[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 24495-24930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-160503]



MTC-00003461

From: David Hibshman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill wins again. Computer Industry loses again. One look at 
Microsoft's latest OS offering(XP) makes it clear why Microsoft's OS 
and applications should not be bundled together and should probably 
be spun off as separate companies all together. Windows Xp offers 
MP3/WMA creation, Video Editing, Cd Creation, Chat, Messaging, and 
Video Conferencing all as part of the core software required to run 
a computer. Microsoft clearly uses it's foothold on the Market to 
offer otherwise successful third party software in it's own OS to 
help ensure they keep their grasp on the industry and to bump off 
smaller vendors from becoming bigger competitors. Microsoft 
qualifies as a monopoly in every sense of the definition and should 
be punished for it.




MTC-00003462

From: Paul Rech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    You're no doubt tired of reading these e-mails, so let me cut to 
the chase.
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft will not do a thing. None 
of the provisions will have any effect, which may be what the 
current administration really wants.
    Here's what would make a difference and it's quite simple.
    1) Open their file formats, protocols, APIs.
    2) Allow vendors to clearly price the cost of the Windows OS 
when you purchase a PC.
    The former will allow all companies to compete again in 
application software. MS keeps data locked into their apps by 
changing these formats every now and then. Forcing consumers to keep 
using their products. MS Word is the standard not because it's the 
best, but because so many businesses have data stored in those types 
of docs. They don't even want to think about the hassle of 
converting. The latter will show people how much they have to pay 
for the MS OS and allow them to choose to pay for it or not. Lots of 
people have a perfectly good copy of Win 98 sitting around, why 
should they have to buy XP with a new computer when they don't want 
or need it?
    Get rid of bundling once and for all.
    Paul Rech
    Computer Consultant
    651-430-9935
    [email protected]




MTC-00003463

From: Ray Drainville/Argument from Design
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I'm adding my voice to those who are against the settlement with 
Microsoft over its monopolistic practices, as that settlement stands 
today. There are some simple, yet important reasons why I'm doing 
this:
    *ï¿½1AHaving MS give away a billion dollars worth of software 
& refurbished hardware to the country's poorest schools doesn't 
punish the company: what it does is greatly strengthen their hand in 
one of the last areas in which they don't currently have a monopoly. 
One possible solution would be to have MS donate one billion dollars 
to these schools, to have them use this money for IT as the schools 
see fit.
    *ï¿½1AThis billion-dollar giveaway looks very expensive for MS 
on paper, but that number is based upon the market value of the 
hardware & software: the actual cost to MS is estimated to be 
about one-tenth of that figure. This seems a ludicrously tiny 
settlement for such an important violation of law. Once again, 
forcing MS to donate one billion dollars to these schools would be a 
more effective way to punish the company.
    *ï¿½1AAs the settlement stands, it requires MS to share 
various types of code with commercial rivals; 
`commercial' is spelled out in the document quite 
clearly. However, currently MS`s strongest competitors come from 
non-profit entities: Apache (web-serving software), Linux, Perl, and 
those who are building a compatible & free version of MS`s .NET 
initiative. By not specifically including these non-profit 
organizations in the settlement documentation, the DoJ is allowing 
MS to protect its monopoly from those organizations who are most 
strenuously competing with it.
    *ï¿½1AThe settlement does nothing to propose what is to be 
done should MS violate the agreement. What if MS is proven to be 
acting in an uncompetitive fashion again? The agreement does not 
give the DoJ any teeth in enforcing the settlement. It doesn`t give 
MS any reason to comply.
    I would strongly urge the DoJ to be extremely cautious when 
writing up settlements with Microsoft. History has shown that the 
company is more than willing to violate agreements, and the past 
decade or so has seen them disregard mild remedies in order to 
pursue their own interests. Give the settlement some teeth; 
Microsoft, after all, was found guilty. Currently, they won`t even 
admit that.
    Best,
    Ray Drainville
    Director, Argument from Design
    Argument from Design-Web & Multimedia
    [email protected] http://www.ardes.com




MTC-00003464

From: Cody DeHaan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:19am
Subject: What a Joke!
    I find it rather a joke that Microsoft gets no punishment for 
what they did.
    Don`t get me wrong, I use Microsoft`s products, but something 
should be done to prevent it from happening in the future.




MTC-00003465

From: Rob Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:34am
Subject: Settlement
    Microsoft should be reined in on a tight leash. The 9 holdout 
states are correct in their perception of what this company can do 
if not tightly controlled.
    Microsoft has the technology to end up controlling every ones 
computer and CHARGING for it if not controlled. They have already 
demonstrated that. 20 years ago they broke up IBM for basically the 
same reason they are looking at Microsoft.
    Please stick to mission and hold tight the reins on Microsoft.
    Rob Roth
    Hernando, Florida.




MTC-00003466

From: Jerry Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:57am
Subject: comments on your judgement
    It is quite clear to me that this was written by lawyers who 
have no real experience with software development and software 
coding. I was agreeing to quite a bit of this until III.J in which 
you opened the floodgates of a gigantic loophole for Microsoft to 
jump into. Given the history of Microsoft in the last 10 years. This 
amounts to `business as usual' for Microsoft. What a 
waste of our tax dollars. You all did a masterful job during the 
trial in showing us what a Monopolistic power Microsoft was, then 
with this judgement you have really blown it. No wonder Bill Gates 
calls this a `fair' settlement. If I were Bill I would 
too!
    I would strongly suggest you take into account the somewhat 
stricter format that the other nine states are taking.
    Two things that were not addressed at all: 1) data formats. The 
reason Microsoft has such a hold on the PC market is its office 
products. He who holds the keys to the data, has control. There was 
NO mention of providing the data format definitions of the office 
products that MS has to third parties. 2) real competition. Most of 
your document was about not limiting competition in the Windows 
space. Very little about real competition from Apple and Linux, 
FreeBSD, Beos and other possible contenders.
    The reason that real competition will not be achieved with your 
document is that there is no provision for MS to be open with its 
data formats, and communication protocols. What about what they did 
with Kerberos with their `embrace, extend, and 
extingush' method of changing the Kerberos authentication 
scheme that all other OS`s use but now do not work with Windows 
Servers?
    Until there is real choice of OS, meaning that MS Office 
products are required to run on all other Platforms, other OS`s will 
never have a real chance to compete. And until we get real 
competition MS will continue to have a monopoly in the software 
industry. And we as consumers will never have a real choice.




MTC-00003467

From: Stephen Perez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:41am
Subject: Support for States/DC Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to quickly write in support of the settlement 
proposed by the 9 states and DC. The DOJ`s previous decision was too 
much of a wrist slap, full of loopholes which Microsoft`s lawyers 
will be more than happy to exploit. To be quite honest, after 
reading the original proposal (not Judge Jackson`s, but the next 
one) I got the eerie feeling that

[[Page 24293]]

Microsoft`s lawyers were more technically savvy than the 
governments_making sure that there were carefully worded 
exceptions for any of the major points that may have actually had 
any `bite'. While I am not a lawyer, I am a software 
engineer, and if I worked for Microsoft, I would find it quite easy 
to come up with some technical reasons why a particular 
`remedy' could be circumvented. Now about perception. It 
appears to me something odd is going on. The DOJ does an about face 
in the prosecution of Microsoft_once they appeared to really 
be trying to do something to help out the consumers. Now, we are 
given a proposals which absolutely lacks teeth. Microsoft at one 
time allowed themselves to be billed a million dollars a day just to 
be stubborn and not comply with government mandates. Now, Microsoft 
seems more than happy to do anything the government asks. I think 
this is because they realize that they`re not being asked to do much 
at all.
    Anyway, please give serious consideration to the recent states/
DC proposal in this matter and give the consumers/competitors some 
real relief.
    Stephen Perez,
    Software Engineer,
    Austin, Texas.




MTC-00003468

From: Craig L. Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed selltlement in this case is waay off! Instread of 
punishinng the guilty party, he is being rewarded! THis is insane. 
The settlement needs to be tougher.
    From a Robert X. Cringely article :
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only. But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, 
the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, 
the military, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology_even the Department of Justice itself_have no 
rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary 
and that B-52s don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. 
They showed through the case little understanding of how the 
software business really functions. But they are also complying with 
the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with 
the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, 
when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free 
products could become a major force in any industry_well, it 
just would have seemed insane.
    Craig L. Stevenson 




MTC-00003469

From: Sondra Janssen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft
    It`s time to stop making the lawyers richer. This is just some 
wanting something for nothing or to the left politics. Real life 
things are not equal. Let the economy run.




MTC-00003470

From: jason mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a shareholder of both Microsoft and Apple Stock and a US 
citizen, I hope that you take the time to look closely as how this 
proposed settlement will affect Microsoft`s monopoly. From what I 
have read it appears that the proposed settlement will actually 
increase Microsoft`s monopoly in one of the few places where their 
competitors (specifically Apple Computer) remain strong.
    As proven time and time again the cost of Upkeep for Microsoft 
systems is so astronomically high, where Apple computers last longer 
with less maintenance.
    By `donating' billions of dollars to schools, 
Microsoft will in effect be locking them into an expensive upgrade 
and maintenance package with an inferior solution, while extending 
their monopoly into a market that they have traditionally had 
trouble making inroads into. Please don`t permit this to happen.
    Jason
    Gravity Switch
    89 Market St.
    Northampton, MA 01060
    www.gravityswitch.com
    413.586.9596




MTC-00003471

From: jason mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to also put in a good word for Steve Satchell.
    Jason
    Gravity Switch
    89 Market St.
    Northampton, MA 01060
    www.gravityswitch.com
    413.586.9596




MTC-00003472

From: Clyde Stauffer
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/8/01 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I believe the proposed anti-monopoly settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation is inadequate on two counts:
    (1) It does not adequately address contracts with EOMs that 
restrict their rights to offer multiple operating systems on the 
computers they sell. This restriction, from 1992 onward, made it 
very difficult (actually, nearly impossible) for anyone to purchase 
a computer with the IBM operating system OS/2 pre-loaded. I use OS/
2, but only because I am bought it independently and installed it 
myself. Most ordinary computer purchasers are not capable of, and do 
not want to, exert this degree of independence from the Microsoft 
monopoly.
    (2) It does not adequately address the competition extant from 
non-profit software entities such Linux and similar efforts. If 
these groups are not protected from the predatory efforts of 
Microsoft they will not be able to fully compete, a situation which 
would not be to the advantage of the consumer.
    I respectfully submit that Microsoft should be:
    (1) Prevented from making any type of excusionary contract with 
OEMs; and
    (2) Forced to treat all competitors, profit and non-profit 
oriented alike, on the same basis.

[[Page 24294]]

    Sincerely yours,
    Clyde Stauffer




MTC-00003473

From: William Woesner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:59am
    I believe that Microsoft has a monopoly. Separate Microsoft into 
different companies, IE explorer,
    Office, and operating system
    William Woesner




MTC-00003474

From: Tony Hardie-Bick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is one very simple remedy that is required: Microsoft must 
open its Office file formats.
    As a UK citizen, I have been alarmed by the way in which 
Microsoft is playing government agencies like the UK National Health 
Service for dummies. Again, they are preparing a trap that involves 
the use of closed file formats, the significance of which will only 
be felt incrementally, in years to come.
    The opening of Microsoft source code is not as important.
    Yours sincerely,
    Tony Hardie-Bick
    London, England.




MTC-00003475

From: Todd VerBeek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:06am
Subject: what a waste
    The settlement with Microsoft isn`t a setttlement; it`s a 
capitulation. The restrictions it places on Microsoft are as feeble 
and meaningless as the ones in the consent decree of several years 
ago... the toothless slap on the wrist that made this suit necessary 
in the first place. It accomplishes nothing but to 
_condone_ and _endorse_ the position of 
Microsoft as the 800-ton gorilla of the technology industry.
    Compelling Microsoft to donate software to poor schools isn`t a 
punishment or a remedy of any kind; it`s an endorsement of predatory 
pricing! Let`s all watch as Microsoft gives software away (below 
cost), drives the remaining competition out of the education market, 
and later starts charging for the (practically mandatory) upgrades.
    Consumers will still be offered nothing but superficial 
variations on the Microsoft blueprint when we go shopping for a PC. 
They will be offered a single operating system, a single word 
processor, a single spreadsheet, etc. Programmers (my livelihood) 
will have the `freedom' to innovate outside the world 
Microsoft defines... and die of starvation because that world is 
dwindling to nothing, or the `freedom' to innovate 
within the Microsoft model, hoping for some table scraps as we help 
to advance Microsoft`s business plans. This settlement assures those 
of use who aren`t in bed with Microsoft with only one consolation: 
There will be another suit in a few years, and by that time 
Microsoft`s monopolistic practices (and the damages therefrom) will 
be even greater, and even more difficult for the courts to ignore.
    Todd VerBeek
    1311 Lake Dr SE #2
    Grand Rapids MI 49506




MTC-00003476

From: The Bryant`s
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:22am
Subject: Settlement
    I cannot believe that the DOJ would spend so much of the 
Taxpayers money to achieve so little in the Microsoft case. The 
taxpayers are not served by the DOJ decision. Computer users are not 
served by the decision. Our children are not served well by the 
decision. The only entities served by the decision are Microsoft and 
the legal community. I think the hard working taxpaying community 
should come away from this issue with more than a due bill from 
Microsoft and the DOJ.
    I support Red Hat`s proposal to exclude software donations by 
Microsoft to the public school system or any organization. Also, it 
would be in the Taxpayers interest to prevent Microsoft (or any 
company) from selling the Academic Edition of its products at a 
tremendous discount from what other users must pay. This practice 
creates artificial demand for Microsoft products by forcing students 
to learn products which may be inferior to other software. Academic 
Edition sales harm smaller software developers by not giving them 
access to a potentially large user market.
    Public education dollars should not be spent to subsidize the 
sale and teaching of proprietary products in the public school 
system.
    Mark Bryant
    Secratary/Treasurer
    Charmark Computer Services, Inc.
    1100 West Lloyd Expressway
    Suite 102
    Evansville, IN 47708
    Telephone (812) 422-1776




MTC-00003477

From: David May
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am truly disappointed by the settlement that was brokered 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. It does nothing of substance to reign 
back Microsoft`s illegal behavior in light of their monopoly on the 
PC desktop. Microsoft is poised to attack multimedia companies and 
ISPs with their current exclusive desktop policies and I fear if 
nothing is done to curb their behavior, these companies will no 
longer provide viable competition in a market place the desperately 
needs it. I feel that if this settlement goes through with all the 
exceptions that are built into it, we will be here again in several 
years trying to reign Microsoft in with legal action. They have 
shown that they are more than willing to ignore or circumvent 
business limitations placed on them by the authorities. They have 
also shown that they are more than willing to lie about their 
behavior if they feel it is in their best interest. They will find 
loopholes in this settlement and stretch them to their fullest to 
continue with business as usual.
    Please listen to the concerns of the 9 outstanding states and of 
industry groups that are raising their voices (like Ralph Nader et. 
al.). If this settlement goes through as scripted, we will be back 
here again trying to reign Microsoft back in. The landscape of 
competition will look much more desolate than it does now, though, 
if Microsoft has its way.
    Thank you.
    David May
    Senior UNIX System Administrator
    Albuquerque TVI
    505-224-3015




MTC-00003478

From: Patrick Mc Govern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Summary of the Microsoft judgement: Microsoft could not have 
dreamed up a better judgement if they tried! Imagine being punished 
by advertising your own products!!
    Proposed judgement:
    Since Microsoft`s actions affected the rights of the people, I 
propose the following:
    (1) Microsoft would pay 2 billion dollars to start a trust fund 
that would operate in perpetuity and support the development of free 
software. The Free Software Foundation or similar organization could 
be a good target for this effort. Their web address is http://
www.gnu.org/. This effort would further develop the foudational 
software for computers that is similar to the infrastructure of our 
national highway system. I hate toll roads!
    This action would seem to be the punishment that fits the crime. 
It would encourage competition, creativity, and reward the WORLD 
with free software. It would also allow Microsoft to compete as one 
company and stay competetive.
    Pat




MTC-00003479

From: Cray Horse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    Your original remedy called for MSFT to be split apart; now you 
are content that MSFT merely donate their software to schools. This 
is a horrible solution, since it will only serve to strengthen the 
MSFT monopoly in the educational market. Apple has suggested that 
MSFT be required to donate a large amount of cash to the schools, 
which would certainly harm MSFT profits in the short term but would 
not strike at the heart of their monopoly.
    The heart of the MSFT monopoly derives from their control of the 
operating system in conjunction with their control of dominant 
desktop applications, such as MS Office. Every time someone emails 
us an Powerpoint presentation or a Word document, we are forced to 
use a MSFT application. Everytime MSFT changes one of their file 
formats, we are forced to upgrade our Office installation so that we 
can continue to process our email correspondence. Since the Office 
applications are only supported on MSFT operating systems, we are 
also forced to

[[Page 24295]]

purchase MSFT operating systems and keep them up-to-date against our 
will.
    I therefore propose the following simple conduct rememdy for the 
MSFT monopoly: require MSFT to support ALL of their application 
software on ALL operating systems with a non-negligible installed 
base (eg., at least 1% market share). That would require MSFT to 
support MS Office, Internet Explorer, Outlook, and SQL Server on 
Apple OS X, Sun Solaris, Linux, Palm OS, and others as well. This 
solution would strike at the heart of MSFT`s operating system 
monopoly, because now (for the first time) our choice of application 
software is truly separated from our choice of operating system.
    The details are tricky but managable by an appropriately careful 
mind. The restriction must apply to MSFT and any company in which 
they had more than 5% direct or indirect interest; otherwise, they 
could circumvent the restriction by spinning off their application 
software groups into subsidiaries. The restriction should prohibit 
them from releasing any application on Windows until it had been 
released on all competitive operating systems. The restriction must 
also ensure that the quality of the non-Windows ports to be at least 
as high as the Windows ports, otherwise they could torpedo the 
restriction by making their software unusable on non-Windows 
systems. (For example, you could impose financial penalties if the 
quality of the non-Windows port falls below the quality of the 
Windows port, or prevent them from shipping/selling Windows products 
while the non-Windows were of lesser quality.) And so on.
    Sincerely,
    A citizen who believes in competitive markets




MTC-00003480

From: Terry Braun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am a programmer with 20 years experience. The proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is pathetic- the real message is that MS 
is free to continue its anti-competitive practices. In the process 
it makes the US government look incompetent- and the US government 
is supposed to be MY representative in this business.
    Your lack of vigorous prosectution of this case will ultimately 
cost this country by making its software industry less competitive 
and therefore opening the door to other non-US companies. The 
current settlement brings discrace on our government since it is 
clear that there is neither an understanding of the world of 
computers nor a desire to obtain that expertise.
    Do better
    Terry Braun
    612-963-6570




MTC-00003481

From: Don Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement with Microsoft is entirely inadequate. 
There is basically no penalty imposed and few restrictions on future 
action by Microsoft. I think the only way to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to exploit its monopolistic position is to split the 
Operating System into a different company from its other software 
offerings. By allowing these to continue to be developed by the same 
company, there is no incentive for them to expose interfaces, or 
reason for them not to continue to imbed unrelated products into the 
operating system. This combination also stifles development of these 
products for other operating systems_does anyone think that 
the MS Office suite would not be available on Unix, Solaris, or 
Linux if it was owned by anyone else? Other than Lotus Smartsuite 
and Star Office, neither of which has a significant market share, 
there are no other office suites left on the market. I remember when 
there were over a dozen word processors, many spread sheet programs, 
and specialized packages for publishing. Now you have basically one 
choice, which is expensive and provides functions not needed or used 
by most of the market. I believe that if there were other choices, 
this software would be offered in various price ranges with 
functionality more in line with users needs. Microsoft has been 
innovative in software development, but this is not what has made 
them what they are today_it is their willingness to push 
others out of the market (most word processors, Netscape, etc.) or 
buy them (Visio, Fox Software, etc.) to eliminate the competition, 
then raise prices and justify it by pointing to functionality that 
is not needed or used by the majority of the market.
    In summary, I think the settlement is totally inadequate. Only a 
separation of at least the operating system from the other software 
is required to once again stimulate development and innovation in 
the software market place. Microsoft now is a much bigger threat 
than IBM was when it was broken up, and I believe the remedy should 
be at least as severe, if not more so.
    Don Allen
    Allen Information Consultants, Inc.
    Indianapolis, IN
    `How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? 
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn`t make it a leg.'
    _Abraham Lincoln




MTC-00003482

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a travesty of Justice. 
This is an Antitrust settlement, so why let them put their machines 
in schools. The ultimate solution would be give competitors machines 
(Apple, which has an almost 60% share in the school marketand can 
run Windows operating system if necessary). Using their products 
would just make their slice of the pie larger and indoctrinate a new 
generation into being a Microsoft only culture. I do Apple 
consulting to private and Parochial schools who cannot afford a full 
time staff person for technical support, as opposed to tax based 
funded public schools. As I`ve seen locally anytime a school board 
insists on a conversion to Microsoft based systems the district goes 
from a Technology Teacher having part time duties maintaining the 
MacOS Computers to 3 or 4 Full time MCSE certified staff at $60K/YR 
(Philadelphia region) to keep their Microsoft Systems functioning. I 
see the same in Businesses the MIS departments specify Microsoft for 
job security reasons and to be able to have an MIS staff of more 
than one.
    I`ve been involved in Computers in Education since the early 
70`s when IBM and Digital Equipment were the computers of choice. 
I`ve also worked for Microsoft service providers and left when the 
Microsoft Mantra was the main focus of their sales efforts 
`only sell Microsoft products because we know they work 
together'.
    I just learned that America Online is discontinuing Netscape as 
a Web Browser, which is the only real alternative to Microsoft 
Internet Explorer which is under contract with AOL as the default 
browser.
    Kenn Marks
    [email protected]
    Digital Data Systems




MTC-00003483

From: Alton, Matthew
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/8/01 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please prosecute the monopolistic filth known as Microsoft Corp. 
to the limits of the law. Your current proposed settlement 
constitutes a dereliction of duty bordering on treason.
    Thank you.
    Matthew Alton
    UNIX System Administration




MTC-00003484

From: John Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    I must admit that I am rather disappointed with the recent 
events in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft was found to be 
monopolistic, yet part of their punishment is to hand to them on a 
silver platter a market that Apple has worked very hard to 
cultivate. We are giving Microsoft absolutely no reason to change 
their practices. Even after being found monopolistic, Microsoft 
released Windows XP with invasive activation, and is making great 
strides toward its dream of software as a service, which I find to 
be quite alarming.
    Thank You,
    John Bishop




MTC-00003485

From: Number One
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This sounds much better for everybody. I see the justice 
department folding before corporate terrorists.
    George Frick
    [email protected]
    Red Hat Proposes to Enhance Microsoft Settlement Offer By 
Providing Open Source Software to All U.S. School Districts

[[Page 24296]]

    Open Source leader proposes to provide software to every school 
district in the United States if Microsoft provides computing 
hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts
    RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.?(BUSINESS WIRE)?Nov. 20, 2001?Red 
Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT_news) today proposed an alternative to 
the settlement announced today of the class-action lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Red Hat offered to provide open-source software to every 
school district in the United States free of charge, encouraging 
Microsoft to redirect the money it would have spent on software into 
purchasing more hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts. 
Under the Red Hat proposal, by removing Microsoft`s higher-priced 
software from the settlement equation, Microsoft could provide the 
school districts with many more computers_greatly extending 
the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their 
proposed settlement. Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of 
class-action claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer 
hardware, software and support to 14,000 poor school districts 
throughout the United States. Under the proposed settlement, a 
substantial part of the value provided to schools would be in the 
form of Microsoft software.
    The Red Hat`s alternative proposal includes the following: 
Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software donation to 
the purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This 
would increase the number of computers available under the original 
proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, and would increase 
the number of systems per school from approximately 14 to at least 
70.
    Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source RedHat 
Linux operating system, office applications and associated 
capabilities to any school system in the United States.
    Red Hat will provide online support for the software through the 
Red Hat Network.
    Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit 
at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their 
licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time 
limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat 
Network online distribution channel.




MTC-00003486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act to comment on 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I am particularly comcerned about the proposed settlement`s 
effect on much of the software that I use, software produced by non-
comercial entities. Many people agree that it is free and open-
source software that is Microsoft`s greatest competition and thus 
should be considered in the setlement.
    Section III(J)(2) of the settlement contains strong language 
stating that Microsoft is not required to 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) again prescribes certain rights to Microsoft 
competitors yet these rights apply only to comercial entities. I 
would like to see a settlement that opens the file formats of 
Microsofts dominant applications so that other applications on other 
platforms can read and write to them.
    Chris Morris




MTC-00003487

From: Steve Vasko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer reseller I strongly support the 9 state 
alternative over the justice departments initial settlement 
proposal. Porting office to multiple platforms is very important. 
Please consider keeping this in any final proposal that is put 
forward.
    Thanks,
    Steve Vasko
    Operations Manager
    Voice305-695-9779
    Fax305-695-9799
    www.editopia.com




MTC-00003488

From: dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The primary weapon, beyond the established, effective desktop 
monopoly, is data lock-in. Microsoft keeps data jailed and keeps 
changing the locks to perpetuate the protection by extortion. A 
remedy should address this problem directly. Making it an easier 
matter for any customer to take their data out of the Microsoft jail 
would promote competition without placing Microsoft under strict, 
long-term control of a government committee. The lock that allows 
illegal leveraging of the monopoly is the secrecy and continuous 
morphing of file formats and APIs. People should not be forced to 
purchase MS products in order to communicate with other people and 
businesses!
    I believe the current settlement is totally ineffective in 
curtailing MS`s behavior. It is less than a `slap on the 
wrist', so to speak. Thank you for your time and vigilance,
    Dan Williamson




MTC-00003489

From: Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Juggernaut
    Greetings,
    It looks from here like you caved in to Bill Gates and his 
empire. They are unrepentant and poised to continue with their brand 
of business as usual....which means that we consumers are hurt yet 
again. They are thugs. You know full well that they are a predatory 
entity, a corporation that uses its monopoly like a club to kill any 
real competition. All legal wrangling aside, Micrsoft can`t dodge 
that fact. When they are left to do as they will, they have 
exclusive right by economic threat to siphon off of society`s need 
for computing power like the parasites they are. The `playing 
field' Microsoft so proudly points to as its proving grounds 
for its product viability is littered with dead technology that, 90 
percent of the time, was far supuerior to the laughable offerings of 
Bill Gates and crew. The technology died, along with the companies 
that developed them because of Microsoft`s stranglehold on the 
market, and its tactics of excusivity deals, threats, and 
intimidation. Remember how they started out with DOS, a poor 
imitation of SCO UNIX? They had exclusive software rights to every 
PC sold by the then-standard, IBM. Clones had to keep some measure 
of compatibility, so they too contracted with Microsoft. Back in 
those days, Apple`s Mac with windowing, buttons, mouse and slick GUI 
interface was laughed at as a toy. Unix people were fringe kooks. 
Did anyone else see that when Windows emerged, it was a bad 
photocopy of Apple OS and Unix Motif/X-Windows?? They basically 
stole other ideas and profited from them. Seems I remember that the 
government did the wink-and-nod bit a few years ago when Apple 
asserted and proved its claim. Why is the government so fearful of 
Bill Gates? Does it figure he will be satisfied one day and just 
stop?? There are a few of us who make the choice in our personal 
lives to use superior product, such as Linux and Apple, which I use 
at home. I go to work and hold my nose as I labor all day on a 
modern Microsoft platform riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, and 
daily crashes. Why has such a slipshod product been allowed to 
swallow the market whole? Everyone winks and looks the other way as 
Gates tightens his grip. There are real, tangible costs to consumers 
and corporations when they are forced to adopt `the 
standard', in terms of down time that would not otherwise 
occur, and inflated monopolistic pricing.
    Do the right thing. Go for the throat. They are true 
evil_a cancer_and deserve no quarter.
    Otherwise, will we be driving Microsoft cars and buying 
Microsoft diamonds as they continue to grow? Will they oustrip any 
government effort to contain them?
    Thanks for your time,
    Lee Shouse
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00003490

From: Leandro Guimar(FFFF)es Faria Corsetti Dutra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please take a look at the fourth paragraph onwards, from http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Leandro Guimaraï¿½7Ees Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 644 23 19
    http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/ +41 (21) 216 15 93
    X Orange Telecom mailto:[email protected]
    Fita AsCII contra correio electr?nico HTML BRASIL




MTC-00003491

From: dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:33pm

[[Page 24297]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I side with the 9 states who would have Microsoft disclose the 
source code for IE. This should require all versions of IE. It would 
allow others to document the API without Microsoft having to 
disclose the source to Windows itself. Further, having a OS only 
version of Windows with no applications would give vendors a chance 
to make their systems unique and tailored to the use. Thank you.
    Dennis R. Newton
    4032 Hidden Spring Ct.
    Fort Irwin, CA 92310




MTC-00003492

From: Dan Humphries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement, and request a stronger one.
    Dan Humphries




MTC-00003493

From: weissman family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:40pm
Subject: MICROSOFT DECISION
    We have been very disheartened by the Justice Dept failure to 
fully protect American consumers from Microsoft. We have not read 
anything which articulates our opinion better than the following:
    `I was seething about Microsoft`s arrogance. Then I read 
about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the litigants in 
their monopoly suit. One of the provisions was that Microsoft was 
going to give a billion dollars worth of refurbished computers and 
Microsoft software to some of the poorest schools in the country. At 
first glance this seems altruistic, but then I started thinking 
about what a billion dollars of Windoze gear dumped into the 
academic market would mean to Apple, and my rage fired up again.
    Here`s a company that has been convicted of illegal business 
practices designed to limit competition. That competition includes 
Apple, of course. So, this crook of a company suggests that to make 
up for their crime, they will just make a new initiative into the 
last remaining market where Apple has a dominant position. A 
billion-dollar initiative into the academic market would mostly come 
out of Apple`s market share and have serious implications for 
Apple`s ability to maintain its lead in education!
    `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 do not have monopoly power,' Apple`s CEO Steve Jobs said 
in a statement.
    Well they do make some nice software, but you really need to 
have your hand on your wallet when you are dealing with the crew 
from Seattle! I have a solution, though. ;) How about requiring 
Microsoft to buy a whole bunch of iMacs and iBooks from 
Apple_say, a billion dollars` worth_add Office v.X and 
THEN give the computers to the schools.'
    -Don Mayer of SmallDog.com , an apple reseller in his newletter 
Kibbles&Bytes #241 Please try to address the real issues and 
stay away from the politics, we have not benefitted by microsoft 
monopoly.
    Jocelyn & Allan Weissman
    7512 Westfield Drive
    Bethesda, MD 20817




MTC-00003494

From: Patrick McAvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft must be stopped
    They have destroyed almost every competitor and they are moving 
into new markets. They have bought every market they own. America 
should not allow this economic terrorism to continue.
    Patrick McAvey
    Apple Solution Expert
    314-862-1312
    Insanely Great Consulting
    University City, MO
    http://www.insanelygreat.net
    [email protected]




MTC-00003495

From: Craig L. Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From Robert X. Cringely
    :
    The proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice 
has been out for several days, and there has been more than enough 
ink used to say that it is a sweetheart deal for Microsoft. The DOJ 
wants to get on to more important duties like confiscating nail 
clippers at airports, so the deal looks good to them. But to those 
of us who got our legal education from old episodes of `Law 
and Order,' the deal stinks. How does it restore competition? 
What does it do for those hundreds of competitors who are no longer 
even in business because of Microsoft`s monopolistic tactics? Well, 
those outfits_if they exist and if they can find the money to 
do so_can file civil suits. But most of them won`t. I would 
like to see a class action lawsuit against Microsoft.
    What the settlement seems to do is prohibit Microsoft from 
breaking the law IN THIS SPECIFIC WAY for a period of five years. 
Imagine a murderer who shot his victims being enjoined for five 
years from using a gun, but still being allowed to carry a knife. So 
the best use of this space this week, given all the other pundits 
who have already criticized the settlement, is for me to throw out 
some ideas about why Microsoft went for it, and how their behavior 
will change as a result. It is important to understand here that 
Microsoft management does not feel the slightest bit of guilt. They 
are, as they have explained over and over again, just trying to 
survive in a brutally competitive industry, one in which they could 
go from winner to loser in a heartbeat. The fact that Microsoft 
makes in excess of 90 percent of the profit of the entire software 
industry, well that`s just the happy result of a lot of hard work. 
Pay no mind to that $36 billion they have in the bank. And since 
Microsoft doesn`t feel guilty, their motivation in agreeing to this 
settlement is just to get on with business. This is a very important 
fact to keep in mind when trying to understand the event. This isn`t 
Microsoft being caught and punished, it is Microsoft finding a path 
back to business as usual, which is to say back to the very kind of 
practices that got them here. Microsoft, confident in its innate 
cleverness, is willing to give up certain old monopolistic behaviors 
because there are new monopolistic behaviors now available to 
replace them.
    Microsoft has to open-up certain Windows communication APIs to 
other developers, but there is no restriction at all on the addition 
of new APIs. So expect a LOT of new APIs, many of which will do 
nothing at all except confuse competitors. There is nothing in the 
agreement that says Microsoft has to tell anyone which APIs it 
really intends to use. So just like interpreted software is 
obfuscated to hinder would-be copiers, expect Microsoft to obfuscate 
Windows, itself.
    Microsoft has to allow third-party middleware, but a glaring 
loophole was left for Microsoft, simply to redefine code as not 
being middleware. If they stop distributing code separately and draw 
it into Windows, well as I read the proposed settlement, middleware 
stops being middleware after 12 months. So if something new comes up 
(all the old middleware is explicitly defined) Microsoft can 
integrate it and screw the opposition one year after they stop 
distributing it separately.
    These loopholes are nice, but they don`t amount to the kind of 
leverage Microsoft would want to have before signing away any 
rights. Bill Gates would want to believe that he has a new and 
completely unfettered weapon so powerful that it makes some of the 
older weapons completely unnecessary. He has found that weapon in 
.NET.
    But hey, .NET isn`t even successful yet, right? It might be a 
big flop. Wrong. Those who think there is any way that .NET won`t be 
universally deployed are ignoring Microsoft`s 90 percent operating 
system market share. Whether people like .NET or not, they`ll get it 
as old computers are replaced with new ones. Within three years .NET 
will be everywhere whether customers actually use it or not. And 
that ubiquity, rather than commercial success, is what is important 
to Microsoft.
    Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system for 
tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft`s most 
valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of services, 
and the data from that tracking is available only to Microsoft.
    .NET is an integral part of Windows` communication system with 
all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only 
Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls 
are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know 
about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know 
which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this 
information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and 
integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-
party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is 
solved.
    Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this .NET-
generated market

[[Page 24298]]

research that Microsoft gets for free and nobody else gets at all) 
to change Windows to do service discovery giving an automatic 
priority to Microsoft`s middleware. The advantage here is in giving 
the appearance of openness without actually being open.
    These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the 
proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a 
continuation of Microsoft`s monopoly on applications and services as 
long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft 
talks about `innovation,' this is what they mean. 
Nothing is going to change. It is easy to criticize, but for a 
change, there is actually something that you and I can do about this 
problem. Under the Tunney Act, the court has to open a 60-day period 
for public comment before any settlement can become final. This will 
happen after the settlement is entered in the Federal Register and 
will probably involve the court establishing a web site. This will 
be your chance to say what you think should happen in the case (look 
in the `I Like It' links for further information). My 
preferred outcome is still that Microsoft be forced to sell its 
language business, and the proceeds of that sale be distributed to 
registered users of Microsoft products. You might think to suggest 
that in your comments to the court.
    Craig L. Stevenson
    




MTC-00003496

From: PCtech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    DOJ
    If you look at Windows XP, it is obvious that Microsoft is 
making a fool out of the Justice Department! XP is an example of how 
big business can `out wait' any oversight and make money 
doing it!
    Windows XP has no ability to run older programs (no DOS 
extensions) nor co-exist with LINUX or any other operating system. 
If you want to run any Windows program using XP, all other operating 
systems must go away.
    I think the solution to the matter is to remove all software 
that is written by a company that is held in contempt from the 
Governments `buy' list. Any documents distributed 
electronically should not be distributed using that companies 
software. Documents should be distributed using RTF format or a GNU 
format. RTF format is universally accepted and does not rely on 
proprietary software to be read. The Federal Government is 
encouraging Microsoft to continue it`s practices by encouraging 
others to purchase Microsoft software.
    Thanks and God bless
    Frank Nevis
    11733 Castle Court
    Dublin, CA 94568-2701332
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00003497

From: Tosh Cooey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    As an American and a Canadian I am particularly fortunate to 
live in a time of great prosperity and opportunity. This has all 
been brought to us by our system of democratic capitalism, which 
rewards hard work and ingenuity.
    Karl Marx, a great philosopher, once said (paraphrased) 
`capitalism left to it`s own devices tends towards 
monopoly', which like communism is the antithesis of our great 
system of democratic capitalism. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
having a monopoly (not a crime in itself) and abusing it`s monopoly 
power. For this it should be punished, not slapped on the wrist. 
Many of the proposed settlements in the case, both the DOJ and 
class-actions, are inconsistent with a message of punishment. As a 
resolution to the class-action suits, Microsoft proposes giving away 
$1 billion of computers to schools, with an over-inflated value of 
it`s software attached to this. Schools are a strong market for 
competitors of Microsoft so it`s hard to see how this is a 
punishment. In the DOJ case against Microsoft part of the settlement 
says:
    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, 
...'
    Products like Linux and Apache are some of the fiercest 
competitors to Microsoft. These products are made up of groups of 
far-flung individuals, not companies or businesses. So when the 
language of the settlement helps entrench Microsoft against it`s 
strongest competitors, it`s hard to see how this proposed settlement 
will help the competitive landscape which Microsoft has so abused in 
the past.
    It would be very easy to be cynical and note that Microsoft is 
one of the wealthiest entities in the world, and they are just 
buying their way out of punishment (some would say being punished 
into a stronger market position) but most people have faith in the 
political and social/economic system which sees us where we are, but 
if our system can`t rectify such an obvious breach of economic order 
then were does that leave us?
    Please do not slap Microsoft on the wrist, competition is what 
makes us great, and for the people, you and I and everyone else, 
there is NO such thing as too much competition in the marketplace.
    Thank-you for making this opportunity to express myself 
available.
    McIntosh Cooey
    Twelve Hundred Group
    http://www.1200group.com/




MTC-00003498

From: E. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully submit the following comments:
    Please alter the section of the judgement to include not-for-
profit organizations.
    1. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. But Microsoft`s biggest competitors are Linux, an operating 
system, and Apache, an integral part of the Internet. Both these 
products are being produced by not-for-profit organizations. Yet 
not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the 
proposed settlement. It is as though they don`t even exist. As such 
with the final judgement as proposed, Microsoft will be in a 
position to destroy them.
    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, 
...' In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these 
laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free products 
could become a major force in any industry would have seemed insane.
    Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the 
national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology_even the Department of Justice 
itself_have no rights. The settlement gives Microsoft the 
right to effectively kill these products. Concerning disclosure of 
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft 
`middleware.' 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.
    2. Regarding the three-member committee stationed at Microsoft 
to make sure the DOJ deal is enforced.
    Steve Satchell would be an ideal member of this committee. 
Active with computers for 30+ years, Mr. Satchell knows the 
technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and 
even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his 
hundreds of published computer product. reviews, he also knows the 
commercial side of the industry.
    Respectfully submitted
    Emerald Jones
    Newbury Park, CA




MTC-00003499

FROM: rreno
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 12/8/01 1:41pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
Robert L. Reno
11725 Laurelview Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45249
February 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice

[[Page 24299]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Thank you for working to negotiate the antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft. I am writing to express my support of this agreement and 
appreciation for your continued efforts to finalize this case. The 
general public, including many many businesses and myself, have 
benefited far more from Microsoft`s substantial innovations than any 
minor damage we may have suffered due to alleged errors they may 
have made in trying to protect the essence of their proprietary 
products and their capability to innovate.
    It`s time we let them get on with the business of producing much 
needed new innovations that will help our country improve 
productivity and move our economy forward again. We should praise 
Microsoft for the huge contribution their products have made to our 
country`s productivity and encourage them to develop new more 
powerful tools. It is not in our best interest for Microsoft to 
expend any more of their resources on litigation, State or Federal. 
If any errors in business practices were substantiated beyond all 
reasonable doubt, let them know what they were, expect them to make 
reasonable changes that don`t deter their capability to innovate, 
and follow-up in a reasonable and appropriate manner. If such 
changes may hinder innovation, our laws both Federal and State need 
to be changed to avoid the potential for this result.
    Please help make sure that myself and millions of other computer 
users will continue to benefit from the use of Microsoft`s products 
and their capability to achieve innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Reno
    513/489-1815




MTC-00003500

From: George Risch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in regards to the recent settlement proposed 
between the US Government and Microsoft of Redmond, WA. As I 
understand the matter, the current settlement does not include any 
provisions regulation of future access to Microsoft`s API calls or 
descriptions of how the internals of its operating system. This is 
unfortunate, because Microsoft has been found guilty of being a 
monopoly and should be required to share these specifications in a 
free and open way.
    In my work and the products produced at the company I work for, 
not including these specifications could harm future revenue based 
on our own independent work by forcing us to pay monopolistic tolls 
required to gain access to these specifications. Its is much like a 
system in which a train manufacture is not allowed to know the 
spacing of the tracks without paying an arbitrarily set fee charge 
by a monopolistic railroad. We know how to build the trains very 
well, but don?t know if they will fit on the tracks.
    This is especially relevant in Microsoft`s case because they can 
change, at a virtual whim, a little part of its operating system 
code to make all of our products inoperable.
    Please consider adding that Microsoft publish its API calls and 
descriptions of its OS internals in the settlement, even though it 
may prolong the effort to close this matter. Thank you for your 
time.
    Best Regards,
    George Risch




MTC-00003501

From: William Hensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am not in favor of this settlement it gives Microsoft more 
power rather than less power. By letting them dictate their own 
terms in this settlement. It`s not even a slap on the wrist. It 
gives them a means of getting their software into the hands of the 
next generation at almost no cost to Microsoft. It results in what 
is nothing more than free advertising for them. their proposed value 
of their software is way understated. There are some development 
costs but turning out copies of software is relatively cheap. I 
would be surprised to find their actual costs to be more than One 
Million dollars, not even close to Five Hundred Million. Break them 
up! Fine Gates 5 billion and put him in prison for a few years to 
think about what he has done wrong.
    William Hensley




MTC-00003502

From: jquinnella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:20pm
    I believe that many people are forgetting about what the 
products & services of Microsoft have done for the country and 
the world. Microsoft has made it much easier for all of us to lead 
our lives and communicate with one another because of their business 
and residential software services. (why do you think the U.S. is 
such an advanced nation) The founding of Microsoft certainly did not 
hurt this evolution.
    Please remember....everyone loves an American 
success story!!! Just like Wal-Mart.
     Regards, J.R. Quincy Omaha, NE USA




MTC-00003503

From: Geoff King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I do not agree with this microsoft settlement. They were (and 
still are) a monopoly that abused their power. This settlement was a 
waste of time and money for all the years of hard work the US and 
states have done.
    I vividly remember all the troubles with netscape when IE was 
first coming out. Microsoft should make operating systems, that run 
theirs and other software. But they should not be allowed an unfair 
advantage in controlling which software can be run and how it works, 
beyond the operating system, or which formats are `standard`.
    Netscape IE
    Wordperfect Office
    MP3,Realmedia Windows Media (WMA)
    I`m sure there are others.
    Just Venting,
    Geoff King
    ps. found this link on the redhat website.




MTC-00003504

From: Faisal Yousuf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:22pm
Subject: Fairness is All I ask of you!
    Hello to the employees of the Department of JUSTICE,
    When I got the news that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, I 
felt such a relief. I said to myself that there is somebody with 
integrity and common sense in the DOJ who believes in such things as 
cunsumer protection and a free market. Then I got this horrible news 
about a so called settlement with Microsoft which is a mockery of 
everything that justice stands for. The guilty shuld be punished 
that`s justice, plain and simple.
    This so called settelment with Microsoft, lets the guilty off 
with a slap on the rest and let`s him resume exactly what he has 
been doing before the DOJ`s `justice' was handed down to 
them.
    You want to know what I consider justice: the moment that I walk 
into a computer store everywhere in the US and the world to buy a 
PC, and the store clerk asks me: What kind of Operating System I 
want be loaded on my new PC, or whether I want it to be blank so 
that I can take it home and load whatever I want on it? At that 
precise moment, the DOJ whould have fulfilled justice. Anything 
else, is farce.
    Faisal M Yousuf
    Jeddah, Saudi Arabia




MTC-00003505

From: Joshua E Reeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am aware that the proposed settlement gives Microsoft a lot of 
power with regard to releasing API`s, etc. to freeware and open 
source groups. This is incredibly counter-productive, as the only 
group that has as much development support as Microsoft is the 
aforementioned open-source movement.
    Specifically, I am referring to: Section III(J)(2) Section 
III(D)
    Thank you for your time.
    Josh




MTC-00003506

From: Austin Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am submitting the following for 
consideration:
    I do not claim to be a judicial wizard or that I understand all 
the requirements of submitting a letter like this. However, it is my 
hope the courts forgive my ignorance in this area and allow me to 
express my views and accept them in the good faith I offer them.
    To provide the quick answer, let me say I approve of the 
proposed settlement between the DoJ, the approving State Attorney 
Generals, and Microsoft Corporation. With

[[Page 24300]]

that said I would like to express my reasoning behind this:
    Microsoft has been found guilty of specific violations of the 
law and as such should face the consequences of their acts. However, 
I believe any ?punishment? should fit the ?crime?, and I believe the 
proposed remedies do this very nicely.
    If I understand all that I have read on the subject, Microsoft`s 
biggest problem is in how they conducted business with OEMs. 
(Original Equipment Manufactures) It would make sense that this is 
the area of behavior that should be addressed, restricted, and 
monitored. While a small minority of people would like to see 
additional restrictions and/or restructuring of Microsoft, I believe 
doing so would not be in the best interest of the average consumer.
    I have worked with PC users on a daily basis for about 20 years 
and have had one point driven home time after time. ?The key to 
consumer satisfaction is making the PC simple to use.? The concept 
that breaking the Windows Operating System in to multiple components 
will somehow make the PC easier to use is just plain wrong. In my 
experience, users want a PC they can set-up, turn on, and 
immediately be productive with.
    Another consideration for the average user is one of support. As 
I said, I make a living helping people with their PCs. With 
Microsoft Windows I have a `known' basis to work from. I 
can count on a number of things being in place and I know their 
structure. This allows me to quickly resolve any problems the user 
may have. If I, as a support person, am required to learn and deal 
with what could be hundreds of possible configurations, I would have 
no choice but to increase the price of my services, and in all 
likelihood, spend considerable more time resolving the user`s 
problems. This will obviously be reflected in the users cost of 
ownership.
    It is unfortunate that the DoJ and the courts have been placed 
into the current situation, but the reality is that it was 
necessary. With that said, my feelings on the matter are that the 
government must show extreme caution to go no further than is 
absolutely necessary. The PC industry is still in its infancy and 
market forces are just beginning to shape it. The Linux Operating 
System is becoming more and more popular, large corporations other 
than Microsoft are developing standards for the Internet, and there 
is serious competition in just about every conceivable area of PC 
use.
    I pray the court consider the users of PCs and not just 
Microsoft`s competitor`s complaints. Regardless of which company or 
corporation ?wins? the race to market share, ultimately it is the 
user`s needs that must be met. And it is for these users`s I ask 
that the current proposed settlement be accepted and enforced.
    Sincerely,
    Austin Myers
    RR 1 Box ?63?
    Denver, Mo.




MTC-00003507

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:34pm
Subject: Comment
    WHY DON`T YOU GUYS, AND THE STATES, GET OFF YOUR PATHETIC 
PURSUIT OF THIS COMPANY?
    SURELY YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO.
    I, LIKE MANY OTHERS I INTERFACE WITH, ARE VERY MUCH FED UP WITH 
YOUR ATTITUDES TOWARD AN AMERICAN ICON AND SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. SURE 
IS NOT TEACHING OUR YOUNGER GENERATION ANY POSITIVE BUSINESS IDEAS. 
I WOULD SUGGEST STOP MAKING DECISIONS FOR PEOPLE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT 
EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT A COMPUTER OR NIC CARD IS AND TELL THEM TO GO 
ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS, WHILE YOU GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
    GET A LIFE, GET OFF MICROSOFT!
    Ron Raney




MTC-00003508

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:43pm
Subject: ANOTHER COMMENT
    AS FAR AS ALL THE CRITICS LINING UP TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE 
CURRENT SETTLEMENT, DON`T YOU THINK THEY ARE USING THIS AS A WAY TO 
IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN TYPE OF MONOPOLY, JUST BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCTS 
ARE INFERIOR TO MICROSOFT`S?
    WHEN CEO`s STOOP SO LOW AS TO USE CRUMBS TO GET THE LAW ON THEIR 
SIDE, IT IS TIME TO HANG UP THE LEGAL HAT! THEY TOO SHOULD BE TOLD 
TO GO HOME AND QUIT WHINING!!!! THEY SHOULD CREATE A BETTER, OR MORE 
PRODUCTIVE PRODUCT AND THEY TOO WILL SUCCEED.
    KEEP THE COMPETITION THE WAY IT IS WITH MICROSOFT LEADING THE 
PACK. WE WILL ALL BE BETTER OFF IN THE FUTURE!
    Ron Raney




MTC-00003509

From: Chuck Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:11pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    I am writing you to express my opinion on the recent DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft on the antitrust trial.
    I short, I strongly feel that the agreement does not go far 
enough in punishing Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices, 
nor limits them in the future in following these practices. 
Microsoft`s present behavior belies what is ahead for the computer 
industry under a weak agreement:
    _Microsoft continues to leverage its advantage over 
competitors by not including Java in its release of the latest 
Internet Explorer shipped with Windows XP. Likewise, Microsoft 
bundles their Media player, while shutting out RealAudio`s player 
(similar to the practices earlier of bundling Internet Explorer with 
Windows, but not Netscape).
    _Microsoft is effectively pressuring corporate customers 
to perform upgrades and purchase subscriptions and support under a 
deadline. After the deadline, new plans and prices will go into 
effect, although it is vague as to what those conditions will be.
    _Microsoft has declared war on open source software, such 
as the Linux operating system, calling it un-American. There is even 
concern in the open-source community that Microsoft may start trying 
to limit the growth of open source software through software patents 
and other legal mechanisms.
    _Some of Microsoft`s licensing agreements go so far as to 
limit free speech, compelling the customer not to make remarks that 
derogatory or critical of Microsoft.
    _The agreement to view Microsoft source code, under the 
control and watchful eyes of Microsoft, is a minimal concession and 
provides little or no advantage to vendors in developing software to 
run on Microsoft platforms. The fact is that Microsoft product teams 
will have FULL access to source code, as well as being privy to 
future enhancements to their operating system. I doubt they will 
give the same access to competitors.
    _Microsoft continues to branch out into new markets and 
initiatives, including PDA`s, Web services, game systems, set-top 
boxes. In typical Microsoft fashion, these systems are closed 
source, compete with industry standards, and don`t interoperate well 
with other systems. The one main exception is Microsoft`s embracing 
XML with their .NET initiative, but even .NET is a closed system.
    _Microsoft`s latest version of Windows, XP, practically 
forces the customer to register with Passport, an on-line 
identification service, providing personal information that will 
reside on Microsoft servers. Microsoft will own this data, along 
with the temptation to sell or otherwise abuse this privilege. Of 
course, this is in direct competition with other similar, more open 
mechanisms of storing user identities.
    _Even with the current agreement, Microsoft does not admit 
to their guilt, and does not acknowledge its monopoly status, even 
though this is the ruling.
    These are just a few examples that come to mind. I`ve read many 
more in the industry press.
    Under normal circumstances, where there are several players in 
the market, Microsoft has every right to compete in a vigorous 
manner. But these are not normal circumstances. Microsoft is one of 
the largest corporations in the world, and the largest software 
vendor. Microsoft holds over 90% of the desktop computer market. 
Microsoft Office products have such a high penetration in the 
corporate market that Microsoft Word and Outlook are the defacto 
word processing and email programs of corporate America.
    When Microsoft says jump, these customers have little recourse 
but to say `How high?'.
    This situation is not unlike 20 years ago, when IBM held 
dominance over the mainframe computer industry. It was not until 
they were pressured by the DOJ, and the PC came along, that 
competition opened up and we started a long technology boom, which 
led to more innovation, including the Internet.

[[Page 24301]]

    Prior to this, we had closed, proprietary systems which did not 
interconnect well. If IBM had maintained its hegemony over systems 
and networking, it is doubtful that we would have seen anything like 
the Internet. I see the same situation with Microsoft`s dominance of 
the desktop_as long as their code and data formats are secret, 
and they dominate the marketplace, it will be difficult for 
innovators to come up with the next `Internet.'
    To give you additional perspective on where I`m coming from, I`m 
writing this email on a Windows 98 system, using Microsoft Outlook. 
I typically use Microsoft products for my email, word processing 
(Word), financial planning (Excel and Money). They are fine 
products. However, I also use Linux, Netscape, StarOffice, Java and 
other systems and applications. I have no problem with using 
Microsoft products. But I do have a problem where one vendor has 
such dominance in so many areas of computing as to stifle innovation 
that a truly competitive marketplace would bring. Microsoft claims 
to be a champion of innovation, yet oppose it in the open-source 
community and quash it from their competitors.
    Personally, I feel the `remedies' do not go far 
enough in leveling the playing field, and Microsoft has been given 
carte blanche to continue in their arrogant, aggressive fashion. We 
will see Microsoft in court in the future, I fear. But what I fear 
more are the ideas and innovative products that will be stifled or 
never see the light of day until that next day in court arrives.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Hill
    President
    Hill Systems Consulting, Inc.
    7208 Fairford Place
    Tampa, FL 33634




MTC-00003510

From: Rodman Brett
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]...
Date: 12/8/01 3:17pm
Subject: MicroSoft, Monopolies, and a Metaphor December 6, 2001
From: Brett A. Rodman
Diogenes Unlimited Political Consulting temp address
102 Reid Road
West Columbia, TX 77486
To: The Honorable Jim Miller
The Attorney General of Iowa
Subj: Microsoft, Monoplies, and a Metaphor
cc: The Securities and Exchange Commission
Attorneys` General CA, DC, MA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MN, UT, WV
The Securities and Exchange Commission
The European Union
    Mr. Miller,
    I would like to comend your state on its decision to continue 
with the anti-trust case against MicroSoft. It is unfortunate, but 
as it stands Mr. Gates has been able to amass the great amount of 
wealth that he has, and keep this wealth as a result of the judicial 
community`s, and the public`s widespread ignorance concerning 
computers, and the internet, and more than this, how it is that laws 
governing the contracts, public welfare, and commerce of day to day 
business apply on the internet.
    I have done extensive studies in this area over the last year, 
most specifically how Bill of Rights protections, most specifically 
how political and speech rights apply on the internet. This being 
the case, I would like to take a crack at providing a metaphor for 
how Mr. Gate`s Monopoly over the `Air Space' in Cyber-
World is detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The 
Internet is a Super Highway. Like any other road, it is the back-
bone and life blood of commerce, industry, and free enterprise. This 
is much the same as the Rail System in America was in the 19th 
Century and the Highways projects of The New Deal were in the early 
twentieth Century.
    The MicroSoft Corporation, and Bill Gates, have in fact made it 
so that to even get on the highway of commerce you have to pay them. 
Most who are not astute as to computers do not understand this. In 
fact as it currently stands, it is nearly impossible to find a 
computer system, or operating server that is accessible for public, 
and or private computers, without having to access and utilize the 
Windows Operating System.
    Mr. Gates` defense is that you should not penalize success. That 
invented this system for the most part and therefore I am justified 
in establishing an operating monopoly because of this. Well then, I 
suppose that the person who invented concrete should be given money 
everytime a new road is paved, a bridge built, or driveway poured.
    In fact, as this metaphor applies to the Super-Highway of 
Commerce, imagine this. Imagine that the company that invented 
concrete was allowed to take fees for everytime you used the road-
ways. So the person that invented concrete setup a toll-booth at the 
end of every American driveway, established and erected by the 
government so that they could get some tax money. Every time you 
wanted to pull your car out of the driveway, you had to pay a toll 
to the man who invented concrete and the government toll booth tax 
collectors.
    Well eventually, one car owner became mad about this and sued. 
And said that the man that invented concrete, and the government 
toll collectors could not do this, that it was a monopoly of the 
roads and a violation of their rights. Unfortunately, because people 
liked driving their cars on the roads, the man who had invented 
concrete had become the richest man in the world. He was able to buy 
and sell the justice system for the greatest part, make backroom 
political deals, and have political campaigns bought and sold so 
that he would be able to keep hold of this profitable monopoly. So 
instead of breaking up the monopoly, the government made a deal with 
the company that made the toll booths at the end of driveways (The 
Sun Microsystems Java systems) that they would split the money from 
the monopoly with each other, and that in effect would serve as 
justice.
    Then the man who invented concrete, and the toll booth makers, 
now happy with themselves, went and promised to pay all of the legal 
fees of the people who did not like the deal, and offered more 
inducements to get anyone else to drop the matter entirely.
    This was because the man who invented concrete understood that 
it was better to have to share all of the monopoly money with one 
other person, than allow the government to engage in a takings act 
of the patent for the common welfare, with due compensation being 
given to the concrete maker under the IV Amendment.
    I do hope that you understand the metaphor, and will use it in 
calling other Attorney`s General around the United States of America 
to convince them that in fact, the metaphor above is most certainly 
what the Microsoft Monoply case represents, and is a violation of 
the Wagner and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts.
    I look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter.
    Very Truly Yours, I am,
    Brett A. Rodman
Subject: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments
To: brandan.sullivan@ williamsandconnolly.com, 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], 
[email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
attorney.general@ppo. state.ct.us, [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected]
From: Rodman Brett 
Date: 20 Nov 2001 12:06:51 PST
November 20, 2001
From: Brett Anthony Rodman
Diogenes Unlimited
Political Consulting
temp address
1009 11th Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
832-496-1925
To: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 450 Fifth Street 
Washington, DC 20549
202-942-7040
Subj: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments
Ref: (a) Ltr to Brett A. Rodman dtd February 18, 2000 from the SC 
Department of Commerce
cc: The South Carolina Legislature
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Film Office of South Carolina
The SC Economic Development Authority
The South Carolina Department of Commerce
The Apple Corporation
The MicroSoft Defense Site
The Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division
Offices of the Attorney General SC, CA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MA, MN, UT, 
WV
International Anti-Trust Agencies
Brendan Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Williams & Connoly
The College of Charleston

[[Page 24302]]

    EC,
    My name is Brett Anthony Rodman, I run a small political and 
legal consulting entrepreneurial enterprise. I am interested in the 
MicroSoft Case, but have little time to research the issue right 
now.
    However, I have a `hunch' that I was hoping your 
agency and the cc: line addresses might be interested in undertaking 
duedilligence concerning its validity. For, if it is true it speaks 
to the business practices of MicroSoft, not only in the area of 
Information Technology, but its investments in other areas of the 
economy. It concerns the `intellectual property rights' 
to offer an IPO, and garner `venture capital' for the 
Construction of a Movie Studio in the State of South Carolina.
    In February of 2000, I authored, and delivered a hand-written 
copy of a 30-year Economic Redevelopment plan for the State of South 
Carolina. The State of South Carolina acknowledged receipt of this 
plan, which included the construction of a `movie 
studio' with Reference (a). I contend for the record, that my 
former employeers, Practical Holdings Limited of 206 Sak`s Fifth 
Avenue Building, and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery of 275 King 
Street Charleston, SC did conspire, to defraud me of the rights to 
this `intellectual property' through threats, 
intimidation, bribery, and eventually a `murder attempt' 
in front of St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, LA resulting 
thereof, for their own pecuniary, fiduciary, and economic benefit. I 
originally made this contention, and my desire to see the matter 
investigated to the United States Secret Service Field Office and 
Special Agent Kenny. At the time of the Field Interview, Special 
Agent Kenny mentioned that he did not feel that the American 
Government could investigate pertinent to 10th and 11th Amendment 
concerns. The same behavior that was exhibited in Charleston, SC, 
has now continued through three other state jurisdictions. The 
States of Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and even to a lesser degree 
the District of Columbia. Throughout the breadth of this three year 
hate crime, and I would contend human rights abuse I have kept the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation through e-mail, and the United 
States Secret Service through e-mail and interviews, updated on the 
progress of these individuals and their criminal behavior. 
Unfortuantely, the coconspirators at Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery 
have extensive connections throught the nation`s capital and getting 
any type of investigation initiated has been difficult. You can 
contact the Ned Twining, formerly one of the largest shareholders of 
Exxon Oil for details on the behavior of his investment at Zebo`s 
Restaraunt and Brewery.
    This brings me to the possible involvment of the MicorSoft 
Corporation. As everyone in the financial world is well aware, all 
corporations have people on the street, as information represents 
money. Microsoft obviously, as they have more money have more people 
on the street. I contend for the record that the Co-conspirators to 
defraud me of my property did in fact approach the Microsoft 
Corporation for Deveolpment money to investigate the possiblity of 
the construction of a movie studio in South Carolina.
    In fact, I contend for the record, that my employment by Debra 
Rosen, Tony Stroupe, and Mark Barhyte at Practical Holdings Limited, 
and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery was nothing more than a 
duedilligence effort to gather enough information to be able to 
commit identity fraud, so as to garner investment capital from 
sources banking in the Bank of Japan Monetary System. I have made 
this contention, and sent documentation to the Embassy of Japan, and 
the Consulate of Japan in Houston to enummerate these concerns.
    Moreover, Practical Holdings Limited was working on a 
Interactive Museum Project with the Gates Foundation in Charleston, 
SC. I contend that this is the point in time where, `money to 
be put on the street' was garnered as, `investigative 
capital' or plans `formulation money. This money was 
then used to intimidate, bribe, buy off justice officials and police 
officers, and eventually have me stabbed in the streets of New 
Orleans. I feel that if the MicroSoft Corporation offered money for 
this project, or funneled money to his people in the street, through 
quasi-jobs (i.e. payments for doing nothing), Mr. Gates was aware of 
what the money was being utilized for, approved of this, and in fact 
established a high tech concentration camp, a hate-crime, and a 
human rights abuse for his own amusement. Of course assuming that 
he, as the richest man in the world could just buy the problem away 
later.
    I do sincerely hope that you will look into this matter, and 
contact the aforementioned individuals. As it is my contention that 
if Mr. Gates was involved he is subject to the provisions of USC 
Title 18 Section 96, and forfeitures contained therein, to the 
Treasury Department of the United States of America.
    The international community and economic police agencies can 
contact any foreign students who attended the College of Charleston 
from 1997 to 2000, to ask them what they might know about any of 
this. A good place to start with any duedilligence would be 139 
Calhoun Street, the Trio Club.
    In earnest, I am,
    Brett A. Rodman
    By the way, one other person you can contact is Professor 
Bjerken of the College of Charleston Philosophy Department. I took a 
Chinese and Japanese Religions Class from him. There was a girl (red 
head) named Katy who sat next to me in class. One day she walked by 
me, and condescendingly muttered under her breath at me, 
`you`re taking on Microsoft'.
    Apparently, MicroSoft has purchased the American Government and 
Legal System.




MTC-00003511

From: Ryan Esty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:19pm
Subject: remedies for Microsoft
    Lots of people in the open source community say that if the goal 
of the MS vs DOJ is to increase competition and give people more 
choices then there are two things that need to happen. One of the 
things is to force Microsoft to document and open their file 
formats, communication apis, and windows apis. With out these apis 
and file formats open then everyone that tries to write something to 
be compatible with microsoft windows or microsoft applications the 
programmer(s) will always have to guess and might be locked out if 
Microsoft changes the apis. The other thing that needs to change is 
ammending the DMCA so it is legal to reverse engineer such 
protocols. Without this then it doesn't matter what 
restrictions are put on microsoft, they will just use this law to 
sue everyone into oblivian much like the mpaa is doing to people 
with decss.
    I hope this helps
    Ryan Esty
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00003512

From: Michael Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very concerned about the settlement the government is 
offering to Microsoft. I see many loopholes in it and I would like 
to see it changed.
    Many of the loopholes that I am deeply concerned about are 
discussed in Robert X Cringley`s column which is available here: 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html 
_michael




MTC-00003513

From: Portland, Oregon TCF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:35pm
Subject: What a farce!
    After all the hope you created by going after Micro$oft you sure 
wimped out with this `settlement'. You might as well 
have told Little Billy to continue as planned. I really like the 
option provided by Red Hat. Let Bill fund the hardware and allow 
open source software to be used!
    John Bruce, Webmaster
    Portland Oregon Chapter
    The Compassionate Friends
    [email protected]
    www.portlandtcf.org




MTC-00003514

From: Mark Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:02pm
Subject: Punish don`t reward Microsoft
    Microsoft should be split into 4 corporations.
    (1) Business suite and productivity software.
    (2) Network Operating Systems and Operating Systems.
    (3) Internet Software.
    (4) Programming Software.
    Nothing less will end their monopoly and outright arrogance. Is 
the government afraid of Bill Gates?
    Mark Compton




MTC-00003515

From: David McCabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    It would appear that the proposed Microsoft settlement gives no 
rights whatsoever to non-profit entities (see section

[[Page 24303]]

III(J)(2), section III(D)). This is a problem, because Microsoft`s 
greatest competitor is not a for-profit organization. It`s free 
software. There is much in this market which Microsoft has in the 
past and can in the future hurt or even kill, which the settlement 
provides no protection for.
    David McCabe
    `'finger [email protected]' for PGP 
key.
    Wrfhf ybirf lbh!




MTC-00003516

From: Dan Dickerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in response to the request for public comment on 
the recent Microsoft anti-trust settlement, to express my 
disapproval of one of the aspects of the proposed settlement. Though 
this issue has been raised by other groups before, I am also 
proposing a possible compromise of this settlement which would be 
more generally acceptable.
    Specifically, the portion of the settlement by which Microsoft 
will donate computers and software to educational institutions is a 
minor cost to MS, while allowing them to essentially advertise their 
own products to thousands of schoolkids and educators. This allows 
them advertising space, and gets their foot-in-the-door of the 
education market, a longstanding stronghold of their OS competitor 
Apple Computer, and a growing stronghold with Linux, under the guise 
of actually penalising Microsoft in some way.
    I would suggest that if Microsoft were sincere in their will to 
better the educational system through computer hardware and software 
donations, they should not be allowed to present their own products 
as a way to fulfill that donation. Such a donation sould only be 
considered a sincere and worthy part of a settlement if Microsoft 
were to pay the costs of donating strictly non-Microsoft products, 
such as those which run Linux and MacOS, and with a prohibition that 
these computers not be allowed to run MS software or for the 
Microsoft name or logo to appear anywhere on these products.
    Further, for any such donation to be of true use to a school, 
there will be a need for ongoing computer support, configuration and 
training. Again, such services should be paid for my Microsoft, but 
should be provided by non-MS service companies which are known for 
their strengths in promoting and servicing these non-Microsoft 
products, so as to prevent MS from evangelizing its own products in 
this environment.
    Dan Dickerman
    Mountain View, CA




MTC-00003517

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:09pm
Subject: Settlement...
    Dear Sir`s:
    I`ve read a lot of encouraging news about DOJ investigations, 
considerations and upcoming legislation against Microsoft. Now I`m 
sad to say that the effort seems to result in a very watered-down 
result, mostly due to lack of congruen on your side.
    The simple truth is that in this world of technological reserch 
and landwinning discoveries, we just can`t let a single company 
dominate, infiltrate and parasite on the economical strength of the 
western world and further enhance the vast differences between the 
poor and educationally challenged countries and the rest. (Let alone 
the impact of rapid-changing interface paradigms on individuals.)
    If we proceed along this path, we are sooner or later faced with 
a effort of retraining millions of coworkers on the every-other-year 
product/training/certification release whim of one company. An 
effort from which no-one but said company will benefit and that it 
certainly will result in a hampering of free market competition due 
to sheer need of competence control and turnover. Furthermore, this 
effort will provide no actual enhanced technical skills, since the 
base of MS operations is to repackage open and available technology 
in a acceleratingly more complex form, thus seldom providing any 
real operational value.
    Regards:
    Goran Ekeberg




MTC-00003518

From: Dan Alustiza At The Hat/Cap Exchange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The odds of this being read, are slim at best, but this is one 
thing that requires attention. First I would like to state that this 
suit should never have been permitted. I have been a software 
developer for 18 years now, and I remember back to the days before 
Microsoft. Microsoft brought control to a profession that was 
totally out of control. Everyone had their own set of standards, 
which made it next to impossible to build any type of software 
application, in any timely manner. All that Microsoft has done, is 
act like any other healthy company in this country has. Companies 
such as Oracle and Sun, are examples of companies that cannot keep 
up with Microsoft, so what have they done, gone and cried to the 
Government. This is no different than little children crying to the 
teacher, because big Johnny did not give Teddy a piece of the pie.
    The proposed settlement, although costly to institute, would 
enable companies like Oracle to watch over Microsoft`s practices, 
without hindering the growth of the software industry. The 
settlement would also permit the hardware manufacturers the freedom 
they should have to install any operating system, and software 
applications, that they so choose. This is one area which I did 
think Microsoft was out of control. They should never have been 
permitted to force the hardware companies to install the Microsoft 
products. In saying that, I also think the hardware companies CEO`s 
should have had the guts to stand up to Microsoft, on this matter. A 
lawsuit was not needed to fix this problem.
    In closing, when this lawsuit was filed, and brought to court, 
that started the recession, that this country, is currently in. The 
stock market started faltering within a couple of weeks, of the 
court proceedings, and the tech arena started to fail. People, and 
companies started to loose money, and the trickle down effect went 
into full force. As usual, the government placed their hands into an 
area they knew nothing about, and screwed it up. Settle this suit 
now!
    Dan Alustiza




MTC-00003519

From: lesjmc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    I as a citizen feel that the settlement should be accepted by 
all parties invoved. Due to Microsoft in the past, they broke the 
financial barrier of companies like IBM to where it made it 
financially affordable for the common citizen or person to be able 
to own a PC in their home. The price of their software is very 
competitive with everybody else.
    If we are going to make Microsoft make available software to 
everybody else who wants to attach it to windows or bundle with it, 
then why do we not, for example, make it mandatory for the auto 
industy to let it be available to have a Chevy engine as a option in 
your Ford, or vise versa or a Ford stereo system installed by Chevy, 
in your Chevy.
    All we got here is some state attorneys who are just trying to 
make a name for their themselves for their own personnel gain. They 
do not have the public interest at heart.
    Les McCann




MTC-00003520

From: Gary Cable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:02pm
Subject: DOJ Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Extreme disappointment doesn`t even begin to describe my 
feelings about the, so called, settlement with Microsoft concerning 
the anti-trust case. In my view, it wasn`t a settlement, it was a 
`GET OUT OF JAIL FREE' pass. You can bet that Microsoft 
will continue the same business practices that brought the lawsuit 
to start with, only I fear it will become worse than ever. I`m not 
certain a breakup of Microsoft was the answer, but some sort of 
significant and substantial penalty was certainly in order.
    Some day this lawsuit will have to be repeated and maybe next 
time Microsoft will actually pay for its sins. I do wonder if 
someone in the DOJ is a little richer.....MS was found to be a 
monopoly and went free. Hmmmm. At least MS will not get any more of 
my $$$.
    Regards,
    A very disappointed and dis-believing tax payer.
    Gary Cable
    [email protected]




MTC-00003521

From: Romica Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:11pm
Subject: microsoft
    Microsoft never intended to hurt its competition.





MTC-00003522

From: donald bisbee

[[Page 24304]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:15pm
Subject: `Microsoft'
    PLEASE DON`T THROW ME INTO THE BRIAR PATCH says Microsoft, and 
so what do you do? Throw them in the briar patch!!!
    When I buy Microsoft`s junky programs I am forced to beg them to 
use it via secret number I need to beg them for.
    CAN YOU IMAGINE A SETTLEMENT MORE FOOLISH THAN FORCING MICROSOFT 
TO ADVERTISE TO SCHOOLKIDS OF ITS MONOPOLY???? YOU CAN HAVE ANYTHING 
YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT IS MICROSOFT!
    Years ago Xerox was forced to sell machines not just rent them 
along with the phone company , and Kodak had to stop forcing 
developing sales with its film. But Microsoft now gets free 
advertising and boosts to its stranglehold monopoly on 
`operating systems'!




