those who were not, and are not, as smart or innovative 
as Bill Gates, and only through such an action as an antitrust 
filing were they able to hinder Microsoft's progress. I think it is 
very tragic that we, in this country, allow so readily the 
destruction of a successful company. But the suit has ended. An 
agreement was reached. Microsoft has allowed, among other things, 
computer makers to install whichever software they wish. I now have 
a choice. Of course, I had a choice before, also. I was able to 
choose whatever software I wanted. I just had to go to ten different 
programs to get what I could get with one Microsoft package. Bill 
Gates, through Microsoft, made software and computers affordable. He 
kept prices down. Software and computers do not cost near what they 
did ten, fifteen years ago. Bill Gates brought the ``computer 
revolution'' into the living room of the average person, myself 
included.
    That is why I am writing to urge you to give your support to the 
Microsoft settlement. It has been reached after three long, hard 
years. It is really time to move on. Do not give in to the demands 
of those who still are not satisfied, and will not be. We have moved 
forward from the tragedies of 2001, help us move forward in our 
economy as well. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Rauscher
    Cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00031151

JAN 14 2002 12: 09 FR DREYFUS 516 338 3330 TO 912023071454
Dreyfus Service Corporation
35 Seacoast Terrace--Apartment 9W
Brooklyn, New York 11235
January 11,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement of the government's antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft. I am a computer programmer for Dreyfus, a mutual 
funds company. I am also a participant in the stock market. As an 
investor, I have observed the devastating impact of the antitrust 
suit on our economy. The stock market has plummeted, and as a result 
the technology industry as a whole has suffered.
    This case should settle for economic reasons, but I also believe 
the terms of the agreement itself are fair and will promote better 
competition among IT companies. I am especially in support of 
Microsoft's agreement to not retaliate against computer 
manufacturers who use or promote software other than Microsoft's. I 
also support the establishment of a technical oversight committee to 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with antitrust laws. In fact, I 
believe the guidelines Microsoft will be subject to should be 
applied not only to Microsoft, but also across the board to 
Microsoft's competitors.
    This lawsuit has hurt our economy. Ending the litigation will 
benefit consumers, and will strengthen the technology industry as a 
whole. I ask your support in ensuring a swift conclusion to this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Grigory Libo
    cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner



MTC-00031152

FROM : ST Sanford Computer FAX NO.: 6312247183 Jan. 14 2002 04:29PM 
P1
TEKNOWLOGY, Inc.
Phone: (631) 224-9450 X. 111
FAX: (631)224-7183
http://www.teknowology.com
January 14,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 29521]]

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr, Ashcroft,
    I suppose an argument can successfully be advanced that 
throughout the years Microsoft has become a bit proud and defensive 
regarding its software products. These traits, while not laudable, 
are not reason enough to drag a company like Microsoft into federal 
court. Threatening a company like Microsoft with breaking it up does 
not fill any but the most ardent of Microsoft's critics with any 
measure of confidence.
    Ultimately, it is far better that this suit has ended with a 
settlement. While I leave it to others to decipher the specifics of 
the settlement's terms on such things as software licensing and 
Microsoft's relationships with other IT companies, any settlement 
that is reasonably acceptable to both sides is far better than 
dragging this case through the courts.
    For this reason, I am writing in support of the settlement. I am 
also expressing my desire to see this entire episode concluded so 
that we can all put this behind us. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Sanford
    President



MTC-00031153

01/14/2002 02:17 +000000000 PAGE 01
January 14, 2002
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to urge you to support the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. While I believe that many 
of the allegations raised by the lawsuit against Microsoft may have 
merit, it is time to shift the focus of the Department of Justice 
and our tax dollars to other priorities.
    While the proposed settlement is not a home run for any of the 
interested parties, it does have a little bit of something in it for 
everybody while maintaining its overall balance. One way that you 
can tell that the settlement is balances is the fact that nobody is 
very happy with the proposed settlement.
    Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you would 
like more information.
    Thank you,
    J. J. Eglin JJ/sem
    4100 Atlas Ct.,
    Bakerfield, CA 93308
    (616)327-1918
    www.bclabs.com



MTC-00031155

1--15-2002 4:26AM
FROM J P ROUTHIER 978 7725528 P.1
Routhier + Sons, Inc.
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    Please support the settlement agreement reached between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department lawyers. This case has gone on 
too long, and wasted too much of the taxpayers money. With a 
recession and international crises going on, it should be obvious 
that our government has better things to do that harass a company 
that has created thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in 
wealth.
    My company is decidedly low-tech but we use the products of 
Microsoft and its competitors on a daily basis. I cannot for the 
life of me see how anyone can see antitrust activity anywhere in 
that industry. No sector of the economy could be more fluid, 
changing and open to new ideas and businesses. I understand why the 
Justice Department must regulate the business world to prevent 
abuses, but they need to do so with a little more common sense. This 
settlement proposal provides a very convenient opportunity to end 
this case, once and for all, so that those in the high-tech industry 
and us in the low-tech industries can get back to the business of 
creating jobs and growing the economy.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Routhier
    J.P. Routhier & Sons, Inc
    256 Ayer Road,
    Littleton, MA 01460-1010
    Recycling (978) 772-4251
    Transportation (978) 772-0141
    FAX (978) 772-5528



MTC-00031156

BODE, CALL & STROUPE,L.L.P.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3105 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 300
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
(919)882-0338
TELECOPIER (919)881-9543
JOHN T. BODE
W. DAVIDSON CALL
ROBERT V. BODE
OTIS L. STROUPE, JR
V. LANE WEARTON, JR
S. TODD KEMPHILL
DEANA EVANS RICKETTS
JAMES N. JOSGREEN
CHRISTIE M. POPELAND
JOHN V. HUNTER III
OF COUNSEL
DAVID F. GREEN
(1945-1985)
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 6338
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27628-6338
Post Office Box 6331
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612-6334
January l0, 2002
Via Facsimile (202)616-9937
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I appreciate the chance to share my thoughts on the Microsoft 
matter as part of the Department of Justice's comment process. I 
don't represent Microsoft or its affiliates and I am not a Microsoft 
shareholder, so the views expressed are simply those of an 
interested American.
    I didn't agree with the Justice Department when it began this 
process. DOJ's market analysis appeared to be static when the 
product, product mix and alleged anticompetitive behavior were all 
evolving on a dynamic matrix. From a consumer protection standpoint, 
which is the basis for antitrust action, the result of those 
behaviors provided reduced costs to consumers from a product that 
became user-friendly efficient. No evil consequences--only good 
results.
    But the results of the government's actions against Microsoft 
have not been good. The DOJ has been unable to show that the action 
will improve software, decrease costs or expand services. In 
fact,the government's heavy-handed action has had a chilling effect 
on investment and on innovation.
    The settlement that has been proposed provides wide-ranging 
protections against anticompetitive behavior by 
Microsoft--protections that probably go much further than 
needed. Wisely, the State of North Carolina is no longer a party to 
this proceeding, a recognition of the effectiveness of the 
settlement provision.
    Given the economic uncertainty threatening our nation today, 
there is no better time and no better way to bring this over-long 
and over-expensive proceeding to a close. I sincerely hope the court 
will do so.
    Thank you
    Best Wishes.
    Sincerely,
    John T. Bode



MTC-00031157

Bruce Wynn 9723352507 01/14/02 0l:12P P. 001
8371 Christie
Frisco, TX 75034
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen of this country, I am writing to voice my 
opinions on the recent settlement between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. I support the settlement that has been reached by both 
parties. It is in the best interest of the government to accept this 
settlement so they can move onto the more pressing needs on the 
country. Furthermore, continued pursuit of this case would only be a 
waste of tax dollars, time, and human resources.
    Microsoft is not getting off easy in this case. They are making 
specific changes to their product development, and with their 
business practices as well. For example, Microsoft has agreed to 
allow computer makers to reconfigure Windows so as to promote Non-
Microsoft software programs. Also, let me remind you that there will 
be an establishment of a three-person technical committee to monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
    I urge that the government accept the settlement, and not pursue 
any further action on the federal level.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29522]]

    Bruce Wynn



MTC-00031158

FROM : H&S HOSE&
SUPPLY FAX NO. :6613274683
Jan. 14 2002 12:09 P1
H & S HOSE SUPPLY
January 14, 2002
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to urge you to support the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. While I believe that many 
of the allegations raised by the lawsuit against Microsoft may have 
merit, it is time to shift the focus of the Department of Justice 
and our tax dollars to other priorities.
    While the proposed settlement is not a home for any of the 
interested parties, it does have a little bit of something in it for 
everybody while maintaining its overall balance. One way that you 
can tell that the settlement is balances is the fact that nobody is 
very happy with the proposed settlement.
    Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you would 
like more information.
    Thank you,
    P.O. Box 40308
    5959 Rosedale Highway
    Bakersfield, California 93384
    (661) 327-HOSE (4673)
    Fax (661) 327-4683 --



MTC-00031159

Sent By: JESKELL INC; 408 744 0603;
Jan-14-02 10:27;
Page 1/1
TrainSoft
6559 Old Meadow Court
San Jose, CA 95135
(408) 223-6034
[email protected]
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I readily admit that Microsoft could have handled itself better 
regarding concessions to allow competitive browsers on its Windows 
OS a lot sooner with a lot less fuss. However, the response by our 
government to this and other complaints about Microsoft were far too 
severe, especially when breaking up Microsoft was under serious 
consideration. Fortunately, the threat of this eventuality has been 
dissipated by this settlement. I am pleased by your efforts to bring 
it about, and I would urge you to go further and work with Attorney 
General Lockyer to have this unpleasant situation in California 
settled as well, since the settlement remedies the question of 
bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, as well as addressing many 
other concerns, such as interoperability.
    While this settlement forces Microsoft into certain concessions 
not envisioned by the original lawsuit, it does have the distinct 
advantage of ending the suit. This is a welcome end, in that we can 
all put this behind us and work towards rebuilding our nation's 
economy through the IT business community itself without fear that 
this lawsuit could yet to more damage.
    I am therefore writing to suggest my support of this settlement, 
as well as share my hope that this sort of thing will not happen 
again.
    Sincerely,
    Hasan Rahim
    President
    cc: Representative Zoe Lofgren



MTC-00031160

Jan-14-02 10:30 JIM SCHAAF & ASSOC. 913 663 2146 P.01
JIM SCHAAF
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    I am writing to you as a concerned citizen regarding the recent 
Microsoft settlement. How can this three year long negotiation still 
be on hold? This well thought out, well-monitored process yielded a 
fair and reasonable settlement for all parties involved. It is time 
to let the terms of this agreement speak for themselves. Under the 
agreement, Microsoft has agreed to:
    1. Turn over its internal interfaces for its Windows operating 
system to its competitors,
    2. License its intellectual property to its competitors,
    3. Make it easier for non-Microsoft products to be added to 
Windows by its competitors, and
    4. Have a technical committee grade it for compliance and 
accepting complaints, even by their competitors.
    What more could Microsoft`s competitors reasonably expect 
from a fair settlement? As we sit and spend more of our 
Country's precious resources on more litigation the global 
market continues to produce outstanding results. Our innovative 
industry should be able to concentrate on the same without worrying 
about further legal battles. Let us allow our technology industry to 
move forward and work together to maintain our place in the global 
market.
    Please help us to stop any further litigation against this 
settlement. Let us move forward and allow our technology industry to 
prosper. I thank you of your support.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Schaaf



MTC-00031161

01/14/2002 11:18 FAX 4078592305
REDS MARKET
001
 FRESHPOINT
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Fax: 202-616-9937
Fax: 202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Being informed and involved in the issues of our community has 
always been a priority for me. Business leaders need to ensure the 
stability and growth of their businesses, as well as that of the 
local community and nation.
    In this time of economic uncertainty, we need to be creating 
jobs and improving the education our children. Our efforts need to 
be focused on issues and activities that will strengthen our economy 
and position us for growth in the global market. I believe that the 
government's settlement with Microsoft is needed in order to 
facilitate this type of productive activity.
    From what I've read, I believe the recent settlement is 
encouraging and fair to non-Microsoft software programs. Companies 
that make computers will have the freedom to remove Microsoft 
features with no consequences against them. Moreover, Microsoft will 
not retaliate against companies that develop or promote software 
that competes with Windows.
    This settlement is just and fair. It's a fitting end to this 
legal drama that has played itself out for over two years now,
    Thank you for your attention to my thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Kent Shoemaker
    Executive Vice President
    Eastern Region
    FreshPoint, Inc.
    8801 Exchange Drive
    Orlando, FL 32809
    Telephone 407 858-0020
    Fax 407 888-9179



MTC-00031162

FROM : SHOOK
FAX NO. : 3525435623
Jan. 14 2002 11:13AM P1
1655 Heron Lane
Ceda Key, Florida 32625
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As much as is possible, American companies should not have to 
face extended litigation on a permanent basis. That is why I was 
pleased to hear that you have agreed to settle with Microsoft in the 
anti-trust case. Making sure the settlement is completed will be 
even better news for our economy and American business.
    Regrettably certain interest groups, many with anti-Microsoft 
bias, may attempt to derail this settlement. They argue that the 
settlement is not harsh enough against Microsoft. This however is 
not the case. This settlement ends any contractual restrictions 
Microsoft could place on competitors, and opens up Microsoft's 
formerly confidential code to competitors; an action never before 
taken by a software firm. Without a doubt this settlement is 
sufficient. Detractors simply have an anti- Microsoft prejudice and 
should be more open-minded.
    Maintaining strong support for the settlement is critical to 
ending this case.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Shock



MTC-00031163

01/14/02 04:53 ARTBA-> 001
From the Desk of:

[[Page 29523]]

hristopher J. Atkins
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to voice my strong support for the Microsoft 
settlement. Microsoft has agreed to terms that are not only unfair 
to Microsoft, but I feel, could quite possible have negative 
consequences for Microsoft, a company that has revolutionized the 
software industry and provides thousands of jobs. Any further legal 
action by states or the federal government is only frivolous and 
punative.
    In the settlement, Microsoft has already agreed to grant rights 
to computer-makers so that they may configure Windows to remove 
Microsoft products so the computer manufacturer can install its own 
competitive programs or programs from other software makers, such as 
RealNetworks or AOL's Instant Messenger.
    Microsoft has also agreed to make it easier for computer 
manufacturers, consumers, and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft products within Windows. Microsoft has further agreed to 
not retaliate against any software or hardware developers who 
develop software that directly competes with Windows or other 
Microsoft products. In a move that limits its own competitiveness, 
Microsoft will give the necessary license for its intellectual 
property rights. For these reasons. I support this flawed settlement 
in hopes the federal government and many states will not pursue any 
further frivolous legal action that will only result in the 
destruction of intellectual property and the demise that has built 
the existing computer and software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Atkins
    7507 Woodside Lane, Apt. #24
    Lorton, VA 22079-2013
    Phone/FAX: 703-339-7244
    Cell Phone: 202-425-4837
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00031164

JAN-13-2002 07:46 PM
DAVERUSH 9413661670
FROM : David L. Rush
2705 Bruce Lane
Sarasota, Florida 34237
Telephone: 941,366-4781
FAX: 941, 366-1670
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am a partner in a telecommunications company. I use Windows in 
my business, and believe Microsoft has consistently created superior 
products. I would be unable to conduct my business in today's world 
without Microsoft's innovations. As a businessman, I am obviously 
interested in having the most advanced technology available to me, 
at the lowest cost. The Microsoft antitrust lawsuit clearly gets in 
the way of both of these goals.
    I have been totally against this lawsuit from the get-go. If a 
corporation lies, cheats, or steals, the government should become 
involved in that corporation's affairs, and perhaps a lawsuit should 
ensue. On the other hand, a corporation, such as Microsoft, should 
not be subjected to antitrust litigation merely because it develops 
superior products through hard work and innovation of its research 
and development team.
    I strongly believe the terms of the settlement agreement go too 
far. Specifically, I am not in favor of the provision of creating a 
technical oversight committee. I am oppossed to watchdog groups in a 
free enterprise system. However, I do support Microsoft making this 
concession in the interest of getting the case settled. I am also 
concerned about some of the other concessions Microsoft is making. 
For example, Microsoft has agreed to make it easier for computer 
manufacturers to remove features of Windows from computers so that 
competing software programs may be installed. However, I do support 
Microsoft's agreement to these terms if it will prevent setting a 
precedent for disgruntled Microsoft competitors to challenge 
Microsoft at will whenever they believe Microsoft has created a 
better product. Clearly, Microsoft has gone far beyond what should 
be expected of it in the interest of bringing this matter to a 
close.
    I stongly support approval of the settlement to the end to this 
needless litigation. Thank you for your consideration of my 
comments.
    Sincerely,
    David L. Rush



MTC-00031165

JAN-11-2002 12:27
CHARLES STINSON 9637833
P. 01/01
Charles B. Stinson
Lighthouse Road P.O. Box 62
Prospect Harbor, Maine 04669-0062
Tel 207/963-2677
Email ckelp@acadia. net
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the current settlement between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice at the federal level. Microsoft has 
produced some of the best products for the computer, which accounts 
for their vast success and status as an industry leader. There have 
been some instances in the past where making a choice in peripheral 
Windows components was overly difficult, which is one of the reasons 
I am in favor of the current settlement. I understand that from this 
time forward Microsoft products will be much more accommodating to 
the use and integration of competitors software peripherals. This is 
definitely a step forward, because I believe above all else the 
consumer should have the right to choose, to mix and match software 
as they see fit.
    Another important reason for ending the antitrust proceedings 
swiftly is the strain, which our economy is currently under. The 
information technology industry is one of the biggest in the United 
States, and the antitrust suit has hurt this industry. Not only 
Microsoft has felt the burden of these proceedings, commercial 
retailers who sell MS products, employees of said retailers, 
Microsoft affiliated companies, stock holders, and the American tax 
payers have all been impacted by the antitrust suit. Given the 
current down turn in our nations economy, now is not the time to be 
wasting our resources in the court room when they could be better 
utilized elsewhere. Therefore I support the antitrust settlement, 
and urge you to do the same.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Stinson



MTC-00031166

Douglas P, Fields
100 Midwood Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
TEL. (203) 661-2978
FAX: (203) 661-2996
[email protected]
By Fax: 1 202 307 1454 or 1 202 616 9937
By Email: [email protected]
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I believe that the antitrust 
case against Microsoft was inappropriate from its very inception and 
that the government should not have interfered with one of our 
country's most successful and innovative private businesses on the 
basis represented by the antitrust suit. I am pleased that the 
Justice Department has finally decided to reach a settlement in this 
case. It has been three long years.
    Microsoft has given up a lot in this settlement. It has agreed 
to make future versions of Windows easier to use non-Microsoft 
software, and it has agreed to disclose a lot of information on the 
internal operating system, which is a first as far as I know.
    I am certainly happy that government has decided to limit its 
involvement in Microsoft's business affairs, at least for now. I 
hope that continues to be so. Thank you for taking the time to read 
my opinion on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas P. Fields



MTC-00031167

01/12/2002 08:31 5413440403
JOHN KNUTSON
PAGE 01
2105 Stonecrest Drive
Eugene, Oregon 97401
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the federal government. I sincerely hope that 
no further action is being taken at the federal level.
    Taking into consideration the terms of the agreement, Microsoft 
did not get off at all. In fact, Microsoft is left to make some 
significant changes to the way that they

[[Page 29524]]

handle business. For example Microsoft has agreed to not to 
retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with Windows.
    With all of the terms of the agreement, I see no reason to 
pursue further litigation on any level. I support the settlement, 
and hope to see it enacted soon.
    Sincerely,
    John Knutson.



MTC-00031168

Jan 11 02 06:40p
De Byerly 641-421-1100
1725 So. DELAWARE AVE
MASON CITY, IA 50401
JANUARY 10, 2002
Judge Kollar Kotelly
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar Kotelly,
    In November of last year it was announced that a settlement had 
been reached in antitrust case brought by the United States against 
the Microsoft Corporation. I am writing today to ask you to support 
this proposed settlement.
    After over two long years of litigation the Department of 
Justice and nine State Attorney Generals have found a reasonable way 
to settle this case. Despite what critics may say this settlement is 
equitable because it only addresses the complaints of the case that 
have been upheld by the courts.
    It is also important to note that this agreement also created a 
mechanism by which Microsoft will be scrutinized to ensure it is 
following the agreement to the letter. Under this settlement, a 
completely independent commission will serve as watchdog. The facts 
seem simple enough. This settlement represents a workable solution 
to a tough situation. additionally, it removes the specter of 
unnecessary government interference out from over the technology 
industry. If the high tech industry is allowed to grow and flourish 
there is no doubt the benefit will flow into all American's 
pocketbooks eventually.
    Sincerely,
    De Byerly



MTC-00031169

1-11-2002 5:53PM
FROM000000000000 001
January 5, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a mother of three school-aged children, I appreciate the 
opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement with the Microsoft 
Corporation. Quite frankly, I think it is past time to settle this 
case. With our economy in recession and State government sadly 
lacking in enough revenue to fund budgetary needs, the last thing we 
need to be spending taxpayer dollars on is law suits. I understand 
that more than $30 million dollars have been spent on this case. 
That money would have been well-spent on education.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jerinda F. Mohrmann
    18280 Beaverdam Road
    Beaverdam, Virginia 23015



MTC-00031170

JAN-12-2002 05:31AM P.01/03
State of New Hampshire
House of Representatives
Concord
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Fax
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I understand that public comment is now being accepted in the 
case of U.S. v Microsoft and I want to express my support
    The government and this company have been tied up in litigation 
for years now. Millions and millions of taxpayer dollars have 
already been spent over this long time period and a good agreement 
has been designed and agreed upon by both parties. Aren't we long 
overdue to settle this case and move on?
    As a state representative, I truly believe that government 
should only intervene in the affairs of the marketplace on a very 
limited basis. The government's treatment of Microsoft has gone on 
too long and needs to come to an end. This company has made 
significant gains and should be rewarded, rather than punished, for 
their innovation and creativity. Too much of the taxpayer time and 
money has already been spent on this case.
    Please approve this settlement as quickly as possible.
    Sincerely
    Saghir Tahir
    State Representative, Hillsborough 38



MTC-00031171

FROM: THE ESTERLINGS
Fax NO.: 541 745 4422
Jan. 11 2002 02: 29PM P1
Robert E. Esterling
Esterling Vineyards
6826 NE Elliott Circle
Corvallis, OR 97330-9407
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For those who follow technology and business news, the two have 
been unfortunately linked through the US vs. Microsoft suit. The 
decline of the NASDAQ and the teetering technology market both have 
the instability of Microsoft in this suit as their source.
    The longer that the suit continues, the more damage will be done 
to the economy and to the world of technology. Special interests 
have kept this suit alive for much longer than needed. It is time 
now for the Department of Justice to put the needs of the consumer 
first by ending this suit. Microsoft has agreed to more than any 
company should be asked to do, such as opening up its intellectual 
property rights to the internal interface of its Windows operating 
system to its competitors, and agreeing to be monitored by a 
Technical Committee to which any third party may file a complaint 
against Microsoft.
    This period of public comment is a great opportunity for the 
Department of Justice to know that many people in America support 
Microsoft and want to see it succeed for the good of the economy and 
for the good of American business. The Department of Justice owes 
the American people an end to this suit and an end to its meddling 
into American business. I urge you to see that the proposed 
settlement be formalized as soon as is legally possible.
    Sincerely,
    Robert E. Esterling



MTC-00031172

Jan-11-02 05:02P P.01
OTL Consulting
January 10, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    As an independent business owner, I want to say that settling 
the Microsoft case is just the right thing to do! I understand that 
Microsoft agreed to new computer-maker flexibility and new Windows 
design obligations. Microsoft has been a remarkable American success 
story; its innovations have literally changed the way we live. 
Microsoft has created opportunities that make our lives easier and 
more efficient. Our government should not punish innovation by 
attacking companies for being successful! AOL has spent millions to 
influence the government's action from which they alone stand to 
benefit. Innovators should be rewarded for their hard work and the 
risks they take in creating growth. That growth means new jobs for 
our communities! Let's send America a strong message and settle 
these suits. By doing so, I believe we are supporting fair play and 
free enterprise.
    Thank you for your valuable time!
    Sincerely,
    Michael T. St.Clair
    1406 NW Greenwood St.
    Anleny IA 50021
    515 975 2155
    [email protected]



MTC-00031173

JAN-12-2002 03:49 AM
Granite State Enterprise
January 10, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,

[[Page 29525]]

    The government has done its job. Years ago, complaints were 
brought against Microsoft which turned into one of our country's 
biggest, most ominous, and wide-ranging anti-trust lawsuits. The 
Justice Department and state attorneys general saw the case through 
the gauntlet and now Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has worked with 
both sides to negotiate a settlement proposal.
    The fiscal outlook for this year is grim. Unemployment is up. 
Wages are falling. Sales are down across the board. Americans have 
battened down the hatches. One of the most significant pieces of 
housekeeping we can take care of is the U.S. versus Microsoft case.
    The continued success of the technology industry is one of the 
best things we've got going here in America. It employs thousands of 
people and every day new innovations are brought to fruition. The 
long-term health of the tech sector is one of the most important 
components of our economy, with more than one-third of America's 
economic growth between ``95 and ``00 coming from IT 
alone.
    Instead of trying to knock Microsoft to its knees so that its 
competitors get a leg up, why not let everyone flourish in a 
competitive marketplace? Microsoft has been tried. Now is the time 
to close this case and move on. I hope the settlement agreement will 
be adopted. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy P. Buckley
    Executive Director
    287 Canal Street, Suite One
    Manchester, NH 03101
    603-668-5772



MTC-00031174

01/11/2002 03:01 8046981803 HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS PAGE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
VINCEMT F. CALLAHAN JR
BANKING
6220 NELWAY DRIVE
P.O. DRAWER 1173
MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22101
THIRTY-FOURTH DISTRICT
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
APPROPRIATIONS (CO-CHAIRMAN)
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
CORPORATIONS INSURANCE AND RULES
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a strong supporter of the settlement the government and 
Microsoft reached and hope you will resist the efforts of the 
competitors to try to continue their efforts to destroy this great 
company.
    Microsoft's crime is that they have been successful and 
apparently a few Attorney Generals and competitors want to curtail 
this success.
    The centerpiece of Virginia's economy is the Northern Virginia 
regions high-tech industry. A sad message is being sent to them that 
they had better watch out and don't become too successful or their 
own enterprise is in peril.
    One would be naive to think all of the business practices of 
Microsoft are without blemish. It is just as incomprehensible to 
think that a foxed attempt to destroy one of the most successful 
companies on this planet would be anything less than criminal in and 
of itself.
    I believe the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise. 
Furthermore, settlement is good for the consumers, for high-tech 
industry and for our economy overall, If you have any questions, 
please do not hesitate to contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Vincent F. Callahan, Jr.
    DISTRICT: (703) 356.1925
    FAX (703) 356-9614
    RICHMOND (804) 698-1034



MTC-00031175

AGAPE
In Home Care, Inc.
Quality Christian Assisted Living
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to urge you to support the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. While I believe that many 
of the allegations raised by the lawsuit against Microsoft may have 
merit, it is time to shift the focus of the Department of Justice 
and our tax dollars to other priorities.
    While the proposed settlement is not a home run for any of the 
interested parties, it does have a little bit of something in it for 
everybody while maintaining its overall balance. One way that you 
can tell that the settlement is balanced is the fact that nobody is 
very happy with the proposed settlement.
    Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you would 
like more information.
    Thank you,
    Sandra Oxford
    Founder, Agape In Home Care, Inc
    4800 District Blvd., Suite A,
    Bakersfield, CA 93313
    (661) 835-0364
    FAX (661) 835-1561



MTC-00031176

Jan 14 02 07:00p
337 234 5535
SENATE
State of Louisiana
P.O. Box 86372
Lafayette, LA 70598-0872
Telephone (337)262-1332
Fax. (337) 233-4610
Vice-Chairman-Commerce
Judiciary A
Natural Resources
Mike Michot
District 23
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms.Hesse:
    It's my opinion that the technology of our economy had a greater 
impact in the past two decades than any other sector. The 
competition and innovation resulted in great strides in health care, 
business, government and many other important areas.
    After a slight dip, our economy seems to be on the move again. A 
settlement in this ongoing case would be another step in that 
important recovery. The settlement is appropriate as it addresses 
those items upheld by the courts and provides for fair and equitable 
remedies. We do not need governements lawyers, bureaucrats and 
judges watching and micro managing the technology industry. We 
should encourage Microsoft and its competitors to take the fight to 
the consumers and let them decide.
    I appreciate your consideration of my views on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J.Michot Louisiana State Senate--District 23



MTC-00031177

JAN-14-2002 16:53 SENATOR FOSTER 573 526 1384 P.01/01
MISSOURI SENATE
JEFFERSON CITY
BILL FOSTER
SENATE POST OFFICE
1328 County RD 442
POPULAR BLUFF, MO 63901
STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 328
JEFFERSON Cl-W. MISSOURI 65101
TELEPHONE (573) 751-3859
FAX (573) 526-1384
TDD (573) 751-3969
TOLL FREE (877) 291-5584
E-MAIL: [email protected]
January 15, 2002
1328 County Rd 442
POPLAR BLUFF, MO 63901
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
    Washington DC, 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the recently reached settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice, The 
agreement is pro-consumer helping the technology sector of our 
economy contribute new and better jobs at this time of economic 
uncertainty. This settlement brings to an end the most disruptive 
competitor-driven antitrust campaign in our nation's history. This 
is something all consumers can celebrate.
    Sincerely,
    Senator Bill Foster



MTC-00031178

01/14/02 16:45
FAX 8476472225 DDI INC 01
1721 Mission Hills Road
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 29526]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you concerning the recent 
developments in the antitrust suit settlement. I am thoroughly 
aggravated to find that, after three years of negotiations, the 
agreement is still being delayed. Not only was the negotiation 
process well thought out, but was extremely well monitored. The 
results are fair and reasonable and should be used as the guideline 
for moving our technology industry forward.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to rework licensing and marketing 
agreements, but also it has agreed to design future versions of 
Windows that will better accommodate non-Microsoft software. In 
fact, the terms of this agreement do a great deal to promote non-
Microsoft software. This is certainly proof that Microsoft is acting 
in the interest of the entire technology industry.
    Adopting this settlement, in its current form can only be 
beneficial to the consumer, the IT sector, and the economy as a 
whole. I urge you to help stop any further litigation against this 
agreement.
    Sincerely,
    John M. Mack



MTC-00031179

    Jan-14-02 04:59P Rep. Maurice Lawson 573 522 5025 P.01
CAPITOL ADDRESS
State Capitol
201 West Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City. MO 65101-6806
Tele: 573-751-9460
FAX: 573-522-5O75
[email protected]
HOME ADDRESS
3109 Christie Lane
St. Joseph, M0 64504
COMMITTEES
    Chairman: Environment and Energy
    Member: Appropriations-Transportation; Conservation State Parks 
and Mining; Fiscal Review and Government Reform; Tourism Recreation 
& Cultural Affairs
    MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    MAURICE LAWSON
    State Representative
    District 29
    Disrict Contacts:
    Helen Weigman
    Adminstrative Assistant
    Tele/Fax: 816-640-5337
    Craig Carver
    Legislative Liaison
    816-640-5757
    14 January 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney, Anti-Trust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a member of the Missouri Legislature, I want to express my 
support for the Microsoft settlement.
    I have continued to monitor this case from the beginning and 
have been fairly critica1 of the case against Microsoft. Based upon 
my personal opposition, I believe this agreement is a reasonable and 
fair compromise for both Microsoft and Department of Justice. 
Microsoft has been extremely innovative and productive in addressing 
consumer needs, which have spurred billions in economic growth over 
the last decade. Given the current downturn in the U.S. economy, we 
should be encouraging companies like Microsoft to set new goals and 
achievements. For this reason, I hope you will agree to this 
reasonable settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice Lawson
    State Representative
    District 29



MTC-00031180

Jan-14-02 04:58P
Rep. Maurice Lawson 573 522 5025 P.01
CAPITOL ADDRESS
State Capitol
201 West Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101-8806
Tele: 573-751-9460
FAX: 573-527-5025
E-Mail: [email protected]
HOME ADDRESS
3709 Christie Lane
St. Joseph. MO 64504
COMMITEES
Chairman: Environment and Energy
    Member: Appropriations--Transportation; Conservation, State 
Parks and Mining; Fiscal Review and Government Reform; Tourism, 
Recreation & Cultural Affairs.
    MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    MAURICE LAWSON
    State Representative
    District 29
    District Contacts:
    Helen Weigman
    Administrative Assistant
    Tele/Fax: 816-640-5337
    Craig Carver
    Legislative Liaison
    816-640-5757
    14 January 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney, Anti-Trust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a member of the Missouri Legislative, I want to express my 
support for the Microsoft settlement. I have continued to monitor 
this case from the beginning and have been fairly critical of the 
case against Microsoft. Based upon my personal opposition, I believe 
this agreement is a reasonable and fair compromise for both 
Microsoft and Department of justice. Microsoft has been extremely 
innovative and productive in addressing consumer needs, which have 
spurred billions in economic growth over the last decade. Given the 
current downturn in the US. economy, we should be encouraging 
companies like Microsoft to set new goals and achievements. For this 
reason, I hope you will agree to this reasonable settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice Lawson
    State Representative
    District 29



MTC-00031181

Kern County Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce
Renata Hersse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Microsoft is being amply reprimanded and reigned in with the 
settlement reached. It is our understanding that under the Tunney 
Act, the public has sixty days to provide input for consideration by 
the parties involved regarding this settlement.
    While we appreciate the idea of the government looking after the 
best interests of its citizens, nearly four years, $35 million 
dollars and the terms of the settlement are enough. It is more than 
time for this issue to be put to rest.
    We strongly urge you to support the settlement. Please take the 
actions neccessary to keep the process rolling to get the settlement 
through all the channels and put in place.
    Sincerely,
    Lou Gomez, Executive Director
    Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    1401 19th St., Suite 110
    Bakerfield, CA 93301
    661-633-5495



MTC-00031182

CHAMBER
October 25, 2001
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
1700 Montgomery Street Suite 240
San Francisco, CA 94111
    Dear Senator Boxer:
    The Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, an organization 
that represents 1,500 businesses and over 53,000 employees in the 
Bakersfield area would like to express our concerns with the on-
going litigation against Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has 
revolutionized the way America, and the world does business.
    In particular view of the current downturn in the economy at a 
national level it seems reasonable to assume that the Federal 
Government would be supportive of a company that is contributing so 
significantly in terms of economic stability. Punative measures now 
being directed towards Microsoft can only deplete their resources 
and ability to produce and compete in the global market.
    The business community has always cooperated with and worked in 
conjunction with government to serve the best interests of this 
nation. We ask that you take our concerns into consideration when 
negotiating terms that ultimately could be detrimental to not only 
Microsoft, but also the entire business community at large.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Frank
    President/CEO
    Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
    We are members of the Chamber, but disagree w/their position.
    1725 Eye Street
    P.O. Box 1947,
    Bakersfield, CA 93303
    Tel 661.327.4421

[[Page 29527]]

    Fax 661.227.8751
    http://www.bakersfield.org/chamber - send email



MTC-00031183

    I beleive you should keep prosectuing MICROSOFT. Stop Spending 
Our Tax Dollars! Antitrust law shouldn't be abused! The pursuit of 
Microsoft through antitrust and class action Iawsuits is no way 
fragile economy.
    The federal government has spent $35 million tax dollars with 
their lawsuit against Microsoft. During these turbulent times, we 
should focus our attention on other priorities.
    Keep it up.
    Join your chamber & others around the state. Copy the 
attached letter on your letterhead and send your letter to:
    Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Divison, Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Fax: 202-616-9937
    Fax my thoughts to her
    Please fax a copy to PG Communications/ATL at (916) 
737-1809
    Phil Gaskill
    GASKILL CUSTOM HOMES



MTC-00031184

FROM: LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION
FAX NO. : 3253135
Jan. 14 2002 03:55PM P1
734400 Mamalahoa Hwy.
Kailua Kona, HI 96740-9191
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For three years, I have been absolutely befuddled as to why the 
federal government is so interested in attacking American free 
enterprise. Microsoft is a company that makes a product that 
benefits the lives of practically every person in America, and every 
person on the Earth. Their great contribution tothe world of 
computers knows no rival, and they have been duly rewarded for their 
market and technical genius.
    The case against Microsoft never should have come to trial. It 
has been an embarrassment to both the American judicial system and 
to American business for three long years. People everywhere are 
getting wise to the fact that the case against Microsoft was 
motivated by greed and jealously and envy and sloth more than 
anything remotely substantial.
    Forcing Microsoft to do all the tedious parts of the proposed 
settlement i.e. making retaliation against competitors impossible 
will only serve to slow progress in the IT industry. Microsoft and 
its competitors must all be on a level playing field as a result of 
this suit. Unfortunately, that won't be the case. The government is 
stripping Microsoft of rights needed for business survival, 
including competing.
    The Department of Justice must close this case before any 
further damage can be done to Microsoft, and ultimately, the 
economy. American business deserves a speedy end to these three 
years of painful litigation. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Julie Hayward



MTC-00031185

Jan 15 02 10:33a 9416430207 p.1
181 West Street
Naples, FL 34108-2907
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Why should litigation still be pursued against the Microsoft 
Corporation despite the fact that a settlement has been reached? 
There is no good reason.
    Microsoft has been neither too harshly nor too lightly punished. 
Tithe complaints of its competitors have been addressed and dealt 
with. Microsoft, for example, has agreed to reformat future versions 
of Windows so that its competitors will be able to introduce non-
Microsoft software into the Windows operating system. In addition, 
Microsoft has agreed to make available to its competitors any 
protocols used in the Windows operating system and its related 
products to interoperate natively with any Microsoft server. I 
believe this is a fair settlement. Microsoft does not need to be 
examined any further in regards to antitrust violations. I believe 
that the Department of Justice has done its duty in the Microsoft 
antitrust case and that no additional measures need be taken on the 
federal level. Nine states are actively seeking to overturn the 
agreement once the review is over. I do not believe such a course of 
action is necessary.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Zorina Wrenn



MTC-00031186

TROUTMAN SANDERS MAYS & VALENTINE LLP--ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
1111 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219
www.troutmansanders.com
TELEPHONE: 804-697-1200
FACSIMILE: 804-697-1339
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 1122
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23216-1122
Mark L. Earley
[email protected]
Direct Dial: 804-697-1212
January 7,2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Having served as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia from January of 1997 until June of 2001, I watched the 
Government's case with Microsoft unfold and progress through the 
court system. I write to let you know that I believe that the 
current settlement pending is in the best interest of the nation, 
the best interest of the industry, and the best interest of 
consumers. The settlement strikes a balance between placing 
sanctions on Microsoft while preserving the company and its ability 
to innovate and market its products. The sanctions chosen will 
protect consumers and give them greater choice when they purchase 
and enhance their computers yet at the same time foster greater 
competition within the software industry. I believe it is a just and 
fair resolution to all parties concerned.
    I write to express my support of the Department of Justice and 
the Attorneys General for their efforts to finally put an end to 
this case and agree to a settlement that is in our nation's best 
interest.
    Sincerely yours,
    Mark L. Earley
    1263/451/1020628



MTC-00031187

LAWRENCE G. TOWNSEND, Attorney at Law
Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition Law
455 MARKET STREET, 19TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
(415) 882-3288
Fax (415) 882-3299
email [email protected]
December 14, 200l
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement: United States v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Taking up the public's right to comment on the Microsoft 
Settlement (as required by the Tunney Act), I write in three 
capacities: (1) an intellectual property attorney, (2) a consumer of 
software products, and (3) a novelist. As to the latter, I've 
written a novel entitled Secrets of the Wholly Grill (publication 
February 2002, Carroll & Graf) \1\ on the subject of a 
software monopolist's behavior and the consequences if that behavior 
is not adequately checked. Based on my experience, a review of the 
Proposed Final Judgment and having given considerable thought to the 
behavior of a software monopolist,\2\ I believe that a License 
Committee, similar in nature to the Technical Committee, should be 
created and implemented, all as is more fully explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subtitled A Novel About Cravings, Barbecue, and 
Software; additional information, including excerpts, may be found 
at www.whollygrill.com (January 2002).
    \2\ The value of novelists in assisting the legal system 
in gauging justice, especially where human behavior is at issue, 
cannot be underestimated. Examples abound. When our nation and 
lawmakers adopted the Thirteenth Amendment, no amount of data or 
reports from slave trade analysts came close to the distilled 
accuracy of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the novel-which in hindsight can stand in as an amicus brief-
a hypothetical company by the name of ThinkSoft monopolizes the 
market for operating systems and software for artificial 
intelligence called ``reason ware'' that is used by 
everyone for all manner of decision-making. It then leverages its 
market power to expand into a new market-outdoor

[[Page 29528]]

cooking information systems (whose predecessor market was backyard 
barbecue grills). In so doing, ThinkSoft engages in a wide range of 
anti-competitive,high-handed and sharp practices that harm consumers 
financially, physically and emotionally.
    There are many illuminating parallels between Microsoft and 
ThinkSoft. By way of example, the following events in the story 
should be self-explanatory. In entering the new market, ThinkSoft 
bundles its trade secret-protected barbecue sauce with the hardware, 
and consumers are forbidden under the strict end user license 
agreement from using any other sauce. Competitors don't stand a 
chance. When an end user bastes with another sauce or attempts to 
use the proprietary sauce on a competitive grill, not just a crash 
occurs; rather, physical violence, among other harms, is visited 
upon the end user.
    In moving aggressively into new and unanticipated markets-the 
latter being a hallmark of the software industry-ThinkSoft proves to 
be a mindless market-eating machine. Thus, in expanding into the 
outdoor cooking market, ThinkSoft metes out punishment to its 
competitors and abuses ever-hungry consumers, all with the design 
and effect of capturing, maintaining and exploiting its ill-gotten 
dominance in that market.
    The centerpiece of ThinkSoft's abusive conduct is its licensing 
practices. The Wholly Grill End User License Agreement is attached 
to the amicus brief as Exhibit A,pages 335 to 336. Here follows a 
telling excerpt:
    1. The Company grants you a non-exclusive worldwide perpetual 
license, unless sooner terminated as provided herein, to use and 
operate the Information System, but only as delimited by this 
License Agreement.
    2. You will only use the Information System when connected by 
the Information System modem to the proprietary outdoor cooking 
information and control server hosted by the Company, namely, the 
Wholly WAN(Wide Area Network) Optimization of Research and 
Development (``the Wholly WORD''). In no event shall the 
Company be responsible for your inability to connect with the Wholly 
WORD or any interruption of service you may experience, including 
loss or spoliation of meats, fish anther perishables.
    3. You agree to use Wholly Grill Outdoor Cooking Information 
System Barbecue Sauce with Smoke Crystals(``the Information 
Sauce'') and only the Information Sauce in connection with your 
operation of the Information System and no other sauce or 
marinade,whether purchased or homemade. Use of any sauce other than 
the Information Sauce, or use of the Information Sauce on any system 
other than the Information System, could result in injury or death 
for which the Company cannot be held responsible.
    ThinkSoft requires its end users to obtain grill control server 
services from ThinkSoft's proprietary Wholly WORD; the latter 
(analogous to a Microsoft Middleware Product as defined in the 
Judgment albeit a service, not a product) switches on and calibrates 
the cooking process. The end user is not permitted to obtain those 
services from any other provider. Is the Wholly WORD an integral 
part of a seamless outdoor cooking information system, or is it part 
of an illegal tying arrangement? And what about the bundling of the 
sauce with the system? Such questions require a great deal of 
factual analysis and are no doubt subject to numerous claims and 
defenses, especially in a technologically dynamic market (as all 
agree exists in the Microsoft case). But what, if anything, in the 
Final Judgment gives plaintiffs the teeth to prevent currently 
unforeseen but abusive licensing practices of the type intended to 
be controlled by the Judgment?
    The point is that at least one major component of Microsoft's 
licensing scheme-its end user license agreement-is entirely omitted 
from regulation by the Final Judgment. The only licenses affected by 
the proposed settlement are those with OEMs,IAPs, ICPs, ISVs and 
IHVs as those businesses are defined in the Final Judgment.
    The settling parties would claim that unlawful tying has not 
been determined, and that the issue of whether Microsoft unlawfully 
tied Internet Explorer with Windows was remanded to the trial court 
for further trial proceedings. Except for the limited controls 
placed on Microsoft's dealings with those listed above, Microsoft 
has virtually unfettered discretion, by and through its end user 
agreements, to require contractual terms such as those found in the 
ThinkSoft license-terms that are exclusionary and that may serve to 
artificially maintain its operating system monopoly while allowing 
it to unfairly leverage into new markets. Microsoft has been and 
will continue to be endlessly inventive in the way it advantageously 
and unfairly licenses its products and services.
    Hence, in addition to the Technical Committee described in the 
Final Judgment, I propose a License Committee to be formed much like 
the Technical Committee and that would have oversight of any 
licenses or license terms inconsistent with both the letter and the 
spirit of the Final Judgment. The License Committee would 
investigate complaints from competitors, industry and consumers, 
consider Microsoft's permissible business objectives, and then 
proceed in a manner analogous to the Technical Committee. It would 
help prevent Microsoft from accomplishing indirectly through its end 
user agreements (or any other licenses) that which it is expressly 
forbidden from doing with the licensees specified in the Judgment. 
The License Committee could never interfere with any activity 
Microsoft characterizes as innovation. Creative licensing that 
effects an end-around the Final Judgment isn't innovation; it's 
legal weaseling.
    Another reason to form a License Committee is to at least have 
the semblance of punishment for the pernicious conduct found to have 
occurred. Microsoft is a predator, an impermissible monopolist in 
the software market, yet the Final Judgment proposes no punishment. 
If Microsoft perceives this as punishment, then all the better; it 
is far less and avoids the complexities of a structural remedy. 
Oversight from a License Committee is not much punishment, but 
Microsoft has demonstrated that on the unlevel playing field it 
alone unlawfully created, a ``playground supervisor'' is 
needed. Otherwise, make-nice behavioral controls, promulgated by 
well-meaning Microsofties, will once again prove to be bootless. 
Stated differently, a remedy that includes no punishment is no 
remedy at all;its remedial effect is a fiction that, if written into 
a novel, would be dismissed as implausibly lenient.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Lawrence G. Townsend
    cc: Thomas W. Burt; John Warden, Esq.; State Attorneys General 
of New York, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Illinois, 
Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Minnesota, New Mexico,North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, 
Virginia and Wisconsin



MTC-00031188

3803 Drexel Court
Louisville, KY 40241
December 9, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Person:
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement for the 
following 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 Microsoft still has non-trivial 
competition.
    (2) The settlement is not punitive. The cost of providing 
software is negligible 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.
    Sincerely,
    Lee Larson



MTC-00031189

North Pathology Associates, PLLP
North Mem la, Medical Center
3300 Oakdale Avenue North
Robbinsdale, MN 55422-2900
768-520-5525
Pathologists:
Virginia Dale, M.D.
Peter J. Benson, M.D.
Sue Schlafmann. M.D.
Laura Schmitz M.D.
Brad Brown M.D.
Betty Olivares-Pakzad M.D.
Eric Kehrberg M.D.
November 21, 2001
Re: the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am taking the time to write to express my deepest concern 
regarding the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft Corporation. To get right to the point, the settlement 
which has been

[[Page 29529]]

proposed is a conduct remedy (and a backward-looking, weak one at 
that) which is inappropriate and wholly inadequate for a company 
which has only shown contempt and disregard for similar conduct 
restrictions in the past.I need not remind you that Microsoft signed 
a consent decree in 1995 that prohibited them from tying application 
software to their monopoly operating system software, which they 
promptly and completely disregarded in their efforts to drive a 
smaller and genuinely innovative competitor (Netscape)out of 
business.They did so knowingly and unrepentantly, and despite being 
found in violation of antitrust law by both the district and 
appellate courts for this, they now astoundingly face no penalty of 
any sort for their actions.----
    With this history, why on earth would anyone expect Microsoft to 
abide by the new conduct restrictions in the proposed settlement? 
What reason has the Department of Justice given Microsoft to fear 
disregarding these new restrictions in the very same way they 
ignored the previous ones? Indeed, they have already pressed 
forward,trying even more of their own proprietary application 
software into WindowsXP than ever before, while excluding popular 
formats (such as MP3) and middleware (such as Java).
    The argument that this is somehow the best that the Department 
of Justice can hope for given it's limited resources is either 
disingenuous or deeply disturbing. The Court of Appeals did not say 
that the remedy of splitting Microsoft into two companies was 
inappropriate, only that it needed to be reexamined by the district 
court in light of apparent prejudice by Judge Jackson. Such a remedy 
has been amply demonstrated in earlier cases(such as Standard Oil 
and AT+T) to be remarkably effective in curbing monopolistic 
practices while allowing competition as well as the divided 
monopolist to flourish. If the Department of Justice,representing 
the very people of the United States, truly cannot persevere through 
one more stage of this case for financial or political or any other 
reasons, then the rule of law itself is at risk.
    Let me make clear that I have no financial interest in the 
outcome of this case; I am not a disappointed competitor of 
Microsoft, nor has this letter been drafted by some PR firm for me 
to sign. I am simply a citizen who knows and enjoys computers and 
who appreciates true innovation and fair competition, both of which 
I feel will be greatly imperiled in the future under the conditions 
of this wholly insufficient proposed settlement.
    If you would like to contact me for any reason, please feel free 
to do so at the telephone number or address above.
    Sincerely yours,
    Peter Benson MD



MTC-00031190

JAN 15 2002 12:21PM HILTON, INC. 850-230-4092 p.1
Paradise Found
RESORTS HOTELS
11127 Front Beach Road * Panama City Beach, FL 32407
Office (850) 233-4824 * FAX (850) 235-0888
January 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Fax: 202-616-9937
Fax: 202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a business owner, suffering through a serious recession, I am 
writing to let you know that I support the Microsoft settlement. The 
business community I operate in has been suffering due to a weak 
economy. Too many jobs have been lost and scores of business owners 
have had to close down. A significant reason among others this is 
taking place is due to the troubled tech sector.
    When the technology industry fell on difficult times, it passed 
on to other sectors and affected many people. Microsoft, a company 
that was in the forefront during the great economic expansion, also 
suffered because of this decline, and the lawsuit against them did 
not help at all. The settlement that has been reported in the news 
seems to be even and balanced; it builds new relations with software 
developers and creates a new, uniform price list.
    I strongly believe that the troubled tech sector as well as our 
economy will better rebound because of this agreement.Thank you for 
taking the time to read my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Julie K. Hilton



MTC-00031192

JAN-15-2002 12:10 GUILD OF ST. AGNES 508 754 2026 P.01
Administrative Offices
133 Granite Street * Worcester, MA 01604
(508) 755-2238 fax: (508) 754-2026
www.guildofstagnes.org
GUILD OF ST. AGNES
CHILD CARE PROGRAMS
Since 1913
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft caseAs the Executive Director of a non-profit childcare 
agency, I use Microsoft products daily and they have been of great 
help to me and my staff. They have allowed my staff to become more 
self-sufficient.
    The fact is that the proposed settlement will benefit groups 
like mine who would qualify to receive Microsoft products if the 
settlement survives in its present state.In my opinion I have not 
been harmed by any actions taken by Microsoft. In fact,Microsoft's 
innovations have helped many small agencies such as mine.
    I hope that we end this lawsuit and approve the settlement.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Edward P. Madaus
    Executive Director
    Center Locations: Ayer * Bellingham * Gardner * Granite Street, 
Worcester * Grove Street,Worcester * Lincoln Street, Worcester
    Family Child Care Location: Devens * Spencer * Whitinsville * 
Worcester



MTC-00031193

1-15-2002 12:12PM FROM 000000000000 P. 1 NO.067 P001/001
POWER GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS --> 000000000000
Christopher B. Rivers
2100 Stuart Avenue
Richmond, VA 23220
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have read through the list of settlement provisions with 
regard to the Microsoft case, and find several of them quite 
compelling. For Example;
--The agreement to license Windows to the 20 largest computer 
manufacturers at the same terms, conditions and price;
--The agreement that consumers will have the freedom to choose 
to change their Windows configuration at any time and will be ableto 
add non-Microsoft software if they wish; and
--The agreement that to monitor compliance, a three-
personTechnical Committee will be established.
    I find these provisions to be good examples of why this 
settlement will be one that works.
    Sincerely yours
    Christopher Rivers



MTC-00031194

JAN-15-2002 10:21 M B I WORCESTER 508 799 4039 P.01/01
MBI (MASSACHUSETTS BIOMEDICAL INITIATIVES)
January 14, 2002
Atty. Reneta Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Case
Via Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the goal set forth in the 
proposed settlement of theMicrosoft antitrust case,
    As part of that settlement, Microsoft is proposing the donation 
of approximately 200,000computers to public school students 
throughout the country. Recent research suggeststhat the digital 
divide that exists along economic lines have an adverse impact 
onstudents, schools and educational opportunity. Currently, 82% of 
schools in affluentcommunities are connected to the Internet. That 
number drops to 60% of the classroomsin poorer communities.
    The New York Times recently reported that 88% of households 
whose income is $75,000or higher had a computer. This number drops 
dramatically for households with incomebelow $25,000. The need is 
documented and in my opinion can be partially remediedwithin this 
particular case settlement. Thus, my support of the specific goal of 
thesettlement which will provide students and teachers within these 
lower income areasaccess to both technology and computers.
    Our Biomedical industry is fueled by brainpower along with the 
technology ``know

[[Page 29530]]

how''to create life science products. This particular 
settlement agreement I believe goes a longway in helping us continue 
to accomplish this goal. Thank you for your careful reviewand 
hopeful consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin O'Sullivan
    Vice President Development
    25 Winthrop Street.
    Worcester, MA 01604
    Tel: 508-797-4200
    Fax: 508-799-4039



MTC-00031195

JAN 15'02 10;45AM CATALINA SPA P.l
KEITH D. & SUZANNE S. DODGE
125 RAINBOW DRIVE, #2507
LIVINGSTON, TEXAS 77399-1025
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20330
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    Like many people in Texas, I am happy that a settlement 
agreement has beenreached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. The suit has taken atoll on the IT industry and on 
consumers of technology products.
    The settlement agreement is fair to all the parties in the case 
and is the result ofyears of expensive litigation. Information 
sharing and non-retaliation agreementsshould be enough to satisfy 
even Microsoft's harshest critics. Unfortunately,opponents of 
Microsoft would like to see the lawsuit continue and even bereopened 
for further action. Three years of litigation have already disturbed 
the ITindustry and the economy too much. Reopening the suit and 
continuing litigationwill only serve to harm the IT industry and the 
economy.
    Now is the time to end the suit and move on. Surely, the 
Department of Justicehas more important issues to deal with and 
Microsoft needs to move on as well. Ihope that the settlement is 
finalized as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Suzanne Dodge



MTC-00031196

From : FULL CIRCLE BUILDING SERVICES FAX NO. : 
812-945-2637
Jan. 15 2002 02:33PM Pl
Full Circle
Building Services
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I would like to see your officesettle its 
ongoing antitrust case against Microsoft. Thematter has dragged on 
too long, and the current settlementagreement seems fair to all 
involved parties.
    Rather than bowing down to pressures by competitorswho are 
acting like crybabies, the Justice Departmentshould recognize that 
the settlement promotes healthycompetition and will allow Microsoft 
to focus on itsbusiness again, which is especially important given 
thecurrently depressed economy. The case continues to costAmerican 
taxpayers a lot of money with little result, andit is time to move 
on to more important problems.
    The settlement really holds Microsoft's feet to the 
fire.Microsoft, in a first for any antitrust settlement, willrelease 
the internal interfaces to its Windows operatingsystem. Microsoft 
will make available to competitors anyprotocols for native 
interoperation with any Windows serveroperating systems. These are 
the keys to the kingdom,Attorney General Ashcroft. In order to get 
this casebehind it, and get on, Microsoft agreed to these 
generousterms.
    I am in favor of settling your office's suit againstMicrosoft. 
It will let everyone get back to business assoon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Barbercheck
    1687 Terry Lane
    New Alabny, Indiana
    (812) 945-2637



MTC-00031197

MONTGOMERY COLLEGE
Germantown Campus
Student Development/Counseling Center
20200 Observation Drive
Germantown, MD 20876
30l-353-7734
Phone: 202 307-1454
Fax phone: 301-353-1985
REMARKS: Urgent For your review Reply ASAP Please comment
RICHARD L. BERGLUND
129 Lynnmoor Drive
Silver Spring, MD 2O90l-1516
Telephone 301-681-8153
[email protected]
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After considerable time and money, the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft havereached an agreement ending the three-year-long 
antitrust case against Microsoft. Iwant to give my support to this 
agreement and ask that you do also.
    Personally, I do not think the case against Microsoft was 
warranted. The suit in myopinion, was the only way left for 
Microsoft's competitors to ``clip'' Microsoft's 
wings,having failed to compete successfully with the Microsoft in 
the open market. I useMicrosoft, but when I walk into a store and 
make a choice, I do so freely. I can chooseother software packages, 
but choose Microsoft because it works.
    Anyone who is in the computer industry today has to be very 
quick and very smart.Bill Gates was simply smarter and quicker. 
Technology today changes so quickly; aprogram is obsolete by the 
time it gets on the shelf. What will the competitors ofMicrosoft do 
if some other firm out-performs them. Will every successful company 
befaced with a lawsuit from their competitors as a way to keep them 
in line? If this is so,I would image the Department of Justice will 
be kept pretty busy.
    The agreement reached did not let Microsoft off easy. Microsoft 
has to configure theirWindows'' software programs as to permit 
the insertion of non-Microsoft programs;Microsoft has also agreed to 
disclose source codes for their Windows'' operating 
systemproducts. Microsoft has even agreed to a technical committee 
to monitor futureactions.
    Frankly if I were Bill Gates I would move the entire Microsoft 
operation to BritishColumbia. Perhaps he would then have a 
governmental/ legal system that realizes thebenefit to the national 
economy of Bill Gates and Microsoft.
    Do not punish success. Give your support to this agreement. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Berglund



MTC-00031198

FROM : KAY LOPATA FAX NO. : Jan. 15 2002 02:22PM P1
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 12, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I am writing you with concern over 
therecent settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. I wassurprised to find out that, after three years of 
negotiations. there may be evenmore delays in the process. After 
such a well thought out, well monitorednegotiation process, one 
would think that it is time to move on. Let us getour technology 
industry back to business and allow the government to focuson more 
important issues.
    As our economy suffers, our technology industry takes a back 
seat inthis highly competitive global market. Awaiting more scrutiny 
of thissettlement, only delays our IT sector in getting back to 
business with theany concessions that Microsoft has made, all 
parties of the IT sector areready to move forward, but there are 
those who are still trying to hold upthe process. Let us not step on 
our own toes. Let us support the settlementthat we have been trying 
to make happen for so long.
    I urge you to not hold up this process any longer. Help us 
support thisagreement as it is, so we can move on and get back to 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Kay Lopata
    P.O. Box 233
    Wycombe, PA 18980
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031199

12023071454 p.01
RELCOMInc.
2221 Yew Street
Forest Grove, OR
FROM: Mr. Maris Graube
97116 USA
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft
COMPANY: Department of Justice
Tel: 503-357-5607 x102
Fax: 503-357-0491
[email protected]
DATE: 15-Jan-02
FAX: 202-307-1454
No. of pages 1

[[Page 29531]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust case settlement. From 
my perspective, the sooner thelitigation isconcluded, the better. I 
work in the technology industry. In my business, we benefit daily 
fromproductinnovations made by Microsoft and the standards they set 
in how we communicate via ourcomputer software. Iwould like to see 
this matter resolved so Microsoft is able to continue developing 
superiorproducts as they haveconsistently done in the past. It makes 
little sense to continue to burden the court system andMicrosoft 
with thislitigation. It appears to me that the parties have 
participated in extensive negotiations, and havearrived at 
asettlement agreement that is fair.
    The agreement calls for many concessions on Microsoft's part. 
Microsoft will not retaliate againstthose whopromote or distribute 
Microsoft's competitors'' software. They have also agreed not 
to enforcetheir intellectualproperty rights. Additionally, a three 
person technical committee will monitor Microsoft'scompliance with 
theterms of the agreement. The agreement goes well beyond what is 
necessary to address thecomplaints made byMicrosoft's wanna-be 
competitors. No further delay in the settlement process is warranted 
orjustified.
    I believe Microsoft has been a force for public good. Where else 
can you buy millions of lines ofcomputer codefor as little as they 
charge? Who else has the ability to effectively set computer 
standards?Without Microsoft,we would still be in the dark ages when 
it was not possible to exchange computer documents orvarious 
datawithout employing a legion of programmers.
    Sincerely,
    Maris Graube
    President
    2221 Yew Street
    Forest Grove, OR 97116



MTC-00031200

01/15/02 12:48 FAX 908 771 1985 BOC MURRAY HILL EDI SVCS 001
39 Mayflower Drive
Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
DepartmentJustice is welcome, in that it allows Microsoft to return 
to business theway it should be. After three years of litigation, 
the technologyindustry and the economy have felt the impact of this 
litigation. Withthe current recession, it is of apparent and great 
importance that thisissue be resolved with great haste.
    The settlement contains many concessions on behalf ofMicrosoft. 
Microsoft has agreed to disclose to its competitors theinternal 
interfaces of its operating system. Further, Microsoft hasagreed to 
grant computer makers rights to configure Windows as topromote non-
Microsoft programs that compete with programsincluded within 
Windows.
    Obviously, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to settle 
thisissue. It is time that this issue is finally laid to rest.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen West



MTC-00031201

Jan 15 02 12:llp LANSOURCE INC 9725781061 P. 1
SOURCE
704 East Central Parkway, Suite 1218
Plano, Texas 75074
Tel (972) 612-l690
 Fax: (972) 578-l061
January 15, 2002
Attorney General. John Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    After three years of litigation, The Justice Department has 
attempted to close thelong, drawn-out saga of the antitrust suit 
against Microsoft. Microsoft reached asettlement regarding the suit 
that is more than fair. To carry on any further litigation willonly 
slow the delivery of advanced technology to the market. The reality 
of thetechnology sector right now is that it needs to be motivated 
so we all can get back tobusiness.
    It is necessary to settle this suit to gain back consumer 
confidence. Thesettlement instructs Microsoft to provide some 
concessions for its competitors. Microsofthas agreed to the 
establishment of a three-person ``Technical Committee'' 
that willmonitor its observance of the settlement. Microsoft must 
also provide information aboutthe development of its products.
    It is necessary to realize that this country is based on a free 
market and capitalism,and by settling this suit we can get back to 
this. The technology industry has alreadybeen delayed for to long 
from moving ahead. Stop all action at the federal level and workto 
finalize this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Clifford M. Ward
    President



MTC-00031202

DDI INC
DDI, Inc.
6201 W. Howard Street
Niles, Illinois 60714
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you concerning the recent 
developments inthe antitrust suit settlement I am thoroughly 
aggravated to find that, after three years ofnegotiations, the 
agreement is still being delayed. Not only was the negotiation 
processwell thought out, but was extremely well monitored. The 
results are fair and reasonableand should be used as the guideline 
for moving our technology industry forward.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to rework licensing and marketing 
agreements, butalso it has agreed to design future versions of 
Windows that will better accommodatenon-Microsoft software. In fact, 
the terms of this agreement do a great deal to promotenon-Microsoft 
software. This is certainly proof that Microsoft is acting in the 
interest ofthe entire technology industry.
    Adopting this settlement, in its current form, can only be 
beneficial to theconsumer, the IT sector, and the economy as a 
whole. I urge you to help stop anyfurther litigation against this 
agreement.
    As a software developer, Microsoft products have certainly 
helped us to expandour own offerings and should not be penalized for 
being successful for what they do.The computer industry would be 
lightyears behind without user friendly products such asthe Windows 
operating system.
    Sincerely
    Judith A Mack
    President



MTC-00031203

Melody Prichard
5806 Stonecrest Midland Texas 79707
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write today to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case.As a Microsoft supporter, I support the settlement 
reached in November. Years of litigation served to cripple the 
technology industry. I believe that a resolution will be beneficial 
in rebuilding confidence in the industry.
    As a Microsoft supporter, I understand the cost of the terms 
Microsoft agreed to. Microsoft decided to give up many of its 
personal information regarding Windows. Microsoft will now disclose 
the internal interfaces of the system to developers. In addition, 
Microsoft is creating a new version of Windows that will allow users 
to delete or add different programs into the Windows system. 
Microsoft has given up this information in an attempt to resolve the 
antitrust suit once and for all.
    I believe it is time we do just that. Enact the settlement at 
the end of January.
    Sincerely,
    Melody Richard



MTC-00031204

12024 211th Place SE
Snohomish, WA 98296-3944
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    January 10, 2002
    As a member of the IT industry, I feel that it is 
extremelyimportant that the current Anti-Trust case against 
Microsoft be resolved as soon as possible. Though I have not agreed 
with the suit from the beginning, it is my opinion that now is the 
best opportunity to reach this goal. The settlement reached in 
November of last year seems satisfactory for all involved. In 
today's economy we must allow the tech industry and its leading

[[Page 29532]]

innovator to get back to work. Continuing this fiasco with more 
legal wrangling will only prove counterproductive.
    The settlement reached last November should satisfy the 
government as well as Microsoft's main competitors.Microsoft did not 
get off easy. In fact, they have agreed to terms that extend well 
beyond the original scope of the suit, for the sake of wrapping it 
up as soon as possible.Under these terms, Microsoft must relinquish 
source codes and interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to 
design future versions of Windows to make it easier for consumers, 
computer makers, and software developers to promote non-Microsoft 
applications. These and many more restrictions and obligations will 
be monitored for compliance by a Technical committee. It seems to me 
that this settlement is more than fair, and thus should be 
implemented without further delay.
    Now is the time for this country to move past this issue and 
concentrate on more important matters. I ask that you concentrate 
your efforts towards realizing the current settlement and ignoring 
any requests for more litigation.
    Thanks for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Carpenter



MTC-00031205

Jan 15 02 11:48a Tk and Judi 316-733-6058 P. 1
January 15, 2002
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Our government needs to protect our economy, and not to be 
derailed by attempts to benefit certain companies'' interest. 
It is unfortunate that the remaining states that rejected the 
agreement have strong support from Microsoft's competitors, in which 
they reside. Those state representatives have no choice but to 
support their prime resident companies, and their counter proposal 
is only to benefit those resident companies.
    The focus of this case should be based on whether Microsoft has 
indeed hurt the consumers and our economy. If Microsoft has not 
taken a lead in consolidating computer operating systems, and offer 
compatible/integrated software, we would have induced significant 
inefficiencies throughout the country, and the world.
    I highly encourage our government to move forward and bring this 
case to a closure that would benefit our crippled economy. There are 
other major elements that we all need to focus on, instead of 
continuing to deplete our valuable resources on this case.
    Microsoft is now fully aware of its boundaries, in terms of 
``anti-competitive behaviors,'' and shall continue to 
offer more useful software tools that ultimately benefit us all.
    Sincerely yours,
    Takaaki Hayashi
    839 Bramerton
    Andover, KS 67002



MTC-00031206

MITCHELL OIL CO
Bill Mitchell
PO Box 680599
Fort Payne, AL 35968
Jan. 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am concerned with the length of time that the Microsoft 
settlement is taking. This has drug on for too long already, and 
enough money has been wasted in legal fees to pay the settlement. In 
the interest not only of Microsoft, but of business and technology 
both in the U.S. and the global market, it is time to move on or 
else be left behind.
    I would appreciate your working to end any further litigation 
and end the waste,foot-dragging, and criticism of Microsoft. Thank 
you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Mitchell



MTC-00031207

JAN 15 2002 11:54AM SALEM HEIGHTS CLC 7249351351
 Irene M. Wheeler
436 Elizabeth Avenue
MC Kees Rocks, PA 15136-2156
 (412) 331-8876
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my interest and support for the 
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. First and foremost, I am 
pleased to hear about the recent proposed settlement that was 
reached in early November of last year. The terms of the settlement 
were reached after much discussion and are reasonable to all that 
are involved. Microsoft has agreed to a number of terms that 
encompass a wide range of issues addressed in the case as well as 
those aspects of Microsoft's business that were not found unlawful 
by the Court. Microsoft has agreed to these terms in attempt to end 
the case so that the company may move forward with the development 
of new technologies.
    Included in the settlement are a number of requirements that 
Microsoft has agreed to in order to resolve the infringements on the 
antitrust laws. Microsoft has agreed to permit computer makers the 
right to remove consumer access to features of Windows such as 
Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser, Media Player, and 
Messenger. These features can be replaced with access to the 
Microsoft competitive software products. This is demonstrated in the 
interim release of Windows XP that will make it easy for consumers 
to change their configuration at any time.
    Microsoft has also agreed to terms that ensure Microsoft's 
adherence to the guidelines in the settlement. A technical committee 
will be established, and will consist of three experts in software 
engineering. Any third party who believes Microsoft is not complying 
with the agreement will be encouraged to file a complaint.
    This settlement was reached as a result of much loss to 
Microsoft as an advancing software company. Without Microsoft, we 
would be without much of the technologies we have today, and it is 
important that we finalize this settlement and allow this company to 
move onto new product development and growth.
    Irene M. Wheeler
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031208

FROM: FAX NO.: Feb. 15 2001 07:31AM P1
Lucretia Whitehurst
P.O. Box 308
Bridgeton, NC 28519
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    A three-year-old antitrust case against Microsoft by the Justice 
Department has finally reached a settlement. Sadly, there are those 
that are still opposed to this settlement and are seeking to revive 
this case. I write to you to ask that you support the settlement and 
a quick end to this case.
    The Department of Justice has decided to settle, and Microsoft 
has agreed to the settlement as well. This should be the end of the 
story but it is not. Unspecified interests are seeking to have the 
settlement withdrawn and Microsoft forced back into court. This is 
unfortunate because the settlement would end any anticompetitive 
behavior. In fact, the settlement has very tough sanctions against 
Microsoft, such as are worked licensing agreement, and includes full 
time supervision of Microsoft under the creation of a third-party 
technical review committee.
    Your consideration of my views is appreciated. I would like to 
repeat my request that you enact this settlement at the end of 
January.
    Sincerely,
    Lucretia Whitehurst



MTC-00031209

TOTAL PAGE.01
Gerald Hodgins
133 North Main Street
Boonton, New Jersey 07005
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was recently surprised to hear that the settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice might be even further 
delayed. After three years of negotiations, it is hard to believe 
that there are some groups that still want to delay the execution of 
this well thought out agreement. The settlement is not only fair and 
reasonable, but is in the interest of all parties involved.
    Let's help to support this settlement by stopping any further 
actions against the agreement. The terms of the agreement focus on 
promoting non-Microsoft software and, in fact, take a bold step 
toward a more unified technology industry.By working as a team, the 
IT sector can focus on maintaining our place in the global market. 
By maintaining our place in the global market, and

[[Page 29533]]

continuing to focus on innovation, we help to strengthen our economy 
as a whole.
    Let us not be the ones to thwart the exact process that we 
initiated. Let's stop any further litigation and allow our IT sector 
to get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Hodgins
    Jan 15 02 11:14 FR PAINEWEBBER 1 201 902 6861 TO 912023071454 
P.01/01



MTC-00031210

FROM : JOHN CORCORAN FAX: 507-553-5226 Jan. 15 2002 
11:01AM P1
56784 108th Street
Wells, Minnesota 56097
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of litigation, I am pleased to be 
notified that a settlement was finally reached in the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. Microsoft did not go unpunished as many people may 
think The details of this settlement were finalized after three 
years of scrutiny and dispute and thus have been considered for an 
extended amount of time. In the best interest of both the government 
and Microsoft, this settlement should be the end of the antitrust 
case, as further litigation won't benefit anyone except for the 
lawyers.
    Microsoft's antitrust settlement requires that computer makers 
will now be free to remove certain Windows features and replace them 
with the competitor's software programs. Additionally, Microsoft 
will provide competitors with necessary interfaces that are internal 
to Windows'' operating system products. This part of the 
agreement has already been implemented in the release of Windows XP. 
Included within the software is a mechanism that enables the 
consumer the software makers and computer makers to change the 
configuration at any time they wish to do so. To ensure that 
Microsoft complies with the terms of this settlement, a thee-person 
Technical committee will be expected to monitor Microsoft's business 
practices. In addition to that, Microsoft also had to agree not to 
retaliate against its competitors.
    Clearly this settlement covers many concerns of the government 
the industry as well as the public. To my best knowledge, I feel 
that this settlement offers reasonable solutions to all of the 
parties involved.
    Sincerely,
    John Corcoran



MTC-00031211

01/15/2002 11:38 19414376299 MACKINAC GROUP PAGE 01
RALPHLOCKE
12765 YACHT CLUB CIRCLE
FORT MYERS, FL 33919
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The lawsuits against Microsoft at the state and federal levels 
have gone on too long and reflect the government's desire to 
showcase their political agendas against the best interests of the 
public. Our economy needs help, and for our government to persist 
with jealousy battles against our industry's leaders shows their 
ineptitude about what will help our economy.
    While I think the settlement is to harsh and violates many of 
the rules in a free market economy, I want the settlement to come to 
fruition, because that is better for our country than for litigation 
to carry on. Under terms of settlement, Microsoft has agreed to many 
hard concessions, such as disclosure of internal interfaces and 
protocols, as well as agreeing to not enter into third party 
distribution agreements that would guarantee that Microsoft products 
represent a certain cut of the total.
    Let's settle this matter as soon as possible and make sure that 
these types of lawsuits do not occur in the future. Free enterprise 
can for the most part run effectively without constant intervention 
from government officials who are not proponents of a capitalist 
society in the first place.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Locke



MTC-00031212

04/06/1997 13:22 8032723634
11 Chapin Circle
Myrtle Beach, SC 29572-4404
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the Microsoft case finalized as soon as 
possible. The American public interest will be best served when the 
judge approves the settlement agreement.
    I support the efforts of the Department of Justice, Microsoft, 
and the nine states that have agreed to settle the case. The terms 
of the settlement agreement are fair, and even go beyond what should 
be required of Microsoft. The agreement will result in greater 
flexibility for computer manufacturers who will be able to add or 
remove programs from Windows, without fear of retaliation. Microsoft 
will release its intellectual property on non-discriminatory, 
reasonable terms. Microsoft will also release the internal 
interfaces to Windows and server protocols. Which will help 
safeguard against the violation of any antitrust laws.
    Thank you for working toward a resolution of this lawsuit.
    Sincerely yours,
    Robert. B. Hurley
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031213

Jan. 15. 2002 11:19AM FOMBORO TREASURY No. 8292 P.1
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to express my fullest support for the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in November. This 
case has gone on for too long and a settlement is the best option at 
this point.Although I felt this case was unwarranted from the 
beginning, I understand Microsoft's desire to wrap this suit up. 
That explains the company's decision to accept many terms that 
extend well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at 
issue in the suit. That includes agreeing to disclose to competitors 
various interfaces that are internal to Windows''operating 
system products. Indeed, this is a first for an antitrust 
settlement.
    As someone who has worked in the high tech world for many years, 
I honestly believe that Microsoft and their products has helped 
raise the standard of living for people across all socioeconomic 
levels. So there is no doubt in my mind that the settlement is in 
the public interest and no further action should be taken on the 
federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Kinsella
    33 Commercial Street, B52-2J
    Foxboro, MA 02035
    Invensys Intellectual Property Department
    33 Commercial Street B52-1J Foxboro MA 02035 USA
    Telephone +l 508 549 6853 Facsimile +l 508 549 6295 
www.invensys.com



MTC-00031214

UNITED SOLUTIONS
PHONE: 770/506/1100
FAX: 770/506/1188
DATE: 1/15/02
FROM: KEN WADDELL
E MAIL: [email protected]
FAX: 1-202-307-1454
01/15/2002 10:48 7705061188 UNITED SOLUTIONS GRP PAGE 01
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the recent 
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
The settlement comes at a time of decision for our nation. Given the 
recent recession, the end of this litigation will untie necessary 
funds to be allocated to more pressing issues. This settlement is in 
the best interests of our American economy.
    The settlement includes many concessions on behalf of Microsoft. 
Microsoft has agreed to the creation of a third party technical 
review committee. This committee will review Microsoft's actions to 
ensure that the terms of the settlement are followed.
    Obviously Microsoft is willing to resolve this issue, I hope 
that the JusticeDepartment is of the same position.
    Thank you for your strength and wisdom.
    With sincerest regards,
    Ken Waddell
    200 Andrew Dr.
    Stockbridge, GA 30281
    01/15/2002 10:48 7705061188 UNITED SOLUTIONS GRP



MTC-00031215

FROM : MULTI COMPUTER PRODUCTS PHONE NO. : 931 526 9097 Jan. 15 2002 
09:25AM P1

[[Page 29534]]

Multipro Computers
Address: http.//www.multipro.com
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has been a bit disturbing to me that our government can be so 
quick to file a lawsuit against one of this country's most 
innovative and successful companies as it did with this suit against 
Microsoft. I would agree that there have been certain things that 
Microsoft may have done to estrange its competitors, but this should 
never have gone so far as court.
    I am pleased that this suit was stopped from going any further 
because of the recently achieved settlement, but even the settlement 
reflects some rather unfair terms to Microsoft. I am specifically 
referring to that portion of the settlement that deals with the 
release of some of Microsoft's source code. This is something that 
has resulted from years of development and hundreds of millions of 
dollars in investment capital. Source code to a software company is 
as sacred to them as the patented formula for a medication is to a 
pharmaceutical company.
    Nevertheless, as long as both Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice are in agreement over the terms of this settlement, than 
this review process should endorse it. I hope that it will be so 
that this can finally reach its conclusion.
    Sincerely,
    Marsha Farley
    Service Operations Manager
    Multipro Computers
    127 N. Oak Ave.
    Cookeville, TN 38501
    931.528-7777
    1-800-467-8584
    www.multipro.com



MTC-00031216

Jan-14-02 09:33P P.01
3920 Reiniger Road
Hatboro, Pennsylvania 19040
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is intended to express my concern over the delay in 
the settlement of the Microsoft case. This federal antitrust action 
is nearly four years old and the object of near continuous 
litigation and negotiation. The present settlement proposal, reached 
through mediation, has been accepted by the main parties and all but 
the most virulent of Microsoft's adversaries. I think it's high time 
to lay this matter to rest.
    The present plan calls for Microsoft to open up its Windows 
systems to more ready use by non-Microsoft software and computer 
manufacturers. Microsoft will have to license its Windows systems 
products to the major computer manufacturers at uniform terms. 
Microsoft has also agreed to share some of its technology with 
competitors. And Microsoft has agreed to submit its future 
activities to review by a new government oversight committee. In 
short. Microsoft is willing to substantially change its operating 
philosophy. In return, Microsoft will remain one corporate entity.
    We need Microsoft in one piece, on its feet and fighting to 
reinvigorate our economy and lead the crucial IT industry. Please 
support this agreement.PS: Remember where Microsoft started, in a 
garage in The United States of America. Does not matter how much 
Bill gates made; he also made the computer easy to use. Which not 
only employs a lot of people at Microsoft, but how about every one 
in the industry that sell computers & work on them? Bill Gates 
should be given. a medal instead of a slap in the face! This crap 
about Microsoft is all about jealousy, as an American as a X-
Serviceman USN ,and a retired Police Officer I back up Microsoft
    Sincerely,
    Rudolph Muller



MTC-00031217

Jan-15-2002 08:35AM WASHBURNE 273 0660 P.01
15 January, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I fear that further litigious action 
against Microsoft is a mistake. The technology industry has suffered 
because the suit has dragged out, and I believe the Justice 
Department has been tied up unnecessarily for too long. Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice have reached a satisfactory agreement, 
and I do not see the need for further litigation.
    The settlement satisfies the requirements of antitrust laws 
without being too harsh on Microsoft or taking the complaints of its 
competitors too lightly. Microsoft will essentially facilitate the 
efforts of its technological competitors in gaining a more secure 
foothold in the market by allowing them access to protocols, 
interfaces, and line code integral to the Windows operating system, 
and also by reformatting later versions of Windows to support non-
Microsoft software.
    I do not believe that further litigation will accomplish 
anything.In fact, it may be detrimental to the economy, the 
consumer, and the IT industry. I support the settlement, and urge 
you and your office not to bring further suit against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    W. K. Washburne
    1580 Harbour Club Drive
    Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082



MTC-00031218

10176 Baltimore National Pike
Suite 207A
Ellicott City, Maryland 21042
Office 410-203-9900 * Fax 410-203-9966
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am the owner of my own realty and contracting firm. When I was 
first starting out and needed to set up an accounting system for 
payroll and accounts payable,I looked into a software system to 
handle my needs. I was quoted $11,000. I couldn't afford that. With 
Microsoft, I could get a software package doing the same thing for 
$1500. Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has revolutionized the 
computer software industry, making software programs easier to 
understand and more affordable. No other firms did this. For his 
reward, Bill Gates was hauled into court. I was, and still am, 
opposed to the antitrust lawsuit brought against Microsoft. Bill 
Gates took risks and succeeded. This country is where it is today 
because there were people who took risks and succeeded. What is 
different today, is that we punish success. We allow success, but 
only so much.If it goes beyond what government thinks 
``proper'' the company is hauled into court.
    Microsoft is very important to this country. It is the engine 
that drives technological innovation. Microsoft provides thousands 
of jobs directly, and thousands more with the spin-off of their 
technological expertise. I support this settlement, and look forward 
to the end of this persecution of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Carlyle



MTC-00031219

01/15/02 TUE 09:43 TEL 6104550871 Holox 001
MHB
305 Addison Place
West Chester, PA 19382-7249
(610) 399-3027
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 15, 2002
Via Fax (202-307-1454)
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would first like to express my opposition to the anti-trust 
lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against Microsoft three 
years ago. There was no justification for this attack. I am a firm 
believer that government shouldn't involve itself with the private 
business sector unless public safety or the environment is in 
jeopardy. In the antitrust case filed against Microsoft, neither of 
these issues was in question. So why did our government, at both the 
state and federal levels, find it necessary to sue Microsoft?
    Microsoft has agreed to make many changes in the way that it 
will conduct business. This fact,coupled with constant monitoring of 
Microsoft by a government created committee, should be enough to 
ensure that Microsoft will continue to operate in a fair manner. I 
feel Microsoft has been more than generous in appeasing the demands 
of the Department of Justice. Microsoft is even still vulnerable to 
future lawsuits by its competitors if they feel Microsoft isn't 
fully complying with all the points of the proposed settlement.Our 
country and our economy need this lawsuit settled. This country has 
been through some difficult times. The absolutely last action we 
need is to see our Federal government continue this pursuit of 
Microsoft: it is an absolute waste of tax dollars. Our nation knows 
that our economy is ailing.Yet we go

[[Page 29535]]

after and persecute the one company that has been a pivotal force in 
our country's economic growth.
    Please let's put an end to this, and allow Microsoft to continue 
its innovation and help to revitalize our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Mark H. Bodenstab
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum (Fax: 202-224-1229)



MTC-00031220

Deborah J. Swartz.
643 Potts Hill Road
Lewisberry, PA 17339-9594
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft case has been going on for some time now. I 
sincerely hope that this settlement will be respected and the case 
can truly be ended. America is a free country. Successful companies 
like Microsoft should not be punished for running a profitable 
business. It seems their competitors have used their status as 
underdogs to claim that Microsoft has an unfair advantage. But fair 
or not, Microsoft came up with the technology and changed our lives 
and the entire computer industry. The public is FREE to choose 
Microsoft or a competitor for computer technology so I ask, should a 
company being aggressive in marketing and technology PAY for 
success?
    The proposed settlement adequately addresses the issues that 
Microsoft was having problems with. They've pledged to change their 
aggressive marketing strategies and share their technology 
information and server protocols with their competitors. This 
settlement is quite reasonable and will restore competition to our 
American computer industry.Please make sure that the settlement is 
upheld. Our economy cannot withstand further damage. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Swartz
    [email protected]
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum


MTC-00031221
01/15/2002 07:55 FAX 419 423 6583 DOW CHEMICAL ZETABON FND 001
January 14 ,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this opportunity to convey my support for the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
last year. This settlement is definitely in the public's interest 
and should continued to be backed by the federal government.
    The settlement is far-reaching and requires many changes by 
Microsoft.Microsoft will design future versions of Windows to 
provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers 
and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. Under this provision,consumers will have the freedom to 
choose to change their computer's configuration at any time. And to 
assure compliance, Microsoft will be monitored by a Technical 
Committee comprised of three experts in software engineering.Moving 
forward and concluding this case will give both sides the 
opportunity to shift resources to other needs. Microsoft can focus 
on new software development while the government can focus on 
national security and fighting the recession. I commend your 
office's efforts to this point in settling this case and hope your 
support of the settlement continues.
    Sincerely,
    Ramiro Villarreal
    1209 Van Buren Street
    Fostoria, OH 44830



MTC-00031222

Jan 14 02 10:21p John Berthoud 703-841-9528
National Taxpayers Union & National Taxpayers Union Foundation
John Berthoud, President
108 North Alfred Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Phone: 703-683-5700
Fax: 703-683-5722
Email: [email protected]
www.ntu.orgJan 14 02 10:21p John Berthoud 703-841-9528 
p.2
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION
 www.ntu.org
January 14, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX # 202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    On behalf of the 335,000 members of the National Taxpayers 
Union, I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft.
    As you may know, it is our position that this case was brought 
to protect Microsoft's competitors--not competition itself. 
Furthermore, we remain concerned that many state Attorneys General 
continue to push the suit forward for ideological and political 
reasons.
    We are, however, pleased to see that after four years the 
parties are prepared to settle a case that has produced many 
unfortunate results. Taxpayers have been forced to underwrite the 
litigation to the tune of at least $35 million. Microsoft was 
compelled to shift considerable resources into the legal battle that 
would normally have been spent on product innovation, and also faces 
a tangle of private antitrust-spawned litigation. And as BTU 
Foundation research has shown, the government litigation has imposed 
billions of dollars worth of stock market losses on millions of 
American investors.
    The Proposed Final Judgment contains many references to 
``consumers.'' Indeed, theantitrust authorities have 
insisted from the beginning that this case was about consumer 
welfare.Yet the original purpose of the suit against Microsoft was 
to enjoin the company from including Internet Explorer as part of 
its Windows operating system, which the plaintiffs deemed to be a 
grievous threat to Netscape (later purchased for $5 billion by 
Internet giant AOL, a Microsoft competitor). In a suit supposedly 
brought on behalf of consumers, we remain puzzled as to how it would 
have helped consumers to make them pay for an Internet browser they 
could otherwise get for free.
    Consumers place a high value on the ability to use a 
standardized, integrated operating system. In fact, public opinion 
polls taken throughout the Microsoft antitrust trial showed that 
sizable majorities of the public viewed Microsoft and its products 
favorably.
    The Proposed Final Judgment's emphasis on ``network 
effects'' as a ``barrier to entry'' for Microsoft 
competitors in many senses disregards consumers'' demonstrated 
preference for standardized software. The government's suit was 
premised upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which 
consumer markets operate: Microsoft did not build up its large 
market share through anti-competitive practices; instead Microsoft 
became the nation's largest software company by providing consumers 
with the products they prefer.
    Several state Attorneys General are refusing to sign the 
Proposed Final Judgment on the grounds that it is not strong enough. 
However, the agreement appears to provide the plaintiffs with 
exactly the type of relief they were seeking.
    The settlement gives each of the settling states and the 
Department of Justice the power to enforce the decree and to seek a 
broad range of remedies in the event of a violation. An Independent 
Technical Committee that reports to the plaintiffs would be afforded 
full access to Microsoft's facilities, employees, records, and even 
the Windows source code. And the settlement binds Microsoft to 
provide information to its competitors so that their programs will 
be Windows-compatible. Based on the strength of these remedies and 
the fast pace at which the software industry is evolving, we believe 
that the five-year duration of the decree--as opposed to the 
customary ten-year period--is appropriate.
    The antitrust laws do not exist to preserve specific products or 
specific competitors.They exist to preserve competition itself, and 
we believe that consumers freely chose Microsoft's 
products--which provided a standardized, integrated operating 
system that revolutionized personal computer use. The results 
included a huge jump in desktop computer usage, much-improved 
efficiency, and robust growth in the software industry throughout 
the 1990s. Thus, we believe that this case constituted unnecessary, 
and harmful, government interference with the private sector. Rather 
than a victory for competition, we believe the Microsoft case 
represents a defeat for taxpayers, consumers, and investors.
    With the economy in recession, Americans simply cannot keep 
paying the high price of governmental attempts to dictate winners 
and losers in the marketplace. We welcome settlement of this 
regrettable case.
    Sincerely,
    John Berthoud
    President



MTC-00031223

FROM: BENNETT APPRAISAL GROUP Jan.

[[Page 29536]]

14 2002 10:26PM P1
 RANDY BENNETT
5012 Wood Valley Drive
Raleigh
North Carolina 27613
 January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I believe in free enterprise. Economics has taught us that 
markets work efficiently when they are open. Therefore, I disagree 
with government involvement in business. The Justice Department's 
persecution of Microsoft is unmerited.
    Nonetheless, I am pleased that the issue is finally 
resolved.Microsoft has agreed to many terms under the settlement in 
the interests of getting back to business. Microsoft has agreed to 
the formation of a technical review board. This board will review 
Microsoft's actions and determine if there are any violations of the 
settlement, This board will also ensure that the terms of the 
settlement are carried out. Microsoft has also agreed to changes in 
its licensing methods and design of Windows, as well as refraining 
from what might be characterized as hostile action toward other 
companies, so the settlement is clearly comprehensive.
    This settlement should be enacted at the end of January. lt is 
in the best interest of our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Randy Bennett



MTC-00031224

JAN-14-2002 09:27 PM 444466333999 201 8020408 P. 01
Date: January14,2002
Attention To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax: l-202-307-1454 / l-202-616-9937
From: Ay-Vin Akiner
140 Rose Ave, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
Fax: 201-802-0408 E-mail: [email protected]
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice have reached a 
settlement, which serves the government interest, the American 
technology industry, and most importantly, the American public 
interest. This agreement, reached after negotiations with a court 
appointed moderator, is fair, reasonable and judicious. I strongly 
urge you to continue your support for this matter. One of the key 
provisions of this agreement is the requirement that Microsoft 
submit its books, and software products to a technical oversight 
committee. This committee is made up three government appointed 
officials and will work to ensure compliance with the agreement.
    The above-mentioned provisions, and the rest of the settlement, 
will encourage innovation and foster competition. I hope you 
continue to support it and take no further federal action.
    Let us show the world once again what the American technology 
industry can do! Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ay-Vin Akiner



MTC-00031225

Jan 14 02 09:39p Randall K. Wright 5703681091 P.1
Randall K. Wright
698 Walnut Street
Montoursville, PA 17754
January l0, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion that the settlement 
reached last November between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice be implemented without further delay. Though, I think that 
the federal government's actions against Microsoft during the last 
three years were unnecessary. I nevertheless think that the best 
course of action at this point is simply to impose this settlement. 
The IT community has been struggling enough and needs no further 
government medalling.
    Microsoft has not gotten off easy in this settlement. The 
settlement imposes a broad series of restrictions and obligations on 
Microsoft, which are focused on reducing anti-competitive behaviors. 
I believe it is adequate to accomplish this task. Furthermore, a 
Technical Committee is slated to oversee Microsoft's compliance to 
these measures. Thus, the federal government has accomplished what 
it intended to do with its case three years ago. There is no need to 
waste time and money with tedious and wasteful litigation on this 
matter will prove harmful to everyone, including the consumer.
    It is time that the government allow Microsoft, and the rest of 
industry get back to work, try to make a profit and get the stock 
market back where it belongs.
    If you really want to prosecute someone, go after Enron and 
their accountants.
    cc: Congressman Don Sherwood; Senator Rick Santorum
    Phone/Fax: (570) 368-1091
    Cell (570) 772-0662
    E-Mail [email protected]



MTC-00031226

JAN 14. 2002 9:40PM NO.1109 P.1
FROM: Frank A. Wright
PHONE NUMBER: 703-641-3323 FAX NUMBER: 
703-645-2209
NOTES/COMMENTS: Microsoft Settlement
3170 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE
MAIL CODE 345
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042
6526 Hidden Beach Circle
Orlando, Florida 32819
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing you today to express my opinion 
in regards to the settlement that was reached on November 6, 2001 
between Microsoft and the government. I feel that this issue has 
drawn on long enough, and I was extremely relieved to see this case 
finally settled. I feel this settlement will serve in the best 
interest of the public.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft must share more information with 
other companies and make it easier for them to install non- 
Microsoft software. Microsoft has agreed to share intellectual 
capital with competing corporation. I can assure you that some of 
the Corporation backing this litigation against Microsoft would not 
agree to these terms. Not only will this settlement make it easier 
to compete with Microsoft, but it also allows Microsoft the ability 
to once again fully devote its resources and time to designing 
innovative software, rather than litigation. In addition, a lot of 
corporations will have access to intellectual capital that Microsoft 
spent millions of dollars on for free.
    I feel this settlement will be beneficial to all. Thank you for 
your support.
    Sincerely,
    Frank A. Wright



MTC-00031227

FROM: David/Linda Hoyle
PHONE NO).: 704 922 1561
Jan. 14, 2002 08:57PM P1
Linda Summey Hoyle
604 Queens Dr.
P.O. Box 533
Dallas, North Carolina 28034
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The purpose of my letter is to voice my opinion regarding the 
Microsoft settlement. I believe this settlement is fair and this 
dispute should be resolved with no further litigation against 
Microsoft.
    As a businessperson and former manager of a small family owned 
business, I strongly believe in free enterprise. I don't believe in 
punishing Microsoft for being innovative and successful. I cut my 
teeth with the user-friendly Apple computers but gave up on them 
years ago because they were not compatible with the rest of the 
computer world. They made their choice and in my opinion it worked 
against them. No one should be penalized if they have played by the 
rules.
    In my opinion Microsoft has been good to all of us. Apparently 
those pushing for litigation are competing companies that are trying 
to do the same thing that Microsoft is doing, be successful. They 
could probably do just that if they would get on with 
``their'' business.
    I understand that Microsoft has agreed to all terms of the 
settlement and has pledged to share more information with other 
companies to create more opportunities for them. It is my 
understanding that Microsoft has also agreed to not retaliate 
against software or hardware developers who develop or promote 
software that competes or runs on software that competes with 
windows. This settlement will benefit all of us. Lets move forward 
and help to get our economy on the road to recovery. Thank you for 
your time and consideration of this settlement.

[[Page 29537]]

    Sincerely,
    Linda Summey Hoyle



MTC-00031228

Jan 14 02 07:2lp Linda Buchanan 3368416822 P.1
665 Merry Hills Drive
High Point, NC 27262-8368
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support in the recent settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft. I strongly urge that 
no further action be taken on the federal level in pursuance of this 
case. This settlement is fair and reasonable to all sides involved. 
Microsoft has made significant concessions in this settlement, 
including changes in the way they license its software. To assure 
the settlement`s terms are met, Microsoft also agreed to be 
reviewed by a technical oversight committee. It is time for the 
federal government to move forward. The American government's 
resources which I believe, as a matter of personal political 
philosophy are the American people's resources, can be put to better 
uses than continuing this litigation. I hope you will agree. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Buchanan
    cc: Representative Howard Coble
Jan 14 02 07:2lp Linda Buchanan 3368416822 P.2
665 Merry Hills Drive
High Point, NC 21262-8368
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my support in the recent settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft. I strongly urge that 
no further action be taken on the federal level in pursuance of this 
case.
    This setttlement is fair and reasonable to all sides involved. 
Microsoft has made significant concessions in this settlement, 
including changes in the way they license its software. To assure 
the settlement's terms are met, Microsoft also agreed to be reviewed 
by a technical oversight committee.
    It is time for the federal government to move forward. The 
American government's resources, which I believe, as a matter of 
personal political philosophy are the American people's resources, 
can he put to better uses than continuing this litigation. I hope 
you will agree. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Buchanan
    cc: Representative Howard Coble



MTC-00031229

Jan 14 02 06:llp Patricia Ann Kazmar (610)777-5583 P.1
Patricia Ann Kazmar
3070 Welsh Road
Mohnton, PA 19540-8850
(610)777-5583
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In addressing the U.S. vs. Microsoft case, I am confident that 
the recent settlement reached in November of last year serves the 
interests of the state, the IT industry, and the economy. Microsoft 
has played a large role in the well being of our economy and the 
resurgence of Microsoft back into the economy can only make things 
better. The Department of Justice will be free to focus on more 
pressing matters, Microsoft will concentrate on product development, 
and the public can be rest assured that their best interest is being 
taken into consideration.
    Included in the agreement are restrictions that extend to 
several issues addressed in the case as well as those that were not 
found unlawful in the Court of Appeals, These restrictions were 
reached after a great deal of effort over the course of three years, 
and thus each detail of the settlement is fair and reasonable. 
Microsoft has granted to computer makers the right to replace 
features of Windows with non- Microsoft software programs. Microsoft 
has already begun changes in their business practices as 
demonstrated by the release of Windows XP: a new version of Windows 
that promotes the competition.
    Furthermore, Microsoft will be monitored by a Three-person 
Technical committee that will ensure that Microsoft follow the 
restrictions and obligations stated in the settlement.
    Clearly, this settlement proves to contain reasonable and fair 
solutions. I hope that my opinion has helped to finalize the last 
course of action in this case. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Ann Kazmar
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031230

JAN-14-2002 06:01 PM GARY DAVIS 215 412 7183 P. 01
Gary Davis
224 Red Haven Drive
North Wales, PA 19454- 1439
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The litigation between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
has gone on for far too long. Over the last three years, the only 
positive we have seen from all of this is Microsoft's willingness to 
cooperate with the demands of the settlement. In my estimation, 
Microsoft's resilience was tried and proven true during this very 
taxing time. They are stronger and more determined as a result.
    Microsoft has also agreed to take measures that will increase 
competitors'' access to Windows. Such measures include allowing 
computer makers to remove the means by which consumers access 
various features within the Windows environment. These features 
include Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media 
Player and Windows Messenger. This is done by allowing computer 
makers to replace access to those features with access to non-
Microsoft software such as programs from AOL or RealNetworks.
    Please do your part in putting Microsoft back in high production 
mode as quickly as possible. Microsoft has done a lot for our 
economy and for the productivity of people in our workforce. Let us 
not do anything that will further hinder Microsoft's innovation. 
Let's get this thing behind us once and for all. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Davis
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031231

FROM: FAX NO: 504 7990619
Jan.14 2002 07:52PM P1
4500 Woodland Avenue
Metairie, Louisiana 70002
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the 
Settlement reached last November between the Department of Justice 
and the Microsoft Corporation Although I believe the litigation was 
unwarranted to begin with, I believe that this settlement is in the 
best interests of the technological industry and our economy.
    Microsoft deserves it place at the forefront of the technology 
industry. Microsoft has earned this position through its constant 
production of innovative products. In return, these products have 
afforded, to economies around the word, increased productivity in 
the technological realm.
    Microsoft will give up much under this settlement. For example, 
it will use a uniform price list when licensing Windows out to 
computer makers. Microsoft is willing to accept this and other 
stipulations, however harsh they may be, in order to end this 
lawsuit. Thus, I am support the settlement, as it allows Microsoft 
to concentrate on business.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie Perschal



MTC-00031233

01/14/200217:31 13415940724 PAGE 01
5219 Hawkesbury Way
Naples, Florida 34119
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I can't understand why the government would want to punish 
Microsoft in the first place. Microsoft makes not only a huge 
contribution to our economy, but also to many charities as well. I 
know that this settlement will mean that no further action will take 
place at the federal level.
    Considering how well the settlement answers many of the problems 
that its competitors had, I know that many people will accept it and 
choose to move on. With

[[Page 29538]]

elements that increase interoperability between programs and let 
computers manufacturers choose what they want to put in, many 
consumers and people who depend on Microsoft products daily will be 
pleased.
    Microsoft's competitors certainly should be; they will now be 
better able to place their own software on Windows-based operating 
systems. Microsoft has worked hard to end this case and I hope the 
Department of Justice works equally hard to keep it that way. I 
support the settlement, and look forward to seeing this case come to 
an end.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Yeagley



MTC-00031234

01/14/200215:57 FAX 410 5614905 001/001
CIGNAL CORP
Joseph V. Maranto
8 Graveswood Court
Baltimore, MD 21234-1451
January 14, 2002
BY FAX l-202-307-1454
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    I am writing to ask that you give your immediate approval to the 
agreement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I 
believe this settlement is fair and equitable for the country and 
for business alike. Microsoft has done as much for the computer 
trade and its users as Goodyear has done for auto production. 
Microsoft is the wheels and fuel that make computers work.
    With all due respect, I believe the antitrust suit brought 
against Microsoft was unnecessary and unfounded. Personally, I use 
Microsoft Windows out of choice because Microsoft's soft-ware 
programs are the best on the market. It is my understanding that 
Microsoft has agreed in tie settlement to assist the computer 
industry by opening up its intellectual property rights to its 
Windows internal interfaces, and license its property on a 
nondiscriminatory basis. This is bound to stimulate the economy and 
do great things for the entire industry.
    In conclusion, I am asking you to allow Microsoft to get back to 
business without this cloud and legal case as a major distraction to 
its daily business of developing the best software in the world.
    Respectfully yours
    Joseph V. Maranto
    VP Cignal Mortgage Corp



MTC-00031235

Jan 14 02 03:55p Daniel & Jackie Hsieh
261 8034 p. 1
138--32 68th Drive
Apt.1C
Flushing, NY 11367-
(718)261-8034
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice, 950 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am penning this letter to express my support for the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. I have followed this story in the New York Times and feel 
that after three Long years of court battles, it is time to stop 
legal action against the company. I think that the settlement is 
fair and should be finalized as soon as possible. I am concerned 
about the economic recession we are experiencing as a nation.
    The IT industry has been one of the sectors of the economy that 
has been the hardest hit in the past several months. It is important 
that we allow Microsoft to get back to business and lead the IT 
industry once again. The terms of the settlement are fair and just 
and seem to offer competitors the ability to promote their own 
products and services within Windows operating systems.
    I was ecstatic to see that a settlement has been reached; and I 
hope it is approved as soon as possible because I emphatically 
believe that it is in the best interest of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Ching Hsieh



MTC-00031237

01/15/2002 14:44 FAX 4213984 Daniel R Benolt 01
DANIEL R BENOIT & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX: 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input, regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Given the state of our economy right now, we should do 
everything possible to spur growth, not hinder it.
    As a small businessman, I understand competition. Competition is 
healthy for the American economy. I use Microsoft products in my 
business and they have been a great help to me. They have allowed me 
to better serve my clients and to manage my business. As far as I 
can tell there has been no consumer harm as a result of any actions 
taken by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have, in fact, helped 
many small businesses, such as mine grow.
    An additional benefit in the settlement, is the proposed 
donation of over 200,000 computers to our nation's public schools. I 
whole-heartedly endorse this provision, which will help erase the 
digital divide.
    I urge a swift settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    PH0NE 5 0 8 4 2 1 3 9 0 0 FAX 5 0 8 4 2 1 3 9 8 4
    287 PARK AVENUE WORCESTER MA 01609



MTC-00031238

JAN.15'02(TUE) 11:06 P. 00l/001
Sacramento Office
STATE CAPITOL ROOM 2187
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
TEL (916) 445-9781
FAX (916) 447-9008
DISTRICT OFFICE
6800 INDIANA AVENUE
SUITE 130
RIVERSIDE. CA 92506-4280
TEL (909) 782-4lIl
FAX (909) 276-4483
SENATOR [email protected]
California State Senate
SENATOR RAYMOND N. HAYNES THIRTY-SIXTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 
REPUBLICAN WHIP
CHAIR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
VICE-CHAIR JUDICIARY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT COMMITTEES
BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW EDUCATION
JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
3000 NATIONAL CHAIRMAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
January 11, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I understand that the pending settlement in the case of US v. 
Microsoft is currently going through a Tunney Act review and you are 
collecting public comment. Please accept this letter as an 
expression of support for the settlement being proposed by the 
Department of Justice.
    As a State Senator from California, I am very concerned about 
the amount of money Attorney General Bill Lockyer has wasted on this 
case. Our state has a budget deficit of over $6 billion. To even 
consider spending millions more on the case against Microsoft is 
unconscionable. How can we continue using taxpayer dollars on this 
issue when we are trying to find ways to cut spending everywhere 
else?
    The remedies being proposed in the settlement are more than 
adequate. The national economy has been damaged enough. It is time 
that we, as leaders, take the steps necessary to ensure this country 
is given an opportunity to rebound from recession, Refusing the 
settle the case against Microsoft and wasting even more money on the 
issue is irresponsible.
    Once again, I hope the settlement in the case against Microsoft 
is accepted and the case is brought to a close.
    Sincerely,
    RAYMOND N. HAYNES
    California State Senator



MTC-00031239

Jan 15 02 10:08a 425-427-5665 P.1
TOWER EQUlPMENT COMPANY
385 Front St. North,Suite 201
Issaquah, WA. 98027
Fax: : 425-427-5665
Ph: 425-427-1996
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington. DC 20530-0001
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. I 
applaud the efforts made toward settling the lawsuit. I am 
disappointed,

[[Page 29539]]

however, that some of the states have unreasonably decided to 
continue the litigation.
    I am a strong supporter of Microsoft. As a small business owner 
and a participant in the stock market. I have directly observed the 
impact Microsoft has had on our economy. Microsoft's innovation 
resulted in the creation of jobs, a healthy stock market, and the 
production of superior quality products. The lawsuit has been 
detrimental to our economy, and should be concluded as soon as 
possible.
    It is in the best interest of our economy, as well as everyone 
involved, that this case be resolved. The terms of the settlement 
are fair, and even go beyond what was even at issue in the lawsuit. 
For example. Microsoft has made such concessions as agreeing to not 
retaliate against computer manufacturers who produce computers 
containing software that competes with the Windows operating system. 
Microsoft has agreed to alter its business practices to better 
comply with the antitrust laws. Continuing the litigation in light 
of these changes simply does not make sense.
    Thank you for your efforts in ensuring the prompt resolution of 
this unnecessary litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Tri-Cities,Wa. (509) 545-9309 . Oregon (503) 
241-3765



MTC-00031240

DLL Solutions, Inc. 603 537 2099
DLL
DLL Solutions, Inc.
Custom Applications for Process lndustries
01/15/02 01:54P P.001
Dennis K. Kilgore, President
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    As you are aware, the lawsuit between Microsoft, the federal 
government and certain states caused much nervousness throughout the 
entire technology industry and had the undesired affect of 
suppressing innovation and investment within the industry.
    I am sure this was not the government's intention and am glad to 
know that many of the parties to the suit agreed to settle the 
matter out of court. Your leadership on reaching a settlement is to 
be commended, as I am sure the political aspects of this matter are 
burdensome.
    The settlement is fair and will allow Microsoft and everyone 
else in the technology field to get back to business-- 
including its opponents--as unhappy as they are about the fact 
that Microsoft was not broken up by the courts. The settlement 
requires Microsoft to divulge its internal code for the Windows 
operating system to its competitors.
    While Microsoft has good reason to be unhappy about this, it 
should make its competitors very happy. And since Microsoft fully 
accepts this term among many others, everyone else should too.
    Sincerely.
    DLL Solutions Inc.
Dennis Kilgore
President
Microsoft
CERTIFIED Partner
816 Elm Street, #4l7
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 637-2088
FAX (603) 537-2098
Email: [email protected]



MTC-00031241

01/15/2002 12:57 FAX 8132533280
610 S. BOULEVARD
001
Robert Watkins Company Certified Public Accountants
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Fax #202-307-1454
    Dear MS Renata:
    As a concerned mother and business professional, I would like to 
lend my support to the Microsoft settlement. We as a country are in 
an economic downturn. Because of the legal problems and many legal 
battles fought by Microsoft in the past several years. Microsoft was 
taken it on the chin as far as its public image is concerned. I am 
of the opinion that if Microsoft is guilty of anything it has been 
of helping the citizens of the United States recover from the 
September 11th attacks.
    Microsoft is responsible for The Red Cross Family Registration 
Web site, which has not only helped locate more than 1,100 people 
who were lost because of the September 11th attacks but has united 
hundred of families who would have otherwise not known how to get in 
touch with their loved ones. This was the first time in history that 
people were able to register online and let friends and family know 
they were okay. Microsoft's New York district even set up a command 
center on the 18th floor of its building to help authorities create 
a DNA database to identify victims as well as offering various other 
areas of technical expertise. Microsoft has united with the American 
people and transformed itself into a disaster relief center where 
they have worked with several non-profit organizations to offer 
their services wherever they were needed.
    As a practicing CPA whose client base lies in small business, I 
can attest to the extraordinary impact Microsoft has had on the 
economic development of our country. I believe there is a direct 
correlation between the development and promotion of technology 
based on the innovations of Microsoft and the unprecedented economic 
boom this country has seen since the founding of this company. Small 
business is the very foundation of our recent prosperous era and 
would never have achieved the efficiency it has without Microsoft 
innovation. Further, only after the ill conceived and baseless 
attack on Microsoft by our Justice Department has this economy 
faltered. I believe there is a direct correlation between these two 
events and hold the Justice Department at least partly accountable 
for the economic times I, my clients and the entire country find 
themselves in today.
01/15/2002 12:58 FAX 8132533280
610 S. BOULEVARD, Suite 100--Tampa, Florida 
33606--813-254-3369
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
U.S. Justice Department
January 15, 2002
Page 2
    As both a professional and a mother, I commend Microsoft for 
their business expertise and their profound compassion. Thank you 
for your time and I look forward to helping out in any way that I 
can to conclude this case.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy H. Watkins, C.P.A.



MTC-00031242

30 Norway Hill
Hancock, NH 03449
Phone: 603.525.3820
Fax: 603.525.3819
New Hampshire Homeowner/Main Street Alliance
Fax
To: Renata Hesse
From: Laureen Carney
Fax: 202/616-9937 Date: 1/15/01
Phone: Pages:
Re: Microsoft Settlement CC:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
*Comments:
Tuesday,January 15, 20021:55PM Philip A.Gehman 2156437646 p.01
815 Montgomery Avenue
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the Department of 
`Justice and Microsoft settlement. This agreement, I believe, 
was reasonable and fair. Microsoft was reprimanded for what was 
considered unfair trade practices and Bill Gates has opened up his 
company far more than I, personally, would have done. However, an 
agreement was reached, ending a three-year litigation case coating 
both parties time and money.
    I believe it is time to move on and ask that you give your 
support to the decision.
    I know there will probably be those who wish to exact more of a 
punishment, expressing their thought that Microsoft ``got off 
easy'', but there will always be those who are never satisfied. 
In truth, the settlement is very hard on Microsoft.
    The company will have to share coding with its competitors, 
allowing them to place their own software packages on Windows. 
Additionally, Microsoft will agree not to retaliate against 
companies that use or sell non-Microsoft products. We need to get 
our economy moving, not look back to something that has already been 
decided. Microsoft has helped transform our planet into the 
``global village''. Support the agreement reached. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Gehman
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031243

JAN-15-02 TUE 01:34 PM DAVID GUIDOS

[[Page 29540]]

803 444 4087
P.01
2824 Key Largo Circle South
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my opinion that there should be no 
further government action against Microsoft. The company has agreed 
to a fair and reasonable settlement, and it should be finalized.
    Given the current state of the economy, it is important that 
Microsoft is able to use its capital for software innovation instead 
of legal expenditures. Your decision to stop legal action against 
the company is best for the consumer, the Information Technology 
industry and the economy in general.
    The agreement grants new rights to computer makers to configure 
Windows to better promote non-Microsoft software programs within 
Windows. They will now be free to remove the means by which 
consumers access various features of Windows. They can replace 
access to those features with access to non-Microsoft software.
    My hope is that the federal government will now let the 
settlement fall in to place. In my opinion, the government need not 
taken any more action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David Guidos
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031244

Jan 15 02 01:58p Interactive Payer Network 4407200702 P. 1
Interactive Payer Network
Interactive Payer Network
Landerbrook Corporate Center II
5910 Landerbrook Drive
Suite
110 Cleveland, OH 44124
Phone: 440-720-0700
888-292-1009
Fax: 440-720-0702
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I decided to take time out of my schedule today to write to you 
concerning the importance of the recent U.S. vs. Microsoft 
settlement. The settlement will benefit consumers and the public 
interest, and therefore no further action should be taken against 
Microsoft.
    Although there are some terms in the settlement which I feel go 
too far and would not accept, I understand Microsoft's desire 
to wrap this suit up and move forward. The settlement itself is 
strong, requiring, for example, Microsoft to possibly disclose 
intellectual property rights. This could arise if a third party 
wants to exercise its settlement options. If it is determined that 
doing so would infringe on a Microsoft intellectual property right, 
Microsoft will provide the third party with a license to the 
necessary intellectual property. The settlement actually supercedes 
Microsoft's property rights. Further, compliance with these terms 
will enforced in part by a Technical Committee to be created under 
the settlement. T
    his agreement gives Microsoft the freedom to focus exclusively 
on what they do best, that is, developing new and advanced 
technology that consumers like myself have come to expect, whether 
it is at home or work.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Rosenstein, Ph.D.
    President



MTC-00031245

01/16/0204 : 58 : 17 NC GENERAL ASSEMBLY->
202 353 8856 Renata Hesse
Page 001
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE: 01/15/02 15:27:33
TO:
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
FROM: Rep. Russell Tucker
RE:
microsoft settlement
NUMBER OF PAGES SENT: 2
(includes transmittal sheet)
COMMENTS:
FAX: 82023071454
FAX: (919)715-7586
IF THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL
(919)733-6834.
01/16/0204:58:30 NC GENERAL ASSEMBLY-> 202 353 8856 Renata 
Hesse
Page 002
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE: 01/15/0210:54:18
TO:
Renata B. Hesse
US Department of Justice
FROM: Rep. Russell Tucker
RE:
Microsoft settlement support
NUMBER OF PAGES SENT: 2
(includes transmittal sheet)
COMMENTS:
FAX: 82023071454
FAX: (919)715-7586
IF THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL
(919)733-6834
01/16/82 04:58:44 NC GENERAL ASSEMBLY-> 202 353 8856 Renata Hesse
Page 003
North Carolina General Assembly
House of Representatives
State Legislative Building
Raleigh 27601-1096
January 15, 2002
REPRESENTATIVE RUSSELL E TUCKER
10th DISTRICT--Duplin. Jones and Onslow Counties
OFFICE ADDRESS 417-C Legislative Office Building
RALEIGH. NC 27601-1096
TELEPHONE (919)715-3015
FAX (919)754-3225
EMAIL: [email protected]
HOME ADDRESS 464 N. NC HWY 11
Pink Hill, NC 28572
EMAIL [email protected]
Ms. Renata B Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
COMMITTEES
Chair--Appropriations Subcommittee on
Information Technology
Vice-Chair--Education Subcommittee on Pre-
School. Elementary & Sccondary Education
Agriculture
Appropriations
Education
Environment & Natural Resources
Science & Technology
Via facsimile, (202)307-1454
Re:
Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear MS. Hesse
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that the 
Department of Justice and several states, including North Carolina, 
have reached with Microsoft The settlement represents a reasonable 
compromise that has obtained bipartisan support I understand that 
Microsoft is committed to becoming a more responsible industry 
leader and has agreed to make many significant changes in its 
business practices.
    As co-chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Information Technology, I will be pleased to see this matter 
resolved because it will be a boost for the technology sector, a 
large force in the North Carolina economy. I also believe that the 
settlement will be positive for consumers by enhancing competition 
in all aspects of the technology industry
    I urge the Department of Justice and the court to approve this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Tucker



MTC-00031246

SID RICHARDSON CARBON CO.
Corporate Office:
201 Main Street, Suite 3000, Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: 817/390-8638, Fax: 817/339-7394
FAX
To: ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT Company: US DEPT.of JUSTICE
From: CHUCK O'FARRELL
Date: JANUARY 15, 2002
Fax Number: 202-307-1454
No.of Pages in Transmission Pages 2
MESSAGE:
Jan. 15, 20022:30PM ADMIN/R&D
NO. 205 P. 2/2
SID RICHARDSON
CARBON CO.
Charles P. O'Farrell, PHD.
Vice President
Research & Development
201 MAIN STREET. SUITE 1000
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-3131
January 14,2002

[[Page 29541]]

CPO-03-02
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Today our nation faces many tough issues. We are plagued with 
terrorist scares. Our economy is in recession. And many Americans 
are facing layoffs in their workplace. I fail to see how Microsoft's 
supposed anti-competitive behavior qualifies as a tough issue that 
should be addressed.
    Finally after three years of litigation, the issue has been 
resolved. Resolution in this issue is fair to all involved. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer manufacturers 
that market competing software. This frees up relationships between 
manufacturers and developers.Further, licensing rights will be equal 
for the twenty largest producers of PCs. This further eases 
relationships among manufacturers.
    While, I do not believe there was any justification for the 
anti-trust suit, the terms of the agreement are fair. It should be 
enacted with haste.
    Sincerely,
    Charles P.O'Farrell



MTC-00031247

JAN-15-02 03:41 PM CC/MHLU
9374292929
P. 01
2935 Stone Mill Court
Dayton, Ohio 45434
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft.
    The recent settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is fair and should be finalized. Litigation has gone on 
now for over three years, which is much too long, and will start to 
be detrimental to our economy if it continues.
    The terms of the settlement are fair, as Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose internal interfaces and protocols as well as not retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in its Windows operating system. The terms should appease 
all opposition as they force Microsoft to give away much of their 
technological secrets.
    I ask your office to tell the nine states that want to continue 
litigation that it is neither in the public's best interest nor good 
for our economy. I support the settlement, and anticipate the end of 
this case. Thank you for your time.
    I think that Microsoft has developed significant contributions 
to high technologies during the last twenty years for this country. 
The economical prosperity this country enjoyed for the last decade 
resulted largely from the Microsoft contributions.
    The settlement between DOJ and Microsoft should be finalized as 
soon as possible. The other nine states should also accept the terms 
of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Chaw Lu



MTC-00031248

01/15/02 TUE16:21 FAX 803 734 2925 LEGISFAX 001
Teddy Norman Trotter
First Vice-Chairman
Jimmy Charles Bales
Listen D. Barfield
J. Gresham Barrett
James A. Battle, Jr.
Grady A. Brown
Converse A. Chellis III
Tracy R. Edge
Helen Ann S. Thrower
Staff Counsel
Harry E. Cato
Chairman
Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee
House of Representatives
P.0. BOX 11867 TELEPHONE: 734-3015
407 Blatt Building
 Columbia, SC 29211
Thomas M. Danizler
Second Vice-Chairman
Shirley R. Hinson
James N. Law
Robert W. Leach, Sr.
Brenda Lee
Olin R. Phillips
William E. Sandifer III
Daniel L. Tripp
Danny Wilder
Dottie N. Nidiffer
Administrative Assistant
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via Facsimile -to 1-202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe the Attorney General of the United States and, under 
his direction, the United States Department of Justice, acted 
correctly in negotiating a tough settlement with Microsoft.
    I am informed that the settlement will impose new requirements 
on Microsoft, and that violations of the settlement would subject 
the company to punishment as contempt of court. Settlement pursuant 
to the agreed terms will be good for the economy, good for consumers 
and will encourage market competition in the software and related 
industries. I hope the settlement will be approved and implemented 
as soon as possible.
    With kind regards, I am
    Sincerely,
    HARRY F. CATO
    Chairman
    HFC:dnn
    Post-it Fax Note 7671 Date 1/15/02 # of Pages
    To Renata Hesse From Rep Harry Cato
    Cc/Dept. Suite 1200/Antitrust Div Co SC House of Rep
    Phone# Phone# 803 734-3015
    Fax# 202-307-1454 Fax# 803 734-2925



MTC-00031249

JAN-15-02 TUE 15:19
3015304220
P-01
4720 Edgefield Road
Bethesda, MD 20814-4016
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I work for a software development company and use Microsoft 
products in the office and at home. As I have seen, it is no mystery 
that Microsoft has employed some overly aggressive marketing 
techniques. However, as part of the settlement, Microsoft has 
pledged to tone things down and restore fair competition to the 
computer industry.Microsoft will be sharing more of their interface 
design and systems protocol with their competitors. Microsoft has 
also made it easier to run non-Microsoft programs within windows, 
allowing computer makers to pre-install non-Microsoft software. A 
technical committee will monitor Microsoft and field complaints. To 
the software industry, these settlement terms have gone a long way 
to address concerns about Microsoft.
    Personally, I think the settlement is fair. Our country is a 
free enterprise system and Microsoft has been punished for creating 
innovative products that have changed our American computer industry 
forever. Please do not allow this to continue. Microsoft has helped 
our economy innumerous ways. Please uphold this settlement and help 
maintain our American edge in the international marketplace. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene Wathen



MTC-00031250

01/15/2002 16:19
COVER PAGE
TO:
FAX: 12023071454
FROM: MAHDAVIN
FAX: 2125460990
TEL: 2125469058
COMMENT: URGENT
01/15/200216:19 2125460990 MAHDAVI N PAGE 01
430 E 56th Street # 5C
New York, NY 10022
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Thank you for settling the Microsoft case. I greatly appreciate 
your willingness to get our economy back on the right track. The 
settlement is adequate, and no more action should be taken in this 
case.
    Under the settlement agreement. Microsoft has made numerous 
concessions and compromises in its efforts to bring this matter to a 
close. The highlight of this agreement is Microsoft's submission to 
a government appointed, three person technical oversight committee 
which will have oversight over the company's engineering and 
business practices. Furthermore, Microsoft, as a result of this 
settlement, has given up its right to intellectual property 
protection by agreeing to license any technology, which may be 
called into question by a competitor.Another major concession by 
Microsoft is its

[[Page 29542]]

willingness to adopt a uniform pricing and licensing agreement with 
its partner computer manufactures and software competitors. This 
concession will force Microsoft to end its favored agreements with 
companies and disallow it from engaging in retaliatory pricing with 
companies that do not carry its software.
    This is a settlement agreement that was completed after three 
years of litigation,and several months of intense negotiations with 
a court appointed moderator.
    This should be the final federal action on this matter. I look 
forward to a swift end of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Nahid Mahdavi



MTC-00031251

JAN-15-2002 02 : 16 PM MOTOR HOME SPECIALIST 817 783 6395
P. 01
Sharon O'Banion
5611 South I-35W
Alvarado, TX 76009-5941
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am often amazed at how people want to punish a creative and 
innovative company such as Microsoft. Microsoft has just endured 
three long years of litigation and public battle over the antitrust 
lawsuit. Last November the lawsuit was finally settled and a 
resolution was reached that all parties could agree on.
    The settlement agreed upon included many good provisions that 
will help to stimulate growth and competition while still offering 
protections for the smaller and newer companies in the market. 
Unified pricing lists are now required for Microsoft to provide the 
same terms, conditions, and prices to all companies that enter into 
licensing contracts with Microsoft. Microsoft has also been 
restricted from entering into any kind of contractual agreement with 
a computer manufacturer that would impede competition from other 
software companies. As I said, there are protections for the smaller 
companies, and protections for the competition in the market.
    This is a good settlement. and there is no need to drag this 
litigation on further.
    The time has come to stop the public beating of a good company. 
Microsoft has done nothing but provide exceptional products and 
services. They have paid enough with this settlement. The next step 
could only be the breakup of the company. Do not let that happen. 
Leave the settlement in its current form. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon O'Banion



MTC-00031252

Jan 15 2002 11:14 FR MICROSOFT RECEP #3 425 936 7329 TO 
912023071454
P. 01/01
Date: 01.15.02
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on, guys. It is time America gets back to work and the 
continued legal machinations against Microsoft are not helping.
    Let's settle this caseso we can all get on with our lives.
    Stephen Quinn
    chaos [email protected]



MTC-00031253

JAN 15, 2002 01:50 PM JACK SCHOFIELD 717 757 9140 P.01
3710 Starview Drive
York, PA 17402
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I, like many, were very sorry to see a case brought against 
Microsoft. I felt the company was being punished for being 
successful. That sure is not an incentive for being a entrepreneur 
in a capitalistic society.
    Having said that, I feel the settlement is fair and covers many 
of the complaints brought against Microsoft in the first 
place.Microsoft has to disclose a lot of information about the inner 
workings of their software and make a lot of deals that benefit 
their competitors.
    Many people depend on Microsoft products and services in their 
day to day lives. I believe most people will be happy with the 
settlement and hope that things will move along quickly.
    Sincerely,
    Jack H. Schofield, PE
    Former Member of The
    New Hampshire House
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031254

FROM : FAX NO. :
Jan. 15 2002 04:43PM P1
Emily M. Ballance, M.Ed.
Counselor and Consultant
1100 Navaho Drive, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 878-1685
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I don't often write letters to government officials. As a small 
business owner, I have become concerned about the impact the 
litigation against Microsoft might have on my access to integrated 
software products. It appears that the proposed settlement to the 
lawsuit will allow me continued access to these products while at 
the same time satisfying the concerns of computer manufacturers, 
software designers and other consumers.
    Under the agreement, Microsoft will allow computer manufacturers 
to configure the Windows system so that other software programs that 
compete with Microsoft can be used. New versions of Windows will 
make it easier to add or remove access features built into Windows. 
The provisions relating to contractual restrictions and intellectual 
property rights provide additional assurances to Microsoft 
competitors.
    The settlement seems to be a fair compromise for all concerned. 
It promotes competitive technology environment and ends the three-
year lawsuit, allowing computer and software companies to get back 
to building a stronger economy for our nation.
    Sincerely,
    Emily Ballance



MTC-00031255

JAN.15.2002 4:29PM CLARK UNIVERSITY NO. 039 P. 1/3
Clark University
Trustee's Office
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610-1477
Fax: (508) 793-8831
Phone: (508) 793-7614
To: Attorney Renata Hesse
Fax: (202)616-9937
From: Jack Foley
Date: 1/15/02
Re:
Pages: 3
cc:
O Urgent
O For Review
O Comment
O Reply
O Please
Recycle
JAN.15.20024:29PM CLARK UNIVERSITY
NO. 039 P.2/3
CLARK UNIVERSITY
1887
John L. Foley
Executive Assistant to
the President
950 Meln Street
Warcostor, MA Ol6lO-1477
(508)793-7441 Phone
506)793-8831 Fax
[email protected]
www.clarku.edu
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE: 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to comment with regard to the impending settlement 
in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a School Committee member from an older industrial city, I 
see the problems of the``digital divide'' in our school 
system. Scores of children attend schools with scant resources, 
which undermines the educational process.
    I fully support the Agreement's approach of directing part of 
the settlement towards public schools, We have all heard about the 
digital divide that exists along socio-economic lines. This divide 
has an adverse effect on public education. Research states that 82% 
of classrooms in higher income communities have Internet access 
while only60% of classrooms in poorer communities are connected. In 
my work with the families of low to moderate income in schools in 
the Clark University neighborhood, I can attest to the tremendous 
need for the opportunities that access to technology will provide.

[[Page 29543]]

    The New York Times recently reported on the differences in 
computer ownership along economic lines. In households whose income 
was $75,000 or more, 88% had computers.That number dropped 
dramatically for households whose family income was below$25,000. If 
this problem is not remedied then students from lower income 
families will continue to suffer, They will have distinct 
disadvantages in the pursuit of higher education and future 
employment opportunities.
    CHALLENGING CONVENTION, CHANGING OUR WORLD
JAN.15.20024: 29PM CLARK UNIVERSITY
NO. 039 P.3/3
Page 2
January 16, 2002
    For this reason, I support the aims of the Settlement Agreement 
that has been proposed.This agreement will provide students with 
access to technology. The agreement calls for Microsoft to provide 
200,000 computers to eligible schools at almost no cost.
    I urge the Court to approve the proposed Agreement.
    Sincerely yours,
    John L. Foley
    Member, Worcester School Committee



MTC-00031256

JAN-15-2002 TUE 02:37 PM DATAHOUSE, INC.
FAX NO. 2059729290 P.01
Datahouse
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530 0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This is to inform you that I support the settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice and believe that it will be 
advantageous to all concerned. To continue litigation would not be 
in the best interest of our country and our economy. This suit may 
have already contributed to the slowing of the economy, and to 
continue litigation could cause further harm.
    As I understand the terms of the agreement, the settlement seems 
to be good for the parties involved and good for the country. This 
suit has been a nuisance to the technology sector from its 
conception. We cannot allow continuing, litigation because it has 
consistently drained millions of dollars of government money, This 
suit has gone on for long enough,and it must be put to rest. I urge 
you confirm this settlement and let all of us get back to work.
    Sincerely,
    Rod Yates
    V.P. of Operations
    Cc: Representative Spencer Bachus
    One (illegible) Park South, Suite 100 South--Birmingham, 
Alabama 33243 2342 T 205 972 9292
    F 205 972 9290 BIRMINGHAM
    www.datahouse.com
    1965 Lake Park Drive, Suite 210--Atlanta, Georgia 30280 
8845 T 773 436 5757 F 770 436 5882
    ATLANTA
    301 (illegible) Park Drive, Suite 100--Nashville, Tennessee 
37213-3128 T 615 315 5200 F 615
    781 4243 NASHVILLE



MTC-00031257

JAN-15-2002 14:57
BRALEY & WELLINGTON INS.
508 755 4178 P.01
INSURANCE AGENCY
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX: 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input, regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a small businessman, I understand competition. Competition is 
healthy for the American economy. I use Microsoft products in my 
business and they have been a great help to me. They have allowed me 
to better serve my clients and to manage my business.As far as I can 
tell, there has been no consumer harm as a result of any actions 
taken by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have, in fact, helped 
many small businesses, such as mine grow.
    Given the state of our economy right now, we should do 
everything possible to spur growth, not hinder it.
    An additional benefit in the settlement, is the proposed 
donation of over 200,000computers to our nation's public schools. I 
whole-heartedly endorse this provision, which will help erase the 
digital divide in our public schools.
    I hope that the government will reach a settlement in this case.
    Sincerely yours,
    John P. Brissette



MTC-00031258

1-15-20022:51PM FROM 000000000000 P.1
Esther Vassar 001
Esther H. Vassar
Esther H. Vassar Enterprise
1548 Winthrope Drive
Newport News, Virginia 23602
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Microsoft 
case proposed settlement.
    I understand that Microsoft has agreed, as part of the 
settlement, to document and disclose various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows operating system products. They will disclose 
this information to their competitors. If that is what it takes to 
settle this lawsuit, then I am in favor of such disclosure and 
sharing of information.
    I use Microsoft software in my business. Small businesses like 
mine are able to start up quickly with software like Windows. My 
computer system came with the software already downloaded and ready 
to go. I believe that products like Windows allow more individuals 
like me to start their own businesses, often working from their 
homes. In places like Richmond and Tidewater telecommuting will help 
ease horrendous traffic conditions.
    The events of September 11 and after have depressed the US 
economy, particularly the technology sector. We need actions by our 
government that stimulates new business, not the opposite. I am 
hopeful that the provisions like the one cited above can bring an 
end to this costly and time-consuming case.
    Sincerely yours,
    Esther H. Vassar



MTC-00031259

1-15-2002 2:37PM FROM 000000000000
CORP COMMUNICATIONS 93644236 P. 1
No.646 002
Irene Thomaidis Cimino
3125 Park Avenue
Richmond, VA, 23221
January 8, 2001
Ms. Reneta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I'm a Microsoft shareholder and, quite frankly, I want nothing 
more than for Bill Gates to be able to make as much money as 
possible for his shareholders. That is his job. In addition, I don't 
believe the judicial system or the federal government should be 
penalizing him or his company for being smarter than anyone else.
    Needless to say, I am more than pleased that a settlement is in 
the works. From what I have been able to glean from news reports, 
all parties have worked very hard to come up with this agreement. I 
know, for example, that other software companies will be able to 
access various Windows features. I hope that part of the agreement, 
as well as others wilt end this litigation. Let's get out of the 
courtroom and back to our desks! Sincerely, Irene Thomaidis Cimino



MTC-00031260

JAN-15-200214:45
THE MCCAULEY GROUP
508 831 7558 P. 01/01
THE MCCAULEY GROUP
444 Cambridge Street
Worcester, MA 01610
508-798-7000
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX: 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Given the state of our economy right now, we should do 
everything possible to spur growth, not hinder it.

[[Page 29544]]

    As a small businessman, I understand competition. Competition is 
healthy for the American economy. I use Microsoft products in my 
business and they have been a great help to me. They have allowed my 
to better serve our clients and to manage our business.
    There has been no consumer harm as a result of any actions taken 
by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have, in fact, helped many 
small businesses such as mine grow.
    An additional benefit is the proposed donation of over 200,000 
computers to our nation's public schools. I whole-heartedly endorse 
this provision.
    I urge a swift settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Robert F. McCauley
    TOTAL P. 01



MTC-00031261

JAN-15-200212:11 PM Joe Presley
520 393 1348 P. 01
Clyde J. Presley
4723 South Prairie Hills Drive
Green Valley, Arizona 85614
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my full support of the recent antitrust 
case settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. 
This case has dragged on long enough and will serve no good purpose 
if the current settlement is not finalized.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft did not get off 
easy. Microsoft is being forced to disclose internal interfaces and 
protocols as well as not retaliate against computer makers who 
promote other products within Windows. These are not the only 
concessions, but most of these constitute a breach of free market 
principles. Even though I do not agree with government's 
interference with free enterprise, I must agree with ending this 
settlement. Our IT sector and our economy will greatly benefit from 
Microsoft being allowed to return to business and innovate the way 
they always have in the past. Please help to suppress the opposition 
and quell the state's personal vendettas against Microsoft.
    Microsoft's competitors, through their respective Attorneys 
General, are pushing continued litigation for their own self 
interest. They are not concerned about the public getting improved 
technology at reasonable prices. They would prefer the consumer to 
buy separate applications rather than the intergrated software that 
Microsoft sells.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031262

JAN-15-0206:40 PM.J>C BUCZEWSKI I 610 767 5520 
P. 01
Joseph Buczewski
P.0. Box 269
Neffs, Pennsylvania 18065-0269
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust dispute on and off 
for some time now. I understand that there is now a period of time 
allotted to examine the fairness of the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department. As one of your constituents, I 
urge you to please accept the proposed settlement. This settlement 
will restore fair competition, as Microsoft has agreed to tone down 
their marketing practices. They have agreed to share technology 
information with their competitors. Also, computer distributors will 
now be able to install non-Microsoft products on Windows. All of 
this is more than reasonable. There is no question that the 
settlement is pursuant to the public interest.
    Unfortunately, there are many companies and people out there who 
are trying to take advantage of Microsoft's success. If those 
companies put as much effort into innovating products as they do 
into pursuing Microsoft, all of this mess would be a dead issue. 
Microsoft has helped our American economy to get where it is today 
and has charged the technology industry forever.
    America's economy cannot withstand any more problems. This 
settlement will allow Microsoft to get back in the market and help 
out our economy. Please respect this settlement and let Microsoft to 
continue their business. It means a lot to me, Pennsylvania, and 
America. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Buczewski
    cc: Senatoe Rick Santorum



MTC-00031263

BELZON, INCORPORATED
190 LIME QUARRY ROAD,
SUITE 211,
MADISON, AL 35758
WWW.BELZON.COM
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to inform you that I believe that the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
regarding the antitrust suit will have positive impact on the 
economy. The suit has been detrimental to the economy, driving costs 
of software up and driving the stock market down. To top it all off, 
taxpayers are footing the bill for all this. If this suit is to 
continue, it will continue to have an unfavorable effect on the 
economy.
    The proposed settlement will be beneficial to both the IT 
industry and the consumers alike. Microsoft has agreed to the 
establishment of a three-person ``Technical Committee'' 
that will monitor its compliance to the settlement, and assist in 
dispute resolution. Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate 
against any computer makers that may ship non-Microsoft software.
    The settlement is fair and reasonable, and was arrived at after 
extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator present. It 
would be a shame to continue litigation and waste all the time and 
money spent on drawing up the settlement. I urge you to confirm the 
settlement and help the nation get on the road to recovery.
    Sincerely,
    Rich McAdams



MTC-00031264

JAN. 15.20024:35PM NO.6427 P. 1/2
FOLEY:LARDNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VEREX PLAZA
150 EAST GILMAN STREET
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53703-1491
POST OFFICE BOX 1497
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701 1497
TELEFHONE: 608.257.5035
FACSIMILE: 414.319.7002
www.FOLEYLARDNER.COM
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Total # of Pages 2 (including this page)
TO: Renata Hesse PHONE#: FAX#: 202-307-1454
From: Scott Klug
Date: 1-15-02
Client/Matter No:
User ID No:
MESSAGE:
If there are any problems with this transmission or if you have not
received all of the pages, please call 608.258.4252.
Operator:
Time Sent:
Return Original
To:
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE 
MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF 
THE DESIGNATED RECIPENTS NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED 
RECIPIENT OR ANY AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED 
RECIPIENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS 
DOCUMENT IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATIN, DISTRIBUTION 
OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE 
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY 
BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US BY MAIL. THANK 
YOU. XXX.XXXXXX.XA Cover Page 1 of 1
FOLEY & LARDNER
JAN.15.20024:35PM NO.6427 P.2/2
Scott Klug
5694 Kilkenny Place
Fitchburg, WI 53711
Reneta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
601 D. Street, NW, #1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to express my full support of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. From the outset the 
federal government's legal attack on Microsoft was questionable. 
Consumers were never harmed as a result of actions taken by 
Microsoft. Rather, Microsoft's innovation has led to tremendous 
benefits for consumers, such as better products and lower prices.

[[Page 29545]]

    Antitrust laws were meant to protect consumers, not for certain 
powerful companies to protect themselves from the market 
competition.
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to uphold this 
settlement and put this entire issue behind us.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter
    Sincerely
    Scott Klug
    003.336634.1



MTC-00031265

01-15-0217:33 MITCHELL
T: 5167651944
P.01
3985 Wells Road
Peconic, NY 11958-1738
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000l
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The 
required changes in Microsoft's business practices will restore fair 
competition and prevent future antitrust violations.
    The settlement mandates many specific changes on Microsoft's 
part. For instance, Microsoft has agreed to make available to its 
competitors any protocols implemented in Windows'' operating 
system products that are used to interoperate natively with any 
Microsoft server operating system. Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to 
enter into any agreements obligating any third party to distribute 
or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed 
percentage. Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
software or hardware developers who develop or promote software that 
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows.
    This settlement is in the best interests of the American public 
and the American economy. The recession has had a devastating effect 
on state budgets and the Federal budget. It is important that the 
American technology industry be allowed to concentrate on business 
again as soon as possible.
    Thank you for your wise leadership.
    With sincere regards,
    Robert Mitchell



MTC-00031266

Jan-15-0201:38P
Graham Tash (253) 474-7159 P. 01
Rick W. Bauer
P.O. Box 1308
Graham, WA 98338
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
50 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am a proponent of this settlement. Needless resources have 
been expended over the course of this litigation. I strongly urge 
the Department of Justice to put an end to unneccesary waste of 
resources. This lawsuit should not have been brought in the first 
place. The case lacks merit, and was brought only as a result of 
pressure exerted by Microsoft's competitors in Silicon Valley and 
with the help sympethetic interest groups. As you know, some of 
those groups were in the highest levels of elected office.
    Mr. Ashcroft, history already proves when and where the the 
breaking point in the stock market was. It was March 1999 when Judge 
Jackson made his decision against Microsoft. That was the straw that 
broke the camals back. Our economy went into a downhill slide and 
has never recovered. Then Sept. 11,2001, and now Enron enter the 
picture. How much more can our economy withstand, especially With 
Sen. Daschel holding our economy hostage to achieve his own personal 
agenda. I believe that you are the Attorney General that is able to 
understand the political and economic impact of this situation 
better than any before you. The reason being that you are not so far 
removed from the process that you have had time to forget.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are quite reasonable, and 
should be approved without delay. Microsoft has agreed to the 
establishment of a technical oversight committee, has agreed to 
share its internal information with its competitors, and has agreed 
to change its business practices to better comply with antitrust 
laws. Nothing more should be asked of this corporation. I whole 
heartedly support the Microsoft settlement, and hope to see a rapid 
conclusion to this case. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Rick W. Bauer
    Hm. 253-875-4785
    Wk. 253-475-4151
    [email protected]



MTC-00031267

Jan 15 `2216:00 P.01
William H. Wiggins
604 North Pontiac Ave.
Dothan, Alabama 6303-3970
Fax: 334-794-4314
January/15/2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Mr. Ashcroft:
    AS a supporter of Microsoft, I write you concerning the recent 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Three 
years of negotiations should be ample for a well thought out 
settlement. The concessions that Microsoft has made speak to all 
parties involved and are beneficial to the entire information 
technology sector.
    As our economy weakens, we must pay careful attention to our 
technologies. By delaying the enforcement of this settlement, we 
cause our technology industry to lag behind and jeopardize our 
position in the global market. Let us help support the industry by 
making sure that no more actions are taken against the settlement, 
By allowing our information technology sector to focus on innovation 
we, the consumer, benefit as well as the IT sector and the economy 
as a whole.
    Even before the Microsoft suit it has been my perception for 
some time now that industry can succeed only to a point before the 
government steps in and discourages capable companies like Microsoft 
to do what they do best. They want them to stagnate rather than take 
advantage of their investment in research and create more 
employment. I urge you to help support this settlement and ask you 
to help stop any action against it. I thank you for your help.
    Respectfully,
    William H. Wiggins
    P.S. I own no Microsoft stock. I am just interested in 
encouraging entrepreneurs to have incentive to do their thing and 
have a vibrant economy in this country



MTC-00031268

01/15/02 16:48 FAX 9067793702
LTI
LTi
Laydon Technology, Inc.
1005 Pinewood Court
Iron Mountain, MI 49801-4464
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy that a settlement has been reached with Microsoft. 
The terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable. In addition, the 
required changes in Microsoft's business practices will restore fair 
competition and prevent future antitrust violations.
    The settlement requires a number of specific changes. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer 
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers on 
identical terms and conditions, including price. In addition, 
Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement. 
These changes along with the others in the settlement will result in 
a competitive balance in the technology sector. This settlement is 
in the best interest of the public and the economy. The current 
recession has had a devastating effect on state budgets and the 
Federal budget, and it is important that the IT industry be allowed 
to concentrate on business as soon as possible. Thank you.
    I am directly involved in the development of software solutions 
for sale to small and medium size companies. I am a survivor having 
been involved in this business since 1981. One thing that has always 
been a problem in the industry is incompatibility. When Microsoft 
began to ``monopolize'' the industry it became so much 
easier to develop software for microcomputers since we knew what was 
on the users machine and how it reacted. When I began developing for 
the internet I found, and still find, the same problems.
    Netscape supports certain things that MS Internet Explorer 
doesn't and vice-versa. Since I am a small business trying to 
survive, writing similar code in duplicate to support both browsers 
has become almost unbearable. Finally, through no fault of 
Microsoft's, I had to choose. I chose to support Microsoft and

[[Page 29546]]

place a note on my web site that linked to Microsoft so users could 
download Internet Explorer. The thing is that Microsoft has a better 
product in Windows and Internet Explorer and forcing users to go 
through great pains to get the better product is not good for 
American business. Although I am happy Microsoft has reached an 
agreement with you, I am VERY DISAPPOINTED, that it has come to 
this. Forcing competitive products on the industry and users just 
because others have not been able to compete on their own is a sin. 
I am a conservative Republican and am very disappointed in my party 
for not making this issue ``go away'' after the election.
    Sincerely in Favor of revived American Innovation,
    Jim Laydon
    President



MTC-00031269

JAN 15 `0216:21
ILAPANCOHEN 7459446 PH P. 1/1
Martin A. Cohen, CLU, inc.
1732 Arnold Street
Philadelphia, PA 19152
(275) 745-6094 (phone) (215) 745-9446 (fax)
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The recent settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of 
Justice is long overdue. Although I think the settlement is too 
harsh and violates even more laws than the initial lawsuit against 
Microsoft considered, it is in the best interests of the public.
    First off, Microsoft should not be forced to disclose internal 
interfaces. They have put a lot of time and money into creating 
their own technology that is far superior to competitors. What 
company in the world would agree to offer up their technological 
secrets? If they did, they lose all ability to compete in a free 
market. The second concession I think is ludicrous deals with 
contractual restrictions. If Microsoft cannot enter into agreements 
with vendors to exclusively distribute their products, then they are 
limited in their ability to gain market share. I see Airlines, 
Sodas, and Liquor Distributors all entering into these agreements. 
Why will such agreements be precluded from the tech sector?
    At any rate, it is time for this issue to be settled and for our 
economy to go back to normal. This will only occur when the nine 
states in opposition drop their suits and Microsoft can start to 
focus on business.
    Sincerely,
    Glenda Cohen
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031270

Jan 15 0204:15p W N Meloon
407 851 6591
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Fax: (202) 616-9937
Fax (202) 307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am very concerned with the never-ending saga of lawsuits 
against Microsoft Inc. One day we're having lawsuits against tobacco 
and then the gun industry and now the Federal Government is seeking 
to break up a company that epitomizes the American success story!
    This is why I am encouraged by the settlement and hope we can 
continue to see more of them. Frankly, I just do not see the point 
in such a suit when there is so much competition in the technology 
industry. This is an industry where products and service change so 
very quickly that the stock market fluctuates depending on what new 
and ingenious product is offered to consumers on any given day!
    In addition to the changing times, there is now way for us to 
tell who is competing with whom. Companies like AOL Time Warner and 
Microsoft have so many facets, it is just not plausible to suggest 
that just any one company is dominating in all areas. Who is to say 
that next week there will not be a new merger that will offer 
consumers with a choice that is twice the size of Microsoft?
    Please continue with the settlements. I know that you understand 
the importance of a free market and competition. As a business owner 
myself, I ask that you please continue to speak out against this 
frivolous litigation and encourage the settlements to continue to 
take place.
    I appreciate the time you have taken to read my concerns on this 
issue.
    Sincerely,
    Walter N. Meloon
    President/CEO
    WNM/arp P. 1
    Correct Craft o Est. 1925
    6100 South Orange Avenue--Orlando, Florida 
32809--407.855.4141--Fax 407.851.7844--
    www.nautiques.com



MTC-00031271

Tuesday, January 15, 20024:08 PM
Gil Koedel 4129670244
P.01
441 Forest Highlands Drive
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor the Department of Justice's wise decision to 
settle the Microsoft antitrust case.
    The settlement agreement is fair, and it achieves the goals of 
those who believe Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive behavior. 
Dragging the case through the courts will serve no good purpose. 
Especially since there is really no better remedy than what the 
settlement agreement provides.
    Microsoft has agreed to disclose its internal Windows operating 
information to its competitors. They have also agreed to make it 
easier for computer manufacturers to remove features of Windows and 
to replace them with other software programs. By doing these things, 
they are essentially leveling the playing field in the technology 
world.
    The approval of the settlement agreement is the best course of 
action. Thank you for your attention to these comments.
    Sincerely,
    Gilbert Koeder
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031272

1-15-2002 5:49PM
FROM 000000000000 TRANS COMMUNITY BANK SHARES P. 1
Jan-15 2002 3:32PM No. 0746 P.2
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a supporter of the Microsoft Corporation, I wish to offer my 
comments on the settlement that is on the table. I believe that the 
provisions that relate to ``windows design obligations'' 
and ``computer-maker flexibiIty'' demonstrate Microsoft's 
good faith in wanting to put an end to this litigation.
    Let me elaborate.
    Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows, 
beginning with an interim release of Windows XP, to make it easy to 
add or remove access to features built in to Windows or to non-
Microsoft software. Consumers can change their configuration at any 
time.
    Microsoft has also agreed to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs included within Windows.
    For the good of the economy and the high tech industry, I look 
forward to hearing that this case has been settled.
    Yours truly,
    9025 Forest Hill Avenue P.O. Box 36197
    Richmond, VA 23235 Phone: 804-3119-6000 FAX: 
804-320-6024
    www.transcommunitybankshares.com
    TOLL Free. 1-800-606-0946



MTC-00031273

1-152002 5:33PM FROM 000000000000 P.01
1/15/20029:10PM FROM: 804-359-6425
TO: (804) 364-4236 PAGE 001 OF 001
Electronic Cottage Industries --
Human & Computer Systems Integration
Muriel Johnson Murray
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have followed the developments in the Microsoft case with 
interest. Events are leading to what appears to be a good chance for 
a settlement in this case. That is the reason for my letter.
    I understand that the settlement imposes a number of 
restrictions and obligations on Microsoft, which extend to products 
and technologies that were not at issue in the lawsuit. In addition, 
these restrictions also encompass aspects of Microsoft's business 
and product development that were not found to be illegal by the 
Court of Appeals.