MTC-00003523

From: Dave Doucette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement with the Justice Department
    To whom is may concern.
    I would like to express my concern regarding the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department on a few points. They 
are:
_The current settlement does not require Microsoft to provide 
access to their technology to the Open Source Forum, and restricts 
access to companies. This is very short-sighted since much of the 
alternate-Microsoft solutions are being developed in Open Source. 
Without access to the Microsoft technology, it will restrict 
alternate, competitive solutions.
_Microsoft HAS stifled innovation in the industry. I can 
assure you from my own personal experiences that very little 
innovation directed at the desktop can get venture funding over the 
past five years. The threat is that Microsoft will simply copy the 
technology and walk away with the business, just like what they did 
with Netscape and browsers.
_Personally, I feel that the proposals from the states in 
requiring Microsoft to deliver office on other platforms (including 
Linux) and delivering a `core' version of their 
Operating System makes incredible sense. As you are looking into who 
will sit on the three member committee to review Microsoft, I would 
like to submit myself as a candidate. I`ve been in involved in 
computer technology since 1979. My background includes Hardware, 
software, OS and Networking. I am nearing completion of my MBA at 
Clark University this spring, and I am currently a freelance 
Business and Marketing Consultant. I do feel it is important for a 
company to develop and build an environment for the delivery of 
software and technology for the masses, but it is critical that this 
environment is used to nurture innovation, not stifle it. I am 
including a copy of my resume for your reference. References are 
available on request.
    Dave Doucette Home:
    [email protected]




MTC-00003524

From: Peter Yellman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:26pm
Subject: DOJ/MS settlement is flawed
    Hon. Judge Kotar-Kelly:
    I been closely following the government`s efforts to reign in 
Microsoft`s illegal and anticompetitive behavior since 1995. I have 
also been a careful student of Microsoft`s misbehavior since I 
gradually came to the conclusion between about 1995-1997 that 
Microsoft was stifling the advance of the computer/software industry 
(as well as being an incorrigible lawbreaker, which is fascially 
evident) with nearly certain negative long-term effects for our 
nation`s economy, despite the fact that I made my living at that 
time as a computer technician servicing Microsoft windows-based 
computers and software. I have been personal witness to outright 
lies perpetuated by Microsoft`s top executives (Steve Ballmer).
    The settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, as proposed by 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice, will do very little to curb 
the illegal behavior that has become the hallmark of that 
corporation, and equally little to deter Microsoft from using its 
monopoly in operating systems to extend its market dominance to 
other markets and product areas. On the other hand, the remedies 
recently proposed by the 9 dissenting states and the District of 
Columbia encapsulate exactly what needs to be done to reinvigorate 
the industry and once again make it a source of interesting and 
exciting professions. Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised and 
profoundly impressed with the group who put together that plan, as 
it addresses key issues which I previously (from other government 
prosecutions of Microsoft) concluded public/government officials 
were unable to grasp, or unwilling to address_for example, the 
fairness of requiring Microsoft to open source the Internet Explorer 
web browser which it has imposed on the public through a wide 
variety of illegal means and which has now become a defacto 
standard. In addition to preventing Microsoft from unfairly using 
Internet Explorer as a wedge into new product and service markets 
and penalizing competitors, forcing the company to open source that 
product will undoubtedly be just the `gentle nudge' it 
needs to draw the line of separation between that product and the 
operating system, a relatively trivial technical task that it has 
repeatedly refused to undertake and which has been the subject of so 
much `debate'.
    Finally, I have to note that there is a cloud of suspicion over 
the DOJ`s proposed settlement arising from the massive contributions 
made by Microsoft to the Bush campaign during the most recent 
presidential campaign, especially when tied to the apparent refusal 
of career attourneys at the DOJ to put their names on the deal and 
the unprecedented private audience granted to top Microsoft 
executives shortly after President Bush took office. It is hard not 
to be cynical at the breathtaking about face we have witnessed at 
the Department of Justice under the new administration and the use 
of the terrorist attacks of September 11 to provide political cover 
for these actions. Please do the right thing, Judge Kotar-Kelly.
    Peter Yellman
    Herndon, VA
    [email protected]




MTC-00003525

From: K.P. CLARK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regard to Microsoft:
    For five years now I have determined each year to buy a laptop 
computer. However, every time I come close to buying one, we get 
down to what software to include. On my desktop I have the Windows 
Operating System and Microsoft Office Professional, which includes 
programs which I seldom or never use. I am a teacher and a writer, 
and want the laptop to carry back and forth to the college. What I 
need on it is the Windows operating system and Microsoft Word. That 
is all. Can I buy just that? No. I have to buy an entire set of 
programs that I don`t need and won`t use. This is annoying, to say 
the least. Plus there is a program related to a subject I teach that 
I would like to load onto the computer, but other professors who 
have tried, tell me it is not compatible with the Microsoft 
operating system and has messed up their system, so I won`t buy that 
program either. I hear my students complain similarly.
    I have determined to forego the laptop so long as this problem 
exists. Do I have lots of choices? No. I could go with a Mac_a 
nice system_except for the problem of transferring data to my 
desktop. I could go with a Linux operating system but understand 
that is difficult to learn to use. So I will continue to use my old 
desk top and the computer at school until_ and unless_I 
have a more viable choice than paying money for a bunch of programs 
I don`t want. At least I have that those options. I hear that 
Microsoft only affects its competitors and not the consumer. I don`t 
understand how anyone can say this. I am a very small computer user, 
and if it affects me at my level, it must affect many others.
    Katherine Clark




MTC-00003526

From: Gary Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse or whom it may concern,
    I want to register my concern and object to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement agreement.
    I feel the agreement unfairly excludes from protection non-
profit organizations. The internet is comprised of many not-for-
profit companies that are producing product often seen as the major 
competition to Microsoft and the current wording would allow 
Microsoft to exclude these products from any form of interoperation. 
I am refering to many products that include Linux, Perl, Apache, 
Samba and more.
    Thank you,
    Gary Palmer
    [email protected]

[[Page 24305]]




MTC-00003527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:45pm
Subject: States vs. Microsoft
    Put me on record in favor of Microsoft. Do not punish Microsoft 
for being sucessful in a competitive software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Schultze
    Waukesha WI 53188




MTC-00003528

From: vasu muppalla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:58pm
Subject: DOJ settlement with microsoft
    I am a software developer of over a dozen years. During the 
course of these years, I have seen Microsoft`s anti-competitive, 
unethical and even illegal behaviour again and again. While the DOJ 
watched, hundreds of companies and enterprenuers have been robbed of 
success in business or been rendered out of the market by 
Microsoft`s practices. The DOJ has done precious little except 
propose conduct remedies time and again, which Microsoft blatantly 
violated. This so called `settlement` is again in the nature of a 
conduct remedy and thus absolutely useless. Microsoft has profited 
at the destruction of many of its competitors and today has a huge 
cash surplus of $30b; much of it should be spread over its numerous 
competitors. What is the DOJ doing to punish Microsoft for its past 
deeds?
    When a person kills another person, he can receive the death 
penalty but when Microsoft has destroyed numerous companies, why 
should it not be destroyed? Also, why are the individuals of an 
organization that broke the law again and again and again, showing 
utter contempt for law, being completely exempt for their actions?
    Here are my proposals:
    (1) Fine microsoft to the tune of at LEAST $10b to fund open-
source projects.
    (2) Make microsoft develop filters for competing office products 
such as star office and koffice.
    (3) As an alternative to `1', punish all Microsoft 
executives in the past 10 years with severe cash penalties and 
`contempt of court` remedies incl jail time for not complying with 
court decrees.
    (4) Make OEMs not install windows by default. Customers must 
specifically ASK for windows and the cost of that should be 
separately calculated.
    (5) Item `4' shall apply to ALL software, Microsoft 
or not. No software will be bundled with computers except those sold 
to businesses.
    (6) Microsoft shall NOT have any contracts to make windows 
source available to other software companies. They can license 
windows source WITHOUT being forced to reveal their own source code. 
This practice in the past enabled Microsoft to copy source code from 
Real networks, Sybase and many others and sell it as its own!




MTC-00003529

From: Donna (038) Bruno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this case should be settled promptly as it has no merit 
at all. The cost of windows software is very reasonable to persons 
like me. Before Microsoft the computer was next to useless. They 
made the computer easy to use for most people, even at $1000.00 
Windows would be a bargin to me. As far as anti-trust and price 
fixing, one only has to drive down Main Street USA and observe the 
price of gas. Note how the price changes up and down all at the same 
time. If you want more examples, how about your electric and natural 
gas utilities. To sum it up there are a lot of others that are more 
guilty tham Microsoft.




MTC-00003530

From: David Bergman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please make sure that Open Source projects COULD use Microsoft 
calls! Read the following page:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html




MTC-00003531

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is heavily weighed to the side of 
bitter rivals that will rage under any circumstances. To subject 
Microsoft to their bitter rivals` wishes means compromising security 
to those of us that choose Microsoft. The bitter companies and the 
way they want this situation dealt with not only serves to punish 
Microsoft but those that love America and what she stands for and 
whom she should justly reward (the achievers, not the 
underachievers). This is just another example of hate trying to 
invade the American way, or freedom to be the best one can be. I beg 
of you, do not allow the spoiled sports to run this country. For as 
sure as the way they run with `Microsoft, the convicted 
felons' will they run with the generous offers of Microsoft. 
The bitter rival companies are punishing individuals. If there is a 
worse crime it is the bullies (bitter rivals) that feel they have 
been bullied (by Microsoft) bullying you and I into their mentality 
of mediocrity, focusing on the wrongs in life they have been dealt, 
instead of focusing on the rights. Microsoft has been punished and 
curtailed. So have I and so has Suzi down the street. But that does 
not mean I should open up my doors to those I have wronged and allow 
them to run my household and loot from me, nor to be allowed to take 
the quality out of what I have. Open your eyes and you will see by 
the vicious viruses that have spread to discredit Microsoft whom the 
worst offenders are. Give them more ammunition and they will run 
with it all the way around the world to terrorize America.
    Thank you. Justice is to be served which should include the 
terror tactics the bitter opposition has brought upon Microsoft.




MTC-00003532

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    From what I have read, the penalty is a PR press release for 
Microsoft. We helped under privileged schools by giving them 
software they would not have bought anyway. By the way, this 
intrenches them more since school kids will likely see and use 
Microsoft products which encourages them to use them at home and 
later when they go into the corporate world. Having been a victim of 
MS, yes anyone who buys a computer from a retail store is a victim, 
I would like to see them have to buy RedHat or SUSE Linux and deploy 
it to under privileged schools and pay for subsequent training of 
staff. That way we would be exposing our youth to Operating systems 
that are used and designed for the Internet. This would foster 
competition and serve the public`s interest. If they deploy MS 
products, which typically become incompatible with each other after 
each new release, the school will be forced to upgrade each time a 
new release comes out in order to inter-operate with any other 
division that upgrades. This essentially forces them to upgrade and 
buy more MS products in the future.
    If you want to serve the public interest do the following: Stop 
them from forcing people to buy a MS license with each computer. If 
I buy a computer from a retail store I am forced to buy a MS Windows 
license whether I intend to use it or not. I may well delete all 
software and install a competing OS, such as Linux or Solaris. The 
retail store should be able to refund me the purchase price for MS 
and remove it if I ask and get a credit from MS. Any competing OS 
ends up costing double since you are forced to buy an MS license and 
the other OS license as well.
    Gosh, what a deal, for Microsoft that is.
    Thank you,
    Norman Tackett.




MTC-00003533

From: Gary Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    I have been a computer professional for over 20 years. I have 
had the opportunity to watch trends (and companies) come and go. I 
have worked in technical areas of many computers from IBM mainframes 
to Palm handhelds. It would be impossible to be involved in the 
industry as I have been and not have an opinion on Microsoft.
    I used to be a strong proponent of Microsoft and encouraged the 
use of their products. That loyalty disappeared as Microsoft moved 
from an innovative company as they were in the 1980s and started to 
use their acquired industry power and substantial financial power to 
bully and destroy competitors_not through better products, but 
through illegal monopolistic control over a vital part of the 
computer industry. My remaining positive feelings for Microsoft were 
eliminated when, during lunch with Microsoft VP Brad Silverberg, he 
unleashed a grand lie that caused me to provide bad advice to the 
company for which I worked at the time. I came to realize that 
Microsoft is an unethical company who has

[[Page 24306]]

abused the free ecomony of the U.S. and has abused the judicial 
system. Those beliefs were validated by the evidence presented at 
the Microsoft vs DOJ trial.
    The remedy proposed by the Bush administration does not come 
close to an acceptable solution to this problem. The judgment 
against Microsoft is so light that it will serve to embolden a 
company already overflowing with arrogance. It is my expressed wish 
that a more serious and appropriate remedy be taken against 
Microsoft.




MTC-00003534

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I have watched the Microsoft case since its beginning and have 
lost faith in our system because of it. The part of the settlement 
that surprised me the most is the idea that Microsoft would provide 
free software to the educational community. The basic idea of this 
falls right in line with what caused them to be in the spot they are 
in. The average user of a computer does not realize that he or she 
is being denied any choices because there are no choices in the 
primary locations people make their purchases. Please continue 
working toward a viable settlement that will provide a choice for 
the consumer.
    Thank you.
    Robert Parker
    Aurora, Colorado 80011




MTC-00003535

From: Carlo Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:29pm
Subject: `Settlement' only in favour of Microsoft
    Instead of getting punished, you are allowing Microsoft to dump 
their monopoly software on all schools! I am very very against this! 
IF there has to be a settlement (which I oppose to begin with) then 
demand that Microsoft ONLY deliver the hardware and does NOT install 
software on it!!! I know that empty computers are not of much use to 
Microsoft_so let RedHat put free software on it, as they 
generously offered (or any other NON-Microsoft).
    If the current, ridiculous, settlement passes_then you`ve 
been tricked by Microsoft and they will be laughing off their asses 
behind your back.
    Carlo Wood 




MTC-00003536

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
8714 Chase Tayler Place Louisville, Kentucky 40299
December 6, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to inform you of my feelings concerning 
the Department of Justice and its suit against Microsoft. It is my 
strong belief that the Department of Justice has gone overboard with 
this suit.
    I have been a user of the Windows operating system and feel that 
it has provided me with a simple and very efficient way to use the 
capabilities of my PC. I feel that the simplification of an 
operating system, Windows, is an advantage because it offers a more 
uniform approach to operations and applications.
    The animosity felt towards Microsoft by a select few should be 
refocused to more pressing matters. Microsoft has done a lot of 
things to benefit the nation and all the way down to the local 
community level.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter and I hope you share 
my belief that no more Federal action is warranted in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Walker




MTC-00003537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
Att: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    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.
    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 onto their monopoly.
    Apple`s existance 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 forfeiture 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 activites. The public 
deserves a significant return on its investment. Anything less is 
making a mockery of the process and will fuel the further 
disconnection 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
    Burlingame, CA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00003538

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:53pm
Subject: Comment regarding proposed settlement of Microsoft vs. DOJ
    I faxed my comments to the DOJ, but am not sure they made it. 
The number that I sent the comment to was 202-307-1454, 
but the identifier on the Machine receiving the Fax was 
202-353-8856.
    My comments follow:
    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 ons is 
frivolous. The Internet Explorer was a needed part of the operating 
system and add ons 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. Some states would prefer that consumers buy all of the add 
ons and that could be big down the road. Where Microsoft has been 
dominant in a particular software application, prices have fallen. I 
also believe that Microsoft has contributed mightily 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.
    Bob Andrews
    Robert F. Andrews
    1864 Castle Oaks Court
    Walnut Creek, CA 94595

[[Page 24307]]




MTC-00003539

From: Vincent Sheffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:02pm
Subject: Settlement a travesty
    I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the antitrust 
settlement reached with Microsoft. I have always believed that 
justice in the U.S. means 2 things: punishment for the offender and 
remedies that prevent the offender from breaking the law, and thus 
harming society, again. Your settlement fails miserably on both 
counts. I see absolutely no punishment and, even worse, MS will be 
able to carry on with the same exact behavior for which they were 
found guilty by 8 judges (the original trial judge as well as the 7 
appeals court judges). Finally, to the degree that the remedies are 
supposed to prevent a repeat of MS illegal behavior they won`t. The 
most glaring weakness is in the area of APIs. The lead time that MS 
competitors are supposed to get by more timely release of the APIs 
is still not sufficient and leaves MS with a substantial advantage 
over its rivals. More troubling are the loopholes for allowing MS to 
not release certain APIs. Specifically, allowing them to withhold 
specifications for security related APIs allows them to pursue their 
most important current and future initiative fully capable of using 
the same aggressive (and illegal) tactics that the remedy is 
supposed to prevent. MS`s Passport authentication system, which is 
their most significant strategic product moving into the future, 
will be exempted from this so-called remedy. Just as the current DOJ 
would never consider letting a convicted drug dealer off the hook 
without being punished, neither should you let a convicted corporate 
offender off with no punishment and free to engage in exactly the 
same condemned behavior in the future. If the current settlement 
proceeds unchanged it will be like giving the convicted drug dealer 
another bag of crack and letting them off in front of a school yard.
    Thank you,
    Vincent Sheffer
    Software Developer




MTC-00003540

From: Mary Euyang Shen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:32pm
Subject: Settlement
    Let Microsoft be Microsoft_Remember, it is its Windows 
software that unified the computer systems to be able to `talk 
to each other'. Give it some credit. And how has it hurt the 
consumers? Let the competitors come up with the better software and 
consumers will flock to it! These 9 states all have constituents 
with competing software manufacturers.
    Mary Shen




MTC-00003541

From: harry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:33pm
Subject: ie
    Microsoft is justified in bundling their own software with 
Windows. It is not justifiable however to include these pieces of 
software and then not allow the consumer the option to uninstall it. 
I myself would not use Windows XP`s firewall utility, windows media 
player, or Internet Explorer, so I should have the ability to choose 
all of these applications and uninstall them. Microsoft has built 
Windows with these applications in mind so if I even could uninstall 
them I would be breaking half of the functionality that Windows XP 
now provides. Also, many of Microsofts new .net initiatives will 
further fatten their monopoly since many companies are going to jump 
on to support this new architecture and then we the consumers are 
going to be forced to use Microsoft`s os to benefit from them. I use 
linux because of its stability and because it is open sourced. I 
feel that many of Microsofts own networking protocols and file type 
information should be accessible to the public, so that various 
applications can benefit from using their technology. Then we can 
work on creating better applications that take advantage of a 
singular protocol. The American people should have the right to 
decide which software packages they want installed on their system 
and applications should not have to define their own file types just 
because 99% of the office community must use Microsoft Office to 
remain compatible.




MTC-00003542

From: Watts Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the settlement as currently extant seriously flawed. 
Microsoft is not seriously hindered from continuing to engage in 
unfair and or unethical business practices. I was (very) 
disappointed at the limited scope of the original charge. Many of 
Microsofts most egregious faults were completely ignored. C`est la 
vie. The proposed settlement agreement ignores the hobby and Open 
Source software movement. The Apache web server program currrently 
enjoys the largest market share. There are many other examples of 
non-commercial software, too numerous to enumerate here, which are 
effectively disempowered re Microsoft by the provisions (Section 
III(J)(2) and Section III(D)) of the agreement. I`m not an attorney 
nor do I have any significant legal training but I also suspect 
these provisions also leave out educational establishments as well 
as federal and state government agencies.
    In summation, I strongly oppose the settlement its current form.




MTC-00003543

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the current settlement is not even a slap on wrist 
given the egregious abuse of monopoly power and flagrant violation 
of the law that Microsoft has engaged in. The only sure way to cure 
Microsoft is a structural remedy. History has shown that any other 
approach will simply be ignored.
    The language of the settlement is full of loopholes which can 
(and will!) be easily exploited by Microsoft to continue to shut out 
any meaningful competition. In particular the language against not-
for-profits in Section III(J)(2), allows Microsoft to shut out 
competition from organization such as Apache Foundation and SAMBA.
    I`ll keep this short since there will many more detailed 
analyses of the shortcomings of the proposed settlement, but I do 
wish to register my displeasure at this weak document.
    Andre Burgoyne
    Software engineer, U.S. citizen and voter
    [email protected]
    2446 Grant Street
    Berekely, CA 94703




MTC-00003544

From: Darren Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi,
    I would like to add my voice of concern about the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement.
    I have worked in the computer industry for fifteen years and am 
now an independant software developer. I have also taken a very 
strong interest in the Microsoft Antitrust Case and belive I have 
read almost every article that has been written about it over the 
last few years since the case began. It has been for me a case of 
`will justice be served` and a bit of a reflection on the 
state of the world. I don`t think justice is being served at all in 
the proposed settlement. The state of the world in computers isn`t 
looking too good at the moment. Microsoft has acted against the 
spirit and law of the antitrust regulations on a regular basis and 
appears to be still doing so. They have been found guilty of serious 
antitrust violations. They don`t appear to be in any way interested 
in developing new and innovative software, rather their primary 
concern is to make sure that they control the market in as many 
areas as they possibly can.
    I am certain that this is stifling innovation in the industry. 
The industry these days seems to have `not getting in 
Microsoft`s` way as their prime focus and only seems to be 
innovating in areas outside of Microsoft`s concern. I remember well 
when new ideas and technologies were driving the industry forward on 
an almost daily basis. Now in the major applications areas and in 
consumer operating systems there seems to be very little if any 
innovation. Microsoft Word and Excel haven`t gotten any better for 
years. Internet Explorer, now that it owns the market for web 
browsers, hasn`t gotten better for years.
    The market for computers and software is now as dead as it has 
ever been. Sales are low and growth is slow, and there doesn`t 
appear to be much ahead that will fix this while the market is being 
continuously stifled.
    For what it`s worth, here`s what I think urgently needs to be 
done;
    1. Windows XP, with all of it`s new `free` add ons needs 
to have the add ons removed, or at the very least XP neds to be 
available at a cheaper price without these add ons. We are talking 
about add ons to do with multimedia, sound, video and instant 
communications here! These are crucial areas. If Microsoft is 
allowed to include these for free in their operating system then we 
can say good bye to innovation in these areas. As

[[Page 24308]]

things stand I can see versions of Windows Media Player that 
`never get any better` being around for a long time to come 
and keeping this vital area of the market stifled. There is much 
that could be done in multimedia and communications if this section 
of the industry isn`t stifled.
    The fact that Microsoft has been allowed to release Windows XP 
with all of this bundled software so soon after it had been found 
guilty in court and on appeal of numerous antitrust violations makes 
no sense at all.
    2. Microsoft should publish freely and to everyone any 
networking specifications that it puts into it`s Windows software. 
Even better, it should be made to go through a standards committee 
if it wants to add to or change it`s networking code. We are not 
just talking about networking here, we are talking about the future 
of the Internet.
    The Internet is (so far) based on open and accessible systems 
that have evolved openly and that anyone can use freely. Microsoft 
is adding `Microsoft only' code to it`s Windows 
operating system and to it`s server software. Windows now 
`works better' with Microsoft servers than with other 
servers, not because they have come up with better systems but 
because they have `designed' their systems to operate in 
this way. This might be fine of the code used to do this was open 
and available and Microsoft was genuinely innovating, but the code 
is closed and propriatory. Nobody else but Microsoft has the power 
to introduce closed propriatory systems to the Internet, and 
Microsoft is only able to do this because of it`s market share in 
desktop operating systems. If people cannot see the networking code 
that Microsoft is including in Windows, then Microsoft will suddenly 
be able to control the server market and, by simple extension 
through it`s .net strategy, the protocols that are the foundation of 
the Internet.
    If Microsoft owns the Internet protocols then we are all in 
trouble! Even if they just own some of them it will be enough to 
require almost everyone to use their software. They have done 
exactly what they are doing now time and time again in numerous 
other markets and they have always succeeded. They are likely to do 
the same here. Microsoft needs to publish and make freely available 
their Windows networking code in all instances. They should not even 
be allowed to own the rights to this code. They should be made to 
adopt standards and even to go through standards bodies before 
making changes.
    I hope someone reads this and takes it seriously. These are 
vital matters which are not being addressed or not being addressed 
adequately in the proposed antitrust settlement. The proposed 
settlement, in my opinion, will not hinder or even slow Microsoft 
down in these vital areas.
    I have many other thoughts on these matters. If anyone is 
interested in hearing them please let me know.
    Darren Beck
    http://www.codecity.net




MTC-00003545

From: Gary Lindgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
12/8/2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S Department of Justice
    In a general way, I fully support the proposed settlement 
agreement agreed to by Microsoft, USDOJ, and the 9 states. Let me 
tell you a little of what my background is and how I use software. 
I`m an engineer and develop Windows applications that control test 
instruments for manufacturing use. At work I also use Microsoft 
applications for normal office needs. At home My wife and I use 
Windows applications(Microsoft and others) for office use and the 
internet. Also at home I do a little development of Windows 
applications. Our home network consists of 3 PCs, One with 
Win2000(used mostly for regular use), one with WinXPPro(for 
Windows.Net development), and one with Linux OS and used for the 
firewall to the outside via a DSL connection to the internet.
    It is extremely important that Microsoft be allowed to control 
what features are included in their applications. This is a must. 
Microsoft must be allowed to add and control what is in their 
operating system. The argument that the other 9 states AGs have used 
that Microsoft should provide a stripped down version that does not 
include multimedia features is bogus. Customers don`t want this, 
it`s the competition that wants this. Price has never been a problem 
with Microsoft products. The only problem for the competition is 
that Microsoft prices are too low. This is what some of the 
competition is worried about. Other multimedia can be easily 
downloaded or come from CD-ROMs from the mail(how many CDs have you 
received from AOL). The proposed settlement that prevents Microsoft 
from forcing PC builders to exclude other competition is good. This 
should improve competition. The settlement clause that requires 
Microsoft disclose the Windows APIs to the developers is extremely 
important. Here I have a suggestion for a small change and I believe 
the other 9 states will go along with this. I propose that that the 
Windows APIs be disclosed in 6 months time and be available on 
Microsoft`s web site. These APIs must be freely available everyone 
and not just to certain subscribers to the MSDN service.
    In summary: The proposed settlement agreed to by DOJ, Microsoft, 
and 9 states is good. The disclosure of WinAPIs should be made 
available in 6 months and to everyone that wishes to see them. 
Please let me know if I can be of any further service.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Lindgren
    585 Lincoln Ave
    Palo Alto CA 94301
    650-594-3846




MTC-00003546

From: Ruben Odom jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:23pm
Subject: Anti Trust
    I know that Microsoft is the most popular and trusted software 
developer in the world. This is because they make it easy for every 
person to get involved in the computer efficiency movement. There 
was no way for the computer giant to actually close out other 
companies from the computer industry. When the DOJ made them (and 
all other software developer`s) from exclusive contracts, that made 
the way for other software makers (like RedHat) to actually make 
there way into the door with its free software.
    The interest of the Free Software Movement`s head way onto the 
desk top through the loss of exclusive contracts may make it more 
visible, but still wont be able to `level the playing 
field' for the computer hobbyist. They will have to be able to 
differentiate themselves with ease, simplicity, and power that any 
corporate software make does in order to over through the software 
giant.
    The Free Software foundation is not one David`s smooth stones 
that can topple Goliath (Microsoft). It can only be done with the 
stones of public trust, longevity, and simplicity. I truly don`t 
think that free stuff will ever win enough granite make these stones 
because there is no warranty. There is also a shortage of IT people 
that can service the masses and therefore, fall behind the 
capabilities of the American business model.
    The hole of the Free Software Movement talks a bold game in 
saying that they want to place there already free software in the 
schools, but don`t have the necessary resources to capture and keep 
the natural curiosity of a child_let alone a poor one that 
wants the pride of being like the Jones. If the poor schools don`t 
take the free resources, then a rich school will and there will 
continue to be a wider gape between the rich and poor.
    I feel that Linux should stay something for the hobbyist and 
computer professionals because the common, still weary user will 
loose interest quickly. Trust me, Free Software lacks any creativity 
what so ever and will always be a cheap substitute because of it. Me 
on the other hand_a tech nut, know and value Free Linux. 
However, I realize the limitations and see that other software 
makers need to get off of there a**es and come up with an operating 
system that supports all of the modern technology.
    Ruben A. Odom Jr.
    [email protected]




MTC-00003547

From: RR-
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:36pm
Subject: Microsofft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In 1995, Microsoft gave its browser away to the public, and they 
still do. This has been a tremendous benefit to the consumer!!!! 
Before that time you had to purchase it through Netscape and they 
had the only browser on the market. Everyone I know was extremely 
happy that Microsoft was giving away Internet Explorer free of 
charge!
    I am just one of many small consumers, but I think this suit has 
nothing to do with harming consumers! I think it has to do with 
harming other competitors, namely Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and AOL.
    I firmly believe that this country is based on free enterprise, 
and the government

[[Page 24309]]

should not interfere with the personal grudges and competition from 
other companies I think everyone including the nine states should 
accept the Justice Departments & Microsoft`s settlement 
agreement. Let`s get on with life, and perhaps this will help put an 
end to the recession that we have in our country today.
    Best Regards,
    Ray Reid




MTC-00003548

From: DR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:05pm
Subject: make windows open source
    Make windows open source, so that anyone who runs it has the 
choice of how it interacts with what hardware/software they have, at 
the moment there is no choice and users are dependant on less than 
reliable operating systems (windows) to deal with... making windows 
open source opens up many possibilities and does not kill microsoft. 
They can still support an open source operating system, and the 
poeple using it will not be dictated to how microsoft thinks the way 
they sould be interacting with it. every other OS out there is open 
source. and it promotes freedom for the end user. No longer would 
the blue screen of death be something that they would just 
`have to deal with'.
    What made me make this statement was after seeing the cost of 
XP. In Australia (and im sure same in US) the rediculous cost of 
this less than adequate OS is more than half the cost of a decent 
computer, Is that freedom of choice for the user that doesnt now 
much better? thats a monopoly. This has gone further than the days 
when MS decided to rear end Netscape by bundling IE into windows , 
and im sure the cost of XP solidifies that. And what has microsoft 
got by being forced to spend money of less than fortunate students? 
Good PR. that is not a solution that will stop MS doing what they 
are doing, it will just amplify their monopoly.
    Forgive me if i am wrong, but isnt its the governments role to 
be helping under priveleged children with funding.?? MS does its 
punishment by forking out a small sum of their empire, and continues 
to screw the rest of the software dev community.
    Count how many applications become superceded by XP.. winzip is 
one of them. Wasnt this the reason the DOJ took MS to court for in 
the first place? for anti competetiveness?
    Kind Regards
    Duane Reilly
    Unix Administrator




MTC-00003549

From: Robert D. Wales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:17pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft case results
    I think that the government has been too lenient on ( if not 
aiding) Microsoft with its verdict.
    (1) To allow Microsoft to `donate' their products to 
schools is aiding them to increase their monopoly by training 
students to use only their products.
    (2) To allow Microsoft to continue to include their programs in 
their operating systems essentially gives them a monopoly on all 
aspects of computer software.
    (3) To allow Microsoft to undermine, corrupt, and otherwise 
defeat the use of any programs but their own is to force all other 
companies into bankruptcy.
    (4) To allow Microsoft to keep their source code private with no 
good controls is to further aid in their monopolistic endeavors.
    Thank you in advance for considering my comments,
    Yours,
    R. D. Wales




MTC-00003550

From: Shinita Crawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi my name is Shinita and for class our professor wants us to 
find out the who are the parties affected by this settlement and 
cite our sources.
    Do all of the parties have to agree with settlement? What 
happens to those parties who decide not to join in on the settlement 
and what will their remedy be?
    If you can answer any of these questions please email me at 
[email protected]




MTC-00003551

From: Raquel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:28pm
Subject: This one deserves a second look ....
    Dear Fellow Entrepreneur,
    Are you achieving the results that you are trying to achieve 
with your online business?
    If your current business is offering a product that is a quick 
and simple solution to a problem that concerns most people, most of 
the time, then you would be very happy, and wealthy. WELL DONE. If 
it is not, than unfortunately you are probably not making much 
money, and presumably won`t.
    Unfortunately if your product is not a quick and simple solution 
to a problem that concerns most people, most of the time, then you 
won`t be able to market to the majority of the Internet population 
out their will you. Anyone who is making any real money out there 
would have to have a quick and simple solution to a problem that 
concerns most people, most of the time wouldn`t they. Sorry for 
repeating it so often, but if you truly want to make any money 
through the Internet, then you will need to know this sentence (a 
quick and simple solution to a problem that concerns most people, 
most of the time) off by heart.
    If you really want to make money using the Internet, than I may 
be able to help you. I say maybe because this business is not for 
anyone who is not going to be committed to making $40,000 in 6 
weeks, (Quicksmart, which is shown below) and then working towards 
making $1,000,000 in 180 days using a very effective program called 
Infoshare.
    Both these programs WILL make you money as long as you are 
committed to making them successful.
    Others just like you and myself ARE making this kind of money as 
you read this. If you are committed enough to do exactly as I say, 
then you WILL succeed. It is very VERY simple, and I will help you 
with everything you need to know to become successful. I am not 
successful unless you are, so I will not leave you in the dark like 
others often do. I will do everything I can to help you.
    Discover how to make true wealth using the same secrets that the 
millionaires are using to achieve results and success on the Web.
    Remember the old saying `If you can`t beat them, join 
them.'
    Well this is the same thing. You are about to Learn how the big 
guns are making all that easy money, and how YOU TOO can live a life 
of good health, love, and have all the time in the world to give to 
yourself and your family.
    Once if I receive your $5, I will send you the URL address of 
the `Lazyman`s Guide to Success' in Phase 2.
    Once there you will be able to learn all the secrets to success 
on the Web. You will also have access to 3 sensational programs for 
free, which you will use to send out hundreds of E-mail every day. 
This is what makes this program so different to the ones that are 
very hard to make successful. Advertising at various classified 
sites really does not work, does it? So we need to find another way 
to advertise our business, and sending out bulk E-mail every day to 
a targeted population does work. This program is probably the 
easiest to set up and run, and also the quickest to make great 
money.
    In Phase 2 you will send out bulk E-mail using 3 very effective 
programs. The first you will use to extract E-mail addresses from 
various free classified web sites.
    The second will sort out your E-mail list that you have just 
extracted so that you will have a clean list of E-mail addresses to 
send your offer to. Finally your third program will send out your 
Bulk E-mail.
    Do you agree that this is a much more effective way of 
advertising then placing ads all over different classified web 
sites, and just receiving counter offers in your inbox? From now on 
you will still have plenty of E-mail, but it will be people wanting 
to sign up. Now that is what I call results.
    The last thing, and the most important to be successful, is to 
DREAM. Dream and make goals of what you want to buy for yourself, 
your family and friends.
    Dream about where you want to live, go on a holiday, and what 
kind of car you have always wanted, and of course, what life will be 
like when you ARE a MILLIONAIRE. This is the most important 
ingredient to success. Every successful person does it. Why? Success 
WILL NOT come unless you dream and set goals. The reason that we set 
goals and dream is for the simple fact that if you come across a 
problem, then you should think about your goal or dream. This will 
make you determined enough to seek help and move on. I will be here 
to help you, so that you can get passed any problem that you may 
come across. No business is perfect, but you can not find a much 
easier one than this One. Once you have fixed the problem, you will 
move forward and be $1,000,000 richer, and your goals and dreams all 
come true.

[[Page 24310]]

And of course you will set higher goals and dreams for yourself.
    LET`S GET STARTED SHALL WE!!! Yes right now, not tomorrow. 
Because I know you are keen to be successful. Save this E-mail to 
your hard drive and read it OFFLINE so that you are not wasting 
valuable money on the Internet, and do exactly as it says. Once you 
read it, if you have any questions with anything, anything at all, 
than send me an E-mail. Once you have made your easy $40,000 in the 
next 6 weeks, we will than start to set up the real money making 
machine `Infoshare' so that you can make $40,000 look 
like pocket money. I look forward to hearing from you, and let 
success begin.
    PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE (Quicksmart Program) `The key to 
success' (No one can cheat and no one can move ahead of you.)
    PHASE 1: This program is designed to make money via 
Internet_quickly and honestly! It is quite new, yet already 
proven to be most effective. It is truly exciting, with many people 
now using it, and with so many more still to see it. It is not the 
same as other programs that (only at first) may seem to be similar. 
This program has been designed to avoid all of the traps and all of 
the cheats. You can quickly prove that it is both real and safe, 
before you decide to participate. NOTE: Please read this complete 
document to be sure that you fully understand it. If I told you I 
would give you the $1,000,000 to jump out of a plane without a 
parachute, you would probably say `No way', right? You 
would have missed out on the easiest million dollars in your life as 
the plane was on the ground. Make sure you know all the facts before 
deciding. Take the time to read it again and again if you have to. 
E-mail me with any questions if you remain unsure of anything. 
Should you decide to run it, by following the easy instructions 
carefully, you will be delighted with the results!
    PHASE 1 BEGINS: Prepare to be impressed! This program is very 
powerful_a real money generator on the Web! No other program 
comes close when you need money quickly and honestly. You are 
guaranteed financial success with this opportunity because of the 
method used to CONFIRM the HONESTY of each participant. However, 
when most of us first look at this program, we may think its just 
another get rich quick scheme. But it isn`t_by reading the 
details you will see that it is quite different. And only about a 
week after starting, money will start rolling in quickly from all 
over the world!
    This is a FAIL-SAFE money making program where all cash receipts 
are verifiable in advance, because every participant is held 
ACCOUNTABLE. Every participant gets paid well, Every participant is 
sure that nobody can cheat. That is why I chose to participate. I 
invite you to do likewise. Being fail-safe and cheat proof, what 
have we got to lose?
    The power of the Internet is here to be used. More and more 
people are using this program to produce a substantial income 
quickly.
    Expect to earn up to US$40,000 in the next six weeks (MAXIMUM 
TIME). We all know that Internet money programs can really work, but 
most of us have major concerns about them:
    1. They are too complex, often requiring large investments.
    2. They require real Internet marketing experience.
    3. There is usually no way of monitoring returns.
    4. There is no way of eliminating cheaters.
    This program solves all of those concerns! It is 100% certain 
that everyone will get paid for participating. This is because we 
require accountable E-mail addresses for all participants. The total 
cost to you is two US $5 Bills, plus postage for just two letters. 
(Not a lot, no matter what your present circumstances may be.)
    But you spend nothing at all, until you gain E-mail confirmation 
that the sender of this letter has paid! Please read this carefully. 
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by replying to my 
E-mail address, as the sender of this program.
    The fail-safe mechanism controls the program, so it`s impossible 
for anyone to cheat. This way nobody gets hurt and everyone gets 
paid. All participants make the money they deserve for their 
efforts. Read on and you will see why.
    The method of accountability used keeps everyone honest. We all 
get our money by building an easy and valuable MAILING LIST. Too 
many programs before this one have no fail-safe method for 
protecting the honest participants from those who put their names on 
a list without sending any money. That is what causes such programs 
to ultimately fail.
    With this program it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR SUCH CHEATING TO HAPPEN. 
If you decide to participate, you will be required to send $5 (US 
currency) to just two of the people on the list shown below, with a 
note asking them to add your name to their Mailing List and send you 
a copy of, `Phase 2'. More about that shortly.
    First take the time to SAVE this letter to a word file so that 
you can edit the prescribed areas later if you do decide to join. 
Once you finish reading check the honesty of me and that I have paid 
my $10. The very first step is to E-mail the two people in the 
Position #1 and Position #2 from the current Accountability 
List below, and ask them if they have received their $5 from me. 
This is what MAKE`S CERTAIN the success of this program. You will 
not send money to me until you KNOW that I have paid the people in 
Positions 1 and 2.
    POSITION #1
    Mikael Mansson
    Ringovagen 103
    SE-37160 LYCKEBY
    SWEDEN
    Email: [email protected]
    POSITION #2
    Michael Warren
    6/70 East Ave
    Black Forest, South Australia 5035
    Australia
    E-mail: [email protected]
    E-mail to check accountability: [email protected]
    The above are the two people I sent my US $5 to, with a note 
asking them to add me to their mailing list and send me Phase 2.
    After you have verified that I am genuine and decide to 
participate, address an Envelop to the person currently in Position 
#3 (me), put a $5 bill (US Currency), your name, address, and E-
mail address included, on a note that reads `Please add my 
name to your Mailing List and rush Phase 2 to me' NOTE: Only 
the person in Position #3 supplies Phase 2, NEVER any other 
person. Also take care to write the names of the addressees 
correctly. (some international names can sound a little bit 
unfamiliar to Americans or Australians).
    POSITION #3
    Steve Starlight
    Room 507
    Kayajang Motel
    1094-6, Eu-Bang Dong
    Gimhae City
    Busan
    Kyung-Nam
    Republic of Korea 621-170
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Again please turn the closest attention to correctly overwriting 
the addresses of the persons you will direct a letter with a $5 bill 
to.
    Next, address an envelope to the person in Position #4; 
enclose a $5 bill, your name, address, and E-mail address with a 
note that states, `Please add me to your mailing list'
    POSITION #4
    Matthew Jahred
    131 Mainstreet
    Birmingham
    United Kingdom
    E-mail: [email protected]
    NOW ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EDIT YOUR COPY OF THIS LETTER AS 
FOLLOWS:
    FIRST: Move the person currently in POSITION #4 to POSITION 
#2. Be sure all information is copied correctly and completely. 
(The person originally in Position #2 is now dropped from the 
list, and has made their $40,000)
    SECOND: Move the person in POSITION #1 to POSITION #4 
with all the correct information.
    THIRD: Move the person in POSITION #3 to POSITION #1 
with all the correct information.
    FINALLY: Enter YOUR name, complete address, and E-mail address 
in to POSITION #3. Please also provide your name and E-mail 
address at the end of this letter. Remember: You only send the $5 to 
the names in POSITIONS #3 and #4 on this letter DO NOT SEND 
MONEY TO THE NAMES IN POSITIONS #1 AND #2.
    NOTE: When typing your E-mail address, please remember to be 
accurate. Double check! Once you start, there are two simple things 
you must do to make this work for the maximum return in 2 months.
    BE PATIENT at the start! It takes easily a week or so to really 
get up and going, and to start receiving lots of money in your 
letterbox.
    BUT THEY WILL COME! This is the Internet! YOU WILL DEFINITELY 
MAKE A LARGE SUM OF MONEY WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, and you will also have 
a mailing list service to use yourself, or even to sell. That in 
itself can be valuable.
    THIS PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY FAST! It is very 
INEXPENSIVE to participate in, just compare it to the value of

[[Page 24311]]

lottery tickets_where making money is next to impossible! 
There are no postage expenses, other than the two stamps needed to 
mail your two $5 bills.
    If any of the addresses require overseas mailing, do it via 
airmail for speed. Think of the power of the program running 
Internationally! There are no name lists, nor other unseen expenses. 
Other than the two initial letters, this program operates totally 
on-line
    FURTHER INFORMATION: You may already feel that this program is 
not what you thought at first, but still remain doubtful or a little 
unclear about whether or not to have a go. Unlike so many other 
programs, you do not send money to four or five people for reports, 
recipes, disks, or any other product. Nor do you risk losing your 
time and money.
    This program is less demanding and does not take advantage of 
the naive. Effectively, we all become a team_we know that we 
must follow the rules, and that our teamwork ensures that we all 
win. This program has been set up so that you will succeed. If you 
do exactly as described, then you will succeed, in this business
    To compare this with the many uncontrolled programs: First of 
all, this program has only four controlled, levels_not five, 
six, seven, or more uncontrolled levels like other programs. When 
you first send this program out, you will soon get 40-50 
people who send you $5 to join the mailing list and to commence 
their Phase 2. They will do this only after they confirm that you 
have paid your $10.
    To account for curiosity seekers, and people who don`t recognize 
the opportunity (not you, of course!), let`s say that only 20 people 
then actually pursue the program provided. These 20 in the 
Accountability List POSITION #1, and their respondents will be 
asking YOU if they paid their $5 dollars. Their active participants 
will then move your name to POSITION #4, WHERE YOU WILL BE 
RECEIVING $5 notes from 20 x 20 x 20 people. That`s a total of 8,000 
people. 8000 X $5 = $40,000!
    Because this is done on the Internet it moves very quickly. 
Therefore, you only need 20 ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS who actually promote 
this program to reach the target. You should advertise/E-mail until 
twice that number of people (40-50) has sent you the $5 and 
received Phase 2 from you via E-mail. At this point, all you will 
have to do will be to answer the E-mails saying, `Yes, I have 
been paid.'
    NOTE: Be sure to keep a record of those who have paid and added 
to your mailing list, and respond very quickly to verification 
requests. You will be able to keep your list in alphabetical order 
with Listmanager. (A free program that you will have with Phase 2) 
Remember that you may send this program to people who send you 
similar programs. Many such people are keen and active users of 
opportunities sent to them, and this one is safe, fast and simple. 
It will not appeal to cheats, yet be great for anyone looking for a 
VERY low cost, fun investment. Just keep sending as much E-mail as 
you possibly can! You will be amazed with the responses you get from 
the Web. The Internet is a powerful tool. But remember: we are 
responsible to the team. That means to everyone who participates 
both before and after we become involved.
    SUMMARY OF THE SIMPLE STEPS TO FOLLOW: FIRST: Save this file as 
your PHASE 1 file, where you can edit the changes. (Names, 
addresses, E-mail address, and position`s) SECOND: Get two US $5 
bills and mail by post ($5 each) to the people listed above in 
Positions 3 and 4, with a request to join their mailing list.
    Note: That cost is your ONLY financial risk THIRD: Update the 
names on the list carefully, as detailed above. YOUR name, address 
and E-mail address names in at Position #3 (where mine is now).
    You then wait for PHASE 2 to arrive in your E-mail box from me. 
This will be sent the same day that your $5 arrives at my home 
address.
    HOW YOUR NAME MOVES THROUGH THE SYSTEM:
    FIRST: Your name starts at Position #3 in Phase 1_to 
all of the people you E-mail. You would aim to get about 40 
responses, but more would be even more profitable.
    SECOND: You will E-mail PHASE 2 out to each person who has sent 
you $5. You will be instructing your respondents to place your name 
in POSITION #1. You will then begin receiving inquiries from 
others asking if you have been paid your $5. You will be keeping 
track of all those who you have been paid by. You won`t be receiving 
much money at this stage (just the $5 you received from each person 
in Phase 1, which will be from $200-$250 or so) THIRD: Those people 
who have just inquired as to whether payment was made to you, will 
be getting another 20 or more people to participate, and your name 
will then be in POSITION #4. This is when you will receive the 
BIG MONEY LAST: Your name will be in Position #2, where you will 
again be receiving inquiries, and you will be likely to answer at 
this point YES, I AM $40,000 RICHER.
    Many will then participate and make money also. Participation is 
all that we require for success. Isn`t this a brilliant business? We 
really have the best, because we have created a foolproof and cheat-
proof system, where everybody has accountability. Your small 
investment of two $5 bills will reward you with $40,000 or more! 
Once again, please E-mail me if you have any questions. None of us 
are able to go back for a new beginning. But, we learn and grow, so 
all of us are able to make a new start. Just do it! Good fortune to 
all of you and have fun! Do you see how easy it is to make your 
first $40,000 in 2 months. If you don`t think it is easy, or don`t 
completely understand it, than read over until you do. If you still 
want some help, then don`t hesitate in sending me an E-mail. Do NOT 
leave it. Your financial future depends on it. Ok, so where is the 
$1,000,000 you ask. Well that is an even easier concept. All you 
need to do is to make sure that at least 10 of your active 
participants join Infoshare as a Gold partner. This will happen 
automatically by the time you have your $40,000, because they too 
will want to make $1,000,000.
    In fact, the majority of participants in Quicksmart will join 
Infoshare all by themselves, as you will direct them too do so, so 
that they can make their $1,000,000. They too will also have at 
least 10 participants from Quicksmart join them in Infoshare, and so 
on for 6 levels down. All you need to do is make sure that at least 
10 of your active participants join Infoshare and the rest will 
happen. The participants that you have recruited will also make sure 
that they all have 10 in Infoshare, so that they will make their 
$1,000,000. You will not have to do any more than make sure you have 
10 Gold members in Infoshare, and within 180 days, you will be 
$1,000,000 richer. Just check out `The Compensation 
Plan' at http://wisemulesclub.com/partners/comp.html to find 
out just how much you will earn.
    Once you decide that you are going to make $1,000,000 in the 
next 180, you have checked the accountability of me, and sent your 
$10 you will be ready to start preparing for Phase 2. Until you 
receive Phase 2, I want you to start collecting URL`s of all the 
free classified web sites you can find. Why don`t you start by 
checking out http://everydaybusinessonline.com/adsites.htm for 
hundreds of free classified web sites to extract your E-mails from.
    Make a list of all the FREE Classified Web site addresses, where 
the E-mail address of the person advertising is in front of you in 
the advertisement. If it does NOT show you the E-mail address and 
instead has a link to access their E-mail address, then do not 
record that classifieds URL.
    You will use these URL`s to feed your mail finder program, and 
then it will extract hundreds of E-mail`s from these sites. The more 
classifieds the better. Once you find a free classified web site 
that has the E-mail address showing, then click on your right mouse 
button, and click on properties. Highlight the URL and copy it. Then 
paste it into Notepad. Don`t save it into Microsoft Word as the 3 
programs used only read from a text document, Notepad. You should 
find Notepad by clicking on your start button, programs, and then 
accessories.
    Wishing you all the best and here is to success on the web,
    Steve Starlight
    Room 507
    Kayajang Motel
    1094-6, Eu-Bang Dong
    Gimhae City
    Busan
    Kyung-Nam
    Republic of Korea 621-170
    E-Mail [email protected]
    This one time mailing is sent in compliance with strict anti-
abuse and NO SPAM regulations. Your address was collected as a 
result of posting to a link, a classified ad, a message to my FFA 
Page, you have sent me an E-mail recently, or you are on a list that 
I have purchased. You may remove your E-mail address at no cost to 
you whatsoever by simply sending an E-mail to 
[email protected] with REMOVE as the subject.




MTC-00003552

From: Curtis Carmichael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:34pm
Subject: My Opinion
    I believe Microsoft is a monopoly and the corporation has lots 
of power, which I feel

[[Page 24312]]

should be minimized by breaking the company in two parts. This would 
give other companies a fair chance.
    _Curtis Carmichael




MTC-00003553

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft already retaliating against non-MS broswers
    At the unveiling of the new look of the MSN.com portal, it 
became clear that Microsoft had begun to retaliate against users of 
non-Microsoft browsers.The Opera browser I used was being 
specificaly excluded from MSN.com. Every time a browser connects to 
a server, it sends a string to the server telling it what type of 
browser is seeking access. When Microsoft saw an Opera browser it 
refused to let the browser load the page. The Opera developers tests 
showed that Ithe Opera identification string was changed by one 
letter, Microsoft would let the Opera browser in.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to tie its operating systemw, 
borwsers, and network together.
    Sincerely
    Rick Marvin




MTC-00003554

From: Larry LeClaire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It seems to me that if you have enough money you can get away 
with anything. This settlement seems to help microsoft against it`s 
only real competitors. the open source community which would make 
them more of a Monoply.




MTC-00003555

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:19pm
Subject: Why you`re being laughed at...
    Sirs:
    Have you wondered why the President has taken the prosecution of 
terrorists out of your hands and given it to the military? Maybe 
because your answer to the biggest computer terrorist organization 
in the world (Gates/Microsoft) is too slap him on the wrist and ask 
him nicely not to be a monopolist any more.
    It amazes me that you will suspend the Constitution for 
virtually everyone with a green card but you let some crooked geek 
with glasses get the better of you by just outlasting you and giving 
your bosses lots of campaign money.
    You deserve the ridicule that is heard around town and I can 
hardly wait until your incompetancy is replaced by a new 
administration and REAL lawyers who uphold ALL laws. Even the ones 
that aren`t politically correct or able to get them some cash if 
they ignore them.
    Remember the Constitution? Read it lately???????
    Ralph Arnold
    Canton, Ohio




MTC-00003556

From: Susie Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Seems like a $1b penalty for a company that overcharged 
consumers $30b and counting is about $29b short of justice. But at 
least get a real $1b. I completly agree with competitor Red Hat`s 
perspective that letting Microsoft `pay' for it`s fine 
by giving it`s own software to schools further entrenches their 
monopoly. Red Hat`s proposal (http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html), that Microsoft give 
$1b in hardware for which Red Hat will supply the software, sounds 
good to me. I mean, a monopoly is the problem, right? So what good 
does it do to distribute more monopoly software?
    My only problem with Red Hat`s proposal is that Microsoft should 
be made to pay $30b, not just $1b. Honestly the settlement amount 
makes it look yet again that our justice system is corruptible by 
the rich, be they individuals or corporations.
    Thanks for reading this, and good luck in continuing the 
prosecution.
    Ben Cooper
    2375 Riverglenn Circle
    Dunwoody Ga 30338
    770-455-9089




MTC-00003557

From: Joe Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:31pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the prospect of allowing Microsoft to pay its 
penalty in the anti trust case by donating ANY amount of software / 
hardware to schools. This action would only serve to PROMOTE the 
abuse of Microsoft`s monolopy position in the market the government 
and plaintiffs have worked so hard to expose.
    A better solution would be for Microsoft to make a CASH 
contribution to needy schools and charities or where possible, to 
the companies they actually hurt with their actions.
    Thank you for the pursuit of this case.
    Joe Spencer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00003558

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am very disappointed with the Microsoft settlement. As one who 
has tried to use non-Microsoft software, I think it is clear that 
Microsoft has an effective monopoly on the software industry.
    For example, many years ago I had a large investment in Digital 
Research`s DR-DOS. I had made this investment because was 
technically superior to MS-DOS in almost every respect.
    I was forced to abandon this investment when I needed to run an 
application requiring a graphical interface. I first attempted to 
run Microsoft Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS and found it wouldn`t work. When 
I called Microsoft`s Help Line, they refused to talk to me until I 
completely replaced DR-DOS with MS-DOS. It is now clear that the 
problem which prevented me from using DR-DOS was not a defect, but 
the result of Microsoft`s deliberate design decision made for the 
specific purpose of forcing me_and many others like 
me_to buy Microsoft products that we neither needed nor 
wanted.
    As an engineer, I have seen this repeated many times. Microsoft 
intentionally sells products that do not interoperate with others 
for the specific purpose of driving competitors out of the 
marketplace.
    I am disappointed in the settlement.
    Peter Olsen
    Peter Olsen, P.E., Ae.E.
    6904 Rawhide Ridge, Columbia, MD 21046




MTC-00003559

From: Doug Glenn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom is may concern
    The current settlement as written is nothing more than a license 
to steal. Where, in this settlement is MS fined? Where are any 
penalties? Where is the known proven anti-trust behavior stopped?
    Nothing. Nothing in this decree address past behavior or future 
behavior. XP is not addressed. .NET is not addressed. MSIM is not 
addressed. IE is not addressed. Nothing. Nothing!
    Nothing. Absolutely nothing in this decree addresses the loss of 
inovation or encourages innovation.
    In 1994, we had an OS that used voice to navigate. In 2001, MS 
releases XP with this feature. It could have been released in 1995 
with WIn95 if there had been competition. Instead it is touted as a 
new feature in 2001. Why 6 years later than the first effort? 
Because no competition. Because the competitor had their hands tied, 
paying double what everyone else paid for the Win95 product because 
of their refusal. Where is this product now? Dead. Dead because MS 
killed it with an `upgrade` to their product. IBM. Sun. What is 
being done about their product being hijacked? Nothing to date. 
Nothing.
    Nothing. That defines this settlement that is not a settlement. 
Politics.
    Who pays the most.
    We have been ripped off by MS since the bogus messages 
programming in for DR DOS. We have not been given better choices. We 
have been `marketed' products in lieu of others that 
work better because of back room dealings more than technology and 
programs that work.
    The goverment made this legal in their last `consent 
decree' which gave MS a license to steal by including items in 
their `OS' and calling it required.
    This company has ruined innovation and put the US back 
5-10 years on the computing scene because of it.
    Do not let this current decree pass.
    MS should:
Release source code for ALL of Windows
Release source code for protocols
Release source for .NET requirements to fully implent their 
protocols and APIs

[[Page 24313]]

    Nothing less is nothing less that giving us no choice in the 
future of computing.
    Doug Glenn




MTC-00003560

From: John McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft `settlement'
    I remain appalled that that the DOJ has basically thrown in the 
towel concerning Microsoft. If this were a poker hand, it is as if 
DOJ had four aces and decided to fold.
    Why am I so upset about Microsoft? There are way too many 
reasons to begin to detail them all. Let`s just start with a few 
obvious(?) examples of the problems that Microsoft has created and 
continues to create.
    First, Microsoft does not provide access to API information at 
an equal level to competing products. A prime example is Corel 
WordPerfect. That particular word processor program was written 
without access to a number of key APIs. Without those key APIs, 
functionality was compromised considerably. The purpose for 
witholding specific API information can only be assumed to be due to 
a matter of `controlling' competition. Since Microsoft 
can develop applications with closer connections to the operating 
system, they >appear< to be better products.
    Second, in recent years, modems and printers have become 
specifically limited to being functional only with Microsoft. These 
devices are called winmodems and winprinters. They have had 
significant capability removed. In some cases, the price is not 
reduced to reflect the lower level of actual expense. Consumers pay 
for this redesign. I used to rally like USRobotics modems (now 
3Com). Several months ago, I purchased a 56K modem. I was deeply 
disappointed to learn that it was a revision 3 modem. The revision 0 
modem would have worked for me wonderfully, both with Windows and 
Linux. The revision 3 modem, on the other hand, only worked with 
Windows. The revision 3 modem was priced the same as the revision 0 
modem. The manufacturer was thus able to generate substantially more 
revenue (potentially) from a given sale. I sent the crippled modem 
back to the company that I purchased the thing from. I was out the 
money for the return of the useless modem. There is no excuse for 
such deceptive tactics. The company itself provided literature that 
states a level of functionality that no longer existed. Since the 
operating system needed to provide support for this useless device, 
it is obvious that Microsoft `communicated' with this 
vendor on design objectives. Microsoft is able to control product 
design with the intent of minimizing competition VERY effectively. 
An example of printer tampering works in the same manner. My aunt 
had to purchase a replacement printer. She was using a DOS 
application, at the time. The new printer, with a substantial price 
attached, no longer could print the simple text characters used by 
the DOS application. She was compelled to purchase new software, 
even though not needed, to use this lobotomized printer. My aunt at 
that time was on a fixed income and did not need the additional 
expense, but Microsoft and the printer company deserve the 
additional revenue. At least, that is the thought I am left with by 
the withdrawal of DOJ involvement.
    I can think of a large number of additional cases, with no 
difficulty at all. How fortunate for Microsoft that DOJ has given 
up, and indeed, apparently has no clue as to the true level of 
market manipulation excerised by Microsoft. During the 1930s, there 
was an investigation of Standard Oil. That company was broken up. 
When Standard Oil is compared to Microsoft, Standard Oil looks more 
like a mom and pop operation. Yet that company was broken up. 
Something is VERY wrong here. Just how many people have been bought 
off by Microsoft, anyway?
    If that last question seems harsh, perhaps it should be seen 
that way. A lot of people have to left with that conclusion. It has 
been said many time that money talks. Microsoft is the proof.
    John McKee
    1502 Bel Air Drive
    Junction City, Kansas 66441-1821




MTC-00003561

From: Bill McCroskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:10am
Subject: About the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    In reading the plan for the settlement, I see a great deal of 
plans for the problem with middleware, but it appears that Microsoft 
is being left to have a monopoly in the desktop operating system 
market. If they are allowed to force computer makers to sell all 
their computers with Windows if they sell any with Windows then this 
perpetuates the monopoly.
    There is no doubt they have a monopoly on the `operating 
system'. Look at how each new release of Windows was sold as 
`more reliable'_what a bill of goods! Name one 
other product on the market that proves as problematic for consumers 
as Windows. If there were fair competition, Microsoft would be out 
of business because people would go elsewhere. If you bought a 
BrandA car and it was rolling junk and 3 years later BrandA put out 
a new model touted as `more reliable' and you bought a 
new BrandA model and it also proved to be rolling junk. Would you 
buy BrandA again if BrandB was on the market and available to you on 
equal terms? No, you would not. Free enterprise, competition, and 
fair markets are what makes the system work.
    I am writing this e-mail on Linux. If I buy a new PC, it comes 
with my very own copy of Windows that I have paid for and can not 
buy the machine without. I then must go out and purchase an OS that 
works and throw away what I paid for that does not work as well.
    I do still have Windows on a second drive on the system because 
sadly there are some programs not available on the Linux platform 
due to the monopoly held by Microsoft in the Operating Systems. 
While this is slowly changing, It would change faster with a level 
playing field. If Windows is so good, it should be able to stand on 
its own merit in the market place and not have to stand on strongarm 
tactics to keep it in first place.
    Computer makers should be allowed to offer a computer sold with 
whatever operating system the customer wants. The fact that some 
portion get sold with some other system than Windows should be a 
signal to Microsoft to clean their house and not to try to crush the 
computer maker`s right to sell the competing product. That is just 
plain wrong. Another concern I have is about security. I am a 
software engineer and many of the `backdoor' security 
problems I see Microsoft having are not just a simple bug in terms 
of a mistake by a programmer. These backdoors are well engineered 
avenues into the system. One can only guess as to why they were put 
there.
    I am very concerned that these backdoor entry points to 
Microsoft Operating Systems represents a threat to national 
security. Many virus programs have exploited these paths. One can 
only imagine what would happen if these paths are exploited by 
terrorist groups. The closed nature of the Windows source code 
allows this sort of problem to remain hidden. Perhaps if nothing 
else, the DOD software people should have an audit of Microsoft`s 
code in their operating systems to ensure the security of our nation 
is not put at risk due to code that serves only Microsoft`s 
interests.
    William McCroskey




MTC-00003562

From: bettkett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:21am
Subject: us govt. lawsuit against microsoft
    I think allowing microsoft to enter the educational field, is a 
huge mistake. I think the settlement as now proposed would be a huge 
reward instead of a penalty. apple has an excellent job in the 
school sector, now the govt. is going to assist microsoft in an 
effort to defranchise apple. i cannot understand this werid line of 
reasoning.
    h.d.ketterer
    [email protected]




MTC-00003563

From: Malcolm Slaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my strong disappointment in the 
published Microsoft antitrust agreement.
    Most importantly, the agreement says that Microsoft must share 
its APIs with organizations that *Microsoft* judges to have viable 
business models. The world of software is not entirely driven by 
for-profit enterprises. Web service (Apache), operating systems 
(linux), file servers (samba), email routers (sendmail/postfix) and 
software compilers (gcc) all have very successful non-profit 
entries.
    The way the agreement is written, Microsoft can extend their 
monopoly by preventing free-software proponents from interacting 
with their software. This would be bad.
    At the very least the agreement should be modified to require 
Microsoft to publish *all* their software APIs *and* their file 
formats. This would allow interoperability within the entire 
software industry and would greatly enhance competition.

[[Page 24314]]

    Malcolm Slaney, PhD
    Los Altos Hills, CA 94022




MTC-00003564

From: Brian B. Canin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft ....
    I am not a politician, nor a zealot but a computer professional, 
an entrepreneur, and a 1/3rd owner of a multi-million dollar 
software company.
    I cannot comment on the fairness of the Microsoft anti-trust 
trial from a political point of view, or even a legal point of view. 
Especially as what is fair, ethical, or legal rarely sees the fair 
and correct remedy in our special interest only oriented political 
system. What I can say, for what it is worth, is that Microsoft has 
been an unfair, monopolistic, and terrible influence in the computer 
industry for over 20 years.
    I have never directly competed with Microsoft, but have been 
manipulated and pushed around like all computer professionals by the 
Microsoft company. It is great that the government is finally 
addressing some of the monopolistic excesses which Microsoft has 
perpetrated, and it would truly be a crime of unfairness for the 
government not to have the backbone to not follow through and 
actually enforce the rule of law. Make the country proud, at least 
those in the industry who understand, and act with the courage of 
your convictions.
    I have personally seen and been outraged at the following 
behaviors and actions. All of these are the actions of a competitor 
who enjoys the clout of a monopolist. In addition, these actions are 
not just monopolistic, they push envelope of how much abuse a 
company can achieve, all while tying our courts up and getting away 
with their grossly unfair actions with little or no penalties.
    1. Microsoft owns the languages, the operating system, and the 
most important applications. This triple monopoly is one of the 
worst of their offenses. They control the development of software, 
they only provide the hooks into their operating systems with these 
languages, and they fight tooth and nail to make sure that no other 
API`s other than their own exist in any of their languages. If there 
were other competitive operating systems that had been allowed to 
exist to date, and they had some of the desktop market share, AND 
most importantly Microsoft did not have a vested interest in the 
Windows operating system above all else, then Visual Studio would 
support other 0S`s and would not be the critical tool for OS 
squashing which it is.
    a. When you own the languages (Visual Studio) which support your 
operating systems only, you stifle all the work of all developers 
world wide. You are a fool in the current environment to develop for 
anything other than Windows (at least in desktop and user interface 
software). If you take another course, you are fighting a company 
which has been operating as a monopoly for almost 20 years now, and 
you will lose.
    b. When you own the operating systems (Windows), you control the 
desktop. When you control the desktop, you control almost every 
user`s computer out there. Because they control the API`s and change 
them frequently (with NO notice to anyone outside of their trusted 
partners who collude with them) anyone in competition to Windows is 
squashed.
    c. When you own the applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), you 
keep them completely locked. For example? Why does Microsoft not 
offer Word, Excel or PowerPoint for Linux? Or why did they not 
develop them for 0S/27 Because then these `killer apps' 
would cause those other OS`s to be useful. Microsoft MUST be 
separated into 3 companys. OS, Languages, and Applications. Here is 
why: If a new company owned Languages (Visual Studio), they would be 
required to open it up to support other operation systems. This 
would have been the case all along if Microsoft was not in the 
Operation system business. Now you could develop for Linux with the 
same power that you develop for Windows.
    If a new company only owned the applications, of course they 
would move them over to Linux and other OS`s which would come along. 
Why would they not support all those other customers?
    If a new company owned the Operating systems, they would not 
have the power with the languages and apps to control the market.
    2. Microsoft applications keep their data closed. You can import 
into Microsoft, but when you try to read an Office file into another 
program, it does not work. Why? Because Microsoft keeps their data 
secret.
    It may be your letter or spreadsheet, but for 20 years they only 
import, not export. This is arrogance of the first degree and could 
only be done by a monopolist.
    3. Microsoft gave cheap pricing to hardware manufacturers as 
long as they paid for a license for EVERY computer they made. I am 
amazed at the absolute arrogance of this action. How more 
monopolistic could you be! Microsoft closed the door on even the 
possibility for another OS to make it. Imagine a company which made 
1,000,000 computers. If they put Windows on all 1,000,000 they paid 
205 each. If they put Windows on 999,999 and Linux on 1 computer, 
they paid 1005 on each OS! This isn`t just criminal, it makes the US 
government look like people being paid to look the other way!
    Even after they were censured for this, where were the punitive 
damages? What about giving up 3/4 of their revenue for the next 10 
years to reverse this incredible abuse of power! What they got away 
with for years shows that any company which engages in this kind of 
behavior risks nothing at all.
    4. Microsoft wants it all. There is almost not a single vertical 
market or slice of technology which Microsoft does not own, wants to 
own, or is controlling. If they can`t steal your concept, they try 
to buy you out. If they can`t buy you out they underprice you. If 
you are in a market which they didn`t notice and they don`t have a 
presence in your market, they make an announcement that they have 
remarkable technology coming out in your market. This causes all 
venture to dry up and flee because no one in their right mind would 
try to spend money in a market which Microsoft is going in to? Thus 
your excellent technology gets destroyed by Microsoft`s VAPORWARE! 
They now control your market with NO PRODUCT. This gives them all 
the time in the world to take their invisible product and turn it 
into something, usually at a much lower level of competence.
    5. Microsoft has inferior technology. Microsoft is not known in 
the industry as a good technology company. For 20 years they pushed 
complete garbage on the public. Currently, their software is pretty 
good, and especially hard to knock out of the drivers seat. But this 
is because they have had 20 years to get their act together. Mission 
number one at Microsoft is the destruction of everything of value 
around them. Their technology then fills the vacuum. It`s not hard 
to get your software working after 2 decades when you have destroyed 
the competition with everything BUT good technology. What Microsoft 
is, is a MARKETING company. Don`t get me wrong, I am high-tech 
salesperson and believe that marketing and business is the MOST 
important thing in this business. But don`t use marketing to destroy 
the competition, while you bring inferior software to market? This 
is monopolistic behavior. If each individual software system of 
Microsoft`s stood on their own, lets say each was owned by an 
independent company, these companies would not exist today. The 
software takes years and years to not crash, to work correctly ,etc. 
Microsoft Access version 1.0 was not even a product which ran. But 
it killed the Borland purchase of DBASE, because it sold for $99.00 
and the world was afraid to get behind the $495 working system! 
After destroying the competition with marketing and other 
monopolistic behavior, and a whole lot of years, it has become the 
mediocre software it is today. In conclusion I would like to state 
the following. It is very hard to get a layman to understand how 
much the monopoly of Microsoft has affected the world of technology 
and how much their abuses have hurt so many individuals and 
companies. The cost to the consumer is even harder to explain. We 
live in a Microsoft dominated world. Innovation only exists in the 
vacuum of markets which people are not afraid to enter, and if they 
get too big, Microsoft jumps in and destroys them.
    Come on already. Take some action. Fix what has happened so far 
and let all the companies of the world have a chance to compete. 
Imagine the gains technology and society could have made if 
Microsoft had been broken up 10 years ago!
    Brian B. Canin
    4958 Concannon Court
    San Diego, CA 92130
    (858) 523-0375




MTC-00003565

From: Allen Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement the the DOJ and 9 states have agreed 
upon. I believe that this wil help the economy and that it is best 
for this country.
    Allen Davis




MTC-00003566

From: Carlos Filipe Zambujo Lopes Pereira

[[Page 24315]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:40am
Subject: Redhat proposal
    Dear sirs,
    I think that the proposal Redhat has suggested regarding the 
remedies that should be applied to Microsoft, points to a very 
important issue: deployment of Microsoft only software in schools 
around the US will only consolidate their monopoly on the desktop 
and make considerable inroads in the server area. In the end, it 
would turn out to be the opposite of a penalty.
    Regards,
    Carlos
    P.S.: Although I am not a US citizen, Microsoft`s monopolistic 
practices are felt all over the world, and maybe more so here in 
Portugal than even in the US.




MTC-00003567

From: foodog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I just found out about comments being solicited or I would have 
spoken when the terms of the judgement were made public. I`ve been a 
computing professional for more than 15 years and am intimately 
familiar with the issues and history. I have kept current with the 
case throughout. The penalties `imposed' on Microsoft 
are a farce beyond belief. Microsoft has been told to continue with 
business as usual.
    In my wildest dreams I never thought that Microsoft`s own 
lawyers would write the judgement. It`s laughable; there are no 
penalties and no remedies. Zip, nada. There are even new legal 
protections to help nurture the monopoly! MS is specifically allowed 
to keep protocols and APIs secret if they have to do with 
authentication. Do you even know what `authentication' 
is? How in the world can another company or operating system compete 
at all if they can`t even authenticate on the network? I fully 
expect that the DMCA will be `vigorously' used to 
prosecute any entities that attempt to reverse engineer Microsoft`s 
protocols to compete.
    No penalty or remedy was imposed, not even a token $1.00 
judgement in damages. The DOJ has destroyed any belief that justice 
can prevail. I still have a dim hope that the holdout states can 
achieve some token remedy, such as forcing the documentation of MS 
Office file formats and Windows APIs. I`m not holding my breath, 
since the United States Department of Justice has *so* obviously 
been bought and paid for. The resolution of the Microsoft Monopoly 
case is a national shame.
    There`s just no other way to say it.
    Steven W. Smith
    Systems Programmer II
    Glendale Community College. Glendale, AZ.
    [email protected]




MTC-00003568

From: Michael Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:04am
Subject: Microsoft
    Something needs to be done about Microsoft. The settlement in 
unacceptable. Microsoft does not own my system and my computers. 
They have no right to control the whole interne t.




MTC-00003569

From: Juan Valencia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly and unequivocally disagree with the Microsoft 
settlement. The Department of Justice has already proven in court 
that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, and that it used its 
monopolistic powers to influence competition and vendors. Yet, the 
proposed settlement encourages Microsoft to donate software and 
hardware in the one single market in which they do not have a 
monopoly. This will, in effect terminate any sense of choice these 
schools may have had. Why can`t Microsoft simply pay out its penalty 
in cash and let the schools decide how to spend their money. Is that 
not what our current President told us when he was running for 
office?
    Juan Valencia




MTC-00003570

From: rajesh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:30am
Subject: Dear Sir,
    Dear Sir,
    For all the monopolistic attitude of Microsoft and the proposed 
`settlement' is a joke for the millions of users. With 
the donation of software to schools as `payment' 
Microsoft would actually be taking away market share from other 
vendors and building a stronger monopolistic position. The real cost 
to them for the settlement is ZERO. Market value of the software has 
no meaning here.
    We the people may be dumb but we aint stupid. The settlement 
reeks of favoritism. In the name of `justice' you will 
actually be wiping out a good many companies and their future.
    WHY are you treating Microsoft as `above the law'. 
Change of Government = Change of heart? that too from the Justice 
system? What message are you sending to the world?
    Regards
    Rajesh Motwani




MTC-00003571

From: Jeff Frederick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti Trust case 
is completly unacceptable. Microsoft my open it`s sourcecode and 
API`s to any business (for profit or not for profit).
    In addition, Microsoft must be punished for it`s monopolistic 
ways. Giving out software is not an option. It MUST give something 
that can be used such as CASH!
    This settlement is entirely unacceptable and I expect the US 
Justice Dept. the come up with a REAL solution to the microsoft 
problem.




MTC-00003572

From: john clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is too lenient and soesn`t build in 
enough safeguards to prevent a repeat of their anti-competitive 
behavior.
    Sincerely,
    John Clark
    38 Gedney Circle
    White Plains NY 10605




MTC-00003573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Bill Gates must have howled with laughter when this came out. 
The required donation of free software is ridiculous because:
    1. Software costs them almost nothing to produce.
    2. It will strengthen their foothold in the education market, 
one of the last where they aren`t dominant.
    Microsoft should be required to keep Windows separate from 
applications and to provide complete descriptions of all O.S. 
interfaces.
    Warren Gibson
    P. O. Box 88
    San Carlos, CA 94070




MTC-00003574

From: Frank Schreck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:00am
Subject: sanctions
    dear ladies and gentlemen, you asked for for users 
opion_here is mine:
    the nine states longing for stronger restrictions are absolutely 
right. as you might see, i am writing this mail in ms outlook. i am 
not doing this because i like the programm but because of 
uncontrollable system-failures by using netscape.
    the interchangeiability of the ms office formats that can not be 
reached by other programs (e.g. sun`s staroffice) forced me to buy 
the very expensive ms office... thank you for your interest,
    Frank Schreck,
    Heidelberg / Germany




MTC-00003575

From: R.G. Mayhue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:12am
Subject: This ruling is appalling!!
    Big business wins again!
    So this is how the Bush administration and the DOJ is going to 
handle this? Those crooks at Microsoft have been monopolizing an 
entire industry for years and FINALLY when they get hauled into 
federal court and FOUND GUILTY, after millions of dollars spent on 
the case, they have to pay practically no price at all of their 
actions! As I said. Appalling!!
    BIG MONEY WINS AGAIN!!!
    Microsoft`s licensing practices alone make it certain that no 
other operating system will ever stand a chance in making inroads on 
the desktops of America. Microsoft will not stand for just a piece 
of the pie.....THEY WANT THE WHOLE DAMN THING!!
    When the security of the entire nation is at risk (well 
heck.....it is now) due to viruses and the Microsoft monopoly, I 
hope the Bush

[[Page 24316]]

 administration and the DOJ will stand up and take FULL 
RESPONSIBILITY for this atrocity!
    P.S. No more votes for the people who put you in office!!
    R.G. Mayhue
    [email protected]



MTC-00003576

From: Ken Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, for full disclosure, I am a Microsoft employee. Yes, I 
have personal a stake in this decision, and I`m sure our critics 
would say I have no right to comment because of that. But I am also 
a US citizen and tax payer. And because I`m here, on the inside so 
to speak, I know what I read in the news about Microsoft is bunk. We 
are not mad people interested in dominating the world economy as our 
competitors like to say. We`re just average folk. We have kids and 
hs, and dreams. We want America to be best it can be. We want our 
kids to have a future, where fairness and work are still American 
virtues.
    For the past few years, I have felt like I`ve been living in the 
Soviet Union of the 60`s. My own government was attacking me and my 
family. Finally things have changed and the DOJ has regained some 
sanity. Please don`t let Sun, Oracle and AOL poison the first 
positive steps to get beyond this mess. They are not motivated to 
compete on price, quality or features as long as they enjoy 
government protection. If they want to remain competitive then make 
them do it the way we do it every day of every week_through 
hard work.




MTC-00003577

From: Fred Ferraro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:25am
Subject: microsoft
    I am a consumer that has bought 4 computers in the last 8 years. 
I am very satisfied with the software I`ve gotten from Microsoft and 
the ease with which it works. I also use AOL. If someone wants a 
different piece of software on their computer that is their business 
and no one is stopping them from adding anything. Enough with this 
constant harrassement of Microsoft, you had your shot. These 9 
states whinning again about Microsoft are after two things, money 
and to get their names in the paper.They are frauds. No one is 
forcing anybody to buy anything. Enough, Enough, Enough. This 
country has alot more to worry about that what West Virginia wants. 
Enough! Fred Ferraro Bend, Oregon




MTC-00003578

From: Larry J. Linder
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/9/01 11:34am
Subject: Anti Trust_shake down continues
    Dear Sir:
    I own a small business that is a Engineering design development 
company that specializes in developing special software and hardware 
for industrial customers.
    There are several serious issues at hand.
    1. From an outside prospective it looks like the Bush 
Administration and the DOJ have been bought off. Decision paid for 
and given. The first judge, Johnson, had it correct and had the 
correct decision.
    Now I will tell you why we think he was correct. In 
Chronological order. In the late 80 we were developing several new 
products based on the then current MicroSoft backed software. We 
went to the development conferences and listed as MicroSoft was 
preaching one one thing to independent developers and in side 
getting ready to blind side us with it new Windows release. Looking 
back the meeting were filled with miss information and down right 
lies. As a result we have avoided developing any software that runs 
on a Microsoft platform. A bitter and costly lesson to us, such 
practices stifled the development of several medical applications.
    Next product to be developed was a very advanced hearing aid 
that would offer an major technical leap forward in hearing aid 
technology. Because of our last experience with MicroSoft we decided 
to use OS/2 for this system. Microsoft pressured IBM to cease 
supporting OS/2 or they would cut off the availability of IBM to 
acquire Microsoft licensed software. They rolled over and died. This 
left us with years of development and thousands of dollars invested 
for nothing. That is how the monopolistic vices of Microsoft 
devastate the developer and hinder or keeps new products from the 
open market.
    Microsofts bid to take over the internet and if you don`t run a 
Microsoft OS the internet will be closed to you. Since the DOJ buy 
off we have seen an increasingly number of sites that you are denied 
access to. E-Mail that you cannot read because it has imbedded 
MicroSoft stuff that is not compatible with other systems. At 
present if you follow your plan the internet will be 100 % Microsoft 
in as little as two years and certainly in 3 years. All other 
participants will be frozen out. This is not a prediction but a 
comment from an Microsoft insider engineer to engineer.
    Why am I writing you is because of a threateningly phone call I 
received the other day from a Microsoft lawyer who asked to speak to 
the owner of the company.
    He asked us if we were using any Microsoft products and that if 
we were we could be a target for a Microsoft legal action if we 
didn`t sign up to buy the new OS from Microsoft. This is the shake 
down.
    Fortunately we use Linux Red Had on our desk tops and Servers, 
told him that and it was sort of the end of the conversation. He 
also indicated that it might interfere with our ability to purchase 
Microsoft products for use on some customer`s systems.
    At this point I told him that what we do in the business world 
is no business of Microsoft and the conversation was 
terminated._Good By.
    Other practices that have surfaced and we have documented.
    We have been approached by the city where our business is 
located and asked if there is any alternative to breaking the Cities 
budget by upgrading to the new Microsoft OS. There is no such thing 
as a site license but they have to buy a new OS for every computer 
the City owns. We told them that if the DOJ maintains it present 
course then they should plan on putting a 250,000 line item in the 
budget for Microsoft. If the DOJ were to break up Microsoft then 
things would be different. We have a customer who bought a new Dell 
computer that ran the new Microsoft OS and he decided that it didn`t 
meet his performance need and wanted us to build him a special 
system that would meet his need for video editing. He wanted to use 
his current software and transfer it to his new system, format the 
old systems hard disk and put it on E-Bay. When we complied with his 
wishes we found that it would not finish booting because the BIOS 
was tied into the operating system and it would only run on his old 
system.
    He was not informed or warned of this practice and had to buy 
another copy of the Microsoft OS to get his new system up and 
running even thought he currently owned it. Hello MAFIA are you 
listening.
    We are finding that Microsoft in pressuring processor builder to 
build in Microsoft only features that will make other systems slow 
or not compatible with the new processors. Once the compilers are 
Microsoft only they will literally own the whole computer industry. 
Just look at the ES processor from AMD. What the DOJ needs to do. 
The internet must be powered by a federally mandated minimum set of 
software that is compliant with all OS`s. The National Bureau of 
Standards it uniquely suited for this duty.
    Microsoft should be prohibited from making deals with hardware 
vendors to customize everything to Microsoft specifications. 
Basically Microsoft as a minimum should be prevented from 
influencing hardware design.
    The Microsoft OS and Application software must be separated and 
physically moved where one part is on the West cost and the other is 
on the East cost. All middle ware for the OS must be available to 
the whole community at the same time and not as it exists today 
where the Application developers have years of advance information 
and it becomes available only after Microsoft releases a new OS and 
immediately release a new business suite that is not backward 
compatible with anything including older Microsoft products. 
Microsoft should be prohibited from giving any hardware and software 
to any institution. The hardware if given must be loaded with a non 
Microsoft OS and applications. The implications of what the DOJ is 
planning or has agreed to only strengthens Microsoft`s hand in 
controlling the entire US computer market. The US government 
agencies should all use something other than Microsoft OS`s as a 
start.
    If the legal system fails the business and citizens and fails to 
break up Microsoft the future of the technical development of 
alternative systems and the free enterprise system that used to 
exist in the US will be gone. Once there is no alternative the US 
Citizen, City, State and Federal Government will be held hostage by 
Microsoft and when ever Bill Gates need some money he will upgrade 
the Microsoft monopoly and you will all pay or do 
without_there will be no alternative.
    From a small business owner prespective. It looks like Bill 
Gates bought the present

[[Page 24317]]

administration including the DOJ and several Judges.
    Respectfully submitted
    Larry J. Linder
    Principal Engineer_CEO
    MicroControls
    Xenia, Ohio




MTC-00003579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:37am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE lets finish this. Tell California to stop resisting.




MTC-00003580

From: Howard Salis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice of the United States of America:
    As per the Tunney Act, I wish to input my two cents regarding 
the recent proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Any 
person or organization that owns a license of any Microsoft 
operating system should have the right to effectively and 
effeciently program applications for use on that operating system. 
This requires full and extensive knowledge of the use of APIs that 
form the interface between all applications and the operating 
system. This entails having the knowledge of the existence of all 
prior and future APIs on a Microsoft operating system and the method 
of their use.
    Currently, the wording in the current settlement leaves out many 
organizations that do not make a profit off their work. Non-profit 
organizations have the same rights, concerning the use of purchased 
software, as their for-profit counterparts in the computer industry. 
This should be rather common sense and if current law statutes 
conflict then they should be examined and amended.
    I am a U.S citizen.
    Howard Salis




MTC-00003581

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:30pm
Subject: Settlement
    I really must wonder at what point the government is going to 
protect us from this monopoly.
    The first thing is that I believe Microsoft should not be broken 
up. They make good software, and the company`s demise would be 
unforunate. The second suggestion I heard at one time was making 
them open source their code. Although I prefer open source software 
myself, I think it is rediculous to not allow corporate secrets.
    I suggest that the `coding' of files be required to 
be registered in the Library of Congress for all computer files. If 
Microsoft makes a better word processor, fine.
    But to lock up the way the resultant data files are written and 
read with a given platform is wrong. Let it be that the programming 
code for the program is their trade secret, but the way the data 
file is written is in the public domain. This way if company 
`Z' chose to create a competing word processor, it would 
be able to compete by being able to accurately interpert other 
programs output files.
    This idea is in my mind the one solution that opens up 
competition, and takes nothing away from innovation. In fact it 
should increase innovation, because now a company`s product would 
actually have to perform better in order to sell.
    As for the rediculous concept of a punishment being to increase 
their infiltration further, locking in even more people to their own 
products, while not actually costing the company anything , I would 
love to know who came up with that idea. Your department really does 
not seem to understand what the root of this whole problem is. They 
own like 92% of the market, and their punishment is increasing it to 
96%? Please do not use increasing a monopoly`s reach as a way to 
punish them.
    Donald Wilson
    17 Snufftown rd.
    Goshen NY 10924
    [email protected]




MTC-00003582

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    The settlement proposal does not solve the primary problem: 
Microsoft`s behavior does not change, however, under this proposal, 
it merely pays a licensing fee so that it can continue to violate 
the law.
    Microsoft must be forced into making the environment more open 
to competition. I would like to see the following added to the 
proposal.
    No computer system can be sold with Microsoft`s operating 
system, unless it comes with a second non-Microsoft operating system 
install. The market place can determine what it will be (There is 
Linux and BSD operating systems available.) If it is an open-source 
operating system, then it will come at no cost to the consumer.
    Microsoft must modify its software so that if the consumer must 
recover the Windows operating system, the recover process does not 
assume it will have the entire disk for itself.
    (That little trick makes sure that no other operating can 
survive while making it more difficult for people to backup their 
systems.)
    Additional, consumers must have the right to buy a system 
without Microsoft Windows install and not have to pay a kick-back to 
Microsoft in the process. There are many people who do not want 
Microsoft windows.
    Gary L. Burt
    Lecturer
    CS/EE Department
    UMBC
    [email protected]
    1000 Hilltop Circle
    Baltimore, MD 21250




MTC-00003583

From: Kedar Soman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:41pm
Subject: Current ruling will not curb microsoft bad practices
    Dear Madam / sir,
    I sincerely believe that the microsoft ruling is not going to 
achieve the main goal of stopping microsoft from following antitrust 
policies. Over the years the company has grown into giant, but still 
it`s greed is not fulfilled. It`s greed was healthy at one time and 
the company expanded by making quality products like MS office. But 
recently they have stopped making quality products and started these 
kind of strategies to make money. The current ruling, in my opinion, 
does not do anything to stop these practices. This again allows 
microsoft to propogate their own softwares which means ultimately in 
microsoft interest. So this is not punishment for microsoft, but 
blessing.
    Thanks for letting me write,
    Kedar Soman




MTC-00003584

From: Tim Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    Any settlement with Microsoft must include remedies to correct 
Microsoft`s abuse of its monopoly position as well as sanctions to 
prevent future violations of antitrust law.
    End users suffer injury from the existing monopoly because of 
Microsoft`s effort to exclude competition of any kind in the 
software business. Competition is essential in any non-regulated 
business to provide the best quality products at the lowest prices 
to the end user. Microsoft`s current position in software is not 
that much different than the position Standard Oil Company held at 
the turn of the 20th century.
    Any settlement with Microsoft must include measures to allow 
competition in the software business. These measures should include 
allowing computer manufacturers and distributors to load other 
operating systems alongside MS-Windows to provide the end user with 
a choice. Current licensing restrictions from Microsoft prohibit 
this, and for anticompetitive reasons, these and similar 
restrictions must be struck down as unlawful.
    Microsoft`s offer to give away their software products to 
schools will actually spread the same monopoly that brought about 
legal action in the first case. A more appropriate action would be 
Microsoft providing the funding for schools to buy software of their 
choice. Microsoft already has a monopoly position in business 
application software, and allowing it to build a monopoly in the 
educational market will do great harm in a sector already strapped 
for funding.
    If the Court does not break up Microsoft in the same fashion 
that Standard Oil and AT&T-Bell System were broken up, then 
other measures must be taken to allow competition back into this 
marketplace. The end user has been robbed of his freedom of choice, 
and the Court must restore freedom of choice to the software market, 
especially in light of the fact that the Court has established that 
Microsoft operates as a monopoly, and it has operated unlawfully to 
maintain its monopoly position.
    This monopoly must either be broken up like the Standard Oil and 
Bell System monopolies, or regulated in the same fashion as a public 
utility. History has shown that the public benefited highly from 
breaking up monopolistic firms. The telecommunications

[[Page 24318]]

boom would not have occurred under the old Bell System, and the 
energy market would be very different had Standard Oil been left 
intact.
    Evidence exists to show that significant innovation in software 
products has been stifled and suppressed by Microsoft. There is 
currently no indication that this will stop, and for that reason, 
Microsoft should be split into two or three companies: and operating 
system company, an applications software company, and an Internet 
software company. Collecting fines and compulsory donations to 
schools and charities has no deterrent effect against Microsoft 
continuing to violate the law and abuse its monopoly position.
    Regards,
    William T. Wright




MTC-00003585

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:49pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft Corp.
    I am writing to register my displeasure with the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation in the anti-monopoly suit that 
has been pending now for so many years. Having found Microsoft to be 
a monopoly, it appeared that the trial Court had opened the door for 
sweeping corrections to the business practices of a company that has 
always placed its `bottom line' over the interests of 
consumers and business partners alike. It appears now that the 
Department of Justice has decided to take the role of 
`protector of the economy' (as though they were actually 
qualified to do that), rather than proceed with sanctions against 
Microsoft based on the merits of the case, by watering down its 
position on the basis of the impact it might have on the economic 
climate.
    It seems that Microsoft has already had a negative impact on the 
economy by stifling fair competition, contributing to the failures 
of some businesses, and over-charging customers for its products. 
Moreover, Microsoft has produced faulty software that requires 
almost limitless patching and updating to ensure functionality and 
security, while discouraging the development of meaningful 
alternative operating systems by unfairly bringing its influence to 
bear on competition in the market place. In the meantime, Microsoft 
has introduced each new operating system as though it were 
`the best thing since sliced bread,' but has really 
introduced only minor improvements, with most of the focus being on 
incorporating the patches and fixes to the previous version into the 
new one, then selling it over again as a `new' product.
    The agreement sanctioned by the DOJ is a slap on the wrist of 
Microsoft, and permits the monopoly to continue unabated, as 
evidenced by the release of an even more proprietary operating 
system in the form of Windows XP. I`d like to know how it was 
possible for the DOJ to go from a position of breaking up the 
company, to a position of doing almost nothing at all. Surely there 
is more to it than honest concern for the economy, since Microsoft 
has never been the fulcrum of the economy in the past.
    I sincerely hope that the nine states and the District of 
Columbia holding out for stronger sanctions and safeguards are 
successful in their attempt to shape the final judgement in this 
matter. They obviously have the true interests of the consumers 
(i.e., voters) and the long-term health of the economy at heart.




MTC-00003586

From: David Hirst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:55pm
Subject: Some comments....
    I can only hope and pray that wiser and more just minds review 
the ruling! Some comment and further short readings....
    From: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/nameofthegame/2001/
20011129.shtml
    (my comments in parenthesis)
    Gary: First, you must understand that Microsoft has absolutely 
committed crimes to enforce their monopoly power. This is why they 
are willing to settle these class action lawsuits for what appears 
to be such a lot of money. Microsoft understands that it will have 
to pay a hefty amount of money, no matter what.
    Randy: So, it tries to pay off the trial attorneys with as yet 
undetermined attorney fees, and dupe the public with promises of 
computers and software to kids, as opposed to real money to the 
actual plaintiffs in the case. There is no way that this would ever 
cost Microsoft even close to $1 billion. These days it isn`t hard to 
find a `refurbed' computer for less than $50 bucks.
    Randy: A better solution would be to make Microsoft buy $1 
billion (per year for 5 years) worth of competitors` products for 
these schools. Seems like a reasonable punishment for an illegal 
monopoly. Nothing would pop more zits on Bill Gates` forehead than 
having to buy 25,000 iMacs! (or better for five years)
    Gary: If nothing else, make Microsoft deposit money into a 
technology fund for these schools. $1 billion (per year!) over five 
years. Then let the schools decide what to spend that money on 
without any more involvement from Microsoft. It is clear that by 
proposing this settlement, that Microsoft has learned nothing and is 
thumbing its nose at the government and the consumer alike.
    Making them pay out over five years would allow students to 
REALLY build a foundation of knowledge and use, while keeping the 
technology current. It would also be at least a somewhat meaningful 
punishment for the CRIMES that MS has perpetrated on the American 
public rather than the soft slaps on the wrist that MS has gotten 
away with in the past.
    Sincerely,
    David R, Hirst
    P.O. Box 898
    Tacoma, WA 98401-0898




MTC-00003587

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Final Settlement
    This is a weak, weak, settlement. First of all, Microsoft enjoys 
it`s current market position in large part due to past anti-
competitive activities, which gives Microsoft an unfair market 
advantage even if they were to cease all such objectionable activity 
immediately. Competing operating systems will consequently continue 
to suffer an unfair disadvantage if the settlement is to be solely a 
conduct remedy. If you want a truly competitive marketplace, you 
should split Microsoft into two companies, one for the OS and one 
for the applications. This would force Microsoft to port it`s 
applications (such as MS Office) to alternative OSs such as Linux 
and Unix, effectively ending Microsoft`s stranglehold on the desktop 
market. If you must limit yourselves to conduct remedies, then 
please at least require Microsoft to port their office suites and 
media players to the competing OSs. Also, ensure that Microsoft`s OS 
will continue to be Java-compatible, and compatible with emulators 
such as WINE, WinForLin, etc. Otherwise, Microsoft will continue to 
enjoy an unfair advantage due to their past anti-competitive 
behavior.
    You should also consider that given Microsoft`s track record of 
unscrupulous conduct, any conduct remedy will require that you keep 
them under extremely close and continuous scrutiny, and will need to 
allocate a large staff and massive resources to do so effectively.
    Really, you should have broken Microsoft up.
    Lee Einer
    http://www.members.home.net/appealsman




MTC-00003588

From: Thomas Fitchette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ongoing 
Microsoft Antitrust Settlement.
    My opinion as a citizen working in the higher education system 
and with a significant exposure to technical issues and technologies 
themselves, is that the government was right in part in pursuing 
judgement against Microsoft on certain business practices, whereas a 
remedy on restricting some of those normal business practices for a 
period of time to let the market correct itself_as it has been 
the case over the last several years with business to business 
solutions, and a one time settlement ranging between one (1) to five 
(5) billion dollars to be distributed to technology poor educational 
systems (K-12) seems proper and reasonable. In light of the 
favor that the latter creates for the defendant, I would recommend 
that the education remedy be revised that so that it is strictly a 
monetary penalty, whereas school districts should employ whatever 
allocation methods they deem or have consulted as necessary within 
their need base. Otherwise, the placement of Microsoft technologies 
and peripheral services is more of an awards package to Microsoft 
than a punishment.
    As for consumer harm, as a computer and technologies user who 
has had opportunities to try other operating systems, other web 
technologies, and multi-platform solutions, I have felt either 
little to no harm by Microsoft`s business practices. In most cases, 
whereas business did not dictate a solution, I have freely chosen a 
Microsoft solution because it was advantageous within the

[[Page 24319]]

situation(s) at hand. In other cases, a non-Microsoft product has 
been chosen on the same merits of being the best tool for the job. 
Minus the monopoly status, I see no distinct differences between 
Microsoft practices and the practices of the competitors that have 
been friends of the court and would-be plaintiffs. I`ve seen 
solutions come and go on the value and shortcomings of their own 
making, not always on the tactics of a competitor. In any market, 
being a mediocre competitor is just being a mediocre competitor, 
inclusive of how well one presents themselves to consumers. Yet, I 
perceive that a number of rivals would seek the law as a mechanism, 
a business practice to hobble their competitors, such as the case 
with some patent and copyright suits. It isn`t about the law, it`s 
about business 101, and the court as a competition tool.
    My position on Netscape and its products was that it made 
popular and mainstream a technology that others already were using, 
(some free browsers existed at the time as well as commercial), did 
it well, but performed even better going head-to-head against 
Microsoft. Being in the education field, we never had to pay for web 
browsers to begin with as part of the licensing agreements set forth 
by those companies, inclusive of staff, faculty, and students, many 
of which transferred the same technologies to home computers. Both 
Netscape and Internet Explorer had strengths and shortcomings, but I 
have used both browsers even before the limitation in harddrive 
sizes was no longer a restrictive factor. I prefer Internet Explorer 
based on ease of use, features included in the browser and 
reliability.
    My position on Netscape`s market share loss is that the company 
that purchased it, AOL (now AOL Time Warner) had ample opportunity 
and financial means to reverse, if not stop, the decline of the 
Netscape browser and services, but publicly made no visible 
contributions to elevating the product instead saturating the market 
with its internet service promotions. To me, it has seemed a 
convenient time, (the litigation process against Microsoft), that a 
competitive product was given little to no promotion or distribution 
through the owners own internet service program America Online which 
successfully seeded consumer households with compact discs of the 
ISP software making them arguably the single largest commercial 
internet provider. I am of the opinion that competitors like AOL, 
Sun, Oracle, etc., were purposely creating allowing perceptions of 
barriers to markets by temporarily holding back on announcing plans 
and delaying or quietly releasing competitive products in order to 
give weight to claims in the antitrust case which they would have 
hoped to concluded much sooner than the time frame that has come to 
pass. At the time, the stock market was riding high and companies 
could afford to use such delay tactics in hopes of Microsoft being 
crippled by an antitrust judgement.
    So I would implore the court to seek out the views and opinions 
of more than just the vocal political and business players in this 
case. The case has been highly political. This opportunity to 
express my views has been the only government solicitation of 
whether I believe to have been harmed by Microsoft`s business 
practices, and I wish to not have the case be the cause of consumer 
harm, which is why I never supported the court ordered breakup of 
the company (which isn`t a bad solution for the company), but 
offered little to no protection of the breakups from the competitors 
who have worked well together to litigate against Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Thomas Earl Fitchette
    [email protected]
    Richmond, Virginia




MTC-00003589

From: Thomas Fitchette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ongoing 
Microsoft Antitrust Settlement.
    My opinion as a citizen working in the higher education system 
and with a significant exposure to technical issues and technologies 
themselves, is that the government was right in part in pursuing 
judgement against Microsoft on certain business practices, whereas a 
remedy on restricting some of those normal business practices for a 
period of time to let the market correct itself_as it has been 
the case over the last several years with business to business 
solutions, and a one time settlement ranging between one (1) to five 
(5) billion dollars to be distributed to technology poor educational 
systems (K-12) seems proper and reasonable. In light of the 
favor that the latter creates for the defendant, I would recommend 
that the education remedy be revised that so that it is strictly a 
monetary penalty, whereas school districts should employ whatever 
allocation methods they deem or have consulted as necessary within 
their need base. Otherwise, the placement of Microsoft technologies 
and peripheral services is more of an awards package to Microsoft 
than a punishment.
    As for consumer harm, as a computer and technologies user who 
has had opportunities to try other operating systems, other web 
technologies, and multi-platform solutions, I have felt either 
little to no harm by Microsoft`s business practices. In most cases, 
whereas business did not dictate a solution, I have freely chosen a 
Microsoft solution because it was advantageous within the 
situation(s) at hand. In other cases, a non-Microsoft product has 
been chosen on the same merits of being the best tool for the job. 
Minus the monopoly status, I see no distinct differences between 
Microsoft practices and the practices of the competitors that have 
been friends of the court and would-be plaintiffs. I`ve seen 
solutions come and go on the value and shortcomings of their own 
making, not always on the tactics of a competitor. In any market, 
being a mediocre competitor is just being a mediocre competitor, 
inclusive of how well one presents themselves to consumers. Yet, I 
perceive that a number of rivals would seek the law as a mechanism, 
a business practice to hobble their competitors, such as the case 
with some patent and copyright suits. It isn`t about the law, it`s 
about business 101, and the court as a competition tool.
    My position on Netscape and its products was that it made 
popular and mainstream a technology that others already were using, 
(some free browsers existed at the time as well as commercial), did 
it well, but performed even better going head-to-head against 
Microsoft. Being in the education field, we never had to pay for web 
browsers to begin with as part of the licensing agreements set forth 
by those companies, inclusive of staff, faculty, and students, many 
of which transferred the same technologies to home computers. Both 
Netscape and Internet Explorer had strengths and shortcomings, but I 
have used both browsers even before the limitation in harddrive 
sizes was no longer a restrictive factor. I prefer Internet Explorer 
based on ease of use, features included in the browser and 
reliability.
    My position on Netscape`s market share loss is that the company 
that purchased it, AOL (now AOL Time Warner) had ample opportunity 
and financial means to reverse, if not stop, the decline of the 
Netscape browser and services, but publicly made no visible 
contributions to elevating the product instead saturating the market 
with its internet service promotions. To me, it has seemed a 
convenient time, (the litigation process against Microsoft), that a 
competitive product was given little to no promotion or distribution 
through the owners own internet service program America Online which 
successfully seeded consumer households with compact discs of the 
ISP software making them arguably the single largest commercial 
internet provider. I am of the opinion that competitors like AOL, 
Sun, Oracle, etc., were purposely creating allowing perceptions of 
barriers to markets by temporarily holding back on announcing plans 
and delaying or quietly releasing competitive products in order to 
give weight to claims in the antitrust case which they would have 
hoped to concluded much sooner than the time frame that has come to 
pass. At the time, the stock market was riding high and companies 
could afford to use such delay tactics in hopes of Microsoft being 
crippled by an antitrust judgement.
    So I would implore the court to seek out the views and opinions 
of more than just the vocal political and business players in this 
case. The case has been highly political. This opportunity to 
express my views has been the only government solicitation of 
whether I believe to have been harmed by Microsoft`s business 
practices, and I wish to not have the case be the cause of consumer 
harm, which is why I never supported the court ordered breakup of 
the company (which isn`t a bad solution for the company), but 
offered little to no protection of the breakups from the competitors 
who have worked well together to litigate against Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Thomas Earl Fitchette
    [email protected]
    Richmond, Virginia




MTC-00003590

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse

[[Page 24320]]

Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20530-001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Consumer`s Objection to Proposed 
Judgment
    By e-mail dated Nov. 28, 2001, I previously informed you of my 
bases for objecting to the above-referenced `Proposed 
Judgment'. For your reference, I have included below a copy of 
the contents of my prior e-mail.
    I have since reviewed the `Remedial Proposals' filed 
with the District Court on December 7, 2001, by the Plaintiff 
Litigating States. Because the `Proposed Judgment' fails 
to address in any effective manner my concerns expressed in my e-
mail of Nov. 28, and because the `Remedial Proposals' do 
address these concerns, I ask that the `Proposed 
Judgment' be rejected and that the `Remedial 
Proposals' be substituted in its place and I ask that the 
District Court take all steps necessary to make the `Remedial 
Proposals' the final judgment in this proceeding.
    Sincerely,
    G. Joseph Buck
    433 Via Anita
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277
    `[email protected]'
REPETITION BELOW OF PRIOR E-MAIL OF NOVEMBER 28, 2001
    As a consumer, I write to object to the proposed judgment 
because the judgment does not address in a positive manner the most 
important violation by Microsoft of the antitrust law. The proposed 
judgment, instead, expressly condones Microsoft`s continued 
violation of the law.
    The appellate court specifically held that `Microsoft`s... 
commingling of browser and operating system code constitute(s) 
exclusionary conduct, in violation of Section 2.' [U.S. v. 
Microsoft Corp., June 28, 2001, No. 00-5212, p. 40, first 
paragraph of part II.B.2.b.] Contrary to this explicit holding, the 
proposed judgment specifically provides that `(t)he software 
code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.' [Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment, part VI.U]. Thus the proposed judgment 
expressly authorizes Microsoft to continue those acts that the 
appellate court specifically held violated Section 2 of the anti-
trust law.
    Microsoft continues to expand the strength and breadth of it`s 
monopoly over the PC operating system by absorbing into the 
software, which Microsoft calls its ` Windows Operating 
System', functions performed by its competitor`s applications 
and utilities. Because Microsoft sells its `operating 
system' as a single product, each time that Microsoft adds to 
its `operating system' a function that previously was 
performed by the competitor`s product, consumer demand for the 
competitor`s product ceases and the competitor is destroyed. Again 
and again, Microsoft has used this weapon to leverage its monopoly 
power in the Window`s operating system to wipe out it`s competitors 
and its competitor`s software products while, at the same time, 
increasing the strength and breadth of its monopoly. The vehemence 
with which Microsoft objects to any limitation on its use of this 
weapon evidences Microsoft`s recognition of the critical importance 
of this weapon to Microsoft`s continuation and expansion of its 
monopoly.
    Because Microsoft has monopoly power in its `Windows 
Operating System' I, as a consumer, am forced to purchase the 
Windows Operating System in order to operate my computer. Each time 
that Microsoft expands the breadth of its `operating 
system' by absorbing into it functions previously performed by 
other software, I lose the freedom to purchase such functionality 
from other sources, and whether or not I need such additional 
functionality, my computer is burdened by the additional software in 
Microsoft`s `operating system' that performs these 
functions.
    If the judgment does not prevent Microsoft from commingling its 
`Windows operating system' with software that is added 
to absorb functions previously provided by Microsoft`s competitors, 
Microsoft will use this weapon to expand the breadth of its 
monopoly, to destroy its competitors, and to harm the consumers, all 
in the manner explicitly held by the appellate court to violate the 
law. If you do not revise the judgment to forbid Microsoft`s 
absorption into the `Windows Operating System' of 
functions performed by competitors` software, the legal action 
against Microsoft will have failed.
    Microsoft claims that it wants the freedom to 
`innovate', i.e. to introduce something new for the 
first time. Microsoft does not innovate, it instead imitates. 
Microsoft does not create new products and functionality but, 
instead, copies the functionality of its competitor`s products into 
its `Windows Operation System'. Because Microsoft has 
monopoly power, its `imitation' of competitors` products 
harms us all and violates the law. If Microsoft wants the freedom to 
`imitate', let it imitate with software that is separate 
from the `operating system'.
    I can think of no benign explanation as to why the most 
important provision in the proposed judgment was tucked away at the 
very end of a long list of Definitions. The clause that would 
`give away the farm' to Microsoft should, instead, be 
displayed in bold letters at the beginning of the proposed judgment 
under the caption: `GRANT TO MICROSOFT OF LICENSE TO CONTINUE 
TO VIOLATE THE LAW'.
    Sincerely,
    G. Joseph Buck
    433 Via Anita
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277
    `[email protected]'




MTC-00003591

From: LynneZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is guilty! That should mean that they receive a 
`real' punishment. My business has been damaged by the 
costs of using bad software.
    Either make it cash plus other severe oversight
    Mail : Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001




MTC-00003592

From: Jonathan Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:14pm
Subject: opinion on settlement
    I doubt this will have an impact, but as a computer 
professional, I think the settlement is a joke.
    Microsoft is obviously anti-competitive, and Windows XP is a 
slap in the government`s face. My MS Passport id is now tied to my 
Win XP user account? Come on. The remedies do nothing to take away 
the benefit of microsoft`s anti-competitive practices. I am forced 
to root for the remaining states and the EU. Windows is not a bad 
product, but Microsoft is a bad company.
    Thanks for your time.
    Jonathan Morgan
    5009 Portsmouth Rd.
    Fairfax, VA 22032




MTC-00003593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Complaint
US Dept. of Justice
Antitrust Div.
Microsoft Settlement Complaint
    Gentlemen:
    As a user of Microsoft Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 SE, I feel that 
the settlement agreed to by the parties does not address many of the 
complaints regarding Microsoft`s business practices for the 
following reasons:
    1. There are still quite a few bugs in Windows 98 SE and I don`t 
think the way to resolve these a to sell a new operating system. 
There seems to be no other way to address them as there is no 
alternative to Microsoft`s software than Linux, which requires 
learning a whole new system.
    2. I believe Microsoft has too much clout in the software 
business and too easily overshadows or obstructs other software 
developers from producing new innovations. An example of this is 
that Kodak`s imaging software`s being more difficult to address in 
Windows XP.
    3. Each new Windows edition obsoletes earlier versions of 
Microsoft software, such as the MSOffice programs, so that if you 
have an earlier version, you cannot process downloads from later 
versions. This forces you to buy the newer versions, just to 
communicate.
    My suggestion is that Windows should become a utility in the 
public domain, with source code available to other developers. 
Microsoft should be the ultimate keeper of the code and be 
compensated for each new edition. Software used in the Windows 
operating system should be a competitive industry, so that other 
developers could produce innovative software and pricing would be 
competitive based on perceived value.

[[Page 24321]]

    Sincerely,
    Bob McLean




MTC-00003594

From: Michael Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:34pm
Subject: Please punish Microsoft
    Please work for the most severe punishment for Microsoft. My 
choices as a consumer have been restricted and I`ve been forced to 
pay for Microsoft products which I`ve neither wanted nor used. Their 
practices have caused severe harm to the software industry, and 
therefor also to consumers, although most consumers are ignorant of 
this. Microsoft uses it`s monopoly position to dominate the industry 
with mediocre technologies. Because of the way Microsoft uses its 
monopoly powers we are denied true choice. We do not have the 
ability to choose the best products or services. It is clear that 
Microsoft does not see itself as causing harm, and will not change 
its practices except to the extent which the government will force 
it. Microsoft will break the agreements it makes with the government 
whenever it thinks it can get away with it, so there must be a high 
level of oversite and strong penalties for breaches of the 
agreement. If you give in too easily now, you will only have to go 
after Microsoft again, a third time. This would not be good for 
anyone other than Microsoft.




MTC-00003595

From: M. Leo Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please permit me to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. One element missing from the proposal is a requirement 
that Microsoft refund to the purchaser of a new computer system the 
cost of the MS operating system if the purchaser refuses to accept 
the OS EULA, uninstalls the OS, and returns all manuals and 
installation media. At present, both the OEM and Microsoft refuse a 
refund under these circumstances, although it is very difficult to 
purchase a computer without the MS Windows OS installed.
    Additionally, Microsoft should be required to disclose the file 
formats for all versions of Microsoft Word, so that third-party 
software can interoperate with it.
    Additionally, Microsoft should be required to disclose all 
details of and alterations to its SMB networking protocol for 
interoperability purposes.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mendel Cooper, author and software developer
    PO Box 237
    St. David, AZ 85630
    (520) 720-9431
    (603) 288-1281 fax
    [email protected]




MTC-00003596

From: Michal Ostrowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Final 
Judgment in the anti-trust case against Microsoft Corporation. I am 
writing in my capacity as an open-source software developer and 
contributor, having participated in the development of networking 
functionality in the Linux operating system.
    My concerns regarding the proposed Final Judgement are many, 
though I will use this opportunity to express my most fundamental 
concern: the proposed Final Judgement makes no provisions for 
Microsoft to disclose APIs to individuals participating in Open-
Source software development.
    Open-Source software poses the most significant threat to 
Microsoft`s monopoly in personal-computer operating systems. 
Consequently the greatest hope for restoring a competitive balance 
in the operating-systems marketplace is by ensuring that Open-Source 
developers have the ability to produce software compatible with 
Microsoft APIs, networking and authentication protocols.
    The proposed Final Judgement requires Microsoft to disclose 
programming interface information to certain classes of entities 
(commerical entities involved in commercial software and hardware 
development) , none of which include Open-Source software developers 
such as myself. Furthermore, the proposed Final Judgement does not 
specify the terms under which Microsoft is required to provide 
programming information. Consequently Microsoft may provide such 
information to developers under terms that forbid software developed 
with that information to be publicly distributed in source-code 
form.
    Should these concerns not be addressed, Open-Source software 
developers such as myself will be precluded from developing open-
source software compatible with Microsoft software due to the lack 
of availability of information concerning APIs and/or the inability 
to publish Open-Source software utilizing Microsoft APIs due to 
licensing restrictions imposed by Microsoft.
    Michal Ostrowski
    [email protected]




MTC-00003597

From: Owen Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following is an excerpt from an article by Robert X. 
Cringely. He makes clear what I would have trouble saying:
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. The 
biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is 
Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t 
run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. 
They showed through the case little understanding of how the 
software business really functions. But they are also complying with 
the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with 
the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, 
when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free 
products could become a major force in any industry_well, it 
just would have seemed insane. article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html. The biggest threat to microsoft is 
linux. This settlement

[[Page 24322]]

gives microsoft free rein to shut linux out forever.
    Owen Williams




MTC-00003598

From: Martin Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Hello,
    Apparently in the deal that Microsoft have made a three member 
commitee will be formed within Microsoft to make sure the terms of 
the agreement are kept. How are these appointments going to be made?
    Thanks,
    Martin.




MTC-00003599

From: Michele Murteza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:14pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft_schools
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that Microsoft is a monopoly and acted illegally to 
maintain that status, a settlement based on the distribution of more 
Microsoft software seems truly ironic.
    The assumption that Microsoft software in particular benefits 
schools `to prepare students for the business world' is 
not necessarily on target. One goal of technology education at the 
K-12 level aims at teaching software concepts, rather than 
vocationally training students on particular programs. That is, the 
same lessons can be learned from any `office suite' or 
via any `web browser' or on any `operating 
system' to adequately prepare students.
    A true `public benefit' the settlement could provide 
would be to give the choice to schools, not Microsoft. For example, 
Microsoft could provide generic resources (e.g. cash, equipment, 
etc.) that leave the schools free to choose their own software 
technology.
    Any benefit to the schools should be just that_a benefit 
to those students. This settlement should NOT be a thinly veiled 
Microsoft cost saving benefit nor a new market channel!
    Thank you.
    Michele Murteza
    A concerned citizen.
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    415-401-8494




MTC-00003600

From: Scot Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft judgment,
    I Have been in the IT industries for about 6 years, I work for 
Microsoft for 1 of those years and Apple of one of the others. I see 
open source as the next ?competitor? Microsoft will do anything I 
can to deny open source from coming to the front and it looks like 
the DOJ is trying to help it.
    `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) `
    This would be my proposed remedy
    1. Microsoft should be forced to document to the public all file 
format standards before the products come to market
    2. all network protocols (defined as any interaction between two 
computers over any networking medium).
    3. all API`s should be documented before they go to market.
    4. not hold open source or non for profit companies liable for 
using the standards they set fourth.
    If you think about it the only reason people buy the new office 
product is for file format inter operability. The same with Server 
and other software.
    Microsoft hasn`t Innovated in a long time. They are now the IBM 
of 1982.
    Scot Ballard
    [email protected]
    408-974-0575
    Global Computer Services System Engineer




MTC-00003601

From: Joe Gill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft`s Anti-Trust Case
    Dear USDOJ,
    I am a 22 y/o IT professional currently working for a small 
business as a webmaster for there company and a network 
administrator for them as well. Recently I have switched from 
Microsoft Windows to a more stable system Linux. The reason for my 
switch is due to the lack of enforcement of Microsoft`s Monopoly and 
also due to the fact that linux is much more stable than Windows 
ever will be. I feel that Microsoft should be stopped from 
continuing to release game boxes and updates to there OS until this 
suite gets settled. I also feel that simply donating operating 
systems to schools is a waste of what really needs to be done. 
Donating systems does give our children a chance to learn computers 
but when all of the systems being donated have Windows on them, it 
doesn`t really give our youth a look at what else is out there. As a 
key principle in our lifestyle/nation to have the ability to make an 
educated decision. I feel that if any money should be spent, it 
should be spent on other companies systems not there own. In other 
words, if MS is forced to donate anything it should not be there OS. 
I feel that all of there money spent on donations of there OS should 
go to other OS manufacturers and that those manufactures should then 
donate there software to schools. I also feel that MS should be 
forced to free up the code behind there OS. Having there OS code 
readily available allows IT professionals like me, to be able to go 
in and modify the system to suite our individual needs. Right now as 
there systems stand, the only thing you can really do is add on to 
the system and change minor things. Microsoft`s systems don`t allow 
you to remove any of there proprietary software. Also with MS`s 
latest software release not only continues to have all of there 
proprietary software, but it invades your privacy. Whenever a user 
logs onto the internet it activates MS Messenger which sends data 
back to microsoft about your machine. However, when you connect it 
automatically takes you to msn.com which forces you to register with 
them. By registering with them, they then have all of your personal 
information. (IE Credit card number, name, phone number and 
address.) My last key point is whenever a consumer goes to purchase 
a computer at most any store, they are not given a choice of what 
operating system to purchase. Most 90% of the time users are forced 
to purchase a MS operating system. This needs to change. Retailers 
need to be required to have at least a quarter of the store in other 
operating systems. If this was done users would then be able to make 
educated decisions on what systems to purchase. Thank you for your 
time! I hope you take this seriously in your decision!
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Gill
    5 Quail Wood Court
    Parkton, MD 21120
    410-357-4133




MTC-00003602

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Proposed Final Judgement is too weak to have any 
effect on Microsoft`s monopoly. Microsoft`s API`s and file formats 
must be made public, and not just revealed to companies. They must 
be made public because the information must be available to open 
source groups for them to use in their products, as they are the 
only real competitor today. Microsoft will kick and scream, saying 
this will hurt their profits. But that is what will happen when the 
competition gets a fair chance.




MTC-00003603

From: Peter Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writting this to express my hope that you will not agree to 
the currently proposed settlement with Microsoft. In my oppinion, 
there are multiple problems with this outcome. For one, it only 
allows Microsoft to extend its monopoly into schools. As most any IT 
professional will tell you, it is very difficult to retrain/teach 
someone to use a different operating system, and allowing Microsoft 
to get its products into schools only locks students into their 
products. Furthermore, there is very little language in the 
settlement that protects open source/free

[[Page 24323]]

projects such as Apache, Sendmail, SAMBA, and so on. These projects 
are what have allowed the internet to be the open-to-all entitiy 
that it currently is. If these projects were to be replaced by 
propritary software, and even more so if the propritarty software 
was owned by one single company, there would most likly be high 
enough barriers to entry to the internet to prevent worse-off people 
from taking advantage of something that is now such an integral part 
of everyones lives.
    I hope you will reconsider the settlement.
    Pete Snyder




MTC-00003604

From: Ian Bicking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:27pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    I have commented on the settlement prior to its first public 
revision. I would like to append more specific comments to my 
previous comments. The manner in which APIs would be revealed are 
limiting to Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source 
Software (`Free' defined as `without 
restriction' not `free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization. It is essential that the API information be 
made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be 
*absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have 
formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability 
to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected 
by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for 
Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers. It is also 
essential that non-commercial groups of individuals be able to 
access API documentation, and have questions resolved by Microsoft. 
In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on 
any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to further punish 
their most stringent competitors as they have done so many times in 
the past. It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ian Bicking, [email protected]
    Sole Proprietor: Colorstudy Web Design
    http://www.colorstudy.com
    773-275-7241
    4869 N. Talman Ave,
    Chicago, IL 60625




MTC-00003605

From: Adam M Kornick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It may Concern,
    They currently proposed settlement with Microsoft is ludicrous. 
It lets one of the most predatory and illegal mainstream businesses 
of the last 30 years use its settlement to escape real punishment 
while obtaining tax deductible marketing. This settlement will only 
incresae Microsoft`s anti-competitive practices, gain them a 
stronger foothold with our youth, and once and for all destroy any 
software buiness within the US that is not under Microsoft`s thumb. 
If you want to make the software market open:
    1. Force microsoft to stop engineering software with the primary 
goal of incompatibality with competitors.
    2. Take their offer to fund schooling as cold, hard cash, buy 
hardware and let the schools choose wether to buy software or use 
freely available software.
    3. Force microsoft to issue a publicly available reference to 
everyone of their APIS that use no proprietary software.
    Please don`t let microsft continue to destroy the software 
industry.
    Adam
    Adam M Kornick
    Coastal Engineer
    Woods Hole Group




MTC-00003606

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am writing in today to express my concerns regarding the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    As clearly made evident in the trial, Microsoft has used, 
illegally, its status to crush many of its competitors. Many of 
those competitors are out of the market forever and many more will 
be unlikely to try and reclaim the territory that they lost to 
Microsoft. Netscape has said they are an information company, not a 
browser company and IE is likely to remain the dominant browser. 
Sure, Mozilla is great, but it is not written to by many sites that 
tend to write IE-compatible-only web sites. What ever happened to 
the open standards of W3C? Microsoft took them and `extended` them 
in ways incompatible with the specification, just as they did with 
Java which ended up costing them their license to the language. (Sun 
Microsystems vs. Microsoft, etc...)
    This is the way in which they operate. `Embrace and 
Extend' is their method of extending their monopoly. Unless 
they are forced to comply with open specifications and unless they 
are forced to make their specifications open, this will never 
change.
    But yet, Linux, the biggest competitor to MS`s monopoly is 
clearly excluded from the settlement. Linux isn`t a company, neither 
is Apache or Samba. Many of these great products have companies 
selling them, but the core development of all of these products is 
handled by non-profits or individuals.
    There is no requirement that the Samba people be told how to 
code to the CIFS layer or how to be able to handle the 
authentication to W2k boxes. There is no requirement that the Apache 
group be told all of the web-related APIs that exist. There is no 
requirement that Microsoft OS`s not destroy the partitions of other 
OS`s on which they share a drive. (As is the case with Win2k 
damaging Linux partitions and boot information in some instances.) 
Linux and the open-source community is as much a part and a victim 
in this issue and they need to be included in any settlement.
    William Arnold
    492 Lomer Way
    Milpitas, CA, 95035
    USA
    William Arnold 
    `The truth will set you free, but first, it will piss you 
off.'




MTC-00003607

From: Rob Yampolsky
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Like many other computer professionals, I am concerned that the 
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
will do nothing to correct proven past abuses of monopoly power and 
little to prevent future abuses.
    The modifications to the settlement proposed by the nine 
dissenting states, while perhaps farfetched in some instances, 
contain several proposals that will go a long way toward 
guaranteeing a healthy marketplace in what is today not a 
marketplace at all.
    Through Microsoft`s bundling of applications software with their 
operating systems, and through many years of restrictive contracts 
that completely locked competing operating systems out of the IBM-
compatible PC market, we find ourselves in a situation where the 
`popularity' of

[[Page 24324]]

Microsoft`s products is achieved by fiat, and there is no way to 
gauge whether the public wants to buy that software or not.
    I would argue that the main reason people buy Microsoft 
operating systems is the ability to run one or two applications that 
will only run on that platform. Those applications do not include 
web browsers and e-mail readers, which adhere to commonly-accepted 
standards and, not coincidentally, are available for most modern 
operating systems. In fact, in a large number of cases, that one 
vital application is Microsoft Word, which enjoys its own near-
monopoly status due to past Microsoft misbehavior (which was 
similarly not punished and hardly changed by a similarly weak 
Consent Agreement in 1995).
    So the dissenting states` proposal that Microsoft be required to 
offer a version of the Windows operating system with contested 
Internet and multimedia applications removed would go a long way 
toward restoring competition in those arenas.
    Interestingly, the applications that come bundled in the Windows 
XP operating system all have existing equivalents that are available 
at a very low cost or for free. Microsoft contends that its entries 
are free as well, but then how can they account for the fact that 
Windows XP lists for $199 to $299 compared with the roughly $99 
price for the Windows95/98 system that it replaces?
    Microsoft may claim that Windows XP is based on a more stable 
underlying architecture that justifies the added price. Still, with 
every other component of the modern PC becoming better and cheaper 
all the time, why shouldn`t the consumer expect that of the 
operating system as well? The basic function of the operating system 
is the same. Stability? Well, it`s about time.
    They may claim that it is the integration of the Internet and 
multimedia applications with the operating system that justifies the 
added cost. Since the applications cost nothing, then that 
`integration' must come at a cost of about $100. I would 
contend that there are many users that would be willing to do their 
own integration for a savings of $100. I would also contend that 
there are many businesses that would prefer to save $100 per desktop 
while also reducing the incentive for workers to waste time playing 
with all those multimedia toys.
    So, let there be two versions. One for the original $99 price of 
Windows 95 (and with the same feature set), and one for whatever 
Microsoft wants to charge that contains the added features. It would 
be even better in terms of fair competition for the integration of 
the extras to be done by the PC vendors in response to actual market 
demand (to prevent the kind of integration_like that of 
Internet Explorer_that degrades performance of competing 
products by hogging system memory).
    Another constructive contribution of the dissenting states is 
the requirement that the price of Microsoft software be clearly 
listed by PC manufacturers, and that consumers be permitted to opt 
to not buy that software. Microsoft (perhaps in anticipation of this 
requirement) has built effective anti-piracy features into Windows 
XP, so there is no justification for forcing customers to buy 
Windows with every PC sold. How can you expect competition to emerge 
in the PC operating system market if customers are forced to double-
pay in order to get a competing system that, admittedly, does not 
benefit from the availability of applications that only years of 
monopoly status have conferred upon Windows?
    You may argue that there are benefits to the standardization 
that results from Microsoft`s monopoly status. If so, then these 
restrictions will change nothing, and those benefits will continue. 
More likely, a whole new set of benefits will be brought about by 
the widespread adoption of new, open standards that allow multiple 
vendors to compete in providing Word Processors and the like. Only a 
monopolist has something to gain from ignoring (or subverting) open 
standards. The world-wide-web and the global e-mail system offer 
vivid proof that interoperability between different computer systems 
is not only possible, but is enormously beneficial. Either we want a 
free marketplace to exist or we don`t. The law says we do. And the 
DOJ-Microsoft settlement as written will not accomplish it.
    Rob Yampolsky
    [email protected]
    (tel) 212-303-4250
    (fax) 212-688-2639




MTC-00003608

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:32pm
Subject: Our company is concerned...
    Department of Justice,
    I speak for all of us here at DSN Communications when I say that 
we are extremely concerned about the proposed settlement regarding 
the people vs microsoft. It is far too watered down of a settlement 
and doesn`t provide ample punishment for Bill Gates and his abuse of 
our proud capitalistic system.
    One wonders where justice ends and partisanship begins with the 
acceptance of this agreement on the part of the DOJ.
    We here at DSN who have been on the edge of computers since 
1977, have a few suggestions for a settlement that will better 
protect the rights of the people, and put the `trust' 
back into the equation; one that looks away from the questionable 
direction the DOJ has taken with the new presidential 
administration.
    1. Allow Linux, a proven and reliable PC-based Operating System 
to make inroads into education through Red Hat Linux`s equal offer 
vs. the Microsoft`s donation. The creator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, 
wanted a free alternative to the Microsoft madness, and created 
Linux for the people. Microsoft should be forced to make their 
applications available in Linux versions. Apple is also a very big 
friend of education, and has continually proven an ally to 
them_unlike Microsoft who now uses a large donation to 
education (tax break) as a bartering chip vs justice. Whoever 
fulfills the educational need isn`t as important as who 
doesnt_Microsoft. If you allow Microsoft to weasel out of 
punishment with a huge tax break, you will not only have betrayed 
the people of America and our founding principles, but you will 
allow and actually usher-in Microsoft, Inc. to dominate yet another 
area, education, with their unscrupulous and monopolistic practices.
    2. !IMPORTANT! Force microsoft to provide source code for the IE 
web browser. Microsoft`s unwillingness to share source code has 
already driven a new exciting company, Netcape, to be swallowed up 
by AOL/TimeWarner, another huge monopolistic company. Marc 
Andreesen, a young and bright mind, invented HTML and the browser 
with the help of others and started Netscape. Bill Gates not only 
stole his idea, but forced Netscape out of business by the practice 
of withholding source code for Windows. Without this code, 
Netscape`s Navigator web browser could not function properly. 
Netscape slowly lost its market share to Microsoft`s IE Explorer as 
a result. This was after continual requests and pleas from Netscape 
to work with Microsoft. This is simply scandalous and downright 
wrong.
    3. Lastly and controversially, we believe Microsoft should be 
broken into 2 separate companies. One company could handle the IE 
web browser and all program-based applications, while the second 
would focus on the the operating system and making it work with 
everything out there to spur competition, and provide a more 
favorable arena for the kind of competition that our country is 
founded on.
    SO, DSN Communication supports the decision of the 9 states to 
continue on against microsoft despite the obvious 
`influenced' decision of the DOJ as of late (Bush 
administration). We frown on the DOJ`s protection of big corporate 
interests and putting those interests before those of the people. We 
disapprove of how you are handling yourselves regarding the watered-
down and so-called `settlement' proposed by/for 
microsoft. Get some backbone boys, you`ve got a job to do, so go fix 
the problem. Do NOT rally around Mr. `Moneybags' Gates 
like he`s some hero. He`s a criminal, remember? ...something about 
being found guilty, REMEMBER?!?
    Sincerely,
    David S. Nichols
    Owner_DSN Communications




MTC-00003609

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings !
    I am 100% against this settlement. It does not properly 
represent the industry nor consumers. Microsoft is guilty and that 
is fact. Microsoft should be broken up and no other settlement will 
suffice. If this case was in the courts 30 years ago Microsoft would 
have been spit up into small pieces by now. However it is apparent 
that today`s Government is not concerned with law but only aids big 
business.
    Nathan Boeger




MTC-00003610

From: Mr.Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24325]]

    To whom it may concern,
    In the most recent column by PBS Technology columnist Robert 
Cringley, it has come to my attention that the anti-trust settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Government it totally skewed to the 
side of Microsoft and commercial computer companies.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Specifically, I am talking about Section III(J)(2), in which 
Microsoft gets to decide which companies constitute a business as to 
wether or not they are required to release connectivity information 
concerning their products. Because of this power, they can 
effectively leave out Open Source Software projects, their biggest 
competitor, because they don`t fit the description of a business.
    This sort of language is not only irresponsible of the part of 
the DOJ, but it in effect lets Microsoft shut out their biggest 
competitor, Open Source Software. The result being that this 
settlement will not only not punish Microsoft, but allow Microsoft 
to shut out yet another competitor, thereby strengthening the 
monopoly that they have already been found guilty of. Please don`t 
let this sort of behavior continue.
    Sincerely,
    Lee McLain




MTC-00003611

From: Bayle Shanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement neither effectively prevents 
Microsoft from continuing monopolistic practices, nor substantially 
punishes them for what th ey have already done. I urge the 
Government to immediately retract this offer. First of all, any 
settlement needs to deal with more than just Microsoft intimi dating 
OEMs into not using competitors. The issue of open APIs, open file 
forma ts, and open services is critical. I find it disturbing that, 
as I have heard, `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, Doc umentation, or 
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorizat ion 
to companies that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: 
`...(c) me ets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...'
    I believe at a very minimum, any settlement with MS should make 
the interfaces to all these things totally public (NOT just licensed 
to COMMERCIAL entities).
    Second of all, the term is too short. I would press for a ten 
year term at the least.
    Third, the committe designed to oversee MS does not have 
sufficient investigati ve power, and none of its members should be 
appointed by MS.
    Forth, there is nothing to punish MS for its wrongs so far. MS 
has made far too much money off its predatory practices. I urge 
heavy fines against MS. One way to appropriately give these fines 
back to the public would be to give them to the free software 
movement.
    Thank you for your time,
    bayle




MTC-00003612

From: Mark Woehrer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Attorney Hesse,
    I do not like the proposed settlement against Microsoft. I think 
the government should prosecute Microsoft to the fullest extent. In 
the past Microsoft has used every avenue possible to protect its 
known monopoly. Please review the language used in Section III(J)(2) 
and protect the not-for-profits. Without the `Open 
Source' movement we have no choice.
    Kind Regards,
    Mark Woehrer
    Design Engineer
    6100 Vine St. Apt. X-176
    Lincoln, NE 68505




MTC-00003613

From: Shiv Sikand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:48pm
Subject: Comments on proposed settlement
    I am writing because I am very concerned about the fact that 
OpenSource projects, on which my business and many others now rely 
on, are specifically excluded or not-represented in the Settlement, 
specifically in Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D).
    It is very important that these not-for-profit bodies that build 
important and valuable software be left vulnerable to attack by 
Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Shivinder Singh Sikand
    Matrix Semiconductor, Inc.




MTC-00003614

From: Kevin Gabbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will keep this simple.
    I am a computer programmer. I program using languages Microsoft 
has developed, and have a thorough knowledge of Windows and how it 
works. I feel that I am qualified enough to comment on this 
situation:
    _Microsoft has been found Guilty of monopolistic 
practices.
    _it is quite apparent that in the current situation, over 
90% of PC`s are dependent on Microsoft`s Windows software.
    _I feel that the current settlement basically amounts to 
Microsoft taking voluntary actions to curb its on monopolistic 
practices.
    _I feel that the correct remedy should be to nullify the 
situation.
    _Microsoft`s `Crown Jewels' has been the crux 
of this entire problem. The problem lies with Microsoft 
`Integrating' products into their `Crown 
Jewels' in order to circumvent competing products.
    _it is impossible to recall subsequent releases of Windows 
since the `Internet Explorer' problem came to be.
    So..
    Level the playing field. Make the Windows Source Code public.
    Make it so that anyone can do the same thing.
    Respectfully,
    _Kevin R. Gabbert
    http://www.kevingabbert.com




MTC-00003615

From: Andrew Burgess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I disagree with the current settlement as it perpetuates 
Microsoft`s Monopoly. This is not a punishment in any way.
    Examine the option Red Hat Software option and reconsider the 
outcome.




MTC-00003616

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:52pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Letting Microsoft get away with $1 billion in software donations 
is no punishment at all. I suppose they get to value it a retail, 
too.
    It does nothing to prevent furure misbehavior_in fact it 
encourages it. I manage a datacenter full of Windows 
systems_but fair is fair. Or not.
    Sincerely,
    Al Maurer




MTC-00003617

From: steve cooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this is a completely backwards way to settle Microsoft`s 
wrongdoings. I think the only way to fairly punish them is to 
monitarily penalize them. Take the dollar value of all the hardware 
and software they proposed to `donate' to schools, and 
multiply it by 1.25 for their arrogance in even trying to fool the 
court into thinking these kinds of tactics would suffice. Certainly 
it costs them money to produce software, but it`s nothing in 
comparison to the damage they`ve done, and ultimately, it does not 
cost them hundreds of dollars per-copy of their operating system. 
Allowing Microsoft to donate software and hardware to needy schools 
is in itself an unfair business practice in context of the charges 
being brought against them. What little market share Apple has 
reasonable access to anymore would be unfairly competed with by an 
offer to free materials by Microsoft.
    I urge you to reject this settlement offer and to focus on what 
will make an obvious impact to the punishing of Microsoft: hard 
cash. Needy schools should be the benefactor of this settlement. 
This much I totally agree with, but at least give the schools the 
opportunity to decide which platform they prefer for themselves.




MTC-00003618

From: Aaron Williams
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24326]]

Date: 12/9/01 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi,
    After looking at the settlement, I think it may make things 
worse than they already are. For example, right now there is a 
popular piece of software called Samba (see http://www.samba.org/). 
Samba allows non-Microsoft operating systems such as Linux, Solaris, 
and many others to interoperate with Windows. Samba is used by many 
corporations and even the US government. Your settlement would 
effectively kill Samba. You see, Samba is not written by a 
corporation, but is a not for profit project. Samba relies on 
Microsoft`s encryption and authentication protocols for 
interoperability. By allowing Microsoft to keep this proprietary 
effectively kills Samba.
    There is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to keep security 
protocols undocumented. Security through obscurity has been proven 
time and again to be a failure. DeCSS is a perfect example. The DVD 
industry tried to keep their method of encrypting DVDs a trade 
secret. It was only a matter of time until someone reverse 
engineered it. Not only that, but once it was reverse engineered and 
analyzed it was found to be extremely weak encryption. It was 
supposed to be 40 bits, which while not strong, is time consuming to 
crack. It was found that only 16 bits needed to be found, or 65,536 
combinations. It only takes a modern computer a few milliseconds to 
crack the DVD encryption, even without the keys. Another example is 
Microsoft`s media authentication code for making multimedia files 
that cannot be copied. It has been reverse engineered and well 
documented how to defeat, even though it was proprietary and 
Microsoft tried to make it difficult.
    Microsoft should be forced to fully document every protocol 
(method of exchanging information over a network) and all of their 
file formats. For example, nobody can effectively compete with 
Microsoft Office because the file formats are proprietary and not 
documented. Most of the current support for alternative office 
products (like Star Office) that can read Microsoft documents do so 
by trying to reverse-engineer Microsoft`s files. This is very 
difficult to do and results in less-than-perfect reading of 
Microsoft documents in non-Microsoft products.
    And finally, Microsoft currently has a licensing restriction on 
PC manufacturers such that they cannot install any software that 
modifies the boot process. This requirement prevents manufacturers 
from installing Linux and Windows on the same computer. When Linux, 
or any other operating system, is installed on the same computer as 
Windows, a boot selector must be installed. Microsoft`s restriction 
significantly hampers PC manufacturers who can install either 
Windows or Linux (or any other operating system) but not both.
    I propose the following must be part of the settlement:
    1. Microsoft must fully document all protocols (including 
security related protocols).
    2. Microsoft must fully document the format of any file that is 
used for saving or exchanging information.
    3. Microsoft may not restrict other operating systems being 
installed on computers at the same time as Windows, even if the boot 
operation is modified.
    The documentation must also be available to everyone, not just 
licensed coporations. This will help level the playing field and can 
in fact help grow the economy since there will be more products to 
choose from and new features can be added by 3rd parties that 
otherwise could not.
    Aaron Williams




MTC-00003619

From: Clay Webster
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a gift to Microsoft instead 
of a punishment. I urge you to reconsider. Microsoft should pay 
damaging cash amounts.
    cw
    Clay Webster
    Director, Performance Measurement & Analysis
    tel:1.908.541.3724
    http://www.cnet.com
    CNET, Inc. (Nasdaq:CNET)
    mailto:[email protected]




MTC-00003620

From: Mike Hoggan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don`t have much time to write a lengthy email, but I thought 
it important to express how I feel about the Microsoft Settlement. I 
feel like Microsoft has talked their way out of any significant 
punishment for their monopolistic behavior. If you look at the 
commercial software and OS market there just isn`t any other options 
for consumers than Microsoft. It shouldn`t be that way. Software 
engineers have new ideas, but they don`t even try to start new 
companies based those ideas for fear of Microsoft just including the 
functionality in their OS. The company should have been broken up 
into 2 separate companies along the lines of OS and Applications. 
The proposed settlement only strengthens Microsoft. Did the 
Department of Justice have anything to do with the proposed 
settlement? It sound like Microsoft lawyers wrote it.
    Sincerely, Michael S. Hoggan
    Software/Firmware Engineer.




MTC-00003621

From: stephan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:03pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement (don`t punish the open source movement)
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation.
    This is a very significant movement, and provides great 
potential benefits for American consumers. I think that makes such 
Free and Open Source Software *the* essential beneficiary of the 
ruling against Microsoft. This case was not a question of whether 
businesses were harmed by the monopoly, but rather consumers. It is 
essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped by the 
settlement. Instead they speficially discriminated against by the 
settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals 
be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by 
Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have 
discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to 
further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so 
many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security.
    The Free/Open Source communities have created large amounts of 
software that is secure while being open. Microsoft should do the 
same. This process is completely possible, and has been demonstrated 
over and over for as long as computer security has existed.
    Stephan Branczyk
    1087 A Stanford Ave
    Oakland, CA 94608
    U.S.A




MTC-00003622

From: greg gradwohl

[[Page 24327]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust
    It seems to me:
    Everyone agrees Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft has used this 
position to crush competition. They have no incentive to stop these 
anti-competitive practices.
    Microsoft needs to receive some sort of tangible punishment to 
dissuade them from continuing their current anti-competitive 
practices.
    Greg Gradwohl
    Software Engineer




MTC-00003623

From: gary sirmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:09pm
Subject: microsoft. [email protected]
    Hello,
    I just wanted to let you know that I am aghast at the settlement 
that is being proposed for the DOJ and Microsoft. M$ was found 
guilty. They are supposed to be punished not rewarded, which is what 
they will be with the settlement that is being proposed.
    Please, please, please reconsider this judgment. I mean whats 
next putting pedophiles in charge of childrens homes as their 
punishment? This settlement basically says that people convicted of 
breaking the law don`t have to worry about punishment and can just 
keep on doing exactly what they want to.
    Gary Sirmon
    [email protected]




MTC-00003624

From: wralston29
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be fined an amount equal to the net worth of 
the company. All of their money is tainted because it was illegally 
obtained since the beginning.




MTC-00003625

From: scott worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    As a citizen who values choice and the right of a person to make 
his/her intellectual property freely available, i.e. open-source 
software, I have a few comments on the proposed MS settlement. I 
feel that Microsoft has subtly influenced parts of the settlement to 
eliminate any use of open-source software.
    Specifically, Section III(J)(2) allows Microsoft to define 
criteria which will allow Microsoft to refuse sharing of API, 
communication protocols, documentation, etc. with any organization 
it deems is not a `business`. This provision allows Microsoft 
to continue with their embrace, extend and eliminate any computing 
standards/protocols. As an example, look at how Microsoft behaved 
with MIT`s kerberos authentication system. Microsoft was allowed to 
join the kerberos standards body on the promise they would share any 
extensions to the protocol. What happened? Microsoft extended the 
protocol in proprietary ways in Win2k and refused to release their 
extensions. This meant that computers running kerberos on non-MS 
operating systems could not interact with Microsoft systems. The 
goal, once an organization buys in to Microsoft`s OS they would have 
to replace all non-Microsoft OS`s to maintain functionality. 
Microsoft finally released a specification but under NDA.
    Allowing Microsoft to define the criteria for `valid 
businesses' is the same as allowing defense attorneys to set 
the criteria for allowed evidence! This is what judges are for, to 
provide balance between prosecutor and defense. There is no balance 
with Microsoft allowed to define `valid businesses'. If 
you even allow for an organization which has been defined by MS as 
not `valid' to file a complaint with the 3-member 
oversight tribunal, most organization will either give up or bow to 
MS because of the time required for the oversight committee to 
function.
    Secondly, Section III(D)`s footnotes specifically lock out all 
organization but commercial! This shuts out all non-profits, 
governments, etc. We do not live in a plutocracy. The U.S. Bill of 
Rights exist for individual Americans not corporations. I don`t 
propose being able to demand MS disclose its source code or a 
proprietary technology they truly invented from scratch. The 
internet was founded on open protocols which have allowed it to grow 
and become what it is today. By allowing a monopoly with over 90% of 
the PC operating system market to define who it will share 
information with allows the monopoly to block out all future 
competition. Until there is balance in the operating system 
marketplace, meaning several strong competitors, Microsoft can only 
be trusted to hold on to their monopoly. It`s not about money with 
Microsoft. It is nearly insane hyper-competitiveness. How can a 
person strive to launch a new business in the personal computer 
market when Microsoft wants to control all the protocols and 
information flow? I don`t mind paying taxes to the government for 
infrastructure because if I don`t link something I can always 
participate in the political process and try to do something about 
it. In the case of a business monopoly, we the public, don`t have 
that choice. We can`t vote Bill Gates out. How can people chose one 
technology over another when all that is available is Microsoft 
products? How can I choose to use the open-source ogg-vorbis audio 
protocol when Microsoft is giving away their media player which of 
course uses a proprietary protocol.
    Please! Don`t let Microsoft make us all look like fools by 
allowing them to sneak in anti-competitive language in the 
settlement.
    Scott Worley
    [email protected]




MTC-00003626

From: Jeremy Wadsworth
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 12/9/01 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m sure you`re probably being deluged by responses so I will 
endevour to keep this as short as possible.
    First I am not an American, make of that what you will.
Short term impact of the settlement
    None to Microsoft, much to US industry in general. To back this 
up lets look at what happened the last time there was a consent 
decree that Microsoft entered into. Did that help or hinder 
competition? Innovation? Or did it just give Microsoft an 
opportunity to damage the market, consumers and the US government 
more? Why did I include the US government, because a) you look as if 
you are corrupt, no better than some bunch of gangsters, whether or 
not this is true, and remember of 6 billion on the planet you number 
less than 300 million souls and b) innovation = better, cheaper, 
faster products and services = more revenue for the corporations and 
for the US Treasury, therefore let Microsoft, or any other 
corporation stiffle it, and there goes lots of Treasury receipts, 
thats what we call in the UK a double whammy.
Long term impact
    5.7 billion people think that you`re dishonest, and no 
proclamations of `I am not a crook' will save you, that 
is very very bad. If the US has learnt anything since Sept 11 it`s 
the phrase `asymmetric warfare', you are inviting people 
to come and knock you down by any means at their disposal by showing 
that you do not conform to the tenants of civilized behaviour, 
fairness and justice. You may be able to stop votes against you at 
the UN or the WTO or WIPO by those that see you being unfair and 
unjust, but you`ll just end up with very angry populations of 
billions across the globe, and in such a population there is likely 
to be more than a few that have the means to do much harm and 
whatever harm they do to you is likely to spill over to the rest of 
us innocent folk in other countries that see the USAs petty politics 
for what it is. Now I know there are some real Right Wing nuts in 
the US, the sort that want some battle of Armeggedon, please don`t 
give them the chance, revise the terms, make Microsoft an example to 
the world that American justice is not about money, or politics, it 
is about what is just, and fair, and right. This you can do,and if 
your political masters refuse to allow you that, resign en masse, 
tell them that if they want to let Microsoft off the hook, then 
they, the politicians will have to sign the papers themselves, 
because we all know the phrase `I was only following 
orders' is no defence, and show the world they are the ones 
who would condone injustice on such an egregious scale.
    In conclusion, The DOJ has in its power to show us all that the 
US is really one of us, one of the Good Guys, revisit the terms of 
the Microsoft Settlement, make them watertight, make them agreeable 
to the industry as a whole, make sure that they stick to the terms, 
have them subject to random checks, and audits, make their dealings 
open and transparent, work with the European Commissioner and other 
national and international authorities to help bring about a 
cohesive and unified stand that means that not Microsoft, nor any 
other corporation can get away with such heinous activity in the 
future, show us all that the pen is truly mightier than the sword, 
do the right thing.

[[Page 24328]]

    Jeremy J. H. Wadsworth




MTC-00003627

From: Alan Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR,Stephen Satchell,Bob Cringely
Date: 12/9/01 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Re: Three-member committee stationed at Microsoft to keep 
Microsoft in compliance ...
    I would like to suggest Stephen Satchell for one of those 
positions.
    I do not personally know the man but as a long-time computer-
user starting with an Apple ][+ and working my way up my G3 
PowerBook, I have noticed his name favorably surfacing quite often 
during those years when we were all trying get our modems and local 
ISPs to work together :)
    And, according to my favorite Computer expert Bob Cringely, 
regarding Steve Satchell`s practical qualifications:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    With a background in computer hardware and software that dates 
back to one of the very first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, 
Steve Satchell knows the technology. He has worked for several big 
computer companies, and even designed and built his own operating 
systems. And from his hundreds of published computer product 
reviews, he knows the commercial side of the industry.
    And, here`s a bit more of Steve`s background he has posted about 
himself:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/
2001Oct/1043.ht ml
    First, let me introduce myself. My name is Stephen Satchell, and 
I`ve been a professional practitioner of Computer Science since 
1971. I have been an observer of several industry standards 
committees, and served for ten years in the Telecommunications 
Industry Association Technical Committee TR-30, a recognized ANSI 
Standards provider, as a regular contributor and for many of those 
years as a voting member. I was the editor for TIA 3800, the modem 
testing procedures standard, for much of its development as well as 
one of the first implementors of the requirements. I have also been 
a member of the SPEC Consortium as an independent tester, on behalf 
of MacUser magazine.
    Much of my work over the past decade has been done on behalf of 
magazines. As a byproduct of that work, I was one of the founding 
members of the Internet Press Guild, an organization formed to 
provide an information resource for reporters and editors who either 
don`t regularly cover the Internet or who are just starting out 
covering the Internet.
    Anyway, thanks for listening.
    Alan & Brenda Mitchell
    Innkeepers
    tel: 541-332-2855
    www.homebythesea.com




MTC-00003628

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_as is it will kill things we use
    Dear sirs,
    I am an executive at a small wireless internet provider that 
operates in Iowa and Nebraska. I have recently read a review of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement by Robert Cringely_here is an 
excerpt from the article:
    _ Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits.
    Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business:
    `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls.
    The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill 
these products.
    
    Almost all of our `back end' systems are run using 
the FreeBSD operating system. There is a product that runs on 
FreeBSD and other unix operating systems called `Samba'. 
This package allows me to share printers attached to our unix system 
with the Windows laptops our sales force use. FreeBSD is a free 
system developed by volunteers and thusly it does not fit 
`Microsoft`s criteria as a business'.
    The language in the settlement indicates to me that within a few 
months Microsoft will be able to make some miniscule change in their 
authentication protocol and effectively destroy our ability to make 
their products work with the systems we use to run our business. All 
in all I am very disappointed in the proposed remedy_Microsoft 
giving `a billion dollars worth of software' as a fine 
is meaningless_ it costs them $100k to print the material that 
comes in this supposed billion dollar deal and it adds insult to 
injury by directing this `free' software to the public 
school system. This should be modified_let Microsoft give a 
billion in cash for hardware and the OS should be something other 
than their shoddy products.
    Neal Rauhauser
    Neal Rauhauser, CCNP, CCDP
    voice: 402-391-3930
    http://AmericanRelay.com
    fax : 402-951-6390
    mailto:[email protected] : k0bsd




MTC-00003629

From: Zach Lutz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The recent Microsoft settlement proposal not only lacks any form 
of punishment but will undeniably make the company stronger by 
giving them a greater foothold into one of the last markets which 
isn`t completely dominated by Microsoft. To go forward with this 
decision is not only highly irresponsible but immensely dangerous. I 
suggest you rethink this situation, the public won`t stand for this 
monopoly to continue as is.