[[Page 29547]]

In order to bring this case to a conclusion, Microsoft has agreed to 
these broad terms I am certain they look forward to moving on and 
developing new products. I also understand that any violations of 
the settlement are punishable as contempt of court and that 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement will be monitored by a 
three-person Technical Committee established under the settlement, 
by the Department of Justice and by those state plaintiffs that are 
party to the settlement.
    The terms of this settlement sound like they are more than 
adequate to bring this case to conclusion. For the good of the 
economy and to prevent a further waste of taxpayers'' money, I 
truly hope that to be the case.
    Very truly yours,
    Muriel Johnson Murray
    MJM/moo P. 1
    2325 Hanover Avenue, Richmond VA 23220.3403 o phone 
804-358-4809 9 fax 804-359-6425 o mobile 
804-928-4809
    e-mail [email protected] o web site http://
www.electcottage.com



MTC-00031274

FROM: MUP CONST. EQ. CO.
PHONE NO.: 3038418373
Jan. 15 2002 10:12AM P1
MOUNTAIN, VALLEY, PLAINS
CONSTRUCTION EQUlPMENT COMPANY
713 AMANDA PINES DRIVE
PARKER CO 80138
CONSTRUCTION EOUIPMENT CO.
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    When I purchased my first computer in 1997 I was able learn 
programs quickly because of the easy format, which Microsoft had 
made. Although microcomputers have been around since the 1970's it 
has not been until recently that millions of people have been able 
to use computers, in part because of the innovations of Microsoft to 
make computers easier to use. This country would be many years 
behind with out Microsoft leading the pack. The other companies just 
want your power so they can become the leaders. This is all wrong.
    I was saddened when I heard a while back that Microsoft had been 
brought to cow-t in an antitrust suit, especially after all that 
they have done to improve computers. But now I understand a 
settlement has been reached in this case. I think it should be a 
high priority of your office to make sure that this settlement is 
completed and this case is over at the federal level. Settlement 
calls for Microsoft to share more information with competitors, and 
to give competitors more opportunities. (This is crinimal) Clearly, 
the settlement is fair.
    I support the settlement, and look forward to seeing the end of 
this case.
    Microsoft should be allowed to return to innovating and should 
not be held in court any longer than is absolutely necessary.
    Sincerely,
    Jule Larrabee
    SALES OF NEW AND USED EQUIPMENT AND PARTS



MTC-00031275

Tuesday, January 15, 20021:24 PM p.01
Inspection Technology 19096263540
Kermit Skeie
1245 W.Cienega Ave. # 85
San Dimas, CA. 91773
Phone: 909 592 6676
Fax: 909 592 6647
[email protected]
1/15/02
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
To Whom It May Concern:
    Re: MICROSOFT
    In my career of more than 50 years, I encountered a similar 
situation shortly after WWII when a firm had enjoyed a robust 
business throughout this period, because of patents granted. Two 
firms having? essentially `back-engineered'' products. 
complained to the US government alleging unfair practices and 
restraint of trade.
    The impact on the company for which I then worked, had top 
management tied up tied ten years fighting, and at least management 
decisions were colored by the lawsuit Legal fees became a 
significant budget item, using moneys that should have been directed 
at new products. After 10 years the case was dismissed for lack of 
sufficient evidence!
    My sympathies have since been entirely with defendants. Of 
course, these situations were not parallel in magnitude, but in 
principle. Why should innovators, and entrepreneurs be penalized for 
their monetary success?
    Bill Gates, and party should be honored for starting a new 
direction in the nation's business. I purchased a PCI upon my 
retirement after selling the company I had headed to the British. I 
gave up on it without an operating system suitable to a non-
professional. The a rebuilt Packard Bell 486, with some education, 
and with a local ISP was on my way, thanks to Bill Gates and party. 
I am on my 4th upgrade which plays well since I cannot play golf 
anymore, and have over 150 e-mail addresses.
    His efforts should be lauded, not censured! I have a small 
business operated on my HP Pavilion. I bought my secretary a word 
processor in 1978 at $14,4000. I saw one today for $199. Thanks to 
Steve Job and Bill Gates for starting this revolution.
    It's too late for me, having retired as President of 2 
companies, but in total sympathy with innovators, having headed a 
company manufacturing diagnostic ultrasound instrumentation in 1964, 
about 5 years before anyone in the US! No venture capitalists in 
those days, so I liquidated for the benefit of creditors, and turned 
to industrial.
    Kermit Skeie



MTC-00031276

JAN-15-200216:19 P.01/01
Paul F. CANTIANI
Insurance Agency, Inc.
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX: 202-616-9937
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input, regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a small business owner, I understand competition and know 
that it is healthy for our economy. I use Microsoft products daily 
in my business and they have been a great help to me. They have 
allowed me to better serve my customers clients, to manage our 
business and to actually expand.
    There has been no consumer harm as a result of any actions taken 
by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have, in fact, have helped 
many small businesses like mine grow. I hope that we can end this 
lawsuit and that the Court approves the settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Paul F. Cantiani
    Celebating Over 30 Years of Business Total P.01



MTC-00031278

FROM: Nittany Mountain Exc. Inc.
PHONE NO : 8143641296 Jan. 16 2002 09:49AM P1
145 huey Lane Spring Mills, PA 16875-9130
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you today to express my opinion that the settlement 
reached last November be implemented without further delay. It is my 
sincere opinion that this issue should be resolved with all 
expediency and efficiency. Thus, no more federal action against 
Microsoft should be instigated.
    This settlement has imposed many broad restrictions and 
obligations on Microsoft forcing it to drastically change its 
products and business practices. By no means has Microsoft gotten 
off easy in this deal. The settlement will reduce anti-competitive 
behavior within the IT industry. It is imperative for the sake of 
the economy that Microsoft and its competitors get back to producing 
innovative products. Any further litigation pertaining to this issue 
would be unnecessary and indeed harmful.
    I ask that you continue your hard work in working towards the 
resolution in this matter. I only hope that it comes quickly. Moving 
past this issue is vital since more important matters are currently 
facing this country.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Huey
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031279

JAN-16-200208:27 AM JOSH--POTTER
12522491844
P.01
661 Hardison Drive
Arapahoe, NC 28510--9660
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    My name is Josh Potter. I live in Arapahoe, NC. I am pleased to 
hear that a settlement has

[[Page 29548]]

been reached between Microsoft, the Justice Department, and some of 
the other parties involved with the lawsuit. I am writing to express 
my support for the settlement.
    I was opposed to the Microsoft lawsuit from the beginning. The 
computer industry would still be in the dark ages without Bill Gates 
and Microsoft. However, as I understand the settlement, it allows 
for greater competition without seriously damaging Microsoft as a 
competitive entity. Now, under the settlement Microsoft has to 
reveal its intellectual property in its Windows internal interfaces 
and server interoperability protocols.
    Under the circumstances, and considering other proposals to 
settle this matter, the settlement you have reached are in the best 
interest of the public, the tech industry, as well as, the economy.
    In closing, I support the proposed settlement. I feel it will 
benefit American industry and consumers alike. Thank you for your 
time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Josh Potter



MTC-00031280

16-20026:29AM FROM P. 1
6586 153rd Avenue Southeast
Bellevue, Washington 98006
January 14,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In November of 2001 Microsoft and the Justice Department reached 
a settlement in the antitrust case that had been in progress for 
more than three years. I am contacting you to let you know I was 
pleased to see that this settlement was reached, as were many other 
Americans.
    I am concerned that special interests with anti Microsoft 
leanings will try to derail this settlement. They will tell the 
public that this settlement will change nothing and Microsoft should 
be compelled back to court. However this settlement will create many 
changes as well as end this expensive case. This settlement will 
give computer makers flexibility to install non- Microsoft software. 
Additionally, this settlement will compel Microsoft to reveal an 
unprecedented amount of secret design code to competitors. Without a 
doubt this settlement will bring fundamental change to the IT 
industry. Furthermore this settlement will end this case at the 
federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Alicia Mariano



MTC-00031281

JAN-16-2002 08:20A
FROM: =201 444 4591 TO: 12023071454 P:1
414 Radcliffe Street
Wyckoff, New Jersey 07481
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am outraged by the Justice Department's harassment of 
Microsoft on anti-trust issues. The Microsoft Corporation never 
engaged in the anticompetitive behavior that they have been accused 
of by their competitors. At any rate, I am pleased to see this issue 
come to a resolution with the settlement reached last November. 
Maybe now everyone can move on to more important issues.
    Anyone who thinks Microsoft got off easy in this deal is 
mistaken. Microsoft has agreed to many terms that go beyond the 
scope of the case. Microsoft will now disclose the internal 
interface of its operating system so that software developers will 
be able to promote their software from within the Windows system.
    Clearly Microsoft wants this issue resolved. As a Microsoft 
supporter, I too hope this settlement is quickly resolved.
    Sincerely,
    Carol DiPalma



MTC-00031282

Jan-16-02 06:27A Calderazzo 9624563 P.01
Dominick Caldcrazzo
14614 Village Glen Circle
Tampa, Florida 33624
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft
    I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to voice 
my support for Microsoft in light of recent litigation against then. 
I am extremely dissatisfied with the way this entire matter has been 
dealt with. In my opinion. this lawsuit was very unfair to Microsoft 
and has done much to damage the stability of the lnformation 
technology Industry. Despite the unfair treatment, Microsoft has 
been more than cooperative from the very beginning. They have even 
agreed to restrictions and obligations that were not even at issue 
in the lawsuit. The have even made efforts to restructure aspects of 
Microsoft's business and product development that were not found to 
unlawful by the Court of Appeals. This was all in effort to bring 
the case to a conclusion and achieve unhindered development of new 
products
    If that were not enough Microsoft has also agreed to allow 
computer makers to make it easier for non-Microsoft software, such 
as programs from AOL Time Warner and RealNetworks to be accessed by 
consumers.
    Though this is just a small example of Microsoft's efforts, 
competitors of Microsoft are still actively trying to undermine the 
settlement during this review period This iS why I am writing. I am 
grateful that you value my input and trust that my views and those 
of others Will impact positively on the case against Microsoft.
    Respectfully yours,
    Dominick Calderazzo



MTC-00031283

16-JAN-2002 14:29 DASSAULT FALCON JET SPORE 65 4688023 
P.01/01
US Department of Justice, INTERNET:[email protected].
From: 110641,1542
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    Having followed the government's and several states's case 
against Microsoft, I urge you to conclude the matter as decided by 
the courts ASAP so that everyone can get back to business. It seems 
like the case with Microsoft has been in process 4 years or more, 
about the same length of time as our effort in WWII and if our 
government needs more time to defeat a software company that it did 
Nazi Germany and Japan, something is wrong. I use Microsoft software 
on my computer, most people probably do, and would like to see 
emphasis on other issues take the fore. For one, the economy needs 
attention. I have the impression that the continuing attacks on 
Microsoft serve the Interests of some of their competitors who 
failed to compete successfully and want the government and stales to 
beat Microsoft since they could not. This is contrary to business 
practice in the marketplace. The courts have had their say, let the 
competitors adjust and adapt to new strategies. Please conclude this 
case and move on to more pressing issues such as the Enron debacle.
    Michael J. Fies
    235 Arcadia Road
    07-04 Argos
    Singapore



MTC-00031284

0 1/ 15/0211:02 Fax 978-688-7705 JOHN PRESSMAN 01
Merrimack
COLLEGE
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845,. 976-837-5000
Department of Modem Languages
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Since the start of the Department of Justice filed suit against 
Microsoft three years ago, the IT industry and the economy have been 
unnecessarily disrupted. The enormous cost this lawsuit has been on 
the federal government and the IT industry will be inevitably passed 
onto the consumer through higher prices on technology products for 
years to come. This cost can only increase as the suit remains in 
the hands of the court.
    Microsoft has agreed to contract changes with distributors, and 
to opening parts of its proprietary code to competitors among other 
things. The settlement overcompensates Microsoft's competitors for 
any substantive infractions it may be guilty of and will surely 
mitigate Microsoft's market power in the future.
    This suit must end. The government has proven that it can 
effectively disrupt an entire industry with ambiguous results for 
the consumer in the end. For this and the above reasons, I support 
this settlement and desire an end of this case. sincerely;
    John & Sylvia Pressman
    245 Osgood Street
    North Andover, MA 01845



MTC-00031285

JAN-15-200209:13 PM Emily W h i t e/Tom Simone 01 
727 596 1285 P. 01
1621 Gulf Boulevard, Apt. 807
Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767
January 15, 2002

[[Page 29549]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvanla Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    From the beginning, I have thought that the suit against 
Microsoft should be thrown out of court. Microsoft has done more 
good for technology in the world than any other entity. Microsoft 
rose to its market position through providing a quality product at a 
price that consumers can afford. The enormous economic rewards that 
Microsoft reaped due to their business savvy is still the envy of 
the IT industry. Unfortunately, instead of Microsoft's competitors 
attempting to create a product that was able to compete well with 
Microsoft's, they tried to use the court as a tool of greed rather 
than one of Justice.
    The proposed settlement is more than fair to the plaintiffs in 
the case, and punishes Microsoft far past any substantive 
infractions of which they may be guilty. Microsoft will share 
information about the internal workings of Windows, and will design 
future versions of Windows so that non-Microsoft programs can 
operate within it and suffer no drop-off of efficiency.
    The time is long passed for this matter to be put behlnd us. The 
incredible cost that Microsoft and the other litigants have spent on 
the case will take years to pay off.
    Sincerely,
    Emily J. White



MTC-00031286

FAX 4067783538 BAKERAIR SERVICE PO1
Baker Air Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 979 Baker, MT 59313 (406)778-3508
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The fact that this settlement had to be reached at all, in my 
view is a ridiculous caricature of our American values and spirit. 
In my view, Microsoft and its success should be viewed as a success 
story and an enterprise to be celebrated. not one that should be 
persecuted by its own government. This being said, the recent 
settlement is the best way to end this matter and to allow the 
company, the industry and the government to move on.
    The provisions of the settlement agreement ensure competition, 
foster innovation and allow for increased competition. The 
settlement requires Microsoft, on top of competition building 
measures, to submit to a government appointed three-person technical 
committee. This committee's responsibility is to ensure Microsoft's 
compliance with the agreement and to mediate disputes about the 
settlement.
    It is high time that this process is over and that we as a 
country are allowed to move on. Let us make the approval of this 
settlement the final federal action taken on this matter. Thank you.
    Sincerely yours,
    Roger Meggers, President
    cc: Mr. Bill Gates /Microsoft



MTC-00031287

2098 Mt. Laurel Road
Fleetwood, PA 19522-8711
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the lawsuits that have 
been brought against Microsoft should have never occurred in the 
first place. Now, I hope that the tentative settlement is confirmed 
and that the nine states that still opposed will end their lawsuits. 
As a user and consumer, I do not feel that my rights have been 
infringed upon in any way. I own and use some of Microsoft's 
products and services as well as some of their competitors and do 
not feel as though I've been harmed in any way as to my ability to 
make my own choices for these products and services. In many cases 
the products and services of Microsoft are far superior to any other 
vendors and their prices are in line with the technology they 
deliver. In the settlement Microsoft has agreed to open the 
intellectual property of its internal Windows interface to its 
competitors, to promote interoperability with non-Microsoft 
software, and even have a full-time three-person technical committee 
monitor its own compliance. I personally, don't believe they should 
have to do these things; hut I assume Microsoft is willing to do so, 
so that we can all move on and put an end to these senseless 
lawsuits. Microsoft represents a free enterprise success that should 
be a model for our country's entrepreneurs to follow. Microsoft 
should not he pllnished for being successful.
    In the best interest of the public, I urge you to expeditiously 
make an end of matter so that you can focus your office on real 
issues, such as international security tax issues. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Don Kiesling
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031288

Packaging Store
The Packaging & Shipping Experts
7129 Citrine Lane Southwest
Lakewood, WA 98498-5013
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Depatymrnt of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to suggest that a just outcome for the 
Microsoft anti-trust case and the surrounding controversy would be 
the prompt acceptance by the federal government of the proposed 
settlement plan. This plan is the product of four years of 
negotiation, mediation and litigation. The parties have accepted it. 
The court has indorsed it. It's time for all to get out of court and 
back to work.
    The plan directs Microsoft to grant other computer makers rights 
to configure Windows to promote their and others'' software. It 
constrains Microsoft from non-completive practices in licensing and 
other areas. It prohibits any kind of future retaliatory market 
practices. It puts the company under the eye of a new government 
review committee. It opens up the company to more competition.
    What more does the government want? We need Microsoft back on 
top of its form. The settlement should be accepted now.
    Thank you for your leadership.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Young
    5471 Steilacoom Blvd., SW * Tacoma, WA 98499
    (253) 504-7464 o (253) 504-7499 (FAX)



MTC-00031289

PhoneTools
BVRP
Software
Phone:
Fax:
Message :
I urge you to accept the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust
case. Please see my attached letter.
Thank You
Henry S. Williams
1304 Adams Ave.
Toppenish, WA 98948
From: Dell Computer Corporation
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Preferred Customer
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Henry S. Williams
1304 Adams Ave.
Toppenish, WA 98948
E-Mail: stein [email protected]
Phone: 509-865-2915
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regard to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. As a user of Microsoft products I have 
found their products to be of high quality and value priced. 
Consumer complaints with Microsoft are few, unfortunately competitor 
complaints have driven this ``anti-trust'' matter. As a 
resident of Washington State, as well as a stock holder, let me tell 
you this unreasonable litigation has cost our State millions of 
dollars and my wife and I thousands of dollars.
    I believe the proposed settlement is more than fair. I urge you 
to accept this settlement and put an end to this long drawn out 
litigation.
    The proposed settlement requires Microsoft to make serious 
concessions to its competitors as Windows systems will have to be 
made to accept non-Windows software. If fact a government appointed 
oversight committee would now monitor Microsoft's business practices 
and insure it abide by the settlement terms.
    Clearly this settlement is more than just a slap on Microsoft's 
wrist. The terms should be more than enough to appease the harshest 
critics of Microsoft, and it will certainly increase competition in 
the technology marketplace. At this time of National economic 
uncertainty we need this great corporation at work. Please support 
this settlement.

[[Page 29550]]

    Sincerely.
    Henry S. Williams



MTC-00031290

Structure Computer Services
10136 Hickory Ridge Dr.
Brocksville, OH 44141-3636
440-526-2776 e-mail: Itstrong@
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am in favor of that antitrust case against Microsoft settling. 
The litigation against Microsoft has been extended out far too long.
    I am a comptuter consultant. As a consultant, I have directly 
observed the negaitve impact the suit has had on the IT community, 
and on our economy. Uncertainty has been created industry-wide. As a 
result, business has suffered. Drawing out the lawsuit further will 
only result in creating even greater uncertainty in the industry.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable, and are in 
the public interest. In fact, Microsoft has offered concessions that 
go beyond the scope of the lawstiit. For example, Microsoft agreed 
to the creation of a Technical Committee to act as a watchdog over 
its business practices. I support concessions that wil ensure 
compliance with the antitrust laws. However, I do not not believe 
concessions should include the ability to interfere with Microsoft's 
business operations. While I believe some of Microsoft's concessions 
are not particularly fair to Microsoft, I support the company's 
willingness to go beyond what is at issue to bring this case to a 
rapid conclusion.
    I urge you to support the settlement. Bringing closure to this 
issue is best for everyone, and so I thank you for taking the time 
to consider my point of view.
    Sincerely,
    James T. Strong



MTC-00031291

Gordon and Diane Hanford
7900 Skylineview Drive
Mentor, Ohio 44060
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We have always believed in capitalism and free trade. We feel 
that the antitrust lawsuit that has been brought against Microsoft 
is in direct violation of these ideals, and that the settlement that 
has been reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is 
fair. We simply do not wish to see this issue go any further, and as 
such, we support the settlement. Please do not penalize Microsoft's 
success, which has come from offering a superior product.
    Quite frankly, I am befuddled by the government's pursuit of 
this case. Microsoft never forced consumers to buy their software, 
and people buy Microsoft because they make quality products, which 
they now market for less than those originally offered. How does 
putting the best product on the market for less make a company a 
monopoly? Obviously, this consumer feels that this suit is 
inappropriate. Finally, we would like to say how pleased we are that 
you were finally confirmed as Attorney General. There are people in 
our society that want to attack success at every opportunity. Your 
reelection bid as Senator showed to what great lengths they will go 
to, to defeat and smear your outstanding and successful career.
    Thank you and God bless!
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031292

BAKERAIR SERVICE P01
P.O. Box 979 Baker, MT 59313
(406) 778-3508
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The fact that this settlement had to be reached at all, in my 
view is a ridiculous caricature of our American values and spirit. 
In my view, Microsoft and its success should be viewed as a success 
story and an enterprise to be celebrated, not one that should be 
persecuted by its own government. This being said, the recent 
settlement is the best way to end this matter and to allow the 
company, the industry and the government to move on.
    The provisions of the settlement agreement ensure competition, 
foster innovation and allow for increased competition. The 
settlement requires Microsoft, on top of competition building 
measures, to submit to a government appointed three-person technical 
committee. This committee's responsibility is to ensure Microsoft's 
compliance with the agreement and to mediate disputes about the 
settlement.
    It is high time that this process is over and that we as a 
country are allowed to move on. Let us make the approval of this 
settlement the final federal action taken on this matter. Thank you.
    Sincerely yours,
    Roger Meggers, President c: Mr. Bill Gates /Microsoft



MTC-00031293

Erika Summers
5119-306 Cooper Ridge Dr.
Durham, NC 27707
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Case
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The proposed settlement agreement in the United States v. 
Microsoft case offers a workable compromise for Microsoft, software 
designers, computer manufacturers and consumers. Having recently 
completed college and now working in the private sector, I know the 
importance of having a good integrated software system. I can also 
understand the need for some flexibility in configuring other 
products with the Windows system.
    Microsoft's products and services are user friendly and have 
been valuable to consumers with little software and computer 
experience. The proposed consent decree provides the proper balance 
between punishing Microsoft and providing remedies for its 
competitors, computer manufacturers and consumers. Competitors and 
manufacturers will have the option of dismantling or removing some 
Windows features. Microsoft has agreed that it will not retaliate 
against computer makers that provide software that competes with the 
Windows operating system.
    Ensuring a competitive environment is an important part of the 
United States economy. This agreement will allow competition while 
at the same time encouraging innovation at a time when we need to 
get our economy moving.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Erika Summers



MTC-00031294

Danny Cline
1354 Leland Court
York, SC 29745-7562
January l5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the job you have been doing in the wake of 
September 11, 2001. As a stock holder in Microsoft I also appreciate 
your support of the settlement that was reached in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. Your continued support is needed to make certain 
that this case is actually settled. Opposition forces with anti-
Microsoft agendas may try to derail this settlement and have this 
case returned to court.
    The opposition to this settlement claims that it is not hard 
enough on Microsoft. Yet a detailed reading of the settlement will 
show this is not the case. This settlement forces Microsoft to end 
any contractual restriction that would hold back competitors from 
placing their software on MS operating systems. Moreover this 
settlement requires Microsoft to divulge design code to competitors 
so that they compete more competently with Microsoft.
    The concessions made by Microsoft in this settlement are 
extraordinary. There is no need for a re-trial or continuation of 
this case at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Danny Cline
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031295

THE SENATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
S. C. SENATE
SENATECLERK
FAX # (803)222-6299
DATE: January 16, 2002
TO: Renata B. Hesse
FROM: Senator John C. Land, III
FAX NUMBER: 202-307-1454
PAGES: 1 of 2 (Including this page)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE SHEETS INDICATED,
PLEASE CONTACT THE SENATE CLERK'S

[[Page 29551]]

OFFICE: (803)212-4200
JAN-16-2002 WED 09:29 AM FAX NO P. 02
JOHN C. LAND, III
January 15, 2002
FAX: 1-202-307-4454
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Anti trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Proposed Settlement of Department of Justice Antitrust Action 
Against Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I support the decision of the Attorney General of the United 
States to negotiate a settlement of the Department of Justice 
antitrust action against Microsoft. I understand that nine of the 
eighteen suing states have also decided to join in the proposed 
settlement.
    The parties negotiated intensively over a long period of time. 
They agreed to a settlement that will protect consumers and 
encourage competition and growth in the technology sector of our 
economy. It is time to end the litigation and the uncertainty and to 
bring this case to a conclusion.
    Yours truly,
    John C. Land, III
    Chairman, Senate Democratic Caucus



MTC-00031296

37 Maple Avenue
Madison, New Jersey 07940
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is intended to express my views on the proposed 
settlement that was reached between the Department of Justice and 
the Microsoft Corporation. I am all in favor of this settlement, and 
would like to see it approved as soon as possible. There is no 
reason to continue with litigation against Microsoft, especially if 
you consider the current state of our economy.
    According to the settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to enter 
into any agreements obligating any third party to distribute or 
promote and Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, 
subject to certain narrow exceptions where no competitive concern is 
present. They have also agreed not to enter into agreements relating 
to Windows that obligate and software developer to refrain from 
developing or promoting software that competes with Windows.
    This settlement is great for competition, the IT industry, and 
the American economy. I fully support the settlement and hope that 
it is implemented as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Meaney



MTC-00031297

110 Seagull Lane
Sarasota, FL 34436-1606
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support Microsoft's antitrust settlement with the federal 
government. They have done this county a great service by not 
prolonging this to another day. I think the American taxpayers would 
like to see the money spent in other ways in these trying times.
    I think Microsoft was extremely generous in the settlement. I 
understand they have granted computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so as to promote non- Microsoft software programs 
that compete with programs incluled within Windows, not retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in its Windows operating system, and document and disclose 
for use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products-a first in an antitrust 
settlement.
    I think Microsoft has proven it takes these matters very 
seriously. I also think the American consumers are pleased to see 
that Microsoft could soon be finished with this entire ordeal. I 
urge you to approve this settlement, and let Microsoft get back to 
work.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Morfee



MTC-00031298

January l6, 2OO2
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in support of ending the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. The Microsoft settlement is a just and prudent conclusion 
to a madding trial, and should be final. Any further federal or 
state action against Microsoft should be stopped.
    Microsoft has been a major contributor to the national economy, 
which is especially important during market doldrums like the one we 
currently endure. It is imperative that Microsoft uses its resources 
to innovate in the software industry, instead of spending money on 
unwarranted litigation. The concessions the corporation is making in 
the settlement will promote fair competition. The changes in 
licensing agreements alone will strongly augment the power of 
computer hardware manufacturers to sell their machines, since they 
will be able to tailor every customer's computer for his or her 
optimal needs.
    I strongly urge your support of ending all action that hinders 
Microsoft's progress and ability to innovate. Please work to 
convince Attorney General Stovall of Kansas of the wisdom of this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Maca
    2505 Nevada Street
    Hutchinson, KS 67502



MTC-00031299

JOHN G. RYAN
1432 HICHWOOD DRIVE
MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22101
January l6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Renata:
    As a Microsoft stockholder and resident of Northern Virginia, I 
am writing to encourage you to approve the settlement agreement in 
the case of United States v. Microsoft.
    The settlement would he important to my state's economy and to 
Northern Virginia in particular, as it would help to ensure our 
continued growth and future prosperity in this Information Age. In 
addition, such a settlement would allow the marketplace to remain an 
important factor in the development of technology.
    This proposed settlement represents a reasonable compromise 
between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the anti-trust case against 
it.
    Thank you for considering these views.
    Sincerely,
    John G. Ryan JGR/bc



MTC-00031300

2179 Sunny Slope Dr. #4
Dubuque, IA 52002-2258
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE (202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a resident of the state of Iowa, I have been closely 
following the antitrust case pitting the state attorneys general, 
including Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, and the federal 
government against Microsoft Corporation. I am writing to express my 
support for an end to this already lengthy and costly case.
    Since nine of the states and the U.S. Department of Justice 
reached settlement on this case, it is time to put the issue to bed. 
The settlement is fair and was reached in good faith. Millions of 
tax dollars have already been spent fighting a battle that in my 
opinion didn't even need to be fought. I believe that the timing of 
the government's case against Microsoft came at an inopportune time 
for our technology economy. The lawsuit against Microsoft, a company 
known for creating and improving products that make our personal and 
business lives easier and more efficient, stunted the growth and 
development of new and improved products that end users like me 
crave.
    I suspect that our Department of Justice has bigger fish to fry 
in the months and years ahead in our war on terrorism. Microsoft was 
and continues to be successful because of the form of government and 
economy that in recent months has made us so proud and patriotic. I 
encourage the federal government and the attorneys general to 
finally put an end to this case.
    I appreciate your consideration of this letter. I welcome your 
response.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29552]]

    Daniel E. Walsh



MTC-00031301

The TRIANGLE
Lifestyle Magazine
January 14, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I support the proposed settlement agreement in the United States 
v. Microsoft case--or, at least, my understanding of it. As a 
consumer, small business owner and publisher, I believe this 
proposal with result in more competition and greater innovation 
among computer makers and software developers.
    There are important remedies in the settlement such as the 
establishment of a Technical Committee and a uniform price list. 
Consumers and software developers can use non-Microsoft software 
within Windows, making it easier to add or remove Windows software. 
They can also remove features such as the Internet Explorer web 
browser, Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger. These and other 
options do net totally satisfy all of those concerned about the 
litigation, but they are a good compromise that will allow Microsoft 
and its competitors flexibility end encourage new product 
development.
    My own business has been impacted by current economic slowdown 
as has the computer industry. It is past time to end the litigation 
and get technology companies back to developing new 
products--developing and then advertising them! Innovation and 
competition will return our nation to a strong position in the 
global economy.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Watub
    Publisher
    Post Office Box 12826 Raleigh North Carolina 27605 
919-839-0785 fax 919-836-8203



MTC-00031302

Rock financial
A QUICKEN LOANS COMPANY
From The Desk of: KENNY BELL
kenny.bell@rockloans. corn
Phone: (248) 427-3345
Fax: (734)805-8962
**********
ROCK FINANCIAL
530 S. Edison Street
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement the Department of 
Justice has reached with Microsoft in its antitrust case. I like 
Microsoft products and use them all the time, and I don't want 
anything, further to happen to the company.
    The concessions Microsoft is making in the settlement are fair. 
There should be increased competition as a result, which will allow 
consumers to continue making the most informed decisions they can. 
Microsoft will, for example, allow their competitors to place non-
Microsoft software on the Windows operating system, letting them 
compete on Microsoft's turf. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed not 
to retaliate against companies that sell or promote non-Microsoft 
programs.
    I want to see this matter ended once and for all. The settlement 
should be finalized once the public comment period ends.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Bell



MTC-00031303

    January 16, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the government's decision to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I believe Microsoft was unduly attacked in this 
lawsuit, and I support the government doing what is necessary to 
stop this needless waste of government resources.
    By prosecuting Microsoft, the government has unduly punished one 
of the great innovators of our time. I liken Bill Gates to Thomas 
Edison, not to the monopolist he has been made out to be. His work 
has resulted in the production of excellent products, and has 
strengthened our strong economy. Now Microsoft will be required to 
use a uniform pricing list when licensing Windows, and will be 
prevented from taking retaliatory measures when vendors sell or 
promote non-Microsoft products.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are fair, and are in the 
public's interest. For the good of our economy, I hope the 
Department of Justice takes whatever steps are necessary to ensure 
that this settlement goes through.
    Sincerely,
    Clarys Holliday
    119 Cliffside Commons
    Rocky River, OH 44116



MTC-00031304

E C Pataki Consulting Services
Information Technology Services for the AS/400
596 McKinley Street
Hazelton, Pennsylvania 18201
(570) 459-1514
Fax: (570) 459-5262
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. I feel this issue 
has gone on long enough. I support Microsoft in this debate and am 
anxious to see this dispute resolved.
    This settlement contains provisions that will not only allow 
Microsoft to remain together, but will also benefit competing 
companies and computer makers. According to the settlement text, 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows, beginning 
with the interim release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism on 
the desktop to make it easy for computer makers or consumers to 
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. Microsoft has also 
promised not to retaliate against computer makers who ship software 
that competes with anything in its Windows operating system.
    This settlement is complete and thorough. It will serve in the 
best public interest.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Elaine Pataki
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031305

SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DOUG SMITH
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Renata Hesse
FAX NUMBER: (202)307-1454
FROM: Doug Smith
DATE: 1/16/02
This is page 1 of a 2 page transmission.
Comments:
For return Fax, dial (803) 734-9488.
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
(803) 734-2701
1/16/2002 12:23 8037349488 SPEAKERS OFFICE PAGE 02
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE HOUSE
P. 0. BOX 11867
Columbia 29211
DOUG SMITH
HOME ADDRESS
PO DRAWER 5097
SPARTANBURG, SC 29304
January 16, 2002
Via Fax
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Antitrust Action Against Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that the 
Justice Department negotiated with Microsoft. This settlement is in 
the best interests of consumers, as it will put new restrictions on 
Microsoft while encourage Microsoft and other companies to continue 
to compete and innovate. I expect that bringing an end to the 
uncertainty of this legal action will be a plus for the national 
economy.
    Accordingly, it is my hope that the proposal settlement will be 
approved and implemented as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Smith
    Speaker Pro Tempore



MTC-00031306

COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS INC
3795 Collins Road
Gillette, Wyoming 82718
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice

[[Page 29553]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
settlement that was reached in November between Microsoft and the 
government. I feel this settlement was reached after extensive 
negotiations and after three years; I am relieved to see a 
settlement has been reached. I never thought that Microsoft was a 
monopoly or a threat to the free enterprise system.
    Maybe now Microsoft can stop focusing on litigation and begin 
fully devoting their resources and time to conducting business. As a 
business owner myself, I know the importance of hard work and 
diligence to run a business and prosper. I do not believe Microsoft 
should be punished for being successful at what they do. Is that not 
what every working American strives for?
    Again, I support Microsoft and the settlement. I sincerely hope 
there will be no further action against Microsoft at the federal 
level.
    Sincerely,
    Rod Thornton



MTC-00031307

FROM: Tingen & Associates Insurance
1224 Crooked Creek Drive
Hartsville, South Carolina 29550
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Your work to end the Microsoft antitrust case is appreciated. I 
was delighted to see you offered Microsoft a settlement and would 
like to see this settlement put in place and this case ended.
    Both Microsoft and the Justice Department have spent large 
amounts of money and time in this case. Both parties have more 
important priorities, and that is one important reason this case 
should be concluded. Furthermore this settlement is equitable. Under 
this settlement Microsoft has agreed to share vital code information 
with competitors, allowing competitors to compete more effectively. 
Microsoft has also agreed to end any contractual restriction that 
was perceived as anti-competitive.
    With these concessions by Microsoft there is no reason for this 
case to be continued. The settlement is fair, and should be the 
final action in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Milsap
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031308

Wagner Printing Company
1-9 East Spring St., Freeport. IL 61032
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust suit brought against Microsoft was recently 
settled. Bill Gates made a good product; he took software and 
standardized it, making it understandable and comprehensible to the 
average layperson. Further, he made it affordable. Bill Gates, more 
than anyone, has been responsible for this country's technological 
dominance in the world. For this he has engendered jealousy from 
those firms who were not quite as good. This was the real basis for 
the antitrust case brought against Bill Gates, not any devious 
business dealings. But an agreement has been reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice and I want to give my 
support to this agreement. Microsoft, additionally, has agreed to a 
great many demands by the Department of Justice. Microsoft has 
opened up its source codes to its Windows program to competitors. 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to 
accommodate non-Microsoft software, the company has even agreed to a 
technical committee to monitor future activities.
    Our country needs to get back to business. I support the 
settlement, and look forward to seeing it swiftly implemented.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Burkhalter



MTC-00031309

13 Caisson Crossing. Savannah. GA 31411-1302
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 16, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Let me first say how absolutely delighted I am that you hold the 
critical office of Attorney General!
    As a retired businessman who spent most of his career either 
directly or indirectly involved in ``the computer 
business'', I am writing to voice my thoughts on the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I think the settlement 
is a good one and should be accepted by the government.
    During most of my career, IBM was ``the big bad wolf'' 
and during which time, there was a constant ``hue and 
cry'' to break up IBM and otherwise to hobble its operations 
under the guise of increasing competitiveness within the computer 
industry. And, I might add that IBM's position of dominance of the 
computer industry was much more pervasive than is Microsoft's in 
today's world.
    The point of bringing up IBM is to make the point that, in the 
end, it was market forces (including the success of Microsoft) that 
brought them from complete dominance to where they are today. And I 
might further add that, in my opinion, the potential threats to 
Microsoft's position are more far-reaching and numerous than those 
IBM faced during it's period of dominance.
    It seems to me that in agreeing to license its Windows operating 
systems and protocols included in those systems, (decisions that 
must have been very hard to make!) Microsoft has taken steps that 
are fair and reasonable. I urge you to accept this settlement and 
stop Justice Department prosecution of Microsoft for the reasons 
stated above.
    Sincerely,
    Edward E. Hale



MTC-00031310

8158 Dinsmore Street
Brooksville, Florida 34613
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The lawsuits against Microsoft have dragged on too long. I am in 
full support of the settlement between Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice because it is in the bets interest of the American 
public. Microsoft has agreed to make concessions that are more than 
fair. They will be disclosing internal interface codes and protocols 
So that competitors can develop products compatible with 
Windows'' operating systems. They will also be forming three-
person team to monitor compliance with settlement. Microsoft has 
been a cornerstone of the IT industry and must be allowed to focus 
on innovation instead of politics. Our country and our economy need 
their leadership in this time of recession. But clever people like 
me who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate 
ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
    I support this settlement and look forward to seeing its 
implementation soon. Thank you for your time.
    But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there 
isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Gray



MTC-00031311

LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM E. LEVIN & ASSOCIATES
200 West Madison Street
Suite 5O5
Chicago. Illinois 60606-3412
Willlam E Levin
312/372-6544 Fax: 312/372-8456
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: January 16, 2002
TO: United States Department of Justice
FAX NO. 202/307-1454
FROM: William E. Levin
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    REMARKS: As a Consumer of Microsoft products, I strongly support 
the settlement reached between Microsoft Corporation and DOJ and 
nine states. Microsoft is one of the most innovative companies in 
the world and, without doubt, has eased and made life more efficient 
for the vast majority of people in this country and throughout the 
world. The settlement that has been reached imposes significant 
restrictions on Microsoft and the time has come to put an end to the 
antitrust litigation. I strongly urge approval of the settlement.
    William E. Levin
    This document may contain confidential, proprietary information 
and information which is protected under attorney--client or 
attorney work product privileges. It is intended for the designated 
recipient exclusively. If you have received this transmittal in 
error, please contact the sender immediately by telephone at the 
number appearing above. Any other use or distribution of this 
communication is unauthorized and prohibited.

[[Page 29554]]



MTC-00031312

26 Sandhurst Lane
Buffalo, NY 14221-3153
(716) 631-0995
Fax: (716) 631-0995
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the case against Microsoft has no merit. The 
government has no right to take the action it has for the past three 
years. Nevertheless, it is time that this matter be resolved and 
Microsoft be allowed to continue its innovative work within the 
information and technology industry. At the end of this month, the 
November settlement should be implemented, and this issue should be 
forgotten.
    The terms of this settlement extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were actually at issue in the lawsuit. Microsoft 
agreed to these terms for the sake of wrapping up the suit. It is 
quite evident after one studies this matter that in the current 
settlement the government accomplished what it initially set out to 
do; namely to inhibit monopolistic behavior. There is no more need 
to pursue further legal action because Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose internal interfaces and server interoperability technology 
to its competitors.
    Therefore, I ask that you work towards implementing the 
settlement that is on the table for the sake of both business and 
consumers. The longer the delay, the more counter-productive the 
government's actions will be.
    Thanks for your time and effort.
    Sincerely,
    Lita Tsung



MTC-00031313

William G. Newsome Sr.
227 Rolling Hill Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice have reached a 
settlement in the antitrust case, which is currently in review. I 
find the settlement to be fair both to Microsoft and it competitors. 
Unfortunately, there are nine states on the review board whom do not 
feel the same. These states wish to continue litigation against 
Microsoft--to bring Microsoft to its knees, so to speak. I do 
not believe this is in the best interest of the economy, the 
consumer, or the IT industry.
    Microsoft is the life- blood of the IT industry. It is very 
unfair to penalize them for their accomplishments within our free 
enterprise system. The terms of the settlement, however, would 
appear to allow for a great deal of rapid progress once implemented. 
Microsoft is willing to allow its competitors a great deal of access 
to the Windows operating system and pertinent intellectual property 
rights. Microsoft and non-Microsoft software producers will be able 
to interact and intertwine their technologies. Where there was 
division before, there can be growth and unity now. In other words, 
the government is asking Microsoft to kiss their ass and they are 
willing to do it!
    I do not believe that any good can come of a prolonged suit 
against Microsoft. It has gone on long enough already. I urge you 
not to allow the tools of the federal courts to be misused and 
wasted.
    Sincerely,
    William G. Newsome Sr.
    Veteran, Citizen, Registered Republican
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031314

20 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Telephone:
Fax: 202-616-9937
CC:
From: Bill Fritts
Telephone:
Fax: 612-342-7531
Date: 1/16/02
Re: Microsoft
    This facsimile transmission consists of privileged and 
confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee. 
If you are not the intended recepient or the employee or agent 
responsible for delivering it to the intended recepient, any 
dissemination or copying of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. 
Please notify us immediately at the number below if you have 
received tbis fax in error. If you have any problems receiving this 
facsimile contact
ING
AMERICAS
ING US LEGAL SERVICES
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I'm sending this letter to voice my opinion as a concerned 
member of our nation's business community. Throughout my 
professional career, I have learned to greatly appreciate and value 
the significance of an open market and a level playing field. During 
these times of economic unrest, it is best to allow the free flow of 
trade and commerce. In fact, it is a free and unfettered market that 
is ultimately the engine of growth. That is why I support the 
Microsoft settlement. By removing this case, Microsoft will be 
allowed to operate freely and provide a much-needed inflow of 
capital and resources to businesses across the country.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. The 
settlement was the right and just outcome.
    Sincerely,
    William D. Fritts, Jr.
    Minneapolis Site
    20 Washington Avenue South
    Mineapolis, MN 55401
    ING North America Insurance Corporation



MTC-00031316

the national tax limitation committee
151 N. Sunrise Avenue
Suite 901
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 786-9400
FAX (916) 786-8163
January 16, 2002
VIA FAX 202-616-9937
Kenata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Re: Support of proposed settelement in US vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The cost to taxpayers of pursuing Microsoft has run into the 
tens of millions of dollars. The settlement proposed by the 
Department of Justice, if accepted, will finally stop this fiscal 
hemorrhaging.
    Our current recession requires that we use all our productive 
people and resources to get the wheels of commerce turning again. If 
the federal suit against Microsoft helped precipitate an economic 
downturn and a slide in the stock market--as some economists 
have suggested ending the suit might solidify a turnaround and help 
lead us out of this cycle. Because national polls reveal that most 
citizens do not support the case against Microsoft, settlement of 
this action will send a positive signal that the federal government 
will let the marketplace work for the people once again.
    On behalf of our tens of thousands of supporters across America, 
we encourage you to accept the settlement against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    LEWIS K. UHLER
    OFFICERS & DIRECTORS: Lewis K. Uhler, President: Diane 
Sekofetz. Secretary-Treasurer; Robert B. CarIeson; Wm. Craig 
Stubblebine. FOUNDERS & Sponsors: C. Austin Barker, Robert B. 
Carlson. George Champion, David Y. Copeland, M. Stanton Evans, 
Milton Friedman, Allan Grant, James M. Hall. Vern I McCarthy, 
William A. Niskonen, Frank Shakespeare, Wm. Craig Stubblebine, 
Donald L Totten, Lewis K. Uhler.



MTC-00031317

Sent by: WOODFIN SUITE HOTELS
Ronald Nehring
1015 Old Mountain View Road
El Cajon, CA 92021
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have followed the Microsoft case for some time now and truly 
believe the settlement being offered is fair and positive. This 
letter is meant as an expression of my support for the consent 
decree currently on the table.
    I believe both sides in this case have constructed a settlement 
which adequately addresses all the issues of concern. Judge Kollar-
Kotelly did a tremendous job working with all parties to ensure the 
process was just. I believe her recommendation should be seriously 
considered.
    The settlement goes in and corrects whatever competitive 
advantage Microsoft

[[Page 29555]]

may have had previously. Source codes are now open, a monitor has 
total access to Microsoft's products, and the watchful eye of the 
Federal Government will ensure the playing field is level.
    Some competitors will gripe. They will want more. Of course they 
will want more...it helps their company. I am writing to say that 
this agreement does enough. It should be approved of the technology 
industry should get back to business as usual.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Nehring
    Project for California's Future



MTC-00031318

1100 Cova Ciega Isle
St. Pete Beach, FL 33706
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am glad that this Microsoft lawsuit has been settled. Aside 
from the obvious problems that the lawsuit had to begin with, it is 
certainly an unwanted distraction now that more important events in 
our nation have virtually eclipsed the lawsuit's importance. 
Besides, it's a fair settlement in its own right, yielding 
concessions to both hardware and software companies, including 
disclosure to both groups of interfaces and protocols within 
Windows.
    The settlement makes it so that Windows can be altered to suit 
hardware companies more effectively if they want to sell non-
Microsoft Software with the Windows operating system preinstalled. 
This will be especially possible now, because Microsoft must 
redesign Windows to make it more accommodating to non-Microsoft 
applications, particularly sophisticated multi-media applications 
like RealAudio or QuickTime.
    Our national efforts should now be invested in issues like 
rebuilding our economy, creating jobs and strengthening our national 
security. We should net spend any more time continuing our self-
inflicted damage to our country's business community by proceeding 
with any further action against one of our country's most successful 
buisnesses like Microsoft.
    I am hoping that this settlement will stand, and we can move on 
to more important priorities.
    Sincerely,
    Rita Bane
    1-FAX 202-616-9937



MTC-00031319

                                              COMMUNICATIONS REPORT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              NO.
           Date/Time Function             Destination          Duration PGS                     Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAN. 14 17:14 RCV.......................          920           6312247183 0'  OK
                                                            01' 05' 001
17:53 RCV...............................          921      573 522 5025 0'00'  OK
                                                                      38' 001
17:54 RCV...............................          922      573 522 5025 0'01'  OK
                                                                      34' 001
18:17 RCV...............................          923        8476472225 0'00'  OK
                                                                      41' 001
18:39 RCV...............................          924      573 526 1384 0'00'  OK
                                                                      28' 001
19:45 RCV...............................          925      337 234 5535 0'00'  OK
                                                                      51' 002
20:02 RCV...............................          926        6618351561 0'01'  OK
                                                                      01' 002
21:22 RCV...............................          927        9133419697 0'00'  OK
                                                                      44' 001
21:39 RCV...............................          928    3253135 0' 00'  OK
                                                                      51' 001
21:52 RCV...............................          929  0' 01' 21'  OK
                                                                                004
JAN. 15 11:15 RCV.......................          930           9416430207 0'  OK
                                                            00' 35' 001
11:47 RCV...............................          931         508 799 4039 0'  OK
                                                            00' 34' 001
12:50 RCV...............................          932         000000000000 0'  OK
                                                            00' 38' 001
12:54 RCV...............................          933         508 754 2026 0'  OK
                                                            00' 32' 001
13:02 RCV...............................          934           8476472225 0'  OK
                                                            00' 40' 001
13:04 RCV...............................          935         850 230 4092 0'  OK
                                                            00' 44' 001
13:30 RCV...............................          936  0' 00' 39'  OK
                                                                                002
13:47 RCV...............................          937           8132533280 0'  OK
                                                            01' 02' 002
13:53 RCV...............................          938         603 537 2099 0'  OK
                                                            00' 30' 001
13:55 RCV...............................          939      425 427 5665 0'00'  OK
                                                                      39' 001
14:0l RCV...............................          940  0' 00' 34'  OK
                                                                                001
14:23 RCV...............................          941    4213984 0' 00'  OK
                                                                      35' 001
15:03 RCV...............................          942         520 393 1348 0'  OK
                                                            00' 54' 001
15:09 RCV...............................          943      508 831 7558 0'00'  OK
                                                                      32' 001
15:14 RCV...............................          944         000000000000 0'  OK
                                                            00' 38' 001
15:29 RCV...............................          945         000000000000 0'  OK
                                                            00' 41' 001
15:47 RCV...............................          946         508 755 4178 0'  OK
                                                            00' 36' 001
16:24 RCV...............................          947           2059729290 0'  OK
                                                            00' 30' 001
16:26 RCV...............................          948           5087938831 0'  OK
                                                            00' 46' 003
16:26 RCV...............................          949  0' 00' 51'  OK
                                                                                001
17:O2 RCV...............................          950      407 851 6591 0'00'  OK
                                                                      39' 001
17:06 RCV...............................          951     0'00' 28' 001  OK
17:19 RCV...............................          952          19096263540 0'  OK
                                                            00' 40' 001
17:43 RCV...............................          953        3038418373 0'01'  OK
                                                                      00' 001
18:l0 RCV...............................          954         000000000000 0'  OK
                                                            00' 45' 001
18:26 RCV...............................          955         000000000000 0'  OK
                                                            00' 40' 001
19:45 RCV...............................          956  0' 00' 53'  OK
                                                                                001
21:21 RCV...............................          957        4067783538 0'00'  OK
                                                                      49' 001
JAN. 16 l0:14 RCV.......................          958  0' 00' 53'  OK
                                                                                001
l0:26 RCV...............................          959        5635571591 0'00'  OK
                                                                      34' 001
l0:37 RCV...............................          960  0' 00' 27'  OK
                                                                                001
l0:54 RCV...............................          961           5088422252 0'  OK
                                                            00' 36' 001
11:17 RCV...............................          962      515 386 4509 0'00'  OK
                                                                      41' 001
ll:54 RCV...............................          963      515 296 3015 0'00'  OK
                                                                      33' 001
12:24 RCV...............................          964      515 382 7336 0'00'  OK
                                                                      34' 001
13:21 RCV...............................          965  0' 00' 38'  OK
                                                                                001
13:41 RCV...............................          966  0' 01' 00'  OK
                                                                                002
13:44 RCV...............................          967  0' 00' 40'  OK
                                                                                001
13:45 RCV...............................          968  0' 00' 40'  OK
                                                                                001

[[Page 29556]]

 
13:48 RCV...............................          969  0' 00' 27'  OK
                                                                                002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



MTC-00031320

01/16 ``02 01:47 NO.511 02/02
01/16 ``02 01:47 NO.511 01/02
Fax 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545



MTC-00031321

Home Address
2315 Route M
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 636-8285
Capitol Address
Capitol Building
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 751-0665
Fax (573) 526-4766
W. W. (Bill) Gratz
MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
113TH DISTRICT
Committees
Correctional and State Institutions (Chair)
House Travel (Chair)
Appropriations--
General Administration
Agriculture
Environment and Energy
Administration and Accounts
January l6, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
6O1 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Over the years, I have found that when negotiations result in a 
little something for everyone, the negotiations were successful. 
This is exactly the result of the recent negotiations between 
Microsoft and the US. Department of Justice. The settlement allows 
Microsoft to create new generation products that can help the 
economy grow and help businesses better communicate with their 
customers and clients. Additionally, the needs and concerns of 
Microsoft's competitors were taken into account in the final 
agreement.
    I support the recent agreement between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft. I regret that a Committee and the court system have 
had a hand in developing the future of software design instead of 
the free market. At the same time, this entire process was an effort 
on the part of competitors to cripple Microsoft and eliminate 
competition.
    Point-of-sale should be the true test of competition. Either 
your product is marketable or it is not. The courts and regulatory 
agencies have no role in this important process when job creation 
and small business development is at stake.
    Sincerely,
    W. W. (Bill) Gratz
    WG/lh



MTC-00031322

Home Address
2315 Route M
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 636-8285
Capitol Address
Capitol Building
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 751-0665
Fax (573) 526-4766
W. W. (Bill) Gratz
MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
113TH DISTRICT
Committees
Correctional and State institutions (Chair)
House Travel (Chair)
Appropriations--
General Administration
Agriculture
Environment and Energy
Administration and Accounts
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Over the years, I have found that when negotiations result in a 
little something for everyone, the negotiations were successful. 
This is exactly the result of the recent negotiations between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The settlement allows 
Microsoft to create new generation products that can help the 
economy grow and help businesses better communicate with their 
customers and clients. Additionally, the needs and concerns of 
Microsoft's competitors were taken into account in the final 
agreement.
    I support the recent agreement between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft. I regret that a Committee and the court system have 
had a hand in developing the future of software design instead of 
the free market. At the same time, this entire process was an effort 
on the part of competitors to cripple Microsoft and eliminate 
competition.
    Point-of-sale shouId be the true test of competition. Either 
your product is marketable or it is not. The courts and regulatory 
agencies have no role in this important process when job creation 
and small business development is at stake.
    Sincerely,
    W.W. (Bill) Gratz
    WG/lh



MTC-00031323

chroma cad
palette imaging
47 South Street Norwood, NJ 07648
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    I own a small software development company in New Jersey. I feel 
impelled to write this letter because,as a software developer, I am 
appalled by the remedies proposed by the U.S. Justice Department. 
From a software developer's point of view, those remedies don't 
address the real issues of the Microsoft monopoly at all.
    Developers need alternative platforms to Microsoft Windows on 
which they can develop programs for the IBM PC. The alternative 
platforms must be permanently established on most PC's for the next 
fifteen to 20 years in order for software companies to make the 
considerable investment in time and money that modem programs 
require. Developers cannot depend on the vagaries of manufacturers 
to include of not include alternative platforms at their will.
    I feel strongly that the court should, at the very least, 
require Microsoft to continue including Java within Windows. As we 
all know. Microsoft included Java in Microsoft Windows 5 years ago. 
At the time, they indicated that Java would be a permanent part of 
future versions of Microsoft Windows.
    Collectively, millions of hours and millions of dollars of 
programmers'' time and money have been spent on learning Java 
across the country. Simply taking a trip to Barnes and Noble and 
viewing the large number of books devoted to the Java language can 
easily verify this. Microsoft has now summarily dropped the Java 
platform from Windows XP. This was done in spite of the fact that 
they surely knew that this action would cause huge losses and 
problems in the programming community.
    In addition, there are now more than 9 million web pages that 
contain Java applets. Consumers who purchase Windows XP and access 
those pages are going to have to endure a long and arduous wait 
while a software plug-in is installed on their machine over the 
Internet. It is obvious that Microsoft cares little for problems 
they cause in the programming community or in the consumer community 
at large.
    Ideally, Microsoft should be required to include the next two 
most popular programming platforms--Java and Linux, along with 
Microsoft Windows. Both platforms are available free to Microsoft.
    There is no reason why they should not be included except, of 
course, that they are a direct threat to the Microsoft monopoly. 
Microsoft Windows is an excellent product, but it cannot accomplish 
some things that Java can accomplish easily. The same is true of 
Linux. All of these platforms have different strengths and 
weaknesses. These platforms should be included In such a manner that 
they cannot be altered or deleted by manufacturers (thereby averting 
Microsoft pressures). This would give programmers a choice of three 
reliable long-range programming platforms and would stimulate a 
competitive environment. We would surely

[[Page 29557]]

see prices of development software drop and the software quality of 
all the platforms improve competitively. Most users of personal 
computers are aware of the poor record that Microsoft has in making 
Windows a reliable trouble-free product. The reason for this is 
quite likely that they assign few engineers to the job of 
maintaining a monopoly product that people are forced to buy anyway. 
Competition would undoubtedly force them into assigning more 
engineers to making their own product more reliable.
    I am sure that, from the point of view of most software 
developers, any resolution of the Microsoft case that does not, at 
the very least, require Microsoft to continue supporting the latest 
versions of Java would be viewed as a complete collapse to 
Microsoft. It would simply serve to institutionalize, by government 
decree, their platform monopoly on the PC. As a software developer, 
I feel strongly that forcing Microsoft to vend other popular 
competitive development platforms along with their own platform 
should be the very first priority in resolving this case. Remedies 
involving Microsoft's contractual relations with manufacturers 
are of secondary importance.
    Software developers need alternative platforms that are stable, 
fixed and long term and we need to know that these platforms are 
installed on all machines and will remain on all machines that 
Microsoft Windows is installed on. If this were accomplished we 
would have the confidence to spend time and money on developing new 
applications under new platforms for the PC. In time, this would 
effectively end most of the problems caused by the Microsoft 
monopoly, not just put a band-aid on the symptoms.
    Respectfully yours,
    Marver Seamen
    President
    Palette Imaging Inc.



MTC-00031324

CAPITAL OFFICE
State Capitol
201 West Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101-6806
Tele: 573-751-1347
Fax: 573-522-9179
E-Mail:[email protected]
HOME ADDRESS
P.O. Box 5
Stockhull, MO 65046
Tele: 417-276-3343
RONNIE MILLER
State Representative
District 133
January l6, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney-Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC., 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe the settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft is fair. As I understand between $25 and 35 million 
dollars of taxpayer money has already been spent on this anti-trust 
case. Please keep the taxpayer in mind, I really feel the last thing 
we need is more litigation and regulation of high-tech business's 
during this time of challenges of economy and our nation at war.
    Microsoft's innovations has lead to great benefits for the 
customer. You must agree we have better products at lower prices.
    Sincerely,
    Ronnie Miller
    State Representative
    District 133



MTC-00031325

David D. Jamison
Story County Treasurer
3244 Cameron School Road
Ames, IA 50014
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    Here in Iowa, like much of the nation, we are facing some 
difficult times. The economy is stagnant, countless jobs are being 
lost, and there is no one clear answer to fix all our problems. A 
recovery will take time, patience and sound judgment. One event that 
will undoubtedly help the economy is the Microsoft settlement. This 
agreement builds new relations with Microsoft and the computer 
makers; it is fair to all parties and our economy will benefit from 
it.
    As far back as the 1980s, Microsoft was an integral part of this 
country's economic expansion.
    The arrival of Microsoft did many things it created jobs, 
produced an abundant number of businesses and companies, and a great 
deal of wealth and capital was made available to people. By choking 
Microsoft with harassing legal proceedings, a recovery from the 
current recession was made all the more impossible. This recent 
settlement, however, was a step in the right direction for our 
economy and the millions of Americans who depend on a healthy 
economy to support their families.
    This is a challenging time for our nation. It was the right 
thing to do when the Justice Department and the nine states settled 
the Microsoft case. I strongly support that, and believe it will 
help our economy rebound.
    Your consideration is very much appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    David Jamison
    Story County Treasurer



MTC-00031326

From the Desk of Kevin Kimle
3227 Lettie Street
Ames, IA 50014
(515) 293-2502 (w)
(515) 293-3845 (h)
[email protected]
January 14, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    I hope that no one in this country takes for granted that we 
have countless opportunities to be successful! If people from other 
nations recognize and respect the ``American Dream'' and 
have even come here to achieve it, then why have we prosecuted a 
company that has been such a good representation of the American 
Dream?
    I am speaking of the Microsoft case. Microsoft has been legally 
pursued for too long, and the recent settlement provides a fair and 
just ending with nine prosecuting states. The settlement was fair 
for a number of reasons: Microsoft agrees not to punish companies 
that do not promote their products, and they go even further by 
sharing their intellectual property when it is necessary. I am glad 
to see a settlement was reached and support the agreement 
completely.
    As someone who has spearheaded two startup companies in the 
technology industry here in Iowa I understand the investments that 
have to be made and the risks that have to be taken. Microsoft has 
taken the risk, made billions of dollars in investments, and 
contributed a great deal to the technology industry. It was high 
time that we brought this lawsuit to a proper ending.
    Thank you for your attention to my thoughts.
    Sincerely.
    Kevin Kimle



MTC-00031327

Guy W. Richardson
705 W. Sunset Road
Jefferson, Iowa 50129
515-386-2220
January 16, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    I am a Greene County Supervisor and own a small business here in 
Iowa, I am intimately aware that our nation is enduring some serious 
problems. One thing that will give a boost to all of America is the 
settlement of the Microsoft case. This was a fair and reasonable 
ending to a complicated problem.
    The idea of continuing litigation against Microsoft was simply a 
bad idea, and the nine states that decided to settle, made the right 
decision. The settlement permits other companies to use Microsoft's 
intellectual property and is a good settlement for everyone.
    Our nation's economy is bleak enough, and the removal of this 
lawsuit will help all of us. Thank you for taking time out from your 
busy day to read my point of view.
    Sincerely,
    Guy W. Richardson



MTC-00031328

Kenneth Simoncini
Commerce Park,
420 Boston Tpke.,
Shrewsbury, MA 01545
(508) 845-1559
FAX (508) 842-2252
Member of: National Society of Tax Professionals
National Association of Income Tax Preparers

[[Page 29558]]

January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX: 202-616-9937
    Dear Attorney Hesse
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input, regarding the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As a small businessman, I understand competition. Competition is 
healthy for the American economy. I use Microsoft products in my 
business and they have been a great help to me. They have allowed me 
to better serve my clients and to manage my business.
    As far as I can tell, there has been no consumer harm as a 
result of any actions taken by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations 
have, in fact, helped many small businesses, such as mine grow.
    Given the state of our economy right now, we should do 
everything possible to spur growth, not hinder it.
    An additional benefit in the settlement, is the proposed 
donation of over 200,000 computers to our nation's public schools. I 
whole-heartedly endorse this provision, which will help erase the 
digital divide in our public schools.
    I hope that the government will reach a settlement in this case.
    Sincerely yours,
    Kenneth Simoncini



MTC-00031329

JULIE SCHWARTZ
3111 STONE OAK DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049
PHONE: 310-471-4732 FAX: 310-471-8091
FAX TRANSMISSION
DATE 1-16-02 TIME 3:30 PM
TO DEPT OF JUSTICE FAX 1-202-307-1454
    RE Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already!
    Whats wrong with giving to poor & disadvantaged.
    You are listening to competitors.
    TRANSMITTED BY Julie Schwartz



MTC-00031330

January 16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the antitrust settlement 
is flawed, but ultimately in the best interest of the American 
public. The problem is that the lawsuits from the start have not 
addressed the real problem, which is Microsoft's heavy-handed 
marketing tactics. Instead it focused on giving competitors an edge 
that they did not have before,
    For instance, under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will 
be disclosing internal interfaces and protocols that are part of 
their Windows'' operating system products. They will also be 
granting computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as 
to promote non-Microsoft software.
    These concessions as you can see do nothing to protect consumer.
    Even with the flawed settlement in place, I think it is in the 
best interest of the IT sector, our economy, and the public for the 
settlement to come to fruition. Microsoft needs to be able to focus 
on business and the government should be putting its muscle into 
more pertinent issues instead of interfering with software design. I 
urge your office to take a firm stance on this and help discontinue 
any opposition to settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Garvey



MTC-00031331

229 Windmere Trail
Moneta, Virqinia 24121
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft;
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached on November 2, 2001. I fully 
support Microsoft, and I am relieved to see this dispute settled and 
resolved.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft must share more information with 
other companies, such as, disclosing information about certain 
internal interfaces in Windows. Microsoft must also design future 
versions of Windows to make it easier to install non- Microsoft 
software. Additionally, Microsoft will adhere to a uniform pricing 
list when licensing Windows out to the twenty largest computer 
companies in the United States.
    I support Microsoft in this dispute and feel that this 
settlement will benefit the economy, the technology industry, and 
consumers. Thank you for ending this litigation.
    Sincerely,
    George Burnop



MTC-00031332

Greywolf Technologies, Inc.
PO Box 126,700 Main St.
Willimantic, CT 06226
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    For all the critics and detractors that Microsoft has had, lost 
in that clamor is the fact that Microsoft was, in large measure, 
responsible for driving our economy during the longest period of 
economic expansion that our country has experienced in a long time. 
Prior to that economic expansion, a few brave souls were huddled 
around the 286's slogging through DOS. Then Microsoft came along 
with a vast improvement called Windows and suddenly the IT business 
was opened up to virtually anyone who could plink down a few hundred 
bucks for a PC. Prior to the mid-1980's business was terrorized by a 
lack of technology standards, incompatible equipment, high costs, 
and slow development.
    Microsoft was the sheriff who tamed that chaos.
    This began the economic expansion and continued with Windows 95, 
98, 2OOO and the rest.
    Suddenly half the country was computer proficient and had 
purchased a PC, along with Internet access, software packages, 
printers, scanners and all the other goodies that they wanted. 
Behind this, all the while, was Microsoft--along with Compaq, 
Toshiba, Gateway, Apple, Electronic Arts and all the others. Windows 
has been named on some lists the most important tool of the 20th 
century.
    For this, we want to haul Bill Gates to the hoosegow.
    This recently negotiated settlement at least has the advantage 
of ending this litigation, even though it forces Microsoft to do 
some things not envisioned in the lawsuit, such as divulging its 
interoperability protocols. It is better for all concerned with this 
suit to settle it and be done with it. I support the settlement and 
dearly hope that this sort of thing does not happen again.
    Kevin C Donohue, President
    Greywolf Technologies, Inc.
    Microsoft CERTIFIED Partner
    Voice 860 456 3322 fax 860 423 9133
    [email protected] www.greywolftech.com



MTC-00031333

January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter so that I may give my support to the 
settlement that has been reached between the Microsoft Corporation 
and the Department of Justice. For well over two years, the American 
economy has been doing poorly, Americans have been losing their jobs 
and now we are in a recession. The antitrust suit against Microsoft 
has had a bad affect on our economy.
    Microsoft has been extremely beneficial to America, but for the 
past several years they have had to spend their time and resources 
on legal battles with their own government. Microsoft has been 
responsible for providing jobs to thousands of people, donating 
millions of dollars to charities, and simplifying the American 
computing industry. It seems to me that government interferes too 
much with business. Competition and capitalism are good for 
Americans and the American economy. Forcing a corporation to 
turnover their intellectual property is not right.
    The government should not force Microsoft or any other company 
to share what they develop.
    The case against Microsoft should be settled immediately.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Nottonson
    171 Marlborough Street
    Boston, MA 02116-1887



MTC-00031334

Christopher Durant
Mail: P.O. Box 57978
Sherman Oaks CA 91413
Work Phone: (818) 562-2627

[[Page 29559]]

Home Phone: (818) 994-8513
E-mail (work): [email protected]
E-mail (home): [email protected]
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe strongly that the Microsoft Corporation is one of 
America's greatest assets. It is a company that provides constantly 
improving products that help make tens of millions of people more 
productive, happier, and richer.
    We live in an increasingly global economy. When the U.S. 
Government attacks and tries to cripple a domestic company that has 
become ``too'' successful, there is no shortage of foreign 
competition that will gladly step in to take market share, 
unencumbered by governments with beliefs in forced 
``equality'' between corporations, regardless of the value 
or contributions that the companies make.
    Microsoft has never harmed me. Its products have enhanced my 
life tremendously. If Microsoft is a monopoly, why does it 
continually improve its products and lower its prices?
    For the good of the American economy and consumers everywhere, 
please settle with Microsoft as soon as possible. Doesn't the U.S. 
Government have better things to do than fight one of the best 
things that has ever happened to this country?
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Durant



MTC-00031335

January 16, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft in U.S. v. Microsoft falls far short of what is needed to 
put an end Microsoft's pattern of predatory practices.
    Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The 
five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is much too short to 
deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and 
expanded its monopoly power through fear and intimidation.
    This proposed settlement clearly fails to meet the standards 
clearly laid out by the appellate court. In fact, the weak 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores 
key aspects of the Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. For 
example, the proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many 
key terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    The weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave 
Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants.
    A three-person technical committee will be appointed, which 
Microsoft appointing one member, the Department of Justice 
appointing another, and the two sides agreeing on the third. This 
means that Microsoft gets to appoint half of the members of the 
group watching over its actions.
    The committee is supposed to identify violations of the 
agreement. But even if the committee finds violations, the work of 
that committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding. This is like allowing a football referee to throw as 
many penalty flags as he likes for flagrant violations on the field, 
but prohibiting him from marching off any penalties.
    2700 Westown Parkway o Suite 200 o West Des Moines, Iowa 50266
    Phone 515-453-9590 o Fax 515-222-0565
    E-mail [email protected] o Web CRGpros.com
    Sent by: Executive Offices 5152513919; 01/17/02 4:26AM;JetFax 
#418;Page 3/3 Finally, Microsoft must comply with the lenient 
restrictions in the agreement for only five years. This is not long 
enough for a company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice has the potential to make the competitive 
landscape of the software industry worse, contains so many 
ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable, and is 
likely to lead to years of additional litigation.
    The end result is that this proposed settlement allows Microsoft 
to preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft 
to use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other 
markets.
    After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can--and we must--do much better than 
this flawed proposed settlement between the company and the 
Department of Justice.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    tom Keating
    President
    Career Resources Group
    2700 Westown Parkway, Suite 200
    West Des Moines, IA 50266



MTC-00031336

14 War Admiral Lane
Media, PA 19063-6238
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    After three long years of costly court battles, the federal 
government has settled its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. This 
settlement will have profound implications for all software 
publishers, the rest of the American Information Technology industry 
and American consumers.
    Under the agreement, Microsoft is forced to grant computer 
makers new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. The companies will now be free to remove the means 
by which consumers access various features of Windows. They can now 
replace access to those features with access to non-Microsoft 
software.
    Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows--as well as computer makers who ship software that 
competes with anything in its Windows operating system.
    Enough is enough. No more litigation against Microsoft is needed 
on the federal level. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Adelia Ockerbloom
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031337

SmartSoft Custom Software Engineering for Microsoft Operating 
Systems
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to urge the Department of Justice to move forward 
expeditiously with its proposed settlement with Microsoft. I have 
followed this antitrust lawsuit very closely after working for 
Microsoft from 1989 through 1994. I currently work as an independent 
software engineer helping hardware and software manufactures bring 
innovative products to the American public.
    I feel the proposed settlement is a fair proposal. The terms of 
the settlement show Microsoft's desire to correct what the 
government feels are improper practices. Stiffer terms would punish 
Microsoft for operating successfully within our free enterprise 
system. The nine states agreeing to the settlement terms are 
encouraging innovation, strengthening the economy and the tech 
industry both at state and national levels. These terms give 
companies the ability to develop Windows based software applications 
faster, utilizing far less resources, which keeps development costs 
down and ultimately benefits consumers by allowing them to spend 
less for better applications.
    In conclusion, I fully support having the proposed settlement 
put into force without delay. This will greatly benefit innovation 
in the tech industry, benefit consumers, and spur state and national 
economic growth.
    Sincerely,
    John Hensley
    12421 Hardee Road o Raleigh, NC 27614-9234
    Tel (919) 846-1741
    Fax (919) 846-1585



MTC-00031338

Carl T. Bowen
6715 Hempstead Court
Suwanee, GA 30024
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement with Microsoft has my full support. We must allow 
a return to business for the tech industry as soon as possible.
    There are many changes required by the settlement. For instance, 
Microsoft has

[[Page 29560]]

agreed to a ``Technical Committee'' that will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance to the settlement. Also, Microsoft has agreed 
to license its Windows operating system products to the 20 largest 
computer makers on identical terms, including price. Plus, Microsoft 
has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system. Clearly, these changes will benefit both consumers and the 
economy.
    The settlement will not only be fair and reasonable but also 
will prevent future anticompetitive behavior. In addition, the 
recession has had a big effect on the economy, and this settlement 
may spark a new upswing.
    Sincerely,
    Carl T. Bowen



MTC-00031339

105 Stirrup Lane
Thornton, Pennsylvania 19373
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The lawsuits pending against Microsoft by the US department of 
Justice and the states have gone on long enough. I am happy to see a 
tentative settlement has occurred between Microsoft and the US 
Department of Justice, but I am concerned that nine states are 
continuing litigation.
    During this time of economic recession, we must rely on our 
industries Microsoft is the leading technology industry company with 
unprecedented growth rates over the last decade The suits which are 
being filed against Microsoft could be filed against any other 
company in the country and I honestly do not think that any business 
would be able to operate if they were forced to take on the 
restrictions that Microsoft will have to. For example, Microsoft 
will have to ignore intellectual property rights and share, with 
other companies, critical information about how the Windows 
operating system works.
    The system is allowing rich cry-babies like Scott McNeil and 
others to use the anti-trust laws for furthering their own 
businesses. A careful scrutiny of their business practices would 
also reveal similar so-called anti-trust laws. Also, to allow each 
state to individually sue is also calling for 50 additional 
individual biases. Is this justice?
    I urge the US Government to discontinue its meddling in private 
affairs and focus on other more important issues. The best interests 
of the American Public will be served only when these lawsuits are 
dropped and Microsoft is allowed to focus on business, not politics.
    Sincerely,
    Vinod Rao
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031340

TO. Attorney General John Ashcroft
CC Sen. Rick Santorum
RE: Microsoft Settlement
Nicholas J. Olson
3311 Powelion Avenue Apt 3R
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2731
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After a three year legal dispute between the federal government 
and Microsoft, I was pleased to hear that a settlement was finally 
reached. I sincerely hope that no further action is being considered 
at the federal level.
    Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did not get 
off easy. In fact, Microsoft is now left to make several significant 
changes to the ways that they handle their business. For example. 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs 
that compete with programs within Windows. Computer makers will now 
be free to remove the means by which consumers access various 
features of Windows. Computer makers can replace those features with 
access to non-Microsoft software.
    With the many terms of the agreement, there should be no reason 
to pursue further litigation on any level against Microsoft. 
Microsoft represents the best of the American economy and the 
American ideal of success through hard work and innovation. The 
government should never have interfered to begin with, and there 
should not be any further action.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Nick Olson



MTC-00031341

From: Bert McLachlan
3524 West 97th Place
Leawood, Kansas 66206
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Wall Street Journal 1-16-02
Another Pound of Microsoft
    In a perfect world, Microsoft's anti-trust headaches would have 
ended in November when it settled with the Justice Department. But a 
perfect world wouldn't have nine state attorneys general who still 
object to the deal and plaintiffs'' lawyers whose main job is 
to shoot the wounded.
    Such imperfection is why we are today faced with yet another 
strange Microsoft settlement. This one is over the more than 100 
class-action lawsuits filed by consumers who claim Microsoft's 
``monopolistic'' pricing policies meant they were 
overcharged for Windows software.
    Reasonable people might wonder how Microsoft could be guilty 
both of undercutting competitors'' prices (a government claim) 
and charging con- sumers too much. But if the only goal here is for 
class-action attorneys to ex- act their own pound of flesh, the 
claims make perfect sense.
    Microsoft agreed to settle the lot by donating more than $1 
billion in cash. software, computer equipment and support to 14,000 
impoverished schools; as the opposing attorneys put it, this 
provided a ``social benefit.'' This latest humbling was 
under way when Apple Computer complained that the deal was 
anticompetitive. U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz agreed and last 
week quashed the settlement-though holding out hope it might be 
revived at a higher price.
    What a spectacle. It's understand- able that Microsoft wants to 
end years of litigation and get on with life as a software company. 
But the truth is that this latest act of penance will serve no one 
but the legal firm of Corporate Shakedown & Artists.
    Microsoft probably won't gain by go- ing forward. The company 
may have seen this as a way to score some public relations points 
while concluding the litigation. Instead, Apple did its own PR job, 
making it look as though Mi- crosoft was using the settlement to mo- 
nopolize the schools market.
    Nor are schools benefiting. Studies show that simply adding 
computers to Failing environments doesn't help. These are some of 
the most disadvantaged facilities in the country; what they need are 
real curriculums, devoted teachers and (we might add) competition, 
not the latest version of Microsoft Oulook.
    And then there's the judicial branch, which once again finds 
itself drawing lines in the sandbox between Microsoft and its 
competition. In retrospect, what motivated the government's own case 
was Microsoft's competitors-Netscape, Oracle- which used the 
courtroom to accomplish what they couldn't in the marketplace. Judge 
Motz now faces the similarly unpleasant task of apportioning tech 
markets.
    Finally, there's the matter of the plaintiffs. Ridiculous as the 
suits are (America's cheap technology prices are the envy of the 
world), these people expected something. Instead, their lawyers 
realized that parceling out a settlement would mean each of the 65 
million consumers who had ``overpaid'' get the grand sum 
of $10 and crafted the school option instead.
    Someone benefits, of course.
    Tucked into the bottom of the settlement was a line stating 
that, in addition to the school gift, Microsoft would be reponsible 
for ``reasonable'' attorney fees to be determined by the 
court. Seeing as how the plaintiffs'' attorneys in question are 
Michael Housfeld and Stanley Chesley-the class action wizards who 
have sued cigarette makers, gunmakers, IBM, Goodyear, Texaco, well 
you get the picture- ``reasonable,'' in their minds is a 
percentage; these guys tend to get a bare minimum of 10% to 15%.
    So consumers get a ``social benefit'' and the lawyers 
could get a cool $150 million.
    We have seen this so many times, it is like a bad cable movie. 
Microsoft, too knows how the story goes. Whether the lawsuits are 
frivolous or not, its options are the same: The company can chance 
years of litigation in dozens cases, or it can simply sign over one 
big, hundred-million dollar payoff to the plaintiffs'' bar. 
Sooner or later the US political system has to come to grips with 
this kind of legal extortion.



MTC-00031342

THE GREAT SEAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina General Assembly
Senate Chamber

[[Page 29561]]

State Legislative Building
Raleigh 27601-2808
SENATOR A. B. SWINDELL
10TH DISTRICT
OFFlCE ADDRESS: ROOM 521, LEGISLATIVE OFFICES BUILDING
RALEIGH. NC 27601-2808
TELEPHONE: (9I9) 733-5655
(919) 754-3286 FAX
HOME ADDRESS: 700 BlRCHWOOD DRlVE
NASHVILLE, NC 27856
COMMITTEES:
APPROPRIATIONS
NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES
COMMERCE
EDUCATION/HIGHER EDUCATION
FINANCE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT--VICE CHAIR
RULES & OPERATIONS OF THE SENATE
TRANSPORTATION
WAYS & MEANS
January 16, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Transmitted Via Fax (202) 307-1454
Re: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is to express my support for the settlement that the 
U. S. Department of Justice and several states, including North 
Carolina, have reached with Microsoft.
    Resolution of this matter will boost the technology sector, 
which represents a large segment of the North Carolina economy and, 
for that reason, it will be well to have this matter resolved. I 
feel this settlement will promote new investment opportunities in 
technology, as well as enhance competition in all aspects of the 
industry and this will greatly benefit consumers.
    It is my opinion that this settlement represents a reasonable 
compromise that has earned bipartisan support. I strongly urge 
approval of this settlement by both the Department of Justice and 
the court.
    Cordially,
    A.B. Swindell, IV
    ABS:mmh



MTC-00031343

From: Charles W. Reid
 110 Tutty Loop
Houma, La. 70363
PH: 985-868-8307
To: Attention: Renata B. Hesse
[email protected]
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    I read an article in the Houma Courier that I can voice my 
opinion on the Microsoft settlement.
    At first I was on Microsoft's side and though they were getting 
a bad rap for ``their ``product. AS of now, I am not so 
sure. My recent experience with Windows XP turned my view against 
them.
    Why???? First off, Microsoft came out with Windows XP and said 
it was great and a fabilious upgrade and we should purchase it and 
it would solve all out compatablility problems. What they didn't 
tell us was that all out software and hardware that ran in Windows 
98 2nd Edition or Milinium would not run with XP unless approved by 
Microsoft. All hardware and software running A-OK in 98 and ME would 
not run in XP. I paid $99.00 + tax to install it and register it and 
after a week of trying to get my recently purchase software and 
hardware to work but not work with XP, I cannot get a refund because 
I opened the package and registered it, but it is now sitting on a 
shelf by my computer and I will not use it. So far, the companies I 
have purchased hardware and software are not putting out updates. 
``I have to purchase new equipment or software to use my 
already owned equipment in Windows XP''.
    Microsoft did not tell me I would have to purchase new software 
or hardware to use XP, but I do!!!! Microsoft should not have come 
out with XP until all 3rd party companies that have software and 
hardware (printers, scanners. cameras) running in Microsoft's 
operating system come up with updates to go with the Windows XP CD.
    Did you know that with Microsoft's basic patch they offer for 
Hewlett Packer printers to let them work in Windows XP, will only do 
``basic'' printing. Why not the full feature that runs in 
98? Even the basic patch has bugs. It is automatically set to print 
the last page first in multi pages, but the setting is actually set 
for first page first. You have fool the printer into thinking it is 
printing last page first by selecting last page first to get it to 
print first page first.
    I now believe that Microsoft is out to make all the money they 
can and not 1.) get the bugs out before release, 2.) care about 
providing support, 3.) make their system users spend more money on 
each upgrade. Have you tried to get support about a problem? I 
can't.
    And if I happen to get through, they cannot fix it!!!!!
    Thanks for listening.
    (Charles W. Reid)



MTC-00031344

Human Resources by design
January 16, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Ste 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse,
    I am extremely troubled by the idea of the courts rejecting the 
settlement currently on the table in US v. Microsoft I believe a 
rejection of the settlement will have a seriously negative impact on 
the research and development coming out of the technology industry 
right now.
    Microsoft, as a company, invests more resources than any other 
company in the software industry on research and development. They 
fund companies across the world with their research and development 
efforts as well. Because of this case and the insecurity it has 
caused in the technology industry and among Microsoft brass, money 
being infused into research and development is considerably less 
than it should be.
    I am very confident that, should the settlement be accepted, 
resources will continue to flow back into research and development. 
It is that research and development which fuels the growth of the 
technology industry.
    The courts decision on this matter has the potential to affect 
the software and technology world for years. I hope that you will 
accept the settlement and clear the way for the computer industry to 
get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Krause
    President / CEO
    510 First Avenue, Suite 405
    San Diego, California 92101
    Phone: (858) 566-4950/(619) 255-6931
    Toll-Free: (877) 861-8880 Fax: (858) 566-4674/(619) 
269-7192
    Website: www.hrbydesign.net Email: [email protected]



MTC-00031345

Power to know. Power to Grow FAX
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Date : 1/16/02
From: R. Rusty Harder
Commwnts:
1606 Golden Aspen Drive Suite 108
Ames, IA 50010
Phone (515) 233-8720
Fax: (515) 956-9388
www.e-markets.com
 January 15, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attornwy
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dapartment of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    This letter is in regard to the Microsoft settlement. As a 
company founder and vice president of E-markets, I have to make 
tough decisions every day. Sometimes I have to make a quick judgment 
with little information to go on and other times it is a long, 
drawn-out process with reams of data to analyze and no particular 
time limit. Based on the information I've seen, the Microsoft 
settlement is a good deal and should be accepted by all parties.
    Microsoft agrees to a host of new provisions that provide for a 
fair settlement; they established new relations with computer 
manufacturers, and agree to share intellectual property. It seems to 
me that Microsoft has already done a lot of good with the money it 
has made, and this agreement is worth accepting. One of the details 
I read about in the news, and it seems very fair, states that 
Microsoft consents to the establishment of a ``Techncal 
Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement.
    Anyone who believes that Microsoft is not complying with the 
settlement will be free to lodge a complaint with an ``Internal 
Compliance Officer'' at Microsoft (established by the 
settlement), the Department of Justice or any of the state 
plaintiffs that are parties to the settlement.
    I support this settlement. Thank you for hearing my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    R Rusty Harder
    Cofounder, Director and VP of Client Solutions

[[Page 29562]]

    E-Markets, Inc.



MTC-00031346

January12, 2002
 Department of Justice
 Washington DC
Re: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!
    I'm very disappointed at the prolong case against Microsoft and 
that 9 states are still fighting the case even though I thought an 
agreement had been reached. The only winners here are the lawyers as 
they have won in so many cases at the expense of the consumer. Not 
only are they paid exuberant fees, but the CONSUMER ends up the 
LOSER! Eventually all cost of defending the cases are passed on to 
the CONSUMER!
    From what I can determine with the information available the 
settlement is FAIR!!!!
    Please let's not have another IBM fiasco, where alot of money 
was spent and the case was dismissed. Let's move on with this case 
and force the states to accepted the agree- ment so that business 
can go on.
    Sincerely
    Gene Pizzato
    6007 E. Harvard Street
    Scottsdale, AZ 85257



MTC-00031347

THE GREAT SELA OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina General Assembly
House of Representatives
State Legislative Building
Raleigh 27601-1096
REPRESENTATIVE LYONS GRAY
39TH DISTRICT
OFFICE ADDRESS ROOM 533 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUlLDING
RALEIGH, NC 27601-1096
TELEPHONE: (919) 733-5820
(919) 838- 1737 FAX
HOME ADDRESS: 420-C WEST FOURTH ST.
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101-2837
TELEPHONE. (336) 722-2311
COMMITTEES
FINANCE
ETHICS, VICE CHAIRMAN
JUDICIARY
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
UNC BOARD OF GOVERNORS
CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING
ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
January 17, 2002
Renetta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a former chairman of the Finance Committee in the North 
Carolina House of Representatives, I was asked many times to approve 
compromises which had been worked out between various legislators 
even thought the legislators came into the process with widely 
divergent views. Now, Judge Kollar-Kotelly faces a similar task with 
the settlement agreement worked out between Microsoft, the 
Department of Justice and nine attorneys general in an effort to 
clear up the government's case against the world's largest software 
company.
    As I did for those years, I would urge the judge to move forward 
and approve the settlement for many reasons.
    First, the settlement was approved by our attorney general in 
North Carolina and now the taxpayers of our state no longer have to 
fund that activity. Second, I believe that when a fair compromise 
can be reached, it is best to do so as quickly as possible. 
Otherwise, cases get dragged out in our system for many years, 
sometimes ultimately coming to settlement years later. Meantime, 
more taxpayers'' money is consumed as was $30 million in the 
federal case against Microsoft As a legislator who is concerned 
about economic development and education in our state, I believe it 
is not in the best interest of anyone to have such lawsuits 
lingering over a major corporation. This is especially true of 
Microsoft which has a facility in North Carolina. What lawsuits can 
do to the economy is not good. Several years ago when initial 
negotiations in the lawsuit broke down, the downturn among Microsoft 
and other tech stocks had a great negative impact on the market and 
the financial accounts of millions of individuals. Even though such 
ups and downs are inevitable, I believe that the market causes, not 
government intervention should be the cause.
    Even though I am not an attorney, it seems that both Microsoft 
and the federal government have come out with both positive and 
negative.
    Sincerely,
    Lyons Gray



MTC-00031348

7 Riverwoods Drive
Exeter, New Hampshire 03833
January l4, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I strongly support the decision to put an end to the Microsoft 
antitrust litigation. Enough damage has been done. Our economy has 
obviously been adversely impacted, and it is time for everyone to 
move on.
    In my opinion this case was brought by the various state 
attorneys general as a result of greed. This was merely an attempt 
to bring down a successful company so that the states could each 
have a piece of the Microsoft pie. I do not believe the plaintiffs 
would ever be able to prove Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive 
behavior.
    Notwithstanding these beliefs, I am in favor of the Court 
approving the settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement 
agreement go far beyond what was initially at issue in the suit. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to make it easier for computer 
manufacturers to remove features of Windows and replace them with 
non-Microsoft software. Additionally. Microsoft has agreed to not 
retaliate against software or hardware developers who promote 
software that competes with Windows, and to not enter into 
agreements obligating third parties to exclusively distribute or 
promote Windows. These concessions are more than reasonable, and I 
support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Gareth Dunleavy



MTC-00031349

Christopher Durant
Mail: P.O. Box 57978
 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413
Work Phone: (818) 562-2627
Home Phone: (818) 994-8513
E-mail (work): [email protected]
E-mail (home): [email protected]
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe strongly that the Microsoft Corporation is one of 
America's greatest assets. It is a company that provides constantly 
improving products that help make tens of millions of people more 
productive, happier, and richer.
    We live in an increasingly global economy. When the U.S. 
Government attacks and tries to cripple a domestic company that has 
become ``too'' successful, there is no shortage of foreign 
competition that will gladly step in to take market share, 
unencumbered by governments with beliefs in forced 
``equality'' between corporations, regardless of the value 
or contributions that the companies make.
    Microsoft has never harmed me. Its products have enhanced my 
life tremendously. If Microsoft is a monopoly, why does it 
continually improve its products and lower its prices?
    For the good of the American economy and consumers everywhere, 
please settle with Microsoft as soon as possible. Doesn't the U.S. 
Government have better things to do than fight one of the best 
things that has ever happened to this country?
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Durant



MTC-00031350

PACIFIC ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC.
993 OAK LANE
ESCONDIDO. CA. 92029
(760)746-5193
eMail [email protected]
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Ste. 1200
Washington DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft should be accepted 
and ratified as soon as possible. This letter is being written to 
the courts to not only to ask you to accept the settlement--but 
to do so as quickly as possible.
    The Microsoft case has been an awful constraint on the national 
economy. I am sure the courts have heard this argument articulated 
by many an academic who understands the economy better than I. But, 
let me assure the courts, the argument is much more than academic. 
Small business is feeling this case in a very real way.
    From what I understand, the settlement in this case will become 
law as soon as it is

[[Page 29563]]

accepted by the courts. Therefore. the sooner you can ratify the 
settlement, the better. Business affected by the case will see 
positive change right away (as opposed to the next fiscal year or 
some business related time period). Essentially. I am asking the 
courts to accept the settlement and work to expeditiously set the 
wheels in motion for the settlement to be executed. Doing this will 
allow business to move forward again
    Sincerely.
    Tom Hinrichs President



MTC-00031351

FROM: AH HA FAX NO. 919-363-8789 Jan. 16 2002 03:09 PM 
P1
AH HA! LTD
facilitation & consulting
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft has now gone on for over three years, at a cost of many 
millions of dollars to taxpayers. The cost in lost productivity, 
unrealized innovation and underused economic resources is far 
greater. It is time to bring this matter to a close.
    Even here in the Research Triangle, one of the most dynamic 
areas of the country, the information technology industry is 
hurting. Now, of all times, it is vitally important to settle this 
pending litigation and get both Microsoft and its competitors back 
to work on what they do best: develop and market new products and 
services for consumers. The proposed settlement insures that 
Microsoft will not engage in illegal and anticompetitive behavior 
Microsoft must agree not to retaliate against computer makers that 
ship its competitors'' software and take other steps to 
guarantee that its current market position will not be used 
unfairly.
    I hope the courts will see fit to accept this settlement, just 
as the State of North Carolina has done, and help restore this 
industry and our economy to the growth and progress we enjoyed over 
the past decade.
    Sincerely,
    Warren Miller



MTC-00031352

Mike Davis Public Relations, Inc.
PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
P.O. Box 27646 Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: 919-821-3928 Fax: 919-821-9135
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse: It is time to bring an end to the too-long and 
too-expensive Microsoft antitrust case. In November 2001, our 
Attorney General here in North Carolina, Roy Cooper, agreed to the 
settlement that has been proposed. I hope that the federal judge 
will now approve the settlement also.
    It is difficult for a layperson such as myself to understand 
what misdeeds Microsoft has committed. It appears to me and my three 
teenage, computer-savvy children, that Microsoft has made 
information technology more accessible, more usable and more 
affordable. No consumer harm is apparent to me. I was under the 
impression that the purpose of antitrust laws is to protect 
consumers, not competitors. Whatever Microsoft's misdeeds, however, 
I believe the proposed settlement offers more than enough protection 
in the future. I have read that Microsoft will be required--and 
has agreed to abide by a strict set of rules and regulations 
governing its relationships with computer maker and software 
providers. An independent committee will oversee the company's 
behavior. More information about Microsoft's products and practices 
will be made public--and made available to its competitors. 
Enough is enough. It is time to accept a settlement that appears to 
be fair and reasonable to both sides in this matter. Put my name 
down as one citizen who thinks it is time to take all possible steps 
to returning everyone's attention to restoring the strength of our 
nation's economy, rather than bleeding an important industry dry in 
the courtroom.
    Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely,
    F. Michael Davis President



MTC-00031353

Bernard A. Streeter
Mayor
City of Nashua
January 16, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse: In response to the Court's request for public 
comment on the proposed settlement in the case U.S. v Microsoft, I 
am forwarding my support for the settlement to the District Court 
and hope it will made part of the case's record.
    As Mayor of the City of Nashua, I wish to respectfully express 
my support for the remedies and settlement laid out by Microsoft, 
the U.S. Department of Justice, and nine of the state plaintiffs The 
small business community of Nashua has long supported a speedy and 
reasonable settlement to this case, and we believe that the proposal 
before the court meets both requirements.
    After more than four years of waiting for this case finally be 
resolved, the high technology, community in our area and around the 
country has seen the protraction of it do much more harm than good. 
Profits investments, and new jobs are down, while the pace of 
innovation and, therefore, demand, has fallen off. The current state 
of the economy-a full-fledged recession--in our view makes 
immediacy an even more important factor in settling the case than 
ever before. No longer is the drag on the high tech sector not 
noticeable. It is a major factor in the loss of jobs and lack of 
investment in the technology industry. I believe the cultivation of 
this industry is vital to the success of any economic recovery and 
hope the court sees this settlement, as we do, as a step toward that 
goal.
    I hope my comments have helped illuminate the public impact of 
the proposed settlement, at least in our community, and hope also 
that you approve the proposal.
    Thank you,
    Bernard A. Streeter
    Mayor



MTC-00031354

MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol Room 115-B
201 West Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101-6806
Tele: 473-751-2076
HOME ADDRESS
311 Constitution
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573-893-7647
CARL M. VOGEL
114TH DISTRICT STATE REPRESENTATIVE
 January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney-Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Given that the economy is now in recession, the last thing we 
need is more litigation and regulation of the high-tech industry. 
Already over $30 million in taxpayer funds have been spent on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case at a time when money should be kept in the 
pockets of consumers, thus helping our fragile economy grow. The 
settlement reached between the Justice Department and Microsoft is 
appropriate.
    I favor free-market solutions to the problems facing businesses 
today. Competition--and the will to succeed as a result of this 
competition--has given this nation the strongest business 
enviroment in the world. There has been no consumer harm as a result 
of any actions taken by Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft's innovation 
has led to tremendous benefits for consumers, such as better 
products and lower prices.
    Sincerely,
    Carl M. Vogel
    State Representative
    114th District



MTC-00031355

To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington. DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
From: Kai Hintze
Senior Systems Programmer
Albertsons
(Voice) 801-961-3146
Subj: Antitrust Settlement--U.S. v Microsoft
Summary: Please go back and do it right.

[[Page 29564]]

16 January 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington. DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms Hesse. In the matter of US v. Microsoft: I do not 
believe that ``punishing'' a company convicted of 
illegally maintaining a monopoly by offering it a chance to extend 
that monopoly into one of the few markets it does not already 
control will prove an effective deterrent. In my opinion, any 
penalty which might impede Microsoft's illegal monopoly growth must 
include at least the following elements:
    1) Microsoft must publish all specifications to all its file 
formats. Much of Microsoft's power arises from the fact that its 
Office suite has been bundled with new computers so much that it is 
a defacto standard. Other word processors and spreadsheets try to 
build conversion routines so that they can read and write Microsoft 
files, but they depend on reverse-engineering to try to find out 
what the file format is, so they have limited success. A published 
specification would allow Microsoft its precious right to innovate, 
but would permit other developers to make truly compatible software. 
This way Microsoft would have to compete on usefulness and not on 
obfuscating their files.
    2) Microsoft must publish all Application Programming Interfaces 
(API's) exposed by its operating systems. Programs written using 
operating system API's are usually. easier to write and usually run 
faster. Microsoft has been shown in the past to publish most of 
their API's so that third party software can be written, but reserve 
some knowlege of API's so that third party software won't run quite 
as well as Microsoft software.
    3) Microsoft must publish its price structure. Said price 
structure cannot penalize vendors who sell non-Microsoft products 
and operating systems. From the purchaser's point of view, when 
vendors sell a computer with Windows located the vendor must include 
the cost of the operating system as a line item.
    I believe this is the most extreme penalty. Pricing is usually 
considered a trade secret, but Microsoft has been shown in too many 
instances to set prices for a specific contract not according to 
volume or any other objective measure. but purely to reward its 
friends and punish its enemies. This will also allow consumers to 
compare the price they pay for various operating systems that can 
run on their computers.
    4) Microsoft must use independently published networking 
protocols. If Microsoft wishes to extend a networking protocol it 
must submit the extension to an independent body such as IEEE for 
approval. One of Microsoft's common practices to discourage 
competition is called ``embrace and extend''. In other 
words, take something that works for everyone, and make it so that 
it only works with Windows. One recent example of this is the 
Windows 2000 implementation of the published Kerberos security 
protocol. It looked a lot like something that would work with other 
Kerberos clients and servers, but was just different enough that it 
didn't, thereby requiring organizations that wished to use Kerberos 
authentication for their Windows 2000 boxes to have a Windows 2000 
Kerberos server, even if they had an existing Kerberos server they 
had been using for years for other platforms that ran well.
    5) Microsoft must be prohibited from pursuing legal action 
against people helping to enforce penalties 1 through 4, and people 
who publish reviews and comparisons unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Penalty 5 is required because Microsoft has a history of 
attempting to suppress reviews that find that other products out 
perform the Microsoft product by threat of legal action. Microsoft 
claims that involving their product in ``unsanctioned'' 
evaluations is a violation of the license terms. Thus this penalty 
is required both to allow legitimate journalistic and evaluatory 
functions and specifically to protect individuals and groups engaged 
in the research necessary to monitor penalties 1, 2, and 4. This 
behavior is particularly loathsome when Microsoft attempts to sweep 
security flaws under the table, as they usually do. (See their 
recent Security Through Obscurity program, formally known as the 
Microsoft Certified Security Partner Program.) If Microsoft is 
allowed to continue business as they have in the past they will only 
increase the risk to business and national security that they are 
now. Penalty 3 is a matter for accountants. It is obnoxious but 
straightforward to monitor. Penalties 1, 2, and 4 would be most 
easily monitored by providing a bounty (to be paid by Microsoft) for 
individuals or groups who examine Microsoft's products and find 
instances where Microsoft has failed to comply.
    In addition to the bounty for those who find violations, 
Microsoft should be required to pay a substantial fine for each 
violation. Perhaps this fine could be applied to some existing 
educational fund.
    Please note that I have not requested that Microsoft reveal any 
of its code, only the interface to use the code. Neither have I 
suggested that Microsoft not be allowed to innovate, only that they 
should stop trying to skew the playing field so that others can 
innovate as well.
    The damage to consumers created by Microsoft as a monopoly was 
demonstrated during the recent trial, but I will provide three 
specific damages, and one instance of each:
    1) Microsoft only innovates (or buys innovation to include with 
its products) where it has competition.
    When Lotus l-2-3 was the dominant spreadsheet Excel 
received frequent and noticeable enhancements, to the point where it 
became the clearly superior choice. Now Excel has obliterated the 
competition, and I cannot recall the last useful function added to 
it
    2) Microsoft lowers prices where it has competition and raises 
them where it does not.
    When WordPerfect and other word processors offered serious 
competition to Microsoft Word the list price for Word was US $99.00 
and I could have bought it for $59. Today the list price for Word is 
US $399 and the lowest price C-Net can find is $275.
    3) Microsoft has a history of trying to stifle other innovators. 
Microsoft has a current lawsuit against Lindows.com Inc.. claiming 
that their name will confuse buyers. But Lindows is the most 
reasonable name for the company, given that their stated goal is to 
be able use Linux to run programs written for Windows. It looks to 
me like Microsoft prefers litigation to innovation. I hope that you 
will see that the published settlement proposal only benefits 
Microsoft (and that only in the short run), and demand that they 
return to the table to create a settlement that will benefit 
everyone.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Please note that this letter is my opinion only, and may or may 
not represent the view of my company. However I included my title as 
evidence that I am familiar with the computer industry, and that my 
opinions are reasoned and backed by experience.
    Sincerely,
    Kai G. Hintze
    Senior Systems Programmer
    Albertson's
    (Home address)
    3087 W 7140 S
    West Jordan, Utah 84084



MTC-00031357

Jan 16 02 03:03p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
TRC Triangle, Inc.
P.O. Box 41087
Raleigh, North Carolina 27629
Telephone 919-828-3150
Facsimile 919-828-1977
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: In November 2001, North Carolina Attorney 
General Roy Cooper joined with other states'' attorneys general 
from across the nation in agreeing to a settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation in the ongoing antitrust litigation against that 
company. I believe our state's attorney general made the correct 
decision, and I am writing to urge the federal courts to agree to 
that settlement. North Carolina and, especially, the Triangle area 
have enjoyed remarkable economic growth thanks in great measure to 
the advances of the information technology industry. Events at home 
and abroad now jeopardize our prosperity-and that of the entire 
nation. It is more important now than ever to remove any obstacle to 
economic recovery, and I sincerely believe this prolonged Microsoft 
matter is just such an obstacle. By accepting the proposed 
settlement, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will abide by strict 
constraints on its behavior in the marketplace. The settlement 
provisions protect Microsoft's competitors and, more importantly, 
the consumer, while preserving for Microsoft the essential ability 
to innovate and introduce new products.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    C. Thomas Hendrickson
    President



MTC-00031358

Jan 16 02 03:Olp Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1

[[Page 29565]]

SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE. L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
2800 Two Hannover Square
Raleigh. Norrh Carolina 27601
PO Box 27525 (27611)
(919) 755-8700
direct: 919-755-8726
fax: 919-755-8800
[email protected]
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: I believe that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case is a fair and reasonable compromise. It was arrived 
at after extensive and intensive negotiations, through the 
leadership of a court- appointed monitor. I hope it will now receive 
the approval of the federal court. Under the agreement, Microsoft 
will be forced to make significant changes in its operations. It 
must work in new ways with software developers and computer makers. 
It must communicate better with other companies, share more 
information, create more opportunities for other companies and offer 
more choices to consumers. Microsoft must also accept the oversight 
of a special committee that will monitor implementation of the 
lawsuit.
    These are extraordinary steps for a company to take, and 
Microsoft has stated publicly that it will accept and abide by the 
terms. So I strongly believe it is time, especially given the 
uncertain condition of our economy today, to close the books on this 
matter and enable Microsoft--and its competitors -to go back to 
doing what they can and should do best: find new ways to enhance the 
productivity of America.
    Sincerely,
    SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
    Dennis A. Wicker



MTC-00031359

JAN-16-2002 13:54 MO HOUSE OF REPS 473 751 5123 P.01
DANIEL J. HEGEMAN
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 6
State Capitol--Room 101D
Jefferson City, MO 85101-6806
TELE: (573) 751-0246
FAX: (573) 525-7740
E-Mail: [email protected]
MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICT ADDRESS
18739 County Road 294
Cosby. MO 64436
(816) 662-2645
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse As a state legislator in the Missouri General 
Assembly, I want to express my support for the proposed settlement 
between the United States Department of Justice and Microsoft. As a 
legislator that is constantly involved in negotiating and 
compromising, I am firmly convinced that this proposed settlement is 
fair and equitable to both parties. Now is the time to put this case 
behind us and allow the technology industry to move forward. As you 
know, Microsoft has been a leader in innovation throughout the 
industry. All facets of our economy have benefited because of the 
leadership and technology advances made by Microsoft. Stewards of 
government should encourage these types of industry successes 
instead of placing roadblocks in front of them. I hope you stop the 
litigation and accept this reasonable settlement.
    Sincerelv.
    Daniel Hegeman
    District 5 State Representative



MTC-00031360

linda c. ashendorf 6040 jester lane charlotte nc 28211
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
Re: Microsoft case
    Dear Attorney Hesse: As a business owner and comsumer, I am 
writing in support of the proposed settlement in the U.S. v. 
Microsoft case. The agreement to the three year-old antitrust suit 
is a compromise that contains rules and regulations on how Microsoft 
will develop and license software. At the same time it allows 
Microsoft to continue efforts to develop new software that will 
benefit consumers. Computer manufactures will have the flexibility 
to configure Windows so non-Microsoft programs can be integrated 
into the set up and have the ability to remove certain Windows 
features such as the lnternet Explorer and replace it with another 
web browser. Microsoft has also agreed to provide a uniform price 
list to the 20 largest manufacturing computer makers. This 
settlement reaches a middle ground for both sides and will 
ultimately benefit consumers, the technology industry and the 
economy. It is time to end the litigation and promote opportunities 
lo get our economy and technology industry moving again.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Ashendorf
    public affairs consultant



MTC-00031361

Hillsborough County Republican Committee
January 10, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse: I am writing to submit my public comment in 
support of the current settlement proposed in the case of the United 
States v Microsoft. I have been following the case in the news and 
believe that its end is long overdue. Haven't we spent enough of the 
taxpayers'' money on this case? The company should be allowed 
to get back to work on more important matters, like creating new 
products and focusing on their customers' needs. During this 
economic downturn and as national security concerns rise, your 
efforts should be focused on prosecuting criminals that have a 
detrimental effect on the American people and our economy. 
Government should be encouraging companies like Microsoft by 
allowing the marketplace to police them, rather than subjecting them 
to government interference.
    I am certain that the agreements reached in this settlement will 
ease the government's concerns about Microsoft. After all, if a 
number of the parties involved in this case can agree, doesn't that 
show that it is a good agreement? To continue litigation against 
Microsoft at this time would be unnecessary and ultimately harmful 
to the American people. I urge you to approve this settlement 
quickly so we can all get back to work.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice Goulet
    Chairman
    48 Ministerial Branch Bedford, New Hampshire 03110



MTC-00031362

    Clendenin Bird & Company
    CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
    1300 Tenth Street, Suite C
    Modesto, California 95354
    Telephone (209) 526-3091 Facsimile (209) 526-2287
Gerald L. Clendenin, CPA
Constance Hillas Bird, CPA
Albert A. Avila, CPA
James O. Armstrong, CPA
Patricia A. Retting, CPA
Claire L. Schendel, CPA
Wendy I. Prather, CPA
    January 16, 2002
    Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: I am writing this letter to the court to support 
the settlement that is proposed in the case of US v. Microsoft. From 
what I understand, nine of the states and the federal government 
have come to an agreement and the court is asking for public comment 
as to whether that agreement should be accepted. I have read the 
arguments made by both sides on this case-by Microsoft and by the 
competitors who called for the suit in the first place. These 
competitors of Microsoft have made the argument that Microsoft's 
anticompetitive actions have brought harm to the technology 
industry. That argument is no longer valid. Since the day this case 
against Microsoft first began, the technology industry went into a 
steady decline. You don't need to look any further than the NASDAQ-
our strongest tech market indicator-over the last three years. Those 
competitors and their allies who arc arguing to the court that a 
settlement will harm the technology industry are totally wrong.
    The original goals of this case may have been justified. I don't 
believe that question is still relevant. I believe the relevant 
question now is ``is the settlement fair and is it time

[[Page 29566]]

to end this case?'' To those questions, I think I speak for the 
majority of Americans by telling the court that the answer is a 
resounding ``yes.''
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    CLENDENIN BIRD & COMPANY



MTC-00031363

    January 16, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I would like to express my feelings about the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I sincerely hope that this settlement will 
be the end of the lawsuits. This is supposed to be free enterprise 
but Microsoft is being punished for running a successful company and 
inventing technologies that have changed our lives. I work for the 
government as a Chemical Engineer, and I use Microsoft products 
every day. Microsoft is not forcing anyone to use their, products; 
consumers want the ease of using compatible products. Please uphold 
this settlement, Microsoft is conceding far more than what has even 
been asked for. For example, Microsoft will now share its 
proprietary information with competitors, allowing them to more 
easily place their own programs on Microsoft's Windows operating 
system. It is a very reasonable settlement and will restore fair 
competition to the computer industry. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Federico B. Santa Cruz
    506 Saybrooke View Drive
    Gaithersburg, MD 20877



MTC-00031364

FROM : PHONE NO. : 8472952092 Jan. 17 2002 08:38AM P1
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft has been involved with the federal 
courts in an antitrust lawsuit for approximately three years now. 
Last November, a settlement was reached that seemed to mark the 
beginning of the end. I thought that the struggle would soon be 
over. That appears not to be the case. Nine states remain litigious, 
and they have used the past several weeks to sling mud at Microsoft 
and gather support to overturn the settlement. In light of the 
recent terms agreed to under the settlement, I do not see why these 
states believe Microsoft remains in violation of antitrust laws. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against any software producer 
that introduces software onto the market that is in direct 
competition with Microsoft products. Moreover, Microsoft has agreed 
not to enter into any agreement that would require a third party to 
endorse Microsoft products either exclusively or at a fixed 
percentage. I do not believe terms such as these are too lenient 
with Microsoft nor do I believe that the issues raised by 
Microsoft's competitors have been dealt with lightly.
    It seems as though every time Microsoft is attacked, the whole 
market collapses. This duration of this case has had a derogatory 
effect on the economy and the IT industry. No good can come of 
further litigation. In my opinion, the case should remain settled. I 
see no reason for the suit to be reopened and the settlement 
overturned. I urge you and your office not to take further action 
against Microsoft in the federal courts.
    Sincerely,
    Mary McAndrew
    432 E Alexander Palm Road
    Boca Raton, FL 33432



MTC-00031365

Date: Thursday,January 17, 2002 Time: 3:19 AM
To: Renata Hesse
Company: United States Department of Justice
Fax Number: 2026169937
From: Robert Trujillo
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
71 Faragut Ave
Tonawanda, N.Y. 14150
January 17, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
Renata B. Hesse:
    As someone familiar with computing and the computer industry, 
and the adverse effects of Microsoft's monopolies in these areas, I 
cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even pretends to 
remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been found 
culpable. The company has already been found in violation and this 
is the penalty phase of the case, but the settlement contains no 
penalties and actually advances Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly. A just penalty would at barest minimum include these 
additional features: Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of 
Microsoft's monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost 
options in the purchase of new computers, so that the user who does 
not wish to purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that 
for the price differential between a new computer with Microsoft 
software and one without, a computer seller must offer the software 
without the computer (which would prevent computer makers from 
saying that the difference in price is only a few dollars). Only 
then could competition come to exist in a meaningful way. The 
specifications of Microsoft's present and future document file 
formats must be made public, so that documents created in Microsoft 
applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement. Any Microsoft networking protocols must be 
published in full and approved by an independent network protocol 
body. This would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of 
the Internet.
    Any Microsoft software that is bundled with Microsoft's 
operating system, software such as Internet Explorer and Windows 
Media Player, should be removable from the Operating System. Thus if 
the user chooses a competitors product and no longer desires to use 
Microsoft's product. the user can then remove that application and 
all files pertaining to that application. This should be made 
retroactive, i.e. older versions of the Windows operating system 
should be made to comply with action. Microsoft and or O.E.M.s 
should be compelled to include Sun MicroSystems Java virtual 
machine. Microsoft has decided to discontinue shipping Sun 
MicroSystem Java virtual machine in it's future release of its 
operatin system, this includes the currently shipping Windows XP. 
Microsoft had in the past shipped Sun MicroSystems Java virtual 
machine with its products but after its settlement with Sun 
MicroSystem has decided against this action. This action is quite 
harmful to users and developers who use the Java programming 
language and applications developed from this product. This action 
unfairly penalizes users and developers alike. Note Microsoft's 
Visual Basic components continue to ship with their operatin system 
giving Microsoft's Visual Basic product an unfair advantage. I 
believe these changes listed above would go along way in improving 
the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Trujillo



MTC-00031366

MARK S. PULLLIAM
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 28101
January 16, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE (202/616-9937)
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: It is probably safe to assume that as part of 
the Tunney proceedings the court is receiving numerous letters 
arguing that the Microsoft settlement does not go far enough. 
Microsoft's competitors have long held the belief that all of their 
shortcomings in the marketplace might be resolved by the courts. I 
would like to publicly state that the settlement does more than 
enough to remedy the case of US. v. Microsoft, this issue has gone 
on far too long, and accepting the settlement will bring closure 
which is long overdue. A settlement in a case like this is just 
that-a settlement, Individuals and companies will spend extensive 
amounts of time and money trying to point out every single flaw or 
shortcoming they perceive to be a part of this settlement. But the 
case against Microsoft is not about trying to make sure those who 
abhor Microsoft get every single thing they ask for. The settlement 
is about working to remedy a previously bad situation in a manner 
that is fair to both sides.
    The settlement more than adequately punishes Microsoft. Forcing 
codes to be opened, placing monitors in their business, and removing 
any perceived leverage will bring fairness to all the companies 
trying to gain an advantage from the settlement. Hundreds of hours 
and countless individuals have worked to craft this settlement. I 
hope the courts will consider this in their ruling

[[Page 29567]]

while also recognizing the self interest which motivates many of the 
letters pouring in against the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mark S. Pulliam



MTC-00031368

3289 Pear Point Road
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Phone: 360-378-6845
Fax. 360-378-5042
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From:Steven A Cotton
Fax: 202-307-1454
Date January 17, 2002
Re:Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
Comments:
3289 Pear Point Road
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
January l6, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, District of Columbia, 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am writing today to encourage you and the 
Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. 
The suit has been dragged out for over three years now, and it is 
time to put it behind us. Microsoft and the industry as a whole 
needs move forward and focus their attention on business at hand; 
otherwise the economic climate within the tech industry may never 
rebound.
    Many people believe that Microsoft got off easy; in fact, the 
opposite is true. Microsoft agreed to terms that extended well 
beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue in 
the suit, with the express reason that it will al1 be over soon. The 
company also agreed to a three-person technical committee that will 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement A fair settlement 
and a fair way to make sure that the settlement is followed were 
reached The only thing left is to see that the government accepts 
its own settlement. In these economic hard times we need to allow 
business to move ahead. As long as this suit is hanging around, the 
technology industry will not be able to move further. Please accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement and let us get on with the 
people's business.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Cotton



MTC-00031369

January, 2002
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.
To Whom It May Concern: I am for settling the Microsoft Case. I 
believe that it was wrong in the first place to bring this to court. 
The company is not perfect---but what they have done 
incorrectly does not merit a case being brought against them. This 
company and Mr. Gates has done more for many in this country than 
any other company. They have helped many schools and many, many 
charities, and many, many people when other companies would not even 
lift a hand.
    Also--We have obligations to move beyond this. We have a 
war with terror going on right now. Let us begin to resolve the 
problems in this country--illegal immigration--let us 
begin to pull together and solve existing problems. President Bush 
is on the right track to work together--not divide this 
country. I love the windows operating system as it enabled, me a 
novice, to begin to use the computer. I think we should thank Mr. 
Gates rather than drag him into court. He was head and shoulders 
above everyone else in inventing a way for all to compute--he 
should have the freedom to continue to invent new ways to work. Our 
economy is in shambles. Let us put this behind us--I think it 
is time to accept Microsofts proposal and put this behind us. Many, 
many people are out of work in this country--we need to grow up 
and move on.
    Thank you
    Mary E. Wenger
    Washington State



MTC-00031370

From. Myma-Sue Shimberg
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/16/2002
Subject : Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has succeeded because it has made products that are 
easier to use and more effective than its competitors. I was pleased 
to learn that a settlement was recently reached in the antitrust 
case that was begun more than three years ago by the Justice 
Department. I hope it will finally bring an end to this case. 
Microsoft should be allowed to function and compete without 
excessive government intervention. The settlement that was reached 
this November could conclude the federal case if it is put in place. 
Sadly some opponents of the settlement may try to undermine the 
settlement because they feel it is too undemanding. However the 
reality is that this settlement is very comprehensive. The 
settlement requires Microsoft to end any contractual restriction 
that could be interpreted as harmful to competitors. Additionally, 
this settlement compels Microsoft to share proprietary code with 
competitors, to an unprecedented extent. Undoubtedly this settlement 
should be the end of this case, despite what the Microsoft opponents 
may contend.
    Sincerely,
    Myrna-Sue Shimberg
    11068 N. Mountain Breeze Drive
    Tucson, AZ 85737



MTC-00031371

225 Castle Drive
West Mifflin, PA 15122-2958
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support Microsoft and believe this 
settlement is fair. Microsoft is an American company that has 
impacted our daily lives. Microsoft has brought American computer 
technology into our businesses and homes. This company has done so 
much in the past that it should not be stifled or restricted. This 
settlement allows this company to remain together. This settlement 
also contains provisions that will foster competition. Microsoft has 
agreed to share more information with other companies and has agreed 
to be monitored by a technical oversight committee. Competing 
companies may also opt to sue if they feel this company is not 
complying with this agreement. Again, I support this settlement and 
feel it will serve in the best public interest of America. Please 
support this settlement. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Suzanne Cunningham
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031372

Iowa Special Events Group, Inc.
Specialists in Sound & Communications
Dale Blair, CEO E.E.
January 16 ,2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely, I am writing in hopes to encourage the 
settlement with Microsoft. Most analysts agree that the suit is a 
wasteful use of taxpayer dollars; this case has a chilling effect on 
innovation, and is making it harder for entrepreneurs to raise 
capital. Beaten in the market by better Microsoft products and 
services, competitors like Netscape (since acquired for billions by 
AOL) somehow talked the federal government into attacking Microsoft 
as an anti-competitive monopoly guilty of predatory practices. 
Remarkably enough, I read that AOL-Time Warner began lobbying the 
government against a competitive Microsoft product before it was 
even released! It's quite disturbing to think that a corporation 
such as AOL-Time Warner has such influence over our states' 
legal decisions.
    It has been AOL-Time Warner, created as a result of AOL's merger 
with Time Warner, whose existence has raised real hackles about 
potential monopoly power. For its part, Oracle has left no stone 
unturned in trying to undermine Microsoft. What disturbs me the most 
is that the government's attack on Microsoft may well have been 
motivated by a desire to assert control over the fastest growing and 
most independent industry in the country. That's a horrible 
philosophy if we want people to invest in new technologies and 
products that mean new jobs and growth for our future. All this 
being said, I think the settlement is acceptable and it's time to 
move on. Thank you for your time, as I know it is very valuable.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Blair
    P.O. Box 815--Des Moines, Iowa 50304--Phone: 
515-277-2002



MTC-00031373

8 Pansy Court
Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 29568]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I would like to express my support for the 
settlement that was negotiated in November between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department. I believe the settlement is sound and in the 
best interests of our economy.
    Although Microsoft probably conceded more than was warranted, 
the company believes it is time to move forward. As an example, 
Microsoft agreed that if a third party's exercise of any options 
provided for by the settlement would infringe any Microsoft 
intellectual property right Microsoft will provide the third party 
with a license to the necessary intellectual property on reasonable 
and non-discriminatory terms. I believe this is a significant 
concession and should show the government that this is indeed a good 
deal for them.
    Both sides of this dispute showed much courage in sticking with 
the tenuous negotiations this agreement required. Your office has 
made the right decision in supporting this settlement and I hope you 
will continue your support.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Millevoi
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031374

Professional Performance
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I believe that the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice regarding antitrust suit is 
more than fair. We live in a free-market society; it does not make 
sense to submit to so much government intervention. Carrying on 
litigation will have an adverse effect on the industry and prevent 
the advancement of technology.
    It is necessary to settle the suit so the economy may a get a 
much- needed boost. I do not understand why a company must provide 
its competitors with information pertaining to its products, but 
Microsoft has agreed to give the rights to computer makers to 
configure the different Windows operating systems so they can run 
non-Microsoft software within them even easier. Microsoft has also 
agreed to license Windows to the 20 largest computer makers on equal 
terms and conditions, including price.
    The suit has managed to drop the value of the stock market, 
raise software costs, and have taxpayers dig deeper into their 
pockets. If this suit continues, the economy may not be able to get 
the much-needed boost that it needs. I urge you to make certain that 
this settlement is confirmed and Microsoft is allowed to return to 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Klaus Schonfeld
    Vice-President
    4241 Woodcock Road,Suite A125, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78228
    TEL. 210-615-1117 FAX 210-415-1158
    WWW.PPDG.COM



MTC-00031375

01/16/200219:25 630-325-0260 GREG SMITH
10 South 336 Hampshire Lane East
Hinsdale, Illinois 60527
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Finally, after three long years. the 
Department of Justice has decided to end its antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft. This is good news for the business community and 
the economy as a whole, because Microsoft affects so much of the 
economy.
    Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers 
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system. Microsoft has also agreed to disclose and 
document! for use by its competitors, various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows' operating system products--a first 
in an antitrust settlement. Microsoft did not get off easily. The 
settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations with a court-
appointed mediator.
    The company agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products 
and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit--for the 
sake of wrapping up the suit. Enough is enough. I support the 
settlement, and anticipate a swift end to this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Smith



MTC-00031376

1705 E West Highway
Apt. 409
Silver Spring, MD 20910
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to thank the Justice Department for agreeing to 
settle the Microsoft Anti Trust case. This case has dragged on for 
years and it's great that there is an end in sight. However, I hope 
that the government will be able to fend off the advances from 
Microsoft's competitors and allow the proposed settlement to be 
finalized. This settlement is more than reasonable, especially given 
Microsoft's contribution to consumers and small businesses. Their 
company is conceding a lot more than called for so that they can 
concentrate on their business again.
    I am a private researcher and use Microsoft products daily for 
my research and personal use. Consumers would suffer greatly if it 
weren't for the Microsoft products that keep people connected to 
their PCs. There is a reason that most people use Microsoft over 
their competitors; in most cases their products have proved far 
superior to others'. However, this settlement will allow more 
competition in the computer industry, as Microsoft has agreed to 
share more of their coding information and interface design. They 
have also made it easier for PC users to use non-Microsoft products 
on Windows by allowing computer makers to pre-install their 
competitors' software on Windows.
    Please do not allow further scrutiny of this settlement. It is a 
good way to end the lawsuits and allow the computer industry and the 
economy to get back on its feet.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy Baker, Ph.D.



MTC-00031377

25 Valley View Court
Westford, Vermont 05494
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John
US Department of Justice
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the three-year lawsuit 
against Microsoft was unjustified and wrong. I do not think that 
Microsoft has infringed on consumer rights or violated antitrust 
laws. In fact, their innovation has brought so much to our country's 
technological growth that we owe Bill Gates a huge ``thank 
you''. I thought it ludicrous that giving away software was 
considered by some to hurt the consumer!
    Under the terms of the settlement, I am glad to see Microsoft 
will not be broken up, but the concession Microsoft will be making 
are unfair to them as a private firm. For one, they should not be 
forced to disclose internal inter-faces and protocols to their 
competitors. They should also not be restricted form entering into 
third party agreements for exclusive distribution rights.
    Even though the settlement is flawed, our economy and the IT 
sector in particular, cannot take any more wounds. Finalizing the 
settlement is in the best interests of the American public and we 
look forward to the end of the suit.
    Sincerely,
    Howard Dachs



MTC-00031379

Michael D. Fleming, CFP
Senior Financial Advisor
CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER
practitioner
American Express
Financial Advisors Inc.
IDS Life Insurance Company
suite 109
Jackson Plaza
503 Jackson Avenue
Elk River, MN 55330
Bus 763 241 9696
Bus 877 241 9696
Fax 763 241 1039
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing in support of Microsoft's 
antitrust settlement with the federal government. I think it was 
fair and reasonable.
    I also think Microsoft's willingness to grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft 
software programs that compete with programs included within 
Windows, and their willingness not to retaliate against computer 
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows

[[Page 29569]]

operating system, or against software of hardware developers who 
develop that also competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with Windows, is was a huge concession by Microsoft.
    In closing, I hope this settlement will be approved so Microsoft 
can get back to the business of innovation. Thank you very much. 
With sincere regards for an innovative American future.
    Michael Fleming, CFP



MTC-00031380

3314 Waterwood Drive
Florida 33872
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: United States business history shows that the 
less the government is involved in private businesses, the more 
prosperous we are as a nation. That said, I am glad to know that we 
are at a point in which the federal government is stepping away from 
the private affairs of Microsoft once and for all. The Government is 
far too involved in the world of business and further government 
involvement in the IT industry will only serve to further damage 
current technology and future innovation.
    Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft will share information 
with its competitors, allowing them to more easily install their own 
software on the Windows operating system. Additionally, Microsoft 
will agree not to reiterate any competitors that sell, uses, or 
promotes non-microsoft software. A swift end to the suit is in order 
so that Microsoft and the economy may recover from the extended 
lawsuit. I support the settlement as it now stands so that the 
entire (illegible) can be put to rest.
    Sincerely
    Robert F. Swault



MTC-00031381

North Carolina Citizens for business & Industry
P.O. Box 2508, Raleigh, NC 27602 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 460, 
Raleigh, NC 27603*
Telephone: (919) 836-1400 *Fax: (919) 836-1425
Executive Committee:
*William Cavanaugh III
Raleigh
*William A. Coley
Caharlotte
*John A Forlines Jr.
Granite Falls
*David P. Huskins
Linville Falls
*Darleen m. Johns
Raleigh
*Kelly S. King
Winston-Salem
*George W. Little
Southern Pines
*Henry E. Miller Jr.
Wilmington
*Stephen P. Miller
Asheville
*R.V. Owens
Nags Head
*Suzanne D. Sartelle
Jacksonville
*Pope Shiford
Hickory
*Will B. Spence Jr.
Charlotte
*Dr. Patricia Sullivan
Greensboro
*C. Avery Thomas
Burlington
*N. Bradley Thompson Jr.
Charlotte
*Dr. Julianne Still Thrift
Winston-Salem
*Edward L. Weisiger Jr
Charlotte
*Paul M. Wiles
Winston-Salem
Chairman Emeriti:
*L.M. Baker Jr.
Winston-Salem
*Edwin B. Borden
Goldsboro
*Thomas W. Bradshaw Jr
Raleigh
*Richard L. Daugherty
Raleigh
*Malcolm E. Everett III
Charlotte
*John O. McNairy
Kinston
*Earl N. Phillips Jr
High Point
*Sherwood H Smith Jr
Raleigh
*G. Smedes York
Raleigh
*Charles E. Zeigler Jr
Gastonia
*Stephen P. Zelmak Jr
Raleigh
Presidents Emeriti:
*Ivic L Clayton
*Edward Rankin Jr.
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: As president of North Carolina Citizens for 
Business and Industry, I would like to heartily endorse the 
settlement that has been reached and signed off on in the Microsoft 
case. With the Department of Justice, nine state attorneys general 
and Microsoft in agreement, I hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will 
approve it as soon as possible.
    The group that I head is the largest business association in the 
tenth largest state in America. For many years, North Carolina has 
been rated as one of the top states in which to do business. One of 
the chief goals of our organization is to continue to improve that 
situation so that industry will move into our state and provide jobs 
for all our citizens. That is also why NCCBI has worked on many 
programs in education and job training as well.
    One of our key growth industries has been high technology. Even 
Microsoft itself has a facility in Charlotte that provides high-
paying jobs to more than 1,000 technical workers in the area. And 
that is why, from the beginning, we believe that the lawsuit filed 
by the Department of Justice was not in the best interest of our 
state.
    However, now that there is a settlement on the table, I would 
hope that it would go through quickly so that Microsoft can be freer 
to keep innovative products flowing into the marketplace. Our state 
has suffered a great deal because of the downturn in our traditional 
core industries and now is feeling the effects of cutbacks in high 
tech and telecommunications. The last thing we need is further 
government intervention into this marketpIace, holding up economic 
progress.
    I was highly pleased when our own attorney general Roy Cooper 
withdrew the state's lawsuit against Microsoft and signed on to the 
national settlement. This is the kind of positive move that I hope 
will influence this case to come to settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Phillip J. Kirk, Jr.



MTC-00031382

Georgia R. Short Route 1, Box 330 Columbia, VA 23038 434.842.5189
January 16, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: I am writing to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Not too long ago I was the victim of a costly and unnecessary 
computer crash that was partially attributable to a non-Microsoft 
software clash with my computer's Windows operating system. As a 
consumer I am particularly impressed with the approach the 
settlement takes to ensure competition and promote the best 
interests of the consumer public.
    With regard to Microsoft's compliance with the settlement, the 
agreement appears to provide adequate resources, access and 
authority to quickly respond to any complaints about noncompliance. 
The independent Technical Committee's power to hire unlimited onsite 
staff at Microsoft's campus and at that company's expense is also an 
important and welcome settlement feature,
    While the agreement positions the U.S. Justice Department as the 
sole enforcement authority, the fact that state Attorneys General 
may take steps to escalate complaints to the Court appears to add a 
further measure of protection that is important to consumers and the 
computer industry as a whole.
    I appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Georgia R. Short



MTC-00031383

SENT BY: ALASKAN OIL INC : 1-17-2:10:45AM: SYRACUSE, NY-
2025149082;# 1/1
ALASKAN OIL INC.
2020 LeMoyne Street
* P.O. Box 533
* Syracuse, NY 13211
* 315-471-8490
* Fax 315-479-6698
www.alaskanoilinc.com

[[Page 29570]]

January 16, 2002
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
Ms. Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express to you and Judge Kollar-Kotelly my 
support for a settlement between the United States government and 
Microsoft. I am the owner of Alaskan Oil, Inc., a company employing 
125+ people located in upstate New York. Being involved in a highly 
regulated business, I am all too accustomed to the high pressures of 
doing business within an industry permeated with government 
regulation. I believe we do not need to add the high-tech sector to 
the list of over-regulated industries. The last thing the current 
economy needs are government lawyers and bureaucrats micromanaging 
the high-tech sector. It is my understanding that the antitrust laws 
were designed to protect consumers, not for some powerful companies 
to protect themselves from market competition. Microsoft competitors 
such as AOL Time Warner and Oracle should stop encouraging the 
government to fight their battles for them in court and fight in the 
marketplace instead.
    Sincerely,
    Richard A. Neugelauer
    President



MTC-00031384

FROM: OFFICE DEPOT
FAX NO.: 864 587 2709 Jan. 17 2002 10:37AM P2
806 Thackston Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29307-2534
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    We are writing to ask that you strongly advocate approval of the 
Justice Department's settlement with Microsoft at the close of the 
public comment period. It is important to the American economy that 
this matter be resolved, and that Microsoft be allowed to move 
forward with its business. It is our understanding that the 
settlement reached will allow for additional competition in the 
computer market without requiring Microsoft to operate from a 
competitive disadvantage. The formation of an oversight committee to 
monitor the settlement will also help avoid future unnecessary 
litigation. We appreciate being afforded the opportunity to address 
this important issue.
    Thank you.
    Sincere regards,
    Robert D. and Aline Soutter
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031385

John E. Echlin Jr.
321 Tom Fripp Rd.
St. Helena Island
South Carolina, 29920
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my support for the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department. Enough damage has been 
done to the company by the pursuit of an unjust law suit that should 
not have ever happened. Microsoft has taken steps that give 
competitors a lot of what they wanted, although to some it is not 
enough. Further pursuit could damage Microsoft beyond recovery.
    Not only has Microsoft been forced to give up proprietary 
products, it has cost the company and the shareholders money and has 
distracted management from its primary goal of managing the company.
    Cordially,
    John E. Echlin Jr.
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031386

Barbara Thompson
8907 E Douglas
Wichita, KS 67207-1207
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support the Justice Department's current settlement agreement 
with Microsoft. I feel that the case is being furthered by jealous 
competitors, much like the trouble AT&T incurred years ago. 
Microsoft should be allowed to get on with business.
    I'm not a technical-minded person, but I think that Microsoft is 
a great company that offers innovative products. The terms of the 
settlement are fair, and Microsoft's concessions will allow for fair 
business competition. The increased consumer flexibility in 
selecting different program options will ensure that.
    In addition, I feel that Bill Gates has contributed greatly, 
both financially and with his time, to charitable, cultural, 
educational, and community organizations. It seems that, 
proportionate to other companies, his generosity has far exceeded 
that of other CEOs. I particularly reference foreign automakers 
following the 9/11 tragedy. His record of giving, T believe, makes a 
significant and positive impact on every American. I urge you to 
settle the Microsoft case as quickly as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Thompson



MTC-00031387

Michelle D. Blount
906 Manhattan Drive
Columbia, Missouri 65201
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 120
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a technology management person for a large insurance company, 
I frequently deal with issues related to computer hardware and 
software. In addition to my professional involvement with computer 
technology, and perhaps more important, is my interest as a general 
consumer being represented by the Justice Department. Due to my 
involvement with technology, I've followed with interest the 
Microsoft settlement and am compelled to express my opinion on this 
issue. Keeping in mind the basic foundation for this lawsuit, which 
was for me protection of the average consumer, it is my opinion that 
to accomplish this there must be a quick resolution of the matter. 
This settlement has been far from expedient and has been very 
costly. The lawsuit has clogged up our federal legal system and it 
is time to agree to a settlement for the benefit of all. Again, 
keeping in mind the well-being of consumers, would it not be to the 
benefit of all for our school systems to receive free computer 
systems from Microsoft? While I have considered a competitor's 
opposition to this, their position is ancillary to the issue. The 
lawsuit was brought on my behalf, not to the benefit of companies 
that in some cases created their own failures by their own limited 
technology. Further, to consider a break-up of a company such as 
Microsoft would not be to any consumers benefit, A break-up of the 
company would be costly, confusing, and would ultimately harm the 
consumers. To act on my behalf, the Justice Department needs to 
resolve this issue immediately, agreeing to a settlement that 
benefits those it claims to have in it's best interest. This would 
be to put the rewards of the settlement back into the hands of the 
consumers via the education of our children.
    Sincerely,
    Michelle D. Blount
    Manager--Technical Support Services



MTC-00031388

Sue French Lewis
PRESIDENT
COMMUNICATIONS
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Microsoft 
case settlement. It is my understanding all new Microsoft operating 
systems would have to utilize a mechanism that readily allows users 
to remove Microsoft's products--including the Internet browser, 
instant messaging tools, media player, and email utilities. In my 
opinion, this settlement would make it easier for users to switch 
and compare among competing products. I feel this part of the 
settlement provides end users like myself with the flexibility I 
prefer.
    Sincerely yours,
Sue F. Lewis, President
Imagine Communications
313 Saint David's Lane
Richmond, Virginia 23221
804-213-053
FAX 804-213-3018



MTC-00031389

TIMOTHY J. DONOVAN

[[Page 29571]]

1081 Crosspoint Court
San Jose, California 95120
(408) 268-8288
January 17, 2002
VIA FAX
TO: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Re: PROPOSED MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
(i.e., Tunney Act Review)
    Gentleperson:
    I recommend that the settlement between the Justice Department, 
Nine States and Microsoft be immediately approved, without 
reservation. From the outset the lawsuit brought against Microsoft 
was politically motivated. The lawsuit wrecked the economy and 
triggered the worst recession in the history of the United States. I 
believe the settlement is fair and just to all parties concerned. It 
is about time we stopped playing ``politics'' with the 
United States Economy and settle this lawsuit which will be a 
catalyst for a full recovery of our economy. Otherwise, you do not 
have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that if this settlement is 
rejected, it will trigger a deeper and broader recession.
    Sincerely,
    TIMOTHY J. DONOVAN



MTC-00031390

FROM: RICHARDS
117 Kingswood Drive
Florence, Alabama 35630
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is a firm opinion that the past three years of litigation 
with Microsoft has been very damaging to the economy on a whole. I 
truly hope that this litigation process will come to end soon. My 
reason for writing to you is to express my support for the Microsoft 
settlement. I do not blindly support Microsoft. I am a very happy 
Microsoft user and have had no major problems with the services 
rendered. I am also extremely pleased with Microsoft's initiative to 
distribute software and services to school. This is a very 
impressive and well-needed effort. In following this case, I am also 
satisfied with Microsoft's strides to adhere to the guidelines of 
the settlement including their development of Windows XP to promote 
non-Microsoft software within Windows. As this entire issue has been 
dragged on for quite some time now, it is my hope that my input and 
that of others will help in the litigation process.
    Sincerely,
    Nolan Richards



MTC-00031391

THE ESSENTIAL FACILITY CONNECTlON
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to begin by stating that the scheme of breaking 
Microsoft should not have even been brought up. Since the conception 
of this suit, there has been an uncertainty of job security in the 
IT industry. It is vital that Microsoft and the DOJ work to push 
this issue through.
    As you know, this settlement was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator present. In accordance 
to the settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to enter any agreements 
that would obligate any third party to distribute or promote any 
Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage. Microsoft 
has also has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers that 
may ship software that would compete against the Windows operating 
system. This will make consumers happy, and ensure that competition 
reigns supreme.
    I believe that it is too early to feel comfortable regarding 
this settlement. But, it is also necessary to resolve this issue so 
that the economy and the industry may continue to move forward 
during this stagnant time in our Nation's history. It is time to 
allow Microsoft to return to innovation.
    Sincerely,
Randall Jarrel
Webmaster
5030 First Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98134
Tel: (206)268-9800 Fax: (206) 268-9801 Email: 
[email protected]



MTC-00031392

379 Rattlesnake Road
Ridgeway, South Carolina 29130
January 17, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing to you regarding the Microsoft case. To me, 
Microsoft symbolizes what America stands for--free enterprise. 
They should not be punished for their ability to lead the industry 
and their competitors'' inability to follow even closely 
behind. Ever since its inception, Microsoft has been an incredible 
act to follow. The company's software has been released with 
relatively few glitches, has been very affordable, and has made the 
professional and personal lives of its users much more convenient. I 
use Linux on several of my machines and think it is great but it is 
not suitable to the average consumer, only Microsoft fits that bill.
    I also believe that the States that remain in opposition of 
Microsoft have not given close enough consideration to Microsoft's 
impact on the economic well being of this nation. With the country 
in a recession and at war, this is no time to negatively impact the 
economic backbone of the technology industry.
    I know that when closure is brought to this matter, it will do a 
world of good for the economy and the industry. Thank you for doing 
your part to recreate this stability.
    Sincerely.
    John M. McSwain
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Congressman John Spratt



MTC-00031393

Michael D. Kania
724-935-3237
[email protected]
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement between 
Microsoft and the US Dept. of Justice. The settlement will satisfy 
the desires of all involved parties, and should be allowed to 
proceed.
    I do not think Microsoft has a monopoly. In fact, I believe 
Microsoft's innovation has benefited the country's growth. Not only, 
does Microsoft epitomize all the aspects of a successful business in 
a free market economy, but it positively affects our country's 
economy. Still, Microsoft is willing to accept sanctions, including 
sharing business secrets and non-retaliation clauses, that go well 
beyond the original concerns of the lawsuit in order to get on with 
business. As a Microsoft products user and supporter, I am glad to 
see this issue settled and I look forward to Microsoft's furture 
growth throughout the technology sector.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Kania
    305 Oak Grove Court
    Wexford, PA 15090
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Marliene Branton
    606 Harding Avenue
    Pen Argyl, PA 18072
    January 8, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    It is with great enthusiasm that I write to you today to express 
my support for the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
dispute. The litigation was unwarranted. The end has come. And the 
technology industry can finally return to normal.
    Microsoft did not escape this litigation without compromise. The 
company agrees to restrict its business practices as to not 
retaliate against companies that develop or promote competing 
products. Protocols that can benefit other companies will now have 
to be disclosed. To assure compliance, Microsoft will be subject to 
the all-new technical review committee, which will also sometimes 
manage disputes other firms have with Microsoft. Microsoft has been 
generous in its compromises to competitors. Microsoft should be 
allowed to focus on business now. The IT community needs it. Our 
economy needs it. Please continue to support this settlement, and 
work through the appropriate channels to have it enacted 
permanently.
    Sincerely,
    Marliene Branton
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031396

Steve & Christine Bury
PO Box 378
Otto, North Carolina 28763
Telephone: 828-369-5908
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 29572]]

    It is with great pleasure that I write to you today to express 
my support of the settlement reached between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. Three years have passed since this litigation 
was introduced. During these years, the technology industry has 
suffered a decline. In addition, many federal dollars were spent in 
this litigation process. The settlement that was reached, then, 
signifies a step forward. The settlement includes many different 
concessions. Microsoft agrees to license Windows at a uniform price 
for the majority of computer manufacturers. The largest twenty 
computer makers will now all be able to license Windows at the same 
price with the same terms and conditions. This will eliminate some 
competitions between manufacturers,
    I wish to reiterate the importance of this settlement. Settling 
this case will untie necessary budgetary resources. During economic 
recession, this should be our priority,
    Sincerely,
    Christine Bury



MTC-00031397

2807 NW 83rd Street # Cl2
Gainesville, FL 32606-8623
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It is time for litigation in the Microsoft antitrust case to 
come to an end. I am hopeful that you will ensure the settlement 
that was recently reached between you and Microsoft carried through 
and this case is finally ended at the federal level. After three 
years and great expense to your Department and Microsoft, there is a 
light at the end of the tunnel in this case: namely the settlement. 
This settlement by no means lets Microsoft off easy. Included in 
this settlement axe provisions that will change the way Microsoft 
does business. Microsoft will have to disclose an unheard of amount 
of proprietary code to competitors under this settlement so these 
competitors will be able to make better software and compete against 
Microsoft.
    Regrettably extreme anti-Microsoft special interests may try to 
derail the settlement. They would prefer to see Microsoft damaged 
rather than see a reasonable conclusion to this case.
    Sincerely,
    Roger F. Bates



MTC-00031398

FROM : ARGO INTERNATIONAL
FAX NO. : 6105663807 Jan. 17 2002 11:47AM P1
826 Meredith Drive
Elwyn, PA 19063-1714
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 14, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am glad that the antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft has finally come to a halt. I feel that it has gone on far 
too long. It's about time that the government and Microsoft will 
come to an agreement as to how Microsoft runs its business.
    It is good that Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
software or hardware developers who develop or promote software that 
competes with or runs on Windows. It is also a sound decision that a 
technical committee comprised of three software engineering experts 
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and assist 
with dispute resolution. This will ensure the best interest of all 
people, both Microsoft employees and consumers. Again, thank you for 
settling this matter. I give you my support. This country has more 
prudent issues to attend to at the moment.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Wesley Argo



MTC-00031399

2113 Arrowhead Drive
Olathe, KS 66062
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft I am writing to express my opinions on the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. I do not believe the suit was fair 
to Microsoft to begin with. The Microsoft Corporation and its 
employees have attained their dominant status in the IT industry 
through hard work and innovation, not through a concerted and 
conscious effort to block the advances of competing software 
producers. Nevertheless, Microsoft was found to be in violation of 
antitrust laws and was brought to trial in the federal courts to 
answer for these violations. After three years of negotiation and 
mediation, Microsoft and the Department of Justice finally came to 
an agreement that would seem to be beneficial to Microsoft's 
competitors while at the same time allowing Microsoft to remain 
intact. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to see the 
settlement overturned and Microsoft destroyed. This is extreme.
    Microsoft does not need to be rent asunder. The settlement has 
provided well for Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft has agreed to 
license intellectual property rights that fall under terms of the 
settlement to its competitors. Additionally, Microsoft will refrain 
from retaliatory behavior when software is put on the market that 
directly competes with Microsoft products. Microsoft will also not 
enter into agreements wherein a third party is required to endorse 
Microsoft programs or products either at a fixed percentage or 
exclusively.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe further litigation against 
Microsoft is either necessary or wise. The economy has suffered 
while Microsoft has been tied up in this suit, and the IT industry 
has likewise been stunted in its growth. Microsoft has, through this 
settlement, appeased the demands of justice. I urge you to let the 
settlement stand. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Barnhart



MTC-00031400

The House of Representatives
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE HOUSE
P.O.BOX 11867
Columbia 29211
(803)734-3065
DOUGLAS JENNINGS. JR
DISTRICT 54
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
HOME ADDRESS
151 BROAD STREET
P. 0. DRAWER 995
BENNETTSVILLE. SC 29512
January 16, 2002
RENATA B. HESSE
ANTITRUST DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
601 D STREET NW
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-0001
RE: SETTLEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST 
MICROSOFT
    Dear Ms. Hesse: I write to express my own support for the 
proposed settlement of the US Department of Justice antitrust action 
against Microsoft. I understand that nine (9) of the eighteen (18) 
states that joined in that action support the proposed settlement. 
The Attorney General of my state, Honorable Charlie Condon, long ago 
withdrew our state from this lawsuit. As a practicing attorney and 
as Democratic Leader in our House of Representatives, I know that 
some disputes are best resolved through negotiations and settlement. 
This settlement is going to impose strict new pro-competition and 
pro-consumer requirements on how Microsoft does business. It results 
from extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator and is 
of course supported by the Attorney General of the United States. 
It's time to bring this case to an end with this settlement.
    Sincerey,
    Douglas Jennings,Jr.
    Democratic Party Leader
    South Carolina House of Representatives



MTC-00031401

HANNIG ENTERPRISES, INC.
SPREAD EAGLE DEV. CORP.
SPREAD EAGLE REALTY, INC.
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: As an industry expert, I would like to 
express my opinion on the recent settlement between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice. While it is good that Microsoft will not 
be broken up, it is my opinion that litigation should never have 
occurred in the first place. To date, Microsoft has been the most 
reliable source of new products and technology. They have created 
services that no other company could and therefore have an unusually 
large market share. But their ability to be the best should not be 
punished. Instead other companies should be considered to perform at 
the same rate of growth and operating efficiency that Microsoft 
does. I look forward to the IT industry returning to normal and a 
large part of their comeback will be Microsoft's ability to focus on 
business, not politics.

[[Page 29573]]

    Sincerely,
    Charles M. Hannig
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    442 Office Plaza, 200 Plaza Court, Suite A, East Stroudsburg, PA 
18301
    (717)476-4747 * fax
    (717)476-4749



MTC-00031402

North Carolina General Assembly
Senate Chamber
SENATOR CAL CUNNINGHAM
23RD DISTRICT
RALEIGH OFFICE 628 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NC 27601-2808
(919) 733-5870
(919) 754-3252 FAX
(illegible)@NCLEG.NET
DISTRICT OFFICE 18 SOUTH MAIN STREET
PO BOX 2101
ALEXINGTON, NC 27293
(336) 249 7731
COMMITTEES
JUDICIARY I, VICE CHAIR AGRICULTURE/ENVIRONMENT/NATURAL RESOURCES
APPROPRIATIONS/BASE BUDGET-EDUCATION
EDUCATION/HIGHER EDUCATION
INSURANCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON VOTING PROCEDURES
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORATION
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via facsimile: (202) 307- 1454
Re: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse, I am writing to express my support for the 
settlement that the Department of Justice and several states, 
including North Carolina, have reached with Microsoft. The 
settlement has earned bipartisan support and represents a reasonable 
compromise. I understand that Microsoft is committed to becoming a 
more responsible industry leader and has agreed to make many 
significant changes in its business practices. Along with our 
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, I believe that the settlement will be 
positive for consumers by enhancing competition in all aspects of 
the technology industry. I will be pleased to see this matter 
resolved as it will be a boost for the technology sector, a vital 
component of the North Carolina economy. I urge the Department of 
Justice and the court to approve this settlement.
    Senator Cal Cunningham



MTC-00031403

9953 South Beach Drive
ainbridge Island, WA 98110
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: From the start of the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft lawsuit, three long years ago, I have been confused as to 
why our federal government would choose to pursue and punish one of 
the most beneficial companies in America today. Microsoft has done 
more for the world of computing than any other single entity in the 
world. Without their products, the enormous marketplace for IT 
products that exists today would simply not be around--not at 
all Included in the proposed settlement are many points that are 
punitive towards Microsoft. One point requires Microsoft to open its 
proprietary software interfaces to other software manufacturers. 
This is an amazing affront to Microsoft and its lifetime investment 
in its own product, and a first in an antitrust lawsuit. Yet, 
Microsoft is willing to renounce this and many others of its fair 
business practices to see an end to this unfortunate lawsuit. For 
the millions of Microsoft stockholder and consumers Of Microsoft 
products, an end to the suit cannot come soon enough. For many, the 
government's prolonging the suit has already hurt financially. In 
the end, I wonder who will benefit from all of this wrangling. The 
Department of Justice owes all involved parties an end to this suit. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Shade



MTC-00031404

Joe TOWSON
P. O. 6383
Spartanburg, SC 29304
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department Of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am writing you in support of Microsoft's 
decision to settle then antitrust case with the federal government. 
I think it is very fair, and goes beyond what was originally at the 
center of the dispute. Microsoft made the decision to cede 
privileges to computer makers to give them the chance to reconfigure 
Windows before they ship it to consumers. This means that the 
computer makers can promote non-Microsoft software programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows. What's more, 
Microsoft made the decision to also cede protocols to other software 
companies in the hope that they will develop more streamlined 
software. Finally, Microsoft will not be allowed to retaliate 
against software or hardware developers who take advantage of these 
decisions. I think this settlement should be approved so Microsoft 
can get back to business. I urge you to approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Towson
    Cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031405

2830 Cabaline Trail
Hamel, Minnesota 55340
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I would like to express my support for the 
pending Microsoft settlement to be decided on this month. As a 
taxpayer, I have felt that the only thing the expensive government 
case has accomplished is precluding free enterprise from continued 
growth in the technology sector. Therefore, the measures promised in 
this deal should be more than adequate to allow fair competition 
while still allowing Microsoft to create quality products for 
consumers. Though created by pressures from weaker companies envious 
of Microsoft's success and technology base, the settlement has 
achieved the lawsuit's goals and then some. Microsoft will ensure no 
retaliatory action against alternative software developers or the 
hardware makers that work with those competitors. The decision will 
also allow access to their internal interfaces and licensing of 
their intellectual property. All of this will then be monitored by a 
three-person technical committee of software experts, to guarantee 
ongoing compliance. It seems like an obvious choice for the sake of 
the technology industry to approve this agreement and move on to 
more important issues. Please allow this action to stand and 
Microsoft to implement the moves they've promised.
    Sincerely,
    Gabi Demeritt



MTC-00031407

From: James Leahy
To Renata Hesse Fax. (202)616-9937
Republican Assembly of Illinois
Thomas F. Roeser--Founder * James A. Leahy--Executive 
Director
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
60l D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse: My name is James Leahy and I am the Executive 
Director of the Republican Assembly of Illinois (RAI), which is a 
grassroots organization dedicated to the principals of smaller 
government, local control and lower taxation. RAI has been vocal in 
its encouragement of ending the Microsoft anti-trust case. I am 
writing you today to provide you some of the reasons why we have 
called for an end to this case in the past.
    In November of 2001 it was reported that Microsoft had reached a 
proposed settlement of the case with the US Department of Justice. 
Here in Illinois we were grateful to hear this case may be coming to 
an end. We were further encouraged to know that our own Attorney 
General Jim Ryan had decided to end years of legal wrangling with 
Microsoft and accept the settlement. This decision will bring an end 
to a case that has been very costly to the American taxpayer and the 
United States economy. Not only have millions of taxpayers dollars 
been spent on this case, the stock market has been greatly affected. 
One can see the decline of the tech stocks is closely linked to when 
the government took aim at Microsoft. This settlement will provide 
the technology industry, which performed so well throughout much of 
the 1990s, with the ability to get back to business without fear of 
more government overregulation and

[[Page 29574]]

interference. It is clear that to reach this settlement all parties 
involved have worked together to resolve this case for the good of 
the tech industry and the nation's economy. It is my hope that the 
support of Judge Kollar Kotelly will be forthcoming.
    Sincerely,
    333 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 932 * Chicago, Illinois 60601 * 
312-553-0097 *



MTC-00031408

Larry L. Koon
First Vice-Chairman
Alfred B. Robinson Jr.
Third Vice-Chairman
Marion P. Camell
William Clyburn
Gilda Cobb-Hunter
Daniel T. Cooper
Bill Couy
C. Alexander Harvin III
Mark S. Kelley
Kenneth Kennedy
Herb Kirsh
Harry B. Limehouse III
Donald B. Hottel, Jr.
Chief of Staff
Jeannie R. Potter
Executive Secretary
Thomas G. Keegan
Second Vice-Chairman
Merita A. Allison
Secretary/Treasurer
Lanny F. Littlejohn
E. DeWitt McCraw
Becky Meacham-Richardson
Denny W. Neilson
Richard M. Quinn. Jr.
Rex F. Rice
John W. Riser
J. Roland Smith
Lewis R. Vaughn
Annette Young
Beverly C. Smith
Director of State
Budgeting & Finance
Gordon 0. Shuford
Director of Legislation
Policy Analysis
Robert W. Harroll, Jr.
Chairman House of Representatives
P. 0. BOX 11867 TELEPHONE: 734-3144
Columbia, SC 29211
January 16, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U. S. Department of Justice
601 B Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse: This is to express my support for the settlement 
that Attorney General Ashcroft agreed to regarding the Department of 
Justice antitrust action against Microsoft. The settlement puts 
important new restrictions on Microsoft, yet it allows that company 
to continue to compete and innovate. Nine of the eighteen suing 
states decided to support the settlement, and our own state's 
attorney general, Charlie Condon, previously decided to stay out of 
the lawsuit. In my opinion it will benefit consumers, competition 
and the economy to allow this long-running lawsuit to be brought to 
a conclusion as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
    Chairman



MTC-00031409

W.D.S. FINANCIALS
Commodity Futures and Options
Managed Accounts
David Skinn
516 North Frederick Ave.
Oelwein, Iowa 50662-1244
319/283-3761
800/632-5973
January 17,2002 800/728-3761
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing to express my thoughts on the 
government's anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, a case that I 
have disagreed with since Day One. This matter is one that never 
should have been pursued, and I, am glad that the two sides have 
agreed on a settlement. I want to ask that you please accept the 
terms of their agreement. Microsoft should be allowed to spend its 
time making products that will help the technology industry, rather 
than spending it on this unnecessary litigation. Settling now will 
be beneficial to independent companies, because Microsoft has 
offered to share information with its competitors. This seems more 
than reasonable, and I do not want to see this case dragged. out any 
longer than it already has been. The Justice Department you run made 
the right decision when it decided to end this litigation, and I 
hope you will make the right choice by supporting the Justice 
Department's settlement.
    Sincerely,
    David Skinn



MTC-00031410

1100 Cova Ciega Isle
St. Pete Beach, FL 33706
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pcnnsvlvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am glad that this Microsoft lawsuit has 
been settled. Aside from the obvious problems that the lawsuit had 
to begin with, it is certainly an unwanted distraction now that more 
important events in our nation have virtually eclipsed the lawsuit's 
importance. Resides, it's a fair settlement in its own right, 
yielding concessions to both hardware and software companies, 
including disclosure to both groups of interfaces and protocols 
within Windows. The settlement makes it so that Windows can be 
altercd to suit hardware companies more effectively if they want to 
sell non-Microsoft software with the Windows operating system 
preinstalled. This will be especially possible now, because 
Microsoft must redesign Windows to make it more accommodating to 
non-Microsoft applications, particularly sophisticated multi-media 
applications like RealAudio or QuickTime. Our national efforts 
should now be invested in issues like rebuilding our economy, 
creating jobs and strengthening our national security. We should not 
spend any more time continuing our self-inflicted damage to our 
country's business community by proceeding with any further action 
against one of our country's most successful businesses like 
Microsoft. I am hoping that this settlement will stand, and we can 
move on to more important priorities
    Sincerely,
    Rita Bane



MTC-00031411

Presto Telecommunications, Inc. Presto Telecommunications, Inc. 
10509 Vista Sorrento Parkway
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92121 USA
Phone: (858) 642-0600
Fax: (858) 642-0602
www.prestotel.com
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Unlike AT&T of years past, Microsoft is 
not a monopoly. Microsoft has maintained its position of strength 
not by force, but rather by the superior quality of its products, 
its commitment to service, and its integration of software. I do not 
necessarily wish to make excuses on Microsoft's behalf, but the 
facts are that consumers and businesses alike simply prefer the 
reliability of Microsoft products to any of those offered by its 
competitors. Never let it be said, however, that there is neither 
room for improvement, nor room for someone else to develop a market 
better products than they. This is, after all, the very nature of 
the IT marketplace. In spite of these facts, however, our government 
badly misunderstood Microsoft's position in the volatile world of 
software and made the erroneous assumption that since Microsoft was 
as good as it was, it simply had to be breaking the law. This was 
never so. This settlement is good, providing changes in both deslgn 
and licensing of Windows. It should be accepted, if only to remove 
this litigation from the courts and be done with it. I am writing to 
voice my support of it, while at the same time I am communicating my 
displeasure over this entire sordid episode.
    Sincerely,
    Ross Cook
    Chief Information Officer



MTC-00031412

128 W Ormsby Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky 40203
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, It's about time that the Department of 
Justice has decided to end their crusade against Microsoft. Finally, 
the average person will stop worrying about this and Microsoft can 
get on to making better products. Of course, making a better product 
is what got them here in the first place. It's because Microsoft 
simply makes a better product than their competitors that put them 
where they are, not because they're a monopoly. Companies should not 
be punished for doing well, especially not hardworking American 
companies like

[[Page 29575]]

Microsoft that have such a large impact not only on our economy, but 
on the way the average person lives his or her life. The settlement 
maintains the need for a strong position in the IT market for 
Microsoft, and does so without the anticompetitive secrets endemic 
to owning an operating system and corresponding applications. The 
settlement publicizes these secrets and thus gives more information 
to software companies to develop corresponding software. I think 
this whole thing with Microsoft should never have gotten started in 
the first place, but I am happy that it's finally over. I only hope 
that you will be able to use your influence to sway the rest of the 
states that continue to try and harass Microsoft just to get their 
own pound of flesh.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Ray



MTC-00031413

Catherine Verhulst
1560 N Sandburg Terrace Apt. 1112
Chicago, IL 60610-7709
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I am writing to express my 
opinion of the recent antitrust case settlement between Microsoft 
and the United States Department of Justice. I think the lawsuits 
over the last three- years were unwarranted and unfair. The fact 
that there has been a tentative settlement is a relief, but I still 
think the penalties are too harsh and biased against Microsoft. 
Under the terms of the settlement, two points concern me. One, 
Microsoft is not allowed to enter into third party agreements for 
exclusive or fixed percentage distribution rights. This seems to 
inhibit Microsoft's ability to build and maintain market share in a 
competitive environment. Furthermore, companies such as Pepsi and 
Coca-Cola live by their ability to enter into o third party 
agreements. They are not being prosecuted, nor should they be. Two, 
Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating system 
products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms and 
conditions, including price. This term essentially creates a 
monopoly whereby the different vendors can collaborate to raise 
prices at the same time. If Microsoft is not allowed to profit from 
it's unique ingenuity, new software that drives America's 
productivity and internet usage (particularly e-commerce) will cease 
to be developed at a rate which is beneficial. It is in the best 
interest of the American public for the settlement to finalize, 
because our economy and the IT industry in particular cannot afford 
to have Microsoft be hindered any longer. Please end this legal 
battle in a just way for our nation.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely for justice,
    Catherine Verhulst



MTC-00031414

Gordon Stamler
16 Pine Island Court
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
843 363 2939
Email [email protected]
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am very tired of the baseless, and 
seemingly endless, lawsuit against Microsoft, and am writing to 
plead for closure. I am not merely writing because I am a strong 
supporter of Microsoft, but also because despite the unfair way that 
Microsoft has been treated, I have still managed to muster a level 
of confidence in my government. I trust that my voice will not go 
unheard and that my opinion will count toward the prompt resolution 
of this matter. I have a very difficult time understanding why there 
is still such intense opposition against Microsoft. Over the years, 
Microsoft has proven itself a leader in the industry. This company's 
innovation is seen in almost every corner of the globe. I have used 
Microsoft products for several years and I have no intention to 
shift my loyalty from the company. I find their software affordable 
and user-friendly. In addition to that, I have been thoroughly 
impressed with the way Microsoft has handled the requirements of the 
settlement. They have established a Technical Committee to assist 
with conflict resolution; they have also made it easier for 
competitors to access Microsoft features; and have given computer 
makers the flexibility to configure Windows in order to promote non-
Microsoft software. It is fair to say that Microsoft has not only 
been an industry leader, but a booster of the economy in past few 
years. They have recently proven their diplomacy in the way the 
handled this lawsuit and settlement. I am sure that they are looking 
forward to the end of this matter as are the majority of the 
American people.
    Sincerely,
    Gordon Stamler
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031415

Steve Scott
5612 Lake Washington Boulevard, NE Kirkland, WA 98033
16 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am writing to express my happiness about 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I believe that the government 
should accept the settlement and allow Microsoft and the industry as 
a whole to move on. Microsoft did not get off easy by any stretch of 
the imagination. The Company agreed to terms that had nothing to do 
with the products and procedures that were actually at issue in the 
suit, as well as the original claims of the suit. Disclosing 
intellectual property for competitors is a great example of these 
extensive additional terms. Now the government needs to accept the 
settlement after it doggedly negotiated it. Once the settlement is 
agreed to, Microsoft and the whole industry will be able to move on 
and capture the economic position that they once enjoyed.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Scott



MTC-00031416

American internet Services Network
Internet Services Worldwide
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, With all due respect, the federal 
government's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft was the antithesis 
to the principles of capitalism and free market enterprise. 
Therefore, I am very pleased with the settlement particularly 
because it spares Microsoft from being broken up. The settlement may 
not be perfect; however, the anticipated results will be superior to 
anything a costly, time-consuming, and counterproductive lawsuit 
would have accomplished. In fact, the government's original goal to 
break up Microsoft was seriously misguided. If successful, this 
would have been a disaster for standardization and reliable software 
products with regard to the Windows OS. In short, Microsoft would 
not function well as three separate companies. Innovation would be 
the first casualty of this scenario. The settlement should more than 
satisfy Microsoft's critics because, if one accepts the premise that 
Microsoft was a monopoly, the settlement's requirements will put an 
end to any anticompetitive behavior in very short order. Microsoft 
has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system. It is also going to be required to share portions of its 
Windows source code with its competitors. These two aspects of the 
settlement alone will significantly improve competition in the 
marketplace--negating a break up of Microsoft I truly hope this 
matter is finalized and that the settlement is instituted very soon.
Daniel Lundahl
President
1611 Colonial Parkway o Inverness, Illinois 60067 o
Phone: 847 / 202--1400 o Fax: 847/ 202-- 4460



MTC-00031417

From: Jack 360 240 0589
To: Attorney General of the United
Date: 1/17/02Time: 10:57:20 AM
2134 Stoney Beach Lane
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
([email protected])
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I'm writing to encourage you to support the 
recent settlement Microsoft has reached with the United States 
Justice Department. Microsoft has agreed to settlement terms that 
will not only allow itself to return to the business of developing 
innovative software, but it will also make the software industry 
much more competitive.
    Microsoft has, for example, agreed to grant computer makers and 
software developers broad new rights to configure Windows to remove 
or disable Microsoft products and promote non-Microsoft products, 
such as

[[Page 29576]]

Netscape Navigator, AOL Instant Messenger, or RealNetworks'' 
RealAudio. Microsoft has also agreed to not retaliate against 
companies who choose to do this, nor will Microsoft retaliate 
against computer makers who ship operating systems that compete with 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has further agreed to not enter into any contract that 
will obligate third parties to exclusively or in a fixed percentage 
distribute or promote Windows.
    These terms will result in a much more level playing field that 
allows smaller, developing software companies to compete and mature. 
For these reasons, I encourage you to support the recent settlement. 
As a late Computer User--started some 12 years ago at age 
70--I find the Microsoft Products invaluable for development of 
my computer skills--a company that proves its excellence by 
being the leader of Product Development in the Computer Industry 
should not be haggled to such a great extent by the Government, 
States, and opportunistic lawyers.
    Sincerely,
    John K. Jouett
    Lt. Col. USA Retired



MTC-00031418

FROM : JLS-FIN-SvC
FAX NO. : 717-545-5117 Jan. 17 2002 02:56PM P1
JAMES L.SMITH
1178 Twin Lakes Drive
Harrisburg, Pa. 17111
(717) 545-5117
(717) 545-5117
[email protected]
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter is an effort to encourage you and the federal 
government to proceed with the settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case. This controversy has had a debilitating effect on one of 
our most innovative and productive companies and its dynamic 
industry without producing any noticeable benefit to anyone other 
than the legal profession. My greatest concern is that this is 
diverting resources from the more important objective of fighting 
terrorism. That is a topic for a much longer letter.
    The settlement plan calls for these concessions from Microsoft: 
Abandon its more tenacious marketing practices. License its systems 
products to the largest computer manufacturers on nearly uniform 
terms.
    Make Windows systems accessible to non-Windows software. 
Disclose to competitors various internal interfaces of Windows.
    In a nutshell Microsoft is going to crack its own shell and open 
itself up to competition.
    Please look favorably on the settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James L. Smith



MTC-00031419

255 Algonquin Drive
Vergennes, Vermont 05491
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to urge your support for the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This agreement 
ended a long court battle that, in my opinion, was a waste of both 
time and taxpayers'' money. The basis of the antitrust suit was 
the monopolization by Microsoft of the computer industry. What was 
ignored was that Microsoft's systems work. Microsoft was one of the 
first companies to offer an integrated software package, allowing 
for the simplification of basic operating functions that we now 
enjoy. I believe that competition and free enterprise will 
eventually reign in any company. I do not believe any one company 
dominates a field for too long. I also beleive that for efficient 
computer use by the majority of people, it is imperative that the 
operations be as simple and consistant as possible. The Microsoft 
system isn't perfect yet and it probably never will be, especially 
if the government continues this harassment, which does nothing more 
than bleed off money that could be spent on further 
R&D--not lining the pockets of the lawyers. I hope that 
there are no further delays in the settlement process. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Stuart
    01/17/02 THU 13:07 FAX 802 759 2049
    Champlain Bridge Marina 001



MTC-00031420

PARKER & ASSOCIATES REALTY
1330 LEYDEN STREET, SUITE 104
DENVER CO. 80220-2115
OFFICE 303-329-8210 FAX 303-329-0094
Date: 1/17/02
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: Fax 1-207-307-1454
CC: REMARKS: URGENT For your review Reply ASAP Please comment
2636 Madison Street
Denver, Colorado 80205
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has developed very innovative products in the past 
twenty years. I was saddened to see the Justice Departmcnt bring the 
antitrust case against Microsoft but was pleased to see a settlement 
was recently reached in this case.I trust you will see this 
settlement through to the end.
    This settlement will create an unprecedented amount of openness 
in the technology industry. It calls for Microsoft to disclose its 
internal interfaces and the means by which Windows communicates with 
other programs. What this means is Microsoft will disclose more 
information to competitors than has ever been offered by an IT firm 
before to competitors. Sadly some competitors and others believe 
this settlement does not sufficiently ``punish'' or harm 
Microsoft. They would like this settlement withdrawn this case 
brought back to court. They are mistaken. The settlement is 
thorough, and after three years this case simply has gone on for too 
long, more than three years at this point.
    Again, please ensure this settlement is put into place and turn 
your back those that seek to mindlessly promote more litigation in 
this case.
    Sincerely,
    Warren Scott



MTC-00031421

Power Solutions
From the desk of...........
William F. Nemecek
2617 Mt. Isle Harbor Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28214-5413
(704) 398-9703 Fax (704) 398-0077
Internet: [email protected]
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    During this period of public comment. I want my opinion entered 
into the public record. Although I do not believe that Microsoft has 
ever operated as a monopoly, I think it serves this country to let 
the settlement, delivered by the Appeals Court, to happen without 
delay.
    As a retired employee of IBM, I have witnessed antitrust 
lawsuits with IBM, and have seen the tendencies to always pick on 
the big guy, the one who has the greater market share, the company 
who has forged ahead with incredible innovation to separate 
themselves from the rest of the pack. From the point of view of the 
consumer/taxpayer, the antitrust suit against Microsoft was 
unfounded, has caused Microsoft to spend millions of dollars on 
their defense and the consumer ends up paying, not saving. The suit 
served as an agenda of a few companies to knock down the giant to 
create an ``even playing field,'' rather than create and 
demonstrate superiority with their own products as many other 
companies have done.
    Microsoft is still embroiled in more litigation. Please do not 
continue to punish a company for having great success and innovation 
with their products. The consumer and taxpayer ends up paying as a 
result. Microsoft has agreed to the terms that extend far beyond the 
products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit, for 
the sake of wrapping up the suit. It is time to move on.
    As a taxpayer and consumer, I urge you to please allow the 
current proposed settlement to be enforced. The black cloud this 
suit has over Microsoft needs to be lifted and would significantly 
effect the economic situation in this country. Microsoft sees how 
important it is to get back to building success and innovative 
products. So do I
    Sincerely,
    William Nemecek



MTC-00031422

ELLIOT BAY DESIGNS
C/O Rozann Cherry
108 15th Ave.