MTC-00003630

From: Michael J. Hauan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my disgust with the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft.
    (1) Microsoft is GUILTY of abusing its monopoly position in the 
operating system market. Yet the settlement allows Microsoft to 
expand and promote that monopoly in schools. The settlement would do 
better to require Microsoft to provide and support Linux or FreeBSD 
in the schools instead so as to create a truly more competitive 
market.
    (2) The settlement does nothing to protect or promote the rights 
of parties that do not meet Microsoft`s criteria for being an 
authenticate or viable business. The settlement denies both the 
government and non-commerical or not-for-profit software development 
organizations any rights to complain, to seek redress, or to bargain 
about access to the information needed to properly interoperate with 
Windows . This should be available to anyone who wants it. Microsoft 
should NOT be able to decide who it will or will not provide this 
information.
    Where in this settlement is the punishment appropriate to the 
crime?
    NOWHERE
    Where in this settlement is the compensation to the victims of 
the crime?
    NOWHERE Where in this settlement are there assurances to protect 
the vulnerable and to deter the culpable? NOWHERE if you are not a 
Microsoft-approved business.
    This settlement is a capitulation to the criminal and an 
abandonment of the people and interests the law should be 
protecting.
    In this case, the government needs some spine.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Hauan 




MTC-00003631

From: Austin King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Your honor and staff,
    I have read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm the 
proposed final judgement and REJECT IT COMPLETELY. If I read this 
document in a vacuum, I would evaluate it as an analysis and 
suggestion list submitted to a boss, whom you want to help, but who 
you do not wish to anger for fear of losing your job. Well you don`t 
work for Microsoft, Redmond Washington, or NYSE, you work for me, 
and all other lone single citizen of these United States. I have no 
vested interest in this case, but a huge one in keep the courts sane 
and just.
    Please use critcal thinking skills when evaluating YOUR 
corporate masters. All you have to evaluate are motives, actions, 
and integrity. Everything else is snake oil.
    The decision is yours, my confidence in knowing that Microsoft 
will recieive any punishement what so ever, is gone. Most likely 
their punishment will be to deliever a billion dollars worth of new 
Windows ME computers to school to raise another generations of dull 
witted consumers. I am too upset to spell check this document.
    Good Day sirs and madams,
    Austin King

[[Page 24329]]




MTC-00003632

From: Anthony Kilna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OK, I`m not going to BS you and tell you that I`ve read the 
entire agreement that`s being finalized for Microsoft. And I know 
I`m probably a part of a deluge of emails you`re getting regarding 
this, especially after the Cringely article covering it.
    I just want to say that I agree with his convern completely. 
Microsoft has proven, time and again, to be willing and able to take 
advantage of any legal loophole available. Don`t let down companies 
like mine, who rely on free software and interoperability with open 
source and microsoft products. Making the language in the settlement 
regarding opening APIs and protocols apply only to commercial 
concerns is a big mistake, because many commercial concerns are 
relying on non-commercial consortiums of developers to achieve a 
common goal.




MTC-00003633

From: Scott Northrop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thanks for all your work on the MS antitrust case. Strong 
antitrust protections are a major component of a functioning 
captialist economy, so you folks are doing the Lord`s work, so to 
speak.
    As the obscurity and malleability of the APIs of Microsoft`s 
products has damaged everyone, please consider amending the proposed 
settlement to require MS to disclose their APIs and source to anyone 
and everyone. Otherwise, it will be a carrot that MS will use to 
keep other software and hardware vendors in line, to extend their 
monopoly to the detriment of all.
    Thanks much,
    Scott Northrop
    Ref: 




MTC-00003634

From: larry johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People:
    I believe the deal made with the DOJ against Microsoft is poor 
and dangerous. It was proved that Microsoft is a monopoly and has 
used this power to destroy competitors as well as using those 
profits to aquire other key pieces of technology. Now the remedy 
lets them off the hook with no more then a finger wagging and gives 
them the green light to continue their ways. Not only is their 
browser technology firmly entwined, now their music player and 
messaging tools are being bundled with the operating system. Lets 
not stop there cause they are after authentication as well with 
passport. All these products tie back to the windows empire. No ones 
deserves to own and control so much of the market as Micrsoft.
    No one can go against it. Not even open source which represents 
the right of the common man/programmer to create programs by his own 
hand and mind. I`m not a lawyer, but in reading some of the articles 
out there it seems clear all concessions made by microsoft only 
involve revealing code and maybe licensing that code to be used by 
another company. But what isn`t given is the right of non commercial 
(open source) companies to use revealed code by Microsoft free of 
all emcumberances to its use and implementation. I think a better 
deal should of removed certain technology from Microsoft domain. 
Should of identified API`s and certain key technologies to sharing 
information and working equally with windows OS products for all to 
use with no restrictions. Microsoft should also have to re-engineer 
their products such that all applications must be independent of the 
OS. For example IE should be completely removable from the OS 
without harming the OS. Also a competitor must be able to completely 
replace IE with its product. Microsoft should not be allowed to 
control any interface that might control and charge customers for 
data. For example Microsoft should not control and own 
authentication services, music services, movie services. At best 
they must provide an interface that others would layer on top of 
that would sell its own data types (music, movies, etc.). This kind 
of stuff only covers for the future. Microsoft has already crushed 
competitors and products as well as aquired new technology by its 
illegal profits. To compensate for that their should be a give back. 
Fines levied against Microsoft that went to companies that lost out 
to Microsoft, companies competing and against microsoft and very 
importantly to Open source projects. Lastly their should be a tax 
levied against Microsoft that is equal to any charges made for usage 
given back to the community (open source and commercial). For 
instance lets say microsoft lets a company use its music player to 
deliver music to its customers for say a dime a song. Well Microsoft 
should be taxed a dime a download to remove all profit from those 
key technologies and that money should go to the other competitors. 
Only when a piece of technology be fairly openned to all can will 
that tax be removed, at which point this area should be a 
competitive area for all technologies. Remember Microsoft plays 
dirty you need a strong hand to keep them inline. I know cause I 
have been in the lan admin and developer field for many years. I 
have made recommendations to my employer in the past that said use 
Microsoft products such as Word not cause it was the best or 
cheapest but because I knew Microsoft didn`t play fair. Since we ran 
on Microsoft Windows I knew our current product Word Perfect would 
be suspeciously broken by the OS. Rather than fight against 
Microsofts evil ways I recommended switching to their side. You can 
right that wrong. At least a little.
    Best wishes
    Larry Johnson
    616-957-0884
    kentwood, MI
    USA




MTC-00003635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:30pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    A settlement that fails to punish Microsoft for its misdeeds and 
also fails to prevent similar future activities while strengthening 
Microsoft`s position in the schools system is a craven dereliction 
of the gov`ts responsibilities to insure fair competition, avoid the 
formation of monopolies, and foster a marketplace where new ideas 
can flourish. The Justice Dept`s position is a Computer Age Munich 
settlement-peace in our time.
    Congratulations, you have lived down to my worst expectations. 
You are now deserving of the title `Chickens of the 
Bit'.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00003636

From: celer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I am a software developer for a major computer security 
company. I hope that the US Department of Justice is willing to put 
in place rules and regulations that are more strict then those 
proposed in the current settlement. If Microsoft is not regulated 
sufficiently then I as a consumer, a working American and 
technologist stand to lose. As a consumer I stand to loose, because 
I will have less choice in applications and features. Microsoft is 
starting to compete in the computer security market, with the 
bundling of personal firewalls and email encryption, I as a working 
American stand to lose. Finally as a technologist I fear that many 
innovative ideas are squashed in the wake of their monopoly, and 
that creative diversity will eventually suffer.
    I have heard that the DOJ is going lite on Microsoft because 
they believe that constraining any business in these times is not 
good. What about all those who have to compete against Microsoft?
    David Spencer Tyree




MTC-00003637

From: Col.Kurtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:32pm
Subject: Steve Satchell
    Do the right thing. Oh wait, you`re lawyers won`t let you. Good 
thing this email did`nt come from an open source 
`product'...




MTC-00003638

From: Jonathan Ploudre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is vital for Microsoft to be held accountable for 
it`s actions. The currently proposed settlement seems to let them 
off easy. If Microsoft is going to donate to schools, the schools 
should get to decide what they want to do with the money. Microsoft 
should donate cash_notsoftware which has no physical value.
    It seems odd to me that Microsoft gets to expand its realm by 
donating when we are trying to prosecute them for monopolistic 
behavior.
    Jonathan Ploudre
    Fourth Year Medical Student @ ETSU

[[Page 24330]]




MTC-00003639

From: Dan Carrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment from Ohio
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse:
    I wish to raise my objection to the proposed anti-trust 
settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice.
    The remedy only benefits a limited group, K-12 and after five 
years will futher enhance Microsoft monolpyistic position. I agree 
Mr Steven Jobs suggestion, give the schools the money, suggest $10 
billion instead of $1 billion in cash and let the schools decide 
what they want.
    I wish to nominate Mr Steve Satchell for the three-member 
committee wish will enforce the anti-trust remedy.
    Regards,
    Dan
    Dan Carrigan
    Reference Librarian
    Antioch College
    Olive Kettering Library
    937 767-1240
    795 Livermore Street
    Yellow Springs, OH 45387-1695
    [email protected]




MTC-00003640

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is not satisfactory.
    In particular, all organizations and people are entitled to full 
use of the documentation of Microsoft Protocols and APIs (Aplication 
Programming Interfaces. In particular, makes and programmers of Free 
Software and Open Source Software MUST be permitted this access.
    The Free Software and Open Source software movements are 
Microsoft`s most significant competitors in servral fields. I 
microsoft is allowed to exclude them from the use of their 
protocols, as allowed in Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D), it 
leavle them an open filed with no competition. Seciton III(J)(2) is 
particularly offensive, as it allows Microsoft to choose who it will 
sare information with. This is WRONG. Microsoft should have no say 
in the matter at all. They have comitted multiple felonies.
    The details of Microsoft protocols and APIs should be publicly 
available, free of all charges and free of all limitations on use.
    Bob Niederman
    680 S. Federal St., APT 705
    Chicago, Il 60605




MTC-00003641

From: Scott M. Hoffman
To: Microsoft Anti-Trust
Date: 12/9/01 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to add my voice to those that are concerned that 
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is quite 
inadequate.
    The main problem lies in that the remedy barely proposes 
sanctions on Microsoft. It does not in any way address divesting 
it`s monopoly.
    If Microsoft is allowed to retain all rights to it`s IP, then we 
might as well start calling ourselves the United States of 
Microsoft. The only hope for the future of computing to not be bound 
by what Microsoft wishes, lies with alternative operating systems. 
The catch-22 is that because they are the monoply, other software 
companies only want to produce products for their platform.
    A separate body must be made to encourage the growth of 
alternative Operating systems, and to encourage software vendor 
support of them.
    Thanks for your time,
    Scott Hoffman
    6700 Idaho Ave N
    Brooklyn Park, MN 55428




MTC-00003642

From: Thomas J. Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:47pm
    I am very happy that the government finally chose to settle the 
law suit against Microsoft as I feel it was politically motivated 
and in no way reflected the appreciation that we the users of 
Microsoft products feel about the contentions of the Justice 
Department.
    I in no way was pressured to use the bundled services that were 
included in my computer when it was purchased and as a matter of 
fact, I do NOT use the other Microsoft features, but I`m glad they 
are there as they fit in so well with the day to day software that I 
do use.
    Thomas J. Bass




MTC-00003643

From: Dietrich Ayala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If there is one single most broken part of this so called 
`remedy', it that non-profit software organizations and 
projects are not protected at all from the monopolistic and 
predatory practices of Microsoft. The language of the settlement 
leaves Microsoft free to treat them (including the DOJ I might add) 
as though there was no anti-trust case in the first place. For more 
details, please read this article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    A shame, and a horrible injustice.
    Thanks,
    Dietrich Ayala




MTC-00003644

From: Doran L. Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern over the currently proposed 
terms of the settlement between Microsoft and US DOJ and various 
state attorney generals.
    I feel the current settlement terms are letting Microsoft off 
too easily and giving Microsoft future capabilities to further 
empower their monopoly by taking on legal battles with open source 
projects.
    Microsoft is guilty as charged and should not be given a remedy 
which would in any way allow them to grow their empire. Please 
review the settlement terms and consider revising them 
appropriately.
    Doran L. Barton




MTC-00003645

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I believe it is my duty to protest the ineffective responce to 
Microsoft`s illegal activities. I realise I am no a citizen of USA, 
but Australian IT law is strongly influenced by USA law and 
judgements, so I must make my point at the source. I believe the 
judgements have failed to understand the full nature of Microsoft`s 
crimes. The Micorsoft crimes are not only against commercial 
companies, but more importantly against the free-software community. 
Microsoft crimes strike at the people who write software to help 
their fellow man/woman, rather than the all mighty dollar.
    Please, I beg you, reconsider. Microsoft has only one real 
compeditor, and that is free software like Linux. Micorsoft knows 
this, and you are helping it kill free software. Stop the Microsoft 
monopoly, give linux a chance to form an effective compeditor to 
Microsoft, and we will all benifit. Realistic software prices, 
better and more stable products. Please, we need your help including 
protection for non-commercial software. Stop the Microsoft crimes. 
End the Microsoft monopoly.
    I thank you for your time.
    Mike Bruins
    Mike Bruins, BSc (Infomation Systems)
    Information Analyst/Senior Trainer
    Montage Systems Pty. Ltd.
    South Australia.
    ph (08) 8331-3022
    fax (08) 8331-3044
    ABN 68 088 677 721




MTC-00003646

From: Terry Houle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MS Settlement
    In regard to the proposed settlement between the US vs. 
Microsoft I feel the proposed settlement is far too lenient and will 
not stop Microsoft from going about their monopolistic ways to the 
detriment of the public. For years I have been forced into the 
Windows Operating System when choosing a new personal computer. This 
has caused me adverse financial impact by not allowing me other 
options. This was caused due to the monopoly that Microsoft created. 
I believe the court should direct Microsoft to refund all owners of 
Windows Operating Systems a dollar figure to be determined by the 
court. This shall be for each system they may have purchased such as 
Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, etc.
    The Technical Committee (TC) that is proposed by this proposed 
settlement is inadequate to oversee this corporate giant. Also the 
Microsoft Compliance officer`s role needs to be strengthened. It 
should be a stipulation that the job shall be the only task

[[Page 24331]]

they perform for Microsoft Corporation and not let it get diluted 
with tasks they may be responsible for. The court should have 
overseer authority and have to approve the change or termination of 
said officer. The court needs to insure Microsoft does not bully 
them into their ways and they do not have to fear termination, or 
retribution by Microsoft.
    It also does not appear that the court has addressed the 
`Passport' service that is proposed by Microsoft and the 
potential negative impacts of that.
    As a consumer I feel I have been forced into using and having to 
pay a premium price for the Windows Operating System when purchasing 
several computers. Microsoft should be forced to refund me, as well 
as all other consumers, a portion of that price since they forced 
the situation where there was not competition and hence I had to pay 
a premium.
    This settlement is not in the best interest of the consumer who 
has been harmed financially.
    Terry Houle
    Bloomington, Minnesota
    [email protected]
    http://www.citilink.com/houle




MTC-00003647

From: Colin Murchie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to state my wholehearted disgust for the 
proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement, which is such a cynical and 
arrogant gesture on the part of the Microsoft corporation that it 
leaves me nearly speechless.
    Of particular note are;
_Microsoft`s proposed `donation' of software which 
it is allowed to value at market prices, despite being able to 
provide it at much less actual expense.
_The fact that this donation is targeted at the educational 
market, a craven ploy for Microsoft to make a forced entry into one 
of the last reamining markets in which it is not already dominant, 
and
_The fact that none of the settlement terms are targeted to 
Microsoft`s nonprofit competitors (including the massively-used 
programs Apache, Sendmail and Perl,) which represent its most 
salient competitors.
    I cannot believe that the DOJ is seriously considering such an 
insanely biased proposal. This `remedy' amounts to a 
massive compettive subsidy to Microsoft Corporation.
    Regards,
    Colin Murchie




MTC-00003648

From: Christopher Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A simple remedy would be to relicense Microsoft software such 
that OEMs are not allowed to install Microsoft operating systems on 
new PCs. Microsoft is guilty of preventing OEMs from installing 
competing operating systems in the past, which makes this remedy fit 
the bill perfectly. It will also force OEMs to install competing 
operating systems like Linux.
    APIs such as DirectX need to be ported to competing operating 
systems. DirectX was designed to lock game manufacturers onto a 
single platform (at the time is was designed to kill DOS, but it 
effectively kills all competing operating systems as well).
    Document formats need to be opened up. There is no reason why 
Microsoft word documents must be stored in a proprietary closed 
format. This is a blatent abuse of Microsoft`s monopoly power. 
Document formats should be in an open, and easy to understand format 
such as XML.




MTC-00003649

From: Jeff Ober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I have been reading a lot about some of the proposed ideas 
for the MS settlement. I am a student and use several different 
operating systems on several different computers. I am not a 
Microsoft supporter, but I do not think that mandating that they 
develop their office applications for other OSs, such as Linux and 
Unix variants. This would be a punishment rather than a regulation 
that would help competition.
    They would be spending a lot of money on development for this, 
but no one would ever buy the product.
    Linux users are extremely against purchasing products, 
especially from closed source projects, but very especially from 
Microsoft. I would think a better solution would be to require them 
to open source their document formats, such as the MS Word .doc 
format, so that other office programs that are already ported/made 
for linux/unix variants could become more compatible with MS Office. 
Because of MS Office`s dominance in the business world, their closed 
source document formats make using OSs other than Windows 
impractical in any situation other than an entirely non-windows 
environment. If the .doc format (and other Office formats) were open 
to projects like www.openoffice.org, these office suites would 
become more viable for companies and users, even in a primarily 
Windows-based environment.
    Because of this, I think that this would be the most pro-
competitive solution to this problem.
    Jeff Ober
    [email protected]




MTC-00003650

From: Gabe Burt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ma`am or Sir,
    I am concerned about what I have heard about proposed 
settlements in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case. From what I understand 
Microsoft it trying to get wording included in the settlement that 
will allow them to exclude and take advantage of Open Source 
projects. They are trying to include language that would allow them 
to allow commercial organizations access to more of their code and 
therefore be able to develop and compete, but this excludes the 
majority of software development in the Open Source (GNU/Linux and 
many more) communities.
    Also, I read about a proposal from Microsoft that would allow 
them to spend $1.1 billion on hardware and software for the poorest 
school districts. Not only do I find this ludicrous because this 
does nothing to diminish their status as a monopoly, but they want 
to spend the vast majority of that money on their own software. I am 
disgusted that nine states have agreed to this settlement. It is a 
grossly unfair settlement. It has Microsoft pay only a very small 
amount of money for actual hardware ($200 million, I believe), and 
puts Microsoft software on those computers, thereby advancing 
Microsoft`s stance in the education market. If any variation of the 
proposal was to be accepted, I feel nothing less than having 
Microsoft pay entirely for hardware and equipping the computers with 
Red Hat Linux software is fair.
    Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Calling these settlements a 
punishment is laughable. Please don`t let these ridiculously unfair 
settlements go through. They will do nothing but add to the choke 
hold Microsoft has on the software development world, and lead to a 
further lack of choice for consumers.
    Gabe Burt
    University of Illinois Student
    Legal Resident of Kansas




MTC-00003651

From: Joshua Redstone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the US and a resident of WA, under the Tunney 
Act I wish to make the following statement:
    I do not believe that Microsoft should be allowed to get off so 
easy. I think they are a danger to innovation and competition in the 
software industry, if not by their very size, then by their overly-
aggressive and anti-competitive acts in the past. I hope that the 
organs of government that decide the fate of Microsoft have enough 
dedication to the US and the American people to not succumb to 
influence of Microsoft.
    Joshua Redstone
    Dept. of Computer Science (PhD candidate)
    University of Washington




MTC-00003652

From: Michael Kemp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir_
    Looking through the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case, I 
see that there is plenty of provision for for-profit entities, such 
as Netscape. However, the real threats to Microsoft`s dominance as a 
monopoly comes from what are called `open source' and 
`freeware' products.
    For example, the Apache web server system (www.apache.org) is 
used as a webserver by 56% of all webservers on the internet(1). 
However, the foundation that maintains the webserver system`s 
software is a non-profit organization. They would have

[[Page 24332]]

no rights at all, or even be considered to exist in the current 
proposal.
    Another example is SAMBA. This is a software suite that allows 
client machines to access files from a server. The server, when 
running the SAMBA software, can masquerade as any type of server, 
such as an NT file server. From my own experience, I can attest that 
the SAMBA system is popular. However, I cannot give any specific 
statistics. I would also like to point out that, as it stands, the 
only real threat to Microsoft are groups of independent software 
engineers who do not charge any money for their product and work for 
free, essentially acting as volunteers.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Kemp
    PO Box 3028
    Socorro, NM 87801-3028
    1-http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
    2-http://tr.samba.org/samba/samba.html, http://www.samba.org/




MTC-00003653

From: B. Y.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi,
    I don`t think Microsoft did anything wrong. Microsoft is 
successful and became a monopoly because it didn`t make any major 
mistakes like many of its former and current competitors did.
    I think the current proposed settlement is:
    *impractical,
    *lacks common sense,
    *against the principles of market and free enterprise,
    *does not benefit consumers
    *only benefit Microsoft`s competitors indirectly because it 
drags Microsoft down
    I believe the law suit against Microsoft is here because some 
companies, like Sun Microsystems, could not compete successfully 
against Microsoft in the market place, so they lobbied government 
bureaucrats (who are ignorant about the computer industry) to act on 
their behave against Microsoft. Quite innovative competitive 
strategy!
    Regards,
    Bo Yang




MTC-00003654

From: Alexander Palmo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with Robert X. Cringely`s views in this article:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    The proposed settlement seems to have a number of holes.
    Thanks,
    _Alex Palmo




MTC-00003655

From: Rick Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:12pm
Subject: pending antitrust action
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 concerned that Microsoft still has most of the cards to 
play in the non-holdout settlement. I am not confident that any form 
of monitoring will catch this company doing anti-competative 
actions, especially under the apparent negotiated settlement. 
Remember that this company has drastically misrepresented its 
behaviors already, making ludicrous arguments in the face of what 
the consumer and programming public knows to be otherwise. You need 
only look to the special connections that Office products have to 
the OS to observe that Microsoft cheats, bigtime.
    What could possibly motivate your group to trust them in any 
way?
    _Rick Moore
    Richard Moore
    Research Director
    Division of Breast Imaging
    Department of Radiology
    ACC219, 15 Parkman Street
    Mass General Hospital
    Boston, MA 02114
    USA
    Work: 617-726-8751, 617-726-3093
    Fax: 617-726-1074
    Lab: 617-727-3694 Donna
    Secy: 617-726-3093 Cathie
    Pager: 781-230-5888
    email: [email protected]
    email@home: [email protected]




MTC-00003656

From: joe shoop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am deeply concerned with the proposed Microsoft Settlement 
`remedy'. I think it should not only be modified to 
clarify and close loopholes that exist, but it should also address 
the issue of protection of non-profit software concerns, such as 
Apache, Linux, and to some extent, Java. Microsoft has never been an 
innovator and has used, and will continue to use, its monopoly power 
to stiffle innovation.
    Regards,
    Joseph Shoop




MTC-00003657

From: Anze Slosar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir,
    I am writing to you regarding the Microsoft Antitrust 
Settlement. The settlement in the present form is unsatisfactory and 
Microsoft can emerge from it stronger than ever. Microsoft`s 
stronger monopoly is at the OS (operating system)`s side: through 
the clever marketing policies it has forced dealers to include only 
Microsoft OS with new computers_this has forced at least two 
(Beos and OS/2) commerical OSes out of mainstream use.
    However, at the present, the most viable alternatives to 
Microsoft`s OSes come from not-for-profit organisations: these 
include BSD Unix and Linux OSes, together with services that allow 
them to be used as Web servers (mostly apache, Apache 
Foundation_another not for profit organisation). Such non-
commerical enterprises are completelly unprotected under the current 
settlement and migh be easily killed off by Microsoft. Quoting 
Robert X. Cringely:
    `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, 
...'ï¿½1A'
    Secondly: Microsoft proposed to settle the agreement by 
providing schools with computer (hardware and software) equipment, 
making his position stronger than ever. However, a major open source 
company_Red Hat Inc._ proposed to enhance this this 
offer by letting the Microsoft provide the hardware, while they will 
provide an alternative OS solution. I personally think that this is 
by far the best solution: not only will the socially deprived areas 
get to use the computers, it will indeed make a big paradigm shift 
for those areas away from Microsoft into using alterantive computing 
solutions. As people responsible for punishing Microsoft you must 
imagine a world in which not every one uses Microsoft Windows and 
Microsoft Word (I am afraid that judges willy-nilly take them as a 
defacto standard).
    Thirdly: Steve Satchell has applied for a position in a three-
person cometee stationed at Microsoft and enforcing the settlement. 
Steve is a very experienced and educated person, who has been in the 
computer bussiness for a long time and understand the sprockets and 
wheels of it extremelly well. Morever and more importantly, he is a 
deeply ethical and fair person and he is an ideal choice for that 
position. Therefore I recommend him most warmly.
    Yours sincerely,
    Anze Slosar
    St John`s College
    Cambridge CB2 1TP UK




MTC-00003658

From: jbange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an end user of Microsoft products, and as an engineer who 
deals with both Microsoft and non-Microsoft software on a regular 
basis, I would like to lodge my complaints against the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Clearly no-one has learned from any of the 
evidence that was presented in this trial. The proposed settlement 
enables Microsoft to further it`s clear and unfair dominance in the 
software and operating system market by inserting itself into 
schools while also locking not for profit companies and the 
government out of any potential for remedy. I for one want my 
children to learn that there

[[Page 24333]]

is more than one choice when it comes to software, and this is not 
the way to do it. For that matter, children will be conditioned to 
use Microsoft software and eventually increase the already too 
strong user base that Microsoft commands. Do we punish a monopoly by 
strengthening it? No we should not.
    Please reconsider this settlement and impose a breakup of 
Microsoft or other measures to stop this monopoly before more small 
software companies fail. Do not let Microsoft stifle the growth of 
our technology markets any more.
    Thank you!
    Joe Bange
    Atlanta, GA




MTC-00003659

From: Mike Scalora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:22pm
Subject: What are you thinking?
    How does helping making Microsoft a monopoly in schools do 
anything for all the money they have ripped off from consumers? How 
about all the companies that they have run out of business?
    Mike Scalora, Orem, Utah




MTC-00003660

From: Michael Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make Microsoft give the schools 1 billion dollars to spend as 
they see fit. The organization responsible for doling out the money 
should not be associated with Microsoft. If the schools choose to 
spend the money on Microsoft software, fine. But they would be free 
to choose Linux and Apple as well. Also, schools don`t need 
someone`s hand me down refurbished computer.
    Also, the fine print of who can see Microsoft`s APIs should not 
be limited to companies that Microsoft deems as a viable business. 
How would they know a viable business. They have historically 
purchased all of their technology from others who saw the need. Make 
Microsoft share all of their apis with ANYONE, including the U.S. 
government and open source.
    Thank you.
    Michael Simpson
    Senior Software Engineer
    [email protected]
    (858) 794-8282 x138




MTC-00003661

From: Harvey McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    What I have read in the press regarding the `settlement 
details' of the proposed agreement has made me most angry.
    Allowing more MS `stuff' into the classroom is 
reinforcing MS`s monopoly for years down the road.
    And speaking of that road, it is littered with the stripped 
carcasses of other companies that developed a product only to have 
it bundled into Windows, at times with all the code intact (Stacker, 
for instance).
    The only way this is going to work is to separate MS into 
two_one for the OS and the other for other software products. 
You know it and I know it and the industry knows it. Extract digit 
and do it.
    Yours most sincerely,
    H. W. McDaniel
    31888 Fayetteville Drive
    Shedd, Oregon
    [email protected]




MTC-00003662

From: Ryan Vanderzanden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I, as an end user of computers and computer software, feel that 
the proposed settlement is utterly appalling. This is far worse than 
a simple slap on the wrist to a company that knows darned well that 
they abused their monopoly powers, but it helps them to further 
extend their power.
    As an end user of various types of computers and computer 
software, I rely on multiple platforms talking to each other. One 
large hole in the wording of the settlement is that it would allow 
Microsoft to effectively stop such interactivities. That is truly 
terrible, because it puts Microsoft in a heightened state of 
control.
    It seems to me, as a consumer, that this 
`punishment' is actually nothing of the sort, and most 
of the settlement is designed to work out in Microsoft`s favor. 
Worse yet, is that during the entirety of the court proceedings, 
Microsoft continued to do the very thing they were at court for, 
abusing monopoly power by bundling Windows Media Player and Windows 
Messenger into Windows XP, and tightening the grip on what hardware 
vendors could and couldn`t do with the desktop. A settlement such as 
this only enforces the behaviors that Microsoft has grown so 
accustomed to.
    Please, lay down a stricter punishment, something that actually 
hurts them, not helps them. They were found guilty, they have done 
nothing whatsoever to show any remorse (and in fact have done more 
things that prove that they don`t care what anybody says, and that 
they have the power). They are not untouchable as long as we do 
something about it now. No software company in the world has a 
chance to beat them on anything they do, and they will continue to 
grow and abuse their powers unless they see that there are 
repercussions to monopolistic abuses. Force them to open their 
source code, force them to stop bundling software such as Internet 
Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger with Windows, 
and whatever happens, keep them from running the world with their 
.net and passport strategy where the internet will be relegated to 
an `in' club (those who play by Microsoft`s rules) and 
an `out' club (those who refuse to follow suit, and end 
up not being able to shop online at amazon.com, or whatever sites 
have exclusive agreements with Microsoft).
    Personally, I feel that they should be split up, but I see that 
will never happen. However, demanding they give a couple billion 
dollars to AOL/Netscape, as well as Apple, Real Networks, etc, will 
make the point that if they continue to abuse power, they will have 
to pay.
    Thank you for your time.
    Ryan Vanderzanden




MTC-00003663

From: Sarah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly against Microsoft`s proposed settlement to the 
Anti-Trust trial. They are a monopoly, that is a fact and it is not 
in dispute. However, whilst Microsoft as a company, does do `a 
lot of good' as an mostly ethical originisation, the very fact 
that they leveraged their monoploy position demands action. During 
the original Ant-Trust trial, they were found to be falisifying 
evidence, another action that has gone unpunished.
    I demand sufficient action be bought against this company. 
regards
    Richard Roberts




MTC-00003664

From: Justin Michael Palk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to you in regards to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. As a computer professional, I am gravely 
concerned about the apparent leniency of the settlement currently 
under consideration. While I in theory support the idea of a speedy 
remedy, I do not believe that in any instance a speedy remedy should 
take the place of an effective and reasonable remedy, the current 
settlement appears to assign primacy to the former at the expense of 
the latter.
    The overall structure of the settlement leaves something to be 
desired, as it leaves Microsoft`s fundamental course of operation 
untouched, and generally seems to have no concrete method of 
enforcement, as the Technical Council (TC) only has the power to 
suggest remedies in the event of a breach of the settlement (IV D 4 
c). Similarly, the restriction against members of the TC and their 
findings, recommendations and other products being admitted in court 
in any matter regarding the settlement is another curious limitation 
on the strength of the proposed remedy. Microsoft has demonstrated 
its willingness to violate agreements with the government in the 
past (indeed, just such a violation led to the prosecution of this 
case), and there has been no indication that it has changed its 
underlying opinion to such agreements. Without a stronger set of 
enforcement provisions, I fear that Microsoft will regard this 
settlement with the same disdain it has had for similar agreements 
in the past.
    Another flaw in the settlement is the lack of consideration 
given to open source, and `free` software. There are sections which 
require Microsoft to provide information to commercial competitors, 
but non-commercial ventures are specifically exempted from these 
requirements. (III J 2 c) gives Microsoft the ability to define the 
`reasonable, objective standards... for certifying the authenticity

[[Page 24334]]

and viability of its business`, when deciding who is allowed to 
request information regarding APIs, communications protocols and 
documentation. Open source software, such as the Apache web server, 
and Sendmail (the most widely used web server and mail transport 
software on the internet, respectively), clearly compete with 
Microsoft products, but, as they are not commercial products, their 
authors have no right to request information from Microsoft. 
Similarly, SAMBA, a widely used software package for allowing 
Windows-based file servers and printers to work with UNIX and other 
systems, and requires information on Microsoft communications 
protocols, will effectively have its death warrant signed should 
this settlement come into effect.
    Microsoft itself has recognized that various open source 
projects are the greatest threat to its continuing dominance of the 
software market (as shown by the `Halloween Documents` http://
www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html). They have also 
demonstrated their contempt for government attempts to break their 
stranglehold on the market. It is my opinion that this proposed 
settlement will do little to curb Microsoft`s predatory and illegal 
behavior in the commercial sector, while simultaneously 
strengthening their hand against what is currently the greatest 
threat to their monopoly. I urge you to reconsider and rework this 
settlement into an effective remedy that will free the market and 
provide a tangible benefit to consumers.
    Justin Palk
    [email protected]
    734-622-9865




MTC-00003665

From: Mark Crandell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regard to what I have heard about the proposed settlement 
regarding the Microsoft case. For one I am disappointed with the 
current idea regarding donation Microsoft products to school 
systems. The current deal from what I have heard allows Microsoft to 
distribute to schools the software that it chooses. I for one do not 
feel this helps school, and also I believe it would help Microsoft 
extend its reach into the education market. I would be happy to see 
anything Microsoft might pay me to instead go to a school; however, 
it needs to be up to the schooling systems how the money would be 
spent. I am in favor in Microsoft buying the hardware and having Red 
Hat Linux supply the software.
    I believe the Linux operating system would be a great tool for 
schooling systems to have partly because of the great opportunity 
for learning computers, and computer software at a low cost (free!). 
For me, learning how to use Linux has defiantly become a valuable 
tool for becoming a computer engineer.
    Thank you
    Mark Crandell



MTC-00003666

From: John C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have a number of concerns about the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft setllemant. One of the first of these is the following:
    Section III(J)(2) My understanding of thia is that it 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, ...
    According to this it allows Microsoft to define what a business 
is. For example it may set citeria that a business has to make $100 
million a year to meet the criteria. A small medical and research 
clinic which is not-for-profit may not meet their 
`criteria'. The apache web server is a not-profit and it 
will be locked out. As will samba for sharing information across a 
network which has multiple types of machines run on the same 
network.
    My next concern is Microsofts `giving' X number of 
dollars to schools, etc. in hardware and software. Thatis easily 
inflated by the `retail' prices of the software they are 
giving away, all Microsoft, no doubt. If this is to happen the 
dollar figure should be based on Mirsofts cost to reproduce the 
software that is all ready developed. i.e less than a one dollar to 
press the disks.
    This is actually just one more method to maintain there monoply 
under the guise of good will. I think that the donation needs to 
include an equal number of SGI machines, Sun machines, Apples, 
HPunix and Linux boxes to give the education systems all the tools 
that students may need in there lives.
    Having microsoft use their skills to make the top 50 selling of 
their products run on the all the above mentioned machines and 
operating systems. This would break the monoply of the operting 
system.
    They are a monopoly and they consistently have locked out or 
seen good product and then jump on it in a manner that has destroyed 
other business of which Netscape was one. My fear is they will 
continue to lock out others and maintain there monopoly.
    A final point no longer allow them to use end user license 
agreements. Declare there products commodities just as a apple or 
pear is.
    Sincerely,
    John A. Constantine, PhD.



MTC-00003667

From: Shafer Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to comment on the proposed settlement. I`m opposed to 
this settlement for the following reasons:
    1. The settlement does nothing to redress the wrongs done to the 
parties actually harmed by Microsoft`s actions, such as Netscape. 
The workers who have been laid off at these companies are receiving 
nothing through this settlement though they`ve had their livlihoods 
effected by Microsoft`s illegal actions.
    2. Section III (J)(2) of the proposed settlement outlines 
companies as being an organization that exists for profit, yet 
Microsoft`s internal documents leaked to the public recently state 
that Microsoft considers it`s biggest threat to be from non-profit 
organizations such as Linux. In the proposed Settlement Microsoft 
will be not only able to continue unfair and illegal activities 
against such non-profit organizations but it will be justified in 
doing so because of the language of this proposed Settlement.
    3. Section III (D) continues the language of (J)(2) further to 
enable Microsoft to shut out competition from non-profit middleware 
companies such as ISV, IHV, and OEMs.
    4. Lastly, the American government itself will be shut out by 
the language of this proposed Settlement. The Department of Justice, 
National Standards and Technology, etc. will be classified as non-
profit organizations by the language of this Settlement and 
Microsoft will be open to exploit that new relationship as it sees 
fit.
    In conclusion, this Settlement will not repair the damage done 
by Microsoft to the people harmed by their earlier illegal actions, 
and it will allow Microsoft to continue such illegal actions against 
entirely new organizations in the future. The language of this 
Settlement is such that it leaves wide avenues for future abuse by 
Microsoft, and does nothing to repair the damage aready inflicted.
    Shafer Ramsey
    39 Play Rd.
    Enfield, CT. 06082



MTC-00003668

From: Peter Holt Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs:
    I am concerned about the details of the Microsoft settlement. 
Specifically, I am concerned about the way in which non-profit 
organizations have no rights in the settlement as described by 
`Robert X. Cringely' (nom de plume) in his article at 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html. Microsoft 
has repeatedly shown themselves to be very clever at manipulating 
the word of the law rather than abiding by the spirit.
    It is especially important at the current time to carefully 
consider the probable future of computing. It seems that the trend 
is towards putting more functionality on the server and less on the 
client. Some day soon it may be that the only client software is the 
web browser. As a result, even if Microsoft`s behavior is modified 
as far as licensed software is concerned, there will be little 
affect on the company as their trend is towards licensed services.
    Some ideas for consideration:
    * Disallow the sale of computers with pre-installed software 
(including operating systems). Microsoft has advertised each version 
of Windows as easier to install than the last so this should pose no 
great hardship while at the same time affording competitors a window 
of opportunity to make a sale. The installation of most PC operating 
systems today consists of little more than inserting a CD-ROM 
and turning the computer on. Other

[[Page 24335]]

PC software only requires clicking on `setup'.
    * Require an `unlock' feature to be built into 
Microsoft products requiring registration so that once a product is 
deemed to be unsupported by Microsoft the registration key is no 
longer needed.
    * Require full media to be sold (not just `system 
restoration disks') so that the user can configure the 
software as they see fit.
    * End special pricing arrangements_the wholesale cost of 
Microsoft products should be the same for everyone.
    * Require the full disclosure of all APIs, file formats, network 
protocols etc. used by Microsoft and prohibit restricting their 
reproduction.
    * Accept RedHat`s offer to work with Microsoft by donating 
software for every school in the country to run on hardware supplied 
by Microsoft. Microsoft`s proposal is a bit like having a distiller 
convicted of anti-competitive practices donating whiskey to 21 year 
olds as penance_a transparent attempt to turn a penalty into a 
marketing opportunity.
    * Prohibit Microsoft from offering services which lock users in. 
For example, the single login facilities offered by Passport should 
be based on a protocol, implementable by any professional developer 
on any platform, so the customer can choose among competing login 
service providers.
    * Prohibit Microsoft from pursuing government sales when there 
is a competing open source product of commercial quality for some 
period (perhaps three years). Obviously the definition of 
`commercial quality' would have to be sorted out.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Holt Hoffman
    9 Ladbroke Road
    Greenville, SC 29615
    864-292-3729



MTC-00003669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled, and extremely concerned, about language in the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft that will serve to (very 
possibly) destroy open source software projects that have helped the 
internet to thrive and which continue to provide high-quality, 
reliable computing alternatives to those of Microsoft. Open source 
and free software projects are important to all kinds of entities, 
including academia, small business, non-profits, and others. The 
Linux operating system is the ONLY operating system that provides 
even a hint of competition to Microsoft. Are you proposing a 
`settlement' that will actually serve to DIMINISH that 
competition??? Absolutely incredible. I would think that your 
proposed settlement would include provisions to force Microsoft to 
cooperate with interoperability (in a local network, for example) 
between Windows and other operating environments, so that customers 
can choose freely.
    Could it be that the DOJ attorneys lack an awareness of Open 
Source and free software? If so, I encourage the reading of the 
following book, which provides an excellent history: Rebel Code: The 
Inside Story of Linux and the Open Source Revolution by Glyn Moody, 
Perseus Publishing, 2001
    Thank you,
    Bill
    Bill Gurley, Supervisor of Technical Services
    Department of Chemistry
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville Campus
    CC:Senator Fred Thompson,Sen. Bill Frist



MTC-00003670

From: David G. Epling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I`d like my opinion known that I don`t like the idea of MS`s 
settlement that includes them expanding their market share and 
increasing their monopoly by giving free software to poor schools.
    Thank you.
    David Epling



MTC-00003671

From: Michael Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am quite disturbed at the notion of this 
`settlement'. No wonder Microsoft accept it with Gates 
smiling, he`s got out of jail free, passed go, and collected $200. 
When the bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer was deemed 
illegal, on appeal, even with all the issues over the objectivity 
and impartiality of the trial, how can the DOJ allow Microsoft to 
bundle more than ever into windows xp? How can the DOJ allow 
Microsoft to do to Real Networks and AOL what it did to topple 
Netscape and attempt to prevent users of other platforms from 
accessing the full net?
    Accepting this settlement is quite out of the question for 
providing benefits to consumers, in the long-term the only way to 
ensure that consumers do not suffer damages is to ensure that there 
is a competitive market, and Microsoft is doing it utmost, and will 
apparently be allowed to, to change the currently competitive media 
and messaging markets into uncompetitive markets as has been done 
with browsers.
    Faithfully,
    Michael S.A. Dawson
    Concerned User



MTC-00003672

From: John Raithel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern (and it should deeply concern us all), I 
am writing to attempt to express my astonishment and disgust with 
the proposed `settlement' of the Microsoft monopoly 
case. I have been an active professional in the computer industry 
for 21 years, and my experience has included everything from large-
scale systems to customized chip solutions, and from software from 
the giants to software from the open-source programmer.
    I`m sorry, but Microsoft must be broken up. I have seen more 
than one company abandon products excellent products, products 
already in beta and near release date that have been 
enthusiastically reviewed by industry journals I have seen, I say, 
these companies simply drop their product at the announced entry of 
Microsoft (MS) into the field. Even though MS at the time had no 
competing product as yet, and in at least one case it never did 
develop the `product'. The bottom line cannot be: 
`Will the economy take a hit if we break-up MS?' It may, 
it may not, but in the long run the economy necessarily reaps the 
benefits of open markets, energetic competition, and all those 
things that restrictions on monopolistic presences have on the 
market.
    MS must compete. It does not now. Any `solution' 
that does not take this into account and correct it wll simply have 
to be revisited every few years, at immense cost, until the 
correction is made.
    Thank-you for your kind attention to this.
    John
    John Raithel
    [email protected]
    650 726-3931



MTC-00003673

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Concerning the proposed settlement with Microsoft, I would like 
to raise some concerns with you.
    If this case is to be `settled', it should be 
settled in favor of the Public interest. Not in the interest of any 
single business or lobbying entity. Accepting that premise, the 
settlement, as proposed, should be rejected because it serves to 
further entrench Microsoft`s monopoly in several business areas.
    As proposed, the settlement would allow Microsoft discretion to 
prevent Free/Open source software from accessing the software 
APIs_in order to guard Microsoft`s intellectual property. This 
argument assumes that the Free/Open source movement is a business 
entity seeking to capitalize on Microsoft`s development efforts, the 
truth is that the Free/Open source movement is not a business at 
all. It is simply software developers seeking to produce high 
quality software for the good of the public at large.
    Making the APIs publicly available to any interested 
organization_not just competitors_would force Microsoft 
to compete on a level playing-field with other software producers, 
and far from undermining their intellectual-property, it would 
assure interoperability between Microsoft`s formidable installed-
base of software and the software produced by their competitors. 
This interoper- ability can certainly be considered to be in the 
public interest.
    Microsoft has repeatedly tried to cast this movement as being 
`un-American' because it isn`t concerned with a profit 
motive. Similarly, the American tradition of Barn raising must be 
viewed as `un-American.' Indeed any effort by `the 
few' which benefits `the many' must then be 
considered `un-American.' To that, I submit that it is 
Microsoft that fails to understand appreciate

[[Page 24336]]

 what America is all about_and underscores the need to force 
the awareness upon them that the world doesn`t exist to be their 
unwilling profit base.
    Especially if preferred alternatives are forced from viability.
    Microsoft has proposed supplying schools with `PC 
standard' hardware and their own software. Taking this course 
would artificially promote Microsoft in one of the few market areas 
where it does not already enjoy monopoly status, and over 
time_as the supplied OSes require updates, Microsoft would be 
in a prime position to leverage that foothold to assure that others 
could not compete in that area.
    Thank you for your attention.
    JAY VOLLMER
    [email protected], [email protected]
    952-738-8201



MTC-00003674

From: Tom Glascock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sunday, December 9, 2001
    My name is Thomas S. Glascock and I live in Cincinnati OH. I 
strongly urge the United States Department of Justice to reconsider 
the lightweight `settlement' that it has proposed to 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has shown in the past, and will in the future, that it 
will take advantage of every possible loophole in this 
`remedy.'
    The settlement as it stands today does not have any sort of 
punishment element in it, which will only serve to encourage 
Microsoft in its illegal, unethical and immoral behavior.
    I very strongly urge the USDOJ to add a punishment element to 
the settlement as a deterrent to their illegal corporate behavior.
    Corporations are entities designed to shield individuals from 
personal liability when running a business, not as a shields for 
breaking the law. The corporation itself is guilty of a federal 
crime, and the corporation should be harshly punished, as though it 
were the actions of an individual.
    Thank you
    Thomas S. Glascock



MTC-00003675

From: Margaret Leber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m a professional software engineer with over thirty years 
experience in the industry, and I`m writing to express my extreme 
concern about some of the language in the proposed settlement.
    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: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    This language creates a huge loophole for Microsoft to crush an 
important element of thier competition today, namely open-source 
software created under the auspices of non-commercial entities. 
Considering that only not-for-profit organizations have flourished 
producing software that competes for technical space with MSFT code 
(considering they`ve driven the bulk of the for-profit alternatives 
out by illegal practices they`ve already been convicted of) to allow 
this language to stand will allow MSFT to freeze-out the open-source 
community through nondisclosure of their interfaces. This will 
cripple important open-source projects like SAMBA and the Apache 
Project. MSFT has been quite vocal in the press about the effect 
open-source has had on their business. In this country, we don`t 
permit convicted felons to own firearms lest they use them to comit 
another crime. Please don`t hand a convicted monopolist yet another 
weapon in this battle.
    Margaret Leber
    163 North Whitehall Road
    Jeffersonville PA 19043



MTC-00003676

From: Joe Stump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Recently I read the following editorial:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    And share the author`s concerns that Open Source and non-profits 
are not adequately being protected under the final agreement with 
Microsoft. The simple fact is that MS needs to play fair and keep 
any/all protocols it creates open to the public. Imagine if Einstein 
had patented E = mc\2\ or if Newton had made the laws of physics 
proprietary!
    Joe Stump
    Joe Stump 



MTC-00003677

From: SpamSpamSpam
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 12/9/01 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is BAD for the USA. The 
settlement only extends Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Essentially they are only giving the money back to themselves. 
And gaining marketshare in one of the few areas that they are weak. 
It does not provide any remedy, to prevent Microsoft`s monopolistic 
tactics. Break up Microsoft while there is still a chance for some 
competition.
    DO NOT accept the proposed settlement.



MTC-00003678

From: Keith E. Laidig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Madam/Sir:
    As a small business owner, I would like to put in my two cents 
regarding the proposed settlement in the Mircosoft anti-trust case. 
The settlement is nothing more than a complete capitulation by the 
government to a company which has been found guilty of using its 
monopoly repeated a in anticompetitive fashion. The 
`penalties` do nothing to curtail Microsoft`s illegal behavior 
and, in fact, are designed to extend the company`s monopoly further. 
As more innovative companies are crushed by the continued illegal 
behavior of a convicted monopolist, the government twiddles its 
thumbs.
    Innovation suffers. The public gets a poor product at a 
ridculously high price. Pathetic.
    Keith E. Laidig
    Keith E. Laidig, Ph.D., M.S., M.Phil.
    Formix Research Laboratories
    [email protected]
    http://www.formix.com



MTC-00003679

From: clps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Ms:
    I respectfully do not consider allowing Microsoft to `donate` 
their software to schools to be any kind of `penalty' or 
`remedy', quite the opposite, in fact. By allowing the 
settlement to continue as currently proposed, Microsoft has turned a 
legal defeat into a commercial victory for their monopolistic ways.
    A more prudent penalty would be to force Microsoft to provide 
either cash money, or hardware void of Microsofts operating system, 
instead forcing Microsoft to donate their competitors software, 
whether it be from Apple, or a Linux distribution, or some other 
non-Microsoft product.
    Please also force Microsoft to publish their APIs, and restrict 
them from anti-competitive practices, especially against not-for-
profit software ventures, such as Linux, Apache, Sendmail, etc., so 
that both free and commercial software interests can operate in a 
business climate which encourages open innovation.
    Sincerely,
    R. Taylor
    PMB 210, 2471 Solano Avenue
    Napa, CA 94558



MTC-00003680

From: Howard Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Computer Systems Administrator with 16 years professional 
experience. I write with concern over the revised proposed Final 
Judgment of United States v. Microsoft. In particular, I am 
concerned with the language of section III(J)(2) of the revised 
proposed final Judgment which reads:
    `(No provision of this Final Judgment shall:...) 1. 
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

[[Page 24337]]

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.'
    Some background regarding my experience with Microsoft software 
will help to clarify my concerns with this language.
    For the first five years of my career, I used first the VMS, 
then the Unix operating systems exclusively. Microsoft`s DOS and 
Windows operating systems were not considered by most of my 
customers (Scientists and graduate students at the Physics 
Department of UCSB) to be suitable for their purposes. In 1991, I 
got a new job at a commercial company, Octel Communications in 
Milpitas California, supporting their engineers. At Octel, 
Microsoft`s dominance of the market for PC operating systems was 
well under way. The engineers mostly used Unix (Sun`s version) but 
the rest of the company used DOS and Windows 3.11. For me, as a Unix 
Systems Administrator, this posed an immediate problem. The Windows 
systems were networked together using a Microsoft protocol called 
SMB. The details of this protocol were partly available, and partly 
kept secret (or at least not published) by Microsoft. This meant 
that resources on the Windows network, such as disks and printers, 
were unavailable to users on the Unix network, and vice-versa. This 
was sub-optimal in a number of ways. It led to situations in which 
workgroups would have two printers, on each for Windows and Unix. 
Files would be shared using floppy disks. Searching for a solution, 
I found a wonderful software package on the Internet called Samba. 
This software, written by clever programmer in Australia, named 
Andrew Tridgell, implemented communications between the incompatible 
Unix and Windows worlds. Using Samba, I could make my Unix computers 
and disks available to Windows users. I could also make Windows 
printers available to Unix users. Getting at Windows files from Unix 
was less well supported, but it was possible. This was OK because at 
that time the Windows boxes tended to be desktop machines, whereas 
the Unix computers were generally larger server boxes. This meant 
most of the disk space we wanted to share was on Unix, and Samba let 
us do that very well.
    Two points about Samba are relevant in my concern over the 
language cited in my first paragraph. First, since the SMB protocol 
in use on Windows 3.11 differed in important details from the 
various published specifications, Andrew Tridgell had to 
`reverse engineer' the protocol. (When he started he 
didn`t even know there were any published specs. By the time he got 
his hands on them, he had implemented enough on his own to know that 
certain details were wrong or missing.) This may have been due to a 
desire by Microsoft to keep the details of their implementation 
secret or commercial advantage. Most Finance departments in industry 
look askance at duplicating resources like printers across an entire 
organization. At Octel, there was pressure from Finance to 
consolidate the computing platforms in use due to the added expense. 
Since Finance used Windows, that was the platform they wanted to 
standardize on. The second point about Samba is it was developed by 
volunteers, and given away for free on the Internet. This model of 
software distribution is now more familiar, (It goes by various 
labels, depending on who is describing it and on what software 
license is in use. `Free Software' and `Open 
Source Software' are two popular labels. Based on its license, 
the former is the proper label for Samba.) but it was novel in the 
commercial world in 1991.
    Which brings me finally back to the language of Section 
III(J)(2) of the revised proposed final Judgment reproduced above. 
One of the several criteria for which `No provision of this 
Final judgment shall ... Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any 
license ...' for its security related APIs to a `person 
or entity' is that the entity ` meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business...' (d).
    The problem with this clause as it relates to the current 
discussion is that Samba, as related above, does not have a 
`viable business.' Samba is given away for free by 
volunteers. It is nonetheless a critical piece of software in 
ensuring that computers running Microsoft`s OS `play 
nice' with rival Operating Systems. If Microsoft is allowed, 
at its sole discretion, to withhold APIs from entities it deems to 
not have a `viable business,' there is a real danger 
Microsoft will do so for projects, like Samba, that tend to soften 
the power of Microsoft`s monopoly in the market for PC operating 
systems. The quoted section limits this clause to APIs `.. 
related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license 
enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or 
third party intellectual property protection mechanisms.' 
However this limitation doesn`t rescue Samba, which must use 
`authentication/authorization security' mechanisms to 
access resources on networks running Microsoft`s software.
    Based on this concern, I strongly urge you to amend the language 
in the Final Judgment to place the decision in the hands of the 
Technical Committee set up under section IV(B) of the Final 
Judgment, rather than Microsoft`s
    Thank you for your attention,
    Howard Owen
    EGBOK Consultants
    [email protected] +1-650-339-5733



MTC-00003681

From: Tim O`Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to let you know that I have serious concerns about the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. It does little or nothing 
to impede Microsoft`s continued abuse of its monopoly position, and 
in fact includes provisions that will potentially give Microsoft 
even greater power. There is so little to like in this settlement, 
and so much to dislike, that it hardly bears detailed comment.
    I am a well known high-tech publisher. My books cover both 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft technologies. I understand Microsoft`s 
position that they remain vulnerable to new technologies that may 
disrupt their monopoly, but I don`t buy it. Yes, they are now 
competing for new markets in the next generation of internet 
applications, and they don`t hold all the cards that they held at 
their peak. But they still have many unfair advantages, and every 
indication that they intend to use them to destroy both competitors 
and an open market.
    I am particularly concerned about Microsoft`s attacks on free 
and open source software, and the fact that the settlement does 
little to protect open source developers, who compete with Microsoft 
in many major markets (for example, Apache is Microsoft`s biggest 
competitor in the web server market), but are not commercial 
entities protected at all by the settlement.
    In addition, I am extremely concerned that Microsoft has been 
allowed to destroy competitors such as Netscape, to undermine Sun`s 
Java, and to suffer no real penalties. No action by the Justice 
Department will restore Netscape or the competitive health of the 
web browser business, but at the very least, Microsoft ought to be 
forced to pay a significant settlement to web browser and server 
vendors who were harmed by their actions.
    In addition, my ideal settlement would require full advance 
disclosure of all proprietary Microsoft file formats (since they use 
their control over data formats to force application lock-in), and 
open source code for all portions of applications that read or write 
files in those data formats. We don`t need source code to all of 
Windows or Microsoft Office_just those parts that are used to 
enforce user lock-in. And this source code needs to be completely 
free and in the open, not in some restricted release to Microsoft 
approved vendors!
    However, if you do go through with the settlement, it is 
essential that the people who are set to watch over Microsoft be 
convinced Microsoft critics, not apologists for the company. I`d 
love to see Larry Lessig, who raised so many Microsoft hackles when 
he was proposed as a special master in the case, put on them as a 
full time watchdog! Microsoft is a great company, but they have 
broken the law, and they need to be restrained.
    Tim O`Reilly @ O`Reilly & Associates, Inc.
    1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
    +1 707-829-0515, FAX +1 707-829-0104
    [email protected], http://www.oreilly.com
    CC:tim



MTC-00003682

From: esoR ocsirF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:19pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main

[[Page 24338]]

competitor: Free and Open Source Software (`Free' 
defined as `without restriction' not `free of 
cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers. It is also essential that non-commercial 
groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have 
questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to 
allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as 
they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors 
as they have done so many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.



MTC-00003683

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is steve morin a resident of new york and a student in 
massachusetts. I am a computer science major and graduating this 
year and have been following the case since it`s inception and the 
industry in general. I have been reading about the settlement and 
don`t believe it effectively does a single thing. Any proposals that 
includes donations of free computing software by microsoft are 
unfair because it then allows them more of a grasp up up and coming 
users through the school system and costs them virtually nothing. 
More requests like the proposals, for them to make microsoft office 
for linux, and mac os`s, and including the java environment with the 
operation system are moves in the right direction as far as curbing 
monopolistic practices. The current settlement is no more than a 
joke to microsoft, and evidence has indicated in publications that 
this sentiment is also shared by upper level microsoft management. I 
hope that the government takes more stringent measures in the 
Microsoft Settlement that actually encourages fair practices in 
buisness and to the benifit of the american people and non-forprofit 
organizations including protection of non-forprofit software and 
computer technology companies
    Sincerely,
    Steve Morin



MTC-00003684

From: Mark Stribling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my concern over the currently proposed 
punishment for Microsoft for its antitrust violations to donate more 
than $1 billion in software, hardware and money to schools. I have 
several complaints with this sentence. First, the language of the 
settlement does not adequately regard non-profit and non-business 
entities. Today, particularly the open source software providers 
stand to lose the most if the current settlement commences. Apache, 
Perl, and Sendmail are not afforded any protection from Microsoft`s 
predatory business practices because the language in the settlement 
does not refer to software providers, rather, software vendors. 
Since these software projects are not for profit companies, wording 
like, `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...' (Section III(J)(2)) offers a 
lack of protection for those companies that Microsoft most competes 
with today. I.e., those who should be most protected from its 
monopoly.
    The second problem with the current settlement is that $1.5 
billion is significantly smaller than the amount of money and liquid 
assets that Microsoft has. It is hardly a fraction of the company`s 
worth, and not even a dent in yearly profits. Far from even a slap 
on the wrist, the amount of settlement makes a mockery of the DoJ. 
It is a punishment in name only. The final problem with the 
Microsoft settlement is in the structure of the penalty payment. In 
requiring MS to give software and hardware to schools, the 
settlement acts to not only enforce MS`s current monopoly, but to 
actually strengthen it. Currently, Apple computers struggles to 
retain its current presence in the educational sector. Linux and 
alternative operating systems has worked hard and barely has any 
presence in schools. By making MS give out software and hardware to 
schools, they have less incentive to use Mac or Linux based 
machines. Not only that, but the future costs of reeducating their 
employees in the use of Mac or Linux would act as a strong 
deterrence to make the switch and create a barrier to entry. Thus 
Microsoft is in an even stronger position of monopolistic control.
    Thank you.
    Mark Stribling
    CC:Jer Wood



MTC-00003685

From: Joseph P Frazee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Settlement agreement. 
Speaking as both a user of Free Open Source software and a systems 
manager for The Ohio State University Libraries, I depend on the low 
cost and high interoperability of Free Open Source software as it 
exists today. This low cost and high interoperability has been made 
possible by companies adhering to open standards and participating 
in fair market practices that include making protocols and formats 
open and accessible.
    By allowing a corporation such as Microsoft to legally exclude 
themselves from providing opportunities for interoperability via 
open standards, you are effectively ensuring that Free Open Source 
software will not be able to compete. It will then die.
    This would be a tragedy for the organization I am in and 
organizations that I have worked with in the past. We depend on Free 
Open Source software to do jobs ranging from enterprise Internet 
services to desktop support tools. This has become increasingly true 
amidst the ailing economy where pay-for software, support contracts, 
and maintenance fees have become too expensive. Do not let Free Open 
Source software die because monopolies were allowed to prevail. Do 
no forgot this country`s past of furthering open standards. Two 
hundred years ago we paid Eli Whitney to give us open standards for 
gun production. Do not let us now pay William Gates so that we never 
have an open standard again.
    Joseph P Frazee
    E-mail: [email protected]
    The Ohio State University Libraries
    Phone: (614) 688-5432
    UNIX ManagerPager: (614) 731-4919



MTC-00003686

From: Robert White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    To be just and effective the Microsoft settlement must include 
two conceptual modifications.

[[Page 24339]]

    (1) Microsoft`s duty to disclose must not be limited only to 
existing commercial concerns. The so-called free software community 
must also have access to the documentation and functionality of the 
Microsoft products. This doesn`t necessarily have anything to do 
with the free software community itself, even it that is a vital 
concern. In practice, in order to start a commercial software 
venture a person or group needs to do a `proof of 
concept' before they know if their idea has any viability. In 
essence, if Microsoft is allowed to limit the determination of their 
APIs (etc) to already established commercial concerns, they are 
being allowed to effectively prevent any new competitors to start-up 
in the field. This would pro-actively and unacceptably repress new 
software concerns both `free' and 
`commercial' from competing with Microsoft.
    (2) All provisions in existing and future licences must be 
vetted to remove the Microsoft-worst-kept-secret conditions that do 
not allow hardware vendors to co-install non-Microsoft operating 
systems on the hardware they deliver. (i.e. the no-dual-boot-to-
competitor provisions) While this too directly affects Linux and 
other free operating systems it has also been used to crush 
commercial competitors. One only has to look at the way the BeOS 
operating system was blocked from commercial distribution with new 
hardware. This Microsoft limit on hardware vendors was used by 
Microsoft to gravely injure that competitor and eventually was 
directly responsible for the collapse of that company. They simply 
couldn`t open any distribution channels for their arguably superior 
product. This is the very behavior that must be prevented in the 
future.
    Robert White
    Newcastle, WA
    425-228-8825
    [email protected]



MTC-00003687

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current proposed settlement doesn`t punish 
Microsoft at all for their predatory practices. In fact, I believe 
the settlement will bolster their legal position for further market 
dominating practices.
    If you want to stop the juggernaut:
    1. allow MS to keep their compiler and application software 
divisions, but
    2. force MS to put their OS source code in public domain. They 
could still be allowed to sell it though.
    Carey Brown
    [email protected]



MTC-00003688

From: Jessica Blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:34pm
Subject: Proposed Final Judgment
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a longtime (8-9 years) user of Linux and other 
NONCOMMERCIAL operating systems and software titles, I am deeply 
concerned by a conspicuous absence from the Proposed Final Judgement 
(as I learned from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html). Apparently, it is designed to protect 
businesses_ but not non-profit organizations or individuals 
(who Microsoft apparently will still be free to pursue using 
whatever tricks necessary).
    The market realities in the computer world have changed. Some of 
the most credible threats to Microsoft nowadays come from 
noncommercial entities and to free products like Linux.
    I would like to urge you in the strongest possible terms to give 
ALL entities who write software (big businesses, small businesses, 
non-profit organizations, individuals, etc.) equal protection from 
Microsoft. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any 
questions or comments.
    Many thanks!
    Jessica L. Blank



MTC-00003689

From: Wim Coekaerts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    After reading the proposed settlement (Final Judgement), I 
cannot see how any of this means microsoft has been punished or 
found guilty of fiolating antitrust laws. The only thing that is 
very obvious about the proposal is that Microsoft came out as a 
winner, not as the guilty party, and this will make them stronger 
and gives them a wildcard to do even more harm to bigger companies 
like IBM, Oracle, Sun and everyone else that competes with 
Microsoft.
    I agree in general that the government should not interfere too 
much with how business is run and allow for competition but in this 
case they totally destroyed a big company (whether or not Netscape 
made good or bad business decisions around this is not really the 
point, the point is that microsoft used their power to trash 
Netscape and netscape tried to find a way out but got squashed.)
    It was also very clear in the case that Bill Gates was holding 
back information, not cooperating and being very arrogant, which he 
got repriminded for, but ultimately gets away with. This alone shows 
how strong they feel, even in such a big and important case, that 
the current legislature will leave them alone. I am a consumer, so 
far, microsoft has not released one product that works as 
advertised, that is the least bit open, in every case where they 
supposedly supopr a standard, they find a way to make it just 
incompatible with competing products. Yet, many companies I would 
like to buy something from, are forced to use Microsoft only 
products when you purchas something (dell, compaq etc), yes they do 
offer Some alternatives, but not to consumers for instance.
    Do I want the company to go away ? No.. But I was hoping there 
would be a fair trial, and a fair settlement or punishment. Not a 
hidden present for destroying companies that started the whole 
internet revolution (which microsoft at first thoght aws totally 
stupid...)
    So is this tomorrows world ? Break the law, do it at such a 
large scale that thousands of jobs are lost, go to court and get 
rewarded for it? The day this proposal was released was a sad day.
    Sincerely,
    Wim Coekaerts



MTC-00003690

From: Paul Scaer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice Enforcement Officers,
    Please don`t let Microsoft shut linux and open source software 
(Apache, Sendmail, PERL) out of meaningful use of the internet and 
the software world. Section III J 2 of the Proposed Final Judgement 
seems to be set to do that. Schools and other non-profit agencies 
that are using linux and Apache would be even further damaged in 
such a case. We rely on open source to allow us to keep up with the 
best in educational network products for our students. One can 
already see the noose tightening around our computer freedom with 
the xp licensing requirements and the refusal of Microsoft to 
discount educational use of its ware. The monopoly only gets 
stronger, it seems.
    The proposed language of this judgement will allow Microsoft to 
write out SAMBA and other open source efforts from interaction with 
its products. These open source efforts serve real educational 
purpose for the schools of America.
    Microsoft was found `guilty'. If you accept the 
proposed language of III J2, it will reward Microsoft for its 
monopolistic, anti-competitive rip-offs. Don`t let their army of 
lawyers defeat the verdict of the federal courts. Enlarge your legal 
definitions to safeguard the precious volunteer work of not-for-
profits, please!
    Sincerely,
    Paul Scaer, Librarian
    Masterman School
    Philadelphia, PA 19130



MTC-00003691

From: Keith Krieger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The settlement language largely allows Microsoft to stifle 
competition and eliminate any trace of free market mechanisms with 
the computing community. Limiting the APIs in the manner laid out by 
the settlement are limiting to Microsoft`s main competition: Free 
and Open Source Software. (Free is defined here as `without 
restriction'. Free is not meant to be `free of 
cost').
    This software is created by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This provides great benefits 
for American consumers. Free and Open Source Software is *the* 
essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. Consumers 
were harmed by Microsoft`s actions, not necessarily business 
interests. It is essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped 
by the settlement. Instead they are pointedly discriminated against 
by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses',

[[Page 24340]]

with Microsoft being able to interpret that as they wish.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals should be able to ask questions of Microsoft regarding 
these APIs, and have them answered publicly. If it seems too 
difficult to allow any individual to ask such a question, an 
electronic petition process could be used instead, as long as a 
group of individuals can have the same weight as a commercial 
organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement 
and is of large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups be able to 
access API documentation, and have questions answered by Microsoft. 
In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on 
any aspect of this manner. They can use that to further punish their 
most stringent competitors.
    It is also dangerous to grant discretion on security. While it 
is acceptable that they be allowed a short private period to resolve 
security issues before making them public, all aspects of their 
systems must be made public. It is easy to add security aspects to 
nearly any portion of a system. It is potentially a good thing that 
they add security at many parts of their system.
    However, they should not need to be private about their security 
measures to ensure the effectiveness of that security. The Free/Open 
Source communities have created large amounts of software that is 
secure while being open. Microsoft should do the same. This process 
is has been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer 
security has existed.



MTC-00003692

From: Grant Morrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am an avid Microsoft Windows and Microsoft products user. I 
have read the settlement the Department of Justice has proposed for 
the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft. There are several items 
within the settlement that I do not agree with. I not only do not 
agree with them, I also believe they will allow Microsoft to gain an 
even stronger hold on the software market than before this case was 
brought. Here are my reasons:
    (1) This settlement does not address free software`s rights. In 
today`s software market, the Internet and many thousands of servers 
and computers across the U.S. and the globe are run by Free-
Software. Under this proposed settlement, in Section III(J)(2) 
specifically, it contains some very strong language against free 
software/non-profit ventures.
    Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    This is unacceptable. Microsoft`s biggest competitor to their 
Internet Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache 
Foundation, a non-profit, free-software group. Apache has a 
currently larger market share and is a more stable and less 
vulnerable software platform. By not allowing free-software/non-
profit software groups to be able to hold their weight against their 
commercial counter-parts as this settlement does not, then Microsoft 
will be able to use this settlement to their advantage, and gain 
market share in areas they do not even currently dominate.
    I hope my comments will be taken of note and that there can be a 
settlement reached that addresses these concerns.
    Most respectfully,
    Grant Morrow
    Student, Southern Illinois University,
    Carbondale, IL



MTC-00003693

From: Andrew Morris
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing express my favor for settling the Microsoft anti-
trust case as it currently stands. Anti-trust laws were put on the 
books to protect consumers and I feel that consumers only stand to 
suffer by continuing this court case any longer. Please work to 
settle the case as soon as possible. Microsoft need not be punished 
further.
    Andrew W. Morris
    Senior Project Manager
    Winning Solutions, Inc.
    941.267.2749 ext.101



MTC-00003694

From: Matthew Kennedy
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How much money did microsoft contribute towards Bushes election?
    Matthew Kennedy
    Programmer ITD CQU
    ph +61 7 4930 6899 ah 4922 2854



MTC-00003695

From: Tim Hockin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed microsoft settlement is a farce. Microsoft has 
railroaded the DoJ to the point where MS will actually BENEFIT from 
their punishment. Explictly omitted are non-profit organizations. 
Microsoft`s biggest fear, Open Source software, is already at enough 
of a disadvantage. This settlement widens the gap.
    In the meantime, all the companies that have gone down the 
toilet, all the venture capital, all the jobs, all the ideas and 
technologies will not come back. They are lost to technology, and as 
long as MS is running the DoJ, they will remain so.
    If this is the best settlement the DoJ can arrange, then the 
anti-trust division should cease to exist as a whole. We`re better 
off without the beurocracy, the bullshit, and the inability to 
actually acheive a goal. If I didn`t have some faith left, I`d swear 
that Bill Gates ran the DoJ, the courts, and the White House. This 
`settlement' is all about the USA, the PEOPLE, being 
forced to settle for whatever MS decides, yet again. The people who 
accepted this deal should be embarrassed, humiliated, and most 
importantly FIRED for the pathetic excuse for justice they have 
enforced.
    The United States of Microsoft.
    How wonderful.
    Tim Hockin
    CA resident, software engineer, open-source user, and potential 
expatriot.



MTC-00003696

From: Gavin Treadgold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:00pm
Subject: Proposed MSFT Settlement
    I am writing this an a concerned non-US citizen. I know my 
opinion probably doesn`t count for much, but I feel obliged to write 
anyway.
    The proposed settlement deal is hardly just for the average 
citizen. By allowing Microsoft to provide software and hardware in 
the education market, it distinctly disadvantages one of the leading 
companies in that sector, Apple. The proposal is simply allowing 
Microsoft to purchase market share that will allow to to become even 
stronger. At a minimum for the education proposal to be acceptable, 
Microsoft should be required to front up the proposed settlement 
value in cash, and allow a non-partisan group to determine 
appropriate expenditure_after all, perhaps it could go towards 
more teachers to help the really disadvantaged.
    I used to believe the the United States of America provided one 
of the fairest and most just countries in the world. Sadly, after 
recent events in the Microsoft antitrust trial, it is hard to 
justify this enthusiasm, and the only hope that remains is that the 
remaining states that haven`t settled, and the European Union have 
more strength and determination to bring Microsoft to true justice 
for their anti-competitive behaviour.
    Gavin Treadgold
    New Zealand



MTC-00003698

From: Paul Golovin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 12/9/01 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Cringely has my `proxy': http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    I have watched several of his shows, he`s smarter than I am and 
better informed, but shares my views. Hence the proxy, I think you 
should do whatever he says.
    Paul Golovin



MTC-00003699

From: Ricardus Vincencius Wielgosz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:11pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    Dear sir or Madam:
    I have grave concerns about the recent DOJ/Microsoft settlement.

[[Page 24341]]

    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
specifically discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publicly. If 
it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals 
be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by 
Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have 
discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to 
further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so 
many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Regards,
    Richard V. Wielgosz...



MTC-00003701

From: Richard Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please dont let the evil empire off the hook so easily. Im my 
opinion this final judgment will only make Microsoft stronger and 
put them in a better position to stomp on us end users.
    Rikki_RHCE, HP-UX Certified Administrator.
    _Solaris 7 Certified Systems and Network Administrator.
    Bell Labs Unix_Reach out and grep someone.
    Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, 
poorly.