[[Page 29577]]

Kirkland, WA 98033
(425) 803-2992
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to encourage you to support the recent antitrust 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the United States 
Department of Justice. I believe it is now time to end this 
senseless litigation so Microsoft can move forward with the business 
of developing innovative software.
    As part of the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to grant broad 
new rights to computer makers and software developers to reconfigure 
Windows so that Microsoft products can be removed and competitive 
products can be installed in their places. Further, Microsoft has 
agreed to not retaliate against computer manufacturers or software 
developers who choose to do this. Nor will Microsoft retaliate 
against computer makers who choose to ship operating systems that 
directly compete with Microsoft Windows. Overseeing compliance of 
the settlement will be a ``Technical Committee'' comprised 
of three software engineering experts. This committee will also 
assist in any dispute resolution should a complaint be filed by 
anyone who believes Microsoft is not complying with the terms of the 
settlement. For these reasons, I encourage you to support this 
settlement so we can put this business behind us and move forward to 
develop better, more innovative software.
    Sincerely,
    Rozann Cherry



MTC-00031423

January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my thoughts on the Microsoft 
antitrust dispute. Microsoft is a company that has contributed a 
great deal to our society and the technology industry. Not only am I 
a stockholder, I am a republican voter who believes that ``less 
government is better''. I do not feel that Microsoft, or any 
other company, should be stifled or punished for being successful. 
They contribute greatly to our society as a whole, and also to the 
government tax rolls''. If other companies do not have the 
technology that Microsoft has, then those companies should step up 
to the bar- set by Microsoft. We should not lower the bar, nor 
punish companies, for being successful. This smacks of socialism- 
and look at what socialism has created in Russia. In America, it 
should be that all those who work hard and strive to succeed have a 
shot at better lives--not to tell them ``don't do too well 
or the government will penalize you for your ingenuity'' (while 
still taking the money that these companies provide through taxes, 
business licenses, etc). Have the courts thought of the sheer number 
of people that are employed and are given superior benefits by 
Microsoft? With companies laying off employees left and right, 
having a stable job and superior health benefits is becoming a 
rarity. Obviously, I support the settlement that was reached in 
November- as do the majority of people that I associate with.
    Microsoft should be allowed to focus their energy and resources 
to more productive activities, rather than litigation. Please 
support this settlement so this dispute can be resolved. Thank you 
for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Kristen Haynes
    Owner / Broker In Charge
    (704) 372-2252



MTC-00031424

Dale Stoughton
971 E. Durness Ct.
Wake Forest, NC 27587
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S.D.0.J.
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W.
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to let you know how I feel about the recent 
settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I support 
the settlement that was reached, and am a supporter of Microsoft as 
well.
    I don't think it was very wise for the government to prosecute 
Microsoft in the first place. However, it is my belief that the 
settlement will bring closure to this three-year dispute. The 
settlement contains seemingly dozens of tough conditions, such 
obligating Microsoft to license Windows operating system products to 
the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, 
including price. Also Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
it's competitors use or promote other software that competes with 
Microsoft's. These insurance buffers ought to adequately curtail any 
unfair influence by Microsoft.
    Thank you for your continuing good work at the D.O.J.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Stoughton



MTC-00031425

FENNER MELSTROM & DOOLING, LLP.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a regular user of Microsoft products, I would like to write 
in support of settling the federal lawsuit at the end of this month. 
The tactics used by Microsoft despite the opinion of the Justice 
Department are, in my opinion, not monopolistic and further legal 
action should no longer he necessary.
    Analogous to the experience of Henry Rearden, as narrated in the 
book ``Atlas Shrugged'' by Ayn Rand, the disruption of the 
free-market system to stifle a business in favor of its lesser 
competitors only gives power to those who misuse or squander it. 
Microsoft has not used its power to gauge the public, so to punish 
the company only punishes consumers, who have been receiving a user-
friendly and efficient product at very minimal cost. Though I 
support many of the concepts in the settlement, such as anti- 
retaliation laws, my overarching concern is with the government 
mandate on behavior that should be the personal business of 
Microsoft. In the interest of moving forward, this agreement is the 
best compromise possible and the most effective way to appease the 
critics without disabling a company's ability to create and grow. 
Please end this debilitating legal action and allow Microsoft to 
implement these very fair terms. All questions of competitiveness 
should be answered from here forward by letting the free market be 
able to determine the winner as it should be. Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    John W. Melstrom, CPA Partner
    691 N. Squirrel Rd., Ste. 250--Auburn Hills, MI 48326
    Telephone (248) 377-0900 Facsimile (248) 377-0909



MTC-00031426

Barbara M. Vakulskas
4300 Country Club Blvd.
Sioux City, IA 51104
(712) 239-1830
FAX (712) 252-5003
[email protected]
January 17, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
ntitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely, The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case was a positive occurrence for the United States.
    Presently our economy is enduring some harsh economic 
conditions. The markets are falling, many businesses have had to 
close down, and we've endured thousands of layoffs. The technology 
industry in particular, which helped fuel much of the financial 
gains of the 1990's, is suffering through its own severe downturn. 
Although we are experiencing an economic slump, many believe that 
reviving the technology sector would he good for the nation.
    The antitrust case was stifling Microsoft with hostile attacks 
and legal maneuvers. Settling the case was right for the economy and 
the well being of our nation. It's my understanding that Microsoft 
agrees to grant computer makers new rights to configure Windows, and 
will disclose different parts of their Windows operating system. 
This is a fair accord and all parties involved in the case will 
benefit. I support the settlement completely.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara M. Vakulskas



MTC-00031427

AMERICAN LEGION
NELSAN-HORTON POST NO. 204
THE AMERICAN LEGION
SEVENTH DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT OF MINNESOTA LITCHFIELD, MlNNESOTA 55355
Jan 17, 2002
Dear Renata B. Hesse,

[[Page 29578]]

Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I dont write these kinds of letter often and I only do so when I 
feel the issue is crucial enough to let our leaders know how I feel. 
I am writing you today to express my support of the Microsoft 
Settlement. My home computer and my computer at my office both use 
Microsoft software.
    Microsoft is a business that countless people in this country 
have come to rely on for a great number of services. It was in the 
best interest of our nation to settle the case. I understand that 
Microsoft agreed to a new windows design obligation and set a 
uniform pricelist. By continuing this legal issue, we were only 
hurting our already weak economy and the chance of an economic turn 
around was all the more possible.
    Most Sincerely,
    Bruce (Illegible)
    Commander



MTC-00031428

809 Balmoral Court
Inverness, Florida 34453
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Being a fervent supporter of Microsoft and its great success, I 
feel very strongly that this settlement is in the best interest of 
the public and should be concluded as soon as possible. Microsoft is 
a great company and should be recognized for it. In a country that 
encourages creative problem solving, it seems ironic that Microsoft 
is being punished in the first place. I believe that the terms of 
this settlement go well beyond the issues at hand. Microsoft has 
agreed to do everything in its power to address and change these 
concerns, which can be seen from the interim release of Windows XP 
(the new version of Windows that promote non-Microsoft software 
within the program). Microsoft has been punished enough. The 
recession has had a grave effect on state and Federal budgets and it 
is important that the technology industry be allowed to concentrate 
on business now
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Arthur F. Zaccaria (352) 726-1337
    Arthur Zaccaria



MTC-00031430

SENATE OF VIRGINIA
BILL BOLLING
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT
COUNTIES OF HANOLA, CAROLNE COGEX, KING AND QUEEN KING WILLIAM 
MATHEWS, MIDDLESEW, NEW KENT AND RICHMOND
PART OF RIDGECHESTER COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 5637
MECHANGVILLE, VIRGINIA 23116
COMMITTEE ASIGNMENTS, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, NATURAL RESOURCES 
EDUCATION AND HEALTH CRIMINAL LAWS, [ILLEGIBLE] AND ELECTIONS
January 17, 2002
Reneta Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
SUITE 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to advise you of my support for the proposed 
settlement agreement between the United States federal government 
and the Microsoft Corporation, and to encourage you to approve this 
settlement agreement. Based on the information I have reviewed, this 
proposed settlement agreement would be of tremendous benefit to 
consumers in Virginia and other states. The dispute between 
Microsoft and the federal government needs to be concluded as 
quickly as possible, and a fundamental part of this settlement 
agreement should be a recognition that Microsoft should be empowered 
to decide which products and features it offers to the public and 
how those products are priced. This is in the interest of 
competition, and bringing the best possible products, at the lowest 
possible price, to consumers.
    The finalization of this settlement agreement is particularly 
important to the Commonwealth of Virginia. As you know, Virginia is 
a technology friendly state, and technology companies have 
flourished within the Commonwealth over the past several years. We 
need to do everything we can to encourage a continuation of this 
important economic development activity, and we need to make certain 
that we not impede the success of companies like Microsoft in any 
way.
    Once again, I would encourage you to approve the proposed 
settlement agreement between the federal government and Microsoft 
and I appreciate your willingness to consider my views on this 
important issue.
    Very Truly Yours,
    BILL BOLLING
    Senate
    Fourth Senatorial District
    BB/dpg



MTC-00031431

Dr. Neil Randle. DC
2002 Schuster Parkway
Tacoma, Wa. 98402
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to urge you, along with the Department of 
Justice, to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement and put the 
case to rest. The suit against Microsoft has gone on for over three 
years. Persued by the previous administration, and is in part, cause 
of the present financial plight of our country. Microsoft, along 
with the rest of the technology industry, deserves to see this case 
settled.
    The terms of the agreement are fair. Though many people think 
that Microsoft got off easy--I think they did not. Microsoft 
has accepted terms that are well outside of the scope of the charges 
in the lawsuit, in the interest of settling the suit.
    The technology industry has been going through some tough times. 
The industry needs its leader back, so it is time to wrap up the 
suit and move on, Please finalize the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    Sincerely.
    Dr. Neil Randle



MTC-00031432

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol o Room 201C-A
201 West Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City. MO 65101-6800
Tele: 573--751-4039
Fax: 573--75l-5271
E-Mail:[email protected]
MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARK L. RlCHARDSON
State Representative
District 154
HOME ADDRESS
P.O. Box 310
Poplar Bluff. MO 63901--0310
Tele: 573--785-4606
FAX: 573--785-8858
TO: Renata Hesse
FAX # (202)616-9937
FROM: Rep. Mark Richardson
Number of pages (including cover page): 2
DATE: 1-17-02
COMMENTS:
MARK L. RICHARDSON
State Representative
District 154
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Over the years, I have found that when negotiations result in a 
little something for everyone, the negotiations were successful. 
This is exactly the result of the recent negotiations between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The settlement allows 
Microsoft to create new generation products that can help the 
economy grow and help businesses better communicate with their 
customers and clients. Additionally, the needs and concerns of 
Microsoft's competitors were taken into account in the final 
agreement.
    I support the recent agreement between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft. I regret that a Committee and the court system have 
had a hand in developing the future of software design instead of 
the free market. At the same time, this entire process was an effort 
on the part of competitors to cripple Microsoft and eliminate 
competition.
    Point-of-sale should be the true test of competition. Either 
your product is marketable or it is not. The courts and regulatory 
agencies have no role in this important process when job creation 
and small business development is at stake.
    Sincerely,
    Mark L. Richardson
    State Representative
    MLR/bas



MTC-00031433

Dominion
William C. Hall, Jr.
Vice President
External Affairs and Corporate

[[Page 29579]]

Communications
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 26532
Richmond, VA 23261
January 17,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    With regard to the Microsoft settlement, the enforcement 
provisions of this agreement would make it quite easy to slow 
innovation and delay product launches by the filing of multiple 
complaints. Microsoft's competitors attempted to do with Windows XP.
    I might add that there has been no consumer harm as a result of 
any actions taken by Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft's innovation has 
led to tremendous benefits for consumers, such as better products 
and lower prices. Products like Windows have allowed countless 
Americans to work from home in various enterprises without having to 
employ and pay for costly computer set-ups. Antitrust law is 
supposed to be about consumer harm that the government has been 
unable to show.
    Yours truly,
    Wm. C. Hall
    William C. Hall, Jr.



MTC-00031434

MOBILIO INSURANCE AGENCY
259 Shrewsbury Street Personal Service for all kinds of Insurance
Worcester, MA 01804
808-752-2582
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Ste 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
imput under the Tunney Act review process, regarding the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit. Given the state of our economy 
right now, we should do everything possible to spur growth, not 
hinder it. As a small businessman, I understand competition. 
Competition is healthy for the American Econmomy. I use Microsoft 
products in my business and they have been a great help to me. They 
have allowed me to better serve our clients and manage my business.
    There has been no consumer harm as a result of any actions taken 
by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have, in fact, helped many 
small businesses like mine grow. I urge the government to settle 
this case as quickly as possible.
    Yours truly,
    Mark J. Mobilio
    Mobilio Insurance Agency



MTC-00031435

Lorena Jaeb
P.O. Box 428
Mango, Florida 33550
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Fax: 202-616-4937
Fax: 202-307- 1454
    I am writing in regards to the antitrust case against Microsoft. 
I am pleased to hear that a settlement has been reached that will 
build new relationships between Microsoft and other technology 
companies. That connection will provide the marketplace with even 
more new and innovative products. As a longtime business owner, a 
mother and grandmother, I can remember the days when one had to 
communicate via phone or through U.S. Postal Service only. I also 
remember when one had to write checks and present them only in 
person to get cash, or had to go to the library to do literally all 
of one's research. Most of us including my children and 
grandchildren can't imagine life without e-mail, ATM machines or the 
internet because we rely on these things everyday to make our lives 
easier. Microsoft has certainly aided in providing the necessary 
tools for us to run our business, communicate with friends and 
family who are far away, and also to educate future generations.
    Microsoft has gone one step further in today's world of 
technology that will greatly affect our families. Microsoft is 
working together with DIRECTV & Ultimate TV to change the way we 
watch television. We will be able to watch or record two live shows 
at the same time and then view them whenever our schedule permits. 
This also allows parents to better monitor what their children watch 
on television and at the same time allows parents to watch their 
shows. Not only has Microsoft changed the way we watch television, 
but we are now able to ``surf'' web sites on the 
internet,check e-mail and participate in educational programs with 
our children all at the same time! We can now work from home and 
spend quality time with our family. Microsoft has extended to many 
people like me the benefits that will serve my family for years to 
come. The settlement is a refreshing change in today's seemingly 
bleak times
    Sincerely,
    Lorna Yaeb
    Telephone: (813) 681-5796 Fax: (813) 654-6369



MTC-00031436

FAX NUMBER: 1-509-575-6330
GRETA BRYAN
4823 Snowmountain Road
Yakima, Washington 98908
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. This 
case should not have been brought in the first place and I, like 
most members of my community in Yakima, Washington, am anxious to 
see a conclusion to this litigation.
    In settling this case, Microsoft is going beyond what should be 
expected of it. What strikes me as particularly impressive is 
Microsoft's agreement to disclose interface information to its 
competitors. They have even gone so far as to change the way they 
design their software. The design changes will result in consumers 
having the ability to more easily change the configuration of their 
system. By agreeing to these terms, Microsoft is really doing more 
than should be expected o f it. However, in the interest of ending 
this long, drawn out litigation, I support the terms to which 
Microsoft has agreed.
    This case has had a devastating impact on the U.S. stock market. 
In this time of recession, the government should be doing whatever 
it can to encourage businesses to succeed. The continuation of this 
lawsuit will clearly have the opposite effect. I hope the Court and 
the Department of Justice heed the people's call for an end to this 
litigation. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Greta Bryan



MTC-00031437

3290 W 7545 S
West Jordan, UT 84084
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has been involved in an antitrust suit for the past 
three years, and in November, when a settlement was reached, I began 
to hope that the whole ordeal would soon be over. Nine states, 
however, continue to remain litigious, and it worries me that this 
may not be the end. Microsoft and the Department of Justice have 
spent a great deal of time and money during this trial, and I can 
only imagine how much more would be squandered in the pursuit of 
additional litigation when a settlement has already been reached.
    A court-appointed mediator oversaw round-the-clock negotiations 
from June to November. Microsoft agreed to terms in the settlement 
that restricted products and procedures that were not found to be 
unlawful by the court of appeals. A great effort has been made to 
right any wrongs Microsoft committed, and I believe the time has 
come to accept the settlement and move on. The settlement requires 
that Microsoft not take retaliatory action when directly competitive 
software is introduced into the market. Additionally, Microsoft has 
been required to reformat future versions of Windows so that the 
operating system will support non-Microsoft software. Microsoft also 
plans to document and disclose source code, protocols, and 
interfaces for use by its competitors to improve inter- operability 
among different software products.
    I urge you, Mr. Ashcroft, to allow the settlement to stand.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Johnston



MTC-00031438

Suleiman Ajlouni
1019 Pear Tree lane
Wheeling, IL 60090
January 17,2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 29580]]

Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge you to settle the Department of Justice's ongoing 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I believe that the government 
has other priorities it should be concentrating on, and that 
Microsoft should have the freedom to continue producing innovative 
new products.
    Microsoft software has been pivotal in my computer use from day 
one. The simple truth is that it works well, and others do not 
measure up. The government's case against Microsoft interferes with 
the company's ability to research and develop new technologies, and 
for that reason the matter should be resolved.
    I find the terms of the settlement to be reasonable, and that 
Microsoft's agreement to make it easier to use other 
manufacturers'' programs within Windows to be an indication 
that they will promote fair competition. Please settle the Microsoft 
case and let them focus on doing what they do bettor than anyone 
else.
    Sincerely,
    SS



MTC-00031439

113 Fielding Ridge
Peachtree City, GA 30269-3249
January 16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that there has been a settlement 
reached in the three-year case against the government's case against 
Microsoft. I think the settlement is wonderful. I also believe that 
the government should1 leave Microsoft alone.
    It is in everyone's best interests that this case be resolved 
quickly so all parties involved can attend to other matters. The 
American public would agree that any further pursuit of the case 
would be a waste of time, money and human resources Also, it would 
be harmful to not only the American economy, but the global economy 
as well. Microsoft will be making major changes because of this 
settlement. These changes will include the establishment of a 
technical committee to police Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against. 
computer makers, and software developers who ship software or 
hardware that competes with anything in the Windows operating 
system. Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose 
for use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
the Windows operating system. This is a first in any antitrust 
settlement.
    Once again, I ask that you accept this settlement, and terminate 
your efforts to further prosecute Microsoft, Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Janet Siegel



MTC-00031440

307 Spencer Place
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to go on record as being a staunch 
supporter of the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice last November. The settlement will finally 
bring an end to the three-year long litigation process that has cost 
both sides millions of dollars.
    The settlement will greatly benefit competition, the technology 
industry, and the American economy. I am sure that you are aware 
that the economic downturn that started three years ago was partly 
caused by the suit against Microsoft. It only took three years for 
the economy to go from being the best it ever has been, to being 
stuck in the middle of a recession.
    Again, I would like to go on record as supporting the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Paul DeMaria



MTC-00031441

34 MEADOWBROOK DRIVE
SELINSGROVE, PA 17870
January 15 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    We write today to express our endorsement of settling the 
Microsoft case. Microsoft has gotten a raw deal in the recent 
antitrust case. After being the leading innovator of computer 
technology over the last 10 years and standardizing the industry, 
Microsoft is now the victim of competitors that cannot compete and 
politicians who are self interested. We are both glad to see that 
Microsoft will not be broke up, but under the terms of settlement, 
Microsoft will still be thoroughly punished. Microsoft had to 
promise to not retaliate against computer makers who ship software 
that competes with anything in its Windows operating system. They 
have also agreed not to retaliate against software developers who 
develop or promote software that competes with Windows or that runs 
on a non-Windows. These concessions and more represent stipulations 
that benefit competitors, but not necessarily consumers.
    While flawed and unjustified, the settlement still represents 
the public's best interests because the alternative is further 
litigation. Our country cannot afford any more rounds of this. 
Please take a stand and make sure the settlement is finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Koval
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031442

January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my support for the settlement 
that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust dispute. I hope 
that we can finally put this litigation behind us. I appreciate all 
the work that you have done in bringing this settlement about, and I 
hope that you continue to support it. I feel that this case has been 
extremely bad for the American economy, not to mention the IT sector 
in general. With this settlement in place I hope that the damage 
that has been done to the economy can be rectified. Microsoft is one 
of this nation's biggest employers, and attacking them during this 
time of economic instability is unwise at best.
    It is time for us to focus on more important issues. We need to 
put this past us so that we can continue to remain at the forefront 
of the technology industry throughout the world,
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Kattler
    304 Dora1 Drive
    Pawleys Island, SC 29585
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031443

B & W CONSTRUCTION
P.O. Box 758
Pine Valley, CA 91962
(619) 473-8353
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC'' 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a small business person in California. Between my federal 
and state taxes, I pay among the highest rates in the country. For 
someone like me to receive a tax break, the political warfare is 
outrageous. I also am forced to deal with the ebbs and flows of the 
economy. Those same leaders who fight giving me a tax break are the 
first people to institute policies which slow the economy.
    These are the same individuals who are asking the court to 
reject the settlement in US v. Microsoft They are not small business 
people struggling to make enough money to pay their tax bill They 
are politicians acting in their own self interest.
    The Microsoft case is a perfect example of an issue which 
quietly destroys small business without anyone putting a stop to it. 
Since the day the Microsoft case began, I have been affected I have 
been affected by a slow down in the entire economy and I have been 
affected by a tremendous slow down in the technology industry. Now, 
California leaders are talking about a tax increase to help pay for 
programs. They talk about a tax increase in one breath and ask for 
more money to pursue the case against Microsoft in the next, It 
doesn't make any sense.
    The Microsoft issue is hurting small business. Taxes hurt small 
business. If they are going to raise taxes, then don't spend money 
on ridiculous issues. The settlement should be approved. That money 
is better spent elsewhere (like whatever progams they are going to 
raise my taxes to pay for)
    Sincerely,
    Holly Bonnett, Owner
    B&W Construction

[[Page 29581]]



MTC-00031444

Jan 17 02 04:l0p
MJ Rozmus CPA
760 510 4965 p. 1
Mark J. Rozmus
Certified Public Accountant
960 West San Marcos Blvd., Suite 230
San Marcos, California 62069
Voice : 760-510-4960
Facsimile: 760-510-4965
Mark J. Rozmus, MBA, CFE CPA
Diplomat: American Board of
Forensic Accounting
January 17, 2002 1454p mjr
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE: (202)616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am sure the courts have received many e-mails and letters 
regarding U.S. v. Microsoft from many different technology related 
companies. Whether positive or negative, these dot-com, or e-
commerce companies have a very direct vested interest in the outcome 
of this case. My letter is meant to articulate a different business 
perspective-one of a non dot-com perspective.
    I have owned a small forensic accounting practice for over four 
years. It may seem that my type of business would have little 
concern about U.S. v. Microsoft, but that is not the case.
    My forensic accounting practice is affected by this case in two 
ways. First, is the marked technological increase in efficiency and 
productivity gained through the use of current software available. 
Thetechnologyboom, in general, has revolutionized the accounting 
profession. Our ability to complete work projects in advance of 
trial dates and conferences, we well as produce effective financial 
presentations, grows exponentially with each year of new 
technological advancement. Much of this technological revolution is 
occurring because of the innovation of Microsoft and its Windows 
compatible software.
    Actually, other products developed to work with Windows are 
changing the way accounting firms do business.
    Since the case has started, we are seeing a real lack of 
innovation in the products available to us.
    Secondly, our forensic accounting practice, as well as that of 
many clients, is being economically harmed by this case. My practice 
is based in California; one of the most technology defendant regions 
in the world. This Economic slow down brought on in part because of 
the Microsoft case has caused a general economic slowdown in the 
development and growth of many new California businesses. Once the 
case is settled, I believe,we will see the national economy rebound 
and demand for all products and services increase.
    I ask the courts to approve the settlement on behalf of 
thousands of small businesses suffering from the current 
technological innovation slump.
    Sincerely,
    Mark J. Rozman
    Certified Public Accountant
    Your Financial Friend & Confidant



MTC-00031445

January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a business owner for more than twenty years, I have observed 
the changes in our economy, I have also seen increasing constraints 
by the federal government on US Companies while at the same time 
giving priority to foreign trade that can result in a competitive 
advantage for products produced in other countries.
    The technology industry has been a driving force in many 
segments of industry and is one reason the U.S. has maintained its 
leadership role in the global economy. Companies such as Microsoft 
have encouraged innovation and entrepreneurship. Our economy cannot 
afford to have the government discourage companies like Microsoft 
from developing new products. The proposed consent decree between 
Microsoft and the U. S. Department of Justice reaches a middle 
ground for Microsoft and its competitors. Computer manufacturers 
will have the flexibility to configure Windows so Windows features 
such as the Internet Explorer can be removed and replaced with 
another web browser. A technical committee will be established to 
monitor compliance with the settlement. Other remedies wil1 also 
benefit Microsoft competitors while at the same time giving 
Microsoft the ability to keep innovating on behalf of 
consumers.While the settlement will impose new rules and 
regulations, resolution of this matter is important for consumers 
and for technology companies. It will also free companies to focus 
on the future and the fast changing digital economy.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Dula
    6614 Gaywind Drive
    Charlotte, NC 28226
    704-366-6457
    p.1 9197878031 Gary Pearce Jan 17 02 05:39p



MTC-00031446

Jan 17 02 05:29p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.01
Jan- 17-02 08:42A P.01
17th January 2002
Office of Ms. Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I believe it is time for the federal courts to bring an end to 
the Microsoft case
    Although I am not fully sympathetic to Bill Gates, I do believe 
that Microsoft has abused its role, acting as a monopoly. It 
appears, however, that the Federal government,as well as a number of 
state governments including North Carolina, have concluded that the 
proposed settlement would protect against these monopolistic 
practices.Prolonged litigation has no positive effect for the 
consumer, or for our country, especially in light of recent tragic 
events. If the settlement achieves its stated goal, which I feel is 
providing a fair and reasonable solution to both sides in this 
dispute, then the courts should act speedily, approve it and go on.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this important 
matter, as well as your attention to my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Tomas Franklin Castillo MSEd.



MTC-00031447

FROM: AMERICAN FINANCIAL ADVISORS PHONE NO.: 530 223 2230
Jan. 17 2002 02:32PM P1
To: U.S. Department of Justice
From: Dorothy Palfini
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Date: January17, 2002
    I have read the decision to reject the Microsoft Settlement. It 
stands to reason that the states and the 100 private class-action 
lawsuits, do not want to have this case resolved and settled. The 
longer the suit goes on the more Microsoft will have to lose. If 
they feel this is too good a deal, then why don't they give 
software, training and services to the schools. Then they would be 
able to benefit and give them the power to monopolize the computer 
market. This is just a joke.
    Please get this case resolved ASAP. Then the technology economy 
will be able to get on with business and recovery.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Palfini
    3011 Victor Avenue
    Redding, CA 06002
    Phone: 530-223-2195



MTC-00031448

JAN 17 2002 16:30 FR BANK OF AMERICA
515 235 7203 TO 912026169937 P. 01/02
Bank of America. N.A.
Private Bank
IA1-100-01-02
PO Box 1813
Des Moines, IA 50308-1813
Bank of America Fax Cover Sheet
To: RENATA HESSE
Company:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number: 202-616-9937
Date: 1-17-02
From: BRANDON HAMIL
Department: PRIVATE BANK
Telephone Number: 515-235-7255
Fax Number:
Number of pages including this cover sheet: 2
If transmission problems occur, please call:Message: PLEASE REVIEW 
THE ATTACHMENT.
    THANK YOU,
    Brandon Hamil
    The information contained in this FAX message is intended only 
for the confidential use of the designated recipient named above. 
This message may contain contractual and proprietary information and 
as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of

[[Page 29582]]

this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible 
for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that you have received this document in error, and that any review, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
notify us immediately by telephone and return the message to us by 
mail.
JAN 17 2002 16:30 FR BANK OF AMERICA
515 235 7203 TO 912026169937 P.02/02
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division -U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
January 17, 2002
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    I have followed the proceedings against Microsoft for some time 
now, and I want you to know that I feel the Justice Department has 
done an outstanding job of forcing a settlement in this case.I think 
that the terms you have agreed to in principle are sound,and will 
bring about a just result without doing damage to our already 
faltering economy. Because of the settlement, Microsoft cannot force 
a third party contractor to sell Microsoft products.
    This demonstrates that the necessary steps were taken to reach a 
fair and balanced agreement. All groups enmeshed in the settlement 
negotiations should be commended.
    I encourage you to move to a final settlement so the Justice 
Department can shift its resources to the many other areas of 
business and industry that need to be examined for abuse and 
predatory practices.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon J. Hamil
    1205 31st Street
    West Des Moines, IA 50266



MTC-00031449

FROM : Trackers Inc FAX NO. : 3193449200 Jan. 17 2002 03:58PM P1
TRACKERS INC.
in Illinois dba
EASTERN IOWA COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.
1970 Spruce Hills Drive
P.O. Box 1227 Bettendorf, IA 52722 1227
Phone (563) 344-8500 FAX (563) 344-9200
January 17,2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    I just wanted to send along my opinion that the Microsoft 
settlement with the nine state sand the Justice Department was even-
handed and reasonable and will be beneficial for the American 
economy. Microsoft agreed to new relations with software developer 
and will design future versions of Windows that provide a way for 
computer-makers to promote non-Microsoft products. The poor-
performing economy is the most important reason why I support this 
settlement.
    As VP of Operations for a collection agency, I can tell you 
firsthand that America is suffering badly. Day after day our 
professional debt collectors hear the plight of many Americans of 
how they want to pay their bills but have lost the means to do so. 
Not only is the economy hurting by no new spending but it is also 
hurting by people's inability to pay for debts they rightfully owe. 
Too many people have lost their jobs, and there is no relief in 
sight since the September attacks. The tech sector has been 
particularly hard hit, and the slide had spread to other economic 
areas. This is a favorable conclusion to this complicated case that 
will give a boost to the troubled tech industry.
    For the aforementioned reasons, I am sending you my support for 
the Microsoft settlement.
    I appreciate your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kimberly Guy
    Vice President of Operations
    jm:KAG



MTC-00031450

Jan-17-02 02:43P P.01
K the koval group
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take advantage of this public comment period and 
give you my thoughts on the Anti Trust Case. To begin, this lawsuit 
is an embarrassment to American business. Microsoft is being forced 
to defend themselves for being a successful and profitable company, 
which is hallmark of what most people desire in a business. Now 
their successes and remarkable contributions are being punished 
because their competitors can come up with no other way to be 
successful on their own. This lawsuit is a huge waste of our tax 
dollars and I do not understand how it has been allowed to continue 
for so long.
    I run a small manufacturing business and use Microsoft products 
to help fun my business.Microsoft has done so much for consumers and 
businesses alike: they are completely responsible for creating our 
standardized computer systems of today. Nonetheless, I see this 
settlement as a great compromise in this controversy. Although most 
of the burden falls on Microsoft, the settlement certainly addresses 
all of the issues alleged in the lawsuits, Microsoft is handing over 
its own intellectual property, giving its competitors important 
source codes and server protocols. Agreements have been made with 
computer makers that will allow them to promote non-Microsoft 
products within the Windows operating system.
    The stipulations of this settlement go far beyond what is just 
and serving to consumers. However,this settlement is necessary to 
help move our computer industry and economy forward. Please help in 
upholding this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Koval
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    34 meadowbrook drive selinsgrove, pa 17870 570.743.1420 fax 
570.743.7304



MTC-00031451

Jan-17-02 02:19 Modesto City Comm.Div. 209 491 4379 P.01
CITY of MODESTO
Bill Conrad
Vice Mayor
Chair Community
Development & Housing
Committee
Vice Chair Financial
Policy Committee
Member Economic
Development Committee
Intergovernmental
Relations Committee
1010 Tenth Street
Suite 6200
P.O. Box 642
Modesto, CA 95353
209/571-5169
209/495-1926 Cellular
e-mail:
[email protected]
Hearing and Speech
Impaired Only
TDD 209/526-9211
VIA FACSlMlLE
(202) 616-9937
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing this letter to the courts in support of the 
settlement in the case of US v.Microsoft. This letter is being sent 
in accordance with the Tunney Act which allows the public to offer 
comments on matter such as these.
    I would like to offer the courts my opinion in support of the 
settlement as a technology consumer. It is my opinion that, should 
the settlement be rejected and this case continue to drag on, it 
will be the consumers who face the largest burden.Right now, I can 
go to my local computer store and buy a copy of Windows XP forjust 
under $100. Regardless of what Microsoft's competitors say, that is 
a very reasonable price for such a complex operating system. If this 
case drags on,Microsoft is forced to incur higher legal costs, and 
we see the technology industry stagnate even further, the costs 
passed on to consumers will steadily increase.
    The courts should also note that the tenets of the current 
agreement are established in such a way that there will be minimal 
harm passed along to the consumer with regard to pricing. Should 
this settlement be rejected and even more restraints are placed upon 
Microsoft, I believe it is safe to say that there would be 
significant potential for higher prices to be a result.
    I say again-please accept this settlement so we, as consumers, 
are not forced today higher prices for various technology products.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Conrad, Vice Mayor
    City of Modesto
    Citizens First!



MTC-00031452

01/17/2002 00:01 13364273554 RUSS OR JOYNER PAGE 01
Jo Ann Russ

[[Page 29583]]

212 Fairway Drive
Stoneville, NC 27048
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has come to my attention that a settlement has been reached 
in the justice Department's three-year,antitrust case against 
Microsoft. I want you to know that I support the settlement, since 
the terms are fair and reasonable tall parties involved. As a North 
Carolina resident, I've seen enough of these proceedings at the 
state and federal level for one lifetime. Microsoft will be making a 
number of specific changes to its business practices that will 
restore fair competition and prevent future antitrust violations. 
For instance, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose its 
windows internal interfaces that its competitors might be able to 
use to write better programs.
    Furthermore, the government will establish a ``technical 
committee'' to monitor Microsoft compliance with the 
settlement, and to act as a mediator for disputes about the 
settlement. Please accept the settlement, for the reasons
    I have already given you, Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jo Ann Russ



MTC-00031453

Jan 18 02 06:23a JOSEPH, E. SZYMANSKI l-
914-355-8328 P.1
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a staunch supporter of Microsoft. As such I believe that 
the current actions against Microsoft by the federal government have 
been frivolous.Microsoft has gotten to where it is by creating a 
better product, not by anti-competitive behavior. In any case the 
issue as it stands needs to be resolved immediately. The settlement 
reached last November seems to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, it 
seems to me that there is no longer any need for litigation as many 
of Microsoft competitors are advocating.
    There are many provisions within the current settlement that 
will give Microsoft's competitors a significant advantage. In the 
settlement, there are many terms that Microsoft has agreed to that 
extend beyond the original scope of the lawsuit. Microsoft did this 
simply for the sake of wrapping up this case. In short the current 
settlement has forced Microsoft to alter many of its 
products,services and business practices to make it easier on its 
competitors. A technical committee will verify all of this. This is 
quite enough. I see no more need for an extension of the lawsuit.
    I ask that the current settlement be implemented without further 
delay.The economy has slowed and it is time we allow the IT industry 
to get back on its feet. Please direct your efforts towards 
resolving this issue as fast as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Szymanski
    Joseph Szymanski
    149 Springbrook Rd.
    Port Jervis, NY 12771-3626
    I SUPPORT VFW



MTC-00031454

From: james a g beales Fax 843-5374245
To: John Ashcroft at US Attorney General Page 1 of 2
Friday, January 18, 2002 6:18:44 AM
FAX
Date: Friday,January 18, 2002 Time: 6:16:00 AM
2 Pages
To: John Ashcroft
US Attorney General
From: james a g beales
Fax: 307-1454 Fax: 843-537-4245
Voice: Voice:
Comments:
From: james a g beales Fax 843-537-4245
To: John Ashcroft at US Attorney General Page 2 of 2 Friday, January 
18, 2002
6:19:24 AM
January l8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please add this letter to the many thousands of others which you 
have undoubtedly received in support of the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department Justice. There is no doubt that 
his settlement will benefit the stability and strength of the 
American economy.
    It is my understanding that the settlement terms, while harsh, 
have been agreed to by Microsoft in order that bring final closure 
to this three year affair. It has been costly, time consuming, and a 
serious distraction to the entire technology industry.
    You and your department have seen the need to bring this saga to 
a close, and you are to be applauded for doing so.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James A. G. Beales III
    Cheraw, SC, 29520
    cc. Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031455

From: Valued Sony Customer
To: Renata B Hesse
Date: 1/18/02Time: 12:40:12 AM
Page 1 of 1
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Renata B. Hesse
From: Valued Sony Customer
Sent: l/18/02 at 12:40:08 AM
Pages: 1 (including Cover)
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Hesse,
    I wish to express my concern over the government's recent 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I believe it is far too 
lenient and will not fix any of the deeper causes of the Microsoft 
monopoly.
    I concurred strongly with Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's 
original decision, which I thought was accurate and comprehensive. 
The new terms proposed by the government, however, do not address 
the root of the Microsoft monopoly, as Judge Jackson's remedy did, 
Since this is so-called ``Information Age,'' and the 
Internet is one of the great, if not greatest, outgrowths of this 
era. The Microsoft case is therefore extremely important, in my 
opinion, and I believe it vital that this or any company should not 
be allowed to dominate and stifle either the Internet, computer 
operating systems, or the applications market,
    Thank you for your consideration
    Nelson Cole
    Sunderland, MA
    413-397-9763
    [email protected]



MTC-00031456

13302 Coral Ridge Court
Houston, TX 77069-13343
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000 1
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy with the terms of the settlement reached last 
November between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    As a long-time Microsoft supporter, I believe the terms of the 
agreement are fair and beneficial. I strongly urge you to enact this 
settlement at the end of January.
    It is very important to me that we not hinder free enterprise, 
and force companies to compromise the very creativeness that makes 
our country and our economic system great. Microsoft has made many 
concessions during this mediation process. Microsoft now agrees to 
disclose some of the information regarding the interfaces of its 
Windows system, which is more than reasonable. In addition, 
Microsoft has agreed to the formation of a review board whose sole 
purpose is to make sure that the terms of the settlement are enacted 
to the letter of the law. This condition should satisfy any skeptics 
who might believe Microsoft might not abide with the settlement's 
terms.
    In al1 I believe that the settlement is fair to all parties and 
should be enacted soon. Thank you for your time regarding this 
issue.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Ryan



MTC-00031457

NORTHTECH SERVICES
506 White Pine Drive
Cadillac, Michigan 49601
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John A&croft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to show my support of the Microsoft settlement, 
which will be finalized at the end of the month. I have felt that 
this lawsuit reflected an attempt by the previous administration to 
challenge the strongest parts of our business community and do not 
support any further action. This deal provides a comprehensive 
attempt to remedy any lack of competition that might exist in the 
industry, so it should offer plenty of opportunities for competitors 
and be approved promptly.
    With regular monitoring by a panel of experts, the agreement has 
guaranteed no favoritism of computer makers who use Microsoft 
software.

[[Page 29584]]

    A uniform price list will be used for licensing of Windows to 
the 20 largest manufacturers and they will have expansive rights to 
replace Microsoft programs with those from AOL, Real Networks, etc. 
There will also be no contract restrictions in relation to promoting 
Windows technology as well. With this settlement, Microsoft has 
given its competitors an ample opportunity to succeed in the 
marketplace. Please take this chance and move on with that process 
now.
    Sincerely,
    Lynwood Taylor



MTC-00031458

Nancy C. Cocke
4900 Hassell Lane
Erie, PA 16509-4236
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this time to urge you to please uphold the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice on November 2, 2001. This case has been dragging on for 
nearly three years. I see no reason to prolong it further. There was 
obviously a great deal of effort put into negotiating this 
settlement. The settlement quite adequately addresses the issues of 
concern.
    There is no reason to scrutinize this issue any further, 
especially since the Federal government has already agreed to terms. 
I thought that the initial settlement was too harsh on Microsoft to 
begin with. I would really hate to see any further legal action. 
Microsoft actually had to concede more than they initially desired 
in the settlement, but the American economy was more important to 
Microsoft's leaders than a few details listed in the settlement. 
Microsoft has agreed to share a lot of their coding and internal 
Windows interface information, making it easier for their 
competitors to come up with their own products. They are also 
creating a Technical Committee to oversee Microsoft's compliance of 
the settlement terms. This is all more than reasonable, especially 
given their huge contribution to our nation's economy.
    Thank you for your time. Please respect the settlement. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy C. Cocke



MTC-00031459

6194858519 GUS G SIPKES PO1
17224 Tam O Shanter Drive
Poway, California 92064
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter is to give my support to the agreement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. As I understand, 
there are sixty days for public comment and I would like to say that 
I believe this agreement is long overdue. It has done a great deal 
of damage to our economy and our country. It is now time to put this 
behind us and move forward. There are more important things to be 
concerned about.
    Further, Microsoft has agreed to a number of demands from the 
Justice Department, enabling competing firms to have access both to 
certain software and new rights to configure systems with access to 
various Windows features. Microsoft has also agreed to be bound by 
requirements on their licensing practices. The company will have to 
use a uniform price list when distributing Windows to the largest 
twenty computer manufacturers in the nation. This is a great deal 
for a company to do.
    Please do not pursue any further federal action against 
Microsoft. It is not in the best interests of the country. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Gus Sipkes



MTC-00031460

January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to ask you to settle the Microsoft lawsuits that 
have been going on for such a long period of time. Microsoft should 
retain the ability to produce the brightest and best of technology 
without impediments from the government. The continued harassment 
from the government is against the best interests of the public.
    Please settle the suit.
    Sincerely,
    Alice Cason
    52 Bellevue Ave.
    San Rafael, CA 94901
    Sent via fax 1-202-307-1454
    1-202-616-9937



MTC-00031462

    01/18/2002 08:43 FAX 804 7866310 VA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 001
    VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
    FAX COVER SHEET
    To: RENATA HESSE
    Organization; Antitrust Division--US Dept of Justice
    FAX Number: (202) 616-9937
    Phone Number: ( )
    Local
    Long Distance Number of Pages including this cover sheet: 2
    From: DELEGATE THOMAS DAVIS RUST
    Room Number: 516 Telephone Number: (804) 698-1086
    Comments:
    If you have any problems with this transmission please call the 
House Fax Center at: (804) 698-1558
    Our Fax Number is (804) 786-6310
    01/18/2002 08:43 FAX 804 7866310 VA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
    002
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    HOUSE OF DELEGATES
    RICHMOND
    January 17, 2002
    THOMAS DAVIS RUST
    730 ELDEN STREET
    HERNDON, VIRGINIA 20170
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street, NW #1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    By Facsimile: (202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the Delegate for the 86th District in Northern Virginia, I am 
writing to encourage you to approve the settlement agreement in the 
case of United States v. Microsoft.
    Northern Virginia has been fortunate to attract a diverse and 
wide-ranging number of technology firms over the past 10 years, and 
with those firms choosing to locate here, we have insured our area's 
continued growth and future prosperity. While I have varied business 
interests across my district, the bottom line is that the settlement 
is a boon to our state's economy and for the economy of the nation 
as a whole.
    Being a technology-friendly state put Virginia on the map again 
with the emerging IT industry in the 1990's. As IT has blossomed and 
flourished, our state has reaped the benefits as well. We embraced 
the new economy and profited from the relationship. Government 
should not be an inhibitor, but rather an enabler of consumers, 
entrepreneurs, and the marketplace. Technology empowers individuals, 
both here in the Commonwealth and beyond. It gives individuals 
previously unimagined opportunities to participate in the economy. 
It opens the door of opportunity to many including women in business 
who are harnessing the power of the IT economy and to children who 
are empowered with the learning and teaching potential of the 
Internet.
    More than half of all Internet traffic travels through Virginia. 
In my district alone, there are hundreds of high-tech firms all 
relying on consumers, and beholden for their survival to the 
competitive system that Americans so cherish. This proposed 
settlement is tough, yet reasonable, and a valuable tool in bringing 
stability back to our economy. It is my hope that the Court will 
approve the proposed settlement between Microsoft and nine 
plaintiffs in the anti-trust case against it, including the federal 
government.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Davis Rust
    DISTRICT: (703) 437-9400--FAX: (703) 
435-6855--E-MAIL:
    [email protected]



MTC-00031463

    JAN-17-2002 09:05 PM Bob Hailey 760 789 6480 P. 01
    Ramona Unified School District
    720 Ninth Street Ramona, CA 92065-2399
    (760) 78905000 o FAX 789-9168
    Renata Hesse
    Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    Via Fax 202-616-9937
    Ms. Hesse,
    I was told that individuals wishing to express their opinion on 
the pending settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft are allowed to 
send their letters to number above. I support the settlement.
    Please accept this letter and include it with those members of 
the public who believe the courts should approve of the settlement.

[[Page 29585]]

    Though it is the purpose of the courts to review facts, it is 
nearly impossible to consider the politics of this issue. I am 
writing in support of the settlement because some of the politics 
should be explained to the Courts.
    Specifically, I believe it is important to recognize that nine 
of the original states and the federal government have endorsed this 
settlement. That concept alone speaks volumes about whether the 
settlement is adequate. More importantly. those states that have 
rejected the settlement are not doing so based on the facts 
surrounding the case; they are doing so because of the politics. 
Attorney General Lockyer and Attorney General Miller are far from 
objective on this issue.
    They have used it to generate favor among other hi-tech 
companies and raise their profile.
    This is sent to you as my opinion and does not necessarily 
reflect the opinions of other board members. I ask that you include 
my name on the list of those supporting this settlement.
    Bob Hailey
    President, Board of Education
    Ramona Unified School District



MTC-00031464

Jan 17 02 06:54p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p.1
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P,
Attorneys at Law
2800 TWO HANNOVER SQUARE
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
PO Box 27525 (27611)
(919)755-8700
direct: 919-755-8816
fax: 919 755 8800
[email protected]
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case is a fair and reasonable compromise, and I want to 
express my hope that it will be approved by the federal court. North 
Carolina's Attorney General, Roy Cooper, carefully reviewed the 
setllement and concluded that it is fair and effective, as have 
attorneys general from a number of states and the U.S. Department of 
Justice.
    The agreement contains significant restrictions on how Microsoft 
will be able to develop, license and market its software. But, most 
important, the settlement would permit Microsoft to return its focus 
to the development of even more outstanding products. These products 
have played a vital role in the productivity gains that have driven 
our nation's economic growth, and their development should not be 
unduly restricted.
    America needs an economic boost today, and there could be no 
better boost than a settlement of this lawsuit as soon as possible.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely,
    SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
    Peter Hans
    PH/gm
    ATLANTA CHARLOTTE GREENSBORO RALEIGH WILMINGTON



MTC-00031465

01/18/2002 10:32 6033757915 CUSTOMSCOOP PAGE 01
CustomScoop
Your Online News Clipping Service
VIA FAX (202) 616-9937
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for accepting comments on the settlement with 
Microsoft.
    The so-called Innovation Economy results in a higher standard of 
living for all of us. Our lives become richer because of the 
opportunities afforded us by a robust and vibrant technology 
industry. Litigation does nothing but tack on costs that in the end, 
we all must bear and for which we must all compensate.
    The marketplace, not the courtroom, should decide winners and 
losers in the tech sector.
    Instead of finding excuses and ingenious ways to continue 
prosecuting the case of U.S. v. Microsoft.
    The settlement agreement the U.S. Justice Department and nine 
states agreed on with Microsoft seems fine. We need to move on, for 
the good of the technology industry and our economy as a whole. As 
an executive of a technology business, I can tell you that for every 
day this case is extended, we lose opportunities.
    Sincerely,
    Chip Griffin
    Charles Griffin
    P.0. Box 609, Concord, N.H. 03302
    (800) 538-6420
    www.customscoop.com



MTC-00031466

    01/18/2882 12:55
    === COVER PAGE ===
    TO:
    FAX: 12026169937
    FROM : KATHLEEN BART
    FAX: 5165464919
    TEL: 5165464919
    COMMENT : PLEASE CALL
    01/18/2002 12:55 5165464919 KATHLEEN BART PAGE 01
    Jack Bart
    1930 Sunrise Highway Apt. 17
    Merrick, NY 11566
    January 17, 2002
    John Ashcroft, Attorney General
    US Department of Justice
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing today to address the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
with the Department of Justice, I am in support of the settlement, 
and I feel that it is a just one. After three years in court we are 
well past the point where this issue should have been resolved. Now 
more then ever, we cannot afford to waste valuable resources 
debating an issue that has an acceptable solution on the table.
    When the settlement is finalized Microsoft will be a changed 
entity, one allowing more consumer flexibility, and is far less 
combatively competitive. From this point forward, Microsoft will 
design Windows-family products to be user-friendlier to 
installation, un-installation, and configuration of its 
competitors'' peripheral software components. Furthermore, 
Microsoft will make available to its competitors various internal 
interfaces of the Windows product line for the purposes of their own 
software development. Should any of these interfaces fall under 
intellectual property rights, Microsoft will provide license for 
their use to the developer in question. I would highlight these 
aspects of the settlement to those who claim that Microsoft is just 
being given a free ride. In fact, many of the terms within the 
current settlement reach above and beyond the issues originally 
brought to suit against Microsoft three years ago.
    At this point I strongly urge all parties involved to agree to 
the current settlement and wrap this antitrust issue up once and for 
all.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Bart



MTC-00031467

01/06/2002 12:57 914-2489689 SERGIO TOSCANO PAGE 01
4 Walker Drive South
Yorktown Heights, New York 10598
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three years of negotiation, the Department of Justice has 
announced a proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. 
All terms were arrived at with a court-appointed mediator. I favor 
finalizing settlement of this case at the earliest possible date,
    Microsoft has agreed to allow competing technology developers to 
reconfigure Windows links to suit their needs so that they may 
promote their own software products. Microsoft has also agreed to 
make documentation and protocols available to competitors to 
facilitate these reconfigurations.
    Basically, the settlement has provisions that satisfy all of the 
issues originally raised in the suit and the issues raised since 
then.
    Further litigation would only serve to drag this case out and 
tie up the courts unnecessarily. I ask for your support to bring 
this case to a timely closure.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Sergio Toscano



MTC-00031468

Jan 18 02 12:02p Richard S. Vann 336-722-2895 p.1
Matthew Tilley
874 Cook Road
Rural Hall, NC 27045
January 16, 2002

[[Page 29586]]

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
610 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing as a member of the public to respond for public 
comments concerning the Microsoft settlement before Judge Kollar-
Kotelly. I am an executive at marketing firm with a wife and two 
children. I am also going back to school in hope of receiving my 
MBA. As you can probably tell, I am a great believer in people such 
as Bill Gates who came out of nowhere and built a great commpany 
whose products nearly everyone buys and who has made my work on the 
computer a whole lot easier.
    During the entire period that the government has prosecuted 
Microsoft, I have strongly opposed the suit and written such an 
opinion to my Congressmen and Senators. I still believe that the 
suit was greatly aided by Microsoft's competitors who still are 
trying to influence the proceedings even today. However, since 
Microsoft the federal government and nine attorneys general have 
agreed to the settlement, I want to lend my support as an interested 
citizen I believe that with any settlement that the provisions are 
fair for both sides. These are much the same provisions as months 
earlier when the attorneys general turned down a settlement and sent 
the financial markets, including Microsoft stock, into a tailspin 
from which it has never recovered. Millions of dollars have been 
lost from people's pension funds and individual accounts because of 
government intervention and the refusal of some AGs to be 
reasonable.
    I regret that these few individuals, even now, refuse to go 
along with the settlement and so their lawsuit continues. Thanks 
goodness, as a taxpayer, I will not any further burden because North 
Carolina has wisely withdrawn its lawsuit and the federal 
government, which wasted $30 million on the effort, will shortly 
shut its doors on this sad chapter as well
    Thank you for your consideration of my views.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Tilley



MTC-00031469

01/18/2002 11:43 MERGER & ACQUISITION SERVICES--12026169937 
NO. 123 002
MERGER & ACQUISITION SERVICES, INC.
3060 Holcomb Bridge Road, NW Suite G
Norcross, GA 30071
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Stop the litigation against Microsoft. Enough is enough. The 
money spent so far on this case has been ludicrous, and the idea of 
more litigation makes me very upset.
    There are many specific changes mandated be the settlement that 
will affect the entire IT industry. For instance, Microsoft already 
has agreed not to retaliate against software or hardware developers 
who develop or promote software that competes with Windows. Plus, 
the company has agreed to a ``Technical, Committee'' that 
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Clearly, 
these restrictions on Microsoft will benefit consumers the most.
    The recession has had a large effect on state budgets and the 
federal budget, and it is important that the technology industry be 
allowed to concentrate on business now. Let Microsoft do what it 
does best and, at the same time, do what is best for all of us.
    Sincerely,
    David Schofield



MTC-00031471

01/17/2001 10:56 FAX 8037794953 S.C. POLICY COUNCIL 001/002
SOUTH CAROLINA POLICY COUNCIL
EDUCATION FOUNDATION
1323 Pendelton Street--
Columbia, SouthCarolina 29201
(803)779-5022
(803)779-4953 Fax
FAX
DATE: 1-18-2002
# of Pages: 2
TO: Todd Kruse
COMPANY:
FAX: 1-202-307-1454 or 616-9937
PHONE:
FROM: Gerry Dickinson
MESSAGE:
01/17/2001 10:56 FAX 8037794953
S.C. POLICY COUNCIL
002/002
January 18, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Attorney General Charles Condon ended the State of South 
Carolina's involvement in the Microsoft lawsuit in December 1998. At 
that time--more than three years ago--the state cited the 
fact that they could no longer justify the expense for a trial made 
moot by the actions of a competitive marketplace.
    It was easy for the individual states to hop on the lawsuit 
bandwagon, but it is more difficult to step off. However, amidst the 
dot-com meltdown and terrorist threats, we have seen our economy 
shrink. While other states are facing huge billion-dollar budget 
gaps because of the recession and high spending levels, South 
Carolina has been fortunate to add jobs in the past two years.
    American freedom and prosperity grew from the principles of free 
enterprise. Those who choose to enter the marketplace should be 
allowed the chance to succeed or fail on their own, unconstrained by 
continual litigation. But most certainly, they should be able to 
rest assured that running a successful business is not against the 
law.
    The Department of Justice's proposed settlement has great merit. 
Advocates of limited government support the Department's settlement 
as a prudent way to save taxpayers from having more funds wasted on 
this case. Additionally, a settlement would send a positive signal 
to the businesses, which comprise the technology sector that the 
government isn't going to run their businesses for them. It is our 
hope that this settlement agreement--negotiated by nine states, 
the federal government and Microsoft--will receive your utmost 
consideration for approval.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald P. Dickinson, Jr.
    Vice President for Policy
    The Thomas A. and Shirley W. Roe Center for Public Policy 
Research
    1323 PENDLETON STREET o COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201 . (803) 
779-5022 o
    FAX (803) 779-4953 o www.scpolicycouncil.com



MTC-00031472

01/18/2002 16:50 1100000000 CDAEMB1ADKMAASSOC PAGE 03
January 16, 2002
Ms. Tracy Selmer
12513 Cliff Edge Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Now that the federal government has finally settled its long 
antitrust case against Microsoft, I hope the states still involved 
with the suit will do the same. It is time for consumers to come 
together and move the economy and our country in a positive 
direction--a forward and economically strong direction.
    The settlement's provisions protect Microsoft's ability to 
continue to be innovative and, this hopefully, will revitalize 
competition and the technology industry for the betterment of us 
all. Consumers and investors will reap the benefits of this 
settlement and this should help to get the engines running toward a 
healthy and prosperous economic stance.
    Sincerely,
    Tracy Selmer



MTC-00031473

01/18/2002 10:50 1100000000 CDAEMB1ADKMAASSOC PAGE 02
January 17, 2002
Mr. Michael Frey
14613 Old Kent Road
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As jobless rates and economic indicators continue to tell 
consumers that times are getting worse, I think Microsoft's 
settlement with the federal government could provide a beginning 
bright light. By settling the case, we could once again see the 
competitive prosperity of the 90's foster the necessary kick the 
economy needs to move in a positive direction.
    The high tech industry has been a driving force for our nation 
in recent years and if Microsoft's settlement revitalizes 
competition, than we should welcome this opportunity. This long 
drawn out case should be resolved once and for all, and the

[[Page 29587]]

focus should be on lowering the jobless rate, increasing consumer 
confidence and strengthening our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Frey



MTC-00031475

From : JoeT SemEnt
PHONE NO. : 1 407 977 9625 Jan. 18 2002 06:45AM P1
P.O. Box 622363
Oveido, FL 32762-2363
N Miami Beach, FL 33160
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0081
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to- express my support for Microsoft's antitrust 
settlement with the federal government. I think it is fair and 
reasonble
    As I understand it, Microsoft agreed to not enter into any 
agreements obligating any third party to distribute or promote any 
Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, meaning 
that Microsoft can't exploit their position to force-sell Windows to 
smaller companies.
    In case there was doubt about lax enforcement, the government 
will establish a ``Technical Committee'' to monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and assist with dispute 
resolution, in case disputes arise.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I think this settlement is very good. Its a win-
win for everybody, I urge you to approve it.
    But is suspense, as Hitchcok states, in the box. No, there isn't 
room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
    Sincerely,
    E.L. Troendle



MTC-00031476

JAN 18 02 12:24PM SC ATTORNEY GENERAL P.1
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Office of the Attorney General
ColumbiA 29211
January 15, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: DOJ Proposed Settlement with Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As Attorney General of South Carolina I commend the United 
States Department of Justice and Microsoft for negotiating a 
settlement to the DOJ antitrust lawsuit. The parties conducted 
extensive negotiations with the help of a court-appointed mediator 
and have reached an agreement that needs to be implemented. The 
interests of consumers, market-competition and the national economy 
are best served by bringing this lawsuit to the agreed conclusion as 
soon as possible.
    Yours very truly,
    Charlie Condon
    (803)734-3970 (803)734-3046 Facsimile



MTC-00031477

01/18/02 11:32 FAX 18157565443 T D HARRELSON 01
333 South Seventh Street
Dekalb, IL 60115
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Departmnt of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for putting an end to the 
antitrust case brought against Microsoft. As an ordinary consumer, 
Windows is beneficial to my everyday life, and I would like to see 
Microsoft able to operate without further legal complication.
    Microsoft has made more concessions to the government in the 
settlement than were charged n the suit. They have agreed to new 
removal capabilities for Windows-based programs along with 
documentation of the coding that will make it easier for 
competitors'' software programs to run with Windows. I think 
Windows is a very friendly operating system, and these charges will 
only serve to make it a stronger product.
    Microsoft has endorsed this settlement to put a quick end to the 
litigation. I urge you to finally close the lawsuit against 
Microsoft as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Harrelson
    cc: Representative J. Dennis Hastert



MTC-00031478

Jan-19-02 12:15A MIDWAY LITTLE GENERAL 573 446 8100 P.01
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you with concern over the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I was happy to know that 
the settlement was finally reached, only to be disappointed when I 
learned that it is being even further scrutinized. After three years 
of litigation, it seems ridiculous that there should be any further 
hold up on this agreement.
    At this point in time, there are many other topics to be 
concerned about in our nation. Spending our precious resources on an 
agreement that has already been under severe scrutiny seems 
ridiculous, compared to more recent issues. Beyond that, this 
settlement has already been extremely well monitored and serves the 
interest of all parties involved. It is time to let these terms 
speak for themselves and let our IT sector get back to business.
    Let us not be the ones to delay the very process we initiated. 
Now that the technology industry has agreed to move forward in this 
fashion, let us allow them to do so. I ask that you help support 
this settlement in its current form.
    Sincerely,
    Cheri Perry
    203 Broadfield Drive
    Columbia, MO 65203



MTC-00031480

01/18/02 l0:06 FAX 3192175 001
STATE CAPITOL
P.O. Box 942049
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0075
(916) 319-2075
FAX (916) 319-2175
DISTRICT OFFICE
15708 POMERADO ROAD, SUITE 110
 POWAY, CA 92064
 (858) 385-0070
 FAX (858) 385-0179
Assembly California Legislature
CHARLENE GONZALES ZETTEL
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, SEVENTY-FIFTH DISTRICT
 COMMITTlEES:
 APPROPRlATIONS
 EDUCATION
ENERGY COSTS AND AVAILABILITY
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
 HEALTH
 RULES
 SELECT COMMITTEES:
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S HEALTH
LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS
TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION RELIEF
CALIFORNIA-MEXICO AFFAIRS
STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE:
VICE CHAIR, SEXUAL HARASSMENT
PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
January 14, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Anti-Trust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the federal government has 
negotiated a reasonable settlement agreement with Microsoft that is 
in the nation's best interest. This settlement will place sanctions 
on Microsoft without destroying the company nor punishing its 
employees.
    The sanctions are meant to encourage greater competition in the 
software industry by giving consumers a greater choice when 
purchasing and enhancing their computers.
    The agreement sounds to me to be a fair resolution of the matter 
and I encourage you to continue your efforts to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    CHARLENE G. ZETTEL
    Assemblywoman, 75th District



MTC-00031481

FROM : FAX NO. : 13607341875 Jan. 18 2002 09:06AM P1
Facsimile Transmittal
ULTRA TANK SERVICES, INC
Ph: 1-360-734-7612
Fax: 1-360-734-1825
P.0. Box 664
Bellingham, wa 98227-0664
Date: 1-18-02
Attention: Mr. Ashcroft
From: George Willet
Number of pages (including this cover): 2
Comment(s):
Reply requested Yes No
FROM :
FAX NO. : 13607341875 Jan. 18 2002 09:07AM P2
ULTRA TANK SERVICES, INC.
P.O. BOX 664
BELLINGHAM, WA 98227-0664

[[Page 29588]]

OFFICE PH: l-360-734-7611
FAX: l-360-734-1875
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 12, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to voice my opinion on the recent events 
surrounding the Microsoft Anti-trust case. I think it is wonderful 
that there has been a settlement reached. I support Microsoft on 
this 100%. It is time to put this issue to bed and the settlement is 
a perfect way to do so.
    I don't see how there is any dispute on this settlement not 
representing the public interest. Microsoft has been providing us 
with user-friendly technology for years. They've changed the 
computer industry forever and made computers something everyone 
uses. The settlement calls for Microsoft to give away a bunch of 
their information so that their competitors have an edge on things. 
And if that's not enough, there is a Technical Committee to make 
sure that Microsoft does what they're supposed to, including dispute 
resolution. I see this as more than fair.
    Microsoft has created one of the best consumer products of our 
time. They've changed the way people do business. Please don't 
punish them any more. Respect this settlement and put this lawsuit 
to bed forever. <>
    Sincerely,
    George Willet



MTC-00031482

JAN-18-02 FRI 12:26 PM TACO TREAT FAX NO. 406 727 7583 P. 1
Jack Deck
1316 Central Avenue
Great Falls, Montana 59401
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    A reasonable and equitable settlement has been reached in the 
Microsoft antitrust case with the Justice Department, I am pleased 
that this settlement has come this far and I am writing your office 
to encourage you to see that it is instituted. Microsoft has many 
rivals and unfortunately some are pressuring for this settlement to 
be withdrawn and Microsoft forced back to court. They care little 
for the settlement and more for seeing that Microsoft is damaged. 
This is unfortunate because the settlement will create more openness 
and competition in the technology field. This settlement will end 
any contractual restrictions that may have been harmful to 
Microsoft's competitors. This settlement also will allow competitors 
extraordinary access to Microsoft's internal interfaces and server 
interoperability mechanisms. No software company has ever opened up 
their books more than Microsoft than in this settlement. Despite all 
the concessions by Microsoft competitors will contiue to press for a 
continuation of this case. Only resolute backing of this settlement 
by your people can ensure this settlement is realized.



MTC-00031483

01/18/2002 12:43
018/2002 12:43 5165464919
KATHLEEN BART
PAGE 01
JACK BART
1930 Sunrise Highway Apt. 17
 Merrick, NY 11566
January 17, 2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing today to address the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
with the Department of Justice. I am in support of the settlement, 
and I feel that it is a just one. After three years in court we are 
well past the point where this issue should have been resolved. Now 
more then ever, we cannot afford to waste valuable resources 
debating an issue that has an acceptable solution on the table.
    When the settlement is finalized, Microsoft will be a changed 
entity, one allowing more consumer flexibility, and is far less 
combatively competitive. From this point forward, Microsoft will 
design Windows-family products to be user-friendlier to 
installation, un-installation, and configuration of its 
competitors'' peripheral software components. Furthermore, 
Microsoft will make available to its competitors various internal 
interfaces of the Windows product line for the purposes of their own 
software development. Should any of these interfaces fall under 
intellectual properly rights, Microsoft will provide license for 
their use to the developer in question. I would highlight these 
aspects of the settlement to those who claim that Microsoft is just 
being given a free ride. In fact, many of the terms within the 
current settlement reach above and beyond the issues originally 
brought to suit against Microsoft three years ago.
    At this point I strongly urge all parties involved to agree to 
the current settlement and wrap this antitrust issue up once and for 
all.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Bart



MTC-00031484

the CLONE STORE
A Clone Store Corporation Company
884 Yale Avenue, Suite 1500
Lake City, Pennsylvania 16423
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years disputing an unnecessary case, I was 
pleased to hear that a settlement was finally reached between 
Microsoft and the federal government. I hope that no further action 
will be taken against Microsoft at the federal level.
    The settlement is fair and reasonable, and was arrived at after 
extensive negotiations with a court appointed mediator. Microsoft 
agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures 
that were actually at issue in the suit, for the sake of wrapping up 
the suit. For example, Microsoft will not retaliate against vendors 
that use or promote non-Microsoft products,
    Considering the many terms of the agreement, there should be no 
reason for the government to pursue further litigation against 
Microsoft on the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas L. Thurston
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Committed to Quality NNOVELL
    814-744-0759 01/18/02 12:21PM P001 DOUG THURSTON



MTC-00031487

01/17/2002 23:00 2036559359
SMEGO
PAGE 01
Mary Ann S. Smego
7 Lighthouse Way
Darien, CT 06820-5612
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my relief at the fact that the 
Department of Justice has finally reached a settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I don't feel that this case should have 
ever been brought against them in the first place and am happy to 
finally see it over and done with, at least at the Federal level.
    The settlement answers many of the complaints that Microsoft's 
competitors had with the company. Now they not only have to make it 
easier for people to write programs for Windows, but there's now a 
federal review board to make sure they comply with all the terms of 
the settlement.
    I appreciate you taking the time to hear me out on this matter 
and I hope that you will do everything in your power to make sure 
that the rest of the states who haven't settled quickly do so.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Ann S. Smego



MTC-00031488

To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
From: steve dasaro 01/18/02
9:53:12 Page 1 of 1
Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware
 Janet & Stephen Dasaro
 47 Cedar Drive
 Massapequa NY. 11758
 H (516) 799--0727 B (516) 997--8030 l/18/02
 Attorney General John Ashcroft
 US Department of Justice
 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to address the recent settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. This case, in my opinion, has gone on far 
too long. The initial lawsuit was not merited. It was more a 
political act, than any assault on a monopolistic business. Rivals 
of Microsoft could compete in no other way than to haul Microsoft 
into court, the Department of Justice agreed to sue far too readily. 
I am disturbed this lawsuit has set a dangerous precedent for future 
companies.

[[Page 29589]]

    Evidently, if a firm gets too successful, too big, they can be 
assured of being hauled into court. Microsoft is successful because 
it produces a good product. Bill Gates worked long and hard to make 
compatible software available to, and understandable to, the average 
lay person. The case has been settled, and Microsoft did not get off 
easy. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers new rights to 
configure Windows to better promote non-Microsoft software.
    Also, Microsoft has agreed to share any code or programming that 
Windows uses to communicate with other programs. I wonder if 
Microsoft's rivals would do the same.
    Let's put this case behind us and move forward. I support the 
agreement, and look forward to the end of this case.
    Sincerely
    Stephen F. Dasaro



MTC-00031489

JAN-18-02 FRI 09:24 AM JERRY KOSSACK CNC 209 431 7656 P.01
Jerry Kossack, CNC
Certified Nutritional Consultant
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
1-202-307-1454
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to give you my thoughts on the recent microsoft 
Anti Trust case. This settlement is long past due, I am appalled 
that this lawsuit has been allowed to drag on for three years, 
wasting millions of tax dollars.
    I am a Certified Nutritional Consultant and I use Microsoft 
products in my job and at home. Microsoft has provided a series of 
exceptional products that have assisted me in serving my community 
better. That's what business is about. However, now Microsoft has to 
give up a great deal just so that this lawsuit might be ended. They 
are sharing a lot of their source code and interface design with 
their competitors. They are also making agreements with computer 
makers that will allow them to pre-install non-Microsoft products on 
the Windows operating system.
    Please do your part in respecting the public interest. Our 
fragile economy needs a boost and this settlement will certainly 
provide one. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    5792 N. Palm Avenue
    Fresno, California 93704
    (559) 431-7678
    FAX (559) 431-7656
    eMail:[email protected]



MTC-00031490

SENT BY: ; 610 828 8323; JAN-18-02 10:27AM; PAGE 1/2
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft Fax: (202) 307-1454
FROM: Dennis R. Rubisch
Phone: 610-828-8323
Fax: 610-828-3246
# Of PAGES: 2 (including cover sheet)
Letter Attached
SENT BY: ;
 610 828 8323; JAN-18-02 10:27AM; PAGE 2/2
 DENNIS R. RUBISCH
243 VALLEY FORGE LOOKOUT PLACE
RADNOR,PA 19087
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the agreed settlement between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft and I feel there should be no further court action 
taken by the federal government. It is time for the Department of 
Justice to move on and it is time for Microsoft to get back to 
business. The case has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has agreed to terms in the settlement that change 
their licensing agreements, contractual agreements and general 
business practices extensively. They have agreed to terms that 
extend beyond the points in the lawsuit for the purpose of settling 
the suit and they have agreed to be monitored for compliance. That 
should be enough assurance to keep Microsoft out of any future anti-
trust violations.
    The case against Microsoft should finally be closed and let all 
parties involved carry on their respective business.
    Very truly yours,
    Dennis Rubisch
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031491

01/22/2002 09:12 19197281314
SULLIVANHOMEBUIDERSI
PAGE 01
 2712 Highway 70E
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you today with the Microsoft settlement on my mind. The 
recent developments have caused me to wonder why we are wasting more 
time on this issue. After three years of negotiations, it seems 
ridiculous to continue to scrutinize this well thought out 
agreement. I believe that it is time to move forward and that we 
should support our technology industry in any way we can.
    Microsoft has agreed to make bold changes in licensing and 
marketing and even design. By designing future versions of Windows 
for easier installation of non-Microsoft software, we open up the 
market for the Microsoft competitors. This is clearly a move toward 
working as a more unified IT sector. At this point in time, 
Microsoft believes that by moving forward we can continue to 
maintain our position in the global market. By continuing to focus 
on litigation, we only move backwards and jeopardize our advancement 
in this global market.
    Let us help to keep America's technology industry on top, by 
supporting this settlement. The terms clearly promote working 
together and can only help our IT sector. I thank you for your 
support.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Sullivan
JAN-18-2002 13:40
GUILD OF ST. AGNES 508 754 2026 P.02
William Joseph Eddy
December 31,2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I would like to comment on the impending settlement in the 
Microsoft suit.
    It is imperative that the government reaches a settlement in 
this case as soon as possible. Our economy is in tough shape and we 
don't need this lingering case to drag us down further.
    I believe that the settlement will be beneficial to small non-
profit community organizations such as the one I head. The potential 
donation of computers and software will be invaluable. The money we 
save with this potential donation will free us to spend more in our 
community.
    I urge the Justice Department to settle this matter as soon as 
practical
    Sincerely yours,
    William J. Eddy
    3 Barrows Road
    Worcester, MA 01609
    TOTAL P.02



MTC-00031493

JAN.18.2002 2:25PM DEPT OF STATE No.249 P. 1/1
GREAT SEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN GOD WE TRUST
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Katherine Harris Secretary of State
DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
Office of International Relations
Division of Elections
Division of Corporations
Division of Cultural Affairs
Division of Historical Resources
Division of Library and Information Services
Division of Licensing
Division of Administrative Services
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET
State Board of Education
Trustee of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
Administration Commission
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
Sitting Board
Division of Bond Finance
Department of Revenue
Department of Law Enforcement
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Department of Veterans'' Affairs
January 14, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Via Fax: 202-616-9937
    202-307-1454
    This letter is an indication of my support for the Microsoft 
settlement. With a stagnant economy and a war raging overseas, I 
believe

[[Page 29590]]

it is in the best interest of the public to settle this lawsuit.
    From print and media information, it appears Microsoft has taken 
the necessary steps to reach a fair and reasonable settlement, 
Currently the settlement allows competitive computer makers to 
eliminate the Windows software and replace it with another. I 
believe this demonstrates Microsoft's commitment to the consumer.
    As Florida's Secretary of State, one of my duties is to 
encourage commerce and international business for our state. 
Obviously, too much litigation is never helpful to a recovering 
economy,
    Yours truly,
    Katherine Harris
    Secretary of State
    The Capitol o Tallahassee, Florida
    32399-0250 o (850) 414-5500
    http://www.dos.state.fl.us



MTC-00031494

MicroCity, Inc.
13612 Midway Rd. Suite 110
 Dallas. TX 75244
Tel: 972-387-5529 Fax: 972-387-7945
January 16,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Schools, small and minority businesses, and the individual 
personal computer user all stand to lose if the government continues 
its open-ended pursuit of the high-tech industry. For years now, the 
U.S. Department of Justice has relentlessly attempted to break-up 
Microsoft Corporation into two companies. The lawsuit was wisely 
dropped but not until wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. Now, 
even more ominous threat looms on the high- tech 
horizon--government regulations of the entire industry.
    What disturbs me most is that the pursuit of Microsoft was and 
still is competitor-driven. No consumer or end-user of Microsoft 
products is a party to this attempt to quash innovation and 
interfere with market-driven competition. Does the handful of 
competitors realize that when the government regulates, it regulates 
everyone?
    I think it is time to settle all remaining issues between 
Microsoft and the government and let the technology industry get 
back to the business of providing high quality products to the 
American consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Newman
    President
    Jan. 16 2002 04:36PM P1
    FAX NO.: 9723877945
    FROM: 9723877945



MTC-00031495

01/16/2002 12:16 8174169015 RENAISSANCE IT PAGE 01
Renaissance
I.T. Inc.
January 9,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Ms: Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the compromise settlement 
negotiated between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    After years of investigation and tens of millions of taxpayer's 
dollars spent on the government's Microsoft hunt, the case against 
the software company is as flimsy today as it was five years ago. No 
consumer has been harmed by Microsoft's presence in the market, and 
software prices continue to fail. In fact, some portions of the 
newest versions of Windows once cost more as free-standing programs 
than the entire platform does now.
    As the owner of a small ($1,OOO,OOO/year) business my company's 
future was threatened by your attempted antitrust action. It is a 
relief to me that my business can continue to grow under the terms 
of the compromise settlement negotiated between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. I employ between 6 and 12 professional 
employees and they stand to be hurt as well by the Justice 
Department's continuation of antitrust actions.
    Consumers benefit from competition and innovation, the two 
things that have kept Microsoft successful for years. On the other 
hand, there is no example of a government-ordered breakup and take 
over ever helping an industry.
    Let the innovation in the technology market 
continue--accept the settlement and move on!
    Sincerely,
    Donald J. Levings, Jr.
    President/CEO/Owner
    1125 South Ball Street Suite 104 o Grapevine, Texas 76051 o 817 
421.8127 817 418.9015 fax o
    www.renaissanceIt.com



MTC-00031496

Lori Barrow
1201 Harvest Ridge Lane
Prosper, TX 75078
January 14, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The purpose of this letter is to express my support of the 
agreement reached between the Dept. of Justice and Microsoft. 
Microsoft has been at the forefront of the tech industry for some 
time. Through innovation and a commitment to quality, Microsoft has 
created its position in the field. I find it ridiculous that 
Microsoft has been punished for its success,
    With this noted, I do believe that the resolution reached in the 
settlement is beneficial. It allows Microsoft to return its focus to 
the IT world and leave at least some of its legal troubles behind. 
The settlement comes with a cost though. Microsoft will now be 
required to disclose the interfaces of its operating system. This 
will give other companies the opportunity to write more efficient 
programs. Users will be able to reconfigure the Windows system to 
their liking. Microsoft must also license Windows to all computer 
makers at the same rate.
    A11 of this is detailed in the agreement.
    Microsoft will continue to be a leader in the IT field. This 
settlement is beneficial in that it allows them to return to work. 
Please enact the settlement quickly.
    Sincerely,
    Lori Barrow
    P.01 19725425643 [email protected] JAN-1802 11:56AM



MTC-00031497

01/18/2002 13:57 18173581603 PICARD PAGE 01
2425 Meadow View
Bedford, TX 76021-4929
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The terms of the 
settlement are fair and the issue needs to be resolved in order for 
the technology industry to be able to move forward.
    Some critics say that Microsoft is getting away with an easy 
deal. This is simply not true. The settlement was arrived at after 
extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The company 
agreed to strict terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were actually at issue in the suit.
    I know that there probably isn't a windows user out there that 
has not wanted to strangle Bill Gates and Microsoft when there 
system crashes or a little dialog box pops ups asking it you, would 
like to make Explorer your default browser. The market p1ace will 
decide the ups and downs of Microsoft.
    I feel that today the Department of Justice needs to focus their 
time and resources on more important things, like terrorism, Enron, 
and Arthur Anderson.
    Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I ask this as 
an investor in Microsoft and some of it competitors
    Sincerely,
    Robert Picard



MTC-00031498

01/18/2002 12:56 218-834-2498 TWO HARBORS MACHINE PAGE 
01
1691 White Pine Drive
Two Harbors, MN 55616
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to offer my approval of the recent government 
settlement with Microsoft and ask the Justice Department to finalize 
the agreement. Although some concerns over Microsoft's competitive 
tactics were warranted, this case has gone on way too long, at way 
too much expense to the taxpayer, and is ready for resolution.
    The agreed terms are fair and reasonable and actually exceed 
Justice Department

[[Page 29591]]

charges. The new measures, including the uniform price list on 
Windows products for the top computer manufacturers, greater rights 
to configure Windows to promote competitor products and an interim 
Windows XP version for that use, should open competition for other 
software developers.
    I ask for a swift conclusion to this case and an opportunity to 
let businesses succeed unimpeded through this even-handed 
settlement. Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    David Johnson



MTC-00031499

JAN-18-2002 12:15PM P.01
1/11/2002 11:57AM FROM: Fax 14067526699.....191 PAGE: 003 OF 003
218 Lonepine Road
Kalispell, Montana 59901
January 11,2002
Attorney Genera1 John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to go on record as supporting the proposed 
settlement that was reached in the antitrust lawsuit between the 
Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. After three 
years of arguing and having Our economy slide into a recession, the 
government finally realized that settling the issue would be the 
best move.
    The settlement actually goes further than Microsoft wished, but 
the economy was more important than a few details in the agreement. 
I do not feel that it is fair that restrictions are being placed on 
Microsoft in areas that were never even an issue in the lawsuit. 
Microsoft has even agreed to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement.
    The settlment that was reached is fair and reasonable, and I 
would like to go on record as supporting it. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Mason



MTC-00031500

2084 Alameda Way
San Jose, CA 95126
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001.
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you concerning the recent developments in the 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The 
settlement has been reached as part of a well thought out process 
that has yielded fair and reasonable terms. These terms not only 
speak to a more unified IT sector, but help to promote getting back 
to business.
    As this economy continues to take a turn, it is important to 
support our technology industry. Unfortunately, while they sit by 
and focus on litigation, the global market continues to be 
competitive. These terms, which include changes in marketing, 
licensing, and design, help to promote a technology industry that 
works together. For example, Microsoft has agreed to grant computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. This will help our IT sector to maintain their place 
in the global market.
    Please help to support this settlement, and help our IT sector 
get back to business. I appreciate your help
    Sincerely,
    Ann Kleives
    Jan. 18 2002 01:13 PM P1 FAX NO.: FROM:



MTC-00031501

FROM : JIMDAY
FAX NO. : 7703934854 Jan. 18 2002 01:22PM P1
James Day, Jr.
340 Spalding Lake Court
Atlanta, GA 30350
January 18,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement is in the best interests of the public and the economy. 
Wasting money and time unnecessarily is wrong, and the time has come 
to focus on other more important cases and programs.
    The settlement requires many specific changes from Microsoft. 
For example, Microsoft has agreed to a ``Technical 
Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. Plus, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers on 
identical terms, including price. Also, Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against computer makers who ship software that competes 
with anything in its Windows'' operating system.
    This settlement is in the best interests of the state, the IT 
industry, and the economy. As a nation, moving forward should be the 
highest priority and this agreement will surely help us to do that.
    Sincerely,
    James Day



MTC-00031502

FROM : HRC Jan. 18 2002 12:51PM P1
FAX NO. : 5169978670
Janet & Stephen Dasaro
47 Cedar Drive
 Massapequa NY.11758
H(516)799--0727 B(516)997--8030
1/17/02
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to address the recent settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. This case, in my opinion, has gone on far 
too long. The initial lawsuit was not merited. It was more a 
political act, than any assault on a monopolistic business. Rivals 
of Microsoft could compete in no other way than to haul Microsoft 
into court; the Department of Justice agreed to sue far too readily. 
I am disturbed this lawsuit has set a dangerous precedent for future 
companies. Evidently, if a firm gets too successful, too big, they 
can be assured of being hauled into court- Microsoft is successful 
because it produces a good product. Bill Gates worked long and hard 
to make compatible software available to, and understandable to, the 
average lay person.
    The case has been settled, and Microsoft did not get off easy. 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers new rights to 
configure Windows to better promote non- Microsoft software. Also, 
Microsoft has agreed to share any code or programming that Windows 
uses to communicate with other programs. I wonder if Microsoft's 
rivals would do the same.
    Let's put this case behind us and move forward. I support the 
agreement, and look forward to the end of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen F. Dasaro



MTC-00031503

FROM : HRC FAX NO. : 5169978670 Jan. 18 2002 12:50PM P1
 47 Cedar Drive
Massapequa, New York 11758
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to give my approval to the recent Microsoft-
Department of Justice settlement. Bill Gates succeeded in making his 
company the best and the brightest of his industry. Unfortunately, 
his success created jealousy among his peers. Unable to compete in 
the market place, they sought to cripple Microsoft in another way, 
through the court system. This lawsuit was a combined effort between 
the Department of Justice and the rivals of Microsoft.
    Microsoft has accepted the dictates from the Department of 
Justice. Among other concessions, Microsoft has agreed to give 
computer makers new rights to configure Windows to better promote 
non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs within 
Windows; Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows 
with a mechanism making it easier to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows; and Microsoft has agreed to disclose various source 
codes that are internal to Windows'' operating system products. 
This is far beyond what I believe any other firm would do.
    I urge you to support the settlement reached by these two 
parties. It is time we put this behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Janet Dasaro



MTC-00031504

FROM : HRC FAX NO. : 5169978670 Jan. 18 2002 12:48PM P1
Mrs. Lisa Burkert
47 Cedar Drive
Massapequa NY. 11758
January 18,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice

[[Page 29592]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I do now and always have felt that the DOJ's and various state 
attorneys suits against Microsoft Corp. are the result of the 
prejudiced views of elected officials from states where Microsoft's 
competition reside. This constitutes what I and everyone I speak to 
considers an injustice perpetrated against Microsoft Corp. As you 
know millions of our tax dollars have already been wasted in an 
attempt to wrongfully punish this company. I like most Americans who 
used P.C's. before the advent of Windows hold Microsoft in the 
highest regard. I am proud of it's performance in dominating it's 
field because in doing so it took us out of the realm of cryptic DOS 
code and into the future of computing. Lets face it, the driving 
force behind any great advancement has always been profit. By 
punishing Microsoft for doing exactly what any other large 
corporation or small businessman would do in it's place sends a bad 
signal to those of us who have the nerve to gamble in the high 
stakes world of business. By the way what would the trade deficit 
have been last quarter if Microsoft did not sell software worldwide?
    Please stop this nonsense and accept this settlement that is 
already much larger then the so-called (but in my mind fabricated) 
harm done to the ``public'' Let this great American 
company thrive and grow.
    Thank you for considering my position.
    Sincerely
    Lisa Burkert



MTC-00031505

From Michael J. Cunningham 1-419-393-4271
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/18/2002Time: 2:15:00 PM Page 1 of 1
MICHAEL J. CUNNINGHAM
15454 POWER DAM ROAD
DEFIANCE, OHIO 43512
Telephone 419-393-2998
Fax 419-393-4271
E-mail [email protected]
Department of Justice
re: Microsoft Settlement
Jan. 18,2002
    Gentlemen,
    I wish to express my opinions here about the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust matter.
    Like most other frivolous litigation in this country this was 
never more than a hope for a ``jackpot judgment'' by the 
DOJ in the beginning. The nine remaining states that have refused to 
join the settlement simply exhibit their appetite for going after a 
windfall of money they do not deserve or have any right to. The only 
motivation is money and has absolutely nothing to do with antitrust, 
real justice, or any consumer or company being harmed by Microsoft. 
Also, I doubt any judgment received will ever benefit any consumer 
or company allegedly harmed by Microsoft.
    This suit has been based on the assumption that the American 
public is too ignorant and stupid to be able to make decisions about 
the software and browsers they use, therefore unfairly hurting 
Microsoft's competitors. Nothing could be further from the truth 
with the intense competition in this market and muriad of choices 
available to consumers.
    Microsoft has been key to the technological advancements in the 
world over the last two decades. They have created huge 
opportunities and profits for thousands of other companies to take 
advantage of. The financial benefit to this country and it's 
consumers because of Microsoft is incalculable.
    I am very disgusted to say the least over any of this 
litigation. As a citizen, taxpayer, stockholder, and voter I urge 
you to bring this matter to a close and pursue worthwhile matters in 
the future.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Cunningham



MTC-00031506

Sent By: BRACKETT & LUCAS;
508 799 9799;
18 Jan 02 2:28PM;Job 830;Page 1/1
Jonathan Finklelstein
ATTORNEY AT LAW
19 CEDAR STREET WORCESTER MA 01609
TEL (508) 753-0299 FAX (508) 799-9799
E-Mail: [email protected]
By FAcsimile: 202-616-9937
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department is seeking 
input relative to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft lawsuit.
    As an attorney and a real estate developer, I understand 
competition. Competition is healthy for the American economy. I use 
Microsoft products in my law practice and in my business. They have 
allowed me to better serve my clients and manage my business. I 
believe that the settlement in this case is in eveyrone's best 
interest. It will serve the interest of consumers by allowing new 
technologies to enter the market place. I have read recently that 
Microsoft has agreed, as a condition of its settlement with Justice, 
to provide computers to public school students throughout the 
country. Certainly in a city like Worcester, an older, industrial 
area in Central Massachusetts, this magnanimous gesture will be a 
great benefit to our inner city schools. This donation will also 
serve to minimize the so-called ``digital divide'' by 
making cumputers available to the economically disadvantaged.
    I urge a quick settlement in this case.
    Very truly yours,
    Jonathan Finkelstein



MTC-00031507

Jan 18 02 04:05p Zollweg 7709717039 p.1
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avc, NW
Washintgon, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a long-term contributor to the GOP, I would urge you to 
support the Microsoft antitrust settlement proposal now on your 
desk. This settlement was reached in November of 2001 and provides 
the most reasonable and logical solutions to address this issue. 
Microsoft is not the ENEMY. A fairly good case can be made that the 
most recent recession started when the Clinton administration 
decided to go after Microsoft. The ``tech'' stocks started 
going down after that, followed by much of the stock market. The 
terms of this settlement have been well thought out and I urge you 
to settle this case as soon as possible, Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Denny Zollweg
    2977 Nestle Creek Dr
    Marietta, GA 30062



MTC-00031508

Jan. 18 2002 5:26PM
J.W. BURNS & COMPANY No.1605 P. 1/1
J.W. BURNS & COMPANY, INC.
GLACIER CREEK OFFICE PARK
6711 TOWPATH ROAD
EAST SYRACUSE, NEW YORK l3067
315--440-1341
INVESTMENT COUNSEL
Edward A. Grassi
145 Plymouth Drive
Syracuse, NY 13206-2338
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been and will always be a huge Microsoft supporter. I 
believe that our technology industry would not have made the 
incredible leaps and bounds it has over the past decade if it hadn't 
been for Microsoft. Since the recent antitrust case settlement does 
not break up Microsoft, I am in complete favor of it and hope that 
it is finalized.
    The terms of the settlement seem to benefit the competitors 
instead of the consumers. For instance, under the terms Microsoft 
has agreed to not retaliate against software or hardware developers 
who develop or promote software that competes with Windows.
    They have also agreed to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products.
    The settlement, although flawed, serves the public interest, 
because the IT sector cannot afford to be hindered in its 
development any longer. Please support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Edward A. Grassi



MTC-00031509

01/18/02 16:09 802 864 1891 TCA-PAA-FSM 001/002
6 Adirondack Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
January 16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I am a proponent 
of free enterprise and think that government should stay out of big 
business.
    Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology over the 
last 10 years, and should

[[Page 29593]]

be applauded for its ability to standardize the tech sector to the 
consumers'' benefit, What annoys me about the lawsuits is that 
they never address the consumers themselves. The terms of the 
settlement only seem to help the competitors gain some edge that 
they did not have before. For instance, Microsoft will be 
documenting various interfaces for use by competitors. They will 
also be forced to not retaliate against software developers who 
develop or promote software that competes with Windows.
    So while the lawsuits and settlement is flawed, I think it is in 
best interest of public for it to be finalized. Further litigation 
could be detrimental to our ailing IT sector and ultimately postpone 
our economy's recovery. I urge your office to make the right choice 
and make the settlement a reality.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Maunsell
01/18/02 16:09 802 864 1891 TCA-PAA-FSM 002/002
6 Adirondack Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I am a proponent 
of free enterprise and think that government should stay out of big 
business.
    Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology over the 
last 10 years, and should be applauded for its ability to 
standardize the tech sector to the consumers'' benefit.
    What annoys me about the lawsuits is that they never address the 
consumers themselves. The terms of the settlement only seem to help 
the competitors gain some edge that they did not have before. For 
instance, Microsoft will be documenting various interfaces for use 
by competitors. They will also be forced to not retaliate against 
software developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows.
    So while the lawsuits and settlement is flawed, I think it is in 
best interest of public for it to be finalized. Further litigation 
could be detrimental to our ailing IT sector and ultimately postpone 
our economy's recovery. I urge your office to make the right choice 
and make the settlement a reality.
    Sincerely,
    Peggy Maunsell



MTC-00031510

01/18/2002 15:09 17344858321
JOSEPH NEMCHAK PAGE 01
5950 Big Pine Drive
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I never agreed with the government's decision to sue Microsoft 
when this case began three years ago, and I am pleased to see that 
you have decided to end litigation and stop this lawsuit at the 
federal level. Microsoft has made many concessions that made this 
settlement possible, and it is time to move on so that this company 
can go back to creating great products for the marketplace.
    Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows that 
will allow computer makers to promote non-Microsoft products within 
the operating system. This will promote competition within the 
technology industry, and the results of this will be beneficial to 
the industry and to consumers.
    Our entire economy will benefit from this settlement as well. It 
is time to let Bill Gates and the people at Microsoft get back to 
work.
    Thank you for ending this lawsuit; it is the right decision for 
our country.
    This lawsuit never should have been brought against Microsoft in 
the first place, and I am glad that it is over at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Nemchak



MTC-00031511

JAN-18-2002 02:47 PM FCCMV 3158537789 P.01
FREIGHT
COST
CONSULTANTS OF MOHAWK VALLEY
102 UTICA ROAD CLINTON,
NEW YORK 13323
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
930 Pennyslvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support Microsoft's decision to enter into the antitrust 
settlement agreement. I do not think the government was justified in 
bringing this case aganinst Microsoft to begin with.
    There are a multitude of monopolies in this coutry. Microsoft 
has been unjustly singled out. The sooner this case is resolved, the 
better.
    It is apparent to me that the terms of the settlement agreement 
are quite restrictive to Microsoft. I do not necessarily agree that 
Microsoft should be subjected to such harsh terms.
    However, in the interest of resolving the action, I urge the 
Court to approve the agreement in its present form. Microsoft's 
competitors should be quite satisfied with Microsoft's agreement to 
not take action against those it has the legal right to retaliate 
against. For example, Microsoft agreed to not take action against 
those who infringe on their intellectual property rights. Instead 
they will grant licenses on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. 
They have also agreed to not retaliate against computer 
manufacturers who install non-Microsoft software on their computers. 
They have also agreed to the creation of a watchdog committee to 
monitor their compliance with the agreement. With those provisions, 
the agreement will certainly achieve the goal of ensuring that 
Microsoft will not violate antitrust laws.
    I appreciate your taking the time to review my comments on this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Austin Bartholomew



MTC-00031512

Jan 18 02 12:31p
p. 1
Paul Scott Turner
7751 Wood Shade Court
West Jordan, Utah 84084
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am appalled by the fact that nine of the eighteen plaintiff 
states involved in the Microsoft antitrust suit wish to continue 
litigation against Microsoft. This case has gone on far too long 
already. While the suit has dragged out in the federal courts, the 
IT industry, the economy, and the American public have suffered the 
effects. I see no need, now that a settlement has been reached, for 
Microsoft to be picked apart by nine states that should logically 
have no complaint with the settlement. The Justice Department should 
get this case over with and move on.
    After six months of mediated negotiations, Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice came to an agreement that addresses all the 
antitrust violations, as well as some products and procedures that 
did not fall within the scope of the suit. Microsoft, for example, 
has agreed to reformat future versions of Windows, enabling its 
competitors, through modifications to the operating system, to 
introduce non-Microsoft software into Windows. Moreover, Microsoft 
has agreed to provide any party acting under the agreement with 
license to pertinent intellectual property rights. I see no reason 
for the plaintiff states to be unhappy with the settlement, other 
than the fact that Microsoft remains intact.
    Any additional action taken on the federal level would be 
superfluous and counterproductive. I ask you not to condone petty 
behavior such as this within the federal court system. The 
settlement should stand.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Scott Turner



MTC-00031513

Friday,January 18,2002 2:25 PM John Gilbert 704-341-4411 
p.01
10133 Hanover Glen Road
Charlotte, NC 282l0-7726
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have closely followed the federal government's antitrust case 
against Microsoft for a long time. Microsoft is not a monopoly, but 
competitors who cannot compete with Microsoft in this highly 
Innovative market have attacked them aggressively. This settlement 
is fair and will give the computer/software industry the boost it 
greatly needs. I feel Microsoft is improving its business practices 
by allowing competitors and partnering software developers access to 
some of the Windows operating system source code. It also agreed to 
not retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes

[[Page 29594]]

with Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
    Microsoft must be permitted to implement these new business 
practices. Far too much time and resources have been spent proving 
Microsoft is operating as a monopoly. Its time to put an end to Big 
Brother is watching, and let Microsoft get back to business with the 
settlement terms,
    Sincerely,
    John Gilbert



MTC-00031514

JAN-09-02 WED 11:29 PM LEADERSHIP SEMINARS 972 570 5902 P.01
LEADERSHIP SEMINARS
4020 N. MACARTHUR BLVD.,STE 122
IRVING,TX 75038-6422
972-570-4641
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    We all stand to lose if the government continues its open-ended 
pursuit of the high-tech industry.
    I think it is time to settle all remaining issues between 
Microsoft + the government + let the technology industry get back to 
the business of high quality products to the American consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Emily Lanitach, Ph.D
    President



MTC-00031515

FROM : EDMONSON WHEAT GROWERS PHONE NO. : 806 864 3325
Jan. 17 2002 09:54AM Pl
COOP.
EDMONSON WHEAT GROWERS, INC.
P.O. Box 32
EDMONSON, TEXAS 79032
Phone: 806-864-3327
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I believe it is time to end the Microsoft controversy. I think 
the most recent settlement being looked at should be accepted. I, 
along with many Americans, feel like they have benefited from 
Microsoft products. Microsoft has contributed greatly to the 
economic growth of our nation.
    I don't understand why the goverment has spent so much time and 
money on this. Ten years ago, the average American could not think 
about purchasing a computer, Microsoft has changed that. I thank 
Microsoft for what they have done for us!
    I would like to ask the Federal Court to put an end to this 
issue and the controversy with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Frieda Jones
    Bookkeeper
Northwestern Mutual
FINANCIAL NETWORK
George R. Allen, CLU, ChFC
Financial Representative
55 W 2nd St
PO Box 4065
Oswego,NY 13126
315 343 2323
315 343 8098 fax
[email protected]
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I'm a 13-year veteran and financial representative with 
Northwestern Mutual who has seen first hand how the continued 
litigation of Microsoft has had a negative impact on the economy and 
success of the small business I deal with on a daily basis.
    My client base is predominantly made up of small businesses, and 
I can say definitively that the current economic recession we are 
dealing with has been detrimental to their bottom lines. By pursuing 
further litigation against Microsoft, the cost of software and 
technology will most certainly rise. With my clients operating on 
tighter budgets, my business is adversely effected, as well. I think 
it is evident that not accepting the settlement of this case would 
be to encourage further negative economic conditions. By taking this 
battle back to the marketplace, Microsoft's competitors can 
demonstrate that they are committed to promoting economic 
prosperity, instead of furthering litigation at the risk of raising 
the price of technology and software for all consumers.
    Thank you.
    Best regards
    George R. Allen, CLU, ChFC
    Northwestern Mutual Financial Network is the marketing name for 
the sales and distribution arm of The Northwestern Mutual Life 
Insurance Company and its Subsidiaries and Affiliates. Agent, The 
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI, life 
insurance, annuities and disability income insurance. Klaude R. 
Konrad, General Agent. Registered Representative, Northwestern 
Mutual Investment Services, LLC. (NMIS) (6314 Fly Rd. P.O. Box 4718, 
Syracuse, NY 13221 (315-434-8800)), vriable life 
insurance, variable annuities, mutual funds unit investment trust 
and money market funds, NMIS is a separately operated subsidiary of 
Northwestern Mutual and is a member of the NASD and SIPC. 
Northwestern Mutual is not a broker-dealer. There may be Insurances 
when this agent represents insurance companies in addition to 
Northwestern Mutual.



MTC-00031517

FROM : ALYCE NORMAN SCHOOL
FAX NO.: 916 3757659
Jan. 18 2002 10:57AM P2
ASUCD
ASSOCIATED
STUDENTS
530-752-1990
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to voice my opinion on the Microsoft case.
    I am glad that it will be over soon. I believe that this was a 
bad idea In the first place. Microsoft was and is a successful 
company. Why should we be punishing them for their success. They 
have provided innovative products and ever decreasing prices.
    If I were Microsoft, I would continue to fight this case. 
However, since they have agreed to a settlement, I hope that the 
government can finish this up quickly, so that Microsoft can go back 
to improving our economy and the government can get out of the 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Hartmeyer
    347 Memorial Union
    University of California, Davis
    One Shields Avenue
    Davis, California 95616-8530



MTC-00031518

VIRGINIA B. HUNDLEY
13750 Elmstead Road
Midlothian, VA 23213
(804) 794-7654
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, the following are my 
comments on this proposed agreement.
    The agreement specifies that Microsoft would have to promptly 
disclose technical information that enables any Windows operating 
system to communicate with Microsoft servers and with all Microsoft 
middleware products. Also, to encourage more non-Microsoft 
middleware, the settlement forces Microsoft to license any 
intellectual property rights that others might need to compete with 
Microsoft. As with computer manufacturers, Microsoft could not 
penalize any software developer, service provider, or hardware 
vendor that develops or sells products that compete with Windows and 
Microsoft middleware. The net result is that all information 
technology providers, including Microsoft's competitors, are 
guaranteed access to technical specifications. That's pretty good.
    Sincerely yours,
    Virginia B. Hundley
    vbh/ bhs



MTC-00031519

Carrie Lizotte
501 E. 234th St.
Apartment 1D
Bronx, NY 10470
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice

[[Page 29595]]

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Facsimile 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    I am writing to express support for the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation.
    I have been watching this case carefully particularly over the 
past few years and am ready for the case to be settled. It has been 
quite clear to me that the case has been competitor driven rather 
than in the best interests of consumers. Oracle, AOL and ProComp 
have used this trial as a forum for their consistent bellyaching 
about Microsoft's prowess--all at taxpayer expense.
    I understand that the purpose of this exercise is to help 
determine whether this settlement is in the best interest of the 
public. Considering the state of our economy can best be described 
as dismal, and this case has been eating up our tax dollars for the 
past 10 years, a settlement can only be a win-win situation for us 
all.
    Sincerely,
    Carrie Lizotte



MTC-00031520

CALYPSO
COMMUNICATIONS
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
    This letter is in support of the settlement of the case of 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    The case was brought about by the Justice Department at the 
egging on of Microsoft's competitors. Throughout the case we have 
seen these proceeding aiming to benefit Microsoft's competitors 
rather than consumers.
    In the settlement, Microsoft agreed to take steps to give 
computer makers more freedom to feature rival software on their 
machines. This is what Microsoft's competitors have been bellyaching 
about. After years of frivolous litigation, the Department of 
justice finally asserts that the terms of that settlement are strong 
enough to stop the company's so-called ``monopolistic'' 
practices.
    Finally after months of negotiations, mediators etc.. .everyone 
seems to be in agreement. For the benefit of the economy, the 
technology sector and the marketplace, please approve the proposed 
settlement,
    Sincerely,
    Paul A. Young
    Principal
    CALYPSO COMMUNICATIONS LLC
    208 Market Street Suite 300 Portsmouth New Hampshire 03801 T 
608.
    431.0816 F 608.431.4497 www.calysocom.com



MTC-00031521

Christian Printers, Inc.
January 18, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC:
    I'm sending this letter as a supporter of the recent Microsoft 
settlement. Many people have suffered due to the recession we are 
facing. Businesses have gone bankrupt, many hardworking men and 
women have lost their jobs, and the stock market has taken a 
dramatic tumble that's hurt everyone across the financial spectrum. 
Frankly, we've felt the crunch in our printing business as well.
    It was very important to settle the Microsoft case. This issue 
has been going on for far too long and the parties involved need to 
wrap it up and draw it to a close. The American economy has suffered 
enough and there is no reason to make it suffer any longer by 
restricting an economic engine like Microsoft from freely operating 
its business. From all that I've read in news accounts, the 
settlement was fair and just; everyone walked away with a good deal.
    Thank you for taking time to hear my thoughts on this important 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Dohrmann
    1411 21st Street
    Des Moines, IA 50311
    Phone: 515/243-0471
    Fax: 515/243-0547
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00031522

GENTIUM HOMES, INC. FAX: 415-292-0352
Gentium HOMES
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter urges you to accept the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    The proposed settlement addresses the major charges against 
Microsoft including requiring Microsoft to provide technical details 
to help rivals make products compatible with its Windows operating 
system; providing an oversight panel full access to its books and 
plans for five years, bans exclusive contracts with computer makers 
that put rival software vendors at a disadvantage; requires 
disclosures to be made to rivals about the operation of its server 
software; and establishes a separate oversight committee of the 
states to ensure compliance.
    The negotiators of this settlement have done a good job. This 
settlement should be accepted and all parties should move forward in 
their quest to provide more advanced technical products to 
consumers. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David J. Thompson
    One Daniel Burnham Court, Suite 200C o San Francisco. California 
94109
    Telephone (415) 4471998 . Fax (415) 292-0352



MTC-00031523

Dean Gentry
P.O. Box 321
St. Maries, ID 83861-0321
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    From the start of the US vs. Microsoft lawsuit, I have been 
opposed to the way that the government has bullied Microsoft on 
behalf of many of Microsoft's competitors. The Department of Justice 
has interfered with the IT industry and with Microsoft claiming with 
the intent of bettering the status of the consumer. The truth is 
that if the consumer's interest were at the center of this lawsuit, 
it would have been resolved much sooner than it has been. Three 
years of litigation have proven that special interests and greed 
have taken center stage in this lawsuit. Microsoft has made many 
concessions in the settlement, including opening parts of 
proprietary code to competitors and making parts of its flagship 
Windows program removable by the consumer. Such concessions combined 
with the enormous amount of money that Microsoft has spent defending 
itself more than compensate for any substantive wrongdoing Microsoft 
may be guilty of. The settlement's benefit to the consumer is 
indirect and ambiguous at best. We won't know for a long time 
whether the IT industry and the consumer will reap any benefit from 
all of this. However, we do know that the longer that the suit 
remains unresolved, the more damage will be done to the consumer. 
That is why the Department of Justice owes the American people a 
swift end to this suit that is this proposed settlement can bring.
    Sincerely,
    Dean C. Gentry
    cc:Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00031524

FRIEDEL ENTERPRISES
2841 Troyer Road
White Hall, MD 21161-9321
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to voice my support for the settlement of the 
Microsoft Anti Trust case. This case has dragged on for years and it 
is wonderful that our government is finally making a move to end it.
    I run my own company as an Independent Contractor for equipment 
packaging materials. I use Microsoft's software to run my office and 
appreciate their superior products that have truly changed the 
entire technology industry. In an effort to end this mess, Microsoft 
is giving up a great deal in the settlement. They've pledged to 
change their problematic business practices and will be sharing more 
information with their competitors.
    Please accept the proposed settlement, it will no doubt restore 
fair competition to the technology industry and will be great help 
to our struggling economy.
    Sincerely,
    Vernon Friedel

[[Page 29596]]



MTC-00031525

P.O. BOX 587
Navesink, NJ 07752
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is intended to urge you to support a prompt settlement of 
the Microsoft anti- trust case. This case has been around tooooo 
long; it has seen litigation, negotiation and mediation. There now 
exists a settlement proposal acceptable to the court, the major 
parties and the majority of state party comp1ainants. The settlement 
is a fair compromise between the parties'' adverse positions 
and should also quell the concerns of the federal government. In 
short there is no rational reason to further prolong this 
controversy. The settlement keeps Microsoft sole, whole and 
functioning. Microsoft's concessions include rendering itself 
answerable to a new oversight committee for any future anti-
competitive practices. Microsoft will now open its Windows systems 
up to use by non- Microsoft software, reconfiguring Windows not just 
to accept competitors'' products but also to promote such use. 
Microsoft will now take steps to share portions of its technologies 
in order to promote competition and innovation. Microsoft, in 
essence, will alter its corporate marketing philosophy to embrace 
its competition. This seems to me to be adequate consideration for a 
settlement. Please also urge your colleagues in the administration 
to expedite an end to this case.
    Sincerely,
    Gary M. Tishler



MTC-00031526

18111 Sencillo Drive
San Diego, CA 92128-1324
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    It is with great pleasure that I learned of the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice last November. The 
antitrust dispute was long and arduous. The case, which was an 
unnecessary attack on the success of the American economy, has been 
a waste of time and, more importantly--money. The taxpayer and 
the consumer are the people that are negatively affected by this 
litigation. It is a waste of taxpayers money to spend three years 
persecuting a company that has consistently provided consumers with 
reasonable, accessible products. It is time to let this issue rest.
    It is my hope that this period of public comment will end with 
federal resolve to settle this issue. The taxpayers and computer 
consumers deserve it.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Walters



MTC-00031527

ASH CREEK ENTERPRISES, LLC
2987 FAIRFIELD AVE.
BRIDGEPORT, CT 06605
203-335-4842 VOICE
203-335-4049 FAX
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    If only for the sake of lowering the strident volume of the in-
court dramatics, it is better for this law- suit between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft to have ended in a settlement. 
There has certainly been a lot of rancor from both sides during the 
course of this case. I must admit, however, that there was an 
uncomfortable appearance that this trial was more about punishing 
Microsoft for having been successful at doing what it does than 
anything else. There were, of course, legitimate complaints about 
Microsoft's way of doing business that have been addressed by the 
settlement, such as Microsoft's legendarily rocky relationship with 
OEMs, but it probably should not have been part of the suit. Whether 
a company is perceived as aggressive in its marketing techniques, or 
as exerting unfair pressure is purely a matter of perception. The 
settlement will hopefully suffice to end this divisive litigation, 
and I am writing in support of it.
    I am hoping that this sort of obnoxious litigation against any 
American company can be avoided in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Geoffrey James
    CTO/President



MTC-00031528

UNIQUE Promotions & Awards
2246 N Palmer Drive
Schaumburg, IL 60173
847-397-0300 Fax: 847-397-7356 FAXED
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
January 14, 2002
    I am writing to express my opinion about the recent antitrust 
case settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. 
I am glad to see Microsoft will not be broken up. That move would be 
detrimental to our IT industry and bad for our economy. But, I do 
believe that it is in the best interest of the American public to 
have this issue settled as soon as possible. The terms of the 
settlement are fair in many ways. The fact that Microsoft is 
disclosing internal interfaces to competitors, designing future 
Windows'' applications to make it easier for software 
developers to promote their own products, agreeing to contractual 
restrictions, and forming a three person party to monitor compliance 
with the settlement shows that Microsoft is ready taking active 
steps to appease all parties.
    Nevertheless, our economy is in recession and our IT industry is 
ailing. Our country needs to end litigation against Microsoft so 
that they can go back to leading the IT industry in growth and 
raising the standards of innovation throughout the sector. Thank you 
for your time and I hope your office makes this settlement become a 
reality.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Loveisky
    President



MTC-00031529

Clem Insurance Services, Inc.
217 N. Duff Ave.
Ames, Iowa 50010 Services, Inc.
Phone 515-233-3073
Fax 515-233-3098
www.cleminsurance.com
Email: [email protected]
To: Judge Kottely
From: Anthony S. Clem
Pax: 202-6l6-9937 Pages:
Phone:
Date: 01/19/2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement CC:
Comments: Personal and Confidential
CLEM INSURANCE SERVICES
January 18,2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
US. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Judge Kottely,
    I am writing to let you know that I stand in support of the 
recent Microsoft settlement.
    Our nation is suffering through a harsh and painful recession. 
Right here in Iowa numerous layoffs are taking place, leaving 
hundreds of men and women out of work and unable to adequately 
support their families. Understanding this fact, it begs the 
question, ``why would our leaders continue the Microsoft 
antitrust case?'' The settlement brought about a fair, just, 
and appropriate conclusion to this issue. Microsoft allows computer 
makers to remove their software, and they agree not to retaliate 
against companies that create or endorse products that compete with 
Windows.
    Nine states agreed to this settlement, and the nation in better 
of because of it. If Microsoft is allowed to operate freely without 
the burden of this lawsuit, it will help provide jobs, create new 
businesses, and assist in stimulating he economy.
    Thank you for taking the time to hear from a small business 
owner such as myself.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Clem
    Risk Management for Your World
    217 N. Duff Ave. . Ames, IA 50010 . (515) 233-3073 . (877) 
600-CLEM . Fax 515-233-3098 .
    E-mail [email protected]



MTC-00031530

Fri Jan 18 20:15:33 2002
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Please deliver this facsimile to:
MICOSOFT SETTLEMENT
TUNNEY ACT REVIEW
12026169937
From: Jonathan Ah Kit  Data: Sat, 
19 Jan 2002 19:12:01 +l300 (NZDT)
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Microsoft Tunney Act review 

From MyPlumber
Fri Jan 18 20:29:05 2002
Page 1 of 2
    Sir/Madame,
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the provisions of the proposed settlement as 
described at http://

[[Page 29597]]

www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press--releases/2001/9463.htm this 
afternoon. I feel while it is preferable to keep the company in one 
piece, it does not necessarily go far enough to encourage any major 
competition.
    The licensing provisions Microsoft have employed as described at 
http://www.cio.com/archive/0ll502/meter.html by CIO Magazine, appear 
to force customer loyalty by employing a type of subscription model 
not previously employed in most Windows software-- last time I 
saw this model was on a telnet client a New Zealand government 
department bought for its mainframe. While its supposedly oppressive 
terms could actually be said to encourage purchases of 
competitors'' products, it still could potentially be a case of 
Microsoft Corporation attempting to use its hold on current users to 
force more money out of them [corporate users]. Its monopoly 
position in this case is a bit different. There are competitors in 
the ``office suite productivity software'' market to 
Microsoft Office, but StarOffice (and OpenOffice) and 
KOffice--with the latter available for Microsoft's Windows 
grouping of operating systems--do not really have the profile 
due to Microsoft's Office offering being the de facto standard. 
Which makes education institutions, companies, non-profits as well 
as private individual people end up feeling compelled to take it.
    This is fine, to a point. Being a de facto standard due to its 
market share can be okay--if it is not priced crazily like CIO 
Magazine in the above-referenced article on licence schemes for 
Office describes. In analogies, it is like buying a manual gear car 
versus an automatic gear car. As in, it would probably be fair to 
say most people buy a manual because it is the standard and 
virtually everybody (give or take) is trained to drive one. But, it 
doesn't force everybody to buy a manual-- not too much more 
expensive are equivalent automatic models. (Maybe people buy 
automatics for convenience and or ease, but that is out of the scope 
of this submission.)
    Credit where credit is due, though. Microsoft's New Zealand 
operation has issued a version of Microsoft Office, called 
``Microsoft Office XP Standard for Students and 
Teachers'', selling for about NZD280 to NZD3OO, inclusive of 
12.5% NZ Goods and Services Tax. It requires no student ID or letter 
proving employment before buying it, so would require a user's 
honesty before it is bought. (NB: For this package, Microsoft has 
defined student and teacher as either a student or teacher of any 
education institution, including primary, intermediate, middle and 
high schools, as well as tertiary institutions such as universities, 
polytechnics and what NZ calls ``private training 
establishments''. It includes staff.) I would say that is still 
a high price for esentially a high price for private individual 
people to buy, however. Details: http://www.microsoft.com/nz/office/
xp/forstudents/ (That also raises another issue, possibly out of the 
scope of this submission--piracy. Microsoft needs to adjust its 
curve of piracy versus pricing. Once it does so, there is a chance 
it can raise revenues. But as said, there is another story there.)
    Lastly, I have a note regarding a scheme tying New Zealand 
schools to Microsoft software. Software is a slightly fickle 
business, so I can see some justification in having this scheme, but 
because of its centralised procurement nature, it does not tend to 
give competitors a look-in. Details: http://www.microsoft.com/nz/
presscentre/articles/2001/september-18-schools.asp I trust that this 
is of some use to you. If you desire further feedback, e-mail or 
telephone would be much appreciated, especially if issues raised 
need clarifying. If called upon, I would be interested but not 
necessarily able to appear.
    Regards,
    Jonathan Ah Kit.
    Jonathan Ah Kit--Lower Hutt--New Zealand
    [email protected]://www.ah-
kit.dropbear.id.au/
    [email protected]#9747234--http:/
/www.electric.gen.nz/



MTC-00031531

Richard Gach
4301 Derry Road
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302-1835
January l8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ash&oft:
    I would like to add my support of the Justice Department 
settling the Microsoft lawsuit, which is scheduled to be finalized 
at the end of the month. As a libertarian, I am in full support of 
our free market system and believe that the government's attack on a 
successful company because of its market position is against the 
principles I support. This deal is the most acceptable outcome at 
this point.
    To emphasize the importance of this ruling, I would like to note 
the recent economic growth this country enjoyed without inflation 
during the 1990's, which was the result of increased productivity; 
increased productivity was definitely powered by the growth of the 
PC industry. And, of course the number-one player in that industry 
has been Microsoft. To damage such a key player in the nation's 
economy is a major mistake that should be avoided at all costs. With 
Microsoft's commitments to neither favor nor punish computer makers 
that use or don't use competitor products with the Windows operating 
system, and to allow licensing of its intellectual property and 
access to its internal Windows interfaces and server protocols, the 
current agreement should more than suffice to create wider 
competition in the software industry.
    Please support the approval of the proposed Microsoft settlement 
and allow free enterprise to guide the technology revolution once 
again. I thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Gach



MTC-00031532

21031 ALEXANDER CT
HAYWARD,CA 94545
PHONE: 510 723 2123
FAX: 510 786 4259
SENDIO: DOJ ANTITRUST FROM: ROSS LINDELL
ATTENTION: Renata Hesse
    United States v. Microsoft
    ``Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of 
this notice. Such comments, and responses there to, will be 
published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments 
should be directed to Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite 1200, 
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20530; (facsimile) 202-616-9937 or 
202-307-1545; or e- mail [email protected]. 
While comments may also be sent by regular mail, in light of recent 
events affecting the delivery of all types of mail to the Department 
of Justice, including U.S. Postal Service and other commercial 
delivery services, and current uncertainties concerning when the 
timely delivery of this mail may resume, the Department strongly 
encourages, whenever possible, that comments be submitted via email 
or facsimile.''
    I am an Engineering Director for a privately held company and I 
am familiar with computing and the computer industry since the 
1980s, and have seen the adverse effects of Microsoft's monopolies 
in these areas. I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed 
even pretends to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft 
has been found guilty. The company has, already been found in 
violation, and this is the penalty phase of the case, but the 
settlement contains no penalties and actually advances Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly. A just penalty, I continue, would at 
barest minimum include three additional features:
    * Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. Computer vendors must offer 
the software without the computer (which would prevent computer 
makers from saying that the difference in price is only a few 
dollars). Only then could competition come to exist in a meaningful 
way.
    * The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    * Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet. I 
believe this is of national interest, and therefore, it is crucial 
that Microsoft's operating system monopoly not be extended. It is 
well documented by the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, among others, that the use of Microsoft software poses a 
national security risk- their sloppy attitude about privacy and 
security is un-American and

[[Page 29598]]

should be corrected, opposed to encouraged by the United States 
Government as it appears in the current settlement.
    Ross Lindell
    2235 45th Ave
    San Francisco, California



MTC-00031533

COGDILL & GIOMI
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I respectfully ask the courts to settle the case of US v. 
Microsoft, Though I personally do not agree with the case, my letter 
is really being written on behalf of the vast majority of 
Californians.
    I work closely with politicians and opinion leaders. That allows 
me to see polling and information many people don't pay attention 
to. In November 2001, a California statewide poll was done which 
provided some important insight into Californians position on the 
Microsoft case.
    The poll was conducted with 804 individuals (a large and fair 
sample). Of those individuals, 57% believed the terms of the 
settlement were fair while only 24% believed it did not go far 
enough. More importantly, over 80% said that if continuing the case 
meant spending more tax payer money, they believe it is time to 
settle the case. Obviously, Californians want to see this case 
brought to an end. It has been over three years and we do not 
understand why a settlement can't be reached. This survey and its 
results are a good sample of how we feel. Please support the 
settlement of this case.
    Sincerely,
    David E. Cogdill, Jr.
    Cogdill and Giomi
    1317 I Street Suite A *Modesto, CA 95354 o Ph (209) 
523-9365 Fax (209) 523-6344 *Toll Free
    (800) 223-9365



MTC-00031534

Dan Knox Consulting
95 Minna Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-543-2800
Web: www.danknox.com
Knox Consulting
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Divsion
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter regards my support of the settlement of the 
Microsoft lawsuit.
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have reached fair 
settlement to the antitrust lawsuit, which has been going on for 
more than 3 years costing over 35 million in tax dollars. It is time 
to move on!
    The settlement is fair and I urge you to accept the consent 
decree. While the settlement is not entirely satisfying to all, it 
strikes a difficult compromise providing something for everyone.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Knox



MTC-00031535

BEK GROUP
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601, D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is sent to you to urge you to accept the settlement 
which has been reached between the federal government and Microsoft 
in the antitrust lawsuit.
    Microsoft has benefited the computer industry and contributed to 
the economic growth of the United States.
    Competitors not happy with this agreement should compete with 
Microsoft by creating new products rather than lobbying the 
government to stop Microsoft's new products. This settlement would 
allow such activity.
    The settlement is good for consumers as it encourages 
competition in creating better products for our future. Please 
accept the consent decree in the antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Klurg
    BEK Group
    95 Minna Street, 2nd Floor-San Francisco, CA 94105
    Ph: (415)543-2800--Fax: (240) 359 8141
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00031536

33 Packanack Lake Road
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing you this brief letter to 
encourage you, your department and the administration to endorse the 
present proposal to settle the Microsoft anti-trust case. This case 
is ready for settlement. The major parties have agreed to the 
proposal after prolonged negotiation.
    The plan will restrain Microsoft from any future anti-trust 
activities. Its marketing practices will be monitored by a new 
federally appointed oversight committee. The company's Windows 
systems will now become all but part of the public domain with the 
platform now reconfigured to ``promote'' non- Microsoft 
software. Microsoft's will now license its products to major 
manufacturers at near uniform terms. In short the agreement lets 
Microsoft remain whole in return for opening up its technology to 
the rest of the IT industry. This is more than fair.
    Microsoft is a great corporation. In this time of economic 
floundering, the company should be able to direct all its energy to 
the business of business. Please give this proposal your attention 
and support.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Bukowski



MTC-00031537

6246 Sturbridge Court
Sarasota, Florida 34238
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent antitrust case 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Although 
I am happy to see Microsoft will not be broken up, I do think the 
penalties imposed are too harsh.
    I have never felt as a consumer that my rights were being 
violated, nor do I think that competitors have been unfairly pushed 
out of the market. Microsoft has worked harder to innovate and 
create products that competitors cannot. When Microsoft should be 
applauded, the government wants to bring them down. The settlement 
violates their intellectual property rights by forcing them to 
disclose technology codes and inhibits their ability to maintain 
market share by restricting them from third party agreements 
regarding exclusive distribution.
    But, even though the agreement is flawed it is in best interest 
of public and economy to settle and that is why I support 
settlement. I urge your office to do so also and ignore opposition 
that seems to think it is better to drag this out and waste more 
taxpayer dollars.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen A. Krebser



MTC-00031538

Richard Gach
4301 Derry Road
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302-1835
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to add my support of the Justice Department 
settling the Microsoft lawsuit, which is scheduled to be finalized 
at the end of the month. As a libertarian, I am in full support of 
our free market system and believe that the government's attack on a 
successful company because of its market position is against the 
principles I support. This deal is the most acceptable outcome at 
this point.
    To emphasize the importance of this ruling. I would like to note 
the recent economic growth this country enjoyed without inflation 
during the 1990's, which was the result of increased productivity; 
increased productivity was definitely powered by the growth of the 
PC industry. And, of course, the number-one player in that industry 
has been Microsoft. To damage such a key player in the nation's 
economy is a major mistake that should be avoided at all costs. With 
Microsoft's commitments to neither favor nor punish computer makers 
that use or don't use competitor products with the Windows operating 
system, and to allow licensing of its intellectual property

[[Page 29599]]

and access to its internal Windows interfaces and server protocols, 
the current agreement should more than suffice to create wider 
competition in the software industry.
    Please support the approval of the proposed Microsoft settlement 
and allow free enterprise to guide the technology revolution once 
again. I thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Gach



MTC-00031539

Clairemont Republican Women Federated #1446
1705 Catalina Blvd San Dieqo, Californla 92107
VIA FACISMILLE
January 18, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    This message is being sent to support the Microsoft settlement. 
After reading various news articles about the details of the 
agreement, I strongly believe it is fair and in the best interest of 
the country; Microsoft has agreed to new contractual restrictions 
and will share its intellectual property when needed. While I 
believe that the government must enforce law when actions warrant 
it, it is inappropriate for the government to intervene in private 
industry because a competitor feels that it is losing its ability to 
create competitive products. I am a strong proponent that the free 
market be allowed to work and that successful, creative endeavors 
should be encouraged for the benefit of our country. No good can 
come from harming a business that contributes so crucially to the 
lives of other businesses, industries and private users.
    Please pass on my remarks to the proper individuals and let them 
know that this settlement if a good thing for our country.
    Sincerely,
    Chalise E. Zoezzi
    Recording Secretary
    CLAIREMONT RWF #1446



MTC-00031540

JAM-PAK CORPORATION
4043 Yorktown drive
Boothwyn, PA 19061
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The lawsuits against Microsoft have gone on for too long now. It 
has been three years of wrongful litigation and Microsoft has not 
gotten off easy with the settlement. Considering that Microsoft has 
created jobs for our country, made technological breakthroughs, and 
standardized the IT industry, I am appalled at our government's 
attempt to bring them down The terms of the settlement seem to favor 
competitors and do little to protect consumer rights. Microsoft has 
agreed to not retaliate against software developers and computer 
makers who develop or promote non- Microsoft software. They have 
also agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows so as to more easily promote non- Microsoft products. Theses 
concessions are the products of intense lobbying on behalf of 
competition to politicians and lawmakers. Even so, they are more 
than fair and should be enough to appease all parties.
    I urge your office to take a strong stance against the nine 
states in opposition and help to correct three years of unjustified 
litigation.
    Sincerely,
    John A. McManus
    President



MTC-00031541

January 18, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    As a business leader and owner of a technology company, I have 
been very concerned about the burgeoning litigation by the federal 
government against the Microsoft Corporation. I believe this case 
has been unfair from the start and I am glad to see that nine states 
have agreed to settle. The terms of the agreement are fair and 
balanced. Microsoft creates new rights allowing Windows to sponsor 
non-Microsoft programs and hardware manufacturers will be free to 
remove Microsoft programs from their hardware without any punishment 
from Microsoft. This is a fair and balanced ending to a prolonged 
legal production.
    I support this settlement and think the terms and conditions 
reflect a fair deal for everyone. Thank you for taking the time to 
read my comments regarding the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jose M. Laracuente



MTC-00031542

212 Golden Beach Drive Golden Beach, Florida 33160
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft supporter, I feel it necessary to voice my 
opinion in regards to the Microsoft Antitrust settlement. I am happy 
to hear that a settlement has finally been reached and I have high 
hopes that this will be the final stage of this lawsuit .
    In terms of the settlement itself, I found the solutions to be 
both reasonable and fair. Microsoft has agreed to implement a lot of 
the changes within the structure of the Windows program as well as 
in their business methods as well. In this agreement, Microsoft will 
enable computer makers to replace access to Microsoft applications 
with the competition's software. This will require that Microsoft 
make various interfaces readily avilable to the competition. In 
addition to these obligations, Microsoft has consented to the 
forming of a Three-Person Technical Committee in order to monitor 
Microsoft's adherence to the settlement.
    Microsoft has come up with a lot of good ideas and I believe 
that they should be credited for these ideas. Furthermore, I look 
forward to the end of this case, as I am certain that it will be 
most beneficial to all of the parties involved. Thank you for your 
time and energy that you have dedicated this matter. It shows that 
you truly have the best in mind for the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Jane Caswell



MTC-00031543

From: Nancy and Dennis Sk Fax: +1(706)638-2503
To: Att. Gen. Ashcroft
Fax: 1(202)307-1464
22107 Highway 193
LaFayette, GA 30728
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my support for the settlement with 
Microsoft. As a company, Microsoft must be allowed to develop new 
products without constant interference from the government. Wasting 
millions of dollars more on this unnecessary litigation is just 
plain wrong.
    Microsoft has already agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical 
terms, including price. And the company has agreed to disclose to 
its competitors technical information that will allow them to write 
programs that work better with Windows. What's more, Microsoft has 
agreed to a ``Technical Committee'' that will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
    This is above and beyond what Microsoft should do but the 
company agreed to it so that it can get back to business as soon as 
possible. The settlement clearly will benefit consumers and the 
economy. Enacting this agreement is in the best interests of the 
country as well.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Skidmore



MTC-00031544

111 P01 JAN 19 `02 11:15
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to let you know that I fully support the recent 
settlement between the U.S. Justice Department and the Microsoft 
Corporation. While I believe the government's case against 
Microsoft was not called for to begin with, I am very glad that both 
parties agreed to a settlement.
    It is painfully obvious that the lawsuit against Microsoft was 
instigated by its'' competitors who are unhappy because they 
are not as successful as Microsoft. This is not the fault of 
Microsoft nor has Microsoft done anything to warrant being accused 
of being a monopoly. Of course, politics being what it is, 
its'' competitors lobbied certain ``key''

[[Page 29600]]

public officials in an effort to implement a full frontal attack 
against Microsoft through use of the courts. Everyone knows their 
only goal was and still is to harm Microsoft.
    The U.S. economy is in a fullblown recession. Continuing these 
lawsuits will only further retard technological innovation and keep 
the economy from making a recovery. The Federal government should be 
bolstering the economy not harming it. All of this debate about an 
economic stimulus package is besides the point. Perhaps if the 
government backed off and stopped trying to harm hard working and 
successful American companies such as Microsoft, the economy would 
not be hurting today.
    Sincerely,
    David Sprouse
    128 Reed Place
    Anderson, SC 29621
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00031545

Jan 19 02 11:36a Reda & Company, LLP CPA'S 
914-289-0704 p.1
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Dept. of Justice
950 Penn. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand that a settlement has finally been reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice in their three-year-long 
anti-trust battle. This suit flies in the face of the ideals upon 
which we have built this nation: free enterprise capitalism, and 
indeed the very American dream itself. What kind of message does 
this suit send to future American entrepreneurs? Apparently that it 
is okay to become successful, but only to a point; if you do 
``too well'' we will take it all away.
    This suit has been a large contributing factor to the recession 
in which we now find ourselves. Microsoft is one of America's 
largest employers; attacking this company at this time is 
economically damaging policy. The settlement represents a number of 
significant concessions on Microsoft's part. They are sharing 
proprietary information with competitors in order to make it easier 
for competing products to work with and in Windows, They must permit 
Windows to be altered by manufacturers to promote compete products. 
And there are many more concessions.
    This is enough; far more than enough. Let's accept the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Al Reda



MTC-00031546

01/19/2002 12:19 5084863455 GLAVEY AND GLAVEY
Acton-Fitchburg Development Corp.
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND
28 Tadmuger Rd.
P.O. BOX 4
Westford MA 01886
FAX (508) 692 4860
0FFICE (508) 692 3250
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 2053O
January 18, 2002
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    Please support the settlement agreement that has been reached 
between Microsoft and the U.S. attorneys in the ongoing antitrust 
case. I urge the Department of Justice to do whatever you can to 
convince Judge Kollar Kotelly that this is the best deal for the 
American consumer.
    I am a small businessman with a development company. I use 
Microsoft products, and I work for many in the high-tech field in 
the course of my day. It is obvious to me that this case should end 
for several reasons:
--there is no monopolistic control of the market present here;
--the economy has suffered by the uncertainty the trial has 
created;
--the settlement reached is exactly the sort of end we should 
want;
--a continuation, or more more penalties, only benefits the 
special interests of other companies, not the American public;
--the high-tech sector would be hurt greatly by more 
regulation;
 --and, a resolution now could bolster the economy at a time 
when it really needs it.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. I hope the 
settlement is adopted.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy Sullivan



MTC-00031547

01/19/2002 08:10 8584562285 DWI PAGE 01
Capital Endeavors
2165 Via Don Bonito
La Jolla, CA 92037
(858) 456-2285
FAX (858) 456-2285
January 19, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    When the government stepped in and brought the antitrust case 
against Microsoft, famed free market economist Milton Freedman 
stated `the technology industry will rue the day it asked for 
the government's help in it's struggles to compete against 
Microsoft.'' Here we are, four years later, with a recession 
staring us right in the face. I am writing the Court to let you know 
that I agree with Mr. Freedman today like I did four years ago and 
to ask you to approve of this settlement. It is time to end the case 
against Microsoft.
    Four years ago, the technology industry was like wild frontier. 
It was untamed, full of possibility, and free of burdensome 
restrictions. We experienced what happens when an industry can 
operate in that sort of environment. Money flowed to new investments 
like water. Each day saw a new innovation-high speed internet, 
satellite communication, e-commerce, cd burners...the list is 
endless. And with all of this wild innovation, the collective of 
American people grew. We became more sophisticated and our quality 
of life improved. Then the government came calling...rather...some 
of those jealous pioneers called on the government.
    The case against Microsoft marked the end of the technology 
revolution, We know now that the United States government can and 
will attempt to stop anyone who harnesses the strength of this new 
industry. Innovation has slowed and you don't need to look very far 
to see the impact of the technology bust. This wasn't irrational 
exuberance-it was government crashing the party.
    I hope the courts will settle the case against Microsoft. Though 
it won't bring back the days of the wild frontier, it might clear 
the way for just a little more exploration.
    Sincerely,
    Dwight Filley
    President Capitol Endeavors



MTC-00031548

Michael R. Englert
P.O. Box#505
Boone NC 28607
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is Michael Englert, and I am a resident of Boone, North 
Carolina. I am writing to express my support for the settlement 
agreement your department recently reached with Microsoft. I am also 
asking that you end the Microsoft litigation as quickly as possible.
    Microsoft has agreed to some important changes in its business 
practices in order to reach this settlement, The agreement to open 
the Windows operating system to internal competition from non-
Microsoft software products is at significant concession on 
Microsoft's part. In addition, their agreement to maintain more 
uniform pricing guidelines should adequately address the allegations 
of predatory pricing practices.
    The settlement offers the country an opportunity to move past 
this lawsuit and turn its focus back to more important issues. It is 
time to put the litigation behind us and move on. Thank you for your 
time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Englert
    P O Box 505



MTC-00031549

01/19/2002 02:54
7242384762
DAVIDCINDYPURNEL
PAGE 01
7 Wildview Drive
Ligonier, Pennsylvania 15658
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion about the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This case has 
dragged on way too long and should be settled as soon as possible. 
Microsoft has

[[Page 29601]]

been a leading innovator or technology, has contributed to 
technological advancement of our nation, and has added jobs to our 
market. They should not be reprimanded, but instead applauded. The 
terms of the settlement are hardly favorable for Microsoft. They 
force Microsoft to disclose internal interfaces and protocols to 
their competitors. It also prohibits Microsoft from retaliating 
against computer makers and software developers who ship or promote 
non-Microsoft products that compete with Windows operating system.
    But, I am happy to see that Microsoft will not be broken up and 
do think it is in our best interest to allow Microsoft to focus on 
business, not politics. We need the cornerstone of the tech sector 
at its strongest. The attorney general hopefully will do all it can 
to make state and federal litigation end and free up our private 
sector for an economic resurgence.
    Sincerely,
    David Purnell
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031550

Web-Builders.net
3229 Elkhorn Blvd. #12
North Highlands, CA 95660
www.web-builders.net [email protected]
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am glad to see that the Government and Microsoft have agreed 
to settle the anti-trust case. It seems to have something for all 
parties.
    Microsoft can get back to work. 11 providers, including 
Microsoft's competitors get guaranteed access to technical 
specifications. Computer manufacturers who equip their computers 
with Microsoft's OS get flexibility on what they can install. 
Finally, for those who'd doubt Microsoft would comply with this 
agreement, there is an enforcement mechanism to respond to 
complaints about Microsoft.
    What more can we reasonably ask for? I think this settlement is 
appropriate in its scope and I hope that the court accepts it.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Gjerde
    President,
    Web-Builders.net



MTC-00031551

Gentium
HOMES
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    As a user of Microsoft products, I am pleased to learn that a 
settlement has been reached between the federal government and 
Microsoft in the antitrust lawsuit. This settlement, protects 
consumers, yet also encourages the high tech industry's freedom to 
innovation.
    Instead of wasting precious time and resources (dollars!) on 
dealing with lawsuits, time is better spent developing new programs. 
This settlement would allow such activity.
    The settlement is good for consumers; the nations economy and 
the high tech industry .I support this settlement, and urge you to 
accept the consent decree.
    Sincerely,
Kimberly B. Walton
One Daniel Burnham Court, Suite 2OOC
San Francisco. California 94109
Telephone (415) 447-1998
Fax (415) 292-0352



MTC-00031552

    Jan-18-2002 13:55 P. 04/04 415 369 0462 BEK GROUP
GROUP
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    This letter regards my support of the settlement of the 
Microsoft lawsuit.
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have reached a fair 
settlement to the antitrust lawsuit, which has been going on for 
more than 3 years costing over 36 million in tax dollars. It is time 
to move on!
    The settlement is fair and I urge you to accept the consent 
decree. While the settlement is not entirely satisfying to all, it 
strikes a difficult compromise providing something for everyone.
    Sincerely,
Eric Rimes
BEK Group
95 Miana Street, 2nd Floor
San Francsico, CA 94105
Ph: (415) 543 2800
Fax: (240) 359 5141



MTC-00031553

JOHNSON 19046412993 P.01
CARL JOHNSON
(904) 641 2993 (PHONE AND FAX)
[email protected]
11602 Hidden Hills Drive South
Jacksonville, Florida 32225
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intention of this letter is so that I may go on record as 
being in favor of the recent settlement that ended the antitrust 
dispute between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I do feel 
that there should not have been a lawsuit in the first place, but 
that does not really matter now. What is important is the litigation 
at the federal level is over, and I support anything that will keep 
it that way. I feel that Microsoft has been responsible for 
generating more jobs and more innovative technology than any other 
company has in the past 20 or 30 years. It appeared to me that the 
litigation served to penalize Microsoft for their past efforts and 
overall creativity. In a business where creative solutions and 
technological progress move very quickly the fact that Microsoft 
must now share their independently developed technical data, i.e. 
protocols implemented in the Windows operating system, with their 
competitors seems very unfair. In essence, Microsoft has to turn 
over intellectual property that was developed at private expense to 
their competitors.
    The settlement that was reached is reasonable, mostly because it 
brings an end to the antitrust litigation between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Johnson



MTC-00031554

From: Harry A. Thomas
To: Mr. John Ashcroft
Date: l/19/2002Time: 10:10:36 PM Page 1 of 1
Harry A. Thomas
14354 Pleasant Hill Dr.
Chino Hills, CA 91 709-4828
909-591-7610
[email protected]
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my feelings about the proposed 
settlement that has been agreed to by the United States Department 
of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. I am of the opinion that 
the settlement reached is more than reasonable, and it should be 
implemented as soon as possible. I feel that further litigation 
against Microsoft is analogous to ``piling on'', and not 
in the American spirit. When is ``enough, enough''. During 
this time of recession, it is clear that we must let our competitive 
system help restore the economy. Microsoft is willing to change 
licensing and marketing practices, signaling their cooperative 
attitude. Since this decision is in the best interest of America and 
the economy, we need to support the process and let business get 
back in gear. There is no need to keep Microsoft under the federal 
microscope any longer, especially since the settlement calls for an 
oversight committee to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement.
    America needs as many innovators as possible right now, and 
Microsoft is our biggest.
    I support the settlement, and hope that it will help restore 
America's economy to what it was before the antitrust settlement 
came about.
    Sincerely,
    Harry A. Thomas



MTC-00031555

J. Basham
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to give my support to the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft

[[Page 29602]]

settlement. I think the original lawsuit was frivolous and a waste 
of time and money. I feel it was inspired by the jealousy of 
Microsoft's rivals more than by any inequitable business practices. 
Antitrust laws are meant to protect the consumer, and I believe 
there was no harm done to the consumer in this case. Computer 
software products are cheaper than they were ten or fifteen years 
ago. Microsoft streamlined computer programs into nice useable 
formats and increased the compatibility of computer software. No 
other firm did this. If they had, we would probably be talking about 
them. Businesses today are punished for being too successful.
    From what I understand Microsoft more than met the demands of 
the Department of Justice, well beyond what was actually at issue in 
the original suit. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows to promote non- Microsoft 
software programs. Microsoft has also agreed to design future 
versions of Windows with a device making it easier for computer 
makers to promote non-Microsoft software. Any further litigation 
would be harmful to both the economy and the country Let's put this 
issue behind us. Give your support to the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Basham
    10121 Zig Zag Rd.
    Cincinnati, Oh 45242-5747



MTC-00031556

FROM : Richard Koenig (360) 422 7108 PHONE NO. : Jan. 19 
200205:56PM Pl
RICHARD KOENIG
Phone / FAX (360) 422-7108
16674 Mountain View Road
Mount Vernon, WA 98274-8348, USA
Mt. Vernon, January 19th 2002
FAX 1 202 307-1454
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Atorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to express my support towards the settlement 
that was reached between Microsoft and the Departement of Justice.
    As a Microsoft customer, and supporter of the recent settlement, 
I urge that no further action be taken at the federal level. As a 
concerned citizen, I see, everyday, the need for growth in our 
economy. As I watch the news, and see the recession in our country, 
I become concerned with our economic growth and, in particular, our 
technological advancement. As I believe that the settlement is faire 
and beneficial to all parties, it is time to go on with business, 
and let the technology industry focus on advancement.
    Since state and federal budget are presently challanged, it does 
not make sense to spend scares resources on a battle that has 
already been won. Again, I support this settlement and hope that no 
more action is taken to delay this process.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Koening



MTC-00031557

01/19/02 14:41FAX 360 495 4408
MANSMITH/CB.FHE 01
49 Stillson Road
McCleary, WA 98557
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Last November there was a settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am writing this letter to 
go on record as supporting that settlement. It has been a long time 
coming, and now that the dispute has been resolved, America can turn 
its attention to improving the economy.
    The recession that we are in was actually started when the 
government announced the antitrust suit against Microsoft. The 
market started to decline, and no one did anything about it. It took 
an official announcement of a recession before the government 
finally wanted to get this over with. A healthy Microsoft gave us 
the best economy in history, and a hamstringed Microsoft gave us a 
recession. You do the math. I am sure that the committee that has 
been set up to monitor Microsoft should satisfy everyone in the 
government who pressed on with the suit. They will be constantly 
watched, and thus, have to abide by the terms.
    This is a win-win settlement. Microsoft no longer has to waste 
time and money in court and the economy will be allowed to rebound 
out of this nasty recession.
    Sincerely,
    J. E. Mansmith



MTC-00031558

Jan 19 0205:0lp Linda Furr
277-2195
January 19,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing in support of the November agreement between 
Microsoft and the justice Department.
    I feel the agreement mandated Microsoft be fair and allow 
competitive programs to be run within the windows software programs. 
A committee of technical advisors surely would assure compliance 
that would be in the publics best interest and bring closure to this 
case.
    Without Windows software that makes using my computer simple, as 
a senior citizen, I would never be able to navigate through 
complicated programs and would be left out of the electronic 
information available to me.
    I also feel the settlement would help relieve some of the 
concerns effecting our stockmarket on which we depend for income as 
a retired couple.
    Sincerely,
    Linda G Furr
    30 Ridgefield Place
    Asheville,NC 28803



MTC-00031559

Saturday, January 19, 200205:21:26 PM
FAX COVER SHEET
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Fax #: 1-202-307-1454
From: Stu Schwartz
Fax #: 301/654-4648
Fax: 1 page and a cover page.
Stuart Schwartz
7720 Rocton Ave.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    I am a retired businessman, having spent my life in the 
wholesale and retail market place. I am very aware of the demands of 
business, and the fine line that separates dominating a field and 
being a bully. This seems to be the crux of the argument between 
Microsoft and the Department Of Justice. A settlement was recently 
reached ending a three-year-long antitrust case against
    Microsoft for unfair business practices. I side with Microsoft. 
Yes, Microsoft dominates the market, but it does so because it puts 
out a good product--Bill Gates recognized a need for 
standardized computer software -and filled it. He was quicker and 
smarter than his competitors.If he hadn't been, they would have 
overwhelmed him. Why, then, should he end up in court?We are fast 
approaching a time in this country when success in business is being 
defined by members of the congress, whose knowledge of business is 
largely supplied by lobbyists representing the interests of their 
clients and government agencies, also influenced by lobbyists as 
well as the Administration. There is a need for scrutiny in any 
field, but it needs to be more even-handed.
    Microsoft has opened up its source codes for its Windows program 
to both computer manufacturers and competitors; has allowed 
competing software to be inserted into computers,allowing easier 
access to non-Microsoft software, and has even agreed to a technical 
committee to monitor future company activity. This should be more 
than adequate. However, Microsoft did agree to this agreement. And 
the Department of Justice, and I think we should honor this 
settlement. Both parties hammered out an agreement that both parties 
were happy with. We need to move on. There are more important 
matters we all have to deal with right now.
    Give your support to this agreement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Stu Schwartz



MTC-00031560

01/19/2002 16:249789229150 PAGE 01
Barger Companies
63 Neptune Street
Beverly, MA 01915-4746
Phone: (978) 922-9500
Fax: (978) 922-9150
To:
FAX: Attorney General John
Ashcroft
From: Richard W. Barger
Fax: 202-307-1454
Pages: Two
Phone: 202-616-9937
Date: January19, 2002

[[Page 29603]]

Re: Justice Department's handling of the Microsoft Case
Comments: Please see attached letter directed to Attorney General 
John Ashcroft.
    This case should be closed before the government ruins the 
company the their industry.
    Thank you
01/19/2002 16:249789229150 PAGE 02
The Barger Companies
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen of this great nation, I am writing to 
inform you of my thoughts on the settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft Corporation. I support the settlement, 
since it will bring this three-year ordeal to an end.
    The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations with a 
court-appointed mediator.Microsoft did not get off easy by agreeing 
to this settlement. For example, Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with windows.
    Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions, including the price. Please discontinue any legal 
action against Microsoft, so the company can move forward in 
developing new products for the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Richard W. Barger
    63 Neptune Street, Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 Telephone: (978) 
922-9500 Facsimile: (978)922-9150



MTC-00031561

01/20/2002 08:231100000000
CDAEMB1ADKMAASSOC
PAGE 01
January 15, 2002
Mr. Michael Coyle
14465 St. Germain Drive
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D St., N. W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I strongly support the settlement between the federal government 
and Microsoft, and I believe that it could be the first step toward 
restoring prosperity to the high technology sector in the U.S. 
Consumers will benefit from the provisions in the settlement that 
allow Microsoft to decide which products and features it may provide 
to its customers and how to price them. It's time to do what is best 
for consumers and for the economy and this settlement seems to move 
the country in the right, positive direction,
    Sincerely,
    Michael Coyle



MTC-00031562

Saturday, January 19,2002 5:13 PM
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Marcus Huie, (212)472-0851 Page: 1 of 1
515 E 72nd St Apt 22G
New York, NY 10021-4022
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. 
The parties worked hard to reach a workable agreement that will 
accomplish the goal of preventing future monopolistic behavior.The 
agreement is fair and reasonable, and adequately addresses the 
essential complaints lodged against Microsoft. I especially like the 
idea of the creation of a technical review committee, which will 
oversee Microsoft's business practices. The review committee will be 
able to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement 
agreement, and will help address complaints in the event Microsoft 
engages in any future anticompetitive behavior. Additionally, 
Microsoft will make it easier for its competitors to compete with 
Microsoft by granting computer manufacturers the right to replace 
features of Windows with the software designed by Microsoft's 
competitors, and by disclosing parts of the internal Windows code to 
the competition.Continuing the litigation process is not in the 
public's best interest. I would like to see this case concluded. 
Thank you for your time.Sincerely,Marcus Huie



MTC-00031563

From : OZONE SYSTEMS, INC. PHONE No. : 801 776 3864
Jan. 20 2002 11:34M P01
1239 West 2600 North
Clinton, UT 84015
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I do not believe it is prudent to punish Microsoft for its own 
ingenuity and success. The only reason Microsoft has been able to 
achieve such market dominance is because it puts out a better 
product than its competitors and therefore enjoys a greater degree 
of popularity. Free enterprise is one of the fundamental principles 
this country was established on, and I regret that laws put in place 
to protect the public interest have begun not only to discourage 
free enterprise, but to negatively impact consumers as well.
    I do not doubt that Microsoft was brought to trial because it 
had indeed violated antitrust laws. But I do not believe it is 
necessary to cripple the Microsoft corporation simply because their 
software is of a higher quality than others''. The settlement 
proposed last November is, I believe,fair both to Microsoft and its 
competitors, and I find no reason to throw it out. Microsoft has 
agreed to allow its competitors to have access to source code and 
interfaces integral to the Windows operating system so that non-
Microsoft software will be able to be introduced into Windows. 
Microsoft has also agreed to reformat future versions of Windows to 
the same effect.Microsoft has actually been quite generous in the 
terms of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Wofford



MTC-00031564

01/28/2002 12:22 9413836025
ROBERT CHALPHIN PAGE 01
1211 Gulf of Mexico Drive, Apt. 702
 Longboat Key, FL 34228
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to voice my sentiments about the Microsoft 
case. Why thiscase ever went to court in the first place is beyond 
me. Microsoft has donenothing but help consumers. It is not 
Microsoft's fault that their competitors wereless intelligent and 
less innovative than Microsoft was. Bill Gates had someamazing ideas 
and did a great job putting them in the market and making goodmoney 
from them. That's the American way. I certainly hope that the 
governmentdoesn't make another mistake like their breakup of 
AT&T. That was certainly amess and did cause harm to consumers.
    Microsoft is conceding a great deal in this controversy so that 
they can concentrateon future endeavors, not costly legal debates. 
They are giving their competitorsunprecedented amounts of technology 
information and will give consumers morechoice in their computer 
programs. I think this is more than fair, and I am surethat it will 
promote competition in the computer industry.
    Please uphold this settlement and ensure our country's place in 
the internationalmarketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Doris Loevner



MTC-00031565

From: Jeffrey R Tidwell
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/20/02Time:
4:52:42 PM Page 1 of 2
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To : Attorney General John Ashcroft From : Jeffrey R Tidwell
Sent : 1/20/02 at 4:52:40 PM Pages : 2 (including Cover)
Subject : Microsoft Settlement
From: Jeffrey R Tidwell
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/20/02Time: 4:52:42
PM Page 2 o f 2
1538 East Lee Street
Camden, South Carolina 29020
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my endorsement of your decision to 
settle withMicrosoft in the antitrust case. The settlement will 
bring an end to threeyears of court conflict that has cost both 
sides dearly in resources.