MTC-00003702

From: Joe Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I urge the courts involved to reject the proposed settlement. It 
will only serve to enforce the very things Microsoft was convicted 
of doing. I suggest you find a way to force them to play fairly, 
publish their APIs, use accepted standards and to not use their 
monopoly power to ruthlessly crush their comptetion whether it be 
applications under windows, alternate operating systems or open-
source software.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Campbell



MTC-00003703

From: Joshua Stratton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Frankly, the proposed settlement is the biggest miscarriage of 
justice in the past ten years. There is no other way to describe it.
    How does the market recover from the harms caused by the 
Microsoft monopoly if the monopoly is strengthened by further 
entrenching their platform, by letting the company achieve its 
goals?
    If you wanted to help education, you would merely tell Microsoft 
to fork over cold, hard, cash. Schools that wanted MS products could 
get them; schools that wanted anything else could do so as well.
    Furthermore, the API descriptions won`t be made available to 
some of MS`s biggest competitors: participatns in free and Open 
Source software products! Even government software developers (e.g. 
at NASA, NIST, USGS) would not benefit.
    Given that I`m in law school, and am hoping to practice in a 
technology-related field in a few years, you`re doing little to 
engender trust in the competence or intelligence of the DOJ. 
Antitrust laws should not be used to throw violators into a `briar 
patch` as it were.
    I would STRONGLY urge reconsideration: possibly along the lines 
of breaking MS up into its individual business units (e.g. OS, Apps, 
Internet, Games, Hardware, etc.) or creating several smaller but 
full-fledged MS`s that could directly compete against one another. 
At this point though, Bill Gates is surely laughing about how 
antitrust law has been perverted to strengthen his monopoly. He`s 
laughing at you, and he`s laughing at anyone else in the world who 
is concerned about the detriment that MS has caused to the industry. 
If you have any courage, any brains, or any concern for consumers 
and industry, you`ll put a stop to that very quickly.
    Thanks for your attention
    Joshua Stratton
    Rutgers Law Class of 2004
    [email protected]



MTC-00003704

From: Richie Laager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust 
case is fatally flawed. It places commercial entities on a 
`more level' playing field than not-for-profit entities. 
As a full-time user of Linux (www.kernel.org) (www.linux.com) 
(www.linux.org), I see (on a daily basis) Microsoft`s growing 
monopoly. By allowing this proposed settlement, you would be serving 
to strengthen Microsoft`s monopoly.
    I suggest that Microsoft be forced to donate large sums of money 
to the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org), the Electronic 
Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org), the Apache Software Foundation 
(www.apache.org), the Samba project (www.samba.org), and finally, 
the WINE project (www.winehq.com). I have selected these for the 
following reasons:
_FSF: They promote Free Software, which is being crushed by 
Microsoft`s monopoly.
_EFF: They are an industry watchdog for the rights of users, 
which Microsoft has blatantly violated.
_Apache: They create a competing webserver to Microsoft`s IIS. 
Because of Microsoft`s monopoly, IIS has been forced on many 
companies, and it`s long history of security vulnerabilities has 
cost the world billions of dollars. Apache is much more secure than 
IIS, and is being developed by an *open* community.
_Samba: The Samba project aims to create an open 
implementation of Microsoft`s file and printer sharing technology. 
This technology was created by a group of companies, but now, 
Microsoft has squeezed them out of the development of this protocol. 
Once the Samba project had implemented the core features of the SMB 
protocol used by Windows, Microsoft changed the way the protocol 
worked. (This was done in Windows 2000 and up.) Such changes have 
the disadvantage of reducing interoperability. This even applies to 
those users that run Windows only.
_WINE: The WINE project is attempting to reproduce the Windows 
API for Unix. This will allow users the flexibility to run Windows 
applications on non-Windows

[[Page 24342]]

operating systems, without the need to pay Microsoft. The WINE 
project faces the same situation as the Samba project, except on a 
much greater scale. Also, Microsoft is undoubtedly planning to use 
it`s monopoly in the operating system market (e.g. the Windows 
product line), the browser market (e.g. Internet Explorer), and the 
Internet portal (e.g. MSN, Hotmail, Expedia, and MANY MANY MORE 
websites) to push it`s .NET technology. The .NET technology will be 
terrible for consumers, as it will place the confidential, personal 
data of millions of people in the hands of Microsoft. ONE small 
security leak in just ONE application of just ONE company would 
place all this data at the risk of being stolen and misused. 
Besides, many of the concepts of the .NET system have been stolen 
from other companies. For example, Microsoft recently created a new 
computer programming language called C# (pronounced C-sharp). A 
simple search on the Internet will reveal many websites that explain 
in great detail how similar it is to the Java language invented by 
Sun Microsystems (www.sun.com). (So much for Microsoft`s 
`innovation.')
    Also, to further detail the Free Software situation, I offer the 
following: When Microsoft decided to create a more secure networking 
stack for Windows 2000, they looked no further than FreeBSD 
(www.freebsd.com). They simply integrated code developed by 
individuals in their spare time into a product and sold it. (This 
was allowed by the license of FreeBSD, of course.) Of course, 
Microsoft promoted Windows 2000`s more secure TCP/IP stack. It was 
yet another one of their so-called `innovations.'
    To close, I`d just like to point out that I am a 15 year-old 
high school student. In my spare time, I am employed as a 
professional Java programmer. If I can go into such a detailed 
explanation of the flaws of the proposed Microsoft settlement, why 
hasn`t the Department of Justice figured this out already? Does it 
have something to do with the fact that you`re too busy prosecuting 
a certain Russian for a piece of software he developed to allow a 
certain U.S. companies software to comply with Russian law?
    Where have our rights gone in the digital age? I was taught that 
the United States was `the land of the free, and the home of 
the brave.' It seems to me the United States is the land where 
freedom is paid for, and bravery is simply a word in a large book 
known to some as `the dictionary.'
    Our freedom has been reduced to the level of an animal`s. At 
least I can rest assured that `all animals are created 
equal.' Oh wait, I almost forgot `some animals are more 
equal than others.' Don`t reinforce this timeless quote on 
political oppression by allowing the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time,
    Richard Laager



MTC-00003705

From: David Peacock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the US Government`s settlement is unfair punishment for 
Microsoft. It is too easy on Microsoft. It allows them to get a good 
foothold on the Education market.
    Microsoft was declared a monopoly and this is not allowed in the 
US law. Stop the monopoly.
    Microsoft should be severely punished for their practice of 
punishing companies who do business with their competitors. As I 
understand it, Microsoft will punish their partners who also partner 
with a Microsoft competitor. Microsoft will bully and charge these 
partners more money.
    This is not fair.
    Microsoft products cost too much money!
    Microsoft is a monopoly, so they overcharge their customers.
    It is not fair, when products like Linux are almost free.
    Wayne David Peacock
    San Francisco



MTC-00003706

From: Zzyzx Calysta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mail : Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Renata..
    It perplexes me how a group of obviously intelligent people 
could not see that Microsoft placing $1 Billion in Intel hardware 
and Microsoft software into the school systems will do nothing more 
than cement Microsofts monopoly position for the forseeable future.
    Not to mention what it will do to Apple, who is the predominant 
player in the educational market.
    Users of that software will come out of the school system 
thinking `I know Microsoft, so I must buy Microsoft 
software.' You know it`s true, and if you don`t then you need 
to get some specialists in market sentiment to teach you about it.
    If anything, Microsoft should be paying to have its competition 
gain ground in those sectors as well as in the commecial and 
consumer sectors, but we know that artificial market shared gained 
at the expense of Microsoft will only get back to Microsoft, so 
nothing will be gained in the latter two sectors.
    Here`s what I`d demand:
    Microsoft pays $2 billion into a general scholastic fund, plus 
2% of their gross income for the next 10 years.
    The funds are distributed to schools, in a fashion weighted 
towards those with the lowest technology budget (e.g. the poorest 
schools) and the lowest per capita family income.
    In addition, funds should be used to setup technology training 
centers in 10 urban areas nationwide with the highest unemployment 
rates and lowest per-capita incomes.
    The funds must be used for technologies other than Microsoft 
(Apple, Linux, etc.)
    Microsoft may not publicize the payment in any way (so as to 
gain goodwill from it).
    I believe this is a reasonable settlement considering the income 
that Microsoft has generated by gutting every sector of the software 
industry as it built its huge monopoly.
    Randall W. Dryburgh
    Dallas, TX



MTC-00003707

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,senator_hatch@ 
hatch.senate.gov@inetg...
Date: 12/9/01 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to express my concerns about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am particularly concerned about the potential effect 
on not-for-profit organizations (Section III(J)(2) and Section 
III(D)).
    In many cases, Microsoft main competitor is a product from a 
not-for-profit organization. If these organizations rights are 
diminished as a result of the proposed settlement, Microsoft will 
have been effectively rewarded for their past misdeeds. In my line 
of work, I use two Microsoft products (Internet Information Server 
and Exchange Server) and the competing not-for-profit products. If 
these not-for-profit products are removed from the market place, my 
choices as an end consumer are reduced, and Microsoft monopoly 
position is further enhanced. This hardly seems to be an equitable 
consequence for abusing one monopoly position.
    Regards,
    Bob Frost
    [email protected]



MTC-00003708

From: Stephen Scherer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM:
Stephen C.Scherer
325 Overdale Street
Morgantown, WV 26501
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Hello, I am a doctoral student nearing completion at West 
Virginia University. I`ve spent nearly four years working in 
instructional design and developing educational software for use 
over the Internet. I`ve had several successful projects, all with a 
minimum of external funding.
    I find many of the settlement issues with Microsoft Corporation 
`unsettling.' For those of us who follow technological 
issues and trends, the course that Microsoft Corporation has taken 
with respect to providing a viable solution to their anticompetitive 
behavior is a slap in the face. Their proposed settlement does 
little to weaken their monopolistic behavior, and in fact the 
settlement does appear to strengthen their position, especially 
their enroaching dominance over Internet protocols and 
`distributed

[[Page 24343]]

applications.' The Internet was not designed as a monopolistic 
stronghold by a company, but rather as a marketplace for products 
and ideas.
    The concern that I have as an educator with a significant 
background in software development is that educational innovation 
will become stifled by a company that does not give a damn about 
education; Microsoft Corporation sees the educational setting as a 
profit setting. And unfortunately, the last thing that our 
educational institutions have is money. I`ve seen the teachers, and 
I`ve watched the burnout. Introducing Microsoft software into 
educational environments will only make this situation worse. 
Microsoft Corporation behaves in a methodical way: it finds new 
environments and takes them over. Educational environments are too 
important to leave to the hands of a convicted monopolist of 
questionable values: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-7978672.html
    Many of us are quite sickened by the behavior of Microsoft 
Corporation, and have been for years, but are at a loss at the steps 
to be taken to prevent this overgrown gorilla from destroying our 
educational environments through veiled profit seeking motives.
    I am a supporter of Open Source software; I believe that 
educational software should be developed under the Open Source 
model, because we are dealing with something that is so much more 
important than profits. We need to find software that works, and 
make it available to the widest available audiences; this is 
imperative, as we are in desperate need of educated individuals if 
we are to stave off very serious environmental and behavioral 
consequences that lie in our not too distant future. Education is a 
community effort, not a business effort, and providing Microsoft 
Corporation entry into our educational institutions only reminds me 
of the following phrase: `The road to Hell is paved with Good 
Intention.' I know what works, and I`m pretty sure I know what 
doesn`t work.
    Stephen C. Scherer
    West Virginia University



MTC-00003709

From: Brian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello,
    After reading an article at `http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html' I felt compelled to write and 
share with you my views on the Microsoft Settlement. I have been a 
fan of Open Source software for a number of years now. It is 
important for you to be aware that Microsoft has been equally as 
predatory toward Open Source projects as to other businesses. Please 
do not overlook this. Please remove any language that could in any 
way, shape, or form allow Microsoft to harm Open Source projects. 
Microsoft should be required to give back to the community for its 
monopolistic practices. Microsoft should be required to re-license 
much of it`s software under the GNU General Public License 
(http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html).
    Please explicitly protect projects such as Wine (http://
www.winehq.org) in the final language for this settlement. Wine is 
an application for the GNU/Linux Operating System that allows for 
compatibility with Windows programs. Microsoft should in no way have 
the ability to attack projects such as Wine.
    These are my views and opinions. I would encourage you to 
research what I have mentioned and strongly consider this in the 
final language for this settlement. Do not forget, Microsoft is a 
monopoly and should be dealt with as such.
    Thank you for your time.
    Brian Horncastle



MTC-00003710

From: Jeremiah and Annika Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft penalty
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing today to express my heartfelt conviction that 
Microsoft is a monopoly that is suffocating innovation in the 
software industry. I also feel that Microsoft`s proposal to supply 
equipment to schools in our nation to bridge the `digital 
divide' in lieu of court-imposed fines is yet another attempt 
to get market share from Microsoft`s rivals. At MIT, where I work, 
there is a strict policy; no one may accept gifts from computer 
companies. This policy allows decisions on purchasing to be made 
without bias. This policy would be an excellent one for the nation`s 
schools as well, and would preclude a gift of Microsoft software to 
these schools. Instead Microsoft could arrange for an endowment for 
technology which would enable lower income schools to keep pace with 
their better supplied brethren. The monetary award could be given to 
different schools each year depending on their particular needs. 
They would apply for it, as if it were a grant, then use the money 
to purchase equipment best suited for their particular goals, from 
any company they choose. This would allow many companies to compete 
for the market, making for a freer marketplace where innovation and 
efficiency are rewarded and not size and brute force.
    Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremiah Foster
    Somerville MA.



MTC-00003711

From: Jeffrey Thorns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:59 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not accept the proposal, as is. Doing so would only slap 
Microsoft on the wrist and encourage them to continue their current 
practices. Accepting the proposal would extend Microsoft`s monopoly 
into the Education market. (At least there is some competition from 
Apple in that market.)
    The proposal would immediately put all not-for-profit 
enterprises at an unrecoverable disadvantage_ie it would 
punish people who willingly and freely offered their work for free 
to the world. (I`m thinking of Open Source initiatives.)
    As Microsoft has grown larger and bolder, its 
`innovation' has slowed to a crawl. Allowing the status 
quo would further discourage them from the innovation that only 
comes from a free marketplace (ie without monopolies).
    Though I use Microsoft products at work every day, our firm is 
plagued by problems brought about as a result of management thinking 
that, since Microsoft has the marketplace to itself, they have no 
choice but to follow. Free competition would open the minds of 
America`s corporate heads, stimulating new businesses, and improving 
productivity with new and better products.
    Please do not allow Microsoft to get away with writing their own 
rules, as they have so often in the past, to everyone`s detriment.
    Thank you.
    Jeffrey Thorns



MTC-00003712

From: Douglas St.Clair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:01 pm
Subject: I am NOT in favor of the DOJ-Microsoft settlement
    The proposal to provide restitution by giving their software to 
schools will undermine the efforts of its competitors to the school 
market. However I would support their donation of hardware provided 
it offered a balanced mix of Intel, PowerPC, and Sun hardware as 
well as UNIX, Solaris, and Mac OS X. I don`t see any reason to 
enrich them by including any of their software. If there there are 
some favorable tax ramifications should they provide the equipment 
in this fashion these should be deined them so that they pay all the 
money due out to the public they have cheated.
    I think the proposed break up of applications and operating 
system is the only way to ensure that everybody gets to play on a 
level playing field as regards interfacing with their OS. The 
proposals as they stand would seem to make it impossible for 
freeware and shareware makers to get the information they need to 
`compete' for example.



MTC-00003713

From: Jeb Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:59 pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given

[[Page 24344]]

discretion as to who they will release information: namely, 
`viable businesses', with Microsoft being able to 
interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers. It is also essential that non-commercial 
groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have 
questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to 
allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as 
they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors 
as they have done so many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Note: I did not write this, but it expresses my opinions well.
    Jeb
    Jeb Campbell
    C4 Solutions, Inc
    [email protected]
    T 865-546-6381
    M 865-368-5322



MTC-00003714

From: David Wright Escott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I would like to express my disagreements with the proposed 
microsoft settlement. I have two major concerns with the settlement, 
the first being the power that Microsoft is given to determine who 
should be given protections under the settlement and the second 
concerns the retributions that Microsoft will be making to the 
government itself.
    Section III(J)(C) of the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
determine which companies would be allowed access to its API, 
Documentation and Communtications Protocols. Specificly the 
settlement states that Microsoft may deny this access to businesses 
that do not meet `reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.' Before accepting this settlement it is imperative 
that we understand which businesses Microsoft would consider 
unauthentic and unviable.
    At many times over the past year Microsoft executives have 
criticized the open source movement and more specificly the GPL. 
Microsofts position is that the GPL is a danger to intellectual 
property. Microsoft feels that by placing code under the GPL 
programs are making the code unavailable to the corporate world 
(itself included) and thereby dangerous to the viability of any 
company that models itself on the open source philosophy. From these 
statements it is clear that Microsoft would question the viability 
of companies like Redhat and non-profit foundations like Apache and 
Samba.
    However it is companies like these that are most likely to 
threaten Microsoft`s position. Currently Apache is the most popular 
webserver on the internet and GNU/Linux led by companies like 
Redhat, Suse, and Mandrake are pushing older proprietary UNIX 
distributions out of larger mainframes and servers. Furthermore 
projects like Samba are critical to the proliferation of these 
opensource companies as they provide facilities to connect the high-
end UNIX servers with low-end Windows based clients by providing the 
seemless file-sharing and printer-sharing provided by Microsoft or 
Netware based networks. If Microsoft were to determine that these 
companies, and organizations did not have authentic or viable 
business models, and were to restrict access to the Microsoft/
Windows Communications Protocols these projects could be stopped in 
their tracks leading to a collapse of the opensource movement as an 
effective competitor to proprietary Microsoft solutions.
    Another key point is that Netscape now bases its browser off of 
the Mozilla renderer. Mozilla is an opensource project that 
Microsoft could easily determine is not a viable competitor. We have 
already seen Microsoft restrict access to its msn.com portal for 
users of other non-internet explorer browsers, and users of Mozilla/
Netscape are unable to change their msn.com webmail passwords 
because of security concerns that Microsoft has with the browser. It 
seems clear to me that Microsoft would be eager to leverage its 
power to determine the viability of competitors business models to 
restrict Netscape/Mozilla`s access to the Windows API and Microsoft 
ActiveX controls for webbrowsers. These restriction could make these 
products even more unusable in the many Internet Explorer optimized 
sites on the web.
    Internet Explorer has a great advantage over Netscape on Windows 
because of its intergration into the OS. Much of the code and 
resources used by IE are already loaded into memory by the system so 
it takes little time for IE to load and become user-ready. Netscape 
on the other time must load itself from the hard drive increasing 
the time it takes for it to become available to the user. If 
Microsoft were to deny Netscape from access to Documentation on its 
API because of its Mozilla/GPL roots Netscape engineers would be 
unable to find ways to optimize the Mozilla code to load faster 
further increasing the time it takes for Mozilla to load. This 
simple restriction would inevitable drive Netscape off the Windows 
desktop and further increase the market share of IE as the browser 
of choice.
    This would give Microsoft Web Servers a distinct advantage over 
Apache and other competitors because of its ability to provide 
ActiveX controls that other browsers could not provide because 
Microsoft would not be required to provide its API to non-profit GPL 
based companies and organizations.
    I fail to see how the Government could have not forseen this as 
a possible outcome considering that much of the lawsuit was directed 
at the browser war between IE and Netscape Navigator.
    Finally I would like to point out that many other Microsoft 
competitors have decided to incorporate opensource software in its 
business model. IBM has begun to push Linux as the OS of choice on 
many of its servers as an alternative to IBM`s proprietary OS. Sun 
has decided that GNOME 2.0 will form the basis for its new Solaris 
graphical interface. Compaq has worked extensively to develop 64 bit 
Linux variations for Alpha`s and now Intel`s 64 bit chips, as well 
as ports of Linux to handheld devices currently running Windows CE. 
And finally Apple has introduced its new operating system based on a 
variation of FreeBSD UNIX. Although Microsoft could not easily 
suggest that these companies do not have authentic or viable 
business models but Microsoft could chip away at the non-profit 
organizations that provide the basic work needed to make these 
products usable. In this manner Microsoft could subvert these 
companies attempts to develop new Microsoft-independent products.
    This alone should be reason enough for concern but Microsoft has 
also managed to find a way to introduce its products even further 
into society, by offering computers equiped with Microsoft software 
to schools across the country. Microsoft would be allowed to 
determine the value of the software it would provide as part of the 
total evalution of the retribution that the company would pay. It 
seems illogical that a company should be allowed to determine the 
worth of its own payment. Does an elementary school student need the 
advanced graphing features of Excel? Do most people need all the 
features of Word, or Powerpoint? Is the ability of Internet Explorer 
to display animations or ActiveX handles truly worth the value to a 
school that Microsoft will determine they are? I believe that the 
answer to these questions are no. School systems should be allowed 
to take the money that

[[Page 24345]]

Microsoft would have given in hardware and software to instead 
purchase their own technology solutions in whatever manner they 
choose. Like all government contracts these solutions should be 
provided after open and fair competition between various 
competitors. To allow Microsoft to provide the solutions themselves 
is to simply provide Microsoft with an opportunity to infiltrate the 
school system and make users more dependent upon its software and 
services.
    Although I have not studied all of the settlement I cannot 
overlook these two areas as critical flaws in the Justice 
Departments settlement. I believe that the Government would be 
making a great mistake by accepting these terms and I would greatly 
encourage the Justice Department to not accept this agreement.
    David Escott
    Home: 4230 Allistair Rd.
    Winston-Salem NC 27104
    School: 1406 Harvard Yard Mail Center
    Cambridge MA 02138-7504



MTC-00003715

From: Gary W. Shawver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I write to express my concern about the proposed Microsoft anti-
trust settlement. As is currently stands, it is far too lenient. It 
does not punish Microsoft for past bad behavior, not prevent such 
future behavior. I am especially concerned that the three-man 
committee in charge of overseeing the settlement will not have 
adequate resources to oversee it. Microsoft should be made to 
finance the the operations of the committee from a substantial fine 
in the billions of dollars. One man who would make a fine member of 
this committee is Steven Satchell.
    The anti-trust settlement also does not address the concerns of 
non-profit software makers that offer some of the biggest 
competition to Microsoft products. In fact, it disenfranchised them. 
These organizations should be explicitly given the same protections 
as Microsoft`s commercial competitors.
    Microsoft should not be left free to crush the true sources of 
innovation in the computer industry, its commercial and non-
commercial competitors, nor should it escape punishment for the 
damage it has done.



MTC-00003716

From: Mike Ramstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:08 pm
Subject: The nine states are correct, don`t cave in.
    Dear People:
    Don`t give in, I know you already have, but you shouldn`t have. 
Running away because the administration has changed, the republicans 
are in, Gates is a cash cow for American foreign trade... just isn`t 
right. The message is that rich people do control the agenda through 
campaign contributions and the old boy network. We have to suffer 
from the mafia like tactics, the smothering hubris, the clearly 
monopolistic practices of giving away something for free to destroy 
innovative competition (actually folding the costs into escalation 
operationg system costs) and those of us who have been around a 
while don`t like it.
    If only Digital Research had said yes to IBM. Then Gates 
wouldn`t have made his first theft of CPM, we would have a more open 
source advocate in charge of the key pieces of our computer world 
the operating system and gui. The standards would have still been 
established, more people would be rewarded for creating products 
that interacted with those standards and each others products, and 
we would have had real capitalism rather than the terrible situation 
we now endure.
    Force Microsoft to unbundle. To disclose all interfaces and code 
of the operating system and gui. To price any add ons outside of the 
kernel and thus have to really compete. This will allow the kernel 
and gui to be completely debugged by peer review, making a much more 
secure operating environment, and security will be a big issue in 
the coming decade with the war on terror shifting into gear. Addons 
such as Outlook Express will cost money, and will probably be 
dropped in favor of products which don`t have such an abominable 
reputation as a security black hole.
    Keep in mind that IBM`s unbundling of hardware/software/
applications/operating system... led to the PC and the world of 
computing/networking as we now know it. We will be better off if 
Microsoft has to really compete.
    Thanks
    Mike
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003717

From: Bob Tajima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:09 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It has been brought to my attention by Robert X. Cringely`s web 
column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html) that 
sections of the Microsoft settlement strongly discriminate against 
open source software. These sections include Section III(J)(2) and 
Section III(D). The open source software movement is a significant 
social experiment and should not be endangered by the Microsoft 
Corporation`s voracious and ruthless appetite for control of the 
software industry.
    Bob Tajima



MTC-00003718

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:11 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer who uses not only Microsoft products but also 
Linux I hope that my perspective may prove useful regarding the 
fitness of the proposed settlement of the DOJ`s case against 
Microsoft.
    First, as I understand it, MS has been found *guilty* of several 
criminal acts_using their position for monopolistic purposes. 
As a consumer, I have been injured by this since my choices have 
been limited illegally. All companies which have wished to compete 
with MS have been injured as well. Since MS is guilty, they should 
be punished, and the punishment should hurt. The gain which MS has 
obtained illegally should be allowed to competitors and consumers 
since they are the injured parties.
    What I have read of the settlement agreement has disappointed 
me. I can only consider that the DOJ has capitulated on their 
responsibilities, perhaps unknowingly. The punishment which faces 
Microsoft is not in proportion to the damage which they have done, 
it is mostly temporary, and much of it can be avoided by MS without 
much trouble.
    I particularly object to section III(J)(2) from the perspective 
of the many useful not-for-profit businesses who are in the software 
production business. This section states that MS need not describe 
nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols to any 
company unless it `...(c) meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by *Microsoft* for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its *business*, ...'. The proposed settlement 
only protects the competitive rights of `companies in 
commerce_organizations in business for profit' and 
neglects any businesses which compete with MS but do not seek a 
profit. The definition of a `business' is left to 
Microsoft. This is like hiring wolves to guard sheep. I fear they 
will exclude any business they can from the benefits of the 
settlement, for example, Samba and Apache, to name just two. Section 
III(D) goes further in allowing MS to exclude these non-commercial 
concerns.
    Part of Microsoft`s defense was that times and business have 
changed since the time a century ago when the laws were written 
which MS was found guilty of breaking. I suggest that they are more 
right than they know. I suggest that Microsoft`s unlawful practices 
have hurt all consumers and competitors. This latter group is best 
defined in the modern day as a company which offers a competitive 
product, and not merely one which hopes to make a profit from it. 
The existing settlement will further penalize this not-for-profit 
segment of Microsoft`s competitors, and for that reason I believe it 
is faulty.
    I fear that if the settlement is adopted as written, before too 
long I as a consumer will be faced with fewer options in the 
marketplace. I will only be able to buy inadequate software from a 
company which has proven itself unwilling to compete through 
production of higher quality products, but prefers to win market 
share by using illegal practices to slaughter the competition.
    I feel proud to be from a state which has found fault with the 
settlement as proposed. I am very disappointed that the DOJ has 
chosen to promote a settlement agreement which would allow Microsoft 
to continue so easily its anti-competitive practices against one 
segment of the industry from which it obviously feels some pressure. 
It is not too late to rectify this omission.
    Terence C. Gibian
    Laguna Beach, CA
    [email protected]



MTC-00003719

From: Jeffery D. Collins

[[Page 24346]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization. It is essential that the API information be 
made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be 
*absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have 
formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability 
to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected 
by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for 
Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals 
be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by 
Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have 
discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to 
further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so 
many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffery D. Collins, Ph.D.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003720

From: Julius Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw
    To whom it may concern:
    After reading Robert Cringely`s Dec. 6 column, http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html I was moved to write 
to express strong disagreement with the notion that Microsoft APIs 
need only be disclosed to commercial entities. To enable 
competition, Microsoft must publish all of its system APIs freely, 
preferably on the World Wide Web. Otherwise, the most innovative 
force in software (the open-source community) will be locked out.
    Thanks for your consideration,
    Julius Smith, Ph.D/E.E. 
    Associate Professor
    CCRMA, Stanford University



MTC-00003721

From: Craig T. Snydal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to voice my dismay at the proposed Final Judgment 
in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. In particular, I believe that open 
source projects such as Apache, Perl and Linux be better looked 
after in the language of the settlement. We open source developers 
should be allowed to compete with Microsoft just as Compaq and 
Netscape are being allowed to.
    Thank you,
    Craig Snydal



MTC-00003722

From: Joe Klimek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, like many of the people I have talked with, think Microsoft 
is getting of too easy_perhaps even completely `off the 
hook.' I have always thought the role of government is to look 
into the interest of the people. Am I wrong about this?
    About two months ago, I decided to stop using Microsoft Outlook 
because so many of the PC viruses are really Outlook viruses. Thanks 
to Microsoft`s clout, the media does mention this point. In any 
case, I started using another e-mail package and then un installed 
Outlook. Much to my surprise, the program reinstalled itself 
automatically when I restarted my computer. In other words, I could 
not un install the program and therefore remain susceptible to these 
viruses. I, and everyone else, knows that Windows does not need to 
have Outlook installed in order to properly function. Then, what is 
the reason I cannot un-install Outlook. I think the trial answered 
this question. I cannot force Microsoft to behave properly. But the 
DOJ can. Now, why is it, exactly, that you aren`t working for the 
public`s interest? Could it be that big business is running our 
government. I didn`t always think this was true. I do now. In fact, 
I am sure of it._
    joe klimek



MTC-00003723

From: Admin7
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft Corporation alone. I use their products 
as do many of my coworkers and friends and we are tired of the 
government wasting our tax money trying to punish a company that has 
kept our economy strong. Thank you.
    Hugh Jazz (Native American taxpayer)



MTC-00003724

From: Benjamin Davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I fear that the US DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft has a huge 
deficency in reguard to not for profit entities. If the goal in this 
entire court proceedings is to aid consumers then I fail to see why 
safeguards should only be applied to commercial situations. That 
sounds more like a quest to aid industry and ecconomy. For example, 
if a university or scientific foundation were striving towards a 
certain advance that required them to work with existing software 
(work with meaning design for or change of) they could be excluded 
access from Microsoft code when rival, commerical, entities could 
not. Microsoft was found guilty. While this does not mean they 
cannot be trusted it means that they should be prevented from 
obvious avenues of similar actions. Under the current settlement it 
would be possible to exclude, in a similar fashion as they exclude 
Netscape, all not for profit entities. Please take note of this and 
amend the settlement agreement.
    Sincerly,
    Benjamin Davies
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00003725

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a computer software developer, I am reading over this 
proposed settlement as carefully as I can, and can see places where 
the language is either a little ambiguous, or does not provide for 
certain possibilities. I will go through this proposed settlement, 
and point out changes that I see could stand to be made:
    The first part under section III `Prohibited 
Conduct' seems to not make any provisions for a company to 
have two product lines: Computers with the Microsoft Windows 
product, and computers with another third-party operating system 
(such as Linux, BSD, or Be, Inc`s BeOS, etc). Provisions are made to 
allow a company to have both, with

[[Page 24347]]

bootloaders or such to allow the user to select the OS, but nothing 
seems to prevent Microsoft from disallowing companies to sell 
machines with only a third-party operating system on it, if they 
sell machines with Microsoft Windows as well. What language does 
exist in this proposed agreement, is vague, and seems fraught with 
possible loopholes.
    Part E of Section III deals with interoperability being allowed. 
It seems to imply that APIs should be allowed, but it only seems to 
apply toward communication formats, and nothing is said about what 
Microsoft may charge potential users of these formats to obtain 
them. Nothing is also said of what restrictions MS may place on 
users of the formats. Thus, MS could sell the formats for a paltry 
sum of $10,000_and only allow them to use them if the sell 
their own product for a certain amount. Free Software (ie, GPL`d 
Software_see www.gnu.org), which relies on mostly community 
effort, would never be able to afford these API definitions, and 
furthermore would not be able to use them, since Free Software, 
while not necessarily free in the monetary sense, also relies on 
openness of code. Microsoft could simply say that in order to use 
the APIs, you can`t distribute source, thus cutting off access for 
Free Software developers, and continuing their monopoly in the face 
of their competition. Lastly, this section deals only with 
communications formats_what of the other `real' 
formats, such as file formats for documents (Word .DOC formats), 
spreadsheets (Excel formats), etc? These are the lynchpin formats. 
Having these formats be open and freely available would allow the 
development of competing office productivity software by 
competitors, who could assure users of MS Office that they can 
easily load and use the millions of MS Office files they have 
already created. This is where the real competition needs to be.
    I do not see this particular settlement to be a good thing. 
Microsoft is laughing at the government, at the public, at everyone. 
They have been judged an illegal monopoly, something that has harmed 
consumers! You and I! Yet, they have not had to pay 
anything_and are looking like they will be able to continue 
with their illegal monopoly. It is with a heavy heart that I see 
this_it seems like the rights of a corporation mean more than 
my rights as a citizen of this country.
    Let me ask you something else: Remember all of these email 
viruses that go around? Think about them for a minute. How much lost 
time is spent on these things.
    Does it occur to you that they are allowed to propogate because 
of insufficiencies in Microsoft Software? Namely, Microsoft Outlook, 
and IIS? Why have they not had to update their software?
    What if people could have a viable alternative, in the form of 
Free Software, GPL`d Linux, or even other third party OS`s?
    Most people don`t want this_because they know they will 
have problems getting their documents to load, etc_because 
they are in locked down proprietary Microsoft file formats_and 
if they switch to another OS, they won`t be able to do a conversion, 
plus, anything they create won`t be able to be read by the people 
and companies they work with, because everybody else is using MS 
software. It is a vicious circle, and oroborus eating its 
tail_that can`t be broken because the formats are unavailable 
to the people who need them most: Developers of Free Software.
    Don`t let this go by this way_change the language_I 
implore you, as I am sure many, many others haveas well (in much 
more elegant manners, too, I imagine)! I don`t want my children 
living in a Microsoft dominated culture_I am sure you don`t 
want that either.
    The time is now_it must start now. If we wait_it 
will be too late. Microsoft is rapidly moving to a different revenue 
model_something where you won`t buy your OS, but will instead 
lease it_perhaps even to the hour_pay $3.95 now, or your 
document goes `Bye-Bye'! They could wield this like a 
hammer to hold consumers (nee, citizens!) and other companies 
hostage to thier wills and whims.
    Please, change this now_before it is too late!
    Sincerly,
    A concerned citizen and software developer:
    Andrew L. Ayers
    2305 East Quail Avenue
    Phoenix, Arizona 85024



MTC-00003726

From: Curt Pederson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern with the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement.
    I am a Software Engineer who has been in the industry since 
1990. Most of my career has been spent developing applications on 
the Windows platform. As a developer, I`ve experienced the pains of 
dealing with Microsoft bullying not only developers, but end users. 
My experiences have caused me to change my preferred development 
language, platform and tools to a point that excludes anything 
Microsoft. The environment I`ve moved to is Linux, Java and open 
source tools.
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft exposes the open source 
community to the continuing rampage of Microsoft by not protecting 
the community in the same way corporations are protected. Open 
source is argueably the biggest threat to Microsoft. The largest 
threat is Linux.
    Robert Cringely`s site has an excellent explanation of this 
concern. Here is the section of his page (found here http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html.) `Well, 
Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning this time 
on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better deal, but 
literally to disenfranchise many of the people and organizations who 
feel they have been damaged by Microsoft`s actions. If this deal 
goes through as it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the case 
not just unscathed, but stronger than before.
    Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final 
Judgement specifically protect companies in 
commerce_organizations in business for profit. On the surface, 
that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic 
activities against `competing' commercial software 
vendors like Netscape, and other commercial vendors_computer 
vendors like Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used 
to working in this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job 
of crafting a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing 
undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the industry. 
But Microsoft`s greatest single threat on the operating system front 
comes from Linux_a non-commercial product_and it faces a 
growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and 
freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products. Section III(D) takes this 
disturbing trend even further. It deals with disclosure of 
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft 
`middleware.' In this section, Microsoft discloses to 
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors 
(IHVs), Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers 
(ICPs), and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information 
needed to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we 
look in the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we 
find the definitions specify commercial concerns only. But wait, 
there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. 
NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology_even the Department of 
Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan 
is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. `I 
realize that is most of the site, however, my writing ability 
doesn`t compare to Robert`s.
    Thank you for letting me voice my opinion.

[[Page 24348]]

    Curt Pederson
    Madison WI



MTC-00003727

From: Jeremiah G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I am giving my view on the Microsoft 
Settlement case.
    I believe that the settlement is unfair to the United States and 
is in favor of Microsoft. The courts should not rule to settle, but 
instead keep prosecuting until a settlement is reached where 
Microsoft is broken up or somehow made to pay for being guilty.
    For example, putting their (Micorosoft) software in school 
computers is not payment, it is a good thing for the company as more 
young kids will learn and therefore prefer MS products.
    Also, the settlement protects companies in commerce_ 
organizations in business for profit. But non-profit companies need 
to be protected too. For example, Apache has a very large market 
share of servers and it is non-profit.
    Finally, I would like to recommend Steve Satchell for one of the 
positions on the committee that will oversee Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremiah J. Griswold
    Hudson, MA 01749



MTC-00003728

From: Kevin J. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a complete mistake. Under the current 
version, it completely gives Microsoft a huge advantage over the 
single entity that microsoft has itself publicly stated that it 
deems as its greatest threat.
    This entity is GNU/linux and the rest of the opensource 
community such as open source projects like Samba and Apache. also, 
when it comes to the monetary portion of the settlement, it is 
hardly reasonable to allow them to include their own products as 
part of the monetary settlement. It costs them nothing to give their 
software away and deduct the retail cost of it away from the 
ballance. If the Government wants to make Microsoft help out poor 
schools, make them provide it all in hardware and allow the schools 
to decide what kind of hardware and what software to place on top of 
it.
    my address:
    kevin j. anderson
    5409 alberta rd
    chesterfield virginia 23832



MTC-00003729

From: counterstrike sucks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello my name is Andres Rivero, and I`m from the state of 
California. I am writing to say that I believe Microsoft as a 
company has done so much for the USA and the world, that they 
deserve much more graditude than what they are receiving. People are 
quick to point out all the small faults they have, but delay to 
their great advancements in helping people connect, work, have fun.
    After being able to work out an agreement with the DoJ. 
Microsoft was going to offer computers for schools, and then other 
companies quickly moved in to halt their offering. Why must 
everything MS do be something with a hidden cause?
    The United States of America was built upon one of the ideas 
that a person should be and individual and try to advance. Not be 
stuck in a monotonous group. Microsoft is a company, that is 
striving to advance, innovate. Sure, just like people, companies 
make mistakes. But all mistakes are learned upon and have and effect 
on our future choices. Case in point, I hope that Microsoft has 
learned from things that they have fumbled upon in the past, and 
continues to provide great services to the people of the USA and the 
world.
    Thank You,
    Andres Rivero
    Pasadena, CA



MTC-00003731

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to add my name to those who are extremely disappointed 
in the settlement agreement that has been made with Microsoft. It 
seems to me that there has no punishment at all for acts that 
Microsoft has been found guilty of, and have damaged a good many 
companies, and more importantly computer users at large. For a 
monopoly has the effect of limiting choice. In the case of Microsoft 
this has also had the effect of making the security of our national 
computing infrastructure much less than it might be.
    There are many things that might have been done to address the 
damages done by Microsoft, but two come to mind:
    1. They have been found guilty and have profited greatly from 
their misdeeds. So about a a fine that reflects the extent of their 
profits from this. I`m sure the government can use the money, and 
some clear signal should be sent that misdeeds are punished.
    2. The so called api`s may be thought of by Microsoft as 
valuable intellectual property. But they are no such thing. They are 
valuable only because of Microsoft`s monopoly position. The same is 
true of the file formats that are used. As a monopoly that is to be 
punished for monopoly behavior Microsoft should be required to make 
these interfaces and file formats public for all current products 
and all future products for at least 5 years. A hefty fine should be 
automatic if any Microsoft product is found to use an interface of 
file format that has not been publicly documented. Note that we do 
not believe that Microsoft source code falls in the same category. 
It is valuable because of the job it does, and would be valuable 
even for a company that was not in a monopoly position.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Fred T. Krogh
    [email protected]



MTC-00003732

From: John Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    In my opinion the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft is little more than a slap on the wrist, and a 
disservice to all of us who work in the computer industry. I believe 
that the settlement should include nothing short of:
    1) For a period of 5 years, make available by posting on the 
Internet current and complete documentation on:
    a) All file formats for all Microsoft products. No exclusions 
for any reason (like DMCA, trade secret, patent or copyright law).
    b) All Microsoft API calls.
    c) All proprietary Microsoft network protocols, or Microsoft 
specific extensions to standard network protocols.
    2) For a period of 7 years, require that Microsoft offer a 
version of their `Office' product for Linux for the same 
price as the Windows version. Require that the Linux version have 
the same, up to date feature set as the Windows version.
    3) For a period of 5 years, supply a $250,000/year grant to the 
Free Software Foundation for the purpose of verifying that Microsoft 
stays in compliance with the agreement. Charge Microsoft $1,000,000 
per violation.
    Please keep in mind that Microsoft has $30,000,000,000 largely 
because they have been abusing their monopoly power. They have done 
this even after agreeing not to do so in a previous anti-trust case. 
It would be imprudent to assume Microsoft has any ethics. JDR
    John D. Robertson, Computer / Engineering Consultant
    Robertson & Robertson Consultants, Inc.
    3637 West Georgia Rd.
    Pelzer, SC 29669
    Phone: (864) 243-2436
    Fax: (864) 243-3023
    Email: [email protected]
    WWW: http://www.rrci.com



MTC-00003733

From: Norbert Cartagena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:22pm
Subject: Rewards?
    To who it may concern;
    Since when is the United States in the habit of rewarding 
Monopolists by allowing them to extend their sphere of influence? 
Microsoft offers to settle by giving under powered computers to 
schools, loaded with their over-priced software. In this case, even 
valuing the software at $.01 is over-priced. This is tantamount to 
letting a criminal value the worth of his own dollar in a cash 
settlement (`Yes, this dollar should be valued in 1951 
standards...'). Furthermore, what has been offered is the 
equivalent of having told a Gasoline monopolist that their 
punishment is to put MORE gas stations up in neighborhoods where 
they don`t hold a monopoly. In this case, however, when you put 
their gasoline in your car you could put no other products other 
than theirs_gas, oil, transmission fluid, etc._or those 
approved by them. I believe the reasoning behind your decision is 
based on your lack of knowledge

[[Page 24349]]

of the REAL issue at hand. Microsoft has never been a monopoly 
because of their Internet browser. So what if they`ve endowed their 
Operating System (OS) with web browsing capabilities? Unix has had 
the same abilities for over 30 years! The problem is their licensing 
agreements with computer manufacturers, which state that any company 
that distributes Windows with their computers is NOT ALLOWED to 
display support for ANY other OS. How do you justify one company 
controlling the policies of another separate and private entity? 
Whatever happened to an open economic system?
    If you truly want to punish them for their monopolistic 
practices, you will do the following:
    1) Agree to the Red Hat proposition which would force Microsoft 
to buy 1,000,000 computers instead of 200,000. Red Hat has agreed to 
install their industry standard Operating System, Linux, for free on 
all 1,000,000 computers, complete with all source code (something 
which you are now battling Microsoft to open up). If you feel 
uncomfortable with one company installing their own operating system 
on all systems, then you can also enlist the help of various other 
Linux companies, such as SuSE A.G., MandrakeSoft, TurboLinux, 
eSmith, as well as Non corporate entities, such as the Debian Linux 
Project and the Free Software Foundation. All with full source code, 
all with open standards, all who work with the air of cooperation in 
their business dealings. This would, of course, include the support 
of Linux`s creator, Linux Torvalds, of Transmeta, Inc.
    2) Force them to open up their File Format standards and 
specifications (this is the extension on your documents, such as 
.doc for a MS Word Document and .xls for an Excel style sheet). This 
would force the company`s products to compete in an equal playing 
field with other office suites, such as Corel`s WordPerfect and 
Sun`s StarOffice, as well as non corporate entities such as the Open 
Office project and AbiSource.
    3) Force the company to recant all licensing stipulations which 
call for their products to have a place of exclusivity on any other 
company`s distributed system. Directly, DO NOT allow them to 
`own' the boot sector of any machine in which their 
Operating system is installed. This would allow Hardware companies 
such as Dell and Compaq to pre install other Operating systems, such 
as Linux and BeOS (as well as any new operating system which might 
appear) and give them equal prominence in a system, allowing the end 
consumer to make the decision, thereby allowing a truly open and 
free market to balance itself out.
    Thank you for your time and may God grant you the wisdom to do 
the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    Norbert Omar Cartagena
    Voter



MTC-00003734

From: Jason Woodward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to put forward my views concerning the proposed 
DOJ/MS settlement.
    Firstly, the settlement lacks sufficient provisions for 
protecting `not for profit' organisations and groups. 
This will hurt non commercial groups such as the Free Software 
Foundation amongst others.
    Also, the proposed settlement will do little if nothing to curb 
the practices of Microsoft. Already Microsoft has used its 
monopolistic power in the PC industry to fund its entrance into the 
Video Game industry with the XBox console. Now Microsoft is poised 
to enter the homes of Americans. Also, with the .Net services 
upcoming, Microsoft is well on its way to having a regular billing 
relationship with its customers, as well as mongering all their 
personal data with PASSPORT. Please invest more time into 
researching and interviews with industry pundits. Do not loose hope!
    I pray that you will stand by your cause that started this!
    Sincerely,
    Jason Woodward
    424 Sandymead Rd
    Matthews, NC 28105
    (704) 849-2387



MTC-00003735

From: Robert Redelmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    Persuant to the Tunney Act, I would like to make the following 
comments on the proposed Final Judgement in `US et al v. 
Microsoft':
    Section III(J)2 permits Microsoft to restrict the release of 
needed information to businesses that meet Microsoft`s definition of 
viability. Section III(D) repeats this for specific OEMs, ISVs, 
IHVs, IAPs and ICPs. These limits have the following defects:
    1) It fails to allow for start-up businesses that have yet to 
show viability.
    2) It fails to allow for businesses which have different 
business models than Microsoft. One such model is businesses which 
release source code but sell services.
    3) It fails to allow for business and individuals who wish to 
add functionality for internal use.
    To avoid possible obstruction by the defendant or a definitional 
nightmare, I propose that all restrictions on the recipients of 
Microsoft information be removed. Only by so doing can the damage 
caused by an adjudged monopoly in the operating systems market be 
minimized.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Redelmeier
    13011 Mossy Ridge Cove
    HOUSTON Texas 77041
    (281) 544 6209 [email protected]



MTC-00003736

From: Michael Holve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I`d like to take this opportunity to voice my opinion on the 
Microsoft settlement issue while I have the chance.
    I, like many others feel that Microsoft should definitely NOT be 
given the chance to simply hand out hardware and/or software to 
settle, especially to schools. This is exactly what they want and it 
would be a walk in the park for them_and do absolutely nothing 
to stave off their aggressive, anti-competitive practices in the 
industry.
    Their `software donation' would cost them very 
little in the big picture since it`s theirs to begin with, and would 
further gain Microsoft ground in the educational market, where 
they`ve been held off by Apple. So not only would they get off easy, 
but they have another opportunity to get their foot in the door 
where previously they could not. They would in effect, squash yet 
another competitor in their primary market if allowed to do this. 
Same goes for the hardware_it would be a tax write off for 
them. Microsoft has way too much money and power in this industry 
that such a `settlement' would mean nothing to them. 
They spit in the face of justice, if this were allowed to pass.
    In my opinion, Microsoft needs to be dealt with in the strictest 
of manners or they will simply continue their methods. While I don`t 
necessarily feel that the government should get involved in carving 
up companies, monopolies DO need to be dealt with, especially one as 
powerful as Microsoft has become. I don`t think I need to remind you 
that Microsoft software runs 90% of the computers on the PLANET. 
Hello? Microsoft, since the beginning of this case has tried to 
`look good' in the eye of the public with several 
similar donations and `good will efforts.' Those of us 
that are in the industry clearly see through this, as I hope 
everyone else involved in this case does, but I fear that may not be 
the case.
    I have been involved in this industry for twenty years and am 
pretty much at the peak of my career. For almost the last decade, I 
have been strictly anti-Microsoft, neither recommending their 
software nor using it in a professional capacity. I won`t turn this 
into a rant, but suffice it to say that I will not be a party to 
their strong-arm tactics.
    Take a little peak at Microsoft`s current `licensing 
structure' for their latest software such as `Office 
X' for the Macintosh, or the `Windows XP' 
operating system for Intel-based computers. That this can be allowed 
to continue is a true crime. It amounts to nothing short of pure 
extortion.
    Here`s a brief example. Microsoft has all but killed ANY 
competitors in the `office suite' market, leaving just 
`Microsoft Office' as the sole choice. This software 
retails, on average_close to $500. Upgrades which come 
frequently enough to milk customers dry, and also at $150 or more. 
The only people that can afford this are businesses. For the average 
home consumer, there are few options save for watered down leftovers 
after Microsoft blitzkrieged the landscape of viable alternatives.
    Look at the whole `Microsoft vs. Linux' debacle, 
also. They`ve basically targeted Linux for destruction, but 
alas_it`s out of their reach. For now...
    I urge you, nay_I BEG YOU_to do the right thing 
here. Do not let Microsoft get away with these shenanigans. Examine, 
re-examine_and examine yet again the clear evidence before you 
of cut-throat, monopolistic and downright dirty business

[[Page 24350]]

practices of this giant mega-corporation. You are the only few that 
can approach them and bring about this change. Should you look the 
other way and allow this travesty to continue, I fear for the 
computer industry and the future of personal and business computers 
everywhere. American business as well as that abroad rely heavily on 
computers to bring about economic growth to the world economies and 
the American GNP. Do we really want to leave that in the hands of 
this clearly arrogant corporation that defies the DOJ and it`s 
critics alike with these paltry attempts at appeasement?
    Bill Gates and Microsoft Corporation did not get where they are 
today because of good products and practices. Do not take Gates 
lightly_he is a shrewd businessman, if nothing else_and 
I wager, has a good team behind him. They will worm their way 
through loopholes if allowed the slightest chance.
    Thank you for your time, and I hope that my opinion has reached 
someone, anyone_that cares to listen. Feel free to contact me 
if you should like any further discussion...



MTC-00003737

From: Paul A. Orphanos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    December 9, 2001
    As a United States Citizen, I am exercising my right under the 
Tunney Act to comment on the proposed DoJ vs. Microsoft settlement.
    I am a user of an operating system other than Windows for over 
10 years for science and engineering applications and have first 
hand experience as to the barriers Microsoft places on business that 
HAVE NOT been addressed by the proposed settlement.
    The bigest barrier to competition is the fact that Microsoft is 
the standard for many applications commonly used in business (word 
processing, spreadsheets, databases, etc.). They abuse this standard 
by making the data format used by these programs proprietary, and 
tying it to other Microsoft products (databases, operating systems, 
etc.).
    I have lost ownership of my intellectual property because it is 
only through the use of Microsoft products that I can access my 
data.
    Microsft further abuses their position by tying access to my 
data to the Windows platform since their programs only run on 
Windows (typically).
    It is common sense that a company would be more profitable by 
writing their software to work on as many operating systems as 
opssible.
    Microsoft, however, has an inherent conflict of interest due to 
the fact that they want to maximize their overall sales by ensuring 
that full functionality is only available on Windows.
    Therefore, no end-user or company is in any position to even 
CONSIDER the use of a competing application suites (commercial or 
non-profit/opensource) or competing operating system. Microsoft`s 
monopoly is unbreakable unless the file formats for their de-facto 
standard applications are published and freely available.
    Microsoft has benefited from competition in the Personal Digital 
Assistant market competing with Palm Inc., financial management 
software (vs. Quicken) and now video game consoles with its Xbox 
(vs. Playstation, Gamecube, etc.). These are legitimately superior 
products, although MS Money and the PocketPC are completely tied to 
Windows.
    By mandating that Microsoft publicize the formats for their 
data, not only will better applications result (for example, I could 
use the word processor with the best user interface), consumers will 
be able to truly use whatever application and operating system best 
suits the users need, as opposed to being forced to use Microsoft`s 
offerings because business communications requires it. Currently, 
this has cost my employer by having to purchase an extra computer on 
which to utilize these tools.
    As a consumer (and/or business), I should be able to choose the 
word processor, spreadsheet, etc. that I want to use without 
sacrificing functionality and compatibility with Microsoft`s 
`standard' products.
    Sincerely,
    Paul A. Orphanos
    Paul A. Orphanos
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00003738

From: Aaron Estrada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    All wording in the Microsoft Settlement that could threaten free 
and open source software must be eliminated from the document.
    Since when has it become illegal to give something away? If 
Microsoft cannot compete with free software, maybe their software 
isn`t worth buying. Isn`t that the whole idea of a free market?
    Microsoft is talking out both sides of their mouth when they 
talk about `open markets' Don`t HELP them with their 
agenda!
    I urge all the members of the DOJ involved in this case to 
thoroughly familiarize themselves with the topics of computer 
software, Internet protocols and the software business. Please be 
very thoughtful in your decision and don`t let Microsoft `put 
one over on you'
    respectfully,
    Aaron Estrada



MTC-00003739

From: Craig Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:41pm
Subject: Support for Red Hat proposal
    After reading an online article discussing the Microsoft 
proposal, I would like to voice my support in the proposal offered 
by the software comany, Red Hat.
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html
    It doesn`t really seem like punishment to force Microsoft to 
furnish software to schools. These children will have only the 
opportunity to learn microsoft programs which will further exetend 
Microsoft`s future monopoly.
    As CEO of Starpoint Communications, Inc., an full service ISP in 
SW Minnesota, we rely on the diverse technical skills of our staff. 
These skill are not one sided Microsoft applications. They include 
other operating systems such as MacIntosh and Unix-like operating 
systems.
    I can vouch for the fact that open source operating systems can 
provide a rich and functional computing environment at a fraction of 
the cost of Microsoft. Personally I use Microsoft products in a very 
limited capacity, yet enjoy all the comforts of a fully integrated 
desktop computer environment using the X-windows system. If you are 
not familiar with this or other open source products, which cost 
nothing, I invite you to do the research.
    I urge you to consider Red Hat`s proposal and let Microsoft pay 
for its crime.
    Craig Holland
    CEO Starpoint Communications
    201 W Marshall
    Marshall MN 56258
    (507) 532-9641



MTC-00003740

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    The internet is too important to have it controlled by one 
company or one person. The proposed settlement by John Ashcroft and 
the DOJ will not slow Microsoft from their ultimate goal, control of 
the internet and all commerce that uses the internet. This has been 
known for years, but has not been addressed.
    To gain any control over the internet, they must control the 
servers.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to keep them from 
leveraging their monopoly into the server market. If they control 
the servers, they can force all competing browsers and OS`s off the 
internet by changing protocols. The settlement only appears to stop 
them from excluding competitors, but actually gives them permission 
to exclude them. Microsoft will be allowed to determine who is a 
`viable business' and who is not. Judging from their 
past behavior, I doubt that any potential competitor will pass the 
viability test. This give too much power to Microsoft. It gives them 
life or death to any business or technology they want to destroy.
    I doubt that Apache, their main competitor in the server market 
will be deemed worthy by Microsoft. All they will have to do is 
change a protocol and refuse to allow Apache servers to use it. 
Apache is free and opensource, and not controlled by any one person 
or company like Microsoft or IBM. They could say that Apache, or any 
company using Apache is not viable, and there is nothing anyone can 
do about it.
    I thought if you are found guilty of a crime, you got punished. 
After reading the settlement, it appears they are being handed the 
keys to the internet. Please don`t reward crime by allowing the 
settlement endorsed by DOJ and Ashcroft, the internet is too 
important to be turned over to Microsoft.
    Al Marzian
    1397 Hartland woods Way
    Lexington Ky 40515
    [email protected].

[[Page 24351]]



MTC-00003741

From: John MacLeod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:52pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement of Microsoft Antitrust Suit
    To Department of Justice:
    I am a professional computer consultant with a Master of Science 
degree in Computer Science and 16 years in the computer industry.
    I share the opinion of many computer industry professionals that 
the proposed settlement is not harsh enough, and leaves Microsoft 
quite free to repeat its past history of abuse of the market. Since 
emerging as the market leader in the PC operating system industry in 
the mid 1980`s, Microsoft has continuously abused its monopolist 
position by hiding the core hooks of its Windows platform from its 
competitors large and small.
    As a result, the PC software consumer has been forced to accept 
a reduced number of alternatives not only in the OS, but also in 
applications and utilities. The Windows platform is notoriously less 
reliable, bloated and expensive than alternative OS platforms such 
as Unix or Linux.
    It is all too clear that many great products have been 
terminated pre-maturely by Microsoft`s monopolistic lockout of the 
OS.
    I would ask that the Department of Justice reconsider the need 
for punitive damages more commensurate with the harm the Microsoft 
monopoly has done to the industry and, by extension, to the 
country`s economy.
    Respectfully,
    John H. MacLeod, President
    John MacLeod Consulting, Inc.
    108 86 Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11209



MTC-00003742

From: Albert Delgado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft is Guilty and needs to be kept honest!
    Microsoft is Guilty.
    The present proposed settlement does not protect open source 
projects like Samba which uses Windows calls in its implementation. 
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, 
...'
    I propose that Steve Satchell for Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Compliance Committee. We need strong citizens who understand 
technology so that Microsoft will be kept as honest as possible and 
accountable for its actions Microsoft wanted to give to the schools. 
Well I think it best that Microsoft give money as to Windows boxes, 
so as to not further try to monopolize the education market away 
from Apple computer.
    Albert Delgado
    Technology Coordinator
    Whittier School
    Chicago, Il



MTC-00003743

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:54pm
Subject: Public comment
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives.
    America is based on freedom of choice; but students in Americas` 
public schools can only learn to use computers, an essential skill 
for the coming generation of employees, on the products provided to 
them. Today, the Dept. of Justice has an opportunity to broaden the 
scope of that choice and thus empower generations yet unborn. It 
also has the opportunity to cavill to Bill Gates and thus must 
choose between greatness and ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
http://opensourceschools.org/
article.php`story=20011207001012102
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer.
    Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as 
the Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools 
would eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of 
funds to re-license / upgrade their software.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely
    William G. Canaday
    Detroit, MI.
    CC:KLUG,LUGWASH,Metro Detroit Linux Users Group,SUNCO...



MTC-00003744

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as I read it is a clear violation of the rights 
of the people who use the Linux operating system.
    When we look into Section III(J)(2) ` meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...' and Section 
III(D) we find very something very disturbing. The impression is 
that Microsoft is likely to use this to crush Linux which is their 
main competitor.
    I hope this will be clarify and that Microsoft will not be able 
to get away with crushing any more competitors.



MTC-00003745

From: none none
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:00pro
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    What I have to say is simple.
    Microsoft has not been punished anywhere near enough yet.
    For someone to think that they have means that they have been 
assimilated by Microsoft.
    I am in my early twenties and have been using my ever changing 
home personal computer system since the age of 6. Using it almost 
every day.
    I am very computer experienced and have seen a lot these past 15 
years. I have `loved' computers all my life. Most of 
those years more than young sexy girls. I `feel' 
computers and operating systems as a 6th sense now. By using a 
computer system for 30 secs I can feel system stability. I am a 
Systems Administrator already.
    This can only be understood by hardcore computer geeks. Unless 
you are one don`t bother trying.
    You only need to know that inside my mind I know Microsoft is 
still wrong and has not been punished. They have not learned and I 
doubt they can.
    Break em up folks. Seperate the company. Microsoft is old lame 
news now.
    If Microsoft doesn`t change drastically then Linux WILL 
eventually succeed. People like me will MAKE IT SO!
    How can a business plan defeat a hardcore geeks 
`love' for systems that work and are

[[Page 24352]]

useful and can actually be fixed without being anally f****d. Excuse 
my french :)
    No business controls Linux, and never will. Even prying Linux 
from my cold dead fingers would be a challenge.
    This WAS all I was going to write and then Windows XP f****d me. 
What a happy little coincidence I will include in this email..
    I am so used to Windows failing that every text document I deal 
with I have to make a backup.
    Take this email for example. I backed it up after I wrote 
it...just in case...might seem crazy BUT while I was fixing a typo, 
I was also holding down the shift key...8 seconds later WinXP hits 
me with an accessibility window. FilterKeys has been enabled now, OH 
great. I don`t even know what this is. I can click OK, Cancel or the 
Settings button. How dare I actually try to change windows by 
pressing the `Settings' button, but I did. Now 
FilterKeys is enabled and my keyboard has completely stopped 
working. Even though FilterKeys doesn`t have a check mark next to it 
in control panel_ accessibility, it is still enabled.
    I had to reboot to be able to type again. I lost all keyboard 
controls and my left mouse button was held down in all text fields. 
Just cause I held down the shift key and paused for an S.
    Naturally, this is called a bug, and every piece of software has 
bugs. BUT...if you go into Add/Remove Programs you won`t find 
`FilterKeys'. Heck I don`t even have Accessibility 
options to remove. If the FilterKeys were still enabled and couldn`t 
be disabled cause of a bug then there`s no way I could use my 
windows system anymore. All because it would take Microsoft weeks to 
release a windowsupdate with a fix, and only weeks if enough people 
had the problem. Even if a fix was released I would have to spend 
money or have my privacy invaded to be able to download that 130k 
fix. Who could ever use Microsoft products without Internet Access? 
or msn? or IE? or OE? even if the icon is gone, who says it`s not 
still write there!
    I don`t speak of bugs. I speak of what I see as a general 
contempt from Microsoft to computer users. An infestation perhaps 
within Microsoft. Splitting the company and seeing where the 
infestation remains could find the problem. Microsoft doesn`t 
provide a simple means of uninstalling pieces of their operating 
system. The whole system is tied together, with loose cut ends 
hanging around like a messy ball of dirty string. I am not blind, I 
do not need any accessibility, yet with Windows XP I have no choice 
and I will have to spend 30+ mins researching on the web how to 
uninstall accessibility. Windows rarely gets better, typically gets 
worse.
    Let`s say FilterKeys messed up with RedHat Linux.
    Well..one click for a terminal window...one command to fix the 
problem...rpm e FilterKeys_0.0.1 beta [enter] and filterkeys 
would exist no more. (RPM has a GUI interface too) Maybe but not 
usually I might actually have to open my webbrowser and visit gnome 
or kde if filterkeys was part of gnome or kde. Someone would fix the 
code in mins or hours and perhaps days anyways.
    The Slick Harkonen



MTC-00003746

From: Randy Prakken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not properly address the 
most fundamental problem: The authors of Microsoft Office have 
immediate access to the developers of Microsoft Windows. Making the 
source code `available` to other companies is in no sense 
equivalent. The authors of Office can simply walk to another 
building, spend 15 minutes talking, and thereby obtain man-months or 
even man-years of advantage over any other company, including those 
with access to their source code under the proposed agreement.
    The only reasonable remedy is, at a minimum, to split MS into 
two companies, one of which does Office and one of which does 
everything else.
    There are, however, a number of other issues which have not been 
addressed in any manner by the DOJ remedies. For example, Microsoft 
Internet Explorer and Internet Information Server ignore Internet 
standards in manners which subtly favor all-Microsoft solutions. 
These `bugs` both take advantage of and substantially 
contribute to Microsoft`s monopoly position. Microsoft takes 
advantage of its monopoly in a host of manners which cost all other 
software companies a substantial amount of money. Customers for 
those products, both consumers and companies, of course, pay the 
ultimate cost.
    Randy Prakken
    President
    SwiftView, Inc.
    mailto:[email protected] http://
www.swiftview.com



MTC-00003747

From: Bill Huffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the Microsoft case with interest from the 
beginning and was profoundly dissappointed in the accord that was 
reached a short while ago. Microsoft has intentionally violated the 
antitrust laws from the beginning, violated them while negotiating a 
settlement, is doing so currently, and I have no doubt will continue 
to no matter what aggreement is reached. The only thing to do is 
weaken them so that they will be less able to do damage. As for 
their claim that such a move would reduce innovation, I state from 
my 20 years in the computer business that Microsoft has never been a 
major factor in innovation and that in recent years, they have cut 
out most innovation in the PC business. Any idea which is brought to 
a venture capitalist in this valley (Silicon Valley) must pass the 
test: `Will Microsoft, by any conceivable turn of events be 
interested in pursuing this technology itself?' If the answer 
is yes, the idea will not be funded. The venture capitalists know 
that Microsoft will do anything, legal or illegal, to get where they 
want to go, and that a good idea is no defense against Microsoft`s 
treachery. Thus is innovation stiffled in the PC area.
    Microsoft will almost certainly make a joke of its promise to 
disseminate information about interfacing to their software. There 
are scores of ways not to help other software companies without 
appearing to do so and Microsoft has shown both the will and ability 
to do things like this before. I have a friend who interviewed at 
Microsoft. He interviewed with Bill Gates. The _only_ 
subject in the entire interview was how my friend would propose to 
force others out of the market for the portion of Microsoft my 
friend might run.
    Mr. Gates was not interested in anything about him but what his 
business plan would be to take over the market and force others out. 
Microsoft shows absolutely no signs of changing any of this and the 
present ruling is a sign that they (and others) are perfectly free 
to go on using their monopoly position in Windows and in Word 
Document Format to force others to accept their domination of yet 
more markets.
    Bill



MTC-00003748

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:14pm
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement.'
    My name is ethan estes a resident of massachusetts and i just 
wanted to tell you that this preposed settlement is awful. The idea 
that you are making Microsoft donate their technology to 
disadvantage schools is horrible. The idea is to give students who 
have no options oppurtunities-choices really. Yet the way you are 
doing it gives Microsoft all the controls to decide what the 
students get-what lesson do you want to teach these students. This 
would be like forcing momma bell to install telephone service into 
any home they already didn`t control back in the eighties rather 
than what happened-they were split up. Microsoft has such power 
already with there OS-why give them more? The idea is to force 
Microsoft to survive in a COMPETATIVE market-this will rerquire them 
not to impead the development of other software developers-
application developers as well as OS developers. If a school system 
wants Linux computers they should be able to get them, not be 
railroaded into Microsofts vision of our future. You should take a 
look at the briefing apple computer has filed in CA. It`s 
suggestions would force Microsoft to attempt to be a good citizen-
you need to remember that Microsoft is not in the business of making 
our lives better or giving us choices-That is our government`s job. 
I for one would like to see you stop playing buddy-buddy with them 
and treat them like a company found guilty of abusing their position 
as a monopoly. That is a federal offense is it not?
    ethan a estes



MTC-00003749

From: Robert Slover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing to express my dismay with the proposed remedy to be 
imposed upon Microsoft Corporation as settlement for the

[[Page 24353]]

corporate crimes committed by the company. I thought the original 
proposed solution (breaking up the company) was weak, and had hoped 
that a stronger remedy would be imposed (complete public disclosure 
of the source code of any product with over 50% market share, and 
complete public disclosure of all API`s, protocols, file system 
structures and data file formats). Instead, I have been disappointed 
to find a new remedy proposed which is far weaker still.
    Now, with generalities out of the way I`d like to express my 
opinion regarding specifics of the proposed `$1B' 
settlement. Foremost, I will not be fooled by the proposed $870M in 
`software' (as valued by Microsoft). I know that the 
true cost of software development is realized when you ship the 
`first' copy, and the incremental cost of the 
`second' copy is very, very low, approaching a value 
less than a dollar per copy in incremental cost above several 
thousand copies. I`d guesstimate the actual cost to Microsoft at 
someplace near $8M. My second concern regards the language meant to 
protect Microsoft`s competitors from damage due to unrevealed and 
poorly documented API`s. The language appears to have been written 
by Microsoft`s own lawyers, for it clearly gives Microsoft the 
privilege of only revealing API`s to entities Microsoft recognizes 
`(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business'. This means that if you`re non-profit, a hobbyist, 
shareware author, free software author, or Microsoft says you won`t 
be in business long, you will be ignored. This would also exclude 
the government from obtaining documentation of the same API`s and 
file formats. This is ludicrous. The language here strengthens 
Microsoft`s monopoly and legally guarantees it a method to continue 
to extend and abuse that monopoly. Get it straight, people, we are 
betting our future on the `information economy', and by 
doing so we must guarantee that the infrastructure of such an 
economy (API`s and file formats) is publicly disseminated and 
scrutinized. Further, the `shelf life' of a document is 
more quickly limited by the lifetime of the application that 
produced it than by file storage life. (I have XyWrite documents on 
disk from 6 years ago...find me a copy of XyWrite anywhere to read 
it. Given documentation of the format (which I have) I can write 
something to recover it if necessary.) Ancillary concerns I have 
about the targeting of Microsoft`s restitution to public schools are 
the effect this will have on Apple Computer, which still maintains a 
healthy niche in schools, and the plans Microsoft has once it has 
extended deeper into this space...in particular, the draconian 
licensing strategy it is instituting...that requires licensing 
`each and every year thereafter' or the software simply 
stops working. I volunteer my time at a local private (but 
financially poor) school maintaining their PC`s in a computer lab 
that I built from donated software and parts. This will be the same 
sort of environment these poorer schools will have to maintain. I 
cannot imagine the hassle involved with the new licensing, where 
machines must be `activated' for hardware changes. I`ve 
spent many a night without sleep, swapping scrap parts in and out of 
a machine in an effort to have it working for class the next 
morning, when something `died' the day before. This 
school doesn`t have internet access for the activation (not 
available here `til late 2002, we're told). It will be 
an impossible maintenance situation for many of these schools.
    A better remedy would be financing a single broadband drop into 
the public libraries of the poorest communities, and allowing 
schools in those communities, regardless of financial condition, to 
`piggyback' off of the community broadband link via 
wireless ethernet or local (cheap) copper loop. The schools can get 
the donated hardware and software (I`ve got tons of Chapter 1 stuff 
thrown out by the public schools), without Microsoft`s interference, 
it is really easy to do.
    Regardless, I think the proposed settlement is the 
`worst' I`ve seen yet.
    Some background: I`m currently employed as a Software Engineer 
in the Telecom industry. I`m 32 years old, and I`ve been writing 
software since I was age 10. I first became aware of Microsoft as 
something more than the vendor of a fairly poor ROM-based BASIC 
interpreter about 1985 or so, when DOS was becoming a common term 
after the introduction of the IBM PC. At the time, there were 
multiple DOS variants and I cut my DOS teeth on the Zenith DOS 
implementation before settling on Digital Research DOS as the 
undeniably `best' implementation. I found all DOS 
implementations terribly lacking, particularly if compared to 
Digital Equipment Corp`s VMS or Apple`s Macintosh environment. By 
1990 I was doing some work that was later incorporated into 
insurance software for Prudential and other work that became part of 
commercial game software, both for the DOS environment. I leveraged 
this work to get access to the latest compilers which would run on 
Microsoft`s `Windows 3.0', which finally looked like it 
might actually amount to something. After a few months of dredging 
through the muck of an API Microsoft presented, I abandoned any 
thought of ever writing Windows software. Although I had verbally 
sided with the League for Programming Freedom against the Apple 
look-and-feel lawsuit, I felt Apple `was' being 
screwed...that Microsoft had written Word and Excel for the 
Macintosh only as a way to get a head start on those same 
applications for their cloned API. It was so obvious, with the 
torturous Pascal stack ordering even though Microsoft`s de-facto 
language for Windows was C/C++. This put me on the alert to 
`watch' this company, and I did.
    I watched Microsoft cut deals with OEM`s, bundle `DOS 
Upgrades' that could be installed just like the full version, 
re-arrange memory layout in DOS shells to break Lotus 
1-2-3, insert special code to break Borland 
applications, steal code from Stack Data long enough to kill their 
market, then buy up a competitor (who no longer had a market either) 
once they were slapped on the wrist for it. I watched them bundle a 
memory manager to kill QuarterDeck`s main utility market (and along 
with it went DesqView, SideKick, and DesqView/X). I watched it grow 
in market share so quickly that it killed much better products in 
the same space (Xerox GEM and GEOS). I watched it acquire small 
companies with much better technologies simply to bury them (I can`t 
recall the name of the company, but at the moment I am thinking of a 
company that allowed database queries in natural english, this 
competed with MS/Access). Outside of the DOS/Windows space, I 
watched Microsoft`s (never fulfilled) promise of an open high-level 
API influence Digital Equipment Corporation to abandon their own EWS 
for their joint venture with MIT (X windows, which still doesn`t 
have that high-level API). I watched it go to bed with IBM on OS/2, 
influencing IBM to abandon their partnership with NeXT computer, 
then later as soon as they had conveniently lifted what they could 
from IBM, go off on a (closed) tangent of their own. I worked as a 
database programmer and a PC tech during this time, and after 
discovering Linux on the PC, moved into Telecom and Unix 
development.
    After that, I spent exactly 5 years as a programmer and database 
admin for a local Engineering college (top ranked undergrad 
engineering college the last 3 years) where we had implemented a 
program supplying laptops to all students (and incorporating them 
into classrooms) 8 `years' ago. To begin with, and for 
(I believe) 4 years, we had a deal with Microsoft in which we paid a 
site license fee, and supplied their programming, operating system, 
and office applications on our own custom CD set...as part of the 
agreement, students owned a valid license to the software when they 
left or graduated. In the 5th year, they claimed no knowledge of 
such a prior contract and students lost ownership of their software 
licenses upon leaving (though that year we did get to bundle it 
ourselves, since their own installer simply did not work at all with 
the particular combination of products). In the 6th year, we were 
forced, with no negotiation, to use the license terms agreed to by 
Microsoft and IU (the model for their current Educational licenses). 
I found it interesting, since the DOJ case was going on at the time, 
that there were Microsoft documents released during the trial 
recognizing any flexibility in negotiating site licenses, 
particularly in education, as a vulnerability to price pressure that 
had to be closed. I have no doubts at all that Microsoft had full 
knowledge of our original licensing terms.
    I`m back in Telecom, and for the first time in my work life I am 
forced to run a Microsoft OS on my workstation for the sole purpose 
of editing MS Word documents stored in our engineering document 
repository. If the file format were open, I would not need to do 
this. I`ve not owned any Microsoft software of my own since 1990, 
and am using it at home now only by virtue (or vice) of a department 
laptop borrowed for work over the weekend because the Microsoft VPN 
software used on our internet gateway speaks a proprietary variant 
of the protocol and is unable to deal with NAT used on my home 
network, which consists of various Unix machines, 2 Macintoshes, and 
a Linux PC. So, even as a computer industry professional, wary of 
Microsoft longer than most people

[[Page 24354]]

even knew it existed, I`m forced to succumb to using their software 
just to do one menial part of my job. This obviously bothers me, and 
nothing in the proposed remedy addresses these concerns.
    Regards,
    Robert J. Slover
    Commercial Software Engineer `and' Free Software 
Developer



MTC-00003750

From: Tom Keiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an attorney with some antitrust experience, and, for the 
past 15 years, a computer consultant. During that time, I have had a 
ringside seat to the anti-competitive behavior that led to this 
lawsuit, and also to the fiasco that characterized the 1995 US v 
Microsoft settlement, in which that Consent Decree was sloppy, 
ambiguous, and was later turned to Microsoft`s advantage at every 
opportunity. Indeed, if it weren`t for the DOJ`s carelessness, and 
Microsoft`s clever use of the 1995 settlement, this trial and this 
settlement would have been largely unnecessary.
    One of the only market forces that seems likely to create any 
kind of level playing field in the software industry is so-called 
open-source software, such as Linux, Apache, Samba, Sendmail, Perl, 
BSD and others. There is ample market evidence to suggest that this 
software is going to hold Microsoft to new standards of quality and 
pricing if it is allowed to survive and flourish.
    And yet, after this lengthy trial, and all the evidence adduced, 
there is not one word or safety mechanism in the Proposed Final 
Judgment that would aid open-source software in this critical, pro-
competitive role. Instead, the Judgement is sprinkled with the terms 
`OEM', `firms', `business' and 
so on, none of which describe the open-source organizations which 
are not `businesses', `firms' or any of the 
other protected alphabet-soup entities. Rather, they are loose 
collections of programmers from all over the world, organized not in 
any legal or business entity, but over the internet to accomplish 
common programming goals. These programmers, much more than 
`internet service providers', `internet access 
providers' or `internet content providers' need to 
have access to the secret keys needed to interface with Microsoft`s 
proprietary software. Yet, all of the `providers' just 
mentioned are specifically protected in the Judgment and the open-
source programmers are never even mentioned.
    Moreover, access to these secrets is to be by `reasonable 
and non-discriminatory licenses' but no mechanism is provided 
for the open-source programmers to be eligible to obtain these 
licenses or, for that matter, to pay for them, at whatever 
`reasonable' rates turn out to be.
    Further, according to the DOJ`s own interpretation of Section 
III.J.2.a, `Subsection III.J.2.a. allows Microsoft to 
condition such disclosure or licensing on the recipient or licensee: 
... (b) having a reasonable business need for the information for a 
planned or shipping product; (c) meeting reasonable and objective 
standards for the authenticity and viability of its business; ... 
'
    One must ask, especially in light of the calamitous 1995 DOJ 
settlement, whether `having a reasonable business need for the 
information ...' or an `authentic[] and viab[le] 
business...' is not a deliberate trapdoor to eliminate open-
source programmers as recipients of this information, as they create 
no `planned or shipping products' (in any commercial 
sense), and have no `business', authentic or valid. As 
we have seen in the 1995 settlement, Microsoft will not hesitate to 
use this language as a club against its most formidable competition, 
and the DOJ may not even be aware of the implications of this 
language in this context..
    In short, perhaps because of the urgency of tending to the 
problems of September 11th, perhaps out of technological ignorance, 
the DOJ is capping a successful trial and appeal with an ill-
conceived settlement. One which not only has many holes and 
ambiguities, but which fails to promote the very goal of the 
Antitrust Division: encourage competition. I urge the court to 
reject the Proposed Final Judgment, or any similar alternative, 
which fails to offer full protection to the survival of open-source 
software as the best deterrent to future Microsoft (or any other) 
monopolistic products and practices.
    Respectfully yours,
    Thomas E. Keiser



MTC-00003751

From: default user
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO settlement with Microsoft should include any of Microsoft`s 
Products, and marketing gimmicks, only cash and futher restrictions 
on their closed source anti-competitive products.
    With a 35 Billion cash position and a 1 billion a month income 
anything else from Microsoft would be an insult.
    The damage done SO FAR by Microsoft is miniscule compared to 
FUTURE losses that will be caused by a monopoly that creates 
mediocre products. The US Government and its agencies should use 
(and promote) OpenSource software and operating systems to save 
taxpayers money, and not add insult to injury by adding cash to the 
Microsoft coffers.
    Respectfully,
    C. Svanberg



MTC-00003752

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
140 Governor`s Drive
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to you because I am concerned about the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Although Microsoft has 
been found to be acting as a monopoly, the proposed settlement does 
not adequately open the market nor does it punish Microsoft in a 
manner that will change their behavior.
    Because of their currently dominant status in the market, any 
competitor to Microsoft, either from another commercial company or 
from the open source software movement, needs to be able to create 
software which can inter-operate with Microsoft. This means that 
Microsoft needs to be forced to freely release its file formats and 
communications standards as well as to allow software such as Sun`s 
Java to run under Microsoft`s operating system. These standards need 
to be released in advance of each new Microsoft product so that 
their competitors have time to upgrade their products as well.
    I am also concerned that the punishment being levied at 
Microsoft is too lenient. Paying their fine by donating computers 
and software does not cost them very much and only serves to broaden 
their future market base. Instead of punishing them, it may serve as 
a long term gain. Instead, require them to pay the government in 
cash and then the government can use the money for education. This 
way their money will train a new generation of computer scientists 
who can create better software for everyone.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Amy McGovern



MTC-00003753

From: Joel P. Hnatow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    Regarding the proposed settlement between the US DOJ and 
Microsoft, there are several notable issues that I observed. Section 
III(J)(2) of the settlement refers to communications protocols, and 
the fact that Microsoft need not document anything regarding these 
APIs. This effectively allows Microsoft to use their monopolistic 
powers to disallow Open Source software the ability to communicate 
with Microsoft products.
    An example of Open Source software which communicates with 
Microsoft software is the Samba project. This software allows 
computers running operating systems such as Linux or Unix 
communicate over a LAN (local area network) with a computer running 
Microsoft Windows.
    In my opinion, one of the most heinous crimes Microsoft has 
committed is the fact that they rampantly disregard standards. When 
they happen to introduce a particular standard to the computing 
industry, they tend to leverage this power to drive other products 
out-of-business, in a monopolistic and bullying fashion.
    Simply forcing Microsoft to document many of their protocols, 
such as the Word document, Excel file, or their networking protocol 
(SMB/CIFS) would, in my opinion, be a much more deserving 
`punishment' for Microsoft.
    Please reconsider the anti-trust settlement. As a student, I 
often use Open Source software, because it is very powerful and

[[Page 24355]]

free. If Microsoft is allowed to make their products inoperable with 
other software after the settlement as they have before it, 
including Open Source software, where does this leave students, such 
as myself, who use Open Source software primarily for economic 
reasons?
    Thank you for your time.
    Joel P. Hnatow
    301 S. Pugh St. #304
    State College, PA 16801



MTC-00003754

From: Benny Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s 
don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Benny Butler
    Nexus ITG
    www.nexusitg.com



MTC-00003755

From: jdumm1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please offer the same protection from monopolies to non profit 
software developers that you give to profit driven software 
developers.
    Thanks,
    Jeff Dumm.