[[Page 29604]]

Microsoftis one of our nations most pioneering companies and should 
be able to returnits focus to business. The settlement is equitable, 
and will open up the ITindustry by allowing companies to have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft'scode and operating systems. With 
this information competitors will have abetter chance against 
Microsoft.
    Special interests with anti-Microsoft bias may try to hinder and 
delay thesettlement and have this case reopened. These interests 
should be repelledand this case finished at the federal level. I 
support the settlement, and lookforward to the end of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Tidwell
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031566

JAN-20-02 SUN 14:22 MERCER
FAX NO. 18178253368
P. 01
204 Oaklawn Avenue
Nocona, Texas 76255
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter so that my view on the 
settlementbetween Microsoft and the Department of Justice can be 
madepublic. The proposed agreement is fair to both sides, and I 
fullysupport it.
    In fact, the settlement actually imposes restrictions 
andobligations on Microsoft's products and technologies that were 
noteven in question in the antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft will have to 
shareinformation about Windows with its competitors, for example.
    However, Microsoft was more concerned with improving the 
economyand getting back into the swing of things instead of 
quibbling oversmall details in the agreement.
    I am glad that I have this outlet, and please put me on recordas 
supporting the settlement between the Department of Justice and
    Microsoft,
    Sincerely,
    Faye Arnold



MTC-00031567

01/20/2002 04:44 5617474985 PAGE 01
300 N. AIA Apt. M401
Jupiter, FL 33477-3503
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000l
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
reached with the Departmentof Justice. I am a supporter of the 
settlement in so far as I wish to see legal action againstMicrosoft 
brought to a halt. It is more accurate to say that I have been 
opposed to theantitrust case from the beginning; I feel that it was 
entirely unfounded.
    I disagree with other people's sentiments that Microsoft is 
getting off easy. Under theterms of the settlement, Microsoft will 
no longer enter into any agreements with thirdparties to exclusively 
distribute or promote Windows technology, except where nocompetitive 
concerns are present. Microsoft will also document and release to 
itscompetitors various internal interfaces of the Windows operating 
systems. Myunderstanding is that this is the first time in an 
antitrust settlement ever that productsource material has been 
disclosed.
    I strongly urge all those involved to support the current 
settlement and bring this three-year long suit to a close. No 
further action should be taken against Microsoft at thefederal 
level.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Hoffman



MTC-00031568

JAN. 20'' 02 (SUN) 12:12 EWING ELECTRIC, INC.
TEL:425-776-3711 P.001
EWING ELECTRIC, INC. Electrical Contractors
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Microsoft is perhaps the most pioneering company in recent 
American history.Many people also are not aware of Microsoft's 
incredible philanthropic givings, some ofthe biggest donations in 
history. That is perhaps why I was saddened when the antitrustcase 
was brought against Microsoft.
    However, I was delighted to learn recently that a settlement was 
reached in thiscase. The settlement has many positive points, and 
will conclude the case at the federallevel. This settlement will 
allow competitors unprecedented access to view Microsoftcode so they 
can create better software. Additionally the settlement will allow 
Microsoftrivals to place software on Microsoft's systems without 
difficulty. Most significantly Ibelieve the settlement will conclude 
this case at the federal level that has cost both sidesand our 
economy too much in time, money, and effort.
    It has become apparent that some wish this settlement withdrawn. 
I feel it iscritical for you to support the settlement to make sure 
this does not occur and the federalcase is settled.
    I also wonder why the people behind this lawsuit lose sight of 
the fact that BillGates and numerous other Microsoft individuals 
support so many charities in this world.His foundations feed more 
people than the government does and he really cares abouteducating 
our young people and supporting schools. We have here a person who 
reallycares about the world he and all of us live in. Give us all a 
break please.
    Sincerely,
    Donna Sorensen
    (425) 778-3773 PHONE
    (425) 776-3711 FAX
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    P.O. Box 1238
    539 Main Street
    Edmonds, WA 98020



MTC-00031569

1-20-2002 4:50PM FROM 000000000000
01/20/02 SUN 18:58 FAX 804 795 2340
 Gatewood Stoneman
P. 1
001
January 16, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter contains my comments on the Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement is good because it brings to conclusion a case 
that has been lingering in thecourts for far too long. The specifics 
of the settlement are positive in that they will settlethe question 
of unfair competition by sharing information and allowing entrance 
into Windowsthe Microsoft competitors. The settlement also addresses 
any issues of retaliation byMicrosoft and ensures compliance with a 
technical committee. For those reasons I supportthis settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Gatewood H. Stoneman



MTC-00031570

FROM : GRAPHIC BYTES INC FAX NO. : 4048748410
Jan. 21 2002 06:41PM Pl
January 5 , 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has always struck me as a bit odd that our government would 
have goneafter a successful business like Microsoft with as much 
zeal and enthusiasm as itdid. I suppose that, in retrospect, 
Microsoft should have been a bit more flexiblewith its Windows 
operating system (OS) and software than it has, but this isaddressed 
in the settlement.
    The settlement dictates that Microsoft's OS be reengineered to 
make iteasier for customers and software designers to install non-
Microsoft software.The end user could then re-install Microsoft 
products easier as well. All in all, thesettlement will do many 
little things such as this to give customers more choices tooptimize 
their computer's abilities.
    I am hoping that this settlement will indeed be the last word on 
this suit,and that our country can begin to turn its attention to 
other, more important issues.
    I am equally hopeful that there will be no further federal 
action against Microsoft and that our nation's leadership will a bit 
more circumspect when contemplating any other lawsuit like this one. 
Thank you.Sincerely,
Cathey Oldroyd
931 Monroe Drive
Suite 102-197
Atlanta, GA 30308
FROM : GRAPHIC BYTES INC
FAX NO. : 4048748410 Jan. 21 2002 06:41PM P2
P.O. Box 5599
Atlanta, Georgia 31107
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 29605]]

    After such a long and contentious feud between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft, I am happy to add my support to the 
settlement. This settlement is fair to all sides and, more 
importantly, brings to an end all the bickering and saber rattling 
that has gone on for the past several years.
    I really believe that our government should exhibit more unified 
support and encouragement to our nation's business community than it 
has demonstrated through the course of this lawsuit. It might very 
well be true that Microsoft was a bit more aggressive in protecting 
its market share than many in our government feel comfortable with. 
But filing this lawsuit, no matter how well intentioned our 
government was, betrayed a certain disappointing attitude of 
intimidation on the part of our government toward the business 
community at large, rather than the more reasonable position of 
allowing market conditions to correct any perceived wrongs.
    Now that this settlement is in place, I am hopeful that no 
further government action will be taken, and that we can all get on 
with the more important priorities in life.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Oldroyd
    648 Cleburne Terrace
    Atlanta, GA 30306
    404-874-8608



MTC-00031571

Jan 21 02 05:33p Robert J Bergman
352 683 4744 p.1
5003 Abagail Drive
Spring Hill, FL 34608
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to urge the Department of Justice to accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue needs to be put to 
rest and the industry needs to move on. The longer that this drags 
on the worse it is for everyone.
    The entire case has been a farce from the beginning. It takes a 
lot of nerve to ask any company to share its secrets with its 
competitors. In the settlement Microsoft agreed to document and 
disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are 
internal to Window's operating system products and people are still 
saying that Microsoft has gotten off easy. Microsoft is still in one 
piece, although they have been forced to open their vault of 
secrets.
    Microsoft has given up a lot in order to settle with the 
government. The government needs to accept the settlement and move 
on. I do not remember any of the other ``Giants of 
Industry'', ever being told to do the same. The government has 
lost sight of the amazing number of industry related people that 
Microsoft had taken off the bread line many years back.. I am a very 
honest, sincere, hardworking,and trustworthy person that exercises 
his right to vote in every election, every year.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Bergman



MTC-00031572

Roy Steffey
35711 Baql Clair
New Baltimore, MI 48047
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a computer software user, I would like to take this 
opportunity to contact you and let you know what I think of the 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft has been successful 
for the simple reason that they had the best product on the market 
at the right time. Consumers were looking for a way to utilize the 
new technology of personal computers in the easiest way possible. 
Microsoft provided this ease by``bundling'' its software 
into its Windows operating system. This was precisely what consumers 
were looking for. Without this technology provided by Microsoft, we 
would not have seen the ``p.c.revolution'' of the past 15 
years. Most households now contain a personal computer, and this is 
due to the ingenuity of Microsoft.
    This suit has been an unfounded waste of resources by all 
parties involved in this suit. I believe that while this lawsuit was 
unnecessary from the beginning, the settlement that has finally been 
reached is more than necessary at this time. The settlement is 
reasonable, and will put a stop to any alleged antitrust violations 
that may occur. There will be a three-person technical committee, 
which will over see the future business practices of Microsoft to 
ensure that the terms of this settlement are not violated.Microsoft 
will not longer engage in retaliatory action against any of its 
competitors. Finally,Microsoft will design all future versions of 
Windows with a mechanism that will ease the use of non-Microsoft 
soft ware within the operating system.
    I hope that Microsoft can finally get back to business and that 
the American technology industry can continue on its way without the 
meddling interference of politics. Thank you for your time and for 
allowing me to express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Roy Steffy
    Cc: Representative David E. Bonior
    Jan. 21 200206:11PM P1 PHONE NO.: FROM: Marie A. Marsh



MTC-00031573

Jan-21-2002 4:47PM GSL Solutions (Fax 
813-637-8268) No.0954 P.1
gsl Solutions
Gaining Strategic Leverage
To: Renata Hesse
From: Adam Lombardo
Fax: 202-307-1454 Phone:
Phone: Pages: 2
Re:
Date: l/21/2002
1411 N. Westshore Blvd.--Suite 102--Tampa, FL 33607
 phone 813.837.8535 -fax 813.637.8268
Jan-21-2002 4:48PM GSL Solutions (Fax 
813-637-8268)
No.0954 P. 2
gsl Solutions
 Gaining Strategic Leverage
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As of late, it is commonly known and has been reported and 
discussed by the media that the United State's economy is in serious 
trouble. Due to the seriousness of our dire condition, it is 
important that the U.S explore ways in which to recover from this 
downfall.
    It is because of these reasons that I am writing you today to 
lend my support for the Microsoft Settlement. The settlement was a 
fair accord that ended a complex, protracted legal dilemma. The U.S. 
has gone through enough, and since the September 11 attacks, we need 
to allow businesses and corporations, like Microsoft, to spur on 
economic growth to benefit all working Americans,
    That is why I support the settlement; it is balanced for all 
parties involved and the conditions are fair to everyone. Microsoft 
has agreed to design future versions of Windows that allow hardware 
manufacturers the freedom to promote non-Microsoft software. They 
have also agreed to document and disclose Windows internal 
interfaces for its competitors.
    This settlement is fair and will help America get back on its 
feet. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Adam J. Lombardo
    Vice President
    GSL Solutions, Inc.
    1411 N. Westshore Blvd.--Suite 102--Tampa, FL 33607
    phone 813.637.8535 -fax 813.637.8268



MTC-00031574

JAN-21-`02 MON 13:33 ID: ADVANTAGES B/A HOMES TEL NO:
650-573-1606#456 P01
 K.G. TAX CONSULTANCY CO.
 675 Mariner's Island Boulevard Suite 105
 San Mateo, California 94404-1040
 e-mail: kamm@bay homes.com
VIA FAX: 1.200.307.1454
KAMM GHALAMKAR
BS, EA, MBA (Tax)
(650) 573-8200
 FAX 573-1606
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I would like the Department of Justice to settle its antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft as quickly as possible. Microsoft should 
have the continued freedom to innovate and create without government 
interference. They Are a fantastic company whose potential is being 
undermined by continued litigation.
    Though I believe that Microsoft's concessions in the settlement, 
especially allowing competitors the access to various internal codes 
for Windows,are extreme, they aid Microsoft in wrapping up the case 
in the shortest amount of time possible.

[[Page 29606]]

    This case has been stretched too far. Please settle the lawsuit 
and allow Microsoft to return to regular operation.
    Sincerely,
    Kamm Ghalamkar



MTC-00031575

Jan 21 0204:42p mbe 8606496706 p.1
278 Main Street
Apartment #F302
West Haven, CT 06516
January l0, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to express my opinion on the proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft anti-trustcase in response to the 
invitation of public comment on the proposal. I would preface my 
comment on the proposed judgment by stating that I am not in any way 
affiliated, other than by usage of their products,with any of the 
companies mentioned herein. I am also not a lawyer, but I have done 
my best to comprehend the sometimes confusing Final Judgment.
    This out of the way, I will be straight and to the point: I find 
the proposed judgment to be woefully inadequate, at best. At worst, 
it leaves the door even more open for the practices that this 
proposal was intended to prevent and penalize. This phase in the 
legal process is referred to as the penalty phase for a reason- it 
generally involves some sort of penalty to the convicted parties. 
However, the proposed judgment seems to me like even less than the 
proverbial ``slap on the wrist'' and closer to a slight 
scowl in their direction. I feel that much more needs to be done to 
discourage Microsoft from using its current monopoly position to 
impede the competition and innovation that is what makes a 
capitalist market system function so well.
    I will first address problems that I see in the current 
Judgment, and will then address major additions that I believe 
should be made. In Section III.H.2 (the second 2., this section 
should have been better numbered for referral.. .) I believe that 
this exception to the requirement allowing non-Microsoft Middleware 
Products has entirely too much potential to be abused. If the non-
Microsoft Middleware Product does not supply a ``functionality 
consistent with a Windows Operating System Product''but the 
user still wishes to use it, that should be their choice. If the 
functionality of the Microsoft Middleware Product is that much 
better, the end user can choose to use the Microsoft Product instead 
of the non-Microsoft Product based on its functionality- not a 
functionality requirement decided upon by Microsoft.
    In section 4.B, the Appointment of a Technical Committee (TC) I 
have several objections both in content and in general. First, in 
section 4.B.2.a, I believe that not being employed by Microsoft in 
the past year is far to short of a timeframe to limit this to. I 
believe that there should be limitation of not being employed in any 
capacity by Microsoft for at least the last 5 years should be a 
requirement. Also,in section4.B.3 I firmly believe that Microsoft 
should not be allowed to select a member to sit on the Technical 
Committee. This, to me, falls under the description of 
``letting the wolf guard the hen-house.''Barring the total 
exclusion of Microsoft selecting a TC member, I believe the section 
4.B.5 should be changed to read as follows: ``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, the Plaintiff shall select a replacement member in the 
same manner as provided for in Section IV.B.3. 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 replacement member 
in the same manner as provided for in Section IV.B.3''
    Thus, if the TC member appointed by Microsoft to the TC is found 
to not be acting diligently or in a manner consistent with this 
Judgment, Microsoft will lose their right to appoint a member to the 
Committee. Also, I believe that Section 4.B. 10 should be changed to 
allow public statements by members of the TC that have been approved 
by the Plaintiff(s),
    In Section IV.C. 1, there should be a stipulation made to allow 
the Plaintiff(s) to review and possibly reject an proposed 
appointment to the position of Compliance Officer. The Compliance 
Officer should also be held accountable by the TC for carrying out 
the duties outlined.
    Section IV.C.4.d should be stricken completely from the 
Judgment, assuming I am understanding it right. Of what use is 
having the TC if they are effectively gagged? If the TC members 
cannot testify of what they have found. why are they even there? 
This to me is almost worse than not having a group in place P.1Jan 
21 02 04:43p mbe8606496706 p.2to monitor Microsoft at all- having a 
group in place that seems to be capable of monitoring and reporting 
on infractions of the law, but that is forbidden from doing so. This 
also seems to be in direct conflict with several of the duties of 
the TC. The TC members are to notify the Plaintiffs of any failure 
comply with the Judgment. But, from the way Section IV.C.4.d reads 
these reports, even the actual evidence that the TC found, would not 
be admissible in further prosecution. Furthermore, if other evidence 
of legal in fractions were found by the TC, they would not be able 
to testify about it as well. This section just makes no sense a 
tall- and moreover seems to almost completely remove any of the 
usefulness of the TC.
    Finally, in Section V.3, I believe that there should not be a 
limit of a one-time extension of the(hopefully modified and 
strengthened) Final Judgment. If Microsoft were to continue to 
violate the Judgment even after the maximum 7 years allotted were 
up, they should not be allowed to get off scott free to continue 
leveraging their monopoly and force even more of the taxpayer's 
money to be spent getting them to stop their illegal practices. As 
long as it can be legally and satisfactorily demonstrated that they 
continue to violate the terms of the Judgment, the penalties should 
be indefinitely renewable.
    In addition to what is currently laid out in the Final Judgment, 
I believe that at least the following additions should be made. 
First a more effective way of ensuring that competing Operating 
Systems and software products are more accessible to the end user by 
making it easier to either obtain a computer from a vendor without 
an operating system or with a non-Microsoft OS. The Judgment takes a 
first few small steps towards this by forbidding vendors and 
Microsoft from entering into exclusive or fixed percent age 
distribution, promotion or use of the Windows Operating System. 
However, this just doesn't go far enough-the OS and other 
proprietary software should be an option that can be added in for a 
price over the base hardware, not automatically assumed to be what 
the consumer desires. This way buyers will be more free to choose 
their operating system, and they won't automatically pay for the 
Windows Operating System as is the case now with almost all new PC 
computers. This is not to say that the hardware vendors cannot offer 
a discount on the Operating System over buying it without buying a 
computer- as stipulated in the Judgment,there is nothing wrong with 
Microsoft giving volume discounts on its product like almost any 
other business.
    Next, Microsoft should be prevented from attempting to move the 
internet towards its own proprietary vision by ensuring that none of 
its services or products exclude interoperability with services or 
products not provided or produced by Microsoft. Specifically, 
attempts by Microsoft to limit access to supposedly free content and 
services to its own products, as in the recorded case of the MSN 
site blocking access to users attempting to access it using a non-
Microsoft browser. Communications protocols used by Microsoft's 
products should, while still maintaining necessary security, be 
published and reviewed to allow other products to interact properly 
with them and to ensure that Microsoft is not attempting to use 
these protocols to further leverage its monopoly.
    Similarly. the file formats used by Microsoft's products should 
be released to the public prior to their implementation in released 
software. Whether by leveraging their monopoly or not,Microsoft's 
office productivity products have become the standard which most 
organizations operate under.Microsoft has an observed habit of 
making changes to these formats which often cripple the ability of 
competing and occasionally even complementary software to access 
these files. Requiring release of the details of these formats would 
allow more level competition. Truth be told, I would also like to 
see Microsoft be required to produce versions of its productivity 
applications for competing Operating Systems, but I must concede 
that I do not have any suggestion as how this could be done both 
fairly and to ensure Microsoft does not intentionally sabotage the 
quality of these ``ports''.
    Finally, I believe that as an additional penalty I believe that 
Microsoft should be fined anon-trivial amount in addition to any 
court costs of these proceedings, and that this find should be used 
to create a fund for software developers to develop applications

[[Page 29607]]

specifically for non-Microsoft Operating Systems. As Microsoft has 
done much to keep software companies from developing software for 
competing Operating Systems to further their monopoly, I believe 
that this would be both and appropriate and poetic penalty.
    I have also heard several reports of repeated mention of 
leniency in penalties against Microsoft being `for the good of 
the country', and I submit that this is exactly counter to the 
truth. Actions such as those that Microsoft has taken- achieving and 
maintaining a monopoly through i11ega1 practices instead of by 
competing and producing superior products and services- are 
completely counter to the principles of this country, not just its 
laws, and can only end up being harmful to this country. This 
country has a history of great innovation and creativity. which has 
been fostered by the open, competitive nature of its economy. By 
leveraging its monopoly as it has, Microsoft has tried to put itself 
above the need for innovation and creativity and hence prevented the 
innovation and creativity that its competing might have produced. 
Wereal1 fields of business leveraged and dominated by monopolies 
such as Microsoft, there would belittle, if Jan 21 02 
04:43pmbe8606496706 P.3any, innovation. and we would quickly find 
ourselves left behind as the rest of the world continued innovating 
and creating. I will not deny that Microsoft is likely an important 
part of our economy- but how much -better- a part of it would it be 
if it actually had competition that forced it to compete?From DR-DOS 
and OS/2 (to name the ones that come to mind) and Apple, Sun, and 
Linux in the present and into the future, Microsoft has sought to 
eliminate its competition, not out-perform it. I would urge you to 
act to strengthen this Final Judgment so that it will actually make 
a difference, and not only help level the playing field for the 
competitors Microsoft has wronged, but to help force Microsoft to 
improve itself and to preserve the foundations that our country's 
businesses were founded on.
    Robert A. Babcock



MTC-00031576

FROM : HONEIN
PHONE NO. : 770 7230163
Jan. 21 2002 11:25AM P1
infrench.com
A selection for the french
no stalgic or french curious
January 18, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been meaning to write you for a while. Being an Arab 
American, one would expect that I should be writing you about 
subjects like racial profiling.. . Well, racial profiling is indeed 
a great concern of mine, but nonetheless, I also feel that the non-
settlement of the case against Microsoft Corporation is directly 
affecting the likes of my company, my colleagues, and various 
sectors of the economy, including the stock market, that are the 
basis for refueling our economy.I am sure you remember the financial 
markets'' positive reaction to the first news that the break-up 
of Microsoft, originally envisaged by the previous administration, 
was finally deemed totally unfair and unwarranted. I strongly 
believe that allowing the settlement of the case to continue to drag 
is unwise and negate many other efforts undertaken to revive our 
economy Microsoft could be labeled over aggressive, but this 
aggressiveness has also contributed to great achievements. We expect 
more to come from them and from the rest of the IT sector. So please 
facilitate a quick settlement of the case and help us all focus our 
attention again on our business.President Bush has promised us 
``less Government''. We are extremely happy with 
federalizing airport security, but please hands off business!
    I strongly recommend that your department issues a deadline by 
which the federal case pending against Microsoft must be settled. I 
believe that the mere announcement of such a date will impact 
positively on us all.
    Sincerely,
    Antoine Honein
    Director
    Infrench.com LLC, P.O. Box 450193, Atlanta, GA 31145
    Telephone: 770-558-1804
    Telephone (Toll Free): 1-888-751-8882
    Fax: (770) 723-0163
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00031577

JAN-21-2002 16:10 FROM MAILBOXES ETC. TO 12023071454 P. 01/02
Fax Transmittal Sheet--
MBE MAIL BOXES ETC.
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
(843) 842-3171 o Fax (843) 842-3175
If you have any problems with this fax, please contact us.
Date: 1/21/02
To: General John Ashcroft
Fax Number: 202 307 1454 or 202 616 9937
From: Malcolm Strange
Phone Number: 843 671-4337
# of Pages (including this sheet) : 2
Message:
o Copy Service o Mailboxes o Notary
o UPS/FedEx Shipping Services o Fax Service
o Office Supplies o Mailing Services o No-Limit Shipping TM
 Etc . .........
It's Not What We Do, It's How We Do It.TM
 JAN-21-2002 16: 10 FROM MAILBOXES ETC. TO 12023071454 P. 02/
02
151 Greenwood Drive Apt. 3349
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928-4520
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has been a successful company for more than fifteen 
years because it has created quality products that have been used by 
millions. The recent decision of the Justice Department to settle in 
the antitrust case is welcome because it allows Microsoft to focus 
on business and less on legal matters.
    In our competitive free market place it is not necessary for 
companies to be nice to competitors. The company with the best 
product usually wins, and more often than not it has been Microsoft. 
Nevertheless the settlement that is on the table will curb behavior 
that some companies objected to. This settlement will end any 
contractual restriction that hurt opponents'' ability to offer 
software. Additionally this settlement will allow competitors to 
effortlessly place their software on MS systems.
    I believe it is incumbent upon you to see this settlement is put 
in place and thefederal case is concluded. Microsoft has agreed to 
this settlement because it would like to return to business not the 
courts. Thank you for considering my point of view on this issue.
    Dear General Ashcroft,
    Congratulations on the great job you and your team are doing. 
Its nice to see the adults in charge again. Larry Thompson,Jay 
Stephens, Michael Chert off, Ted Olson, Director Mueller, What a 
Team!! And I'm sure many others.
    Sincerely,
    Malcolm Strange
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031578

Jan 21 02 01:50p Sheldon H.Schusler 480-491-4270 P.1
01/21/02 MON 18:33 FAX 800 611 2255
 002
1730 East Pebble Beach Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today in regards to the Microsoft settlement 
issue. I am a supporter of Microsoft and feel that there should be 
no further action against Microsoft at the federal level.The 
settlement that was reached in November is both concrete and 
complete. This settlement specifically details procedures Microsoft 
has agreed to follow to foster competition. Microsoft must design 
future versions of Windows, beginning with an interim release of 
Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer 
makers, consumers and software developers to promote non- Microsoft 
software within windows. Microsoft has also agreed to license its 
Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers 
on identical terms and conditions, including price.Microsoft did not 
get off easy in this settlement.
    Microsoft is a company that delivers quahty goods to the 
marketplace at reasonable prices. Let's keep it that way by allowing 
this company to focus its resources on designing it's innovative 
software, rather than litigation. Thank you for your Support.
    Sincerely,
    Sheldon Schusler
    cc: Representative Jeff Flake



MTC-00031579

FROM : A D Fakonas
PHONE NO. : 925 2537936 Jan. 21 2002

[[Page 29608]]

01:53PM P1
A. D. Fakonas
56 Via Floreado
Orinda, CA 94563
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge you to settle the antitrust case against Microsoft. The 
issue has been dragged out far too long, to the detriment of the US 
economy and consumers.In fact, it often felt like the main reason 
this case was ever brought up was because its competitors were 
better at navigating the political world.
    Although Microsoft's business dealings may have been heavy-
handed in the past, they were not detrimental to the consumer 
marketplace. I, like most(even marginal) computer users, have always 
had the option to use products from any software vendor. I 
personally have used both Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, 
and I still use both Microsoft Media Player and Real Networks Real 
Player. I have both on my computer simultaneously, and both work 
fine. The fact is that Microsoft has become a dominant force because 
it has provided superior products at good value. The settlement 
negotiated in November eliminates Microsoft's ability to force 
programs and products consumers and manufacturers by requiring 
Microsoft to allow competitors to place their own programs on 
Windows. The result is a playing field as level as the competition 
will ever get.
    Please drop the case and settle without further litigation. 
Everyone has dwelled on the matter long enough.
    Sincerely,
    A. D. Fakonas



MTC-00031580

JAN-22-0203:23 AM BILLY HURT 2705279789 P. 01
Billy G. Hurt, Ph.D.
217 Wood Trace
P.O. Box 898
Benton, KY 42025
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For the past six months, Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
have participated in round-the-clock negotiations hosted by a court-
appointed mediator, the result of which was a comprehensive 
settlement. For the past sixty days, the settlement has been under 
review while the Justice Department debates the fairness of the 
terms.
    The settlement does not let Microsoft off the hook easily. The 
settlement negotiations were meticulous; in fact, some of the terms 
reached Cover products and practices not found to be unlawful by the 
Court of Appeals, Microsoft has agreed to a wide range of 
obligations and prohibitions, none of which fail to address the 
complaints of the plaintiff states. For instance, Microsoft has 
agreed to reformat future versions of Windows in order to support 
non-Microsoft software, and computer makers have been granted rights 
to configure Windows so as to promote their own software. Microsoft 
has also agreed to provide any party acting under the terms of the 
agreement with a license to applicable intellectual property rights, 
I do not believe that, with this settlement available, additional 
intellectual property rights, I do not believe that, with this 
settlement available, additional litigation is necessary.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I am of the opinion that the remaining litigious 
plaintiff states are driven by greed, not by justice. Microsoft 
should be rewarded for its ingenuity, not punished for its success. 
America was touted as the land of opportunity when colonization 
began; free enterprise was encouraged and fostered. What has the 
justice system come to when successful entrepreneurs are stripped of 
their power to line the pockets of political vultures. I urge you 
not to allow this to become the standard in justice. Endorse the 
settlement, Mr, Ashcroft, and allow Microsoft to move on.
    Sincerely,
    Billy G Hurt



MTC-00031581

515 282 9265 1-21-0202:06 PM WALSH EQUIPMENT
Clifford J. Walsh
6881 NW 54th Court
Johnston, Iowa 50131
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The lawsuits against Microsoft in the antirust case have gone on 
for far too long. I am appalled that after a settlement has occurred 
that nine states want to continue litigation. The settlement is more 
than fair in many ways and actually borders on being too harsh for 
Microsoft.
    Essentially, Microsoft has agreed to improve its relations with 
software developers and computer makers, disclose technological 
secrets that they have developed, not enter into third party 
agreements, and design future Windows'' versions to allow 
competitors to more easily promote their own products, I hope the 
settlement and its concessions end up being in the bets interest of 
the public,
    I urge your office to take a firm stance on this settlement and 
finalize it as soon as possible. Our economy and the IT sector in 
particular need this to end.
    Sincerely,
    Clifford J. Walsh
    Johnston, IA 50131



MTC-00031582

FROM : E S RUCKER
PHONE NO. : 504 5235996
Jan. 21 200202:05PM Pl
1518 1st Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express how happy I am to hear that the Department of 
Justice finally ended its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. This 
agreement will greatly benefit Microsoft's competitors. They should 
be thrilled with the outcome of this case.
    Microsoft had to compromise much just to get the case over with. 
It agreed to make available to its rivals, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms, any code that Windows uses to communicate with 
other programs. The company also agreed to disclose and document, 
for use by its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows operating system products--a first in an antitrust 
lawsuit.
    What more could Microsoft's competitors want? Maybe a key to the 
front door of the company's headquarters would make them happier.
    Enough is enough. I hope the federal government never does this 
to Microsoft again. It would be pure harassment if they would.
    Sincerely,
    Evelyn S Rucker
    Evelyn Rucker



MTC-00031583

FROM : CLUFF PHONE NO. : 12158601401 Jan. 21 200204:19PM P1
11 Paddock Way--Southampton--Pennsylvania--18966
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of recent settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust case. Although 
this case should have been over long ago, there are some concessions 
that Microsoft is being forced to make which I would expect most 
corporate giants to go through at one point in their history I am 
very cynical about any litigation at all due to nature of it and who 
sponsored it. But I consider it fairly expected in the natural 
course of business for any big firm. I do feel that the states 
pursuing this matter are not serving the best interest of the 
American Public. Microsoft created a very successful business and 
has added greatly to he IT sectors development in our country. They 
are also responsible for numerous other contributions to society.
    I look forward to Microsoft being given the chance to focus on 
business. I support the settlement, and hope to see it implemented 
as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Cluff
    [email protected]
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031584

JOHN LASHLEY 520 743 8675 P.01
This ``L Dew Properties, LLC
8655 138th Ave. S.E. 425 271 0182
Newcastle, WA 98059
and
4755 West Sunset Road 520 743 1998
Tucson, WA 85743 FAX 743 8675
cell phone: 425 785 5822
 e-mail: [email protected]

[[Page 29609]]

January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
    I would like to register my opinion about the antitrust 
settlement with Microsoft. I believe it should be settled in the 
interests of the country and the technology sector. The idea that 
Microsoft is so superior to other software developers is false. I am 
attaching the download that Microsoft sent me so that I could 
``write'' you. This is the way they interface with their 
own software--- totally unusable garbage. As both a Windows 
2000 user, Internet user, and former AOL, and Apple user, I want to 
state unequivocally that there is plenty of room for innovation with 
other companies. It should be easy to provide better products than 
those produced by Microsoft, and if they are available, I will buy 
them.
    The timeline between the Department of Justice starting this 
``witch hunt'' and the troubles in our economy and the 
stock market are more than just coincidence. It is time for America 
and innovation to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    John Lashley
    JOHN LASHLEY
    520 743 8675 P.02
    4755 Sunset Road
    Tucson, AZ 85743-9606
    January 15, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. The 
case has been dragging on too long. It seems to be a political 
showcase instead of principled lawsuit. I am in support of the 
settlement because I believe it is in best interest of country to 
end this case. But, I think the concessions Microsoft is being 
forced to make are too harsh.
    Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a 
load of rubbish about railway timetables.
    I do not feel that my rights have been infringed upon as a 
Microsoft user. In fact I think that Microsoft's; products have been 
more superior to other vendors. That is why I choose Microsoft's 
services. The terms of the settlement will definitely be to the 
advantage of competitors, and I believe I in some ways violate 
Microsoft's intellectual property rights. For instance, Microsoft 
will have to disclose internal interfaces and protocols that took 
time and money to develop. They will also be granting computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software.
    But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see 
this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized 
society.
    These stipulations make no sense for Microsoft as a business, 
but they are agreeing to do so because further litigation would be 
even more detrimental not only to Microsoft, but also to the IT 
sector. Please do what is right for our nation and quell opposition 
and finalize the settlement. Thank you for your time.
    When Shunt says the 8:15 from Paddington he really means the 8: 
17 from Paddington. The places are the same, only the time is 
altered.
    But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there 
isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight. <> '' 
``'' ``''
    JOHN LASHLEY
    520 743 8675
    Sincerely,
    John Lashley



MTC-00031585

JAN. 21 ``02(MON) 14:14
DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOC. INC TEL:314 592 8791 P.001
RICHARD L. RACKERS
160 Corporate Woods Court
Bridgeton, Missouri 63044
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department has reached a 
proposed settlement with Microsoft based on the allegations brought 
against the company for violation of various antitrust laws. It is 
also my understanding that you are currently accepting public 
comment on the proposed settlement. Please consider mine a vote of 
support for the settlement. While I know that it probably does not 
go as far as many of Microsoft's competitors would like, I believe 
that it is a fair and reasonable resolution of the alleged 
violations. As I understand the matter, the major complaint raised 
by competitors was the fact that they could not compete in such 
areas as Internet access within the Windows systems. This settlement 
allows such competition for the first time by forcing Microsoft to 
share their proprietary software code with its competitors.
    It is important to the economy right now to enter a growth phase 
and lawsuits such as the Microsoft suit can serve to stifle growth. 
I believe that the Justice Department and Microsoft have reached a 
fair and workable resolution, and I hope that you move forward with 
it as quickly as the law allows. Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Rackers



MTC-00031586

North Fork Tree Farm
1717 NW 414th Street
Woodland, WA 98674
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to encourage you to support the recent anti-trust 
settlement reached by Microsoft and the United States Department of 
Justice. I feel this shameful lawsuit is something the Justice 
Department should have never launched against Microsoft, which is 
only trying to make good software. Indeed, the terms of the 
settlement go far beyond what was originally called for in the 
lawsuit merely for the sake of wrapping up the suit.
    Examples include Microsoft agreeing to document and disclose for 
use by competitors many of the various interfaces internal to 
Windows. This is a first in an antitrust settlement. Further, 
Microsoft has agreed to allow computer and software makers to modify 
Windows so Microsoft products can be removed and non- Microsoft 
products installed in their places Examples include Netscape 
Navigator, AOL instant Messenger, and RealNetworks RealPlayer.
    Overseeing the terms of this settlement will be a technical 
committee comprised of three software-engineering experts. These 
experts will also assist in any dispute resolution should a 
complaint be filed against Microsoft.
    For these reasons, I support the recent settlement SO we can put 
this matter behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Sweyer



MTC-00031587

FROM
``00 00/0000: 05 P. 01
North Fork Tree Farm
1717 NW 414th Street
Woodland, WA 98674
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to encourage you to support the recent anti-trust 
settlement reached by Microsoft and the United States Department of 
Justice. I feel this shameful lawsuit is something the Justice 
Department should have never launched against Microsoft, which is 
only trying to make good software. Indeed, the terms of the 
settlement go far beyond what was originally called for in the 
lawsuit merely for the sake of wrapping up the suit. Examples 
include Microsoft agreeing to document and disclose for use by 
competitors many of the various interfaces internal to Windows. This 
is a first in an antitrust settlement. Further, Microsoft has agreed 
to allow computer and software makers to modify Windows so Microsoft 
products can be removed and non- Microsoft products installed in 
their places. Examples include Netscape Navigator, AOL. Instant 
Messenger, and RealNetworks RealPlayer.
    Overseeing the terms of this settlement will be a technical 
committee comprised of three software-engineering experts. These 
experts will also assist in any dispute resolution should a 
complaint be filed against Microsoft.
    For these reasons, I support the recent settlement so we can put 
this matter behind us.
    Sincerely, Walt Sweyer



MTC-00031588

P. 0. Box 194
Indianola, WA 98342-0194
January 21, 2002

[[Page 29610]]

Justice Department
District Court
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing you express my trepidation regarding the delay in 
effecting the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice 12 weeks ago. I have been following this issue 
from the beginning, for three strange years in American history, and 
it seems like the only consistency in the political arena is having 
the DOJ and Microsoft butting heads. I side with Microsoft on this 
issue, because this company has accomplished a lot for Washington 
State, America, and indeed the world.
    It is apparent to me that this settlement will greatly benefit 
the economy and consumers. This company should be allowed to get 
back to business and do what it does best: create excellent, 
reliable and ever more varied products. This company has done so 
much to impact the technology industry that stifling it now could 
not possibly serve the best public interest.
    This issue should be the last of our worries at the present 
time. Please support this settlement and close the door to this 
debate. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Moore
    P.01 206 937 3780 Jan-21-0211:13A first hill rehab



MTC-00031589

FAX 1-202-307-1454
442 Porter Road
Charleston, West Virginia 25314
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my unwavering support for Microsoft in 
light of the recent litigation brought against them by the 
Department of Justice. I think that this entire lawsuit has dragged 
on long enough and it is really time for this to end. I have always 
used Microsoft products and have also admired the company's mission. 
Microsoft is an industry icon that is being penalized for their 
outstanding innovations.
    In reviewing the elements of the case, it is obvious that 
Microsoft has made several strides to honor the terms of the 
settlement. They have gone above and beyond what the settlement 
required them to do. I think that this is very admirable and quite 
noteworthy. Microsoft wants this to come to an end so that they can 
refocus their attention on innovation and rebuilding their employee 
morale and company structure.
    With regard to compliance with the settlement, Microsoft has 
agreed to allow computer makers to replace Microsoft access features 
with non-Microsoft software. They have also implemented a uniformed 
pricelist and have established a three person technical committee to 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. In my 
estimation, Microsoft is no longer the problem here. The problem is 
the continual delays of the settlement.
    Sincerely, Naji Banna
    Page 01 MICHAEL BAKER CORP.
    304-769-082215:39 01/21/2002



MTC-00031590

01/21/2002 11:17 8183410492
TRAFFIC SCHOOL
PAGE 01
Traffic School
19703 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA 91324
Fax
Facility:
From: Brett Elkins
Attn: Attorney General
Date:
Fax#:
Pages:
0 Reply Requested
0 Information Only
Please Support Microsoft Settlement
Phone: 8O0.401.7720
Fax: 818.341.0492
01/21/2002 11:178183410492
TRAFFIC SCHOOL
PAGE 02
Brett Elkins
651 S Bundy Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the Microsoft 
settlement. The settlement has been a long time in the making. Three 
years have passed since the inception of this case. Over these 
years, many dollars and much time have been wasted hiring court 
mediators. Finally in November a settlement has been reached. I 
believe this settlement to be fair. Most importantly, however, I 
believe this settlement is in the best interests of our economy and 
our country.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft agrees to license 
Windows at the same rate to PC manufacturers. This will decrease 
costs for the consumer. Further Microsoft will now disclose the 
protocols and internal interface of the Windows system. This will 
allow developers to design software that is more compatib1e with the 
Windows system. Users, in addition, will be able to add non- 
Microsoft software to the system.
    The benefits of this settlement clearly outweigh the costs. I 
hope that you would enact the settlement at the end of January.
    Sincerely,
    Brett Elkins



MTC-00031591

FROM:
Carl and Joan Cimarosa
FAX No.: 17322554867
Jan. 21 200203:19PM Pl
Fax
To: Attorney GEN. Ashcroft
From: Dora Texidor
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 Pages: 2
Phone
Date: 1/21/2002
Re: Microsoft CC:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
Comments:
Attached is Letter RE: Microsoft
[Illegible Lines]
FROM : Carl and Joan Cimarosa FAX NO. : 17322554867
Jan. 21 2002 03:19PM P2
Dora/Arthur Texidor, Jr.
1945 S.W. York Lane
Palm City, FL. 34990
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am greatly pleased to hear that a proposed settlement has been 
reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. I fully support the 
measures listed in that settlement.
    Microsoft worked very hard to get to where they did, and should 
not be punished because they had a desire to make products that work 
well with each other. Even Bill Gates pointed out that nobody sues 
Kodak when it invents a new camera that requires a new brand of 
film, which it also provides.
    Microsoft did not get off easy as some news reports suggest. 
Microsoft has agreed to allow its competitors access to its Windows 
interfaces and protocol so that they can attach their own non-
Microsoft products to Windows. They have also agreed to allow a 
committee to monitor their compliance with all provisions of the 
settlement.
    I look forward to a swift and fair settlement of this case. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dora Texidor



MTC-00031592

JAN-21-200211:00 PHILIPS 425 487 7672 P. 01/01
Ellen M. Whitten
14620 W. Lake Goodwin Rd.
Stanwood, WA. 98292-7794
January 21, 2002
Attorney Genera1 John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that there is an opportunity for a settlement of the 
government's lawsuit with Microsoft, I would like to suggest that 
this deal be finalized at the end of the month. Though some of the 
claims in the suit have some merit, as a whole this legal action 
appears to be a ``sour grapes'' attempt by companies that 
lost business they expected, and it has absorbed more energy than 
ever warranted. Any further litigation would be excessive.
    An obvious problem with the lawsuit is how a company can have so 
much competition and still be a monopoly. There are plenty of 
alternatives to Microsoft products. However, as a member of the 
technology industry, my view is that Microsoft's dominance has a 
simple explanation: they develop superior software.
    Considering how most companies operate, Microsoft's offer to 
eliminate preferential treatment of computer makers who use or 
promote their products is among several

[[Page 29611]]

major concessions in the agreement. On top of that, forcing 
Microsoft to allow its competitors to review their internal code is 
a very invasive rule that at least straddles and probably crosses 
the line of government interference in the free marketplace.
    With the involvement of an impartial technical committee to 
review compliance, there is no need to press for further disruption 
of Microsoft's business. Let's move on and allow this company to 
grow without further headaches from government. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ellen M. Whitten
    TOTAL P.O1



MTC-00031593

0 1 / 2 1 / 0 2 10:54 FAX 2067490225 KINKOS 3RD & MARION 001
kinko's
fax cover sheet
Kinko's Third & Marion 816 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 749-0206 Fax (206) 749-0225
Date 1-21-02 Number of pages 3 (including cover page)
to: Name Renata Hesse from: Name Anthony Christopher
Company Company
Telephone Telephone 253-856-8585
Fax 1-202-307-1454 Email [email protected]
Comments: Comment on Microsoft settlement with the Department of 
Justice
TRY KINKO'S FOR SIGNS, POSTERS AND BANNERS
01/21/0210:55 FAX2067490225 KINKOS 3RD & MARION
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
325 7th Street, NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20530 Date: January21, 2002
    Comments on Microsoft Settlement with the Department of Justice 
I am not a lawyer, I am a software developer with two decades of 
experience in the software industry. I am aware of some of the 
positive and negative impacts of many of Microsoft's products and 
business practices. I have read the settlement proposed by the 
Department of Justice. I doubt a line by line criticism of the 
settlement by someone with my limited knowledge of the law would be 
worthwhile, so I offer my over all opinions.
    The settlement addresses prevention of future misdeeds and does 
not include any mention of punitive actions against Microsoft. I 
know our justice system has used the concept of punishments fit to 
crimes in the past (excuse me if my use of the word crime or other 
words is common and not legal). I thought our judicial system still 
made use of such a notion today. To my mind, there is not just the 
question of the settlement preventing the Microsoft corporation from 
engaging in illegal practices in the future, but also the larger 
question; Will it and other corporations be convinced that it is not 
a good idea to break this nation's anti-trust laws, based on how 
Microsoft is punished for breaking those same laws in the past ? I 
thought the appellate court remand of the case to the district 
court, left the option of punitive remedies open.
    The settlement does a good job of saying two things to 
Microsoft, ``You shouldn't manipulate other companies in 
exactly the same way you did last time.'' and, ``Feel free 
to find some other strategy for accomplishing the same thing.'' 
To a lawyer or judge, it may seem that the first statement should be 
much stronger. From what I have read of Microsoft's past behavior, I 
expect them to continue to ignore court orders, pretend compliance 
with court orders and laws, and to apply their own unrealistic 
interpretation of agreements, including this settlement, until 
someone in the justice system does something extreme which impacts 
Microsoft in a timely fashion.
    0l/2l/O210:55 FAX 2067490225 KINKOS 3RD & MARION
    So, why have some of the states gone along with this settlement? 
Some inappropriate comments, referring to the events of September 
11, 2001, on the part of the judge, and an about face from their 
Department of Justice leadership led their negotiators and lawyers 
to believe that the most they would be able to get was some 
breathing room while Microsoft explores new strategies for abusing 
its monopoly. One of the things that probably led to such a biased 
negotiation is that the plaintiffs have some respect for the court 
and its wishes (for a quick settlement, in this case) while 
Microsoft does not.
    The message corporate leaders are going to get from this is that 
if they have, or can acquire, a monopoly while the current 
administration is in power, they can get away with breaking the US 
anti-trust laws, regardless of whether or not they are found guilty 
of doing so.
    Since the Department of Justice seems to have changed sides, 
just for truth in appearances, you might ask if it wouldn't prefer 
to list itself as assistant council for the defense instead of 
plaintiff in this case. In summary, this settlement would not serve 
the public interest. It would be a detriment to the public interest. 
While a legislative body rushing to sign laws in order to appear 
responsive to the events of September 11 is very bad, comments from 
judges prompting rushed negotiations in order to appear sensitive 
and/or competent are almost as bad.
    Anthony Christopher
    6021 S 238 Pl. #El04
    Kent, WA 98032



MTC-00031594

FROM: FAX NO: Mar. 12 2001 04:43AM P1
01/21/02 MON 14:43 FAX 500 641 2253 002
142 Swordfish Road
Manahawkin, NJ 08050
JANUARY 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of Microsoft's antitrust settlement with 
the federal government. I think this settlement is adequate and 
addresses the overall concerns of the federal government. Microsoft 
agreed to not enter into any agreements obligating any third party 
to distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a 
fixed percentage, make available to its competitors, on reasonable 
and non-discriminatory terms, any protocols implemented in 
Windows'' operating system products that are used to 
interoperate natively with any Microsoft server operating system, 
not retaliate against computer makers who ship software that 
competes with anything in its Windows operating system, and agreed 
to document and disclose for use by its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system 
products-a first in an antitrust settlement.
    Finally, Microsoft has a commitment not only to the consumer, 
but also to its employees. This agreement if not approved could 
cause major problems, which would undermine Microsoft's commitment 
to its employees. Microsoft has been a good corporate employer, and 
its employees benefit greatly from that, and in turn so do we. I 
urge you to approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Vincent Uriarte



MTC-00031595

Jan 21 02 11:49a p.1
Matt Dawson
6127 W 9800 N
Highland, UT 84003
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I find it hard to believe that, after six months of round-the-
clock negotiations, nine of the eighteen plaintiff states still 
refuse to close the case with Microsoft and accept what is, for all 
intents and purposes, a perfectly reasonable settlement. I do not 
believe it is necessary to drag the suit out any longer, especially 
considering the negative impact it has already had on the economy, 
and the IT industry. Under the circumstances, it is in the best 
interest of all parties involved to settle the case and move on.
    Three years have been spent reaching the decision that is 
currently under review, and I cannot imagine how much longer it 
would take before the remaining litigious states would be satisfied. 
There is more to be lost through needless litigation than there is 
to be gained in reconsidered settlement. The terms Microsoft agreed 
to extend not only to policies and products found to be unlawful by 
the Court of Appeals, but also to some that were not found to be in 
violation of antitrust law. In this respect, the settlement is not 
only fair, but also generous. Microsoft has agreed to change future 
versions of the Windows operating system so that its competitors 
would be able to introduce their own software directly into Windows. 
Microsoft has also agreed to provide third parties acting under the 
agreement with a license to applicable intellectual property rights 
to prevent infringement issues.
    I do not believe it is necessary for the suit to remain open. 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice have come to an agreement 
that addresses the complaints of the involved parties and makes 
generous

[[Page 29612]]

concessions as well. No further action is needed.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Dawson
    cc: Representative Chris Cannon



MTC-00031596

Jan 21 0211:24a p.1
Microsoft
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
123 Wright Brothers Drive #200 Phone: (801) 257-6300
SLC, Utah 84116 Fax: (801) 257-6501
United States Of America Internet: http://www.microsoft.com
MS FACSIMILE
TRANSMITTAL FORM
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft FROM: Dave Haslam
Company: Bldg/Room:
CC: Phone: 273-6367
Phone: Date &Time: January 21, 2002 11:30am
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 Number of Pages: 2
    PRIORITY: xURGENT! 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY
    0 PLEASE RECYCLE
    CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information in this facsimile 
message is legally privileged and confidential information intended 
only for the use of the addressee listed on this cover sheet. If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile 
in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number 
listed on this coversheet and return the original message to us at 
the above address via the United States Postal Service. Microsoft 
will reimburse any costs you incur in notifying and returning the 
message via fax or mail to one of the addresses shown above.
Jan 21 0211:24a P-2
2218 West Temple View Lane
South Jordan, UT 84095
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to address a very important issue; that of the 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am 
asking that you give your support to this agreement, under which 
Microsoft agreed to give up its intellectual property rights for the 
interfaces to its Windows operating system, and make it easier for 
competitors to install non- Microsoft products.
    This agreement was reached after three long years. It cost both 
parties enormous amounts of time and money. Whether or not Microsoft 
was guilty of unfair business practices and monopolizing the market 
is a matter of opinion, but Microsoft has made a good faith effort 
to accede to the demands of the Department of Justice, agreeing to 
terms that extend far beyond the products and procedures that were 
at issue in the original lawsuit. Microsoft even agreed to have a 
three-person technical committee review its actions for compliance 
with the settlement. Who else would do that? Any further action 
would be counter -productive.
    I urge you not to allow small minds to derail this decision off 
the fast track. There will always be those who do not accept any 
sort of compromise, wanting only to destroy, instead of build. Give 
your support to this agreement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Haslam



MTC-00031597

01-21-200213:36 8183512484 ABB AUTOCLAVE P.O1
1603 Pershing Avenue
Erie, PA 16509
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my dismay that the judicial process may 
be impeded by nine of the eighteen plaintiff states in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. Last November, a settlement was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The settlement is currently 
undergoing a period of review and unfortunately, the handful of 
states that wish to continue litigation have used this time to rally 
support for their side. I do not wish to see further action taken 
against Microsoft Corporation.
    Microsoft agreed to a wide variety of terms under the 
settlement, some of which require change, some of which require 
concessions to its competitors. For example, Microsoft has agreed to 
reformat upcoming versions of Windows so that the operating system 
will be able to support non-Microsoft software.
    Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to provide parties acting 
under the terms of the settlement with a license to applicable 
intellectual property rights. I do not believe these terms are 
lenient for Microsoft. I think the settlement is thorough and fair. 
Mr. Ashcroft, in good conscience I ask that you settle this case. It 
is not in the interest of the public, and quite honestly, the 
perfect solution is in the hands of the court right now. I urge you 
to support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Franz & Bernadette Zimmerman
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031598

01/21/02 MON 13:58 FAX 2156384515 ANAMIR ELECTRONICS 001
Vanessa Anne Fiori
1083 South Kimbles Road
Yardley, Pennsylvania 19067
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion about the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. Litigation never 
should have been pursued in the first place, but now that it has I 
AM GLAD TO SEE IT FINISHED.
    Microsoft never infringed on my rights as a consumer. As a 
software developer for years for a subsidiary of Reuters Plc, I 
worked with Windows and Apple interfaces, among others, and felt 
although Microsoft competed heavily with Netscape and all of its 
other competitors, that its actions were justified in the face of 
competition Netscape and others were equally aggressive in trying to 
attain and retain customers, but only the strong survive. In our 
view, Microsoft continued to innovate at a greater rate than 
Netscape did.
    At any rate, I hope no further litigation takes place and I look 
forward to seeing Microsoft allowed to roll out new products and 
services for the tech industry.
    Sincerely,
    Vanessa Fiori
    cc: Senator Rick Santorun



MTC-00031599

215 B Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    For the past three years, Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have been immersed in antitrust hearings in the federal 
courts. Recently, a settlement was reached that thoroughly addresses 
the antitrust infringements Microsoft committed and proposes a 
solution to the dilemma that presented itself at the case's 
inception. Microsoft will, under the terms of the settlement, be 
required to adjust its policies and programs in favor of its 
competitors, to facilitate interoperability and prevent retaliatory 
behavior or monopolistic contracts.
    Six months of round-the-clock negotiation resulted in a 
comprehensive settlement, the terms of which not only address 
Microsoft's antitrust violations, but also extend to products and 
procedures not found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeals. 
Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose interfaces integral to 
the Windows operating system for use by competing software 
producers. This is an unprecedented requirement in antitrust 
settlements. Moreover, Microsoft has agreed to provide third parties 
acting under the terms of the settlement with a license to 
intellectual property rights that would otherwise be infringed.
    Microsoft's compliance with the agreement will be overseen by a 
three-person committee of software engineering experts, and any 
third party which feels that Microsoft is not acting in accordance 
with the terms of the settlement is free to lodge a formal complaint 
with the technical committee, a Microsoft Compliance officer, any of 
the plaintiff states, or the Department of Justice.
    I do not believe that, with this settlement available, Microsoft 
remains culpable in the antitrust suit. The remaining litigious 
plaintiff states should not be permitted to take advantage of 
Microsoft's current vulnerability. I urge you, Mr. Ashcroft, to 
allow the settlement to stand.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Carver
    01/21/200210:48 8012576301 PAGE 01

[[Page 29613]]



MTC-00031600

JAN-21-02 MON 11:01 AM BLIXT 702 853 3085 P. 01
14305 Domingo Court
Reno, Nevada 89511
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my interest in the recent settlement 
between the US department of Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust 
case. The recession has had a devastating effect on our economy and 
this issue needs to be laid, to rest.
    As a Microsoft products and services user, I am happy to see 
that Microsoft will not be broken up. In fact, I think the 
settlement as it stands is too harsh and I do not agree with all of 
the concessions that Microsoft is being forced to make.
    I hope that there is no further action taken against Microsoft 
and I look forward to seeing their business grow as it has for the 
last decade. I thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    William Blixt
    cc: Senator Harry Reid



MTC-00031601

    01-21-0212:47 B OF H TRUST DEPT ID=7176334439 
P.01
STERLING FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY
25 Carlisle Street
Hanover, PA 17331-9934
(717) 637-2201
FAX (717) 633-4439
    Sterling Financial Trust Company is an affiliate of Sterling 
Financial Corporation, partnering with Sterling's bank subsidiaries: 
Bank of
    Lancaster County, N.A., Sank of Lebanon County, Bank of Hanover 
& Trust Company and First National Bank of North East.
    PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE 
USE OF THE ADDRESSEE(S) NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE 
IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE 
FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S), PLEASE NOTE 
THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTlON OR COPYING OF THIS 
COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ANYONE WHO RECEIVED THiS 
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR SHOULD NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND 
RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE.
    FAX COVER SHEET
To: Atty General John Ashcroft
To Fax Number: Telephone Number:
1-202-307-1454
From: Rose Diehl
From Fax Number: Telephone Number:
(717) 633-4439 (717) 637-2201
Number of Pages (including cover sheet):
Date: 1-21-02Time:
    0l-21-0212:47 B OF H TRUST DEPT ID=7176334439 P.02
471 Valley View Drive
Hanover, Pennsylvania 17331
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my opinion regarding the recent settlement 
in the Microsoft case. First and foremost, this case has dragged on 
for far too long. Second, the settlement was reached after a long 
series of negotiations with neutral mediators. This settlement 
indeed serves the public interest; I don't see how there can be any 
dispute on that, except from their competitors who won't take 
anything less than a break-up. Microsoft has created superior 
products and set the standard for the entire IT industry, they 
should not be punished for that.
    So much of my personal marketability is due to my extensive 
knowledge of the Microsoft programs that are used in so many 
businesses. I work in investment banking and nearly all of the 
software we use is Windows compatible and the software used for 
general office procedures is all Microsoft as well. Should I have to 
learn new programs, a large portion of my employable skills would be 
diminished. Additionally, everything on my home PC is run by 
Microsoft products. I am not forced to use Microsoft, but glad to. 
Another part of the settlement involves a great deal of information 
sharing, with Microsoft practically giving away their coding and 
interface technology. If that isn't beyond fair, I don't know what 
else their competitors could possibly expect.
    I ask that you please do your part in upholding the current 
settlement. I'm sure that most Congressional offices run with 
Microsoft products and would be highly upset if they had to change. 
This issue spans the entire country, Republicans and Democrats 
alike. If politicians could agree to settle this issue, our economy 
and IT industry could move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Rose Diehl
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031602

JAN-21-02 MON 01:50 PM FAX : PAGE 1
234 Burns Crossing Road
Severn, MD 21144
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As part of the open 60-day comment period, I would like to share 
my thoughts on the Microsoft Anti Trust case. This bogus lawsuit has 
been a terrible waste of tax dollars and government resources. I do 
believe there are other more pressing matters on which our 
government should be concentrating. The proposed settlement is a 
more than reasonable end to this lawsuit and I hope that our Justice 
Department will make the right decision for our entire country.
    Microsoft is responsible for making the technology industry what 
it is today. Their exceptional products have changed the way people 
do business and how everyday people communicate with one another. 
This settlement, while limiting Microsoft's own competitive 
abilities, will certainly foster competition among the entire 
computer industry. They are changing the way they do business, 
allowing computer makers to pre-install competing software on 
Windows. Microsoft has agreed to share more information with their 
competitors, even though they spent their own time, money and 
resources developing the technology. The settlement is a very just 
solution to ending this lawsuit.
    Simcerely
    Mark Leary



MTC-00031603

JAN 21 200209:51 FR MICROSOFT RECEP #22 425 936 7224 TO 
912023071454 P. 01/01
John Held
16329 170th Ave. NE
Woodinviue, WA 98072
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I work within the 
technology industry and I think it is time to let the industry get 
back to business. For over three years government has bogged down 
Microsoft with lawsuits. It is time to put this issue to rest.
    During the period that the government has been trying to break 
Microsoft up the industry has had some tough times. Most stock is 
down, many companies have gone out of business, and the industry 
leader has had to deal with a hostile government.
    Microsoft has given a lot of ground to get this over with. They 
are willing to share some of their trade secrets to competitors; 
give up their leverage over computer makers by adopting uniform 
prices; and submit to the oversight of an independent technical 
committee. They have agreed to terms that extend well beyond the 
products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit.
    The settlement is fair and should be accepted by the government. 
I hope you use your authority and influence to help that happen.
    Sincerely,
    John Held



MTC-00031604

01/21/200212:16 Fax 7704281772 SkillCheck Inc. 001
Gerry Weinberg
3861 Wyntuck Court
Kennesaw, GA 30152
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write to you today to express my support of the settlement 
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Although I 
believe the merits of the case against Microsoft are questionable, I 
believe that the resolution of this case bodes well for the 
technology industry.

[[Page 29614]]

    Developers, consumers, and manufacturers will all see the 
benefits of this settlement. Developers will now be able to design 
competing software that is easily interchangeable within the Windows 
system. Consumers can now redesign Windows to suit their tastes. 
Similarly, manufactures will be freed of contractual restrictions 
placed upon them by Microsoft.
    To sum, the enactment of the settlement has enormous benefits. 
Enact the settlement at the end of January.
    Sincerely,
    Gerry Weinberg



MTC-00031605

Joann Tyson
1701 Palmer Avenue
WinterPark FL 32789-27.54
January 21, 2002
John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to give my support to the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department. The provisions 
that were set forth in the settlement are both fair and reasonable 
for all parties involved. It would be an imprudent decision by the 
government to reject the settlement and pursue this case still 
further in court.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft will be making a number of 
specific changes to its products and business practices. For 
instance, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions, including price.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to reveal internal information 
about Windows to the competition. This is a first in an antitrust 
settlement.
    There are many more concessions that hurt Microsoft and help its 
rivals I am not sure what more the critics could want. Please 
support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Joann Tyson
    407-644-9916
    cc: Representative Ric Keller
    JAN-21-200211:48 PM J. TYSON 4076449189 P.01



MTC-00031606

01/21/42 TUE 08:47 FAX 3602993050 W ROBILLARD 001
5205 Sterling Drive
Anacortes, WA 98221
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This case has lingered 
for over three years. It is time to put it to rest. Accepting the 
agreed terms of the settlement is the best possible solution for the 
entire technology industry.
    In an effort to end the legislation and get on with innovation, 
Microsoft has agreed to terms in the settlement that were not at 
issue in the lawsuit. The agreed terms require changes in 
Microsoft's product design, licensing and distribution practices 
that will allow more open competition.
    For the good of Microsoft and the entire technology industry, I 
support the terms of the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.
    Sincerely,
    Phyllis Robillard



MTC-00031607

01/21/42 TUE 0 8 : 4 5 FAX 3 6 0 2 9 9 3 0 5 0 W ROBILLARD 001
5205 Sterling Drive
Anacortes, WA 98221
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This case has lingered 
for over three years. It is time to put it to rest. Accepting the 
agreed terms of the settlement is the best possible solution for the 
entire technology industry. In an effort to end the legislation and 
get on with innovation, Microsoft has agreed to terms in the 
settlement that were not at issue in the lawsuit- The agreed terms 
require changes in Microsoft's product design, licensing and 
distribution practices that will allow more open competition.
    For the good of Microsoft and the entire technology industry, I 
support the terms of the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.
    Sincerely,
    Phyllis Robillard



MTC-00031608

01/20/200222:35 8438563536 ROBERT S HARDMAN PAGE 01
Robert Hardman
542 Marshgrass Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am in support of the settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice in early November. It is my 
opinion that the best interests of all American's would be well 
served by a swift and fair conclusion to this suit. After three long 
years of litigation, my hope for a swift end is long dead; however, 
this settlement will at least end this suit fairly.
    While Microsoft has had to make some rather harsh concessions 
with this settlement, such as regulating their licensing agreements 
with computer makers, they have agreed to its terms. Microsoft 
realizes it is better for them to make concessions and kick-start an 
economic recovery than be fully vindicated after a few more years in 
court. The fact remains that our economy is floundering, and 
Microsoft is one of America's largest employers: to continue this 
suit would be a very imprudent decision, especially at this time.
    I am pleased that an end seems to be in sight; I urge you to 
continue supporting this settlement so that we can finally stop this 
debacle. Do not allow America to ring in another year with this 
heinous litigation hanging over our heads. Thank you for you time in 
this case, and for your diligent consideration of my position.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Hardman
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00031609

JAN-21-0208:33AM FARMERSINS 6239724634 P.01
18017 N 63RD Drive
Glendale, AZ 85308
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason for this letter is to ask that you continue to back 
the settlement that was reached between you and Microsoft in the 
antitrust case.
    This revolutionary settlement will change the IT industry in 
many positive ways. The settlement will end any contractual 
restriction by Microsoft that may have limited distribution by a 
third party of other companies'' software.
    Also the settlement wiIl require that Microsoft share code, 
including internal interfaces and the secrets of how their operating 
systems work so the competitors will be able to manufacture better 
products.
    The settlement also has value because it will finally bring a 
close to the federal case. This case has drained both Microsoft and 
the DOJ of valuable time and resources. Please do not vacillate in 
your support of this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Chambless



MTC-00031610

JAN. -21'' 02 (MON) 10:17 GRASSI & COMPANY TEL: 1 212 725 
5785 P.01
66 Cannon Boulevard
Staten Island, NY 10306-2812
(718) 351-3024
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am a web designer and, hence, very familiar with the 
technology market.
    I watched with interest the antitrust case brought against 
Microsoft several years ago. My own personal opinion is that it was 
unwarranted. Bill Gates is aggressive. But business is aggressive. 
Competition in the market place is fierce. Furthermore, people buy 
what they want. Microsoft put out a quality product. Bill Gates was 
the first to standardize software programs, allowing the technology 
revolution to reach into every home. If another firm had done it, we 
would not be talking about Microsoft, but that particular company. 
However, a settlement was reached, which I was happy for. It is time 
to quit wasting both time and money,

[[Page 29615]]

Microsoft has been chastened, agreeing to terms well beyond what was 
actually at issue in the original suit.
    Microsoft has agreed to share any code or programming that 
Window uses to communicate with other programs. Microsoft will help 
companies better achieve a greater degree of reliability with regard 
to their networking software; Microsoft agreed to a technical 
committee to monitor future compliance. I think Microsoft has done 
more than its share of complying with demands from the Justice 
Department.
    I urge you to give your approval to this particular agreement. 
Thank you.
    SincereIy,
    Fred Lee



MTC-00031611

TO : PHONE N0. : 12023071454 JAN. 2 1. 20029:44AM P 1
FROM : MARILYN GRANT PHONE NO. : 603 4270371
Marilyn E. Stump
P.O.BOX 1591 Conwey, NH03818-1591(603)447-3607
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 January 11, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support for the 
settlement that was recently reached between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation. The settlement reached last 
November should be enacted with great haste. Enacting this 
settlement will begin the process of economic rebuilding of the 
technology industry. The settlement, then, is in the best interests 
of Microsoft, the IT industry, and the economy in general. The 
settlement releases contractual restrictions to software developers. 
Developers that might have been contractually obliged to work with 
Microsoft only will now be able to work with competitors as well. 
This guarantees that no third party will be obligated to distribute 
Windows'' technology exclusively or at a fixed percentage. 
These stipulations come at a great cost for Microsoft. While I 
believe antitrust litigation was unnecessary in the first place, I 
hope that the settlement is enacted quickly. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Stump



MTC-00031612

JAN-20-2002 09:18 PM NORTHERNEXTERIORS 585 6879 P. 01
Gretchen Jack
108 Woodlawn Avenue
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania 18411
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am absolutely opposed to the suit against Microsoft. I own 
stock in many technology companies including Microsoft and I feel 
the opposition to Microsoft is often no more than sour grapes. The 
competing companies are just mad that Microsoft has won out. The 
fact is that Microsoft has been continuously innovative. Microsoft 
has agreed to more concessions than were named in the lawsuit in an 
effort to get out of the court room and get back to creating new 
products. Information sharing, non-retaliation agreements, and 
government oversight is enough. Microsoft has created products that 
we need and use. Their products sell well and that high sales volume 
has kept prices down for the consumer. I think the government should 
finalize the lawsuit and that no further action should be taken 
against Microsoft Corporation. Let them get back to work creating 
new products.
    Sincerely,
    Gretchen Jack
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031613

01/20/2002 16:20 12068422370 SEACRAFT PAGE 01
10820 Madison Avenue Northeast
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is an unfortunate that Microsoft was brought into court more 
than three years ago in the antitrust case. I certainly feel that 
this case should have never gone to trial. Microsoft has created 
innovative products that have made computers easier to use for more 
than twenty years. They should not be punished for being successful.
    The reason I am contacting you is because I want you to support 
the settlement that was offered in this case. The settlement is on 
the whole fair and balanced, and most importantly it will finally 
bring this case at the federal level to a close. Both the Plaintiff 
and Defendant have spent enormous amounts of money and time on this 
case. Further expenditures will simply be additional waste on both 
sides. Both sides should settle as soon as is legally possible. The 
Justice Department must realize that Microsoft has millions of 
supporters. While not as loud and cantankerous as anti-Microsoft 
interests, we do exist and want this case ended. Thank you for 
considering my views on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Priscilla Greenless
    Let's keep a successful business successful competition is good 
for the country. Business should not be penalized for being 
successful. We need Mr. Gates and his innovative ideas. Don't kill 
the ``fatted calf''! We need him!



MTC-00031614

01/20/2002 18:44 3367780617 JEFF RAY PAGE 01
3735 Squirewood Drive
Clemmons, NC 27012
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to let you know that I am in favor of the Microsoft 
settlement. My opinion is Microsoft is not a monopoly, and does its 
best to serve its customers. Furthermore, the government should 
limit their involvement in businesses, as it is the people who have 
the choice, as consumers, as to who they want to support.
    The strength and success of any company is held in the hands of 
its customers. Our free market economy allows companies to prosper 
by competing for customer loyalty. Microsoft has proven time and 
again with its products and services that it has a far-reaching 
customer base. The choice to buy or not to buy is with the people. 
Too much government intervention should be avoided, and this 
settlement has already taken over three years!
    Additionally, I believe that proceeding with this settlement is 
in the best interest of business, the economy, and customers. By 
holding up the settlement any further, the American economy does not 
have the chance to work its way out of the current recession. The 
settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations with a court-
appointed mediator, and the Company has agreed to terms that extend 
well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue 
in the suit. The American people think it is time to move on.
    Keeping Microsoft tied up in court is a bad move for everyone 
involved. Please make this issue the highest priority and let the 
government settlement stand. I am thankful that I live in a country 
where my voice and my opinion is important in discerning what is 
right for the greater good of the people.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Ray



MTC-00031615

JAN-21-02 11:25 PM 6196970912 P.0l
City of La Mesa
BARRY JANTZ
Councilmember
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 6 16-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The settlement in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft should be 
accepted and ratified as quickly as possible. This letter is being 
written not only to ask you to accept the settlement-but to do so as 
quickly as possible.
    The Microsoft case has been a significant constraint on the 
national economy. I am sure the courts have heard this argument 
articulated by many an academic versed in the economy. But, the 
argument is much more than academic. Small business is feeling this 
case in a very real way.
    It is my understanding that the settlement in this case will 
become law as soon as the courts accept it. The sooner you can 
ratify the settlement, the better. Business affected by the case 
will see positive change right away, as opposed to the next fiscal 
year or some ``business related time period''. The courts 
should accept the settlement and work to expeditiously set the 
wheels in motion for it to be executed. Doing this will allow 
business to move forward again.
    Sincerely,
    Barry Jantz

[[Page 29616]]



MTC-00031616

FROM : FAX NO.: Jul. 20 2001 05:50am P1
HARNETT COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY
P.O.Box 1562
BUIES CREEK,NC 27506
RENATA HESSE
TRIAL ATTORNEY
ANTITRUST DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
601 D STREET NW, SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20530
    DEAR MS. HESSE,
    AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HARNETT COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY AM VERY 
AWARE OF THE CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT FACES IN TRYING DEAL EFFECTIVELY 
WITH AMERICAN BUSINESSES. ONE CAUSE OF HiGHER TAXES is THAT 
TAXPAYERS ARE OFTEN RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS.
    AS YOU CAN TELL, I AM OPPOSED TO HIGHER TAXES AND BELIEVE THAT 
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REDUCE TAXES AND SPENDING WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 
THAT IS WHY I WAS PLEASED TO LEARN THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S 
CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT HAD COME TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE 
COURT OF JuDGE KOLLAR-KOTELLY. THIS FEDERAL CASE HAS ALREADY COST 
THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS NATION UPWARDS OF $30 MILLION. THAT'S A LOT OF 
MONEY!
    I AM PLEASED THAT NORTH CAROLINA IS ONE STATE THAT DECIDED TO 
SETTLE; THUS, NO FURTHER STATE FUNDS WILL BE EXPENDED FOR THAT 
PURPOSE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT RESULT REPLlCATED IN AT THE 
FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL. THAT IS WHY I AM URGING THAT THE JUDGE 
APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE. A SETTLEMENT IS IN EVERYONE'S 
INTEREST.
    SINCERELY,
    JASON T. LEMONS



MTC-00031617

FROM : FAX NO. : Jul. 20 2001 05:44AM P1
Wake Forest Town Commission
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a local businessman and an elected official in my hometown. 
I have been concerned about the impact of national issues on my 
local community throughout my life, The current recession is no 
exception. The unemployment rate is skyrocketing in towns across 
America, consumer spending is down, and Congress can't decide what 
stimulus the economy needs.
    In Wake Forest, I see the effects of this national trend. I 
believe that the government needs to take certain steps to free up 
businesses to grow the economy and end the stagnation of the past 
year. Finalizing the settlement between Microsoft and the federal 
government would be a giant step in the tight direction.
    Virtually every business in Wake Forest uses Microsoft in some 
form or fashion. In fact, even business owners who work out of their 
homes rely on these products for their work. I admire the creative 
ingenuity of our town's business leaders. They create many jobs for 
our citizens, However, in order to jump start our economy, we need 
products that are even more user friendly and efficient from 
Microsoft and their competitors.
    Because of this, I request that Judge Kollar-Kotelly approve the 
settlement. Recessions are tough. We need businesses moving full-
speed ahead to turn the corner for the American people.
    Thanks for hearing my concerns
    Sincerely,
    Rob Bridges
    Tow Commissioner
    401 Owen Avenue -Wake Forest, NC 27587



MTC-00031618

FROM : FAX NO. : Jul. 20 2001 05:39AM P1
Mark Jones
President
NC Federation of Republican Assembiles
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, St 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to endorse the settlement between the federal 
governement and Microsoft because the quicker this issue is resolved 
because I believe it is the fastest way for the federal government 
to end its involvement with this case. As leader of a group of 
conservative Republicans in North Carolina, we believe that 
citizens-and particularly their businesses-are best served with the 
government as little involved as possible. I am also happy to see 
that the state of North Carolina has decided to withdraw its lawsuit 
against Microsoft.
    For the last several years, I have served on the Board of 
Education in Davis County, North Carolina. During that time, I have 
gotten a close view of the workings of state and local government 
plus some activity by the courts. This service has only strengthened 
my conviction that schools as well as companies do better without 
government intervention. It is better for students when control and 
discipline in the classroom is a responsibility of the teacher 
working with the principal. In much the same way, I feel that 
companies such as Microsoft do best when left alone by either the 
state or federal government and when their manager and stockholders 
are allowed to call the shots. That is why I endorse the settlement 
as a way to return to that situation quicker.
    I understand that in a settlement that both sides will get 
something and also give up something, and that is as it should be. I 
hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will agree and sign this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Jones
    130 Bear Creek Church Rd. Mocksville 27028



MTC-00031619

Sent By: The Ayn Rand Institute; 310 306 4925; Jan-21-02 
6:06PM; Page 1
Via Fax # (202) 616-9937
To: Ms. Renatta Hesse, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice
From Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director, the Ayn Rand Institute;
Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow, the Ayn Rand Institute
Date: January 21, 2002
    Re: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    The Federal Justice Department should drop the antitrust case 
against Microsoft. If at this stage in the proceedings it is 
impossible to drop the case, the Justice Department should settle 
the case on as favorable termS to Microsoft as legally permissible. 
(If possible, the Justice Department should create a legal 
settlement more favorable to Microsoft than the one Microsoft agreed 
to in November of 2001.)
    To understand why one needs to understand two points, one 
general and one particular. First, antitrust laws are non-objective 
and unjust. Second, Microsoft is guilty of no actual crime. Let us 
begin with the first point.
    The ``actions'' that anti-trust laws prohibit are 
vague, contradictory, undefined. For instance, antitrust Laws 
prohibit companies from engaging in ``restraint of 
trade.'' But what specific actions constitute ``restraint 
of trade''? If, as is done repeatedly in the business world, a 
company signs an exclusive distribution agreement with another 
company, is that ``restraint of trade'' because now other 
potential competitors are excluded from that area of the market? Or 
if a company sells a computer to individual X, is that 
``restraint of trade'' because competing computer 
companies can no longer sell X a computer since he has need for only 
one? No-the CourtS have declared to businessmen-only those 
``restraints'' that are ``unreasonable'' are 
illegal. But which specific ``restraints'' are 
``unreasonable''? No definition is to be found in the law. 
So no company can know before it acts which actions are in law legal 
and which are not.
    Consider another example. The antitrust laws prohibit 
``unfair'' trade practices. But again, what counts as an 
``unfair'' practice? Is it any business practice that, for 
instance, causes bankruptcies among some of a firm's competitors, 
because they cannot find a way to compete with the firm's low prices 
and/or superior products? Or is it any practice that the 
administration in power disapproves of! Again, no answer is to be 
found in the law, so it is impossible for a company to determine 
beforehand which specific actions the law prohibits.
    Take one last example. Under antitrust laws, a company can be 
charged with ``predatory pricing'' if it sets prices below 
those of its competitors, because the competitors might as a result 
go bankrupt. It can be charged with ``monopoly pricing'' 
if it sets prices that are deemed too high, because then it is 
supposedly bilking consumers of their hard-earned income. But if it 
therefore decides to set prices at the level of those of its 
competitors--it can be charged with `collusion'' or 
``conspiracy'' because now it is said to be no longer 
``competing.''

[[Page 29617]]

    In the nightmarish world of antitrust law, any and no action can 
be pronounced illegal. There are and can be no definite, objective 
principles specified in the law-and as a result a businessman has no 
way to determine, before he acts, whether his action is legal or 
not. In practice, this means that businessmen are at the mercy of 
the government. Any moment the government wants to cripple a 
particular company, it can unleash the antitrust laws against the 
The Ayn Rand Institute * The Center for The Advancement of 
Objectivism 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 404 * Marina Ddel Ray, CA 
90292-6617 * U.S.A. voice 310-306-9232 * fax: 
310-306-4925 * e-mail: [email protected]
    Sent By: The Ayn Rand Institute; 310 306 4925; Jan-21-02 
6:06PM; Page 2/3 company. In logic, a business has no possible 
defense against a charge of ``restrain of trade'' or 
``unfair'' trade policies or ``predatory 
pricing'' because the charge itself has no objective meaning. 
The antitrust, laws, therefore, vest the government with arbitrary 
power.
    The result, unsurprisingly, is that when, say, a bureaucrat is 
disgruntled with a successful company because it has failed to share 
(i.e., give away) its wealth or support the government's 
particular programs--or when a government thinks that 
destroying a powerful company will win it votes with misguided 
citizens who believe that Big Business is their enemy-or when 
resentful, envious competitors (like Netscape and Oracle and AOL, in 
the Microsoft case) can persuade their government representatives to 
cripple a superior competitor- the brunt of the antitrust laws 
descend upon that company.
    It is no accident that it is America's most successful, most 
productive, most admired companies-Microsoft, IBM, lntel, Wal-Mart, 
American Airlines, Standard Oil, etc.-that are subjected to 
antitrust lawsuits.
    As a form of granting arbitrary power to the government, 
antitrust laws are unconstitutional and un-American. As a means of 
penalizing the successful for being successful, antitrust laws are a 
perversion of justice.
    Let us therefore now leave to one side antitrust law, under 
which any action of a company could be considered a crime, and ask 
whether in actual fact Microsoft is guilty of any crime.
    What are the principal accusations against Microsoft?
    Microsoft is accused of ``unfair'' competition. But 
competition refers to the process by which companies utilize their 
assets and personnel to build better and/or cheaper products. They 
thereby seek to earn, through voluntary trade, even greater profits. 
In a free market, there is no such thing as ``unfair'' 
competition. There are only better and worse competitors. In other 
words, some companies are better than others at research and 
development, at structuring long-term, mutually-beneficial business 
agreements, at marketing products, at keeping good employees happy 
yet challenged. Microsoft, for example, excels at all these 
processes-and many more. (The charge that Microsoft is not 
innovative is particularly disingenuous given its continual upgrades 
and improvements to its major products; even Judge Jackson had to 
concede this point.) The fact that Microsoft is one of the greatest 
competitors the business world has seen is, in a free nation, not a 
crime but a virtue.
    The only ``unfair competition'' that exists is in fact 
not competition. if, say, the mafia threatens to blow up a 
shopkeeper's store unless he gives it a percentage of his sales, the 
mafia is not engaged in competition, albeit unfair. They are engaged 
in coercion-precisely to prevent voluntary trade and the free market 
from operating. When Netscape loses sales to Microsoft because 
Microsoft's browser is better and/or cheaper, Netscape's loss of 
sales bears no similarity to a shopkeeper's ``loss'' of 
sales to the mafia. One must never equate the voluntary with the 
coerced.
    Secondly, Microsoft is accused of ``predatory 
pricing.'' Translated into reality, this means that Microsoft 
is able to charge prices below those of its competitors, such as 
Netscape. Some of these competitors, who cannot match Microsoft's 
low prices, lose market share or go bankrupt. But it is Microsoft's 
incredible efficiency and productiveness that allows it to undersell 
its competition yet still make large profits. Again, this represents 
not criminal behavior but real virtue.
    I
    Sent By: The Ayn Rand Institute; 310 306 4925; Jan-21-02 
6:07PM; Page 3/3
    Finally, Microsoft is accused of wielding ``monopoly 
power.'' This accusation as well is based on equating the 
voluntary with the coerced.
    It is true that Microsoft has a dominant market position in some 
segments of the software industry and that some of its competitors 
have gone out of business. But this is because Microsoft has out-
competed them; it is more innovative, more efficient, a better 
marketer, and/or a better employer than other software firms. 
Microsoft, in other words, has earned its dominant position.
    And it continues to earn it: it faces constant competition, even 
if there are no actual competitors presently in its market. For 
whenever another entrepreneur can figure out a way to produce 
similar software at a cheaper price or better software at an 
attractive price (or some undreamt of product that makes current 
software obsolete), he is free to enter Microsoft's market. And if 
he has a sound business plan, he will be able to raise the necessary 
capital even if he has none: there are thousands of venture 
capitalists looking for the next Bill Gates. Microsoft's dominant 
position in the software industry, in other words, must be earned 
anew each day. So once again, Microsoft is being attacked for its 
success: in reality it has no monopoly power just brilliant 
management.
    The only monopolies that can in fact exist are government-
created ones. Only a government can prevent someone from entering a 
market and thus eliminate competition. The Post Office, for 
instance, is a monopoly. There is little doubt that Federal Express 
could provide better service, more cheaply, and still earn A profit. 
But the government forcibly prevents it from entering the Post 
Office's market. The Post Office's dominant market position is 
unearned: it offers sub-par service but because of government 
coercion faces no competition. Microsoft's dominant position, by 
contrast, is earned: it faces constant competition, which it 
continues to win. Again, do not equate the voluntary with the 
coerced.
    Microsoft is the epitome of American business success: it 
produces enormous wealth through intelligence and hard work. Imagine 
the wealth that would exist-for every firm, for every employee, for 
every shareholder, for every customer-if all companies in America 
were run by a Bill Gates. The fact that they are not should not lead 
us to destroy Bill Gate's creation but, all the more, to admire and 
champion it.
    Why should the Justice Department drop its case against 
Microsoft (or settle it with as small a penalty as possible)? 
Because antitrust laws are arbitrary laws that penalize virtue for 
being virtue-as the specific accusations against Microsoft clearly 
reveal.
    Sincerely,
    Yaron Brook, Ph.D.
    Onkar Ghate, Ph.D.
    President and Executive Director
    Resident Fellow
    The Ayn Rand Institute
    The Ayn Rand Institute



MTC-00031620

Erick Andrews
Consultant
508-481-6627
FAX
Atty Renata Hesse
DOJ, Washington, DC
2
21-Jan-02 20:05
ATTENTION: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
RE: Microsoft Case
19 South Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
January 21, 2002
Renata Hess, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601D Street, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney Hess:
    Please make my following comments known to Judge Kollar-Kotelly 
of the cur- rent proposal to settle the Microsoft case.
    The settlement stipulated in the Proposed Final Judgement by the 
U.S. Department of Justice is a travesty, a transparent sham--a 
sellout to Microsoft. This proposal offers no relief to foster 
competition and provide fair consumer choice of basic Operating 
System software for PC platforms beyond Microsoft's. If allowed to 
stand, this settlement will do great harm to the computer industry, 
harm to people who work in this industry on products other than 
Microsoft's, likely harm to openness of the Internet, and continued 
harm to users who want choice rather than have an aggressive 
monopolist dictate to them. As the proposed settlement currently 
stands it will not accomplish the remedial goals set by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals. You must agree that these were:
    (1) to prohibit Microsoft's illegal conduct and similar conduct 
in the future, (2) to spark competition in this industry, and, (3) 
to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.

[[Page 29618]]

    I urge you to impose stronger remedies on Microsoft that have 
teeth in them and will truly work.
    Sincerely,
    Erick Andrews, Consultant
    [28 years in computer engineering]



MTC-00031621

Jan 21 21 05:03p PISMO BEACH CHAMBER 773-6772 P.1
Pismo Beach
Chamber of Commerce
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney,
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    We are writing to support the settlement of the antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. While our Chamber believes that many of 
the allegations could be true, it is time to shift our focus our tax 
dollars to other priorities. There is no shortage of things on which 
we should be using our resources.
    The settlement has a little bit of something in it for everybody 
while maintaining its overall balance. It is a compromise that 
enforces guidelines on Microsoft for the future and penalties for 
past actions. However, it allows the freedom for Microsoft to 
continue being the successful company it has become over the years 
and throughout the world. It is time to put this to rest. It is also 
time to focus on more important issues, of which there are many. 
Thank you for your time.
    Simcerely,
    Charles Anderson
    Chief Executive Officer
    581 Dolliver Street * Pismo Beach, California 93449
    Phone (805) 773-4382--FAX (805) 773-6772 * 
email: [email protected] *
    www.pismochamber.com



MTC-00031622

Sent by: WOODFIN SUITE HOTELS 858 794 2348; 01/21/02 
4:20PM;Jetfax#127;Page I/2
WOODFIN SUITE HOTELS
12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 794-2338
Fax: (858) 794-2348
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: January 21, 2002
TO: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
FAX#: 202-616-9937
FROM: Samuel A. Hardage
Chairman
Number of Pages (Including Cover Sheet): 2
Sent by: WOODFIN SUITE HOTELS 858 794 2348; 01/21/02 
4:21PM;Jetfax#127;Page 2/2
WOODFIN SUITE HOTELS
January 21, 2002
Sent via facsimile--202-616-9937
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
WOODFIN
SUITE
HOTEL
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is being written in support of the settlement in the 
case of US v. Microsoft. As a civic activist and opinion leader in 
California, I am writing this letter to let the courts know that 
polling has shown a majority of Californians do not support the 
continuation of this case.
    One would think Californians have little tolerance for 
Microsoft. With Attorney General Lockyer and newspapers like the San 
Jose Mercury News (among the harshest of Microsoft's critics), the 
appearance of Californians as anti-Microsoft is strong. But recent 
polling proves that is not the case. A poll done in August of 2001 
found that sixty-five percent of Californians believe the case 
against Microsoft should be settled or dropped altogether. This same 
poll found the vast majority of Californians (85%) in no way support 
breaking Microsoft up.
    CHASE
    SUITE HOTEL
    by Woodfin
    Attorney General Lockyer does not represent the interests of 
most Californians.
    We do not support the continuation of this case and hope the 
courts will accept the settlement.
    Very truly yours,
    Samuel A. Hardage
    Chairman
    12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 250 * San Diego, California 92130
    858-794-2338 * FAX 858-794-2348 * 
www.woodfinsuitehotels.com
    Reservations 800-WOODFIN



MTC-00031623

fax 415-727-3871
Matthew P. Smyth
Fax
To: Renata Hesse
From: Matthew Smyth
Fax: 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1454 Pages: 7( 
including cover)
Phone:
Date: 01/21/02
Re: Microsoft Settlement
*Commemts:
Please find my letter attached, and contact me if you do not clearly 
receive all six pages that follow.
Thank you,
Matthew [email protected]
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Facsimile: (202)616-9937 or (202) 307-1454
email: [email protected]
    I am writing to oppose the 2001 Microsoft Proposed Settlement, 
addressing Microsoft's monopoly abuse'', and to ask you to 
modify it to better address the crime. As stated in the COMPETITIVE 
IMPACT STATEMENT (CIS)2, in section VIII:
    The court's role in protecting the public interest is one of 
insuring that the government has not breached its duty to the public 
in consenting to the decree, Unfortunately, this is not the 
case--the government has breached its duty to the public by not 
addressing the complete situation. Microsoft is a convicted 
monopolist, found guilty of purposefully extending its monopoly 
through an abuse of their existing monopoly (CIS, Section III, A 2). 
The goal of the settlement should be to address the antitrust 
violation, as best described in CIS, Section IV. EXPLANATION OF THE 
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT (PFJ)3, B. Prohibited Conduct and 
Anticipated Effects of the Proposed Final Judgment:
    Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust case should: (1) 
end the unlawful conduct; (2) ``avoid a recurrence of the 
violation'' and others like it; and (3) undo its 
anticompetitive consequences.
    The main two factors to be considered are prevention (points 1 
and 2) and punishment (point 3). Punishment is designed to attempt 
to remedy the past actions, and prevention is supposed to prevent 
further abuses, now and in the future. The proposed settlement 
neither punishes Microsoft nor offers enough hope of preventing 
further abuses. I hope you see fit to alter the terms to suitably 
protect the public and punish Microsoft for their repeated, flagrant 
abuses.
    http://www.mpsce.com/dojletter.html page 1 of 6
    The proposed settlement contains oversight into Microsoft's 
business practices, but insufficiently allows for quick resolution 
when they breach the imposed restrictions. The CIS, describing the 
Section IV of the PFJ, states:
    Enforcement by the United States or plaintiff States may include 
any legal actions or proceedings that may be appropriate to a 
particular situation, including petitions in criminal or civil 
contempt, petitions for injunctive relief to halt or prevent 
violations, motions for declaratory judgment to clarify or interpret 
particular provisions, and motions to modify the Final Judgment.
    In other words, if Microsoft breaches part of the PFJ then they 
can be hauled back into court. That is already an option, and is how 
we got to this stage--and how we had this case drag on for 
years. It does not provide enough quick response to the breach since 
Microsoft will continue to protest their innocence for years if 
necessary.
    Instead, I would propose that Microsoft's new overseers, the 
Technical Committee (TC), be given the power to inflict financial 
penalties when a breach of the agreement is committed. Fines would 
be directed to some counterbalancing force--for example, used 
to purchase equipment from competitors such as Apple for schools, 
given to organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 
the Center for Democracy in Technology, or the Free Software 
Foundation for work against monopolistic practices, or apply the 
money to a foundation that funds developing applications for a 
competing operating system such as Linux.
    Each fine would be based on a methodology drawn out of the 
number of TC members that agreed that a breach occurred and their 
perceived severity of the breach. When a TC member decided a breach 
occurred, they could impose a fine of up to

[[Page 29619]]

$1 million. Each of the other TC members would then have the 
opportunity to modify the fine with a multiplier--from 10 times 
to l/1Oth the original fine. Thus, with all three TC members 
agreeing that a massive, international breach had happened the fine 
could be up to $100 million with both using the maximum 10 times 
multiple, and if two of the TC members thought the third had no 
basis for the fine and used the minimum 1/l0th multiple, the fine 
could be reduced to $lO,OOO--pocket change for Microsoft. 
Multiple breaches could be met with multiple fines.
    This system of fines would force Microsoft to take the TC 
members very seriously, and to make them deal with reducing the 
abuse in day-to-day dealings. In addition, Microsoft should be 
forced to publish a full page ad explaining each fine in four major 
newspapers: the San Jose Mercury News, Washington Post, New York 
Times, and Wall Street Journal. This would make each fine quite 
public, so Microsoft could not avoid the negative publicity each 
time they broke the agreement.
    The proposed settlement also contains no punishment for 
Microsoft's previous, egregious, offenses. In order to ``undo 
[the monopoly's] anticompetitive consequences,''
    http://www.mpsce.com/dojletter.html page 2 of 6
    two items need to be addressed: the ill-gotten gains and the 
barrier to entry in the operating system area. Handling the ill-
gotten gains is the easy part--add on a fine that is 
distributed among the players described above in paragraph 3 where 
fines are discussed. As for the amount of the fine, consider half to 
three-quarters of the company's current liquid reserves. Assuming 
that many ill-gotten dollars have been plowed into their business 
acquisitions and code development, the billions of such a fine might 
serve to chasten an arrogant company without taking away their 
entire business.
    To reduce the barrier to entry in the operating system, 
middleware, and office application markets, publishing the 
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is a good first step. 
However, the other items necessary to create seamless replacements 
to Microsoft middleware are not addressed. In order to address the 
leverage Microsoft has developed in office applications through the 
use of their monopoly, the complete file formats to their office 
documents should be included in the release of information. Since 
the goal is to make sure that all systems can interoperate with 
Microsoft's standards, the file formats are a crucial barrier to 
entry that couId be removed with minimal pain. The unnecessary 
efforts to reverse-engineer the formats and the potential for error 
with such guesswork could be avoided easily by releasing the 
protocols. For a more complete examination, see the Boder 
commentary.4
    There is no provision in the PFJ for creating any competition in 
the operating system arena to prevent future abuses. The Justice 
Department (DOJ) has considered and discarded a structural 
remedy--splitting the company in two. They also say they have 
considered variations of licensing the source code to Windows; but 
based their settlement on whether the restrictions ``... would 
be imposed promptly following a remedies hearing.'' The 
decision to craft a settlement based on things Microsoft was willing 
to accede to immediately points out the great hole in the DOJ 
argument--if Microsoft approves of a settlement, it is too 
light a penalty.
    There are a number of holes in the settlement that Microsoft 
can--and given their history, will--manipulate. Microsoft 
is not restricted from pestering users to reset their computers to 
the ``(Microsoft) Windows Default'' settings from any 
changes that an OEM makes, such as the description of the Clean 
Desktop Wizard: Preservation of OEM Configuration: Subsection 
III.H.3. prohibits Microsoft from designing its Windows Operating 
System Products to automatically alter an OEM's configuration 
choices--such as ``sweeping'' the unused icons the 
OEM has chosen to place on the Windows desktop--without first 
seeking confirmation from the user, and from attempting any such 
alteration before at least 14 days after the consumer has first 
booted his or her personal computer. Thus, for example, in Windows 
XP, the Clean Desktop Wizard cannot run at all until 14 days after 
the first boot. http://www.mpsce.com/dojletter.html page 3 of 6
    The danger to system management by the DOJ is that there are 
holes--there is no restriction on how often the 
``sweep'' request is triggered (could be every 5 minutes 
or on each mouse click) or any requirement that the user may force 
it to stop asking. Microsoft can simply make a computer 
uninhabitable with repeated nagging without breaching any section of 
the agreement, even though it would breach the spirit of the 
agreement. Eliminating the Clean Desktop Wizard entirely and all 
Microsoft-triggered ``updates'' or `tidying'' 
processes would be the only way to ensure that this allowance could 
not be abused.
    Another opportunity for abuse comes in allowing Microsoft to 
define who can see their APIs and documentation. The restrictions on 
the security releases in the PFJ omits individuals who are not in 
business, ad-hoc organizations who wish to collaborate without any 
formal grouping such as a Linux compatibility team, and technology 
advocacy groups who would wish to inspect the code without 
developing any software, From the CIS:
    Subsection III.J.2. permits Microsoft to take certain limited 
steps to ensure that any disclosure or licensing of APIs, 
Documentation, or Communications Protocols related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms it makes pursuant to this Proposed 
Final Judgment is to third parties that have a legitimate need for 
and do not pose a significant risk of misusing that information, ... 
[specifically] (b) having a reasonable business need for the 
information for a planned or shipping product; (c) meeting 
reasonable and objective standards established `by Microsoft 
for the authenticity and viability of its business;
    It is clear that some groups will be eliminated under (b) who do 
not plan a business use, and that Microsoft can create 
`reasonable'' standards under (c) that will still exclude 
some Linux and Free Software developers. Allowing Microsoft to 
create the standards and judge ``reasonable business 
need'' is allowing the fox to guard the hen house. One major 
drawback of the documentation release as described in the PFJ is the 
method of dissemination. Numerous times, the MSDN [network] or its 
future equivalent are described as the optimal way to share the 
information. However, accessing MSDN documentation currently 
requires a Microsoft Passport--in other words, identifying 
yourself to Microsoft and becoming part of their system. In other 
words, Microsoft is able to monitor who has access to the 
specifications. They will know your name and contact information and 
be able to monitor what the user is looking at, which may dissuade 
some developers from utilizing the documentation. if the information 
is truly to be available, it should be available without any 
prerequirements such as a login and password, browsable from any 
area and posted for free examination.
    http://www.mpsce.com/dojletter.html page 4 of 6
    JAN.21.2002 3:47PM THERMATEC NO.296 P.6/7
    Another area ripe for abuse is the use of Reasonable and Non-
Discriminatory (RAND) terms for information release. RAND terms may 
prevent individuals and ad- hoc organizations from being able to 
utilize Microsoft interoperation. When described in the CIS:
    Section III.I, The overarching goal of this Section is to ensure 
that Microsoft cannot use its intellectual property rights in such a 
way that undermines the competitive value of its disclosure 
obligations, while at the same time permitting Microsoft to take 
legitimate steps to prevent unauthorized use of its intellectual 
property.
    The challenge is that individuals may not be able to meet the 
requirements of the licensing conditions. Setting a $10,000 fee for 
a blanket license may seem reasonable for a public corporation or 
even a small business who is creating a product, but any individual 
who is creating software in their spare time would find that an 
onerous burden. Thus, even ``reasonable'' restrictions 
would still prevent Microsoft's greatest competitor, the 
people working on Linux and its associated projects, from mustering 
the license fees.
    The last area I will address is Microsoft's prevention of the 
creation of alternatives to the Windows operating system. With 
sufficiently open APIs, a competitor could generate a program 
designed to replace Windows but the licensing terms of many 
Microsoft products would prevent the users from being able to 
utilize the Microsoft product without breaking the law, due to the 
licensing restrictions. Also, nothing in the PFJ currently allows 
access to the APIs for someone building an emulator or alternative 
operating system. In this manner, Microsoft can prevent their 
monopoly from being attacked while still abiding by the terms of the 
settlement. See the Kegel commentary for more details on such 
observations.
    In summary, the PFJ is drawn up with a very pro-Microsoft bias 
and with very little

[[Page 29620]]

input from the people it pretends to protect--the public and 
the people trying to create an alternative to Windows. The goal of 
the settlement is to punish the lawbreaker and reward the public 
with a more competitive field of choices, yet the exact reverse has 
happened. The loopholes and potential for `creative 
redefinition'' would allow any tech to find methods to let 
Microsoft avoid the restrictions. This settlement has been roundly 
condemned by industry watchers such as Robert X. Cringley6, Dan 
Gillmor7, and NetAction8, consumer advocates such as Ralph Nader9 
and the Attorney General for Massachusetts''', and 
technology folk such as the Computer and Communications Industry 
Association'' and the GNU Project12. It is also being slammed 
around the technology water-coo1ers13, where I hear bitter comments 
from all sides. Apparently, the bitter feelings extend to others in 
the DOJ, when Internet News14 found: The DOJ's settlement was 
brokered by Bush administration appointee Assistant Attorney General 
Charles A. James, head of the DOJ's antitrust division. But career 
officials at the Justice Department, who had pursued the case since 
the http://www.mpsce.com/dojletter.html
    JAN.21.2002 3:48PM THERMATEC NO. 296 P.7/7 beginning, displayed 
their apparent displeasure with the agreement by not signing it.
    The question becomes: who is happy about this proposed 
settlement? Not the public.
    Not the pundits. Certainly not me. Aside from Microsoft, it 
appears no one is.
    Matthew P. Smyth
    3715 Highland Court
    Lafayette, CA 94549
    [email protected]
    1 Complanit: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/fl700/1763.htm
    2 Competitive Impact Statement: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9500/9549.htm
    3 Stipulation and Revised Proporsed final Judgment:http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/casesf9400/9495.htm
    4 Boder commentary: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/rtb/msdoj/
msdojSettlement.html
    5 Kegel Perspective:http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    6 http://www.pbs.org/org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    7 http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/11/02/
opiniondgillmo/weblog/index.htm
    8 http://www.netaction.org/msoft/winfish2.html
    9 http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/mj2kollarkotellynov501.html
    10 http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/015/
business.Microsoft--case--key--to--tech--s&--future+.shtml
    11 http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/sellout.php3
    12 http:www.gnu.org/philosphy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    13 http://computeruser.com/articles/2101,3,1,1,0101,02.html
    http://linuxtoday.com/
news--story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-
OP-MS
    http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/121001.html
    http://www.Iamlaw.com/DOJvsMicrosoft/WrapAndFlowMain.html
    http://monwy.cnn.com/2001/12/12/technology/microsoft/ and many 
others: http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+settlement
    14 http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/
0,,3--936241,00.html
    http://www.mpsce.com/dojletter.html page 6 of 6



MTC-00031624

Jan-21-02 02:26P Nova Voice Data fax#2 P.01
NOVA VOICE & DATA SYSTEMS INC.
Telcommunication Systems/Network Services Divisions
CA Lic. #592116
novads.com
Authorized Representatives
TOSHIBA
Microsoft
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616 -9937
    Ms. Hesse,
    I have been active in civic issues and various policy debates 
throughout my community for some time. When I learned that the 
courts were asking the public to comment on the Microsoft antitrust 
trial, I felt strongly about sending you this letter. I have 
followed the antitrust trial from its start almost four years ago. I 
have never supported the government's case against Microsoft. Now 
that the courts have a chance to end this waste of taxpayer money by 
accepting the settlement. I sincerely hope you will do so. My 
reasons for not supporting the case against Microsoft are simple-I 
support free enterprise. It is no mystery that the antitrust trial 
was started because Microsoft's competitors lobbied President Bill 
Clinton on the issue. Those competitors didn't have the ability to 
compete with Microsoft in the market place, so they asked the 
government to step in and help.
    This defies every principle our economy was built on. Our 
strength comes from an open, competitive market. Superior products 
evolve and dominate their sector. Those products and their makers 
lose their top spot when another company creates a better product. 
Asking the government to step in and place inferior companies at the 
top is not how this country was built.
    I recognize that Microsoft's competitors will argue that 
Microsoft unfairly abused their position at the top to keep them 
down. I don't agree with that. Antitrust laws developed seventy-five 
years ago do not apply to the technology industry of today. 
Microsoft got maintained their position of supremacy because they 
continued to develop superior products.
    The courts have an opportunity to put an end to a very big 
mistake. I urge the courts to accept the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Gibson President



MTC-00031625

JAN-20-2002 01:36 PM MILTON HANER 4252593022 P.O1 FAX COVER 
SHEET
Send to: Attorney General
From: Milton & Judith Haner
Attention: John Ashcroft
Date: 1-21-02
Office Location: Wash DC
Office Location:
Fax Number 1 202 307 1454
Phone Number: 425-259-3022
fax # Same
Urgent
Reply ASAP
Please comment
Please Review
xFor your Information
Total pages, including cover:
Comments :
JAN-20-2002 01:37 PM MILTON HANER 4252593022 P-02
Milton Haner
1208 48th Street SE
Everett, WA 98203-2900
January 19, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    We are writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The suit dragged out long 
enough and it is time to allow Microsoft and the industry to move 
forward.
    The settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations with 
a court-appointed mediator. The terms are fair. Microsoft actually 
agreed to terms that extend will beyond the products and procedures 
that were at issue in the suit, even going so far as to divulge some 
of its software code to other companies that will use it against 
Microsoft. It is time that the government accepts the settlement and 
allows Microsoft to return to concentrating on business.
    Microsoft has dealt with the government threatening to break up 
the company for over three years now. It is unfortunate that 
companies have to deal with such government over regulation. It is 
time for business to return to normal. Please accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement.
    I would like to add that my wife and I were so pleased with your 
appointment as Attorney General and that we hold you in our prayers 
as you face all the decisions that are placed before you that God 
will give you continued direction and wisdom.
    We do not know of Bill Gates religious standing, but we do 
believe that God has blessed him, because of his generosity around 
the world and here in America, to help various organizations and the 
education system and encourage you to take this into consideration 
when you make your decision.
    Sincerely,
    Milton Haner
    Judith Haner



MTC-00031626

Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
(facsimile) 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
    Re: Public comment (Microsoft case settlement) that under the 
Tunney Act must

[[Page 29621]]

be considered before the settlement is accepted.
    Dear Mrs. Hesse:
    I have been a Software engineer for the last 19 years. I am not 
working nor have never worked for any of Microsoft's competitors. I 
would like to respectfully request that you reconsider the grave 
anticompetitive consequences of the proposed Microsoft settlement by 
the the Justice Department. The settlement evidently grants 
Microsoft its operating system monopoly with wording such that it 
would no longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain its monopoly. 
In my view, and that of most of my colleagues, the settlement is a 
travesty of justice, an ill-advised embarrassment that flings down 
and dances upon the law and upon all but the moat twisted notions of 
justice.
    If this administration does not allow now that it is capable of 
acting with forceful determination, then I have no doubt that 
Microsoft will be emboldened and will push its bullying practices to 
new heights. I also have no doubt that our government will someday 
have to revisit this ugly problem. It will then be facing a much 
more powerful behemoth that has leveraged its way into other market 
segments, making the search for an effective remedy an almost 
hopeless task (short of reconsidering a breakup-- again). As a 
software developer I am outraged: Microsoft's continued leverage of 
their illegal and ill-gotten monopoly on the desktop has now 
positioned the company to extend its control to the Internet. As a 
citizen I am dismayed: the continued indifference of this 
administration will ultimately lead to a monolithic entity 
controlling all relevant aspects of our cyber- society. As a 
consumer I am maddened: we will face a world devoid of choice in 
that arena. In the end, we will all have to pay the price.
    I would like to urge this administration to help foster a 
business environment where healthy competition has a chance to 
innovate in a truly level playing field-- where a nascent 
company will not be crushed by illegal means because it chose to 
offer viable alternatives to Microsoft's products-- where the 
reason the Open Source software movement thrives is more than 
because it presents no definable corporate target for Microsoft to 
shoot down. I would like to plead with this administration to stop 
its apparent indifference to the wrong-doings of large corporations 
and to apply true remedies with real teeth when a corporation has 
been found guilty of monopoly. I sincerely hope that the currently 
unfolding Enron debacle will make this administration more sensitive 
to the fact that tacitly supporting another large company practice, 
like Microsoft's, by turning a blind eye to its illegal business 
practices will ultimately carry an enormous price to our society.
    You now have a historic opportunity to redress this and apply 
real remedies that will send the message that illegal business 
practices will not be tolerated any more.
    I urge you to act now, decisively, and with justice on behalf of 
our future. I want to believe that you will do the right thing. I 
really wish to thank you for your time and for considering my views.
    Sincerely
    George Soler
    7 hallam St. 3A
    San Francisco, California 94103



MTC-00031627

619 2804858 JOHN CIHAK RTY P01
JOHN F. CIHAK
OFFICE (619) 280-4850
REAL ESTATE SUITE 101
2840 ADAMS AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92116
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial ATtorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Ms. Hesse,
    This week, Governor Gray Davis and the California State 
Legislature will be announcing all of the various public works 
projects that are going to go without funding during the next fiscal 
year. I have spent years working in my community and am very 
concerned about what kinds of projects we are going to lose. I can't 
sit idly by and watch this happen while our leaders still consider 
spending millions of dollars on other frivolous projects. That is 
why I am writing this letter to ask the court to approve of the 
settlement with Microsoft.
    The Microsoft case has already cost Californians tens of 
millions of dollars. That does not include what we are spending on 
the federal side of this case. Each time I think about the money, 
which might be spent should the settlement be rejectred, I think 
about all the important projects our community is going to lose out 
on. I am not naive enough to think that if the Microsoft case is 
settled that we will then get our public works projects. However, I 
do believe settling the case with Microsoft is a decision which 
should be made on principle. It is a decision which says that the 
courts and our elected officials will find a way to resolve issues 
like this when there's not enough money to fund even the most basic 
needs.
    Sincerely,
    John Cihak
    Owner Cihak Realty



MTC-00031628

FROM : A D Fakonas January 21, 2002 PHONE NO. : 925 2537936 Jan. 21 
2002
01:55PM Pl
A. D. Fakonas
56 Via Floreado
Orinda, CA 94563
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge you to settle the antitrust case against Microsoft. The 
issue has been dragged out far too long, to the detriment of the US 
economy and consumers. In fact, it often felt like the main reason 
this case was ever brought up was because its competitors were 
better at navigating the political world. Although Microsoft's 
business dealings may have been heavy-handed in the past, they were 
not detrimental to the consumer marketplace. I, like most (even 
marginal) computer users, have always had the option to use products 
from any software vendor. I personally have used both Internet 
Explorer and Netscape Navigator, and I still use both Microsoft 
Media Player and Real Networks RealPlayer. I have both on my 
computer simultaneously, and both work fine. The fact is that 
Microsoft has become a dominant force because it has provided 
superior products at good value. The settlement negotiated in 
November eliminates Microsoft's ability to force programs and 
products on consumers and manufacturers by requiring Microsoft to 
allow competitors to place their own programs on Windows. The result 
is a playing field as level as the competition will ever get.
    Please drop the case and settle without further litigation. 
Everyone has dwelled on the matter long enough.
    Sincerely,
    A. D. Fakonas



MTC-00031629

The Worcester Foothills Theatre Co., Inc.
MICHAEL WALKER
Artistic Director
MARC P. SMITH
Artistic Director
Emeritus
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GUY JONES*
CO-PRESIDENT
FRAN PAQUETTE*
CO-PRESIDENT
GERALD A. KASHUK*
TREASURER
HON. MEL GREENBERG
CLERK
BARRY BACHRACH, ESQ.*
DR. TAMARA BETHEL
MARTA CASILLO
EILEEN DECASTRO
LEWIS J. DITTELMAN
JAMES DUMAS
DR. BRUCE KARLIN
DR. JAMES LUKES
EVELYN M. MARSHALL
GARY W. MACCONNELL
JOHN 0. MIRICK, ESQ.
ELENI PAPADAKIS
JAMES J. PAUGH, III
MEL PELLETZ
DR. MICHAEL POLSENO
PETER A. WEINROBE
*EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
January 3, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case. As the director of a small non-profit agency, I use 
Microsoft products daily and they have been a great help to me. They 
have allowed our staff to become more self-sufficient.
    Small professional theater groups like the one I run, have small 
budgets and often are shoestring operations. The proposed settlement 
will benefit groups like mine, who would qualify to receive 
Microsoft products,

[[Page 29622]]

if the settlement survives in its present state. This would mean 
that we could spend more money on our productions.
    As far as I can tell there has been no consumer harm as a result 
of any actions taken by Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have, in 
fact, have helped many small agencies such as mine. I hope that we 
end this lawsuit and approve the settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Brad Kenney
    Artistic Director
    WORCESTER FOOTHILLS THEATRE CO., INC.
    WORCESTER COMMON OUTLETS * l00 FRONT STREET * SUITE 137
    WORCESTER * MASSAChUSETTS 01608
    BUSINESS OFFICE: 508.754.3114 * Box OFFICE 508 754.4018 * (V/
TTY) FACSIMILE:
    508.767.0676 www.foothillstheatre.org



MTC-00031630

FROM : E S RUCKER PHONE NO. : 504 5235996 Jan. 21 2002 02:12PM Pl
 Fax to page 001
 1518 1st Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express how happy I am to, hear that the Department of 
Justice finally ended its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. This 
agreement will greatly benefit Microsoft's competitors. They should 
be thrilled with the outcome of this case.
    Microsoft had to compromise much just to get the case over with. 
It agreed to make available to its rivals, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms, any code that Windows uses to communicate with 
other programs. The company also agreed to disclose and document, 
for use by Its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products--a first in an 
antitrust lawsuit.
    What more could Microsoft`s competitors want? Maybe a key 
to the front door of the company's headquarters would make 
them happier.
    Enough is enough. I hope the federal government never does this 
to Microsoft again. It would be pure harassment if they would.
    Sincerely, Evelyn S. Rucker
    Evelyn Rucker



MTC-00031631

Jan 21 02 03:03p p.1
Kansas Taxpayer Network
PO Box 20050 316-684-0062
Wichita, KS 67208 home.southwind.net/-ktn
Renatta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in support of the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. As Executive Director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, I 
have followed this case closely and am embarrassed and distressed 
that our State attorney general has been a party to it. Like the 
tobacco lawsuits of the recent past, this is a case that has turned 
out to be not only a colossal waste of tax dollars, but also a 
detriment to yet another private industry.
    Regulation through litigation seems to have been the underlying 
theme in this case and those responsible for stoking the embers are 
none other than Microsoft competitors.
    My opinion in this case is not from that of a member of the 
Microsoft fan club or from that of an enemy for its competitors. My 
beliefs stem from those of a protector of taxpayers and overseer of 
the spending of the taxes they're forced to pay. In that position, I 
do not support the role of the federal or state government in 
shaping the appropriate market share between opposing companies in 
any industry. This is not the idea behind the ``rule of 
law,'' as I understand this concept from the framers.
    All things considered, the proposed settlement is not only fair 
for all parties involved, but the best thing for taxpayers 
everywhere as it finally puts the case to rest. No more tax funds 
should be wasted on this litigation. As you review this settlement, 
I urge you to consider the positive national impact of ending this 
unfortunate litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Peterjohn



MTC-00031632

JAN. -21'' 02(MON) 14:25 DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOC. INC 
TEL:314 592 8791 P. 00 1
RICHARD L. RACKERS
160 Corporate Woods Court
Bridgeton, Missouri 63044
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department has reached a 
proposed settlement with Microsoft based on the allegations brought 
against the company for violation of various antitrust laws. It is 
also my understanding that you are currently accepting public 
comment on the proposed settlement. Please consider mine a vote of 
support for the settlement. While I know that it probably does not 
go as far as many of Microsoft's competitors would like, I believe 
that it is a fair and reasonable resolution of the alleged 
violations. As I understand the matter, the major complaint raised 
by competitors was the fact that they could not compete in such 
areas as Internet access within the Windows systems. This settlement 
allows such competition for the first time by forcing Microsoft to 
share their proprietary software code with its competitors, It is 
important to the economy right now to enter a growth phase and 
lawsuits such as the Microsoft suit can serve to stifle growth, I 
believe that the Justice Department and Microsoft have reached a 
fair and workable resolution, and I hope that you move forward with 
it as quickly as the law allows. Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Rackers



MTC-00031633

01/21/02 15:41 FAX 704 597 9183 KINKO'S COPY CENTER 001/001
Glenn J. Haqgerty
5509 Cottage Cove Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina 28215
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my concern at the possibility of 
continuing litigation against Microsoft by the Department of 
Justice. I am satisfied with the terms reached in the agreement in 
November of last year, and I believe that further measures against 
Microsoft would be detrimental to consumers and the economy. i urge 
you to reconsider your position
    I work in real estate, but over the past few years, I have been 
developing software with Microsoft. I have been able to develop 
software for real estate appraisers that is not only efficient but 
also cost effective. I have no complaint against Microsoft and I 
believe that measures taken with the aim of breaking up or greatly 
weakening Microsoft are not in the best interests of your 
constituents. I believe that the settlement reached has done more 
than enough to ensure fair competition. In my opinion, further 
federal measures taken against Microsoft would not be productive. 
Please reconsider your stance on the issues. Thank you for taking 
the time to review my concerns.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Haggerty
    cc: Representative Mel Watt



MTC-00031634

JAN 21 ``02 14:45 P.1
Michael W. Thompson
9035 Golden Sunset Drive o Springfield, Virginia 22153
703/455-1539(home)
703/440-9447(0ffice)
703/455-1531 (fax)
[email protected]
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Deliver
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
FAX# 202/616.9937 Number of Pages 2 Date 1/18/02
From: Mike Thompson
JAN 21 02 14:45 P.2
Michael W. Thompson
9035 Golden Sunset Lane
Springfield, Virginia 22153
703/455-1539 703/440-9447(0)
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW # 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to encourage the Department of Justice to approve 
the settlement agreement in the case of United States v. Microsoft. 
As a businessman and a taxpayer, I feel it is time to stop the long 
legal battle between competitors and to allow one of our nation's 
most innovative technology

[[Page 29623]]

companies to get on with the job of providing all segments of our 
economy the opportunity to run more efficiently.
    The proposed settlement is reasonable and it is tough on 
Microsoft and it seems to be a fair outcome to the issues involved 
in this case. I hope that the Court will approve the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft, its various plaintiffs and the federal 
government.
    Sincerely,
    Michael W. Thompson



MTC-00031635

JAN-22-2002 01:44 AM
JAN-11-2002 08:40 AS&T SOURCING MERTS P-01
State of New Hampshire
House of Representatives
Concord
January 12, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I write to offer my support for the settlment proposed in the 
case of U.S. v. Microsoft. As a STate Representative serving the 
Town of Merrimack, New Hampshire, I believe that although government 
should protect consumers and make sure they are not taken advantage 
of by big business, the government's prosecution of Microsoft has 
been misguided. Microsoft is a very large company and does have an 
influence in many consumers'' lives; but it is a positive 
influence that has helped to increase work efficiency and 
communication.
    I am very much a proponent of wisely spending the money that 
citizens give to government and believe spending has been wasteful 
in this case. It is time for the government to step back and allow 
the Microsoft settlement to stand. Too much time, effort and money 
has been spent reaching this settlement. Further money and time can 
be better spent elsewhere, especially in these difficult times.
    With the current economic situation in mind, the government 
should support innovation and companies, like Microsoft, that are 
having a positive impact in our lives and creating jobs and a 
positive trade flow in the international balance of payments. Please 
approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Balcom
    State Representative, Hillsborough 18
    1/3/2002 TOTAL P.01
    TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964



MTC-00031636

Marc J. Mataya
4935 Prentice Place
Charlotte, NC 28210-2917
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to explain my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I feel that the settlement agreement reached between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft was fair and reasonable, and 
was extensive enough for nine states to agree to. Microsoft has been 
punished for building a better mousetrap, and pricing it lower than 
the competition. Although I do not agree with every decision that 
Microsoft has made, I do understand wanting to use you successful 
product to launch more successful products. Three years of 
litigation has called this illegal. Obviously, there is a limit to 
success under free enterprise, and that limit is becoming the 
industry standard.
    Despite my views, I do understand the pleas of the competition, 
I also feel that Microsoft has gone above and beyond in its 
concessions. Under the agreement, Microsoft has changed the way it 
develops, licenses, and markets its software. It has agreed to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software that competes with programs included 
within Windows. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers, who 
account for the majority of PC sales.
    In short, it is time to put this matter behind us. The sooner 
this case is settled, the sooner that the focus of the IT industry 
can return to innovation, rather than litigation. We must make 
certain that we continue to introduce advanced American technology 
to the world market, or risk losing our competitive advantage.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Mataya



MTC-00031637

January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing your office in support of the settlement reached 
with Microsoft in the antitrust lawsuit against them. There are a 
great many companies in the U.S. that operate under monopolistic 
conditions, and I feel that Microsoft is being used as a scapegoat 
of sorts.
    I understand the basic points of the settlement, and I think 
that they provide for ample competitive behavior in the future. 
Uniform pricing for computer makers and increased flexibility in 
removing Windows-based programs from a user's computer will be 
beneficial to consumers in several ways.
    I can assure the DOJ that Microsoft's success is important to 
many people beyond the company itself. I urge you to settle the 
antitrust lawsuit with no additional delay.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Frisch
    920 John Street
    Manhattan Beach, CA 90266



MTC-00031638

John Held
16329 170th Ave. NE
Woodinville. WA 98072
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I work within the 
technology industry and I think it is time to let the industry get 
back to business. For over three years government has bogged down 
Microsoft with lawsuits. It is time to put this issue to rest.
    During the period that the government has been trying to break 
Microsoft up the industry has had some tough times. Most stock is 
down, many companies have gone out of business, and the industry 
leader has had to deal with a hostile government. Microsoft has 
given a lot of ground to get this over with. They are willing to 
share some of their trade secrets to competitors; give up their 
leverage over computer makers by adopting uniform prices; and submit 
to the oversight of an independent technical committee. They have 
agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures 
that were actually at issue in the suit.
    The settlement is fair and should be accepted by the govemment. 
I hope you use your authority and influence to help that happen.
    Sincerely,
    John Held



MTC-00031639

PO Box 5700,
Mt Crested Butte, CO
81225-5700
Crested Butte
Mountain Resort
To: Renata Hesse--Trial Attorney
From: Wayne Anderson
Fax: 202-616-9937 Pages: 2
Phone Date: 1/21/2002
Re: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Cc:
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
CRESTED BUTTE
COLORADO
January 21, 2002
Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
Attn: Renata Hesse--Trial Attorney
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement currently being considered by the court. I have 
worked in corporate IT operations since the early 1990s. I hold 
numerous industry certifications, including Microsoft Certified 
Systems Engineer, Certified Novell Engineer, and others. I am the 
head of my company's Information Systems department, and I work 
primarily with Microsoft products on a daily basis.
    Since I began working in the IT field, my opinion of Microsoft's 
products and business practices has changed dramatically. I have 
experienced first hand the poor quality of their products, and I 
have repeatedly watched competitors with superior technology 
effectively run out of business by Microsoft's ruthless use of its 
monopolistic power. It has had a decidedly negative effect on the 
industry. There is no question in my

[[Page 29624]]

mind that strong remedy is necessary to restore competitive forces 
to many segments of IT.
    To that end, I do not believe the proposed settlement goes 
nearly far enough. The simplest evidence of this is that Microsoft 
agreed to it. The company has shown by its actions throughout the 
years that it will fight to the last breath any attempt to interfere 
with its monopoly. If the company agreed to this settlement, then 
that clearly demonstrates that Microsoft does not believe the terms 
of the settlement will have any meaningful impact on its grip on 
power. If Microsoft doesn't believe the settlement will have an 
impact, why should we? Any effective remedy is going to have to be 
imposed upon Microsoft kicking and screaming. I believe that 
negotiating a settlement with Microsoft is a lost cause. The current 
settlement should be scrapped, and a much more sweeping one should 
be pursued in the courts. I hope this will be done without further 
delay, since time is of the essence in a matter such as this. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Anderson
    Director of Computing
    Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc.
    12 Snowmass Road
    P.O. Box A.
    Mt. Crested Butte, CO
    81225
    (970)349-2333 (800)544-848 Fax:(970)349-2250
    EMail: [email protected]
    www.crestedbutteresort.com



MTC-00031640

l-21-2002 11:33AM FROM 000000000000 P. 1
01/21/02 12:12 P.001/001
Virginia Society AIA 15 South Fifth Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219-3823
TEL 804.644.3041
FAX 804.643.4607 aiava.org
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe one of the strongest reasons to support a settlement 
in the Microsoft case is how the agreement will be enforced. The 
independent Technical Committee; being created has the power to tire 
unlimited staff. The Committee will reside at Microsoft Corporation 
site at Microsoft's expense. Furthermore, the agreement specifies 
the U.S. Justice Department as the sole enforcement authority. To 
summarize, the settlement agreement provides resources, access, and 
authority to respond to complaints about Microsoft's compliance. 
This is an enforcement mechanism with that is bound to work.
    It is heartening to see this case finally being settled. The 
U.S. economy can use a boost and the high-tech industry may be able 
to provide it.
    Sincerely yours,
    Beverley M. Dew
    Director of Development
    Virginia Society of the American Institute of Architects



MTC-00031641

Sent By: DKC Computers, Inc.; 972 642 4942; Jan-21-02 3:OlAM; 
Page 2/2 DKC COMPUTERS, INC.
1324 W. Church St. Grand Prairie, Texas 75050-5129 (972)
263-4879 Fax (972) 642-4942
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    The threat of government regulation of the computer software 
industry is frightening to contemplate. Price controls will stifle 
innovation. Arbitrary restrictions an packaging will drive costs so 
high that consumers and small businesses will not be able to afford 
the advances made in computer technology. Anti-competition rules 
will destroy America's dominant position in the global market and 
give foreign competitors a distinct advantage.
    Is this the future we want for America's technology industry? I 
sure hope not. That is why I am writing this letter in support of 
the negotiated settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and 
Microsoft Corporation. I believe it to be in the best interest of 
the consumer and the high tech industry to end all litigation and 
let technology innovators get back to doing what they do best-
innovating.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Duron K. Cutbirth



MTC-00031643

01/21/2002 09:03 6033667301 WEIRS TIMES PAGE 01
THE WEIRS TIMES AND TOURISTS'' GAZETTE
DEVOTED TO TJE INTERESTS OF LAKE WINNIESAUKEE and VICINITY FAX FORM
This Fax Transmission is being sent to: Renata B. 
Hesse--Antitrust Division
This Fax is From: Rep. David M. Lawton
Number of Pages including This Cover Sheet: 2
Comments:
Commentary regarding the microsoft settlement for your 
consideration.
Reply Necessary: YES No x
P.O. BOX 5458, Weirs, New Hampshire 03247-5458
Office Route 3, Across from Funspot
603-366-8463(TlMES)--FAX 603-366-7301
www.weirs.com
PUBLISHED BY THE WEIRS PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCORD
January 21, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    There is a growing sentiment among economists that we are 
finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of our nation's 
recession. The markets are improving, and the economic forecast is 
generally positive. However, state revenues are down and most states 
will have to consider tough cuts on spending in coming budgets.
    One thing that can be done to aid states'' economies is to 
end the Microsoft lawsuit. I am writing in support of the nine 
states and the Department of Justice's settlement agreement. It is a 
fair and reasonable agreement which brings a satisfactory conclusion 
to this long-running antitrust case.
    As the old saying goes, a rising tide floats all boats. And just 
as a rising tide will float a boat sitting at the lowest point 
first, so the resolution of this case will help those who have the 
farthest to rise first.
    The technology-driven ``innovation economy'' has 
created tremendous opportunities for the citizens of New Hampshire. 
But we must act now to take some of the uncertainty out of economy. 
I urge you to endorse this settlement agreement which would provide 
states greater confidence in fiscal planning and would allow 
entrepreneurs and businesses to get back to the business of creating 
new and better products for consumers.
    Regards,
    David M. Lawton
    State Representative
    Belknap County District #1
    603-279-8382
    TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964



MTC-00031644

01/21/2002 05:58 5084863455 GLAVEY AND GLAVEY PAGE 01
R. S. Halloran Company
370 Harwood Avenue
Littleton, Massachusetts 01460
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to express my support for the proposed Microsoft 
settlement that is currently being considered by Judge Kollar 
Kotelly in the federal courts. The case has gone on too long, and 
has cost the American taxpayer millions of wasted dollars. I'm not 
sure what, if anything, the consumers of this country have gained by 
this protracted fight, it seems to me that we would all be better 
off if the case were settled.
    I run a small logging company, and so I am not involved in the 
daily workings of high-tech industry. However, I do understand 
fairness in business practices, and respect the role of the federal 
government to look out for the little guy. In this case it seems 
that someone got too zealous, and that the case took a life of its 
own. If the Justice Department has reached a settlement that is 
acceptable to them, then I say let's not miss this opportunity to 
end this unfortunate episode,
    I appreciate your consideration of my thoughts on this matter, 
and I ask you to consider: with all that's going on in this world, 
wouldn't America be better unified if we ended this case?

[[Page 29625]]

    Sincerely,
    Richard S Halloran



MTC-00031645

1/20/2002 10:59 PM FROM: FAX TO: 12026169937 PAGE: 001 OF 002
urgent
facsimile
TO: Attorney General Ashcroft
Fax Number: 12026169937
From: Tara Erickson
Fax Number: 413-280-1296
Business Phone:
Home Phone: 435-615-1170
Pages: 2
Date/Time: 1/20/2002 10:59:30 PM
Subject Microsoft
1341 East Oakridge Road N
Park City, Utah 84098
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my exasperation with the court 
proceedings in the Microsoft antitrust case. I cannot believe that 
the case has dragged on for this long and that now, when a 
settlement has finally been reached, some people refuse to accept 
the terms of the settlement and wish further federal action to be 
taken against Microsoft. Additional litigation would be entirely 
counterproductive in this matter, and I do not believe it is wise.
    Microsoft has been fairly dealt with in this case, and has 
actually agreed to terms under the settlement that extend to 
products and procedures that were not found to be unlawful by the 
Court of Appeals. Microsoft has accepted the terms and they appear 
to be more than fair to the plaintiff states, For example, Microsoft 
has agreed to provide anyone acting under the terms of the agreement 
with a license to applicable intellectual property rights. Microsoft 
has also agreed to document and disclose source code, interfaces, 
and protocols integral to the Windows operating system for use by 
their competitors.
    The settlement is fine; further litigation would be redundant, 
expensive, and wholly unnecessary. I ask you not to condone the 
inexplicable litigious behavior of the nine plaintiff states and to 
allow the settlement to stand.
    Sincerely,
    Tara Erickson
    cc: Representative Chris Cannon
    1/20/2002 10:59 PM FROM: FAX: TO : 12026169937 PAGE: 002 OF 002



MTC-00031646

MARK MILLS 2548977092 P.01
Mark M. Mills
1063 FM 205
Glen Rose, TX 76043
Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200,
Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530;
(facsimile) 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
Re: The public comment period in U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I am writing to voice my objections to the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. I cannot see how the proposed settlement can be found to 
adequately punish Microsoft for its antitrust violations. The 
settlement contains no penalties and actually advances Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly.
    History will remember this settlement as a mockery of justice. 
How can one ``punish'' a monopolist by invoking a 
punishment that expands it's monopoly? The punishment is entirely 
unfair to those that have been harmed by Microsoft's unfair business 
practices. Rather than a punishment for the defendant, the 
settlement punishes the plantiffs.
    At a minimum, the settlement must:
    Place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the purchase 
of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to purchase 
them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars), Only then could 
competition come to exist In a meaningful way.
    Require Microsoft to make public all present and future document 
file formats, so that documents created in Microsoft applications 
may be read by programs from other software developers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program Interface, which is already 
part of the proposed settlement.
    Require Microsoft networking protocols be published in full and 
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent 
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    Sincerely,
    Mark M. Mills



MTC-00031647

Reed Royalty Public Affairs, Inc. 949-240-0304 1/20/02 
7:34 PM 1/2
Reed Royalty Public Affairs, Inc. Sunday, January 20, 2002
Governmental Relations Reed L. Royalty, President
Community Relations 30205 Hillside Terrace, San Juan Capistrano CA 
92675-1542
Communications [email protected] (949) 
240-0304 phone (949) 240-2022
FAX
TO: Renatta Hesse, Antitrust Division
FAX 202 616-9937
PAGES: 2
Reed Royalty Public Affairs, Inc. 1/20/02 7:34PM 2/2
Governmental Relations Reed L. Royalty, President
Community Relations 30205 Hillside Terrace, San Juan Capistrano CA 
92675
Communications [email protected] -fax (949) 
240-0304 o phone (949) 240-2022
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renatta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Fax # 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The case of U.S. v. Microsoft is a waste of tax dollars. I 
encourage the courts to accept the settlement and bring this 
unfortunate chapter of our judicial history to a close. I understand 
that the court is deliberating whether the settlement in U.S. v. 
Microsoft should be accepted. It is also my understanding that if 
the court rejects the settlement, the case will continue, forcing 
some states and the federal government to resume spending on the 
issue. I hope you will approve the settlement.
    I write this letter as an individual, but I am president of a 
taxpayers'' organization that tries to ensure that taxes and 
governmental programs are ``fair, understandable, cost-
effective, and good for business'' (our mission statement). It 
is this activity that aroused my interest in U.S. v. Microsoft.
    The amount of tax dollars going to special interest lawsuits 
such as the one against Microsoft has increased dramatically in 
recent years. Politicians now see these lawsuits as publicity 
generators (and sources of extorted money) rather than good public 
policy. The ``demonization'' of productive, tax-paying 
businesses is a deplorable tool used in the search for headlines. I 
hope the court will send a message to the politicians and special 
interests by supporting this settlement.
    By the way, I own no stock in Microsoft, and I use a Mac.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Reed L. Royalty



MTC-00031648

** TOTAL PAGE. 001 **
9343 Larch Drive
Munster, Indiana 46321
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As I read the paper and realize the state of our economy, I am a 
bit disturbed by the recent developments in the Microsoft 
settlement. After three years of negotiations, it was about time we 
reached an agreement that helped to get our IT sector moving 
forward. Now, the technology industry may have to suffer through 
further discussion of this meticulously planned settlement, while 
the global market gets more and more competitive.
    It is time to move forward and let the technology industry get 
back to business. All parties involved are ready to use these terms 
as new guidelines in order to move on. These extremely productive 
terms include new developments in licensing, marketing, and even 
design. All of which are beneficial to the consumer, the IT industry 
and our economy as a whole. Let us support the advancement of our 
technology industry by stopping any further litigation in this 
matter. I appreciate your listening and your support.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29626]]

    Ram Patil
    JAN 22 2002 08:10 FR FLAT ROLLING OPER 219 399 2750 TO 
912023071454 P.01



MTC-00031649

01/19/1995 21:43 8592522845 LESSON IN LEADERSHIP PAGE 01
John Santone
4838 Hartland Parkway
Lexington, KY 40515
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I would like to express my opinion that the last three years of 
lawsuits against Microsoft were wrong and unjustified. Microsoft has 
made huge contributions to our society by creating jobs and making 
technological breakthroughs. They have been the cornerstone of the 
IT Industry and made using computers easy.
    I find it ironic that the intention of this case at the outset 
was to protect consumer rights, but the terms of the settlement only 
reflect the lawmakers'' and politicians'' concern for 
competitors of Microsoft. Under the terms of the settlement, 
Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate against any computer makers or 
software developers who promote or develop products that compete 
with Windows operating system products. They have also agreed to 
disclose their interfaces.
    Now, I am not quite sure how those concessions and the other 
ones will help consumers, but I can very clearly see the benefit for 
other software conglomerates. I do know that I would rather this 
settlement become reality than risk further litigation. I think our 
IT sector and economy cannot withstand having one of our industry 
leaders on the sidelines now in this recession. I request that your 
office finalize the agreement.
    Lastly, I believe this litigation sent the wrong signal to an 
industry that was responsible for creating a great deal of the 
economic prosperity that existed this past decade. You cannot expect 
companies to invest in new technology if they can expect to be sued 
for not inventing a design (e.g. bundling browser w/operating 
system) that suits the Justice Department. Please remember that IBM 
designed the OS/2 operating system, and AT&T developed UNIX. 
Both of these giant companies had every opportunity to beat out 
Microsoft, but they both failed because the Windows design produced 
a superior product.
    Sincerely,
    John Santone



MTC-00031650

JAN-22-02 08:46 FROM: RSR REAL ESTATE ID: 7631656 PAGE 1
1 Gunpowder Road
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that there has been a settlement 
reached in the government's three-year antitrust case against 
Microsoft. It pleases me to know that a settlement has been reached 
in the case. However, I don't feel that there should have been 
litigation against Microsoft to begin with. I support the company 
100% in this case. The government should leave Microsoft alone, and 
tackle other matters that are affecting America.
    However, I feel it is in everyone's best interests to accept the 
settlement as is, so Microsoft can move forward in developing new 
products for the consumer. The terms of the settlement are both fair 
and reasonable, and should be approved by the government in a timely 
manner. I would like to remind you that Microsoft is not getting off 
easy like their critics want you to believe.
    For example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows operating system products. Furthermore, they have agreed not 
to retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with Windows.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Rothan
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Representative George W. Gekas



MTC-00031651

01/22/2002 09:07 8286832241 GINGER PAGE 01
VIRGINIA SCRIBNER MALLARD
105 SANDY MUSH ROAD * MARSHALL, NC 28753 * (828) 683-4445
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm glad I have a chance, as a citizen, to weigh in with my 
comments while the federal Microsoft lawsuit settlement is being 
considered. I urge you strongly to accept the settlement.
    The seemingly endless lawsuit now has a chance to come to a 
close. Microsoft is so eager to get this behind them that the 
settlement even encompasses matters never addressed in the original 
litigation. Among the tough provisions are requirements that 
Microsoft reveal internal Windows'' operating system interfaces 
to its competitors and give up its intellectual property rights to 
competitors in certain cases. It's time to end this sad story of 
government harassment and accept the settlement. I'm hopeful you 
will realize this in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Mallard



MTC-00031652

Steven R. Duncan, CPA, CVA
Certified Valuation Analyst
14191 Duffield Avenue NW Monticello, Minnesota 55362
(763)878-0090 Fax (763)878-3066 e-mail 
[email protected]
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the 
Microsoft federal lawsuit. As a follower of the case I feel that the 
lawsuit should have never happened and was mostly created through 
the actions of desperate competitors. Now that we have an 
opportunity, the agreement should be approved and the government 
should focus on the more important issues our country faces right 
now. The time and money spent on breaking up a company at the core 
of the new economy has been excessive to say the least. This has 
been the reward for starting a business from scratch and 
revolutionizing the software industry. What Microsoft offers in this 
deal is more than generous and will allow other competitors plenty 
of opportunities to sell their products. Access to intellectual 
property, such as source codes, is a requirement unheard of in the 
industry, and it is a major concession Microsoft's competitors. 
Meanwhile, a three-person technical committee will be monitoring 
compliance of the agreement, which should prove this to be a 
workable solution. As a taxpayer and a voter, I believe that this 
deal is in the best interests of the free market and the most 
effective direction for the government to spend its time. Microsoft 
will stay intact and be able to thrive, while its competitors will 
be guaranteed opportunities for their own success. I look forward to 
your support.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Duncan
    01/22/2002 02:18 FAX 6128783055 S DUNCAN CPA CVA 01



MTC-00031653

January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington DC, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Microsoft had been in legal proceedings for the past three years 
with the Justice Department in the antitrust case. This had been a 
burden for both parties, and a settlement was past due, so I was 
very glad to see this settlement come about. I look forward to your 
support of this settlement. I own a small business unrelated to the 
technology area. I have been vocal in my support of Microsoft and 
will continue to use their technology. Anti-Microsoft special 
interests would like to upset this settlement and re- open this 
case. Frankly, I believe Microsoft has had enough. The settlement on 
the table is good; it will allow competitors to more easily place 
products on Microsoft systems and will give competitors access to 
Microsoft computer code so they can make better products. Microsoft 
has been very cooperative in this settlement and taken a 
conciliatory tone. Let's put this matter behind us and move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Granfield
    Speed Promotion
    Mike Granfield
    3220 Oak Brook Drive, Waxhaw, North Carolina 28173
    Jan 22 02 12:54a Mike Granfield 704-202-6352 p.1

[[Page 29627]]



MTC-00031654

01/21/2002 23:08 9037846648 WALKER PAGE 01
Walker G. P. LLC
1841 Fairfax Paris, Texas 75460
Fax 903-784-6648 Ph. 903-784-4919
January, 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to you today to express my support of the Microsoft 
settlement. The Department of Justice has now spent three years 
toiling over this issue without any resolution. Finally last 
November a tentative settlement agreement was reached. This 
settlement should be enacted with haste. It represents a fair 
mediation between all parties involved.
    The terms of the settlement are very fair. Microsoft now agrees 
to license its Windows software at the same rate to the largest 
manufacturers of PCs. This make the marketplace much more 
competitive. Also Microsoft will agree not to retaliate against 
companies that use, sell, or promote non-Microsoft products. 
Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to share information with its 
competitors that will allow them to more easily place their own 
programs on the Windows operating system. Obviously Microsoft has 
been generous in resolving this issue. The Justice Department must 
enact this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    C.L. Walker



MTC-00031655

01/21/02 22:38 FAX 7042639374 DH LINEBERGER 01
Dottie Lineberger
128 Spring Wyatt Drive
Gastonia, North Carolina 28056
January21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement. The settlement that was reached in November is 
fair and thorough. I believe the settlement will serve in the best 
public interest. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions of 
this settlement. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad 
new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft 
programs that compete with programs included within Widows. Computer 
makers will now be free to remove the means by which consumers 
access various features of Windows Media Player, and Windows 
Messenger. Microsoft has also agreed to be monitored by a technical 
oversight committee.
    This settlement will benefit the economy and consumers. Please 
support this settlement. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Dottie Lineberger



MTC-00031656

Jan-21-02 08:25P J & G consulting 760 3405248 P.01
Jorge J. Castellanos
P.0. Box 14030
Palm Desert, CA 92255-4030
75625 Dempsey Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 U.S.A.
Phone: 760 340-5018 Fax: 760 340-5248
FAX MESSAGE
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft, DATE: January 21, 2002
COMPANY: US Department of Justice, No. of Pages: One (1)
LOCATION: 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 Washington, DC 20530
FAX #: (202) 307-1454 & (202) 616-9937
PHONE #:
FROM: JORGE J. CASTELLANOS
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to voice my support of the Department of 
Justice settlement of the Microsoft case. While I feel that the 
terms are a bit harsh, Microsoft has agreed to them and committed 
itself to ending this case is soon as possible.
    There are great many more important things facing America now. 
Pushing this lawsuit, simply because we happen to disagree with 
Microsoft is not the American way. We need to be promoting free 
enterprise and American business. Especially during these times of 
economic instability. I believe that the terms of the settlement are 
fair and that the three man technical committee that will be 
appointed by the government to oversee Microsoft's compliance to 
terms will be sufficient to deter any further antitrust violations. 
I strongly believe that now is the time when we should all be 
focusing on our economic health as well as making sure that we 
continue to have a good employment picture educational policies. 
Let's put this unpleasantness behind us and move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Jorge J. Castellanos



MTC-00031657

January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. It amazes me that the 
government wanted to break up the technology industry's leading 
company in the first place. Now that a settlement has been reached, 
it amazes me that there is a possibility that the government will 
not accept it.
    Microsoft has had so many net positives on the technology 
industry. They single-handedly made most software compatible and 
standardized. This does not mean that everyone has to use Microsoft 
software, just that different software works together. In fact, in 
the terms of the settlement Microsoft has agreed to give computer 
makers the flexibility to install and promote any software that they 
see fit. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any agreement 
that would obligate the computer makers to exclusively use Microsoft 
software. This will assure the consumers that they are receiving the 
best software. As a long term computer user I view Microsoft as a 
National Treasure. They brought the industry out of chaos into 
order.
    The terms of the Microsoft antitrust settlement are fair and 
should be accepted. Microsoft and the industry need to move forward, 
the only way to move forward is to put the issue in the past. Please 
accept the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Glassman
    481 Sage Drive
    Pittsburgh, PA 15243
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031658

JAN-22-02 TUE 8:45 STENSTREAM FINE ARTS P.01
Robert Stenstream Fine Arts
4200 Southwest 7th Avenue Road
Ocala, Florida 34474
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter is to address the recent settlement reached between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I want to applaud this 
settlement, as I think it is long overdue. The lawsuit has stretched 
on for three years, costing millions of dollars and time on both 
sides. It is time to put the matter to rest and move on. The company 
faces more important issues.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to a number of Department of 
Justice demands; i.e. making their software and codes more 
accessible to competing firms, disclosing information regarding 
Windows. There is even a technical committee to monitor Microsoft's 
compliance with the settlement. I believe that all of this is more 
than what is required to settle the matter at hand. I am asking that 
you give your support to this proposed agreement, since many 
Americans like myself do.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Stenstream
    Owner



MTC-00031659

Jan 22 02 07:5la James D. Ebentier 480-423-0536 p.1
JAMES D. EBENTER
4-J Enterprises
8307 East Bueno Terra Way
Scottsdale, Arizona 85250-6611
(Tel.480-423-0446)
([email protected])
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is obvious to me that Microsoft has been cooperative in 
settling this antitrust case. They agreed to design future versions 
of Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows XP, to 
provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers 
and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to 
features built in to

[[Page 29628]]

Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Consumers will have the 
freedom to choose to change their configuration at any time.
    This settlement represents a good faith effort on Microsoft's 
part at bringing forth a viable end to this lawsuit. Now that this 
is done, let's concentrate on getting the economy back on track and 
allow the commercial sector to take care of itself.
    Sincerely,
    James Ebentier



MTC-00031660

825 Powell Road
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my support for the settlement and an end 
to the litigation in the Microsoft antitrust case. The case has gone 
on long enough.
    I am pleased with a number of the terms of the settlement. I 
most specifically like that Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows in such a way that computer makers, software 
developers and consumers can promote non- Microsoft software within 
the Windows operating system. I am also pleased that the settlement 
will be monitored by a committee rather than solely through contempt 
of court or other enforcement proceedings which are more time 
consuming and costly.
    I was amazed at the recent write-off that Microsoft had to take 
for the litigation. We need to leave this case behind, and the 
settlement offers a viable opportunity to do so. It is time to allow 
the country to focus on business again. I would hate to see a market 
replay of the seventies.
    I support the settlement-as I understand it, and hope that it is 
finalized as soon as possible. Thank you for reviewing my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Scott
    01/22/2002 10:00 8283287338 CARL A. RUDISILL LIB page 01/01



MTC-00031661

01/22/02 TUE 10:26 FAX 5703453600 Greg Pijar 001
Greg Pijar
184 SpittIer Road, Pine Grove, Pennsylvania, 17963
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to 
Microsoft. I support Microsoft in the three-year-long litigation 
that has drawn on, and I support the settlement that was reached in 
November. I sincerely hope there will be no further action against 
Microsoft at the federal level.
    Microsoft has agreed to document lots of intellectual property 
to its competitors, including various interfaces and 
interoperability protocols. This will make it so that Microsoft's 
competition can write software that fits better onto Windows, and 
therefore runs more efficiently.
    This settlement contains many provisions other than the above 
that will benefit the technology industry as a whole. Please support 
this settlement so Microsoft can move on from this litigation. Thank 
you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Pijar
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031662

Jan-22-02 11:OlA Mendel Frieman P.01
5506 Greenspring Avenue
Baltimor, MD 21209-4330
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Aschroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to tell you my thoughts about the recent events in 
the Microsoft Anti Trust case. This whole issue has been dragged 
through the mud, wasting precious time and money. Nonetheless, I am 
glad to see that the Justice Department and Microsoft have come up 
with some sort of agreement. I just hope that everyone can put their 
various interests aside for the good of the country. This settlement 
needs to be finalized so that our country can get on with things. 
Our country is supposed to be a free enterprise system, but for 
years Microsoft has been punished for creating superior products and 
making money in the process.
    I don't see how this issue can even be disputed. Microsoft is 
giving up a great deal just so that don't have to worry with this 
issue any more. They are giving away their technology secrets so 
that their less innovate competitors can create products that will 
be able to compete with Microsoft. They also will be changing their 
business practices so as not to obligate anyone to have to sell 
Microsoft's products over anyone else's. Please accept this 
settlement, it is high time that our computer industry be allowed to 
move forward. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mendel Friedman



MTC-00031663

01/22/02 TUE 09:13 FAX 512 327 6384 ALLIED INTERESTS INC. 001
816 Terrace Mountain Drive
Austin, TX 78746
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has been 
dragged out long enough and should be put to rest. A settlement is 
available and the terms are fair. The government should accept the 
settlement and move on. Many people think that Microsoft has gotten 
off easy, in fact they have not. The settlement was arrived at after 
extensive negotiations with a court- appointed mediator. The company 
agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures 
that were actually at issue in the suit, simply to put the issue 
behind them. Microsoft will, for example, now share use a uniform 
price list when licensing Windows.
    Microsoft has given up much, now the government needs to stop 
its over regulation. Microsoft and the industry need to move 
forward. The only way to move forward is to put the issue in the 
past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Stames



MTC-00031664

JAN 22 ``02 09:35 FR PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES630 571 1259 TO 
12023071454 P. 01/02
FAX TRANSMISSION
DATE 1/22/2002
# OF PAGES including this cover 02
TO Attorney General
John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice
FAX# 1-202-307-1454
FROM Barry Szymczak
PHONE 1-630-571-1259
NOTES My personal feelings opinion has been expressed in attached 
letter
    This information set forth herein was obtained from sources 
which we believe reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy. 
Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes a 
solicitation by us of the purchase or sale of any security or 
commodities.
    MGR APPROVAL
    JAN 22 ``02 09: 35 FR PRUDENT I AL SECURI TIES630 571 1259 
TO 12023071454 P.02/02
10820 Cantigny Road
Countryside, IL 60525-4741
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am fully against the three years of litigation, which have 
been brought against Microsoft. Now that a settlement has occurred I 
think it is ludicrous that 9 states still oppose. Our country is 
based on majority rules. The fact that nine states can hold up this 
case, which has dragged out for 3 years, proves there is some 
political interests and personal gain to be had by the state 
attorney generals.
    Microsoft should be rewarded for standardizing the technology 
industry and innovating the user-friendliest applications to date. 
Bill Gates has been innovative and vision oriented; creating 
something out of nothing--nothing but intelligence and business 
sense and concern for what people want. The American dream has been 
reached. Bill Gates should not be penalized for reaching the top. 
The fact that Microsoft has to disclose internal interfaces violates 
its intellectual property rights. All companies in America survive 
on their ability to differentiate products and services. This comes 
from innovating personal business practices and even technology to 
make a product better than the rest. Another term of settlement 
forcing Microsoft into increasing

[[Page 29629]]

its relations with computer makers and software developers 
essentially violates all free market principles, under in which 
businesses have the right to choose who they work with. Uphold 
American freedom. I urge your office to look out for the best 
interest of majority of the American public who clearly want this 
thing to come to an end.
    Sincerely,
    Barry Szymczak **TOTAL PAGE.02**



MTC-00031665

01/21/2002 21:45 2164815977 AL LIPOLD PAGE 01
Al Lipold, Attorney at LAw
24913 Pleasant Trail
Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143
Phone 216 692-0577
Fax 216-481-5977
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen, I write you with interest in the recent 
developments in the Microsoft settlement. I find it hard to believe 
that after three years of negotiations, that the settlement is going 
under further scrutiny. The terms of this settlement are fair and 
should be able to speak for themselves.
    It is time to let the technology industry get underway and back 
to business. As we continue to go through a recession, the 
government continues to delay the very process that will put a kick 
back into our economy. The IT sector is waiting to use this 
agreement as a guideline for advancement, and is ready to get back 
to work. In this highly competitive global market, we need to 
support our technology industry in any way we can.
    Let us support our technology in any way we can. Let us not be 
the ones to slow down the very process that we initiated.
    Sincerely,
    Albin Lipold



MTC-00031666

01/22/02 11: 26 919 829 8098 ALLEN & PINNIX 001
ALLEN and PIN-NIX, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
POST OFFICE DRAWER 1270
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TELEPHONE: (919)755-0505
TELECOPIER:(919)829-8038
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: January 22, 2002
TO: Renata Hesse, Esq.
COMPANY: Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
FAX: 202.616.9937
FROM: Michael L. Weisel
PAGES: Cover + 2
RE:Microsoft Settlement
COMMENTS:
    Notice to Recipent
    The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney 
privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of 
the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is 
wrongful and may subject you to civil liability. If you have 
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us 
by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above 
address via the U.S. Postal Service.
    Thank you.
    01/22/02 11:26 919 829 8098 ALLEN & PINNIX 002
ALLEN AND PINNIX, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.0. DRAWER 1270
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TELEPHONE: (919)765-0908
NOEL LEE ALLEN
JOHN LAWRENCE PINNIX
C. LYNN CALDER
M. JACKSON NICHOLS
D. JAMES JONES, JR. January 22, 2002
MICHAEL L. WEISEL
ALICE S. GLOVER
KENNETH C. DAY
J. HEYOT PHILBECK
ANGELA L. CARTER
ALSO LICENSED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Proposed Settlement in Microsoft Litigation
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Let me begin by saying I am by no means an apologist for 
Microsoft Corporation. In fact, I believe that Microsoft has acted 
aggressively, perhaps too aggressively, against competitors in the 
past. More importantly, I believe it is important that certain 
protections be built in to insure against future anti-competitive 
actions. However, I agree with North Carolina's Attorney General Roy 
Cooper that the proposed settlement strikes a reasonable compromise 
between the ``drastically reduced liability'' held by the 
Court of Appeals and the wishes of Microsoft competitors for more 
stringent sanctions against the company.
    The settlement provides an enforcement mechanism--including 
resources, access and authority--to respond to complaints about 
Microsoft's compliance. It creates an independent technical 
committee with the power to hire staff on-site and at Microsoft's 
expense.
    For consumers, computer manufacturers and information technology 
providers, the settlement provides guarantees of flexibility and 
access to technical specifications. And for all involved, most 
important, the settlement provides a chance to get back to work at a 
time when our nation needs to focus on restoring economic vitality 
and growth. In sum, I believe the settlement recognizes the 
diminishing returns that are likely to be realized by a prolongation 
of this litigation. Accordingly, I hope the court will approve the 
settlement.
    Very truly yours,
    ALLEN AND PINNIX, P.A.
    Michael L. Weisel
    mlw/tsr
    01/22/02 11:26 919 829 8098 ALLEN & PINNIX 003
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Microsoft Settlement
January 22, 2002
Page 2



MTC-00031667

Monday, January 21, 2002 7:29 PM
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: David R.
Hyster, 2961415 Page: 1 of 2
Fax Name: David R, Hyster
Company:
Voice Number: 2962150
Fax Number: 2961415
60 Woodstream drive
CHESTERBROOK
Wayne, Pa 19087
Date: Monday,January 21, 2002
Total Pages: 2
Subject: microsoft settlement
Name: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Company: Attorney General's office
Voice Number:
Fax Number: (202) 3071454
Note:
Monday, January 21, 2002 7:29 PM
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: David R.
Hyster, 2961415 Page: 2 of 2
60 Woodstream Drive
Wayne, PA 19087-5875
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This correspondence is simply intended to ask you, your 
Department and the federal government to accept, adopt and implement 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. This matter has gone too long and 
the settlement is a fair end to a foul ordeal. The plan is a 
compromise between the parties. As such it is imperfect. It is, 
however, a functional means to an end desired by all but the most 
impartial. The plan will open up Microsoft and its Windows systems 
to its competitors and their products. Microsoft's technology will 
all but be open to peer review. The government will review 
Microsoft's business and marketing practices, In essence Microsoft 
will encourage and support its competitors.
    It's time we allow Microsoft to get back in the race. Our 
American economy is faltering and our nation is in peril. We need 
Microsoft at full speed. Thank you. I would like to add that the 
integrity, honesty, maturity, and dedication that you are bringing 
to the attorney generals office is refreshing and is especially 
critical to our democratic process during these challenging times. 
Again thank you for your effort.
    Sincerely for renewed American prosperity,
    David Hyster
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031668

Jan 21 02 05:25p Chuck/Terri Beck 6025880044 p.1
January 21, 2002
Elizabeth T. Beck
16215 N. 11th Place
Phoenix, Arizona 85022
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 29630]]

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Microsoft antitrust lawsuits
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to expound on a number of concerns I have in 
regards to the recent antitrust lawsuits and settlement between the 
US Department of Justice and Microsoft. First off, I think it is 
ridiculous that any litigation began in the first place. Microsoft 
is the cornerstone of our tech sector and has been an extremely 
powerful asset to our economy, They have created jobs, made 
technological breakthroughs, and contributed to educational systems.
    As a consumer, I do not feel that they have infringed upon my 
rights at all. I use Microsoft because they deliver consistently 
better products. Other vendors have not been as innovative and so 
have not been successful. When competition has produced a better 
product they have been able to gain market share. Microsoft offers 
Microsoft-Money on their Windows for free, yet thousands of people 
are paying good money for Intuit's Quicken because it is a superior 
product. You cannot punish Microsoft for offering Explorer for free. 
They merely decided to make it easier for the consumer by placing 
Internet Explorer on Windows operating systems. The consumer still 
has the option of using another browser and most of the 
competitors'' products are also available at no cost. That 
would be like penalizing Snickers for offering their candy for free 
from now on in all convenient stores. You would still be able to 
purchase your favorite candy, as you had intended when entering the 
store.
    Under English definition, monopolistic tendencies are to inflate 
prices and deliver sub par products. Microsoft has done neither! I 
urge your office to take a strong stance against all opposition and 
attempt to give a bittersweet ending to a tragic case of American 
greed and jealousy.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Beck



MTC-00031669

Jan 21 02 07:57p Kent Campbell 791-237-0958 P. 1
85 Grove Street, Apt, 202
Wellesley, MA 02482
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As I read more and more about the recent Microsoft settlement, I 
get more and more frustrated about the results. I cannot believe 
that this well- calculated settlement is still being held back. Not 
only was this agreement part of a well thought out and well-
monitored process, but it yielded terms that are beneficiaI to all 
involved. It is clear that we must support this agreement and get 
everyone back to business.
    Some of these key changes include Microsoft's designing future 
versions of Windows that will allow for easier installation of non- 
Microsoft software. Along with this, they have agreed to not enter 
into any agreement obligating any third party to distribute or 
promote any Windows technology exclusively. These concessions are 
clearly a move toward helping all parties involved. Microsoft is 
obviously working to get the technology industry back to business, 
and, to help all parties involved in the meantime. This is even 
further reason to support the terms of this settlement as they are.
    Please help to stop any further actions toward this agreement. 
Let us help get our technology industry back on track and get back 
to business.
    Sincerely yours,
    Kent Campbell
    CC: Representative Barney Frank



MTC-00031670

From: ANTHONY C. GATTUSO
To: ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT
Date: 1/21/2002Time: 6:44:46 PM Page 1 of 1
161 Sylvia Lane
New Hyde Park, NY 11040
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing to show our support of your efforts to settle the 
litigation against Microsoft. The settlement offers the opportunity 
to bring an end to the three-year resource drain that this lawsuit 
has been. That would be of benefit to America.
    Instead of facing further litigation that might lead to breaking 
up AT & T was broken up, Microsoft has agreed to demands made by 
its competitors for more openness of its internal Windows interfaces 
and server protocols. In addition, computer makers got what they 
wanted, flexibility to reconfigure Windows to highlight their 
marketing needs, and release from exclusive marketing agreements, 
which are commonly used by many companies, such as Chevy preventing 
its dealers from also selling Fords, and McDonalds agreeing to sell 
only Coke soft drinks. We think Microsoft has agreed to give up 
plenty. The American computer industry would be best put back on 
track, and the American economy best helped by agreeing to the 
settlement.
    The settlement needs to be finalized so that we can get our 
focus back on business. Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Gattuso



MTC-00031671

MTS Systems Corporation
PowertraIn Technology Division
4622 Runway Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Tel. 734-9731111
Fax: 734-973-1103
www.mtsptcom
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The settlement reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is very important. The antitrust legislation brought out 
by the Department of Justice against Microsoft has presented a 
potential threat to the free market principles of this country and 
was to a large extent a waste of taxpayers'' money. The 
settlement is important because it marks the end of it
    I believe that the settlement shows the desire of Microsoft to 
do their part. Microsoft has made many concessions. Microsoft is 
required to disclose server protocols to ensure that it cannot make 
Windows desktop software work better with its server software than 
with that of competitors. In addition, the company agreed not to 
retaliate against PC manufacturers or software. developers for 
promoting competing software. Microsoft also agreed to license 
Windows to computer makers uniformly, rather than offer better 
pricing only to some. Microsoft has to abstain from engaging in 
exclusive contracts that would prohibit software developers or PC 
makers from using competing products.
    Providing that the Department of Justice has a mechanism in 
place to guarantee the implementation of the settlement I believe 
that it is time this whole deal is wrapped up.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Dubov



MTC-00031672

Jan 21 02 03:34p Lloyd Mineer 425-423-9611
7212 Upper Ridge Road
Everett, Washington 98203
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to express my opinion that the Microsoft 
antitrust case be resolved as soon as possible.
    I was puzzled why the lawsuit was brought forth to start. I was 
first introduced to various browsers for the internet while I was on 
a job assignment in Canada. My ISP included Netscape as my browser, 
the ISP was the group who made the choice not Microsoft I was in no 
way restricted by Windows or Microsoft to what I would or could use.
    Netscape performance was inadequate for me, in terms of 
technical support and product satisfaction. My eventual decision on 
what I would use was based entirely on service, technical support 
and product satisfaction. Every product I have received from 
Microsoft has been superior, by my criteria, to anything purchased 
from any other supplier
    I expect because I live in Washington state the tendency will be 
to brush off my comments. I do not work for Microsoft, do not have 
any relatives or friends working for them. However, I do like 
whatever products I purchase to work well, to be serviced well, and 
to have excellent technical support so that I may do my job in the 
most efficient and least hassles as possible. Microsoft has always 
done that for me. If the guys who are complaining would spend more 
time in improving their products and technical support they would be 
better served. I was pleased to hear last November that a proposed 
settlement had been reached which

[[Page 29631]]

provides the best opportunity for resolution so far. I would like it 
to be implemented soon so that we may put this entire issue behind 
us.
Jan 21 02 03:35p Lloyd Mineer 425-423-9611 p.2
    The proposed settlement does not let Microsoft off easy. In 
fact, its terms extend to products and business practices that were 
not even at issue in the original lawsuit. One obligation on 
Microsoft's part is to disclose source code and interfaces that are 
internal to Windows operating system products. There is no need to 
continue litigation; this settlement is already more than fair and 
reasonable.
    I ask that the November settlement be implemented without 
further delay. It is time to let the IT industry and its leading 
innovator get back to work. Thanks for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Lloyd Mineer



MTC-00031673

01/21/2002: 19:10 2529463108
SEILER ZACHMAN ROBIN PAGE 01 SEILER ZACHMAN ROBINSON & CO., P.A.
Certified Public Accountants and Financial Consultants
P.O.Drawer l628
144 W. 2nd Street
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 946-8052 Phone
(800) 682-0700 Watts
(252) 946-3108 Fax
Dennis W. Seiler, CPA
William M. Zachman, CPA
Tommy J. Robinson, CPA
Kary S. LaBarbera, CPA
David F. Singleton, CPA
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to state that I support the settlement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft 100%. I think all of the other 
states that are holding out should settle and I think no further 
action should be taken by the Justice Department in this case.
    The settlement was reached after extensive negations with a 
court- appointed mediator. I find the terms to be fair and 
reasonable for the parties involved. Microsoft has agreed to terms 
that exceed the charges in the case and they have agreed to the 
establishment of a three person technical committee, which will 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the case. The agreed terms 
should be enough to keep Microsoft out of court. I hope that the 
government will discontinue their pursuit of Microsoft, and move 
onto other things.
    Sincerely
    Tom Robinson



MTC-00031674

Jan 21 02 04:44p Bonny Becker 1-262-241-4381 p.1
John & Bonny Becker
114 W Miller Drive
Mequon, WI 53092
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are strong supporters of Microsoft, and are glad that the 
Justice Department has settled its three-year antitrust lawsuit 
against this company. We never agreed with the lawsuit from the 
beginning, and after more than three years of costly litigation, we 
hope the case is finally over at the federal level.
    Microsoft is a strong company with innovative ideas, and for 
this it should not be punished. Even so, the company has agreed to 
share information with its competitors, as well as not to retaliate 
against those computer makers and software developers that will use 
this new information to promote non-Microsoft products within the 
Windows operating system. The business operations of Microsoft will 
now be watched over by a technical oversight committee, and any 
company that believes Microsoft is acting in an anti-competitive 
manner will be able to bring a complaint to this committee. These 
concessions are sufficient to end this litigation.
    We believe it is in the best interest of America to settle this 
case. Consumers will benefit, the technology industry will benefit, 
and continuing on with the case will only be a detriment to the 
nation's economy. Thank you for deciding to settle, it is the right 
choice for our country at this time.
    cc: Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
    Sincerely,
    John Becker
    Bonny Becker



MTC-00031675

JAN-2l-02 02:47 PM BEHSHAD BAKHTIARI 3407056 P.01
SHADI D. BAKHTIARI
21620 BURBANK BOULEVARD, UNIT 1
WOODLAND HILLS,CA 91367
TELEPHONE: (818)340-7056
FACSIMiLE: (818)340-7056
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft FROM: Shadi D. Bakhtiari
COMPANY: US Department of Justice DATE: 1/21/01
FAX NUMBER:1-202-307-1454 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES 
INCLUDING COVER
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: 2
RE: Microsoft Settlement YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
URGENT xFOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/
COMMENTS:
JAN-21-02 02:48 PM BEHSHAD BAKHTIARI 3407056 P.02
21620 Burbank Boulevard Apt. I
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-6467
January 15,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to go on record as being a staunch supporter of 
the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice. For over three years the two sides fought back and 
forth, and wasted valuable time and taxpayer dollars. Now that an 
agreement has been reached, I hope that the American IT industry and 
the economy will perform better. The settlement paves the way for a 
stronger IT industry and economy. Microsoft has played a big part in 
that. They have agreed to turn over internal interface data and 
source code to their Windows operating system to their competitors. 
This will allow for increased competition between companies. It will 
also provide the necessary compatibility between competing software, 
which will help spur the industry.
    This settlement is a great deal for everyone involved. I hope 
that it will bring an end to further litigation against Microsoft. I 
support the settlement. It is in the best interests of the industry 
and the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Shadi Bakhtiari



MTC-00031676

Jan 21 02 04:53p CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3615920866 p.1
KINGSVILLE Kingsville
CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trail
Attorney Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to register my support for the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. If the suit brought by the 
Department of Justice and several state attorneys general can be 
brought to an agreeable conclusion, it seems reasonable for the 
court to take this direction.
    It seems as though several concessions Microsoft is being asked 
to make verge on the violation of their intellectual property right, 
a system crucial to research and development by all Americans. 
Should the Court rule against Microsoft and apply further sanctions, 
it would undermine the patent process, which protects the 
development of innovations in American industry and technological 
history.
    I am sure that this is not the intent of the Court, but to go 
beyond the terms of the settlement worked out by the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft would not be in the best interests of American 
ingenuity, not to mention consumer satisfaction.
    Sincerely,
    Peggy G. Hayes, Executive Director
    Kingsville Chamber of Commerce
    P.O. BOX 1030 * 635 East King * Kingville, Texas 78363
    361/592-6238 * Fax 361/592-0866



MTC-00031677

JAN-22-2002 09:46 PM P.01
Jan-11-02 07:58A P.01
State of New Hampshire
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCORD
January 11, 2002
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division of the Department of

[[Page 29632]]

Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to you for the file on public comment in the case 
of U.S. v. Microsoft in support for the agreement.
    I am concerned that the United States government is taking the 
antitrust legislation too far in this case. As a state 
representative, I am wary of government involvement in the 
marketplace. There is a fine line between regulating business and 
controlling it. That is why I believe that before the 
Government`s involvement increases anymore than it already 
has. I hope you will end it.
    It's true that Microsoft is a large company, but its 
creativity and invention has worked to help businesses and 
individuals, not harm them. They are helping Americans to obtain 
knowledge and pursue their individual goals. This kind of ingenuity 
should be rewarded, not persecuted by the federal government.
    2001 was a challenging year for all of us. I believe there are 
many urgent issues for the government and judicial system to focus 
on at this time. Productive companies such as Microsoft should not 
be one of these.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Chalbeck
    State Representative
    Rockingham District 8
    TDD Access Relay NH 1-800-735-2964



MTC-00031678

From Mark Knoll (734) 482-9439 Tue, Jan 22, 2002 9:18 AM
Page 1 of 2
FAX
TRANSMISSION
Date: 22January 2002
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice
Suite 1200
Fax: 202-616-9937/202-307-1545
From: Mark W. Knoll
8500 Ashton Court
Ypsilanti, MI 48198
Fax: 734-482-9439
E-mail:[email protected]
Re: Public comments concerning the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
Number of pages(including cover sheet): 2
From Mark Knoll (734) 482-9439 Tue, Jan 22,2002 9:18 AM Page 2 
of 2
Tuesday, 22 January 2002
    To whom it may concern:
    I write today to express my strong conviction that the proposed 
settlement to the Microsoft antitrust case is not in the public 
interest. The remedies contained therein are far too lenient in 
comparison to the degree to which Microsoft's guilt was proven in 
court and upheld upon appeal.
    The remedies proposed by the ``Track 2'' states 
represent a much more appropriate starting point than the proposed 
settlement for reining in Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, but 
even these more stringent remedies do not go far enough to restore a 
level playing field in the computer industry. Microsoft's December 
12th, 2001 filing with the Court, in which they object to the 
``Track 2'' proposed remedies as being 
``punitive,'' indicates just how arrogant Microsoft has 
become. They were found guilty of illegal behavior and their guilt 
was upheld on appeal. The trial has now reached the stage where 
Microsoft's illegal conduct is to punished and Microsoft still 
maintains they should not be punished at all! Microsoft's 
willingness to accept the proposed settlement is, in itself, proof 
that the settlement would do nothing to punish Microsoft.
    The final outcome of the trial must accomplish three things:
    1) Punish Microsoft for its illegal conduct
    2) Compensate victims of Microsoft's illegal conduct
    3) Constrain Microsoft from acting illegally in the future. The 
proposed settlement in its current form addresses none of these 
issues in a meaningful way. More important than the actual remedies 
themselves, however, is the compliance mechanism for the final 
judgment. Microsoft has already shown its willingness to ignore 
court-mandated behavioral remedies. They have written enough 
loopholes into the proposed settlement to insure that they can do so 
again with impunity should the settlement be approved. Whatever 
remedies the court imposes must be so crafted as to eliminate any 
wiggle room for Microsoft. It must be clear to all parties at all 
times whether Microsoft is in compliance or not. For this reason, 
Microsoft should have no input into the specific makeup of the 
compliance panel, nor any input into the determination of 
compliance. The compliance panel must be completely independent and 
free of Microsoft's influence.
    The Court, at the recommendation of the compliance panel, must 
impose significant penalties for non- compliance up to and including 
a ``death penalty'' for repeated violations. I suggest a 
three-strikes- and-you're-out policy. The first finding of non-
compliance should be countered with a monetary fine in the billion 
dollar range, the second with a monetary fine in the ten billion 
dollar range. The third finding of non-compliance would result in a 
court-ordered ban on the sale in the US of all software determined 
to be out of compliance, and the rendering of all contracts to sell 
such software null and void. I propose as well the incarceration of 
senior Microsoft officials for contempt of court in the event of 
three findings of non-compliance.
    I respectfully submit that the proposed settlement benefits no 
one except Microsoft. I urge the Court to reject it and to devise a 
penalty that will severely punish Microsoft for the massive harm 
caused by their illegal conduct. The Court has suggested that 
expediency in resolving this case is in the national interest. A 
flawed resolution in the name of expediency, however, will be far 
more damaging to our national interests.
    Sincerely,
    Mark W. Knoll
    8500 Ashton Court
    Ypsilanti, MI 48198



MTC-00031679

FROM : FAX NO. : Jan. 22 2002 10:06AM PI
01/20/2002 11:48 919-844-1573 MABRY PAGE 01
Christie Knittel Mabry, Ed&D.
1240 Greystone Park Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Microsoft Case
    As a researcher and college professor, I use technology on a 
daily basis. Having an integrated easy-to-use software system is a 
critical for a productive work environment. Microsoft software 
allows access to a variety of products. The proposed consent decree 
with the Department of Justice will allow Microsoft to continue 
developing new products while at the same time giving Microsoft 
competitors some remedies for access to technical specifications and 
greater flexibility in installing non-Microsoft products in the 
windows operating system.
    While this settlement does not entirely satisfy any of the 
parties involved in the lawsuit, it does include important 
protections for consumers, computer manufacturers and software 
developers. One important aspect is the establishment of a technical 
Committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. A third party who has concerns about Microsoft's 
compliance will be able to file a complaint.
    Certainly trying to reach a compromise is difficult, but it is 
important to our country to end the litigation and get technology 
companies focused again on building our economy. Prior to taking my 
current position, I worked with technology-related businesses. I saw 
the impact economic retrenchment has not only on companies but also 
on individuals.
    Thank you for consideration of this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Christie Knittel Mabry. Ed. D.



MTC-00031680

Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This correspondence is simply intended to ask you, your 
Department and the federal government to accept, adopt and implement 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. This matter has gone too long and 
the settlement is a fair end to a foul ordeal. The plan is a 
compromise between the parties As such it is imperfect. It is, 
however, a functional means to an end desired by all but the most 
impartial. The plan will open up Microsoft and its Windows systems 
to its competitors and their products. Microsoft's technology will 
all but be open to peer review. The government will review 
Microsoft's business and marketing practices. In essence Microsoft 
will encourage and support its competitors.
    It's time we allow Microsoft to get back in the race. Our 
American economy is faltering and our nation is in peril. We need 
Microsoft at full speed. Thank you.'
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    I would like to add that the integrity, honesty, maturity, and 
dedication that you

[[Page 29633]]

are (illegible) and is especially crtical to our (illegible)
    Thank you for your effort.
    Sincerely for renewed American
    (illegible)
    David
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031682

JAN 21 2002 20:39 FR PEPSI BOTTLING CROUP 412 741 2390 TO 
12023071454 P. 01/01
1411 Eagle Point Drive
Southpoint, Pennsylvania 15317
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you this brief letter to urge you to expedite the 
settlement of the Microsoft case. This case's merits were, I 
believe, questionable at the outset but no one can question the 
generosity of the concessions Microsoft has agreed to in order to 
settle this case.
    In return for maintaining its corporate integrity, Microsoft has 
agreed to revamp its entire marketing philosophy. It will no longer 
demand Windows software exclusivity in its Windows platforms. In 
fact it reconfigure Windows to promote other manufacturers'' 
software. It will share technology with its competitors. It will 
license Windows systems products to major computer manufacturers at 
uniform rates and terms. It has, in fact, committed itself to 
embracing competition from the rest of the industry. I believe this 
more than adequate to meets its critic's demands. Microsoft is not 
just a giant in its field; it has been the main engine in the 
creation of a new international industry. To maim it or hinder its 
productivity would be folly.
    Sincerely,
    Heather Geisler
    ** TOTAL PAGE.01 **



MTC-00031684

Monday, January 21,2002 5:34 PM
    To: Attorney General John Ashcroft From: Tony Birdsall,
384-1531 Page: 1 of 1
P.O. Box 970
Ferndale, WA 98248
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to urge the Department of Justice to accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Microsoft has given up a lot in 
order to settle the suit and put the issue behind them. I would like 
to see the government accept the settlement and allow the technology 
industry to move on.
    Many people think that Microsoft has gotten off easy. Truth be 
told they have not. Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to 
install and promote any software that they see fit while offering 
Microsoft software at a uniform price. In addition to the agreement 
with computer makers, Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well 
beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue in 
the suit. Microsoft has agreed to many concessions simply to settle 
the issue and move on. The government should accept the settlement 
and allow Microsoft to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony W. Birdsall



MTC-00031688

01/21/02 MON 19:39 FAX 4058481095 001
4637 O'Connor Court
Irving, TX 75062
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The more I read about the Microsoft settlement the more I get 
frustrated about its current status. The terms of this agreement are 
bold steps toward bringing our IT sector together, and should be 
supported in any way possible. These terms reflect three years of 
well thought out negotiations, and are truly in the best interest of 
all involved- Let us help to support this settlement by stopping any 
further actions against it.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and 
marketing, but has agreed to design fixture versions of Windows that 
will allow for easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Beyond 
this, Microsoft has agreed to disclose various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows operating system products. These concessions are 
steps toward a more unified IT sector, and definitely promote 
working together. By doing this, we allow our technology industry to 
hold its place in this highly competitive global market. Let us help 
to get this settlement moving so that we can get our economy back on 
track.
    Let us not be the ones to put a stop to the same process that we 
initiated to begin with. Why fight this battle that has already been 
one. Let us stop any further actions against this agreement, and get 
back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Chittenden



MTC-00031689

01/21/02 MON 19:38 FAX 4058481095 001
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: JOHN ASHCROFT FROM: DEAN CHITTENDEN
FAX NUMBER: (202) 307-1454
DATE: January 21, 2002
COMPANY: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE//ATTY
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2
GENERAL PHONE NUMBER: (303)320-0563
SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: MICROSOFT YOUR REFERNCE NUMBER:
URGENT X FOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
    Dear Sir:
    Please see attached letter.
    Thank You
    Dean Chittenden
    Phone (972) 887-0173
    Fax (972) 887-9775
    DEAN CHITTENDEN [email protected] 4637 
O'CONNOR CT.
    IRVING, TEXAS 75062-3740
    PHONE: (972) 887-0173 FAX: (972) 887-9775



MTC-00031690

01/22/2002 13:43 5082485012 PAGE 01/01
Bement Camp and Conference Center
P.0. Box 156, 73 Jones Road
Charlton Depot, MA 01509
Phone: 508.248.7811 FAX: 508.248.5012
Web Site: WWW.BementCenter.com
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    First of all I want to thank you for your work these past 13 
months during an unprecedented time for our country.
    Please know that in addition to President Bush, you have also 
been in my prayers. You and the Bush team have brought back a sense 
of honor and decency to our most important political institution, 
the presidency.
    Thank you!!!
    I would like to take advantage of this public comment period and 
give you my thoughts on the Microsoft/DOJ settlement. From the very 
beginning I was dismayed that a company that has done so many 
positive things for my organization and me could be interfered with 
to such a great extent. I have never seen that Microsoft has done 
any harm to consumers, quite the opposite in fact, I can however 
vouch for their remarkable contributions to our lives and our 
economy. lf you look at the marketplace numbers, our economy began a 
serious downfall with the very beginning of this lawsuit.
    I run a nonprofit organization and through Microsoft's programs 
for non-profit's, we have been able to save a great deal of money 
and have consequently been able to serve countless more 
underprivileged citizens in the process. While this settlement is 
rather detrimental to Microsoft, it is however more than fair and 
will certainly address the problematic issues alleged in the 
lawsuit. Microsoft will be giving away a great deal of their source 
codes, internal interface design and server protocols. They will be 
giving consumers more choice to use their competitors` 
products within the Windows operating system and will be making more 
responsible agreements with OEM's so as to make it more 
feasible for them to distribute non-Microsoft products.
    I sincerely hope that our Justice Department will keep consumer 
interests in mind when making a decision. This settlement needs to 
be accepted to ensure that our computer industry will be able to 
flourish again. Our economy depends on our technology sector; please 
finalize this settlement for the good of all involved.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Rourke
    Director
    Bement Center

[[Page 29634]]



MTC-00031691

01/22/02 TUE 09:32 FAX 775 8243766 PMA-SF 001
MARITECH
CORPORATION
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am quite sure that there have been many people writing you 
about this settlement that are more directly involved in the 
business of software and networking than am I. Unlike most of those 
people, I am writing as a simple business user of software, and have 
no particular axe to grind one way or the other. However, I am 
writing to express both my support as well as my perspective on this 
issue.
    Business users like me have for a long time had many options and 
choices of a wide range of software products to assist our company's 
productivity and reporting accuracy. Many of us would prefer the 
relative ease of using products specifically designed for 
integration into the operating system that we use at our 
workstations, as well as on the company network. Microsoft has 
provided this integration-by-design and, while there are many fine 
software products that are available to perform the same functions, 
I have always found it simpler to take advantage of Microsoft's 
integrated software.
    What this lawsuit would have done if it had gone on with respect 
to due use of many Microsoft products is, of course, unclear. 
However, it would be safe to assume that this software integration 
would have been one of the first casualties of any court judgment. 
It is therefore a good thing that this lawsuit has settled and this 
issue has not seriously affected our business software.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Snow
    SystemEngineer
    CC: Senator Harry Reid
    MARITECH CORPORATION * 1495 Ridgeview Drive, Suite 110 * Reno, 
NV 89509
    Voice: (775) 824-3777 * Facsimile: (775) 824-3766 * 
http/www.maritecheervicee.com



MTC-00031692

Jan-22-02 12:18P P.01
120 Bethany Drive
McMurray, PA 15317
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen of the United States. I am writing to let 
you know how I feel about the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I support the settlement that has been 
reached in this case.
    This settlement is long overdue, since the case has been an 
ongoing battle by the govemment for three years. It serves no useful 
purpose to continue with litigation against Microsoft. I believe 
that this case should not have been brought forth by the Justice 
Department in the first place. Any further pursuit of this matter 
will only be a vast waste of time, tax dollars, and human resources.
    The settlement is both fair and reasonable for all of the 
parties involved. Microsoft is not getting off easy in this 
antitrust case. They have made many compromises in their business 
practices and with product development. Please accept this 
settlement on behalf of the American public.
    Sincerely
    Kathleen Shook
    cc: Senator Kick Santorum



MTC-00031693

Jan-22-02 11:21A Westglenn Software 205 423 0199 P.01
westgleni
the business illtelligence company
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
www.usdoj.gov
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I have been following the litigation that has occurred because 
of the antitrust suit against Microsoft, and I have come to believe 
that this issue is digging deeper and deeper into the 
taxpayers'' pockets. The suit has managed to halt delivery of 
the advanced technology to the market. The Justice Department and 
Microsoft have reached a settlement regarding the suit that is 
designed to be beneficial to both the IT industry and the consumer.
    The settlement will end a state of uncertainty in the technology 
sector and promote consumer confidence. Microsoft has agreed to make 
all future versions of its Windows operating system to be compatible 
with non-Microsoft software. Microsoft has also agreed not to 
retaliate against any computer makers that may ship software that 
would compete with Windows.
    This suit has contributed to the stagnant state of the 
technology field. Microsoft needs to be allowed to return to 
innovation, so it can do its part to help the nation move forward. I 
strongly urge you to finalize this suit so the country may focus on 
more pressing matters.
    Simcerely,
    Jeff Trotman
    President
    Cc: Representative Spencer Bachus
    2100 SouthBridge Parkway Suite 260 Birmingham, AL 35209
    Tel 205.423.0100 Toll-Free 800.711.5153 Fax 205.423.0199



MTC-00031694

Sent By: GEMINI; 630 694 9460; Jan-22-02 11:46AM; Page l/l
Gemini
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am pleased to hear that the government has reached a proposed 
settlement to the Microsoft antitrust case. I hope to see it 
finalized soon.
    Microsoft has agreed to make several adjustments to its products 
to ensure that competitors can attach their software products to 
Microsoft Windows. I'm happy because this means that Microsoft will 
continue to support and enhance Windows! Microsoft has also agreed 
to allow a neutral committee to monitor their compliance with all 
aspects of the agreement.
    I believe further prolonging of litigation concerning this case 
can only serve to harm the consumer, the IT industry and the 
nation's economy. I look forward to a quick and fair settlement. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Baron
    Cc: Representative J. Dennis Hastert
    Gemeini Graphics, Inc. Gemini Digital, Inc. 860 West Lake 
Street, Suite 606 Roselle, Illnois
    60172-2891 630.894.9430 voice 630.894.9460 fax 
[email protected]



MTC-00031695

01/22/2002 10:08 4803801133 DIAMONDWARE LTD PAGE 01/01
DiamondWare
HIGH PERFROMANCE
SOFTWARE
10516 E. Flower AVE
Mesa, AZ 85206
Phone: (480) 380-1122
Fax: (480) 380-1133
Web Site:
wwv.dw.com
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    VIA FACSIMILE: (202) 307-1454
    Jan 22, 2002
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my opinion on the Microsoft Settlement, 
and indeed on the whole case. First, I do not believe that the case 
should have been brought. Originally, the case was filed at the 
urging of its envious competitors. It is important to note that 
Microsoft's customers and partners did not have a complaint.
    First, I will speak for myself as a consumer of Microsoft's 
products. I remember the old days before Windows had standardized 
the graphical interface. I think it was even more important that 
Microsoft standardized hardware device drivers. Installing a new 
printer was difficult, even for computer experts. There was a dearth 
of hardware, partly because the vendors had much larger and much 
more complex job to provide drivers. Clearly, the consumer has 
benefited greatly from a standardized and easier way in which 
hardware vendors can provide software to support their hardware.
    Second, I am also the CEO of a software development company. At 
times, our products have become devalued due to a Microsoft product 
release. Does this mean that I think that the force of government 
should be wielded to make Microsoft not compete against a small 
company like DiamondWare? NO!!! I would not want to live in the sort 
of country that would destroy Microsoft for DiamondWare's sake.
    What would that mean for car companies, airlines, 
pharmaceuticals, food, and all of the

[[Page 29635]]

other kinds of goods and services that I consume? In each case, the 
more successful companies would be held back, for the alleged 
benefit of the less. My choice among these products would be under 
attack Stalin's Soviet Union is a good example of the sort of place 
which fully and consistently attacked the good for being the good.
    In conclusion, I urge you to drop the case altogether. Microsoft 
and its investors have already suffered many billions of dollars of 
damages due to this specious case If dropping the case is not 
legally possible any more, then seek to do the least damage 
allowable by law, and let Microsoft move forward without this threat 
hanging over their heads any longer!
    Thank you.
    Keith Weiner
    President



MTC-00031696

Sent By: KI Systems, Inc.; 360 668 9884; Jan-22-02 9:33AM; 
Page 1/2
KI SYSTEMS, INC.
9310--176TH STREET S.E.
SNOHOMISH, WA 98296-5028
TELEPHONE: (425)402-0791
FACSIMILE: (360)668-9861
FAX Cover Sheet
January 22, 2002
TO: Company: Telephone No.:
Attorney General John US Department of Justice 
1-202-307-1454
Ashcroft
From: Kristi L. LeaMaster Number of Pages: 2 (including this page)
Regarding: Microsoft Settlement
Comments:
Sent By: KI Systems, Inc. 360 668 9864; Jan-22-02 9:33AM; Page 
2/2
KI SYSTEMS, INC.
9310--176th Street S. E.
SNOHOMISH, WA 98296-5038
TELEPHONE: (425) 402-0791
FACSIMILE: (360) 668-9864
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, UC: 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was opposed to the government's antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft Corp., but was pleased and surprised when a settlement was 
finally reached last November.
    In my humble estimation, the Justice Department's allegations 
against Microsoft were entirely unfounded and lacked a basic grasp 
and understanding of 21st century technology issues. Unfortunately, 
officials in the previous Justice Department administration insisted 
upon applying antitrust law that was written over one hundred years 
ago for ``smokestack'' industries, such as steel and oil, 
to a 21st century software company. This misguided approach was 
doomed from the outset and should have never gotten its far as it 
did.
    Finally, three years later, at a cost of untold millions to the 
taxpayers of America, a settlement has been reached. If not for 
Microsoft wanting to get this nightmare over with and therefore 
accepting the government's settlement offer, the government would 
probably still be suing the company. The states that refuse to sign 
on to the settlement are being extremely shortsighted.
    The settlement is fair, changing the way Microsoft licenses and 
designs software, and it is a far better alternative to continuing 
the lawsuit. Please do whatever it takes to see that it gets 
finalized. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Kristi LeaMaster
    President



MTC-00031697

JAN-23-02 12:38 AM P. 01
304 Linwood Drive
Jacksonville, NC 28546
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I do not believe that the case against Microsoft is merited. The 
antitrust lawsuit was more political than anything else. Microsoft 
is not guilty of anti-competitive behavior. Given these sentiments, 
however, I do support the settlement that was reached as it 
represents resolution for this issue.
    The settlement carries with it many terms; under the settlement, 
Microsoft agrees to disclose the internal interface of Windows. This 
will allow developers access into the processing of the system. 
Users will now be able to reconfigure their operating systems to 
their liking beginning with the interim release of Windows XP. 
Additionally, Microsoft will level the playing field in the 
technology market by adhering to a uniform pricing list when 
licensing out Windows to the twenty largest computer makers in the 
nation.
    Once more, I voice my support for the settlement. The issue is 
finally resolved. Moving this settlement forward is the best course 
of action for our nation. Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    ss



MTC-00031698

01/17/2002 11:45 13735681942 PERFORMANCE S0FTWARE PAGE 01/02
Fax Cover Sheet
Performance Software, Inc.
611 Route 46 West
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ
Date : January 22, 2002 Time: 12:16 PM
Pages: 2
To :John Ashcroft
Company :US Government
Fax Number :202-3 07- 1454
Phone:
From :Steve Rove11
Phone: 201-288-8100
Fax: 201-288-3001
Subject :Microsoft Settlement
    Please see attached.
    Thank you.
01/17/2002 11:45 19735601942 PERFORMANCE SOFTWARE PAGE 02/02
Dyna Suite on the web
188 Roule 10 West, Suite 311
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936
(973) 560-1930 phone
(973) 560-1942 fax
www.dynasuite.com
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft antitrust case. Let me 
begin by saying that I do not agree with everything that Microsoft 
has done, but I understand that in a capitalist economy, the market 
will choose who is granted success. There may be issues of the 
antitrust case that have merit, but we should fix these problems and 
move on. The longer this case goes on, the more that lobbyists' 
concerns are put before the end users.' The Department of Justice 
and Microsoft have reached a settlement agreement that has already 
been approved by nine states. This settlement is both fair and 
reasonable, and the fact is that under the settlement. Microsoft 
will grant computer makers new abilities to reconfigure Windows to 
access non-Microsoft software. For software companies, Microsoft has 
agreed to document and disclose for its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating systems products. 
This will make the software more efficient, and, as mentioned, the 
hardware makers will be able to access it easier. That will spur 
competition.
    It doesn't make sense to spend scarce resources on issues that 
have already been resolved. This case has been harmful to the 
economy and has forced the industry leader to turn their focus from 
innovation to litigation. It is time to resume business as usual. 
Let the competitors compete and the leaders lead. The consumers 
should decide what companies will succeed, not the government.
    Sincerely,
    Steven J. Rovell
    Chief Information Officer
    an innovation of Performance Software, Inc.



MTC-00031699

01/22/02 TUE 11:OO FAX 512 327 6384 001
ALLIED INTERESTS INC.
ALLIED INTERESTS INC.
FAX
COVERS SHEET
SEND TO:
FROM: ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT
JON H. STARNES
COPY SENT:
OFFICE LOCATION: Austin. Texas
REGARDING:
DATE:
MICROSOFT January 22, 2002
FAX NUMBER: 202.307.1454
EMAIL: [email protected]
    ( ) The original of this transmittal will be sent by: ( ) U.S. 
Mail ( ) Messenger ( ) Overnight Mail
    (X) This will be the only form of delivery of this transmittal.
    TOTAL PAGES. INCLUDING COVER: 2
    COMMENTS
816 TERRACE MOUNTAIN DR.
* AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746.2843
* 512.327.6318

[[Page 29636]]

* FAX 512.327.6384
01/22/02 TUE 11:OO FAX 512 327 6354 ALLIED INTERESTS INC. 002
JON H. STARNES
VIA FACSIMILE-202/307-1454
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to encourage the DOJ to accept Microsoft's antitrust 
settlement. The terms of the settlement appear to be fair and 
equitable. It is time to stop wasting our taxes and put this issue 
to rest. Microsoft has agreed to several concessions the DOJ 
requested and it is time for the government to end this issue. For 
several years the socialist in our government have been trying to 
break up Microsoft. The government has spent more time trying to 
destroy one of America's finest assets than it has spent in trying 
to locate Bin Laden.
    Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    ss
    816 TERRACE MOUNTAIN DRIVE
* AUSTIN. TEXAS 78746
* 512/327-6310
* FAX 512/327.6304



MTC-00031700

JAN 22 ``09 10:08
FR TRAPEZE SOFTWARE GRP
480 627 3411
TO 12023071454
P.01/02
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to add my comments to the many that your office is 
no doubt receiving regarding the settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. I cannot help but think that, should this 
lawsuit have dragged on any further, there would have been serious 
and damaging repercussions to all other businesses engaged in the IT 
field. Fortunately, this settlement was reached at a time where such 
repercussions were thus far at a minimum, and the most serious 
effects dealt with a faltering of consumer confidence.
    Many people have long been annoyed at Microsoft's policy of 
disallowing any competitive software to be pre-loaded with its 
Windows OS, but this settlement addresses that issue. It 
standardizes the licensing arrangements for the 20 largest hardware 
companies, and thereby generates competition for consumers.
    I am writing in support of the settlement, and hope that this 
sort of litigation does not happen again.
    Sincerely,
    Lou Borland
Internal Network Engineer
JAN 22 `09 10:08
FR TRAPEZE SOFTWARE GRP
480 627 8411 TO 12023071454 P .02/02 January l8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000 1
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to add my comments to the many that your office is 
no doubt receiving regarding the settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. I cannot help but think that, should this 
lawsuit have dragged on any further, there would have been serious 
and damaging repercussions to all other businesses engaged in the IT 
field. Fortunately, this settlement was reached at a time where such 
repercussions were thus far at a minimum, and the most serious 
effects dealt with a faltering of consumer confidence.
    Many people have long been annoyed at Microsoft's policy 
of disallowing any competitive software to be pre-loaded with its 
Windows OS, but this settlement addresses that issue. It 
standardizes the licensing arrangements for the 20 largest hardware 
companies, and thereby generates competition for consumers.
    I am writing in support of the settlement, and hope that this 
sort of litigation does not happen again.
    Sincerely,
    Viet Vo
    Network Engineer
    ** TOTAL PAGE.02 **



MTC-00031701

JAN-22-2002 12: 27 SENATE LEADERSHIP 502 564 0456 P. 01/01
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
DISTRICT OFFICE
204 CAPITOL ANNEX
2534 KEARNEY COURT
FRANKFORT. KENTUCKY 40601
LAKESIDE PARK. KENTUCKY 41017
502-564-3120
859-331-1684
502-564-0456 FAX
859-331-1238 FAX MESSAGE LINE
800-372-7101
[email protected] E-MAIL [email protected]
RICHARD L.``DICK'' ROEDING, R.Ph.
PRESIDENT PRO TEM OF THE SENATE
January 22, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It goes without saying that the settlement agreement between the 
U.S. Government and Microsoft comes at a critical time when our 
economy and nation most need reconciliation. The proposed settlement 
requires significant changes in the way Microsoft develops, licenses 
and markets its software. This settlement is fair. It allows 
Microsoft to continue innovating in all areas of software 
development.
    When word of the possible settlement in the Microsoft case 
broke, the market surged. In spite of gloomy economic reports, the 
news was viewed by investors as a sign that our nation's critically 
Important high-tech industry could move forward without the 
continuing shadow of government interference. The fact is that news 
of an impending settlement lifted the share price of technology 
companies across the spectrum, including Microsoft's rivals. AOL, 
Time Warner, Sun, Oracle, IBM--they all saw their stocks jump. 
Most attorneys are not economists, and the economics of settlement 
were made clear by the markets. Public sentiment, from consumers to 
businesses to investors, favors settlement, I congratulate you on 
developing a strong but fair settlement and support your efforts to 
create a settlement that is in our nation's best interest. Thank you 
for your time, and please feel free to contact me if I can be of 
assistance to you in any way.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. ``Dick'' Roeding, R.Ph.
    Kentucky Senate President Pro Tern
    TOTAL P. 01



MTC-00031702

TO : PHONE NO. : 12023071454 JAN.21.2002 10:00PM P 1
FROM : MILLER PHONE NO. : 805 832 1414
2216 Manning Street
Bakersfield, CA 93309
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mt. Ashcroft:
    I have followed with interest the Microsoft and Department of 
Justice antitrust case. I am appalled that this case was ever 
brought against Microsoft, But at the same time, I am not surprised. 
Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has revolutionized the computer 
industry. I can remember when there was total incompatibility 
between the hardware boards, and computer software programs. It was 
terrible. Nothing worked. Bill Gates then came along. Microsoft 
worked consistently to increase computer board compatibility. 
Microsoft standardized computer software, increasing software 
compatibility. No wonder there is jealousy. No one else did this, or 
could do this. His competitors, seeking to rein the company in, 
brought suit against the company. The previous administration, with 
its own peculiar view of what constitutes a successful company, 
joined the parade.
    Microsoft has more than done its share to end this lawsuit and 
accommodate the demands of the Justice Department. Microsoft has 
agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software; Microsoft has 
agreed to design future versions of Windows with the capability to 
make it easier for companies to install non-Microsoft software; 
Microsoft has agreed to a technical committee to monitor future 
adherence. This is more than fair.
    I support this agreement and look forward to the end of this 
case. It is time to put this behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Miller



MTC-00031703

01/22/2002 11:40 FAX 215 643 6311 Exclusive Ore 01
eXclusive Ore

[[Page 29637]]

January 16,2002
A.G. John Ashcroft U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Penna. Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement reached in 
the Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit last November. The settlement is 
fair, and it will allow the IT industry to continue to grow while 
prohibiting any action that might be anticompetitive.
    The resolution reached in the antitrust suit has many positive 
aspects for consumers, as well as hardware and software companies, 
and should stimulate further economic development in the IT field.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft has granted additional rights to 
both software designers and computer manufacturers which will allow 
for competing peripheral software components, such as non-Microsoft 
web browsers and c-mail clients, to be more easily integrated and 
work better within the Windows OS. Additionally, it allows for 
computer manufacturers to ship systems with those same competing 
software components pre-installed with Windows.
    While some argue that the settlement did not cut Microsoft 
deeply enough, I believe that these, along with the other articles 
of the antitrust settlement, will limit unfair competitive action 
and allow Microsoft, as well as others, to continue to develop 
quality products and further economic growth within the lT sector.
    Sincerely,
Estelle Brand
Vice President
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
Exclusive Ore Inc. * PO Box 1024 *
    Blue Bell, PA 19422 * (215) 643-3110
* www.exclusiveore.com



MTC-00031704

FROM : PRATER-WRITES FAX NO: Jan. 22 2002 09:40AM P1
PRATERWRITES
Turning Information Into Solutions
Sandra J. Prater
14009 N.E. 63rd Court,
Recmond, WA 98052-4561
VOICe 425-883-4725 /
Fax: 425-867-5539
Email: [email protected]
January 23, 2002
Attorney Gcncral John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement between The 
Department of Justice and the IT industry. I am happy an agreement 
has finally been reached. It is a reasonable settlement and clearly 
a benefit to consumers of technological products.
    Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against the competition. Computer makers who ship other 
software and software developers who design software that competes 
with Microsoft will also be immunized from retaliation. I am in 
favor of this. It is in the best interest of the consumers and the 
economy to allow Microsoft to get back to the business of creating 
new and innovative technology. Again, I am happy that a settlement 
has finally been reached. I hope you will support it.
    Sincerely,
    ss



MTC-00031705

Jan 22 02 08: 18a Ron Stingley 650-631-1009 p.1
36 Wessex Way
San Carlos, California 94070 USA
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This is to give my support to the settlement between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice. I did not support this suit against 
Microsoft in the first place, and I am disturbed by the tendency of 
government to interfere in business. If there is wrongdoing, there 
is an obvious need, but this was a case of competition. Microsoft 
was just one of numerous tech firms out there producing a product. 
In this instance, Bill Gates put out a better product, at a lower 
price. He could have charged much more, but didn't. Bill Gates, 
through Microsoft, streamlined computer programs into more useable 
formats, increased compatibility of various computer software 
programs, and allowed all of us to join the computer revolution. The 
other firms could not keep up; hence, they sought to have a legal 
edge. The Justice Department, under the previous administration, 
fell right into line. We are threatening the tenet of free 
enterprise if we constantly interfere in business. Some firms 
succeed. Others do not. This is the way it is in life with all 
things. Government cannot come in and decide who does or does not 
succeed.
    Further, Microsoft has given away a great deal. Microsoft has 
agreed to submit to a committee to monitor settlement adherence; 
Microsoft has further agreed to license its Windows operating system 
products to the 20 largest computer makers on equal terms; and 
Microsoft has agreed to give computer makers more accessibility to 
make Windows so that it promotes non-Microsoft software programs. 
This is a lot more than any other firm would do.
    Put this issue behind us. Any further action will only harm both 
our economy and our country.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Stingley



MTC-00031706

JAN-22-02 09:47 AM DAVID L. BANKS 8309319831 P.01
16745 FM 1957
San Antonio, TX 78253
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute, The Microsoft Company is an American 
Dream that all people in this great country have and the opportunity 
to make come true. I would hope the Government does not discourage 
this American way of life with further litigation. I support 
Microsoft in this dispute, and I sincerely hope there will be no 
further action against Microsoft at the federal level. The 
settlement that was reached in November is both fair and reasonable. 
Microsoft has pledged to carry out all terms and conditions of this 
agreement. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions, including price. Microsoft has also agreed to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs 
included within Windows.
    This settlement will benefit the entire technology industry. 
Please support this settlement and allow Microsoft to devote its 
talent and resources to work, rather than litigation.
    Sincerely,
    David Banks



MTC-00031707

01/22/2002 11:31 2029555879 KARALEKAS AND NOONE PAGE 01
Law Offices
KARALEKAS & NOONE
1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 302
Washington, DC 20036-2603
(202) 466-7330
(202) 955-5879 Facsimile
TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL
TO: Renata Hesse, Esq.
RECIPIENT'S
TELECOPIER NO: 202/616-9937
FROM: Steve Karalekas
DATE: January 22,2002
EASTERN TIME: 1130a
OPERATOR: Elizabeth
NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTING (including cover sheet): 3
MESSAGE/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
01/22/2002 11: 31 2029555879 KARALEKAS AND NOONE PAGE 02
KARALEKAS & NOONE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 302
S. STEVEN LARALEKAS
Washington, DC 20036-2603
* ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS
JAMES A. NOONE+
(202) 466-7330
* ALSO ADMITTED IN PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM J. HARDY ++
(202) 955-5879 Facsimile ++
ALSO ADMITTED IN VIRGINIA
E-Mail [email protected]
January 22,2002
Via Fax Transmission
Renata Hesse., Esq.
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    We write to urge approval by the U.S. Department of Justice of 
the proposed

[[Page 29638]]

settlement agreement in the pending case of U.S. v. Microsoft.
    Our law firm represents a diverse range of clients whose 
businesses rely heavily on state-of-the-art information technology 
(IT). Microsoft has been a leader in this regard and it is our view 
that settlement of this protracted litigation will greatly enhance 
the quality of IT available to our clients and improve the 
competitiveness of IT companies across the nation.
    Settlement of this case is particularly important to the 
Washington, DC, area where the U.S. Government and thousands of 
small contractors that provide goods and services to it rely on the 
best possible IT to conduct their businesses and manage their 
programs. The uncertainty caused by the Govemment's litigation 
against Microsoft, in our view, has been detrimental to the 
critically importantly two-way flow of information between the U.S. 
Government and those who serve it.
    We urge the Department of Justice to approve the settlement 
agreement and allow Microsoft and its competitors to go back to 
doing what they do best--keeping America in the forefront of 
information technology.
    01/22/2002 11:31 2029555879 KARALEKAS AND NOONE PAGE 03
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    S. Steven Karalekas
    SSK:emh



MTC-00031708

0l/14/2002 13:51 12487231210 GOODE FINANCIAL PAGE 01
GOODE FINANCIAL, L.L.C.
700 E. MAPLE, Suite 300
TELEPHONE: (248) 723-l200
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FACSIMILE: (246) 723-1210
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement between Microsoft and 
the Justice Department in their antitrust lawsuit. I believe that 
the settlement is fair, and that Microsoft's concessions will enable 
everyone to return to normal business operation.
    I understand that Microsoft is making several concessions, 
including added convenience for Windows users to remove and 
configure different parts of the operating system. These changes 
should ultimately benefit consumers and ensure fair competition.
    Because of these changes, I urge you to settle the Microsoft 
suit in due fashion.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Goode



MTC-00031709

164 Chestnut Hill Lane South
Buffalo, NY 14221
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington., DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my views on the proposed settlement 
arrived at between the Department of Justice and Microsoft recently. 
In my estimation, the settlement is very excessive for Microsoft but 
more than fair for the federal and state government. It is time for 
this case to come to an end.
    My reasons for being dissatisfied with the way this suit has 
been going extend far beyond my concerns for the economy and the IT 
industry, I am also displeased with the way the government has 
pursued this. The Government has given the public plenty of reason 
to doubt the existence of free enterprise. Despite the unfairness of 
the suit, Microsoft has been very willing to cooperate. They have 
agreed to uniform prices, disclosure of both Windows' protocol, and 
sharing internal interfaces in Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to 
grant intellectual property license to their competitors.
    The settlement offers a workable end to this lawsuit, and the 
possibility for a very strong shot in the economy's arm. I trust 
that my input and those of others will aid in wrapping up this 
matter as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Ruthven
    JAN-22-02 11:51 FROM: EXCELLENCE N. MORTGAGES ID: 
7166892546 PAHE 1/1



MTC-00031710

    1-22-2002 11:11AM FROM 000000000 P. 1
01/22/2662 11:37 0000000000000 PAGE 01
January 9, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antiturst Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am told you are receiving comments on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    It is important that any agrement reached will be complied with. 
The three person technical committee that is part of the settlement 
agreement that will monitor Microsoft's compliance appears to be a 
good means of achieving compliance. Complaints regarding Microsoft's 
compliance can be relayed to this committee, the Department of 
Justice or any of the state plaintiffs that are party to the 
settlement. This provision of the settlement ought to give all 
involved a high level of comfort.
    Sincerely yours,
    S. Neel Brown



MTC-00031711

    1-22-2002 11:06AM FROM 000000000000 P.1
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:.
    After having reviewed the ``Key Provisions of the Proposed 
Consent Decree with the Department of Justice'', I believe that 
the proposal is fair and, since both Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have come to this agreement, I believe the citizens of the 
United States would benefit if the consent degree were implemented 
expeditiously.
    Sincerely
    Joseph Frank Ellmer
    26 Croydon Road
    Mays Landing. NJ 08330



MTC-00031712

    01/22/2002 10:33 FAX 804 7866310 VA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 001
House of Delegates
Telefax Service
Fax(804)786-6310
General Assembly Building
January 22,2002
To: Renata Hesse, U. S. Department of Justice
From: Delegate Gary A. Reese
Fax No.: Long Distance (202) 616-9437
Tel. No.:
City: Washington, DC.
State:
    This transmission contains 2 pages, which includes this cover 
sheet. If you have any problems with this transmission, please 
contact (804) 698-1558.
    Comments:
    The original letter was mailed on l/21/02.
01/22/2002 10:33 FAX 804 7866310 VA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES 002
COMMONWEALTH OF VlRGlNlA
H0USE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
GARY A. REESE
11926 BENNETT ROAD
OAK HILL, VIRGINA 20171
SIXTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT
January 21,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    As a Delegate for the 67th District in Northern Virginia, I am 
writing to encourage you to approve the settlement agreement in the 
case of United States v. Microsoft.
    The centerpiece of Virginia's economy is the Northern Virginia 
region's high-tech industry. We have been fortunate to attract a 
diverse and wide-ranging number of technology firms and have insured 
our area's growth and future prosperity. We need to encourage a 
continuation of this economic development activity and make certain 
that we do not impede the success of companies like Microsoft in any 
way.
    I believe the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise. 
Furthermore, this setclement is good for the consumer, for high-tech 
industry, and for our overall economy. If you have any questions, 
please do not hesitate to contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Gary A. Reese
    DISTRICT: (703)476-4505 * FAX: (703)716-9064 * E-
MAIL: [email protected] 002



MTC-00031713

JAN-22-2002 12:54 TEMPS LITHO 537 0316 P.01/01
CREATIVE MICRO SYSTEMS, INC.
 3825 KENTUCKY AVE N.
CRYSTAL, MN 55427
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice

[[Page 29639]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take this opportunity during the public comment period 
to voice my support for the settlement reached last November between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department. I believe this settlement will 
lessen the uncertainty in the technology sector of the economy and 
significantly benefit the overall economy. I believe the Justice 
Department action by the Clinton administration caused the down turn 
in the economy.
    Although I did not support the commencement of this suit in the 
first place, a settlement is the best course at this point. The 
government negotiated a very strong settlement that addresses all 
the key issues. For example, Microsoft has agreed to grant computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. The agreement also calls for the creation of a 
Technical Committee to oversee Microsoft's compliance.
    Our company builds computer systems and develops custom computer 
application for end users.Microsoft products have been crucial in 
enabling us to rapidly develop competitively priced end user 
applications. Without their products we be unable to compete in this 
highly volatile marketplace. This lawsuit has hurt the entire 
industry. Please support this settlement and take no further action 
at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Bostrom
    TOTAL P. 01



MTC-00031714

l/22/2002 11:46 AM
FROM: Fax deltakappa.com
TO: 12023071454
PAGE: 001 OF 001
deltakappa.com
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I find it reprehensible that Microsoft's jealous competitors 
motivated this lawsuit between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. Whatever merits there were in the origin of this case 
were lost amid the torrent of envy among Microsoft's competitors.
    The last time I checked, ours was still an economy built upon 
the free enterprise system. It is simply not right for a group of 
companies to use whatever influence they could muster to persuade 
our government to file a lawsuit against a company based upon that 
company's success in the marketplace.
    One can say what they want about Microsoft's often hard-nosed 
approach to business, but that is not reason enough to haul them 
into court. The Settlement addresses the controversial points 
arising from the original trial three years ago, and ultimately will 
change the way that Microsoft does business in everything from 
design and conceptualization of software at the beginning, to 
licensing at the end.
    This settlement recently negotiated at least has the virtue of 
ending this sideshow of a trial. For that reason alone it should be 
supported.
    Sincerely,
    David K. Payne



MTC-00031715

JAN-22-02 TUE 12:33 BNA HUNTSVILLE FAX NO, 2569713360 P.01
200 Hidden Valley Way
Madison, AL 35758
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that a settlement has been reached 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I hope that this case 
will finally be resolved. I am convinced that the Clinton 
administration targeted Microsoft to pacify the self-serving whining 
of competitors and their supporting politicians/lobbyists.
    It does not seem to me that Microsoft is getting off easy like 
some would content. The agreement to grant computer makers new 
rights to configure Windows soas to promote non-Microsoft programs.
    and the establishment of a three person monitor committee is 
very significant in our ``free enterprise'' business 
society.Microsoft competitors should be very happy--they will 
not be subject to the above restrictions.
    I realize your Justice Department Did not initiate these actions 
against Microsoft; I hope your administration will conclude this 
matter quickly and fairly.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Collins



MTC-00031716

JAN-22-2002 14:20 FROM:BV HEDRICK 7046334243 TO:202 353 8856 
P.OO1/OO1
01/22/02 TUE 12:27 FAX 800 641 2265 002
100 Primrose Drive
Salisbury, NC 28147
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion on Microsoft. I 
support the Microsoft settlement and feel that this company has been 
penalized for being successful. I feel this settlement will serve in 
the best public interest this settlement is complete and thorough. 
Microsoft did not get off easy,Microsoft has agreed to terms that 
extend well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at 
issue in the suit for the sake of wrapping it up.Microsoft has also 
agreed to be monitored by a technical oversight committee created by 
the government.
    Microsoft is a company that has contributed a pat deal to our 
society and daily lives. This company should not be stifled. Please 
support this settlement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Melvia Hutchinson
    cc: Representative Mel Watt



MTC-00031718

01/22/02 TUE 13:15 FAX 414 328 2233 ROCKWELL SUPPORT 001
FACSIMILE ROCKWELL
 SOFTWARE
P. O. Box 351
West Allis, WI 53227
Phone: 414-321-8000
Gen. Fax: 414-321-2211
www.software.rockwell.com
DATE: January 22,2002
TO: A. G. John Ashcroft
FAX: 202-307-1454
FROM: Katherine Tomaszek
TELEPHONE: 414-328-2423
FAX: 414-328-9423
# PAGES: 2
Rockwell
Automation
 01/22/02 TUE 13:15 FAX 414 325 2233 ROCKWELL SUPPORT 002
ROCKWELL
SOFTWARE
January 22, 2002
A.G John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a professional with personal experience in the software 
industry, I appreciate the role Microsoft has played in the success 
of the P.C. industry; therefore, the proposed government settlement 
is a welcome opportunity for all sides to end this agonizing process 
and focus on business again. The world is a better place because of 
the incredible contribution of the stable,user-friendly software 
platform that Microsoft has developed, so any further attempt to 
destroy this great company would be a mistake that will do severe 
damage to consumers everywhere.
    From my understanding of the agreement, Microsoft has 
capitulated on several fronts.They are pledging to make it easier 
for computer manufacturers to mix and match software products on the 
Windows operating system, while offering a simplified cost structure 
for its licensing and no obligations to distribute or promote 
Microsoft technologies. Competing Companies will gain access to the 
internal interfaces and server protocols of Windows products,with 
the added opportunity to license its technologies,
    With the constant review of a three-person technical committee 
of software experts,compliance should be eminently verifiable and 
effective. Hence, there is no need for further action. Please accept 
this deal and let the I.T. industry get back to developing great 
products for the public.
    Thank you for your assistance.
    Sincerely,
    Katherine Tomaszek
    Rockwell Software
    2424 S. 102nd Street
    West Allis, WI 53227
    Rockwell Software Inc. P.O. Box 351 * Milwaukee. WI 
53201-0351 *
    Phone. 414.321-8000 *
    FAX: 414.321-2211 * BBS: 216.646-7625 * Tech 
Support; 216-646-7800

[[Page 29640]]



MTC-00031719

+3604824200 ELMA Y PARCEL 326 P01 JAN 22 `02 11:30
P.0. Box F2
Elma, WA 98541-0628
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has gone on 
long enough and it is time that the government leaves Microsoft 
alone. Microsoft has been such a net positive to the technology 
industry and to the economy and yet has to deal with government 
harassment.
    Microsoft has agreed to compromise on all the major issues that 
were in dispute in the suit. They agreed to give computer makers the 
flexibility to install and promote any software that they seem fit. 
They agreed to license Microsoft products at a standard rate to 
computer makers, no matter what other software they promote. They 
also agreed not to enter into any agreement that obligates computer 
makers to exclusively install or promote Microsoft software. 
Microsoft has agreed to a lot in order to put the issue behind them.
    The terms of the settlement are fair and the government should 
accept them. Microsoft and the technology industry need to move 
forward and focus their concentration on business, not on defending 
themselves from more lawsuits. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Shooner



MTC-00031720

01-22-2002 08 : 03AM FROM COUNTRY MOTORS TO 12023071454 
P. 01
Country Motors
1200 Roverside Dr
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
360-428-5040
http://www.cmvs.com
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The settlement is fair 
and needs to be accepted. Microsoft is a great company that turns 
out great products and they should not be punished for it.
    The whole issue arose out of jealousy. Other companies could not 
compete with Microsoft products, not because Microsoft was keeping 
them from competing but because Microsoft products were so much 
better. Because of the weakness of Microsoft's competitors 
Microsoft has had to accepta settlement that goes to far. In the 
settlement Microsoft has agreed to disclose, to their 
competitors,various interfaces that are internal to Window's 
operating system products. Essentially Microsoft as agreed to give 
up part of their system so other companies can catch up, and people 
are still saying that Microsoft has gotten off easy.
    This issue needs to be put to rest. Microsoft is a great company 
with great products and is being punished for it. The settlement 
needs to be accepted and Microsoft needs to be allowed to move 
forward. In order to move forward this issue needs to be put in the 
past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Minor
    1200 Riverside Drive
    Mount Vernon. WA 98273
    TOTAL P. 01



MTC-00031722

Jan 21 02 07:52p UNIONDALE SCHOOLS 292-5097 p.1
Neville G Georges
787 Center Drive
Baldwin, NY 11510-1103
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Here in North Baldwin, NY many monopolies exist, my cable, for 
example, is a monopoly for this area. The water and gas service are 
also monopolies. Continuing Monopolies in these industries is seen 
as prudent and even useful. Yet, the federal government takes great 
pains to muzzle and strong-arm Microsoft into renouncing their 
market position because of their supposed monopoly in the computer 
software industry.Microsoft rose to its dominant position in the 
software industry thanks to sound principles of innovation and 
intelligent marketing. In order for a business to be successful in 
America, it must have a unique product and a good marketing plan. My 
concern on the issue lies in the fact that the Department of Justice 
put itself in the position of chasing successful company for the 
simple fact that it was more successful than its competitors.In my 
opinion, Microsoft's competitors used the Department of Justice to 
do their job for them. In that instead of creating a superior 
product and marketing plan, they chose to tear down the competitive 
advantage Microsoft has worked so hard to achieve.
    Microsoft should definitely comply with the terms of the 
settlement as delineated by the Justice Department. This settlement 
contains a series of provisions, increasing competition and forcing 
Microsoft to change its business practices. They have agreed to 
these provisions and this settlement to serve the public interest 
and to allow this country and themselves to move forward.
    Please stand by the decision made on November 6 of last year to 
let the states settle with Microsoft without further federal 
intervention.
    Sincerely,
    Neville Georges



MTC-00031723

JAN 22 `02 15:38 P. 1
872 Lake Jackson Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Microsoft and the 
technology industry need to move on. A settlement is available and 
the terms are fair. I would like to see the government accept it and 
leave Microsoft alone.
    Many people think that Microsoft has gotten off easy, in fact 
they have not. The settlement was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator, Microsoft agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually a tissue in the suit, simply for the sake of putting an end 
to the issue. For example, Microsoft will adhere to a uniform 
licensing agreement and will allow other companies to place their 
own software on the Windows operating system.
    Microsoft, the industry and the government all need to move on. 
This issue has been dragged out for over three years and needs to be 
settled. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Weld On



MTC-00031724

01/22/2002 15:27 7732383137 ROBERT PETTY PAGE 01
9550 S Winston Avenue
Chicago, IL 60643
January 21, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear the federal government and Microsoft reached 
an agreement in the antitrust case. I believe closure to this long 
process of litigation can be a springboard for more active 
competition in the IT industry.
    This can happen only if no more action is taken at the federal 
level and the government does not continue to sue 
Microsoft.According to the settlement reached with Microsoft, the 
company will change the way it develops and markets its products. 
There will be a committee to ensure the company complies with the 
agreement and competitors will have the ability to sue Microsoft if 
they think the company is not complying with the agreement. With 
these guidelines in place, we as people of the United States need to 
move forward.
    For the sake of the IT industry and consumers, we need to allow 
Microsoft to resume delivering prime technology to the national and 
international marketplace. This will be in the best interest of our 
country and our economy.Please to not take more action against 
Microsoft. Thank very much for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Petty



MTC-00031725

01/22/2002 15:44 8476396591 BRYKOWSKI PAGE 01
 01/22/2002 TUE 15:30 FAX 800 641 2256 002
60 Lake Zurich Drive
Lake Zurich, IL 60047-2228

[[Page 29641]]

January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my satisfaction at the settlement agreed 
to between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation on 
November 2, 2001.The settlement reached provides that Microsoft 
disclose more information about its software and an oversight 
committee created by the government that could ensure 
Microsoft's cooperation.
    This is a just settlement reached through intense negotiations 
on both sides.After three years of litigation, it is now time to 
allow Microsoft to continue providing new and innovative services to 
its'' consumers. Under the new guidelines set forth in the 
agreement, Microsoft will be able to continue to lead the technology 
market while also creating competition.Now that this settlement has 
been reached, I hope that no further action is taken against 
Microsoft. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Romam Brykowski



MTC-00031726

JAN-22-2002 15:51 P. 01/02
 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO: Renata Hesse
FAX: 202-307-1454
FROM:
PAGES (including cover): 2
DATE:
Mesaage:
JAN-22-2002 15:51 P.02/02
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Fax: (202) 616-9937
Fax: (202) 307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please add my support for the recent Microsoft settlement. From 
everything that I have read, this appears to be a reasonable 
accord.Our country has been paralyzed for some time now: we have a 
war going on overseas and we are now officially in a recession. An 
uplift is needed from some sector of our economy. I strongly believe 
that the settlement agreed upon will be the vehicle required to spur 
on new, and much-needed economic growth.
    My reasoning is based on past economic performance. Microsoft 
has been a Goliath in our modern-day economy. They produced much of 
the gains made during the 1990's and have been the source for 
thousands of new businesses and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. 
Once this lawsuit is behind them, they will be able to begin 
producing the same kind of results for our languishing economy.
    This settlement was good for the county. I understand that new 
Windows design obligations were agreed upon and that Microsoft 
agreed to share information regarding its windows operating system. 
I'm pleased to know that this settlement was reached in such a 
timely manner.
    Thank you for listening to my opinions on this issue.
    Sincerely, Sincerely, Sincerely,
    Tom Feeney Andy Gardiner Jim Kallinger
    Speaker of the House Florida House of Representatives District 
35
    TOTAL P.02



MTC-00031727

01/22/02 12:12 PM 8189901897 Bell Solutions. net Page 1 of 
2#1011
Terrence H. Bell, CPA
Address: 15821 Vetura Boulevard
Suite 275
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: 818 990-6363
Fax: 818 990-1897
To: John Ashcroft
Company:
Fax: 202 307-1454
From: Terry Bell
Subject:
Memo:
Microsoft Settlement
Terrence H. Bell
Certified Public Accountant
Terrence H. Bell CPA
Donna Smith. EA
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I write concerning the antitrust settlement between Microsoft 
and the federal government. I am a Certified Public Accountant and 
it is in the best interest of my firm, which handles tax issues for 
small business and individuals, for this matter to be settled 
expeditiously through settlement. At first, you might not think this 
lawsuit could have an adverse affect on a business such as mine, 
however, it has. In fact. it has impacted the entire economy, which 
of course affects my prosperity. To settle this matter would be a 
step in the right direction toward getting the economy back on 
track, and hence stimulating business for my firm and many other 
companies across the country that are in a similar situation. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who 
ship software that competes with anything in Windows. It has also 
agreed to design future versions of Windows, beginning with the next 
release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for 
computer makers, consumers and software developers to promote non-
Micros&I software within Windows. Lastly, Microsoft has agreed 
not to enter into any agreements requiring any third party to 
distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a 
fixed percentage. If these concessions don't make Microsoft's 
competitors happy, I don't know what will. There are several more 
major components of the settlement that I am sure you are familiar 
with.
    The settlement goes above and beyond addressing the main 
complaints of the government and should satisfy both the government 
and Microsoft's a adversaries. It is fair and reasonable and should 
not be allowed to be derailed by a handful of Microsoft's 
adversaries who will not be happy until Microsoft is broken up, 
which of course, is completely unnecessary and unjust.
    Sincerely
    Terrence H. Bell
    Certified Public Accountant
    P.S. The news conference on 1/22/02 was great!
    15821 Ventura Blvd. Suite 275 Encino, Ca 91436 * (818) 
990-6363 (800) 890-6343 * (8I8)
    990-1897 FAX
    Visit us on the web at http://www.bellcpa.com or email us at 
[email protected]



MTC-00031728

01/22/201215:38 7756654893 SCHORNSTEIN PAGE 01 
1-22-02
ATTEN: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Without any reservations, I support the
    Microsoft settlement.
    The benefit to the nation and to the taxpayers is huge. To 
settle this also is the fair action to take. Consumers will be the 
largest benefactors, and, as a consumer, I do like the opportunity 
to express my note to settle with Microsoft Now!
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn M. Schornstein
    6746 S.W. 89 Terr.
    Miami, FL 38156



MTC-00031729

Jan 22 0212:4Op p. 1
Microsoft
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
123 Wright Bros Dr, Suite 200
Phone: (801) 257-6300
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Fax: (801) 257-6501
United States Of America
Internet: http://www.microsoft.com
MS FACSIMILE
TRANSMITTAL FORM
TO: John Ashcroft FROM: Karen Wadsworth
Company: Attorney General
Bldg/Room:
cc: Phone: 801-257-6387
Phone:
Date & Time:
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or l-
202-616-9937 Number of Pages: 2
Jan 22 02 12:40p p.2
Microsoft Corporation
Tel 801 257 6300
123 Wright Brothers Drive
Fax 801 257 6501
Suite 200
http://www.microsoftcom/
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
2042.S 1300 W
Woods Cross, UT 84087-2382
Microsoft
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Over the past three years, Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have waged a veritable war in the federal courts. Six months 
of round-the-clock negotiations were necessary before a settlement 
could finally be reached, and I still do not think Microsoft; has 
been treated fairly.
    Nevertheless, this has gone on long enough, and I think it's 
time for the Justice

[[Page 29642]]

Department to move on. Microsoft agreed to terms under the 
settlement that extend to products and procedures that the Court of 
Appeals did not find to be unlawful. In other words, Microsoft has 
been generous, and I do not believe the Department of Justice should 
press the issue. Microsoft has agreed, for example, to license its 
Windows operating system to twenty of the largest computer makers on 
identical terms and conditions. Microsoft has also agreed to 
disclose source code and interfaces to its competitors for their 
use. The competitors will then be able to introduce their software 
directly into Windows.
    Microsoft is willing to settle on these terms, and I believe it 
is in the best public interest to do so. No further action needs to 
be taken on the federal level. This has gone on long enough; it's 
high time to move on. I urge you to support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Wadsworth
    Microsoft Corporation is an equal opportunity employer.



MTC-00031730

    ABCO ENGINEERING CORP. ABCO ENGINEERING CORP.
801 Second Avenue S. E.
* Oelwein, Iowa 50662
* Phone 319/283-5652
* Fax 319/283-2600
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Letter of support for Microsoft Settlement
To all concerned:
    The information I have read indicates the settlement is a true 
compromise. The prime factor is that everyone in the technology 
field can get back to work. Our economy depends on the free 
enterprise system working. Everyone benefits from the settlement of 
this case: the technology industry, the economy and the consumer.
    Antitrust laws were designed to protect CONSUMERS. As I see it, 
this was specific companies in the technology industry endeavoring 
to protect themselves from competition. The free enterprise system 
allows any business to succeed or fail--and we must do that in 
the marketplace.
    Though I fail to see the basis for the litigation, I do commend 
the Court for the settlement proffered.
    May God save us from destroying our nation from within!



MTC-00031731

January 15, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is so that I may go on record as supporting the 
settlement reached between the Microsoft Corporation and the 
Department of Justice. I am glad to see that the three years of 
litigation is over; my only hope is that there will be no further 
litigation against Microsoft at both the state and federal levels.
    The proposed settlement has teeth, and Microsoft is not getting 
off as easy as I'm sure they had wished. However, the terms of the 
agreement are fair, and they will help the IT industry become much 
more competitive. Microsoft has agreed not to strike back at 
companies that produce, ship, or promote software that competes with 
Windows. The competitors will now be free to make a profit without 
worrying about the reprisal from Microsoft.
    I am all in favor of this settlement. America's economy needs 
help, and this settlement is it. I hope that you can convince Tom 
Reilly, our State Attorney General to see that.
    Sincerely,
    Prank De Piano
    352 Park St. Ste 205
    North Reading, MA 01864



MTC-00031732

Lester Associates, Inc.
383 Main Street, Suite 202,
Chatham. NJ 07928-2100
Telephone: (973) 635-2254,
Fax: (973) 635-7449,
Email: [email protected]
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Apparently the settlement reached by the U.S. Justice Department 
and Microsoft has caused somewhat of an uproar among Microsoft's 
adversaries who unsuccessfully pushed for a break-up of the company, 
This is unfortunate, because the settlement addresses and resolves 
the issues at hand in a very fair and even-handed way for all of the 
parties involved. Microsoft did not need to be broken up to 
accomplish this objective.
    An example of the settlement going a long way to ``level 
the playing field'' is Microsoft's unprecedented concession to 
disclose significant portions of the code for its' Windows operating 
system to competitors. Additionally, it has agreed not to retaliate 
against software or hardware developers who develop or promote 
software that competes with Windows or that runs on software that 
competes with Windows, Finally, it will no longer retaliate against 
computer makers who ship software that competes with anything in its 
Windows operating system. While only one aspect of the settlement, 
this alone should make Microsoft's competition very happy, as it 
will make things easier for them to appropriate ideas without 
actually having to work harder.
    Innovation and advancement suffered as a result of the lawsuit. 
Hopefully the settlement will be finalized soon so we can move 
forward again.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Lester
    President



MTC-00031733

FROM : Bill Riddell
FAX NO. : 831 392 1744
Jan. 22 2002 12:02 P1
--L. W. (Bill) Riddell, Consultant--
6 Osio Way--
Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940-55
10--Ph. & FAX 831-392-l744
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to express my opinions about the 
settlement that was reached last November between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I am in favor of this agreement because it 
brings an end to the three years of litigation that have been 
plaguing Microsoft, and hampering innovation in the entire IT 
industry.
    Microsoft did not get off easy in the settlement, and they have 
had restrictions and obligations placed on them that were never even 
an issue in the initial suit. They have agreed to turn over, to 
their competitors, interfaces that are internal to the Windows 
operating system, as well as coding in Windows that is used to 
communicate with other software. These terms go a little far, but 
what is done is done. We now need to put all of this behind us and 
move on.
    Although I don't feel this case should ever have begun in the 
first place, I support the settlement since it squashes the 
litigation that has been hampering the technology industry for years 
now. The proposed agreement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice must be approved as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Riddell
    Phone 831-392-1744



MTC-00031734

KARL.SIMONE.WOLFS
JAN--22-2002 04:54 PM
727 796 5736 P.01
To: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
Mr. and Mrs. Karl E.Wolfs
2645 Prisco Dr.
Clearwater, FL 33761-3823
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1/22/02
(727) 796-5736
ATTN. Ms Renata B. Hesse:
Re: Microsoft
    Please advise the Attorney-General to accept the Microsoft offer 
and settle the case. I think $35 million is enough money--do 
not carry on case at more expense to us taxpayers.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Wolfs



MTC-00031735

Marcus Dixon
3 Ridgewood Road
Glen Rock, PA 17327-9794
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear that the Department of Justice has ended its 
three- year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a strong and 
binding agreement. It will most certainly have profound implications 
for all software publishers, the rest of the American

[[Page 29643]]

Information Technology industry and consumers. Under the agreement, 
computer manufacturers were granted new rights to configure systems 
with access to various Windows features. Microsoft must also design 
future versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-
Microsoft software and to disclose information about certain 
internal interfaces in Windows.
    The government even went so far as to create an ongoing 
technical oversight committee to review Microsoft software codes and 
books, and to test Microsoft compliance to ensure that Microsoft 
abides by the agreement. What more could Microsoft's competitors 
want? Maybe a front door key to the corporate headquarters would 
suffice them! America's economy needs a break. This American 
company, Microsoft, with its world-renowned success, affects a big 
part of America's economy. I hope never to see another federal 
government lawsuit against Microsoft beyond this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Marcus Dixon
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031736

Carol Trasport
138 Lake Ring Drive SE
Winter Haven, FL 33884-1438
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel that the settlement that was 
reached in November is fair and reasonable, and I am anxious to see 
this dispute resolved. Microsoft is a great company that offers 
quality products to consumers. As a consumer, I do not want to feel 
adverse effects because of this costly litigation battle.
    Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well beyond the 
products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit, for 
the sake of ending the court battle. Noteworthy provisions among the 
many Microsoft has agreed to include: licensing its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers on 
identical terms and conditions (including price), thus removing 
Microsoft's leverage to obtain favorable treatment; and revealing 
internal information about Windows to competitors, thus helping 
rival companies write software that works well with Windows.
    The settlement is comprehensive and appropriately addresses the 
issues of underlying the lawsuit. By removing the legal cloud 
hanging over Microsoft and the industry that depends on it, this 
settlement will benefit America's economy. Please support it.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Trasport



MTC-00031737

State of New Hampshire
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
CONCORD
January 8, 2002
Rep. Marc Pappas
(603)669-6188
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    Please accept this letter as public comment on the case of U.S. 
v. Microsoft. Although I am unsure of all of the proceedings and 
technicalities of the decision, I have followed the process enough 
to know that too much of the Federal government's time has already 
been spent on this case.
    Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent prosecuting 
Microsoft and arriving at this decision. Many people have worked 
diligently on both sides of the case. These people should now spend 
their time working important problems, investigating harmful 
companies, not those who benefit consumers.
    With war being waged and the economy being so uncertain America 
needs leaders in all areas, especially technology and computer 
science. Microsoft is one of these leaders and has accomplished 
tremendous advances in the past several years. By tying Microsoft up 
in the courts, or worse, actually punishing them further, the 
government would only serve to limit technological pursuits and 
spend taxpayer money.
    I have used Microsoft's software and find it the best in the 
industry. As with any product and/or service improvements are 
necessary but, I believe that Microsoft attempts these improvements 
on a regular and timely basis and that further improvements in the 
computer and technology industry will be enhanced by the regulations 
of the decision.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Pappas



MTC-00031738

Pat and Kristin Weeks
Duncanson
Fax 507-524-3163
Phone 507-524-3797
facsimile transmittal
To: Renata Hesse
Fax: 202-616-9937
From: Kristin W. Ducanson
Date: 
Re: Microsoft Pages: 2
cc:
Renata B.Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S.Dept.of Justice
601 D. Street NW
suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms.Hesse
    I wanted to take this opportunity to encourage the Dept. of 
Justice to finalize the Microsoft settlement as soon as possible.
    As the mother of four children, farmer and small business owner 
the recent events of our country have made me take pause to examine 
the role of our taxpayer dollars in the current United States 
situation. The lawsuit against Microsoft in nine states and at the 
federal level has used enough taxpayer dollars found out information 
it is time to settle and use working Americans dollars in a much 
wiser manner.
    I support the settlement and hope that the Justice Department 
moves quickly to put an end to this matter.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kristin Weeks Duncanson
    57746 Hwy. 30
    Mapleton, MN 56065
    507-524-3797
    507-524-3163



MTC-00031739

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Fax #: 1-202-616-9937
From: Phillip W. De Vous
Date: January 22, 2002
Total number of pages (including covet sheet):3 pages
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    In line with the provisions for public comment provided for in 
the Tunney Act, I would like to offer a few comments from the Acton 
Institute concerning the Microsoft settlement.
    I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing the 
attached letter. Should you have any questions, please do not 
hesitate to contact me at (616) 454-3080 or at 
[email protected].
    Yours truly,
    Phillip W. De Vous
    Public Policy Manager
    Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
161 Ottawa NW, Suite 301,
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
Phone: (616) 454-3080
* Fax: (616) 454-9454
January 10,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Under the provisions contained in the Tunney Act providing for 
public comment on the Final Judgment Stipulation and Competitive 
Impact Statement in the case of United States vs. Microsoft, I am 
pleased to offer some comments on behalf of the Acton Institute for 
the Study of Religion and Liberty concerning this important 
settlement. The work of the Department of Justice in soliciting a 
wide and varied consultation in this most important legal matter is 
greatly appreciated.
    The primary goal of antitrust law and legislation is to protect 
consumer interests, in attempting to assure that no one corporation 
illegally or unethically dominates the market choices that consumers 
are able to make. In a society of free and open markets the consumer 
is the primary arbiter of what products and services are chosen and, 
ultimately, of which businesses remain profitable and viable. In the 
case of Microsoft, consumers have consistently chosen Microsoft 
products over those offered by Microsoft's competitors.
    As a result of the information communicated by consumer 
preference, it seems that the Department of Justice has failed to 
show in the case of United States vs. Microsoft the harm perpetrated 
on the consumer, thus undermining the very

[[Page 29644]]

purpose of antitrust laws designed for the protection of consumer 
interests. Rather, it seems that powerful competing interests have 
decided to take the battle for market share out of the free and open 
marketplace and into the courtroom. This battle for market share is 
most appropriately decided by the free choice of the consumer, not 
by judicial fiat.
    This lawsuit and the pending settlement if an example of a 
troublesome tendency of the government to meddle in the processes of 
the free market. Furthermore, it seems that a regime of increased 
government regulation on the technology industry will be the 
inevitable result of this legal settlement. Innovation, creativity, 
and a level of high risk are the hallmarks of the technological 
revolution that has marked our nation in the last two decades. 
Entrepreneurs in this industry know from the outset that the level 
of risk undertaken and endured in the technology sector is a 
phenomenal one. Given the fast pace of technological innovation and 
the need to stay abreast of these innovations, the last thing that 
should occur in the technology industry is a regime of increased 
regulation. The proposed independent Technical Committee (TC), which 
would oversee and evaluate Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement terms, is an excellent example of burdensome government 
intrusion into an industry that requires maximum freedom to innovate 
and to be creative. This committee's authority to hire unlimited 
staff, its on-site location at the Microsoft campus and its costs 
being entirely at Microsoft's expense is an unprecedented and 
unnecessary enforcement mechanism. Furthermore, it is my opinion 
that this committee constitutes a completely illegitimate intrusion 
of the government into the workings of private industry and, in 
effect, will serve to give Microsoft's competitors an unfair 
innovative advantage in the marketplace, as they will not be subject 
to this suffocating regulatory burden.
    The final aspect I would like to comment upon, concerning the 
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft, concerns the issue of 
intellectual property rights. As part of the settlement, Microsoft 
is forced to disclose the proprietary codes and other technical 
information that enables any Widows operating system to communicate 
with Microsoft servers and middleware products. These code's and 
technical information are the result of the research and development 
conducted by Microsoft. Microsoft alone has incurred the expense and 
risk associated with the development of these operating systems and 
middleware products. To set aside Microsoft's right to protect and 
profit from the product of its labor sets a dangerous precedent for 
all industries that rely on intellectual property derived from 
costly research and development. Unfortunately, one serious 
unintended effect of the forced licensing of Microsoft intellectual 
property will serve to destabilize the environment in which research 
and development occurs. By lessening the protections surrounding 
proprietary information obtained through costly research and 
development, further technological innovations simply become too 
risky to undertake, as it becomes unclear whether such costs can be 
recovered in the marketplace. Such a move will cause great harm to 
consumers, effectively blocking their demand for further and more 
advanced innovation in the technology market.
    I appreciate the opportunity to offer some reflections on just a 
few of the matters contained in this multi-faceted settlement. 
Should I or the Acton Institute be of any further assistance in this 
matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at 
(616) 454-3080 or at [email protected].
    Yours truly,
    Phillip W. De Vous
    Public Policy Manager



MTC-00031740

SCHOOL BOARD
OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND
301 NORTH NINTH STREET
RIXHMOND, VA 23219-1927
Telephone: (804)780-7714
Fax: (804)780-8133
MARK E. EMBLIDGE
DISTRICT TWO
SCHOOL BOARD CHAIRMAN
(line illegible)
VIRGINIA LITERACY FOUNDATION
700 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1605
RICHMOND, VA 23219
Office: (804)225-8777
Home: (804)358-8775
Fax: (804)225-1859
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Sreet NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Over the past several months I have advocated for an end to the 
Microsoft case. I have written several letters on this subject to 
various officials. I repeatedly have said that the devastating 
events of September 11 further damaged our already weakened economy 
and that the technology sector has been having a particularly 
difficult time.
    I now understand that a settlement is in the works. The summary 
I have looked at has particulars that cover a gamut of issues from 
uniform pricing to a redesign of Windows, to intellectual property 
rights, to a compliance committee. All of these elements contribute 
to a strong agreement that makes me hopeful that the end is in 
sight. With our economy showing tremendous weakness, we need to do 
everything we can to encourage new products being brought to the 
market to stimulate consumer spending. Everyone involved in this 
case needs to get out of the courtroom and back to work.
    I thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
    Sincerely yours,
    ss



MTC-00031741

PETRULAKIS JENSEN & FRIEDRICH, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Renata Hesse
FROM: George A. Petrulakis
COMPANY: Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
DATE: 01/22/02
FAX NUMBER: (202) 616-9937
1130-12TH STREET, SUITE B
POST OFFICE BOX 92
MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 95353-0092
TEL: (209) 522-0500
FAX: (209) 522-0700
MAILING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE BOX 98
MODESTO, CA 95354-0098
[email protected]
CERTIFIED SPECIALIST, ESTATE PLANNING,
TRUST AND PROBATE LAW, STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA OF LEGAL BOARD SPECIALIZATION
GEORGE A. PETRULAKIS
JUOY A. JENSEN
MATTHEW J. FRIEDRICK
TED M. CAORAL
January 22,2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I encourage the Unites States Federal Court to approve of the 
consent decree proposed in the case of US v. Microsoft. I do not 
agree with spending another tax payer dolIar on this case. As a 
community activist and community columnist who cares about issues, I 
pay close attention to the wasteful spending which goes on at every 
level of government. I have read on the Citizens Against Government 
Waste website about all the money which has been spent on the 
Microsoft case and am shocked. This case has accomplished very 
little good for our country.
    This is not a time for wasteful spending. Billions are being 
spent on the war against terrorism. The recession and important tax 
cuts have greatly reduced the amount of incoming revenue going into 
the federal government. We should not even consider frivolous 
spending like US v. Microsoft when there is talk of spending social 
security receipts to cover the cost of running the government.
    This is a strong and positive settlement. Please approve of it 
and put an end to the wasteful spending.
    Sincerely,
    George A. Petrulakis, Attorney at Law
    Petrulakis, Jensen and Friedrich



MTC-00031742

FROM: ANTHONY P. CAPONE
PHONE NO. : 412 833 4451
3982 Mimosa Drive
Bethel Park, Pennsylvania 15102
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this opportunity to give my views on the 
settlement that was recently concluded between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department. I believe this settlement is fair and should 
implemented as soon as the comment period ends.

[[Page 29645]]

    Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows that 
will include a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. With this mechanism, consumers will have the freedom 
to choose to change their computer's configuration at any time. So 
if consumers do not like the products made by Microsoft, they will 
be able to make their feelings known through their actions.
    Hopefully with your lead in support of concluding this case, the 
nine states that have not joined the settlement will change their 
positions. These states could make better use of their resources, 
just like the federal government, in settling this case as quickly 
as possible. Thank you for this opportunity to make my feelings 
known.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Capone
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031743

THE IVERS COMPANY
Providing Financial Services Since 1974
Henry L. Ivers
Teresa Pinkert, Esquire
73 Puritan Road
Swampscott, Massachusetts 01907
(781)596-0991
FAX# (781)-592-7161
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX# 1-202-616-9937
DATE: 1/22/02
TO: Microsoft Settlement
TIME:
FROM: Henry
NO.OF PAGES: 1 Incl. Cover
RE:
    DEAR
    These 9 Attorney Generals have used the gov't + now they are 
using the court to further the agenda of businesses that are located 
in their states. If the truth were known about their political 
agendas + financial interest it would make Microsoft seem like choir 
boys, who just work night + day to make what is a great product and 
have at times tried to market it a bit to aggressively. Okay they 
have been slapped on the hands + somewhat constrained. To continue 
further brings the consumer, the economy, + the country no short or 
long term benefit + its time to move on and not to be manipulated by 
these 9 states.



MTC-00031744

SENT BY: GEMPLEX;
8708 Snowhill Court
Potomac Maryland 20854
Date: JAN-22-02
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Phone Number: 7036107280
Fax Number: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
From: Gian Dilawari
Phone Number: (301)299-3363
    Regards,
    Gian Dialwari
VIA FACSIMILE
Attorney General John Aschroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my concern regarding the status of the 
Microsoft settlement. We have been through a lot, but now it is time 
to move on. One area in which we need to move forward is the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft settlement. The case aaginst 
Microsoft was finally resolved after three long years of 
investigation and litigation. Microsoft agreed to a number of 
demands imposed by the Department of Justice, which has opened up 
the firm to non-Microsoft products. Microsoft has also agreed to 
terms which were not even part of the original lawsuit. I believe it 
is best for our country and economy if we let the current settlement 
stand. I say this because Microsoft is a very integral part of our 
country's economy. As CEO of Microsoft, Bill Gates made the 
technology revolution, standardizing computer software and bringing 
it down to the average consumer. While Microsoft might have been too 
aggressive in some of his business practices, Microsoft has been 
disciplined, and no future good can come of rehashing the settlement 
further.
    I urge you to give your full suppport to ensuring that the 
settlement remains as is, and allow us to get back to more important 
issues.
    Sincerely,
    Gian Dilawari



MTC-00031745

JAN-22-2002 16:18
403 Sandalwood Drive
Evansville, IN 47715
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my support for the settlement that 
Microsoft reached with Department of Justice in the anti-trust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft is a good company whose success 
should not be punished. I am glad the matter was resolved and 
hopeful that no further court action will be taken.
    Microsoft made many concessions to bring this case to 
settlement; some items that I do not believe were necessary. The 
settlement calls for the establishment of a three-person technical 
oversight committee that will watch over Microsoft's business 
operations. Any company can lodge a complaint against Microsoft and 
the committee will handle the resolution of the dispute. This will 
allow competition in the technology industry and provide consumers 
with better choices in the marketplace, which is certainly in the 
best interest of the public. Microsoft is a great company. They are 
successful today because of innovative ideas and smart business 
decisions. It is time to let the people at Microsoft get back to the 
business of shaping the technology industry. I would like to see the 
lawsuit settled and bring an end to this costly litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Schulz



MTC-00031746

2115 Brookhust Avenue
Columbus, OH 43229-1585
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to urge you to settle the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. I feel that the case has been going on long enough, and 
that the terms of the settlement are fair.
    Competitors of Microsoft will gain much from the settlement. The 
internal interface of Microsoft's famous Windows will be opened up 
to free, gratis. They will be able to license other intellectual 
property of Microsoft on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. 
They will be able to complain to a Technical Committee, which will 
oversee Microsoft's conduct, and to file a complaint in court if 
they are not satisfied. I do not see how Microsoft's competitor 
could have any reason to complain about this settlement.
    Please finalize the settlement agreement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft. Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Adams



MTC-00031747

Sent By: LEGENDARY SYSTEMS; 5105870901; Jan-22-02 17:04;
Legendary Systems
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    With regard to the lawsuit and subsequent settlement between 
Microsoft and the government, I am writing to express my full 
support of the settlement and the necessity for its speedy 
finalization.
    I operate an e-commerce consulting company that utilizes and 
depends on Microsoft software. We use Microsoft products by choice, 
simply because they are the best--not because anyone forced us 
to or because Microsoft is a Monopoly that leaves us no other 
choices. Microsoft was the first to develop and successfully market 
a seamless operating system and that is why they are the industry 
leader. They should not be penalized for this.
    I understand the settlement is encountering some trouble because 
certain adversaries of Microsoft, who opted to not join in on the 
settlement with everyone else, are attempting to derail it. If they 
are successful in their attempt, it will be a major set back for the 
entire technology industry. Continuation of this litigation will 
only serve to hinder Microsoft's productivity. It will cause 
collateral damage throughout the entire industry. The settlement 
will ensure more accessible software and better business practices, 
enforced by a new Technical Committee.
    Microsoft must be allowed to settle this case as it and most of 
its opponents want to. It is absolutely necessary for the sake of 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Lee
    President

[[Page 29646]]

    300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. Suite 350
    Oakland. CA 94612
    Telephone:510.587.0900
    Facsimile:
    510.587.0901
    www.Legendary.com



MTC-00031748

    01/22/02 19:50 FAX 8139755039 UNIVERSITY VILL 01
U.S. Department of Justice
January 22,2002
Attention: of Ms. Renata B. Hesse
    Please put an end to the government's long running legal assualt 
on Microsoft, which has cost the taxpayers more than $35 million and 
undermined one of the primary engines of America's economic growth.
    The proposed settlement is fair and acceptable.
    David Knight
    12401 N. 22nd St. Apt. D 607
    Tampa, Fl. 33612-3108
    FAX number
    (202) 307-1454 or
    (202) 616-9937



MTC-00031749

Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:O1 PM 1-516-887-3184 
p.01
Attention: Mr. John Ashcroft
Date: 1/22/02
Company: Number of Pages: 2
Fax Number: 1202-307-1454
Voice Number:
From: Jean Donohue
Company:
Fax Number: 1-516-887-3184
Voice Number:
Subject:
Comments:
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:O1 PM 1-516-887-3184 
p.02
Jean M. Donohue
26 Irving Place
Lynbrook, NY 11563
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the government, and I support this company in this 
three-year-long debate. I hope this litigation against Microsoft can 
end with the finalization of this settlement.
    This settlement is a complete agreement, which Microsoft has 
agreed to fully uphold. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers and has 
agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows so as to promote non- Microsoft software programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows.
    Please support this settlement. The provisions included in this 
agreement are fair and will benefit consumers and the economy. Thank 
you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Jean M Donohue



MTC-00031750

FROM : QPINKA ENTERPRISES FAX NO. : 520 625 5615 Jan. 23 2002 
04:38AM P1
1-20-02
James & Jean Spinka
493 Paseo Chuparosas
Green Valley, AZ 8561
ATTN:
DOJ
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
WE SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO DOJ
Jean & Jim Spinker



MTC-00031751

JAN-22-2002 03:30 PM NUEVO MARKET INC 9099281197 P.01
January 22,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
(202) 307-1454
Department Of Justice
    Dear Ms. Renata B. Hesse:
    Microsoft is doing an excellent job. The lawsuite should never 
have been started. It was a total waste of taxpayer funds. There has 
been a settlement agreement. Hold to the agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Floyd E. Brooks
    P. O. Box 54
    Perris CA. 92572



MTC-00031752

819 Harmony Lane
Mandeville, LA 70471
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter and avid user of Microsoft products, I would like 
to see this antitrust case resolved as soon as possible. I feel that 
the settlement reached between your office and
    Microsoft was fair and reasonable, and that it was extensive 
enough to correct not only the current problems, but future problems 
as well. No more action is necessary at the federal level, and would 
only interrupt the ongoing negotiations between Microsoft and nine 
states. Microsoft has agreed to change the way it develops, 
licenses, and markets its products, and has granted broad new rights 
to software engineers and computer makers. Under the terms of the 
settlement, they can configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft programs that directly compete with the programs already 
included within Windows Also, Microsoft will document, for use by 
its competitors, various interfaces in its Windows operating system.
    I fear that the states that would continue with litigation are 
more concerned with return on investment than with consumer 
protection. I believe that if this case is judged by its merits, 
then it is easy to see that the problems that brought the lawsuits 
have been addressed. A technical oversight committee will ensure 
that Microsoft complies with the terms of the settlement, and the 
competition will be allowed to sue Microsoft if they feel that they 
have been treated unfairly. These provisions should avoid future 
wasting of federal funds, and should keep the complaints sincere. 
Just as Microsoft is being kept in check, the companies that wish to 
take Microsoft's market share should be carefully watched. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Dryer
    Jan 22 02 04:56p Fogarty Dryer 985-624-5026 p.1



MTC-00031753

01/22/02 17:58 FAX 6107933607 BARRON 01
Patrick Baron
20 McMullan Farm Lane
West Chester, PA 19382
January 17,2002
AG John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a concerned citizen of this great nation, I am writing to 
give my support to the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. This case has been in litigation for three years now. It 
is time to bring closure to this case, since there is no monopoly to 
begin with. Microsoft just develops better products then its 
competitors.
    However, I feel that the provisions of the settlement are both 
fair and reasonable. For instance, Microsoft has agreed to allow 
computer makers to remove the means by which consumers access 
various features of Windows, especially sophisticated software like 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media Player, and 
Windows Messenger. They can then replace them with similar software 
like Netscape and AOL IM.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
computer makers who ship software that competes with anything in its 
Windows operating system. I ask that the government stop continued 
legal action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Barron
    Cc: Sen. Santorum



MTC-00031754

06/30/1995 01:37 12094774094 GEORGIA PAGE 01
1-22-02
DOJ
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Re: Microsoft As a taxpayer and consumer I support the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Thank You.
    Georgia Schrum
    Georgia Schrum
    10550 Davis Rd.
    Stockton, CA 95209



MTC-00031755

JAN-22-2002 05:24 PM ALLEN SCHAARSCHMIDT 1 610 515 1337 P.01
Allen Schaarschmidt
910 Gall Road
Easton, PA 18040-6522
January 20,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 29647]]

    I would like to go on record as supporting the settlement that 
was reached last November between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. It is about time that the antitrust lawsuit that was filed 
three years ago has finally been extinguished, and I hope that the 
nine remaining states that are continuing will follow the lead of 
the Department of Justice.
    The court costs incurred by the Department Justice and the 
Microsoft Corporation are higher than the GDP of some small 
countries. Too much time and money have been wasted on this matter; 
worsening the recession. Microsoft has made a concession that is a 
first in an antitrust settlement: the sharing of source code and 
interfaces that are internal to their software with competitors for 
instance. Additionally, an oversight committee set up by the 
government will constantly monitor Microsoft. Everything that was 
needed is now done; let us put this issue behind us and move on.
    I support the settlement that has been reached between the 
Microsoft Corporation and the Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Allen Schaarschmidt
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031756

JAN 22 ``02 05:39PM LINCOLN LAB GRP 94 P.1
January 19,2002
159 Elsinore Street #8
Concord, MA 01742
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing regarding the settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I support the settlement, 
because the terms are both fair and reasonable for everyone 
involved.
    Microsoft will be making a number of specific changes to their 
products, and business practices as well. For example, Microsoft has 
agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the 20 
largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including 
price. Also, they have agreed to document and disclose for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a 
three person technical committee that will monitor Microsoft's 
compliance with the settlement and assist with dispute resolution. I 
urge the government to terminate their efforts of further 
prosecution against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Stock
    cc: Representative Marty Meehan



MTC-00031757

JAN-23-2002 03:12PM FROM-K TUCKER CARMEL T-956 P 002/002 F-066
Mr. Renata D. Hesse
(202) 307-1454
January 22, 2002
Dept. of Justice,
    It is imperative that you stop the exorbitant government waste 
of money being spent on the Microsoft lawsuit. As a taxpayer and 
consumer I support the Microsoft settlement.
    Anna L. Loomis
    2458 N. Willow Way
    Indianapolis, IN
    46268-4247



MTC-00031758

Jan 22 02 06:08p lMJOGWDGDODGDOD 6504934303
7420 E Pontebella Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-2727
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000 1
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust case settlement reflects the efforts of intense 
lobbying efforts on the part of Microsoft's competitors and the lack 
of concern for the public's best interests from the politicians. The 
antitrust case has been ridiculous from the beginning. Microsoft has 
been the leading innovator of technology over the last decade and 
became successful by developing the best product, not by having 
monopolistic tendencies.
    The terms of the settlement force Microsoft to increase their 
cooperation with competitors, give up technological secrets to 
competitors, not enter in to third party agreements for exclusive 
distribution rights, nor retaliate against competitors who promote 
or develop new products, and grant broad new rights to computer 
makers to configure windows so that competitors can more easily 
promote their own products. These concessions and more make up very 
harsh terms for a company that played by the rules our capitalist 
society laid down for it.
    Although I think the settlement is flawed, I must support its 
implementation since I think that further litigation would be even 
more detrimental to our nation's IT Sector and economy. I urge your 
office to support the settlement and to what you can to get the nine 
states that currently want to continue this ludicrous dispute to do 
so as well.
    Sincerely,
    ss



MTC-00031759

8730 Lakeshore Lakeshore Drive
Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my disapproval of further litigation 
being pursued against Microsoft on any level, federal or otherwise.
    After years of legal disputes between Microsoft and the 
government, a settlement was reached. The settlement seems to be 
very realistic and was arrived at after intensive negotiations. 
Microsoft will now share information with its competitors, which 
will allow them to place their own programs on the Windows system. 
Additionally Microsoft will license Windows out to the largest 
computer companies in the U.S. on identical terms, so that there is 
no possibility of favoritism.
    This issue should now be over and Microsoft and the government 
should now be able to move on and concentrate on the future of our 
nation, both economically and technologically. I support the 
settlement, and look forward to the end of this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Fred White
    Jan 22 02 05:14p White Construction cons 
.414-694-7873 p.1



MTC-00031760

Lakeside Water District
11329 El Nopal
Lakeside, Ca. 92040
January 17,2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    US v. Microsoft is a complex case which I have spent some time 
trying to learn about. In situations like these, I often defer to 
individuals more learned than I. I am writing the courts to ensure 
you are aware of the opinions of Mr. James DeLong, a senior fellow 
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. DeLong's argument was 
paraphrased in a recent article in the Orange County Register. I 
would like to share with the courts some of what he said.
    About the settlement, Mr. DeLong stated ``Most of all it 
gets the case done without undue damage''. According to Mr. 
DeLong, this lawsuit made no sense from the beginning. It focused on 
Microsoft's monopoly as it relates to processors; specifically, by 
running only on Intel chips. Yet, Macintosh runs on Motorola chips 
and is gaining market share each month. Mr. DeLong goes on to say 
that the real issue is the Internet. And, as we a11 know, Microsoft 
has nowhere near the Internet dominance of companies like America 
Online or Yahoo.
    The point of all this is-important people like James DeLong not 
only support the settlement but recognize the absurdity of the case 
itself. I hope the courts will approve the settlement and end this 
ridiculous case.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Hilliker, Board Member
    Lakeside Water District



MTC-00031761

JAN-22-02 17:57 FROM:FWMBCC
FORT WORTH
METROPOLITAN
BLACK
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Proposed Final Judgment-or settlement-agreed upon on 
November 6, 2001 between Microsoft Corporation and the U.S. 
Department of Justice should be accepted by the U.S. District Court 
as soon as possible. Civil Action 98-1232, The United States 
of American vs. Microsoft Corporation, reads

[[Page 29648]]

like a litany of Microsoft successes not their excesses.
    Microsoft products have cornered much of the market because they 
are the best available. The proposed settlement doesn't lessen 
Microsoft's consumer appeal, but it does allow consumers added 
flexibility in use of competitor software.
    The settlement needs to bc ratified so the high tech industry 
can get back to competing in the market. Please end this case and 
let the market continue to work.
    Sincerely,
    Devoyd Jennings
    President & CEO
    1150 S. Freeway. Ste. 211, Fort Worth, Texas 76104 (817) 
871-6538 Fax (817) 332-6438



MTC-00031762

From: Sunil Arora
To: Attorney General
Date: l/22/02Time: 5:18:26 PM Page 1 of 1
RELIANCE TEHNOLOGIES, INC. INFROMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, 
CONSULTING MANAGEMENT
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Microsoft could never have achieved its level of success had it 
not been responsible for developing popular and easy to use 
software. This lawsuit seems to miss this point and, in essence, 
penalizes Microsoft for its successes. Now that there is a federal 
settlement being debated, I wanted to voice my support and urge you 
to convince Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal to change his ways and 
support this wise settlement.
    I am relieved that the litigation has ended with a settlement 
such as this. Even though some of the terms go well beyond the 
intent of the suit, it is sufficiently fair for both sides to be 
satisfied. I am nervous about some of the talk of giving out parts 
of Microsoft's intellectual property, but the bans on retaliatory 
behavior are palatable, and if they represent a bona fides effort on 
Microsoft's part, they may be quite beneficial in the long run.
    I sincerely hope that we lay this whole sad process against 
Microsoft to rest.
    Yours truly,
    Sunil Kumar Arora
    Account Manager
    RELIANCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC
    25 THIRD STREET, 3rd FLOOR
    STAMFORD CONNECTICUTUT 06905.
    PH: (203) 358-9562, FAX (203) 325-1521
    EMAIL: RTIINFO@RELIANCE TECHNOLOGIES.COM
    www. RELIANCE TECHNOLOGIES.COM
    Microsoft
    CERTIFIED A



MTC-00031763

FROM : FEY & GOMEZ, INC. FAX NO. : 515-254-1836 Jan. 
22 2002 04:32PM P1
FEY & GOMEZ, INC.
GOVERNMENTAL POLICY SERVICES
5608 Kensington Circle
Johnston, Iowa 501131-1295
Affiliated with FEY, HAUS & ST. CLAIR
January 22,2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
c/o Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    I'm sure you've received a lot of mail on the Microsoft 
settlement and you've been very busy since the agreement was 
reached. I just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know that I 
support the Microsoft settlement. I believe it is a fair and just 
resolution to a long, drawn-out, and complicated problem.
    Why would anyone want to punish someone for being successful? I 
gather that a lot of heat has been generated against Microsoft 
because of jealous competitors. Well, this settlement now 
incorporates a new mechanism that makes it easier for software 
companies to promote non-Microsoft software into Windows.
    The settlement is good and no one was left without a fair deal.
    Get this over with, please!
    Sincerely,
    Thomas H. Fey



MTC-00031764

01/22/02 05:26P P.OO1
USDLA
UNITED STATES DISTANCE LEARNING ASSOCIATION
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Renata B. Heese
FROM: John G. Flores, Ph.D., Executive Director
FAX NUMBER: 202.307.1454
DATE: January 22,2002
COMPANY: Antitrust Dept. US Dept of Justice
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDlNG COVER: 3
PHONE NUMBER
SENDER'S FAX NUMBER: 781.453.2389
RE: The Microsoft Settlement
SENDER'S PHONE NUMBER: 800.275.5162
140 GOULD STREET, SUITE 2008
NEEDHAM MA 02494
PHONE: 800.275.5162 o FAX: 781.453.2389
01/22/02 O5:26P P.002
USDLA
UNITED STATES DISTANCE LEARNING ASSOCIATION
January 22, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: The Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you today on behalf of the United States 
Distance Learning Association (USDLA). Our mission is to provide 
national leadership in the field of distance learning, specifically 
to:
    * Advocate and promote the use of distance learning;
    * Provide current information on distance learning;
    * Represent the distance learning community before government 
policy and regulatory bodies;
    * Serve and support the state, consortium and individual 
organizations that belong to USDLA;
    * Provide annual recognition and awards of outstanding 
achievements in distance learning;
    * Serve as a catalyst for the formation of partnerships among 
education, business, healthcare, and government;
    * Achieve a global leadership'' role through liaisons with 
international organizations;
    * Promote equity and access to lifelong learning through 
distance learning; and,
    * Promote diversity in our organization and its programs.
    I approach the issue of Microsoft's anti-competitive nature from 
the perspective of one whose goal it is to expand learning and allow 
anyone, anywhere, regardless of his or her computer system, to 
participate in the educational system. Hence, openness and 
supporting methods to competition are extremely important goals. If 
a potential distance learner has software that, for whatever reason, 
makes it impossible to communicate with other, more 
``popular'' software, he or she will be shut out from the 
learning network.
    Accordingly, the USDLA supports the remedies that will maximize 
consumer choice, foster competition and promote interoperability of 
software products with multiple operating systems, such as the 
following:
    * Microsoft should offer a basic version of Windows to personal 
computer makers--one that is unencumbered with Microsoft 
``add-ons.'' For example, this basic version would make 
optional any Internet access software, media players, or email 
applications.
    * The software code for Internet Explorer should be made 
available to other software developers, preventing Microsoft from 
monopolizing Internet access.
    * Some means, such as the suggested auctioning of licenses, 
should be developed to allow competitors to produce versions of the 
office software suite to run on non-Microsoft operating systems. In 
addition, interoperability should be enhanced by the inclusion of 
``middleware'' in Microsoft's Windows XP operating system.
    The USDLA supports Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly in 
his efforts to restore competition in the PC operating system market 
and curb Microsoft's unlawful practices. As the Attorney General 
states in a recent article in the Boston Globe: ``The Microsoft 
case always has been about simple, American principles: opportunity, 
competition, and fair play. Our economy is built on those 
principles. The future of high technology in Massachusetts demands 
that we fight for them.''
    Similarly, we must fight to preserve the right to lifelong 
learning for all Americans. Doing so requires that we reject the 
Microsoft settlement as it stands and seek a more effective and 
enforceable agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. John G. Flores
    Executive Director
    [email protected]



MTC-00031765

01/22/02 TUE 18:07 FAX 301 840 1591

[[Page 29649]]

ALDEBARON FINANCIAL SOLU 001
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this opportunity to give you my thoughts on 
the Microsoft Case. I am pleased to see that an acceptable 
settlement has finally been reached in this case. I also feel that 
is truly in the best interest of our country and our economy that 
the settlement be accepted as soon as possible. The settlement is 
fair and will restore fair competition to the computer industry.
    As a software development company, we deal with Microsoft 
products on a regular basis. I am particularly happy to see that the 
settlement will allow users to remove any default Microsoft programs 
from Windows without having to then reinstall the entire operating 
system. Additionally, OEM's will now be permitted to pre-install 
non-Microsoft programs within Windows without fear of retaliation 
from Microsoft. Nor will Microsoft enter into any contracts that 
would force third parties to solely distribute Windows. Also, 
Microsoft will be sharing a great deal of their design information 
with their competitors, namely allowing different server systems to 
interoperate with Microsoft's systems.
    The proposed settlement adequately addresses the issues 
Microsoft has been accused of, so I ask that you please accept this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Chrus Brown
    Aldebaron Financial Solutions
    15839 Crabbs Branch Way
    Rockville. MD 20855
    Phone (30I)670-0858
    Fax (30I) 840-1591
    www. sympaq.com



MTC-00031766

FROM : ARNOLD AND BETTY CIRTIN
FAX NO. : 9163159035 Jan. 22 2002
02:06PM P1
Dr. Arnold Cirtin, CPA
Professer Emertius of Accounting
2017 Archer Circle
Rocklin, California 95765
Telephone and Fax (916) 315-9035
E-mail [email protected]
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I respectfully request that you approve the settlement that was 
reached as a result of the Microsoft litigation. This litigation has 
been a heavy burden on one of America's finest companies. One 
product alone, Windows, has enabled millions of us to productively 
use computers in our businesses and homes, which we would not be 
able to do otherwise. The settlement has dealt with the concerns of 
those who feel that Microsoft has unfairly dominated the market; 
consequently, the federal action should be brought to a close 
quickly. To continue this case into the future would be to place 
unnecessary roadblocks in the path of one of America's most 
innovative industry leaders.
    I support the settlement and hope it is accepted as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Arnold Cirtin, CPA, Ph.D.



MTC-00031767

From:MINIUTEMAN PRESS. 912 356 9895 0l/22/2002 16: 58 #942 P 
.0O1/O01
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsvlvania Avenue. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft anti-trust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute, 
and I favor the settlement reached in November. This settlement is 
complete and thorough, and I am anxious to see this dispute resolved 
permanently.
    Microsoft has agreed to carry our provisions in this agreement, 
such as: designing future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism 
to make it easy for computer makers, consumers, and software 
developers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. The 
mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to features 
built into Windows or to non- Microsoft software. Microsoft has 
pledged to create more opportunities for competing companies.
    Microsoft is a company that delivers quality product to the 
marketplace. I have used Microsoft's products for years now, and I 
hope I will be able to enjoy these products for years to come. 
Please do your part to stop litigation against Microsoft. Thank you 
for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Anna Gounaris



MTC-00031768

Jan 22 02 09:26p NICOLS 1919 596 1074 p. 1
210 Robbins Road
Durham, NC 27703-9748
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is Betty Nichols. I reside in Durham, North Carolina. I 
want to encourage the Justice Department to act on the terms of its 
settlement agreement with Microsoft as soon as possible.
    While I do not understand every detail of the settlement 
agreement, I understand that Microsoft has agreed to open its 
systems to greater competition by allowing computer makers to offer 
competitive products within the Windows operating system. I also 
understand that Microsoft agreed to allow removal of some of its 
products from the Windows systems. These are significant 
concessions. I believe that Microsoft has gone the extra mile to 
settle this case, and they should be allowed to comply with the 
terms of the agreement rather than continue to waste time and money 
in court.
    I would sincerely like to see this matter brought to a close as 
soon as possible. I appreciate your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Betty Nichols



MTC-00031769

Jan-23-02 08:37A P.01
3531 Middle Cheshire Road
Canandaigua, NY 14424
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to address the recent settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. This agreement should stand. Enough is 
enough. It has gone on for three years, costing enormous amounts of 
time and money both to taxpayers and Microsoft. We need to put this 
issue behind us and move forward.
    I think Microsoft has been more than fair in agreeing to the 
requests of the Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to allow 
computer makers to ship non-Microsoft product to a customer; 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows, making it 
easier to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. Microsoft 
has agreed to an oversight committee. This is much more than I think 
any of Microsoft's competitors would do. What happened to free 
enterprise in this free country?
    I urge you to give your approval to this agreement and let us, 
and Microsoft, get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Janice Adams



MTC-00031770

Sent, by:Thornton Jan-23-02 08:48am from 904 725 
7969-202 353 8856 page 1/ 1
Fax 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
Subj: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Date: 01/22/20025:25:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: TomBat2
To: [email protected]
cc: TomBat2
    Dear Sirs:
    I feel strongly that Microsoft innovation in computer operating 
systems has been the driving force behind the rapid expansion of 
computers into almost every business and home. Some business 
practices, while structured to further the growth of their company, 
have not hurt the consumer. To the contrary, their continuous 
innovations have consistently expanded the usefulness of computers 
at continuously lower cost.
    The antitrust suit may have had some merit relatively to their 
competitors but little or no value to consumers. The antitrust 
proceedings seem to have the tone of a vendetta rather than rational 
legal proceedings.
    The time has come to end it.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas and Beverly Thornton
    Jan 23, 2002



MTC-00031771

USC/Canterbury
Canterbury Consulting Group
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice

[[Page 29650]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Public response is important to the settlement of the lawsuit 
against Microsoft. I am writing in support of this settlement. I 
think it is in the best interest of the industry to settle this 
issue and move forward to solve the economic problems that face our 
industry and country.
    In the future I hope that all litigation brought against 
technology companies, including forcing companies to release source 
code to third party software developers, is carefully scrutinized 
and fair. There exists a big difference between those companies that 
invest tremendous resources over many years to develop unique 
products-- and those who simply copy the work of others.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Bednarik
    President
    USC/Canterbury Corp.
    801 Compass Way, Suite 205,
    Annapolis, MD 21401
    410-573-2022
    * 888-472-4721
    * Fax 410-573-5228
    USC/Canterbury Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Consulting 
Group, Inc.
    Jan 23 02 08:41a USC/Cantwrbury 410-573-5229 p.1



MTC-00031772

01/23/2002 09:37 4137743525 FRANKLIN CTY SHERIFF
160 Elm Street
GreenfIeld, MA 01301
January 18,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The more I read about the recent developments in the Microsoft 
settlement, the more I get annoyed that it is being further 
scrutinized. After three years of negotiating, it is clear that this 
sett1ement was part of a well thought out process that yielded a 
fair and reasonable agreement. It is time to support this and get 
back to business.
    As our economy continues to falter, it seems more and more 
imperative to support our technology industry. Microsoft has 
obviously done so by working hard to get the IT sector back on 
track. By making changes in licensing, marketing and even design, 
Microsoft has taken a bold step toward uniting our IT sector. Also, 
as an anti-trust settlement first, Microsoft has agreed to disclose 
various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating 
system products, All of this will be monitored by a committee to 
ensure that Microsoft follows procedure. If these concessions are 
not a clear signal of cooperation, I do not know what is.
    I urge you to help support this more than fair agreement, by 
making sure that no more actions are taken against it. It is time to 
support our IT sector and get them back to focusing on innovation 
and not litigation.
    Sincerely,
    RussWissman



MTC-00031773

FROM : KEENER HOME & OFFICE FAX NO.. : 919 571-0802 Jan. 
23 2002 08:28AM
P1
Katherine 0. Keener
2428 E. Lake Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to voice my support for Microsoft in the antitrust 
dispute that has gone on for three years. This litigation is a waste 
of the government's valuable time and the financial resources of its 
citizens. Other matters more pertinent to the health of the national 
economy should be addressed.
    I support the legal settlement reached in November. I believe 
this settlement is fair to all concerned parties and will ultimately 
benefit the whole economy and consumers. Further litigation will 
not!
    This settlement wil1 also benefit the technology industry and 
companies attempting to compete with Microsoft. The company will 
start to share more information with other companies, including 
certain internal interfaces in Windows and protocols implemented in 
Windows, on reasonable and non- discriminatory terms. Microsoft has 
also accepted to be monitored by a technical oversight committee 
created by the government.
    I urge you to support the settlement so Microsoft employees can 
fully devote their resources to performing their jobs. It is time to 
move on to other issues.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Katherine O. Keener



MTC-00031774

JAN -23-82 WED 6:53 STI P.01
6809 Connecticut Trail
Crystal Lake, IL 60012-3127
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express my frustration at the fact that it has taken 
three years for the U.S. Department of Justice to complete its 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. My hope is that our nation's 
economic climate will be greatly improved from this computer giant 
returning its full focus back to innovation.
    Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to 
provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers 
and software developers to promote non- Microsoft software within 
Windows. This will make it easy to add or remove access to features 
built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Consumers will 
have the freedom to choose to change their configuration at any 
time.
    Microsoft does not get off easily. The settlement came after 
extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The parties 
agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures 
that were actually at issue in the suit, to the benefit of 
Microsoft's competitors. I think Microsoft's competitor cannot 
complain for any valid reason.
    Therefore, any further federal lawsuits against Microsoft would 
be considered by most to nothing more than pure harassment. Free 
enterprise should reign supreme in our American homeland.
    Sincerely,
    Linda J. Dool



MTC-00031775

Jan 23 02 08: 18a KENNA HOLMES 8137591789 P.1 V & R INSURANCE 
AGENCY
P.O. Box 1536
Plant City, FL. 33564-1536 * 503D Martin Luther King St.
Plant City, FL. 33566
1-813-752-2065
* Fax 813-759-1789
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 21, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my full support of the recent antitrust 
case settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. 
Microsoft has been extremely helpful to the IT sector's growth over 
the years. It has even been helpful in weeding out inefficient 
companies that were run poorly. Yes, Microsoft at times exhibited 
aggression, but that is what our country dictates as necessary to 
achieve success in a free market.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft will be required to 
tone their marketing tactics down. They have agreed to disclose 
technological codes and protocols that will allow competitors to 
develop and promote products that are compatible with Windows'' 
operating systems. They have also agreed to design future 
Windows'' versions so that competitors can more easily promote 
their own products.
    Please stop opposition from further hurting our country. We want 
this thing to come to an end ASAP.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Rollyson



MTC-00031776

Jan-23-02 08:17A SHELBY LAW P.01
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Aschroft,
    I am greatly pleased to hear that the Department of Justice has 
announced a proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. 
This case has been mired in court going on four years now; the 
settlement should be finalized so that technology providers can 
concentrate on IT development without the burden of further pending 
litigation.
    This settlement ensures that Microsoft will grant competitors 
extensive nights to reconfigure Windows so that they can promote 
their own--or Microsoft's competitors''-- products on 
Windows. This

[[Page 29651]]

represents just one of Microsoft's many changes in it business 
practices, slowly agreed to over many months of negotiations with a 
court- appointed moderator.
    With your support, I'm sure this case can be finalized soon for 
the good of the IT industry and the nation's economy. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Law



MTC-00031777

JAN-23-2002 07 : 42 NORM COLONNA NAM P. 01
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am the National Sales Manager of Konica Computers. I know 
computers. I have tried every computer system there is: Linux, 
Gateway, you name it. But after many tries with other companies, I 
now use Microsoft exclusively because it works. Its software is 
superb. I can buy a Microsoft computer with the complete package, 
Word, Adobe Acrobat, Excel, without having to run all over the place 
and go through the hassle of integrating different software. I do 
not condone the antitrust case against Microsoft. The suit was is 
expensive and time consuming. Microsoft's competitors had difficulty 
competing in the market place, hence brought suit against the 
company hoping to limit Microsoft's reach.
    A settlement has been reached, and I want this settlement to 
stand. Any further action is ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer time 
and money. Even the federal judge who handed down the decision knew 
it was time to end this suit. We could go on forever, examining 
every little item and accomplishing nothing except giving in to 
those jealous souls who wish nothing but ill for Microsoft simply 
because they aren't as successful, aren't as good.
    I support the Microsoft settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Norm Colonna
    National Sales Manager



MTC-00031778

01/23/2002 00:58 425-353-7786 DE ORJG ZIMMERMAN PAGE 01
Dorothy Zimmerman
8703 54th Palce W
Mukilteo, WA 98275-3131
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This letter is to show my support for the settlement that was 
reached between the Microsoft Corporation and the Justice 
Department, I see no reason to drag the antitrust issue out any 
longer than it already has been. The sooner that this settlement 
gets implemented, the better.
    The settlement was agreed to after extensive negotiations with a 
court-appointed mediator. Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend 
well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue 
in the suit. This was done for the sake of ending the litigation so 
that Microsoft could get back to producing innovative products
    However, they might not be completely Microsoft's innovations 
anymore. The settlement requires them to turn over to their 
competitors data and code that are internal to the Windows operating 
system.
    It is not fair to make a company give up their intellectual 
property, I support the settlement, but only because it ends the 
suit.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Zimmerman
    425-353-7786



MTC-00031779

Jan 23 02 00:29 Bellamy (704) 554-8126 p.1
Joanne Bellamy
3919 Highview Road
Charlotte. NC 28210
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the 
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
The inception of this case by the federal government marks the 
initial decline in the technology industries seen in recent years. 
Despite modest recoveries last year, the IT sector has flailed in 
direct relation to this litigation Process. The settlement of this 
case, conversely, would certainly increase confidence in the 
industry. Given the state of the economy at the present this would 
he the best path to follow at this tune.
    Furthermore, the details of this settlement encourage important 
change in the industry as well. Microsoft has agreed to make 
protocols implemented in the Windows operating system products to be 
disclosed to its competitors. This will be available to competitors 
on ``reasonable and non-discriminatory'' grounds. Thus, 
competitors will now have the information necessary to develop 
software that is increasingly compatible with the Windows system.
    Thank you so much for your concern regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Joanne Bellamy



MTC-00031780

Jan-23-02 12:28A
Gonzalo H. Iglesias
66 Gables Boulevard
Weston, FL 33326
9543857311
[email protected]
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    The Justice Dcpartmcnt and Microsoft have been tied up in a 
court battle for the past three years, and for the past six months, 
negotiations have taken place under the supervision of a court 
appointed mediator. Microsoft has, I think, been dealt with fairly 
in the settlement, and I do not believe further litigation is 
neccessary. Unfortunately, nine plaintiff states involved in the 
case do not agree. They are currently seeking to overturn the 
settlement and bring further suit against Microsoft. This matter has 
been pending for far too long, unfortunately to no one's benefit 
except the highly rewarded lawyers to the detriment of thc consumers 
like myself. Therefore I feel that it is about time for the case to 
come to a quick conclusion. I believe Microsoft has the right to 
remain in control of its own software, but I believe that terms of 
the agreement are beneficial because they allow more freedom on the 
part of the user.
    By comparison, I look at other major Companies Ford, Mercedes 
Benz, Bacardi.... etc. We could all say that these other companies 
hold a monopoly as well... Will all these companies be required to 
comply with policies being asked of Microsoft? Under the terms of 
the settlement, Microsoft will be required to disclose source code 
for use by its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed to reformat 
future versions of Windows so that the operating system will support 
non-Microsoft software. Now, computer users whose computers run on 
Windows will have the ability to configure Windows as they see fit. 
I am pleased that the suit did not result in Microsoft's division 
into smaller parts. and I believe that this settlement is in the 
best interest of both computer makers and the consumer.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe further litigation IS at all 
necessary Such litigation will only increase not only the 
governments costs which in the end is the taxpayers, like myself. 
Pushing the issue any further would be totally counterproductive and 
would be, I believe, ultimately detrimental to the economy, the 
technology industry, and the American people. I urge you to support 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Gonzalo H. Iglesias



MTC-00031781

JAN-22-2002 11:06 PM G L YOUNG 937 5488832 P.01
FAX TRANSMITTAL FROM
Gary Lee Young
3685 West Drive
Greenville, Ohio 45331
Fax: 937/548-8832
fax to DOJ
direct to Ms. Renata B. Hesse
city & state
fax# 202 367 1454
today's date 1-22-02
no. of pages including cover
sheet 1
from: Gary Ser Young
comments:
    I support the Immediate Settlement of the Microsoft Case



MTC-00031782

01/22/02 TUE 22:46 FAX 17622166 Rudy A. Masry 001
17 leawood Drive
BriarcIiff Manor, NY 10510
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 29652]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I feel that the settlement reached between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft is fair and reasonable, and has 
been extensive enough for nine states to approve. Further federal 
action is unnecessary, especially while Microsoft is involved in 
negotiations with the remaining states to reach a conclusion.
    Microsoft has agreed to change the way it develops, licenses, 
and markets it software. Software engineers and computer makers will 
be allowed to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft 
programs that compete with those programs already included within. 
Also, Microsoft agreed to stop retaliating against companies that 
produce or promote software and hardware that competes with 
Microsoft products.
    The settlement not only addresses the issue that brought about 
the case, but provides for future problems as well. A technical 
oversight committee will ensure that Microsoft complies with the 
terms of the agreement, and the competition will be allowed to sue 
Microsoft directly if they feel they have been treated unfairly.
    I believe that the longer uncertainty surrounds this case, the 
longer that innovation will stall. We must allow the industry and 
the economy to move forward, and I believe this settlement is the 
vehicle to do it.
    Sincerely,
    Ally Masry



MTC-00031783

FROM : Jim Tamm PHONE NO. : 650 345 9386 Jan. 22 2002 08:58PM P1
Ryan Tamn
2118 Lyon Avenue
Belmont, CA 94002
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I ardently support the settlement reached between the Dept. of 
Justice and Microsoft. Protracted litigation has served only to 
stagnate the economy. The tech industry has shown decline in direct 
correlation with the federal government's pursuit of this case. I do 
not believe this to be coincidental.
    Incidentally, the settlement should increase the productivity in 
the tech industry. Although Microsoft has made many concessions 
through the process, such as its agreement to license Windows at the 
same rate to the top twenty PC makers, they have done so in the 
attempt to resolve this issue.
    And resolving this issue is in everyone's best interests.
    Enact the settlement at the end of January.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Tamm



MTC-00031784

01/27/1997 05:06 814-238-5885 CDG INC PAGE 01
16 Cedar Lane
State College, PA 16801-6705
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. 
Although I do believe its marketing tactics have been a bit too 
heavy handed at times, I have worked daily with its products and 
those of its competitors for many years and know from experience 
that the foundation of its industry leadership rests, not on 
marketing, but on the superiority of its products. I am a Microsoft 
supporter who thinks that its products and services have contributed 
greatly to American economic strength at the end of the Twentieth 
Century. Microsoft's leadership in standardizing the technology 
industry has produced benefits, to both consumers and to its 
competitors, which far exceed any detriment attributable to its past 
marking approaches, I have no doubt that the settlement is in the 
best interests of the public since it does not break up Microsoft, 
but does temper its ability to isolate other vendors.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose internal interface technology and codes for server 
interoperability. They have also agreed to design future Windows 
versions so that consumers, software developers, and computer makers 
will be able to promote more easily their own products. These 
stipulations and more on Microsoft's behalf will protect consumers' 
rights as well as competitors' latitude to operate in this market.
    Our economy is in recession and we are fighting an ongoing war 
on terrorism. Surely our government should be focusing on other more 
pertinent issues. It's time to settle this case as soon as possible. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John C. Flohr, Ed.D
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031785

01-22 02 21:55 W F STEVENS
PAGE 1 OF 2
TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL--JOHN ASCROFT
FAX 1-202-307-1454
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
FROM: WILLIAM F. STEVENS
FAX 334-826-3046
01-22 02 21:55 W F STEVENS
T: 334 826 3046
P:02
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am very happy about the settlement that has been reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The required 
changes in Microsoft's business practices will restore fair 
competition and prevent future antitrust violations. But most 
importantly, the settlement will allow the IT industry to 
concentrate on business now.
    The agreement mandates a number of specific changes. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer 
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system. Microsoft has also agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers on 
identical terms and conditions, including price. In addition, 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows.
    This settlement is in the best interest of the pubIic and the 
economy. The recession has had a horrible effect on state budgets 
and the federal budget, and it is important that the technology 
sector be allowed to concentrate on business as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    William Stevens
    1645 Mayfair Court
    Auburn, Alabama 36830



MTC-00031786

JAN-22-2002 09:52 PM THE BOLDUC FAX MACHINE 201 444 7140 
P.01
Bruce Bolduc
147 John Street
Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington; DC 20530
    Fax--1-202-307- 1454
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Litigation is expensive, very expensive. The amount of money 
spent in both pursuing and defending the issues surrounding the US 
vs. Microsoft lawsuit is astronomical. Taxpayers will bear the brunt 
of the cost on this suit, and that will seriously mitigate the 
consumer benefit of the letters. According to the terms of the 
settlement, Microsoft must operate under the supervision of an 
outside technical committee and disclose parts of windows code to 
competitors. These points of the settlement force Microsoft to open 
its business dealings and research to third parties. These two 
points in the settlement alone are enough punitive action to 
compensate for any unethical practices Microsoft may be guilty of. 
Yet, the settlement goes much deeper, proof that this suit has been 
in court for too long.
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair to the plaintiffs 
in the case and are the result of extended litigation. The 
Department of Justice must see that the proposed settlement is not 
derailed; too much time and money have been spent in arriving at 
this point.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Bolduc



MTC-00031787

01/22/2002 20:05 7023636710 PAGE 01
FAX TO: 1-202-307-1454
ATTN: MS. RENATA B. HESSE
    I support the settlement that the DOJ made with Microsoft and 
believe the court cases should now be stopped.
Wayne Strube
702-369-6710
Jan 23, 02



MTC-00031788

01/22/2002 19:44 8506784571 SAM DAWSN PAGE 01

[[Page 29653]]

7 Kristin Circle Niceville, FL 32578
January 21 ,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroff
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a firm supporter of Microsoft. I feel that this antitrust 
case must be halted. Microsoft is a first class company that has 
done nothing but add productivity and capital to this nation. The 
Government had no business pursuing this suit in the first place. I 
feel that the settlement that has finally been reached must be 
accepted so that we can finally get back to business as usual in 
this country.
    I feel that under the circumstances the settlement is fair, I 
would rather see the suit dropped but since that is unlikely a good 
settlement is needed. Microsoft will be held accountable to a three-
person oversight committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance 
with the terms. Microsoft has also agreed to design all future 
versions of Windows to be compatible with the products of its 
competitors. I feel that this settlement goes above and beyond the 
necessary restrictions and anyone who chooses not to accept the 
terms is clearly pursuing this case for personal political gain.
    Please ensure that this case is put to rest with all possible 
haste. Free enterprise is a priceless commodity that we enjoy in 
this nation. Litigation like this eats away at the very fabric that 
holds this nation together. Thank you for considering my position.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel Dawson
    cc: Representative Jefferson Miller



MTC-00031789

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 21 2001 02:08AM P1
Walter Israel
Architectural and Design Lines
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite1200
Washington, DC 20530
    As a small businesswoman who depends upon Microsoft products for 
efficiency at work and at my home computer, I am happy that the 
federal government is now pushing for a settlement in its case 
against Microsoft. I hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will agree so 
everyone can get on with their business.
    As a former member of the North Carolina Board on Parks and 
Wildlife, I have had dealings with a large government entity, I know 
what can happen when issues like lawsuits keep going on forever and 
forever. They drain resources and energy from employees whose time 
should be spent on other things. And lawsuits always end up costing 
the taxpayers money--as this one has.
    That is why I hope the judge will see fit to accept this 
settlement and let everyone get back to work . Thanks for your kind 
consideration of my position.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Israel
    Owner
    6041 Wilkinson Boulevard, Belmont, NC 28012



MTC-00031790

JAN-23-2002 10:03 AM DEL.JAY O'BRIEN 804 643 1860 P.01
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
JAY O'BRIEN
7003 CLIFTON HUNT COURT
CLIFTON. VIRGINIA 20124
FORTIETH DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF VlRGlNlA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
COMMITEE ASSIGNMENT
MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES (CO. CHAIR)
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
EDUCATION
GENERAL LAWS
CORPORATIONS, INSURANCE AND BANKING
DELEGATE JAY O'BRIEN
FAX COVER SHEET
To: Renata Hesse
Organization: Department of Justice
Date: 1 23 02
Fax Number: 202 616 9937
Comments: pg. 1 of 2
Thank you
If you have any problems with this transmission, please call us at 
804-698-1040.
DISTRICT (888) 508-3921 RICHMOND (804) 698-1040 
E-MAIL
[email protected]
JAN-23-2002 10:04 Am DEL. JAY O'BRIEN
804 643 1860 P-02
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
FORTIETH DISTRICT
January 2I, 2002
COMMITTEE ASSlGNMENTS
MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES (CO. CHAIR)
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
EDUCATION
GENERAL LAWS
CORPORATION INSURANCE AND BANKING
Reneta Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
V/A FACSIMILE- 202. 616. 9937
    Dear MS. Hesse:
    I am in agreement with the proposed settlement reached between 
the federal government and Microsoft Corporation. This settlement is 
the appropriate step toward fostering continued economic growth and 
common business sense in the competitive marketplace. As a 
representative of Northern Virginia area, I am well aware of the 
economic benefits that the technology boom has benefited to our 
area, Microsoft is a proven leader in the entrepreneurial spirit and 
the technology field. The company has enabled other computer 
companies to benefit in the computer and technology boom.
    The settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise. Microsoft 
created a superior product than its competitors and is not 
responsible for the inner turmoil and troubles of other companies. 
The relentless investigation that the US Attorney's office has waged 
against Microsoft in the past years is unreasonable and needs to end 
with this compromise. The time has come to end the lawsuit and reach 
an amicable decision.
    The proposed settlement is tough, yet reasonable, and a valuable 
tool in bringing stability back to our economy. It is my hope that 
the Court will approve the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the United States Attorney's office.
    Sincerely,
    Jay O'Brien
    Member, House of Delegates
    DISTRICT (888) 808. 3921
    RICHMOND (804) 608-1040
    E-MAIL. DEL OBRIEN@HOUSE STATE. VA. US



MTC-00031792

01/23/02 WED 07:35 FAX 3154462632 KEYBANK NOTTINGHAM 001
Key Bank
215 Tecumseh Rd
Syracuse NY 13224
315-446-8091
315-446-2632 fax
FAX
To: Renata Hesse
From: Kevin Holmquisst
Fax: 202-616-9937
Pages: 2
Phone:
Re: U.S. v. Microsoft
cc:
Urgent X For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
    Comments:
    Thank You!
    Kevin
01/23/02 WED 07:36 FAX 3154462632 KEYBANK NOTTINGHAM 002
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing you to express my support of the settlement of the 
above listed case and I hope you will as well. Below are some of the 
reasons that I support this settlement. More than $30 million in 
taxpayers money has been spent on this case, and our economy is now 
officially in recession, so I believe that the last thing that we 
need is more regulation and litigation of an important American 
industry like high-tech. No consumer as been harmed as a result of 
any of the actions taken by Microsoft to date. Actually, consumers 
have had tremendous benefit as a result of microsofts innovation 
which as led to lower prices and better products. A few large 
companies such as AOL Time Warner and Oracle should stop their fight 
in court, and compete in the marketplace where this fight belongs. 
This settlement is in everyone's best interest, including the 
taxpayers and the

[[Page 29654]]

consumers. The very last thing that America needs is government 
lawyers and bureaucrats looking over the technology industry trying 
to micromanage it. This settlement is most appropriate, because it 
addresses only the items upheld by the courts.
    Thank You for you consideration of this matter
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Holmquist
    Manlius Town Councilman
    Relationship Manager, Key Bank N.A.
    315-446-0542
    315-682-4647



MTC-00031794

FROM: FAX NO.: Jul. 21 2001 02:33AM P6 JAN-10-2002 10:40 
SMITH SETZER & SONS 828 241 3160 P.01/02
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING
RALEIGH 27601-1096
REPRESENTATIVE MITCHELL SETZER
POST OFFICE BOX 416
CATAWBA, NORTH CAROLINA 28809
HOME (828) 241-3570
OFFICE (828) 241-3161
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As one of the younger members of the North Carolina General 
Assembly, I have a strong interest in how government interacts with 
technology so that we as legislators may make the best use of our 
technological resources for the benefit of our citizens, especially 
our young people.
    It is for this reason, that I have support for many years, the 
concept that we must promote the use of technology, it is important 
that we do not interfere with it at any level of government, state 
or federal. That is why since 1999, I have been greatly troubled by 
the federal government's attempt to bring about harsh penalties 
against Microsoft in what I consider an unwarranted antitrust case.
    There is certainly no one--even the legal team on the other 
side--who could make the claim that Microsoft has done any harm 
to even one single consumer. In addition, without consumer harm, is 
there really a reason to bring an antitrust case? There is not in my 
judgment.
    However, in order to bring the federal lawsuit to an end as well 
as North Carolina's state litigation, please let Judge Kollar-
Kotelly that I strongly support the settlement, and I hope this 
entire process will move along quickly. That way Microsoft can get 
back to the business of innovation and coming out with new 
products--at which they are excellent. Also, government 
attorneys can get back to more worthy cases.
    Thank you for your kind consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Mitchell Setzer
    State Representative



MTC-00031795

Jul. 21 2001 02:300M P1
FROM: FAX NO.:
01/22/02 10:02 1 919 793 0036 P.01
Conway Brooks
Wake County Repubilcan Party
January 18, 2OO1
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 U Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the Vice Chairman of the Wake County Republican Party, I know 
a thing or two about public opinion. Let me tell you this--the 
public wants the courts to approve the settlement between Microsoft 
and the federal government and they want it approved now!
    In my work as Vice Chairman of the Wake County Republican Party, 
part of my job is to be aware of public sentiment on important 
governmental, societal, and other public policy issues. Based on the 
response of our members on this issue, I can tell you that a 
significant segment of the American populace is concerned about the 
consequences of dragging out this lawsuit any longer. For one, it 
may hinder technological innovation in the marketplace. Who wants to 
innovate when doing so will get you sued?
    Also, the extension of this lawsuit may cause litigious lawsuits 
between corporate entities to become even more of a cottage industry 
in America. We have enough lawsuits already that drain enough money 
out of the United States economy. We need to discourage these 
lawsuits in the future.
    Finally, people across American are worried about the economy, 
and believe that government needs to work with business, not against 
it. By settling this lawsuit, government will demonstrate a 
willingness to work as a partner in, not an opponent to, business. 
This will enable Microsoft to continue to provide businesses with 
products that make their operation more efficient.
    I ask Judge Kollar Kotelly to approve the settlement.
    Thank you,
    Conway Brooks
    1st Vice Chairman



MTC-00031797

Fax NO. : Jul. 21 2001 02:09am P2
North Carolina General Assembly
House of Representatives
State Legislative Office Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-1095
REPRESENTATIVE REX L. BAKER
40th DISTRICT--ALLEGHANY, ANNE, STOKES, SURRY AND WATAUGA
OFFICE ADDRESS: ROOM 808
RALEIGH, NC 27601-1088
TELEPHONE: (818) 738-5707
(818) 715-7588 FAX
HOME ADDRESS: 2108 SLATE ROAD
KING, NC 27021
E-MAIL: [email protected]
COMMITTEES:
AGRICULTURE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
APPROPRIATIONS
NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
STATE PARKS AND PROPERTIES
TRANSPORTATION
TRAVEL AND TOURISM
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a member of the House Appropriations Committee of the North 
Carolina Genenal Assembly, I am painfully aware of the high and 
escalating cost of government despite the fact that our citizens and 
businesses are experiencing terrible economic times in our state. 
One cause of higher taxes, which has been particularly felt in North 
Carolina, is that our state has lost a number of lawsuits and the 
taxpayers have had to pick up the tab.
    As you can tell, I am adamantly opposed to taxes in whatever 
form and work had in each session of the legislature to reduce taxes 
and spending whenever possible. That is why I was happy to see that 
the federal government's case against Microsoft had come to a 
settlement agreement in the court of Judge Kollar-Kotelly. I know 
that this case has already cost the taxpayers of this nation $30 
million, not to mention lesser sums in the 18 states that also 
brought the original lawsuits.
    I am pleased that North Carolina is one state that decided to 
agree with the settlement and now no more state tax money will go in 
that direction. I would like to see the same thing happen in the 
federal case as well. That is why I am strongly urging that FROM : 
fax NO. : Jul. 21 2001 02:09am p3 the judge to agree to the 
settlement in this case. Both sides will come away with gains and 
losses. That is how a settlement should work and that is only fair.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Rex L. Baker



MTC-00031798

State of Washington
House of Representatives
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The proposed settlement of US v. Microsoft case represents a 
fair compromise that promotes greater industry competition without 
destroying Microsoft. The settlement guarantees a series of 
reasonable modifications. Other companies, including Microsoft's 
competitors, will have greater access to computer desktops. Computer 
manufacturers, not Microsoft, will determine what software will be 
offered with new machines using the Windows operating system. At the 
same time, the settlement

[[Page 29655]]

avoids broad new government regulations that could hinder the tech 
industry and prevent Microsoft from making important investments in 
critical research and development activities.
    The uncertainty generated by this case has threatened America's 
global leadership in high-technology. In the face of new economic 
concerns at home, this settlement is needed to help revive the 
industry that has driven the new economy. I congratulate the Justice 
Department on its efforts to reach a fair and reasonable settlement.
    Sincerely,
    State Representative Al O'Brien
    State Representative Lynn Kessler
    State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson
    State Representative Kelli Linville
    State Representative Toni Lysen
    State Representative Jeanne Edwards
    State Representative Geoff Simpson
    State Representative Aaron Reardon
    State Representative Bill Fromhold
    State Representative William Grant
    State Representative Jeff Gombosky
    State Representative Val Ogden
    State Representative Sharon Santos
    State Representative Brian Sullivan
    STATE REPRESENTATIVE
    40th DISTRICT
    JEFF MORRIS
    State of Washington
    House of Representatives
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION PRESIDENT
    TECHNOLOGY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS & ENERGY
    CHAlR
    FINANCE
    SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SECURITY
January 21, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The proposed settlement of US v. Microsoft case represents a 
fair compromise that promotes greater industry competition without 
destroying Microsoft. The settlement guarantees a series of 
reasonable modifications. Other companies, including Microsoft's 
competitors, will have greater access to computer desktops. Computer 
manufacturers, not Microsoft, will determine what software will be 
offered with new machines using the Windows operating system. At the 
same time, the settlement avoids broad new government regulations 
that could hinder the tech industry and prevent Microsoft from 
making important investments in critical research and development 
activities.
    The uncertainty generated by this case has threatened America's 
global leadership in high-technology. In the face of new economic 
concerns at home, this settlement is needed to help revive the 
industry that has driven the new economy. I congratulate the Justice 
Department on its efforts to reach a fair and reasonable settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Morris
    State Representative
    40th District



MTC-00031799

JAN-23-02 WED 11 :28 AM HELLER
NEV 702 342 0222
P. 01
January 23, 2002
o
TO: U.S. Department of Justice
202 307-1454
202 616-9937
Attn: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
    I support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft lawsuit. Stop 
spending taxpayer money on more frivolous legal maneuverings. You've 
spent too much already. This whole case stinks to high heaven and 
sets an uncalled-for bad precedent for
    American technology and its innovators.
    R. E. Heller, Sparks NV



MTC-00031800

Jan 23 02 11:32a
George Harter
480-860-2025
P.1
George Harter
9140 North 104th Place
Scottsdale AZ 85258
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust case settlement serves the best public interest 
and I hope your office finalizes it as soon as possible. While I 
disagree with litigation against Microsoft in the first place and 
think that this who case has been a waste of time and an 
infringement of Microsoft's rights as a free enterprise, the 
settlement seems the only way to allow all parties to move forward. 
Under the terms of settlement it is good that Microsoft will not be 
broken up.
    The terms merely force them to disclose interfaces and protocols 
to competitors, design future windows versions so that software 
developers can promote their own products form within, and form 
three-person team to monitor compliance with settlement. These 
concession and more seem to favor competitors not consumers, but tat 
just verifies the opinion I had al along, that this case was 
politically driven from the start.
    Please suppress opposition to the settlement and make this thing 
a reality. It is in the public's best interests for a settlement to 
occur.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031801

FROM : P. R. T. & ASSOCIATES INC.
PHONE NO. : 419 499 4515
Jan. 23 2002 01: 07PM Pl
P.O. Box 548
Milan, OH 44846
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to give my support to the agreement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of justice. In my opinion, this 
antitrust case should never have happened. The government, guite 
frankly, should never have gotten involved; the Department of 
Justice was dragged into this action against Microsoft by both 
Microsoft's competitors, and the previous administration's 
definition of justice.
    I wonder if anyone in the government really realizes the 
wonderful things Bill Gates, through Microsoft, has done for this 
country, and the world. Does anyone remember what it was like before 
Microsoft? What a mess our technology was. Nothing worked together. 
Bill Gates made possible a uniform software program package. You 
didn't have to go to ten different programs to accomplish one simple 
task. Microsoft's rivals, unable to compete, resorted to political 
means to bring Microsoft to heel. It is tragic our government so 
easily acquiesced.
    In this agreement, Microsoft has greed to grant computer makers 
new license to make Windows as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs; Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows 
with a mechanism to make it easier to promote non-Microsoft 
software; Microsoft has agreed to help companies achieve a better 
degree of reliability with regard to their networking software. This 
is much more than any other company would do. I think Microsoft 
should be congratulated for trying to end this suit and get back to 
business.
    Give your support to this agreemcnt. Let's put this behind us 
and get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Elaine Thornton



MTC-00031802

01/23/02 WED 12:57 FAX 414 328 2233 ROCKWELL SUPPORT Facsimile 001
Rockwell Software
2424 South 102nd Street
West Allis, WI 53227
Facsimile
Rockwell
Automation
To Attorney General Ashcroft
From Rich Ryan
Location Dept of Justice
Location Rockwell Software
Tel Tel 414.328.2400
Fax 202-307-1454
Fax 414.328.9400
Pages 2 Date 1/23/02
Allen-Bradley
DODGE
ROCKWELL SOFTWARE
RELIANCE ELECTRIC
11/23/02 WED 12:57
FAX 414 328 2233
ROCKWELL SUPPORT
January 22, 2002
Richard C. Ryan
president
rockwell software
Rockwell Automation
2424 South 102nd street
West Allis. WI 53227.2106 USA
Tel 414 320.2400 Fax 414 328 9400 1
email rcryan@software rockwell com
Attorney General John Ashcroft US
Department of Justice

[[Page 29656]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to submit my support for the Microsoft settlement 
negotiated with the Justice Department last November. After the 
completion of this 60-day public comment period, it would only seem 
fair that the terms agreed upon with the help of a court mediator, 
be accepted and implemented.
    The important role Microsoft plays in the IT industry should be 
appreciated The agreement is a very generous deal that is far 
preferable than further action that would break up the company and 
further disrupt the PC industry.
    MIcrosoft has agreed to share or license its intellectual 
property with its rivals and promote interoperability with its 
server software in the interest of fostering more competition in the 
software market. An independent committee will monitor its 
compliance with the settlement. From my perspective as someone in 
the industry, this closely monitored plan will create a wider market 
for software products from a variety of competitors. Please make 
sure to commit to this opportunity and not make the mistake of 
continued litigation. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Rich Ryan, President
    Rockwell Software



MTC-00031803

CRAIG W. SUDBRINK
402 Monmouth Drive
Greensboro, NC 27410
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is Craig Sudbrink. I am a resident of Greensboro, NC. I 
appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Justice Department's 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust litigation. Please 
include me among those supporting the settlement.
    I am sure that not everyone is happy with the proposed 
settlement, and that many of Microsoft's competitors will not be 
happy until they have put Microsoft out of business through 
litigation rather than competition. However, if you look at the 
concessions made by Microsoft, most specifically the agreement to 
open competition within their Windows systems, you cannot help but 
support the compromise reached. I hope that you proceed with the 
settlement as it is in the best interests of the American public and 
the economy.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Sudbrink
    cc: Representative Howard Coble



MTC-00031804

01/23/02 10:41 FAX 206 546 2205 DR BRUCE RYAN
Bruce H. Ryan
1841 N 184th Street
Shoreline, Washington 98133
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write you today in regards to the Microsoft settlement issue. 
I support the settlement that was reached in November, and I 
sincerely hope there will be no need for further action against 
Microsoft.
    This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. 
Microsoft has agreed to carry out all terms, including terms that 
extend well beyond the original issues of this lawsuit. Microsoft 
has agreed to share more information with other companies, such as 
various internal interfaces in Windows and any protocols implemented 
in a Windows operating system product. It will also change licensing 
agreements to make them more advantageous to hardware manufacturers.
    This settlement will serve in the best and greatest public 
interest. Please support this settlement so Microsoft can focus all 
their resources on designing innovative software. Thank you very 
much.
    Very Sincerely Yours,
    Bruce H. Ryan



MTC-00031805

Jan-23-2002 09:34 SPECIALTY FOREST PRODUCTS 2539390902 P. 01/
01
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: Jan. 23, 2002
TO: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
FROM: Vic Lindstrom F
IRM: U.S. Dept. of Justice
Number of pages 1
FAX #: 202-307-1454
SUBJECT Microsoft
    This letter is to advise the DOJ that my wife and I support the 
Proposed Microsoft Settlement and would as a tax payer, ask the 
dept. of Justice to approve the Settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Victor Lindstrom



MTC-00031806

01/23/2002 11: 32 3184423307
HILLHARRIS
HILL, HARRIS & COMPANY DISTRlBUTORS BUILDERS HARDWARE BUILDING 
SPECIALTIES
(318)442.3303
1504 METRO DRIVE
FAX (318)442.3307
P O BOX 13268
ALEXANDRIA, LA 71315
DATE: JAN 23/02
TO: D.O.J.
ATTN: Renata Hesse
REF: Microsoft
    I agree with & support the recent Legal Settlement with 
Microsoft. I hope you will finalize it as soon as possible.
    J.C. Harris



MTC-00031807

Jan-23-2002 11: 46 312 460 2426 P. 01/01
195 N. Harbor Drive # 2003
Chicago, IL 60601
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to offer some thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I believe that there was merit behind the complaints that 
brought about the original lawsuits, but that was three years and 
countless dollars ago. Microsoft has made an antitrust precedent in 
the concessions it has agreed to, and protocol has been proposed 
under your settlement to deal with future problems. I do not see any 
benefit from future federal action against Microsoft, and hope that 
this matter will soon be behind us.
    There will always be those lining up to take as much market 
share from Microsoft as they can, and as long as you allow this case 
to proceed, there is nothing to stop them. Microsoft has already 
agreed to grant broad new rights to software engineers and computer 
makers. It has even allowed them to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft programs that compete with the programs 
already included within Windows. Although it may seem unreasonable 
to allow your own successful product to be used as a springboard to 
launch the competitions'' products, Microsoft has agreed in an 
effort to settle this issue sooner, rather than later. Would it seem 
as reasonable if Microsoft was involved in a more traditional 
industry? Imagine if Burger King could not penetrate McDonald's 
market share. Would we mandate that McDonald's allow its customers 
to order a Burger King Whopper at its own restaurants?
    We must recognize that Microsoft has shot itself in the foot, be 
it a small hole, in an effort to end this witch-hunt. I see no 
reason that we can't allow the IT industry and the economy to move 
forward. I hope you will use your position to do what is right, and 
ensure that our country maintains its position as the world 
technology leader.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Holan



MTC-00031809

Kathie M. Graham
2469 Ridgecrest Avenue
Orange P&k, FL 32065-6235
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my views regarding this antitrust case. 
I feel that the settlement agreement reached between Microsoft and 
your office is fair and reasonable, and is sufficient to close this 
case at the federal level. Nine states have approved the agreement, 
and Microsoft is negotiating with the remaining states to reach an 
agreement. Under the Settlement, Microsoft has agreed to change the 
way it licenses; develops, and markets its software. Computer 
makers, consumers, and software engineers will be allowed to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft programs. Most 
importantly, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against anyone 
that develops or promotes non-Microsoft software.
    A technical oversight committee will ensure Microsoft's 
compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and 
competitors will be allowed to sue Microsoft directly if they feel 
they've been treated unfairly. These concessions should keep this

[[Page 29657]]

matter from ever reaching the federal level again, and will force 
Microsoft to become a more responsible industry leader.
    Although these conditions may go further than Microsoft may have 
wished, it recognizes that settling the case sooner, is better than 
later. The competition should be granted access to the market, but 
Microsoft should also be allowed to enjoy the fruits of its labor.
    I believe that your settlement provides the middle ground.
    Sincerely,
    Kathie Graham



MTC-00031810

SimplySay
4400 E Broadway Blvd.
Suite 200--
Tucson Arizona 85711-
520.323.3280--520.320.4177fax
FACSIMILE TRANsMlTTAL SHEET
TO:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
JOHN ASHCROFT
COMPANY: US Department of Justice
FAXNUMBER: (202) 307-I454
PHONE NUMBER:
RE: Microsoft Settlement
From: Armand Sperduti
DATE: l/23/02
SENDER'S FAX NUMBER: (520)3204177
SENDER'S PHONE NUMBER: 520.323.3280 EXT.
JANUARY 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in regard to the litigation against Microsoft. 
Although this is a serious and complex issue, it is important that 
the needs and the rights of the software consumer, both personal and 
corporate, are kept in focus. The cost of implementing software 
solutions is dominated by the cost of evaluating, installing and 
supporting the software, then training the users, not by the cost of 
the software itself.
    Microsoft arrived at the top of the industry primarily by having 
an astute sense of what the customer wanted. They then delivered 
products that met those needs. People didn't switch from WordPerfect 
to MS Word, for instance, because it was cheaper or bundled, but 
because it did what people wanted and worked well.
    I am in support of this settlement. I am hoping that this will 
be the end of it. We all are better off with this behind us. 
Additional litigation will only benefit Microsoft's competitors at 
the expense of the consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Armand Sperduti
    V.P. Engineering
    4400 E Broadway Blvd. Suite 200
    Tucson Arizona 85711
    520.323.3250--520.320.4177 fax
    AUTHENTIX Fax:520-3204163



MTC-00031811

FROM : Charles Russell
PHONE NO. : 717 391 2840
Jan. 23 2002 01:08PM PI
CHARLES H. RUSSELL
1488 Marietta Rue.
Lancaster, PA 17683-2446
 717.391.2840
January 23, 2002
Atty. General John Ashcroft
us Dept. of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Microsoft has been amongst those great American technology 
companies that have helped America become the world's leader in 
software. The antitrust case brought against Microsoft three years 
ago by the Justice Department was certainly a disappointment, 
however I am pleased to see a settlement was agreed to in this case.
    ``Unfortunately the settlement has not been satisfactory to 
some. Anti-Microsoft elements have been attempting to get this 
settlement removed because it is deemed not destructive enough to 
Microsoft. However, the settlement is good and will create positive 
changes. The settlement forces Microsoft to disclose code and 
interfaces to competitors , a never-before-taken step. With this 
information, non-Microsoft firms will be able to design and create 
more choices in software for the consumer. For the anti- Microsoft 
elements this does not suffice because they would like to see 
Microsoft face a more injurious verdict.
    The purpose of the case was not to harm Microsoft, but to create 
more competition. This should be and is reflected in the current 
settlement. Ending this case now is imperative.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Russell
    cc: Senator Rick Santorium



MTC-00031812

A Fax Message
 TRINITY
Date: January 23, 2002
To: Attorney general Ashcroft
 c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
Succeed with Trinity.
Company: US Department of JustIce
Fax #: (202) 307-1454
From: George LaVenture
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
NOTES:
    Attached are my Tunney Act comments regarding the proposed 
Microsoft Final Judgement and Competitive Impact Statement.
    My contact information is below if you have any questions,
    PRESIDENT & CEO
    Trinity Consulting Inc.
    (506) 485-8642 voice
    (506) 481-2361 fax
    mail to:[email protected]
    http: //www.Trinlty-Inc.net
    Taking care of business (TCB)
    TRINITY CONSULTING INC,
    346 BRIGHAM STREET
    MARLBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01762
    (508) 486-8842
TRINITY CONSULTING INC.
346 BRIGHAM STREET
MARLBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01762
(608) 486-8842 (VOlce)
(608) 461-2361 (fax)
WWW.TRINlTY-INC.NET
22 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    I am writing to provide my thoughts during the 28 November 2001 
to 28 January 2002 TunneyAct publiccomment period on the Microsoft 
antitrust case [United States of America vs MicrosoftCorporation 
CivilAction No. 98-1232 and State Of New York ex. rel. 
Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al.MicrosoftCorporation Civil 
Action No. 98-1233 proposed Final Judgment and Competitive 
Impact Statement.
    As I read the proposed Final Judgement and Competitive Impact 
Statement, MicrosoftCorporation hasagreed to specific behavioral 
measures that would provide greater openness and access to technical 
information as well as contractual and economic freedom for IAPs, 
ICPs. ISVs, IHVs and OEMs that either: provide a Microsoft 
Corporation operating system with their product, develop and/or 
provide applications and or middle ware that run on a Microsoft 
Corporation operating system, or choose to develop and/or provide 
competing operating systems, products, applications and/or 
middleware.
    These actions seem satisfactory to stimulate competition while 
maintaining intellectual property rights and fostering Innovation.
    More Importantly, the prescribed enforcement authority, combined 
with the proposed TechnicalCommittee and Microsoft Internal 
Compliance officer, provides the government, and therefore 
consumers, adequate means and measures to ensure Microsoft 
Corporation's compliance.
    Unlike the nineteenth century marketplace of Standard Oil, an 
era that witnessed the genesis of the corporation where direct 
competitors were assimilated and controlled, and unlike the slow-
growth marketplaces; of 1980s IBM and 1970s ATT, today's technology 
marketplace moves rapidly and the rate of change will likely 
increase. We are living in an age of technological revolution cited 
by Federal Reserve board Chairman Alan Greenspan for an 
unprecedented growth in productivity. This atmosphere has, as 
evidenced most recently and notably by the 1999 ``Internet 
Bubble'', created product cycles so short that goods and 
service can be obsolesced while sales and markeing strategies are 
still on the whiteboard.
    With this in mind, I believe the proposed behavioral measures 
and controls provide a fairer, more level playing field optimized to 
foster continued growth while ensuring competition and stimulating 
Innovation.
    After all, that's the goal Isn't It? A better deal for the 
consumer.
    It is my opinlon that the settlement between Microsoft 
Corporation and the federal government addresses and remedies, in a 
very satisfactory way, all of the government's antitrust claims 
againstMicrosoftCorporation. Therefore it should be instituted with 
all due speed.
    Sincerely,
    George M. LaVenture
    President & CEO

[[Page 29658]]

    cc: Representative Marty Meehan



MTC-00031813

Assemblyman George H. Winner, Jr.
Minority Leader Pro Tempore
New York State Assembly
Room 446
Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12248
Phone; (518) 455-4538
Fax: (518) 455-5922
ASSEMBLYMAN WINNER
@oo2
GEORGE H. WINNER. JR.
Assemblyman 127th District
THE ASSEMBLY
STATE OF NEW YORK
 ALBANY
MINORITY LEADER PRO TEMPORE COMMITTEES
 Rules
Ways and Means
January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    When word of a possible settlement in the Microsoft case broke, 
the markets surged. In spite of gloomy economic report, the news was 
viewed by investors as a sign that out nation's critically important 
high-tech industry could move forward without the continuing shadow 
of government interference.
    The proposed settlement requires significant changes in the way 
Microsoftdevelops, licenses and markets its software. This 
settlement is fair. It prevents Microsoftfrom abusing the strength 
that it derives from its operating system, but also allows 
thecompany to continue innovating in all areas of software 
development.
    I congratulate you on reaching a fair settlement that will serve 
in our nation's bestinterest. It will be very difficult for anyone 
to reject a settlement that benefits consumers,the technology 
industry, and the economy as a whole.
    Very truly yours,
    George H. Winner, Jr.
    Minority Leader Pro Tempore
    ALBANY OFFICE: Room 446. Legislative Office Building,
    Al aany. New York 12248.
    (518) 455-4538.
    FAX (518) 455-5922
    DISTRICT OFFICE: 228 Lake street,
    P.0. Box 589.
    Elmi a. New York 14902.
    (607) 734-8580.
    FAX (607) 737-0377



MTC-00031814

ADE
80 Wilson Way
Westwood, MA 02090-1806
Phone: 781-467-3500
Fax: 781-467-0500
Fax Cover Page
To: 12023071454
From: Chris Corayer
Comments:
Sent at: 01/23/02 11:28:31 AM
Total Number of Pages (including cover): 3
    I am writing to oppose the current settlement proposed. In my 
opinion it will change little, if anything.
    What I would rather see happen is the following:
    (1) ALL file formats should be documented and open, This will 
allow FULL compatibility withcompeting office suites such as Sun's 
Staroffice. Full compatibility will by it's very nature 
forcecompetition into the marketplace, The MS product suite will 
have to prove to its userbase that itis worth spending the money to 
buy said product when there are other products out there that 
canreadwrite their format, This should apply to file formats other 
than just the office products.
    (2) Full disclosure/documentation of protocols. This would allow 
such things as the SAMBAgroupto allow full windows features on UNlX/
BSD/LINUX machines and allow simple integration ofthose machines 
into a windows based network.
    (3) In the rare case where Microsoft may claim security risks, I 
would respectfully point out thatmany of the other UNICES, like 
FreeBSD and the different Linuxes, do not seem to have manyproblems 
with full disclosure. In any event, it should not be sufficient for 
Microsoft to claimsecurity and not furnish information, They should 
be forced to PROVE that something would becompletely rendered 
vulnerable if certain protocols were fully documented. This process 
shouldbe overseen by at least half of Microsoft's competitors who 
should be able to determine if thiswere the case.
    (4) Microsoft API's should also be fully documented, This will 
prevent such things as company Abeing put out of business should 
Microsoft decide to implement a similar program that 
uses``undocumented features'' to make the Microsoft 
product run better or more stable.
    (5) No bundling should be allowed in a default install. There 
SHOULD be an option to installadditional software during the install 
process, but this should not be the default option. Mostother OS's 
allow a simple base install. This will not generally include web 
browsers, multimedia,or instant messaging clients.
    (6) No exclusive licensing on the boot loader, Microsoft should 
not be allowed to require thatonlyWindows be installed or that the 
only option shown upon booting be Windows. There shouldalsobe 
safeguards in place to prevent retaliation by Microsoft on this 
point.
    The first two points I consider absolutely critical. The 
internet was based on fully documented,and freely available 
protocols, Microsoft's Active Directory is a minor modification of 
LDAP andKerberos. Both of these are widely used protocols, but they 
will NOT work with the Microsoftversions, This prevents competition. 
The Office Suite is so engrained in the corporate sector thatthere 
will not be any competition until competitors can make a fully 
compatible product. Thiswillnot happen until the file formats are 
fully documented.
    The remaining points are optional. I include the third just in 
case exceptions for security areallowed. I am however willing to 
make allowances if there is some property that Microsoftlicensed 
from another party and the license does not allow use in another 
product or similarsituations. The fourth point I made is much like 
the browser issue. For a while Netscape wouldcrash often. Certain 
instant messaging clients were very unstable.
    The fifth point is simply to promote users to try non MS 
software. The option to install InternetExplorer would be available 
during the install, but it would no longer be mandatory. I 
includethisdue to recent events where Microsoft's website was made 
inaccessible to users who used thecompeting Opera web browser. 
Behavior such as this makes me extremely suspect of anyguarantees by 
Microsoft regarding their behavior without outside oversight.
    The final point is one that was already in the proposed 
settlement. Ifeel that this requirement be kept in any future 
proposal.
    Thank you for your time.
    Christopher Corayer
    Information Services
    ADE Technologies
    77 Rowe Street
    Newton, MA 02466
    p.617.831.8043
    f.617.243.4443



MTC-00031815

January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It amazes me that there has been such a prevalent attitude in 
our governmentthat sees virtue in punishing those that are 
successful, and rewarding those that are not.
    This upside down attitude of ``redistribution'' was 
never more tragically obvious than inthis questionable lawsuit 
against Microsoft. Any company as successful as Microsoftmust do 
everything it can to protect its position of strength. The 
governmenterroneously sees this as dominance, rather than strength. 
With that redefinition comesan entire new set of problems that now 
create a case against Microsoft for ``unfaircompetition.''
    That Microsoft tightly controls the use of its 
product--even with its OEMs--issimply good business. It is 
not unfair business. There have been many competingsystems that have 
come and gone. They have fallen out of favor not because 
ofMicrosoft's dominance per se, but rather because of Microsoft's 
superior products andservice.
    Please do not misunderstand me. I do not march lock-step with 
Microsoft, but forme, if the government can go after Microsoft with 
such evangelical zeal, then thegovernment can go after any IT 
business. This settlement, therefore, is good andshould hopefully 
end the hostilities. I am totally in support of that.
    Sincerely,
    Vicki Hengen
    President
    cc: Representative Jeff Flake
    1860 West University, Suite 108 Tempe Arizona 85281
    (480) 902 0600 fax: (480) 902-0577 internet: 
www.dbwebnet.net

[[Page 29659]]



MTC-00031816

Scott Mason
110 Carol Rose Drive
Beaver Falls, PA 15010
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Depertment of Justice
960 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0061
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft;
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I believe the settlement that was 
reached in November is fair and reasonable, and I am anxious to see 
this three- year dispute resolved.
    Microsoft is a good company that has benefited the economy and 
consumers. This settlement will also allow Microsoft to benefit the 
technology industry. Under this agreement, Microsoft must design 
future versions of Windows, beginning with the interim release of 
windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer 
makers, consumers, and software developers to promote non-Microsoff 
software within Windows. A technical oversight committee created by 
the government to monitor compliance to this settlement must a/so 
monitor Microsoft. This settlement will benefit the public by 
allowing MIcrosoft to focus its precious resources on designing and 
marketing its innovative software.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Mason
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Representative Melissa A. Hart



MTC-00031817

January 23, 2002
Ed Loo
3613 Park Hill Drive
Coma, CA 92881-8440
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like the Justice Department to settle its antitrust suit 
with Microsoft Corporation as soon as possible. Microsoft has done 
the world a tremendous favor with its technological contributions 
and Innovations. I feel the case is being unjustly prolonged by 
competitors who are envious of Microsoft's success and market 
position.
    The concessions in the settlement are fair and good enough to 
allow Microsoft to resume normal operations, I believe giving other 
companies limited access to certain internal Windows code will allow 
for better development of non-Microsoft programs that run within the 
Windows operating system and should minimize future threats of 
Microsoft's alleged monopolistic position.
    Please end the lawsuit and let Microsoft return to normal 
business operations. Our country needs to focus on business again. 
If the government would think about this, they would see that they 
are basically biting the proverbial hand that is feeding them. How 
many billions of dollars has Microsoft contributed to the US 
Treasury through Just payroll and income taxes?
    Thank you very much for your time and consideration, I sincerely 
hope you take into consideration the big picture of this ludicrous 
lawsuit brought by some over zealous and greedy individuals and 
states seeking to line their own coffers.
    Isn't it ironic that those who have filed suit against Microsoft 
are probably using Microsoft's products . . Windows, Word, Excel, 
PowerPoint . . to file their legal briefs ??
    Sincerely,
    Ed Loo



MTC-00031818

Dragonfly Capital
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Don Millen
FAX NUMBER: 202-307-1454
Re: Attached
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
SENDER'S REFERENCE Number: 704-342-3491 xl00
YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
X URGENT
700 EAST BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE .
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28203
JAN-23-2002 11:50 FROM:DRAGONFLY CAPITAL 7043429750 
TO:2025149082 P.001/002
220 Alondale Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28207
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to discourage you and the Justice Department from 
any further litigation against Microsoft. Microsoft has been the 
bedrock of the information technology revolution in the United 
States and has enabled consumers across the socio-economic spectrum 
to achieve productivity and efficiency gains unimaginable even 20 
years ago. I strongly encourage you to put this case to rest and 
enact the settlement as soon as possible.
    The settlement has many stipulations that will benefit the IT 
industry. The release of Windows XP marks the beginning in a line of 
changes that further benefit consumers. Windows XP is designed so 
that individuals can delete and add different programs into the 
system with greater ease. No longer will users have to have 
different Microsoft programs on their desktop if they are using 
Windows. For the benefit of its competitors, Microsoft has even 
enabled individual users to delete Internet Explorer at their own 
discretion (this act, in itself, is irrational from a business 
standpoint). It is my personal opinion that users of technology 
products appreciate the ease of use that Microsoft's products 
provide and that they will freely select other products if they 
believe they would receive more benefit. After all, isn't this what 
a market-based economy is about?
    I believe the newfound autonomy of consumers will be beneficial. 
I would hope that the U.S. Government would resolve the Microsoft 
issue as quickly as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Don Millen



MTC-00031819

AIS TECHNOLOGY
N80 W114824 Appleton Ave
Menomonee Falls, WI 53052
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W,
Washington, DC 20530-001
    Dear Mr, Ashcroft:
    It pleases me that the U.S. government and Microsoft have 
finally reached a tentative settlement agreement in the antitrust 
lawsuit. It is my hope that this ordeal will be resolved once and 
for all at the conclusion of the sixty-day public comment period.
    If my memory serves me correctly, the settlement is fair. In 
fact, Microsoft capitulated to terms that go beyond the scope of the 
products and procedures at issue in the lawsuit. Most significant is 
Microsoft's agreeing to divulge its patented code for the Windows 
operating system to its competitors I understand this has never been 
done before in an antitrust settlement. While only one of many 
measures in the settlement, it will have a hugely positive effect on 
increasing competition.
    It is my hope that the settlement Is finalized as soon as 
possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Oliver
    Systems Analyst
    CC: Representative James Sensenbrenner



MTC-00031820

Roger Little
288 Concord Drive
Freeport,IL 61032
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to express my complete support for Microsoft 
in this case. Microsoft in my estimation in an ambitious and 
aggressive company that continues to press for improved and 
increased innovation. This sort of fortitude is crucial to the 
success of any company and Microsoft personifies this fortitude.
    I was unhappy that a suit was filed against Microsoft to begin 
with so you can just imagine how displeased I am that there are 
still states who wish to pursue litigation against Microsoft. 
Microsoft has made significant strides to prove their willingness to 
comply with the settlement proposed by the DOJ. They have already 
agreed to design future versions of Windows that will enable 
computer makers, consumers and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft software within windows. They have also made an unrecorded 
agreement to disclose internal Windows interfaces to its 
competitors. Competitors will also benefit by Microsoft's agreement 
to share their intellectual property by granting license to third 
parties.
    A close review of the these strides, shows a company willing to 
bring closure to this case even at the risk of limiting its own 
competitiveness. Considering Microsoft's many efforts at complying 
with the settlement proposed by the DOJ, please make the decision 
necessary to end this lawsuit

[[Page 29660]]

and help bring relief to our struggling economy.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Little



MTC-00031821

RODOPI BILLING SOFTWARE
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Even though there is an underlying perception among consumers 
that Microsoft has been a little less than responsive to their 
needs, the government's lawsuit against Microsoft was overly 
ambitious. If the lawsuit had succeeded in its intent of breaking 
Microsoft apart into smaller, more malleable pieces, the ability for 
consumers or IT companies to get the full range of the Microsoft 
product line would have been seriously compromised.
    Having said that, I believe that the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is reasonable and addresses 
most of the serious concerns that many have had. It creates strong 
new demands for fairer licensing arrangements for hardware companies 
and an anti-retaliatory framework for software companies as well. I 
am hoping that the public will endorse this settlement through this 
public review process, and that we can all put this episode behind 
us.
    I am further hopeful that no further federal action will be 
taken, in that I believe that it's important to move on. These are 
my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
company I work for. Thank you for this opportunity to express my 
support of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur R Ekroos
    Executivc Vice President



MTC-00031822

TATUM CIO PARTNERS, L.L.P.
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
930 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to give my approval to the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. In my opinion, this suit 
should never have been brought. I am from the mainframe generation. 
I remember how hard it was. There was no compatibility between 
software programs or different hardware. Nothing worked. Bill Gates 
came along and changed all that.
    Bill Gates standardized computer programs onto more useable 
formats, increased compatibility of computer software programs, 
making this country the dominant force in the computer industry. Ad 
for this he was punished. Punished by the government, and punished 
by his competitors, who could not compete in any other way. We tell 
our kids to be the best and brightest, yet when they do succeed, the 
government is looking over the shoulder. This is wrong.
    Microsoft has led my industry with many advances beyond computer 
compatibility . Scalable operating systems, office applications, e-
Commerce, and Internet navigation immediatly come to mind. They have 
become the leader in areas that required consensus in order to 
proceed along its path; which provided benefits to my industry and 
strengthened our competitive position. It wasn't too long ago that 
multiple and conflicting infrastructure products created an 
impossible technical environment. I feel without Microsoft's efforts 
in these key areas the resulting chaos would raise the cost and 
frustration in doing business. Microsoft deserves the recognition 
and profits associated with their success.
    With this agreement, Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend 
well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue 
in the suit. Microsoft has greed to its Windows operating system 
products to the 20 largest computer makers at identical prices; 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers new rights to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs; 
Microsoft has agreed to a technical committee to monitor future 
adherence.
    Enough is enough.
    We have to put this behind us and move forward. Give your 
support to this proposals.
    Sincerely,
    Bernard Goldband
    Director



MTC-00031823

FROM: J.P. WEIST BAY CITY, MICHIGAN
TO: MS. RENATA B. HESSE
    I support the government settlement of the Microsoft settlement.
    It is time to say that is it. No more waste of our tax 
money--Enough is Enough.
    Thank you



MTC-00031824

TO: DOJ
MS. RENATA B. HESSE
    I SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!
    Sincerely,
    Don Lucha
    2030 Sinclair N.E.
    Grand Rapids, MI
    (616) 361-5079



MTC-00031825

1341 College Point
Winter Park,FL 32789
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am aware that a settlement has been reached in the Justice 
Department's three-year case against Microsoft. I support the 
settlement even though I don't believe that the government, MY 
GOVERNMENT, should have even recognized the complaints of their 
competitors in the first place. I think it is in the government's, 
and our best interests to accept the settlement and move on to more 
important matters.
    If It wasn't for Microsoft, I would not be as computer literate 
as I am today, and I'm just an ordinary citizen who has had no 
training, no schooling in use of a computer. I know that there are 
gazillions ( my word for lots and lots) of middle aged and older 
Americans who have had to learn to use this technology on their own. 
Microsoft products made it easy, non-threatening and affordable. 
Their products caused the huge number of purchases of personal 
computers and associated items, that drove our country's economic 
success and increased productivity in the 90's. 1 think it is sad 
that they are being penalized for America's success.
    The terms of the settlement are reasonable, despite my objection 
that this case should not have been brought to court in the first 
place. Microsoft is making changes to prevent any future antitrust 
practices. It has agreed to establish a three-person technical 
committee which will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. Microsoft will use a uniform price list when licensing 
Windows out to the largest 20 computer makers in the United States. 
They have agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors 
various interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system 
products
    I ask that the government stop spending my resources to penalize 
Micorsoft's success and agree to the settlement terms.
    Nancy Braden
    cc: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00031826

208 N. CHURCH STRET
Nazareth. PA 18064
To: Dept of Justice
From: Evelyn Huth
FAX 202-307-l454 or 202-616-8837
Date: January 23, 2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement Case
cc:
o Comments: See attached letter.
JAN-23-2002 10 : 20
    I WOULD HOPE THE RECENT ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT & MICROSOFT ARE ACCEPTED. FROM NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS, I 
BELIEVE THE SETTLEMENT IS REASONABLE & EXCEEDS THE FINDINGS OF 
THE RULING BY THE APPEALS COURT. MICROSOFT HAS HELPED BRING ITS 
COMPANY INTO AN NEW ERA. PROLONGED ARGUMENTS SIMPLY DELAY PROGRESS.
    I, FOR ONE, SEE MICROSOFT BEING PUNISHED FOR BEING INNOVATIVE 
& FEEL THE SUITS AGAINST THE COMPANY STIFLE THE INVENTIVE SPIRIT 
& THE SPIRIT Of FREE ENTERPRISE WHICH HAVE BEEN HALLMARKS OF THE 
AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.
    I SEE OTHER COMPANIES BECOMING MONSTROUS MONOPOLIES, BUT THEY DO 
SO WITH NO RECRIMINATIONS. TO ME, THIS SMACKS OF DISCRIMINATION 
AGAINST MICROSOFT.
    PLEASE LET US ALL GET ON WITH INVENTION, INITIATIVE, & HOPE 
FUTURE.
    SINCERELY,
    MRS. EVELYN L. HUTH
    209 N. CHURCH ST.
    NAZARETH, PA 18064



MTC-00031827

John and Marion Tasso
163 Cannon Boulevard
Staten Island, NY 10306

[[Page 29661]]

January 22, 2OO2
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am asking that you give your approval to the settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This agreement was 
hammered out between the two parties, and I think if the agreement 
is good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. We do not 
need to waste any more taxpayers' money. It is time we got past 
constantly rehashing judicial decisions. When does it stop? Why even 
go to court., if we don't abide by the decision? We are also trying 
to get past an economic recession, why cripple the one company that 
will help us get out of it?
    Microsoft has agreed to many of the conditions imposed by the 
Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to a technical committee 
to monitor its future adherence; Microsoft has agreed to help 
companies achieve a greater degree of reliability with regard to 
their networking software; and Microsoft has agreed to grant 
computer makers new license to configure Windows to promote non-
Microsoft software programs. This is more than fair.
    Give your support to this agreement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John Tasso



MTC-00031828

IHI TURBO AMERICA
P.O. Box 22E Shelbyville, IL 62565
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have never been one to agree with any type of monopolistic 
practices within on organization. This is why at the beginning of 
the case against Microsoft; I felt that the main complaints were 
justifiable. I however became quite dissatisfied with the turn that 
this lawsuit took.
    I am thankful that the government realized that such a breakup 
would have drastic results for the IT industry, the economy and for 
consumers and redirected the lawsuit and eventually proposed a 
settlement. Though I find some of these terms of a bit harsh for 
Microsoft in that they are being asked to release its internal 
protocols, interfaces and intellectual properties, I am very pleased 
with Microsoft's willingness to comply. I think Microsoft's 
willingness has been slighted by the States wishing to continue 
litigation.
    I am writing to give my complete support to Microsoft in this 
matter and hope that Microsoft's compliance to the terms of the 
settlement is duly noted. Putting this matter to rest will do the 
economy, the IT industry, Microsoft employees and software consumers 
a world of good. I appreciate your office's prompt decision to end 
litigation as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    John Selby



MTC-00031829

SEMAR
689 Lakeshore Drive
P.O. Box 128
Lake Junaluska, NC 28745
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the Microsoft settlement. 
I feel that the Department of Justice reached a fair and reasonable 
agreement, which nine states leave already approved. I do not 
understand what more Microsoft should do to appease the states 
continuing with litigation. The concessions the corporation has 
already made have set new precedent regarding antitrust cases, and 
have set provisions to handle future problems that may occur.
    Under the current agreement, Microsoft will change the way it 
develops, licenses, and markets its software. Microsoft will grant 
software developers and computer makers the ability to configure 
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software that competes with 
programs included within Windows. Also, Microsoft has agreed to 
document and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces 
that are internal to Windows operating system products. It appears 
to me that Microsoft has, more or less, opened its doors for the 
competition to launch their products through its existing 
inventions.
    I do not see what further litigation at the federal level will 
gain for the consumers. As a taxpayer, I cannot justify allocating 
scarce recurses on a problem that has already been solved, and fear 
that the states continuing with litigation see this lawsuit as a 
revenue builder and nothing more. I hope you will see fit to judge 
this case by its merits, and not by political and legal trends. 
Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Vergil Daughtery



MTC-00031830

ALFRED W. CRUMP, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
520 WASHINGTON STREET
P.O BOX 1498
READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19603
TELEPHONE (610) 376-8784
FAX (610) 376-2853
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement of the Microsoft 
litigation which is now pending. It is my belief that Microsoft has 
done this country a great service by their innovative products. 
Software development, from my layman's knowledge, appears to be a 
low entry cost product which requires substantial individual 
knowledge and creativity as opposed to great cap out lay (as opposed 
to Chip Manufacturing).
    Certainly, I, in no way, want to condone any monopolist 
practices by corporations, however, in Microsoft's case, I cannot 
see how they should be forced to share their creative processed with 
companies who would be taking advantage of Microsoft's initial hard 
work and creativity.
    I think a majority of Americans are tired of this litigation and 
that we should get on with the real business of America and allow 
Microsoft's creativity to continue. There certainly are many other 
knowledgeable and creative people out there who can compete if they 
so desire, however, they should not be able to take advantage of 
Microsoft's initial innovations.
    A Plot against Microsoft appears to be focused on college 
campuses,including my son's, who feel that Microsoft is the 
``evil doer''. Microsoft, because of the great wealth it 
has created, has replaced or is the current representation of 
``corporate America'', which, in one's youth, one loves to 
vility.
    However, the majority of Americans want Microsoft to be praised 
rather than be condemned or penalized.
    I remain...
    Very truly yours,
    Alfred W. Crump, Jr.
    AWG/via
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031831

Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Heese:
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement proposed in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial. What is contained In that proposal 
provides neither adequate oversight and review to prevent 
recurrences of such actions in the future nor adequate penalties for 
those of the past.
    Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly and to have used that 
position to illegally increase their fortunes at the expense of 
competitors, their own OEM customers, and the American public.
    The proposed settlement seemingly accepts that Microsoft has 
behaved illegally, requires no meaningful compensation for their 
victims, and requires that they behave very slightly differently in 
the future--and then only on specific and enumerated products. 
This sort of settlement will do little to discourage Microsoft from 
similar activities in the future and will do nothing to keep them 
from using their vast financial resources to circumvent it.
    The proposed settlement does not apply to any and all products. 
of any sort whatsoever, designed, manufactured, or marketed by any 
company either partially or wholly owned by Microsoft, its heirs, 
successors, or assignees, past, present, and future--it should. 
It does not require full and open disclosure of all APls and file 
formats to developers of products which might compete with Microsoft 
products--It should. It does not prohibit the predatory 
practice of releasing Microsoft products which ``cripple'' 
competing products--it should. It does not prohibit software 
licenses which prohibit (or seriously restrict) packaging of non-
Microsoft products by OEMs--It should.