MTC-00003756

From: Steve Ericson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned by the Proposed Final Judgement put forth 
by the US DOJ against Microsoft. In particular, I understand that 
3rd party not-for-profit projects will not be afforded the same 
concessions that 3rd party for-profit corporations would. 
Specifically, Microsoft could withhold important information such as 
APIs that essentially would prevent open source projects from ever 
integrating with Microsoft products.
    The best hope for a competitive industry would be for a company, 
possibly not-for-profit, to break the juggernaut that Microsoft has 
on Office software. One of the barriers to entry in this field is 
the complexity of the file formats, and it seems that a not-for-
profit corporation would not be able to obtain documentation from 
Microsoft under the terms of the Proposed Final Judgement.
    In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement does not go far 
enough in this regard to ensure long-term competition in the 
software industry.
    +Steve



MTC-00003757

From: Derek Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the current proposed settlement, which only 
requires Microsoft to stop practising the illegal acts they had 
committed in the past in the way they were committed in the past. 
The message to the industry is:
    (i) bullies are not punished even if caught;
    (ii) bullies only need to stop using the same dirty tricks in 
future fights;
    (iii) bullies can still keep their unfair winnings;
    (iv) victims do not get compensated;
    (v) the fights will resume with bullies in their undeserved 
dominant positions and victims in their weakened positions; and
    (vi) victims are motivated to use dirty tricks, as the above 
points show, the worst that could happen to bullies is still pretty 
good.
    I firmly believe that had Microsoft NOT committed their illegal 
activities in the past, the public would be having a better 
computing experience through the innovation of a vibrant industry. 
Instead, the progress of the industry has been incremental since the 
rise of Microsoft. Fundamental innovations, since then, have been 
few and far between. What innovations there were, such as Netscape 
browser and Sun Java, were quickly destroyed by Microsoft by means 
of illegal tactics.
    A settlement must send a loud message that illegal behaviour 
will not be tolerated and a heavy price will be paid by bullies to 
victims.
    Derek Wong



MTC-00003758

From: Jon Kirshbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs and Madames:
    I wish to state that it is very important that Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices be effectively curtailed.
    I am particularly concerned that open source projects (such as 
Apache and Samba) and Linux, which are not commercial endeavors, 
need to be protected from Microsoft and its illegal business 
maneuvoers.
    Please do not let a weak settlement allow Microsoft to continue 
harming competitors who attempt to provide users and customers with 
non-Microsoft and Microsoft-compatible software.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Jon Kirshbaum
    Portland, OR
    [email protected]



MTC-00003759

From: Michael A. Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am distressed to learn that the terms of the proposed 
settlement would assist Microsoft in its attempt to weaken the open 
software movement. I belive that open-source software can be an 
extraordinarily useful and beneficial force in our economy. Please 
do not allow Microsoft to ignore enterprises that it deems 
`non-commercial'.
    In addition, I would like to recommend that Steve Satchell be 
placed on the three-member commitee stationed at Microsoft that will 
help enforce the settlement. I have known Steve for years, and have 
great respect for his abilities.
    Thank you,
    Michael Perry
    347 Clay Street
    Nevada City, CA 95959
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003760

From: Adam Burrill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a Microsoft certified systems engineer with nine years of 
supporting MS and competing products, I would like to contribute 
some comments on the Microsoft Antitrust trial settlement.
    Microsoft has shown dishonesty in marketing a wide variety of 
high quality to low quality software products. While I have 
appreciated many of their products, I have

[[Page 24356]]

also lamented a dearth of competition from small and large 
competitors. I support the institution of a 3-person compliance 
review committee for ensuring competitive markets and encourage the 
DOJ to give it sufficient power to do it`s job.
    I would encourage this settlement to take into account many of 
Microsoft`s most potent competitors: free software and open source 
software projects such as Linux and Apache that provide the 
commercial world with some of the best software available (and keep 
Microsoft engineers at their best).
    I would also like to recommend Steve Satchell of InfoWorld as a 
member of this tribunal, as he has both the commercial and technical 
knowledge to make fair judgements that will keep the markets healthy 
and competitive.
    Thank you,
    Adam Burrill, MCSE
    PMB 737
    1122 E Pike St.
    Seattle, WA 98122



MTC-00003761

From: basher584
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:58pm
Subject: [[email protected]: [WLUG] Public comment]
    I couldn`t have said it better myself. I have been using Redhat 
Linux exclusively for almost 2 years (because it works better for 
me). Its an viable option and if you let Microsoft into the schools 
like the plan is, then it closes the market off even more for 
Redhat. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to 
email me.
    Benjamin Noggle
    East Lansing, MI
From: Bill 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [WLUG] Public comment
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:54:46-0500
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives. America is based on freedom of choice; but 
students in Americas` public schools can only learn to use 
computers, an essential skill for the coming generation of 
employees, on the products provided to them. Today, the Dept. of 
Justice has an opportunity to broaden the scope of that choice and 
thus empower generations yet unborn. It also has the opportunity to 
cavill to Bill Gates and thus must choose between greatness and 
ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. 
Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as 
the Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools 
would eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of 
funds to re-license / upgrade their software.
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely
    William G. Canaday
    Detroit, MI.



MTC-00003762

From: dino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:00am
Subject: On the settlement
    Dear Sir (or Madam),
    As you may read at < http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html >, the proposed settlement is frankly lousy. 
Microsoft is getting off far to a easy.
    I would like to put in a good word for Steve Satchell for the 
three-member committee to oversee Microsoft.
    You know, I have read a bit of history of the Gilded Age, and 
how the railroad barons behaved back then. Aren't we a little 
more enlightened now?
    Respectfully,
    Dean Moore
    2435 7th
    Boulder, CO 80304



MTC-00003763

From: brichter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    As a working American citizen I wanted to write a message 
explaining how displeased I am with the Microsoft Settlement.
    If someone does nothing about this and the settlement sticks, we 
as Americans will suffer in the long run.
    I do not agree with 80% of what is in the settlement. I live in 
Illlinois and believe it was a big mistake and letdown for Ryan to 
agree with the proposed settlement. I really don`t think he even 
read it.
    Let me just take one single portion quoted from an article:
    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, ...'
    What this means is that projects that have BUILT the Internet 
into what it is today, Microsoft can now cut out of the picture if 
they choose.
    I will not comment on all the other sections of the settlement, 
there are so many I do not agree with. Most technical people I speak 
with believe this settlement is a free ticket for Microsoft to 
continue their behavior and make it even harder for people that want 
to help the technical movement for the better and that are not 
finacially driven.
    Microsoft went into these trials with the possibility of being 
broken up into several companies and feared loosing ground. Now they 
come out clean with a license to kill basically.
    You have to remember your roots. The roots are NOT Microsoft. 
They have mixed in like weeds here and are overtaking everything 
that was put in place and changing everything out for their finacial 
gain.
    Again I want to stress how dissapointed I am in our government 
concerning this issue. Thank God there are several states that do 
not think Microsoft is the magic bullet to bring us out of a 
recession.
    Please add my letter to the Federal Register that I have been 
told will be built based on feedback.
    Thank you very much,
    Brian Richter
    Illinois



MTC-00003764

From: Raffael Cavallaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a concerned citizen writing to ask that you insist that any 
settlement be much tougher on Microsoft than the details of the 
proposed settlement currently circulating. As you know, Microsoft 
has already been found guilty of violations of anti-trust law, has

[[Page 24357]]

already been found to be a monopoly, and these rulings have been 
sustained by the US Supreme Court. Such transgressions, especially 
where they damage the interests of consumers, as well as the 
interests of many high technology businesses, demand severe 
penalties.
    Some have proposed requiring a forced revelation of the source 
code of the various Windows operating systems. Others suggest 
forcing Microsoft to release versions of Windows with no internet 
application software included, so that Microsoft`s anti-competitive 
effect on that market can be rectified by allowing computer 
manufacturers to include non-Microsoft browser software on new 
machines. Both of these remedies would be just, in my opinion. But 
Microsoft is already trying to sell a pathetically weak remedy.
    In particular, Microsoft`s proposed settlement would cost them 
very little (estimated by Apple Inc. to be a little as 10 million 
dollars) while gaining Microsoft an even stronger foohold in the 
education market, one of the few markets that Microsoft does not yet 
dominate. Microsoft should be forced to pay cash (and a mere one 
billion dollars is not sufficient) to an independent non-profit 
group that would decide for itself what products to purchase for our 
nation`s school children with the settlement money.
    In addition, Microsoft is seeking to prevent any restrictions on 
their behavior from applying to non-profit groups. This would mean 
that Microsoft would be allowed to shut out government agencies, our 
nations colleges and universites, and Open Source software projects 
from interoperability with Windows. This is simply unacceptable. 
This language must be removed from any settlement.
    Whatever remedies you and the states` Attorneys General demand, 
they must be tougher than a mere Consent Decree. Remember, we are 
here in the first place because the original Consent Decree signed 
by Microsoft was too weak to stop their monopolistic and illegal 
practices. Another weak Consent Decree will guarantee that the 
future of computing, indeed, the future of high technology, will be 
not merely dominated, but completely controlled by a single 
predatory monopoly. The victims of this monopoly will undoubtedly be 
both consumers and businesses, indeed, all the people of the United 
States.
    It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the 21st century 
is in your hands. Please don`t give away the potential benefits of 
such a powerful technology to a single, greedy, predatory monopoly. 
Please demand a tougher settlement. I, the voters, and your 
posterity will surely thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Raffael Cavallaro, PhD
    [email protected]



MTC-00003765

From: Ivan Teliatnikov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:19am
Subject: just another comment
    You settlement decision is a joke, just another joke that 
illustrates how hopeless the American Legal system is. MS run 
computers for the poor just to make them poorer and more dependent 
on the giant. Shame on you guys!!!!!
    PhD Candidate,
    Ivan Teliatnikov,
    University of Sydney.



MTC-00003766

From: Markus Diersbock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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 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 kids down the street.'
    Well, what about the kids who were 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 who 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 defence 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 what the outcome will be?
    Markus Diersbock
    Programmer
    http://www.crowdshare.com/profile.asp
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003767

From: Travis Folck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Hello sir/madam:
    I have been following the Microsoft case closely since it began. 
The latest settlement proposal is non exceptable.
    `Punishing' Microsoft by `making' them 
donate software and computers to some of the poorest schools is not 
a punishment. At first it may seem to put a dent in their checkbook, 
but, as Microsoft may well know, those children will grow up only 
knowing, and dependant on Microsoft products. Thus, the monopoly 
cycle begins again. I believe Microsoft knows this, because they 
donate software to schools already.
    As yourself, and Microsoft knows, the Open Source Movement is 
the biggest threat to Microsoft`s monopoly. Because no one 
`owns' Linux or other Open Source software, there is no 
company for Microsoft to buy out or to do a hostile take over. But 
the Final Judgement Section III(J)(2), does not protect Open Source.
    Microsoft will use this section to find a way to stop all Open 
Source projects, thus squashing their only real competitor. 
Microsoft will find a way to take advantage of Secion III (J)(2)!
    Nine other states have developed their own proposal, part of 
which states that Microsoft must allow third party developers to 
develop a version of Microsoft Office for other operating systems 
such as Linux. I applaud these efforts; however; I believe making 
Microsoft release the proprietary code of their Microsoft Office 
File formats (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access) to the public for a 
set period of time, such at 10 years, is a more just punishment than 
currently proposed.
    This would allow other developers to make their office products 
be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office. This would break 
Microsoft`s monopoly in more ways than by allowing third parties to 
port Microsoft Office to other operating oystems.
    I am a system administrator for a non-profit company. The only 
reason why we use Microsoft Windows and Office is because we have 
Office files that merge data from our database server. There are 
other programs, such as StarOffice, that can read office files, but 
not 100%. Because of this, our Word files that use Mail Merge with 
our database doesn`t work with anything but Microsoft Office. Thus, 
we are forced to use Microsoft`s software.
    If the Microsoft Office file format was made open to the public, 
programs like Star Office could be 100% compatible with Microsoft

[[Page 24358]]

Office files. This would allow companies like us to move to other 
operating systems, such as Linux, and use any office program that we 
like, such as Star Office, to read our Microsoft Office documents 
and it would read it correctly.
    As you can see, this would break the Microsoft monopoly with 
more impact than by just having a third party port Microsoft Office 
to another operating system.
    Thank you,
    Travis Folck
    System Administrator / Webmaster
    The Urban Alternative



MTC-00003768

From: Shaun Bava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed in the MS settlement and feel that if 
this settlement is accepted, the american people are being cheated 
and the government has wasted many american tax dollars. Microsoft 
is one of the shiftiest companies there is, and with this settlement 
MS has plenty of room to maneuver around the proposed restrictions. 
With this settlement the US government is making the statement that 
criminal behavior is acceptable as long as you have a big wallet to 
back it up.
    What about those affected by MSes monopoly, or the customers 
forced to buy their products, or the inflated costs of MS Office. It 
is baffling that it has taken this long for an investigation, look 
at DR-DOS, the battle with apple, the failure of NeXT`s 
OpenStep Mach against a shoddy product called Windows 3.0, and the 
current battle MS is waging against open source and the control of 
the internet. MS should be forced to pay it`s competitors for it 
misgivings and should be forced to drop the OEM deal where every pc 
comes with windows. Lets look back at NeXT, great product but MS 
would not make software for it and it was locked out of OEM 
licensing by the MS restrictive OEM license. Then with the release 
of NT and Windows 95 MS ripped of the interface and stole many of 
their innovative ideas from NeXT. Next we have Netscape, a company 
despite being the established player in internet software MS gave 
their stuff away which forced netscape to follow but since this was 
netscapes only business they could not afford to compete and 
ultimately fell behind and was forced out of business. Or recently 
Be, a company with a promising OS. How many more people must lose 
their jobs and companies be destroyed before MS is stopped. Everyday 
MS extends the monopoly further by moving into new fields but we let 
them continue. I feel like MS should get their punishment and under 
the settlement little is addressed. While unprofessional I 
understand Judge Jackson`s comments and feel that he was impartial, 
but after hearing years of testimony and the things MS has done with 
such arrogance he was disgusted and obviously wanted to nail 
microsoft for the terrible things they have done. The way this case 
is now being handled makes me upset as an american and represents 
exactly what is wrong with the US today. The US and it`s success was 
based on the hard work and ingenuity of the American people but MS 
contrary to the American way has built a monopoly on shoddy 
products, stolen ideas, monopolistic force, and arrogance. As 
Americans we should have the best not what someone forces us to use.



MTC-00003769

From: Kresmoi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At any level, it seems ludicrous to `punish' 
Microsoft by handing over one billion dollars worth of the market 
for PC`s in education. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing 
monopolistic power, and the result is the expansion of that power? 
Since Microsoft seems so willing to donate products 
`worth' a billion dollars to these poor schools, why not 
have Microsoft just give them a billion dollars hard cash to use on 
computers any way they like?
    Thank you for your time,
    Kevin McCloskey



MTC-00003770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:38am
Subject: Comments on the proposed Microsoft Antitrust Remedy 
Document
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to comment on the `Civil Action No. 
98-1232 (TPJ)'. It is my understanding that a general 
requst for comments on the proposed remedy is in effect. My comments 
are based on reading the proposed remedy as presented here: http://
news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-201-7758181-0.html?tag=unkn
    I have significant concern about the following provision:
    III.C.5:
    Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer 
provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical 
specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement 
that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the 
conclusion of any such offer.
    My concern about the above provision is that it appears to 
permit Microsoft to prohibit an OEM from installing an alternative 
`IAP offer' capable of shutting down the OEM`s product. 
By which I mean it appears that this provision limits the potential 
to power-down the OEM product to a Microsoft product. I feel that 
this is a wholely inappropriate restriction. It would appear to 
effectively require that all OEM`s ensure the `end user' 
use a Microsoft product at least once per power-up of their OEM 
product. This requirement appears completely bizarre as a 
`remedy' to the illegal behaviors of a convicted 
monopoly.
    I should like to see this aspect of this provision reversed. To 
this end, I propose the following re-wording of this section:
    III.C.5: (my proposed revision)
    Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer 
provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical 
specifications published by Microsoft, excluding any requirement 
that the end user directly or indirectly use a Microsoft product.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Andrew G Morgan
    885 Linden Drive
    Santa Clara
    CA 95050-6169
    [In this communication, I speak for myself and do not 
necessarily represent the views of my employer.] 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003771

From: John Blommers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has not been punished for it`s crimes. It has a lot of 
cash on hand. Let`s set a fine double that amount, half due now, the 
other half in installments.
    The money should be used to pay down the national debt. 
Microsoft is leveraging it`s monopoly into other areas such as 
MSNBC, MSN, Gaming etc.
    Let`s prevent it from doing so by limiting it`s right to expand 
into any other areas but Windows. Make Microsoft release it`s hold 
on Bungee.
    Bill Gates is personally abusing his Microsoft fortune via 
Corbis and other ventures. Let`s disallow Bill from using his money 
to personally extend Microsoft`s monopoly into any industry. He is 
also abusing the Gates Foundation`s funds by displacing Microsoft 
competitive computers in schools and colleges_basically 
contributing Windows computers and software to displace Apple and 
Linux.
    Let`s stop the Gates Foundation from using Microsoft products to 
make donations.
    Thank you
    John Blommers



MTC-00003772

From: Roger Schlafly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You are letting Microsoft off easy. Microsoft will continue to 
leverage its OS monopoly, and the proposed settlement has so many 
loopholes that it will be unenforceable.



MTC-00003773

From: DMJ Graphics
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft decides on it`s own punishment?!
    I find it hard to believe that the DOJ would allow Microsoft to 
forge into the only market they don`t have a monopoly 
on. . .the education market.
    Don Montalvo, NYC



MTC-00003774

From: William Stearns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Good day, all,
    I have some reservations about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation.
    In the current situation:
_Microsoft holds a monopoly over the operating system 
industry.

[[Page 24359]]

_Microsoft controls the PC hardware industry by restrictive 
contracts that make it all but impossible to purchase a computer 
without a Microsoft operating system.
_Microsoft holds a monopoly in office applications.
_Microsoft maintains that monopoly by withholding the 
descriptions of the file formats used in their documents.
_Microsoft withholds the documentation concerning API`s and 
network protocols.
    The proposed settlement does not appear to require any punitive 
damages or remedies for past monopolistic practices nor provide any 
specific punishments for future abuses. Section V seems to imply 
that the sole punishment for future abuse is a two year extension, 
`together with such other relief as the Court may deem 
appropriate.' As the DOJ and courts have so far been unable to 
come up with any punishment for past abuses (even after a multi-year 
court case in which Microsoft was found guilty), it seems to be 
insufficient to trust future Court cases to come up with any 
reasonable and effective punishment.
    In essence, the Anti-trust division has put forth a proposed 
settlement that makes no attempt to handle Microsoft corporations 
monopolistic practices.
    In the proposed settlement:
_Section III(A) does not seem to allow for shipping a computer 
without any Microsoft operating system at all.
_Sections III(J)(2) and III(D) appear to specifically exclude 
non-commercial entities from the requirement that Microsoft provide 
API`s documentation and protocol specs. This would have a continued 
stifling effect on the authors of free operating systems such as 
Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, among others.
    The final agreement with Microsoft should include at least the 
following:
_Microsoft shall be required to publish, without restriction 
on use, 1) all API`s and technical documentation for all of its 
operating systems, libraries and applications, 2) the file formats 
used in and technical documentation for all of its applications, 3) 
the complete network protocol descriptions and technical 
documentation for all the network protocols it uses, including any 
proprietary extensions to existing protocols, and 4) the format and 
technical documentation for any filesystems it uses, including but 
not limited to the FAT and NTFS filesystems.
_Microsofts agreements with OEMs and others may not include 
requiring any operating system (Microsoft or other) to be sold with 
a new or used computer, nor may it limit the number of operating 
systems sold.
_Specific punitive damages for past abuses and monopolistic 
practices and punitive damages in the case of future abuses or 
monopolistic practices. The opinions expressed in this note are my 
own and solely my own. They do not represent any employer or 
organization of which I am a part.
    Cheers,
    Bill



MTC-00003775

From: Frank P. Miles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    It is my hope that some modification of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement might occur. While this citizen has no direct financial 
stake in the outcome of this case, as a user of legally developed 
Free Software_which must interoperate with Microsoft 
software_my ability to do my work will be affected by this 
settlement.
    I am not personally very concerned with Microsoft`s continual 
expansion of what it considers as the role of an operating system. 
However, in my work I share documents regularly with others who use 
Microsoft Office applications, and through computer networks which 
include systems running Microsoft Windows. operating systems. In the 
past engineers and programmers have laboriously (and legally) 
reverse-engineered Microsoft file formats, communication protocols, 
and program APIs in order to achieve interoperability. This has been 
done for both commercial and non-commercial software development. 
One consistent Microsoft tactic has been to continually change these 
structures, presumably to make it more difficult for competing 
products to offer interoperability.
    As has been widely noted, the Free Software operating system 
`Linux' appears to be the strongest competitor to 
Microsoft. However the proposed Microsoft settlement appears to 
strengthen Microsoft`s ability to continue to use its ability to 
change its structures, weakening its most important competitor.
    This is clearly the opposite of the intended result. New 
initiatives from Microsoft, particularly some of the networking 
changes anticipated with its `.NET' strategy, may 
accelerate the dominance of Microsoft further into the Internet.
    Since Microsoft has become the standard in the industry (at 
least in part through illegal and anti-competitive means) then they 
should provide enough information to all others to ensure 
interoperability. Microsoft must be compelled to make the 
communication protocols, system APIs, and document file formats 
freely available prior to the sale of any product. This would not 
prevent Microsoft from developing new products, or expanding or 
improving existing products. This would not degrade computer 
security, as `security through obscurity' mostly 
obscures a products` weaknesses to a legitimate customer (see, for 
example, the work of Bruce Schnier). I and others who are interested 
in Free Software (and in commercial software from non-Microsoft 
sources) look forward to appropriate changes in secion III(D), (E), 
and (J).
    Thank you for your attention in this important matter.
    Frank Miles
    6521 Chapin Pl N
    Seattle, WA 98103



MTC-00003776

From: HunterA3
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It`s rather tragic and disheartening to know that if you have 
enough money that even after being found guilty of breaking the law 
that a person or organization can bend the judicial system around to 
benefit the convict and turn their backs on the true victims; the 
consumers who have continually been taken advantage of. I`d like to 
get myself in a car wreck and be in the wrong and pay the eye 
witness rather than the person I hit. It would be much cheaper for 
me to settle that.



MTC-00003777

From: Tony Lucio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:10am
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 U.S. citizen and a consumer of Microsoft 
products, I wish to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act to 
comment on the Justice Department`s proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    It has come to my attention that under the proposed settlement 
non-profit vendors using Open Source software are shut out of the 
proposed settlement. Specifically, Section III (J)(2)(c) allows 
Microsoft to define who is and is not a `business' or 
commercial enterprise that Microsoft may or may not license its 
products to. Further, Section III(D) allows Microsoft to deny said 
vendors the information necessary to make their products compatible 
with Microsoft software. On the surface this may seem like a 
reasonable remedy. But I assure you it is not, for the following 
reasons:
    Open Source is not a giveaway of technology. Each and every Open 
Source vendor has the right to develop and market and copyright its 
own version of an Open Source protocol. The particular protocol 
cannot be infringed without violating the law and the original 
source code itself remains open to the public at large as an 
incentive for development. A great many vendors have accepted this 
formula and developed successful line of products utilizing source 
codes such as Linux, FreeBSD, Apache and Perl, to name a few. Each 
vendor has capitalized on the availability of Open Source to create 
its own unique and protected product. Without the availability of 
the Open Source code these products would not exist today. They have 
created consumer choice and innovation in the limited arenas of 
Server and Operating Systems by freeing these markets up with 
competition.
    Microsoft, on the other hand, has a proven track record of 
seeking to stifle competition by threatening, among other things, to 
withhold licenses from vendors who consider marketing lines of 
products that include a Microsoft competitor`s software. Considering 
a history of anti-trust behavior such as this, Microsoft cannot be 
allowed to determine who is and is not a commercial vendor that it 
may share it`s licenses and product authorizations with. To do so 
would allow Microsoft to define who its future

[[Page 24360]]

 competition will be by legally withholding from a new class of non-
licensees technical information vital to the development of products 
and services compatible with Microsoft products, effectively killing 
off those businesses, as Microsoft already possess 90% of the 
current market in operating systems and software applications and a 
sizeable share of the server and network-level applications markets 
as well. Ultimately consumers would suffer as choice becomes 
narrower and narrower, leaving Microsoft the only developer on the 
playing field. Allowing an anti-trust violator to determine who 
their competition will be is akin to allowing a burglar to pick and 
choose his victims.
    I hope the government will seriously consider the issues I have 
raised here and reject the proposed settlement language I described 
above, and continue to reject any language which allows Microsoft to 
determine who is entitled to share the marketplace with them and how 
they will share it. Software and hardware development, at both the 
business and consumer levels, needs innovation in order to survive. 
New products cannot be developed unless designers and producers can 
integrate those products into a larger marketplace, a marketplace 
which almost exclusively uses Microsoft systems.
    Until the day arises when Microsoft no longer dominates the 
software world with a 90% market share they must be made to make 
available to all vendors the tools necessary not only for their own 
survival but to insure future innovation and development of new 
technologies and services. Any settlement which requires less than 
this is simply not in the public interest.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment.
    Anthony Lucio
    P.O. Box 591
    Placentia, CA. 92871
    To verify my identity, please contact me via e-mail or post. For 
my own security I never divulge my home address or phone number over 
the Internet. Thank you for understanding.



MTC-00003778

From: Craig Jungers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I certainly hope that the existing settlement with Microsoft can 
and will be altered to better protect the open source/free software 
community. In particular, I am concerned that unless MS is required 
to adhere to standards in a more strict way than they have in the 
past (when, as with Java, they embraced the standard and then 
extended it to the point where parts of it became proprietary). As a 
recent example, MS `upgraded' its MSN home page to make 
it unusable unless the user was using Microsoft Internet Explorer. 
When they were attacked for this, MS claimed that the other browsers 
didn`t conform to the W3C protocol. In actual fact, it was MS which 
did not conform to this open standard.
    By simply controlling the sheer numbers of desktops in the 
world, MS is able to change things to make it more likely that 
people will choose its products (which, by the way, are not produced 
for certain open source operating systems) over competitors` 
products because consumers will be afraid that the competition may 
not work on MS-controlled sites. This sort of behavior is typical of 
the way MS uses its position in the marketplace to control that same 
marketplace to its own advantage. I am also in favor of requiring 
that some MS proprietary protocols (in particular the SMB protocol 
which is used for file sharing) be released into the public domain. 
This protocol (which is called SAMBA in the unix/linux world) has 
allowed businesses to share files which are mounted on servers 
running competitive operating systems with users running 
workstations running MS operating systems. SAMBA was only produced 
by reverse engineering (legally) the way MS`s SMB works and then 
producing a license-free work-alike of that process. The ongoing and 
continual fear among those of us who utilize SAMBA is that MS will 
change it in some basic way so that it will become unusable and 
clients will be forced to use MS products to share files with MS 
workstations at much greater expense and at much greater profit to 
MS.
    I firmly believe that the dissenting States are absolutely 
correct when they state that unless MS is held accountable for its 
actions in a specific way, the computer industry will be reduced to 
a single solution controlled absolutely by Bill Gates.
    For this reason I ask the Court to examine via the hearing 
process the remedies proposed by the DoJ rather than accept what is 
in effect a political rather than a legal solution.
    Very truly yours,
    Craig R. Jungers
    Vice-President and Network Engineer
    Network Essentials, Ltd.
    2317 Lakeside Drive
    Moses Lake, WA 98837
    509-764-5007



MTC-00003779

From: Zipperhead Sunshine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make them pay cash not software.



MTC-00003780

From: Chris Dees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:49am
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement.'
    Hello,
    My name is Chris Dees, I would like to express my disappointment 
at the Department Of Justices` decision in the Microsoft Antitrust 
remedy. Microsoft was found guilty of operating an abusive monopoly, 
of what is arguably the most important industry to our nation`s 
future. No one aside from Microsoft, and apparently the DOJ, feels 
that this is a proper remedy; THE STATES THAT HAVE AGREED TO THIS 
SETTLEMENT HAVE GIVEN UP. With all due respect to the legal 
professionals and Judges involved in this matter, I implore you, 
reconsider your decision. My reason is the fact that the only people 
who seem to have understood the consequences of this remedy were 
from Microsoft. You obviously don`t understand the impact that this 
decision will have on the future of the high technology field. 
Microsoft MUST be held accountable for their actions, and this 
remedy DOES NOT.
    We are on the cusp of a revolution in our society. Microsoft 
realized this early on and due to several smart business decisions, 
and in no small part to the ignorance of the general populace, they 
have positioned themselves to hold more than their share of the 
marbles right now. The high tech industry, and especially the 
software segment is a totally different business model than any 
known industry. So different, in fact, that there is no only good 
analogy for it. That said, this case should have been handled 
accordingly, yet it was not. The advisors that the DOJ utilized, if 
any, were not as astute as Microsoft`s, and it shows.
    THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY`S EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON AN OPERATING 
SYSTEM! It is incredibly time and resource intensive to develop a 
new OS from scratch.
    That is why the field of operating systems is extremely narrow. 
This is also why we, as a public, have been suffering with a DOS 
based operating system for the better part of the last 10 years, 
this is how long it took Microsoft to write and improve their NT 
product to the point that it is fast, usable and stable. This is why 
Apple recently took the code base from FreeBSD Unix when reinventing 
it`s Mac OS. The fact that Microsoft has dominated the desktop 
operating system market, places them in the drivers seat for the 
software industry. They have to give a software manufacturer certain 
information before that company can write software that runs on 
Windows.
    Unfortunately Microsoft made the poor choice to abuse this 
commanding position and started doing things like using the 
licensing of such information as a carrot to keep software 
developers from writing software for any other OS or platform. I do 
fault Judge Penfield-Jackson for saying what he did outside of the 
courtroom, but his anger was not unfounded. He understood the 
enormity of Microsoft`s transgressions, and that their attitudes 
were that of indignance. This is what incensed Judge Penfield-
Jackson, the flippant expressions and dishonesty in his courtroom.
    Based on all the information, Microsoft was found guilty, not 
that most high tech professionals ever doubted that. Anything short 
of separating the Microsoft operating systems from ALL other 
Microsoft products seems a miscarriage of justice. I understand that 
due to Judge Penfield-Jackson`s conduct, a break-up looks like 
fodder for appeal, but ignoring what is the just and right for that 
reason, is worse. They also need to keep their operating system out 
of the schools, they should be donating MONEY ONLY, lest we further 
their monopoly into a segment which is currently dominated by Apple. 
LET THE SCHOOL DECIDE WHAT SOFTWARE THEY WANT TO USE, ESPECIALLY THE 
UNDERPRIVILEGED, AS THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE A CHOICE OTHERWISE.
    Another problem I`ve seen is in Section III(J)(2), it contains 
some very strong language

[[Page 24361]]

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, 
...'. Being as Microsoft`s biggest threat right now is from 
free and `Open Source' software developed by individuals 
who develop because they love it, namely the Linux Operating System. 
This section relieves Microsoft of the burden of acknowledging these 
companies and individual`s rights in the industry. Microsoft can`t 
understand these businesses, therefore they abhor them, I have a 
distinct feeling that this verbiage was not suggested by the DOJ. 
Please don`t follow their lead and shun what you don`t understand, 
find out about it, it`s a new thing, therefore you must learn how it 
works. I understand that Microsoft shouldn`t have to cater to every 
penny-ante out there, but the DOJ SHOULD DEFINE WHAT CRITERION ARE 
SET FOR THE `REASONABLE AUTHENTICITY, AND VIABILITY' OF 
A GIVEN BUSINESS, NOT MICROSOFT! A company or individual 
shouldn`t have to make money to be considered a business if 
they are willing to pay licensing fees and want to develop with 
Microsoft. At the very least Microsoft should be assigned more than 
3 watchdogs, and the people chosen should be very tough, yet fair 
and honest, like Mr. Steve Satchell. But who is to chose?
    The DOJ, no thanks, I think they've demonstrated how well 
they understand the matters at hand. I think the government either 
needs to tap some high tech professionals to form a Federal Advisory 
Board, or use their own senior hackers from the NSA or CIA to police 
Microsoft`s activities.
    Lastly, I simply ask once again that this crime not go 
unpunished, which is exactly what I and the overwhelming majority of 
high tech professionals feel has happened. Through ignorance, 
exhaustion, or some other unknown reason, a monopoly not only goes 
unpunished, but manages to actually strengthen their stranglehold on 
a vital industry, where is the justice in that? Believe it, it`s 
true!
    Sincerely,
    Chris Dees
    Systems Analyst
    Thornton, CO
    USA



MTC-00003781

From: Sean Bratnober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:57am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I`m no legal expert, so excuse me if I may sound confused when I 
complain about the language in the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
disagree with this settlement for several reasons.
    First of all, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the 
settlement seems to be extending Microsoft`s monopoly power by 
having them donate their software to schools. Apple computer already 
has about half of this market from some of the estimates I`ve heard, 
and it seems this settlement will give them greater leverage in this 
market. In addition, it will also serve to shut out open source 
solutions like Linux in the field of education, where the lack of 
funds make it an incredible low-cost resource.
    This is absurd to me because education is an area where 
Microsoft`s competitors have a lot of leverage. I`m amazed that this 
settlement would jeopardize this.
    In addition, I`m astounded that they will be able to write off 
much of this penalty on their software. They are allowed to price 
their donated software at a similar cost to what they would cost 
consumers, and much of this inflated price has nothing to do with 
actual material production costs for distribution. I think a greater 
deal of the money they donate should be put into computer hardware.
    But overall I don`t agree with having them donate any of their 
software, especially under the conditions of this settlement, where 
the schools who receive the software will be forced to pay a steep 
licensing fee after five years of use. This seems not to benefit the 
schools but to lock them in as future consumers for Microsoft, which 
merely extends their monopoly.
    I think any settlement must provide real leverage to Microsoft`s 
competitors, which include Apple and those in the open source 
community.
    Their practices have, and sadly, still do try to shut out all 
their competition. Even today we see them bundling Windows Media 
Player with their operating system, allowing them to shut out their 
primary competitor in media viewers, Real Networks, in ways that 
loudly echo what they did to Netscape. Any solution to this problem 
must level the playing field and allow companies like Real Networks 
to compete. I feel one of the best ways to do this would be to open 
up their source code for viewing, as it would give competitors the 
opportunity to make their software perform just as powerfully as 
Microsoft`s.
    Another area of the settlement that concerns me is some of the 
language explaining how they can deal with non-profits. Basically, I 
think it`s absurd that they can refuse to provide information about 
or license API, documentation, or communications protocols to non-
profit groups (which is just another name for the open-source 
community) that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria for business. This 
effectively kills a lot of the robust open-source applications like 
SAMBA and reduces competition.
    I understand that the open-source movement isn`t concerned with 
profit, but I actually believe it provides one of the best source of 
competition to Microsoft, and I believe that it is a place where 
competitors can realize profits. Much of what counts in the IT 
industry is the brainpower of those who develop and support 
solutions, and much of what has emerged from the open source 
movement has `greased the wheels' in the industry to 
allow for collaboration and powerful standards where they are 
needed. It is with open source tools that competitors have a more 
solid foundation to compete for profit and revenue with their own 
software.
    It is possible to use proprietary software in an open source 
environment, or in conjunction with open source tools, and as a 
student programmer I think it offers an much better environment for 
people like me to be an entrepreneur with my software than the 
environment Microsoft has created.
    It`s crucial that the Microsoft settlement doesn`t allow them to 
block out anything that`s open source, because if competitors like 
IBM are embracing things like Linux I think it`s clear that open 
source offers many powerful opportunities for others in the 
industry. Some people believe the open source movement is 
`the' threat to Microsoft`s monopoly power, and this 
settlement is a shameful farce that appears to extend that power.
    I also want to support Steve Satchell in his bid to be a part of 
the three-member oversight committee that will see that Microsoft 
cooperates with whatever settlement is ultimately passed.
    thank you,
    Sean Bratnober



MTC-00003782

From: Jason Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work as a computer and network technician for a small 
business. I would say 95+% of our customers are there because 
they`re using a Microsoft product which failed due to reliability or 
security issues. They`re using it simply because it came with their 
system, or their operating system. In each case, there are cheaper 
products, which provide vastly better reliability and security.
    I`m talking myself out of a job here, but it would be a great 
day if Microsoft stumbled and was forced to be competitive again.
    Jason Jackson



MTC-00003783

From: Carl E. Meece III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:16am
Subject: MS antitrust settlement
    I think Microsoft was let off way too easy. Microsoft should 
have been split, and not doing so will hurt consumers and industry 
alike. What does this settlement say to other companies who may use 
similar monopoly tactics in the future? It says, `Go ahead and 
use illegal monopoly tactics, the worst you`ll get is a slap on the 
wrist.' Sorry DOJ, but you really fudged this one.



MTC-00003784

From: David Levi Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like for Steve Satchell to be placed on the three-member 
committee stationed at Microsoft which ensures any agreements are 
enforced. He is qualified for the position and I believe will do his 
job well. Also, I do NOT want people from Microsoft to have any 
input or influence over who is appoined.



MTC-00003785

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:23am

[[Page 24362]]

Subject: settlement
12/10/2001
    Re: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to express my opinion concerning the settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. Microsoft was ruled guilty of being 
an illegal monopoly by nine Judges. In the settlement agreement, I 
see nothing to punish them for their past acts. They have benefitted 
financially and by market share. The remedies need to address these 
issues.
    They are now a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, 
some of which are ill-gotten gains. A monetary penalty of at least 
25 to 50 billion dollars would be in order.
    Their market share on the desktop computer is 90+ percent. Steps 
must be taken to to remedy this. A goal of 66 percent (2/3) or lower 
must be acheived. To even the playing field, all non-operationg 
system software made by Microsoft must be available to run on all 
other platforms. Since MS is discontinuing all non-Windows XP 
versions, these all need to be released to the public domain. The 
licensing needs to be changed to General Public License and all 
source code supplied. Thank you.
    Jim Lange



MTC-00003787

From: Nathanael W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft/Red Hat settlement
    I think Red Hat should be applauded for this. Before Red Hat`s 
idea_ Microsoft`s money goes into fewer computers and an 
investment into their own future, as the schools have to pay for the 
software after 5 years. After Red Hat_more computers, lifetime 
free software for the schools, no compounding of Microsoft`s 
monopoly.
    Nathanael W
    [email protected]
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/ï¿½7Eicicle/
    ICQ Number: 47725421



MTC-00003788

From: Alex Lam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen about the proposed Microsoft 
Antitrust Settlement. It seems that Microsoft is receiving a 
`penalty' that not only fails to restrict them in a 
serious way, but even ends up protecting them against their major 
rivals. Microsoft is under no requirement to release it`s standards 
to society at large, but instead only to other `for 
profit' companies that are judged by a committee set up by 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has shown in the past that it has very little societal 
ethics. If given a position that they can take advantage of, I am 
sure that Microsoft will make use of every opportunity. We must 
restate the wording of this proposal to prevent Microsoft from 
turning the restrictions into an even stronger chokehold on the 
software industry.
    Sincerly,
    Alex Lam



MTC-00003789

From: Ian Danby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:54am
Subject: Comment on proposed settlement
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to consider all 
proposals by the nine states who have not agreed to this settlement 
prior to acceptance by the court. The remedies suggested by the 
dissenting states seem to me to be a better remedy than the 
published Final Judgment. I am concerned that there is wording in 
the Final Judgment that can be used by Microsoft to follow the 
letter of the agreement without the spirit. For instance 
`timely manner' for disclosing information on new 
versions of the operating system. As someone who works in the 
software industry, I am convinced that that will come to mean a day 
or two before it is put into widespread use. Developers interfacing 
with the product need more advance notice. Also, I believe there are 
some loopholes with regard to Microsoft not revealing source code 
for almost every piece of middleware and server interaction.
    The dissenting states have pointed out problems in XP, which has 
been released after this Final Judgment was published. That alone 
convinces me that this settlement is not sufficient.
    Regards,
    Ann Danby



MTC-00003790

From: Frank Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you should seriously consider the remarks that Mr. 
Cringely has published at: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html
    Regards,
    Frank Harper, TURBOMECA DSI/SIP
    e-mail: [email protected]
    Tel: +33-559-12-50-00 poste 6620
    Fax: +33-559-12-59-71



MTC-00003791

From: john johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    I am writing with respect to the proposed settlement of the U.S. 
v. Microsoft case. I believe that this proposed settlement is so 
full of loopholes as to make a complete mockery of the fact that 
Microsoft was in fact found guilty of antitrust laws.
    Of particular concern to me is the wording in Section III(J)(2) 
and Section III(D). As you are undoubtedly aware of, Microsoft has 
recently become aware of the fact that `open source' 
software is a major threat to their growing monopoly control of the 
information infrastructure. Microsoft executives have publicly 
characterized open source software as: `viral', `a 
cancer upon society', and `un-American'. The 
wording of this proposal is carefully crafted as to allow Microsoft 
to transition from this absurd rhetoric to direct action against 
open source software.
    During the trial, Microsoft often stated that they were not 
guilty of wrongdoing, but rather they were only exercising their 
right to `innovate' for the good of the users of 
Microsoft software. This is ridiculous for many reasons, the least 
of which is that Microsoft is not a major innovator of technology. 
Microsoft excels at imitation, acquisition, funding, and crafting 
restrictive business agreements. (To be fair, Microsoft has 
contributed some valuable technical innovation, especially in the 
area of computer usability techniques.)
    On the other hand, over the last 20 plus years we have 
experienced an enormous outpouring of innovation centered around the 
Internet. The fuel for all of this innovation is the fact that the 
Internet is based on open non-restrictive protocols, (TCP/IP), and 
open source software. The key to this innovation is that the 
foundation of the Internet is in the public commons. If a large 
corporation, (such as Microsoft), developed the Internet, it 
wouldn`t be the Internet. It would resemble what transpires on the 
so called `public airwaves'. If given the chance, 
Microsoft would enthusiastically work on creating this kind of 
vision out of the Internet. The proposed settlement not only gives 
them the chance, but seems to encourage them.
    When I read the proposed settlement, I can clearly see the 
contribution of lawyers on the Microsoft payroll. Unfortunately, I 
can`t see the contribution of the lawyers on the taxpayer payroll, 
nor can I see evidence of lawyers working for the public good.
    Thank you for considering my input
    john johnston
    16515 Bryant Rd.
    Lake Oswego OR 97035
    ([email protected])



MTC-00003792

From: Tim Triche
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse,
    Please strike the anti-competitive, anti-nonprofit language from 
the proposed Microsoft settlement unless you wish to reward a 
convicted, guilty antitrust violator with greater economic and legal 
advantage. This perversion of justice is repulsive; *ANY* entity 
with a reasonable cause to petition Microsoft for documentation of 
their APIs and system calls MUST be given a means to fairly and 
effectively do so!
    Thank you.
    Timothy J. Triche
    1233 Maryland Ave. NE
    Washington, DC, 20002



MTC-00003793

From: Philip Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to make known my views on the proposed microsoft 
settlement. While the Microsoft legal team has done very poorly in 
their defence against criminal action, their expertise in contract 
law is unparallelled. Any type of conduct settlement is essentially 
a contract. Their skills in that area WILL result in them 
sidestepping any limitations put upon them to violate the spirit of 
anti-trust law in new and `innovative' ways.
    The last attempt at a conduct remedy should show this more than 
adequately.

[[Page 24363]]

 Microsoft has been truthful in one thing in their description of 
the case: This is indeed a `fast-moving industry'. A 
year in this business is like 5 in any other. Therefore, American 
business cannot afford another 4 years of watching Microsoft abuse 
the system, and another 4 on top of that for another round of legal 
action. The punishment for their past infringements must be swift, 
and not `open to interpretation'.
    The only remedy that fits these criteria is a structural breakup 
of Microsoft into separate business units that are forbidden to 
overlap in areas of commerce. Additionally, with all the new areas 
Microsoft is getting into these days, a mere two divisions may be 
inadequate to nullify their cross-market monopoly leverage. I shall 
not suggest a specific set of divisions, but I would like to point 
out that Microsoft is currently operating in the following areas:
Broadcast television (MSNBC)
Desktop Operating Systems
Server Operating Systems
Palmtop Operating Systems (WinCE)
Embedded Operating Systems (In children`s educational toys)
Internet connectivity (msn)
Appliance computing/internet connectivity (WebTV)
Business software
Entertainment software
Entertainment hardware platform (X-Box)
Entertainment hardware accessories (microsoft mouse, joystick, etc)
    There is barely a single facet of consumer-available electronics 
and software in which Microsoft does not have a hand in. In fact, I 
cannot think of a single one.



MTC-00003794

From: Jim Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let there be choice for the average software consumer!
    The home computer is a staple of modern life. People use their 
computers to communicate with each other, conduct business, 
research, and even for entertainment. Our society as a whole depends 
upon the home computer.
    I am a fan of windows 2000. It is an operating system that 
doesn`t crash very often. It is easy to use and has a lot of built 
in features. I understand Windows XP takes this to a new level.
    I am not against features in an operating system. They add to a 
users experience and the power of their computer. What I am against 
is the lack of competition that Microsoft faces. Admitedly they do a 
good job of innovating even when they hold a monopoly of the market. 
But imagine for a moment that two Windows XP caliber operating 
systems were being produced by two different companies, both vying 
to land on your desktop as a home user. Undoubtedly, prices would be 
lower to the consumer and features of the operating systems would 
become even better. Problems that today are overlooked would be 
given quick attention (such as some of the serious security holes 
that Microsoft rarely gives second thought to.) The consumer wins. 
It has been established that Microsoft uses the most aggressive 
tactics of anti-competitiveness available. If there is any way that 
they can take out a competitor, or assimilate them, they will. This 
only increases their monopoly, and decreases competition in the 
market place. I say this is unfair, and it is high time the 
government steps in and does something intelligent to remedy the 
situation. What action is called for I do not know. But something 
must be done! Although innovative in features and user-friendliness, 
Microsoft has a long standing history of serious security flaws that 
repeatedly appear in their products. So called `e-mail 
viruses' actually only affect people who use Microsoft`s 
Outlook Express mail reader. Why the media calls them `e-mail 
viruses' and not `Outlook viruses' I do not know.
    Why is Microsoft not held accountable when their mail program 
facilitates the spread of these so-called `email 
viruses?' I do not know. But I call for accountability. And I 
call for government intervention that there might be serious 
competition in the market place. All this so that your average 
consumer can have more than one good choice for a full featered 
operating system. Microsoft does not stand for the freedom of choice 
that capitalism offers as it`s benefit. Microsofts first interest is 
market dominance at all costs, and to them the consumers interests 
come second. More and more features of the home computer now fall 
under the power of this monopoly. The only good choice for Word 
Processing is Microsoft Word. The only good choice for web browsing 
is Internet Explorer. The only good choice for your operating system 
is Windows. This is how Microsoft wants it to be. Unfortunately for 
most people, this is how it is. No good and meaningful competition 
in the marketplace, no good alternative choice for the average 
consumer. Something must be done to remedy our situation as 
consumers, who for now must depend upon one company 
alone_Microsoft.
    The innovation and development of the home computer has come 
from many companies and still continues to come from many companies, 
such as AMD, Intel, IBM, Cyrix, Macintosh, HP and others. For a 
society which has reaped the benefits of computer hardware 
engineered competitively by many different businesses in the private 
sector, why must we reap the shallow benefits of software engineered 
by only one company?
    Please, as the government of this wonderful country, do 
something to protect our rights as consumers. Please do something to 
let there be choice and freedom in the software market. Please stop 
the company Microsoft that has shown it will at any cost try to 
destroy this choice and freedom for us, the consumers.
    Thank you sincerely,
    Jim Brown
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003795

From: Malcolm Stebbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:24am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have read the proposed settlement, and it does not address the 
primary legal finding of the court; that Microsoft uses predatory 
business practices to further its own ends which are to acquire and 
retain monopolistic control of the computer Operating System and 
Middleware software industry.
    In general, the settlement leaves the definition of elements 
such as which enterprises are legitimate or viable businesses, 
security, privacy, and the legitimacy of any claimed need for access 
to Microsoft`s code entirely up to Microsoft. Certainly the 
technical committee can review Microsoft`s decision, but so what? 
They review it, and two out of three of the committee members are 
beholden to Microsoft. Even if they cried `Foul', so 
what? What difference does that make? The last time the DoJ cried 
foul on Microsoft it took years of litigation and millions of 
dollars to get to this point where we are now, and Microsoft has 
used very trick and pressure it could to weaken the decision and 
remedies against its continued abuse of us, the consumers.
    This is not a matter of preserving a `healthy business 
climate', though Microsoft may phrase it as such, and issue 
dire warnings about the collapse of communications of all sorts if 
it is restrained. WE, the American people, are being screwed by a 
monopoly which considers a lie or a threat to be normal parts of 
doing business.
    I am not a computer whiz, but it is clear to me as well as to 
literally millions of other computer users that much of what is 
foisted off on us by the so-called `upgrades' to new 
versions of the Windows Operating System are just window-dressing. 
They often require new versions of Office, Excel, and the host of 
other programs on the market for yet more hundreds to thousands of 
dollars each. And I`m sure Microsoft points out how this 
`creates a need' and `keeps the economy 
healthy' but I`d rather `keep the economy healthy' 
buying something that I really wanted, like high speed internet 
access or a new program that actually does something for me.
    And what about all the freeware and shareware programmers; what 
about Linux, or BeOS? None of these can be called legitimate 
businesses_at least not by Microsoft, who, incidentally, 
claims that Linux `proves' Microsoft is not 
anticompetitive. Would anyone care to take a small side bet on what 
Microsoft will tell Linux programmers when someone asks for 
Microsoft`s code? After all, Linux isn`t a business, just a bunch of 
programmers who like to produce neat programs. Microsoft is not 
compelled to respond to mere programmers, who might irresponsibly 
disseminate or otherwise `misuse' Microsoft`s 
intellectual property. The record so far has shown that when a 
shareware or other program is worthwhile and popular, Microsoft 
simply buys it along with the rights to any remotely conceivable 
extension, and that`s the end of that. They can afford to pay 
incredible amounts for small items that might eventually threaten 
their ownership of the market_that`s what a monopoly is all 
about, isn`t it?

[[Page 24364]]

    I have questions regarding this whole antitrust decision 
process; why is Microsoft being relieved of any real restriction to 
it`s past modes of doing business? Why is it not being actually 
punished for its obvious and documented past misdeeds? Why isn`t the 
company being broken up or otherwise having its immense power 
reduced to protect us from its predatory and invasive abuse of 
American Citizens? Why is there no indemnity provided to be invoked 
against Microsoft for possible future transgression?
    Malcolm Stebbins



MTC-00003796

From: Amos Barrows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This deal will simply solidify Microsoft`s unfair monopoly. It 
does not represent the best, and certainly not the most intelligence 
deal that can be struck. And worst of all, it will furthur prevent 
people from actually having a fair choice when it comes to computers 
and software. Microsoft may give big campaign contribution, but that 
doesn`t give them the right to stiff the customer.



MTC-00003797

From: Aaron Luttman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings and Salutations,
    I am a mathematician by education, a computer programmer by 
trade, and a user of Microsoft products. I am also very much against 
the proposed department of justice settlement with Microsoft. As I 
said, I use Microsoft products, and that means that I will be among 
the first to gain if the department of justice takes a HARDER line 
with Microsoft. I use Microsoft products, because they are the best 
available for what I do. The reason that they are the best is not 
that they are good, but rather that Microsoft has destroyed any 
other company that might produce a better product.
    Rather than just complaining, though, I will actually present to 
you what I think is an important point to make. There is nothing you 
can do to change the current market dominance of Microsoft systems 
for personal computers. Moreover, a point that few seem to consider, 
is that it doesn`t matter that you can`t do anything about it. 
Microsoft knows you can`t do anything about, but they are scared 
anyway. You may not understand this, but Microsoft products as we 
know them, such as Windows (prior to XP) and Office, are going to be 
obsolete as concepts much sooner than you might guess. Microsoft 
knows this. They have some people there who are as technically 
astute as their lawyers are legally astute, and they know such 
software is going the way of the dodo.
    Then what is the problem? The problem is that Microsoft is being 
allowed to use its current to powers to conquer other industries. It 
is Microsoft`s Internet Information Server that is the problem. It 
is MSN and its partner Microsoft Passport that is the problem (and I 
won`t even get started on the civil liberties infringements of those 
products). It is X-Box that is the problem. It is an often-heard 
joke that Microsoft won`t stop until it has achieved total world 
domination. We laugh, because it is funny. We laugh, because it is, 
in some sense, true, at least in the technical world. Over the last 
couple of years, in particular, Microsoft has used its muscle to 
push its way into other technical areas of our lives, the same way 
Tony Soprano might expand his `territory.' This is the 
problem. This is what we need to be afraid of. This is what we, as 
consumers, need the department of justice to protect us from.
    Windows XP is the problem. It is not an operating system in the 
way that previous versions of Windows were, or the way that Linux 
is, or the way that MacOS is. These other operating systems are 
systems that basically manage the way that other programs use the 
memory of your computer. These systems keep track of which programs 
are using, or `own,' what memory. That is their primary 
function. Windows XP treats this as an aside. The main purpose of 
Windows XP is to act as a portal by which Microsoft can dominate the 
`cyber-life' of every person. It is not just a software 
that lives on a PC, but rather product for guiding users through the 
Microsoft vision of the internet.
    Forget about Microsoft`s dominance of the PC. It`s too late, and 
it doesn`t matter. It is not too late_ and it does 
matter_to stop Microsoft from pushing its way into dominance 
of other industries and other aspects of consumers` lives. This is 
where the DoJ needs to focus and make the tough decisions that are 
needed to prevent this.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Luttman



MTC-00003798

From: Brian Conte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider myself as someone who has reasonable knowledge and 
perspective on the relevant issues of this case. I worked for 
Microsoft for 5 years, and during that time worked with a number of 
ISVs working on applications for Microsoft Windows. I also ran my 
own software company, which developed Windows applications, for 10 
years. I have lived in Microsoft`s community (Redmond and Seattle) 
for 20 years.
    The settlement is a joke. It is little more than a slap on the 
wrist to a company that has continually and egregiously abused its 
monopoly power. It reads like it was drawn up by Microsoft lawyers 
and agreed to by a justice department more interested in a speedy 
resolution than an appropriate one. Knowing the dynamics of the 
software industry and Microsoft`s proven willingness to push the 
bounds of any imposed restrictions, I think that many of the 
`remedies' of this settlement actually hurt the software 
industry and help Microsoft, rather than vice versa. It is clear to 
me that the net result of this settlement will be only to allow 
Microsoft to continue to abuse its monopoly position, stifle 
creative competition, and ultimately hurt consumers.
    I can only hope that the nine remaining states do a better job 
than the justice department did at penalizing and restricting 
Microsoft in a way that will meaningfully protect consumers.
    Brian Conte



MTC-00003799

From: Pablo Oliva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
December 9, 2001
Pablo Oliva
60 Lehigh Aisle
Irvine, CA 92612
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mrs. Hesse:
    I am a web developer in the Los Angeles area in California. I 
recently ran across this article online at http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html which stated the following: 
`The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information 
Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-
profit. Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and 
Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business:
    `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s 
don`t run Windows.'
    I hope that you understand the severity of this matter. The Open 
Source Software movement is truly a remarkable thing. Many great 
products have resulted from this

[[Page 24365]]

movement. The Open Source community has spawned innovation and 
quality in software that is unsurpassed by Microsoft or any other 
commercial outfit. This movement and community is a great and 
weighty threat to Microsoft`s business model. I encourage you to 
come to a complete understanding of the impact that the language of 
the settlement, which the above article sites, will have on the Open 
Source Software community. There is a big chance that Microsoft will 
have the ability to use this language to place pressure on and 
ultimately strangle the life out of the Open Source community? and 
this is an anti-trust case isn?t it?
    Regards,
    Pablo Oliva
    P.S. I am sending a hard copy of this letter via regular mail. I 
eagerly await your response.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00003800

From: Vip Malixi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:35 am
Subject: Settlement will kill open-source competitors of Microsoft
    He`s Not in It for the Profit
    Steve Satchell for Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance Committee
    By Robert X. Cringely
    Two calls came in on the same subject in the same day this week, 
but from very different perspectives. The first call was from a 
lawyer working for the California Attorney General. He was looking 
for somebody like me to testify in the remedy phase of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. California, as you know, is one of nine states that 
have chosen not to go along with the proposed anti-trust settlement 
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The nine 
states think Microsoft is getting off too easily. The second call 
came from Steve Satchell, an old friend from my InfoWorld days, who 
had noticed deep in the text of the proposed Microsoft/DoJ 
settlement that as part of the deal, there will be a three-member 
committee stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. 
Satch wants one of those jobs.
    I think he should get the position. With a background in 
computer hardware and software that dates back to one of the very 
first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the 
technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and 
even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his 
hundreds of published computer product reviews, he knows the 
commercial side of the industry. He is glib and confident, too, 
which might come in handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest. 
Sometimes there is a distinct advantage to being the first to apply 
for a job, so I think Satch should be a shoo-in for one of those 
compliance gigs. And the boy looks mighty fine in a uniform.
    The job will be a challenge, that`s for sure. The committee has 
the responsibility of settling small disputes and gathering the 
information needed to prosecute big ones. They are supposed to have 
access to ALL Microsoft source code, and their powers are sweeping. 
If it goes through, I only hope the court picks three tough but fair 
folks like Satch.
    Meanwhile, there is still plenty to complain about in the text 
of the proposed settlement, itself. Those who followed the case 
closely will remember that one of Microsoft`s chief claims during 
the trial was that times and the nature of business have changed, 
and that anti-trust enforcement ought to be different today than it 
was when the laws were first passed in the early part of the last 
century. This is a fast-moving industry based on intellectual, 
rather than industrial, capital, goes the argument. Sure, Microsoft 
is on top today (and every day since it got bigger than Lotus around 
1986) but, hey, that could change in a Redmond minute. This argument 
evidently didn`t resonate with the court, though, since Microsoft 
was found guilty. Keep repeating to yourself: `Microsoft is 
guilty.'
    Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning 
this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better 
deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft`s 
actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will 
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before. 
Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement 
specifically protect companies in commerce_organizations in 
business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because 
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against 
`competing' commercial software vendors like Netscape, 
and other commercial vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for 
example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind 
of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that 
will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. The 
biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is 
Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J) (2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business .... 
'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t 
run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. Is the 
Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. They showed 
through the case little understanding of how the software business 
really functions. But they are also complying with the law which, as 
Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with the market realities 
of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were 
first being enforced, the idea that truly free products could become 
a major force in any industry_well, it just would have seemed 
insane.
    This is far from over, though. The nine states are still in the 
fight and you can be, too, by exercising your right under the Tunney 
Act to comment on the proposed settlement. The Tunney Act procedures 
require the United States to:
    1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact 
Statement (CIS) with the court.
    2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal 
Register.
    3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected 
newspapers.
    4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after 
the proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
    5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, 
in the Federal Register.
    6. File the comments received and responses to them with the 
court.
    To make your views known (and to put in a good word for Steve 
Satchell), there are several options:
    E-mail: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type `Microsoft 
Settlement.'
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Mail : Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 24366]]



MTC-00003801

From: Rugbuz Pafnuti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:15 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. There are 
several reasons to reject it:
    1. Economic: Microsoft is often perceived as a `driving 
power' of the economy. In fact, there are concerns that using 
strict anti-thrust laws against them could affect the economy as a 
whole. Mentioning the new `Windows XP', vendors hope 
that this release pushes sales of hardware, software and equipment. 
From an economic point of view, it would be very dangerous if a 
single company really had such an economic influence. If those 
concerns were true, that would indeed be THE SIGNAL that Microsoft 
is close to a monopoly and that the IT industry is already 
`ill' and has to be cured, which means that such a 
monopoly has to be removed.
    As within all countries featuring a `liberal economic 
system', government intervention has to be restricted to 
situations where the natural stability of markets fail.
    A monopoly (or more generally, when a single company affects the 
whole economy) causes the natural balance of markets to fail.
    Another important point of view is the customer and her 
interests. While Microsoft (naturally) denies having an all-economic 
influence, they do state that they are only `doing the best 
for their customers'. That assumes that customers were free in 
their decisions to use Microsoft products, and that the customers 
chose these products for their `technical advantage' 
over competing products.
    [A concern sometimes heard is, that `killing Microsoft 
would kill (or at least, slow down) technical development'. 
That statement has to be carefully analysed. First, Microsoft IS NOT 
the `engine of technical advancement'. Why should only 
Microsoft be commited to make things easier for the customer? Why 
should only Microsoft be commited to extend the borders of 
technology? IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle and others want to sell, 
too. It is inherent to a liberal free-market system, that you can 
only survive by adapting and improving. Advancement coming only from 
a single point out of the whole system in fact is characteristic for 
NON-FREE systems that do not rely on free markets, fair prices, 
freedom of trade, etc.
    Conclusion: if the above statement (`Microsoft is best for 
customers, dont take it away') really was true, then this 
would NOT be sign AGAINST using anti-trust laws, but it would be a 
sign PRO using these laws, PRO reassuring that our system of free 
markets is functioning well. To clarify my position: it is NOT the 
duty of the government to punish those who are successfully 
operating within our liberal free-market system. It actually IS the 
duty of the government, to ensure that the markets remain balanced, 
that there IS competition, that customers HAVE a choice, that no 
single company can control a market or (even worse) the whole 
economy. That cannot be and that must not be in the interest of any 
government.
    2. Technical: While you can state that there is no economic 
reason to punish Microsoft (despite my argumentation in the 
paragraph above), it actually is evident that Microsoft is not 
`playing fair' and at least trying to lock out 
competition for their products.
    As stated above, in a free-market system everyone is trying to 
gain competitive advantages and to extend ones share of the market. 
This is natural, and this is good from an economic point of view, as 
this is the real `engine' for technical advancements. 
However, to ensure that competition really remains free, governments 
have to make sure that certain rules are accepted and followed by 
the market participants. One of the most important rules is, that it 
must be possible to compete with someone. It must not be the case 
that someone `locks others out of the market'.
    If a segment of a market is controlled by a single company, and 
if that company is able to effectively lock others out of that 
segment, then we are here: that company effectively has a monopoly 
in that segment. To ensure this does not happen, market participants 
have to `play fair', and it is the duty of the 
government to punish those that do not obey the rules. Microsoft in 
fact is quite effectively locking others out of certain market 
segments, and they do everything to make sure that these segments 
remain `Microsoft-only'.
    1) the Windows internals are not open. Only Microsoft know about 
them, and treats them as a business secret. As a result, competitors 
have a significant disadvantage when developing applications for the 
Windows platform. While Microsoft has the ability to alter Windows 
to fit the needs of their applications (Office, SQL Server, Web 
Server, ...), they also have the ability to alter Windows to make 
existing applications incompatible with future versions of Windows!
    2) the Office document format internals are not open. 
Development of a competing office product, which would be fully 
capable of reading, writing and transforming MS-Office documents, is 
almost impossible. As the MS-Office format is close to a 
`defacto-standard' (resulting from a lack of choice by 
the customers!), this effectively kills free competition on the 
office market segment.
    3) the Windows file exchange and sharing mechanism is NOT 
documented. However, there actually IS competition, mainly from the 
open source community (`SAMBA' project). As Microsoft 
realized this, they recently changed communication internals within 
Windows XP (and earlier, also within Windows 2000 Server versions). 
The goal was clear: effectively stopp competition. However, the 
SAMBA project adapted quickly. Nevertheless, this should be a clear 
sign that Microsoft IS NOT PLAYING FAIR!
    Conclusion: IF positions as a market-leader really were 
`earned' (by offering better products then the 
competitors), then Microsoft would not fear competition. However, 
this is not the case. Microsoft is trying to integrate their 
products as closely as possible to lock out competition.
    When competition arises, product internals are changed. 
Microsoft, of course, can adapt to this. Others cannot, or can but 
only with huge efforts. This effectively hinders competition, and 
aims at gaining a monopoly (or at least a superior position) where 
customers (and the free-market) possibly would have decided to use 
other products.
    As a customer AND as someone interested in the future of our 
economy, I reject the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
US Department of Justice. I insist on reconsidering the effects of 
this settlement, especially in respect to Microsofts position and 
business practices they have shown.
    Sincerly,
    Rugbuz Pafnuti



MTC-00003802

From: Martin Fraser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:19 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writting to experss my opinion on the upcoming anti trust 
settlement between the Justice Department (DoJ) and Microsoft 
Corporation (MS). It has become known to me that through clever 
wording on the part of MS in the settlement aggreement may lead to 
the removal of the rights expressed in the agreement from the Open 
Source world.
    Since MS was found guilty of leveraging there dominant market 
position the settlement should be a punishment to them.
    In the current market the biggest and growing threat to MS 
buisness is from the Open Source world with GNU/Linux, Apache, 
Sendmail, BIND and PERL running most of the internet, MS`s latest 
target.
    By allowing MS to discriminate against such not-for-profit 
concerns, they could emerge from the anti-trust proceedings with the 
tools needed to crush thier biggest competetor, with the full 
backing of the DoJ. This could only lead to the strenthening of 
there monopoly and is counter to the spirit the settlement should be 
received in.
    I hope the DoJ have the foresight to realise this before it is 
too late and MS not only get away with they have already been found 
guilty of, but come out of these proceedings in a stronger position. 
This result can only harm consumers.
    Thank you.
    Martin D Fraser.



MTC-00003806

From: Alan Leiman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:21 am
Subject: to little
    From what I`ve been reading Microsoft is getting off pretty easy 
compared to what should be done. They are continuing to push others 
around and control us, the consumers. If they get off to easy they 
won`t stop. Look at there new product, i realize it wasn`t part of 
the case, but they are forcing people to use there email account for 
registration, and when you create that account you have to use there 
email client. You gotta put the foot down so they realize that some 
things can`t be done. And, that they have to leave the doors open 
for choice, and not use there muscle to push others around.