[[Page 29662]]

    It does not prevent them from using thelr nearly absolute 
control of the end-user computer Interface to sell other Microsoft 
products and services--it should. Finally, the proposed 
settlement seems to allow Microsoft to provide second-hand computers 
to under-financed school systems and supply them with Microsoft 
software. This is amazingly inadequate for several reasons: First, 
there is absolutely no shortage of used computers in this country. 
I've worked for computer manufacturers and can assure you that used 
computers are next to impossible to give away to school 
districts-- they want current models. Private individuals, 
corporations, and government agencies scrap thousands of functional 
two or three- year-old computers daily and many of them end up in 
landfills because no home can be found for them.
    Second, although the development cost of software is high, the 
manufacturing cost of the distribution media is negligible. The out-
of-pocket cost to Microsoft for operating system and application 
software CDs is only a few cents each. Lastly, the concept of a 
settlement which requires that Microsoft's punishment for 
monopolistic acts be to actually extend the monopoly to include new 
victims who have escaped it in the past because of their lack of 
funds verges on the surreal.
    Please find a settlement that protects us from Microsoft and is 
so painful to them that they never think of acting illegally again.
    Respectfully,
    Ran Ralston
    23704 El Tom Rd. #5-285
    Lake Forest, CA 92630



MTC-00031832

SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
2800 Two Hannover Square
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
PO Box 27525 (27611)
(919) 755-8700
direct: 919-755-8713
fax: 919-755-8800
[email protected]
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    North Carolina's Attorney General recently agreed to the 
settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust case, 
and I hope the federal court will follow suit and allow this long-
running matter to be put behind us.
    I strongly believe the settlement provides adequate guarantees 
against illegal and unfair behavior by Microsoft. The settlement 
protects computer makers, software companies and consumers. The 
establishment of a technical committee to monitor Microsoft's 
compliance provides further protection.
    It is my personal opinion that this proceeding has, from the 
beginning, been more competitor-driven than consumer-driven. The 
long history of Microsoft and its products has been one of better 
services and lower costs for consumers. Never has any consumer harm 
been proven in this lawsuit.
    The government should now be satisfied that competitors will be 
protected against improper actions by Microsoft, thanks to this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
    Mack Paul
    ATLANTA CHARLOTTE GREENSBORO RALEIGN WILMINGTON



MTC-00031833

William B. Cooley
P. O. Box 416
Jackson, N.C. 27845
Ms Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Northampton County where I live and grew up, is one of the most 
economically distressed areas of North Carolina. As the former Mayor 
of Jackson, our county seat, I know first-hand the economic 
challenge we face.
    As our nation's economy becomes more heavily dependent on 
computers, I am concerned that my home county may fall even farther 
behind. I believe that we must focus on closing the ``ital 
divide.'' But companies such as Microsoft, and its competitors, 
will not be able to do that if they continue to spend their time and 
considerable resources battling in the courts rather than developing 
new products and service for a wide range of customers.
    For that reason, I believe it would be wise public policy for 
the federal courts to approve the pending settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust cast. Our state's attorney general has accepted 
it, for many of the same reasons outlined above.
    With our nation facing unprecedented challenges at home and 
abroad, American business needs to focus on serving the customer, 
not fighting in the courtroom. I hope the federal court will enable 
this to happen in this matter.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    William B. Cooley



MTC-00031834

Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Microsoft proposed settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have read a summary of the settlement and it seems to be very 
equitable. The provision that the twenty largest computer makers 
will be able to obtain Windows under the same terms conditions and 
price is very fair.
    I think the time has come to settle this case and look forward 
to hearing that good news in the near future. This industry is very 
competitive. But Microsoft has been a leader in this industry for 
quite some time. They are not going away and I believe they will 
comply with the terms laid out.
    Yours truly,
    G. Baker Ellett
    3305 Patterson Avenue
    richmond, VA 23221



MTC-00031835

Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: United States v Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that the penalty phase of this case may create a 
furthering of the monopoly that Microsoft has been found guility of. 
I am concerned that pushing the penalty phase for convienience, is 
not using the best in judgement. I am concerned that if the penalty 
is established by those terms negotiated by Microsoft that a 
president will be established for future monopoly cases involving 
other companies inclined to establish their own monopoly.
    I believe that Microsoft should be held accountable to methods 
now and still being used by restricting computer manufactures to 
putting on only their operating system software when you purchase a 
computer. I believe that the computer and the installed software 
should be priced out as separate items. The consumer should have the 
knowledge of both the price of the software being offered, and have 
the option of installing whatever operating systems that is desired.
    Microsoft should be required to provide specifications of the 
present and future document file formats publicly, so that all 
makers of software can write applications compatable with Microsoft 
operating systems. The specifications, of networking protocols, must 
also be provided to and approved by an independent network protocol 
body.
    As an owner of MedScripts a concern of mine is patient 
confidentiality, it is because of this issue that we do not use the 
internet exployer of Microsoft in our business. We type medical 
chart information for physicians. I have noted that the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies indicated that the use of 
Microsoft software does pose a national security risk. With the 
various acts security breaches being done on an international 
level--this security risk is a concern of mine.
    Thank you for your consideration when settling this case.



MTC-00031836

SEI INVESTMENTS
195 N. Harbor Drive # 2003
Chicago, IL 60601
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to offer some thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I believe that there

[[Page 29663]]

was merit behind the complaints that brought about the original 
lawsuits, but that was three years and countless dollars ago. 
Microsoft has made an antitrust precedent in the concessions it has 
agreed to, and protocol has been proposed under your settlement to 
deal with future problems. I do not see any benefit from future 
federal action against Microsoft, and hope that this matter will 
soon be behind us.
    There will always be those lining up to take as much market 
share from Microsoft as they can, and as long as you allow this case 
to proceed, there is nothing to stop them. Microsoft has already 
agreed to grant broad new rights to software engineers and computer 
makers. It has even allowed them to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft programs that compete with the programs 
already included within Windows, Although it may seem unreasonable 
to allow your own successful product to be used as a springboard to 
launch the competitions'' products, Microsoft has agreed in an 
effort to settle this issue sooner, rather than later. Would it seem 
as reasonable if Microsoft was involved in a more traditional 
industry? Imagine if Burger King could not penetrate McDonald's 
market share. Would we mandate that McDonald's allow its customers 
to order a Burger King Whopper at its own restaurants?
    We must recognize that Microsoft has shot itself in the foot, be 
it a small hole, in an effort to end this witch-hunt. I see no 
reason that we can't allow the IT industry and the economy to move 
forward. I hope you will use your position to do what is right, and 
ensure that our country maintains its position as the world 
technology leader.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Holan



MTC-00031837

333 North Madison Street
Joliet, IL 60435-8595
815 725-7133 Tel
PROVENA
Saint Joseph Medical Center
Foundation
January 23,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust
601 ``D'' Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I appreciate this opportunity to submit comments regarding the 
settlement of the United State's anti-trust case against Microsoft.
    I am a Microsoft consumer for several years and have been 
generally pleased with the performance of this company's products. 
Even more though, I am continually amazed with the advancements made 
the entire the computer industry over the last several years. These 
advancements are quickly becoming an integral part of most 
American's professional and personal lives.
    While there is certainly a need for the government to protect 
consumers from monopolies, I do not believe our current laws can be 
honestly applied to the technology industry. This industry is one 
that is based on constant innovation and therefore changes very 
quickly. Since the government began its case against Microsoft the 
changes within this industry have made much of the original case out 
of date.
    While I am not an attorney, my belief is that since the federal 
government and Microsoft have worked out this agreement it is one 
built on compromise. Generally, when two sides are required to 
compromise their positions to some degree the results are at least 
equitable.
    I have no doubt that settling this case is the best for all 
involved, most importantly consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Jackie Lewis



MTC-00031838

GREG G. JONSON & ASSOCIATES, PC
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
5310 Markel Road, Suite 208
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Telephone (804) 282-0687
Fax (804) 282-0265
Frank Y. Yannis, CPA
Greg C. Jonson,CPA
Michael A. Hamway, CPA
January 23,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have had a chance to review a summary of the key provisions of 
the Microsoft settlement. I understand that they include a provision 
in which Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions, including price. Another provision would grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs 
included within Windows.
    To me, these are examples of an agreement that ``has 
teeth''. I hope that this settlement will be adopted and this 
lawsuit will be put to rest.
    Sincerely yours,
    Greg G. Jonson. CPA



MTC-00031839

NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Bill Cobey
Chairman
Linda Daves
Vice Chairman
January 23,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, I have 
to be prepared to make tough decisions every day. I have to be 
constantly concerned with campaign strategy, issue debates and new 
fundraising strategies for the party. I'm glad to know that I have 
Microsoft products at my disposal each and every day to maximize my 
efficiency in dealing with these and other matters.
    I've been involved in public service for a long time, having 
served the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at Athletic 
Director and as a member of Congress from North Carolina's Fourth 
Congressional District. Over the years, I've seen what improved 
technology can do for a staff.
    For example, data processing technology makes the creation and 
mail merging of a document so efficient that it barely takes longer 
to write a letter to one hundred people than it does to write a 
letter to one person. Spreadsheets, business presentations and 
planning documents make meetings operate more smoothly and increase 
the level of comprehensive communication between everyone involved 
in a project. Microsoft has consistently led the way in 
technological innovation. From their Windows suite of products to 
their constant innovative program updates, Microsoft quite simply 
has produced the software that have been successful for American 
business and American families.
    I'm not an attorney by trade, and I'm not familiar with every 
bit of legal minutia present in the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft, but it seems to me that if both parties have 
agreed to a settlement, that settlement should be approved. The 
American economy is too dependent on technological innovation to 
drag this lawsuit out any further. I request that Judge Kollar 
Kotelly to approve the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Cobey
    Chairman
    1410 Hillsborough Street
    * Post Office Box 12905
    * Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
    (919) 828-6423
    * Fax : (919) 899-3815
    * www.ncgop.org



MTC-00031840

Judy Napier
3300 Riverglade Road
Powhatan, Virginia 23139
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am told that comments on the proposed Microsoft settlement are 
to be directed to you. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
    The proposed settlement stipulates that Microsoft could not 
penalize computer manufacturers who distribute software that 
competes with Microsoft's operating systems (including Windows XP) 
and middleware (i.e., Internet browser, instant messaging tools, 
media player, and email utilities). These manufacturers would be 
entitled to uniform licensing terms, with some flexibility for 
volume discounts and marketing allowances. Computer manufacturers 
could fully ``monetize'' their control over the boot 
sequence and desktop configuration of computers by installing or 
promoting non-Microsoft products and services. They would be free to 
remove or

[[Page 29664]]

replace any Microsoft middleware. I believe this means guaranteed 
flexibility for computer manufacturers who equip their products with 
any Microsoft operating system.
    The last thing the technology industry needs now are government 
lawyers, bureaucrats and judges watching over the industry, 
attempting to micromanage it which is exactly what Microsoft's 
rivals lobby for on a regular basis. In this economy we need to 
market to operate freely, which is when it operates at its best.
    Sincerely yours,
    Judy Napier



MTC-00031841

W. THACKARA BROWN JR.
8835 Glass Pond Ct
Ocean Isle Beach, NC
28469
January 18, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
microsoft [email protected]
    Dear Ms Hesse
    The US Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft has been allowed to go on too long, and I believe it 
begins to smack of excessive use government power in the private 
sector. Accordingly, I want to express my hope that the proposed 
consent decree now before the court will be approved quickly.
    I have extensive experience in the private sector working with 
government. I was the Public Relations/Public Affairs for a major 
pharmaceutical company for nearly 26 years. I know, firsthand, that 
government can be a constructive partner with business, but I also 
know that it can be a destructive force.
    Microsoft clearly is dominant in the software industry today, 
but there is no guarantee that it can maintain that dominance. The 
information-technology industry, like so many industries, has seen 
dominant companies falter and fail before in a marketplace as 
dynamic and fast-changing as this one is, it can and, most likely, 
will happen again
    This very dynamism, in fact, is the most compelling argument for 
settling the case. It is far better for America for these companies 
to fight each other in the marketplace, than in the courtroom. It is 
through the marketplace, not the regulatory arena, that new software 
will be developed and new innovations introduced to benefit both 
business and the individual consumer The proposed settlement 
apparently provides for extensive safeguards against inappropriate 
behavior by Microsoft. Further, the company has agreed to accept and 
abide by these specific and far-reaching provisions.
    In view of these facts, I hope the court will act quickly to 
resolve this matter, end the litigation and allow those involved to 
concentrate their efforts on reenergizing this vital industry.
    Let's get back to building America for the future!
    Sincerely,
    W. Thackara Brown Jr.



MTC-00031842

23-Jan-02 11:19 page 1/2
1/23/2002
Comments directed to the Microsoft Anti-trust hearings.
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
    I would like to take issue with the proposed settlement between 
the DOJ and Microsoft. If I understand it correctly, it provides: * 
No real remedies for the monopoly behavior that Microsoft has 
exhibited. * Seemingly makes it legal for them to continue such 
behavior in the future. * Provides some penalties which would only 
increase Microsoft's foothold as a computer monopoly.
    It would seem to me that any settlement with Microsoft should 
contain the following provisions:
    1) Microsoft should be required to publish the document file 
formats and specifications for the files used within their programs. 
This will allow other program developers to create software that can 
access these files, thus preventing Microsoft from developing 
software applications that can lock in companies to using only 
Microsoft applications.
    2) Microsoft must also publish the protocols it wishes to use on 
the Internet thus keeping the internet open for all users and 
prevent the ``takeover'' by Microsoft by using its own 
protocols. An example of this is my local library. At the moment I 
can only access the on-line capabilities of the library by using 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. The library uses Microsoft 
software to create its web pages. Those web pages can only be 
accessed with a Microsoft browser, thus locking other browsers out 
and locking people into using Microsoft software.
    3) Microsoft must be prevented from tying its software in to the 
sales of computers. I have many copies of Microsoft's Windows 
operating system that I was forced to pay for because the computer 
manufacturers were forced by economic and other means to sell the 
systems with their computers. The software and the computers must be 
available separately and priced commensurate with the value of each.
    If I understand what I have read in the news, one of the 
``penalties'' of the settlement is that Microsoft is to 
provide 1 billion dollars worth of software to educational 
institutions. The facts of this are that a) the cost to Microsoft of 
a (line illegible) software to schools will only provide a further 
monopoly in the training of future computer users in Microsoft 
software. Thus the cost to Microsoft for this penalty will be very 
low and it will provide major benefits to Microsoft in advertising, 
and future sales of their software.
    I feel very strongly that the DOJ has failed in its attempt to 
bring a resolution to the problems of Microsoft. It appears to me 
that they have played right into Microsoft's hands and this is a 
dream settlement for Microsoft. As a consumer who has been harmed by 
these issues, I hope that the DOJ will reconsider the settlement.
    Thank you,
    Bruce Marshall
    8736 Bliss Road
    Bellaire, Ml 49615



MTC-00031843

FAX: (540) 386-2377
Richmond; (804) 698-1001
E-Mail Address: [email protected]
www.terrykilgore.com
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
COURTS OF JUSTICE
CORPORATIONS, INSURANCE AND BANKING
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MILITIA AND POLICE
MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to advise you of my support for the proposed 
settlement agreement between the United States federal government 
and the Microsoft Corporation, and to encourage you to approve this 
settlement agreement.
    This proposed settlement agreement would be of tremendous 
benefit to consumers in Virginia and other states. The dispute 
between Microsoft and the federal government needs to be concluded 
as quickly as possible, and a fundamental part of this settlement 
agreement should be recognition that Microsoft should be empowered 
to decide which products and features it offers to the public and 
how those products are priced. This is in the interest of 
competition, and bringing the best possible products, at the lowest 
possible price, to consumers.
    As you know, Virginia is a technology friendly state, and 
technology companies have flourished within the Commonwealth over 
the past several years. We need to do everything we can to encourage 
a continuation of this important economic development activity, and 
we need to make certain that we not impede the success of companies 
like Microsoft in any way.
    Again, thank you and I hope you will act favorably on this 
request.
    Sincerely,
    TERRY G. KILGORE, MEMBER
    VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
    FIRST DISTRICT
    NOT PAID FOR AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE



MTC-00031844

01/23/02 10:38 FAX 614 476 9939 DIVERSIFIED SYSTEMS
001
DSInc.
DIVERSIFIED SYSTEMS, INC.
``Diverse IT Solutions for a Diverse IT World''
700 Taylor Road,Suite 150
Gahanna,OH 43230
614-476-9939 ph
614-476-9672 fx
Facsimile Transmittal
To: J. Aschroft

[[Page 29665]]

Fax; 202 616 9937
Company: A G
Pages: 2
From: Homer Beard
Date: 1-23-02
CC:
xUrgent xFor Review xPlease Reply
MESSAGE Thank you for your consideration
Homer Beard
CONFIDENTIAL
 01/23/02 l0:38 FAX 614 476 9939 DIVERSIFIED SYSTEMS
002
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am taking a moment to write to you to express concern about 
settlement reached between your office and Microsoft in the 
antitrust case. I fear that there are groups that would like this 
settlement withdrawn and see this case continue. You should avoid 
the advice of these groups and finalize the settlement.
    Under this settlement Microsoft will disclose its information 
about internal interfaces within Windows, which will give 
competitors unprecedented access to Microsoft code. This will create 
more openness and competition in the IT industry. No other software 
company has ever agreed to share so much information as Microsoft 
has in this settlement. There clearly is no reason to continue this 
case.
    I am in favor of the proposed Microsoft settlement, and I hope 
that it is finalized quickly. There are many more important 
priorities with which to deal, and prolonging this case would be 
folly. I am hoping that you agree and will stand behind your 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Homer Beard 1/23/02
    6539 Rugosa Avenue
    Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068



MTC-00031845

WBDC Worcester Business Development Corporation
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I have served in municipal government for a number of years, and 
as a former local public official, I am often one of the first 
people to hear what is on the minds of our citizens. I can tell you 
that it is not the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. People today are concerned about the economy and about their-
job.
    The Hi-tech industry plays an important role in the 
Massachusetts economy. We need to reach a conclusion in this case, 
so that our already fragile economic state is harmed no further. We 
need to put people back to work in the Hi-tech sector.
    I urge the Justice Department to support the proposed settlement 
reached in this case.
    There has been no harm to consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Craig L.Blais
    Executive Vice President
    Phone 508-755-5734
    339 Main Street Suite 200
    Worcester. MA 01608
    FAX 508-755-9639



MTC-00031846

p.1 (508) 755-9639 WBDC Jan 23 02 10:42a
Tallahassee, Florida 32312
January 21, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe that this country is becoming far too litigious. 
Lawsuits destroy our innovative spirit and, especially during 
economic times such as these, hinder the ability of corporate 
America to grow and create jobs for our citizens. The lawsuit 
against Microsoft is just one example of overzealous litigation. 
Suing a corporation for its innovation and capitalistic pursuits 
does nothing but deter other companies from investing in new 
technologies. Rather, we need to foster market solutions to issues 
affecting the technology industry. Such solutions will foster growth 
in the economy and create jobs; conversely, litigation such as that 
against Microsoft has the exact opposite effect.
    Companies like Microsoft are built by innovative ideas coupled 
with the willingness to invest in the promotion of those ideas. The 
lawsuits against Microsoft appear to have been initiated by its 
competitors, which could set a dangerous precedent for using the 
courts to circumvent the legislative process. While I do not believe 
Microsoft should have been sued in the first place, I support the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department as a 
means to end this litigation. Closure on the litigation is 
beneficial to the entire technology industry. Thank you for the 
opportunity to relay my thoughts on this matter.
    Very truly yours,
    Jason L. Unger



MTC-00031847

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Sheet NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write in support of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. It is time to resolve this matter so the high-tech 
industry can return to what it does best: develop innovations that 
improve productivity and economic growth. The agreement that has 
been negotiated provides far-reaching changes in how Microsoft 
develops, licenses and markets its software. But the settlement also 
would enable Microsoft to continue developing new versions of 
Windows that feature new and integrated technologies. The settlement 
also takes significant steps in assuring that competitors of 
Microsoft and computer- makers will be able to compete successfully 
and use non-Microsoft products.
    On a personal note, I agree with many of DOJ's assertions in the 
case, but at what point does the cost of the investigation and the 
restrictions placed therein become a greater punishment? It is my 
sincere hope that the courts will accept this settlement and resolve 
this matter quickly.
    Sincerely
    Jaimey Sexton
    President
    Telephone Strategies Group
    1081-102 Wirewood Drive
    Raleigh, NC 27605
    Phone: 919-420-9320
    FAX: 919-828-6589 member AAPC



MTC-00031848

learn something
January 21,2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a small business owner, I employ several people. Recently, I 
had to lay off some staff, which last year did not seem possible. 
But, as I'm sure you are aware, the once raging high-tech economy is 
now barely limping along.
    I think that the never-ending lawsuit against Microsoft has 
contributed to the slowing of the economy as innovation and funding 
have dried up. Microsoft is a huge player in my industry, and when 
they clinch up, uncertain of what this lawsuit is going to do, the 
entire tech world is slowed, virtually frozen in place wondering 
what comes next.
    That is why I hope the court will accept the terms of the 
agreement on the table now. It seems fair to me. Microsoft will now 
grant hardware companies new rights to configure Windows so they 
have the freedom to promote non-Microsoft products within Windows 
programs. This was a good sign from Microsoft. Moreover, I don't 
think that the Government needs to be in the technology industry. If 
some companies--like AOL Time Warner--cannot compete, that 
is their own detriment, and Uncle Sam does not need to do their work 
for them. My business will be in much better shape if this lawsuit 
is settled, and I will be able to hire more people and contribute to 
the economy.
    Sincerely,
    William J. Crumpacker, III
    CEO
    2457 Care Drive
    Tallahassee, FL 32308 USA phone: (850)385-7915
    fax: (850)365-7964
    www.learnsomething.com



MTC-00031849

COLONEL DICK BLACK (USA RET.)
20978 FLATBOAT COURT
STERLING, VIRGINIA 20185
THIRTY-SECOND DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 
RICHMOND
January 22, 2002

[[Page 29666]]

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: COURTS OF JUSTICE TRANSPORTATION LABOR AND 
COMMERCE CLAIMS MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW #1200
Washington, DC. 20530
By fax: (202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I urge you to approve the proposed settlement agreement in the 
case of United States v. Microsoft. Continued uncertainty 
surrounding this litigation has caused shock waves within the 
technology community that are impacting the economy.
    I have received numerous complaints from the public regarding 
the Microsoft antitrust case. The public does not understand why 
Microsoft has come under judicial attack. I have not heard from a 
single individual urging continuation of the lawsuit.
    As the most highly visible high-tech company in America, 
Microsoft is a bellwether for the health of the industry. The 
antitrust lawsuit could not have come at a worse time. A number of 
technology firms in or near my district have experienced financial 
distress unconnected with Microsoft. However, their difficulties are 
aggravated by the immense uncertainties surrounding that company. 
Prompt settlement of this case is crucial, not only to Microsoft, 
but to the industry as a whole.
    I understand that the proposed terms of the settlement are fair 
to all parties. I support the settlement as written and urge 
immediate finalization of the case now pending before the federal 
court.
    Sincerely,
    Richard H. Black
    Virginia
    House of Delegates
    32nd District
    bly/cc: E. David Foremen, Jr.
    DISTRICT: (703) 406-2851
    * FAX: (703) 450-2076
    RICHMOND: (804) 698-1032
    * E-MAIL:
    [email protected]



MTC-00031851

98 Shoreline Drive
Ware, MA 01082
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Deportment of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that the US Department of Justice, 
and Microsoft Corporation have reached a settlement in the three-
year antitrust case. I would like you to know that I support the 
settlement, and also support Microsoft in this. The government needs 
to leave them alone, and move onto other matters like investigating 
the Enron fiasco. Microsoft has agreed to make a specific number of 
changes, because of this; settlement. For instance, they have agreed 
to document and disclose various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows' operating system products. Also, they have agreed to design 
future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy 
for computer makers, consumers, and software developers to promote 
non-Microsoft software within Windows. Clearly, this settlement is 
more than just a slap on Microsoft's wrists. It will end the suit, 
and I support it.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Galaska



MTC-00031852

January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please accept this letter as an indication of my full support 
for the settlement that was recently agreed to by Microsoft and the 
Justice Department with regard to their antitrust lawsuit. Settling 
this matter in order for Microsoft and the rest of the industry for 
that matter to begin innovating again is in everyone's best 
interest.
    My understanding of the settlement is that Microsoft did not get 
some sort of secret ``sweetheart deal.'' On the contrary, 
the software company has in fact agreed to terms that extend beyond 
the products and procedures that were actually at issue in the 
three-year lawsuit. After three years, one would think that all the 
parties would know what issues are at stake, and Microsoft's 
competition should have no justification for asking for even more 
than what was litigated over for the past three years. Therefore, a 
breakup of Microsoft, as some in the government strove for, is not 
necessary. As its stands, Microsoft will disclose for use by its 
competitors various lines of code for Windows products. I understand 
this is unprecedented in an antitrust settlement. It also agreed not 
to enter into any agreements obligating any third party to 
distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a 
fixed percentage. Lastly, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in its Windows OS.
    It seems to me that the settlement covers all of the bases and 
should therefore be implemented.
    Sincerely,
    John Hunt
    President



MTC-00031853

David A. Hayes
7241 Lighthouse Lane NE
Olympia, WA 98506
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 PennsyIvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the proposed settlement 
of the antitrust lawsuit against the Microsoft Corporation. The 
company's impressive ability to innovate and serve the consumer with 
affordable, quality products does not warrant the extensive legal 
action that we've seen over the last three years and should be ended 
at once.
    The deal provides Microsoft's competitors with several openings 
in the marketplace that should satisfy the industry. The company has 
pledged to treat computer makers equally, regardless of their 
software preferences, by offering identical pricing to the top 
twenty hardware manufacturers and eliminating any contract 
stipulations that would obligate the distribution or promotion of 
Windows technologies. Considering these terms, and additional 
implementation of a three-person technical committee to review 
compliance, the government should accept this generous offer.
    Please finalize the agreement at the end of the sixty-day public 
comment period at the end of this month. The economy and the 
consumer will greatly benefit from the decision to let the software 
industry get back to business once again. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David A. Hayes



MTC-00031854

ATS
Advanced Technical Solutions, LLc
Providing network solutions that work!
POBox 469--
Hurricane WV 25526
Phone 304-757-6542
Toll Free 1-877-479-5438
www.atsnetworking.com
January 21,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Penna. Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Some of the main complaints against Microsoft may well have been 
justifiable in the beginning, but the course of the lawsuit made it 
quite clear that resolving these complaints quickly became secondary 
to punishing Microsoft for its successes. When the rhetoric started 
escalating to include threats of breaking up Microsoft, the entire 
matter crossed the line.
    Potentially, a breakup of the size and importance of Microsoft 
could have had devastating effects upon the IT industry, as well as 
our national economy. To force consumers and IT businesses to triple 
source their software needs at painfully higher anticipated prices 
to cover the inevitable administrative costs of running three 
companies could have brought the computer revolution to a screeching 
standstill overnight.
    Thankfully, cooler thinking prevailed and the lawsuit came to a 
screeching halt, rather than our economy. The resulting settlement 
has the advantage of ending the hostilities, as well as addressing 
most of the original complaints leveled against Microsoft. That 
Microsoft will need, for example, to be treating its OEMs and third 
party software developers with more openness and flexibility is a 
good thing.
    I am therefore writing in support of the settlement and hope 
that it is found to be acceptable throughout the balance of this 
legal process.
    Sincerely
    Brian Sims
    MCSE, MCT



MTC-00031855

TAMPA (813) 621-0855

[[Page 29667]]

PINELAS (727) 443-3609
ORLANDO (407)856-4076
KEARNLEY
DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
P.O. BOX 76009 .
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33675-1009
FAX (813) 623-1437
9625 ALONZO ROAD
RIVERVIEW. FLORIDA 33569
(LOCATED 7/10 Mile South of Lee Roy Selmon Expressway (Crosstown) 
Off U.S. Hwy. 301)
Underground Utilities
Site Development Since 1956
14-Dec-2001
Renata B. Hesse
US DOJ/ANTITRUST DIVISION
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001)
Tel: (xxx) xxx-xxxx
Fax: (202) 616-9937
RE: Microsoft Settlement--Do not go lite!
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I wanted to make you aware of the opinions from industry 
regarding the irreprable harm Microsoft has done to the computing 
world. They have been blatently anticompetative, destroying any 
competition they could using their OS monopoly and continually 
expanding into new areas by leveraging their OS: Web Viewing, Web 
servers, Music(Media Player). No one can compete in any area if 
Microsoft simply bundles their product with their Operating System 
for free at first, they stave out all competition then charge 
because they are the only viable player in the market.
    They were blatently apathetic at the charges leveled at them by 
the court, they were mocking and even faked an exhibit in order to 
show removing Internet Explorer from a Windows computer was 
harmful.(Even though any computer expert knows it isn't).[There were 
different icon layouts on the computers during the video, showing it 
had been cut and another computer used instead of the original.]
    It is clear, without stiff penalties and controls on their 
future actions a company like this will not deviate from it's 
illegal ways. I urge you to consider a breakup of Microsoft into at 
least two companies: Operating System, and Office. This would at 
least stop some of the leveraging they are doing in those two areas 
which they control.
    Respectfully,
    David Secret
    MIS Director
    Kearney Development Co., Inc.



MTC-00031857

BROWN ASSOCIATES 001
J. Crozier Brown, P.E.
6915 Lupton Drive
Dallas, TX 75225-1739
214-373-8710
2I4-373-1220 Fax
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The government is unwarranted in its pursuit of antitrust 
violations with regards to the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has 
attained its position of dominance in the technology industry by 
offering consumers quality products. Microsoft production of user-
friendly software has enabled the technology industry to grow quite 
substantially. This is in spite of the fact that the previous 
Attorney General and Administration spent more on the persecution of 
Microsoft than on the pursuit of terrorists who were actively 
attacking American interests around the world. The settlement, 
however, is welcome in that it provides an end to this persecution 
Anyone who thinks Microsoft got off easy in this dispute is 
mistaken. Microsoft has made numerous concessions throughout this 
process. Microsoft has agreed to disclose the internal interfaces of 
its Windows operating system. This allows developers to substitute 
non-Microsoft software for Microsoft software at their discretion. 
This will allow for increased competition for Microsoft competitors. 
Obviously, Microsoft is going to great lengths to settle this 
dispute. It is in the best interest of this economy that we let this 
settlement stand.
    Sincerely,
    J. Crozier Brown, P.E.
    cc: Representative Richard Armey



MTC-00031858

Date: Wed,23 Jan 2002 08:31:48 C800 (PST)
From: Bruce Timberlake 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my concern, in accordance with the Tunney 
Act, over the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a user and 
supporter of free and open source operating systems like Linux, 
FreeBSD, and openBSD, and of open source applications like 
OpenOffice, KDE, and Gnome. I am convinced that not enough effort is 
being spent really ensuring that Microsoft is (1) punished for their 
outrageous and damaging monopolistic practices in the computer 
industry, and (2) prevented by airtight legal terms from being able 
to stray down that path again. It is tough to do given the nature of 
the computer industry: rapidly changing, and not necessarily easily 
understood by the average person. Nor, possibly, by those who must 
make the final decisions. I hope that once the key elements of an 
acceptable settlement are repeated over and over by those of us in 
the industry, they will be incorporated.
    I am all for capitalism, and the best company/product/idea 
becoming successful in the marketplace on its own merits. But when 
the playing field isn't equal, due to marketing, 
``backroom'' negotiations, unequal licensing terms for- 
manufacturers who may not ``toe the line,'' etc, then the 
best company isn't necessarily the one that wins. The best company 
might have never had a chance fron the beginning.
    I don't want to pretend that I have all the answers, or even 
many of them. But as a part-time programmer, I think a few key ideas 
have to be part of the settlement, and they must be written it 
straightforward, airtight langauge, so that Microsoft cannot 
``figure out a way around them'' at any point in the 
future:
    1. All file formats--past and present as of the date of the 
settlement)-- ever used by any Microsoft operating system or 
program, and specifically any member of the office suite (Word, 
Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook), must be made completely and immediately 
available as ``public knowledge'' in a way that does not 
require any money or identifying information to be given to 
Microsoft by any person, company, or organization that wants the 
information.
    2. A1l file formats created and used after the date of 
settlement by any Microsoft or subsidiary company's operating system 
or program, and specifically any member of the office suite [Word, 
Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook), must be made comp1etely available as 
``public knowledge'' no later than the date the product is 
available to manufacturers for bundling onto computers, and in a way 
that does not require any money or identifying information to be 
given to Microsoft by any person, company, or organization that 
wants the information..
    3. All APIs used to communicate between any Microsoft products 
(operating systems and/or applications) shall be completely divulged 
to enable the complete and unrestrained interaction of non-Microsoft 
operating systems and/or applications, or replacement of Microsoft 
operating systems. This shall specifically include the exchange and 
SMB protocols. This information will be made available as 
``public knowledge'' in a way that does not require any 
money or identifying information to be given to Microsoft by any 
person, company, or organization that wants the information.
    No computer manufacturer who offers Microsoft operating systems 
pre-installed on their computers can. be penalized in any way 
(through fee increases, contractual obligations, etc) if they wish 
to offer alternative operating systems for customers whc desire one 
either in place of, or in addition to, a Microsoft operating system.
    There are many other issues that I don't feel competent to 
suggest a remedy for, but which I would like to state as a concern 
anyway:
    The oversight committee needs to have the staffing and authority 
to report to the public what Microsoft is doing to ``make 
good'' on the terms, and the ability to truly punish Microsoft 
in some fashion if it does not comply with both the letter and the 
spirit of the settlement. One idea proposed by Ralph Nader seems 
especially appropriate:
    ``The level of fines that would Serve as a deterrent for 
cash rich Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but one might make 
these fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust 
funds that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor 
that Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its 
own monopoly. This would give Microsoft much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement''
    I also heartily agree with and endorse the GNU Foundation's 
suggestions some of which mirrors my own ideas at the opening of 
this letter:
    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, a11 communications 
protocols, and all file formats. This would

[[Page 29668]]

block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible 
interfaces. The rule must be: if they cannot publish the interface, 
they cannot release an implementation of it.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the 
field Of software. It is crucial to address the issue of patents, 
because it does no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if 
they'' have managed to work some patented wrinlkle into it (or 
into the functionality it gives access to), such that the rest of us 
are not allowed to implement it.
    3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software 
to support the same hardware. To close, I would like to quote the 
summary by the Computer and Communications Industry Association of 
the DOJ settlement compared to that ordered by the DC Circuit Court 
of Appeals:
    ``The settlement being prepared by Charles James (l) would 
not prevent the central ways Microsoft was found to have illegally 
maintained its Windows monopoly, (2) does nothing to restore 
competition in the OS market, an express Court of Appeals 
requirement for a Microsoft remedy, and (3) has no provisions 
directed to Windows XP and other new endeavors of Microsoft to 
extend and protect its monopoly to new markets in the future, 
another express Court of Appeals requirement for a Microsoft remedy. 
The proposal is so far outside the mainstream of antitrust law, and 
so completely contradicts the DC Circuit's unanimous opinion 
affirming Microsoft's guilt, thus the only explanation must be 
political pressure. Whether or not the public learns of the backroom 
activities will be the responsibility of Judge Kollar-Kotelly under 
the Tunney Act public hearings that are required before approval of 
anti-trust settlements.''
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.
    Bruce Timberlake
    3636 Cheshire Avenue
    Carlsbad, CA 92008
    [email protected]



MTC-00031859

TO: D.O.J./ATTN: MS RENATA B.HESSE
AT TELEPHONE NUMBER (OR FAX NUMBER):202 307 1454
FROM:
RE: Microsoft Settlement
NICK PAVIA & ASSOCIATES AT FAX PHONE NUMBER: 805/496-8806
PER YOUR REQUEST
OTHER:
    THIS IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE
APPROVE AND SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT.
    NICK PAVIA
    DOROTHY PAVIA
    TEL NO. Jan 23.02 12:18 P.01



MTC-00031860

From: Zoltan Ness
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
fax l-202-307-1454
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is not a 
true penalty for Microsoft. Giving away software that costs 
Microsoft little beyond distribution, yet is counted at full price, 
reduces the penalty to literally a penny or less per dollar. Each 
copy costs less than one dollar to distribute, but claimed worth is 
hundreds of dollars for some of the software. It also serves to 
further Microsoft's monopoly into an industry (education) which has 
traditionally had a healthy, competitive mix of personal computer 
alternatives (Apple, for example).
    Rather than a having to live with the legal consequences of it's 
anticompetitive behavior, Microsoft would be given a less than token 
penalty AND given a DOJ mandated reason to extend it's monopoly into 
one of the few remaining strongholds of desktop OS competition.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Zoltan Ness



MTC-00031861

January 23, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530-000l
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    This letter is written in support of the proposed settlement 
among Microsoft, the federal government, and nine states. It is 
offered under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I am president of 
Incremax Technologies Corporation and president of the New York 
chapter of the International Association of Microsoft Certified 
Partners, a group of independent companies selling solutions based 
primarily upon Microsoft software. I endorse a settlement to this 
long-running suit because it is good news not only for consumers, 
but also for the economy, which has been negatively affected by the 
uncertainty generated by the dispute. The proposed settlement 
already has considerable teeth, placing unprecedented oversight and 
restrictions upon Microsoft and the future conduct of its business.
    Continued anti-trust action will extend the uncertainty already 
endured by key sectors of this country's economy. In addition, it 
will risk the over-regulation (and potential crippling) of an 
industry that already responds very well on its own to the 
marketplace. (In this light, I find it ironic that as I write, 
Microsoft is again been sued by rival AOL Time Warner in an effort 
to subdue Microsoft in court rather by competitive, free-market 
means.)
    The elements of the Microsoft settlement are sound, benefiting 
U.S. constituents far better than continued litigation could ever 
bring about.
    Sincerely,
    Kerry P. Gerontianos
    Ilncremex Technologies Corporation
    575 Lexington Avenue,
    New York, NY 10022
    Phone 212.888.1900
    Fax 212 888.1050 E.mail [email protected]
    Web Site www.Incremax.com



MTC-00031862

FROM : RABBI MARC BROWNSTEIN, DD FAX NO. :
Jan. 23 2002 05:05pm P1
13703 Waverly Crest court
Cypress, TX 77429
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to inform the Attorney General of 
my ardent support for the antitrust settlement against Microsoft. 
Three years have passed since the inception of this legal dispute. 
Over these years, countless federal resources have been squandered 
over the issue. An issue that, in my opinion, should never have been 
an issue in the first place. The government need not have the 
authority to persecute successful companies. It adds insult to 
injury when taxpayer dollars are wasted in the process. Further, 
Microsoft has made many concessions during the process. Microsoft is 
willing under the terms of the settlement to disclose protocols and 
design interfaces that are internal to the Widows system. This 
allows competing developers to design new software that are 
increasingly compatible with the Microsoft system. In addition, 
Microsoft has agreed to license the Windows system at the same price 
to many computer manufacturers. Obviously Microsoft is willing to 
make concessions in order to resolve this issue.
    I believe the Attorney General should echo these sentiments with 
a hasty enactment of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Brownstein



MTC-00031863

FROM : Global Bay Inc. PHONE NO. : 2124252324 Jan. 23 2002 05:07PM 
Pl
1443 Pinewood Street
Rahway, NJ 07065
Phone: 732-882-1222
Fax: 212-202-4966
http:/www.globalbay.com
email: [email protected]
Global Bay
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to express some of views regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I have always disagreed with this case, and frankly 
feel that Microsoft is just bearing the brunt of the blow from 
companies that cannot match the superiority of Microsoft's products. 
I might feel differently about Microsoft if it had achieved its 
success purely by malicious behavior, but it did not. Microsoft 
built a better mousetrap and priced it lower than the 
competitions''. I thought that was the goal of business.
    The concessions called for in your settlement make antitrust 
precedent. Nevertheless, it is worth it to end this case

[[Page 29669]]

sooner rather than later. Under your settlement, Microsoft has 
agreed to allow software engineers and computer makers to configure 
Windows in ways that promote non- Microsoft programs that compete 
with those programs already included within Windows. This sounds 
good for the average consumer, but is it fair to Microsoft? Imagine 
if McDonald's had to allow customers to order a Burger King Whopper 
at its restaurants if they wanted one, just because no one was going 
to Burger King. What if every Coke had to come with a sample of 
Pepsi inside, just because Coke has loyal drinkers? Would these 
situations be fair? Would we allow them? As long as Microsoft is 
willing to give up some of its market share and competitive 
advantage, there will always be more hands reaching out. It seems 
that the American Dream has changed into something for nothing, and 
now is backed by law. We need to realize that sometimes product 
lines fail. Just because the companies worked hard, doesn't mean 
that they deserve success. Such is capitalism.
    Sandeep Bhanote
    CEO
    CC: Congressman Jerrold Nadler



MTC-00031864

BlazeConnect Inc.
520 N. Main, Cheboygan, MI 49721
Tel.: 231-597-0376,
Fax: 231-597-0393
January 23, 2002
Greetings,
Subject: U.S. vs. Microsoft
    In regards to the ruling of the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft and the proposed settlement I have several thoughts and 
comments I would like to share. First of all I am pleased to see 
that Microsoft was found to have a monopoly. I am, however, not 
pleased with the proposed settlement. I am not pleased because 
although on the surface it seems like a good solution underneath it 
is lacking. I have read a great deal of other opinions regarding 
what should really be done. In my opinion breaking up the company or 
forcing them to disclose their intellectual property regarding file 
formats or the API is not the answer. The best thing I can think of 
is to use the laws that are already on the books, perhaps with some 
modification, to empower the end user. To put it simply the end user 
needs to have real choices. The first example that comes to mind is 
the analogy of ordering a pizza. Let's suppose for a minute that you 
do not care for anchovies on your pizza. On a Friday night you are 
working late in your office and you pick up the phone to order a 
pizza. You select the toppings you want but when the person on the 
other end of the line reads those choices back to you they add 
anchovies to the list. You remind them you did not ask to have 
anchovies put on your pizza. The friendly voice replies that 
although you do not wish to have anchovies put on your pizza they 
must be included because the company that supplies anchovies 
requires that they are included with every pizza. Then you are told 
that even if they do not include the anchovies you will still be 
charged for them. I am quite certain you would find this situation 
unacceptable. Now let's put this into the perspective of the 
computer industry. I recently purchased a new Dell laptop. My 
operating system of choice is Linux for various reasons. When I 
contacted Dell to order the computer I was told I had to purchase a 
version of Microsoft Windows as well as a Microsoft Office suite 
with the laptop. I did not argue because I understood the reason 
behind it. This is the reason something needs to be done about the 
power Microsoft has over the OEMs. My chosen profession is in the 
computer industry, I will not even begin to pretend to know anything 
about the laws in the various states or of this great nation. 
However, I believe this kind of business practice can be classified 
as racketering. Even if I am wrong on this count this practice has 
to he stopped, I believe the only true settlement is to simply stop 
Microsoft from forcing OEMs to bundle their products in order to get 
the OEM licens- ing. As a small time programmer it would be nice to 
have free access to the MS Office file for- mats and the programming 
API for Windows itself but this choice should be left up to the 
Microsoft Corporation, not the government. If a legal precedent such 
as this is set now who is to say that in a few years Pepsico isn't 
going to accuse Coca Cola of having a monopoly. If this were to 
happen and they were indeed found to have a monopoly who is to say 
the settlement wouldn't include Coca Cola disclosing their secret 
formula? In closing, my opinion is that the playing field needs to 
be leveled. Give the consumer a choice as to whether they want Linux 
or Windows, Microsoft Office or Lotus SmartSuite. Let the consumer 
decide who will dominate the computer market. I may be completely 
wrong but I feel that if the OEMs such as Gateway, Dell and Compaq 
are allowed to decide for themselves how they want to sell their 
products a settlement will be found on its own with little or no 
government intervention.
    Greg Abur
    Secretary Treasurer



MTC-00031865

JAN-23-2002 02:42 PM P.01
Virginia Linstrom
127 Alameda Avenue
Fircrest, WA 98466-6204
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to urge you and the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Microsoft has agreed to 
many concessions in order to put the issue to rest. The settlement 
is fair and I hope that you will agree to it.
    Some say that Microsoft has gotten off easy; in fact they have 
not. Microsoft has agreed to give computer makers a wide-ranging 
flexibility to install and promote any software that they see fit. 
It has also agreed to license its Windows operating system products 
to computer makers at a uniform price no matter what other products 
the maker promotes. In fact, Microsoft has agreed to terms that 
extend well beyond the products and procedures that were actual1y at 
issue in the suit. Microsoft has agreed to many concessions in order 
to settle the issue. The terms are fair and I would like to see the 
settlement accepted.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Linstrom



MTC-00031866

Philip Wise
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Ninety-Eighth District
Statehouse: (515)281-3221
[email protected]
HOME ADDRESS
503 Grand Ave
Keokuk, Iowa 52632
Home: (319) 524-3643
House of Representatives
State of Iowa
Seventy-Ninth General Assembly
STATEHOUSE
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
 COMMITTEES
Education, Ranking Member
Appropriations
Commerce & Regulation
January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a senior member of the Iowa House of Representatives who has 
focused on education and economic development policy, I have 
followed with considerable interest the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case. I am vitally interested in the creation and 
deployment of technology that empowers consumers and encourages 
business expansion. I believe such technology deployment has 
potential to foster growth in the non-metropolitan areas of the 
State of Iowa, which is the type of district that I represent.
    It is my judgment that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case is good for Iowa. I am writing, therefore, to lend my support 
to that settlement and to ask for your assistance in bringing about 
resolution of this case.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Philip Wise



MTC-00031867

FOUNDING FELLOW
American Society for Laser Medicine & Surgery
FOUNDING MEMBER
Gynecologic Laser Society
MEMBER
International Society for Laser Medicine & Surgery
MEMBER
NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
MEMBER
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
MEMBER
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society of North America
MEMBER
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation
PRESIDENT

[[Page 29670]]

American Board of Laser Surgery
MEMBER
Surgical Staff, St. Barnabas Medical Center, Livingston, NJ.
FORMER MEMEBR
Medical staff, St. Luke's Hospital Milwaukee, Wisconsin
SENIOR Member Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
SENIOR Member
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
LISTED
Who's Who in the World
Who's Who in Founders of Science & Technology
Who's Who in Optical Science & Technology
JOHN C. FISHER, Sc.D.
Consultant in Laser Medicine & Surgery
417 Palmtree Drive, Bradenton, Florida 34210 U.S.A.
941-756-2316
 Fax 941-758-3617
 January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
U.S. Dept. of Justice,
Washington, DC
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an informed taxpayer, I am writing you to urge that the Dept. 
of Justice approve the proposed settlement with Microsoft and nine 
states, that was put forth on November 06, 2001.
    The $35,000,000 which the Microsoft lawsuit has cost American 
taxpayers to date is excessive. Microsoft's competitors, who brought 
the suit in the first place, are simply interested in the 
destruction of Microsoft as a means of eliminating competition at 
taxpayers'' expense. In the interests of a healthy economy, 
valuable technology for all users of computers, and ending the waste 
of tax dollars, I urge you and the D.O.J. to accept the proposed 
settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    John C. Fisher, Sc.D.



MTC-00031868

COMMENTS: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT CONCERNS
Samuel Davis
4325 South Park Avenue
Dothan, AL 36301
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please allow me to cast my vote in favor of the recent 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
realize that this was an open case when you took over the Justice 
Department, and for that reason you were not afforded a great number 
of options in dealing with it. I believe the middle ground that you 
have staked out with Microsoft adequately addresses the concerns of 
all the parties involved, and I feel you should be applauded for 
reaching the agreement. A compromise such as this is obviously not 
going to make everyone happy. However, Microsoft's agreement to open 
competition within its Windows operating systems to non-Microsoft 
technology is a significant concession and should allow everyone a 
fresh start in the competition. I hope the settlement moves forward 
soon, and brings an end to the case. Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel Davis



MTC-00031869

Digitech Services,Inc.
PO Box 118
Glasgow, KY 42142
(270) 659-0241 Office
(270) 659-0083 Fax
DSI
Technology @ Work
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to inform you I am lending my support to the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
regarding the antitrust suit. I believe that is suit has brought 
about the stagnated state of our economy and particularly the IT 
industry. It is necessary that the settlement is dealt with the way 
it IS. rather than continuing litigation.
    This suit has been going on for the past three years. To 
continue any further litigation means a further delay in the revival 
of the economy and the industry. The settlement is fair and 
reasonable and was arrived after extensive negotiations. Not 
settling the case now will mean additional atrophy of time and 
money.
    I strongly recommend that you finalize this settlement, and help 
to ensure the renaissance of our economy and industry. This unfair 
use of the American taxpayers' money cannot continue any further. To 
prevent this from continuing, all proceedings at the federal level 
must be stopped
    Sincerely,
    David Ogles
    President



MTC-00031870

 104 Garrison Road
Chelmsford, Massachusetts: 01824
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has finally reached a settlement with the Department 
of Justice in regards to the antitrust suit, and I am writing this 
letter to voice my support for that settlement. The litigation 
between the two sides lasted for over three years, cost both sides 
millions of dollars, and assisted in knocking our economy down into 
a recession.
    Although Microsoft did not get off all that easy in the 
settlement, I am in favor of most of the terms, and feel that the 
economy stands to greatly benefit from this agreement. Microsoft has 
agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system products. 
I feel that this goes too far, and forces Microsoft to turn over 
their intellectual property. However, I am in favor of the terms of 
the settlement that forbid any retaliation from Microsoft against 
other computer companies that either promote or produce software 
that competes with Microsoft's. This will encourage competition and 
help improve the IT industry. I am in full support of the settlement 
that was reached. It can bring an end to this tiresome suit, and 
that cannot come soon enough.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Staplin
    cc: Representative Marty Meehan



MTC-00031871

Bob Ellis Inc.
2417 Bayfront Parkway
Orlando, Florida 32806-7337
Tel: (407) 859-5883..
Fax 859-5350..
Cell 247-3072 [email protected]
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC, 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am pleased to know that the federal government has reached a 
settlement with Microsoft. After three years of litigation, the 
settlement is fair to both sides and should be beneficial to 
consumers. The agreement is extremely comprehensive and mandates 
many adjustments in the way Microsoft carried out their business in 
the past. Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreements 
obligating any third party to distribute any portion of Windows 
exclusively. Also, the company has agreed not to enter into 
agreements relating to Windows that obligate any software developer 
to refrain from developing or promoting software that competes with 
Windows. Finally, the government assured compliance by negotiating 
for the creation of a Technical Committee to monitor Microsoft's 
compliance.
    I believe Microsoft and Bill Gates have done tremendous good for 
the United States. Their products are used by millions of citizens 
and help make the economy stronger and more efficient. I commend you 
for your efforts to settle this case and hope no further action will 
be taken on the federal level.
    I must say that I am very happy that Bill Gates is an American 
and that he was not a citizen of another foreign country as if he 
was, we would be sending checks from the United States to that 
county to purchase the excellent products that Bill Gates and 
Microsoft has delivered to our good citizens.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Ellis, President
    -bsjak
    CC: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00031872

January 22, 2002
Dept. of Justice
    It is ridicalous to think that Bill Gates, (Microsoft) is 
causing any problem. He has done more for the technology business 
that any other person.
    His proposed settlement is excellent + is far more than he 
should be required to do. Support the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft lawsuit.

[[Page 29671]]

    Richard E M Kowa
    5607 E 72nd St.
    Indpls; In 46250



MTC-00031873

15311 Kingswood Lane
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express interest for settling the antitrust 
lawsuit Microsoft. I have been following the case with interest, and 
I believe that the settlement reached in November will amicably 
resolve the matter for both the government and Microsoft. The terms 
of the settlement are fair, ard Microsoft is making important 
concessions in order to get on with their business. Sharing internal 
Windows codes with its competitors will continue to expand the 
marketaplace for different programs, while maintaining Microsoft's 
market position for its operating system. Also, developing new 
features for users to remove the programs they wish levels the 
playing field more for competition. I urge you to settle the case 
against Microsoft as quickly as possible and not pursue further 
litigation.
    Sincerely
    Sanda Brown



MTC-00031874

Sutherland Insurance & Realty Company Realtors : Insurance
TELEPHONE 828/ 693-9084
CORNER OF FOURTH AND CHURCH
317 NORTH CHURCH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 40
HENDERSONVTLLE NORTH CAROLINA 28793
``In the Land of the Sky''
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Let me begin by saying that providing a platform for the average 
consumer to express opinion is a wonderful way to judge whether a 
settlement provides consumer protection. As an American taxpayer and 
Microsoft supporter, I feel that this case has gone on too long. I 
do not agree with every decision that Microsoft has ever made, but 
do feel that Microsoft earned its way to the top by producing 
quality products at reasonable prices. My feelings might have been 
different if Microsoft had acted maliciously, but I do think it is 
wrong to punish a corporation for building the mousetrap that almost 
everyone wants,
    Microsoft has agreed to grant broad new rights, which will, in 
everyday language, open its inventions to be used as launch pads for 
the competitions' products. For instance, Microsoft has agreed to 
grant broad new rights to software engineers and computer makers to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows. Also, Microsoft will 
disclose for use by its competitors any protocols implemented within 
Windows products that are used to interoperate with any Microsoft 
server.
    I cannot see what will be gained by further litigation, 
especially at the federal level, I fear that if this debacle 
persists, we may run the risk of slowing innovation to the point 
that advanced American technology may lose its competitive advantage 
in the world market. We must protect this valuable industry that 
creates jobs, exports, and economic revenue. In my opinion, the 
sooner we put this matter be-hind us, the better.
    Sincerley Yours
    Earl L Phillips
    Broker-Realtor



MTC-00031875

179 Great Northern Road
North Troy, VT 05859
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US department of Justice
950 Pennsylvanian Avenue, NW
Washingotn, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After a long, tedious expenditure of time and money by both the 
Microsoft Corporation and the US Government, there is a settlement 
on the table in the antitrust suit filed by the Department of 
Justice. Personally, I did not think the case should have been 
brought to trial, but it was, and I am happy to see that an 
agreement has been reached. In the settlement, Microsoft will not 
break up. Microsoft is a good company. They are profitable and they 
bring good products to the market. We are making it hard for 
businesses to succeed anymore. We lament the loss of jobs and pour 
money into unemployment benefits, but deny companies the opportunity 
to succeed and provide jobs. Microsoft has agreed to the terms of 
the settlement in an effort to finally close the case and get it 
behind them. They have agreed to more conditions than were charged 
in the suit. I want to urge you to let the settlement stand and to 
close the case. We should let Microsoft get on with innovation and 
growth. It would be wrong to take any further legal action against 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Ferguson



MTC-00031876

January 18, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a computer and software reseller, our company is in the 
``front lines'' of dealing with the public. This lawsuit 
against Microsoft has created much uncertainty in the minds of many 
of my customers and clients, and has had a negative impact on my 
business. I was relieved to see that the lawsuit has settled.
    While a few of the terms of the settlement are, in my opinion, 
harsh for Microsoft, many of the terms are good for consumers, 
giving them more flexibility in choosing various options for their 
software needs. This is particularly obvious in the provision that 
affects distribution of licenses to OEMs, who will have more 
opportunities to pre-install programs that aren't made by Microsoft. 
Consequently, I will have more options to sell different kinds of 
software and more effectively customize and install what my 
customers want.
    I am in support of this settlement and hope that it is sustained 
through this review process,
    Sincerely,
    Damo Porrill
    System Administrator
    CC: Representative Spencer Bachus



MTC-00031877

JEFF LAMBERTI
STATE SENATOR
Thirty-third District
Statehouse: (515) 281-3371
HOME ADDRESS
2621 NW 17th Street
Ankeny, Iowa 50021
Phone: H-(515) 965-1067
O-(515)965-1200
F-(515)-964-8796
[email protected]
The Senate
State of Iowa
Seventy-ninth General Assembly
STATEHOUSE
Des Moms. Iowa 50319
COMMITTEES
Appropriations, Chair Judiciary, Small Business, Economic 
Development & Tourism State Government, Vice Chair, Ways & 
Means, Transportation Infrastructure and Capital Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Vice Chair
January 23,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U. S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, N. W., Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As Chair of the Iowa Senate Appropriations Committee, I am 
required to pay particular attention to current economic conditions. 
Like many other states, Iowa is struggling with a weak economy. As a 
result, we are facing significant budget shortfalls, and cuts in 
critical services.
    Despite these challenges, we are optimistic about the future. We 
believe that the solution to our budget woes is a growing economy. 
Because of this, we are pushing an aggressive growth agenda this 
legislative session.
    That is why I am encouraging the court to accept the strong but 
fair settlement you and your colleagues have negotiated in the 
Microsoft antitrust case, I believe the settlement will have a 
positive affect on the economy.
    In fact, we saw evidence of this, as the markets rose when the 
news of a possible settlement broke some time ago.
    I believe this matter has gone unresolved for far too long. I 
believe a settlement will be positive news for the over 600 software 
businesses and related enterprises located in Iowa.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Lamberti
    As an attorney, I have followed this matter with interest, and I 
support the Department

[[Page 29672]]

and the nine Attorneys General in a settlement of this matter.
    State Senator JL/ae



MTC-00031878

Mrs. Nels Turnquist
5394 N. Via Sempreverde
Tucson, AZ 85750
January 23, 2002
To: US Department of Justice
Attn: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Fax# (202) 307-1454 or # (202) 616-4937
Re: Proposed settlement of Microsoft lawsuit
    I wish to inform the Department of Justice that I as a taxpayer 
and consumer, strongly support settlement of the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Turnquist



MTC-00031879

GENERATIONS L.L.C
To: Ms Renata B. Hesse
From: Alvin L. Childers
Fax Number: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
Date:
NOTES/COMMENTS:
    I Support the Microsoft Settlement
    8601 SE CAUSEY AVENUE,
    SUITE 7--PORTLAND, OREGON 97266
    PHONE:(503) 652-0750--
    FAX: (503) 652-1691



MTC-00031880

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
Memorial Union Alumni Suite
2229 Lincoln Way
Ames, IA 50014-7164
Telephone: 515-294-4607
Fax: 515-294-9402 or 515-294-4648
Date: January 23,2002
January 22,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Like so many Americans, I am an investor in the stock market and 
have been financially hurt by the downturn this past year. As an 
individual investor, I have made every effort to do my part to 
prevent an even greater drop in the markets by maintaining my 
holdings without over-reacting.
    While we enjoyed a relatively minor upswing recently, the 
markets once again dropped following the national media attention of 
the Enron bankruptcy. In the face of so much negative news, it is 
getting more and more difficult for investors to optimistically 
believe the markets have hit the bottom and are in a recovery.
    From an economic standpoint, you have the ability to send a 
message which can only be construed as good by the media and the 
American public. I am referring to the Microsoft lawsuit. A proposed 
settlement in this case is before you. Most of the parties involved 
in this case are in agreement to settle this case based on the 
proposal presented. Please take this opportunity to do your part and 
sign on to the proposed settlement. By putting and end to this 
lawsuit, you allow the tech industry the chance to move forward. You 
will also create much needed optimism for a turning point in our 
times of economic struggles,
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Fortmann
    4815 Grand Avenue
    Des Moines, Iowa 50312
    515 255-8328



MTC-00031881

RPM MATERIAL HANDLING CO.
A California Corporation
8530 Avenida Costa Norte
* San Diego, CA 92154
* (619) 661-1575
* FAX (619) 661-1574
619 East Ross Avenue
* El Centro, CA 92243-9797
* (760) 352-8811
* FAX (760) 352-3776
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Via Fax 202-616-9937
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing this letter to express my support of the settlement 
being examined in the Justice Department's case against Microsoft. 
Though the events of September 11 are not the reason this settlement 
should be accepted, I firmly believe September 11 must play a 
significant role in your deliberation.
    The tragic events of September 11 unified this country in a way 
generations before World War II never even saw. It helped all of us 
realize what is important in this world and that we are all 
``Americans''. For the first time in modem American 
history, we saw principle rule over politics once again.
    Principle over politics is why I believe the court should settle 
the Microsoft case. Our economy is sagging...the tech industry is 
flat...in reality, we all know Microsoft is not a monopoly...and the 
people of this country are tired of their tax dollars paying for 
this case. US v. Microsoft was the politics of special interests 
being put above the principle of good policy.
    In the post-September 11 world, we don't have a lot of room for 
politics any longer. US v. Microsoft is not good for this country. I 
sincerely hope you will accept the settlement and end this case.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Otis
    President and CEO
    www.rpmmhc.com
    Materials Handling Equipment / Sales / Rentals / Leases / Parts 
/ Service
    CLARK NISSAN FORKLIFT DREXEL Linde



MTC-00031882

January 23,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As an employee for a large midwestern hospital, I see first hand 
the benefits of technology everyday. Whether it is computerized 
laser surgical tools or sophisticated medical record software 
packages, my employer relies everyday on constant innovation within 
the technology field to better serve our patients and community.
    The pervasive nature of technology continues to astound me. . . 
it seems as if virtually everything we encounter has some kind of 
microchip inside. Is it any wonder then, that one of the largest 
computer companies in the world being involved in a major lawsuit 
would have an extraordinary impact on virtually every segment of our 
economy? As I understand it, there is a settlement before you that 
could bring closure to this matter very quickly. While I agree it is 
vitally important to protect consumers, it is also important to do 
what is prudent to protect our economy and to continue technological 
innovation, research and investment.
    The settlement before you addresses the concerns of the original 
complaint. All interested parties have approved it. Please give the 
settlement your final approval and help get the economy moving 
again.
    Sincerely,
    Terri Hasselman
    Director of Major Gifts
    Mercy Foundation
    1111 6th Avenue
    Des Moines, IA 50311



MTC-00031883

JACK E. NICKEL
STEPHEN L.NICKEL
(A Partnership of Professional Law Corporations)
Jack E. Nickel,APLC
318 North Parkerson
Post Office Drawer 2040
Crawley, La 70527-2040
Telephone (337) 788-1693
Facsimile (337) 788-1698
Stephen L. Nickel,APLC
521 SW Court Circle
Crowley, Lousiana 70526
Telephone (337) 785-0098
Facsimile (337) 785-9497
[email protected]
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-6 16-9937
January 23,2002
RE: Public Comment on U.S. v. Microsoft
    I am extremely displeased with our government's expenditure of 
over 30 million dollars in taxpayer funds on the Microsoft case. The 
settlement should be completed because consumers are protected 
instead of companies: exactly the way our federal antitrust laws 
were designed to work.
    Hopefully, this settlement will be approved and we can move on 
to other matters. Our economy is showing signs of regaining 
strength. Bringing this case to an end would assist in a needed 
economic recovery. Please approve the settlement in the interest of 
taxpayers and consumers.
    Thank you,
    Stephen L. Nickel



MTC-00031884

IMAGEFILM
George Kennedy

[[Page 29673]]

3469 Hyacinth, Suite B
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
January 22,2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-6 16-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    I fully support the proposed settlement in the U.S. v. Microsoft 
case. The legal wrangling has gone on long enough and the time to 
end the battle is now. The settlement, while not perfect, addresses 
the specific concerns and findings of the court. Consumers will be 
protected through close monitoring of all future Microsoft 
activities and business practices.
    Technology companies like Microsoft, along with many other 
companies, provided the biggest boost to recent economic growth. I 
strongly believe that the next wave of technological advances could 
come as a result of the final resolution of this case.
    Sincerely,
    George Kennedy



MTC-00031885

The Beychok Group
MICHAEL
BEYCHOK
POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS
DIRECT MAIL
225.819.1712
FAX 225.819.8914
15324 Lockett Lane
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
January 22, 2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-6 16-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    I am in full support of the settlement proposed in the U.S. v. 
Microsoft case. I believe that the time has come for this legal 
battle to come to an end.
    The settlement may not be perfect, but it does address the 
findings and concerns of the court. It also has mechanisms to 
protect consumers through close monitoring of all future Microsoft 
activities and business practices.
    Microsoft and other technology companies provided the biggest 
boost to recent economic growth. I think that the next wave of 
technological advances could come as a result of finishing this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Beychok



MTC-00031886

January 23,2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington D. C. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am in favor of the settlement in the case against Microsoft 
Corporation. I believe that the fact that Microsoft may not 
retaliate against competitors is important in a case that has gone 
on for months and years producing a great deal of ill will. Another 
positive aspect of the settlement is that Microsoft has agreed to 
design future versions of Windows so that consumers can add non-
Microsoft software. These are examples of why this settlement should 
work.
    Sincerely yours,
    Cythia Faillace
    6101 Inkberry Place
    Glen Allen, Virginia 23059



MTC-00031887

Jan 23 02 03:28p Northwestern Mutual Agent 319-363-5517
JEFFREY A. BEAN
January 21,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The United States and Microsoft have agreed to a settlement 
proposal of the Microsoft anti-trust case. As you know, the Tunney 
Act allows members of the public to comment on the proposed 
settlement before the court accepts it. I am most appreciative of 
this opportunity.
    I am financial representative with one of the nation's leading 
investment and insurance companies and keep constant watch on events 
which have potential to impact our financial climate. I have watched 
the Microsoft case with great interest and was pleased to learn a 
settlement was on the horizon.
    The last several years provided Americans with a time of 
unprecedented economic growth. While there is not one single reason 
for this growth, the substantial growth of the technology industry 
was a contributing factor. Unfortunately, these years of growth have 
been followed by a significant downturn. Again, we cannot fault one 
single thing or event for this decline; however, the Microsoft anti-
trust case has been a contributing factor.
    We are now looking forward to an economic recovery that will 
hopefully bring about several more years of prosperity and growth. 
It is essential that we give the markets and the economy every 
advantage.
    Settling the Microsoft case is a positive action that will 
undoubtedly be felt in the markets. I look forward to seeing this 
case be brought to its conclusion.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey A. Bean
    120--23RD STREET DRIVE SE
    CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52403
    319-862-0007



MTC-00031888

MORRIS H. WEINSTEIN
P.O. BOX 1120
15548 Hwy 190
OPELOUSAS, LA 70570
(337) 948-3939
January 23,2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
Re: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    The time has come to settle this long and expensive lawsuit. 
From what I have read in the papers, this is a fair settlement. 
Microsoft may not like it and the government may not like it, which 
means it is probably a good compromise. Thirty million dollars of 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars have been spent and now we have a 
chance to end it. We should end it, I know I would like to see all 
of these computer companies and software manufactures quit bickering 
in court and get back to competing in the market. When that happens 
we all win.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Morris II. Weinstein
    MHW/bd



MTC-00031889

Hal P. Kilshaw
6673 Pikes Lane
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
January 23,2002
Via Facsimile 202-616-9937
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in support of the revised proposed Final Judgment 
in United States v. Microsoft Corp.
    I have always been a strong supporter of the Justice 
Department's use of its antitrust powers to regulate anticompetitive 
behavior in the marketplace. Your use of that power has led to a 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft case that is fair to all 
parties. It is now time for this issue to be resolved so that the 
technology industry can become an even more vibrant force for 
economic growth in our country.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on this issue,
    Hal P. Kilshaw



MTC-00031890

January 23,2002
Dominion
Dominion Resources, Services, Inc.
East Case Street
Richmond VA 23219
Mailing Address
P O Box 26666
Richmond, VA 23264
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement I offer the 
following comments.
    Compliance with the terms of the agreement is crucial. But I 
believe that the

[[Page 29674]]

compliance committee set up in the agreement is a good solution. 
First, they are technically qualified to make judgements. Second, 
complaints need not be brought to this committee's attention. They 
can also be lodged with the Department of Justice or any of the 
states that agreed to this settlement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely yours,
    Crystal H. Smith



MTC-00031891

Jayne Victor
2351 South Rolfe Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    I am told that comments on the Microsoft settlement may be 
directed to you. I am not a computer expert, but the settlement 
appears most acceptable because Microsoft has made several 
significant concessions including the following. o Microsoft has 
agreed to design future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism 
to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and software 
developers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. The 
mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to features 
built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Consumers will 
have the freedom to choose to change their configuration at any 
time. o Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
    These show good faith on the part of Microsoft in wishing to end 
this litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Jayne Victor



MTC-00031892

TOM BOLVIN
8422 GROVEDALE DRIVE, SUITE 202
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22310
FORTY-THIRD DISTRlCT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
EDUCATION
GENERAL LAWS
TRANSPORTATION
MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES
January 23,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am in agreement with the proposed settlement between the 
United States federal government and the Microsoft Corporation. I 
would like to encourage you to approve this settlement agreement and 
resist further efforts to continue this dispute.
    This proposed settlement agreement is the correct step in 
promoting continued economic growth in a competitive marketplace and 
would greatly benefit the consumers in Virginia as well as other 
states. Microsoft is a proven leader in the technology field and has 
produced many superior products.
    This settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise. The dispute 
between Microsoft and the federal government needs to be concluded 
as quickly as possible and come to an end with an amicable decision.
    We need to encourage economic growth and stability, and this 
settlement is a valuable tool in achieving this. I would encourage 
the Court to approve the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the United States federal government. I appreciate the time taken to 
consider my views on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Delegate Tom Bolvin
    District (703) 719-7301
    FAX: (703) 971-4502 or
    RICHMOND: (804) 698-1043
    EMAIL: [email protected]
    WEBSITE: WWW.TOMBOLVIN.COM



MTC-00031893

LOS ALAMITOS AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20330
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing on behalf of the Los Alamitos Area Chamber of 
Commerce to support the proposed settlement agreement that has been 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. While we 
believe that many of the charges raised by the Department of Justice 
in the lawsuit could be true, it is time to shift our focus and our 
limited resources to other priorities. The proposed settlement 
contains something in it for all of the parties involved in the 
lawsuit while maintaining its overall balance. It is a fair 
compromise that put into place guidelines for Microsoft's future 
activities while imposing penalties for its past actions. Most 
importantly, it allows the freedom for Microsoft to continue to 
innovate and develop new products and applications.
    Please support the proposed settlement. It is time to put this 
issue to rest.
    Sincerely,
    Connie Pedenko
    Chief Executive Officer
    3231 Katella Avenue o Los Alamitos, California 90720 o 562/
5986659 o Fax 562/598-7035



MTC-00031894

January 23,.2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    We are writing in response to the court's request for public 
comments in the United States v. Microsoft case. It has been six 
years since the federal anti-trust lawsuit was opened against 
Microsoft, and over that time we have seen new frontiers develop in 
the technology marketplace, including new operating systems and the 
ever-evolving introductions of Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows 
XP operating systems.
    Those intent on the demise of Microsoft have proposed penalties 
be imposed by the Court upon Microsoft that range well into the 
absurd. Some, like the break-up proposal, were thrown out. Meanwhile 
continued litigation against the software maker in both the U.S. and 
in Europe, lingers and consumes societal wealth. But most 
significant at this time is the settlement agreement between the 
federal government and Microsoft that remains to be approved by the 
Court.
    Embarrassing hyperbole by Microsoft's competitors has plagued 
this case and public discussion of it, seeking mainly to serve the 
self interests of those competitors, and not consumers. As the case 
has ground on, prices have fallen, choices have expanded, and 
consumers have become better and better off.
    A defining characteristic of the ``New Economy'' is 
that nearly anyone can enter. The financial barriers to entry are 
low and the main costs of entry now are inspiration, innovation, and 
hard work. Microsoft competes daily, with varying degrees of 
success, with brick-and-mortar companies as well as thousands of 
web-based businesses and online services.
    The stated goal of federal anti-trust legislation is protecting 
consumers from harm. However, in this case, anti-trust action is not 
needed to maintain competition. The government has not outlawed any 
of Microsoft's many unsuccessful ventures; rather this case sought 
to moderate those successes Microsoft has achieved only through much 
trial and error. Greater government intervention in the New Economy 
is not merited; a free and competitive marketplace is due consumers,
    We are including with this transmission a copy of our recent 
magazine cover article, ``Antitrust's Greatest Hits,'' 
authored by David B. Kopel and Joseph Bast and published in
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400,
Los Angeles, CA 90034-6064
(310) 391-2245
Fax: (310) 391-4395
www.rppi.org
Reason's November 2001 issue. It discusses the Microsoft anti-trust 
case in greater detail as well as in the context of historical anti-
trust actions against Standard Oil and AT&T. We urge the Court 
to approve the proposed settlement agreement between nine states, 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    Best regards,
    Adrian T. Moore
    Vice President for Research, Reason Foundation
    Executive Director, Reason Public Policy Institute
    Attachment: Reason article on anti-trust.
    Antitrust's Greatest Hits
    The foolish precedents behind the Microsoft case By David B. 
Kopel and Joseph Bast
    New developments in the antitrust face-off between Microsoft and 
the U.S. Department of Justice keep on coming. On August 17, Bill 
Gates'' company failed in its efforts to delay

[[Page 29675]]

any more action in the case until the Su- preme Court decides 
whether to consider Microsoft's request to dismiss the suit. That 
was bad news for the company, since the next major step would be to 
decide what ``remedies'' will be imposed. Then, on 
September 6, the DOJ announced that it would no longer seek a 
breakup of the company--and, more surprisingly, that it would 
drop its claim that Microsoft had illegally ``bundled'' 
separate programs. But the other charges remain, and it is clear 
that Microsoft's enemies will surely urge the court to impose every 
possible restriction on the company's ability to adapt to changing 
conditions-particularly the di- minishing importance of the personal 
computer and the growth of Web-based computing.
    It has been six years since Microsoft introduced Windows 95, the 
operating system that, by ``bundling'' itself with a Web 
browser, prompted the government's first antitrust suit against the 
company in 1997. Put another way, six years have gone by without 
Microsoft suffering any penalty for its supposed misconduct-unless, 
of course, you count the expenses and negative publicity it has 
incurred fighting the Justice Depart- ment. When Windows 95 debuted, 
Microsoft's critics and competitors made many predictions of the 
unpleasant things that would happen if the company kept doing 
business with- out new restraints. It's past time to see whether 
those predic- tions have come true.
    It is also past time to take an even longer historical perspec- 
tive: to look at the government's earlier adventures in anti- trust 
and see how they compare with the Microsoft case. The results are 
very telling--not just with regard to Microsoft, but to 
antitrust law in general. Indeed, when one looks closely at the 
ground-breaking government actions taken against Stan- dard Oil, the 
Aluminum Company of America, and AT&T, it becomes clear that 
something other than preventing harm to consumers-the stated goal of 
federal antitrust legislation- is the motivating force behind 
applying the law. Misinterpre- tation of these cases lies behind the 
claim that Microsoft, unless punished, crippled, or otherwise 
injured, will achieve a ``chokehold on the Internet'' or 
somehow undermine the entire computer industry.
    What follows is a medley of what might be called antitrust's 
greatest hits and an analysis of how the lessons of history are 
being misapplied to the Microsoft case.
    The Oil Standard
    From 1906 to 1911, antitrust authorities prosecuted Standard 
Oil, a case that culminated with John D. Rockefeller's com- pany 
being forcibly broken up into several smaller businesses. The 
Microsoft wars have often been compared to the Stan- dard Oil case, 
and the analogy is apt-though not in the way it is usually intended.
    Like Microsoft, Standard Oil was pilloried for practices 
considerad legitimate when used by other companies. Since Standard 
Oil was such a high-volume customer, railroads gave it special 
discounts in exchange for planning shipments in ways that enabled 
railroads to use their lines and railcars most efficiently. Standard 
Oil's competitors complained bitterly about these discounts (called 
``rebates''). which the railroads kept secret from other 
oil companies.
    Also like Microsoft, Standard Oil may have harmed its 
competitors, but it helped its consumers. Rockefeller's chem- ists 
developed 300 different byproducts from oil and created production 
and distribution processes far more efficient than those of other 
companies, allowing it to underprice them and to buy many of them 
out.
    Standard Oil began in 1870, when kerosene cost 30 cents a 
gallon. By 1897, Rockefeller's scientists and managers had driven 
the price to under 6 cents per gallon, and many of his less-
efficient competitors were out of business-including companies whose 
inferior grades of kerosene were prone to explosion and whose 
dangerous wares had depressed the demand for the product. Standard 
Oil did the same for pe- troleum: In a single decade, from 1880 to 
1890, Rockefeller's consolidations helped drive petroleum prices 
down 61 per- cent while increasing output 393 percent. He eventually 
built
    Standard Oil of New Jersey into a trust composed of 18 com- 
panies operating under a single board of directors. Standard Oil 
used resources with legendary efficiency, in- troducing many new 
labor-saving devices to its factories and locating sophisticated 
facilities at key points in its distribu- tion system. Yet 
Rockefeller paid wages well above the market level, believing that 
high wages, and good working conditions would save money in the long 
run by averting strikes and by encouraging loyalty among employees. 
Before Standard Oil revolutionized oil derivatives by lowering 
prices and improv- ing quality, the high prices and limited supplies 
of whale oil and candles prevented all but the wealthy from being 
able to work or entertain after dark. Thanks to Standard Oil, fami- 
lies could illuminate their homes for just one cent per hour. And he 
saved the whales.
    The federal government filed suit against Standard Oil in 1906 
for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, and in 1909, the company 
was found guilty; the Supreme Court affirmed the finding in 1911. 
Standard Oil, claimed the courts, evinced an ``intent and 
purpose to exclude others'' -demonstrated, ironi- cally, by its 
many mergers, acquisitions, and business alliances. No one brought 
forward evidence of consumer harm, and the Misinterpretation of 
former antitrust cases lies behind the claim that Microsoft, unless 
punished, crippled, or otherwise injured, will achieve a 
``chokehold on the Internet.'' government never showed 
that Standard's specific actions, as opposed to its alleged intent, 
were illegal.
    For several decades following the verdict, economists and legal 
scholars viewed the Standard Oil case as a classic example of 
``predatory pricing ``-a monopolist's attempt to 
underprice its competitors out of the market so it could raise its 
prices later. In fact, just as the threat of new entry into the 
operat- ing system, browser, and applications markets has kept 
Micro- soft from ever exercising its supposed ``monopoly 
power,'' so did new sources competition keep Standard Oil from 
rais- ing its prices. Neither the federal district court nor the 
U.S. Supreme Court found that Standard Oil's practices made kerosene 
prices higher than they otherwise would have been. If Microsoft 
Windows actually were a monopoly (that is, essential for anyone who 
wants to use a computer), the proper price would be about $900 a 
copy. Microsoft doesn't price this high because it knows that if it 
does, consumers will flock to Linux and Macintosh, and other 
companies would enter the operating system business, with products 
much cheaper than $900.
    There's one more important parallel between the Standard Oil and 
Microsoft cases: Technological change made the Stan- dard Oil 
decision obsolete by the time it was resolved. Of course, the 
Microsoft case hasn't resolved itself yet, but as we'll see, 
changing technologies are changing market conditions in the software 
world as well.
    The oil business was opening fields in states such as Kan- sas, 
Oklahoma, Louisiana, California and especially Texas, where 
Rockefeller had failed to invest. All those fields were far away 
from the Ohio/Pennsylvania/New Jersey corridor that was the base of 
Standard Oil's power. Also, the national kero- sene market had 
declined, as home lighting shifted from kerosene lamps to coal-
generated electricity and as fuel oil replaced coal and wood as the 
major fuel for home heating. In 1899, kerosene had accounted for 58 
percent of all refined petroleum sales, and fuel oil for 15 percent. 
By 1914, kero- sene had plunged to 25 percent, and fuel oil had 
risen to 48 percent.
    Rockefeller was slow to switch from kerosene to gasoline, and 
with only 11 percent of the nation's oil production in 1911, 
Standard Oil could never hope to dominate the new market. Throughout 
the energy business, new technologies and new efficiencies were 
creating new and stronger competi- tors from industries previously 
distinct from the oil indus- try Those competitors were far more 
powerful than the kero- sene companies Rockefeller had defeated 
decades before. Some observers have noted that in the years after 
Standard Oil was broken into smaller regional companies, the stock 
prices of those smaller companies rose, leading to speculation that 
breaking up Microsoft might have a similar positive effect on the 
total value of Microsoft stock. This is a misreading. Nearly all oil 
companies'' stock went up in that period, not because of the 
breakup but because of rising demand and technological 
breakthroughs. Nor did the breakup have any discernible impact on 
oil production or oil prices.
    The government's victory against Standard Oil had a long term 
effect on the oil industry that is seldom discussed by those who see 
parallels with the Microsoft case. Only six years after losing the 
antitrust case. Standard Oil dramatically changed its attitude 
toward Washington, moving from hos- tility or avoidance to a very 
warm embrace. Company chief A.C. Bedford served as chairman of the 
War Services Com- mittee, an agency created to mobilize the nation's 
supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel for military use during World 
War I. After the war, federal control never retreated, transforming 
what economist Dominick Armentano has called ``a virtual 
textbook example of a free and competitive market'' into 
``what had previously been

[[Page 29676]]

unobtainable: a governmentally sanctioned cartel in oil.'' The 
legacies of this transformation include higher prices for consumers 
and the ``energy crisis'' of the 1970s. Deregulation in 
the 1980s finally restored some measure of competition to the 
industry.
    The Standard Oil case teaches some important lessons about 
competition, innovation, and antitrust law. We see the difficulty 
antitrust has dealing with highly innovative com- panies. We witness 
the vagueness of antitrust law, which al- lows prosecution on the 
basis of alleged intent rather than specific actions. And we see how 
the Standard Oil case ulti- mately failed to benefit consumers or 
investors. Instead, it laid the groundwork for collusion between 
industry and govern- ment, bringing about many of the very ills the 
``progressive'' proponents of antitrust said they were 
fighting.
    Too Good to Be Allowed
    In 1937, the U.S. government filed suit against the Aluminum 
Company of America, alleging over 100 violations of antitrust law. 
The government lost the case and appealed. The matter was finally 
decided eight years later, in 1945. This case is re- markable 
because it held that a company could be prosecuted under antitrust 
laws for being too efficient and responding too quickly to consumer 
demand.
    The Aluminum Company of America (later Alcoa) grew out of the 
Pittsburgh Reduction Co., founded in 1887 by Charles Hall, the man 
who discovered and patented the tech- nology for producing 
commercial quantities of aluminum. At the time, aluminum ingots sold 
for $5 a pound. By the time of the antitrust suit, the price was 
down to 22 cents per pound. Alcoa dominated its industry from the 
start. It not only invented nearly all the tools and techniques 
required to lower production costs and raise the quality of the 
aluminum it produced, but also played a major role in creating 
markets for the new metal. While many companies entered the busi- 
ness of fabricating products out of aluminum and collecting and 
recycling used aluminum, none attempted to compete with Alcoa by 
producing virgin aluminum ingots. This was not because Alcoa 
restricted access to inputs such as electricity or aluminum bauxite, 
both of which the courts ruled were available to potential 
competitors in ample supply. Nor, by the time of the suit, did Alcoa 
deny others access to the manu- facturing techniques it had 
patented: Those patents had ex- pired in 1910. Alcoa was dominant 
because, as Armentano summarizes the situation, ``users of 
ingot or sheet, and ultimately the consumers of fabricated products 
made from aluminum by Alcoa, were being served at degrees of excel- 
lence, prices, and profit rates that no one could equal or 
exceed.''
    The lower court found Alcoa innocent of all counts of anti- 
competitive behavior, even while acknowledging that it con- trolled 
90 percent of the market for virgin aluminum ingot. (The other 10 
percent was imports.) District Court Judge Francis G. Caffey 
reasoned that the Sherman Act forbade activity aimed at monopolizing 
markets, but did not outlaw the common business practices of 
companies that held domi- nant market shares due simply to the 
absence of competi- tors.
    The appeals court agreed with Judge Caffey that the gov- ernment 
had failed to show that Alcoa engaged in anti-com- petitive behavior 
or charged higher prices than it should. But Judge Learned Hand, 
writing for the majority of the federal Court of Appeals, held that 
Alcoa's de facto monopoly was itself a violation of antitrust law. 
Alcoa, he wrote, ``insists that it never excluded competitors; 
but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively 
to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every 
newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, 
hav- ing the advantage of experience, trade connection and the elite 
of personnel.''
    One is reminded of those police officers who sometimes pull over 
drivers late at night for moving at exactly the speed limit and 
staying in the middle of their lanes, on the grounds that this kind 
of careful conduct may be evidence of over- compensation by a 
drunken driver.
    Having found no evidence of specific actions that were il- 
legal, the court could hardly remedy the situation by restricting 
Alcoa's ongoing business practices. Nor, since the judges recognized 
the firm's outstanding efficiency and service to consumers, did it 
seem right to break up the company. In- stead, the court settled for 
prohibiting the company from bidding for government aluminum plants 
which had been built to meet World War II military needs, and which 
were being sold off. Those assets were subsequently sold to Rey- 
nolds Metal and Kaiser Aluminum.
    In 1948, Alcoa and the federal government asked the fed- eral 
District Court for New York to reconsider the 1945 de- cision. Alcoa 
sought to be relieved of the scarlet M-for-mo- nopoly that 
effectively criminalized its common business practices: the 
government, on the other hand, wanted to force Alcoa to divest some 
of its holdings. The district court, un- der the direction of a 
different judge than in 1937. once again found the government's case 
without merit, and this time ruled that Alcoa was not a monopolist.
    A Real Monopolist
    Besides Standard Oil, the case most touted by advocates of the 
Microsoft prosecution is the 1982 breakup of AT&T, which was 
overseen by federal judge Harold Greene. But while both cases 
involve information technology, there are important dif- ferences.
    AT&T was indisputably a monopoly. From the beginning, the 
company lobbied for, and won, government protection against 
competition. It maintained its market share thanks partly to an 
array of legal prohibitions on other companies entering any part of 
the telephone services market, be it lo- cal or long-distance 
service--or even selling telephones and other equipment that 
could be attached to a phone line. The company's first president 
stated its strategy succinctly: ``If there is to be state 
control and regulation, there should also be state protection to a 
corporation striving to serve the whole com- munity...from 
aggressive competition which covers only that part which is 
profitable.'' Obviously, Microsoft has not called for similar 
protections from its competitors, nor is it today similarly 
protected.
    Another difference: The AT&T divestiture undid acquisi- 
tions from decades before, in which AT&T had swallowed local 
phone operating companies. Microsoft, by contrast, has ex- panded 
primarily through internal growth. Because AT&T had capital and 
employees dispersed all over the United States to serve its 
customers, it could therefore divest itself relatively easily of the 
local telephone companies. These were then or- ganized into seven 
``Baby Bells'' to provide regional phone ser- vice. 
Microsoft, with its capital far more centralized and with much less 
need to have people ``on the ground'' in geographi- cally 
defined areas (except for sales), would be far more ad- versely 
affected by such a legal order.
    The settlement that led to the AT&T breakup also liberated 
the company from a 1956 antitrust consent decree that pre- More than 
half a decade after the first loud warnings about the awful world to 
come if Microsoft isn't stopped, the company's critics have been 
proven wrong at almost every turn.
vented it from entering and competing in non-regulated businesses, 
such as data processing. In exchange, AT&T vol- untarily acceded 
to divestiture. Thus, the AT&T breakup was a consensual step 
toward deregulating a part of the economy that had long been 
regulated under the public utility model. A Microsoft breakup, by 
contrast, would represent a major increase in the government's 
intervention in this part of the economy.
    At any rate, the AT&T breakup has been far from a com- plete 
Success. One part of the agreement created a competi- tor in the 
long-distance market, free to introduce new tech- nologies. This 
seems to have been relatively successful, with AT&T moving into 
cable, wireless, and other data transmis- sion arenas and competing 
with a variety of businesses around the globe. (Of course, AT&T 
doesn't always compete success- fully, as demonstrated by its huge 
stake in the floundering cable-modem system Excite@Home, 
which has been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy for most of this 
year.)
    Much of the old AT&T was left behind as the local Bell 
companies, which were forbidden to manufacture telephone equipment 
or design new telephone products. The theory was that keeping these 
Baby Bells from equipment manufacture and design would prevent them 
from using their profits from local telephone service to subsidize 
new businesses. Instead, the arrangement created local phone 
monopolies that have been slow to innovate or to let competitors 
into their captive markets. Lucent, the technology company formed 
out of the breakup, is itself mired in financial and legal troubles. 
Judge Greene's supervision of the telephone companies continued from 
1982 until 1996, when an exasperated Con- gress finally dissolved 
the consent decree. In the intervening period, hundreds of 
applications for waivers-usually by local Bell companies wanting to 
sell or license a new technology- sat on Judge Greene's docket for 
an average of four years. Antitrust is sometimes said to be superior 
to formal regu- lation, in that antitrust does not

[[Page 29677]]

require continuing govern- ment oversight of the company business. 
But the AT&T case demonstrates that enforcement of antitrust 
laws can gener- ate as much or more intervention. Like the Standard 
Oil case, the AT&T case reveals a pattern of government control 
ex- panding over time, first to manage prices and avoid ``un- 
healthy'' competition. then approving and disapproving of 
mergers and acquisitions, and ultimately ruling on whether to allow 
innovations in products and services.
    The Microsoft Panic
    And Microsoft? If the assault on this company is to do more good 
than the partly successful breakup of AT&T-let alone the utterly 
unjustified wars on Standard Oil and Alcoa-then one would at the 
very least expect the suit's rationale to survive the passing of 
time. But it hasn't. More than half a decade after the first loud 
warnings about the awful world to come if Microsoft isn't stopped, 
the company's critics have been proven wrong at almost every turn.
    In the year before the introduction of Windows 95, Micro- soft 
announced it would start its own online service, to be called 
Microsoft Network (MSN). An icon for MSN would appear on the screen 
of every computer that shipped with Windows as an operating system; 
this was expected to be a huge advantage for gaining customers. At 
the time, Microsoft had a market share of exactly zero in the online 
services busi- ness. AOL promptly ran to the federal government to 
com- plain that Microsoft's plan was ``anti-competitive.'' 
Technol- ogy journalist Steven Levy wrote an article in Newsweek 
warn- ing that because of MSN, ``One day, dollar bills may be 
re- placed with Bill Dollars, and a piece of every online 
transaction could go through Microsoft's bulging coffers.''
    In Upside magazine, Gary Reback, Brian Arthur, and other devoted 
Microsoft critics wrote, ``It is difficult to imagine that in 
an open society such as this one with multiple information sources, 
a single company could seize sufficient control of in- formation 
transmission so as to constitute a threat to the underpinnings of 
free society. But such a scenario is a real- istic (and perhaps 
probable) outcome.'' Business Week wor- ried that Microsoft 
might ``leverage'' its operating system dominance to 
``corner'' markets such as ``networking, home 
software, and online services. In short, it might largely take 
control of the information superhighway.''
    Later, a group of Microsoft's competitors-Netscape, Oracle, Sun, 
and MCI-urged government action so that Microsoft would not 
``gain control of the Internet,'' arguing that suppressing 
Microsoft would ``ensure the accessibility and affordability of 
information technology and the Internet.'' Netscape's Jim Clark 
offered a similar warning regarding Microsoft's Web browser, 
Internet Explorer: ``If Microsoft owns the browser as well as 
the operating system, there will be no Yahoo!, no Infoseek, no 
Excite, just Bill standing at the gate, pointing out where he wants 
go. Microsoft will be the one and only ``portal'.'' Sun's 
Scott McNealy fretted: ``How are you going to compete if 
Microsoft won't put you on the Microsoft Shopping Center- which will 
be the opening screen of everyone's computer?''
    Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery warned that unless 
Microsoft was stopped, it would turn the ``information 
superhighway'' into a ``toll road.'' In 1997, the 
misnamed Council for a Competitive Electronic Marketplace warned 
that with Windows, Microsoft would be able to capture customers for 
online services for products such as insurance, banking, real 
estate, and local entertainment. A year later, an advocacy group 
called ProComp (which had been created to promote restrictions on 
Microsoft and is funded by Microsoft's busi- ness rivals) warned of 
``the very real potential that Microsoft will become virtually 
the sole gateway to the digital market- place.''
    Similar warnings were made when Windows 98 made its debut with 
Channels (a soon-to-fail version of a ``favorite links'' 
list). As late as April 2000, after AOL announced it would choose 
Netscape as the AOL browser, the Department of Jus- tice was warning 
that Microsoft might ``add proprietary fea- tures to its 
Internet Explorer browser to tighten its control of the main on-ramp 
to the Internet for millions of consumers.'' The government did 
not abolish MSN, nor did it suppress Channels, nor did it outlaw 
``bundling.'' While the pressure of the antitrust case may 
have forced Microsoft to stop en- forcing some terms in contracts 
with some of its business partners, and may have distracted the 
company's leaders from producing new and better products, those 
setbacks were surely minor in light of Microsoft's supposedly 
immense market power. Microsoft's sinister power has had years to 
grow since the DOJ filed its suit. So what happened?
    Windows 95 made its debut with the MSN icon intact, and MSN went 
on to become the most expensive failure in Micro- soft's history. 
The network's content was weak, the interface was horrible, and the 
installation routine was lengthy and error-prone. Meanwhile, AOL 
made its interface better and better, and marketed itself 
incessantly through free sign-up disks and by paying computer 
manufacturers to include an AOL icon on the Windows desktop screen.
    Microsoft Network no longer exists as an online service. It has 
been replaced with a free Web portal, similar to the Ya- hoo! or 
Excite portals. Microsoft's Internet service provider currently 
serves about 5 million customers. AOL has 35 mil- lion.
    The fuss over Microsoft Network shows that antitrust ac- tion 
was not needed to maintain competition, even though MSN was on every 
desktop of every Windows 95 computer. MSN was an inferior product, 
so it failed. The same events illustrate the power of technological 
change to eliminate in- cipient monopolies. The growth of the 
Internet made online services much less important than they used to 
be.
    Despite MSN's failure, however, allowing Microsoft to compete in 
the market for online services produced enormous benefits for 
consumers. When MSN was introduced, AOL was charging $54.20 for 20 
hours of use a month. MSN was priced at $19.95 for that same amount 
of time. Thanks in part to the competition created by MSN, AOL 
eventually dropped its price to between $19.95 and $24.95 for 
unlimited use, and most other online services and Internet service 
providers followed suit. The same story of falling prices and rising 
usage has been repeated in virtually every area where Microsoft's 
entry was predicted to reduce competition and harm consumers. After 
a brisk start. Microsoft sold its much-touted Side- walk sites, 
which operated as local entertainment guides. Its real estate site, 
HomeAdvisor.com, trails Homestore.com and is being forced, like many 
other e-commerce sites, to recon- figure its business strategy. The 
Microsoft Expedia travel site was spun off into anothe company, and 
is now owned by USA Networks, not Microsoft, Microsoft's automobile 
Web site is doing pretty well, but hardly has chokehold on its 
market. But the fact that Microsoft neither dominates nor even still 
attempts Chicken Littles from warning that Microsoft's new XP 
operating system-scheduled for release in late October- will take 
over digital commerce.
    Why No Monopoly?
    One easy conclusion is that Microsoft's ownership of Win- dows 
and Internet Explorer is not enough to give it control of online 
commerce. Microsoft competes with traditional brick-and-mortar 
companies as well as Web sites, with other portals and online 
services that have millions of users, and with companies 
specializing in e-commerce. Even though Microsoft supplies the 
starting point for much Web surfing, the rest of the Net is just a 
click away.
    More fundamentally, the idea that a Web browser could be used to 
control Internet content was hardly believable in the first place. 
One might as well believe that Sony would be able to control 
television programming if it sold 40 percent- or even 95 
percent--of new television sets in the United States. A 
browser, like a television, is just a tool for reaching content. A 
television or a browser that interferes with access to con- tent is, 
by definition, an inferior product. It is not going to have a viable 
economic future, much less become a market leader.
    In 1997, Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold said the company 
wanted to get a ``vig'' (a bookie's share) of every 
Internet transaction that used Microsoft software. But this was 
unrealistic. The Internet vig was possible only in theory, not in 
the real world. Stanford economist Robert Hall offers the following 
scenario for what would happen if Microsoft made the attempt: 
``Yahoo! will ally with a manufacturer of cheap small computers 
and a national Internet service provider to produce an entire system 
that is Yahoo!-branded, defaults to the Yahoo! portal, but also 
provides access to the entire Internet with an open standard browser 
such as Netscape or Opera. The hardware would be cheap enough to be 
given A close look at antitrust's greatest hits-the cases of 
Standard Oil, Alcoa, and even AT&T-reveals a pattern of 
arbitrary rulings, disregard for consumers, and political 
interference with the administration of justice.
away, like cellular phones or cable boxes, and all of the profit 
will be made advertising, monthly fees, and transaction fees.''
    Bill Gates had hoped his company could at least make money from 
banks which used Microsoft software for online banking. That too 
failed, as banks ditched Microsoft

[[Page 29678]]

network- ing software, and instead offered banking services via the 
World Wide Web.
    What about Web servers the computers that serve up the 
Internet's content to Web surfers? Could a company le- verage a huge 
marked share for its browsers into control of the market for 
servers? As it happens, one business tried to do precisely this. The 
company was Netscape, during its period of early dominance on the 
Web. But Netscape offered mis- erable support for developers and 
priced its product extremely high-thus creating an opportunity for 
Micosoft and other competitors. Today, the leading Web server 
software is Apache, a Unix-based program, which is free, and which 
is on 63 percent of servers. Microsoft's MS is second, with 20 
percent. Netscape's Enterprise has 7 percent.
    Even if Microsoft achieves a high share in the server op- 
erating system market, it is likely to have little market power, 
because barriers to entry are low. Server software, including the 
operating system, carries out a limited range of functions. The 
software provides only the simplest user interface, which is the 
source of much of the complexity in full operating sys- tems.
    And what if Microsoft were the only browser company in the 
world? Could it then introduce a browser with Microsoft- only 
features and force the rest of the world to buy Microsoft server 
software, by making IF incompatible with every other company's Web 
server? An allegation to this effect was made in the spring of 2000 
by the Department of Justice, although the court never heard 
evidence on the subject. According to the allegation, Internet 
Explorer included proprietary exten- sions of Kereboras (a security 
program that prevents hack- ers from entering a Web site) that work 
best with the Micro- soft Web server.
    The first practical obstacle to such a strategy is that the 
users of Internet Explorer would be cut off from any Web site that 
did not fall in line with Microsoft's program. This would be major 
competitive defect, to say the least. Older versions of Internet 
Explorer and any remaining copies of other browers on the market 
would still be able to gain access to those sites. An immediate 
market would emerge for new browser able to reach Web sites that did 
not adopt Microsoft's server software. Major Web sites, particulary 
portals, would give away such browsers to ensure their sites could 
be reached AOL as owner of Netscape, would be in particulary good 
position if Microsoft altered Inter- net Explorer to make it 
incompatible with AOL and other Web sites. Microsoft's hold on the 
browser market could never be strong enough to let it extract 
significant value from the server side, despite Microsoft's 
important roles in providing both a browser and server software. 
Individual users would not have to play a major role in opposing 
Micro- soft. A few key Web sites-valued in the stock market at tens 
of billions of dollars--could do it on their own.
    Ignorant Elites
    Because the Internet is still developing so rapidly, reporters 
and politicians are easy prey for manufactured panics. It would be 
much more difficult to create such a fright over a more fa- miliar 
product, such as automobiles. Nobody would believe today that if 
General Motors opened its own chain of filling stations. GM would 
take over all American transportation. But on the Internet, folks 
who can't tell the male end of a dongle from a TCP stack are often 
suckers for silly claims about chokeholds.
    Merely asserting that a company is a ``monopolist'' 
has al- lowed many of Microsoft's competitors to get a free ride 
from reporters and policymakers who ought to know better. For 
example, Jim Barksdale, then CEO of Netscape, said this to Congress 
in 1998: ``I was struck by the fact, in the response of Mr. 
Gates to the question about whether or not he was a monopoly, he 
talked about how short-lived the products were, and we all 
understand that. That doesn't negate whether or not it's monopoly 
though. Even if it went away six months from now, it is monopoly 
today. ``The hypocrisy of Barks- dale's claim is astonishing-
since Netscape's browser at its height held a larger market share 
than Microsoft ever had for Web browsers or for operating systems.
    The scaremongers appear not to have suffered any loss in 
credibility, Steven Levy, the writer who warned that we'd all be 
using ``Bill Dollars'' by now because of the Microsoft 
Net- work, is still sharing his expertise with Newsweek's readers. 
In June 2000 he penned a cover story advising Bill Gates to ca- 
pitulate to most of the government's demands. Similarly, Sun's 
Chairman Scott McNealy applauded Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's 
Microsoft breakup order as a tool to ``protect Inter- net 
technologies from becoming the proprietary presence of any one 
company.''
    A close look at antitrust's greatest hits -the cases of Stan- 
dard Oil, Alcoa, and even AT&T --reveals a pattern of 
arbitrary rulings, disregard for consumers, and political 
interference with the administration of justice. The much shorter 
history of the Microsoft case has exposed the same injustices, along 
with the series of embarrassing exaggerations and falsehoods 
espoused by Microsoft's critics. Where are Microsoft Network, 
Channels, and Sidewalk today? All have disappeared, become 
irrelevant, or been radically transformed by competition and 
changing technology. The internet remains free and decen- tralized, 
and for good reasons Microsoft cannot ``leverage'' its 
dominance in a few markets into control over Internet ac- cess or 
content. To claim otherwise might sell newsmagazines or flummox 
congressman--but it is hardly realistic.
    David B. Kopel ([email protected]) is the director of the 
Center on the Digital Economy at the Heartland Institute. Joseph 
Bast ([email protected]) is president of the Heartland 
Institute. This article is adapted from Antitrust After Microsoft: 
The Obsolescence of Antitrust in the Digital Fra. Copyright o2001 by 
The Heartland Institute and David B. Kopel.



MTC-00031895

Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:45 AM
Dan Cohen 415-285-2591
Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
1329 Rhode Island St
San Francisco, CA 94107--
415.637.5013
[email protected]
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Too many times, our nation has chosen to miss opportunities to 
move forward. Today, many business leaders and state attorneys 
general want to put the Microsoft litigation behind us and target 
our financial resources elsewhere. Please count me among those 
urging you to settle the Microsoft lawsuit.
    I am ununemployed dot-commer whose company was the recipient of 
Microsoft venture capital funds. They believed in our efforts to 
bring voicemail to the Internet. However, when faced with the choice 
of making a further investment that might bring on anti-trust 
backlash as they moved into the telecomm world, they chose to pass 
on the investment and our company falled.
    Microsoft will be forced to make some painful sacrifices by this 
settlement. They must open their code to their competitors and even 
agree to an oversight board on their actions. While these may be 
painful steps, I believe they will bring certainty to the 
marketplace and allow Microsoft, and other technology investors, to 
make decisions based on facts, not fear.



MTC-00031896

January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    I am the President of a talent, movie and television development 
corporation that specializes in telling up-lifting and positive 
stories. I believe that this is how I can best compete in the 
marketplace of ideas here in Hollywood.
    Competition is just as important in the world of technology. I 
have worked on many celebrity promotions with dot-coms, some of whom 
who are no longer with us. I know the importance of competition in 
the marketplace, and I believe fair and open competition in the 
marketplace of ideas is what is needed to bring our economy back 
into shape. That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the 
Microsoft Settlement. The settlement will eliminate Microsoft's 
practice of signing exclusive contracts with their partners. Let's 
get on with our economic lives. There are so many other stories that 
have to be told.
    Sincerely,
    David Goldstein
    President
    Shoebox Entertainment
    6555 Debs Avenue,
    West Hills, CA 91307--
    voice: (818)730-6442
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00031897

CANTON TEXAS
Chamber of Commerce
January 24, 2002

[[Page 29679]]

Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    I have personally been involved in the internet technology in 
the immediate and regional business community. Also, have observed 
with much interest and wonderment about the reasoning behind the 
government's attempt to get involved in private enterprise. To me, 
it is a total additional waste of taxpayer money for the government 
to pursue any further their attempts that results ONLY in millions 
of dollars in unnecessary legal fees. Please, Court, accept the 
negotiated settlement dismiss the remaining lawsuits and let us get 
back to our business where technology has become so important.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Collins
    President
    315 First Monday Lane
    Canton, Texas 75103
    (903) 567-2991
    Fax: (903) 567-5708
    Web: www.cantontx.com



MTC-00031898

Jan Johnson Yopp
506 Robert Hunt Drive
Carrboro,NC 27510
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
Re: Microsoft Case
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement in the U.S. 
v. Microsoft case. As a college professor and a parent. I know the 
importance of having software that is easy to use, integrated, 
affordable and reliable,
    Microsoft has a reputation for developing products that are easy 
for consumers and students to use. As an educator, I know how 
important it is to encourage new idea and innovation. The proposed 
settlement agreement in the U.S. v. Microsoft case will allow the 
company to continue its leadership as an innovative designer of 
software products. At the same time it will provide remedies for 
Microsoft competitors who will have access to information about 
technical specifications about the Windows operating system. 
Competitors will also be able to ship software that competes with 
software in the Windows operating system and not fear any legal 
action from Microsoft.
    Settlement of this case would be an important step in 
encouraging technology companies to get back to the business of 
developing innovative software products. A strong technology 
industry could provide a much need boost to the overall economy and 
in turn a good job market for my students.
    Best wishes as you deal with this important issue.
    Sincerely,
    Jan Johnson Yopp



MTC-00031899

January 22, 2002
Renata Heese
Antitrust Division--Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    I am writing in support of the settlement proposed in the U.S. 
v. Microsoft case. The time has come for the legal fighting to end. 
Although this settlement is not perfect, it does address the 
concerns of the court and consumers. I believe it would also help 
stimulate the economy. Microsoft and other technology companies have 
provided a boost to the economy in the past, and the next wave of 
technological advances is sure to give the economy another much 
needed boost.
    I think it's time to let Microsoft and its competitors fight it 
out in the open market rather than in court.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Meyers Marsiglia



MTC-00031900

Virginia House of Delegates
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Renata Hesse
Organization: U.S. Dept Justice--Antitrust Div.
FAX Number: (202)616-9937
Phone Number: ( )
Local Long Distance -x-
Number of Pages including this cover sheet: 2
From: Delegate Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr.
Room Number: 804
Telephone Number: (804) 698-1059
Comments:
If you have any problems with this transmission, please call the 
House Fax Center at: (804) 698-1558
Our Fax Number is (804) 786-6310
WATKINS M. ABBITT, JR.
POST OFFICE BOX 003
APPOMATTOX, VIRGINIA 24522
FIFTY-NINTH DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE of DELEGATES
RICHMOND
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
LABOR AND COMMERCE (CO-CHAIR)
GENERAL LAWS
TRANSPORTATION
MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U. S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW #1200
Washington, DC 20530
By Facsimile: (202)616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the State Delegate from the 59th House District in Virginia, 
I am writing to encourage you to approve the settlement agreement of 
the United States v. Microsoft.
    Virginia has been fortunate to attract a diverse and wide-
ranging number of technology firms over the past 10 years, and with 
those firms choosing to come here, we have ensured our area's 
continued growth and future prosperity. Being a technology -friendly 
state put Virginia on the map with the emerging IT industry in the 
1990s and as IT flourished, our state reaped benefits as well. We 
embraced the new economy and it responded. The government should not 
be an inhibitor, but an enabler of consumers, entrepreneurs, and the 
marketplace.
    Technology empowers individuals, both here in the Commonwealth 
and, of course, beyond our borders. It gives individuals 
opportunities to participate in an economy which they may never have 
thought possible. It opens the door to the opportunity for so many 
who may have never have gotten the knock on the door in the past. 
Many women in business are maximizing the power of the IT economy 
with their thoughts and ideas, and many children who may have gotten 
left behind are empowered with the learning and teaching potential 
of the Internet.
    More than half of all Internet traffic travels through Virginia. 
The proposed settlement is tough, yet reasonable, and a valuable 
tool in bringing stability back to our economy. It is my hope that 
the Court will approve the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
nine plaintiffs in the anti-trust case against it, including the 
federal government.
    Sincerely,
    Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr.
    DISTRICT: (804)352-2880--RICHMOND: 
(804)698-1059



MTC-00031901

01/23/02 15:21 TEL 3154760420 Peerless Press 01
Peerless Press, Inc.
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. vs Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to you to let you know that I am in support of the 
settlement of the case of the U.S. vs Microsoft for the following 
reason:
    I work for a small business which uses and depends on a lot of 
Microsoft software in our computers to help run our business better 
and more efficiently. In my opinion, there has been no consumer harm 
as a result of any actions taken by Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft's 
innovation has led to tremendous benefits for consumers. such as 
better products and lower prices. Antitrust law is supposed to be 
about consumer harm, and on that key issue, the government has 
failed to show any harm whatsoever.
    Given that the economy is now in recession, the last thing we 
need is more litigation and regulation of the high-tech industry. 
Settlement of this case is in everyone's best interests--the 
technology industry, the economy and consumers.
    I, as a concerned consumer, can only hope that the agreed upon 
settlement would be left in place. Further litigation can only cost 
the taxpayers more money and would it really be able to provide a 
better solution?
    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and hopefully 
your consideration.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29680]]

    Susan C. Letterman
    1112 East Fayette Street
    P.O. Box 6638
    Syracuse, New York 13217-6638
    315-476-6051
    Toll Free: 877-476-6051
    Fax: 315 476-0429



MTC-00031902

01/23/02 WED 14:04 FAX 319 398 5228 C.R. CHAMBER 001
Cedar Rapids Area
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
January 23,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The grim economic realities of the last year have been endured 
by all of us. I am the President and CEO of the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) 
Chamber of Commerce and have found that the challenges of this new 
economy have been driven home in the last few months as employers 
have shut down completely or cut costs drastically.
    My experiences with the Cedar Rapids Chamber of Commerce have 
emphasized lessons I learned when I served as Speaker of the House 
in the Iowa Legislature. The actions of government officials can 
have unintended and far-reaching consequences. Government also has 
opportunities at times to provide great benefit with its actions.
    Government has an opportunity in the anti-trust case against the 
Microsoft Corporation to be fiscally responsible while at the same 
time sending a signal to start-up technology companies and other 
businesses that they can and should take business risks again 
without the threat of government intrusion.
    Iowa, like the nation, is trying to restart an economy. Iowa 
also remains focused on attracting and retaining young people to our 
state. It's time to remove the uncertainty this case has caused to 
loom over the business world. Settling the Microsoft case is best 
for our economic health and it appears that the agreement offered is 
a good one.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Corbett
    424 First Avenue NE
    PO Box 74
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    52487-4880
    Phone: (319(5317
    Fax: (319) 398-5228
    www.cedarrapids.org



MTC-00031903

Jan 23 02 12:04p p.1
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is being written in support of the settlement 
currently being considered by the federal court in US v. Microsoft. 
Specifically, I would like to let the court know that I believe the 
settlement puts in place a very strong enforcement method to ensure 
Microsoft does not further violate antitrust laws. I realize that 
some of Microsoft's competitors are arguing that the enforcement 
methods are not strong enough and I totally disagree.
    From my understanding of this agreement, there are vast amounts 
of resources and tools available that will ensure any future 
violations by Microsoft are immediately investigated and acted upon. 
It seems that any complaint about Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement is sure to be dealt with. But this is not the biggest 
reason we can be assured no violations will occur.
    The settlement's creation of a Technical Committee is a very 
good idea. Because the committee has an open amount of positions 
available, the public is assured that it will be well staffed. More 
importantly, this committee is independent and will reside on the 
Microsoft campus. There is no way Microsoft will be able to commit 
any harm with this sort of situation in place.
    I am writing this letter because those opposed to the settlement 
are arguing that there is not a strong enough safeguard to prevent 
Microsoft from committing future wrongs. As you can see from my 
statements above, that is simply not the case.
    Sincerely,
    Kelley Klassen
    6988 Beagle Street
    San Diego, CA 92111
    (858) 385-5604



MTC-00031904

FROM : STEIN FINANCIAL PHONE No. : 425 7451289 Jan. 23 2002
11:55AM P1
STEIN FINANCIAL SERVICES
William A. Stein, CLU ChFC
Registered Investment Advisor
Christopher N. Stein
Registered Representative*
16300 MILL CREEK BLVD, STE 204--
MILL CREEK, WA 98012--
(425) 742-6694--
FAX: (425) 745-1289
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you regarding the Microsoft case and the 
settlement. I am a business owner, shareholder and customer of 
Microsoft. In fact I am writing you this letter using Microsoft 
Word. I do not type but this software has allowed me to learn. This 
is just one of the many software products we use in our business. 
Microsoft products have made all Americans more productive and have 
contributed a great deal to the success of our economy. There 
competitors could not handle this so they use the courts to compete 
and now we taxpayers cover the costs.
    American business is based on free enterprise, why should 
Microsoft not be allowed to market their product without sharing 
their secrets. Does Coca Cola have to give away their formula? The 
current settlement, which I believe will limit Microsoft is fair. 
They have agreed to share their sources codes and interface design 
and not enter into any obligatory contracts, thus allowing third 
parties to offer other products on computers. I am an independent 
businessperson, I run my own company, and Microsoft products have 
allowed me to build a successful company using their products and 
innovations. Please uphold the settlement for the good of our 
economy and the computer industry. It is time to put an end to the 
waste of taxpayer money and this controversy.
    Sincerely,
    William A. Stein, CLU, ChFC
    Registered Investment Advisor



MTC-00031905

JAN-23-2002 13:56 LABI 225 929 6054 P. 01/01
Louisiana Association of Business & lndustry
 POST OFFICE BOX 80258
 BATON ROUGE, LA 70898-0258
 (225) 928-5388
 FAX(225)929-6054
www.labi.org
January 23, 2002
FAX LETTER: 202-616-9937
Ms. Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Settlement of U. S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of this proposed settlement.
    I deeply appreciate the efforts of our government in pursuing 
antitrust activities and believe that this settlement would be a 
positive development in this quest.
    I know that the government and Microsoft lawyers have fought 
diligently in this important case. As a business leader, I would 
like to see the case resolved so that private industry can return to 
competing in the marketplace.
    The technology sector of our economy is looking for a signal to 
get moving again. The settlement of this case can provide the right 
signal that competition is alive and well through innovation and 
hard work and not continued litigation.
    Please know that I appreciate your consideration of my views on 
this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel L. Juneau
    President



MTC-00031906

JAN-23-2002 WED 02:ll PM CITY OF NEW MADRID FAX NO. 1573748402 
P.01
New Madrid Chamber of Commerce
 PO Box 96
New Madrid, MO 63869
 573/748-5300
 fax: 573/748-5402
Fax Transmittal
Date: 1/23/02
TO: Renata Hesse, Department
Fax: 202-616-9937
From: Margaret Palmer
Subject: Microsoft Public Comments
Number of pages including cover sheet: 2
JAN-23-2002 WED 02:ll PM CITY OF NEW MADRID FAX NO. 1573748402 
P. 02

[[Page 29681]]

NEW MADRID, MO
Chamber of Commerce
560 Mott Street
P.O. BOX 96
New Madrid, Missouri 63869
Office (573) 748-5300
Fax (573) 748-5402
Toll Free (877) 748-5300
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata B, Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Fax: 202-616-9937
RE: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    On behalf of the New Madrid Chamber of Commerce I want to 
express our full support of the Department of Justice and the nine 
Attorneys General for their efforts to finally put an end to this 
case and agree to a settlement that is in our nation's best 
interest.
    We feel if Microsoft is in agreement and all other parties are 
in agreement then what is the hold up. Lets all get on with business 
as usual.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Palmer
    Executive Director
    Oldest American City West of the Mississippi
    Incorporated 1803



MTC-00031907

JAN-23-2002 11:03 AM WALTER OUSTERMAN 510 655 2797 P. 01
1/17/2002 12:20 PM FROM: Fax No: 15106352797.....131 PAGE: 003 OF 
003
21 Lincoln Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Opposition to the Microsoft settlement is absurd. The settlement 
is a fair and reasonable conclusion to the issue. Microsoft has made 
many concessions to their competitors. Anyone desiring further 
litigation is showing greed and irrationality.
    Microsoft has given up much in this case. They have agreed to 
license Windows at a uniform price. They have agreed to disclose 
their; internal interface designs. They have agreed to contract 
restrictions. They have even allowed for the creation of an advisory 
board. Microsoft has also agreed to not to retaliate against 
companies that use, sell, or promote non- Microsoft products. Enough 
is enough.
    The settlement offers the country an opportunity to get past 
this lawsuit and move on to more important issues. I support the 
settlement and look forward to seeing this lawsuit come to an end.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Ousterman



MTC-00031908

FROM :GEORGEHAAS#2853 FAX NO. :8314399599 Jan. 23 2002 12:08PM 
P1
FAX
Date:
January23, 2002
Pages: 3 (incl. cover)
FROM: George Haas
 Fax: (831)439-9599
TO: Renata Hesse
 Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
 U.S. Department of Justice
 601 D Street. NW, Suite 1200
 Washington, DC 20530
 Fax:(202)616-9937 or (202)307-1454
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Public Comment
Message:
Attached are my comments for your consideration.
FROM :GEORGEHAAS#2853
FAX NO. : 8314399599 Jan. 23 2002 12:08PM P2
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: (202)616-9937 or (202)307-1454
Re: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft must be stopped. Their continuing predatory, 
monopolistic practices are a deadly threat to innovation in the 
computer industry. Ultimately, without the influence of competition 
the incredible advances in computer technology that we have 
continued to see will stop.
    Microsoft will no longer have any incentive to innovate. 
Microsoft has never shown the ability, or inclination, to develop 
new technologies. Their modus operandi has been to copy popular 
products, make slight variations to avoid obvious patent violations, 
and then give them away for free with their operating system, thus 
killing the competitor. Every one knows this, but few have the 
resources to combat them. Since the ``Justice'' Department 
has given up the fight, it is critical that the States' case 
prevail, before the damage Microsoft inflicts on society becomes 
irreparable. It is already too late for many vibrant companies that 
have been laid waste, as follows: Borland and Lotus created 
spreadsheets that revolutionized business. Microsoft copied that 
idea and gave it away for free with their operating system. Now 
there is no longer a spreadsheet industry, there is only Microsoft.
    Apple's Macintosh Operating System was brilliantly intuitive and 
proved to the world that personal computers could be useful to the 
common man. Microsoft brazenly stole that concept, re-designed DOS 
around it, gave it a new name, then strong-armed PC makers into 
installing Microsoft operating systems. Now Apple clings to a 5 per 
cent market share, and only exists at the mercy of Microsoft.
    There are two reasons why Microsoft allows Apple to survive. One 
is because if Apple was killed, then there would be no question that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. The second is that, if Apple was gone, 
Microsoft would have no one to steal ideas from any more. Now 
victorious over all of the software industry, Microsoft moves on to 
the Internet. By giving away Explorer for free, they have all but 
eliminated Netscape. This is an obscene travesty. It makes a mockery 
of the anti-trust laws.
    Now Microsoft has its sights on Sun's Java, Apple's QuickTime, 
Linux and the list goes on. The sad part is that Java and Linux are 
designed to make the Internet a platform for everyone to use freely, 
sharing ideas that would benefit all Internet users, ultimately 
leading to a more efficient on-line community. Microsoft would 
subvert this whole concept by bastardizing this on-line software to 
operate only on Windows. By doing this they would eventually 
eliminate independent on-line programming and all potential Internet 
competition.
    FROM :GEORGEHAAS#2853
    FAX NO. : 8314399599 Jan. 23 2002 12:08PM P3
    Microsoft never stops to consider the cost of damage done to 
consumers through the loss of opportunities that alternative 
resources could provide. Nor do they consider the damage done to 
economies all over the world that will never have the benefit of 
potential productivity gains that would have occurred in a truly 
free marketplace.
    There are some resources, services, and industries, e.g., oil, 
gold, the postal service, or rail lines, that are strategically too 
important to be controlled by a single corporate entity. The 
Internet is that kind of resource. It is already too late for the 
software industry. Please save the Internet from this scourge.
    Finally, please consider the threat to national security if the 
world comes to rely on Microsoft operating systems, carrying a vast 
majority of the world's email correspondence. They have never proven 
that they can be made secure from virus attacks, or from their own 
design flaws. Nor has Microsoft ever proven that it can be trusted.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Cordially,
    George Haas
    20 Fred Court
    Scotts Valley, CA 95066
    Fax: (831)439-9599
    email: [email protected]
    cc: Congressman Mike Honda



MTC-00031909

01/23/2002 16:40 CITY SECRETARY OFFICE -> 918889194018
NO. 008 002
OSCAR G. ORTIZ. MAYOR
FELIX A. BARKER. MAYOR PRO--TEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CRAIG HANNAH
THOMAS J. HENDERSON
TOM GILLAM, III
REV. RONNIE LINDEN
BOB BOWERS
ROSE MITCHELL CHAISSON
ROBERT E. ALLEN
STEPHEN FITZGIBBONS
CITY MANAGER
CAROLYN DIXON
CITY SECRETARY
MARK T. SOKOLOW
CITY ATTORNEY
Energy City
City of Port Arthur Texas
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney

[[Page 29682]]

Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Court has an opportunity to end one of the most misguided 
and wasteful lawsuits in the history of the United States by 
dismissing the remaining lawsuits against Microsoft Corporation and 
accepting the proposed settlement.
    The cost of the lengthy litigation has now exceeded $30 million 
and is rapidly rising as each day passes. Any financial judgement 
against Microsoft will be so diminished by legal and administrative 
fees that very little will actually find its way to the consumer.
    The proposed settlement puts an end to the wasteful use of 
taxpayer dollars and requires Microsoft to make substantial 
financial and proprietary concessions.
    Though this settlement may not appeal to Microsoft's 
competitors, it certainly has great appeal to those of us who would 
like to see the continuance of the technological advances made by 
one of America's great success stories.
    I am writing to ask that the Court accept the settlement and let 
Microsoft and the rest of the high tech industry get back to 
developing innovative products in a truly competitive atmosphere.
    Sincerely,
    Oscar G. Ortiz
    Mayor
    P.O. Box 1089
    PORTARTHUR, TEXAS 77641-1089
    409/983-8115
    FAX 409/983-8291



MTC-00031910

FROM: Bionomix FAX NO.: 6262290847 Jan. 23 2002 04:20PM P1
23 Jan 02
fax: 202-307-1454
To: Renata B. Hesse
 Antitrust Division
 U.S. Department of Justice
 601 D Street NW
 Suite 1200
 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: The Microsoft Settlement
    I am the Director of Scientific Computing at a small 
bioinformatics company in Pasadena CA. The views expressed here do 
not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    I have read the Revised Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) at http:/
/www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to submit the following 
comment regarding the PFJ in the DOJ vs. Microsoft case.
    In my company, we are studying protein structures to try to 
develop new cures for diseases. We would be unable to do this were 
it not for the incredible development pace and high quality of free 
software development, as represented by the gnu/linux operating 
system and tools, the apache web server, the perl and python 
programming languages, the SAMBA server, etc. Our programmers 
participate in the development of free software, and our company 
hopes to release a molecular modelling tool under a public license.
    Section III(J) (2) of the PFJ contains some very strong language 
against entities involved in the creation of free software. 
Specifically, the language says that Microsoft need not describe nor 
license the 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, ...''
    Likewise, Section III(D) explicitly lists ``ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs,'' - businesses as defined in Sect 
VI--as being the only recipients of API and protocol 
disclosures. Both of these clauses exclude entities producing free 
software--entities like academic faculty, national labs, 
students, hobbyists, etc.
    But, in my opinion, the ONLY remaining challenge to Microsoft's 
stranglehold on PC software and innovation is coming from these non-
``business'' entities.
    Thus, the exclusion of free software producing entities from 
this remedy excludes the only entities that challenge the monopoly.
    Certainly this is clear to Microsoft, or this language would not 
be present in the remedy. For the remedy to have any impact, the API 
disclosures must be made universally, e.g., on a simple website 
explaining the API's, file formats, whatever--for anyone to 
see. This also simplifies the process for Microsoft, since every 
simple disclosure of their API's need not be accompanied by a 
contract and team of lawyers.
    Without disclosures to the free software community, the only 
challengers to the monopoly, the remedy is meaningless.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Jeff Regan
    626-229-0834
    Bionomix
    1110 E Walnut Suite 300
    Pasadena CA



MTC-00031912

Date: January23, 2002
Attention: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Department of Justice
(202)-307-1454
From: Mr. and Mrs. John D. Simpson
P.O. Box 5864
Carmel, California 93921
Fax: 831-624-7470
 Home Phone: 831-624-5858
    As taxpayers and consumers we support the Microsoft settlement. 
Let's stop wasting taxpayer money and get this thing settled. This 
settlement is only fair.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. and Mrs. John D. Simpson



MTC-00031913

01/23/02 19:04 FAX 703 757 7658 01
J.M. McLaughlin
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing to say we agree with the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. We feel the terms 
of the settlement are just. Microsoft has maintained their huge 
market share by investing heavily in their Windows operating system 
and charging competitive prices, which are a benefit to the 
consumer. This has resulted in a standard in the computer industry 
that otherwise would have been difficult to achieve. This has been 
critical to the efficient management of computers in businesses and 
development of cost effective, robust application software.
    Future progress in the computer industry will be further 
hampered if the settlement terms are thrown out and judicial 
proceedings continue. We feel that now is the time to give Microsoft 
the opportunity to make good on their promises and resolve any 
uncompetitive practices that were identified in the suit.
    Sincerely,
    Joe and Pam McLaughlin



MTC-00031914

Steve Sukup 515-299-9646 P.1
Fax
To: RENATA HESSE DOJ.
From: CHAD OLSEN
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Pages: 2 (INCLUDING THIS ONE)
Date: 23JAN 2002
Steve Sukup
515-298-9646 p.2
Chad F. Olsen
300 South Fifth Street
Guthrie Center, IA 50115
23 January 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft deserve praise for their 
work in settling the Microsoft anti-trust case. The federal 
government and the nine states that joined the settlement know that 
settling this case is good for the nation's economy. As the owner of 
a business that depends on a high level of consumer confidence I am 
very aware of our fiscal health.
    The government's pursuit of Microsoft over the last several 
years has had a real impact on the technology industry. Evidence of 
this is found in slow software sales and the sinking value of 
technology stocks. The negative results of this case are not limited 
to the technology industry.
    Many Americans have their retirement or saving funds wrapped up 
in some sort of 401(k), IRA or pension fund, and many of these funds 
are partially dependent on technology-based stocks. When the 
governments case against Microsoft gained steamed and threatened a 
break-up, tech stocks crashed, and Americans from all walks of life 
saw the value of their savings and retirement funds plummet.
    The feeling of uncertainty created by a bearish stock market 
quickly affected other areas. Consumers stopped spending money, 
hurting small businesses like mine. Workers felt the tightening, 
too, when corporations stopped hiring new employees and/or laying 
off existing ones.

[[Page 29683]]

    Additionally, all reports that I have read indicate that this 
settlement is an equitable agreement that provides tough remedies 
for the portions of the complaint that have been upheld in court.
    Please support the Microsoft settlement
    Sincerely,
    Chad F. Olsen



MTC-00031915

01/23/2002 15:32 FAX 4257789645
CB BAIN EDMONDS 002
8719 238th Street Southwest Apt. B7
Edmonds, WA 98026
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue needs to be put 
to rest and Microsoft needs to be able to move on. The terms of the 
settlement are more than fair; Microsoft has agreed to give up a 
lot. The government needs to agree to the settlement and stop 
harassing Microsoft.
    This government over regulation is a slap in the face to the 
free enterprise system. Microsoft is simply a better company than 
its competitors. Because of personal agendas and the influence of 
uncompetitive companies this entire issue arose. Now Microsoft has 
had to agree to terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were at issue in the suit, simply to put the issue 
behind them.
    After three long years this case needs to be wrapped up. Many 
investors have been hurt and in turn this has had an adverse effect 
on our ailing economy. The government is supposed to work for all 
the people not for a few special interest groups. Please accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement and allow Microsoft to return to 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Alberta Nielsen E-Mail [email protected]



MTC-00031916

SENT BY: KEYCORP CORPORATE TAX : l-23- 2 : 18:36 : KEYCORP CORP TAX-
202 353 8856: # 1/1
Post-it Fax note
7671
To ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT
SUBJ: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Fax #1202 307-1454
Paul Castle
4185 Laurell Lane
North Olmsted, OH 44070-2511
TEL (440) 734-0732
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a computer user and supporter of Microsoft, I have followed 
the antitrust case and the negotiation and settlement process. I 
would like to see the current settlement agreement remain, because I 
believe it creates the most optimal compromise for all parties 
involved.
    Microsoft is sharing its software and its know-how with the 
computer industry. And it has agreed to the creation of a committee 
that will oversee the company's compliance with the terms of the 
settlement agreement and resolve disputes as they arise. I see this 
as an equitable solution to this complex issue. Moreover, I believe 
that both Microsoft and the government have important work to tend 
to, and this case should be put behind all of us. Microsoft is an 
important contributor to the technological and economic success of 
America. The company has taken great steps to improve its 
performance in the market, and I believe that it can now devote more 
of its resources to technological innovation and improvement. The 
current arrangement is in the best interest of the industry and the 
American public and should remain in its current form. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paul E. Castle



MTC-00031917

From: Mirriam Schwartz
2417 Vista Lane
Anacortes, WA 98221
To the U.S. Dept. of Justice
Attn. Ms. Renata B. Hesse
    I urge the D.O.J. to approve the Microsoft Settlement now.
    Mirriam Schwartz



MTC-00031919

Jan 23 02 04:31p HRROLD E. YARNELL, JR
1-818 883 5714 p.1
01-23-02
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ATTN: MS. RENATA B. HESSE
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I, HAROLD E. YARNELL, JR. SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT AND 
URGE DOJ TO SETTLE THAT MATTER.
    THE ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT BY COMPETITORS IS 
OUTRAGEOUS AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
    HAROLD E. YARNELL, JR.
    4156 MATISSE AVE
    WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364-5337



MTC-00031920

01/23/2002 19:12 4258619863
CERTAPRO PAINTERS
PAGE 01
12809 NE 32nd Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to contact you to ask for your support of the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Though the legal action 
had some merits, the government expense of three years in court over 
this matter has surpassed its benefit, so it's time to bring it all 
to an end.
    With technology changing so rapidly, no one can possibly hold a 
monopoly on the software industry, so it's not worth splitting it 
apart. Microsoft has used some very aggressive tactics against its 
rivals, yet the bottom line is that there is a choice out there and 
the consumer isn't clamoring for it. However, despite the vindictive 
nature of the proceedings, Microsoft has come to an agreement after 
the involvement of a court-appointed mediator, which led to a 
variety of gestures that outdo even the Justice Department's 
original complaints. It's time to accept this deal and allow for 
this settlement to take root. These proposed terms should allow for 
a more wide-open market and for Microsoft's competitors to have 
their chance, without the disruption of breaking up a company that 
has revolutionized the PC industry. I appreciate your attention to 
my feedback.
    Sincerely,
    Max Decker



MTC-00031921

Jan 23 02 01:06p Parallel 21, Inc. 8085482125
PARALLEL 21
internet application developer
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The antitrust suit brought about against Microsoft was worth 
pursuing because it was a learning experience for both sides of the 
table. I would have preferred that the lesson was a bit less 
expensive, but that is water under the bridge. Now we have an 
opportunity to show what we learned. The settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice was is a good conclusion to 
this case, but pursuing further litigation will only delay the 
advancement of technology. The case must be closed; the taxpayer 
cannot go on picking up the expense of an uneconomical situation.
    The settlement instructs Microsoft to provide information 
regarding the development of software products to its competitors. 
Microsoft is also to refrain from retaliating against computer 
makers that may ship software that would compete with the Windows 
OS. I believe that these provisions and others in the settlement 
provide good guidelines for Microsoft to be a responsible leader of 
the IT industry. The suit must demonstrate what not to do as a big 
business, but Microsoft should not be shrouded in litigation for 
providing the consumer with superior products. I strongly urge you 
to make certain that this settlement is confirmed.
    Sincerely,
    Alika Reppun
    Director



MTC-00031922

FROM : MARY ALICE
FAX NO. : 619 6593705 Jan. 23 2002 03:14PM P1
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in support of Microsoft and settling your office's 
antitrust case against the company. Allowing Microsoft to move on 
with business is good for the consumers, the company itself, and the 
economy as a whole--and the economy needs all the help it can 
get right now.

[[Page 29684]]

    I have been following the case, and I think that the terms of 
the agreement are amicable to all involved parties. Microsoft's 
concessions provide ample room for the growth of competition, and 
users will have more freedom of choice than ever in regard to what 
programs they choose to run. Instituting uniform pricing for 
computer manufacturers will also create a healthy balance and foster 
competitive spirit for software programmers.
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft suit without any additional 
delay. Their success is important to individual consumers, as well 
as the American economy itself.
    Sincerely,
    Mary McBride



MTC-00031923

Jan-23-02 02:58pm From-Alpha Engineering +3607381040
T-121 P. 001/001 F-357
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and 
should not be adopted. The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and would inhibit 
the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems.
    Microsoft increases the ``applications barrier to 
entry'' by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the ``applications barrier to 
entry''.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents. This provision could 
be a vital key to enabling competitive software products in the 
marketplace.
    Duane Foster
    PO Box 695
    Bellingham, WA 98227



MTC-00031924

01/23/02 17:59
NO.024 001
Alba International
P.O. Box 111
North Aurora, IL 60542
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Facsimile
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The public is allowed to comment on the ``First Judgement 
Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement in the case of US v. 
Mircrosoft. I respectfully request that courts approve of this 
settlement, thereby ending the case against Microsoft and allowing 
them to get back to business.
    As to the case, I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly for a few 
different reasons: Microsoft currently has ninety percent of market 
in operating systems. Yet that number decreases each year. Linux and 
open source-software command more market share with each generation 
of new computer users. I believe Microsoft's dominance is not a 
result of monopolistic ways, but rather of providing the most simple 
version of a complex product. As consumers become more 
sophisticated, Microsoft will continue to lose market share. But 
don't punish Microsoft because people choose their product.
    Even though Microsoft has a large share of the market, consumers 
are not harmed by pricing or service. The relative price of Windows 
right now is less than one fifth the price of an operating system in 
1989. By definition, a monopoly harms consumers with unfair pricing. 
In addition, Microsoft maintains the highest standards in customer 
service and continues to bring innovative products to market, These 
are also contrary to traditional monopolistic practices.
    Whatever the issues, the government has dealt with them in the 
settlement. Therefore, please support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Arundale
    Vice President



MTC-00031925

Jan 23 02 05:37p Dave Thomas
209-577-4420
p. 1
The Risk Takers
P.O. Box 576626, Modesto, CA 95357 (209) 577-4373
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
ViAFACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing the courts to counter some of the arguments made by 
Microsoft's competitors that the proposed settlement does not go far 
enough in punishing Microsoft. I believe that the settlement is 
extremely fair and should be supported. I also believe that 
accepting the settlement is much better than the alternative; 
continued litigation.
    I have reviewed a paper written by Robert Hahn of American 
Enterprise Institute and agree with his arguments on this matter. 
Mr. Hahn gives compelling economical reasons for the country and the 
Court to choose to accept this settlement rather than go through 
even more litigation. One reason to accept the settlement is that 
Plaintiff's may lose some of the concessions Microsoft gave in the 
settlement. To end this case, Microsoft was willing to compromise on 
important issues. Rejecting the settlement may jeopardize those 
concessions. Mr. Hahn also makes the point that they are too many 
working Americans who have a stake in this settlement. The millions 
of people who work for independent software and hardware companies 
selling computers with Microsoft products, all have something to 
gain from this settlement. Continuing their economic uncertainty 
through prolonged litigation is unfair and irrational.
    The final point is that the settlement truly addresses the acts 
ruled to be anticompetitive by the Court of Appeals. Those issues 
introduced by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson that may not be 
addressed in this settlement were primarily vacated by the Court of 
Appeals. The real problems-that conduct found to be anticompetitive 
by the Court of Appeals-are dealt with in the proposed settlement. 
In other words, the settlement is comprehensive according to prior 
judgments.
    The Court should approve the settlement in the case against 
Microsoft. It is in the best interest of this country.
    Sincerely,
    DAVE THOMAS
    Owner
    THOMAS INSURANCE SERVICES, Inc. Unique, Personalized Brokerage



MTC-00031926

Jan 23 02 07:13p Gary Pearce 9197878031 p. 1
JAN-18-2002 16:05 ZOOM CULTURE 919 960 0032 P.01/01
Billy Warden
2647 St. Mary's St.
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-881-2029
[email protected]
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    I have the good fortune to be located in one of the nation's 
most dynamic high-tech centers, the Research Triangle of North 
Carolina. Through my experience in journalism, politics and 
advertising, I have seen the importance of competition and 
innovation in the information technology industry.
    This is why I strongly believe that it would be in the best 
interest of our nation's overall economy for the courts to approve 
the pending settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft 
may well have stepped over the line as a fierce competitor. The 
courts have ruled that it did. Now, through the efforts of a court-
appointed mediator, this settlement has been negotiated.
    The U.S. Justice Department has concluded that the settlement 
protects consumers and competitors alike from continued anti-
competitive actions by Microsoft. The Attorney General of North 
Carolina and other states have reached the same conclusion. 
Accordingly, it is my hope that the settlement now will be finalized 
and approved by the court. Further litigation of this matter is not 
in the best interests of consumers or of our economy generally.
    Thank you for attention.
    Sincerely,
    Billy Warden



MTC-00031927

JAN-23-2002 WED 07:20 FM FROM:
FAX: PAGE 1
JAMES VICTOR CONNAUGHTON
January 23, 2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney

[[Page 29685]]

Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
WASHINGTON DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    I am active in the technology business and I am writing in full 
support of the settlement of this case. My company uses technology 
more and more each and every day.
    I believe that strong competition in the computer and software 
business leads to better products for consumers and businesses. This 
proposed settlement corrects the findings found by the court and 
protects the consumer.
    I think approving this settlement will send a clear message to 
the technology sector of our economy. The message will be that 
competition is alive and the place to compete is in the marketplace, 
not the courtroom.
    Sincerely,
    JAY CONNAUGHTON
    929 SOUTH HARRISON COVINGTON, LA 70433
    PHONE: 985-875-0031



MTC-00031928

JAN-23-2002 WED 07:18 PM FROM: FAX: PAGE 1
people who think innovative ADVERTISING
985.809.1975 fax 985.809.1991
to Renata Heese
from Jennifer Connaughton
date 23 Jan 02
pages to follow 1
January 23, 2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division'
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-6 16-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    I am active in the technology business and I am writing in full 
support of the settlement of this case. My company uses technology 
more and more each and every day. I believe that strong competition 
in the computer and software business leads to better products for 
consumers and businesses, This proposed settlement corrects the 
findings found by the court and protects the consumer. I think 
approving this settlement will send a clear message to the 
technology sector of our economy. The message will be that 
competition is alive and the place to compete is in the marketplace, 
not the courtroom.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00031929

Jan 23 02 06:44p
Gary Pearce
9197878031 p.1
4500 Council Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
919-571-1914
[email protected]
Parker & Associates
January 19, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an individual who enjoys and depends very much on the 
computer and on user-friendly computer software, I write to express 
my personal hope that the federal courts will approve the settlement 
I understand is pending in the Microsoft antitrust matter. Microsoft 
certainly has been an aggressive competitor. Perhaps the company has 
stepped over the line at times. However, this case now has dragged 
on for more than three years. During that time the stock market has 
dropped precipitously, as I am painfully aware. Many information 
technology companies have gone under and our economy has fallen into 
a recession. It has left many here in the Triangle area of North 
Carolina unemployed, a number of them in my church congregation.
    Continued litigation cannot resolve these problems. Continued 
warfare in the courtroom cannot restore the strength of our economy. 
It is time to bring this matter to a close.
    The proposed settlement will require Microsoft to change its 
ways. And we don't have to take Bill Gates' word for it. The 
settlement will set up an independent committee to monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the agreement.
    North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has agreed to the 
settlement. I have great confidence in Attorney General Cooper's 
judgment in this matter, having worked with him closely in other 
matters. Therefore, I join with him and with other citizens in 
calling for a speedy resolution of this matter and approval of the 
agreement.
    Thank you,
    Joe M. (Joe) Parker
    Highway Safety Consulting



MTC-00031930

174 N Highland Avenue
Norristown, PA 19403-2974
January 20 ,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is my opinion that the Microsoft anti-trust case be resolved 
as soon as possible. Its harmful side effects are already becoming 
evident in our slowing economy. In any case this lawsuit was wrong 
to begin with. The settlement that was reached last November should 
be implemented as fast as possible so that this matter can be put 
behind us.
    This settlement does not let Microsoft off easy, though it fair 
and reasonable. It should be more than Microsoft's competitors ever 
hoped for. Under this settlement, Microsoft has agreed to terms that 
extend to products and business practices that were not even at 
issue in the original lawsuit. Additionally, they will have access 
to source codes and interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. There are many more restrictions and 
obligation within this settlement, and all of them will be subject 
to the oversight of a Technical Committee, which will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance.
    Put simply this settlement is good, The settlement should be 
implemented as soon as possible. The settlement is more than 
adequate to satisfy the requirements of the lawsuit. The settlement 
provides the first opportunity to resolve this fiasco. Please direct 
your efforts towards accomplishing this goal. Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Michael Bieloski
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00031931

FROM : ROBERT FRIEDRICH
FAX NO. : 718-343-3365 Jan. 23 2002 10:24PM P1
Robert Friedrich 264-52 Langston Avenue
Glen Oaks, NY 11004-1043/
718-343-4273
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my views regarding the recent antitrust 
lawsuit between Microsoft and the federal government. After three 
long years of court battles, I was pleased to hear that a settlement 
was finally reached. I sincerely hope that no further legal action 
is being considered on the federal level.
    Under the agreement, Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows 
XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove 
access to features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. 
Consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their 
configuration at any time.
    Considering the many terms of the agreement, I see no reason for 
the federal government to pursue further litigation against 
Microsoft on any level. Not only would it be a waste of time and 
money, but also redundant. It is also about time we allow MS to 
continue to innovate and produce new products.
    Please support the agreement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Friedrich



MTC-00031932

JAN-23-02 08:12 PM P.01
FAX
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Byron Fosler
Fax: 1202 307-1454 Pages: 1 + Cover
Phone: Date; January 23,2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement CC:
JAN-23-02 08:12 PM
January 18, 2002
P.02
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of

[[Page 29686]]

Justice is fair. Any antitrust violations that Microsoft may have 
been guilty of in the past will be halted with the creation of a 
three-man oversight committee, which will monitor Microsoft's 
business practices. I believe that with this provision in force, any 
further questions of the suit should be put to rest.
    I believe that Microsoft is a good company, which contributes a 
great deal of capital to our economy. This is one of our best and 
brightest companies and we need them to be operating at full 
strength during these times of economic instability. With this 
settlement, I think we can get back to business and remedy some of 
our economic problems, especially within the technology sector, 
which has been placed on hold for the last three years.
    I am pleased that a fair settlement has finally been reached and 
that we can shift our focus to other issues. Thank you for the time 
and consideration that you have put into this issue. I believe that 
you have made a prudent decision by settling. Please continue to 
support American business with all of your future decisions.
    Sincerely,
    Byron R. Foster
    212 W. Washington
    #1704
    Chicago, IL 60606



MTC-00031933

01/23/2002 l6:27 9072483740
THE LOFLANDS
PAGE 01
U. S. Department of Justice
Attention Ms. Renata B. Hesse
(202) 307-1454
    This is to let you know that we support the Microsoft settlement 
in order to stimulate our country's economy and help stop 
government's millions of dollars in waste.
    Tandy O. Lofland
    Mary Aileen Lofland



MTC-00031934

JAN. 23. 2002 7:05PM NO. 1823 P. 1
Jonathan Hartley
1114 South Gaylord St.
Denver, CO, 80210
Work:(303) 741 8597
Home:(303) 777 8925 F. A.O. Thanks.
Cell:(303) 475 6780
E-mail:[email protected]
Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
23 January 2002
Re: US vs. Microsoft, proposed final judgement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    I appreciate the great amount of work that has gone into 
producing the proposed final judgement to date. However, the 
settlement in its current form seems to overlook several important 
issues, and Microsoft has a history of exploiting loopholes such as 
these to leverage and increase its monopoly position, to the great 
detriment of consumers, parallel technologies, and the computing 
industry as a whole.
    Penalized OEMS
    I am very happy to see the measures in section III.A.2 which 
prevent Microsoft from penalising OEMS who choose to ship dual-boot 
or multiple operating system PCs. However, this restriction contains 
a very significant loophole, in that it does not protect OEMs which 
would like to ship PCs without any Microsoft operating system 
installed (eg. A pure Linux system.) This significantly contributes 
to stifling any other operating system from gaining a significant 
foothold in the marketplace, regardless of the merits of 
functionality, price or reliability that other operating systems may 
have to offer.
    End User License Agreements
    Additionally, I would to see steps taken to prevent Microsoft 
end- user licence agreements from prohibiting my choice of using 
non- Microsoft operating systems or products. The PFJ as currently 
stated does not prohibit this, which unfairly prevents competing 
operating systems or products from attempting to interoperate with 
Microsoft products, and simultaneously curtails end-users'' 
freedom of choice. Sincere thanks for this opportunity to express my 
views.
    Jonathan Hartley
    Senior Software Engineer
    SchlumbergerSema,
    Denver, USA



MTC-00031935

01/23/02 21:16 FAX 01
 Kathy Grinaway
I Cedar Road
Wilkes Barre, PA 18705-2209
January 18 , 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    I write you today with concern over the recent developments in 
the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This 
settlement has been scrutinized for over three years, and is ready 
to be implemented. By delaying this process, we only slow down our 
own technology industry. As they concentrate on litigation, the 
competition concentrates on innovation.
    Microsoft has come a long way to prove that they are willing to 
work with the competitor. They have agreed not to enter into any 
agreements obligating any third party to distribute or promote any 
Windows technology exclusively. They have also agreed to make 
changes in licensing, marketing and even design. These concessions 
are bold moves in the technology industry and are nothing but 
helpful to our entire IT sector. Help get our technology industry 
back on track. Please help stop any further government litigation 
and let our industry focus on innovation. I thank you for your help.
    Sincerely,
    Kathy Grinaway
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
FROM: D GIOSSO CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO. : 650 595 3453 Jan. 23 2002
04:56PM P2
1925 Brittan Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attorney General John Aschcroft
US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 25. 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am an ardent supporter of the Microsoft Corporation and I 
would like to see the settlement. that has been reached in the 
government's antitrust suit accepted by all the suing parties 
including the state of California in which I am a constituent. I 
feel that Microsoft is a good company who has been unfairly targeted 
in this suit. The acceptance of this settlement is essential to the 
well being of this nation. We need the full contribution of this 
company working to its greatest advantage in order to aid our 
economy.
    The settlement is reasonable and will allow Microsoft to remain 
intact, under the terms of the settlement Microsoft will divulge 
certain internal codes and interfaces to their Windows operating 
system that were up until now considered trade secrets. Microsoft 
will also design all future versions of Windows to acommodate the 
products of their competitors and make it easier for these products 
to be used in conjunction with Windows. And finally, from here on 
out Microsoft will be accountable to a three-person technical 
committee, appointed by the government to monitor the business 
practices of Microsoft in future and ensure their compliance with 
the settlement,
    The issues that were originally brought in the suit have been 
met and exceeded, any reluctance to accept this settlement are 
clearly politically motivated for the personal gain of those 
politicians involved. If they are not placated by this settlement 
then it is clear that they are not really interested in solving this 
case, they simply want to keep their names in the news. This is a 
flagrant waste of the taxpayers'' money, which sould be 
allocated to more important issues. Thank you for your time and for 
allowing me to express my opinion
    Sincerely.
    Theresa Giosso



MTC-00031938

Jan-24-02 07:40 PSI/POLICE ACADEMY
315 492 1521
P.01
1754 Patterson Road
Marietta, NY 13110
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trail Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: United States vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Given the current state of the economy in the State of New York 
following the terrible events of September 11, it seems 
inappropriate for the federal government to be taking action to 
limit private enterprise. It is further disappointing that over $30 
million in taxpayer funds have already been spent on this case. The 
sooner this case can be settled the better for all involved. It 
seems very

[[Page 29687]]

inappropriate for the federal government to be regulating the 
technology industry,
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Richard H. Flanagan
    Post-It Fax Note 7671 Date 1/24/02 # of pages 1
    To Renata Hesse From Richard Flanagan
    Co./Dept. Co.
    Phone # Phone # 315/498-6046
    Fax # 202-616-9937 Fax #



MTC-00031939

1-24-2002 8:34AM FROM 000000000000 p.1
JAN--23-02 WED 10:26 PM JIV WDC
202 544 2020 P.02
J. T. Varallo, Jr.
720 Third Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 544-0404
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: the Proposed Consent Decree of Microsoft and the DOJ
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please accept my comments in regard to the above. This suit has 
gone on long enough. It is my understanding that, in an effort to 
conclude the matter, Microsoft has agreed to certain restrictions 
and obligations that were not at issue on the original suit. I urge 
you to count this as part of a good faith effort on the part of 
Microsoft, and allow them to move on.
    I am especially encouraged that Microsoft has agreed to grant 
computer makers rights to configure programs so that non-microsoft 
products can be included.
    Respectfully,
    J.T. Varallo, Jr.



MTC-00031940

FROM : Scott & Candy
FAX NO, :
Jan, 23 2002 10:10PM P1
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530-0001
1403 Dominion Ave. N
Pasadena, CA 91104
January 23, 2002
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing to express my vehement objection to the proposed 
Microsoft an- titrust settlement. Both as a citizen and as a 
professional computer program- mer, I respectfully insist that 
Microsoft face a meaningful punishment for its unlawful actions. The 
proposed settlement doesn't even come close. In large measure, the 
settlement merely restates the existing law or the earlier 
settlement agreement-this does not punish Microsoft in any way. The 
remaining portions of the settlement contain loopholes big enough to 
drive a monopoly through. For example, Microsoft gets to choose to 
whom they will disclose API and protocol documentation. Microsoft 
has already made it clear that its most serious competition, open 
source software, does not meet its criteria for an ``authentic 
and viable'' business (to use language from the settlement). In 
any event, if their past behavior proves anything, it's that they 
will not make such decisions in good faith. (Indeed, their bad-faith 
actions led to the current trial: absurdly, Microsoft claimed they 
were ``integrating'' their Web browser but not 
``bundling'' it. A distinction without a difference if I 
ever saw one, but it enabled Microsoft to unlawfully crush yet 
another competitor.) Adding insult to injury, Microsoft can entirely 
sidestep those already limited and ineffectual disclosure 
requirements by claiming that they must do so for security reasons. 
This provision is a complete absurdity: it may be counterintuitive, 
but true security is achieved by using open standards, which can be 
inspected for flaws by the broader security community. You may be 
sure that Microsoft knows this, so it's worth contemplating why this 
measure is in the agreement at all.
    There is only one answer: to enable Microsoft to emasculate the 
agreement whenever its provisions are inconvenient.
    The proposed oversight committee cannot usefully address these 
concerns, or the dozens of others like them, for two main reasons. 
First, Microsoft itself will have considerable control over the 
committee, as Microsoft chooses one member directly and one of the 
other two members indirectly, (I hope that if I ever break the law, 
I get to choose my own parole officer.) Second, the committee would 
generally operate in secret, so serious objections on the part of 
the committee's only truly independent member may never reach the 
public. This mandated secrecy, coupled with the committee's 
guaranteed ineffectiveness, must inevitably erode any public 
confidence in the committee's trustworthiness-and, by exten- sion, 
in the justice system itself.
    Finally, I object to the settlement on philosophical grounds. I 
believe that the law should apply to the rich and 
powerful--including rich and powerful corporations-just as it 
would apply to you or me. If I robbed a bank, I'd expect more 
punishment than a stern warning not to do it again. At the very 
least, I imagine I'd be required to forfeit my ill-gotten gains 
(which, in Microsoft's case, amounts to tens of billions of 
dollars), in addition to harsh punitive measures. If Microsoft's 
punishment is any less severe-well, then I guess I'll know what the 
law is worth.
    Thank you for your kind consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Maxwell



MTC-00031941

FROM: PineCrest Capital Partners FAX NO: 4152883323 Jan. 23 2002 
06:43PM P1
PineCrest Capital Partners
LMS Capital
(Bermuda) Limited
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing this letter to voice my dissatisfaction with the 
on-going Microsoft lawsuit. As a former resident of the Seattle 
area, I have personally seen the benefits Microsoft has brought to 
the community through investment, jobs, philanthropy, and the 
entrepreneurial spirit of former Microsoft employees. Seattle is 
thriving as a result of the hundreds of companies formed by former 
Microsoft employees who have the drive and capital to realize their 
dreams. Additionally, great strides are being made through the 
philanthropic efforts of current and former Microsoft employees who 
are actively looking for ways to donate their time and money.
    From a professional perspective, I also feel it appropriate to 
convey my dissatisfaction with the on-going Microsoft litigation. As 
an investment advisor, my clients invest in private companies with 
great prospects for growth and market innovation. One of the more 
serious impediments to growth and innovation is the spectre of on-
going litigation and government intervention. Entrepreneurs need to 
know that their successes will not be hindered by overly aggressive 
government policies.
    I honestly feel Microsoft has been one of the great success 
stories in modern US economic history and I urge you to settle the 
Microsoft suit so that thousands of workers at small companies 
across the country can get back to doing what they do best... 
innovating & growing. This settlement allows for an oversight 
group to ensure that companies can compete in a fair and open 
marketplace. Let's allow them to do so.
    Sincerely,
    Brian D. Bank
    340 Pine Street,
    3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104--
    tel: 415-288-3322
    fax: 415-288-3323



MTC-00031942

01-23-2002 10: 09PM From
TO
1202-307-1454 P.01
Tiffany Ledbetter
18524 11th Avenue W
Lynnwood,WA 98037
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that the Department of Justice, 
under the auspices of the Tunney Act, has entered into a period of 
public comment in reference to the settlement reached in the 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I feel that this settlement is long 
over-due and should be accepted on both the federal and state 
levels.
    The terms of this settlement are just. Microsoft will design all 
future versions of its Windows operating system to be compatible 
with the products of its competitors. The company is also committed 
to halting any activities that could be considered retaliatory. 
There will also be a three-person technical committee that will 
oversee the future business tactics of the company to ensure that it 
complies with the settlement.

[[Page 29688]]

    I hope that this litigation can finally be brought to an end and 
that we can focus our attention and our resources on other issues. 
Please continue to support this settlement, and thank you for this 
opportunity to express my thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Tiffany Ledbetter



MTC-00031943

Jan 23 02 11:36p MICRO CRAFT INC 256-830-1227 P- 1
MICRO-->CRAFT INC.
Micro Craft, Inc
123 Fairington Rd
Huntsville,AL
35806
[256] 830 9746
www.micro-craft.net
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to enter my comments in the public record relating 
to settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I strongly support 
the settlement. I believe that Microsoft has led the effort to 
standardize certain software that has been of benefit to users 
across industry lines. I own and operate a company that creates 
software for lawyers. If Microsoft had not created a standard for 
operating system software, my company could not compete in the 
marketplace. We are too small a company to hire enough programmers 
to write our programs to run on half a dozen operating systems. In 
addition, if we could, the cost of our programs would be prohibitive 
for our customers. Believe it or not, not all lawyers are rich. We 
sell our legal billing software to many sole practitioners and one-
to-five person law firms. Because there is one standard, we can 
write our software for one operating system and make it affordable 
for every one of our customers. We have been in business since 1978. 
We're small, but over 8000 law firms use or have used our software, 
I honestly believe Microsoft has made it possible for our company to 
exist, stay in business and compete.
    I find that our customers have a very hard time learning to 
operate computers. We assist them in zipping up files, emailing data 
to us for correction, and making backup copies of their data, as 
well as running our software. If there wasn't a standard in basic 
software used on computers, we couldn't help our customers. And they 
would not be as productive in their practice. I personally think 
Microsoft should be considered a national treasure.
    Microsoft has made a number of important concessions to reach 
this settlement. The most important of these, in my opinion, is 
Microsoft's agreement to allow computer makers the option of 
configuring Windows systems so as to promote software programs of 
non-Microsoft companies. There will now be greater opportunities for 
software manufacturers and greater choice for consumers. This 
antitrust suit has gone on for quite some time now, and it needs to 
come to an end. I hope that the proposed agreement is accepted and 
implemented in the very near future. It will be good for the 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    Joan Ivy



MTC-00031944

FILE No. 695 01/23 `02 21:49 ID:STANDARD REGISTER
847 277 2561
PAGE 1
Alan J. Miller
381 Oak Trails Road #302
Des Plaines, IA 68816
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
22 January, 2002
    Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to add my name to the list of people opposed to the 
Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust 
case.
    As a software developer with 11 years of business experience, I 
have watched Microsoft's rise to dominance in several markets 
and been dismayed by many of the techniques it has used to attain 
and maintain dominance at the expense of other companies, competing 
software platforms and consumers such as myself. Still, while I have 
often found Microsoft's techniques distasteful and unethical, I am 
far less concerned about remedies for its past behavior than I am 
about ensuring that the same types of behavior are prevented in the 
future.
    From my reading of the Proposed judgement those remedies that 
actually work against Microsoft would be ineffective against a 
company determined to bypass them and would not even constitute 
significant obstacles in that bypassing process, further in many 
cases the remedies and definitions seem to have been specifically 
crafted to make them effectively nonexistent or to actually 
strengthen Microsoft's position in current or potential future 
markets. That Microsoft will work to bypass the original intent of 
the judgement is clear for both technical and business 
practices--even during the course of the trial and settlement 
negotiations it continued to use tactics that should be blocked by a 
solid agreement.
    As an example, the future direction of Microsoft's focus has 
just this month been declared to be security, while under the 
Proposed Judgement anything related to security need not be 
disclosed even if such would otherwise be mandatory. Under a strict 
reading, if Microsoft adds even rudimentary security interfaces to 
its APIs then none of those APIs need be disclosed and there is no 
penalty for not disclosing them -a requirement for receiving 
documentation for those APIs is that any business needing it must 
meet Microsoft-developed standards of business viability; non-
businesses need not apply at all because access will simply not be 
available.
    Overall, I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement is deeply 
flawed and should be substantially revised to remove these flaws 
before being accepted. A software and content monoculture such as 
Microsoft clearly wishes to have in place harms all of us in the 
long term, including Microsoft and its investors.
    Sincerely,
    Alan J. Miller



MTC-00031945

SC Concord
254 Church Street NE
Concord NC 28025
office (704) 786-0700
fax (704) 782-1356
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Fax: (202) 307-1454
Company: Phone:
From: Ann Pearson
Date: 1/24/02
Re: Microsoft # of Pages (including cover) 3
Notes
Confidential
SC CONCORD TECHNOLOGY SEARCH GROUP
a division of MRI
254 church street northeast concord, north carolina 28027-4737 
(704) 786.0700
charlotte: (704) 377-5764
fax: (704) 762-1358
125 Spring Street NW
Concord, NC 280259
January 23,2002
Attorney Genera1 John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After a three-year, costly, taxpayer-funded antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft, the federal government has finally decided to 
come up with an agreement under the wise leadership of Attorney 
General John Ashcroft. This decision will surely prove to stimulate 
our lagging economy.
    The settlement calls for Microsoft to design future versions of 
Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove 
access to features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. 
Consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their 
configuration at any time.
    Microsoft has had enough distraction from what it does 
best--innovation. This case is above and beyond the brink of 
fairness. I don't see any need for the Department of Justice to ever 
bring litigation against Microsoft beyond this agreement,
    Sincerely,
    Alden B. Pearson Jr.
    ``sales management and marketing talent is our only 
business''
254 church street northeast--
concord, north carolina 28025-4737
[704] 786-0700
Charlotte: [704] 377-5764
Fax [704] 782-1358
125 Spring Street NW
Concord, NC 280259
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 29689]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After a three-year, costly, taxpayer-funded antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft, the federal government has finally decided to 
come up with an agreement under the wise leadership of Attorney 
General John Ashcroft. This decision will surely prove to stimulate 
our lagging economy.
    The settlement calls for Microsoft to design future versions of 
Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove 
access to features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. 
Consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their 
configuration at any time.
    Microsoft has had enough distraction from what it does 
best--innovation. This case is above and beyond the brink of 
fairness. I don't see any need for the Department of Justice to ever 
bring litigation against Microsoft beyond this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Anna Lee Pearson



MTC-00031947

Bank of America
Fax Sheet
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Kathleen Henderson
Company; Department: PERRY HALL BANKING CENTER
Telephone Number: 4106876320 Telephone Number: 
410-256-1013
Fax Number: 1-202-307-1454
Fax Number: 410-529-9498
Date: 1-24-02
Kathleen HENDERSON
1715 HILLTOP AVENUE
Baltimore, MD 21221
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    I strongly encourage your Department of Justice to enact the 
settlement reached with Microsoft. In these hard economic times, I 
believe it is of prlme importance that this settlement be enacted. 
The case against Microsoft has had a negative impact on tech stocks. 
I believe that the resolution of this case will be beneficial to 
this industry.
    The case will also cause welcome change in the industry. 
Microsoft will now disclose the design and protocols of the Windows 
system to competitors. Competitors can now use this information to 
design their own software that will be more compatible with Windows. 
This Information sharing will benefit consumer choice.
    Finally as a Microsoft supporter, I hope that Microsoft will be 
allowed to focus on business once again.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Henderson



MTC-00031948

100 Black Oak Drive
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am taking some time to write to you because I am concerned 
about the settlement that was reached by the Justice Department and 
Microsoft. I am concerned that anti-Microsoft forces may try to 
disrupt the settlement process and apply pressure to have this case 
brought back to trial.
    This case has gone on for more than three years now, and the 
Justice Department and Microsoft have spent an excessive amount of 
time and money on this court conflict. The settlement is more than 
fair. In fact Microsoft has agreed to give out more information to 
competitors in this settlement than has ever been disclosed by a 
technology firm before.
    Included in this settlement are provisions that will open up 
Microsoft's internal interfaces to its competitors. By making this 
information available, competitors will be able to create better 
software. On the whole this settlement is extremely generous to 
Microsoft's competitors. It should be implemented as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Lucille James
    Sir, I feel that Microsoft has been unfairly targeted. Only the 
very wealthy. would be able to have were it up to Bill Gates and 
Microsoft.
    Lucille James.



MTC-00031949

Thursday, January 24, 2002 6:55 AM Page: 1 of 3
Fax
To: Judge Renata B. Hesse
From: Steven Brockerman, 850-552-0926
Name: Steven Brockerman
Company: WrittenWord Consulting
Voice Number: 850-523-0671
Fax Number: 850-552-0926
Thursday, January 24, 2002 6:55 AM
To: Judge Renata B. Hesse
From: Steven Brockerman, 850-552-0926
Page: 2 of 3
Steven Brockerman, MS
3201 -C Oriole Ct.
Tallahassee, FL 32308
DATA / FAX 850/552-0926
PHONE 850/523-0671
EMAIL [email protected]
January 24, 2002
    Your Honor:
    Microsoft is an American success story, the same kind of 
American success story found in the Horatio Alger tales, which used 
to be so popular in America. Mr. Gates overcame tremors adversity to 
make a better ``mousetrap.'' All of us are the richer 
because of it. Are we to now seize this man's property, either 
through outright confiscation of his business or by means of fines, 
limitations and regulations??!
    Mr. Gates-- has not forced anyone--- to buy his 
product. People have chosen the MS OS because *it is 
better*--easier to use, relatively stable, supremely flexible, 
cost effective, etc.--than anything offered by the competition 
(who, instead of fairly and freely competing with Microsoft, have 
chosen to complain to the government).
    Because of that, Mr. Gates was able to introduce his internet 
browser, MSIE, to millions of people. Mr. Gates--once 
again--*did not force anyone* to use his browser. We the 
consumer-- chose to use it because, once again, it was 
*overwhelmingly superior* to the competitions''. Placing MSIE 
in his Windows OS amounted to *an option*--not 
a----command-- -. Such ``options'' are what 
allows the consumer a choice; such ``options'' are the 
products of innovation, which we have held as an American virtue 
since this republics inception, proudly referring to it as 
``Yankee ingenuity.''
    Are we to now punish Mr. Gates for that? Are we to now listen to 
those who, for lack of vision or for want of ambition, could not 
successfully compete with Microsoft??! If so, then this is no longer 
the country of Horatio Alger. This is no longer the nation that 
lauds achievement; a nation that is no longer the land of 
opportunity where men and women can ``beat a path to the 
door'' of those who make a better mousetrap. It is no longer a 
nation of laws that defends the rights of all, 
--including--- the rich; it has become, instead, a nation 
that rewards the incompetent by looting his superior; that 
denigrates achievement in the name of envy; a nation that, in short, 
has come to be ruled by men who, seeking the fruits of men's labor, 
violate the rights of the rich in the name of the poor--thereby 
destroying the rights of all, rich *and* poor alike.
    I am not in any way religious, but I pray to whatever god there 
may be that you have both the wisdom and the courage to uphold the 
Jeffersonian principles of our republic and dismiss the case against 
Microsoft. If you do not, we will all be, not only poorer because of 
it, but also--and most importantly--no longer free.
    Very truly yours,
    Steven Brockerman, MS
    Adjunct Professor of English



MTC-00031950

ALLARD REAL ESTATE
Robert J. Allard, Jr.
365 May Street
Worcester, MA 01602- 1817
(508) 795-7265
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a supporter of the settlement that has been reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to 
terms that extended beyond the products and procedures that were at 
issue in the suit. Microsoft has agreed to share data and source 
code that is internal to the Windows' operating system with their 
competitors.
    Microsoft will also be making future versions of Windows to 
allow competitors and consumers to remove and add certain programs 
within their operating system. This was the original issue 
initiating the lawsuit, and now a settlement of that issue has been 
reached.
    I hope that your office will now finalize this agreement and 
move on to other issues facing our country.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Allard, Jr.

[[Page 29690]]

FROM : DR. JAMES P. VERNETTI
PHONE NO. : 619 435 4415 Jan. 24 2002 12:00AM P1
1/21/02
From the desk of
609 1st Street
Coronado, CA 92118
(619) 435-4415
JAMES P. VERNETTI, D.D.S.
DOJ
c/o Ms Reneta B Hesse
    To whom it may concern:
    This note specifically states that I support the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    James P Vernetti, D.D.S.
1/23/02
Ms RENATA B. HESSE
D.O.J
WASH DC FAX 202/307-1454
    PLEASE-- APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT. ENOUGH TIME 
AND ### HAVE BEEN WASTED.
    J.I. MURPHY



MTC-00031951

DATE: 24-Jan-2002
AREA CODE & FAX NO. 202-307-l454
FROM Will Thompson
TO:
US Department of Justice
MESSAGE:
    I have been following the United States vs. Microsoft 
Corporation case regarding violations of the Tunney Act by 
Microsoft. I have reviewed commentary on the case by such learned 
scholars as Justice Robert Bork. I feel that the current settlement 
proposed is inadequate to remedy Microsoft's past illegal activity 
or protect the public from simillar behavior in the future. My 
comments are attached.
Sent by: oceaneering
3013903908;
01/24/02 11:57; #948;
    I object to the proposed settlement for resolving the case 
between Microsoft and the US and various state governments on the 
matter of illegal anti-trust practices by Microsoft. It does not go 
far enough to exact a penalty from Microsoft for past illegal 
activity or impose sufficient contractual or statutory restraints on 
the corporations future behavior. First and foremost I noticed a 
lack of any definition of ``Operating System'' and 
Middleware'' that distinguishes between the functionality of 
either. Does this not leave Microsoft free to create its own 
interpretation of which category software offering a particular 
functionality falls into? Given Microsoft's history of incorporating 
functionality into its definition of ``Operating System'' 
does this not now leave them free to continue their predatory 
monopolistic practice of excluding competition by redefining what an 
``Operating System'' is? This leaves it up to a violator 
of the Tunney Act to decide what is or is not illegal behavior.
    I also question the following sections of the agreement:
    ``C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM 
licensee from exercising any of the following options or 
alternatives: . . .
    3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial 
boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to 
or disconnections from the Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware if 
a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides similar functionality 
would otherwise be launched automatically at that time, provided 
that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no 
user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the 
user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware 
Product.''
    This clause seems to disallow any competitor from offering 
functionality (i.e. icons, menus) that provides functionality 
similar to a Microsoft product. This would have the effect of 
placing any competitor at a disadvantage since they are not allowed 
to offer a similar work environment to the end user.
    ``C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM 
licensee from exercising any of the following options or 
alternatives: . .
    5. Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer 
provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical 
specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement 
that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the 
conclusion of any such offer.''
    This clause seems again to leave it up to a violator of the 
Tunney Act to define what is ``reasonable''.
    ``J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any 
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no 
history of software counterfeiting or piracy 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.''
    Again the settlement relies on the violator of the Tunney Act to 
define which organizations constitute a business competitor. This 
clause would allow Microsoft to deny access to information about its 
API and Protocols to such organizations as the Free Software 
Foundation, Linux.org and BSD.org and others that, if Microsoft's 
sales memos are to be credited, present a strong competition to 
their illegal monopoly.
    In short, this proposed settlement does little to (1) punish 
Microsoft for its illegal activities or (2) impose restrictions on 
continuing its anti-competitive practices. I urge the Department of 
Justice to renegotiate the settlement under terms that would truly 
restrict Microsoft's predatory anti-competitive activities or would 
breakup the company into and operating system division, middleware 
division, and applications division.
    Will Thompson
    2944 Knoll Circle
    Ellicott City, MD 21043



MTC-00031952

MERRILL LYNCH
Merrill Lynch
Vice President
Senior Financial Advisor
Private Client Group
4412 N. Brady St.
Davenport, IA 52806
563-388-2355
800-937-0612
john [email protected]
January 24, 2002
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Atty. Gen. Ashcroft,
    I wanted to express my opinion on the recent settlement of the 
antitrust lawsuit between Microsoft and the federal government, 
since the public comment period is still in effect. It is good to 
see that, after three long years of costly litigation, this case is 
finally over. I would hope that you will persist in doing what you 
can to make sure that the current settlement stays as is, and that 
no more taxpayer dollars are squandered on further litigation.
    I have long felt that this case has been more about helping 
Microsoft's competitors instead of helping consumers. When they 
couldn't compete effectively in the marketplace, they turned to the 
government for help. In most cases, it wasn't Microsoft's strength 
in the market, but simply better software. A good example today is 
the litigation launched by AOL Time Warner claiming that due to 
Microsoft's power, they rolled over the Netscape browser costing 
them significant market share. I was a previous user of Netscape, 
but switched to MS Explorer simply because it was a better product.
    As I understand, there will be an oversight committee to make 
sure that Microsoft complies with all of the terms of the 
settlement. This should ensure that consumers get better choices, 
and competitors have better access to information on product 
development. The end result of this will be a boost in the 
technology industry, In turn, this will benefit all sectors of the 
American economy, which have come to rely on the technology field as 
an economic leader. It makes no sense to continue attacking the 
leading company in such a vital industry. To do so does not serve 
the economy or the thousands of shareholders who have invested money 
in the company.
    There is no reason to alter the settlement or disallow it all 
together, and I hope that we will see this whole issue come to an 
end as

[[Page 29691]]

soon as possible so that all parties involved can move on to more 
important matters.
    Sincerely,
    John E. Pedersen
    Vice President
    Senior Financial Advisor



MTC-00031953

THE SWEENEY GROUP
6 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 700
SAINT PAUL, MN 55102
TEL: 651-223-2860
FAX: 651-224-8328
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Renata B. Hesse
PROM: Brian Sweeney
COMPANY! Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
DATE: 1/24/02
FAX NUMBER: 202-616-9937
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FAX: 202.616.9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have spent the last three years as Director of Planning and 
Economic Development for the City of Saint Paul for Mayor Norm 
Coleman. My main job was to ensure that we, maintained, expanded, 
and attracted businesses and jobs'to our state's Capital city. We I 
were able to,do this because we were, able to instill confidence in 
the private market by keeping taxes low and creating private sector 
incentives for development. I've recently returned to the private 
sector as a developer and am very cognizant of the fragile nature of 
our economy and how it will impact jobs and investment,
    The U.S. is officially in a recession clearly exacerbated by the 
tragic events of September 11th Minnesota is suffering as a direct 
result of this downtown evidenced by the job layoffs at 3M, 
Northwest, Fingerhut, American Express and several other 
corporations in the Twin Cities and throughout the state. In the 
face of these troubling economic developments, one positive 
occurrence has taken place of late: the settlement of Microsoft.
    I believe that by settling the case, our nation and the nine, 
states in particular, will be able to focus on the real issues, of 
our troubled economy. The settlement was the right thing for America 
and the right thing for Minnesota. I think the fairness of the 
settlement was clear from the fact that Microsoft agreed to share 
its intellectual, property and create uniform price lists for the 
top 20 computer makers.
    I, and many of my colleagues, in the corporate and financial 
community, support this settlement. Thank you for taking the time to 
listen to my position,on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Sweeney
    President
    6 West 5th Street, Suite 700
    Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
    Phone: 651 .223 .2860
    Fax: 651.224.8328
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00031954

JAN-24-2002 THU 09:18 AM
P. 01/01
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to ask that your office see fit to end this case at 
the federal level. Although I do not agree with every move Microsoft 
has made in the past, I do not think that further litigation fits 
the crime. Although the settlement reached by your office in 
November calls for more concessions than Microsoft may have wanted, 
it has agreed to the conditions in an effort to move this issue 
along. Nine states have approved the agreement, and Microsoft is 
negotiating with the remaining states to reach a conclusion. I do 
not see what benefit will be gained from further federal action, and 
frankly I feel that three years has been long enough.
    Microsoft has granted broad new rights to computer makers and 
software engineers. It has more or less opened its Windows operating 
system for the competition to use as a springboard for launching 
their own programs that compete with those programs already included 
within Windows. I ask if these concessions would have been demanded 
with such ferocity if Microsoft were involved in a more traditional 
and understandable industry. Would we mandate that McDonalds had to 
offer Burger King's Whopper to al1 customers that asked for it? 
Would Coke offer samples of Pepsi in each can? More importantly, 
would we allow it?
    I hope this issue will be behind us as soon as possible. I do 
not completely agree with the settlement, but if allows us to move 
on, then I will give it my full endorsement, Please use your 
position to allow the IT industry and the economy to grow again.
    Sincerely,
    Irene Lovelace
    Executive Assistant



MTC-00031955

Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
610 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a member of the North Carolina General Assembly from 
Charlotte, I would like the heartily endorse the settlement 
agreement in the Microsoft case that is before Judge Kollar Kotelly. 
The settlement not only has approval of the federal government and 
the company but also the attorney general in North Carolina.
    As with any settlement, both sides will derive benefits and have 
to live with things they may not like. But that is much preferable 
to the continued litigation which has been a big burden to taxpayers 
and helped bring about one of the worst downturns in the stock 
market in recent history. For the federal government and North 
Carolina to continue such litigation would be intolerable to me.
    In particular, I hope that this settlement will allow Microsoft 
to continue to grow and put out new products as it has for many 
years. That is because Charlotte is home to a Microsoft facility 
employing 1,000 workers who are much better paid than the average in 
this city.. With the economy in a downturn, it is important that the 
companies in our area remain strong. The last thing that is need is 
for government intervention to be the cause of a company's economic 
problems.
    As a state legislator, I have always been the strongest advocate 
for government nonintervention into private business. Instead, I 
have always been strong for the state providing the best education 
possible so that we will have young workers prepared when Microsoft 
and other companies decide to locate in our state. That is why I 
hope that we can get this phase of the Microsoft case behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Connie Wilson



MTC-00031956

FROM : FAX NO. Jan. 24 2002 11:25AM P1
Julie L. Rehder
1413 Hattie Road
Apex, NC 27602
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW,Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Case
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a consultant, I need access to affordable and usable 
technology to keep pace in a competitive business. I use Microsoft 
software because it is dependable and cost effective. I do not have 
access to technical experts on a daily basis so problems caused by 
unreliable software would delay my work and create dissatisfaction 
among my clients. I have been following the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft to see what impact the final settlement wiIl have on 
consumers like me and on my clients who need easy access to reliable 
software. Microsoft has had a significant, positive influence on the 
growth and success of many small businesses and organizations.
    It appears that the proposed settlement will provide a workable 
solution for consumers, computer makers, software developers and 
Microsoft. This solution seems fair to all parties. The consent 
decree allows computer manufacturers to adapt the Windows system so 
that other software programs that compete with Microsoft can be 
used. Features built into Windows will be easier to remove. 
Microsoft can continue with its efforts to develop new products that 
benefit consumers and the technology industry. I will continue to be 
a loyal customer and look forward to advancements made as a result 
of the proposed settlement.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this case.
    Sincerely,
    Julie L. Rehder



MTC-00031957

    Dear Madam or Sir,
    My name is Sammy E. Desmond, Jr. and I am Senior System Analyst 
with a major

[[Page 29692]]

chemical company. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer 
Science and I have over 19 years of experience with computers. The 
purpose of this letter is to submit my comments concerning the 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement in accordance with the Tunney Act.
    As veteran of the computer industry and as a parent advisor to 
my local school district's technology committee, I have seen first 
hand the devastating effect Microsoft's monopoly power has caused. 
There are numerous examples of how they abused their monopoly 
position to stifle competition and reduce consumer choice.
    I have thoroughly examined the proposed settlement and cannot 
find anything that even comes close to being a remedy to the 
antitrust violations that Microsoft has already been found guilty 
of. As you are well aware, Microsoft Corporation has already been 
found guilty of abusing it's monopoly power.
    At the very least, a just penalty should include the following:
    ï¿½Restrictions must be put in place that force Microsoft to 
publish and fully document all present and future file formats of 
any documents created by Microsoft application software. This will 
invigorate competition from other software producers and allow the 
data to be read by other programs and on other operating systems.
    ï¿½Microsoft must be required to publish and fully document 
the Windows Application Program Interface (API).
    ï¿½Microsoft products must be positioned as optional, extra 
cost items on brand new computer systems. Consumers that do not wish 
to purchase the Microsoft products should not be forced to do so. 
The current non-optional bundling of Microsoft products with new 
computers is sometimes referred to the ``Microsoft Tax'' 
in which the price of the Microsoft products are included in the 
price of the computer even if the consumer erases the Microsoft 
products and replaces them with something else.
    ï¿½Also, any current and any future Microsoft networking 
protocols must be published and fully documented in full and 
approved by independent industry bodies. As the Internet becomes a 
more important part of civilization, it is extremely important that 
Microsoft does not extend its past abusive behavior into that realm. 
If Microsoft is not sufficiently penalized and is allowed to extend 
its monopoly influence to the Internet, the results would be 
disastrous. As a matter of fact, the highly respected Center for 
Strategic and International Studies released a study a year ago that 
stated Microsoft software poses a U.S. national security risk. See 
the following web site, which describes this report:http://
www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/l2/29/csis.microsoft.report.idg/
    In closing, history offers numerous cases when bad decisions 
were made for which future generations paid a heavy price. Please 
take this opportunity to properly punish Microsoft's abusive 
behavior while there is still time.
    Respectfully,
    Sammy E. Desmond, Jr.
    3930 Suncrest
    Groves, Texas 77619 U.S.A.
    (409) 723-3226
    [email protected]



MTC-00031958

Jan-24-02 THU l0:45 AM FAX: PAGE 1
January 22, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE
202-616-9937
Attorney Reneta Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the goal set forth in the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. The New York 
Times recently reported that 88% of households whose income is 
$75,000.00 or higher had a computer. This number drops dramatically 
for households with income below $25,000.00 This needs to be 
remedied.
    As part of that settlement Microsoft is proposing the donation 
of approximately 200,000 computers to public school students 
throughout the country. Recent research suggests that the digital 
divide that exists along economic lines has an adverse impact on 
students, schools and educational opportunity. Currently, 82% of 
schools in well to do communities are connected to the Internet. 
That number drops to 60% of the classrooms in poorer communities.
    I support the goal of the Proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case, which will provide students and teachers in lower 
income areas with access to both technology and computers. These 
students desperately need access to technology in order to prepare 
themselves for jobs in the 21st century.
    I would also recommend that donations to Registry of Deeds and 
recording offices desperately in need of modernization be added to 
the list of places for the computer donations.
    I urge the Court to approve the settlement agreement.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Anthony J. Vigliotti



MTC-00031959

PCD Network Solutions, Inc.
Progressive, Consistent, Dedicated
3z.net a PCD Company
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Even though our company is in the IT Industry, as an Internet 
service provider, we would not have been directly affected by this 
lawsuit against Microsoft. That is not to say, however, that had 
Microsoft been broken up, as anticipated by the court, consumer 
demand for computers, software and, ultimately, for our services, 
would not have been adversely affected.
    This settlement has the distinct advantage of preserving the 
integrity of the IT community and will forestall any serious 
residual damage, For this reason, it is better to have it sustained, 
rather than tossing this whole mess back into court. The settlement 
is also very well drafted, providing for every circumstance 
Microsoft could get into, and a Technical Committee to oversee the 
enforcement of the settlement. I am therefore writing to convey my 
support of the settlement. I am further suggesting that any such 
public display of government animosity against any sector of 
American business always has an unfortunate effect of stifling 
economic growth. We have seen this here. I am hoping that all the 
hostilities have been resolved by this settlement. Thank you.
    Yours truly,
    Eric S. Vail, President
    3z.net a PCD Company
    350 Thomas More Parkway
    Suite 290
    Crestview Hills, KY 41017
    Voice 859.331.9004
    Fax 859.578.3522
    http://www.3z.net



MTC-00031960

Virginia Giglio, Ph.D.
President
18907 La Costa Lane
Boca Raton, FL 33496
(561) 852-3502
[email protected]
Global Thinking, Inc.
www.globalthinking.com
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want you to know that I have been a Microsoft supporter from 
the beginning of this lawsuit and will continue to be afterwards. I 
hope that the settlement that has been proposed goes through so that 
we can end this matter and let Microsoft get back to business.
    I run a web design firm and since our inception we have depended 
solely on Microsoft products. Ending this case will mean that my 
entire company can breathe a sigh of relief and stop worrying about 
what will happen to the everyday operations of our business. I feel 
that building a stronger relationship between Microsoft and other 
software developers will be beneficial for everyone. By having 
Microsoft share its code with other developers while at the same 
time designing Windows to have increased compatibility with outside 
programs is advantageous to the entire IT industry. We have 
experienced this first-hand here at Global Thinking, Inc. while 
building the award-winning web site for one of our lines of 
business, NATIVECULTURE.COM--a comprehensive portal site for 
Native American resources on the Internet.
    I request that this settlement be finalized as soon as possible 
because three years is far too long to make such a large part of our 
economy wait for a decision that affects them directly. The IT 
industry as a whole needs this situation resolved--this 
settlement is the key to doing it soon.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Giglio, Ph.D.
    President, Global Thinking, Inc.
    cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00031961

Jan 24 02 10:47a

[[Page 29693]]

City of Oceanside Council (760) 435-3045
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, # 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As part of the Tunney Act proceedings, I submit to the court 
this letter to be included as part of the public comment in the case 
of US v. Microsoft. I am writing the courts to express my support 
for the proposed settlement in this matter.
    I write this letter to the courts as a citizen, businessman, and 
City Councilmember who believes: a) this case has caused enough harm 
to our country and b) that the settlement more than adequately 
addresses the issues of concern in US v. Microsoft.
    First of all, as a concerned civic activist, I believe the case 
against Microsoft has brought irreparable damage to the state of our 
national economy. One can trace the end of our boom era right back 
to the day Judge Jackson called for Microsoft to be broken up. 
Microsoft's innovations and investments was probably the largest 
economic engine the technology industry had. US v. Microsoft has 
brought everything to a grinding halt. To reject this settlement 
would unnecessarily ensure the slow down to continue indefinitely. 
For this reason, I believe the settlement should be accepted.
    Secondly, I believe the settlement adequately addresses the 
issues of concern and ensures Microsoft is forbidden from behaving 
in an anticompetitive fashion. Because of the microscope the company 
will operate under, and the restrictions put in place by the 
settlement, it cannot rationally be argued that monopolistic actions 
will occur in the future. For this reason, I believe the settlement 
should be accepted.
    I thank the court for their time and providing the public with 
an opportunity to comment on this case. I hope the settlement will 
be accepted, and that US v. Microsoft will finally come to an end.
    Sincerely,
    JACK FELLER
    CIVIC CENTER
    o 300 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY
    o OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-2885--
    TELEPHONE 760-435-3056--FAX 
760-435-6016
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00031962

January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing to you today to voice my support for the proposed 
settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. The remedies proposed in the settlement are 
adequate and they fairly address the issues raised in the lawsuit. 
The impact of Microsoft's donations to the Latino community in the 
past is indisputable. They have demonstrated their commitment to 
bridging the technology gap, which impacts the future of so many 
children in the Latino community As a School Board Member, and as 
someone who cares deeply about our community and the children and 
families we serve, I want to express my full support for the 
proposed settlement and urge you to do everything possible to ensure 
its implementation.
    Respectfully,
    Hector A Chacon
    Board of Education Member
    Montebello Unified School District
    Board of Education MARCELLA CALDERON, President, D., 
Superintendent of Schools, EDWIN CHAIJ, Vice-President, Facilities / 
Operations, HECTOR A CHACON, Cleric, - Human Resources, FRANK A 
GOMEZ, Ph.D Member, Insructional Services, RICHARD L. ADAMS 11 
Member, Business Services.
    ADMINISTRATION: M. MAGDALENA CARRILLO MEJIA Phd., PAMELA T. 
JOHNSON, Assistant Superintendent, SHARON I. NOMDIEM, Assistant 
Superintendent, EUGENE C. KERR, Assistant Superintendent, GLENNJ. 
SHEPPARD, Business Manager, EDWARD VELASQUEZ, Administrative 
Assistant.



MTC-00031963

HCC SOLANO / NAPA
EXECUTIVE BOARD: President, Karla Velez, North American Title, Vice 
President, Legal Counsel; Anthony R. Perez, Attorney At Law, 
Treasurer, Finance Director, R. Margarita Delgado, North American, 
Mortgage Co., Secretary, Public Relations; Carlos E. Solorzano, BDM, 
Community Chair; Omar Martinez, Ultra Sound, International.
ADVISORY BOARD: Rhuenetta L. Alums. Pacific Bell, Coco Corona.
BY DESIGN: Multimedia, Manny Cosma, PayRoll Partners, Carlos R. 
Gutierrez, Bernheim Gutierrez, Levin & McCready, Law; A. Raul 
Hernandez, Hood & Strong, CPA's; Frances Palacios, Univision 14 
KDTV.
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an organization based on business and aiding businesses in 
their goal of being successful, our chamber is concerned with the 
seemingly endless legal pursuit of Microsoft. This is a free market 
economy Microsoft is one of the most successful companies in the 
global market. The ongoing litigation against Microsoft is 
punishment for this success.
    Majorities of our members are small business owners. We 
appreciate that your efforts are meant to be watching out for the 
consumers and the small business owners. However, we believe the 
settlement on the table between Microsoft and the government is 
sufficient in its punishments and new guidelines laid out for 
Microsoft, Our main concern at this point is the length of time and 
the money continuing to be poured into this issue, We have so many 
other things to focus on as a nation; priorities that need our 
attention. We need to put this to rest. Our chamber fully supports 
the settlement on the table, and we urge you to as well.
    Thank you for your time on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Karla Velez
    President
    HCCSNC
    Cos/KV/hccletterhessell8002
    P.O.Box 2723
    Fairfield CA 94533
    707-643-5037
    Fax 707-557-9844
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00031964

January 18, 2002
B.D.M.
BY DESIGN Multimedia
PUBLIC RELATIONS EVENTS
ADVERTISING MARKETING
308 Ohio Street Vallejo CA 94580
707/644-4218 Fax 707/557-9844
By DesignM.com
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to urge you to support the settlement between 
Microsoft and the government. I know there is a window of time when 
the public is encouraged to provide input on the settlement. As a 
small business owner I work very hard to keep my business going. 
However, I am taking a few minutes out of my day to write this 
letter because I feet very strongly about this issue.
    Microsoft acted unfairly and improperly in its business 
dealings. I appreciate the government watching out for me both as a 
small business owner and as a consumer. Having sald that, I also 
feel enough time and money has been spent on this issue. The 
settlement is amenable to both the government and Microsoft. The 
goals have been accomplished. Microsoft will have to watch its 
business: practices, monitored by an oversight committee.
    Again, I urge you to support the settlement agreed to by the 
government, nine of the states and Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time on this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    Coca Corona
    President
    BDM



MTC-00031965

January 24, 2002
United States Department of Justice
Attn: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to you in support of the recent Department of 
Justice settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. The country is at 
war, the economy is sour and the business community is struggling. 
Yet, the U.S.

[[Page 29694]]

Department of Justice is spending millions of dollars in time and 
resources on the Microsoft settlement.
    I believe it has been a waste of taxpayers dollars, my 
understanding is that it has cost us over $30 million. This has been 
a competitor driven lawsuit and it has hampered high tech 
innovation. If Microsoft's competitors would spend time and money on 
their own research and development, instead of this lawsuit, all 
consumers would benefit.
    Enough is enough, let's settle this lawsuit and move forward. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl Friske
    Events Director



MTC-00031966

January 15, 2002
Ms. Tricia Denton
9033 Coriander Circle
Manassas, VA 20110
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D St., NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe the settlement between the federal government and 
Microsoft would be the first step toward restoring prosperity to the 
high technology sector in the U.S. Consumers will benefit from the 
provisions in the settlement that allow Microsoft to decide which 
products and features it may provide to its customers and how to 
price them. This appears to be the best move for consumers and for 
our ailing economy. It is time to do whatever it takes to move our 
country in the right, positive direction.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia R. Denton
January 15, 2002
Mr. Steve Denton
9033 Coriander Circle
Manassas, VA 20110
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D St., NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I strongly support the settlement between the federal government 
and Microsoft, and I believe that it could be the first step toward 
restoring prosperity to the high technology sector in the U.S. 
Consumers will benefit from the provisions in the settlement that 
allow Microsoft to decide which products and features it may provide 
to its customers and how to price them. It's time to do what is best 
for consumers and for the economy and this settlement seems to move 
the country in the right, positive direction.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Denton
January 18, 2002
Mr. Ron Koch
14568 Woodland Ridge Drv.
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D St., NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would very much like to see the final stages of the settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft ironed out. I believe 
this could be the first step toward restoring prosperity to the high 
technology sector in the U.S. The provisions in the settlement allow 
Microsoft to decide which products and features it may provide to 
its customers and how to price them, and this should benefit 
consumers. Now more than ever, we need to do what is best for our 
nation and to help it regain its economic strength and prosperity.
    Best regards,
    Ron Koch
January 18, 2002
Ms. Lois Koch
14568 Woodland Ridge Drv.
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D St., NW Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would very much like to see the final stages of the settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft ironed out. I believe 
this could be the first step to ward restoring prosperity to the 
high technology sector in the U. S. The provisions in the settlement 
allow Microsoft to decide which products and features it may provide 
to its customers and how to price them, and this should benefit 
consumers. Now more than ever, we need to do what is best for our 
nation and to help it regain its economic strength and prosperity.
    Best regards,
    Lois J. Koch



MTC-00031967

January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street N.W, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a consumer of high-tech products, I am writing this letter to 
register my support for the recently negotiated settlement of the 
Microsoft lawsuit. It is clear that the best interest of all is for 
a quick resolution of this long and expensive lawsuit. Though some 
will say the terms of the settlement are not stringent enough, I 
think it preferable to find a workable solution rather than mete out 
crippling sanctions against Microsoft that will do nothing more than 
dull America's cutting-edge technological superiority.
    Antitrust laws were meant to protect consumers, yet at no time 
during this case has anyone shown Microsoft has done harm to a 
consumer. I say it is time to put an end to this competitor-driven 
pursuit and let technological innovators, such as Microsoft, 
continue to fight it out in the marketplace, not the courtroom.
    President
    The Colony Chamber of Commerce



MTC-00031968

January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express some of my views regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I understand that there was merit behind the issues 
that brought about the lawsuits, but that was three years and 
countless taxpayers'' dollars ago. This matter needs to be 
brought to a conclusion.
    I work in the technology industry as a seller of hardware and 
software to schools. I have not been directly impacted by the case, 
but the uncertainty surrounding the conclusion leaves me feeling 
uneasy. Microsoft does make important concessions such as agreeing 
to disclose some of its code and allowing a technical committee 
oversee the settlement's execution.
    I hope that this case will soon be behind us. Not only does the 
settlement address the current concerns, but it provides for ways of 
dealing with future problems as well. I hope your office will do 
everything possible to allow the IT industry and the economy to move 
forward.
    Sincere1y,
    John Pexton
    Account Manager



MTC-00031970

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601. D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Atty. Hesse:
    The Educational Association of Worcester wishes to add its 
support to the position expressed by NEA President Bob Chase 
regarding the Microsoft case. Urban school systems such as 
Worcester, Massachusetts struggle to provide computers and computer 
technology training for the entire school population. Many of our 
students do not have home access to computers and rely totally on 
school to provide them with this exposure and experience. The 
teachers need technology training to integrate the computer use into 
the full curriculum and often find that the school system has 
financial constraints against providing this help. Computers and 
other equipment have often been closed out in various businesses and 
then donated to schools. The schools have then discovered that these 
do not work well or consistently. Students and teachers then find 
enthusiasm and plans derailed and it is extremely difficult to 
resurrect later. Service contracts and constancy in training are 
vital components to equalize learning experiences for all students.
    The proposed settlement to United States v. Microsoft is a 
reasonable attempt to redress these problems. Please regard the EAW/
MTA/NEA as supporting this settlement agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Janet Gutkoski Dufault
    President



MTC-00031971

Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Dept. Of Justice 601 D St. NW, Suite 1200
Wash. DC 20530
Jan. 23, 2002

[[Page 29695]]

    Dear Big Government,
    In my humble opinion as a consumer and citizen I would like to 
see the Microsoft case finally be resolved. The compromise 
settlement that is being reviewed is fair and needs to be completed.
    The sooner this is done the better. All of this litigation, 
expense, and time only results in a negative impact on the country. 
My tax dollars are being consumed, the cost of technology is going 
up and technical innovation has been slowed.
    Please approve the settlement in the Microsoft case and lets 
move on.
    Thank you,
    Jay Rusnock
    20 Phyllis Rd.
    Wapp. Falls, NY 12590
    H: 845-297-5315
    F: 845-298-7233



MTC-00031972

State Senator
Kevin Shibilski
January 24, 2002
Renata B Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 205030-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    I am writing to urge you to support the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe it is in 
the best interest of the economy and our nation's consumers for the 
case to be resolved.
    In particular, I support the goals set forth in the proposed 
Microsoft class action settlement agreement to establish an 
independent foundation comprised of educators that will distribute 
technology funds, computers and software to the country's poorest 
schools and provide for teacher training. Again, I encourage the 
Department of Justice to accept the proposed settlement.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    KEVIN SHIBILSKI
    State Senator
    District 24
    KW:ks
    State Capitol,
    PO. Box 7882,
    Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7882
    Phone: (608) 266-3123
    Toll-free
    Hotline: l-800-362-9472



MTC-00031973

Mark B. Edwards, Jr.
President
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to support the proposed consent decree in the federal 
government's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation.
    As a writer and researcher, I have been a close observer of the 
information technology industry's problems and potential in North 
Carolina and across the nation. It is clear to me that continued 
litigation in this matter serves neither the industry nor the 
consumer well. Now that a settlement has been negotiated that 
provides broad protections against illegal behavior by Microsoft, I 
am hopeful that the courts will bring a close to this litigation. It 
would be a step forward for the economy of this state and for the 
entire nation.
    Sincerely,
    Mark B. Edwards, Jr.
    6325-9 Falls of Neuse Rd.,
    Suite 262
    Raleigh, NC 27615
    Phone 919/696-6154



MTC-00031974

Thursday, January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC
20530
    Good day,
    I have worked in the computer industry for 20 years, using IBM 
mainframes as well as various Unix and Windows machines, 
specializing in both technical support and software development. My 
opinion is also inspired from plain common sense. I believe the 
proposed final settlement is a setback for the world economy, and a 
severe disservice to present and future generations. My point is 
simple: Monopolies cannot play a useful role forever.
    I think one way that monopolies are initially useful is in 
bringing to market some innovative products that establish 
directions and de facto standards, which is certainly preferable to 
chaos resulting from too much competition. Microsoft deserves a lot 
of credit for having popularized easier to use computers. They 
forced the industry to focus on this issue. As a result, today most 
business and home users expect to interact with any software 
application in a standard way. This has been a definite step 
forward, compared to the days when every application came with its 
own way of using it. This certainly helped tremendously in bringing 
computers to the masses, which in turn played a major role in 
supporting the computer revolution, as no industry could exist 
without consumers. In my view, this is Microsoft's most important 
contribution (even though I disapprove some of the marketing 
approaches they used to achieve it), but there certainly are others.
    However, I think in general monopolies tend to become counter-
productive as time goes by. Any company holding a monopoly 
eventually takes its market for granted. Once established, a 
monopoly just no longer needs to truly innovate. Its size alone 
makes it less efficient and slower. In the absence of competition-
induced pressure, productivity and quality tend to go down. Prices 
may be set too high. New products may be held back in order to 
extract more money from the market using current products (this is 
one reason why Gene Amdahl started his own company, in 1970, to 
compete against IBM mainframes). In short, a monopoly causes its 
industry to slow down, or to progress at the pace set by the 
monopoly. Such ill effects are bound to happen, sooner or later, 
despite the company's denials, simply because of human nature. 
People run companies, and people produce and innovate best in an 
environment of freedom, openness, and reasonable pressure induced by 
fair competition--this is just a basic principle of the free 
enterprise capitalism system. Microsoft will not escape any of this. 
and many, including myself, say ill effects are already taking 
place.
    Communism was in my view, the ultimate form of monopoly. History 
has taught us how wrong this concept was. Considering that today, at 
the dawn of the Information Age, virtually every government, 
enterprise and individual relies on the computer industry, a 
monopoly in that industry tragically affects the entire economy, and 
even democracy, so I think the analogy holds.
    When a monopoly is torn down, its industry is free to flourish 
again. The telephony industry would likely not be where it is today 
had the Bell monopoly not been broken in 1982. The Internet, which 
plays major roles in today's economy, is not the product of any 
monopoly; it was born in the more opened Unix world. The concept of 
graphical user interfaces was not invented by Microsoft, which 
merely improved and marketed it (the idea itself was born in the 
Xerox Palo Alto research center, and it was also commercialized 
earlier by Apple--actually the complete story is much more 
complex than that). There certainly are many more examples proving 
that freedom, and competition yield to motivation, which in turn 
yields to best innovations and true progress.
    Blessing Microsoft's monopoly will, at best, slow down the 
computer industry. More realistically though, it will keep the 
quality down. Unfortunately, one area in which Microsoft Windows is 
particularly weak is computer security. The fact that successful 
security attacks cost companies huge amounts of money is already bad 
enough. But even worse is the possibility, which no one can totally 
dismiss, as some credible studies, have suggested, that a computer 
system break-in results in a genuine catastrophe causing loss of 
human life. It is therefore critical that computer security be 
tightened as much as possible. But Windows is inherently insecure 
due to its very architectural roots. I do not believe that 
Microsoft, especially as a monopoly, can quickly and completely 
bring Windows security at the level offered today by other operating 
systems. I urge you to reconsider the proposed final settlement. A 
minimal appropriate penalty must make it mandatory to clearly 
separate the sale of hardware and operating system software, as well 
as to publish the hooks into Windows along with file formats and 
communication protocols, so that third parties can more easily write 
better interoperable Widows applications. On top of that, I would 
favor any measure forcing Microsoft to compete rather than control. 
My favorite scenario would involve releasing the entire Windows 
operating system in the public domain, or the open source community 
(a ``source'' is the text or human readable form of a 
computer program). That

[[Page 29696]]

certainly would be a penalty, encompassing all the minimum 
attributes I listed above. In addition, that would automatically 
split Microsoft, leaving it with Windows applications in a market 
where it would have to compete. And potentially, some of the best 
minds of the open source community could start to generally improve 
Windows, fix bugs in it and make it more secure, ultimately making 
it more useful for everybody. That scenario would also encourage 
more people to adopt better and more secure operating systems that 
are already available today.
    Regards,
    Marcel Frechette
    1280 Beaujolais
    Longueuil (PQ)
    CANADA
    J4M 2X9
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00031975

DEPT. OF JUSTICE
MS. RENATA B. HESSE
    DEAR MS. HESSE,
    I SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT AND URGE YOU TO DO LIKE WISE.
    SINCERELY,
    Danny A. Carretta
    Mr. Danny A. Carretta
    8321 Albia St.
    Downey, CA 90242-2538



MTC-00031976

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES TILLMAN RAMSEY
3014 Market Street
Oakland, CA 94655
Phone 510.444.4721
Fax 510.444.5091
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I support for the proposed settlement that has been reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. As a school board 
member, I serve a district with a high percentage of underprivileged 
families. The impact of Microsoft's donations to underprivileged 
communities in the past is indisputable. They have demonstrated 
their commitment to bridging the technology gap, which impacts the 
future of so many children served by my district and in 
underprivileged communities across the country.
    As someone who cares deeply about our community and as a school 
board member concerned about the children and families in my 
district, I want to express my full support for the proposed 
settlement agreement.
    Respectfully,
    CHARLES RAMSEY
    School Trustee
    West Contra Costa Unified School District



MTC-00031977

Jan-24-02 10:40
P.O. Box 600505''
San Diego, CA 92160
(619) 265-7607
(619)583-2718 Fax
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I understand that the courts have asked the public to direct 
their comments and concerns on the case of US v. Microsoft to you. I 
am writing this letter because I do not believe that we should 
continue to pursue this case. I felt compelled to write this letter 
after reading an article in the Orange County Register on January 
18th.
    The article outlined over $1 million dollars in important local 
projects that will be cut this year due to a lack in funding. 
Because of fiscal mismanagement in our state a food truck will not 
get $35,000; a shelter for abused women will not get $150,000; 
Little League programs for the needy will go without funding; a 
crosswalk will not be built; a criminal tracking system will not be 
subsidized; a senior food bank will not get the money it 
needed--the list goes on and on and on. And this is just in 
Orange County. Every county in the state will go through similar 
cuts.
    This all goes back to the Microsoft case because our elected 
officials are making poor decisions. To choose to spend our money on 
issues like the Microsoft case rather than building crosswalks is 
special interest politics gone too far. Attorney General Lockyer 
will continue spending money going after Microsoft even thought the 
state of California doesn't have the funds.
    Now is the time to end the case against Microsoft and ensure 
that our government spends money on real issues. I urge the courts 
to approve of this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Michele Nash-Hoff
    President



MTC-00031978

FROM : CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS PUBLIC LIB.. FAX NO. : 814 398 4784 Jan. 24 
2002
01:43PM P1
24677 Kreitz Road
Cambridge Springs, PA 16403
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Madam:
    As someone familiar with computing and the computing industry 
and also with the negative effects of Microsoft's monopoly in 
operating systems and software, I do not see how the proposed 
settlement can remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft 
has been found guilty. Because Microsoft has already been found in 
violation, and this is the penalty phase of the case, the settlement 
should contain penalties that will promote competition and prevent 
any recurrence of antitrust violations by Microsoft. I would suggest 
that there are, at minimum, three additional features that the 
settlement should include.
    ï¿½First , Microsoft`s products must be extra-
cost options in the purchase of new computers, so that users are not 
forced to purchase the software if they do not wish to do so. The 
price difference between a computer with and without Microsoft 
software must reflect the true cost of such software to the 
consumer.
    ï¿½Second, Microsoft's present and future 
document file formats (Word, Excel, etc.) must be fully documented 
and made public, so that documents created in Microsoft applications 
may be read by other programs such as Word Perfect, Star Office and 
other programs from different manufacturers. I would even go so far 
as to suggest that Microsoft be required to completely abandon its 
proprietary file formats and to use instead a standard format such 
as XML. In addition, Microsoft should be required to adhere 
precisely to the standard XML format and not be allowed to deviate 
even slightly from it.
    ï¿½Third, all Microsoft networking protocols must 
likewise be fully documented and approved by an independent network 
protocol body. This is necessary to prevent Microsoft from taking 
control of the internet, thus making it impossible to use the 
internet with other operating systems and software.
    I am very concerned about the fact that a computing monoculture 
has developed in this country and that this makes not only the 
internet but our business and government infrastructure highly 
vulnerable to attack by terrorists and others who would do us harm. 
It is imperative that Microsoft be constrained from further 
anti--competitive activities so that competition can develop in 
the arena of computer operating systems and software. A stronger 
remedy than the one proposed will benefit everyone, including those 
who choose to use Microsoft's products.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin R. Bullock



MTC-00031979

FROM : SMITH-CENTER/IRBD PHONE NO. : 510 885 4222 Jan. 24 2002 
01:34PM P1
CAL STATE HAYWARD
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD
25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, California 94542-3068
School of Business and Economics
Department of Economics
Telephone (510) 885-3275 or 885 3265 Fax: (510) 885-4796
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney -Antitrust Division
Department of Justics
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Nearly $35 million has been spent in the Microsoft cases 
allegedly to protect consumers. The truth is that consumers were not 
damaged by Microsoft activities and in fact benefited from the 
company's efforts. It is the litigation that hurts consumers by 
delaying the introduction of new products and improvements on 
existing products.
    Antitrust laws are supposed to protect consumers not Microsoft's 
competitors. Over the years the price of computers and software has 
plummeted, and consumers have voiced their support for 
standardization and compatibility with their purchasing power. 
Consumers have been getting better and better deals from Microsoft. 
The antitrust

[[Page 29697]]

laws should not be used to punish Microsoft for being good at what 
it does and having loyal, grateful customers.
    At a time when our country is struggling to meet its financial 
obligations, wasting more money on this ill-conceived lawsuit is 
almost a crime. I ask you please approve the settlement immediately. 
The sides have come to agreement. There is no need to continue 
wasting precious resources on this.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Baird, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics and
    Chairman of the Department
    THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
    Maritime Academy



MTC-00031980

JAN. 24. 2002 2:48PM CYPRESS COLO. DESIGN CENTER NO. 6592 P. 1
To:
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
facsimile: 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
e-mail: [email protected]
From: John Tiede
1607 N. Weber Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft Request for Public Comment
    MS. Hesse:
    This fax is a response to a request for public comments by the 
court hearing the case U.S. v. Microsoft. I understand the request 
for comments is a part of the penalty phase of the litigation and 
Microsoft has been found guilty of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the 
Sherman Antitrust Act.
    By virtue of Microsoft's de facto monopoly of the Operating 
System (OS) market, I am compelled to use Microsoft products. I 
would not use those products if I had the choice. There are two 
reasons that I am forced to use Microsoft products. These reasons 
provide the rationale for my proposed remedies. First, an 
overwhelming majority people use the Microsoft OS and their 
associated office products. I must communicate with them. If I can 
not communicate, I will suffer a great economic loss. This is 
commonly referred to as a network effect and Microsoft has 
brilliantly exploited it. Second, because Microsoft has kept their 
software file formats and interfaces secret, others cannot 
functionally duplicate these products.
    It is my belief, based on Microsoft's past actions, they they 
wish to extend their reach beyond the PC desktop to control of 
networking protocols for the Internet and act as its gate keeper. 
This is their ``net'' initiative. This would have 
devastating consequences for the U.S. economy and security. 
Microsoft has stifled innovation by its monopolistic practices. 
Microsoft products are notorious for their lack of security and 
vulnerability to attack by the technically unsophisticated (i.e., 
``script kiddies'').
    The remedies I propose in this case are: 1) All specifications 
for present and future Microsoft file formats and Operating System 
Application Programming Interfaces (API) should be made public. This 
will help insure that data or documentation I create will be 
available to me in any perpetuity. It will also allow others to 
create programs that can meaningfully compete with Microsoft 
products. Please make no mistake in my intent for this remedy. The 
specifications must be made part of the public domain. Restriction 
to ``commercial'' entities is simply wrong. Open Source 
software initiatives should be allowed to make use of this 
information.
    Again, my concern is for the availability and security of the 
data that I create today going forward into the future. 2) Any 
Microsoft networking protocols must be published in the public 
domain and approved by an independent networking protocol body. I 
suggest the government request the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) initially preside over such a 
networking protocol body as an independent and impartial 
organization. (In the spirit of fu1l disclosure, I am a member of 
the IEEE.) I already see Microsoft limiting access to web sites that 
do not use Incernet Explorer. This remedy would help prevent 
MiCrOSOft from partitioning the Internet into Microsoft and non-
Microsoft spheres by appropriating already existing standards. 3) 
Microsoft products should not be bundled as a hidden cost of buying 
a computer. The choice of buying a computer without any Microsoft 
products must be present. The real cost of Microsoft products should 
be presented to the consumer. Without this, there will not be 
meaningful competition in the OS marketplace.
    4) Microsoft should be prevented from entering into exclusive 
arrangements with computer vendors. These arrangements have been 
used as rewards and punishments of computer vendors in the past and 
serve only to maintain monopoly status for Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    John W. Tiede
    January 24, 2002



MTC-00031981

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I truly appreciate the fact that the Attorney General had the 
courage to do the right thing by ending the Justice Department's 
three-year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a strong and 
binding agreement. If this doesn't help to boost our sagging 
economy, I don'' t know what will.
    Microsoft did not get off easily. The settlement was arrived at 
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The 
company agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were actually at issue in the suit--for the 
sake of wrapping up the suit.
    Enough is enough. Microsoft even agreed to document and 
disclose, for use by its rivals, various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows'' operating system products--a first 
in an antitrust settlement.
    In conclusion, the government should never again have to sue 
Microsoft beyond this agreement. This case has gone far enough.
    Sincerely,
    A.P. Van Meter
    9055 196th Southwest
    Edmonds, WA 98026



MTC-00031982

ATTENTION: Ms,Renata B. Hesse
    I support the Microsoft settlement.
    Please approve the settlement today.
    Chester J Wojcik



MTC-00031983

FROM: Orlando Cano c/o Speaker Frank Chopp
ADDITIONAL MESSAGE:
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
43rd DISTRICT
FRANK CHOPP
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
State of
Washington
House of
Representatives
THE SEAL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 1889
RULES
CHAIRMAN
January 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Proposed Settlement Agreement in US v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to 
consumers. The provisions of the settlement will give consumers 
greater choice when purchasing or upgrading computers and software. 
Consumers can continue to expect quality new products from Microsoft 
and can expect these products to work more easily with competitor's 
software as well.
    I support the Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys 
General for their efforts to strike a balance between the interests 
of Microsoft and its competitors by designing a settlement that is 
in consumers'' best interest.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Chopp
    Speaker



MTC-00031984

Michael Gracie
3047 North College
Fiesta Square
Fayetteville, AR 72703
501-582-5092/877-744-5092
fax: 501-571-1452
ITec
Information Technology
EDUCATION CENTER
Facsimile Transmittal sheet
To: Attorney General John Ashsroft
From: Michael Gracie
Company:
Date:
FaxNumber: 202-307-1454
RE: Microsoft
cc:Rep Boozman
January 16, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue

[[Page 29698]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to convey my support for the recently negotiated 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. As the 
rhetoric in this suit progressed, it became increasingly clear that 
motives on both sides had degenerated to the point of bitter, 
childish rivalry, rather than constructive progress. Ultimately, the 
threat to break Microsoft up proved to be overenthusiastic. While 
this entire fiasco has impacted my business very little, it simply 
would have complicated our business if we had to deal with two, 
three, or ten ``Baby Bills'' rather than one.
    This settlement at least has the advantage of sidetracking that 
possible eventuality; instead, Microsoft has agreed to some very 
stringent limits on their business practices, such as licensure and 
software design. This settlement reassures the IT community and the 
purchasing public that they can expect much of the same quality and 
consistency from Microsoft in the future, as they have experienced 
in the past.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Gracie
    IT Director
    cc: Representative John Boozman Formerly STAFFMARK TRAINING 
CENTER
    www.itecworks.com



MTC-00031985

solutions, inc.
January 21, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a business owner I am greatly concerned about competition 
being stifled in America. I am specifically speaking of the 
ludicrous lawsuit against Microsoft. That is why I am writing to 
lend my support for the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case.
    I personally watched as this case dragged itself out: endlessly 
running through dramatic public relations campaigns and taking up 
much of the nightly news. This consequently has caused consumers, 
such as myself, to wonder if and when I would be able to use updated 
software that would enable my business to run more smoothly. 
Microsoft is the key player behind America's technology dominance; 
their contributions have actually allowed competitors to evolve. I 
guarantee that every person who works for the competition knows 
Windows extensively. When Microsoft became burdened with this case, 
it robbed the company of resources to focus on their core business 
operation. I read that because of the Microsoft settlement computer 
makers can now eliminate Windows from their systems if they so 
desire. That shouldn't hurt the competition any!
    I am glad that the case was settled between the Justice 
Department, the nine states, and Microsoft. Please, let us settle 
this and allow America to grow and progress in the technology world.
    Thank you for your time and concern regarding my letter.
    Sincerely.
    Mark Mills
    President
    1832-2 CAPITAL CIRCLE N.E., TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308
    MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 10052, TALLAHASSEE, FL 
32302-2052
    PHONE: 850.942.4445 www.yumasol.com FAX: 850.942.7354



MTC-00031986

EFN
Educatior's Financial Network
Fax: 202-307-1454
Your Partner for Financial Success Since 1983
Phone 425.745.4997
Toll Free 800.851.2521
Fax 425.338.2071
Email: [email protected]
16000 Bothell Hwy., Suite 150
Mill Creek, WA 98012
www.cfn.com
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a resident of Mukilteo, Washington, all that happens at 
Microsoft directly affects my family. We have watched this company 
provide jobs, build a solid economy for our area and give people a 
software product par excellence. As a financial planner, I have 
watched retirement portfolios drop in direct correlation to the 
price of Microsoft stock.
    The past three years have been very hard on our area well as 
America's economy. One of the major reasons for this was the 
antitrust suit against Microsoft.
    I am in full support of any settlement that ends litigation 
against Microsoft. Continued legal action might have a disastrous 
affect. To get things moving in the right direction, Microsoft has 
agreed to give its competitors data that is sensitive to the 
internal design of Windows. This will allow companies to produce 
software that competes with Microsoft's, which will give consumers 
more of a choice.
    I am in full support of this settlement, and encourage you to 
approve it as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Sarah B. ``Sally'' Jacobsen



MTC-00031987

William Bero
1285 Old Marlboro Road
Concord, MA 01742-4739
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to urge you to lend your support to the settlement 
reached in the Microsoft case. This settlement is more than fair and 
will certainly restore fair competition in the computer industry.
    Microsoft has been an innovator and an asset to the economy. 
This lawsuit has dragged on for too long already, and at this point 
it is just a punishment for a business for being successful. 
America's computer is the world's gold standard, and Microsoft is 
mainly responsible for this. While the settlement actually limits 
Microsoft's own competitiveness, it will certainly address the 
issues alleged in the lawsuit. Microsoft will allow computer makers 
to pre-install programs such as Netscape or AOL IM within Windows 
without retaliation. Microsoft is also giving its competitors access 
to their intellectual property that they worked so hard to develop. 
The proposed settlement is a just solution to an unjust lawsuit.
    Our country's economy needs Microsoft more now than it has in 
recent years. Let's get this case behind us and get back to work. 
Please accept the settlement.
    Sincerely
    William Bero
    CC: Representative Marty Meehan



MTC-00031988

Jan 25 02 02:07p P.1
Michigan School Board
Leaders Association
www.msbla.org
1137 Briar Ridge Lane, Ortonville, MI 48462
MSBLA
FAX
To: Renata B. Hesse. Antitrust Division
From: Lori Yaklin. 810.668.7667
Fax: 202.307.1454
Date: January24, 2002
Thomas E. Bowles
Chairman
3122 Rivershyre Parkway
P.O. Box 608
Davison, Michigan 48423
(810) 658-7667
Fax: (810) 658-7557
www.msbla.org
    The Microsoft case has occupied the attention of the Justice 
Department and the American legal system for untold thousands of 
hours and captured the attention of millions of people. The opinions 
voiced about the case are varied.
    If we break down this anti-trust case, we can see that a true 
monopoly turns out poor products at exorbitant prices. In fact, if 
you have a good product at a fair price, it is safe to say that you 
couldn't possibly have a monopoly. This is why so many people are 
confounded why the government went after Microsoft--a company 
that produces great products at competitive prices.
    Microsoft has always improved its products with an eye toward 
consumer demand. Windows has undergone several revisions and 
improvements over the years. Along the way, Microsoft has phased in 
and phased out software for the Windows platform that has 
met--or failed to meet--consumer demand.
    The Court of Appeals, using ``consumer harm'' as its 
measure of anti-trust behavior, was right to overturn a lower court 
ruling last year in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. Microsoft, because 
of fierce competition in the technology industry and in response to 
consumer demand, has always improved its products according to 
customer feedback. Today the entire Windows platform retails less 
than anyone would have imagined possible when PCs came into the 
market back in the 70s and 80s.

[[Page 29699]]

    If the Court is interested in taking down an insidious monopoly, 
we respectfully suggest they stop trailing innovative, competitive 
companies and instead knock on the door of the government-run 
education system which has caused irreparable damage to a generation 
of children. Perhaps the Justice Department's Anti-trust Division 
should take a trip to some of our poorest-performing schools and 
learn the true definition of ``consumer harm.'' Free 
people in free markets creating excellence should not be tamped down 
by government intervention. We ask that you approve the proposed 
settlement agreement in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    Sincerely,
    Lori Yaklin



MTC-00031989

Date: Thursday,January 24, 2002
To: Dept of Justice
Fax: 202-307-1454
From: Xchange Solutions
Ronald D. Walken
Phone: 206-720-1055
Toll Free 877-222-1031
Fax: 206-325-3500
E mail [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get it over with! I as a consumer don't feel I have ever been 
hurt by Microsoft and I resent their competitors going to the courts 
to secure an unfair leverage.
    We as as a capitalistic nation have never benefited from this 
type of behavior. The only true monopolies that exist are those 
given by the government or courts. Best example that comes to mind 
is the one given Northwest airlines having a government granted sole 
landing rights at I think it is the Minneapolis airport. Now that is 
a monopoly?
    Figure out a way to just let this issue die... If the grieving 
parties secure favorable decision it will only encourage more future 
fights in the courts instead of the marketplace where tbe consumer 
benefits.



MTC-00031990 ROSE INDUSTRIES

William Koranda
From: William Koranda [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:36 AM
To: ``[email protected]''
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Consumers are absolutely sick and tired of this extended lawsuit 
lead by the DOJ. This past Tuesday AOL files another suit against 
Microsoft. How timely? No, the real question should be, how 
disturbing? AOL appears to be have issued a calculated offensive to 
undermine the Microsoft settlement.
    Although the current AOL lawsuit has not played itself out, 
simply review some of the overriding external evidence. AOL 
purchased Netscape for $10 billion in the midst of the DOJ trial, 
even after hearing concrete evidence that Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer's success in the market was based upon merit, not market 
share!!! This latest AOL move appears to be an another attempt by 
AOL to once again retreat from the rigors of competition to the 
safer confines of the courtroom, where the AOL is clearly more 
comfortable.
    Microsoft has tried consistently to work more closely with AOL 
in a variety of areas, including improvement of instant messaging 
interoperability, getting fair and open access to AOL'S dominant 
cable assets and partnering on technology standards which are key to 
developing future innovative technologies. These are examples or 
what we everyone (DOJ, AOL, Microsoft, etc.) should be working 
on--i.e. what's best for the consumer and the economy. AOL has 
repeatedly rebuffed Microsoft's efforts, to the detriment of 
consumers and the technology industry, and has turned to politics 
and litigation instead. But more litigation is the last thing 
consumers and the industry need. AOL and Microsoft need to focus on 
market competition and technical cooperation that will make 
consumers'' computing experience easier, not spend further time 
and resources in the nation's courtrooms.
    William F. Koranda
    CFO
    Rose Industries, Inc.
    Divisions: RexCon, Inertia
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Company Website: RexCon.com
    Phone: 414-352-2000 ext. 121
    FAX: 414-352-2004



MTC-00031991

FROM: BILL SAGE
FAX NO. : 6102842283
Jan. 24 2002 12:37PM P1
532 Fairfax Road
Drexel Hill, PA 19026
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my interest in the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Microsoft has been a huge asset to our country through job creation 
and technological advances. I think that the lawsuit has gone on for 
too long now and that the government needs to settle.
    The terms of the settlement are very harsh against Microsoft and 
seem to violate intellectual property rights and their ability to 
operate with a competitive edge. Microsoft has agreed to document 
and disclose for use by its competitors interfaces that are internal 
to their Windows'' operating system products. It will also 
grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
make it easier for non-Microsoft products to be promoted within.
    Although the settlement is unjustified, I think the alternative 
of further litigation could be detrimental to our economy, so I 
favor finalization. Please make this thing a reality and suppress 
all opposition. Thank you.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    William L. Sage
    These are my sentiments exactly. Enough is enough!



MTC-00031992

P.O. Box 1079
Colfax, CA 95713
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft settlement aims for resolution among competitors. 
This settlement will provide computer makers and software developers 
with flexibility when configuring Windows to better promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows, without the threat of a lawsuit. Microsoft will also 
use a uniform price list when licensing Windows out to the twenty 
largest computer makers in the nation, and will not retaliate 
against companies that use or promote software that competes with 
Microsoft's programs.
    As a retired professor of Engineering & Technology in Sierra 
College, Rocklin, California, I constantly researched different 
software programs and found Microsoft's software programs superior 
among the competition.
    The steps taken to settle this case are important because it 
shows Microsoft has nothing to hide regarding its business 
practices, and competitors will have an equal playing field.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth J. Weger



MTC-00031993

7802 153rd Avenue
Jamaica, NY 11414-1752
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am expressing my support for the settlement that was reached 
in November 2001. I have a degree in economics, and I firmly support 
the principle of ``Laissez-Faire'', where the government 
has a ``hands off'' policy and does not interfere with the 
affairs of free enterprise. Free competition will support itself, 
giving way to the most innovation. Microsoft should not have been 
punished for creating a product, Windows, which succeeded in the 
marketplace.
    Microsoft has had to choose the lesser of two evils for itself 
by settling this unfair lawsuit. The terms are very tough, but will 
be better for it than more protracted court battles. It will have to 
make serious concessions such as sharing specific Windows software 
codes with competitive developers in an effort to promulgate 
competition and innovation.
    I support Microsoft's resolve to stay clear of any more court 
entanglements and hope you accept the settlement as well to bring an 
end to this litigation, which has hurt the whole economy.
    Sincerely,
    Mel Lipper
    cc: Representative Anthony David Weiner



MTC-00031994

 Linda W. Dunlop
258 Twin Creeks Drive
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023-6702

[[Page 29700]]

 440-543-7524
Fax number 440-543-7547
 Send to: U.S. Department of Justice
From: Linda W. Dunlop
Attention: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: January23, 2002
 Office Location:950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 
Office
Location: Chagrin Falls, OH
Fax Number:202-307-1454--202-616-9937 
Phone
Number:440-543-7524
Microsoft Settlement
 Linda W. Dunlop
258 Twin Creeks Drive
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023-6702
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have followed the Microsoft antitrust case and settlement with 
great interest. At one time, I made a living selling information 
systems. Now I am retired, but I certainly understand the 
significance of the case, its settlement, and the need for public 
comment. My comment is quite simple: the settlement should be 
allowed to remain as it was negotiated.
    Microsoft has agreed to make many changes, and some of them even 
extend beyond the scope of the original lawsuit. The company will 
practice fair competition; share technology and intellectual 
property matters with competitors, allow computer manufacturers to 
install non-Microsoft products in Windows, and more. Surely this is 
a settlement that is agreeable to all parties involved.
    I believe that the government should allow Microsoft to abide by 
the present agreement and return to its work of making the 
technology that manages our world. And I believe that the government 
should be able to leave this burdensome case behind it and return to 
the work of helping to ensure domestic and international security. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Dunlop



MTC-00031995

January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the settlement reached in the antitrust case 
against Microsoft. I think the lawsuit was more a representation of 
bureaucracy than a sincere appeal for the rights of the consumer. 
Hence, I am in support of a quick resolution to this case, by 
approval of the terms of this settlement. Everyone can benefit from 
improved performance among the technology companies. Licensing 
agreements with the 20 largest computer makers, granting the rights 
to configure Windows, and improvement of relationships with software 
developers, all can add to this improvement.
    I hope you will step forward as a leader and support this 
settlement. We need Microsoft performing at one hundred percent 
capacity. Microsoft needs to be allowed to move forward, hopefully 
bringing the economy with it. Please consider this. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Thomas



MTC-00031996

226 Daffodil Drive
Fairfield, CA 94533
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    There has been a settlement in the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft antitrust case. I want to give my support to this 
agreement. In my opinion, this case should never have been brought 
in the first place. The basis of antitrust laws is the abuse of the 
consumer. The consumer in this case was helped. Bill Gates produced 
a better product at a lower price. His competition could not. That 
is the basis of competition. I used Netscape and had no problem 
installing it, even with the Microsoft program. I think the whole 
lawsuit was one of sour grapes on the part of Microsoft's rivals. 
They could not compete, so went after Microsoft the only way they 
knew how.
    As I understand it, Microsoft has more than acceded to the 
Department of Justice's demands. Microsoft has agreed to a technical 
committee to oversee future adherence; Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose source codes and books that are internal to Windows 
operating system; Microsoft has agreed to terms that are well beyond 
the products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit.
    It is time we put this issue to rest. We have to quit rehashing 
decisions. We undermine the judicial system if we constantly revisit 
decisions handed down. Give your support to this agreement and allow 
us to move on.
    Sincerely,
    Lance Thelen



MTC-00031997

711 North Oceanbeach Boulevard
Long Beach, WA 98631
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand the Department of Justice is accepting and 
publishing public comments for the first time since the antitrust 
suit was brought against Microsoft more than three years ago. Here 
is my two cents worth.
    First, Microsoft has been more than cooperative in resolving 
this matter. Not only did they agree to document and disclose 
various internal interfaces to the Windows' operating system 
for use by its competitors. This is above and beyond what is 
required in any antitrust settlement. They have also agreed to 
license products from their Windows operating system to the 20 
largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, which 
includes price. This settlement is harsh on Microsoft and 
constitutes a viable end to the lawsuit, no matter what some critics 
say.
    Finally, this litigation business has got to stop. It's sapping 
the economy, No more action should be taken at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Yaun



MTC-00031998

LOGICAL CHOICE
January 19,2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    As a member of the technology industry, I would like to express 
some of my views on the Microsoft case. I believe there were genuine 
concerns that brought about the lawsuits, but that was three years 
and countless dollars ago. You must not lose focus of the merits of 
the case. As long as Microsoft is willing to give up some of its 
market share and competitive advantage, there will be those that 
want a little more.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft will change the way it develops, 
license, and markets its software. The company will disclose various 
protocols in its Windows operating system, and will not retaliate 
against those that develop or promote non- Microsoft hardware or 
software.
    Although these concessions seem to go against the principle of 
free enterprise and competition, Microsoft has agreed to them in an 
effort to end this case sooner, rather than later. If these were 
demanded from a more understandable industry, they would be seen 
preposterous. Imagine if Ford had to allow GM to put their engines 
in its cars, or if McDonald's had to offer Burger King's Whopper to 
anyone that asked for it. It is time to allow the IT industry to 
return its focus from litigation, back to innovation! The settlement 
will allow Microsoft, and all of those that depend on Microsoft for 
their livelihoods, to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Mitch Pinion
    President
    3118-F MILTON ROAD
    CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28215
    TELEPHONE 704/535-8828 FAX 7O4/535-4880



MTC-00031999

4142 Wycliff Drive
Winston Salem, NC 27106
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to voice my support of the settlement with Microsoft and 
the Justice Department. The settlement that was reached last 
November is entirely fair and agreeable to all parties involved. The 
time has finally come to put this issue behind us. I would hope that 
the Justice Department recognizes the importance of enacting this 
settlement at the end of January.
    Further, the terms of the agreement will help developers. 
Developers will gain never

[[Page 29701]]

before seen access to Windows design information, including 
protocols and interfaces. This knowledge will allow them to create 
more competitive software that fits into the Windows system with 
ease. Developers should be pleased with the terms of the agreement.
    As a concerned citizen I would hope that the Justice Department 
enacts the settlement quickly.
    Sincerely,
    August Pike



MTC-00032000

JAMES H. ROBERTS
PO BOX 1355
GULF SHORES, AL 36547
334-968-1355
Fax: 334-868-4150
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    We think this Microsoft agreement is long in coming. It is time 
to implement this settlement. It has gone on too long and is 
hindering the progress that has made the use of the internet so 
friendly and accessible to so many. This agreement is key to 
bringing together the IT sector and to maintain our position in the 
global market.
    The terms of this agreement include Microsoft not entering into 
any agreements obligating any third party to distribute any Windows 
technology exclusively. Microsoft has also agreed to disclose 
interfaces of Windows products. These concessions along with others 
in licensing and marketing are bold changes within the technology 
industry. Microsoft has done a great deal to work with their 
competitors. Now it is time to let it happen. Let us support our 
technology industry by supporting this settlement.
    We strongly urge you to help stop any further litigation against 
this settlement and to let Microsoft back to innovation and not 
litigation.
    Sincerely,
    James H. & Sandra S. Roberts



MTC-00032001

January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Enough is enough. Please put a stop to the economically-draining 
witch-hunt against Microsoft.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer Icon 
from the desktop. The Issue is resolved.
    The fact is, this case against Microsoft is basically 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors.
    Not a nickel goes to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft--the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
Industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Karyn Morton
    1030 E El Camino Real
    133
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087



MTC-00032002

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
    Dear Sir,
    January 24, 2002
    Permit me to express my support for the antitrust settlement 
against Microsoft, yet the issue has yet to be concluded and great 
amounts of taxpayers money has been wasted. Indeed, I have wondered 
why the antitrust matter had initially been raised.
    Nevertheless, Microsoft has already made many concessions in 
order to resolve the issue. I therefore urge the Attorney General to 
do all in his power to make every effort to finally conclude this 
matter on the basis of the settlement to which Microsoft has already 
agreed.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Brownstein



MTC-00032004

Amir Glickman
2400 Hudson Terrace
Fort Lee, NJ 07024-3508
23 January 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, c/o DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The case against 
Microsoft has gone on long enough and it is time to put an end to 
it. The government and Microsoft have reached an agreement, the 
terms are fair, and it should be accepted.
    The terms of the settlement include safeguards to make sure that 
they are followed, thereby pre-empting arguments about the 
settlement being a toothless piece of paper. Microsoft has agreed to 
set up a technical committee that will monitor Microsoft's 
compliance with the settlement. The settlement tackles a multitude 
of complaints from competitors who feel that Microsoft unfairly used 
its operating system to manipulate the market, For instance, the 
software company can no longer take retaliatory action against 
computer companies that want to add non- Microsoft products when 
they ship their new computers to consumers.
    It is time that Microsoft and the technology industry are able 
to move forward. The only way that they will be able to move forward 
is to put this issue in the past. Please accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement,
    Sincerely,
    Amir Glickman



MTC-00032005

JSWALKER & COMPANY, INC
416.A West John Street
matthews, NC 28105
tel 704-849-2100
fax 704-849-2122
www.jswcoinc.com
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write concerning the settlement reached between the federal 
government and Microsoft Corp. last November. The settlement, while 
it may not be perfect, is a far better alternative to continued 
litigation between the parties and is very reasonable.
    Litigation has hurt innovation and it is time to move forward.
    I am pleased Microsoft has agreed to so many conditions that 
will ``level the playing field'' within the technology 
industry. Its assurance not to retaliate against computer makers who 
ship software that competes with any aspect of its Windows operating 
system represents a new beginning for the industry. Equally 
important, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate the software and 
hardware developers who will be developing and promoting software 
that competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes 
with Windows. These two components, while only a small cross-section 
of the settlement, will be very good for innovation and very good 
for the consumer.
    I hope the few groups who wanted Microsoft broken up and are 
unsatisfied with the settlement because it leaves it intact, are not 
successful in their attempts to upset the finalization process. It 
is my hope the settlement will take affect as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Sebastian Ganson
    Director of Development



MTC-00032006

FAX 203 797 3428
GROLIER EDITORIAL
232 Wooster Street
Naugatuck. CT 06770
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opinion over 
the initial suit brought against Microsoft and the settlement that 
will soon be decided on. The original suit was unsubstantiated in 
the first place and the settlement is more than fair. Microsoft has 
agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures 
that were actually at issue in the suit in order to bring this case 
to a close.
    For example, Microsoft has agreed to server interoperability 
meaning that they will make available to its competitors, on 
reasonable terms, any code that Windows uses to communicate and work 
with other programs. Also, they have agreed to develop relations 
with software developers and computer makers. This means that they 
will not retaliate against software or hardware developers, or 
against people who ship the software or hardware.
    Microsoft has clearly done more than what was necessary of them 
to resolve this matter and the Department of Justice should follow 
suit. To continue litigation would be a waste

[[Page 29702]]

of millions in tax dollars, and also a waste of time.
    Sincerely,
    Chun Chang



MTC-00032008

FROM: EGLIN DRUG TESTING OFFICE
FAX NO.: 850-883-9076
208 Elliott Road
Mary Esther, FL 32569
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The Microsoft antitrust settlement has been a long time coming, 
and I cheer on this wise arrangement. This settlement is complete 
and adequate enough to end this three-year-long litigation; 
furthermore, litigation against Microsoft is a waste of precious 
resources and time that could be devoted to more productive 
activities, particularly in the Justice Department.
    Microsoft has agreed to this settlement after extensive 
negotiations. The corporation enthusiastically pledged to comply 
with all provisions of the agreement out of eagerness to return to 
the perils of the markets, rather than the perils of court. This 
settlement will benefit the technology industry as a whole and 
consumers on the street. It provides for the creation of a Technical 
Committee that Microsoft will bankroll to oversee compliance to the 
proposed settlement. It mandates new interoperability disclosure 
requirements and prohibits retaliation tactics.
    I believe this settlement will be in the best interest of the 
public. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Jay M. Diamond
    Cc: Representative Jeff Miller



MTC-00032009

Arlene M.Clemens
8656 Silver Lake Drive
Perry Hall, Maryland 21128
(410) 931-0873
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For 32 years I was an employee of Alex. Brown & Sons 
Incorporated, which was bought out by Bankers Trust and then 
Deutschc Bank. After my retirement I was employed by the law firm of 
Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, LLP and am currently employed by 
the law firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP.
    I have used the Microsoft system as an accomplished 
Administrative Assistant for many years and have been extremely 
pleased with their products and their support teams. The majority of 
businesses use the Microsoft system and are also very satisfied. 
Most high schools are under the Apple/Macintosh system, which I feel 
is far less superior to the Microsoft system.
    I am writing to voice my support for reasonable men and women to 
settle the Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit by the Department of Justice. 
It is unbelievable to me that this case has gone so far.
    The Government may have thought they were doing a good thing for 
the American public when this case originated, but the Justice 
Department has destroyed everything the computer industry has worked 
for.
    This lawsuit has contributed to the slowing of our economy. Our 
economy has been given an edge in the international marketplace by 
the computer industry. Unfortunately, this lawsuit has caused us to 
give all other nations a chance to take our place. When Microsoft 
was forced to deal with lawyers and trials and everything else 
involved with this lawsuit they had to halt their research and 
development.
    To move ahead with business and compete on the international 
level, they are going to have back track three years in order to 
move forward.. The current technology revolution is only going to 
expand in the coming years. This case has cost our country more than 
just money. We are Americans!
    Why are we not allowed the opportunity to be competitive?
    Something needs to be done to end this case as promptly as 
possible. No one benefits from all this--not even Microsoft's 
competitors, which is evidenced by their decline in the stock 
market. Microsoft needs to be allowed to continue their business of 
delivering innovative technologies to the marketplace. They have 
agreed to change their business practices and will allow their 
competitors access to their source codes and internal interface 
designs, As an employee who has 35 years'' experience working 
for some of America's Who's Who, I would have been lost without 
Microsoft and their unending help. This settlement is obviously the 
right thing for our nation. Our economy cannot withstand further 
delay. Please do whatever is necessary to put an end to this 
lawsuit. Thank you.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Arlene M. Clemens



MTC-00032010

John D. Clemens. Jr.
8656 Silver Lake Drive
Perry Hall, Maryland 21128
 (410) 931-0873
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my support for the settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. It is truly unbelievable 
that this case has gone so far. The government thought they were 
doing a good thing when this case started, but now they have 
destroyed nearly everything that the computer industry has worked 
for. This lawsuit has contributed to the slowing of our economy. The 
computer industry has given our economy an edge in the international 
marketplace, but with this lawsuit we have given all other nations a 
chance to take our place. When Microsoft was forced to deal with 
lawyers and trials and everything else involved with this lawsuit 
they had to halt development and research. To move ahead with 
business and compete on the international level, they will have to 
backtrack three years in order to move forward. The current 
technology revolution is only going to expand in the coming years. 
This case has cost our country more than just money.
    I was the previous head of the Baltimore Teamster's Local 557 
Union and have seen the affects of this firsthand. Something needs 
to be done to end this case as soon as possible. There is no one 
benefiting from this, not even Microsoft's competitors. While this 
settlement limits Microsoft's own competitiveness, it is undoubtedly 
a reasonable solution to this idiotic controversy. Microsoft needs 
to be allowed to continue their business of delivering innovative 
technologies to the marketplace. They have agreed to change their 
business practices and will allow their competitors access to their 
source codes and internal interface designs.
    This settlement is unquestionably the right thing for our 
nation. Our economy cannot withstand further delay. Please do 
whatever is necessary to put an end to this lawsuit.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely Yours,
    John D. Clemens, Jr
    JDCJr:amh



MTC-00032011

6380 E 46th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46226-3548
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The lawsuit against Microsoft is ridiculous and reflects a lack 
of knowledge on behalf of the judiciary system and politicians about 
software and the whole computer industry. It is not in the public's 
bets interests for this thing to continue any longer.
    The settlement as it is too harsh and violates a number of free 
market principles. First, to disclose information that Microsoft has 
worked so hard to develop seems to undermine the whole reason or 
principle motivation behind innovating your own technology for 
profit. If every business had to offer up its secrets there would be 
less incentive to start a business based on a good idea. Second, to 
force Microsoft to license its Windows products to over 20 computer 
makers is the same as creating a monopoly whereby they can determine 
prices in the marketplace that will best serve themselves. It will 
inevitably lead to higher prices across the board and that will be 
an infringement on human rights.
    I think it is wrong to punish one company out of the many in the 
marketplace for doing an excellent job especially in the area of 
standardization which has reduced costs and efforts after purchase 
and upgrading the PC's for homes and businesses. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    Sent By: Retired; 317 545 7889;



MTC-00032012

FROM XINET--JANICE DIANE

[[Page 29703]]

925 449 0189
4382 Cornell Way
Livermore, CA 94550
January 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed final 
judgment to resolve the United States''civil antitrust case 
against Microsoft. I work as a computer programmer at the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, and have observed the development of 
personal computing over the last25-30 years. I am 52 years 
old. With my wife, I own 177 shares of Microsoft corporation. I have 
followed this trial in the trade press with interest since its 
inception, and have read the Complaint, Stipulation . . . ; and 
Competitive Impact Statement.
    The general bias I bring to my letter is that the proposed 
settlement is nowhere near an adequate remedy for the wrongs visited 
upon consumers and the computing industry by the defendant. Others 
such as James Barks Dale (Netscape) and Matthew Szulik (Redhat) have 
spoken before Congress recently, with eloquence and at greater 
length. I agree with their points, so will restrict my comments to 
two areas:
    1. Any settlement must include some simple and inescapable 
punishment designed to redress a sensible fraction of the actual 
damages, and to deter this and any future defendants. I believe such 
punishment should meet three criteria:
    a. It is not predicated upon our subject to negotiation by the 
defendant;
    b. It has simple terms, with no loopholes that may 
boomerang--``free'' software, services, in-kind 
payments, or reduced license fees do not qualify;
    c. It is proportional to the damage and substantial enough to 
cause serious reflection on the part of this company's leadership.
    I favor a cash fine, as a lump sum up front and an annual 
fraction of gross revenue for a period of some years. This is the 
form of punishment most likely to engage the stockholders of the 
company in its reform, Microsoft has been reported to have 
approximately $35 billion dollars in cash reserves at this time. Any 
lump sum fine for which the defendant could simply write a check 
seems inadequate to me.
    2. 0ne prominently reported alternative proposed by the nine 
state attorneys general who declined to support the Proposed 
Settlement was a requirement that the defendant should port the 
Office suite to Linux. This is surely well-intended. However, I 
offer the following contrary viewpoint:
    a. Such a requirement is unlikely to succeed. Speaking as a 
software developer and manager myself, there are many ways to meet 
formal requirements of this project and still torpedo its effect.
    b. If it did succeed, it would only increase the dominance of 
the product. This is an anti-trust action, after all.
    c. It would in either case disrupt the current open source 
marketplace, and surely destroy the several small but promising 
alternatives such as Star Office, Abiword, and others.
    The defendant's relationship to open source may be something 
like B'rer Rabbit's to the briar patch. I believe it might be better 
to enjoin Microsoft from entering that market than to require it. A 
simpler solution is to require the defendant to publish the file 
formats of the Office suite, past and present, in enough detail to 
allow robust inter-operable alternatives to be developed by third 
parties. If this might compromise intellectual property rights of 
the defendant, those must be balanced against the collective rights 
of all persons who have authored documents currently stored in the 
proprietary Office format. This case offers the opportunity to set a 
precedent regarding our expectation that any proprietary file 
format--the railroad gauges of our century--will become to 
some degree open after it reaches a certain prevalence of use in 
society. In my opinion, the public interest ultimately will require 
this outcome.
    Yours Very truly,
    Lee E. Busby
    [email protected]



MTC-00032013

323 Dickens Street
Northfield, IL 60093
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I feel that there should not have been any litigation against 
Microsoft in the first place. Now that there has been an agreement 
reached, I hear there is a possibility of additional litigation. 
Why?
    After extensive negotiations, Microsoft has agreed to terms that 
extend beyond what is generally expected in any antitrust case. 
Microsoft also agreed to design future versions of Windows to 
provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer companies, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows.
    Let's stop the madness. Microsoft needs to go back to doing what 
it does best, creating ``innovative technology''. 
Government needs to focus on reviving the economy and protecting us 
from our real enemies and terrorists. I support the settlement, and 
look forward to the end that it will bring to this case.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Parcells



MTC-00032014

January 24, 2002
Mr. William C. Locke
15012 Los Lottes Ave.
Whittier, Ca 90605
United States Governmemt
Department of Justice
Attention: MS Renata B. Hesse
Washington, D. C.
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    We are familiar with the proposed Microsoft settlement and 
believe it is fair to all concerned including Microsoft competitors.
    We do not believe taxpayers should continue to pay to provide 
Microsoft competitors with a competive competitive advantage over 
Microsoft. It is up to the competitors to establish their own 
competitive advantage in the marketp1ace by their own efforts and 
ability not U.S. taxpayers.
    We support the proposed Microsoft settlement and strongly urge 
that the Department of Justice accept the settlement Many thanks for 
your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Mr and Mrs William G. Locke



MTC-00032015

Date: January 25, 2002
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Fax No: 1 2023071454
From: Lester E. Weaver
Fax No: 252-443-2673
Phone No: 252-443-2673
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lester E. Weaver
2600 Old Mill Road
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express to you my opinion regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement reached in November. This settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am anxious to see the antitrust dispute resolved 
permanently. Ending this dispute promptly would would be in the best 
interest of our country and all concerned.
    The November settlement was reached after extensive 
negotiations.
    My understanding is that Microsoft has agreed to fully carry out 
all provisions outlined in this agreement. They also agreed to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs 
included within Windows. Furthermore Microsoft agreed to design 
future versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-
Microsoft software.
    This settlement is sufficient to deal with the issues of this 
lawsuit. Please support this settlement so we can focus our 
resources on more pressing issues. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Lester E. Weaver



MTC-00032016

Bob Baum
139 Wanderless Lane
Taylorsville, NC 28681
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the agreement reached between Microsoft and The 
Department of Justice. I believe that we need to allow Microsoft to 
put its efforts back into technological innovation. With the current 
sluggish performance of the technology industry we do not need a 
pioneering company like Microsoft overwhelmed with litigation.

[[Page 29704]]

    I believe that Microsoft is more than generous in accepting the 
terms of the proposed agreement. Microsoft has agreed to allow 
competition by: allowing computer makers to ship software that 
competes with Windows operating system, allowing disclosure of 
internal Windows interfaces, and allowing complaints to be filed 
with a technical committee.
    I hope that these terms along with the resolution of this 
lawsuit, will act as a catalyst for improved performance in the 
technology industry, It is time to move forward and allow the free-
market system to work. I support this proposal and I hope you will 
too. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Baum
    P.S.
    The events in the last few days are very sad for anyone who 
might be in the position I am in since the legal actions that have 
been taken by Netscape against Microsoft will be went loss to the 
Stockholders of Microsoft and Netscape. It will be an absolute 
loss--no matter who wins--except for the attorneys 
representing the litigants. I own stock in both companies. What will 
the government do to compensate me for this???



MTC-00032017

3914 Rhododendron Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US DepQrtment of Justrce
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft
    We are writing you today to express our views on the Microsoft 
antrtrust settlement. We feel that the settlement that was reached 
in November is fair and reasonable, and we are anxious to see this 
dispute resolved. We SInCerely hope there will be no further action 
against Microsoft at the federal level.
    This settlement is complete and thorough. Microsoft has agreed 
to share more information with other companies, including 
Information about Certain internal Interfaces in Windows and any 
protocols implemented in Windows operating system, on reasonable and 
non-drscriminatory terms
    This settlement not only keeps MIcrosoft together, but it will 
also benefit competing companies. Please support this settlement. 
Thank you for allowing me to comment on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Nesbit
    Andy Dorton



MTC-00032018

508 W Craig Road
Pittsburg, KS 66762
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to give my approval to the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft settlement. It has gone on long enough, draining 
needed money from both the taxpayers and the tech industry. I think 
it should be noted that our economic slowdown started with the 
indictment against Microsoft. We need to get back to business. 
Letting this settlement stand is one way to do it. I also think the 
key word here is ``settlement'', not on-going, or 
rehashing, but settlement.
    Microsoft has been more than fair with this issue. Microsoft has 
agreed to a great many terms that were not even an issue in the 
original suit; Microsoft has agreed to help companies better achieve 
a greater degree of reliability with regard to their networking 
software; Microsoft has agreed to allow non-Microsoft product to be 
shipped to a consumer; Microsoft has agreed to share its Internal 
interfaces, a first in antitrust cases.
    I urge you to let us have the opportunity to go forward. We have 
more important things to do.
    Sincerely,
    John Evans



MTC-00032019

Helen Valsamakis
22081 Susan Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8305
(714) 965-1956
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000l
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter so that I may go on record as 
supporting the decision of the Justice Department to settle the 
antitrust suit with Microsoft. I am pro-business and pro-
competition, and as such, I support any settlement that will end 
this senseless litigation process against Microsoft.
    I feel that the government needs to take a hands-off approach to 
private enterprise, so I am relieved that the settlement includes 
checks and balances that will help keep the government out of future 
legal battles with Microsoft. A three-person technical oversight 
committee has been set up to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
terms of the settlement. This committee consisting of three experts 
in software engineering will assist with dispute resolution, which 
keeps all parties out of court. If there is any company that feels 
that Microsoft is not complying with any provision in the 
settlement, they will be able to lodge a complaint with the DOJ or 
the technical committee.
    I fully support the settlement, and hope that all future 
disputes that put an unnecessary strain on the economy will avoid 
the courtroom.



MTC-00032020

2643 Greenbriar Lane
Annapolis, MD 21401-4423
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is in support of Microsoft's settlement of its 
antitrust case with the federal government. Microsoft is a good 
corporate citizen. Microsoft's willingness to settle rather than 
expose the taxpayers to a lengthy and very costly trial should be 
commended, not condemned.
    Microsoft's willingness to license its Windows operating system 
products to the 20 largest computer makers (who collectively account 
for the great majority of PC sales) on identical terms and 
conditions, including price, grant computer makers broad new rights 
to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs included within Windows, and not 
to retaliate against computer makers who ship software that competes 
with anything in its Windows operating system is extremely 
reasonable.
    Microsoft's agreement does more for consumers than most of its 
competitors would have been willing to do. This settlement should be 
accepted so the consumers can continue to benefit from Microsoft's 
software innovations.
    Sincerely,
    Lillian Armstrong



MTC-00032021

Denis Beaulieu
2425 NW 261th Street
Boca Raton, FL 33431
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express by opinion in support of the Microsoft 
antitrust settlementduring the public comment period. This 
settlement is comprehensive and fair. It will endthe three years of 
litigation. It will prevent run-away antitrust litigation, such as 
whatpreviously happened with AT&T and IBM and other companies.
    The settlement will aid Microsoft's partners and competitors in 
using Microsoft'sWindows platform as a springboard for their 
success. The settlement will enable othercompanies to more closely 
integrate their products Windows, through Microsoft releaseof the 
code for its internal interfaces and server interoperability 
protocols, and licensingof other intellectual property on non-
discriminatory terms. Computer makers and otherswill have more 
flexibility to modify the Windows desktop through removing 
Microsoft'sprograms, such as Internet Explorer, and adding their 
own, such as AOL Times Warner'sNetscape Navigator, These terms 
address the concerns raised by other companies. Theywill benefit the 
American computer industry as a whole. This will, in turn, benefit 
theAmerican economy, which has been battered in the recent years, 
partly by the precipitousdecline of the technology sector.
    I appreciate your support for the settlement. The federal judge, 
recently appointedto replace the previous judge, should approve the 
settlement in the best interests of thepublic. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Denis Beaulieu
    cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00032022

CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF SCHENECTADY, P.C.

[[Page 29705]]

2546 BALLTOWN ROAD SUITE 300 2546 BALLTOWN ROAD -SUITE 300
SCHEDNECTADY NEW YORK 12309-1083
GLOVERSVILLE OFFICE (518) 773-5451 (518) 377-8184 FAX 
(518) 381-1696
AMSTERDAM OFFICE (518) 842-7088
JOHNA.NOLAN, M.D., F.A.C.C.
Robert J. PARKES, M.D., F.A.C.C.
PAULDWORNON,M.D., F.A.C.C.
DAVIDC.ARMENIA,MD., FACC.
Mm JORDAN, MD., F.A.C.C.
ARTHUR R. VAKENER III, M.D.. F.A.C.C.
WILLIAM N. VACCA, M.D., F.A.C.C.
EUGENE E DRAGO, M.D., F.A.C.C.
MIGUEL A. CABRAL, M.D., F.A.C.C.
FREDERICK. K. WIESE, M.D., F.A.C.C.
BARRY S.LINDENBERG, M.D., F.A.C.C.
DENNISP.MANOR, MD., F.A.C.C.
DOUGLAS A.LONG. M.D.. F.A.C.C.
CHARLES CRAIG PETERSON, M.D., F.A.C.C.
GEORGE A.VANSOLAS, M.D.. F.A.C.C.
PETER D.COSPITO, D.O., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.P.
ANTHONY R. LONDON, M.D., F.A.C.C.
PATRICK J.PARISI, M.D.. F.A.C.P.
MURLI RAMON, M.D., F.A.C.C.
K.R.SHANKAR M.D.. F.A.C.C.
INGRID RUNO, M.D.
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. Isupport the settlement that was reached 
in November. I sincerely hope there will be no furtheraction against 
Microsoft at the federal level.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to 
all terms and conditions, eventerms that extend well beyond the 
original lawsuit, for the sake of wrapping it up. Under 
thisagreement, Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of 
Windows to provide a mechanismtomake it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoftsoftware 
within Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to document and disclose 
for use by itscompetitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows.
    This settlement will benefit the economy, the technology 
industry, and consumers. Please supportthis settlement so our 
precious resources can be funneled into more productive activities. 
Thankyou for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Barry Lindenberg



MTC-00032023

FROM :W.S. AND M.L. PINE
206 729 0218
5509 NE 63rd Street
Seattle, WA 98115
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    I am of the opinion that the settlement that was reached between 
Microsoftand the Department of Justice is more than fair, and I hope 
that it isimplemented as soon as possible. Over three years have 
passed since thebeginning of the suit, and the economy has fallen 
into a recession in thattime.
    The settlement that has been proposed does not go easy on 
Microsoft, butwith everything considered, it was the best thing that 
could have happened,I believe that Microsoft should have never been 
taken to court in the firstplace, but if this settlement ends all of 
the ridiculous litigation and allowsMicrosoft to worry more about 
producing instead of legal defense. I dohowever feel that the 
settlement will benefit the economy. Microsoft's.competitors will be 
able to produce and promote software that competeswith Windows, and 
they will not have to worry about retaliation fromMicrosoft.
    The settlement, although not deserving is fair enough and I 
support it.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Gardner



MTC-00032024

Pro-Fusion Technologies, Inc.
3825 Old Conejo Rood
Newbury Park, CA 91320 USA
Tel. (805) 376-8021 Fax (805) 376-0619
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to you because I support Microsoft and I feel that 
your office's antitrust lawsuit against them should be settled. I 
think the agreement reached in November favors Microsoft's continued 
success more than other actions may have, and it is the most 
appropriate way for both sides to move on.
    To appease the Justice Department's concerns, Microsoft is 
agreeing to change the way they do some of their business, and that 
effort should be recognized. Sharing patented Windows code with 
competitors, leveling the playing field in the way they deal with 
computer makers, and giving the public more freedom to remove 
Windows-based programs like Internet Explorer all open up what is 
already a competitive marketplace.
    Microsoft makes some of the most innovative products on the 
market today, and their success is deserved. Please settle the 
government's antitrust suit and let Microsoft move on with their 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Heinzman
    President



MTC-00032025

Jan 24 02 05:49p P- 1
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to ask that you agree with the terms 
of the settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
The settlement was finally reached in November of last year after 
three long years of litigation and six months of continuous 
negotiation. The settlement proposes terms that are in the best 
interests not only of the plaintiffs and the defendant, but also of 
the public and the IT industry as a whole. It is now time to move on 
and take care of more important issues.
    The proposed settlement requires a variety of changes on 
Microsoft's part. For example, Microsoft will be required to license 
its Windows operating system to twenty of the largest computer 
makers on identical terms and conditions. Microsoft has also agreed 
to refrain from entering into any contract that would require a 
third party to either sell or promote Microsoft software at a fixed 
percentage. These terms are entirely reasonable.
    America is struggling through a recession, and the effects are 
being felt worldwide.
    Consumer confidence and spending are at their lowest point in 
ten years, and something needs to be done. The economic downturn 
began three years ago when the Justice Department initially brought 
suit against Microsoft, and has been snowballing ever since.
    Now that this settlement has been proposed and competition has 
been increased, the economy will be given the boost it so 
desperately needs.
    Please help America's economy get back on its feet as soon as 
possible. I urge you to support the terms of the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. No further 
action needs to be taken on the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Knop
    1863 Garfield Avenue
    Salt Lake City, UT 84108



MTC-00032026

P.O. Box 1012
Washougal, WA 98671
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am of the opinion that the settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is more than fair, and I 
hope to see it implemented as soon as possible. For too long now our 
economy has been suffering, and ending this legal dispute is the 
best remedy. Remember, the economic slide started when the 
government first sued Microsoft.
    The settlement that was reached has teeth, and Microsoft did not 
get off all that easy. However, it was in the best interests of the 
technology industry,consumers, and the economy to get this issue 
over with as soon as possible.
    Microsoft has agreed to give to its competitors source code and 
other design information for the Windows operating system. This 
allows competitors the ability to produce software that is 
compatible with Microsoft's, and they will not have to worry about 
retaliation from Microsoft since the agreed not to go after 
companies that try to compete.

[[Page 29706]]

    All in all, I am satisfied with the settlement. Please implement 
it as soon as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jake Lawlor



MTC-00032027

616 Terrace Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the settlement that was reached in the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute, I personally believe that this suit 
never should have been brought in the first place. Microsoft is a 
great company that has done immeasurable good for this nation. 
Microsoft provided a usable system, which enabled more people to 
access computers and harness this new technology. I spend most of my 
workday at the computer using Microsoft's product, and I know that 
without the Windows operating system I would have serious 
difficulties fulfilling my job.
    I think that the settlement is reasonable. The company will not 
be divided, and will be able to continue innovating and making 
strides in the IT sector. Under the terms of the settlement 
Microsoft will design future versions of windows that are compatible 
with the products of its competitors. The company will not utilize 
any business tactics that may be considered retaliatory. Finally,the 
companies will he held accountable by a three-person technical 
committee that will monitor the future business practices of the 
company to ensure that they comply with the terms of the settlement.
    I am pleased that we may finally be able to put this litigation 
behind us,and I hope that the states fall in line behind the federal 
government and settle.Thank you for all the work that you have done 
to protect American business and free enterprise, and for allowing 
me this opportunity to express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Mattern



MTC-00032028

Subj: microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/24/027:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Capitmkts
To: [email protected]
CC: Capitmkts
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I feel the MSFT settlement was Fair and just 
for the people of the United States of America which both MSFT the 
consumer and public have paid a dear price in time, money, personal 
and lives: had weas a nation watched lessof our own and more about 
what foreigners were plotting against the United States the twin 
tower would still be standing along with 3000 lives not to mention 
the families these people touched. Once again in the news is All 
watch new and understood what the netscape browser was and the risk 
of a 10 Billion dollar purchase.'' Elephant.'' The trial 
was going on during the time of the purchase and the insiders 
thought they new netscape would control the market after MSFT lost 
because that did not happen netscape has filed a suit which I 
personal think is without merit and should be throw out.
    We as a nation should be very thankful for the creativity and 
jobs that Microsoft started and can only hope that the continued 
success will bring ever greater rewards to this country. Mr. 
Ashcroft I hope and pray that the settlement stand because it was 
fair and just for all.
    God bless.
    Sincerely
    Peter J. Borrello
    413-731-2303



MTC-00032029

4523 Wall Street
Bellingham, WA 98226-5102
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thank you for your support of the settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case. You have broad support in this decision across the 
country. Forty-one states want no further action against Microsoft: 
32 states that did not think a suit was reasonable, and 9 states 
that sued and then agreed to the settlement.
    Why should our government continually try to shoot down the 
pacesetters and trendsetters of our nation? Why have a governmental 
bias against private enterprise, when private enterprise is the 
foundation of our prosperity? The AT&T and IBM suits were 
unproductive. Now Microsoft. Microsoft has carried the flag, opened 
the door, and got a foothold, for American technology companies 
worldwide.
    I have a business in the automobile accessories industry. I 
previously was in the home video business. I know that there was 
once a competition between the VI-IS and Beta tape formats. That 
battle was won by VHS because it was more open to industry partners 
than was Sony with its closely held Beta. The situation is similar 
to the contest between the Intel-Microsoft PC industry and Apple and 
its closely held Macintosh. Intel and Microsoft won because they 
encouraged widespread participation, which encourages widespread 
adoption.
    Microsoft does not act alone; it has been smart in attracting 
partners to build strength into the industry. Now, with the 
settlement, Microsoft has agreed to be work constructively with 
others by revealing internal information about Windows and allowing 
computer makers and users to remove access to Windows technologies 
in favor of rival software. By making it easier for competitors to 
write and promote their software, Microsoft is doing all it can to 
end the litigation.
    I support their efforts and hope you do too. Thank you for your 
leadership for a strong America.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffery Heininger



MTC-00032030

Alice Haber
8043 Winston Road
Philadelphia, PA 19118
January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand the Department of Justice is accepting and 
publishing public comments for the first time since it brought this 
antitrust suit against Microsoft more than three years ago.
    As a schoolteacher, I am constantly concerned that my children 
have access to the latest technology from a solid company. Microsoft 
is that company.
    It is interesting that some parties want to forfeit the greater 
good for short- term lucrative gain. Microsoft has been more than 
cooperative in resolving this dispute, by agreeing to terms that 
extend well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at 
issue in the suit. In addition to the non.- retaliation parts, 
Microsoft will disclose information about Windows to its 
competitors, giving software companies more background with which to 
work. Ultimately, competition will create new software and programs 
that are even more stunning. However, we still need Windows as a 
reliable platform.
    I urge you to end this suit so that we can go on with our lives. 
Let Microsoft do what they do best and save the technology sector of 
the economy. No more action should be taken at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Alice Haber
    Cc: Senator Santorum



MTC-00032031

5864 N.E. Parkpoint Place
Seattle, WA 98115
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The anticipation of those hoping for an end in the Microsoft 
antitrust case has finally been met. A settlement has been reached 
in the case and I think the Justice Department should ensure this 
settlement is instituted.
    Groups and individuals with anti-Microsoft views are working 
against this settlement. This is unnecessary because this settlement 
will make many positive changes in the software industry. The 
settlement prohibits any contractual restriction by Microsoft on the 
promotion of non-Microsoft products by computer makers. Basically 
this means computer makers will have more ability to place other 
software, and other non-Microsoft operating systems on computers. 
This will be good for Microsoft's competitors, yet they continue to 
oppose the settlement. It may be that opponents of the settlement 
care only about harming Microsoft through the courts, and not for 
more competition in IT.
    It does not behoove a great Justice system like ours to be used 
by companies to harm another company. Simply stated, the settlement 
currently agreed to by both sides in this case should be instituted.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29707]]

    Mary Rowland



MTC-00032032

Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Arctic Systems, lnc,
15320 Spencerville Ct. Suite 201
Burtonsville, MD 20866
(301) 384-8400
January 24,2002
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I have reviewed the terms of the settlement between the U.S. 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. I personally feel the 
settlement is broader than necessary, and the terms are certainly 
strong enough to meet any reasonable person's goals for such a 
settlement.
    I feel continued litigation is counter-productive. I support 
this settlement, and urge you not to consider further action.
    I have worked as a software and computer professional since 
1983. I am now a partner in a software firm. My company is both a 
Microsoft Parter and Unix/Linux Authorized. We feel Microsoft has 
been a reliable, dependable provider of quality products. I feel 
anyone who claims otherwise is either ill informed or has an agenda 
not related to fair competition.
    Unlike other companies, Microsoft has made extensive efforts to 
help people move their flagship product, Windows NT, to other 
platforms. For years Microsoft offered many of their products on 
Unix until demand waned. In my opinion Microsoft has gone out of 
their way to provide better products for lower prices.
    Thank you for your service to our country in this time of need. 
My family and I appreciate your efforts to settle this matter and 
attend to the great challenges facing all of us. Please feel free to 
have your staff call me personally if they wish to discuss this 
further. I feel strongly about this matter, and certainly would 
provide as much time as necessary to help your staff understand 
these issues.
    Sincerely
    Rick Hansen
    President Arctic Systems Inc.
    (301) 807-5011
    [email protected]
    15320 Spencerville Court
    Suite 201
    Burtonsville, MD 20866



MTC-00032033

13145 Byrd Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
January 18,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to let your office know that I support the 
settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. As a former 
software writer, I know firsthand what great technological leaps 
Microsoft has been able to make, leaps that everyone has benefited 
from. Thanks to the company's ability to standardize the use of 
personal computers, consumers pay less and get more out of their 
purchase.
    I believe that there Is enough competition in the marketplace, 
and that Microsoft's concessions in the settlement will only 
increase consumers'' freedom of choice, as well as other 
manufacturers'' ability to develop programs that are compatible 
with Windows.
    The American way is all about the pursuit of success, and 
Microsoft has simply done better than most at succeeding. They have 
done so because they make good products and continue to lead the way 
in technical innovation. Do not punish them further for 
that--please settle the antitrust case without further delay.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Schoendorf



MTC-00032034

January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am contacting you to ask that you back the settlement reached 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. This case simply has continued for 
too long, and an enlightened settlement now exists that should bring 
this case to a close.
    The settlement that is currently being made available to both 
sides wiIl bring improvement and more openness to the IT industry. 
The settlement allows computer makers to place non-Microsoft systems 
on their machines unencumbered by contractual restrictions. The 
settlement also will permit the easy placement of non-Microsoft 
software on Microsoft operating systems.
    Clearly this settlement presents a reasonable result for all 
sides. Pursuit of further litigation in the federal case is, in my 
opinion, unwarranted. respectfully ask that you back the current 
settlement. I again
    Sincerely,
    Sanjay Chandra
    Vice President
    American Leather, LP
    cc: Representative Marlin Frost
    3700 Eagle Place Drive Suite 100
    Dallas Texas 75236
    Phone 800.456.9599
    Fax 972.296-8859



MTC-00032035

January 11,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US: Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write you with concern over the recent delay of the Microsoft 
settlement. It is distressing to hear that the settlement is being 
delayed because of a few politicians. After three long years of 
court battles, it is ridiculous to prolong the execution of such a 
well-designed agreement. The terms that were agreed upon are a 
reflection of the interests of all parties involved. It is time to 
let them speak for themseIves.
    Microsoft has not only agreed to rework licensing and marketing 
agreements, but has agreed to design future versions of Windows that 
allow for easy installation of non-Microsoft sofeware, too. This, 
alone, speaks to the fact that Microsoft is acting in the best 
interest of the IT sector as a whole. The technology industry is 
ready to move foward, so let us allow them to do just that.
    Let us not hold back our economy by holding back the advancement 
of our IT sector in this competitive global market.
    Please support the settlement in its current form. Help us to 
make sure that no further action is taken against the agreement, and 
that we can move forward as a united industry.
    Sincerely,
    Ernest Carpenter 409
    Care Center Drive
    Warrensburg, MO 64093



MTC-00032036

Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Several years ago, I had the opportunity to serve as an elected 
official in Weber County, Utah. During my tenure, we worked to 
streamline county government and enhance our computer systems. We 
made the determination that the mainframe system WC were using was 
old and outdated and moved to a new system with Oracle Software as 
its foundation.
    Oracle competed for this business and won. I am now learning of 
Oracle's desire to try to use legal means to give themselves the 
upper hand over their competition. Oracle should spend their time 
and money on research, not on attorneys to stay ahead of the 
competition. Forcing another competitor to give up source code is 
wrong.
    Please bring an end to the Microsoft Class Action Suit and 
settle this legal wrangling.
    Sincerely,
    Spencer F. Stokes



MTC-00032037

TECHWORX INC.
Architects of Mission-Critical Environments
950 Industrial Highway
Suite D
Southampton, PA 18966
Toll Free: 800-707-7966
Tel: 215-357-7966
Fax: 215-357-7932
Web: www.techwonx-inc.com
Email: [email protected]
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Forgotten amidst all the controversy surrounding this Microsoft 
lawsuit is the fact there are many companies like mine that have 
been built and remain successful based on the success and 
reliability of the Microsoft product line. While many Microsoft 
competitors feel that they can use the legal system to knock 
Microsoft off its throne, they have ignored the potential effects 
that would be experienced by other companies in the IT industry.
    This is why the settlement recently reached is so Important. Its 
obvious advantage is that it ends speculation as to

[[Page 29708]]

whether Microsoft will be broken up. It also has the advantage of 
addressing most of the main complaints against Microsoft. While I am 
not sure that I agreed that Microsoft should have agreed give up 
more of its interfaces, I was pleased that other points will now be 
satisfied. It is important, for example, that Microsoft relaxes its 
stance with the OEMs.
    I am therefore writing to support this settlement. It leaves 
intact the infrastructure of the IT industry and ends the litigation 
with reasonably satisfactory results.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Terebecki
    President
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum
    Microsoft CERTIFIED Partner



MTC-00032038

Commtech 3
Communication and Technology Industries, Inc.
1613 Poydras St.
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Attorney General--Mr. John Ashcroft
Company: US Dept of Justice
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 / 
1-202-616-9937
From: Darryl D'aquin
Company: CommTech Industries, Inc.
Phone: (504) 200-1333
Fax: 504-200-1310
Date: 1/24/02
FROM : COMMTECH
FAX NO. :5042001310
Jan. 24 2002 04:37PM P2
commtech
I N D US T R I E S c s
January 9,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to convey to you my opinion on the antitrust suit 
involving Microsoft. The settlement reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice is of fair and reasonable intentions, and 
it succeeds. The settlement was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator present; it also 
addresses all issues adequately. Microsoft's retaliation actions 
will be made illegal; the Technical Committee instituted by the 
government will enforce it.
    It is not necessary to carry any further litigation against 
Microsoft. Even though the settlement goes further than what 
Microsoft would have liked, to settle case now is the right thing to 
do. This suit has been a major contributing factor in our faltering 
economy, and the standstill state of the industry. To continue 
litigation means a prolonged delay in the revival of the economy and 
the industry.
    There has been a general fleecing of the American taxpayer by 
pursuing this. To prevent this from continuing any further, it is 
necessary to stop all action at the federal level. Microsoft needs 
to be allowed to return to innovation, rather than litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Darryl D'Aquin
    President



MTC-00032039

FAX TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, DC
202-307-1454
FROM JAMES N. HARVEY
925-299-0421
January 24,2002
Re: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I urge you to finalize the Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation. The settlement seems fair and reasonable, and further 
litigation would serve only the interests of the company's 
competitors and the political purposes of the nine State Attorneys 
General who oppose it. Microsoft has brought stability to an 
industry that was confused and chaotic, and because its products 
provide good value at affordable prices, consumers have benefitted 
by buying them. It would not be proper to allow Microsoft's 
competition to use the courts as a marketing tool. Please settle 
this case in accordance with the agreement as it stands.
    Sincerely,
    James N. Harvey
    4019 Los Arabis Drive
    Lafayette, CA 94549



MTC-00032040

To: John Ashcroft
From: John S. Koval Sent: 1/24/2002 at 5:05:02 PM
Network Convergence Corporation
P.O. Box 3156
Hickory, NC 28603-3156
(828) 308-1189
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
USDOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I believe the settlement agreement reached between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft Corp. is fair to both parties, and I urge 
the court to approve it as written.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against software or hardware developers who develop or promote 
software that competes with Windows or that runs on software that 
competes with Windows. It also agreed not to retaliate against 
computer makers who ship this software or enter into any agreements 
obligating any third party distributor to promote any Windows 
technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage.
    I further believe that breaking up Microsoft would not 
accomplish any useful purpose; hence, it is very important that the 
settlement be implemented as written.
    Sincerely,
    John S. Koval
    President



MTC-00032041

To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Company: U.S. Dept. of Justice
From: Carl Monson
Company: Mowell Financial Group, Inc.
Date: 1-24-02
Re: Microsoft Ruling
Carl Monson
P.O. Box 1305
Tallahassee, FL 32302-1305
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    Just a note to let you know I appreciate your efforts to resolve 
the Microsoft antitrust case. In my opinion, it would make sense to 
support the settlement and conclusion reached in court.
    The cost to both sides of this dispute has to reach millions of 
dollars on each side. An acceptable settlement has been arrived at 
that will 1ikely give competitors improved ability to place their 
software on Microsoft operating systems, thus giving them more sales 
and public exposure. Some of the competitors remain unsatisfied, and 
they will place pressure on officials until this case is resumed and 
serious damage is done to Microsoft and the entire business sector. 
We do have some interesting telephone businesses now, but the 10 
years of litigation and costs involved have been a terrible price to 
pay. Currently, the competition/consolidation in the phone business 
is causing a great deal more pain.
    Please consider accepting the settlement. If you believe it has 
merit, and is in the public interest, please consider talking with 
those state attorneys general to not try to win the lottery by 
pushing for more destruction of a pretty good company.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00032042

Paul G. Simon
519 West Plaquemine
Church Point LA. 70525
pasimon7@hotmail,com
(337) 684-1139
Re: Microsoft Case
January 24,2002
Renata B. Hesse
Anti-Trust Division
The United States Department of Justice
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    It is very encouraging that your office has decided to take 
comments form the general public about this very important case. The 
Microsoft ant-trust case will have far reaching repercussions that 
will affect all Americans in one way or another.
    While Bill Gates and company may have not always behaved in the 
most admirable fashion, it seems to me and a lot of other people 
that at this point they have been punished enough. Microsoft helped 
make possible the high-tech boom that has been driving our economy, 
and with the country in danger of sliding into a depression this is 
not the time to drag this case out any further. To keep this anti-
trust case alive longer than it should be is to risk wrecking our 
economy at time when we can least afford it.
    Please vote to settle the Microsoft case quickly so that the 
market will not have to keep holding it's collective breath waiting 
for some resolution. A quick settlement would have far reaching 
positive side effects both for the little guys (like me) and big 
business as well. With this behind us we could all move forward with 
developing promising new software and investing in new computer 
hardware.

[[Page 29709]]

    It would be in the best interest of consumers and the country.
    Sincerely,
    Paul G. Simon



MTC-00032043

2001 S 292nd Street
Federal Way, WA 98003
Email [email protected]
Fax 425-799-3660
January 16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft has been dragging on for 
too long, Government should stay out of the economy and let private 
businesses fail or succeed on their own. Reference your correct 
approach to the Enron problem I am happy to see that Microsoft is 
not being broken up, but I am appalled that nine states still want 
to bring further litigation.
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair. They force 
Microsoft to disclose internal interfaces and design future Windows 
versions so that Microsoft competitors can more easily promote their 
own products. They also require Microsoft to form a three-person 
team to monitor compliance with the settlement.
    It is in our nation's best interests, our economy's best 
interests, and our people's best interests to make the settlement a 
reality. We cannot afford to have our industries'' leaders 
hindered by expensive and lengthy litigation. I ask your office to 
take the appropriate steps towards rectifying a mess that has been 
years in the making.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Stobart



MTC-00032044

JOHN SHARP ASSOCIATES INC
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Ashcroft:
    Three years ago, the Department of Justice found Microsoft to be 
in violation of antitrust laws. Naturally, suit was brought, and a 
period followed where the proposed solution was breaking up the 
Microsoft Corporation. Fortunately, that idea was discarded in favor 
of a less destructive course of action. A settlement was reached 
last November under which Microsoft would be allowed to remain 
intact. It requires a broad range of changes in both policy and 
product however to prevent further antitrust violations and restore 
fair competition in the technology market.
    The settlement, for example, requires Microsoft to provide third 
parties acting under the terms of the settlement with a license to 
applicable intellectual property rights. This would allow 
Microsoft's competitors to build their software into Microsoft's pre 
established system without infringing upon those rights. Microsoft 
has also agreed to refrain from taking retaliatory action of another 
software producer or computer maker introduces a product into the 
market that directly competes with Microsoft. This will allow 
computer makers the freedom to promote their own software without 
having to risk rebuttal from Microsoft.
    I would like to see this case come to a speedy, productive end. 
I do not believe the settlement is unfair, nor do I believe it would 
hurt the consumer in fact. I think the tech industry and the economy 
have suffered enough already. The suit needs to end, and I believe 
it is in the best public interest to settle now and allow things to 
get back to normal. I urge you to give your support to the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Sharp
    660 ISLAND WAY APT 406
    CLEARWATER, FL 33767
    727-447-7747



MTC-00032045

January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Those who follow technology news know that the lawsuit that the 
Department of Justice brought against Microsoft three years ago has 
hurt investor confidence in technology. Because of the great 
slowdown in the IT industry, the entire economy has suffered. Why 
the Department of Justice brought suit against Microsoft is still a 
great mystery. One of America's great companies, Microsoft is 
largely responsible for the enormous strides in consumer technology 
and the universal use of the computer nowadays.
    Due to the settlement, Microsoft will no longer be able to 
negotiate with distributors on an individual basis. All of 
Microsoft's competitors will still have this ability. Microsoft will 
also be forced to disclose various portions of its Windows code to 
competitors. These terms of the settlement are more than enough 
punitive measures to punish Microsoft for any infractions they may 
be guilty of.
    All this adds up to the need of the Justice Department to end 
this suit as soon as possible. The IT industry, its consumers and 
its investors deserve an end to this suit when this period of public 
comment is over.
    Sincerely,
    LindaDial
    6 11 20th Avenue
    Lewiston, ID 83501
    cc: Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00032046

January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I recently learned of the proposed settlement agreement reached 
in the Federal government's antitrust case against Microsoft I see 
no reason why not to implement the agreement immediately upon close 
of the comment period and bring an end to this litigation.
    Microsoft has agreed co a more level playing field in the 
future, and now should be able to get back to the business of 
developing new innovations. A number of Microsoft's concessions will 
promote greater consumer choice and competition in the computer 
Industry, but I feel the most significant is Microsoft's agreement 
to allow computer makers the option of installing Windows operating 
systems which are reconfigured so as to allow the use of non-
Microsoft software programs.
    I hope that you will stick to this agreement in its present form 
and take the necessary steps to see that it is implemented 
immediately.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment
    Sincerely,
    Dick Boullis
    51211 Oak Hill Court Granger, IN 46530



MTC-00032047

To: U.S. Dept. of Justice
attn: MS Renata B. Hesse
Fax: 202.307.1454
From: Gordon W Bowman
Date: Thursday01/24/02
Re: Support of Microsoft settlement
Pages: one including this
    I support the Microsoft settlement. I feel the point has been 
made and the settlement is adequate to cover the complaints and let 
let the country get on with business. Those lobbying and filing new 
suits to carry this on appear to me afflicted with greed, and have 
no concern that the people's and industry's resource is being 
squandered. Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Gordon W. Bowman



MTC-00032048

MILSTEAD PHOTOGRAPHY
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Our opinion regarding the Microsoft issue is that it is a very 
competitive company and has been successful because of its 
contribution and accomplishments. I have an issue with the roll of 
Lobbyist or rather the lack of,has played In this issue.The issue 
began with the decision by one Judge,the result of that decision 
began the spiral downward of the stock market and was an 
intervention in the free enterprise system.
    I feel the settlement reached in November is fair and that 
Microsoft should remain as a company. This settlement will benefit 
the economy and consumers.
    I feel this settlement serves in the best Interest. We support 
and admire your strong leadership. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    W.H. Milstead



MTC-00032049

915 Limestone Drive
Allison Park, PA 15101-4227
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 29710]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    In my opinion the entire lawsuit against Microsoft was a 
debacle. There are monopolies in every industry in this country. I'm 
not sure why Microsoft was singled out. Nevertheless they were. For 
three years the Justice Department was embroiled in a antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. Now, a settlement has been reached.
    The settlement that has been reached is surprisingly beneficial 
in my view. First of all this settlement helps to increase 
competition within the information technology industry by requiring 
Microsoft to provide other software companies with Windows 
protocols. These protocols will enable other software manufacturers 
to create software that works more smoothly inside of Microsoft's 
Windows. Terms of the settlement also dictate that Microsoft provide 
a unified pricing list to the top 20 computer manufacturers. This 
would guarantee that no one company gain an advantage in the market 
because of a contract with Microsoft.
    But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurant, see 
this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized 
society.
    Even though I was not in favor the lawsuit in the beginning, I 
am in favor of the settlement that will end this matter. It is in 
your hands whether or not this ends now, or whether it goes on for 
many mare years. I ask that we not waste any more of the Department 
of Justice's time nor resources on this issue. Leave the settlement 
like it is.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Wetzel



MTC-00032050

New Horizons*
Computer learning Centers
of Boston Massachusetts
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft,
    I am writing this letter to inform you that I am in full support 
of the settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. This settlement has a fair and reasonable design. It is sad 
to have to see a suit brought about against Microsoft. If Microsoft 
were to be broken up, not only would that action harm my business, 
but also several other businesses across the country
    Microsoft operations and products, among other things, 
constitute a large part of the economy. As such, the antitrust suit 
has been a major contributing factor in the faltering economy, and 
to the present stagnated state of the IT industry. It is necessary 
to prevent this from continuing; any further time spent dealing with 
this suit will only cause taxpayers to reach deeper into their 
pockets. Under the settlement, other software companies will be able 
to sue Microsoft directly in federal court, so that we can at least 
keep the taxpayers from bankrolling these proceedings. That is in 
the public interest. Microsoft will change its licensing agreements 
for hardware makers, and update Windows to accommodate non-Microsoft 
software more efficiently; that is also in the public interest.
    It is time to put this issue behind us and move on to other 
things. We cannot go on spending our financial resources on this 
suit any longer. All action taking place at the federal level must 
be stopped, and the settlement finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Ken North
    5 0 Concord Road
    Burlington, MA 01803 main (781) 229-9565
    fax (781) 229-9552
    www.newhorizons.com



MTC-00032051

Dianna J. Thiel, CFA
10 Burdsal A venue
Fort Mitchell, KY 41017
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The case has dragged 
on long enough, and further litigation could do serious damage to 
the IT sector and economy. I do not believe that Microsoft has 
demonstrated monopolistic tendencies. They have delivered quality 
products without raising the prices unreasonably. Microsoft has 
standardized the industry making it easy to use computers which has 
benefited the consumer. Their work has been innovative and has 
obviously been the reason for their success.
    The terms of the settlement should appease all parties since 
competitors will receive technological information that they 
otherwise should not have if all the rules of free enterprise were 
working properly. Microsoft will be disclosing interfaces and 
protocols to competitors that will enable them to copy Windows and 
try to create more innovative products. They have also agreed to not 
retaliate against software developers and computer makers who 
develop or promote software that competes with Windows operating 
system products.
    These and other concessions should be enough to convince your 
office in favor of settling. Please take a stance against further 
litigation and finalize the settlement for the best interests of the 
American public
    Sincerely,
    Dianna J. Thiel, CFA



MTC-00032053

Law Offices of Jack Allen
15015 Bestor Boulevard,
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
(310) 454-2062
Fax (310) 454-8037
E-Mail jackjack@!inkline. corn
January 24, 2002
Renata B. Hesse,
Anti-Trust Division,
U. S. Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200,
Washington D. C. 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I find the settlement that the Justice Department has agreed to 
with Microsoft in Anti-trust case a complete sellout which will only 
encourage Microsoft to continue its anti- competitive practices. It 
will not even be a slap on the wrist.
    I was delighted when the Justice Department obtained the 
judgement from Judge Jackson. While I would favored even more 
stringent penalties, nevertheless I could not deny that justice was 
served. Now the Justice Department is giving away any leverage it 
would have had.
    I have been in computers since 1960. I was a fully qualified 
programmer. With IBM I helped pioneer computer word processing and 
my law offices were among the first be so equipped. I became one of 
the first attorneys to specialize in computer law and the first to 
represent buyers of computer equipment and programs. While in law 
school I spent three years in a program called ``Computers and 
the Law'' that developed ways that computers could be useful in 
the practice of the law.
    When Microsoft developed Windows 95, the alarm bells went off as 
I saw Microsoft use its great power as the source of the only viable 
operating system to bully computer manufacturers into installing its 
software and only its software on new desktop computers. Because 
Microsoft engineers developing competing software applications had 
the jump on Microsoft competitors in developing Windows 95 
applications and then get the programs installed on new computers, 
Microsoft was able to dominate the market place. For example, 
WordPerfect (which is still far superior to Microsoft Word) lost its 
dominance in the marketplace and has been reduced to a piddling 
share of the market. We all know the story of how Microsoft pushed 
Netscape out by including Microsoft Explorer as a freebie. Microsoft 
needs to be broken up. The maker of the operating system cannot also 
be the producer of application software. Nor should it be the 
manufacturer of hardware to support its programs.
    We all suffer when one manufacturer is able to dominate the 
market. No one else can offer a competing operating system since 
Microsoft has driven out other operating system manufacturers.
    I was after the Justice Department to do something about 
Microsoft years before it filed its anti-trust action. I was very 
disappointed that it took the Justice Department to do something to 
start with and when it finally appeared the Department had 
accomplished something, it is most disappointing to see all that 
work wasted with a token settlement.
    Sincerely,
    JACK ALLEN
    cc:
    Senator Diane Feinstein
    Senator Barbara Boxer



MTC-00032054

January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Department of Justice
Fax #202-307-1454 I
Or 202-616-9937
    As a Taxpayer and consumer Mim Vaiana and Joseph Vaiana support 
the settlement of the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Very truly yours,

[[Page 29711]]

    Joseph G. Vaiana
    Mim Vaiana



MTC-00032055

140 West Myrtle Street
Duluth, MN 55811-5018
January 24, 2002
VIA FAX 202-307-1454
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    I am writing to convey my support for the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in November 2001. I 
believe this outcome is good for both business and the consumer and 
gives concerned parties an opportunity to move forward.After 
reviewing the terms of the settlement, I am of the opinion that 
Microsoft has made many concessions and that the government has 
negotiated a tough agreement. For example, Microsoft agrees to 
document portions of the code that Windows uses in order to make 
different programs work together. Competitors will then be able to 
use such information to design better programs.This represents a 
first in an anti-trust settlement. In addition, Microsoft consents 
to the formation of a three-member Technical Committee to monitor 
the company's compliance with its new obligations.
    As a certified management consultant in the technical industry, 
I thoroughly understand the usability and flexibility that Microsoft 
products provide. With your continued support of this settlement, 
Microsoft will be in a position to focus on new technologies that 
will facilitate increased efficiency and productivity for business 
and consumer users alike.
    Sincerely,
    Mary M Ruprecht, CMC
    President



MTC-00032056

Hillary Strengholt
2313 McMullan Circle
Raleigh, NC 27608
January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to express support for the proposed settlement in the 
federal government's antitrust case against Microsoft. As a third-
grade teacher at Weatherstone Elementary School in Cary, North 
Carolina, I see every day the importance of computers and technology 
in the lives and futures of my students.
    I strongly believe that the needs of these students--and 
the overall needs of our nation and our economy--would be far 
better served by settling this case than by further costly and 
debilitating litigation.
    The analyses that I have seen indicate that the settlement 
strikes a difficult balance between penalizing Microsoft for the 
wrongs it may have committed in the marketplace and assuring 
continued progress and innovation in this important industry.
    I hope that the settlement will be approved so that all 
concerned can go to work on more important matters.
    Sincerely,
    Hillary Strengholt



MTC-00032057

To: Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft settlement
Date: 25January 2002
    After reviewing the documents related to the settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case'' I feel I must comment. I have 25 
years experience in the computer field and have never been prompted 
to action on any topic like this until now.
    I am deeply disturbed that the revised ``Proposed Final 
Judgment'' will becompletely ineffective as it currently 
exists. The definitions therein are often so restrictive that the 
judgment would eliminate any benefit to those it harmed the most. It 
currently ignores the most significant opponent Microsoft has which 
is the not-for-profit organizations, which include the Linux 
development coalitions.It also contains several loopholes that 
Microsoft is already planning to use. But most of all it is too 
narrow that it only restricts anti-competitive activities dealing 
with the operating system, browser, and middleware thereby allowing 
them to assert their illegal monopolistic influence in several other 
emerging markets.
    If I could enact a remedy, I would invalidate all Microsoft 
patents and have them publish the source code for every product they 
have produced. Even though this remedy would fit their crime, it 
probably would not be enough. Some may consider this a bit draconian 
and I doubt it would never happen, but it would be much more 
effective in reducing the entry into Microsoft dominated fields by 
competing interests. I believe it would even make Microsoft a better 
company,one that would have to innovate instead of litigate.
    Please do give Microsoft additional opportunities to abuse their 
monopoly under the guise of a settlement to ``unfetter a market 
from anti-competitive conduct''. If this settlement is allowed, 
Microsoft will have gotten away, not with a slap on the wrist, but 
with full legal permission to do what it's been doing and more.This 
settlement is definitely not in the best interests of the public.
    Thank you for your efforts in doing what is right.
    Sincerely,
    Boyce Fullmer
    Systems Architect
    3720 Cloudcrest Drive
    Plano, Texas 75074
    (972) 578-7772



MTC-00032058

Leslie J. Colligon
1262 Windsong Drive
Tracy, CA 95377
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to pledge my support for settling the Microsoft 
antitrust case as soon as possible. I am convinced that Microsoft 
was within their rights in regard to the matter of how they handled 
the Internet Explorer software. I know that their vision of the 
importance of Internet Explorer to the future of computing may not 
be grasped by everyone, but as a software professional I feel that I 
may have a more intimate view of what the decision makers at 
Microsoft had in mind when they made their decisions regarding 
Internet Explorer.
    I believe that Microsoft has been unfairly persecuted by the 
Justice system. If there can be any blame placed on Microsoft, I 
believe that it lies only in the fact that Microsoft did a very poor 
job in presenting their vision in court relating to the decision-
making regarding Internet Explorer.However, since I do not believe 
that this issue should ever have gone to court in the first place, I 
sincerely believe that any blame lies with the decision makers in 
Washington DCI do not believe that the settlement is fair to 
Microsoft, but I am not strongly opposed to Microsoft accepting the 
settlement. I believe that, the Justice department should do 
likewise and get this issue behind all of us. This whole matters 
been an expensive lesson for all parties concerned, but in the end 
it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill.
    While I do have a whole lot more to say on this issue, this 
letter is not the place as I am certain that it would only go 
unread. Perhaps some day after I retire, I will write a book on why 
Microsoft's decisions on matters relating to Internet Explorer were 
simply sound, logical business decisions and were in the best 
interest of the computing community and of the country. I suspect 
however, that time will demonstrate to the world the validity of 
what I, already know and that there will not be any reason for 
writing such a book as Microsoft's vision will become self-evident 
as their vision is fulfilled.
    I encourage you to settle the case as soon as possible and stop 
any further litigation so that everyone can get on with more 
important matters.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie J. Colligan



MTC-00032059

Farrell Graham
312 Kailua Road
Kailua, HI 96734
24January2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I was pleased to hear the Department of Justice reached a 
settlement in its case against Microsoft. I believe this case went 
on for too long and I am confident there are many people who share 
this sentiment. Microsoft is a great company whose positive impact 
is felt in the economy, the personal and professional lives of the 
public, and the information Technology (IT) industry on a whole. 
With the economy in a state of recession, it is in everyone's best 
interest if the States ceased litigation against Microsoft.