MTC-00003807

From: Fulton, Tim_BRP-LEX
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:30am

[[Page 24367]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    This is to lend my voice to those who want to see Microsoft hung 
out to dry. There is good reason why many refer to the company as 
M$. My experiences, though, are a little different.
    My company is an international manufacturer who has standardized 
on this company`s offerings. As one whose income relies on the 
ability to use them, I was a little distressed to learn that 
Microsoft would not support their product, not even for money.
    Because the operating system [OS] was preinstalled by the 
computer maker (in this case, Dell) Microsoft would not support it. 
OEM installations, they said, are the responsibility of the OEM.
    As this might be understandable in many cases where OEM 
installations may affect product quality, I tried to get Dell to 
support the installation. They, however, were not sufficiently 
trained on the details of the OS, and referred me back to M$.
    The point is, Microsoft is negligent in both aspects of this 
case. If Dell (or anyone having an agreement with M$ to distribute 
the product) is an authorized reseller, then it is the 
responsibility of the manufacturer (M$) to ensure the OEM is capable 
of providing support. If they cannot confer this technical 
capability to the OEM, then the duty lies with the manufacturer to 
support the installation.
    Because they successfully dodged such responsibility is why I am 
a lifelong hater of Microsoft. Please find against them, in the 
harshest way possible, for lacking the fortitude to back up their 
own product.
    Best regards,
    Tim Fulton, North American Database Publications
    Bosch Rexroth, Lexington KY USA
    `The Drive and Control Company'
    Tel. 859-254-8031 x.4521
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00003808

From: Michael Menary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:33am
Subject: DOJ Judgement
    I think it`s a travesty of justice that Microsoft has been 
allowed to get away with it. Basically, by bundling IE with Windows, 
it destroyed Netscape, and it is still trying to do that in 
surreptitious ways. (Check out its export facility, which does not 
sort the output, so Netscape importers get a mess, but IE importers 
get a sorted list).
    Companies that I have worked for have signed up for agreements 
to receive MS software, but have ended up having to buy PC`s with 
the software already bundled as the OEM`s have to install it. How 
does a company get away with this?
    Bill Gates must be laughing his head off at the way he has the 
US government wrapped around his little finger. It`s like he has 
received a slap on the wrist for multiple homicides because he pays 
the judge`s salary.
    Michael Menary



MTC-00003809

From: Mike Miller (Ramesys_Nottingham)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to register a comment on the proposed Microsoft 
Anti-trust case settlement. As the currently proposed settlement 
stands, I am concerned that regulation of Microsoft`s anti-
competitive activities excludes actions against non-profit 
organisations. A large proportion of the most promising alternatives 
to Microsoft software are developed by not-for-profit organisations, 
often under open-source licenses like the GPL (Gnu Public License). 
For example:
_The Linux operating system and many of it`s components
_The Apache web-server
_The Samba Windows network file sharing tools
_The Mozilla web browser
    These products provide strong alternatives to Microsoft`s 
offerings, yet because they are produced by non-profit 
organisations, the currently proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
carry on with anti-competitive actions against these products.
    For the settlement to have any value in the current software 
marketplace, it must protect both normal commercial software and 
open-source or other not-for-profit developed solutions equally. 
Failing to address this issue will give Microsoft license to attempt 
to stifle the open-source software movement with anti-competitive 
practices in the same way that it has stifled commercial competitors 
in the past.
    Yours sincerely,
    Mike Miller
    Internet Consultant
    Ramesys e-Business Services Ltd.
    Email : [email protected] www.ramesys.com



MTC-00003810

From: mconway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to object to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I have viewed the settlement, and I 
strongly feel that the proposal is deficient in several ways:
    It does not address Microsoft`s illegal behavior, and does 
little to prevent such actions in the future. Microsoft has already 
been found to be guilty of antitrust, AND in violation of a previous 
consent-decree. I have worked with Microsoft products virtually 
every day for the last ten years, I have followed DOJ issues with 
Microsoft, and it is my firm opinion that Microsoft will not stop 
its illegal and damaging behavior under the terms of this decree.
    The sharing of Microsoft source code is conditioned upon too 
many vague premises, and will be virtually unenforceable as it is 
currently written. I suspect that most of the language has been 
drafted by Microsoft`s counsel, and may contain many grounds for 
interpretation, delay and stalling. I am particularly concerned that 
Microsoft itself will be able to define who meets the criteria for 
viewing the source code.
    The settlement is too lenient and presents the appearance of 
impropriety, in that Microsoft has made sizeable and significant 
contributions to the current administration. The common perception 
among many members of the IT industry is that Microsoft is escaping 
with a `slap on the wrist,` and this impression will spread to 
the general public, further eroding confidence in our 
administration.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Conway



MTC-00003811

From: mac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I always thought that America was proud of it`s justice system 
but here I see a company that has been found guilty of killing 
innovation in the market by killing of the small guys and gets away 
with it. The present proposal will only widen Microsoft`s monopoly 
of the computer market. I don`t know how to solve a problem as big 
at this, I just know that this is not the way.
    Gerard
    PS One day in the future: `welcome to the whitehouse 
(R)'
    (R)_the whitehouse is a registered trademark of Microsoft 
corporation.



MTC-00003812

From: David Casti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
The settlement which has been proposed fails in many areas, 
including:
    1. Failure to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds in any way
    2. Failure to recognize the importance of noncommercial software
    3. Lack of `teeth' in the case Microsoft fails to 
abide by the settlement
    4. Failure to offer any forward-looking remedies
    Microsoft`s performance is on the record. This settlement will 
prove to be bad for consumers and bad for business. Please do not 
make this mistake. If this settlement is approved, it will be years 
before Microsoft`s illegal behavior can be addressed again in court.
    Sincerely,
    David Casti
    David Casti
    Managing Partner
    Neosynapse
    www.neosynapse.net



MTC-00003813

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The proposed resolution to the Microsoft anti-trust case will 
not accomplish the ostensible goal of increasing competition in the 
markets that Microsoft dominates. The primary problems are that the 
proposed solution allows Microsoft to spread its software into 
schools and that encouraging the use of Microsoft`s APIs will 
actually

[[Page 24368]]

 increase their ubiquity. A far better solution is to simply require 
Microsoft to provide the details of their proprietary file formats, 
thereby allowing real competition to arise.
    Allowing Microsoft to give software to schools must delight the 
Microsoft board of directors. Not only is Microsoft allowed to set 
the value of their donations, it is provided with access to an 
untapped market segment. This proposed solution will have the effect 
of training children in the use of Microsoft products, making it 
much more likely that they`ll choose to use them in the future. If 
the settlement is to include a donation to schools, Microsoft 
software should not be included in the package. Microsoft should 
provide the hardware bundled with Open Source software such as 
Linux.
    Requiring Microsoft to license its APIs will not result in 
greater competition. Microsoft`s operating system dominance is not 
due to the quality of its various versions of Windows, but to the 
fact that their business applications run primarily on Windows. 
These applications, including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, store 
their information in proprietary file formats. Companies and 
individuals cannot use alternative applications because they cannot 
read and write these formats. If the goal is to encourage 
competition on the desktop, forget about the APIs and require full 
public disclosure of all file formats used by all Microsoft products 
past, present, and future.
    The proposed remedy is going to cause far more harm than good. 
Please reconsider your actions.
    Regards,
    Patrick May



MTC-00003814

From: Yitzchak Gale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:59am
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement
    I am Software Project Manager and Chief Architect of Biomedicom, 
Inc., a company that develops software for medical devices. The 
following represents my own personal opinion and does represent 
Biomedicom in any way.
    I am hereby submitting comments to the Proposed Final Judgement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust litigation, in accordance with the 
Tunney Act.
    There are major flaws in the Proposed Final Judgement that 
prevent it from being a remedy to Microsoft`s abuse of its 
monopolistic power in the software industry.
    Sections III(J)2 and III(D) of the Judgement provide non-
Microsoft entities access to proprietary Microsoft information. This 
information is critically important for being able to produce 
software that is compatible with existing Microsoft technologies 
currently exclusively controlled by Microsoft. However, the only 
entities that the Judgement empowers to receive such information are 
exclusively `business' or `commercial' 
entities.
    By implicitly exluding open source software developed under the 
auspices of non-profit organizations, the Judgement is strengthening 
rather than weakening Microsoft`s ability to abuse its monopoly 
power. The vast number of businesses, govenment agencies, and 
academic research groups that currently depend on one or more open 
source software packages will be even more vulnerable than before to 
Microsoft monopoly abuse if the Judgement is accepted in its current 
formulation.
    The Judgement must be changed to allow non-profit, government, 
and academic entities to access the proprietary information and use 
it in open source software. A mechanism must be provided through 
which these entities can reveal just that amount of information 
required to be compatible with open source and free software 
licenses currently in widespread use, such as the Free Software 
Foundation`s `General Public License'. This critical 
topic was completely overlooked in the Judgement. In addition, the 
Judgement gives Microsoft the power to decide which entities meet 
the eligibility criteria for gaining access to this information. 
This makes it easy for Microsoft to interpret the language a way 
that excludes its most important competitors. The Judgement must be 
changed to define more clearly which entities are entitled to 
receive proprietary information from Microsoft so that the large 
majority of reasonable applicants will be able to receive immediate 
approval without dispute.
    Furthermore, the wording of the Judgement appears to put the 
burden of proof on the entity requesting the information to show 
that it is eligible. That will lead to delays in receiving 
information that will devoid the information of most of its value 
given the fast-changing nature of the software industry. Even if the 
entity is given currently up-to-date information at the end of a 
long appeal process, the information will be not be useful if the 
product that required it is no longer relevant.
    Many software packages in extensive use are based on open 
source, and are developed by geographically disperse teams of 
developers under the auspices of non-profit organizations. Although 
these applications themselves are not developed for profit, many are 
essential to the operation of business, academic, and government 
entities that develop software themselves or are dependent on 
software.
    Some examples are:
_The Apache web server, the most widely-used software for 
Internet web sites, with Microsoft`s Internet Information Server in 
second place.
_The Linux operating system, an alternative to Microsoft 
Windows with over 5 million users according to estimates.
_The GNU C/C++ compiler, the second most widely used creator 
of software in the C and C++ programming languages, second to 
Microsoft`s Visual C++.
_The Perl programming lanuage, a widely used language for 
developing web sites, together with Microsoft`s VBScript Sun`s Java.
_The Mozilla web browser, which is the basis for the current 
Netscape and AOL browsers.
    There are hundreds of other important examples. Taken together, 
this group of software packages represents the single most important 
alternative to monolithic Microsoft-dominated software. For many 
software products, including those specifically mentioned above 
except Perl, there is no other product strong enough to compete with 
Microsoft even given full benefit of the remedies mentioned in the 
Judgement.
    Therefore, by excluding from the remedies the only viable 
alternatives to Microsoft products, and by removing Microsoft`s fear 
of future anti-trust action, the Judgement as currently formulated 
enables Microsoft to abuse its monopoly position even more than ever 
before.
    My contact information is as follows:
    Yitzchak Gale
    2200 Kerwin Rd. #309
    University Heights, Ohio 44118



MTC-00003815

From: Pablo El Vagabundo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:20am
Subject: Settlement will not help consumers
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a EU citizen and am appalled at the settlement that MS has 
brokered. This is a worldwide issue. I have been forced to use MS 
software against my will. I want options, i have paid good money to 
microsoft, which i would not have paid if there had been options.
    MS has destroyed all options.
    To counter this the new measures put forward by the nine states 
who rejected the settlement seem like they would address some of my 
concerns about MS`s bad practices.
    Yours.
    P



MTC-00003816

From: Grahame Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    Microsoft is a monoply. Allowing Microsoft to destribute their 
OS for free to under privileged schools will only perpetuate the 
monopoly. Microsoft stiffle competition. They build their products 
in such a way that no other vendor can interoperate correctly with 
their protocols. Even open protocols are changed in such a way that 
there is difficulty to operate with their products. MSIE and IIS are 
made to work together. In some cases no other web browser can 
interoperate correctly with IIS. For example, Microsoft Front Page 
exploits the correctness of Netscape where Front Page fails to close 
table tags correctly but MSIE is built to handle this. These are 
subtle but effective marketing ploys designed by MS to render the 
competition helpless. There are many examples of tricks like these 
employed by Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a law unto itself. End User License Agreements, OEM 
Licenses are restrictive and less than competative. For example, an 
OEM company cannot distribute a Computer with dual boot operating 
systems on it. Microsoft do not own the computer but they dictate 
that the OEM cannot distribute another Operating System on a PC that 
they manufacture.
    The solution for this Anti-Trust case should be to regulate the 
EULA and the OEM

[[Page 24369]]

Licenses. Giving freedom back to the manufacturer and to the end 
user.
    Microsoft is a monopoly. Therefore they should not be allowed to 
advertise or do exclusive deals so that companies that use Microsoft 
exclusively offering big discounts. Their products should have one 
price for all.
    Microsoft is a monopoly.
    Regards
    Grahame Jordan
    TheForce



MTC-00003817

From: Virginia DeBolt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:35am
Subject: The Microsoft Case
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am concerned by what I am reading in the press about the 
decision in the Microsoft antitrust case. It appears that absolutely 
nothing is going to change in respect to the way Microsoft does 
business. It continues to be able to bundle web browsers and other 
application software into its operating system.
    Since the settlement applies only to products that were in use 
from 1995-98, it won`t stop Microsoft from repeating anti-
competitive practices with current and future products. The new 
Windows XP system is even more invasive and monopolistic than the 
products that were mentioned in the case. I urge you to enforce a 
decision in this case that will create a change in the situation and 
will force Microsoft to conduct business in a manner that allows 
free competition.
    Virginia DeBolt
    Pflugerville, Texas
    http://www.vdebolt.com
    New blog project: http://www.vdebolt.com/webteacher/



MTC-00003818

From: A. J. Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see Steve Satchell become one of the three-
member committee responsible for keeping watch over Microsoft.
    If Microsoft can control who has access to Windows` interface 
and API specifications, they can control what software can work with 
Windows. This limit extends to other computers that must network 
with the computer runnning Windows. Allowing sections III(J)(2) and 
III(D) would effectively allow Microsoft (who controls a majority of 
the desktop computers in the U.S.) to further limit their 
competition.
    Thank you,
    aj
    A. J. Wright 
    Systems Programmer/Analyst, UNIX Systems Group
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville 



MTC-00003819

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:40am
Subject: Renata B. Hesse
    Renata B. Hesse
    The primary mechanism that Microsoft has used to prevent users 
from being able to choose better products is their control over 
Application Data File Formats. The inablility of other software 
vendors to read MSWord generated files forces them to buy MSWord to 
read



MTC-00003820

From: Judah Diament
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I find the Microsoft settlement unsatisfactory on a number of 
counts.
    1) As long as Microsoft can bundle more applications with its 
operating system, it can easily kill competitors, as it did 
Netscape. There must be a ban on Microsoft bundling appliaction 
software with the operating system to insure a fair competitive 
environment
    2) It is wildly unrealistic to assume that the government will 
be able to monitor and regulate Microsoft`s behavior in a way that 
will not simply be a game of catch-up, with Microsoft always having 
enough time to hurt competitors before the governemtn steps in to 
stop it
    3) There is an excellent article from Robert Cringley (http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html) which shows how the 
current language of the settlement would allow Microsoft to kill 
Linux and open internet standards, which are it`s main competition 
today We can not allow one company to have a strangle hold on 
technology, since technology`s role in everyone`s life and in the 
government is only going to increase. With the release of the XBox 
and WindowsXP, Microsoft is moving beyond the dekstop and extending 
its control to the internet and hoem entertainment. If allowed to 
continue unchecked, Microsoft will have greater control over our 
lives than the federal government.
    Sincerely,
    Judah Diament



MTC-00003821

From: Sessoms, Mack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am appalled at this ruling. It appears that the DOJ has become 
as ethically bankrupt as many other institutions have become. This 
sends a message to future generations that it is okay to have zero 
integrity. As an American, I am ashamed to be grouped in with people 
like you.



MTC-00003822

From: John Talbot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata,
    The opinion that I relegate may not impact your decision since I 
am a Canadian citizen. The case for which you are deciding has far 
greater impact than just your borders, so as see it my thoughts on 
the matter are quite important.
    My background is very technical, working in firmware design for 
Nortel. For those not in the business this would be equivalent to 
the BIOS of PC`s. Extremely low level. I`d like to also point out 
that these are my opinions and not my employer and should not in any 
way be construed as such.
    I`ve been following the Microsoft antitrust case for some time. 
It is very clear to me that Microsoft was in fact guilty of 
monopolistic activities and was indeed found guilty in such matters. 
Since the early days of Windows trying to shut out Dr. DOS, these 
practices continue today. Detailed in the court trial are 
Microsoft`s attempts to shut out Netscape, but they hardly touch on 
Windows XP trying to shut out AOL`s instant messenger; proving that 
the court`s time has been nothing more than a rouse to stall for 
time so that Microsoft can further more extend it`s monopoly.
    My background dictates that there is a clear distinction between 
operating system and applications and is founded on decades of 
experience. The only viable solution to stop Microsoft from 
capitalizing on others ideas due to their dominance of the WinPC 
architecture and sure abundance of funds is to proceed with the 
original conclusions by breaking up the company into at least two 
parts, that of platform/OS and applications. No longer could 
Microsoft bundle their own spin of an application with their next 
generation of operating system to systematically wipe out a 
competitors product.
    Failure to do so now will make it more than impossible in the 
future as I believe that there can only be one David to slew such a 
goliath.
    John Talbot
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Try to buy a computer today. Think you can find one that`s not 
got Windows on it? Try telling Dell you don`t need an operating 
system on the computer, that you will install one of your choice. 
The salesman will have none of that. The only way to get the freedom 
of choosing my own OS is buying a much more expensive model. This is 
a form of economic discrimination, IMHO. And anyway, I already own a 
copy of Windows 98. Why should I be required to buy another copy 
when I already own a copy of Windows? I am being charged $200 for a 
OEM version of XP. I think this should be apart of the settlement as 
well. If I don`t want their OS or their custom software, I shouldn`t 
have to pay for it. The computer comes with other applications that 
I have no choice but to purchase. Most of these other applications 
are also MS products. Why do I have to pay for a copy of MS Office, 
when I would use Star Office?
    That`s like buying a TV and being told I am required to purchase 
a cable hookup, right on the spot with their pre-agreed upon cable 
provider. I have no choice, other than not buying the TV.

[[Page 24370]]

    James Becnel



MTC-00003824

From: Jeff Shelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement will do little to effect, in a positive manner, 
Microsoft`s behavior. While breakup of the company may not be the 
best solution, neither would it appear that a solution at the 
extreme opposite end of the spectrum provide the best remedy either. 
I would urge you to persue options that leave Microsoft largely 
intact but not unscathed. The ability for Microsoft to use it`s 
current embrace/extend/destroy strategy should be limited. I would 
suggest that Microsoft be required to fairly take part in the 
commonly accepted standards practices that are used by the computer 
industry. If Microsoft were not allowed to accept standards 
piecemeal there would be greater interoperablity in products which 
would allow users to pick and chose products that provide the best 
fit for their needs. As it is currently, Microsoft does not allow 
other products to compete on a level field, reducing consumer 
choice.
    Jeff Shelly
    TouchNet Information Systems
    15520 College Boulevard
    Lenexa, KS 66219
    [email protected]
    913-599-6699
    913-599-5588 (FAX)



MTC-00003825

From: Fridy, Joseph M.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have made my living writing software for the last 20 years. I 
would like to comment on the Microsoft settlement.
    The success or failure of the settlement will entirely rest on 
its success in opening access to Microsoft`s file formats and 
protocols. These formats and protocols, which due to Microsoft`s 
prominence have become ubiquitous, need to be accessible to anyone 
who wants to write to them. Not just Microsoft`s supposed market 
rivals, but also non-profits (e.g. apache.org, perl.com, samba.org 
and the FSF), and indeed every crazed coder that has a good idea. By 
its monopolistic position, Microsoft has established its file 
formats and protocols as infrastructure. Computer network 
infrastructure *must* present open interfaces, to allow people to 
write new capabilities that fit into old infrastructures. For the 
duration of the consent agreement, public specifications of the 
current, formats of .doc, .ppt, .xls .etc files should be regularly 
published, along with the complete details on the current version of 
SMB, and indeed what is planned for the next version of SMB, .doc 
files, etc.
    If this is done, I don`t care if a single line of Microsoft code 
is revealed. The needs of those who want to actually innovate (as 
opposed to those who want to control innovation for the sole purpose 
of increasing their profits) will have been served. If this is not 
done, then all will have been for naught. Microsoft will continue to 
leverage their position as a de facto supplier of infrastructure to 
distort the software economy in their favor.
    Thank you,
    Joseph M. Fridy
    137 School Road
    Pittsburgh, PA 15239
    CC:Zidian John L.,Lippert Kenneth B.,Vemuri K. Rao,Ha...



MTC-00003826

From: jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a consumer and have been harmed directly by Microsoft`s 
illegal business practices. My hope that Microsoft will be prevented 
from continuing to flaunt the laws of this nation has been severely 
diminished due to the recent shift in the position of the Department 
of Justice, as seen in the proposed settlement. Some facts seem to 
have eluded the present U. S. vs. Microsoft representatives for the 
Department of Justice. First, Microsoft has been found to be a 
monopoly, both by the original judge, and unanimously by the 
appellate court. Second, Microsoft has been found to have illegally 
manipulated its monopoly position through anticompetitive business 
practices. In short, the DOJ case was successful, and in simple 
language, Microsoft lost. The proposed settlement seems to set aside 
these basic facts by handing Microsoft not a punitive outcome, but a 
`warning ticket'.
    Some of us among the U. S. citizenry expect those who break the 
law and defy the authority of the judicial system to be punished. We 
expect the Department of Justice to live up to its title, and those 
who sit in judgement to fulfill the charge to treat violators of the 
public trust, as defined by legislation duly enacted and upheld by 
the courts, as such.
    Letting Microsoft off with little more than a token judgement, 
with no other anticipated penalties than the mere extension of the 
warning for an additional two years makes a mockery of the effort 
and expense of the prosecution, to say nothing of respect for the 
rule of law.
    Microsoft has blatently defied the prior consent decree, and 
will do so again. Microsoft has willfully submitted false evidence, 
changed its story to suit itself, and obfuscated common sense, not 
only in marketing slogans, but under oath during judicial 
proceedings.
    The only way to compel Microsoft to cease taking illegal 
advantage of its monopoly position is to end the monopoly. Microsoft 
is not above the law. This nation is not founded on special 
treatment and double standards. The buck stops at the judicial 
level, for that is the only branch of government that can be 
considered remotely immune from the influence of political 
machinations. It seems that the only possibility of changing the 
direction of this case is in your hands. Consider the law, consider 
the precedents and findings, but most of all consider the nature of 
the monopolist, and its unrepenting tendency to disregard all 
ethical responsibilities. Finally, consider what measures will be 
neccesary for successful enforcement.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Gerald E. Spicklemire
    1402 Wolf Circle
    Indianap[olis IN 46229
    (317) 894-8840
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003827

From: John H. Spicer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is not sufficient for it 
fails to take meaningful action to eliminate Microsoft`s monopoly in 
operating systems and application software.
    Microsoft uses its dominance in applications to retain its 
monopoly in operating systems. A competing operating system must 
overcome the limitation that programs like Microsoft Office are not 
available. Either Microsoft should be required to make their 
software available on other operating systems, or they should be 
required to license the software to vendors that will make it 
available on other operating systems.
    Until there is competition in both operating systems and 
applications, Microsoft should be considered a monopoly and should 
be excluded from entering new markets (e.g., they should not be able 
to produce products like the X-box) just as AT&T was prohibited 
from entering other markets until they divested parts of their 
business.



MTC-00003828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Hello,
    I`ve read this Robert X. Cringely`s article on the Microsoft 
case: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html And 
agree with his views. Just wanted to add my support.
    Sincerely,
    Nat Wharton
    New York City



MTC-00003829

From: Jason Mott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I want to express my discontent with the currently proposed 
solution to Microsoft`s conviction.
    If one company owns an entire industry, that industry can`t help 
but suffer at the hands of restricted growth. The independent spirit 
of the individual would-be entrepreneur is what plants the seed of

[[Page 24371]]

innovation_not a huge company that wants to control 
everything. Microsoft is a convicted monopolists, my industry will 
suffer if they are not stopped. Since the conviction is final, the 
punishment must stop them in their tracks, or our industry will 
never allow an aspiring inventor to make a difference unless 
Microsoft owns that difference.
    Please open up the door for all Americans to compete in this 
industry, or we`ll take our ideas to other countries_and they 
might be able to produce more innovative products than America 
because their people are free to do so without Microsoft`s 
permission.
    Fair competition is the American way. Microsoft does not respect 
fair competition. Things will get much worse if they are not stopped 
by an outside force.
    One quick anecdote. Watch the movie Tucker. It`s about a guy who 
wanted start his own Auto company, and what some very powerfull Auto 
companies did to stop him. Even *he* ended up in court on trumped up 
charges. In his closing argument he makes a claim that if the big 
car companies are allowed to do this, we`ll all be buying Japanease 
cars someday. Everyone laughed, as this was during the World War II 
era. Nobody is laughing now, and many of us are buying Japanease 
cars (including myself).
    Give America a chance to stay competitive in the Tech industry.
    For my final word, I`d like to express my complete agreement 
with Robert X. Cringely`s article on the subject: http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    J. Jason Mott, Applications Developer



MTC-00003830

From: Jena Benecke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to express my views regarding the Microsoft 
settlement case. I read an article about this case at http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html where Microsoft`s 
remedies were commented in detail. My opinion is that if Microsoft 
were allowed to carry on business under these obligations, it would 
receive a perfect opportunity to kill of, or rather slowly strangle, 
its single most important competitor. I think this competitor is 
vital to the continuity of the Internet and IT industry, and I would 
like you to reconsider the obligations for Microsoft to continue 
business.
    This might be a little lengthy, but I have taken a lot of time 
writing this (over 2 hours) and I would appreciate if you read it 
entirely.
    Thank you in advance!
    The settlement imposes some actions on Microsoft that it needs 
to disclose APIs, programming information and source code to 
competing *companies*_ but it leaves the definition of what a 
company *is* to Microsoft itself.
    With this requirement, Microsoft can effectively refuse 
information about their systems (perhaps even what is now published 
to everybody) to all entities that are NOT a company, e.g. projects 
that are driven by hobbyists and only supported and distributed 
(partly) by companies.
    I am talking primarily about Open Source software projects. This 
settlement endangers Open Source software. And most people, frankly, 
have no idea how dependant they are on it_which is a good 
thing.
    1) Why is Open Source software important?
    Ordinarily, in the business world Microsoft would use standard 
commercial tactics to kill or crush a promising (read: dangerous) 
upstart company. They would sue over some non-issue and make them go 
bankrupt over the court costs, just buy them out or simply change 
their products so they become incompatible with the rest of the 
world (again).
    Open Source software, of which projects like Apache, Samba, and 
Linux are the most prominent examples, forces Microsoft to play fair 
in order to participate. You cannot sue a project whose 10,000s of 
developers are spread throughout the globe, connected only by e-
mail. You cannot buy out a company because these people don`t work 
for a company, they do it in their free time. You cannot just take 
away their source code and use it yourself because the only licence 
that allows distribution also FORCES you to publish all your 
changes, and allow all your customers the same license.
    (Microsoft tried, though: In 1998, they silently offered Linus 
Torvalds $1,000,000 if he were to work for Microsoft (and 
discontinue/hand over Linux). Linus replied he didn`t even own 1% of 
the source code, and to take over Linux Microsoft would have to 
create seperate contracts with some 500,000 developers around the 
globe, each of which contributed some piece of code to the Linux 
operating system.)
    Microsoft`s licenses are based on _taking_ 
_away_ rights: you are not even allowed to install a 
copy of Windows on a new computer when you discard your old one. 
Licenses like the GPL are based on _freedom_: You can 
do everything you want with the software (which you couldn`t do 
under normal copyright), as long as you credit everyone whose work 
you are basing yours on, and publish your additions or improvements 
at least as freely as the original was.
    CONCLUSION: Open Source software makes companies watch their 
honesty. If they are honest, and contribute to the people, they can 
share the giant mind pool that is Open Source, and gain a huge 
advantage. Open Source makes it hard for businesses to earn money by 
screwing their customers. This is very important.
    2) What does this mean for the Internet?
    Open Source, or rather its predecessors, basically created the 
culture around the Internet as we know it today: UNIX was (and still 
is) not only an operating system, it is an intellectual culture, 
where research thrives and which at the same time holds the internet 
together. It is no wonder that OSS projects like Apache, BIND, 
Sendmail and so on basically `own' the 
Internet_Microsoft`s products, like IIS, Windows 2000 etc. 
(now called `petri dish software' by some IT experts 
because of the number of recent virus attacks, security holes and 
weaknesses) have never managed to get a real hold onto the Internet, 
simply because they lack the culture, not to mention they are 
technically inferior.
    Open Source keeps the Internet the place it was: an open 
environment, inviting everybody to participate, and allowing 
everybody to integrate their services (whether professional, 
commercial, or hobby) into the `net.
    The alternative is what Microsoft is trying to push: a closed, 
commercial environment, where Microsoft`s services decide whether 
you get access to ANYTHING [see Hotmail, Passport, etc], where 
Microsoft`s products kill compatbility, extending open standards 
with proprietary extensions [Kerberos, HTTP,...] so that 
competitors` products fail, and where in order to be 
`compatible' you have to use those standards that 
Microsoft forces into the market_no matter if they are an 
improvement or more like a `Verschlimmbesserung'.
    I think the Internet is far too valuable a resource to be 
restricted and perhaps destroyed by commerce, and_who 
knows_maybe the next generation`s Einstein is right now 
setting up his first Geocities home page? Isn`t the heap of crap 
that you CAN find on the `net nowadays WORTH the occasional super 
genius project?
    CONCLUSION: Open Source software provides an environment where 
EVERYBODY can partitipate, not just those with a big purse, or the 
right business connections.
    3) Open Source _drastically_ lowers the cost of 
entry for new companies This has been elaborated in an article on 
the Web, I`ve commented it a little and emphasized the important 
points (note for the article: wording is the original authors, 
emphasis is mine). Please have a look at http://
slash.jensbenecke.de/article.php3?story_id=45 for more 
information. Cost reduction is also very important, for just about 
every industry.
    I sincerely hope that Microsoft will continue to be allowed to 
do fair and only fair business and create quality products without 
artificial restraints, but I expect the government to actively 
regulate MS`s influence on the rest of the world. This might be a 
little sarcastic, but if Microsoft is allowed to continue to extend 
their strangle hold on the industry like it did in the past, we 
might be much nearer a scenario like this http://www.jensbenecke.de/
ms/ms-guidance-software.jpg or this http://www.jensbenecke.de/ms/ms-
wd2k.png than we think.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Jens Benecke
    Leiter Technik/Administration
    hitchhikers.de
    http://www.hitchhikers.de_Europas Mitfahrzentrale



MTC-00003831

From: Unixservice Support
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Please don`t let Microsoft destroy their only real competitor: 
LINUX and open source software.

[[Page 24372]]

    Make sure that Apache, Sendmail, Perl, Linux and GNU are all 
recognized as `businesses.'
    Please support the rights of U.S. citizens to innovate.
    Thank you,
    Gary Wallis
    Unixservice Support Staff



MTC-00003832

From: Hihn Jason
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    After reviewing documents on this matter, I am concerned about 
the lack of impact the settlement would have on non-commercial 
software.
    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,...'
    Should be modified by replacing `business' with 
`organization.' Furthermore it is unconscionable that 
Microsoft be able to pick it`s competition.
    Microsoft`s biggest competitors are now `open-
source' projects. Linux competes with them more than any other 
OS and is next to windows in volume growth. Apache still runs \1/2\ 
the internet and IIS runs the other half.
    OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice compete with Microsoft Office 
and all three are open-source (But StarOffice is run by Sun.) 
Allowing Microsoft to exclude its biggest competitor, the open-
source movement, makes this antitrust arrangement completely 
worthless.
    Personally, I think Microsoft should be barred from creating 
software and the operating system for that software. I think 
Microsoft should be made to use BSD or Linux. If Microsoft really is 
behind standards & compliance, then one of these two would be a 
great choice. It would enable Microsoft to ship applications for 
many more machines than they currently support (x86 
architecture only.) By using one of these two (but taking note that 
Linux works on many kinds of CPU architectures (ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, 
x86, H8, SPARC, etc)) they would be able to have a much larger 
market, but they also would be stripped of any kind of OS/
Application integration (aka. `monopoly') practices. It 
is also my understanding that Microsoft makes very little money on 
the OS (or at least up until this year when they re-structured their 
licensing.) I think this arrangement would be a win for all.
    Please change the aforementioned section so that Microsoft 
cannot discriminate against it`s biggest competition 
ever_open-source.



MTC-00003833

From: hubner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:29am
Subject: Spreading a criminalistic companies software is wrong.
    Dear Sirs,
    Please do not allow a company we are supposed to stop from being 
a Monopoly from spreading its Monopolistic Software as Punishment.
    THAT IS LUDICROUS> THAT IS CRAZY This company is thumbing its 
nose at our Justice System. You are empowered to STOP this from 
happening.
    Bill Hubner
    Linux User
    Office Manager



MTC-00003834

From: Jeff Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not sufficiently punish 
the company for their guilt. There is little or no incremental cost 
for a software company to give away their own software, especially 
when that software is given into a market in which their monopoly is 
the weakest.
    The settlement should not involve ANY free products.



MTC-00003835

From: Joe Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would just like to make a public comment regarding the 
settlement currently being considered in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case.
    Specifically, I have strong sentiment against some language of 
the settlement regarding the latitude with which Microsoft will be 
able to interact with business partners. Section III(J)(2) contains 
some very strong language against not-for-profits. The language of 
the this section says that it [Microsoft] need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    Knowing how Microsoft has taken advantage of legalese in the 
past, I have no doubt that Microsoft could use this part of the 
settlement to treat Open Source software groups as veritable non-
entities, locking them out of interacting with Microsoft`s desktop 
monopoly. This would include groups which provide very prevalent 
software such as the Apache web server, the Perl programming 
language, and the Sendmail mail application. These items provide the 
backbone of the Internet as we know it, and also provide a very 
real, usable alternative to Microsoft`s monopoly.
    I strongly urge that the settlement not be allowed to pass in 
its current state. Vague language will allow Microsoft to morph the 
settlement into a tool for their own devices as they have done with 
past settlements. Let us not forget that Microsoft is guilty of 
misusing its monopoly power. Passing a settlement that might 
actually serve to further Microsoft`s monopolistic behavior does not 
make very much sense.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph L. Kaufman
    [email protected]



MTC-00003836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:40am
Subject: Sir/Madam,
    Sir/Madam,
    It is a sad day when the money grubbing software giant Microsoft 
can tell the world on television how the government is mistreating 
them! Here we are, the Americal public, forced to pay for Microsofts 
operating system with every PC purchased from any respectable 
vendor. This is even if we use opensource products like Linux, and 
discard the Microsoft products.
    I am sure that Microsoft is happy with the settlement, because 
it does not punish them at all. The just punishment would to remove 
the monopoly, which can only be done by spliting up the company as 
originally proposed.
    Microsoft ensures it`s monopoly by not porting it popular 
applications, like Word, Excel, and other office products to any 
operating system other than Microsoft Windows. Businesses understand 
this, and therfore can not change operating systems to Linux, 
Solaris, or the like for the simple fact that their data would be 
useless to them. Forcing the Microsofts applications to run on 
operating systems like Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, and others would 
remove the dependancy Microsoft has forced on all consumers.
    I sincerely hope that the US Department of Justice will not bend 
to Microsoft`s slanderous advertisements. I sincerely pray that the 
US Department of Justice will break the giant into respective pieces 
and free the Personal Computers of America from the Monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Shannon Petry
    Systems Engineer



MTC-00003837

From: Christopher Durfy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_UNFAIR!
    Hello,
    I am contacting you to express my outrage if the terms of the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    By exclusively placing their software in our schools, we are 
teaching them MICROSOFT.
    I find the decision to be more of a long term marketing scheme 
in FAVOR of Microsoft.
    This `settlement' actually will strengthen their 
monopolistic position. Please rethink this settlement out. Do the 
right thing!
    C. Durfy
    Cincinnati, OH



MTC-00003838

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    A stronger settlement is necessary to break the backs of those 
greedy bastards.

[[Page 24373]]



MTC-00003839

From: John Hermes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Comments Reviewer,
    As a software professional responsible for the IT infrastructure 
for a small company and several external clients, I can say that I 
was truly stunned by the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I want to 
relate my deep concerns, and how I have been affected by Microsoft`s 
behavior over the last decade.
    I have personally experienced the effects of unreasonable 
burdens caused by Microsoft`s policies to not just compete, but 
instead remove competitors from the marketplace by any means 
necessary.
    For several years as a former user of OS/2, I witnessed how IBM, 
a legal licensee of the Windows OS, repeatedly accomodated 
Microsoft`s changes to their APIs, only to have new 
incompatibilities introduced through new features including Win32s 
and FAT32. Wherever Microsoft had options when designing a new 
feature, I watched them choose whatever method that most negatively 
impacted compatibility with rivals. It was so obvious to those of us 
who develop software for a living. You see, I counted on OS/2 for 
the ability to develop Windows software in one session, while 
testing in another. This enhanced my productivity then, because a 
crashed program on a Windows box required a complete reboot (and 
lost time and data), but under OS/2, the separate development 
environment (running Windows tools and compilers) remained stable 
and available.
    Now the company I work for depends on Open Source operating 
systems for serving our needs. Certainly, we have Windows clients, 
but up to now the Open Source projects have been able to remain 
wire- compatible, even as Microsoft tries to corrupt standard 
protocols like Kerberos and SMB/CIFS.
    The language of the proposed settlement disturbs me, because 
Microsoft has introduced language which completely discounts 
`non- business' entities which perfectly describe Open 
Source projects and operating systems. Open Source has grown so 
rapidly in part as a response to Microsoft`s offerings, in order to 
provide an alternative to their products. These alternatives are 
sorely needed, as highlighted by the high costs and constant 
security problems in Windows software. I fear this settlement 
language is deliberate, and will be used to undermine or destroy 
volunteer efforts to provide needed computer solutions where 
commercial alternatives are not sufficient or do not exist.
    Going forward, Microsoft is applying their dominance to the 
Internet through their new .NET initiative. If they are successful 
in chaining free and open network protocols to their propriatary 
platform, those of us most interested in interoperability and open 
standards will suffer most. Please reconsider the settlement and 
remove language hostile to non-business entities. Microsoft is a 
monoloply. Please don`t allow them to continue to act like one.
    Very truly yours,
    John S. Hermes
    Principal Systems Engineer
    Infoglobe, Inc
    1 Edmund St
    Dayton, OH 45404
    John Hermes
    Systems Engineer
    Infoglobe, Inc



MTC-00003840

From: Scott Slack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Here is my proposal for a settlment in this case:
    Cause all source-code for Microsoft Windows consumer operating 
systems (including desktop, handheld, and tablet), and Microsoft 
Office Professional to enter the public domain after 3.5 years.
    This would not diminish the `freedom to innovate', 
but would rather encourage innovation. Microsoft would then be 
required to compete with itself.
    I am against any settment that is proposed by Microsoft. They 
are smart, and would find ways to continue to leverage their illegal 
monopoly power, inspite of the proposed settlement. In addition, 
what were the penalties of breaking the previous consent decree? Has 
there been any restitution for those injured by Microsoft`s illegal 
behavior? By the way, a large fine is nothing to the worlds most 
powerful software company. Us users end up paying for it, anyway, 
because...they have a monopoly on desk-top operating systems. And 
giving away software is equally absurd, because it can be produced 
at virtually no cost to Microsoft, and it only destroys the market 
for legitimate legal commercial and non-commercial concerns.
    _Scott



MTC-00003841

From: Tim Bithoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I do not like the proposed settlement at all, it gives NO rights 
to the Open Source community who in fact wrote most of the software 
that makes up the internet today! Without Open Source we would have 
never had a web server, a mail server a web browser or CGI!!!
    Microsoft has used there tactics long enough to squeeze out the 
competition... Its a far inferior product but because it got some 
early footholds in the industry and made sure to keep them by 
playing dirty and stealing others ideas left and right (read Apple`s 
ideas).
    Give them a real punishment. MONEY. Make them fork over 
$3billion for education and spend it on Macintosh computers. Or 
maybe some Linux systems, so a young child can see what makes up his 
OS, and learn about it, extend it and become part of it, while 
building a SMARTER America!!! And make sure they can no longer do 
things like require an OEM to not sell a system with any other OS 
except Windows if they sell Windows too. Yeah MS does this!!! 
Including Internet Explorer is the LEAST of our worries. Also they 
should be FORCED to publish information on how there protocols work. 
Especially since they base them on Open Standards and give no credit 
or monetary support to the community that maintains and generates 
those standards.
    Tim Bithoney



MTC-00003842

From: Richard Mallamo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:54am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear DOJ:
    As a Microsoft customer for over 15 years, and as a member of 
that constituency little mentioned in discussions of the Microsoft 
Settlement_ the computer-using public_let me state in no 
uncertain terms that the proposed settlement is not a punishment, 
it`s a REWARD!
    I will not take up your time with a lengthy discussion of all 
the points against this settlement (which seems to have been written 
by Microsoft`s lawyers) as I`m sure you will be inundated with 
detailed analyses by some very learned people. Suffice to say that 
this so-called remedy does nothing to insure that I, the customer, 
will over the coming years be able to purchase good, reasonably 
priced (or even free) alternatives to Microsoft products_or 
even better Microsoft products. Rather, I will be subject to more 
insults like the new license activation scheme, with its potential 
theft of my purchase by Microsoft (as you are doubtless starting to 
learn).
    In its details, the settlement only enhances Microsoft`s 
monopoly. Microsoft is a criminal entity. Indeed, they are a 
recidivist criminal entity. Criminals are supposed to be punished 
... or at least rehabilitated.
    Instead, your remedy punished the Linux community, Sun, Apple, 
and just about every other competitor, while offering numerous 
opportunities for Microsoft to consolidate even more monopoly power. 
This is insanity and an insult to the rule of law.
    I urge you to do the right thing for the citizens of the United 
States and re-consider your course of action. Thank you.
    Yours,
    Richard P. Mallamo



MTC-00003843

From: Mike Odegard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have 2 major concerns with the Microsoft Settlement:
    1. Software API`s should be open to everyone, not just 
Businesses Microsoft selects. This would allow anyone who needed to 
communicate to Microsoft software the ability to do so, including 
government agencies, Businesses that are primarily End Users, and 
non-profit organizations, who are writing applications to meet their 
own needs or others that use the applications created. If Microsoft 
can choose to share this critical API interface information to only 
those selected, that still gives them Monopoly Power.
    2. 3-member committee members: These 3 people that are selected 
should be people with many years experience in the Technology 
industry, with experience in a

[[Page 24374]]

wide-variety of areas, not just those supported by Microsoft 
products. They should also be people who will be tough and fair in 
enforcing the Settlement agreement, when finalized and approved. One 
possible candidate is Steve Satchell, who`s been in the Technology 
industry for more than 30 years.



MTC-00003844

From: Frank Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am not an American citizen. I hail from Canada. You may feel 
that I would have no input on such an American struggle as what is 
gripping the American computing world. You would be mistaken. The 
Final Judgment against Microsoft would have as large an impact to us 
in Canada as to you in the US. Many of our computer firms stand on 
the brink of disaster here in Canada, as many more do in the US. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of anti-trust and must be made to 
work fairly. Please find it in your hearts to believe in the coming 
truths of our new age; if you do not see fit to reduce Microsoft`s 
threat against our livelihoods by placing its operating systems in 
trustworthy hands, then please reduce the damage it does by forcing 
it to use open standards. No one can win when only one person 
defines what it means to work America, just as no one won when Adolf 
Hitler defined what it meant to work Germany.
    Frank Meyer
    CS-01 AAFC
    [email protected]



MTC-00003845

From: Donovan Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have major problems with the settlement, as designed:
    _It does not address the core issue: that Microsoft is a 
monopoly in the PC Operating System (OS) environment, and is 
illegally extending that monopoly by integrating applications into 
the operating system. This MUST BE prevented AT ALL COSTS. For 
example, Microsoft is currently shipping Windows Media Player as a 
built-in, embedded application installed as part of the Operating 
System installation of Windows XP. It is separable from the OS, 
clearly, because it can be downloaded for other Operating Systems; 
for example, you can download Windows Media Player for Macintosh, 
Windows 2000, and Windows ME. This is clear evidence that the 
application is not a core part of an operating system. By embedding 
this application into the OS, they are attempting to extend their 
monopoly on the OS into the streaming media server business. The 
player is free (as are all competing players; Real.COM and Apple 
both make competing players, but none of them can read the other`s 
formatted files), and so the streaming media player market is not in 
danger. By embedding the application into the OS, however, Microsoft 
is creating demand for its Server application which does not now 
exist. The Streaming Server software is_not_free, and 
neither is any competing server software. In the process of 
embedding the player, Microsoft will artificially create demand for 
the Server, in an arena that they do not currently have a monopoly 
in, and in the process of creating demand for the server, will 
muscle out the current market leader, Real. Windows Media Player is 
just the current example of this activity. Next, Microsoft will 
embed desktop video applications into the OS, in an arena where 
competing products are not free. Some of the competing desktop video 
applications are not even available for Windows (Apple`s iMovie and 
iDVD applications, for example), and embedding these applications 
into the OS will serve to increase Microsoft`s already monopolistic 
hold on the OS market by decreasing demand for competing operating 
systems.
    _It does not punish Microsoft for its transgressions in a 
way that Microsoft will understand. Microsoft has proven, time and 
time again, that they are incapable of listening to reason, of 
facing up to their own failings, and of understanding when they have 
done wrong. Much like a recalcitrant child, sometimes the only 
viable option is to spank them. What this settlement proposes to do 
is put Microsoft into a `timeout' almost exactly like 
the `timeout' they received in 1995. Didn`t they violate 
that consent decree? Isn`t that why we`re here? It is blatantly 
obvious that `timeout' doesn`t work with Microsoft. The 
Department of Justice needs to reconsider this approach, and 
seriously evaluate the spanking method of punishment and lesson-
teaching.
    _It fails to send a clear message to future monopolies: if 
you illegally extend your monopoly power by requiring bundled sales, 
or by bundling your own products in markets where you do not hold 
monopoly power in order to increase your market share in those 
markets, you will be punished ... or, not. You might be able to get 
away with it, or maybe you`ll get punished severely. Let`s remember 
why monopolies are bad, in general: companies with monopoly power in 
a marketplace can create barriers to entry, can artificially inflate 
or deflate market pricing on a whim, and can eradicate whole 
companies in markets based solely on their monopoly position. 
Monopolies can be healthy for a time, as they can create some 
stability in a marketplace. What it is_never_permissible 
for a company with a market monopoly to do is to leverage that 
monopoly power to create marketshare in another market, especially 
when creating marketshare results in another market monopoly for 
said company, as it has or is coming close to having done in the 
Internet Browser space in the immediate case.
    For these reasons, the Department of Justice needs to reevaluate 
why it offered this emasculated remedy, reconsider much more 
stringent penalties, and offer those more stringent penalties to the 
court.



MTC-00003846

From: baritone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Verdict
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to take a moment of your time to voice my extreme 
displeasoure over the proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The proposed solution can only help to expand 
Microsoft`s stranglehold on the market while not solving the 
original concern over the monopolistic developement practices. Let 
me explain. First, Microsoft donating software to poor schools is 
indeed generous, however this is a marketing technique used by Apple 
for many years. Apple would sell software to schools and educators 
at a highly reduced cost with the intent to increase market share. 
The idea employed exposes children to the software in hopes that 
they will pur chase it for home. That ids the point where this 
stratagy increases both market share and profitability. Second, 
while this is very generous of Microsoft it does not provide any 
provisions for hindering the practice of elimination of competition 
originally addressed in the suit. Nowhere does it state that 
Microsoft must make their operating system more open to other 
software producersor separate the operating system manufacture from 
the applications manufacture. One must ask themselves whether this 
`settlement' punishes or benefits Microsoft. No changes 
or judgements are passed that change the nature of the original 
issue. Concurrently Microsoft will gain access to a market, namely 
the education market, that they have never been able to fully 
access. This would seem to advance the stranglehold and monopolistic 
tendencies while risking other companies namely Apple computing.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Roughgarden



MTC-00003847

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:29am
Subject: are you kidding me?
    By allowing Microsoft to extend their monopoly even further by 
training the children in schools (government subsidized training!) 
to use Microsoft software is wrong! Their should be another 
operating system or at the least non-Microsoft applications on the 
machines placed in schools, if indeed that route is to be taken. The 
courts have decided that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly and some 
measure of `real` punitive damage should be administered 
against the company. A breakup may be too harsh but to allow them to 
benefit from their wrong doing is doing us, the American People, a 
great disservice and a horrible injustice. A hope you will do your 
job and represent us the people instead of them the special 
interest.
    William Parker
    United States Citizen



MTC-00003848

From: Batchellor, Gary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional I have watched with keen interest the 
proceedings against Microsoft. And in the end I am disappointed that 
from everything I have seen the remedies proposed fall far short of 
punishing Microsoft or even offering a remedy. As far as I can tell 
the remedy lightly slaps Microsoft on the wrist and in certain 
instances reinforces their

[[Page 24375]]

ability to shut others out of the market. Specifically Microsoft can 
ignore any of the non-profit or share ware or free ware or open 
source vendors and their industry. Linux can become a viable 
alternative to Microsoft but under the proposed settlement Microsoft 
can strengthen their grip on the pc market. Please look very 
strongly at the remedies being proposed in the light of how 
Microsoft will deal with others in all industries. This is but one 
example out of many I see. There needs to be a lot more remedy for 
the industry in the settlement, all industries.
    Gary L. Batchellor
    Pulse Systems
    316 636 5900



MTC-00003849

From: Lew Perin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement 
extends no rights over documentation, APIs and communication 
protocols to nonprofit competitors of Microsoft.
    This is a serious flaw and it affects the software development 
work I do for my employer, Cornell Medical College. We depend on, 
among other nonprofit software packages, the Apache web server, 
which is maintained and developed by the nonprofit Apache Foundation 
and which Microsoft is trying to conquer with its IIS product. If 
the Apache foundation is unable to have accurate knowledge of how to 
interoperate with Microsoft software the Apache web server will 
become useless to my employer.
    I mention Apache only as a particularly clear example; there are 
others I could cite. The point here is that ignoring the nonprofit 
competitors of Microsoft puts the ultimate users of software at a 
disadvantage. Surely you understand that it is the consumers who are 
the main party antitrust law is designed to protect.
    Yours,
    Lew Perin



MTC-00003850

From: Chris Zubrzycki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement, in my opinion as a consumer 
and voting american, stinks. I use many platforms, being a student 
at Drexel University, and Windows is the worst. It is buggy, slow, 
and near impossible to keep from crashing. The only way Microsoft is 
able to make products such as this is because the public sees them 
as the only option because it runs on Intel hardware. In their 
settlement Microsoft is saying `Ok, Ok, we were bad. Just give 
us access to schools where we can install our software and brainwash 
the school children with our products. We normally charge $850 
million for it, even though it costs us $1 million actually, but it 
is worth $850 million, really..it is....'
    Ok. do you use windows? how often does your computer crash? 
twice a day? Guess what? Mine do not. At all. I run Mac OS X and 
linux. Please don`t let Microsoft get away with this.
    Chris Zubrzycki



MTC-00003851

From: Lois Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft
    Make MS use the custom install on their 
software_especially the OS. I don`t need IE, Outlook, etc as I 
am not using MS software. I don`t mind paying for the parts that are 
included, but I damn sure don`t want to install what I don`t need. I 
really resent having MS trying to get me to use my computer their 
way! (I run Adobe, Corel and Opera)_All those programs let me 
custom install.
    Weezyrider



MTC-00003852

From: first last
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m not at all satisfied with the Microsoft settlement. It is so 
terrible that it makes me feel that my government is corrupt.
    The idea of allowing them to send their software to schools as 
`punishment' is a joke. Everybody knows that will only 
help them with their market penetration.
    Furter, it does nothing to prevent them from continuing to use 
their OS monopoly to gain success in other markets.
    I voted for Bush. I will not do it again if this goes through.



MTC-00003853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    To whom it may concern
    The deal that has been brokered FOR Microsoft expands its 
monopoly now into the schools. This does not put competition back 
into the marketplace but does add more money to the already over 
flowing coffers of Microsoft.
    I agree with the deal being proposed where Microsoft should have 
to open it`s source code to companies it has hindered. It should be 
force to develope their windows products to run on ALL platforms. It 
should be forced not repay the consumers for gouging with the 
outrageous prices it had demanded for it software. It should be 
forced to provide a stripped down version for XP. It should be band 
from supplying IE for 3 years from all XP desktops.
    Put competition back into the OS market and allow people think 
for themselve and make decisions to buy what they wnat not what 
Microsoft think everyone wants. The general public doesn`t even know 
what alternatives are available because there is NO COMPITION with 
Microsoft.
    Presently you can purchase a PC on the open market with anything 
but XP loaded on it. I want to see Linux systems available to an 
open market. I don`t want to have to purchase a PC to format the 
drive and re-install Linus on it. I am being force fed a product I 
neither want nor that I like.
    Maggie Coffey



MTC-00003854

From: Fred A. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:33am
Subject: MickySoft settlement.
    You people have `blown it!' The people want to know 
EXACTLY why you have backed away from a conviction, reaffirmed by a 
higher court, not to mention public opinion!! What you have done 
makes President Bush look BAD, the Administration look BAD, and the 
DOJ looks very bad!! Now you`re in a position where the industry has 
to take measures of it`s own to FORCE proper compensation and SEVERE 
restrictions on Microsoft via the courts and an investigation on 
`the Hill.'
    Fred A. Miller
    Systems Administrator
    Cornell Univ. Press Services
    [email protected]



MTC-00003855

From: Deniz Franck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:37am
Subject: Say no to microsoft_let them pay for the hardware!!!
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am not one to speak up publicly, but this is the time to be 
heard. I have been a software professional working in this business 
for over 13 years (here are my qualifications:
    http://www.geeksources.com/deniz_franck). I can say that 
I am not a pro-Microsoft, however, I do have an appreciation for 
their business savvy. Their technical savvy leaves a lot to be 
desired, but that is not what is important in the business world, as 
we all know, from numerous business studies and cases.
    In any event, what Microsoft is proposing is a brilliant 
business maneuver. In no means will it help to settle the case, in 
fact, it will assist them with pushing Apple out of the education 
market. A wolf in sheeps clothing is the best description I can 
think of. Please, do not let them do this. My daughter is in 
elementary school, and most of the computers in her school are Apple 
computers. I am not one who programs regularly on a Apple computers, 
but the children enjoy working on them. The most interesting note is 
that my daughter is unaware of the differences between the Apple at 
school, and the mixture of MSWindows98 and Redhat Linux running at 
home. So here is my point: let Apple, Redhat, (or any linux/unix 
vendor), provide the operating systems and tools for free for the 
schools. This is advantageous in 2 respects:
    1. Many more PC`s can be provided to schools
    2. If a child wants to pursue programming as a career, having 
exposure to many operating systems (especially unix/apple), can lead 
to them making more $$ in their careers. Exposure to just MS will 
lead to a future of only MS programmers, which would be unfortunate, 
and would pigeon-hole many of them to a smaller segment of jobs 
available.
    Let Microsoft provide the funds for the hardware, but not the 
software. This is the one area in which they have attempted to stay 
out of, in terms of competition. Since the

[[Page 24376]]

lawsuit is directly associated with their ill practices in 
competition, let them `sit this one out'. Make them pay 
for the hardware, not the software, and let the rest of the industry 
have the chance to donate the software for free. I am willing to bet 
there will be a stampede of those willing to help. True justice will 
have been served.
    Deniz Franck



MTC-00003856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    Open-source organizations should be granted the same protections 
that commercial organizations are granted in the settlement. Open-
source software provides great benefits to the software industry. It 
is a sensible alternative to the never-ending upgrade 
`treadmill' that many software companies force upon 
their customers. Apache, the web server software used by twice as 
many web-sites as Microsoft IIS, is open-source software.
    Even though Apache is twice as common on the internet, it 
doesn`t have anywhere close to the number of security problems that 
IIS has. Problems such as the Nimbda, and similar worms. Apache is 
simply better!
    Microsoft perceives this as a threat. Current language 
specifying that only commercial concerns are eligible for API 
information will no doubt be used by Microsoft to shut out open-
source developers from the vital API information that they need. 
This would have the unintended effect of enhancing Microsoft`s 
monopoly power.
    API disclosure needs to be public with no strings attached. A 
`Microsoft API' web site would fit this need with 
minimal staffing/administration required on Microsoft`s part.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    _Robert Glover, Software Developer
    2716 Hampton Ct.
    Jeffersonville, IN 47130
    eMail:
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00003857

From: Doug Kartio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ?
    After looking into the proposed settlement papers from 
Microsoft. I have to voice my option that you do not settle with the 
proposed agreement. Microsoft is not being punished what so ever, 
and they will most likely be stronger then before.
    Microsoft has destroyed almost every for-profit business in the 
computer industry, it main source of competition these days comes 
from not-for-profit organizations, such as Apache, SAMBA, and Linux 
organizations. These companies that support this technology are 
totally excluded from getting any documentation, APIs, and source 
from Microsoft, the way the settlement is written.
    Also, Microsoft has made hundreds of billions of dollars by 
ripping off, legal threaten and good-old-fashion steamrolling of 
other software and hardware companies. Financially, this case has 
done nothing to make Microsoft think about changing their ways.
    They have falsified evidence, their executives have lied under 
oath, and they have been found guilty of the monopolistic behavior, 
and you and letting them get away with it. If this case finishes 
this way you will not have upheld the law or belief that the 
Judicial branch of the United States can protect its citizens.
    Sincerely
    Doug Kartio



MTC-00003858

From: Roger Sarrasin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:42am
Subject: Settlement opinion
    `settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, 
and services to America`s poorest schools. Red Hat responded to the 
proposed settlement, pointing out that the settlement could simply 
introduce Microsoft to a market where they could further extend 
their monopoly.'
    My opinion is simple: Open Source Software is the answer for any 
school.
    Linux is the solution for all schools.
    Microsoft is OK for business world only.
    Roger Sarazin
    Network Trainer
    MCSE, MCP2000, CCNA, A+, Network+



MTC-00003859

From: Bradford Behr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The terms of the proposed Microsoft settlement are ludicrous. 
The actual cost to Microsoft of the donated software is a small 
fraction of the claimed market price, so the penalty to them is 
minimal. Furthermore, they get new inroads into the education 
market. How is this supposed to dissuade them from future 
misbehavior?
    I think it`d be great for the nation`s poorest schools to 
benefit from the settlement. Let`s be sure, though, that the primary 
aim of the settlement_punishment and prevention_is met. 
I`m sure you folks can come up with something that will achieve both 
ends.
    Sincerely,
    Bradford Behr
    Austin TX



MTC-00003860

From: Cain, Michael E.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The message criticizes one particular aspect of the proposed 
settlement of the current Microsoft antitrust case. The trial court 
found that mingling of application and operating system code was an 
illegal act. This finding was upheld by the appeals court. I believe 
that any settlement must address this issue. Merely disabling the 
user interface of an application is not adequate, as enabling the 
interface is a trivial exercise compared to downloading and 
installing a complete application. Microsoft should be required to 
compete on the same basis as other application vendors, hence 
Microsoft applications should be required to be completely 
removable. The settlement should establish a date by which all 
operating system versions shipped by Microsoft must comply with this 
requirement.
    Michael Cain
    6925 Independence Street
    Arvada, CO 80004



MTC-00003861

From: Peter Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed DoJ/Microsoft settlement is grossly 
inadequate. It is an insult to the DoJ that it make such excellent 
progress in showing the blatant anti-trust tendancies of Microsoft 
in court, only to capitulate to Microsoft`s interests in this 
shamble of a settlement.
    Priorities should have included:
    *legitimacy of non-commercial, `open-source' 
efforts, not just those meeting `reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business, ...'
    *full documentation of API`s to allow 3rd parties to develop 
Windows-compatible software and prevent Microsoft from using 
undocumented API calls and other hooks to make Windows, IE, Office, 
Outlook, etc. inseparable
    The `nine states' counter-proposal shows far greater 
initiative to achieving these goals and others, WITHOUT compromising 
Microsoft`s or others` ability to pursue business in the 
marketplace. In the interests of consumers, the DoJ ought to take 
the `nine states' proposed solution very seriously.
    Peter H. Lawrence, Research Engineer
    Information Technology & Telecommunications Laboratory
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
    250 14th St., NW, Suite 246A, Atlanta, GA 30318
    Phone: (404) 894-6847 Fax: (404) 894-6634
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00003862

From: Nicholas Del Medico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to comment on the Microsoft settlement. I am 
extremely bothered by the actions the U.S. Government and, 
specifically, the Department of Justice prioritizes. Protection of 
U.S. citizens seems to fall very low on that list. I myself am a 
software developer. There have also been many occasions when I was 
disappointed or unhappy with Microsoft`s products. Do you know what 
I did? I used one of their competitors products. A right every 
citizen in this country has and may exercise at any moment. Most 
consumers decide not to for many reasons. Microsoft products tend to 
be easier to use, easier to setup and less expensive. Consumers are 
not buying Microsoft products because they are forced

[[Page 24377]]

to. They are buying Microsoft for a variety of reasons specific to 
each individual consumer. Reasons that are so varying that no matter 
how much central planning a government does, it could never match 
the success of a COMPLETELY free market. In a completely free 
market, only good monopolies exist. A monopoly that provides an 
inferior service and charges customers more than the service is 
worth can only exist with government protections (i.e.; the US Post 
Office). Since a consumer won`t voluntarily pay more than they feel 
a good or service is worth, a free market automatically destroys 
`bad' monopolies. On the other hand, when businesses 
that constantly improve their goods and services while at the same 
time lowering their prices (ie; Microsoft) `corner the 
market', it shows that the company must be suiting the needs 
of its customers. The Sherman Act is anti-american as is anyone that 
supports it. I urge you to stop wasting our money. Not only on 
prosecuting consumer friendly businesses but on every victimless 
crime the DOJ feels takes priority over the protection of US 
citizens lives. After all, your reasoning for wasting OUR money is, 
supposedly, for OUR best interests.
    Thank You,
    Nick DelMedico
    CC:Nicholas Del Medico



MTC-00003863

From: Mike Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:50am
Subject: Legal Submission by interested party (a consumer)
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have to admit, when I heard of the deal that the DOJ made with 
Microsoft, I had to hang my head in shame.
    In a country that we depend on the government governed by the 
people, we the people were sold out to big business. I know this was 
a political decision, as our present President of the Country ran on 
the platform of being pro business. But one thing the people had to 
rely on in the past is the Justice Department keeping politicians in 
line with protecting the people of the United States from illegal 
business practices. You people wonder why America doesn`t trust 
their government, this last DEAL you made with Microsoft just adds 
to the long list of reasons why we don`t trust our government.
    I am just a average person, I follow the laws in this country, 
and taught my children to follow the laws, and even taught them how 
to fight the laws within the system architecture to change unfair 
laws. But when they ask me now how to change the law within the 
boundaries of the law or fight an unfair law, how can I tell them 
when I can not tell them that our government is not looking out to 
protect the people? Microsoft has been found guilty in both the 
courts and appeal process on monopoly charges and practices.
    Yet, your solution is to tell them fine, we will make a deal and 
you can continue your practice as if you did nothing, and you can 
continue to do these practices. I am amazed that you all can sleep 
at night. I know I would have problems.
    All the consumer wants is choice. All we want is if laws are 
broken, then adequate punishment is applied so that those laws will 
be too costly to break again. Thank goodness that our State Attorney 
General is behind the idea of protecting the people that you were 
hired to do. The Federal Attorney`s solution would actually spread 
the monopoly of microsoft into the schools and will reduce the 
competition so they can expand their monopoly practices. The time 
limits suggested is way to short. They should not be able to engage 
in any monopolistic practices for at least ten (10) years. In the 
past, I have put Netscape on my machines, and windows crashed, 
simply because Internet Explorer code was set up to not allow other 
competitive programs to share the same machine. If Microsoft wants 
to integrate their products into their platform, then they should 
provide in addition a platform that is basic and allows manufactures 
and people to add their own choices of programs. Any other solution 
is considered monopolistic.
    In other words, I can buy a car with a radio, air conditioning, 
power brakes, etc. I do not have to buy one brand, even after the 
car is paid for. A standard is set that all of the electronic and 
hardware is interchangeable to the choice of the consumer, not the 
manufactures. A Ford or Chevy will take a third party radio for 
example if I want to change it, is my point.
    I know this will never reach the judge, but at least I put in 
the consumers point of view.
    Michael D. Nelson
    2448 Rebecca Rd.
    Manhattan, KS 66502
    785 587-0664
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003864

From: SodaPop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work with open source code all the time, and it disturbs me 
that the proposed remedy against Microsoft does not include 
provisions to allow the open source community access to the same 
interfaces as Microsofts competitors. Under the current wording, 
only entities that fall under the classical definition of business 
will benefit from this settlement. It is my recommendation that the 
remedy be expanded to include providing interoperability information 
to open source projects.
    The software landscape and business rules have changed greatly 
in the last few years. An increasingly large number of services run 
and are supported by open source_everything from the internet 
DNS system, to the mailer I am using to send this letter. A great 
deal of time and effort has also gone into reverse engineering 
Microsoft protocols and standards in an attempt to interoperate with 
Microsoft products. Microsofts greatest competitor is no longer 
other businesses, but the open source movement. With the settlement 
as it currently stands, Microsoft can continue to impede the 
progress of open source. It is my opinion that this not be allowed 
to happen.
    Thank you for your time,
    Dennis Towne



MTC-00003865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`ve been a software developer for 14 years and have watched the 
rise of the Microsoft empire. I`d like to comment on the proposed 
settlement.
    From the accounts I`ve read the settlement does not do enough to 
stop Microsoft from using their monopoly power to continue to grow 
in influence in the industry. Forcing them to publish API`s to their 
OS does nothing but encourage more developers to write to their 
platform. That makes no sense at all if we are trying to encourage 
competition in the OS arena.
    The two things Microsoft should be forced to do:
_publish their file formats (like Word, Excel)
_publish their network protocols (like SAMBA)
    These two actions will encourage other operating systems to 
compete in the very area that Microsoft dominates.
    Thank you.
    Adrian Pfisterer.
    1536 E. 1700 S.
    Salt Lake City, UT 84105
    [email protected]



MTC-00003866

From: Scot Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    I am very upset concerning the proposed settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. The specific area in which I am 
concerned about is the settlement`s verbiage which gives Microsoft 
the ability, through legal channels, to stop a distribution of a 
software package. For discussion purposes I will cite the 
`SAMBA' software package, but please know that there are 
several other packages which may fall into this category.
    The SAMBA software package is an open source (meaning that the 
source code of the software is open to scrutiny by any user) and 
free software package that allows Unix, Linux, and other non-Windows 
computers to interface with Microsoft Windows computers. Please 
understand that I am using `Unix' to cover several 
vendor specific operating systems such as IBM`s AIX, SGI`s Irix, Sun 
Microsystems` Solaris, as well as several free and open source 
operating systems: namely OpenBSD Unix and FreeBSD Unix. There are 
several smaller unices that are in use as well that I do not 
mention.
    While on the surface, the settlement`s verbiage giving Microsoft 
the ability to stop these distributions from being published may 
seem like a good business idea, it is most definitely not a good 
idea to businesses that do not utilize a homogeneous Microsoft based 
network. Examine all those institutions that use a Linux or Unix 
server and Microsoft Windows desktop clients.
    Please recall, that Unix is being used as a general blanket term 
to cover all those operating systems given above. The list of

[[Page 24378]]

corporations and government facilities that use a network topology 
such as this is a number that is growing rather than shrinking.
    Many network administrators and information technology officers 
are looking to Linux and Unix as a viable alternative to Microsoft 
Windows on a server platform due to lower operating cost and higher 
system reliability. Others are using Linux and Unix with open source 
alternatives to simplify server management. As anyone can imagine, 
it is much simpler to manage a single vendor`s product rather than 
multiple vendors products. The number of companies that would be 
impacted has the potential to be very large.
    As a practical example of this I would cite an article on ZDNet, 
the on-line arm of Ziff Davis Media, dated June 25, 2001, entitled 
`Department of Defense adopts StarOffice.' This article 
explains how the Department of Defense is utilizing a service 
contract with Sun Microsystems, which is already in place due to Sun 
servers in use at the Department of Defense, to implement Sun 
Microsystems` StarOffice office productivity package at a reduced 
cost to the tax payer. If the Department of Defense is using Sun 
Microsystems` Solaris as a server operating system and Microsoft 
Windows as a desktop system, a move by Microsoft to stop the SAMBA 
package would have very costly ramifications to the Department of 
Defense and the tax payers.
    I have very briefly given one example of a software package that 
is in wide use in business and in higher education that could be 
impacted by Microsoft at great expense to the American people.
    Thank you for your time.
    Scot Snyder



MTC-00003867

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:10am
Subject: RED HAT RESPONDS TO MICROSOFT ANTITRUST, CLASS-ACTION 
SETTLEMENTS
    Dear Sirs,
    I am in favor of the Redhat proposal to have Microsoft make 
there settlement in the form of hardware contributions to the 
schools. Allowing them to supply their own software is only aiding 
Microsoft in entrenching themselves even farthing into their 
monopolistic practice.
    Allowing Rehat (or some other non-Microsoft vendor) to provide 
the operating system for the machines would be a far greater 
punishment for Microsoft and maybe more of a deterrent to this kind 
of practice in the future.
    Microsoft has been before the DOJ several times in the past and 
always seems to come out of it with a mere slap on the wrist, only 
to return to monopolizing the software industry from a different 
angle. I don`t believe any other corporation would get away with 
this kind of behavior. Microsoft is no different.
    Thank you,
    George Overdier



MTC-00003868

From: Augey Mikus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    United States Department of Justice
    To whom it may concern:
    I find it extremely disturbing that a company so deceptive and 
manipulative as Microsoft that is now a convicted monopolist could 
have such a small, underwhelming, unpunishing final sentence. It is 
obvious to me and so many others that a company with so much 
financial power could easily take advantage of their position even 
further and destroy their only competitor at this point in the game 
which is a small group of not for profit organizations that work for 
free and give away their software for free. The realm of software 
has changed. The computer industry is no longer about software, it 
is about power and control of information. Can you not see how 
Microsoft and AOL have already figured that out. MSNBC, AOL Time 
Warner . . . get it? These companies don`t make the best 
most stable software, they are marketing geniouses with a large 
control of information. Here is an example of the power Microsoft 
has.
    Microsoft, with a snap of it`s fingers could make it so only 
their internet browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer, can view one of 
the largest internet portals in existence, msn.com. Completely 
crippling Netscape and the Mozilla group (www.mozilla.org) in one 
fell swoop. Do you think that is so far off?
    Guess what, they already did that just to see what would happen.
(http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1005-200-7655334.html)
    This is scary stuff that still this late in the game has not 
been stopped in the least bit by the government.
    In fact, while this case was going on, Windows XP which takes 
what they were guilty of even further was just finishing 
development. Now it`s out with no limitations by the government. As 
one `punishment', Microsoft must donate $1 Billion to 
poor school systems around the country. In reality what they must 
donate is not even close to $1 Billion. A great deal of the money is 
just software licenses for their own software!!!! They don`t have to 
do anything but make CDs that costs them less than a couple pennies 
to create. The rest is in hardware cost that is nothing to them. The 
biggest problem I have with this ruling is that it is a punishment 
that only futhers a monopolists monopoly! Its tantamount to saying: 
`Microsoft, You are guilty of using your large marketshare as 
an unfair advantage in destroying the competition. You have taken 
away the consumer`s choice. Now you must put more of your software 
in schools and leave the schools no choice. You must have an unfair 
advantage in the education industry against Apple, your main 
competitor in that realm. Bad Microsoft, you should be ashamed of 
yourself. If this happens again, You better believe we`re going to 
force you to put your computers and software in more schools and 
more government organizations!ï¿½1A' Wow, thats scary. I bet 
this will keep them from taking advantage of the consumer!
    Don`t let Microsoft get away so easily with the crimes they have 
already been proven guilty of !!
    Augey Mikus
    Software Engineer
    ScriptRx, Inc.
    [email protected]
    561-805-5935 X.121 (Office)
    561-662-4212 (Cell)
    561-805-5936 (Fax)



MTC-00003869

From: DJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:16am
Subject: proposed settlement allows Microsoft to EXPAND its monopoly 
by giving it a stronger foothold in the education market
    The proposed Microsoft settlement actually allows the company to 
expand its monopoly. By allowing Microsoft to give its software to 
schools, they will get a stronger foothold in the education 
environment, period. This is not a punishment, its a gift, kind of 
like punishing a child for not eating his broccoli by telling him he 
can only eat ice cream. How can this be allowed to happen? By the 
simplest logic it is absurd.
    They should be broken up but if that won`t happen and this 
settlement must go through then they should have to pay billions to 
schools and allow the schools to spend that money in ANY way they 
want. If they want to spend it on books or teacher`s salaries or 
computers or repairs to buildings that should be the school`s call. 
Second a series of stringent restrictions should be placed on the 
company so that they can not abuse their power. For instance they 
should not be able to advertise additional services on the desktop 
or with pop up windows or icons. MSN should not be the default page 
for Internet explorer. They should not be able to stop computer 
manufactures from selling alternative OSes through restrictive 
licensing. They should not be able to arbitrarily change their 
licensing scheme to rake in billions of extra dollars.
    Please consider my thoughts as you go forward.
    DJ



MTC-00003870

From: Larry Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft affair shocks me. Why 
would we punish MS by rewarding them? Allowing them to donate 
Windows computers to schools would only further entrench their 
monopoly. How is that a punishment? The billion dollars would be 
peanuts to them anyway. And our school children would be severely 
disadvantaged by such an arrangement. The solution I thought of that 
would both punish MS and help society would be for MS to donate ten 
MACINTOSH computers to every public (and private) school every year 
for five years. I recommend this as the remedy. Students and 
teachers would benefit immensely.
    Please remember, the goal is to reduce MS` monopoly position, 
not reinforce it.
    Thank you for your work on this important issue.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 24379]]

    Larry Smith
    Dept. of Physics
    Snow College
    150 College Ave.
    Ephraim, UT 84627-1550 USA
    voice: (435) 283-7520
    fax: (435) 283-7501
    mailto:[email protected]
    http://www.snow.edu/ï¿½7Elarrys



MTC-00003871

From: Kent Morrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:15am
Subject: Implications of the Proposed Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sir:
    With regard to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case,
    I have these comments:
    1. Substantial penalties should be levied. The anti-competitive 
practices which Microsoft eggregiously persued will not be 
discouraged by words on a page. MONEY and MORE MONEY in FINES is the 
way to show Microsoft and other offenders that this type of behavior 
will not be tolerated. This corporation is SO RICH and SO BLOATED 
that it will take MILLIONS AND MILLIONS in fines to even scratch 
their armor.
    2. The placing of MORE Microsoft software in public schools, no 
matter how needy they are, is NOT THE ANSWER. This provides 
Microsoft with additional market exposure, helping them to get a 
strangle hold on the next generation of computer users. GET 
MICROSOFT OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!
    3. Open Source software solutions are what is required. Force 
Microsoft to place LINUX desktop computers in our Nation`s schools. 
This will give fair exposure of NON-MONOPOLISTIC systems to 
impressionable young students.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Kent Morrison
    Manager, Information Systems
    City of Steamboat Springs Colorado



MTC-00003872

From: Daniel Aharon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I`m offering my comment that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft v DOJ and States case is not sufficient to help consumers, 
the IT industry, or the US economy in general. Microsoft should be 
properly penalized for breaking the law and causing so much damage 
to the working and personal lives of so many people. Here at the 
University of Pennsylvania, I observe clear and striking examples 
everyday of how my coworkers lives are made worse by being forced to 
use Microsoft Windows and Office every day to accomplish their 
tasks. The concept that the `Operating System war is 
over' is truly frightening to the IT sector. Can we condemn 
ourselves to a future run solely by Microsoft software, and hold 
ourselves in economic hostage to them?
    I recommend that Microsoft be required to immediately cease and 
desist the development and production of all current and future 
versions of Windows, be forced to put the source code for Microsoft 
Office into the public domain, and liquidate, delivering all 36+ 
billion of its cash and assets to a fund used to provide as many 
former users of Windows as possible with new computers running a 
non-Windows operating system, such as Mac OS or Linux.
    Whatever decision you make, please don`t allow Microsoft to 
escape virtually unpunished and stronger than ever, which is what 
the current settlement would ensure.
    Thanks,
    Dan
    Daniel Gil Aharon
    University of Pennsylvania
    SOM/Information Services
    (215) 573-5994
    [email protected]
    PGP Key ID: 0x7EBF3379



MTC-00003873

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:53am
Subject: The proposed MSFT settlement_my opinion (absolutely 
unacceptable!)
    Dear DOJ,
    I`m writing to express my opinion of the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft_which I believe is utterly unacceptable.
    May I point out that I have more experience with computers than 
most people; in fact, than most technical people. I`ve been 
programming since I was 9 years old_which was in 1975. I`ve 
been on the Internet long before most people knew it existed. I have 
a Wharton MBA, and have been a senior (VP & officer) executive 
of several Silicon Valley firms. (I am NOT currently employed by any 
firm that directly or indirectly has any 
relationship_adversarial or otherwise_with Microsoft.) 
I`ve negotiated with Microsoft (quite successfully, I might add!) at 
the Director level. I have met Bill Gates, I know the CTO and CEO of 
Intel, Stanford`s expert on networking technology, the former CEO of 
3Com and current CEO of Exodus, Lawrence Lessig at Harvard, and many 
other key players in this industry. I know networking technology 
intimately_in fact, I`ve built my own networks including 
hardware, operating systems, cabling, and IP setup.
    Given the strength of the initial court`s findings (under Judge 
Jackson), I find it unbelievable and unconscionable that DOJ would 
roll over and present such an incredibly weak proposed settlement. 
Not only is it complete capitulation where none was 
necessary_it does not settle even half the merits of the 
initial case.
    It has been found that Microsoft not only IS a monopoly, but has 
abused its monopoly position in clear violation of US antitrust 
law_these two points are clear and beyond dispute. The 
proposed remedy, from a structural point of view, is toothless and 
does not address, let alone solve, those two issues. In fact, 
Microsoft CLEARLY shows by its recent actions (particularly with 
regard to XP and .NET) that it is taking steps to further cement its 
dominance of the operating system that, effectively, most of the 
world depends on, is tied and beholden to, and must interoperate 
with. More than IBM ever did under its consent decree, Microsoft 
owns, dominates, and controls how virtually every individual and 
enterprise interacts with information, computers, networks, and 
knowledge. THIS IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS_regardless of 
Microsoft`s intent. And in fact, Microsoft has shown over and over 
again that its intent is NOT benign.
    I personally do not favor a `structural' remedy in 
this case_it`s not only not particularly pragmatic, but I 
think it would fail to address dominance in the to-be-separated 
areas. What would be far more helpful would be a combination of just 
a few remedies_all of which have been proposed. The most 
important are these: (a) availability of source code_this 
would allow competitors to make products (e.g. digital media tools) 
that run as well as Microsoft`s; without it, that is almost 
impossible as a practical matter, since Microsoft owns the OS and 
only they know how to interoperate with it optimally. Existing 
copyright and other IP protection is sufficient that opening the 
source code would not dilute ALLOWABLE IP value. (b) Microsoft must 
not be permitted to dictate to manufacturers how Windows is 
configured, which options may, must, or may or must NOT be 
installed, or offer differential, preferential, or incentive pricing 
or terms (which it currently is doing with Windows XP!) of ANY kind. 
(c) Windows (and subsequent `platform' class systems 
such as .NET) should be modularized, with freely available APIs that 
are the SAME APIs provided internally to Microsoft`s own teams. If 
groups within Microsoft were to be `Chinese-walled' from 
one another, and the information they share be required to be shared 
with developers at large, I believe true competition would arise, 
leading to enormous economic benefit.
    One has only to look at the utter failure of the Telecom 
deregulation act of 1996_and the resultant crash of the 
competitive telecom sector!_to see how bad this settlement 
would be for true, American-style, free-market competition in the IT 
market. The disaster would reverberate for decades, and have a 
profound impact on the way of life of not only all Americans, but 
all people worldwide.
    I implore you_crack open the fortress. Use the tools you 
have_the findings of Judge Jackson were clear, unambiguous, 
and powerful. Impose a remedy that reflects that_and is 
just!_not some weak half-attempt that virtually every expert 
agrees will fail.
    Regards,
    Andrew Corradini



MTC-00003874

From: Tim Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To whom it may concern,
    Please reconsider your proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
work in the IT industry and travel to clients throughout Indiana, 
Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. Several times I have had discussions 
with IT/LAN Administrators and even though they are not happy with 
the Microsoft products they use (Windows NT/2000 in particular) they 
see no other alternative since they are the only one most

[[Page 24380]]

of their vendors will work with them on. The only way to break 
Microsoft`s choke hold on the IT industry is to break their OS 
(Windows) division away from their Application and Internet 
divisions. An even better option, in my opinion, would be three 
companies and split the OS, Application and Internet divisions all 
into their own company.
    No one I have talked to agrees that your `oversight' 
committee idea will have any impact whatsoever on the way Microsoft 
does business. Please reconsider and do the IT industry, America and 
the rest of the world a favor and get us out from under Microsoft`s 
boot.
    Thank You for letting me take some of your time with this 
information.
    Tim Duncan
    2335 Lammermoor Lane
    Indianapolis, IN 46234



MTC-00003875

From: Cook, Thomas
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello_
    Please, please, please do not allow MS to `donate' 
MS software to schools as part of their penalty. Shouldn`t the 
penalty reward the plaintiffs and punish MS? How does subjecting our 
education system to forced enslavement to MS do either of these 
things? MS is not even giving the software to the 
schools. . . it is only lending it to them for 5 years 
before they ask for payment for any continued use? What a joke 
. . . when I donate something to my local school do I say 
. . . you can use this nice musical instrument for 5 years 
but then I am going to come back and ask you to pay me for any use 
after that? And that is a donation, not a lawsuit settlement 
penalty. Or even better yet, do you ask your children what 
punishment they deserve for stealing money from their siblings? I am 
sure they would come up with a novel idea of punishment.
    Microsoft should have to pay a VERY large CASH penalty to the 
Justice Department that could be used to fund the SEVERE monitoring 
that is necessary to ensure that they no longer use the type of 
blatantly illegal and monopolistic practices that has stymed 
computer development in MS hell for the past 15 years. MS has 
demonstrated time after time that they don`t think they did anything 
wrong and therefore will continue to do the same thing that brought 
us to this poinnt without a severe real penalty and strict 
monitoring of future business practices.
    Don`t let the inmates run the prison_
    Thomas J. Cook



MTC-00003876

From: Mattheis, Paul
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I agree with the settements in this article. I also agree with 
the proposed settlement from the 9 states over the federal 
settlement. Open APIs etc to all (including open source and non-
profit/not-for-profit/etc organizations).
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html



MTC-00003877

From: Eric Boes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a small business consultant I have virtually no choice but to 
rely on Microsoft products for many applications despite their high 
cost and security weaknesses. Their only real competition in the OS 
marketplace are open-source projects like Linux, Apache and SAMBA.
    I was disturbed to discover that no consideration of those 
products was made in the proposed settlement. Please consider 
revising Section III(J)(2) to provide protection for those products, 
and products like them by requiring that Microsoft APIs MUST be 
licensed, documented at least 180 days prior to being revised. The 
current language, especially in section (C) undermines the progress 
of legitimate competitors to Microsoft because they are not owned by 
a for-profit entity.
    Thanks
    Eric Boes,
    Beaverton, OR



MTC-00003878

From: David Gessel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I am a concerned citizen, unwilling Microsoft customer forced to 
use their unpleasant products because of their unassailable 
monopoly, and a long time member of the computer industry.
    I am writing to you to protest the terms of the Proposed Final 
Judgement, in specific the failure of this Judgement to address the 
pivotal role that the open software movement has played in the 
genesis of the Internet age, and it`s legitimate ongoing 
contributions which are ignored by the Judgement`s terms and will be 
harmed by the Judgement`s execution. To enumerate but three of 
thousands of valuable not for profit software development efforts 
which remain critical to the ongoing viability of the net and which 
will be harmed by the Proposed Final Judgement because they are 
beneficiaries of neither Section III(J)(2) under (c) as 
`meet[ing] reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...' nor under Section III(D) as the footnotes hold 
this section in force only to commercial concerns: Apache is the 
Internet server that made the net possible. It is the most viable 
competitor to IIS, Microsoft`s server architecture. Without Apache 
the net would grind to a halt. There is no commercial contender to 
IIS, the entire competitive landscape is between IIS and Apache and 
a few other open source servers. Since IIS is stunningly, almost 
fraudulently insecure, the Proposed Final Judgement weakens the 
Nation should it not aggressively protect the better engineered open 
source efforts from Microsoft`s predatory tactics.
    BSD, especially in it`s most popular flavor freeBSD, and it`s 
younger but bigger brother Linux present a real and viable challenge 
to Microsoft in the server market, are gaining in the workstation 
market, and would, if they could be made compatible with Microsoft`s 
industry crushing `Office,' be a viable contender on the 
desktop. These efforts are undertaken in that most American of 
spirits: for the good of all. They provide real alternatives to 
Microsoft; significant and meaningful improvements in performance 
and security to users who appreciate these things when compared to 
Microsoft`s invariably flawed products, and competition which is 
perhaps Microsoft`s only remaining motive for fixing it`s failures. 
While major security holes are exposed in IIS every month or so, 
despite Microsoft`s efforts to sweep them under the rug, no security 
hole has been discovered in NetBSD in more than four years. These 
superior products are run without marketing and lobbying budgets and 
will be crushed by Microsoft which will endeavor to make them as 
incompatible as possible with their desktop monopoly (if their 
efforts to make them outright illegal fail).
    This message will reach you through one or many servers running 
Sendmail. A near perfect application which relies on free and open 
standards established for the routing of electronic mail. Since 
Microsoft will be under no obligation to share standards with the 
not-for-profit organization that maintains Sendmail, it is quite 
certain that Microsoft will do whatever they can to force all 
Sendmail administrators to switch to an expensive, fault ridden 
Microsoft product, leveraging their monopoly on the desktop to do so 
unless the DOJ alters the Proposed Final Judgement to protect open 
source at least as effectively as it protects whatever pathetic 
vestiges of the commercial market still stand to challenge 
Microsoft`s otherwise unassailable monopoly.
    The Proposed Final Settlement fails utterly to address the 
critical role of the open source movement and is therefore utterly 
unacceptable to me as a harmed party.
    Sincerely,
    David Gessel
    Black Rose Technology
    5233 Foothill Blvd.
    Oakland, CA 94601
    510 290 3849 (cel)
    510 536 0105 (fax)
    www.blackrosetech.com



MTC-00003879

From: Harry Crowell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    There will be more entrepeneours able to invent or design better 
programs and equipment than we have todat. Microsoft was and is a 
very important contribution to the world..
    I appreciate the advances that have occurred because of this 
company.. Stop this terrible incursion into the world of better 
inventions and let our economy work and prosper like no other 
country has ever done.
    Stop the evil persecution of a man and company that has done so 
much for the world_ regardless of the wealth he has created 
for so many including himself_Congratulate_don`t sue !!!