[[Page 29712]]

    Those who remain in opposition to Microsoft would like to give 
the impression Microsoft got off easy in this settlement. This is 
not the case. The terms of the settlement are fair and acceptable to 
Microsoft, yet several States continue to pursue litigation. 
Microsoft compliance is far-reaching. They agreed to broad terms 
extending to products and technologies not even found to be 
unlawful, such as disclosing intellectual property for the greater 
good. This is an effort to bring this matter to an end sooner and 
give Microsoft the chance to get back to what they do 
best--create new products and services. This aids the US 
economy and the reformed stability of the IT industry in more ways 
then direct Microsoft financial settlements with individual States,
    I am grateful for this period of public comment provided under 
the Tunney Act and I trust this avenue will help your office realize 
how strongly public feels about this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Farrell Graham



MTC-00032060

January 22,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Esq
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The Southern Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce enters our 
strong support for the settlement negotiated between Microsoft 
Corporation, the US Department of Justice and 9 of the remaining 
state plaintiffs in the multi-year antitrust lawsuit against the 
software company.
    As a representative of the business community in the Upstate New 
York region, it is our belief that it is in the best interest of our 
national economy to move forward with this settlement, and we 
encourage the Justice Department to urge the Courts to adopt the 
agreement as quickly as possible.
    As business, both on the state and local level, and nationally 
continues to move in a positive direction, the resolution of this 
issue will only benefit all in the end.
    Sincerely,
    Peter L. Aust
    President/CEO
    Southern Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce
    15 Park Avenue, Suite 7B--P.0. BOX 399. Clifton Park, NY 
120654399
    Phone: (518) 371-7748
    Fax: (518) 371-5025
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Internet: www.ssccc.org



MTC-00032061

23 January02
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
60l D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Atty. Hesse,
    The remedy that Microsoft has so far successfully avoided is to 
have its code base broken up among two or more units. However, the 
quality control cost of any system rises with the square of the 
number of components. Since Microsoft cannot charge the users 
upgrade prices on which their revenue growth, and therefore their 
shareholder value,depends without substantial feature expansion, the 
component count must grow linearly(50 new features) if not 
geometrically (10% new features) per unit time. This insures that 
quality control costs for Microsoft must follow a cost curve that 
becomes untenable at some point, the only question being when not 
if. Therefore the greatest punishment you can possibly impose on 
Microsoft is to forbid them to break up their code base into 
integrable product lines as it marries them to a cost curve that 
will kill them in due course. Having sworn in court, settled in 
camera, and committed their reputation in public to the common 
argument that their cock base somehow cannot be broken up, they will 
now either reverse their position or march off the cliff.
    In short, I urge the Court to take Microsoft at its word by 
ordering them to simply conform to their testimony.
    Very truly yours,
    Daniel E. Geer, Jr., Sc.D.
    Chief Technology Officer
    196 Broadway
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    President
    USENIX Association
    2560 Ninth Street, Suite 215
    Berkeley, CA 94710



MTC-00032062

Beaver Brook Ranch
Custom Wood Products
JOHNSON ROAD RIPLEY, N.Y. 14775
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
January 24,2002
    As a retired businessman I find this whole issue of the 
Microsoft Settlement very disturbing.I must first say that I do not 
own nor have I ever owned any Microsoft Stock.What I see here are 
Microsoft's rivals attempting to get our government involved in 
micro managing the technology industry. I do not feel this is in the 
best interest of the high-tech industry, economy or us the 
consumers.
    There has been over $30 Million taxpayers dollars spent on this 
case already, don't you drink that is enough?
    I believe the settlement in this case is appropriate in scope 
because it addresses only those items upheld by the courts,
    Sincerely,
    Thomas P. Kelly



MTC-00032063

January 23,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement at the end of the Tunney 
Act comment period. It is time that Microsoft be allowed to move on 
and return their focus towards business. It took three long years, 
but now that a settlement is in sight, it would be an embarrassment 
to leave it out to dry. The terms of the settlement are fair and 
address all the major concerns of the suit
    Many people think that Microsoft got off easy. In fact, they 
have not. Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to install 
and promote any software that they see fit. Microsoft has also 
agreed to not enter into any agreement that would require any 
computer makers to use a fixed percentage of Microsoft software. In 
an effort to allow competing Software makers to develop more 
compatible software,Microsoft has agreed to release part of the 
Windows base code.That's not even all of it, so anyone should be 
able to see how committed Microsoft is to settlement.
    But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see 
this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized 
society. The terms of the settlement are fair and the government 
needs to accept them. Microsoft and the industry need to move 
forward, the only way to move forward is to put this issue in the 
past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Verbick
    10 DogWood Terrace
    Belvidere, NJ 07823



MTC-00032064

Sent By: The Ayn Rand Institute;
310 306 4925;
Jan-24-02 5:15PM;
Page 1/3
Via Fax # (202) 616-9937
To: Ms. Renatta Hesse:
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
From: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director, the Ayn Rand Institute;
 Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow, the Ayn Rand Institute
Date: January21, 2002
Re: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    The Federal Justice Department should drop the antitrust case 
against Microsoft. If, at this stage in the proceedings it is 
impossible to drop the Case, the Justice Department should settle 
the case on as favorable terms to Microsoft as legally permissible. 
(If possible, the Justice Department should create a legal 
settlement more favorable to Microsoft than the one Microsoft agreed 
to in November of 2001.)
    To understand why one needs to understand two points, one 
general and one particular.First., antitrust laws are non-objective 
and unjust, Second, Microsoft is guilty of no actual crime.Let us 
begin with the first point.
    The ``actions'' that anti-trust laws prohibit are 
vague, contradictory, undefined. For instance, antitrust laws 
prohibit companies from engaging in restraint of trade.'' But 
what specific actions constitute ``restraint of trade `? 
If, as is done repeatedly in the business world, a company signs an 
exclusive distribution agreement with another company, is that 
``restraint of trade'' because now other potential 
competitors are excluded from that area of the market? Or if a 
company sells a computer to individual X, is that

[[Page 29713]]

``restraint of trade'' because competing computer 
companies Can no longer sell X a computer since he has need for only 
one? No-the courts have declared to businessmen-only those 
``restraints'' that are ``unreasonable'' are 
illegal.But which specific ``restraints'' are 
``unreasonable''? No definition is to be found in the law, 
so no company can know before it acts which actions are in law legal 
and which are not. Consider another example. The antitrust laws 
prohibit ``unfair'' trade practices. But again, what 
counts as an unfair'' practice? Is it any business practice 
that, for instance, causes bankruptcies among some of a firm's 
competitors, because they cannot find a way to compete with the 
firm's low prices and/or superior products? Or is it any practice 
that the administration in power disapproves of? Again, no answer is 
to be found in the law, so it is impossible for accompany lo 
determine beforehand which specific actions the law prohibits.
    Take one last example. Under antitrust laws, a company can be 
charged with ``predatory pricing''if it sets prices below 
those of its competitors, because the competitors might as a result 
go bankrupt. It can be charged with ``monopoly pricing'' 
if it sets prices that are deemed too high,because then it is 
supposedly bilking consumers of their hard-earned income. But if it 
therefore decides to set prices at the level of those of its 
competitors it can be charged with ``collusion'' 
or``conspiracy'' because now it is said to be no longer 
``competing.''
    In the nightmarish world of antitrust law any and no action can 
be pronounced illegal.There are and can be no definite, objective 
principles specified in the law-and as a result a businessman has no 
way to determine, before he acts, whether his action is legal or 
not, Inpractice, this means that businessmen are at the mercy of the 
government. Any moment the government wants to cripple a particular 
company, it can unleash the antitrust laws against the company. In 
logic, a business has no possible defense against a charge of 
``restrain of trade'' or``unfair'' trade 
policies or ``predatory pricing'' because the charge 
itself has no objective meaning,The antitrust laws, therefore, vest 
the government with arbitrary power.
    The result, unsurprisingly, is that when, say, a bureaucrat is 
disgruntled with a successful company because it has failed to share 
(i.e., give away) its wealth or support the government's particular 
programs--or when a government thinks that destroying a 
powerful company will win it votes with misguided citizens who 
believe that Big Business is their enemy-or when resentful,envious 
competitors (like Netscape and Oracle and AOL in the Microsoft case) 
can persuade their government representatives to cripple a superior 
competitor-the brunt of the antitrust laws descend upon that 
company.
    It is no accident that it is America's most successful, most 
productive. most admired companies-Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Wal-Mart, 
American Airlines, Standard Oil, etc.-that are subjected to 
antitrust lawsuits,
    As a form of granting arbitrary power to the government, 
antitrust laws are unconstitutional and un-American, As a means of 
penalizing the successful for being successful,antitrust laws are a 
perversion of justice.
    Let us therefore now leave to one side antitrust law, under 
which any action of a company could be considered a crime, and ask 
whether in actual fact Microsoft is guilty of any crime.
    What are the principal accusations against Microsoft?
    Microsoft is accused of ``unfair'' competition. But 
competition refers to the process by which companies utilize their 
assets and personnel to build better and/or cheaper products. They 
thereby seek to earn, through voluntary trade, even greater profits, 
In a free market, there is no such thing as ``unfair'' 
competition. There are only better and worse competitors. In other 
words,some companies are better than others at research and 
development, at structuring long-term,mutually-beneficial business 
agreements, at marketing products, at keeping good employees happy 
yet challenged. Microsoft, for example, excels at all these 
processes-and many more.(The charge that Microsoft is not innovative 
is particularly disingenuous given its continual upgrades and 
improvements to its major products; even Judge Jackson had to 
concede this point.) The fact that Microsoft is one of the greatest 
competitor the business world has seen is, in a free nation, not a 
crime but a virtue.
    The only ``unfair competition'' that exists is in fact 
not competition. If, say, the mafia threatens to blow up a 
shopkeeper's store unless he gives it a percentage of his sales, the 
mafia threat is not engaged in competition, albeit unfair. They are 
engaged in coercion-precisely to prevent voluntary trade and the the 
market from operating. When Netscape loses sales to Microsoft 
because Microsoft's browser is better and/or cheaper, Netscape's 
loss of sales bears no similarity to a shopkeeper's 
``loss'' of sales to the mafia. One must never equate the 
voluntary with the coerced.
    Secondly, Microsoft is accused of ``predatory 
pricing.*'' Translated into reality, this means that Microsoft 
is able to charge prices below those of its competitors, such as 
Netscape. Some of these competitors, who cannot match Microsoft's 
low prices, lose market share or go bankrupt.But it is Microsoft's 
incredible efficiency and productiveness that allows it to undersell 
its competition yet still make large profits. Again, this represents 
not criminal behavior but real virtue.
    Finally, Microsoft is accused of wielding ``monopoly 
power.'' This accusation as well is based on equating the 
voluntary with the coerced
    It is true that Microsoft has a dominant market position in some 
segments of the software industry and that some of its competitors 
have gone out of business. But this is become Microsoft has our-
competed them: it is more innovative, more efficient, a better 
marketer, and/ora better employer than other software firms. 
Microsoft, in other words, has earned its dominant position.
    And it continues to earn it; it faces constant competition, even 
if there are no actual competitors presently in its market. For 
whenever another entrepreneur can figure out a way to produce 
similar software at a cheaper price or better software at an 
attractive price (or some undreamt of product that makes current 
software obsolete), he is free to enter Microsoft's market,And if he 
has a sound business plan, he will be able to raise the necessary 
capital even if he has none; there are thousands of venture 
capitalists looking for the next Bill Gates. Microsoft's dominant 
position in the software industry, in other words, must be earned 
anew each day,
    So once again, Microsoft is being attacked for its success: in 
reality it has no monopoly power just brilliant management.
    The only monopolies that can in fact exist are government-
created ones. Only a government can prevent someone from entering a 
market and thus eliminate competition. The Post Office, for 
instance, is a monopoly. There id title doubt that Federal Express 
could provide better service, more cheaply, and still earn a profit. 
But the government forcibly prevents it from entering the Post 
Office's market. The Post Office's dominant market position is 
unearned: it offers sub-par service but because of government 
coercion faces no competition. Microsoft's dominant position, by 
contrast, is earned: it faces constant competition, which in 
continues to win.
    Again, do not equate the voluntary with the coerced.
    Microsoft is the epitome of American business success: it 
produces enormous wealth through intelligence and hard work. imagine 
the wealth that would exist-for every firm, for every employee, for 
every shareholder, for every customer -if ail companies in America 
were run by a Bill Gates. The fact that they are not should not lead 
us to destroy Bill Gate's creation but, all the more, to admire and 
champion it.
    Why should the Justice Department drop its case against 
Microsoft (or settle it with as small a penalty as possible)? 
Because antitrust laws are arbitrary laws that penalize virtue for 
being virtue-as the specific accusations against Microsoft clearly 
reveal.
    Sincerely,
    Yaron Brock, Ph.D. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D.
    President and Executive Director Resident Fellow
    The Ayn Rand Institute The Ayn Rand Institute



MTC-00032065

Fax Transmission
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
11355 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
Fax Number:(202) 616-9937 and
(202) 307- 1545
From: Jeffrey A. Modisett
Date: January 24, 2002
Pages including cover; 6
Sender's Comments:
40462064.1
Operator Use Only

[[Page 29714]]

    If you do not receive all of the pages please call (310) 
312-4203 as soon as possible. Thank you.
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Jeffrey A Modisett
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4145
E-mail: [email protected]
January 24,2002
BY FACSIMILE (202)616-9937 and (202)307-1545
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Pursuant to Fed. Reg. 59452, Vol. 66, No. 229 (Nov. 28,2001), 
attached please find the notarized affidavit of former Senator John 
V. Tunney of California for submission in the above-captioned case.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey A. Modesett
    Partner
    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
    11355 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064 
Telephone: 310.372.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224
    Los AngeIes/Mexico City/Monterry/Orange County/Palo Alto/
Sacramento/Washington, DC
    AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN V. TUNNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS 
ANGELES ss:.
    JOHN V. TUNNEY, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes 
and says:
    1. The following facts are known to me of my own personal 
knowledge and, if called as a witness I could and would competently 
testify thereto.
    2. From 1971 to 1977, I represented the State of California as a 
United States senator in Congress,
    3. While serving as a member of the Judiciary Committee of the 
United States Senate during the 93rd Congress, I authored that 
certain bill described below, and acted as the Floor Manager of the 
legislation during its consideration by the full Senate. That 
legislation was passed by Congress and signed into law by the 
President of the United States. That portion of the law to which I 
refer below is codified as Section 2(g) of the Antitrust and Penalty 
Act, 15 U.S.C. $16(g), and is a subsection of the law now commonly 
referred to as the ``Tunney Act.'' This legislation was 
signed into law December 21,1974.
    4. I authored the following language, which was included in the 
final version of the legislation: Not later than 10 days following 
the date of the filing of any proposal for a consent judgment under 
subsection (b); each defendant shall file with the district court a 
description of any and all written or oral communications by or on 
behalf of such defendant, including any and all written or oral 
communications on behalf of such defendant, or other person, with 
any officer or employee of the United States concerning or: relevant 
to such proposal, except that any such communications made by 
counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the employees 
of the Department of Justice alone shall be excluded from the 
requirements of this subsection. Prior to the entry of any consent 
judgment pursuant to the antitrust laws, each defendant shall 
certify to the district court that the requirements of this 
subsection have been complied with and that such filing is a true 
and complete description of such communications known to the 
defendant or which the defendant reasonably should have known,
    5. Recently, I was asked to review the Tunney Act and certain 
public documents on file in the case of the United States vs. 
Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action NO. 98-1232 (CKK), in the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Among the 
documents I reviewed was one filed by Microsoft Corporation 
entitled, ``Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Description of 
Written or Oral Communications Concerning The Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment and Certification of Compliance Under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 
16(g),'' purportedly to comply with the provision set forth in 
paragraph 4, above.
    6. With respect to this provision of the Antitrust Procedures 
and Penalties Act, it is clear that Congress intended that there 
show be full disclosure of all communications by a defendant or on 
behalf defendant with any officer or employee of the United States, 
except for communications made by counsel of record alone with the 
Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice. It 
is equally clear that by ``government official,'' Congress 
meant ``members of the. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial 
branches of government''. Congress specifically intended to 
cover communications by officers of a defendant corporation, lawyers 
of such corporation, lobbyists of such corporation, or anyone else 
acting on behalf of such corporate defendant, If I had not been 
satisfied this was the plain meaning of the statue, I, as the 
principal author of the legislation, would not have pressed the 
legislation through to final passage. I am satisfied that the clear 
Ianguage of the statute ensures disclosures of the type described in 
this paragraph, The legislative history and intent of its author 
buttress these conclusions.
    7. In my opinion, it is essential that all discussions between 
the defendant corporation and the government (with the specific 
exception noted in paragraph 6, above) in an antitrust case that 
might have led to a proposal settlement decree be disclosed. If a 
defendant corporation did not have to disclose any contacts or 
communications with the government until such time as there is an 
actual decree, the very purpose of the disclosure would be defeated. 
The Tunney Act was never intended to allow for a situation where, in 
theory, prolific lobbying could be conducted by the defendant prior 
to the time the presiding judge has ordered settlement negotiations, 
without public disclosure. If allowed, the Tunney Act would not have 
reformed the practices utilized in settlement of the ITT case, which 
in significant fashion demonstrated the need for the legislation in 
the first instance. The disclosure provisions were designed to help 
ensure that no defendant can ever achieve through political 
activities what it cannot obtain through the legal process. Failure 
to comply with these provisions raises an inference or, at a 
minimum, an appearance of impropriety.
    8. Contrary to some press reports, the Tunney Act wag not 
intended in any way to prevent the Department of Justice from 
entering into settlements in antitrust suits, especially before 
trial where litigation risk is generally present. The Act in fact 
that such settlements were reached on the merits.
    9. The legislative history and plain language make clear that 
Congress intended that a judge make an independent assessment of 
whether any such settlement are in the public interest, precisely 
because the policy objective was to ensure that lobbying contacts 
did not influence the law enforce function of the Antitrust Division 
of the Department of Justice. I remain convinced that the policy 
objective was correct.
    10. The language of the Act was clearly drawn and was intended 
to be inclusive and not exclusive. In my opinion, the filing of 
``Written or Oral Communications'' by Microsoft 
Corporation, referred to in paragraph, 5, above, is inadequate to 
satisfy the clear language and intent of the Tunney Act.
    FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
    JOHN TUNNEY
    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of January, 
2002.
    Eleanor McKenna
    NOTARY PUBLIC in and for said County and State
    ELEANOR McKENNA
    Notary Public, State of New York
    No. 31-4973011
    Qualified in New Yourk County
    Commission Expires October 9, 2002
    40459139.1



MTC-00032066

Jan 24 02 04:47p
January 23,2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VlA FACSIMILE
(202) 616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is being written to the courts in support of the 
proposed settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft. I am extremely 
concerned about the state of our economy and believe a settlement in 
this case would provide a greatly needed boost.
    The government's case against Microsoft has been devastating to 
our economy. One need not look any further than a graph of the Dow 
Jones since the case began. It is a straight line down. Yes, there 
were other factors. But I don't think we can ignore the effect of 
putting the most important American company of the 21'' century 
into a slate of paralysis.
    This settlment needs to be completed so the economy can begin 
its long climb back.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Finchum
    143 Rainier Cl.
    Chula Vista, CA 91911-5423



MTC-00032067

Nicholas Martin Jr.

[[Page 29715]]

6100 Southwest Blvd., Suite 501
Fort Worth, Texas 76109
(817) 377-4344
(817) 377-3188
January 22,2002
Renata Hesse trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Dept of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Let's settle the proposed final judgment between Microsoft Corp. 
and the US Dept. of Justice agreed to on November 6, 2001 and get on 
to the most important thing facing us today the Euron mess.
    If we don't bring the executives and directors of Euron to 
justice and change the practice of corporations, allowing them to 
give ludicrous stock options to insiders unreported as a liability 
to stock holders and many other shady practices we are going to 
bring our system of free enterprise as we know it to an end. Hoping 
you understand our concerns and in some way will help get things 
started.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Martin Jr.



MTC-00032068

City of Stanton
P.O. Box 370 Phone 756-3301
Stanton, Texas 79782
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement recently 
negotiated between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. There is 
no reason for this case to continue languishing in the Federal Court 
system. No evidence has been presented to show that Microsoft's 
products or marketing practices have ever harmed a single consumer. 
To the contrary, productivity increases traced to Windows alone have 
been enough to spur billions in economic growth over the last 
decade.
    For several years, the federal government has been snooping 
around Microsoft, at incredible expense to the taxpayer-$35 million-
without finding any evidence of consumer harm. Since there is no 
economic or legal reason for the government to destroy this American 
success story, it is time to settle the case. Let's put an end to 
this frivolous waste of money and let America continue to lead the 
world in technological innovation,
    Sincerely,
    Danny Fryar
    City Administrator
    City of Stanton



MTC-00032069

    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.
    1665 Escobita Ave.
    Palo Alto, CA 94306
    [email protected]



MTC-00032070

Davis Consultants, Inc.
3 James Center, Suite 1204
1051 East Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 782-1001
January 24, 2002
Reneta Hesse, Esquire
Antitrust Division
U. S. Department of Justice
(FAX) 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Except for being an avid user of the Microsoft product line, I 
don't have a dog in the settlement hunt regarding the company and 
Federal government. However, I do have friends who are and just 
wanted to echo their request that you approve the pending settlement 
agreement.
    It's hard to imagine that there is a single attorney from 
Syracuse to San Diego who hasn't been involved in this matter. 
Frankly, at least to me, enough is enough. From what little I know 
about the factual details, the settlement is a sound and reasonable 
resolution of the matter. It's time for this puppy to go away so we 
can all focus on other matters.
    Warmest regards,
    Charles J. Davis



MTC-00032071

FROM: DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH 4 SENATE FAX NO. : Jan. 24 2002 02:45PM 
P1
THE ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
FACSIMlLE VIA (202) 616-9937
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The proposed settlement in US v. Microsoft should be approved. I 
am writing the courts because I don't support many of the arguments 
made by the federal government and State Attorney's General. The 
settlement adequately remedies the situation and should be endorsed 
by the courts.
    The Federal Government and 19 State Attorney's General argued 
that this case is on behalf of consumers. According to their 
argument, consumers paid higher prices for software because of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Yet,questioning by Appeliate 
Judges during one Phase of the trail gave no examples of consumers 
who suffered harm by Microsoft's business practices. 
Furthermore,arguing that consumers have suffered in the web browser 
market is ridiculous. I can get Netscape or Explorer for free.
    Most of the class action suits claiming consumer harm against 
Microsoft have been dismissed. The settlement creates a government 
representative to oversee Microsoft's actions and prevent any unfair 
practices. The courts should approve of this Settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Christian Krejcik
    Executive Director
    Adam Smith of California
    STATE BOARD OF
    DIRECTORS
    KEN MOSER
    SAM HARDAGE
    JOEL ANDERSON
    RICK OTIS
    JIM GIBSON
    DAVE DUNCAN
    MIKE FREDENBURG
    GAIL, HERIOT
    ELECTED OFFICIALS
    ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM
    51ST CONGRESSIONAL
    DUNCAN HUNTER
    52ND CONGRESSIONAL
    DARRELL ISSA
    48TH CONGRESSIONAL
    RAY HAYNES
    36TH STATE SENATE
    BILL MORROW
    38TH STATE SENATE
    JIM BATTIN
    37TH STATE SENATE
    JAY LA SUER
    77TH ASSEMBLY
    PATRICIA BATES
    73RD ASSEMBLY
    MARK WYLAND
    74TH ASSEMBLY
    DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH
    66TH ASSEMBLY
    P.O. BOX 1621
    LA MESA, CA, 91944
    PHONE: (619) 462-1776
    FAX: (619) 462-2466
    EMAIL:
    [email protected]



MTC-00032072

DICKMEYER & ASSOCIATES
9020 Brockport Run
Fort Wayne, IN 46835
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
January 22, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    From all appearances consumer choice was the big winner in this 
settlement. If a

[[Page 29716]]

consumer chooses Windows as the operating system for their computer, 
they will no longer be limited to using Microsoft services such as 
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger. They 
will now be allowed the choice of non-Microsoft programs to provide 
similar services.
    I know that some of Microsoft's competitors will argue that the 
settlement does not go far enough in extracting concessions from 
Microsoft. Please remember that your responsibility is to the 
consumer and the American public as a whole, not a handful of 
jealous lobbyists. You have reached an agreement beneficial to them, 
and that is what counts.
    Thank you very much for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Dickmeyer



MTC-00032073

Community Solutions, Inc
Planning & Development Consultants
P.O. Box 655, Andover MA 01810
 Telephone (978) 988-2428
 Fax (978) 658-6152
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    Please accept my comments with regard to the Microsoft antitrust 
litigation presently before the federal court. I support the 
proposal to end the case by agreeing to the settlement that was 
reached last month between the attorneys for Microsoft and the 
Justice Department attorneys. This case has gone on too long, and is 
now only serving to hamper the industry and the stock market with 
the uncertainty it brings to the economy.It has long since become 
apparent that the interests of a few industry rivals have driven 
this case, and that the wishes of the American people to see it end 
have not yet been heard. The United States needs to have all these 
companies back working on product before they lose ground to foreign 
competitors. We all need the jobs and investment dollars that they 
create,
    I believe that Judge Kollar Kotelly had the right idea in 
directing the parties involved to work toward a settlement, and I 
support the result of that process. I hope this will mean a quick 
resolution of this issue.
    Thank you for your time in considering my opinion.
    Respectfully,
    Jay J. Donovan



MTC-00032074

 5624 S. Redwood road
 Taylorsville, Utah 84123
 Tel:(801)966-0066
 Fax: (801) 967-8735
Date: Jan24 02
To: Hon. John Ashcroft, Atty Gen
Company: of USA
Fax: 1202 307 1454 or 1-202 616 9937
From: Mary Black
Company:
Tel: 801 969 5604 (hm)
Number of pages including this one: 2
Comments:
MARY H. BLACK
4261 W 4570 S
West Valley City, UT 84120
January 21,2002
VIA FAX 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft.
    I wrote previously to Senator Hatch in the hopes that my 
comments would make a difference on the state level in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I write to you today to ask that the federal 
government takeno further action against Microsoft. For three years 
now, the resources of a dominant figure in the IT industry, as well 
as those of the Department of Justice, have been tied up in settling 
this antitrustdispute.This serves well neither the corporation, nor 
its shareholders, nor its customers, nor the taxpayers, norjustice 
itself. When the settlement was reached last November, I was pleased 
to think that this debacle might finally come to a fruitful end. 
Now, however, as fully half of the eighteen plaintiff states in the 
casehave taken advantage of the settlement review period to muster 
support for rejection of the agreement. I have begun once again to 
lose hope that the settlement will end in the near future.I fail to 
see how the settlement can be perceived as in any way unfair, 
especially consideringthatsome of the terms reached in the agreement 
cover methods and markets not determined to beunlawfulby the Court 
of Appeals. Months of mediated negotiation were necessary before 
this settlementcould bereached. Microsoft was allowed to remain 
intact, and in exchange, among other things, Microsoft agreed to 
allow its competitors access to source code, protocols, and 
interfaces integral to the Windows operating system to facilitate 
the introduction of non-Microsoft software into Windows.
    Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any contracts that 
would require a third party to distribute or endorse Microsoft 
products at a fixed percentage. These negotiated agreements strike 
me, as a layman, as more than ``fair.'' The big tobacco 
settlement has apparently whetted the appetites of states involved 
in litigationagainst large corporations. The desire to bring 
additional suit against Microsoft is motivated by greed,and not 
justice. I respect your integrity, Mr. Ashcroft, as well as your 
unshakeable support of the law, and am hopeful you will have the 
Justice Department turn away from an unjust case instigated by your 
predecessor.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Black
    Cc: Representative Chris Cannon
    Fax: 202-225-5629



MTC-00032075

ROBLE SYSTEMS
Roble Systems Inc.
Unix, Network and Secuirty Consulting
P.O.Box 46, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Phone: (415)256-2502,(650) 323-2777
Email: [email protected]
Http://www.roble.com
FROM: ROGER MARQUIS
DATE: JAN 24, 2002
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
COMMENTS:
THANK YOU
Renata B. Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division, Suite 1200
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The DOJ's Proposed ``Settlement'' it is so full of 
holes as to been tirely ineffective in curbing MS'' illegal 
business practices. I hope the transparency of this settlement is 
not lost upon the court.
    To accept the DOJ's proposal would:
    A) keep this case in court for many, many years to come,B) deny 
consumers the right to choose applications free from monopoly 
influence,C) thwart the free-market competition needed to make 
software development profitable, andC) deeply damage many American's 
belief in the US system of law. TheDOJ's proposal would prove that 
laws apply only to those without theresources to litigate.
    The only effective solution, the only solution that will restore 
a level playing field, not surprisinqly the remedy previously 
entered, is splitting the company into two, OS and applications. 
Until Microsoft is split, thereby forcing the OS division to publish 
ALL file formats, ALL communication protocols, and ALL APIs my 
business as many other's will continue to be harmed. We will 
continue to waste time and money trying to correct intentional 
incompatibilities between MS and third party software, and our users 
will continue to be exposedto a completely unnecessary risk of 
viruses, trojans, and data loss.I urge the court to reject the DOJ's 
proposed remedy and restore Judge Jackson's order of June 7, 2000.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Marquis
    CEO, Roble System
    P.O.Box 46
    Palo Alto, CA 94302
    (650) 323-2777



MTC-00032076

Missy Broussard
498 Laurelleaf Lane
Covington, LA 70433
January 22,2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
    Please know that my feeling is that this settlement is in the 
best interest of the economy and consumers.
    Our economy could use a boost and I think this settlement will 
help. I think that this case has gone on long enough. Too many tax 
doilars have been spent on it. We need to encourage competition and 
we don't need the courts so involved in an industry that it 
discourages growth and innovation.
    Please approve the settlement and encourage more companies to 
get out thereand compete.

[[Page 29717]]

    Thank you,
    Missy Broussard



MTC-00032077

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
House of Representatives
State House, Boston 02133-1054
FRANCIS L. MARINI 6TH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE DUXBURY HANSON PEMBROKE
MlNORITY LEADER ROOM 124
 TEL.(617)722-2100
 Rep. [email protected]
Fax Cover Sheet
TO: Renata B. Hesse
 Antitrust Division- U.S. Justice Dept.
FAX: 202-616-9937
FROM:
 Office of Representative Francis L.Marini
 House Republican Leader
 (617) 722-2390
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
House of Representatives
State House, Boston 02133-1054
FRANCIS L. MARINl 6TH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
RPERESENTATIVE DUXBURY o PLYMOUTH o PEMBROKE
MINORITY LEADER ROOM 124
 TEL. (617) 722-2100
 Fax (617) 722-2390
 [email protected]
January 24,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    There is a growing sentiment among economists that we are 
finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of our nation's 
recession. The markets are improving, and the economic forecast 
isgenerallypositive. However, state revenues are down and most 
states will have to consider tough cuts on spending in coming 
budgets.
    In Massachusetts, we have witnessed a shrinking state revenue 
base mostly caused by therecession. Many growth opportunities were 
squandered in the 1990s, and now, instead of trading on our 
accomplishments, we are lamenting over what might have been.
    One thing that can be done to aid states'' economies is to 
end the Microsoft lawsuit. We are writing in support of the nine 
states and the Department of Justice's settlement agreement. It is 
afair andreasonable agreement, which brings a satisfactory 
conclusion to this long-running anti-trust case.
    As the old saying goes, a rising tide floats all boats. And just 
as a rising tide will float a boat sitting at the lowest point 
first, so the resolution of this case will help those who have the 
farthestto risefirst.
    The technology-driven ``innovation economy'' has 
created tremendous opportunities for the citizens of the 
Commonwealth. But we must act now to take some of the uncertainty 
out of theeconomy.
    We urge you to endorse this settlement agreement, which would 
provide states greater confidence infiscal planning and would allow 
entrepreneurs and businesses to get back to the business ofcreating 
newand better products for consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Francis L. Marini
    Minority Whip
    Bradley P. Jones Jr.
    Asistant Minority Leader
    George N. Peterson, Jr.
    Minority Whip
    Mary S. Rogeness
Assitant Minority Whip



MTC-00032078

    York PROPERTIES, INC.
Asset Management, Leasing, Property Managament
    Brokerage, New Homes, Relocation
    January 17, 2002
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Fax 202-616-9937
    [email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a real estate professional in one of the nation's fastest-
growing markets, I can attest to the importance of settling the 
Microsoft antitrust case as soon as possible. I write in hopes that 
the court considering the proposed settlement will give careful 
consideration to the view I know I share with many Americans who are 
concerned about the continued impact this litigation could have on 
our nation's economic recovery.
    I strongly believe that competitors should settle the 
differences in the marketplace, not in the legal arena. The 
Microsoft suit was driven by competitors of Microsoft, and the U.S. 
Department of Justice allowed itself to be used in that effort to 
win in the courts what competitors had been unable to win in the 
market.
    Now a settlement has been negotiated under which Microsoft will 
be required to change its business practices substantially and 
submit to continuing review of its behavior. This should be 
sufficient. It is time for the high-tech industry to get out of the 
courtroom and lawyers'' offices and back to work providing 
better products, better services and lower, prices to consumers.
    Sincerly,
    Peter Pace
    Vice President
    Commercial Sales and Leasing
    801 Oberlin Road Suite 335 o Raleigh, NC 27605-3125
919/821-7177
919/833-1363 Fax
    www.yorkproperties.com
    Society of Industrial and Office Realtors Industrial 
Menmber(SIOR)
    Certified Commercial Investment Member Organization (CCIM)
    The Commercial Network (TCN)
    Institute of Real Estate Managament(REM)



MTC-00032079

Fax Cover Sheet Kinko's
13061 Lee Jackson Memorial hwy
Fairfax VA. 22033
Telephone: (703) 817-0900
Fax: (703) 817-0970
E-Mail:[email protected]
Date: January24, 2002
To:
Company: U.S. Department of Justice
FAx: 202 616 9937
From: C. Dean Whitaker
    Company:
    Tel: 703 383 1437
    Tunney Act Commentary to the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    My Interest
    I have been a software developer for five years, producing 
systems used by the Department of Defense. The terms of the 
Microsoft settlement will profoundly affect the manner in which I 
use computer systems professionally. Even in my home, where I 
program software and tinker with hardware both out of necessity and 
for my own amusement, I have a stake in seeing that the market 
provide competition and innovation.
    The Findings
    The responsibility of the Federal government, as it applies 
here, accorded by the Sherman Antitrust Act, is to prohibit behavior 
which deigns to continue monopolistic practices if those practices 
are deemed to restrain trade and are injurious to competition and 
economic liberty.
    The behavior of Microsoft Corporation has been deemed by the 
U.S. District Court's Findings of Fact to be injurious as such:
    They have withheld technical information from the industry 
though the market lacks any alternative product for consumers to 
seek out.
    ï¿½They have encouraged the development of software 
and data that would prevent competing software from functioning 
properly.
    ï¿½They have threatened sanctioning of corporate 
partners who wished to build systems that included certain software 
that Microsoft wished to keep excluded.
    ï¿½They have engaged in technical practices that had 
no particular innovation but to lock out competitors from such 
systems wherein Microsoft owns a monopoly.
    The question of the breadth of power that Microsoft wields in 
both home and business markets is clear. The findings state that the 
market share for Microsoft systems on Intel platforms has stood at 
ninety-five percent or greater in recent years. It also describes 
``positive network effects'' associated with OS software 
and applications; that more consumers will be more inclined to use a 
system as its user-base expands. This phenomenon, in a general 
sense, describes most of the barriers to competition and innovation 
that Microsoft has constructed.
    Limiting the severity of these barriers should be the primary 
motivation of a final judgment.
    The Current Remedy's Problems
    The final judgment should succeed in one thing if it fails in 
all others, it should punish Microsoft for the behavior for which it 
has been deemed guilty. The current settlement, by specifying no 
restrictions on the behavior of binding applications more closely to 
the operating system thereby tacitly allows such behavior that the 
District Court found inappropriate. This omission rewards such 
actions as has been deemed illegal, and would therefore leave the 
market worse than if no trial had been held at all.

[[Page 29718]]

    Open Data Format Standards
    There must be a remedy to require Microsoft's business systems: 
OS, office applications, business enterprise systems, and networking 
software, to use open industry standards for document and data 
formats. Microsoft has, itself, sponsored and advocated the creation 
of standards within the XML (Extensible Markup Language) family of 
languages. Enforcing the use of industry-accepted formats for common 
Internet protocols would allow the survival of competitors within 
the browser market. Without such measures, Microsoft may promote, 
and by sheer weight proliferate, the use of standards which lock out 
competitors and likewise consumers who do not or cannot license the 
latest Microsoft browser versions.
    This involves requiring Microsoft to use industry-accepted data 
formats for the resultant files of its more commonly used systems, 
such as those encompassed by XML-based standards, or to publicly 
publish and promptly update data formats for systems where the 
industry has no definite single standard.
    Possible standards include, but are not limited to, Microsoft 
Word word processing document data and templates, Microsoft Excel 
spreadsheet data and templates, Microsoft Powerpoint data and 
templates, Microsoft SQL, Microsoft Access database files, Microsoft 
Outlook client and Microsoft Exchange server email processing and 
transmissions data, Microsoft financial software, networking 
protocols, file-system protocols, file-system journalling 
information, and any immanent ``NET'' systems protocols.
    When Microsoft Word entered the field of word processing 
software, it had many viable competitors. At that time, they strived 
year after year to improve the power, quality, and stability of the 
application. One feature that allowed them access to the market was 
the program`s ability to import foreign formats (formats from 
competing or archaic systems). Microsoft currently wields enough 
power to produce barriers to competitors choosing to emulate this 
practice: the document standards are much larger and represent many 
features including version control. Microsoft has already begun in 
the courts system and by promoting particular legislation, 
attempting to legally prohibit reverse-engineering of their data 
standards, and it is only inevitable that they will attempt to 
intimidate competitors based on document formats or business 
application standards.
    Of course Microsoft can be held accountable only for how its own 
applications behave, and not for how others may use them. However, 
the remedy may specify that such open standards are to be provided 
by Microsoft's applications, especially for the benefit of 
contracts and programs required or funded by the U.S. Federal 
government.
    Another category of software that open standards may apply to is 
that of proprietary device drivers for widely-used hardware that for 
one reason or another competitors have been to barred from using. 
One example is Win-modem technology which, when present on a 
computer, is inaccessible from many non-Microsoft operating systems. 
The practice of proprietary hardware is indeed so counter-productive 
that its exercise by Intel's competitors is largely responsible for 
Intel's, and thus Microsoft's, past successes. That Microsoft can 
now engage in this practice to no noticeable detriment bodes poorly 
for hardware innovation.
    Liberating the Boot Sequence
    Contractual requirements that Microsoft has forced upon OEMs 
that prohibit and subtly (and illegally) sanction against competing 
products being loaded in either the OS boot sequence or the 
computer's BIOS boot sequence should be dissolved and prevented from 
re-establishing in any form. The former (of the OS boot sequence) 
has inhibited the survival of competing Windows products by making 
it less convenient to operate non-Microsoft applications. The latter 
(of the BIOS boot sequence) has prevented the OEMs from selling, 
within normal distribution channels, multiple-boot systems, 
computers with more than one operating system.
    Encouraging Competition on the Internet
    The conventional reason cited for the breakup of the Standard 
Oil trust was that Standard controlled the resource (oil) as well as 
its primary distribution network (the railroads). The court should 
take into consideration that the resource in this case (the 
operating system and all of the applications that Microsoft claims 
are inseparable from it) will soon have as its primary distribution 
network the Internet itself. If Microsoft were to simply maintain 
its current market share of computers on the Internet, (though its 
share is, in fact, growing) it could soon devise a way to lock out 
systems running competing software, even if that software is running 
on a Microsoft OS.
    This suggested remedy, ,therefore, is for the U.S. Federal 
government to be extremely vigilant in the future, and to make such 
a settlement that would enable the government to step in, without 
delay, to protect a company or organization for whom a new barrier 
to competition has been specifically implemented by Microsoft. The 
financial interests of the company or organization, and indeed the 
market itself, could ill-afford to wait out any major trial relating 
to such future actions as Microsoft undertakes. A 
``probationary period'' should extend at least for five 
years from this settlement, during, which time a compliance 
committee with power to overturn egregious practices should be in 
operation. One past example of such behavior was not cited in the 
findings but nevertheless provides an example of where this remedy 
might have been utilized. If the services of an online greeting card 
company were to be rendered less functional by a new version of 
Microsoft Internet Explorer while Microsoft was simultaneously 
engaged in starting a competing online service the U.S. Federal 
government could, during this probationary period, step in and force 
Microsoft to roll back the changes that created the problem or to 
release a new version entirely correcting the problem. The customers 
who received the faulty version would be sent the correcting 
software at Microsoft's expense. This would occur expeditiously 
within a review board set up by this remedy, thereby allowing both 
the petitioner and the state, to save the time and expense of a new 
trial.
    Finally Given the current economic circumstances of many of 
Microsoft's potential competitors, this case may be the last 
opportunity to stem the expansion of a corporation that could very 
easily wield power over every sector of the economy. If a single 
entity were to have proprietary control over the protocols that 
constitute the Internet, that entity would have a hand in all 
information-based commerce and finance. Microsoft has continued many 
dubious practices throughout the course of this trial, including 
threating license audits of civil government institutions. Microsoft 
considers itself above the law and the case settlement should not 
confirm their position.
    Thank you
    C. Dean Whitaker
    12162 Penderview Lane
    Apt. 1623
    Fairfax, VA 22033
    01/24/02 16:14 FAX 005



MTC-00032080

Bob Smith, Chairman
Onondaga County Republican Committee
375 W. Onondage St.
Syracuse, NY 13202 315-471-2020
315-471-2O33fax
To: Renata Hesse
ROBERT W. GIARRUSSO, Chairman
NANCY J. SANFORD, Administrative Assistant
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to advocate for settlement of the matter U.S. v. 
Microsoft. New York State is still recovering from the failed fiscal 
policies of a decade age, and thanks to Governor George Pataki has 
become far more business friendly. However we still have a long way 
to go.
    Microsoft products are used by the vast majority of business and 
consumers in New York. Litigation aimed at breaking up Microsoft is 
not the proper role of the federal government. Our officials, 
elected and appointed, need to do everything they can to encourage 
capitalism, the advancement of technology and healthy competition. I 
have seen no evidence of public outcry regarding Microsoft. This 
lawsuit was generated by Microsoft competitors and the battle 
belongs in the marketplace, not the courtroom. To punish this 
company with further litigation and use tax dollars to fund this 
dubious effort will only hurt the end user--we the consumers.
    Please include me among those who support immediate settlement 
over protracted litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Smith
    Chairman



MTC-00032081

William Ashendorf

[[Page 29719]]

Attorney/Mediator
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Microsoft Case
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an attorney and business owner, I know the impact litigation 
and government regulations can have on a company. I am also very 
interested in how technology has changed the legal profession and 
the economy so I have been following the Microsoft antitrust with 
interest.
    The proposed settlement agreement will provide adequate remedies 
to all involved in this industry-Microsoft, its competitors, 
computer manufacturers, software developers and consumers.
    The protection for Microsoft competitors include access to 
technical information about the Windows operating system so non-
Microsoft software systems can be used. Microsoft can renew its 
efforts to develop innovative software and continue its technology 
leadership in the global economy.
    It is time to resolve this issue and get technology companies 
back to the business of innovation and product development. In my 
own city of Charlotte, we have seen the impact of a slowing economy, 
with some technology companies closing and others reducing their 
workforces. Other industries are also facing tough times. A thriving 
technology industry could provide a boost to other parts of the 
economy. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    William Ashedorf
    6040 Jester Lane
Charlotte, NC 28211
Tel. & Fax. (704)366-7720

PHI'S DELI III IN TOWN
105 E St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Ph: (704)347-0035
Fax: (704) 347-3663
January 16, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Case
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    As a restaurant owner and consumer, I've seen the immediate 
impact that slowdown in the economy is having on individuals and 
businesses. I live daily with the changes in government regulations. 
Many are important to the health of our citizens, but other 
regulations and antitrust litigation can have a damaging effect on 
innovation and production.
    I have been following the antitrust litigation against Microsoft 
and believe that the proposed settlement agreement strikes a balance 
between the needs of the company and those of its competitors. 
Protections for competitors include greater flexibility in adding 
non-Microsoft products to the Windows operating system and access to 
technical specifications about the operating system. At the same 
time, Microsoft can continue its efforts to develop new, innovative 
products.
    It is time to accept this agreement and get technology companies 
back to the business of innovation and product development. A 
thriving technology industry can have a ripple effect on my own 
business. I know that here in North Carolina a strong boost in 
technology and other sectors is needed to build our economy back to 
the level we had a year or even three years ago. Thank your for your 
attention to this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Levine



MTC-00032082

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/18/014:48am
To: Office of the Attorney General
From: Anthony D'Andrea
Box 1209
Randolph MA 02368
Re: Microsoft prosecution
    People:
    I still remember the last thing Microsoft produced which, as far 
as I know, was a legitimate creation of their own company. It was a 
Floating-Point BASIC Interpreter for the old Apple II Machines that 
came out around 1979 or so. Since then, it has been all downhill for 
MS.
    It is common knowledge that Bill Gates stole the MS-Dos 
operating system from his partner at Altair, then sold IBM on using 
it for the OS in their first computers which appeared several years 
after the Apples.
    Gates'' next lie read like this: ``If you want a 
personal computer that you can hook up to your business mainframe, 
it will have to be an IBM''. Not an ounce of truth in it, but 
between the cosmetic value of the lie and IBM's massive market 
share, it enabled MS to capture a good 85% of market share from what 
had been mostly Apple's territory. Later, after Apple had begun 
incorporating mouse and windows technology into their later Apple 
II's, the Apple III, the Lisa and early Macs, MS produced the first 
version of Windows, for which Apple promptly and properly sued them 
for copyright infringement. Apple won that round, and MS's 
``Trash Can'' has been a ``Recycle Bin'' ever 
since.
    Unfortunately, the lies and thievery from Gates & Co. was 
far from over. Since that time, every innovation that has come down 
the pike has run headlong into Bill Gates. Innumerable companies 
have had to make the choice between selling out, licensing the 
technology to MS or being driven out of business by being undersold. 
To this day, hardware companies sell their wares at near cost, 
simply in an effort to undercut the competition and keep others like 
Apple from regaining any market share, then they make their profits 
from the software later.
    I own a Macintosh machine. The machine is equipped with a 
package called ``Virtual PC'', which allows me to run 
Windows on the Mac and use any of MS's software, should I choose to 
do so. I have consistently found Mac software to be far more easy, 
user-friendly and stable than the MS equivalents. Still, when I 
visit most software vendors, I find them reluctant, almost fearful, 
of carrying Mac software.
    Chains such as Walmarts get their stock thru central buyers 
which have shown reluctance in the extreme to carry anything BUT MS 
compatible software. In one case, a chain called ``Best 
Buy'', I discovered Mac and Windows versions of identical 
software on the shelf together, with the Mac version selling at $10 
more than the MS version. I summoned the store manager and demanded 
an explanation. I was told that if he did not price the products in 
that fashion, MS would pull all their products from his shelves.
    This has not been the exception, but the rule. How blatant does 
MS have to act before they can be found guilty of racketeering? How 
obviously does a monopoly have to conduct themselves to be 
recognized for what they are? And how many people will have to be 
hurt or driven out of business before someone takes this monster in 
hand and administers justice???
    The dangers of such a concentration of power go far beyond 
simply fair business practices. Their efforts, for instance, to 
modify Sun's JAVA language earned them lawsuits and produced a 
certain degree of confusion among web programmers. Their regular 
introduction of new media formats without the software to allow 
other systems to immediately keep up with the changes provides them 
with additional pressure to sidestep fair competition. And thruout 
these efforts, there is always the MS database, in which a great 
deal of personal information is kept.
    Does a database of personal information provide a threat in and 
of itself? Of course not. I am sure Apple has my name and address 
somewhere in its files. But think of the back-door that MS gave to 
the NSA, which allows them to enter anyone's computer, anywhere in 
the world, examine the hard drive and even read and write on that 
drive with complete concealment. When the Chinese discovered that, 
they began a campaign to eliminate Windows from every machine in 
their country and replace it with Unix. Think also of the Eschalon 
program, which has had Japanese and German authorities angry at us 
in the USA for some time now, as they have justifiable fears of 
corporate espionage if that aforementioned ``back-door'' 
gets into the wrong hands.
    Right now, business has almost no alternative to Windows. And 
since Windows is nearly completely borrowed or stolen technology, 
several years behind Apple and others, and since some real security 
threats exist and grow more ominous on a daily basis, something MUST 
be done and done soon to eliminate this threat.
    The only solution is to deal with Microsoft thru the courts, in 
the most appropriate way possible, under the RICO laws as 
racketeers. By taking them in hand, forcefully, and compelling them 
to adopt practices that will open the market to real competition, 
you will find that rather than hindering development, it will 
enhance the opportunities for competing companies to enter the 
marketplace and speed the development of new technology. The 
companies are already out there, working on new ideas, developing

[[Page 29720]]

approaches to market their ideas while defending their battlements 
from the MS assaults that will surely head their way when the threat 
of innovation becomes visible.
    There are nine states at this time that disagree with the DOJ 
resolution of the case against MS. This may be the last opportunity 
to wield the sword of the Law against a seemingly unassailable 
threat. I beg you, use the power that you have in this just cause.
    For just one of hundreds of sources of more background and 
documentation of the illegal and anti-competitive practices of MS, I 
refer you to this website...
    http://hive.me.gu.edu.au/csand/md/0soft.html
    Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Your 
response would be appreciated and a dialogue welcomed.
    Anthony D'Andrea
    Randolph Massachusetts
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,.
..



MTC-00032083

From: Jim Hartneady
To: DOJ
Date: 11/19/019:19am
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune--Most Microsoft Foes Won't 
Criticize Settlement for Fear of Retaliation,
Here is an article that shows the weakness of the settlement.
Regards,
Jim Hartneady
http://www.sltrib.com/11182001/Business/149631.htm



MTC-00032084

From: richard
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/19/0111:17am
Subject: Microsoft case
    The government and attorney generals were wrong to try and tell 
Microsoft what belongs in an operating system. Most people are happy 
to have a web browser included with a computer. The government has 
no business making decisions about what features go into an 
operating system. Where Microsoft does cross the line, is doing 
things to make it difficult for others to make applications work on 
windows. Digital camera manufactures need to have their products 
work just as well as something form Microsoft.
    What the attorney generals and the Feds need to do is take a 
close look at AOL and their proprietary messaging system. This 
smells a lot more like use of monopoly power.
    The attorney generals and Feds also need to get the politics out 
of who get looked at for antitrust--when Larry Ellison and AOL 
can through a lot of money around and get a company sued by the 
government, something stinks. Now Microsoft has to through money at 
politicians too--the net result is more corruption in 
government and poorer products and government sanctioned cartels.
    The Wall Street Journal had a good editorial recently about how 
the attorney generals were using the Microsoft case basically to 
advance their political careers. I think that the attorney generals 
need to resign--or find something more useful to do. rp
    --- Christian Loweth  wrote:
    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 proposed 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 dont 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. And keep it brief. They understand 
the issues, so you don't need to re-hash them. It would probably be 
most effective if you stated that they press on with their lawsuit 
to impose maximum penalties.
    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 didnt 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. Thats 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 were all using Microsoft Windows at 
least youll 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]
    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



MTC-00032085

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/19/012:04pm
Subject: User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/
5.02.2022 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/
5.02.2022
Date: Mon,19 Nov 2001 17:00:07 -0500
Subject: Stop Microsoft's Unfair Business Practices
From: Ray Gombos 
To: 
    Message-ID: 

    Mime-version: 1.0
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=``US-ASCII''
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please do not allow the Microsoft corporation to continue its 
use of unfair business practices in stifling competition in the 
technology industry. Some of the greatest advances in Information 
Technology came from Microsoft's competitors. Unfortunately, 
Microsoft's monopoly on desktop software has given them the power to 
freely distribute new software with the intent of forcing 
competitors out of business. Microsoft should have been broken up 
into separate companies last year it is time that our civil justice 
system starts working for the good of the nation not just the bank 
accounts of big business.
    Thank you,
    Ray Gombos
    44 Merrill Road
    Trumbull, CT 06611
    (203) 459-0777



MTC-00032086

From: Lori Brocka
To: 
[email protected]@inetgw,attorney.ge
neral@po....
Date: 11/20/018:23am
Subject: Microsoft

[[Page 29721]]

    The purpose of this email is to let you know I appreciate your 
continued efforts in fighting Microsoft. I have used Microsft 
products both by choice and lack of choice. I am associated with and 
work with numerous members of varying IT departments and it has 
become incredibly obvious to anyone ``in the trenches'' 
that Microsoft is not only getting away with the same business 
practices they have always employed, but are emboldened by this 
settlement. Microsoft is a master manipulator and as such has led 
the lemings to the cliff once again. I personally am doing 
everything I can to use alternative products. Anyone that attempts 
to do this needs to have patience, a better than average 
understanding of software, and determination. This is not the fault 
of the software products, but a direct result of Microsoft tactics. 
I am still unable to load most Microsoft support pages when using 
the Opera browser. I will continue my personal quest to become 
Microsoft free and I encourage you to do the same. This problem goes 
much deeper than software, there is a mind set among many IT 
decision makers that it is not possible to run a business with out 
Microsoft products, I would hope that part of Microsofts penalty is 
to spend a very large sum of money on educating these people on the 
other possibilities.
    Thank you
    Lori Brocka
    Iowa
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,at...



MTC-00032087

From: Greg Alton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/019:03am
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-00032088

From: William
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/019:32am
Subject: They are getting away with it again!
    I am very disappointed in Ohio not being part of this law suite. 
Microsoft is going to get away with there past behaviors because you 
don1t understand nor what to. Just as long as they are not very 
obvious we continue to let them indulged in anti-trust violations 
and racketeering. We all use their software and think how can such 
great stuff come from lawbreakers. Well that1s the key and that1s 
what MS what's you to believe... it does. They slowly put us to 
sleep and one day they will have control of every computer aspect of 
our lives. No one can compete with MS and all their money.
    A lawsuit is like a walk in the park for MS because they can 
ware anyone down even the Government. They have been doing this for 
years. Now that they have a new OS XP out you can see that they 
continue the behaviors of the past if you but only look! Wakeup and 
smell the coffee! Get in the game.
    William Davis
    232 So. Washington
    New Bremen Ohio 45869
    [email protected]
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,...



MTC-00032089

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/019:37am
Subject: I am writing to inform you of my support and hope that you 
will continue
    I am writing to inform you of my support and hope that you will 
continue anti-trust prosecution of Microsoft. I speak for many of my 
friends when I say that I believe Microsoft is guilty of anit-trust 
violations and racketeering.
    Brett Anderson
    4132 Eaton
    Kansas City, KS 66103
    Brett Anderson
    .. . [email protected]
    .. . [email protected]
    .. . .www.inteform.net
    .. . .913 484 8843
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,GENERAL@ksag...



MTC-00032090

From: John Kornet
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/0110:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Insufficient
    Mr. Reilly-
    Thank you for continuing the battle against the Microsoft 
monopoly when our federal government has all but given up. I'm 
writing to you to express by extreme displeasure with the settlement 
thus far and to offer you my full support in your continuing case.
    I value the freedom of choice in all things I do perhaps more 
than any other personal right. I firmly believe that Microsoft's 
practices are impinging upon that right. I have often bought 
Microsoft's products and even thought a few were good products, but 
the tactics they are using to ``compete'' with other 
companies almost certainly guarantee that someday I will not have 
any other choice than to buy a Microsoft product. This is absolutely 
unacceptable!
    The industry that Microsoft competes in moves so fast. We need 
to keep it moving that fast. It's called progress. Progress that has 
defined America's (and Massachusetts') prosperity in the information 
age. If there is no room for competition, we face the prospect of 
little or no progress at all--just one choice, one solution, 
one pace. This is not how a free market is supposed to work.
    Please do everything in your power to reign in Microsoft, so 
that our economy and society can continue to enjoy this 
unprecedented growth.
    Your constituent,
    John Kornet
    17 South Street
    Medfield, MA
    02052
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,...



MTC-00032091

From: Greg Miller
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/0111:13am
Subject: 
    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 help.
    Please continue the fight for equality.
    Greg miller
    Greg Miller
    http://www.greg-miller.com
    512.346.4589
    9617 Great Hills Trail #514
    Austin, Texas 78759



MTC-00032095

From: Donald Watson
To: ``Antitrust Case Opinions''
Date: 11/20/0111:44am
Subject: Stop the madness PLEASE
    As an IT professional I know the computing industry and both 
home/personal computing as well as corporate computing quite well. 
It is utterly ridiculous to continue this pursuit of Microsoft. Sure 
they may have some monopolistic power but only because we the people 
have accepted that Windows is better than the alternatives. I am 
sure I don't speak only for myself when I say I am glad the 
operating system comes with as many features as it does. I'm glad 
the world has chosen (YES CHOSEN, NOT BEEN FORCED) to settle on a 
single operating system for compatibility. This makes life easier 
for all of us. The cost of windows is not high. It's a tremendous 
buy for a small price. I don't have to spend $20, $30 or $50 dollars 
on separate packages to defrag my hard drive, surf then net or send 
email. This is all included. I STILL HAVE THE CHOICE to install 
whatever software I wish to use. If I don't like IE, then I'll pick 
Netscape, If I don't like the defrager, I'll pick Norton etc, etc, 
etc. This doesn't make me a big fan of Microsoft.
    I think they still make some pretty buggy, shoddy software but 
it is better and more compatible than anything else out there. I 
have millions of programs to choose from because of Windows. Any 
other Operating System only has a tiny fraction of that number of 
programs. So please. Think about what effects you'll have on 
computing if this ludicrous case continues. Please let the public 
make its own decisions.
    Thank you
    Donald ``Doc'' Watson
    Information Services

[[Page 29722]]

    Linn County REC
    5695 REC Drive
    Marion, IA 52205



MTC-00032096

From: Greg white
To: root
Date: 11/20/0112:09pm
Subject: anticompetitive M
    Dear DOJ,
    If you are serious about dealing with microsoft then you have to 
do something pretty drastic otherwise it will just be business as 
usual. We all know how awfull M has been and continues to be. Do you 
want M to own the entire computer and telecomunication system of the 
world. Because I'm sure that will happen if you do nothing to stop 
there current behaviour.
    Kind regards,
    Greg White



MTC-00032097

From: F. Frank
Date: 11/20/0112:16pm
Subject: microsoft bad deal
    Hello--
    I am writing because I believe that the deal arranged by the 
U.S. government and Microsoft is a BAD deal for all us consumers.
    Microsoft is a criminal company and is a danger to U.S commerce 
and the future of computing.
    I believe it would be in the best interest if Microsoft was 
broken up into different competing companies.
    F. Frank
    24200 Sw Yew Wood Ln
    Hillsboro, OR 97123



MTC-00032099

From: Jay Dylan Tyler
To: Jay Dylan Tyler
Date: 11/20/011:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    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.
    Yours,
    Jay Dylan Tyler
    CEO linXS:Corporation
    [email protected]
    http://www.lin-xs.com



MTC-00032100

From: Csaba Nagy
To: Csaba Nagy
Date: 11/20/014:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case
    To whom it may concern,
    I have followed with great interest the Microsoft anti-trust 
case (and its earlier derivatives) for several years and have been 
astonished time and time again at the light punishment that it has 
been given for its offenses. The following are some of the 
perceptions that I have, and I believe the majority of the public 
has:
    --if someone breaks the law they should be punished
    --the type and length of punishment is variable and takes 
into account among many other things the severity of the crime, past 
behavior (have they committed other crimes in the past, have they 
committed similar crimes in the past)
    --repeat offenders are punished most severely, especially 
if they continue to break the law in the same way
    Microsoft has been consistent in its behavior for several years 
of using its monopoly ownership of the operating system to advance 
the usage of its products. Microsoft says that this is innovation, 
which is not true. Innovation is the company that wrote the first 
web browser, the first MP3 player, the first anti-virus software 
etc. Microsoft is not innovating when it comes out with an 
identically functional product. In these instances, Microsoft is 
advancing someone else's innovation forward without having to 
sacrifice the original effort required to have come up with the idea 
in the first place. Improving on someone else's ideas is not wrong 
in itself, and in fact this is one of the strengths inherent in 
capitalism based on competition. The problem is when you leverage 
your monopoly position in one area of the market with the intent to 
discourage customers from using a competitors product. Maintaining a 
competitive environment is important and helps to maintain a healthy 
industry (and this is the case for all industries). Once competition 
is eroded, there is no incentive for a monopoly to be productive, to 
be efficient, or to manufacture improved products. While you may 
have temporary improved stability derived from standards because of 
a monopoly, the overall long-term effect is one of neglect towards 
the customers because there is no need to worry about a competitor 
stealing them away from you.
    Microsoft has gone on too long without being punished in a 
realistic manner. If at this point Microsoft is not held 
accountable, then their behavior is justified and will continue ad 
infinitum until both the public and the industry are harmed.
    Imagine the ridiculous situation where there is Company X which 
manufactures the majority of roads in the US. They are responsible 
for designing the majority of roads, building them, repairing them, 
etc. Now imagine that there are 10 companies, including Company X, 
which manufacture the various cars, SUVs, trucks, motorcycles to 
function on these roads. There is a tremendous variety of vehicles 
because their are many different consumers, each with their own 
taste and needs. All of the vehicles work on all of the roads.
    What would happen if Company X makes some changes to the roads 
that it keeps secret. Then it uses this secret in order to make its 
vehicles run better than its competitor vehicles. They remark to the 
complaint of the competitors with, ``Innovation, this is what 
customers want, need, and deserve.'' Well, the cars do run 
faster, and the trucks get better gas mileage, and the traction is 
safer in the winter, so why should we complain? We should thank 
Company X for helping us all out with such well thought out ideas.
    One day Company Y comes out with a completely new vehicle that 
is very popular. In fact it is so popular that it is a blockbuster 
hit and everybody is talking about this car. Competitor X comes out 
shortly with a version that is very similar, in fact it is mostly a 
copy of Company Y's car with a few less amenities. Company X's car 
does not do so well. What is Company X to do? Company X continues to 
``innovate'' and eventually decides that they can make 
some money with tollbooths on some of its roads. These are funny 
kind of tollbooths though, because rather than charge passengers for 
driving through them, then only let vehicles manufactured by Company 
X through. Many people complain, but Company X explains that only 
its cars are manufactured to the specifications of the roads in 
those areas, and that it would be unsafe for cars from other 
manufactures to drive on those roads.
    Prior to the tollbooth situation, the incentive for customers to 
purchase the Company X copy would be more advantages and less 
disadvantages than Company Y's cars. Because Company X limits many 
of its roads to Company X cars, more and more customers are 
convinced that they should purchase Company X cars despite Company Y 
having a better car. Over many years despite the extreme competition 
between Company X and Y who release new better versions of their 
cars every year, eventually because of the almost unlimited 
resources of Company X (because of the tollbooths) and they 
leveraged their control over the roads, Company Y went bankrupt.
    Following this same cycle, most other car companies went 
bankrupt and the few that are left produce vehicles that are highly 
specialized for niche markets. Nevertheless, Company X continued to 
sell their cars and they continued to added minor changes every year 
because they still had the requirement to sell more and more cars in 
order to satisfy their shareholders. But eventually they became 
complacent and within short time their ultimate goal was to make the 
most profit possible on the minimum amount of innovation investment 
possible.
    The pace of change that customers had come to appreciate and 
benefit from, which was fuelled by competition, eventually led way 
to stagnation. The ultimate losers were the individual customers and 
the entire industry.
    Regards and keep fighting.
    Csaba
    Mr. Csaba Nagy
    Business Development Associate
    ConjuChem Inc.
    225 President-Kennedy, Suite 3950
    Montreal, QC
    H2X 3Y8 Canada
    Phone: (514) 844-5558 x268

[[Page 29723]]

    Mobile: (514) 973-1011
    Fax: (514) 844-1119
    Email: [email protected] www.conjuchem.com
    THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE 
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, 
reproduction, copying, distribution, or other dissemination or use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete this email.



MTC-00032101

From: David A. Hasan
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/015:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement?
    I shall keep this simple.
    1. I am generally inclined to favor less government over more.
    2. Ironically for this to work, our government must be vigilant 
in its role as regulator, in particular as regulator of monopolistic 
behavior.
    3. Microsoft has blatantly violated the spirit and letter of our 
laws prohibiting monopolistic behavior. This has been unambiguously 
determined by the courts.
    4. The proposed settlement of the antitrust case against 
Microsoft is an ABOMINATION, as it seeks no remedies and grants to 
the company effective control over any subsequent oversight.
    5. I strongly encourage you to continue to oppose the 
settlement. We are depending on you.
    Thank you.
    David A. Hasan
    4701 Monterey Oaks Blvd.
    #1114
    Austin, TX 78749



MTC-00032102

From: Judson Frondorf
To: micro
Date: 11/21/016:15am
Subject: not fair
    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
    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.''
    Judson Frondorf
    APS Help Desk Technician
    Please feel free to contact me via email. Include:
    full name
    employee number
    contact phone number
    location number
    your position
    complete description of problem



MTC-00032104

From: Cleburne Medlock
To: DOJvsMS
Date: 11/21/0110:38am
Subject: Microsoft ``Settlement?''
    Gentlemen:
    First, allow me to introduce myself briefly. I, C. W. Medlock, 
have worked in the ``Software'' field in a professional 
capacity for more than 47 years. (My first course in 
``programming'' was taken in 1950 at Purdue University.) I 
have worked at such stalwarts of this industry as IBM 
(1960-1966), NCR (1975-1977), etc. At IBM, I was one of 
the six Architects of IBM's Operating System 360 (``OS/
360''), one of the world's first true Operating Systems 
(1963-64). Also at IBM (1963), I was one of the six members of 
the joint IBM/SHARE (a users group) team that developed the advanced 
Programming Language One (PL/I) Although the latter language has 
fallen into disuse due to more modern advances in such 
``standard'', non?-proprietary languages a COBOL, PL/I 
indeed was a most powerful language (for both scientific and 
business computing) that I believe set the stage for the more modern 
versions of COBOL and other more modern scientific computing 
languages.
    I, from 1982 to 1999, was proprietor of my own software 
``home-business'' Pro/Am Software, where I developed and 
marketed worldwide several software ``tools'' for use by 
the programmer. It was here, as a ``lone survivor'' of a 
great group of Information Age professionals, that I first 
encountered the threats laid down by Microsoft's failure to disclose 
much-needed facts that would allow entrepreneurs such as myself to 
develop tools that would directly or indirectly interface with their 
``Windows'' Operating System. (This does NOT mean that I 
necessarily would have required the source code of Windows, but only 
a FULL disclosure of Microsoft's file formats, OS interfaces, 
details of invoking OS functions, etc. This should include such 
disclosure of these interfaces for all of Microsoft's other products 
which interface with Windows, as competitors and other users have a 
need for this information just as well.) A case might easily be made 
by Microsoft that they should have the full protection of their 
intellectual property such as source code, where distribution of 
same would allow many other (foreign?) businesses to easily make 
copies of same, and, via suitable modifications, each apply their 
own ``Trademarks'', ``Copyright'' notifications, 
etc. However, I cannot imagine a case in any court where it could be 
argued that it would be harmful to a legitimate, non-monopolistic 
business for them to disclose FULLY the interfaces needed by ALL 
users (developers and ordinary users alike)!
    I would like to help put Microsoft in its proper place in the 
Software World, after the DOJ has apparently ``sold out'' 
to MS?
    Most sincerely,
    C. W. Medlock
    Retired proprietor, Pro/Am Software



MTC-00032105

From: Cleburne Medlock
To: DOJvsMS
Date: 11/21/0110:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The provisions in any Settlement with Microsoft should NOT be 
limited to the interfaces with their Windows operating system, but 
should indeed include ALL interfaces (direct or indirect) with ANY 
Microsoft product. This is much needed by developers and many 
consumers, as well!
    Sincerely,
    C. W. Medlock Retired proprietor, Pro/Am Software



MTC-00032106

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/21/013:44pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement is a farce!!
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a farce!! Courts have 
determined that Microsoft has injured companies and consumers 
through their anti-competitive practices. They should be punished 
for breaking the law.
    The proposed settlement of $1 billion in computers and software 
for schools is no punishment! Microsoft will not be paying retail, 
but will be claiming retail prices for the products they distribute. 
They won't spend more than a few million dollars, less than they 
would spend in marketing to the same group of schools.
    Worse, you are hurting other computer companies. Allowing 
Microsoft to distribute their goods in these schools is further 
reaching than those schools. It extends to teachers and families 
associated with the schools. Once saddled with the Microsoft 
operating system, these people will be ``stuck'' with 
Microsoft. Other computer companies will be damaged. You are, in 
effect, extending the Microsoft monopoly. STOP NOW!!!!!
    Richard Alan Hyman
    Morrison, Colorado



MTC-00032107

From: m a r k . q u e z a d a
Date: 11/22/0112:17am
Subject: microsoft ruling
    Hello,
    My name is Mark Quezada, and I'm writing to voice my concerns 
regarding Microsoft's AntiTrust case. I'm not sure I can accurately 
convey these concerns via e-mail, but I do know that the current 
settlement was not

[[Page 29724]]

worth the time, money, or man hours put into the case. Personally, i 
feel this ``slap on the wrist'' ruling will ultimately 
achieve nothing and stricter judgment should be in order. I will not 
waste much more of your time, but please be advised, there are a 
large number of people who, although they may not take the time to 
write about it, feel the same way. If anything, now is the time to 
take action against the illegal acts which compromise many people's 
privacy.
    Thank you for your time,
    --mark
    (626) 252-5375



MTC-00032109

From: Piscean
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/22/017:46pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
    Hello Mr. Reilly,
    I just wanted to let you know personally that I am in favor of 
your pursuing a more stringent penalty than the one which the U.S. 
Government has settled for.
    Based on the reviews of the settlement from numerous sources 
(The Register, CNN, etc.) I can only conclude that the governments1 
settlement agreement with Microsoft is tantamount to throwing the 
entire verdict out the window. For example, the donation of software 
and hardware to less wealthy school districts further widens their 
customer base and expands their monopoly. The courts have determined 
that Microsoft has abused their monopoly position. The current 
settlement is less than a slap on the wrist; it is a travesty and an 
abuse of justice.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Shangraw
    327 LEO DR
    GARDNER, MA 01440-1245
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00032110

From: Ed Powell
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/23/012:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement--don't do it
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed settlement 
to the Microsoft antitrust case.
    Quite simply, Microsoft has a stranglehold on the mainstream PC 
market. This is something that everyone in the computer industry has 
known for years, and our court system has determined this to be 
true. What kind of message are we sending if Microsoft only receives 
a slap on the wrist for breaking the law? Are we saying that some 
people or entities are better than others? Our country was not 
founded on that concept, but instead on ``all men are created 
equal''. Someone guilty of breaking the law should face the 
full penalty of the law, no exceptions. And in this case of breaking 
the law, Microsoft must be held accountable for their monopolistic 
practices, and must be punished as such that they cannot exercise 
their power for those purposes. From what I have read of the 
proposed settlement, there are no decisive changes to the way 
Microsoft does business.
    Why not impose a moratorium on Microsoft against its purchase or 
merger with other companies? Absorbing companies in this way has 
been a tactic of theirs to stifle competition and release products 
under their own banner.
    Why not impose a moratorium on Microsoft against releasing any 
new operating system or Internet products for a while? Give a chance 
for competition to make inroads against Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly? I am very much opposed to Microsoft's continued dominance 
of the industry, and to the proposed settlement that does nothing to 
correct it.
    Ed Powell--``Meus Navis Aerius est Plena 
Anguillarum''
    http://www.visi.com/epowell
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00032111

From: superba
To: Renate Hesse
Date: 11/23/019:38am
Subject: Written Comments on Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Renate Hesse Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This email contains my comments on the subject case settlement 
and urges you to take further action on behalf of a small group of 
Microsoft victims too weak to take legal action.
    My Comment ----------
    This case was instigated by several companies that were outsold 
in a free market, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and AOL to mention a 
few. The original competing product, the Netscape browser, is 
extremely weak compared to the Microsoft product, Internet Explorer. 
I have first hand knowledge that at least one of the companies 
mentioned above uses predatory marketing practices just as bad or 
worse than those alleged for Microsoft, that company is Sun. AOL 
also uses sales practices that involve ``give away'' 
product to get on a user's computer then constantly attempts to 
place its own products on that computer.
    In my lifetime there have been several user created monopolies, 
IBM, AT&T, to mention 2. I don't feel that it is the charter of 
the Federal and State governments to retard such monopolies 
especially when undue assistance is given to inferior products just 
to help their providers stay viable.
    My Urgent Request for DOJ to add to the Settlement I am part of 
a group of systems engineeers that has earned Microsoft 
certifications of different titles and levels. I worked, studied, 
invested in equipment, invested my time, paid hard earned money for 
training, and paid for testing to get my certifications. In some 
cases companies paid the costs to do this for their employees, but 
not so in my case. Therefore, I look upon the certifications as hard 
earned, worthwhile, and something I strived for and achieved.
    My certifications included: Microsoft Certified Professional, 
MCP; Microsoft Certified Professional plus Internet, MCP + I; 
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, MCSE; and Microsoft Certified 
Trainer, MCT.
    Microsoft has a practice of ``retiring'' the exams 
used to qualify for these certifications. Their stated motivation is 
to ``keep the certified persons up to date''. 
Coincidentally, doing so also parallels new product introductions; 
the theory being to have the certified persons help to introduce and 
sell new product and increase Microsoft's sales. I strongly object 
to Microsoft's practice of doing this. It might be analogous to your 
law school notifying you that their law degree programs have been 
updated and if you don't return and take the updated courses, your 
degree will be cancelled. Of course, that's not going to happen, but 
Microsoft does it.
    Microsoft relented on the last generation of certifications for 
the NT 4 products and said it will allow the certifications to 
continue with a qualified title such as ``MCSE NT 4''.
    I lost all my certifications except MCP due to the retirement of 
(1) course in May 2001. I feel that Microsoft was wrong to cancel my 
certifications just because it retired an exam. The truth is that 
the exam, Internet Information Server version 3, was the only 
Internet Information Server exam available when I was testing in 
1997. A newer version came along later but I saw no reason to take 
it.
    Please add the requirement to the settlement for Microsoft not 
to cancel exams but rather to classify them as ``MCSE NT 
4'' and extend that practice to all the old certifications. 
Even adding a date would not be objectional, but the current 
practice makes our resumes incorrect, or appear to be so, due to 
Microsoft's onerous practice.
    Thank you for your patience.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Jordan
    aka James T. Jordan



MTC-00032112

From: Andy Suhaka
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/23/01 3:24pm
Subject: Wrong Settlement for Microsoft
    Sir or Madame:
    This is an outrage!
    You have probably heard about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft in the antitrust case. The settlement essentially says 
that Microsoft must spend about $1 billion in putting refurbished 
computers and Microsoft software into the nations poorest schools.
    The courts have ruled that Microsoft broke the law and should be 
punished. Is this punishemnt? Of course not! The $1 billion 
Microsoft must spend is *retail* value. How much does it cost to 
press some CDs with MS software compared to the retail value? So, 
the cost associated with the settlement is very low.
    The biggest blunder is that the states that may agree to this 
settlement are helping Microsoft to extend their monopoly. The 
effect of having the MS operating system in schools extends far 
beyond those schools, so the settlement is, in fact, a big marketing 
ploy by MS. Do NOT agree to this settlement. This is the biggest PR 
coup that Microsoft could hope for and unfair to the computing 
public.
    How about a punishment that actually punishes the wrong doer?!!!
    Andrea Suhaka
    6864 S ULSTER CIR
    CENTENNIAL CO 80112
    Centennial City Council, Ward III

[[Page 29725]]



MTC-00032114

From: Willard Woldt
Date: 11/25/019:18pm
Subject: You are our last line of defense
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    It is quite clear that Microsoft has even more egregious plans 
to control the world than were exposed in the federal hearing vis a 
vis the lock down aspects of their latest XP operating system.
    Also the assigned penalties of equipping schools is really a 
long term and marvelous marketing plan for Microsoft to gain future 
customers. As a penalty, it is a sick joke.
    We plead with you to continue the fight to rein in this 
company's incredible hunger for control of the human race.
    Thank you.
    Willard E. Woldt
    Lt Col USAF (Ret)



MTC-00032115

From: Michael Alford
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/26/016:47am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I personally feel that Microsoft should receive harsher 
penalties than what the Department of Justice proposes. I understand 
why that decision was made, but as the owner of a small computer 
hardware business put out of business by legal competition from 
giant corporations, I feel compelled to write to you on behalf of 
the smaller companies struggling to survive day to day operations.
    I urge you press on with the lawsuit to impose maximum penalties 
and show corporations that this type of behavior will not be 
permitted. If our government can't stand up to a giant corporation 
like Microsoft, who can?
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Michael Alford
    4162 Shadow Creek Cir.
    Oviedo, FL 32765



MTC-00032116

From: David Eckman
To: West Virginia Attorney General,Utah Attorney Gener...
Date: 11/26/0112:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Case Settlement
    I urge you NOT to agree to the settlement terms with Microsoft 
that the federal government has. Following are several reasons, 
based on my extensive use of computers since 1983, my knowledge of 
and experience with many operating systems and in developing 
software: As an OS/2 user, I have been damaged by Microsoft's 
illegal tying agreements to gain a monopoly and its retaliatory and 
predatory use of its monopoly power. What will punish Microsoft most 
effectively while also stimulating its competition would be an order 
requiring it to LICENSE _AT NO COST to the licensee_ 
all code necessary (1) to allow all other operating systems to run 
32-bit (and eventually higher level) Windows programs and (2) to 
allow other developers'' software to run as effectively under 
Windows as Microsoft's own programs.
    Those licenses should be given to everyone who is working to 
enhance any operating system, including developers who produce add-
ons or plugins for such systems. With such an order, a more level 
field will be achieved. Such cost-free licensing should be required 
for a minimum of 20 years, to allow other operating systems to 
strengthen and grow in usage to the point where software program 
developers will produce native versions of their software for such 
systems. The history of OS/2 shows that this would work: While 
Windows was a 16-bit system, OS/2 use grew and native applications 
were being developed, because of OS/2's ability to run 16-bit 
Windows programs. OS/2's market position and its growing acceptance 
were then seriously hurt by Microsoft's predatory and illegal 
actions. Despite Microsoft's illegal conduct, however, OS/2 has 
remained alive because of its superiority as an operating system 
over everything Microsoft has issued thus far, but it cannot return 
to marketing success without the ability to run applications that 
most users want. In fact, IBM has been forced to scale back further 
work on OS/2, and it has almost given up on it because of 
Microsoft's pressure on it and the difficulty of dealing with 
Microsoft's illegal use of its monopoly power. OS/2 could return to 
effective competition with licenses of Microsoft's operating system 
code, at no cost to IBM and/or those who might want to enhance the 
system if IBM chooses not to do it.
    Microsoft has also used its monopoly illegally to harm the Java 
technology, which is an open software. Java developers have felt the 
stinging impact of Microsoft's illegal behavior. Its consequences in 
the future may be even more severe if the federal government's weak 
legal precedent is established.
    Finally, Microsoft has violated with impunity consent decrees of 
the past.
    It should be ordered to pay a substantial fine. It should also 
be ordered to pay all costs of monitoring its compliance in the 
future. This should continue for at least 20 years.
    IBM was severely punished over 20 years ago for its antitrust 
behavior. It then managed to behave in a responsible manner. There 
is no reason why Microsoft should not be similarly punished now.
    [J:] David Eckman
    [email protected]
    http://www.eckman-law.com
    3730 Kirby Dr., Suite 1200
    Houston, Texas 77098-3927
    713-661-2065
    CC:US Dept of Justice



MTC-00032117

From: comcast
To: micro
Date: 11/26/011:40pm
Subject: attn:
    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.
    Sincerly,
    Juddson Frondorf



MTC-00032118

From: JP Glutting
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/26/017:16pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
    Dear Attorney General Mr. Riley,
    I am writing you today to express my appreciation that the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not signed on to the settlement 
proposed by the Federal Government to address Microsoft's criminal 
activities. Microsoft has blatantly and repeatedly violated the 
Sherman anti-trust act, and has shown no sign of remorse or 
intention of modifying their behavior. Their behavior in court was 
appalling presenting false evidence and repeatedly refusing to 
cooperate.

[[Page 29726]]

    The fact that the U.S. has settled this case with essentially no 
penalties at all for this abusive is shocking, and frankly 
embarrassing. ``Tough on crime'' seems only to apply to 
those who cannot afford expensive political connections. The 
proposed settlement of class action suits with a 
``giveway'' to poor school districts, which will extend 
the Microsoft monopoly, is frankly shameful, but not the issue I 
wish to speak to today. This outcome is very regrettable, since it 
will server to further stifle the computer industry and the U.S. 
economy. I don't believe anyone over the age of 30, and who 
remembers Ma Bell, could honestly say that the telecommunications 
growth that drove the economic boom of the 1990's would have been 
possible without the breakup of that telecommunications monopoly. I 
work with computers daily (I am a bioinformaticist at the Dana-
Farber Cancer Institute), and it is very clear to me that Microsoft 
cannot compete with other operating systems at the level of quality 
(we use high-end Unix workstations, running SGI's IRIX and Linux). I 
truly wish that the U.S. stood for free markets and free 
competition, but it seems that a combination of political 
connections and economic jitters has convinced the department of the 
U.S. Attorney General to condone a shoddy, inefficient, illegal 
monopoly for the forseeable future.
    Thank you, Attorney General Reilly, for not lumping me, as a 
Massachusetts resident, in with this dodgy settlement.
    Best Regards,
    JP Glutting Brookline,
    Massachusetts
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00032119

From: Ron Larsen
To: DOJ
Date: 11/26/0110:07pm
Subject: Microsoft on Truth Serum--the Antitrust Settlement 
Examined This is not a solution! The DOJ has totaly ignored the best 
advise from industry experts. Microsost's XP operating system 
creates a whole new set of antitrust violations. It is appalling 
that the DOJ has performed so poorly in protecting free enterprise, 
and commerce in general. The new operation system means new DOJ 
ruling regarding the breaking of Microsoft into 3-5 parts. 
Past break-ups have stimulated the economy and the industry as a 
whole. Please go for the long term ``just'' solution, 
after all you are the ``Just''ice Department. Thanks, Ron
    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.
    CC:President George W. Bush



MTC-00032120

From: Pete Gontier
Date: 11/27/0112:06am
Subject: settlement is a sham
    Microsoft has managed to engineer a so-called settlement for 
their illegal operating system monopoly in which they happily 
cooperate in seeding their operating system into the only market in 
which their only operating system competitor has a firm foothold. 
Microsoft is playing the

[[Page 29727]]

government like a finely-tuned violin, and historians will forever 
shake their heads in wonder and dismay. Please don't let them fool 
you!
    Pete Gontier 



MTC-00032121

From: judson
To: micro
Date: 11/27/0111:13am
Subject: please
    The Computer and Communications Industry Association, for one, 
says that acceptance of Microsoft's $1 billion offer would be 
tantamount to judicially sanctioned predatory pricing.
    Microsoft's proposed settlement for more than 100 outstanding 
private antitrust cases against it would inflict ``great 
harm'' upon the technology markets, the CCIA said in a letter 
to the judge overseeing the case. The CCIA was responding to 
Microsoft's offer to provide $1 billion worth of hardware, software 
and training to more than 12,500 schools serving nearly 7 million 
children.
    Judson Frondorf



MTC-00032122

From: judson
To: micro
Date: 11/28/016:20am
Subject: you must stop microsoft!
    ``Around half of the computers in education today are Apple 
computers, and we're the second largest supplier overall and the 
largest supplier of portable computers to education,'' Apple 
CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement released Tuesday.
    ``Given this, 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.''
    In its legal brief, Apple argued that the settlement structure 
would ensure ``that any benefits will come at an unacceptable 
cost to schools and the public by extending and strengthening the 
Microsoft monopoly. By its very nature, the settlement would heavily 
promote and subsidize the schools'' acquisition of Microsoft 
products at the expense of more effective and appropriate 
alternatives.''
    ``Today our schools have a choice, and to date they have 
chosen Apple around half of the time,'' Jobs said. ``We 
think our schools deserve to keep their power of choice, and our 
kids deserve better than having to learn on old, refurbished 
(Windows/Intel) computers.''
    Critics: Proposal anticompetitive
    Apple isn't alone in criticizing the deal. On Monday, the 
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the 
American Antitrust Institute (AAI) sent separate letters to Motz 
asking him to reject the proposed agreement.
    CCIA President Edward Black charged that ``the court-
ordered distribution of free software would be tantamount to 
judicially sanctioned predatory pricing by a monopolist in a 
critical market.'' Black argued that one of the few markets 
where Microsoft still faces competition is from Apple in the 
education sector.
    ``By allowing Microsoft to flood the education market with 
free software--at virtually no cost to the company--the 
court will be virtually assuring that no other competitor will be 
able to charge for its products,'' he said.
    AAI President Albert Foer raised similar concerns.
    ``To the extent that this influx of Microsoft products 
undermines Apple, one of Microsoft's few remaining competitors, 
whose base of strength happens to be in the public schools, the 
proposed settlement of these antitrust suits may actually be 
anticompetitive,'' he wrote to Motz. Critics of the deal argue 
that free software is hard to pass up and note that federal and 
state trustbusters filed their case in part because of the 
anticompetitive effects of Microsoft giving away valuable software 
to gain market share.
    Franklin Williams, vice president of operations for AstroVision 
International, a provider of Earth-view images, doesn't see a 
problem with Microsoft giving away software to schools as long as it 
doesn't further entrench the Windows monopoly.
    ``Microsoft must donate software--and hardware if 
included--that does not support the Windows operating 
system,'' he said. ``It should be fine if Microsoft ships 
millions of copies to schools for versions of its applications that 
do not run under Windows.''
    Guy Peterson, visual communications manager with Manitowoc 
Cranes in Manitowoc, Wis., also ripped into the settlement 
agreement. ``The CCIA is absolutely correct in its assessments 
that this settlement will block the sales of other software,'' 
he said. ``The artificially inflated ``retail'' cost 
of the software is a shallow marketing ploy, and...the tiny 
percentage of this ``penalty'' will not seriously affect 
Microsoft.''
    Even consumers in Europe, where an antitrust investigation is 
still pending against Microsoft, contend the settlement is 
inadequate. ``It's my belief that if the profits made by doing 
what one is convicted (of) aren't undone, somehow the government 
isn't exactly sending out a strong signal that they would like 
companies to behave in different ways,'' said Arthur Bommeli, a 
network engineer from the Netherlands. Alfie Lee, a registered nurse 
living in Tasmania, Australia, shared similar sentiments.
    ``Microsoft already with the monopolistic computer base 
gets to build upon it as ``compensation'' for imposing 
their monopoly on the world,'' he said. ``Rather than 
getting a smack, they get a whole new generation of enforced 
Microsoft users.''



MTC-00032123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/28/015:46pm
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

[[Page 29728]]

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-00032124

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/28/019:39pm
Subject:
    The DOJ/STS VirusScan has detected a virus in this e-mail 
message and the infected attachment has been cleaned or deleted.



MTC-00032126

From: JOHN D GILBERT
To: Department of Justice
Date: 11/29/018:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In addition to my comments sent a few minutes ago, the points 
from this AP news article clearly show how Microsoft continues to 
manipulate the system. I continue to ask for a penalty that would 
promote more competition!!!!!!!! Under the proposal made public last 
week, Microsoft and some plaintiffs agreed the company would provide 
more than $1 billion worth of Microsoft software, refurbished 
personal computers and other resources to some of the nation's 
poorest schools. Microsoft said the deal allows schools to choose to 
spend money on training and resources for non-Microsoft products. 
But the company concedes that those who go with Microsoft products 
will be given more resources, such as free software.
    ``The actual settlement is made up of a basket of 
resources,'' said Mark East, worldwide general manager of 
Microsoft's education solutions group. ``The software component 
is just one of the elements.'' It's still drawn the ire of 
Glenn Kleiman, a lecturer with the Harvard Graduate School of 
Education Technology and a longtime researcher in the field. 
``To put it bluntly, Microsoft is trying to pull a fast one 
here,'' said Kleiman, who is a consultant for some of the 
plaintiffs who oppose the settlement. ``They are saying that 
they are providing $1 billion plus of resources, but it's being done 
in a way that's self-serving to Microsoft.''



MTC-00032127

From: Dale Eshelman
To: Department of Justice
Date: 11/29/019:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement falls extremely short of doing justice.
    1. Microsoft still continues to have in their operating system 
and programs to only go to Internet Explorer instead of opening the 
default browser selected by the user...in my case NETSCAPE.
    2. Microsoft still continues to modify computer BIOS chips to 
control what the user can do with his computer for operating 
systems.
    3. Micorosft still uses their cusotmized versions of HTML, Java 
Script and SQL to control the desktop market. Other vendors prgrams 
do not work properly as a result...leaving users frustrated and 
their ONLY alternative being to use a Microsoft product.
    4. To let Microsoft use the education market as a settlement in 
fact enhances their monopoly power because that is about the only 
markdet Microsoft DOES NOT control. Rather Microsoft should have to 
provide funds to education which CAN NOT be spent on Microsoft 
products and equipment.
    5. This is only a top three list. There are hundreds of issues 
like these which Microsoft will still be allowed to control. This is 
not a settlement. It should not be considered.
    Dale Eshelman



MTC-00032128

From: Greg Swallow
To: US Dept Of Justice,
California,Connecticut,Florida,...
Date: 11/29/019:54am
Subject: Stop Microsoft Hegemony
    To Whom It May Concern:
    First let me commend you for standing up for what is right in 
this matter. Though I do wonder how much more may be done, I ask you 
to continue to do all you can.
    I say these things knowing from where I speak. For nearly twenty 
years I have worked in the Computer/IT industry. I am a programmer 
by education/trade and work in that arena as often as possible. I 
have also worked in Support Services and found there is little 
available in support for ``High End'' environments as 
where in days gone by. Once such expensive a system is properly 
stablized then it needs little more than Preventive Maintenance to 
operate optimally. The problem with the ``Low End'' 
Windows market is the money is to be made at the expense of ignorant 
users. Users who know no different than to buy what is on the retail 
shelf. Where ``sales professionals'' are little more, some 
say less, than used car salesmen. This has never been, nor will ever 
be, the correct way to purchase a computer.
    My experience with Windows spans before even the first public 
release in the 1980's. Errors cropped up then just as they continue 
to do so today. My most significant ``gripe'' is that they 
are the same errors. Oh, they use different names, but examining 
deeper into the cause shows the same issue exist. So long have I 
fought over these persistant errors that I have a practice, when 
building/preparing a Windows computer, which delivers a stable 
installation of Windows. What is so perplexing is that the procedure 
is rather simple, yet no manufacturer uses it. For the most part 
because Microsoft speaks against such procedures. To do so would 
cost Microsoft support dollars in thier slice of the support market.
    Becuase of this relentless barrage of aggravations, I have never 
used Windows as my own primary OS. What I do with my computers is 
too important to trust to such

[[Page 29729]]

an inferrior product. Unix was my first OS and continued to be until 
it was just not economical. I examined other options and chose IBM 
OS/2. I was amazed at how easy OS/2 was to manage and how stable it 
remained even in questionable environments. IBM created a wonderful 
product, but couldn't give water to a man dieing in the desert 
against Microsofts separation and marketing tactics. Unfortunately 
my clients would only use Windows, because they only heard mention 
of OS/2 from me and not the ``sales professionals,'' but 
then came Windows 95. Sales person after sales person pestered them 
to no end. My clients saw nothing benefitial to changing as they 
were running networks and Windows 95 was/is notorious for being even 
more unstable when attached to a network. They came asking me what 
to do and again I recommended OS/2. Fortunate for my clients they 
decided to change to OS/2 Warp. Unfortunately for me, because OS/2 
is so stable, they no longer need my services.
    To be able to make a living I have had to turn to supporting 
Windows networks. This I find most disagreeable, but what's a man to 
do needing to support his family. Microsoft has created such a vast 
industry in support, it's as if there is no other way. It hurts when 
you know a correct/complete answer, but are instructed to not give 
it as to do so would cost the company (Microsoft) money in support 
dollars. I have even confronted my fellow workers with my educated 
opinion that, ...to make a living as we are, supporting Windows, is 
to make a living off another's weakness. Much like a prostitute. The 
only verbal reply I have ever received was, ``That is the 
American way.'' I turned and walked away to keep from stiking 
the man for what he said.
    My most recent Windows fatality was with my fiance's computer. A 
system I had assembled for her using Windows 95 because it was what 
her employer was using. It made no sense to have something different 
at home. It remained stable for about a year, thanks to the steps I 
had use as mentioned previously. By this time she had also become my 
bride and had seen/heard more about Windows than she really cared 
to. She wanted something different and I shared all I had for her to 
examine. A week or two later I bought her an Apple iMac and she has 
never been so happy. Even I have grown fond of the stability and 
simplicity of the Mac OS, but still little work is available and we 
must continue to support the world of broken Windows.
    Then came Windows 98 and finally I left. I am once again 
building my own organization. Our SOHO has some seven computers, one 
iMac, one OS/2 Warp, one Windows, and four Linux. Linux? Yes! Unix 
that I can once again afford. A product developed and created by the 
people who use it. And, here comes the Microsoft behemoth to take 
away from the people what the people have created? I think not. 
Linux will remain my primary OS and I may build upon it with Apple 
Mac OS X workstations. Windows will have its place attached to our 
television, so that we may play an occassional game, but little 
more. OS/2 Warp stays as my own office computer. Even running on an 
intel Pentium 120 it out performs Windows 98SE on a 400MHz intel 
Pentium II.
    Please stop Microsoft. Let the people keep what they have 
created;
    Linux.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Swallow <><
    President
    [email protected]
    I-4 Sites STOP TRAFFIC!
    http://www.internet4sites.net



MTC-00032129

From: Dominic Dupuis
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/29/016:48pm
Subject: Re: Suspension de Norman Lester (2)
CC:=?iso-8859-1?Q?Philippe=20B=E9dard?=



MTC-00032130

From: Tan/Kal
To: Antitrust
Date: 11/30/0111:59am
Subject'' Favor remedy by full open source code



MTC-00032130 0001

November 30, 2001
    Dear Sirs,
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement proposal, I think that Judge 
Motz had it right by stating, ``1 think you've got to go back 
to square one to get to square five.'' The judge seems to have 
said: Get that mutt outta here before I take a bite out of it.
    Microsoft has accumulated a $16B cash kitty by anticompetitive, 
monopolistic practices, and has shown no remorse. A $1B donation to 
schools may sound like a slap on the wrist, but in fact it turns out 
to be ``self-serving''--potentially undercutting 
competitors who have chosen the long, slow route to undoing 
Microsoft's historical monopoly in operating systems by cultivating 
and educating schoolchildren who won't be ready for credit cards for 
another ten years.
    If this was such a penalty, why would Red Hat be willing to 
match Microsoft's largess by a one-for-one donation of its Linux-
based operating system to every schoolchild that receives Microsoft 
Windows TM? Furthermore, nothing has changed. Microsoft's new WinXP, 
by integrating applications such as photo processing into its 
operating system continues to push other manufacturers out of the 
digital business. Dog eat dog? No, anticompetitive; the trial is 
already over and we are awaiting sentencing. This is the penalty 
phase. Microsoft is guilty.. But is the Federal Government big 
enough to take on Microsoft?
    They don't call it the US Department of Justice (US DOG) for 
nothing! This is a pit bull, not a poodle, and the only thing 
Microsoft is going to understand is a bigger dog. Judge Motz is 
waiting for a solution that provides redress to the injured parties, 
who are the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits-- the 
consumers. If not now, not next time.
    The only meaningful redress is to open the source code to the 
public. Granted, the source code is proprietary information. But 
this penalty phase is exactly about forfeit of corporate private 
property to the government--that's why they call it a 
``penalty''. OK?
    Rather than send ten dollars to every consumer who bought an MS 
product in 1998, making the code non-proprietary is the only penalty 
that will meaningfully benefit the consumer and ultimately increase 
our nation's security. There are strong benefits from open-source 
computing for the consumer. We no longer need to worry that 
computing will be left to the geeks who do their own programming. 
The industry is too big now. Instead, whole new entrepreneurial 
activities will spring up if the code is made public.
    And what better penalty then to give the source code to the real 
immediate victims here, Microsoft's competitors in the marketplace, 
when by doing so, the marketplace can quickly multiply the benefits 
ten-fold for the consumer, benefiting everyone without the expense 
of millions of letters to every household. The benefits of open-
source computing include:
    Reduction in the cost of highly specialized programs, such as 
for image analysis, voice over data, surveillance and security. As 
things stand, development of these applications is a difficult, 
risky and prolonged effort. One key risk is that Microsoft will 
integrate key features, but then change secret parts of the code so 
that the innovator's software is no longer compatible. An example is 
Java.
    Better privacy, improved resistance to hacking and data theft. 
Simply put, generic hacking has become a high school hobby because 
we have generic computers. The one-size-fits-all approach to 
computing has made us all vulnerable.
    Reduction in network vulnerability to viruses and system 
instability. Obviously, viruses propagate quickly in our society 
because we all have clones of the same software.
    Better, faster and more energy-efficient hardware operation. 
This is good old american more bang for the buck.
    As another example, look at the broad interest in Back Step TM, 
Go Back TM and Microsoft's latest knock-off of ``system 
restore''. What if an operating system and hardware had been 
designed for this feature rather than it being glued on like a 
fruitfly onto the skin of an enormous onion. If redesigned from the 
kernel, it could be integral and automatic, as easy as resetting a 
digital clock and as reliable as the sunrise. This re-engineering of 
the operating system is only possible if the source code is open to 
entrepreneurs who have no stake in the status quo.



MTC-00032130--0002

    Again, by providing each application with dedicated memory (not 
a common swap file), system crashes due to memory allocation can be 
avoided entirely. But instead of focusing on improving the operating 
system, for the last 6 years Windows instead focussed on winning the 
Browser Wars--and sold us 6 consecutive beta versions of its 
operating system that required consumers to continually update 
numerous applications at great expense and labor.
    In fact, Microsoft has also frozen computer hardware 
architecture in place. Freeing developers to redesign the operating 
system

[[Page 29730]]

also frees hardware designers to at last begin the refinement of 
customized chips specialized for particular functions such as voice 
recognition or image analysis. Software emulation is the hard way to 
solve these problems, and points to the greatest single weakness in 
the current evolution of computing, the failure of custom hardwired 
chips to evolve and make significant inroads into the market. This 
hasn't occurred because the systems are not competitive, it has 
occurred because competition has been squashed. For example, 
consider Apple Computer. Microsoft decides when Apple will get a new 
operating system, not Apple.
    And what about security? Look at how dependent the Government is 
becoming on personal computers; the new WinXP gives Microsoft 
technicians a back door into every computer on the planet. Any kid 
with his own computer has a roadmap to your computer because yours 
is exactly the same as his. Any serious hobbyist can buy generic 
gaming tools that allow them to access your system.
    Some have said that it is better not to make the source code 
public because its weaknesses and access points would be revealed to 
everyone (particularly Passport). Better to keep it secret so that 
we are safe, they argue. This is like saying we are safer if we 
don't know where the terrorists are or what they are doing. There is 
a public interest in the source code, that of national security, and 
we can no longer trust a proven anticompetitive organization to have 
the national interest in its priorities. Chairman of Microsoft is 
not an elected office.
    All encrytion systems have limits. A key is necessary. But if 
proprietary hardware modifications are made, and an open source 
operating system is modified to work with them, then the system 
becomes unbreakable without access to the hardware. This is the 
computer analogy of the Navajo code talkers of WW II. Security is 
ensured when each individual or government can customize their own 
applications, stripping out unnecessary parts of the operating 
system that compromise security or corrupt stability, and adding 
unique intermediate components or coprocessors to prevent foreign 
access.
    What we need is a simple operating system built around our 
applications, not generic gooies tacked onto a massive and secret 
operating system. Only the increase in processor speed and memory 
size has permitted this folly, but at what a waste of energy and 
time! 35 Mbytes for an Operating System: Ridiculous! Even 3.5 Mbytes 
is too much.
    Data processing must not be forced to conform to one man's view 
of what a computer, or a society, or an individual, should be. 
Microsoft's strategy, by chosing the lowest common denominator, has 
made us all exceptionally vulnerable to social instability in our 
communications, at home and abroad, and has shackled our 
entrepreneurial spirit by its domination. Ultimately, with open 
source, the next line OS will be reduced to common kernel for most 
mass market applications, and plug-in modules (hardware combined 
with software) for applications: one for security, one for word 
processing, one for telephony, etc. that are recognized by a user 
profile (and coprocessors) and interrelate through dedicated static 
and dynamic memory arrays to analog devices and common peripherals 
in a common or proprietary language, user's choice.
    Microsoft has put the survival of its massive, primitive, 
convoluted, proprietary operating system above all of society's 
other interests or needs. Microsoft was convicted in a court of law, 
and it is up to the Court to decide what will be confiscated from 
Microsoft as compensation to the victims. Relief by open source code 
will bring an era of competitive innovation at a pace that will 
astonish the consumer, trimming away the quirks and the self-serving 
features in the Microsoft operating systems like the barber's razor 
on a neutered poodle.
    The current ``trial balloon'' settlement offer is 
unfair and unbalanced. We should beseech Judge Motz to reject it. I 
call upon the Antitrust Division to return to the bargaining table 
with a new vigor and urgency, demanding publication of the Microsoft 
source code for its operating systems. Sure, that will bring a 
fight, but the trial is already over. They lost. Not only is 
publication of the source code in the public interest, it is also a 
matter of public security; a clear case of ``eminent 
domain''. No corporation, no man, can be allowed to hold this 
country's access to e-information and e-commerce in a lock box, with 
the sole power to dole out ``improved versions'' the same 
way AT&T once upon a time developed new telephone products, by 
planned obsolescence.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00032131

From: Deb
To: Justice Department
Date: 11/30/0112:29pm
Subject: Please stand up to Microsoft
Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[email protected]
[email protected]
202-353-1555
    Dear People at the United States Department of Justice,
    Please stand up to Microsoft for all of us. The one consistent 
claim that Microsoft makes is that they are innovators. However, 
facts of history speak for themselves here. This is not their 
legacy.
    Suppressing innovation in others, however, unfortunately is 
their legacy. As a private citizen and business person, the affects 
of the Microsoft monopoly corporation, both personally and 
corporately, continue to be horrendous. I fear the proposed 
settlement, where Microsoft puts refurbished computers in the 
poorest schools, will not only -not- solve this problem but will if 
fact promote Microsoft's predatory marketing practices, and 
subsequent illegal abuse of monopoly power.
    Microsoft's new Windows XP includes browsers and this time with 
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 behavior 
follows years of Microsoft intimidating other companies and bundling 
their browser for free, essentially driving all other browsers out 
of the market. By allowing Microsoft's illegal practices we are 
disallowing innovation and most certainly disallowing fair 
competition.
    Please help to stop their illegal behavior. Microsoft has broken 
the law and continues to do so. If we're to remain proud of the 
United States then please give us a system of justice that is 
representative of the truth and not the politics of a monopolist. 
Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Antkoviak
    Raleigh, NC



MTC-00032132

From: Glenn Oppel
To: ATRMAIL8.ATRSFO01(MSOFT)
Date: 11/30/012:31pm
Subject: Perplexed
    DoJ:
    Given the recent merger of AOL and Time Warner, one wonders why 
the DoJ is busting Microsoft. It just goes to show how out of touch 
the federal government is with the dynamism of the free market. 
Let's not forget about the upcoming Linux operating system--not 
to mention the half a dozen other OSs out there.
    There is no such thing as perfect competition--the 
predicate of antitrust. Even if a corporation has a large market 
share, there is always competition around the corner. Furthermore, a 
large market share is due to consumer demand. Consumers are 
sovereign in the market and determine its direction. Antitrust 
supersedes this sovereignty.
    The only purpose that antitrust serves is to afford a successful 
corporation's competition a political tool to gain the upper hand. 
It's all about political power, not about the ability to compete.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Oppel
    Fairfax, VA
    [email protected]



MTC-00032133

From: Kirby Dunsmore
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 11/30/0110:58pm
Subject: Comment on U.S. v. Microsoft
Kerwin Dunsmore
9250 Myrna Place
Thornton, CO 80229
November 30, 2001
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: A comment on United States v. Microsoft Corporation; 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a recently-retired (2001) computer professional and submit 
these comments in the hope that the Court will find them useful. 
Section III., Prohibited Conduct, (subsection J), permits (and 
perhaps even encourages) Microsoft to deny disclosure of or licenses 
to

[[Page 29731]]

its Applications Programming Interfaces in various circumstances. 
Subsection J) allows Microsoft to duck behind ``security'' 
considerations or to comply with a hypothetical ``governmental 
agency of competent jurisdiction.'' At the same time it 
encourages Microsoft to approve only potential licensees with an 
``authentic and viable'' business and a ``reasonable 
business need''.
    Just as an automobile is a useless platform without a driver, an 
operating system is useless without an application. Concealment of 
an operating system's APIs is the equivalent of hiding a car's 
windshield wiper or light switches from its owner or driver, 
limiting its use to daytime and dry weather.
    Revealing the locations of these controls (and how to use them) 
is not the same as providing detailed information on the design or 
workings of the internal mechanisms which provide the needed 
function. The security issues raised by publishing API 
specifications are specious because authentication of identity is 
simply a service expected of an operating system, not unlike a car's 
key-locked ignition switch.
    Furthermore, just as a car buyer would not buy an additional 
license to use information to operate its heater, Microsoft 
operating system consumers must not be forced to buy (directly or 
indirectly) additional information about Windows XX just to use it 
with programs developed by third parties. In sum, Section III (J) 
invites Microsoft to invoke security or intellectual property issues 
to justify withholding information useful to purchasers and 
applications programmers of its operating systems.
    Given the history of Microsoft's behavior in relation to the 
U.S. Government's attempts to restrain it, the Court will again be 
called upon to examine that behavior. Since May of 1990, when the 
FTC opened its anti-trust investigation, Microsoft has paid little 
attention to its government's admonishments or to orders of the 
Court. Indeed, Microsoft has never admitted any wrongdoing, nor has 
it in the present action.
    Respectfully,
    Kerwin Dunsmore



MTC-00032134

From: stout762
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/018:38pm
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 inovation 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 to seperate entities. One that will 
continue to produce Operating Systems (OS) and One that will develop 
end user applications (office, Internet Explorer, etc). Absolutly no 
communications, other than normal discourse between two rival 
companies, should be permitted between the two halves of the 
company.
    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



MTC-00032135

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/4/014:23am
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. I, and many of my peers, feel that as a consumers, 
we do not enjoy the amount of choice we 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 anticompetitive 
monopolist.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Yates
    3516 Foxglove
    Louisville, KY 40241



MTC-00032136

From: david pech
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 12/4/0110:31am
Subject: USAGPech--Gina--1096--1130
Gina Pech(1543 22nd Street(Ogden, UT(84401
November 30, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my approval of the federal settlement 
that has been reached in the Microsoft case.
    The Justice Department has kept Microsoft tied up court for the 
last three years, and it is time to stop the litigation and let them 
get back to the business of technological innovation. The U.S. 
computer industry is second to none in the world, and Microsoft 
should get much of the credit for this. The settlement is balanced, 
and takes into consideration the concerns of those in the business 
who felt that they were unfairly shut out of the market.
    Sincerely,
    Gina Pech
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00032137

From: Brian J Best
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/4/017:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Madams:
    I have read about the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement 
and am appalled that such a settlement is even being considered.
    It is obvious to anyone who currently, or in the past, makes 
their living in computer support for education that this settlement 
would only serve to increase the market share, and thus the monopoly 
power, of Microsoft in the education market. Further more, the 
proposed settlement has no mechanism to control the use of 
Microsoft's monopoly power in the future. Long term, the settlement 
would not provide redress for Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power, 
but instead simply increase the possibility of such abuse in 
education, while hurting the market share of competing companies.
    Bottom line: the proposed settlement is wholly inadequate as a 
penalty for Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly power. It is 
completely unacceptable. I strongly urge you to reject this proposal 
and continue your work to find an acceptable remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Brian J. Best
    5000 Clinton Pkwy #901
    Lawrence, KS 66047
    785-830-8683



MTC-00032138

From: L. Strickland
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/011:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
L. Strickland
6811 Meteor Pl.
Springfield, VA 22150
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or

[[Page 29732]]

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



MTC-00032139

From: Glenn German
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/011:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenn German
Box 74
Burlington, KS 66839-0074
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance & : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case & : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be 
able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. 
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer 
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft 's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's 
behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn R. German



MTC-00032140

From: Constance Root
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/011:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constance Root
8472 Maplewood Ln
Lenexa, KS 66215-2874
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance & : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case & : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be 
able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public

[[Page 29733]]

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



MTC-00032141

From: Martin Spielman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Martin Spielman
8 Monaghan Road
Edison, NJ 08817-4122
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's 
behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Martin J Spielman



MTC-00032142

From: Adrian J. Dekker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adrian J. Dekker
11929 Eagle Creek Cove
Ft. Wayne, IN 46814
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Adrian J. Dekker



MTC-00032143

From: James G. Tierney
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James G. Tierney
9660 W. Pebble Brook Lane
Boise, ID 83703
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.

[[Page 29734]]

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



MTC-00032144

From: John Schuck
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Schuck
P.O. Box 1516
North Conway, NH 03860
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.Most 
importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users and 
consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well.
    The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part 
of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be 
modified to comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Schuck



MTC-00032145

From: JEROME BOLT
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JEROME BOLT
PO BOX 167
ROCKPORT, TX 78381
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement. Most importantly, this settlement is 
fair to the computer users and consumers of America, on whose behalf 
the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a 
variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It will also 
be easier to substitute competitors' products after 
purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    JEROME G. BOLT



MTC-00032146

From: Jane Moore
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Moore 5 North Star Dr.
Randolph, NJ 07869
December 5, 2001

[[Page 29735]]

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



MTC-00032147

From: carol&george LATOURETTE
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
carol&george LATOURETTE
2250 newfound harbor drive
merritt island, FL 32952
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    carol&george latourette



MTC-00032148

From: W. B. Pete Hopkins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. B. Pete Hopkins
4 Cormorant Circle
Durham, NH 03824
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of

[[Page 29736]]

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



MTC-00032149

From: Richard Kabat
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Kabat
Rt 3 Box L-160
Franklin, TX 77856
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.Most 
importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users and 
consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard J. Kabat



MTC-00032150

From: Harold Berenson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Berenson
20110 218th Ave NE
Woodinville, WA 98072-7145
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOS) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus,in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors?products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Harold R. Berenson



MTC-00032151

From: Marty French
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marty French
2300 Bristol Dr.
Carrollton, Tx 75006
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and

[[Page 29737]]

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



MTC-00032152

From: Jerry Darger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Darger
821 Hopkins St
Kiowa, KS 67070
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
 Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Darger



MTC-00032153

From: Marian Hirsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marian Hirsh
96000 Overseas Hwy. F-9
Key Largo, FL 33037
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case 
: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.

[[Page 29738]]

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



MTC-00032154

From: Jacob Baker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jacob Baker
121 PINE DRIVE
watertown, NY 13612
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jacob D. Baker



MTC-00032155

From: Beryl Shuga
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Beryl Shuga
720 Glenhaven Drive
Hurst, TX 76054-2306
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    (Mrs) Beryl Shuga



MTC-00032156

From: Steve King
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve King
718 Treat Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94519
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.

[[Page 29739]]

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



MTC-00032157

From: Kelly J. Purcell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kelly J. Purcell
1918 Edinburgh Way
Fullerton, CA 92831
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be 
able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kelly J. Purcell



MTC-00032158

From: Mark Spaeth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Spaeth
14 E. Brookdale Ln
Palatine, IL 60067-7404
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.

[[Page 29740]]

    Sincerely,
    Mark Spaeth



MTC-00032160

From: Joseph O'Hara
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph O'Hara
17521 leafwood lane
Tustin, ca 97280-1208
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's 
behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joe O'Hara



MTC-00032161

From: Gary Halpin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Halpin
2009B Huntington Lane
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Halpin



MTC-00032162

From: Jon H. Clayton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon H. Clayton
174 Woodland Ct.
Wetumpka, AL 36093-2211
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming

[[Page 29741]]

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



MTC-00032163

From: Edward Griffiths
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Griffiths
PO Box 2411
Pawleys Island, SC 29585-2411
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Griffiths



MTC-00032164

From: Herman Kohlman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Kohlman
2930 Woodside Ct.
Evansville, IN 47711
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Herman A. Kohlman



MTC-00032165

From: Edward G. Morin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 29742]]

Edward G. Morin
256 HILLSIDE AVENUE
CHATHAM, NJ 07928
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward G. & Mary V. Morin



MTC-00032166

From: Jerry Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Lee
RR1--Box 332M
Bruceton Mills, WV 26525-9707
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry S. Lee



MTC-00032167

From: James Murphy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Murphy
34900 Military Rd S
Auburn, WA 98001-9211
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application

[[Page 29743]]

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



MTC-00032168

From: Joseph F Yates
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph F Yates
4411 Beechland Rd
Springfield, KY 40069
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph F. Yates



MTC-00032169

From: David Spaller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Spaller
PO Box 864592
Plano, TX 75086
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David Spaller



MTC-00032170

From: Ella Rast
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ella Rast
475 East Park Street
American Falls, ID 83211
December 5, 2001
    Ms. Renata Hesse U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530 Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 29744]]

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



MTC-00032171

From: Christopher Perdue
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/012:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christopher Perdue
1509 Carmel Road
Charlotte, NC 28226-5013
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Perdue



MTC-00032172

From: Edward Evanko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Evanko
1885 Military Ave
Seaside, CA 93955-3412
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor

[[Page 29745]]

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



MTC-00032173

From: Jeanne Brantingham
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeanne Brantingham
11245 West Rd, #916
Houston, TX 77065-4873
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jeanne Brantingham



MTC-00032174

From: Kenneth Golden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Golden
1612 Harvard Woods Dr.2810
Brandon , Fl 33511-2095
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Golden



MTC-00032175

From: Kendrick Matthews
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kendrick Matthews
11334 Earlywood Drive
Dallas, TX 75218
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs

[[Page 29746]]

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



MTC-00032176

From: Linda Hughes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Hughes
10 MacLaren Ct
Waldwick, NJ 07463-2413
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Linda Hughes



MTC-00032177

From: Herbert Stevenson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert Stevenson
602. Fifth Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even

[[Page 29747]]

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



MTC-00032178

From: David Eilbaum
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Eilbaum
7166 Lester
Lexington, Mi 48450
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance the war against terrorism, including homeland security. 
As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed 
for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for 
the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked 
extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of 
taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now when 
all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.Most importantly, this settlement is 
fair to the computer users and consumers of America, on whose behalf 
the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a 
variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It will also 
be easier to substitute competitors' products after purchase as 
well.
    The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part 
of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be 
modified to comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change.
    Sincerely,
    David Eilbaum



MTC-00032179

From: Mike Kisch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/013:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Kisch
Rt 1 Box 90B
Moberly, MO 65270
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance the war against terrorism, including homeland security. 
As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed 
for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for 
the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked 
extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of 
taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now when 
all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Kisch



MTC-00032180

From: janice MURPHY
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
janice MURPHY
1015 N Lincoln Hill Lane
martinsville, IN 46151
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from

[[Page 29748]]

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



MTC-00032181

From: Carol Iossa
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Iossa
R.R. 1 Box 3130
Jonesport, ME 04649-9709
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carol H. Iossa



MTC-00032182

From: C. O. ``Cap'' Sterling
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. O. ``Cap'' Sterling
4789 Scottsville Rd.,
Floyds Knobs, In 47119
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.Most 
importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users and 
consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well.
    The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part 
of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be 
modified to comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change.
    Sincerely,
    C.O. ``Cap'' Sterling

[[Page 29749]]



MTC-00032183

From: Barbara Robken
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Robken
2800 Andover Ave
Midland, TX 79705-3201
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Robken



MTC-00032184

From: Willis Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Willis Brown
3014 Julian Drive
New Albany, IN 47150-9519
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Willis Brown



MTC-00032185

From: Leonard and Agnes Tillerson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard and Agnes Tillerson
244 Osprey Circle
St. Marys, Ga 31558-4101
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.

[[Page 29750]]

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



MTC-00032186

From: roy hinton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
roy hinton
pob 92
hayes, va 23072
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Roy Hinton



MTC-00032187

From: Jason Church
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Church
4646 W. Bath Rd.
Perry, MI 48872-9175
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jason P. Church



MTC-00032188

From: James Rutte
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/014:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Rutte
20 Taunton Lake Road
Newtown, CT 06470-1414
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 29751]]

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



MTC-00032190

From: jerry ellis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/015:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jerry ellis
180 NE IZETT ST. #A1
Oak Harbor, wa 98277
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    jerry ellis



MTC-00032191

From: Clifford Springmeyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/015:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clifford Springmeyer
427 Brightwood Place
San Antonio, Tx 78209
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for

[[Page 29752]]

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



MTC-00032192

From: V. Ruth Cathey
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/015:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
V. Ruth Cathey
9024 Mettler Dr.
El Paso, TX 79925-4046
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth Cathey



MTC-00032193

From: michael mcquilkin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/015:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
michael mcquilkin
po box-145
lakeview, ar 72642
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    michael mc quilkin



MTC-00032194

From: Carlton D. Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/015:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carlton D. Miller
805 Skye Drive
Findlay, Oh 45840-4436
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.

[[Page 29753]]

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



MTC-00032195

From: Michael Lambert
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/015:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Lambert
3755 Wildwood Road
San Diego, CA 92107
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Lambert



MTC-00032196

From: Laurie Lord
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/016:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Laurie Lord
Box 1155
Ione, Ca 95640
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on

[[Page 29754]]

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



MTC-00032197

From: stuart van dyke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/016:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
stuart van dyke
225 hourglass way #106
sarasota , fl 34242
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    stuart van dyke



MTC-00032198

From: Louise Lane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/016:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Louise Lane
5310 Stanford Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207-7856
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Reba Louise Lane



MTC-00032199

From: Benton Welling
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/017:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Benton Welling
2208 Pennington Dr.
Arlington, TX 76014-3512
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As

[[Page 29755]]

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



MTC-00032200

From: Michael Belcher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/017:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Belcher
po box 5681
pahrump, nv 89041
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case 
: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Belcher



MTC-00032201

From: Victoria Heller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/017:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Victoria Heller
2 Snowy Owl Lane
North Oaks, MN 55127
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case 
: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 29756]]

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



MTC-00032202

From: Rikard Krvaric
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/017:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rikard Krvaric
720 SW 111th Avenue. 208
Pembroke Pines, FL 33025
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rikard Krvaric



MTC-00032203

From: Russell Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/018:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Lee
375 W Wyandot
Upper Sandusky, OH 43351
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Russell J Lee



MTC-00032204

From: Paul Offer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/018:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Offer
24010-49th Place West
Mountlake Terrace, , WA 98043
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case :

[[Page 29757]]

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



MTC-00032205

From: Eric Cheatwood
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/018:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric Cheatwood
86 Austin Street #208
Worcester, MA 01609-2956
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.Most 
importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users and 
consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Cheatwood



MTC-00032206

From: Michael Crass
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/018:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Crass
3831 Marshall Place
Gary, IN 46408-1926
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Crass



MTC-00032207

From: Dana Langsford

[[Page 29758]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/018:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dana Langsford
121 W. Crescent
Marquette, MI 49855
December 5, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dana Langsford



MTC-00032208

From: Franklin M. Swig
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/018:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Franklin M. Swig
2809 N. Glendower Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90027-1118
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530 M
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Franklin M. Swig



MTC-00032209

From: Larry Kelley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/019:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Kelley
po. box 521
Hampden, ME 04444
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530 Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install

[[Page 29759]]

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



MTC-00032210

From: Carl Wittekind
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/0110:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Wittekind
4672 Glenheath Dr,
Kettering, Oh 45440-1981
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carl S. Wittekind



MTC-00032211

From: Helen Farson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/0110:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen Farson
917 N. Louise St., #402
Glendale, CA 91207-2164
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Helen E. Farson



MTC-00032212

From: Lori Wright
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/0111:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lori Wright
4216 Ferriday Ct
Raleigh, NC 27616-9517
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 29760]]

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



MTC-00032213

From: Barbara Scruggs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/5/0111:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Scruggs
842 Mike Powers Road
Grantville, GA 30220-1640
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Scruggs



MTC-00032214

From: Jae Hawksworth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/0112:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jae Hawksworth
1898 Penrose Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28304
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of

[[Page 29761]]

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



MTC-00032215

From: James Demartini
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/011:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Demartini
1500A Lafayette Road #151
Portsmouth, NH 03801
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James Demartini



MTC-00032216

From: Jon Koppenhoefer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/012:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon Koppenhoefer
264 Oakridge Drive
Springfield, OH 45504-3916
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Koppenhoefer



MTC-00032217

From: Gregory Larson-DOJ
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/012:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Larson-DOJ
3834 Fremont Ave. No.
Minneapolis, MN 55412-2043
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national

[[Page 29762]]

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



MTC-00032218

From: Daniel Bonham
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/015:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel Bonham
7890 Joyce Drive
Parma, OH 44130
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Bonham



MTC-00032219

From: Andrew Warren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/015:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Warren
PO Box 476
New Tripoli, Pa 18066
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.

[[Page 29763]]

    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew J Warren



MTC-00032220

From: Gwen Fisk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/015:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gwen Fisk
1049 Longbranch Avenue
Grover Beach, CA 93433
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gwen Fisk



MTC-00032221

From: Alton Turner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alton Turner
520 N. Park St.
Crescent City, FL 32112-2226
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Al;ton R. turner



MTC-00032222

From: Andrew Boyd
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Boyd
13 Fieldstone Rd.
Elkton, MD 21921-8402
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from

[[Page 29764]]

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



MTC-00032223

From: Richard M. Scrofani
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard M. Scrofani
19 Wagne Place
Hawthorne,
NJ 07506-1333
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard M. Scrofani



MTC-00032224

From: Roger Daigger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roger Daigger
15814 Stagecoach Road
Stagecoach, TX 77355-3370
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.

[[Page 29765]]

    Sincerely,
    Roger W. Daigger



MTC-00032225

From: Richard Graves
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Graves
125 Wildflower Lane
Chillicothe, Oh 45601-4092
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard E. Graves



MTC-00032226

From: John Smith
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Smith
207 Fairway Circle
Americus, Ga 31709-4592
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Bernard Smith



MTC-00032227

From: Alberta Rademacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alberta Rademacher
P.O.Box 1012
Milford, Pa 18337-2012
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with

[[Page 29766]]

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



MTC-00032228

From: Christine Tucker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christine Tucker
21 Lyman St.
Waltham, MA 02452
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Christine Tucker



MTC-00032229

From: Robert Fabrizio
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/016:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Fabrizio
1100 S.E. 4th Ave. #23
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Fabrizio



MTC-00032231

From: Odis McLean
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/017:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Odis McLean
1426 Marlene
DeSoto, Tx 75115-2907
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

[[Page 29767]]

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



MTC-00032232

From: Stephen Apple
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/017:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stephen Apple
9908 Brandywine Circle
Austin, TX 78750
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Apple



MTC-00032233

From: Jeremy Goemaat
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/018:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeremy Goemaat
PO Box 42306
Urbandale, IA 50322
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.

[[Page 29768]]

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



MTC-00032234

From: Rosa Mae Pennington
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/018:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosa Mae Pennington
1325 Dixieland Rd., #89
Harlingen, TX 78552-3312
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance : the 
war against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by 
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rosa Mae Pennington



MTC-00032235

From: Patrick Whalen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/018:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Whalen
PO BOX 713
Boonton, NJ 07005
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick E. Whalen



MTC-00032236

From: Jerold Ottley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/018:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerold Ottley
4952 S. 975 E.
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117-5714
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far

[[Page 29769]]

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



MTC-00032237

From: Joyce Wice
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/019:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Wice
6030 California Circle #101
Rockville, Md 20852
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce Wice



MTC-00032238

From: David Gray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/019:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Gray
792 Spanish Cove Drive
Melbourne, FL 32940
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly

[[Page 29770]]

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



MTC-00032239

From: Chuck Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I heavily use Microsoft products both personally and 
professionally. Having supported computers for 35 years, I would 
like to state my opinion, as a private citizen regarding the 
Microsoft settlement. The agreement, in which Microsoft will 
contribute it's product to educational facilities, gives Microsoft 
an unfair advantage in those education facilities and is not at all 
a fair response to their monopolistic behavior.
    Thank you,
    Charles W. Davis
    [email protected]



MTC-00032240

From: KEN SCHNEIDER
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/0110:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
KEN SCHNEIDER
181 PIONEER DR.
PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    KENNETH L. SCHNEIDER



MTC-00032242

From: bray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:32am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement below is unacceptable as a solution to 
past monopolistic practices by Microsoft.
    ``Not long after the DOJ settlement, Microsoft announced it 
had agreed to another settlement regarding a separate class-action 
suit brought against the company by numerous parties that alleged 
overpricing of Microsoft products.
    The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, 
and services to America's poorest schools.``
    This type of settlement would simply introduce Microsoft to a 
market where they could further extend their monopoly. A better 
solution would be for Microsoft to pay a specific amout of money to 
each of these poor school districts to be used for non-microsoft 
products only, such as computer hardware. Then a company such as 
RedHat or Apple could donate software for these systems or part of 
the Microsoft fine could be used to purchase this software.
    Allowing Microsoft or any company to donate their own product as 
part of a fine or punishment is akin to the drug dealer giving away 
the first few highs to get his clients hooked!!



MTC-00032243

From: Daniel Verbarg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:33am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
    I may not know all the details of the settlement, but I think 
this is just another slap on the wrist for Microsoft. I do know in 
the settlement that the school systems do not have to use Microsoft 
products. Basically this settlement is a payoff for Microsoft. 
Microsoft is getting a few things out of this.
    One of the groups that is suing them is now off of their back, 
Microsoft gets to look good by ``donating'' money to poor 
school systems, they have an opportunity to take over another area 
of software that they are not the market leaders (school systems), 
and they proceed as normal in their business practices. I am not 
saying MS should be split up, but I'm not against that either. They 
treat OEM's and even consumers like crap. Just look at the new 
licensing agreements. These new licensing agreements are just a slap 
in the face of all them people settling their cases against MS.
    Please do something that could get more consumer choice in the 
OS and app market.
    Thanks,
    Dan Verbarg Systems Admistrator
    PS--Don't you think all the virus problems are enough 
evidence that there needs to be more choice and competition?



MTC-00032244

From: Thomas S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:34am
Subject: Remedy Case
    As an IT professional I need choices to satisfy my work daily. 
MS has proven that they are in direct violation of Anti-trust laws 
governing the denying the consume fo such choice by their use of 
strong arm tactics and backdoor meetings. I strongly urgeyou to not 
allow them acess to public schools in one case and to strongly 
reprimand them in the other.
    This is for the good of business and the IT community.
    Regards,
    L. Thomas Solet



MTC-00032245

From: Don Lex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:37am Subject'' One users opinion
    Department of Justice,
    RE: Microsoft Settlement
    My thoughts are simple regarding this complicated software 
business. As I read from public sources for settlement details; the 
settlement clearly fails to punish the Microsoft enterprise for its 
corporate behavior. Time has gone bye and the justice system may 
have indeed forgotten about the failed companies due to MicroSoft 
business practices. All of the failed businesses led to (1) lost 
competitive ideas, (2) lost employment, and (3) failed dreams. Long 
gone are companies like Netscape, Borland and others.

[[Page 29771]]

    Further the notion that MicroSoft would give software operating 
systems, support and applications to the poorest schools appears to 
increase the footprint of the Microsoft monopoly. This may actually 
be worse than doing nothing.
    I do not envy your team in finding resolution with this matter 
or the tobacco matter, but please secure TRUE resolution. In my 
humble opinion, Microsoft needs to be broken into smaller companies 
like Judge Green did with AT&T. thank you for you time and 
consideration,
    DON LEX
    5160 Carriage Dr.
    Richmond, CA 94803



MTC-00032246

From: Justin Hopper and Bogdana Manole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:38am
Subject: Absolute Outrage
    I am a long-term software developer and user of Microsoft's 
products, however that does not blind me from their unjust business 
practices. I have seen once strong products like Netscape Navigator, 
Quicken and WordPerfect, literally crumble as Microsoft pushed it's 
way into the markets. Everything that is developed by Microsoft 
creates a further dependency on their products, including the 
operating system. What we have seen over the past years is more and 
more software products being developed by Microsoft. It used to be 
an operating system and now the company offers a complete end-to-end 
solution for IT businesses in just about any market. Where's the 
diversity?
    I currently reside, in Romania, a former Communist country. I 
can tell you first hand the dangers of a monopoly. For example, 
there is one telecom company in Romania (sound familiar) and the 
whoever wants to make a phone call must pay them a set tariff. Who 
ever wants to set up an ISP must pay them a set tariff. Who ever 
wants to receive extra phone services or even make and international 
phone call, must pay them a set tariff. If the consumer does not 
like it then who do they have to turn to? Noone! They are stuck with 
whatever price Romtelecom sets. Now tell me how this settlement is 
going to prevent this from happening to the technology market.
    The decision to make Microsoft give its software away for free 
to public schools is almost funny. Not only does it give Microsoft's 
operating system a leg up in what may be one of the only fields that 
it doesn't have control over; but it will probably be the end of 
Apple Computers. This is an ingenious idea and whoever came up with 
this proposal must have done so knowingly. The Department of Justice 
looks like a naive child being led by the giant software developer 
to do whatever it wants. Who is running the court-case, Microsoft or 
the DOJ? Sometimes it is hard to know.
    Sincerely,
    Justin Hopper



MTC-00032247

From: Andreas Pleschutznig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:38am
Subject: Personal opinion to the Microsoft settlement
    First I don't understand the thought process of why this half 
way solution of imposing some restriction on Microsoft is even 
thought about. Microsoft has shown in the past that they do not 
honor such restrictions or try to find a loophole, or turn the words 
until it suits their needs.
    Secondly and even more important I don't understand the justice 
behind that. Here is someone has has been found guilty of a crime 
and still show no remorse and we do not punish them as the law would 
call for, but strike a weak deal with them. In the past the splitup 
of ATT was the best that could have happened to the customer because 
it reopened the market. My personal belief is that this should 
happen to Microsoft as this (the breakup) would force the Mini-MS 
companies to compete and thus have positive influence on the market.
    Here is how I could imagine how the market could be made better: 
Suppose Microsoft got broken into 2 or more companies which in my 
opinion could be
    a) The OS (Windows) company
    b) The Application company (Office, ***) This would 
lead to the situation that the Office company would want to sell as 
many copies of their Software as possible, and thus they maight want 
to port their Software to other OS's. Since now Windows no longer 
has the advandage of being the only one that has this office suite 
they would have to compete in the open market with features, 
stability,*** as they could no longer rely upon being 
the only one having this office suite.
    Just my $0.02
    Thanks
    Andreas Pleschutznig
    2509 Taylor Way
    Antioch CA 94509
    Andy



MTC-00032248

From: Pat Montgomery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To the Microsoft antitrust attorneys,
    I strongly object to the terms of settlement of the Microsoft 
case.
    MS was proven in court and by appellate review to be a monopoly 
(which is no crime), but to have repeatedly and to the profound harm 
of its competition, abused this monopoly power (which is a crime).
    There are two issues:
    1) Justice: They clearly broke the law. To be let off with a 
handslap sends a clear and unambiguous message that they can get 
away with it, to their shareholder's advantage and the disadvantage 
of other businesses competing in their ever-expanding fields. This 
encourages them to do it again, knowing they are big enough to get 
away with it. I don't think this is what T.Roosevelt meant by the 
word ``bully''.
    2) Policy: Who in their right mind would now invest in a field 
of business that might *someday* be a field that MS decides it wants 
to dominate? The effects on competition, the putative underpinning 
of our economy, are devastating.
    This was a very unfortunate decision.
    Pat Montgomery
    28818 108th Ave. SE
    Auburn WA 98092
    [email protected]



MTC-00032249

From: Dave McCue
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 12/6/0110:40am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want to tell you that I prefer RedHat's solution to the 
settlement of the anti-trust case to the one announced by the DOJ 
early in November. I think that the DOJ solution would help expand 
Microsoft's monopoly into one of the few areas they don't already 
control. Plus the cost to Microsoft to provide this software is 
almost zero since they have already recovered their investment 
through regular sales.
    Thank you
    David C. McCue
    Information Systems Manager
    City of Paso Robles, CA
    mailto:[email protected] 

    Voice (805) 227-7202
    Fax (805) 237-4032



MTC-00032250

From: paulpam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:41am
Subject: Microsoft
    I just want to know whose palm did Microsoft grease to get away 
with it!



MTC-00032251

From: Phillip Landis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:41am
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-00032252

From: William Roark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/0110:42am

[[Page 29772]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Roark
2705 Bluebell Cir.
Antioch, CA 94531-6702
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William Roark



MTC-00032253

From: Bruce A Furnival
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:43am
Subject: Microsoft's so called monopoly.
    Microsoft needs to be left alone. If anyone else in the computer 
world wants to make operating systems for consumers they can. They 
prefer to keep things complicated.
    Yours truly,
    Bruce Furnival



MTC-00032254

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:47am
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-00032255

From: bruce boyd
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/0110:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
bruce boyd
107 high
nb, ca 92663
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance : the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case : the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able 
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's 
headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    bruce boyd



MTC-00032256

From: Bob Garvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0110:58am
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

[[Page 29773]]



MTC-00032257

From: Arturo Rafael Martinez Retama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:05am
Subject: microsoft should be punished for its past monopolic 
practices
    I think microsoft should be punished for its past monopolic 
practices



MTC-00032258

From: Bob Nixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:08am
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-00032259

From: Vance, Larry
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 12/6/0111:10am
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-00032260

From: Gary N Fanning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:11am
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-00032261

From: Bruce L. Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:11am
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-00032262

From: Jay L. Alberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:12am
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
    [email protected]
    Voice: 404.385.2339
    Fax: 404.894.9982
    www.hps.gatech.edu



MTC-00032263

From: John Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:15am
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-00032264

From: Tim VanAsselt
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 12/6/0111:15am
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-00032265

From: Frank Machado
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/0111:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Machado
7171 SE Lillian Ct.
Stuart, FL 34997
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far

[[Page 29774]]

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



MTC-00032266

From: Haifeng Xi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0111:19am
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 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-00032267

From: George Klages
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/0112:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Klages
Rt 1, Box 1680
Fresno, TX 77545
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance the war against terrorism, including homeland security. 
As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed 
for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for 
the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked 
extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of 
taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now when 
all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George Klages



MTC-00032268

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/0112:45pm
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-00032269

From: Linda Sorci
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/012:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Sorci
1501 NW 79th Terrace
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

[[Page 29775]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks court over the years, 
you cannot trust anythng they say. Thus, how can you trust the 
settlement? MicroSoft was probably going to give 1 billion dollars 
to schools anyways. Then the settlement says they have to, which 
doesn't make any sense, because they were probably going to do it 
anyways. MicroSoft has always tried to grab the educational 
institutions, because when people graduate from high school or 
college, they will stick with the software they know. Thus: 1. They 
were already going to do it anyways. 2. It inteferes with Apple's 
ability to compete in the education market. MicroSoft is entirely 
evil and I would prefer, be destroyed. I would like to see it get 
destroyed under a competitive market, rather than physcial force. I 
like to win my battles fairly. Given the current republican 
administration, please do what makes the most sense for a 
competitive market, which you should understand since you are 
republican, and just don't so stuff that benefits the rich fat 
republicans/corporations who have no regard for our nation, just 
their pocketbook. I want business to thrive for those who deserve 
it, not those who are able to bribe/lie/cheat/steal their way into 
power because they have a lot fo money.
    Thanks!
    Mark



MTC-00032455

From: John Schuck
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/0212:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Schuck
P.O. Box 1516
North Conway, NH 03860
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance the war against terrorism, including homeland security. 
As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed 
for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for 
the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked 
extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of 
taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now when 
all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Sorci



MTC-00032270

From: Allison Volner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/013:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Allison Volner
3115 Old Brownsville Rd.
Bartlett, Tn 38134-8552
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Allison D. Volner



MTC-00032271

From: Janie Irby
To: Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 29776]]

Date: 12/6/014:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janie Irby
P.O Box 455
Henry, TN 38231
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Janie Irby



MTC-00032272

From: Sally Grave
To:
Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/014:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sally Grave
611 Cook Hill Rd
Cheshire, Ct 06410
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sally Grave



MTC-00032273

From: R Craig Hudson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/014:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
R Craig Hudson
15432 Coastal Highway
Milton, De 19968
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application

[[Page 29777]]

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



MTC-00032274

From: Richard Burke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/015:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Burke
5396 S Calle Coro
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650-9048
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard W. Burke



MTC-00032275

From: Charles Boyette
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/015:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Boyette
274 Steens Road
Steens, MS 39766
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Boyette



MTC-00032276

From: Kevin Sheehan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/018:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin Sheehan
240C Brittany Farms Road
New Britain, CT 06053
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 29778]]

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



MTC-00032277

From: Jill Merrell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/6/018:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jill Merrell
12 Way West Airpark
Bainbridge, IN 46105
December 6, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jill Merrell



MTC-00032278

From: raymond bykowski
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 12/6/0110:38pm
Subject: Microsoft ruling
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Justice Department
Washington, DC
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft: Recently, the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft hammered out a settlemrnt of Microsoft's 
antitrust lawsuit. I want to express my support for this agreement, 
and ask you to oppose further hearings by the Juddiciary Committee.
    The suit against Microsoft has gone on way to long. Microsoft 
has proven to be a successful, forward-thinking company that 
empowers this country, gives it it's technological edge, and 
provides jobs for thousands of people. These workers are now being 
punished for working for a successful company. In the proposed 
agreement, Microsoft has agreed to open up its Windows features, 
make future versions easier to install non Microsoft software and 
disclose certain company internal interface information, such as 
particular lines of code. This is more than enough.
    It is time to move on. We have more important things to spend 
our time and money on.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Bykowski
    1350 Tower Hill Road
    Brookfield, WI 53045
    Email [email protected]



MTC-00032280

From: Kenneth Golubski
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/013:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Golubski
23743 Parkwood Dr
Columbia Station, OH 44028
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by

[[Page 29779]]

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



MTC-00032281

From: Tom Friedman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/015:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Friedman
25 Whispering Spring Dr
Pisgah Forest, , NC 28768-9502
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    T.M. Friedman



MTC-00032282

From: Christina McEntire
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/016:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christina McEntire
7 Way West Rd.
Bainbridege, IN 46105
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms.Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our

[[Page 29780]]

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



MTC-00032283

From: Joe Giza
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/016:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Giza
2612 Fait Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21224-3725
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Giza



MTC-00032284

From: Fred Reich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/016:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Reich
718 Danville Circle
Melbourne, FL 32904
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Reich



MTC-00032285

From: Holly Evans
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/018:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Holly Evans
3601 Rip Ford Drive
Austin, TX 78732
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 29781]]

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



MTC-00032286

From: Mark D'Agostino
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/019:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark D'Agostino
172 Middle Street #111
Lowell, MA 01852
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mark D'Agostino



MTC-00032287

From: Anthony Dominguez
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/019:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Dominguez
37 Upland Road
Holyoke, MA 01040
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Dominquez



MTC-00032288

From: Peter Moon

[[Page 29782]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/019:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Moon
31 Bowker St
Lexington, MA 02421
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Moon



MTC-00032289

From: Charles Ferebee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/019:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Ferebee
120 Coburn Woods
Nashua, NH 03063
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles B. Ferebee



MTC-00032290

From: Derek Kilstrom
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/0110:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Derek Kilstrom
18507 94th St Ct E
Bonney Lake, WA 98390
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an

[[Page 29783]]

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



MTC-00032291

From: Stephen Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/0110:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Howard
7 Judson Road
Weymouth, MA 02188
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen J. Howard



MTC-00032292

From: christin walth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/0110:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
christin walth
95 Scotland Road
Newbury, ma 01951
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Christin Walth



MTC-00032293

From: NEWCASE ATR
To: ATRMAIL8.ATRSFO01 .MSOFT
Date: 12/7/0111:45am Subject'' Suggestion for MS Case 
resolvement-Forwarded
From: Roger
To: NEWCASE ATR
Date: 12/7/019:49am
Subject: Suggestion for MS Case resolvement
    A key note: I had starband (2 way satellite isp) for about a 
year. It has no linux drivers. It is also said to be heavily funded 
by Microsoft. Although they havn't published winxp drivers for the 
service yet, i would

[[Page 29784]]

speculate that they maybe holding the drivers back for release. They 
HAVE NO Linux drivers! The specs for the bcp/ip are proprietory and 
the service is Windows only.
    This seems to be one of the key aspects of the said Microsoft 
Monopoly as hardware companies would only make h/w & services 
compatable for windows only. Linux is much more robust & secure, 
but yet, ``Why do companies still only do Windows?''
    Suggestion: If Microsoft is going to be teaming up with other 
3rd party service, hardware & software providers, make them 
support all other o/s's with equivalent drivers in order to deter 
Microsoft from using it's influence on ``Unknowing 
Customers'' who buy into the service/product and boosting into 
a monopoly like enviroment.
    Example: Microsoft invests in Starband. Make Starband make/
publish linux & mac drivers (and that are equivalent in quality 
to the Windows drivers or better). This would, hence, promote 
legitament competition. Some of my comments on the latest suggested 
resolvements broadcasted on CNN Headline news:
    (1) Strip Down Winxp--This would be nice as i use mozilla/
netscape instead of the buggy IE (i use opensource tools since they 
prove more stable/reliable).
    (2) Make MS Office for other platforms such as Linux--about 
2 years too late. Sun just released StarOffice 6.0 Beta, and i must 
say that it looks really nice under linux. The slate a release for 
april/may, for which, only bugs and some minor fixes need some 
working...appears to be plenty of time to release a rock-solid 
product!...and it's pretty much free. Heard allot of National Gov'ts 
using staroffice rather the ms office.
    (3) Java--uh? dunno the specifics.
    I still don't really see how several of 1,2 or 3 will really do 
anything in resolvement of the MS/DOJ case that was won by the DOJ. 
It almost seems like ms has the economy and the doj on a leash.
    It dismays me to see Corporations endulging into such illigit 
business structures which promote further instabilities into their 
business structures. This really seems like modem day mafias (with a 
loss of morals) that have converged to fit it's business model to 
thrive-off of loop holes within our legal system.
    So instead of the consumer paying for a service, they pay the 
company to allow themselves to be able to work at the ``said 
company''. lol.
    Verify my pgp/gnupg signature on my HomePage: http://
www.alltel.net/rogerx/about/index.html My ICQ UIN# = 21252173



MTC-00032294

From: Jason Forish
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/0111:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Forish
121 Tremont Street Unit#317
Brighton, MA 02135
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Forish



MTC-00032295

From: David Skidmore
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/011:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Skidmore
11330 Amanda 609
Dallas, TX 75238
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 29785]]

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



MTC-00032296

From: Jeannine M. Stahl
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/012:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeannine M. Stahl
11826 S. 51st Street
Phoenix, AZ 85044-2313
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    The Stahls, Arthur and Jean



MTC-00032297

From: Arthur Stahl
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/012:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arthur Stahl
11826 S. 51st Street
Phoenix, AZ 85044-2313
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur & Jean Stahl



MTC-00032298

From: Roy Smith
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/014:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roy Smith
1401 halstead cir
centerville, oh 45458
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ,

[[Page 29786]]

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



MTC-00032299

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/7/016:08pm
Subject: The Database that ``leaves MS Access in the 
dust''



MTC-00032300

From: James Carpenter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/017:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Carpenter
4922 Del Rio Trl.
Wichita Falls, TX 76310-1431
December 7, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Carpenter, Jr.



MTC-00032301

From: Wade Mountz
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/019:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wade Mountz
9 Muirfield Place
Louisville, KY 40222
December 8, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever,

[[Page 29787]]

the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Wade Mountz



MTC-00032303

From: Don Botkin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/7/0111:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Botkin
108 \1/2\ East Main
Heyworth, IL 61745
December 8, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Respectfully,
    Don Botkin



MTC-00032304

From: Jonathan Hobson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/8/011:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jonathan Hobson
PO Box 126
Plainfield, WI 54966-0126
December 8, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Hobson



MTC-00032305

From: Marc Pruskin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/8/018:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marc Pruskin
178 Taylor Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
December 8, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers

[[Page 29788]]

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



MTC-00032306

From: Bob Familiar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/8/016:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob Familiar
192 Goodmans Hill Road
Sudbury, MA 01776
December 8, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Familiar



MTC-00032307

From: lprieta
To: Attorney General Antitrust Division
Date: 12/8/016:47pm
Subject: microsoft public comment
    Sirs,
    I have been a personal computer user for 14 years. The internet 
with the basic ``Mosaic'' web browser was state of the art 
as I studied at the University of California. The focus of my 
studies was the ``new'' internet, media and the 
empowerment of minorities and private citizens which the net made 
possible.
    I am a member of an Indian nation and this is very important to 
me. the FREEDOM to use internet tools, of my own choosing, and to 
not be enriching grasping monopolists, is of high importance to all 
private users of the internet, and of PCs in general.
    The suggested settlement for Microsoft's crimes is utterly 
unsatisfactory to me. The notion that Microsoft products and 
services donated (and thus ``locking in'' the minds and 
habits of young internet users who would be better served by a free 
selection of products and platforms in their lifetimes) would 
adequately address the abuse of monopoly control of personal 
computing by Microsoft is inherently unjust and unrealistic.
    I strongly urge the court to instead enforce the establishment 
(by Microsoft) of a fund for schools from which products and 
services SELECTED freely and totally by such schools would be paid.
    Thank You
    Russell F. Imrie



MTC-00032308

From: Meagan Hutcheson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/9/015:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Meagan Hutcheson
22 Sequassen Rd.
Farmington, CT 06032
December 9, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an

[[Page 29789]]

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



MTC-00032309

From: Harry Pierson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/9/0112:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Pierson
11064 Clear Meadows Dr.
Las Vegas, Nv 89134-7235
December 9, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Harry T. Pierson



MTC-00032310

From: Paul Pedriana
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/9/016:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Micorosft's propsosed settlement is clearly worded to benefit 
Microsoft at the expense of their competition In particular:
--Microsoft's proposal to ``free'' donate software is 
clearly an attempt to dilute the presence of their competitor's 
software.
--Microsoft's proposal to open their APIs is worded to lock out 
non-commercial entities such as open source software initiatives. 
Paul
    Pedriana
    [email protected]



MTC-00032311

From: Chris Sakalosky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/10/017:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chris Sakalosky
162 Melrose Street
Auburndale, MA 02466
December 10, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.

[[Page 29790]]

    Sincerely,
    Chris Sakalosky



MTC-00032312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/10/019:08am
Subject: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon,10 Dec 2001 09:09:28 -0800
From: John Walden 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: MicroSoft Ruling
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    The first ruling against Microsoft, to break up the company, was 
correct and just. A mild punishment of Microsoft off will not foster 
competition, will not insure a strong industry and, will not benefit 
consumers. At the very least, Microsoft should make the current 
version (and future versions) of MS Office and other application 
software available for Linux. This would separate their operating 
system software from their applications software and prevent any 
future monopolistic behavior.
    To punishment Microsoft by having then give their products to 
schools is a crazy idea. This will only foster their monopolistic 
practices and lock in future customers. It would be like punishing 
the tobacco industry by making them furnish no cost cigarette 
vending machines to schools.
    John Walden,
    IS Director, Ferry County



MTC-00032313

From: Bryan Haley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/10/0110:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bryan Haley
9 Candlewood Way
Shrewsbury, MA 01545
December 10, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan R. Haley



MTC-00032314

From: Jean Gary
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/10/0111:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Gary
5892 Langton Drive
Alexandria, VA 22310
December 10, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Gary



MTC-00032315

From: Larry Svee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/10/0112:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Svee
W323 Highway 29
Spring Valley, WI 54767

[[Page 29791]]

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



MTC-00032316

From: BillMeelater
To: DOJ
Date: 12/10/016:52pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear DOJ,
    It pleases me that the DOJ and Microsoft Corp have come to a 
settlement finally. Briefly, my opinion as a consumer and citizen of 
this great country is as follows:
    1. I never felt cheated or hurt as a consumer of any Microsoft 
product. Nor do I understand how consumers have been hurt by the 
Microsoft company. Certainly I've had many frustrating moments over 
the years because their software occasionally failed to function 
properly (and many consumers have shared this feeling). But I 
personaly feel that the gains I've made in productivity over the 
years, due to the advances in computing as a result of the Microsoft 
company, have been worth the trouble. Considering the efficiency 
their procucts bring to me, they are cheap. Let's not complain about 
an $80 operating system.
    2. Our economy has benefitted from the standardization of 
operating systems due to Microsoft's dominance. I'm sure many a 
legal brief prepared by the DOJ was done on Microsoft software. What 
would it be like to share information in a world of computers that 
wouldn't talk to each other? A third world experience, I'm sure. 
Example: How frustrating is it now to make a long distance phone 
call from a phone you don't own. A strong case, in my opinion, for 
standardization. As Alan Greenspan has stated many times--the 
growth we had from mid to late -90's was very much a result of 
technical innovation by Microsoft and companies like it.
    3. In our country today, we can't affort to struggle internally 
anymore. It would be different if Microsoft dominated the software 
industry AND put out lousy product. I don't think that's the case. 
The DOJ has gone after this company with such vengance. I don't 
think it's warranted. I'm sure they've gotten the message. Now let 
it go and let them, and companies like them continue to innovate. It 
benefits us all.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Braun
    Colorado



MTC-00032317

From: Dawn Johnson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/11/019:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dawn Johnson
1005 Quail Run Rd.
Southlake, TX 76092-3114
December 11, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dawn Johnson



MTC-00032318

From: Kylie Waters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 29792]]

Date: 12/12/017:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kylie Waters
2563 Spencer Hill Road
Corning, NY 14830
December 12, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kylie Waters



MTC-00032319

From: Ted Payne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/12/018:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ted payne
4009 Druid Hills rd
louisville, ky 40207
December 12, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Payne



MTC-00032320

From: John D. Eckert
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/12/019:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John D. Eckert
1749 Summerlin Place
Jeffersonville, IN, IN 47130-9677
December 12, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install

[[Page 29793]]

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



MTC-00032321

From: Michael Cramer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/12/019:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Cramer
51 Cobblestone Lane
Hanover, MA 02339
December 12, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael R. Cramer



MTC-00032322

From: Robert Davis
To: US DOJ
Date: 12/12/0111:33am
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    My name is Robert Davis, I am an Architect and I live in Denver, 
CO. I am not a ``technical'' person as far the computer 
industry goes, just an end user. I purchased my first computer, a 
Commodore 64 back in about 1981. I then migrated to Apple's 
Macintosh, then to Windows on Intel, and now in light of Microsoft's 
illegal monopoly actions, I've just begun a transition to the Linux 
operating system. I'm probably somewhat atypical from most in that 
I've used multiple operating systems during my experiences. Based on 
this experience I've seen many small, innovative software companies 
come up with some very good applications. What I now observe is that 
Microsoft keeps rolling the same functionality into Windows and 
effectively killing all other competition. I don't see this as good 
for America. To their credit they have been successful in 
standardizing the computing experience somewhat. I have read on 
various internet news sites that the proposed settlement terms allow 
Microsoft to determine if a company is legitimate before they have 
to share some of their inner workings with them. The case has been 
made that the ``Open Source'' movement would not be viewed 
as such and therefore can be discriminated against. This movement 
looks to be the greatest hope of breaking Microsoft's monopoly yet 
and needs to be able to stand on equal footing. I respectfully 
request that you implement meaningful reforms for Microsoft without 
infringing on free interprise and the American way. Please consider:
    1. Don't give MS a foot-hold in our schools were Apple seams to 
compete reasonably well.
    2. Don't allow MS to withold code, API's, etc. from the Open 
Source folks.
    3. Force MS to unbundle ``middleware'' from Windows or 
sell a ``stripped'' down version.
    4. Scutinize MS's plans to provide broadband internet access to 
America via MSN.
    5. Formulate remedies with teeth.
    5. Watch them like a hawk!
    Thank you for this opportunity to voice my views.
    Rob Davis



MTC-00032323

From: Herb Himmelfarb
To: Himmelfarb, Cyn (038) Herb
Date: 12/12/0112:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    The proposed settlement in the anti-trust case against the 
Microsoft Corporation appears to me to be too lenient. In my 
opinion, this corporation has engaged in restraint of trade to an 
alarming degree. Rather than bore you with information you already 
have, I request that more severe penalties be imposed upon 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Herbert S. Himmelfarb
    615 19 Street NE
    Salem, OR 97301-2713
    503.375.2934
    [email protected]



MTC-00032325

From: MARTY REISLER
To: MSN Messenger Support
Date: 12/13/017:35am
Subject' Re' [Re' [Re: [Re: [Re' [RE: CST51666018ID- MSN Chat 
Feedback]]]]]
CC: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,jim.hill@...



MTC-00032325 0001

    OK there is no selection for messenger removal under add remove 
problems. My guess is that it is integrated into MSN Explorer MSN 
Explorer must be removed from the Windows component wizard. If I 
remove MSN Explorer then I do not think I can sign on to or at least 
find new local numbers for the MSN service when travelling.
    After 5 emails you won't admit I can't turn off your messenger 
service so you tell me to uninstall but give me bogus directions on 
how This cinches that I will remove the MSN

[[Page 29794]]

components as soon as my free trial is over. This is the kind of 
riduculous crap that make people want to see Microsoft severely 
chopped into more harmless less arrogant pieces. The incredible run 
around from a tech support department who won't admit that the MSN 
application is setup so that I have to be logged into your new 
messenger service so you can claim a large user base to get more 
people to use your messenger app is probally criminal. Thankfully 
messenging is not something you have arrived at in time to compete 
in. You can now add me to the list of Microsofts foes and maybe even 
force me to use AOL as my means of connecting when away from home.
    I think it is a gross failure on the part of the justice 
department to think of settling with Microsoft while it is still 
finding new ways to exploit its operation system monopoly in this 
manner.
    --Marty Reisler
    213 N. Highland Ave
    Nyack NY 10960
From: [email protected]
To: ``MSN Messenger Support'' 

Sent: Wed Dec 12 09:24:20 PST 2001
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [RE: CST51666018ID--MSN Chat 
Feedback]]]]



MTC-00032325_0002

    I seem to keep gettng a different support person who doesn't 
take
    the time to read the complete message. I explained that what 
doesn't
    work (this is my 5th email) is that there is no account tab 
under
    tools/options. Please reread the entire message and reply with
    the answer that relects that you have reread all the 
correspondence
    below.



MTC-00032326

From: Robert Gasiorowski
Date: 12/13/0111:03am
Subject: Microsoft's intellectual property
    This is good, they (MS) take someone elses (opensource) stuff 
(DNS for example), change one line (comment line probably), and then 
they're calling it Microsoft's intellectual property.
    And what about TCP/IP showing up under ``Microsoft 
Protocols''. Since when TCP/IP is Microsoft's?
    By that time next year, it will be probably called MSN/IP.
    Thank you for your time.
    Robert Gasiorowski.
    Mac, Linux and Sun user.



MTC-00032327

From: Lisa Hutchins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/13/011:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lisa Hutchins
16549 NW 16th Street
Pembroke Pines, FL 33028
December 13, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa Hutchins