[[Page 24381]]



MTC-00003880

From: Tom Hogarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:06pm
Subject: BeOS
    Hi,
    I am an investor in BeOS.
    This seemed to be a very efficient and competitive solution for 
people wanting a fast, reliable and attractive operating system.
    Unfortunately BeOS was in competition with MicroSoft, who makes 
another Operating System. I was certain that the technological 
advantages of BeOS and the flexibility of its small, dynamic team of 
developers and supporting community had all the right values to be a 
winner.
    My investment was when the stock averaged $18 and I lost in 
excess of $90,000 on the value of the stock.
    I am still holding the stocks which I bought at $18 which are 
now worth 9 cents each. It has been difficult to watch a competitor 
wipe out the market opportunities of Be`s product and I hope the DoJ 
will get remedies for some of the unfortunate BeOS investors.
    Best Regards,
    Tom Hogarty



MTC-00003881

From: Jim Hefferon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    These are my comments as to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case.
    The entire settlement can only be considered a giveaway to an 
organization whose anti-competitive actions have been established to 
the satisfaction of two Federal courts. However, the portions in 
Section III(J)(2) and in Section III(D) that require only that 
Microsoft disclose the technical specifications to commercial 
enterprises (and where determining the definition of 
`commercial' is up to Microsoft) is an outrage.
    As Professor L Lessig has demonstrated, it is the use of open 
protocols and systems that has allowed the Internet to exist and to 
grow. This proposed settlement is a sad step backward.
    I strongly urge that the settlement be scrapped.
    James S Hefferon
    Saint Michael`s College
    Colchester VT



MTC-00003882

From: Dan Stromberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:17pm
Subject: about the microsoft settlements
    Please use the settlement proposed by the 9 remaining states, 
including California. They know what they`re talking about. 
Microsoft`s getting off far too easy in the proposed DOJ settlement.
    If you must go ahead with the proposed DOJ settlement: Please 
consider Steve Satchel for the DOJ`s Microsoft settlement advisory 
panel.
    Please give the DOJ settlement more teeth. As far as I can tell, 
the only penalty if Microsoft violates the terms of the agreement, 
is a longer monitoring phase_which had just proved 
ineffective. More of the same wouldn`t appear to be an effective 
deterrent.
    Please make the settlement have some bearing on opensource 
projects. That is, don`t allow Microsoft to use its anticompetitive 
tricks against linux, apache, samba, python, perl and so on, just 
because they aren`t directly championed by companies. Sure, there 
are plenty of companies selling this stuff, but that`s a different 
matter. These projects represent the biggest threat to Microsoft`s 
stranglehold on the computing industry, and are the only source of 
competition microsoft has. Plus don`t allow Microsoft to define 
these as non-businesses, and hence behave in an unregulated manner 
with regard to them.
    Dan Stromberg
    UCI/NACS/DCS



MTC-00003883

From: erw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a little note from us little guys.
    I would like to see some protection for the linux / open source 
software developers. It would be nice if a citizen could choose any 
OS or software package because of their personnal preference. I use 
linux, as well as nt and 98. Each has its own strengths and 
er....weaknesses.
    Things like samba and wine are great tools that have been forged 
from a desire to use some of the giants available software and still 
use our desired os.
    Things like the API`s should be available to all. Why should the 
defacto standard desktop os have difficulty licensing (for free) to 
all who need to know. Even GM allows vendors to sell repair manuals 
that detail the functions of your car.
    Please look at Section III(D) and Section III(J)(2)
    Thank you,
    Earl



MTC-00003884

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I encourage the Government to give Microsoft a fair and just 
settlement in the case at hand. I personally feel that Microsoft has 
made a very great and substantial contribution toward the 
advancement of the computer industry. I feel like the public has not 
been disadvantaged by Microsoft`s pricting policies. My feeling is 
that without Microsoft`s aggresive effort our computer industry 
would not have advanced at the tremendious rate that it has. I feel 
that the charges brought against Microsoft, by the Government, has 
been unfair and unjust, and has perhaps stunted the future growth in 
this industry. I request that the Government not pentalize Microsoft 
and not impose any restrictions against them that would reduce their 
ability to carry out the mission of advancing this technology at the 
very reasonable prices they have been charging for their services 
and products
    George O. Ellis
    Petroleum engineer
    415 Lakeside Est Dr.
    Houston, TX 77042



MTC-00003885

From: Mike Kane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:22pm
Subject: Settlement opinion
    I agree with the opinion offered by Steve Jobs at Apple 
Computer. Letting Microsoft settle by donating products to the 
education market is a self-serving, monopoly perpetuating act. Other 
companies fight hard for their competitive position in the education 
market. Competing against a gift is an impossible scenario. In 
addition, the actual cost to Microsoft for the finished goods is a 
fraction of the monetary value of the settlement.
    For Microsoft to ``get the message`` they must feel real pain as 
a consequence of their predatory market practices. My opinion is 
that funneling the settlement into the education market is good, but 
the settlement should be aimed at providing hard dollars into real 
educational needs such as teacher salaries, capital improvements, 
text books, lunch programs, etc.
    Thank you for listening.
    Mike Kane
    408-395-6533 ph
    408-884-2251 fx
    408-497-8448 c
    [email protected]
    http://www.mktgpartners.com



MTC-00003886

From: David A. De Graaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case is 
deeply flawed. It rewards Microsoft`s criminal acts instead of 
penalizing them. This report is extrememly disturbing:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    One of the main complaints agains Microsoft is their propensity 
to twist and deface accepted interface standards and to fail to 
publish interfaces. Section III(J)(2) says MS need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols... to 
companies that don`t meet *Microsoft`s* criteria as a business.
    This cuts off essential information to the entire Open Source 
development community_the very people that need the 
information to hold this criminal monopoly accountable.
    Since these folks are not working for a profit, Microsoft will 
certainly not consider them a `business', even though 
they have publically admitted Open Source is a major threat to them. 
Many important Open Source projects, such as Samba, StarOffice and 
Apache, need this information. To make it legal for Microsoft to 
withhold it is just wrong.
    Whatever else is in the settlement, I implore you to not impede 
or penalize Open Source developers.
    Please correct this egregiously wrong-headed wording.
    David A. De Graaf

[[Page 24382]]

    DATIX, Inc.
    Hendersonville, NC
    [email protected]
    (828) 696-8646; fax (828) 694-1037



MTC-00003887

From: Arthur P. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m writing to express my views that the settlement proposal 
from the Department of Justice in the Microsoft anti-trust case is 
inadequate, and given past behavior by the company is almost certain 
to be ignored, circumvented, or used to further rather than to 
retard the monopolistic anti-competitive practices the company has 
been found guilty of. In particular there appear to be provisions 
that give the company additional advantages over the very 
competition that Microsoft has most recently cited as its most 
serious, namely the free or `open source' software 
movement, which has grown to a position of prominence in the server 
operating system and applications market with the popular Linux 
operating system, Apache web server, Sendmail mail software, Bind 
domain name servers, and thousands of other less prominent tools 
developed by the internet community.
    The philosophy of the companies and organizations that support 
these excellent tools is quite different from that of Microsoft: 
since the software itself is freely available, the intellectual 
property and licensing issues are very different, and companies like 
RedHat and recently even IBM have been quite successful doing 
business on the support and packaging side. And some of the 
organizations providing support are even not-for-profit, such as the 
Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation, funded 
by contributions from other companies and organizations that find 
their work useful.
    But the proposed agreement includes strong language (Section 
III(J)(2), I have been told, and III(D)) that appears to exclude any 
requirement for Microsoft to work with these not-for-profit 
organizations, or any company that doesn`t meet standards 
`established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business'.
    As a non-profit publishing organization receiving contributions 
from authors throughout the US and around the world, we have long 
been plagued by the obscure nature of Microsoft`s document product 
line, which appears to have been deliberately constructed in ways 
that make it not only extremely difficult to inter-operate with 
other vendor`s software, but even with different versions of itself 
(Word on Macintosh vs. Windows, the many different versions of 
Windows, the many different versions of Word itself). In my personal 
estimation these problems are currently costing our organization on 
the order of $1 million per year in hand-work required to either 
process paper versions of these documents, or in addressing and 
attempting to fix incompatibilities in the differing electronic 
versions we receive, to convert to our final XML publishing format. 
Almost all of that cost could be saved if Microsoft`s document 
formats were less deliberately obscure, and more openly available 
and easily interoperable with other publishing formats.
    Microsoft`s monopoly power has severe negative consequences for 
us in this one area, but I know there are many others who are 
affected even more severely. It was our hope that the anti-trust 
trial, which exposed considerable wrong-doing by the company, would 
result in remedies that would provide us some relief. This appears 
not to be the case, unless the proposed agreement is significantly 
amended.
    Thank you for listening to my complaints,
    Arthur Smith ([email protected])
    The American Physical Society
    631-591-4072



MTC-00003888

From: David Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I have used computers in my dental practice since the early 
80`s, and there is no question in my mind that this issue has 
nothing to do with protecting the public, and everything to do with 
protecting those companies that have tried to employ business 
practices that were and still are more detrimental to the consumer 
than Microsoft will ever be.
    In 1980 I connected two computers with a Novel network and it 
cost me $10,000. If I had used Apply hardware it would have been an 
additional $20,000. As soon as Microsoft entered the arena, I was 
able to connect seven computers for about $1,200. Also because of 
the inexpensive operating system Microsoft has made available, I can 
buy a computer for less than $1,000, I can`t do that with Sun, or 
Apple. My prospective is `from the trenches', and I know 
beyond any doubt that Microsoft has benefited my business 
immeasurably. It is my belief that this entire action has no basis 
and has been an embarrassment it our government.
    Sincerly,
    David S. Williams DDS, MSD
    http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00003889

From: Ozymandias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let me start this out by saying 2 things. First off, I`m a 
computer repair technician and I`ve been working on computers since 
I was 8, I`m now 28. Secondly, I`ll try to keep this short, but I 
don`t know how successful I`ll be in that respect.
    This settlement that has been reached with Microsoft is totally 
unacceptable. They can and will find a way around it just like they 
have in the past. For example, when they were told to take the web 
browser Internet Explorer out of the Operating System install 
(Windows 95c), they integrated it with the Operating System (Windows 
98 and later).
    Since Windows 3.1 they have been using their Operating System to 
unfairly leverage consumers to use their products. The first plainly 
obvious sign of this is with an icon on their desktop taking the 
user to MSN internet. The only way that icon could be removed was by 
going into the registry and manually removing it. Most of the time 
the things they did were more obscure until they realized they could 
get away with it and noone stepped in to stop it.
    With Office 97, even if you had your default browser set to 
something else. Whatever office product you were using would open 
Internet Explorer as it`s browser.
    Windows 98 is so tightly integrated with Internet Explorer now 
that if there`s a problem with the browser, the system has a 
problem. Let`s go deeper than the browser here though. For example, 
I run linux as my operating system of choice due to the way 
Microsoft treats their customers, but there are still things I must 
do on Windows. So I use a product called VMWare that allows me to 
install an OS in a virtual machine setting. I happen to have 3 
copies of Windows 98 one of them being one of their latest releases 
of Second Edition. The way it is designed I can not use it under a 
virtual machine environment because it would allow the system to 
read the disk, while earlier versions will. These are intentional 
acts, of that I`m sure and little things of this nature should be/
have been investigated.
    Windows NT is the biggest mess I`ve seen. For the server to sit 
there and run it`s sevices, I must install a browser. Why must a 
server that does nothing but offer out files, websites, mail and the 
like have to have a browser installed? There is no reason for this 
sort of thing to be needed. It would be simple enough to just 
install the files that are needed and not the entire browser.
    Windows 2000, Everything is so proprietary that a repair 
technician can barely work on the machine. Microsoft has become 
secure in it`s dominance and has come to grips that the Government 
(specifically the DOJ) doesn`t understand, care, or even realize 
what they are doing. They are also showing how sure they are that 
noone will step in to take action against them.
    Windows XP. This was blatantly a power play. First off, they 
have put to many `features' in this OS to compete head 
to head with so many of the smaller companies. Winzip? don`t need 
it, it`s now in the computer already.
    CD burning software? Don`t need it either, it`s be put in the 
system. Except for the fact that you don`t have a copy CD function. 
PCAnywhere for remote control of the machine? Don`t need it either, 
it`s in the system already.
    This is just a tip of the iceburg for Windows XP. It`s clear 
they are using their Operating System to force and mislead the 
public to using more of their products. Such as hailstorm 
(passport), .Net, and MSN internet. When you first install XP, it 
PURPOSELY misleads the user that they NEED a passport account to be 
able to use XP. This is the start of what they are trying to do with 
.Net and pay to use their software. You`ll also note that even with 
the fact that for years if they were going to put the MSN icon on 
the desktop they had to put other online services there as well. 
You`ll note that in Windows XP nothing is on the desktop. Instead, 
in the start menu there is MSN, but no other `Online 
Services'.

[[Page 24383]]

    In the interest of keeping this short I left a huge number of 
things out. But it all comes to the same point that Microsoft WILL 
use this settlement to their advantage because it is entirely too 
soft. There are already glaring loopholes in it that will allow them 
to further their monopoly into other markets such as schools. This I 
find unacceptable because this forces my tax dollars to feed 
Microsoft`s caufers.
    I stopped using Microsoft products for several reasons the 
biggest being that they DO force or mislead people into using more 
of their products. They always have and always will until they are 
stopped by legislation or legal judgements. That is where it has 
been left up to you to make sure that there are no loopholes and 
that they are strongly punished for what they are doing.
    As I see it, this settlement has done nothing of that sort. It 
will only allow microsoft to grow stronger and more bold in what 
they are doing. It should have been obvious when they were trying to 
hold back the settlement to release Windows XP. Instead they 
released XP a little early to make sure they were able to get it on 
the market. I, for one, and very disappointed in my government 
because they have allowed this to go on and the poor settlement 
which has been reached. I want to see this dropped. I would also 
like to see the DOJ and the 9 states that settled join forced with 
the 9 states that did not. Simply because the 9 states that did not 
settle are on the right track.
    The are plenty of specialists and very knowledgeable people out 
there that can and will give information needed to prove, beyond a 
shadow of a doubt, that Microsoft has, can, and will continue to 
leverage their Operating Systems to further their purposes.
    Attached is an article that I`m sure you will find interesting. 
And this just helps to prove my point, and the original point behind 
this case.
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,nox@ 
scrserv.com@inetgw



MTC-00003890

From: Dave Brookes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:38pm
Subject: Please settle this case....
    It is fair and we all need to move forward. AOL and SUNW may not 
agree but they are the only ones complaining. The states just want 
money out of MSFT. They should learn to run state budgets better and 
stop trying to shake down companies.
    The US Goverment spend more money on MSFT then it did Bin Laden. 
Now they are going to protect us against MSFT? That money should be 
used to protect US Citizen and not trying to put companies out of 
business.
    Dave Brookes
    2220 Montgomery Ave.
    Cardiff, CA 92007
    Thank you.....



MTC-00003891

From: Evil Mr Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the Microsoft Antitrust case for a while now, 
and have an idea for the settlement. This idea comes from several 
unrelated news items. First of all, Microsoft has decided to stop 
supporting DOS and Windows 3.1 (and will stop supporting other 
products in the years to come); next, Microsoft has put 
`Product Activation' in Windows XP; and finally is the 
actual antitrust case.
    When Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP, people will no 
longer be able to use it legally due to the product activation and 
so will be forced to upgrade to the newest wersion of Windows thanks 
to a product defect.
    My proposal is this: If Microsoft decides to stop supporting a 
product, they must releise the source code to that product and allow 
people to change it. If this is adopted, it will be impossible for 
Microsoft to force users to upgrade their version of Windows. In the 
above example, a person who could not use Windows XP due to the 
product activation would be able to download a patch to remove that 
`feature' (generated almost as soon as the source code 
became available) once Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP. This 
by no means should be the only action against Microsoft, but it will 
help destroy their monopoly in the operating system field using 
their own products as compitition. Thank you for considering this 
option.



MTC-00003892

From: Bill Richardsn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    As usual your justice and allegations are misguided and 
inappropriate. Would you also defile the sanctity of all 
Intellectual property as monopolistic and predatory? How in a world 
with freedom to innovate can you be so blatantly non-objective? 
Would you also expose the formula for Coca-Cola and Colonel Sanders 
11 Secret Herbs and Spices? If so what freedom to innovate would I 
as an Internet software developer have to protect my interests? 
Because I find a niche market and take advantage of it am I 
predatory? Is the effervescent struggle between Coca-Cola and Pepsi 
the next target for your insane jealousies and obvious favoritism 
for Sen. Oren Hatch`s and Time Warner`s Quest for more dollars and 
favoritism because their product is without Office applications and 
without a viable desktop graphical operating system? Is this fair? 
No it is predatory with respect to you and your quest.
    Sincerely,
    William `Bill' Richardson
    Cheif Operating Officer
    Richcorp, Inc. 
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003893

From: Konrad Ko(FFFF)odziejczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to settlement was accepted because Microsoft didn`t 
break law. Microsoft commingling Internet Explorer with Windows 
isn`t illegal.



MTC-00003894

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is hard to understand how Microsoft can be judged guilty and 
then be given such a light penalty. In fact the proposed settlement 
looks more like a creation of Microsoft`s marketing department than 
any kind of deterrent to monopolistic practices. Even with the minor 
changes announced today this settlement boosts Microsoft`s position 
in the education market, one of the few areas that it has any 
serious competition.
    Both Apple and Linux are very effectively blocked by this 
decisions. While Microsoft entrenches itself in an a market it has 
failed to master. Further the plan to allow used or refurbished 
equipment to be placed leverages Microsoft`s exploitation of the 
matter, boosting used PC prices while saddling schools with 
technology that will quickly become outmoded. No penalty would be a 
better solution that this government sponsored marketing blitz.
    Don Pratt
    32 Ohio Ave
    W. Springfield, MA 01089



MTC-00003895

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am deeply disturbed by the DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft. I 
feel that the proposed settlement does nothing to redress the abuses 
perpetrated by Microsoft in the past and is a disservice to U.S. 
consumers.
    The court case was won. Microsoft was declared a monopoly. Now, 
why are they getting let go without substantive penalty? They have 
shown their recidivist tendencies time and time again.
    I am concerned that the source of the decision to `go 
soft' on Microsoft after the case was won is a sign of this 
administration siding with business against the consumer. I have 
never voted for a Democrat in my life, but things like these make me 
upset enough that I will in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Nelson



MTC-00003896

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    The following is my comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I care about one thing, and wish to see it abolished by 
the settlement.
    My concern is the agreements between Microsoft and suppliers of 
hardware peripheral equipment (such as modems, printers, scanners 
etc.) that have the effect of keeping secret the command-codes 
needed to write drivers for these peripherals.
    I have had to buy a new modem and a new printer and a new TV 
card to use with Linux, because Linux cannot support the ones that 
came with my system_ because the free software community is 
frozen out of the information needed to write the drivers for these 
peripheral units.

[[Page 24384]]

    I have been damaged personally by the practice of keeping these 
drivers a proprietary secret between Microsoft and the peripheral 
suppliers who make these deals.
    I will not besatisfied with the settlement unless and until it 
specifically precludes Microsoft from using its dominant market 
position to limit competition by making and keeping such deals to 
restrict information on the command-codes needed to write the 
drivers for computer peripheral equipment.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis O. Donnelly



MTC-00003897

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I hope you have been receiving a lot of informational email 
regarding the DOJ vs. Microsoft case. This is an important case, and 
I am very disappointed in the proposed settlement, as are most of my 
colleagues. I have worked in the IT industry for 9 years, and have 
seen first-hand the negative effects of Microsoft`s predatory 
pricing and marketing tactics. I think it is important to remember 
that Microsoft has been found guilty of violation of antitrust laws, 
and should pay a steep price, a much steeper price than is proposed.
    I suggest you read the following articles/opinions, in which the 
flaws of this settlement are discussed. The list is by no means 
complete, just a small sampling from various IT sites. It has 
actually been rather startling how the IT industry as a whole 
condemns this settlement; the question of litigation years ago was 
much more contentious. Of course, it has become clearer through the 
years that Microsoft has broken the law.
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2827338,00.html
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2827122,00.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22711.html
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2826633,00.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22684.html
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/11/02/
microsoft_settlement/index.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22647.html
    Erich Schmidt
    Director of Technology
    Obik LLC
    http://www.obik.com/



MTC-00003898

From: Tom Kornack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Everyone can agree that monopolies are bad for the nation. The 
Microsoft settlement does not punish microsoft in any meaningful way 
and goes a long way towards increasing their stranglehold on the 
market by allowing them to flood the schools with their products. In 
donating their software to schools that would not normally purchase 
the software, they lose virtually no money. Software costs pennies 
to copy and yet they will say that it adds up to billions of 
dollars. Not so. The punishment should not exonerate them and allow 
them to go further down their path of incompatibility and 
exclusionary market tactics. Other commerical and open source 
software that interoperates with Microsoft software needs to be 
embraced, not killed by this settlement. Please seek real punishment 
for Microsoft. They have a monopoly and this settlement does nothing 
to control it.
    Regards,
    Tom Kornack
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, TA-3, SM-1586, 
RM-109
    505-665-1939 (o), 609-577-7609 (m), 
505-672-4140 (h)
    73 Joya Loop, White Rock, NM 87544
    kornack.com



MTC-00003899

From: Bo Turnbow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I write to express my discontent with the current settlement 
proposal for the Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe the proposed 
measures fall far short of punishments necessary to rein in 
Microsoft`s monopolistic activities. In fact, the nature of the 
settlement appears to gloss over the fact that Microsoft was found 
GUILTY of violating anti-trust laws and therefore harmed its 
competitors.
    In my opinion, an adequate settlement would punish Microsoft for 
its past behaviors and compensate the companies, technologies, and 
users who were harmed as a result of Microsoft`s harmful practices. 
The current settlement does none of these things and appears to be a 
`wristslap'. Microsoft must provide source code for both 
its operating system and internet browser to its competitors to 
strip it of the advantages it gained by its harmful. There also must 
be significant behavioral controls (with penalties) to guard against 
future anti-trust violations. Microsoft is still benefiting greatly 
from the advantages it gained by unlawful actions. This must be 
punsihed!
    Signed,
    Bo Turnbow
    Tempest Technologies, LLC
    Reserve Financial Center
    400 North Park Avenue
    Helena, MT 59624
    Voice: (406) 495-8731
    Fax: (406) 443-8083
    [email protected]
    http://www.tempesttech.com



MTC-00003900

From: Ben Rosengart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am gravely concerned about the flaws in the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I do not feel that the settlement 
effectively addresses the issues. It allows Microsoft to keep the 
fruits of their crimes, and it will not hinder them from 
perpetrating similar crimes in the future.
    Reams of analysis of the settlement have been written in the 
weeks since it was disclosed. Rather than rewrite what`s already 
been written well by others, I prefer to supply you with some 
pointers. CNet has some excellent analysis here: http://
news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7765151.html?tag=nbs 
Robert X. Cringely makes some salient points about halfway down this 
page: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html I am a 
systems administrator for Public Access Networks Corp., aka Panix, a 
small internet service provider in New York City. Computer software 
is my livelihood and also a hobby. As a computing professional with 
a passing familiarity with law, I urge you to reconsider this 
settlement.
    You have every chance of imposing real remedies on Microsoft. If 
you do so, I predict that you will see a real resurgence in the 
computing parts of the economy. There are a lot of good ideas and 
strong businesses that can arise when the market is free of 
monopolistic distortions.
    Thank you for reading this message.
    Ben
    `When I say `literally`, I literally mean 
`literally`.'



MTC-00003901

From: Spilger Philip G (Phil) PSNS
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 12:58pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement: Individual Public Comment
    I feel the settlement reached with the Department of Justice and 
nine of the plaintiff states is a fair and reasonable compromise 
that is good for consumers and will be good for the economy. The 
proposal filed recently by the other states, is extreme and not 
commensurate with what is left of the case. The Court of Appeals 
decision drastically narrowed the liability issues and provides the 
best roadmap as we move forward with these remedy proceedings
    Phil
    Phone: (360) 476-2202
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00003902

From: Tracey Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:58pm
Subject: Anti-trust Case
    I have been continually amazed at the amount of public funds 
being wasted to bring down a company that has helped spur the 
economy and growth of our nation as much or more than any other in 
the last three decades. Software is a fluid product. Being a 
developer, I can tell you that there is no monopoly to be had in 
software. A new stab at a product is always just around the corner 
and even a large successful company like Microsoft could easily miss 
being the one to bring such innovation to market. It has happened 
before, and will likely happen again. IBM had a firm lock on the 
computer industry and, in fact, seeing the opportunities for profit 
was among the first in the PC market. They blew it. IBM. They lost 
to an upstart company (Microsoft). This is the way

[[Page 24385]]

of this business. Old anti-trust arguments do not so easily apply.
    I say get this whole business behind us and stop spending public 
money to damage our market place.
    Tracey Wade
    Technical Advisor
    x6118
    The information in this email and in any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on 
your systems and notify the sender immediately. You should not 
retain, copy or use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or 
any part of its content to any other person.



MTC-00003903

From: Bill Shepherd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement and anti-trust suit by DOJ;
    Sirs,
    The settlement in the MSFT vs. DOJ (or MSFT v.s. cryin 
competitors) was, on its face, ludicrous. Since it was seen fit to 
allow the decision of a judge who, at best, was in grave error stand 
and dameliorate the situation with a lesser penalty and MSFT agreed 
to it, let it stand.
    The positions of the states in opposition smack of money 
grubbing. I am reminded of sharks circling an injured fish. There 
seems to be some easy blood and flesh to glean for little or no 
efort. The fact that those states have nothing in the way of injury 
to that state to tie the amounts of the fine to merely highlights 
the sense of lusting after free money.
    If the prople were damaged, damages should go to the people 
damaged, not to a fovernment who will further damage them. If there 
is a settlement to ber elicited then it should go to those who 
purchased the software in question. I fail to see where the percent 
damage can be refunded in the case of Explorer, since it was free 
anyway, and still is, including it in the operating system cannot be 
the actual source of damage. In my mind it is the sole concern of 
the manufacturer whether he includes the engine in the car as a part 
of the car, or charges for each and every bolt and part separately. 
The only determinant of success would be the consumer who would then 
immediately go to the manufacturer that did not follow this 
practice. I would think that this analogy would be fairly simple for 
the learned folks of the judicial system, even those august 
determiners of our fate, the judges we have place our faith in.
    The entire process sickens me. Let it stand as is or vacate the 
entire thing as a frivolous and predjudicial action on its face. I, 
for one, have lost a tremendous amount of faith in our system as it 
has evolved. What has made us great is our freeedom to innovate. 
This is set to undermine and destroy that freedom as well as others. 
It is time we returned to our freedoms before we are all totally 
enslaved by the controls of a bloated government and a legal system 
that has so many laws that nothing is legal and everything is legal, 
depending on the skills and misdirection abilities of the legal 
argument smiths and courtroom thespians. MSFT simply spends more 
money, time and effort on development and ennovation than the 
others. This resultls in some real bombs and some great successes. 
When they bomb they don`t mel about and blame SUN and ORACLE, thye 
just continue on to compete. The thingsd they have done are well 
within the guidlines of business taught in our business schools such 
as Harvard an others thought to be great institutions of learning. 
They are good, solid business practices. In fact, a blind man can 
see that the very practices complained against were, as the case 
drug on, being blatantly practice by many of the plaintifs in the 
case.
    Let it stand and get on with life.
    Yours,
    William R. Shepherd



MTC-00003904

From: Thomas Streeter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case, in particular to object to provisions that give 
Microsoft the power to exclude nonprofit software producers from its 
obligations to disclose APIs (e.g., Section III (J) (2): 
`...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...') . As you know, nonprofit software has long 
been and continues to be central to the information economy; it 
produced the internet, for example. In the interests of consumers 
and the health of the economy as a whole, I urge you to change the 
language of the sections to unequivocally include nonprofit software 
producers.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Streeter
    Sociology Dept.
    University of Vermont
    31 So. Prospect St.
    Burlington, VT 05405 USA
    802 656-2167; fax 802 656-2131
    [email protected]; http://www.uvm.edu/ï¿½7Etstreete



MTC-00003905

From: Thomas, Stuart P_Raleigh, NC
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever receives this:
    I have scant spare time, but this is important. I am VERY 
displeased with the settlement against Microsoft, and VERY 
disappointed in the Justice Department.
    Microsoft was found guilty, plain and simple. Their punishment 
equates to being forced to `play fair' in the future, 
but applies NO PENALTY for past wrong-doing. That is NOT justice. It 
does go to show you that you can get away with anything if you have 
enough money to buy off the government, as Microsoft did by heavily 
funding both Republican and Democratic parties. I
    could be a lot more eloquent and say a LOT more about this, but 
my spare minute is up now. Thank you for hearing me out. I hope you 
all sleep horribly at night.
    Stuart Thomas
    Long-time federal employee, taxpayer, and registered voter



MTC-00003906

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:11pm
Subject: The Settlement in Perspective
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I have followed this case for years and have read many of the 
documents including Judge Jackson`s Findings and Ruling, the Appeals 
Court 125-page document and the latest Settlement documents. I have 
written everyone from Presidents Clinton and Bush to my Senators and 
Congressmen about my feelings about this case. One thing stands out 
in my mind. In the past when I wrote public officials with my 
feelings that this case is overblown and that it was time to move 
beyond it I was told that it is `A MATTER STRICTLY FOR THE 
COURTS'. Now we have public hearings. So once more I will 
voice my opinion but I fail to understand why there should be more 
hoopla surrounding this matter at this time just as I fail to see 
why the State Attorneys General continue to insist on separate 
positions. It seems to me that they derailed the conclusion of this 
case at least twice to date by their divisive and self-serving 
behavior. Each time the States have delayed the conclusion of this 
matter there have been coincident drops in the stock market and 
blows to the economy. A true coincidence? I seriously think not.
    Let`s get this matter into perspective with past cases where 
consumers or commercial customers may have actually suffered from 
corporate activities. Between the economic and non-economic 
challenges that this nation faces today we seem to have a 
disproportionate effort spent on this effort not to mention the 
waste of taxpayer money at the federal and state levels for legal 
proceedings. I strenuously urge you to lend your voices to the voice 
of reason and move forward with the existing settlement as it 
stands. Hopefully the nation can still capitalize on Microsoft`s 
offer to contribute a billion dollars of goods and services to our 
school systems although it looks as though the pending Apple 
litigation makes that less likely every day. Let`s put our national 
efforts where they are truly needed and not on such silly measures 
as controversy about `the tying of the browser to the 
operating system'. Try saying that in the same sentence or 
paragraph as `the collapse of the World Trade Center' 
and you can`t help see some of the triviality.
    Respectfully,
    Raymond Petrone, P.E.



MTC-00003907

From: hal King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see Steve Satchell become one of the three-
member committee responsible for keeping watch over Microsoft.
    If Microsoft can control who has access to Windows` interface 
and API specifications,

[[Page 24386]]

they can control what software can work with Windows. This limit 
extends to other computers that must network with the computer 
runnning Windows. Allowing sections III(J)(2) and III(D) would 
effectively allow Microsoft (who controls a majority of the desktop 
computers in the U.S.) to further limit their competition.
    hal king
    Unix System Group/The University of Tennessee at Knoxville
    pgp key http://web.utk.edu/ï¿½7Ehck/hal.asc



MTC-00003908

From: Jones, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Renata B. Hesse,
    Persistent to the Tunney Act I hereby reserve and exercise my 
right to comment on the proposed settlement. I understand The Tunney 
Act procedures require the United States to:
    1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact 
Statement (CIS) with the court.
    2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal 
Register.
    3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected 
newspapers.
    4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after 
the proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
    5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, 
in the Federal Register.
    6. File the comments received and responses to them with the 
court.
    This proposed settlement is a victory for Microsoft(MS) and slap 
on the face to the American people. We the people have been taken 
advantage of by the monopolistic position of MS, and have blindly 
placed our interests and trust in the hands of Department of Justice 
to settle it this case within our interests. Once again, you have 
failed us! As a computer professional, to this day I still see the 
monopolistic position of MS bullying its competition. I was in a 
computer store this weekend asking for Linux software when the sales 
person told me that Microsoft forbid them to sell the Linux 
operating system and compatible software, they (MS) 
`..suggested that their resellers license be revoked'.. 
if they did.
    It`s obvious that the Department of Justice interests are not 
that of the American people, and we have been taken advantage of 
again. MS should be required to give away the operating system and 
application software (at the same rate they have been forcing us to 
upgrade for the next 25 years), open their source, and guarantee 
backward compatibility with all future products forever. As well as 
return at least 25% of the illegal monies they have collected from 
the American people. Then be held strictly accountable for future 
actions. Anything less is a victory to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Larry Jones
    2398 Madison St SE
    Albany, Oregon 97321
    (541) 924-9341



MTC-00003909

From: Michael Paul Everson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:21pm
Subject: Settling With Microsoft
    Microsoft has repeatedly abused its position and ignored 
government restrictions. Their greatest skill has always been the 
subtlety of their deceit. If the DOJ really wants to make this 
situation change, it needs exact severe penalties for any 
transgression. These penalties need to be clearly defined so that we 
don`t just end up back in court.
    Microsoft must be forced to separate their operating system and 
application businesses. While these can exist in the same company 
the information exchange between these department must be in the 
public record. Too often in the past Microsoft has used its time to 
market advantage from deals worked out between these groups. Given 
the dominance of the Windows operating system, this must be enforced 
for the benefit of the market as a whole.
    There must also be a mechanism for third-parties to request 
enhancements that there products require. The review of these 
requests must be made in a public forum to make sure they are given 
equitable consideration. While the economy is in a slump right now, 
we cannot sacrifice the future of our technology for a quick fix. 
The freedom to innovate and have equitable access to the market is 
essential to our continuing prosperity.
    Michael P. Everson
    Distributed Systems Architect
    Orcades Informative Consulting Ltd
    231 East 46th Ave, Vancouver, BC, CANADA V5W 1Z5
    phn:+1 (604) 671-7016 fax:+1 (604) 730-5422 
email:[email protected]
    http://www.orcades.com



MTC-00003910

From: Luby, Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all due respect to the DOJ Anti-trust department, this case 
should have never been pursued in the first place. I thought that 
anti-trust legislation was to protect the consumer, not to appease 
competitors that are losing in the marketplace. Has Microsoft always 
been a perfect angel? I don`t think so. Microsoft should face no 
penalties that involve changes to their product or by 
`releasing' information about their source code. The 
future of computing is not a bunch of different systems that aren`t 
compatible but a global network of computers seamlessly exchanging 
information. Microsoft is working on this goal.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas F. Luby



MTC-00003911

From: George Lenzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:27pm
Subject: Current Settlement adds more strength to the Microsoft 
Monopoly
    While the donations that Microsoft proposes, sound generous on 
the surface, they really aren`t giving anything more than further 
dependence on Microsoft products. It would be a shame to see 
Microsoft get off with just a `slap on the wrist', while 
the people who were hurt by Microsoft`s practices get no reparations 
whatsoever. A better course of action would be to have Microsoft 
fund (with no strings attached) companies that are developing 
alternatives to their products. This would level the playing field 
(which is really what all of this is about) unlike their current 
proposal. I am opposed to seeing Microsoft go unpunished for their 
actions against other companies. They`ve gotten by time and time 
again, but there is an opportunity to change this now. I have no 
desire to see Microsoft lose it`s footing in the computer industry, 
but I waould like to see more successful alternatives.
    Thanks,
    George H. Lenzer
    Owner
    D.L. Media
    1348 Cohassett Place
    Lakewood, Ohio 44107
    Voice_(216) 228-7481



MTC-00003912

From: Craig W Gold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:43pm
Subject: DOJ
    I think you are sending a bad signal by letting corruption run 
rampant. You should be ashamed. Are you all just so many common 
criminals with no sense of right and wrong? Does big money buy off 
the DOJ just like that?
    I do not respect the DOJ any more.



MTC-00003913

From: Barb Keough
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/10/01 1:37pm
Subject: Please Don`t Punish Apple for the sins of Microsoft!
    Please Don`t Do It!
    I understand that the justice department is planning to hand 
over a substantial portion of the Education market to the Windows 
platform by replacing Macs with Windows computers. This is 
supposedly to punish Microsoft for being a monopoly that does not 
play fair??? How do you figure that? I use Macintosh (Apple) 
computers. It is a wonderful platform. It has done nothing wrong! 
Why are you punishing Apple?? I am in the design industry and 
Macintosh (Apple) is the only platform that I want to use. Please 
don`t hand over the Educational Market to the Windows platform!!! 
This proposed settlement gives Microsoft a big boost in a market 
segment they have been unable to dominate_one which Apple has 
a razor thin majority right now. Why is the court ready to kill a 
substantial portion of Apple`s market and hand it to Microsoft? How 
does this punish Microsoft?? Why are you punishing Apple?
    I am writing to you because I am told that you are dedicated to 
continuing with more effective anti-trust remedies.

[[Page 24387]]

    I`d be interested in your thoughts and actions regarding this 
issue.
    Thank you
    Barbara Keough
    Buffalo, NY



MTC-00003914

From: Craig W Gold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:44pm
Subject: Fw: DOJ
    Mister Ashcroft:
    Make that WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS which are the worst in my 
opinion. Only for green and not out of need do these and people like 
you exist. Crooks in suits !!!! You all stink. I hope you have to 
use Windows your entire life !!!
    I think you are sending a bad signal by letting corruption run 
rampant. You should be ashamed. Are you all just so many common 
criminals with no sense of right and wrong? Does big money buy off 
the DOJ just like that? I do not respect the DOJ any more.



MTC-00003915

From: Earle Nietzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:43pm
Subject: My vote in favor of Red Hat`s DOJ propsal
    Why would we not want to put a free OS on PC`s that can be used 
to teach.
    ALL UNIVERSITIES DO IT...
    Earle Nietzel
    4 Club Lane
    Rock Hill, NY 12775
    or
    [email protected]



MTC-00003916

From: Jeffrey Melton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am deeply alarmed by the terms of the current settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I feel there are 
serious flaws which further Microsoft`s monopoly power and even 
reward them for their anti-competitive practices. Microsoft was 
found guilty and should make amends to the customers and companies 
they abused.
    In particular, Microsoft`s offer to donate more $1 billion in 
software, services, training and refurbished computers to poor 
schools around the country will actually further their reach into a 
market they don`t yet dominate. Rather than serve as a punishment 
for them, this `gift' would grow their market share, 
squeeze out other companies such as Apple (which has given a lot to 
the educational sector), and increase the overall dependence on 
Microsoft products_all at the expense of citizens. Microsoft 
has essentially guaranteed itself that much in sales in free 
advertising with this offer. Also, the cost to Microsoft wouldn`t 
total nearly $1 billion in brand new, quality software and services.
    Instead, I recommend that $1 billion cash be used to create an 
endowment fund, administered by a non-profit, public foundation 
which would distribute that money to schools and organizations to 
use on alternative computer operating systems and 
services_specifically NOT Microsoft`s. The foundation could 
also invest a portion of that money to sustain the program for 
perpetuity and undo Microsoft`s domination which they seek to 
sustain. Also, the terms of the settlement don`t go far enough to 
protect customers and companies of non-profit products such as Linux 
which don`t get the same treatment and protection as for-profit 
companies. Thank You,
    jeffrey melton / http://www.nofi.org/index.shtml
    nofi design / p.o.box 10231 / fort wayne, IN / 46851-0231
    [email protected]_email / 
1-312-660-3701 x2171_voicemail/fax
    `Technique is the differentiating force in all 
technologies.'



MTC-00003917

From: John Econopouly
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against this settlement. It will not do enough to curb 
Microsoft`s illegal practices.
    In my opinion there is no doubt that Microsoft has a monopouly 
on desktop OS`es, and no doubt that they have used it to gain 
illegal advantage over competitors, at the ultimate expense of 
consumers. They have lied and misled under oath to retain this 
unfair advantage, and the outcome of their trial was just. This 
settlement is far too lenient.
    At the very least, the language in Section III(J)(2) should be 
modified to not have a negative effect on free software 
initiatives_some of the major remaining competitors to 
Microsoft`s hegemony, and with obvious advantages for consumers. But 
really you should seek a more aggressive solution that will not be 
as open to interpretation as this one, such as breaking Microsoft 
up.



MTC-00003918

From: H Donehower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to put the Microsoft Anti-Trust matter to bed. The 
Justice Department and the Federal Government should spend their 
time and effort on more important and pressing matters. Matters of 
National Security and World Wide Freedom. The Federal Government and 
individual States have gone overboard in the harassment of 
Microsoft. States with selfish interest in protecting their home 
based companies used flawed reasoning to pursue litigation against 
Microsoft. Our Federal Government with political bias campaigned 
against one of the companies that helps to continue our legacy as 
the home of the free with freedom to innovate. Bill Gates is an 
American patriot and has fostered freedom to innovate. His 
competitors wants to use politics to accomplish in the courtroom 
what they can`t achieve in the market place.
    Settle the matter. Get on with the more important business of 
protecting our nation from terrorism.
    H. Roy Donehower, Col., USMC (Retired)
    64631 E. Canyon Shadows Lane
    Tucson AZ 85739-2028
    520-825-1093



MTC-00003919

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is wrong to persecute Microsoft. The general public has never 
been harmed by Microsoft`s business practices. The only winners in 
the Justice and states` case against Microsoft is Microsoft`s 
competitors. To say that the public would be better off if 
Microsoft`s competitors were able to be more competitive is a 
phantom. No one could possibly know what would happen if Microsoft`s 
competitors were better managed, more in tune with their markets, 
employees more motivated and more visionary. And yet the government 
has decided it does know the outcome of something that NEVER 
HAPPENED. What a farce!
    Compared to what IBM wanted to charge for OS/2, Microsoft has 
maintained a low price to the general PC user for its operating 
systems. To ensure the general user was able to utilize reliable 
sub-programs to the operating system, Microsoft has added and 
maintained features over the years. Microsoft`s success has 
primarily come from listening to its customers and providing what 
they wanted.
    Why is the government punishing one of the best managed 
manufacturers in the world...a company that listens to the consumer, 
a company that allows its employees to be owners, a visionary, risk-
taking, financially solid, world encompassing power for the US 
economy? No other reason than that Microsoft`s business competitors 
found the US government willing to do their work for them. There is 
greed in the halls of congress and Microsoft`s competitors are 
taking full advantage of it.



MTC-00003920

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:53pm
Subject: stop the lawsuit
    The US economy should not be destroying companies that our 
economy depends on. The US lawsuit against Microsoft led the 
downfall of the stock market and continues to undermine our 
confidence in the economy and the Governments ability to lead.



MTC-00003921

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly suggest that Microsoft will be looked upon in a 
favorable way in this settlement. Microsoft has become a giant in 
its industry and maybe some of the business practices are illegal 
and too aggressive. All I know is that Microsoft does many good 
things in my surrounding communities (I am from Washington State). 
Microsoft has made many millionairs and has allowed many of its 
employees to become very wealthy. This contributed to more spending 
and has helped to drive the economy not just here. Microsoft has 
shared its wealth freely and I do not consider this company to be a 
greedy

[[Page 24388]]

corporation just looking after its very own wealth.
    By the way, I did notice that economies nationwide were going 
great until lawsuits with Microsoft came into the works. It seems to 
have upset many markets. Please do not do with Microsoft what has 
been done to AT&T when the divesture took place.
    Karin E. Ho, EA
    Business Accountant



MTC-00003922

From: Dino Chiesa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Tunney Act Feedback
    This case was a witch-hunt, and an example of activist 
government overstepping their responsibility and mandate. It should 
never have been pursued. The settlement snatches victory for the 
American people from the jaws of a seemingly certain defeat, created 
by Janet Reno and her incompetent administration.
    In more detail,
    1. I agree with the need for government oversight of monopoly, 
but this case stretched the law much too far. The US Government 
should refrain from engaging in product design, attempting to 
dictate which function should or should not be included in a 
particular product, particularly in an industry as young and dynamic 
as the computer software industry. The tying clause included in the 
original complaint was out of date almost by the time the first 
hearings were held. Healthy Competition, with its result being a 
goodly amount of corporate gore, is the foundation of strength for 
the American economy. Some companies are winners and some are losers 
in fair competition_in this way, the consumer benefits. By 
attempting to restrain Microsoft, government intervention in this 
case actually served to reduce competition rather than promote it.
    2. In retrospect, this case appears to have lived beyond its 
deserved life only because politicians and lawyers smelled money. 
They looked at the Tobacco settlement and decided that they would 
like a chance to extract a pound of flesh from Microsoft as well. 
The holdout of a few states continues to reflect this 
mindset_if there is money to be had, let`s go after it. The 
case was NEVER about the public good. The case NEVER demonstrated 
that consumers were harmed. It was ALWAYS about protecting companies 
that failed to compete effectively with Microsoft, local 
constituencies. It was about greed and egos of lawyers.
    3. If the government was really interested in promoting the 
consumer good, they would have bestowed a medal of honor upon 
Microsoft, one of America`s most admired companies and best 
employers, and builder of the World`s Best Software, by any 
reasonable metric. Microsoft succeeded to the extent it did, 
worldwide, because the company designs good products that people 
want to use, and distributes them in an efficient and effective 
manner. That the US Government, in times like these, would want to 
persecute such an American success story is beyond the pale.
    Absolutely shameful! Janet Reno should receive a dishonorable 
discharge, retroactively.
    Hail to George Bush and his Justice Department for putting and 
end to the foolishness and settling the case.
    Long live representative democracy, capitalism, and the American 
way!
    The opinions expressed in this email are my own, and not the 
opinions or position of my employer.
    DinoChiesa
    565 Audubon Av
    Pittsburgh PA 15228
    +1.412.563.0172



MTC-00003923

From: Joseph Schlecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to submit a comment about the proposed settlement 
between the Federal Government and Microsoft. In accordance with the 
Tuney Act, I request that the following comments, and any responses 
received, be published in the Federal Register and filed with the 
court.
    1. I do not believe that this settlement goes far enough to 
penalize Microsoft for the crimes it has committed. Microsoft is an 
illegal monopoly, this is a ruling by the courts of our great 
country.
    2. As a member of the free software community, I would like to 
make it known that the verbage contained in the proposed settlement, 
like Section III(J)(2), could possibly eliminate many free software 
projects. The verbage used is to Microsoft`s advantage, they will 
manipulate their ability to arbitrarily certify the authenticity and 
viability of a business to crush us (the free software community) 
like they have illegally crushed other competitors.
    These are two of the largest problems I have with the proposed 
settlement. Let their be no doubt, if this settlement is approved, 
consumers will not benefit in the long-run, they will be subjected 
to an even more intense monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Schlecht
    Student, North Dakota State University



MTC-00003924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:02pm
Subject: settle this
    i believe a settlement is needce immedidatelly as this has 
dragged on too long. there are more important things to take care of 
and were it not for microsoft tghere probably be near the advances i 
hi-tech that we have today. i have never heard one complaint about 
the prices that windowsx wa too expensive. i don`t se where the 9 
states says that it is. if it wasw too expensive nobody woul but it. 
compare it to linux-who wants it. pedamner @aol.com



MTC-00003925

From: Petre Scheie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-
    I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is too favorable to Microsoft and 
will do little to prevent it from unfairly computer industry. 
Specifically, according to a recent article by Robert Cringley, 
(http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html): 
`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, 
...'ï¿½1A'
    I see no reason why Microsoft should be exempt from providing 
APIs, etc. only to business, and worse, only to 
businesses_it_deems as viable. Microsoft should be 
forced to publish its APIs, communication protocols and 
documentation for all to see. The current wording would, among 
others, allow Microsoft to not reveal those details to the 
government because it is not a business. And make no mistake, as it 
has shown repeatedly, Microsoft will try to 
exploit_every_loophole to its advantage.
    Thank you.
    Petre Scheie
    System Administrator



MTC-00003926

From: Dan Kloepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:03pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    The anti-trust settlement benefits to schools and libraries 
seems a lot like wnat was already being done by Microsoft through 
the Gates Foundation `grants' which were supposed to 
help poor institutions, and supply low cost assistance to others.
    A close look at the assistance reveals that the USDOJ should 
have consulted with both k-12 and public libraries to see that 
the `help' was minimal, the proposed new help would be 
even less effective, and probably provide more of a write off for 
Microsoft, thus being an additional smokescreen by Microsoft.
    I would suggest contacting representatives of all size public 
and K-12 libraries, and possibly the ALA www.ala.org. fora 
better picture of the failure of these processes to help K-2 
and public libraries, and their actual benefit to Microsoft.
    I would suggest you contact public librarians whoare members 
ofthe Suburban Library System in Suburban Chicago, such as my wife, 
Krista Kloepper to see how laughable the Gates Foundation and and 
later Microsoft assistance is.
    D Kloepper



MTC-00003927

From: Steven H. Steinberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached is fine and should be put in place so 
that we can move on. There is much to much input from Sun, Oracle, 
and AOL going on. The court should

[[Page 24389]]

rule the settlement finished and tell the other states where to go.
    Steven H. Steinberg



MTC-00003928

From: Al BAdger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Government has gone far too far in its involvement in this 
case. The Government should not be in the business of edicting how 
software is designed. Anyone who did not like Microsoft products 
could have voted with their hard drives and purchased Apple or O/
S-2 or any of the other competition. They didn`t because 
Microsoft had a better product and I have used it for years, as well 
as several of their competition`s. So what if Microsoft gave the 
customer a better deal by including a free browser? We the customer 
got the free browser and the best overall operating systems on the 
market over the years.If you had ever tried to piece together 
software designed by disparate vendors before windows you would 
understand the miracle they accomplished.
    The governments interests in protecting the people would be far 
better served by investigating the patronage that goes on throughout 
its many branches both State and Federal where we pay for the best 
qualified person to be hired and get instead some unqualified hack 
and then pay again because we have to actually hire someone to do 
the work.
    Start with the Massachusetts State government, Logan Airport and 
the Massachusetts `Pork' Authority! We the taxpayer lost 
thousands of our fellow citizens, and Billions of dollars because of 
patronage at Logan airport and apparent incompetence of the FAA. 
Spend some time looking at where the real problems are in our 
society, and leave Bill Gates alone! He should praised for his 
accomplishments in stimulating the economy and expanding the world 
wide trade opportunities you are now stifling; not castigated by an 
out of touch government.
    Albert A. Badger
    70 Fletcher Street
    Winchester MA 01890



MTC-00003929

From: Ken Kern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:57pm
Subject: i disagree with settlement
    Microsoft should be broken up. Period.



MTC-00003930

From: Ken Kern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:00pm
Subject: microsoft in the schools
    are you guys crazy...this is just what MS wants. Think for a 
second, it increases their user base...which increases sales. Here 
is another solution, make MS buy the hardware for a linux or Apple 
installation in all the schools, to increase competition.



MTC-00003931

From: Laura Solomon
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 2:12pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    There are two problems here. By giving Microsoft the opportunity 
to settle through donating software to schools, Firstly, Microsoft 
is further strengthening their monopoly by giving the school 
software that will insure further dependence on Microsoft products. 
The second problem is that this settlement does nothing to make 
reparations for the undue damage that their business practices have 
caused to rivals. Giving away a few thousand copies of software that 
will lead to new purchases of their products, is not going to level 
the playing field. Microsoft is an important piece of the US 
economy, but it shouldn`t be the biggest one if it means sacrificing 
options to use other software from other companies.
    Laura Solomon
    Webmaster
    Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library
    2345 Lee Road
    Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118
    voice: (216)932-3600 ext.294 fax: (216) 932-0932
    http://www.heightslibrary.org/
    `It is not necessary to change. Survival is not 
mandatory.'_Edward Deming



MTC-00003932

From: Larry Lundquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have watched the case involving Microsoft and am dismayed with 
the twists and turns that have enveloped the case. In any business 
enviornment, the ability to innovate is critical to growth and well-
being of a company. When one is a leader in a field, such as 
Microsoft, the competion is intererested in disabling the advantages 
a company has. The crime involves anti-trust issues, (there is some 
question as to guilt) the penalities should involve perhaps changing 
of sales practices, cash, and mabey (this is also questionable) 
trading of product; something other than the elimination of 
innovation.
    Microsofts product is software code. When one must reveal 
software code and make adjustments that allow competitors to embed 
their software into Microsoft software, it is silly. With software, 
code separates a poor product from a good product. Most companies 
would love to take other companies software code and add it to their 
own code. Inovation is the creation of new good code in the software 
industry, and when states ask for this innovation to be revealed to 
competitors, it makes no sense.
    Enough is enough.
    Larry Lundquist
    Bellevue, Washington
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003933

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    The proposed settlement for the private law suits against 
Microsoft has an interesting angle to it. Microsoft cheats consumers 
of millions of dollars and the remedy is to give the money to an 
undefined group of schools instead of the people who were initially 
wronged. The `it`s for the children' routine is getting 
a little bit old. If Microsoft is so worried about the 
`children' then let them be magnanimous with their own 
money. The money that should go to the consumers should go to the 
consumers.
    This is like a car accident where the guilty party offers to buy 
every kid on the block an ice cream cone instead of paying for the 
damage that was done to the other car. If I were the guilty party, 
I`d think it a `sweet deal'. If I were the offended 
party, I`d be outraged.
    Speaking of `sweet deals'... ... if I decided to 
cheat on my income taxes and got caught (mind you_I`d only do 
this if I were actually caught cheating_just like Microsoft) 
could I buy my way out of the trouble by donating a bunch of my old 
worthless (I mean re-furbished) computer equipment to poor kids, 
too? Maybe even give them a few programs I`ve written but charge 
them full retail while I`m at it??????? After all, Microsoft may get 
to set just such a precedence.
    Aren`t you guys getting tired of having Microsoft tell YOU what 
they will or will not do and continue to play your department for a 
bunch of fools???? By the way.... have ANY of you actually taken a 
computer course or understand the industry at all???? It certainly 
doesn`t look like it from here, outside the beltway, in heartland 
America.
    Ralph Arnold (a.k.a. Arthur Frame on the net)
    Canton, Ohio
    P.S. For some actual insight into the larger case against 
Microsoft, maybe you boys should read the article at: http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    It explains why you look like such fools when dealing with Bill 
Gates. Come to think of it, the `geek boy' certainly has 
made the entire Justice Department look like hacks and dullards. 
Anyone connected with the case should seriously reconsider adding 
their participation to any resume. It wouldn`t be a plus unless you 
were applying for a job at Microsoft.



MTC-00003934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Hey its time to wrap up this settlement and stop wasting the 
nation`s money. The issues that precipitated the law suit are now 
mostly moot. The country has other, more important, things to worry 
about. The enemies of Microsoft will only be happy with the 
destruction of the Company which no practical person is going to 
recommend. Realize this and end it.
    R. Zardeskas
    4521 Larson Dr.
    Oak Harbor, WA 98277



MTC-00003935

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

[[Page 24390]]

Date: 12/10/01 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my concern about the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. This settlement does little to curb the abuses the 
Microsoft has employed to become the monopoly that it is today. It 
has enough loopholes to be ineffective at promoting competition and 
in fact appears to be written in a manner which actually empowers 
Microsoft to not share API, protocol, and file format information 
with non-commercial entities_the same entities which are 
currently the biggest threat to Microsoft, open-source programs.
    Microsoft has gotten where it is today by bundling applications 
with the operating system, making these de-facto industry standards 
(Word, Excel), and then raising prices once dominance has been 
established (MS Office). It then thwarts competition by changing 
protocol and file formats to ensure that competing products must 
continually reverse-engineer just to remain compatible. Microsoft 
also benefits by forcing everyone to upgrade to the newest office 
suite every couple of years, since old versions do not support the 
newer formats. It would not be able to do this if the applications 
had competition and users had the ability to choose the best 
implementation of a word processor, etc.
    For real competition to exist, Microsoft must design products 
around open specifications. Microsoft should be given leeway to 
promote their own protocols, but implementations of these should be 
open to competition so that the best product will succeed in the 
marketplace, not just the one that gets shipped with nearly every PC 
manufactured. This can only occur if Microsoft is forced to develop 
on a level playing field where all players are privy to the same 
information.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to leverage its monopoly in the 
operating system arena to other areas of computing. It has already 
done so with office applications and web browsing and continually 
tries to do so in other areas such as networking (authentication, 
SMB, anti-Java practices), audio/video media (audio/video codecs), 
and the internet (Windows XP MSN Explorer and .NET).
    The 1994 Consent Decree did nothing to stop Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices_it simply provided the foundation of 
loopholes for them to exploit. I sincerely hope that this settlement 
does not turn into another win for Microsoft. To quote Judge 
Sporkin, `Simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no 
more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has 
already gained.'
    Eric Deal
    Eric Deal Conexant Systems, Inc
    Senior Design Engineer Digital Infotainment Division
    [email protected] (512) 349-3557



MTC-00003936

From: Michael Whitesage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment
    I am writing this letter to express my support for the Microsoft 
Settlement. I am the President of a software development company. 
Contrary to the anti-trust charges, Microsoft has enabled me to 
build a global business that employs twenty people.
    Prior to Microsoft, the software we purchased was expensive, 
failed to integrate, and we always risked the failure of the 
company. Microsoft has provided us consistent products that we 
require to successfully develop our own applications.
    I feel that the Settlement is important to putting this behind 
us. The remedy is reasonable and will benefit many children who 
would not otherwise have this opportunity.
    We live in a competitive world. Today I compete with companies 
in Europe, India, and China. It is only through innovative software 
that we keep our advantage. Microsoft`s software and integrated 
solutions is essential to our continued success.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Whitesage
    President
    PRISM Group, Inc.
    10131 Coors Road NW, Suite 520
    Albuquerque, New Mexico 87114 USA
    Telephone: +1 505 897-7800
    Facsimile: +1 505 897-7898
    Internet: www.prism-grp.com 



MTC-00003937

From: Jon Webb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:28pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft settlement
    I understand that you are collecting opinions on the proposed 
settlement of the antitrust case with Microsoft. I strongly believe 
that the settlement represents nothing more than a complete 
capitulation of the government to Microsoft, which will only 
encourage Microsoft`s illegal, monopolistic, and anti-competitive 
acts in the future.
    It has been said that this case represents the last chance 
anyone will have to restrain Microsoft, because the role Microsoft`s 
own records have played in this case will surely make them change 
their practices on the use of email to discuss their anti-
competitive plans. The government has deliberately walked away from 
this chance.
    The Clinton administration handed you a won case. All you had to 
do was to pursue the appeal following the strategy laid out in the 
trial case, and the appeal was winnable_all the facts were 
there. The judge`s behavior hurt the case in the public`s view, and 
the judge`s removal meant that the judge would have to be replaced, 
but the facts were still there. Instead of pursuing the appeal, you 
dropped the ball.
    The American computer industry will be hurt by this. Already 
Microsoft is chilling competition in new areas, including 
multimedia. For a brief time, during this case, it appeared that 
there might be a chance for real competition in this area, and many 
startups bloomed in response. Now that opportunity is over.
    Jon Webb



MTC-00003938

From: Lorin Rivers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Much of the proposal seems to be attempts by 
Microsoft to INCREASE their competitive advantage.
    First, the aid for schools part needs to be a fund, with no free 
Microsoft software thrown in. This is an attempt to take customers 
from Apple.
    Secondly, it seems as if Microsoft is attempting to defeat free 
software such as Apache by preventing non-profit organizations from 
having the same rights as commercial enterprises with which 
Microsoft competes.
    They never quit!
    Thanks _
    Lorin Rivers 512.263.1233 x712 v
    Product Manager 512.263.1441 f
    REAL Software mailto:[email protected]
    PMB 220 http://www.realsoftware.com
    3300 Bee Cave Road, Suite 650
    Austin, Texas 78746
    REALbasic: the powerful, easy-to-use tool for creating your own 
software for Macintosh, Mac OS X, and Windows.



MTC-00003939

From: Joseph Waddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    My name is William Joseph Waddell III. I work with the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to provide technology 
services to over 200 users at the Carolina Population Center.
    I find myself asking where I should start. Permit me to start 
with the statement: Microsoft is Guilty! The Microsoft corporation 
has taken advantage of all people of the world. Their products 
(including MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, 
Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Office 95, Office 97, Office 
2000, Office XP, and countless other applications developed my 
Microsoft) are inferior to Open Source (read: FREE) software. 
Microsoft`s applications paint the user(s) into a 
`virtual' corner. Microsoft has known that they cannot 
compete with the open source community. Indeed, how Microsoft must 
have thought when constructing their business model taking into 
account that the products they provide are supplied for free, and 
with higher quality, by people around the world.
    They have attacked our open source community. An open source 
community where thoughts, ideas, sights, and sounds are for all to 
experience. An open source community who provides the technological 
tools with which all people can enrich their lives. Microsoft has 
attacked by entrenching themselves in proprietary thoughts and 
methods. Microsoft has not created anything great. Microsoft has 
taken away what was to be. Microsoft has not encouraged the 
betterment of our world...our community. They have shown that making 
money is more important that the well being of the people of the 
world. When a comprable open source

[[Page 24391]]

(FREE) product arrives on the software scene, Microsoft squelches it 
with their power of monopoly. That could have been the opportinity 
for thousands of, people who could not afford Microsoft software, to 
log onto the internet for the first time using open source (FREE) 
software. It may have been the begining of some children on the 
other side of the world creating an online community...but 
NO...Microsoft didn`t want it to happen without making some money on 
it!
    I`m asking you to terminate Microsoft with extreem prejudice. 
Please do not let Microsoft continue to oppress the majority of the 
world through their monopolistic practices!
    Sincerely,
    William Waddell
    Carolina Population Center
    [email protected]
    (919)966-6115



MTC-00003940

From: Eli Kae Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Eli Kae Moore
121 Wason ST
Medford, MA 02155
[email protected]
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I am writing to voice my opinion of the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I do know believe that the proposed settlement is 
adequate to protect the public`s interest. In particular I am 
against the idea of Microsoft donating software to schools or any 
other public institution instead of paying a monetary fine or having 
the company split into two or more entities. Microsoft has already 
been declared a monopoly and has used illegal means to maintain said 
monopoly. By having Microsoft donate software to the schools their 
monopoly is only furthered as most people stick to the computing 
platform which they learn first, changing only as advances in 
technology allow and/or require. Furthermore since Microsoft sets 
the price of this software there is no way to know exactly how 
punitive such action would actually be.
    I would also like to voice my concern regarding any 
correspondence supporting the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
Microsoft admitted to forgery in the past. I refer to earlier this 
year when Microsoft was caught fraudulently writing letters from 
fictitious or deceased individuals in support of Microsoft to state 
attorney generals and claiming that such behavior was both legal and 
the standard practice in business. For this reason I would consider 
correspondence in support of Microsoft to be quite suspect.
    Sincerely,
    Eli Kae Moore



MTC-00003941

From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:33pm
    I feel the proposed settlement as written is fair for the DOJ, 
Microsoft and U,S. consumers and that this matter should be laid to 
rest.
    Jeff Graber



MTC-00003942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I do not believe that the settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft 
have agreed to has gone far enough to punish Microsoft for its 
monopolistic behavior. The company was clearly found guilty of 
monopolistic behavior and for the government to `roll 
over' for them is simply not good for the software industry in 
the long run.
    At the miniumum, the DOJ should insist that Microsoft make its 
file formats publically available and thus, no longer, proprietary. 
This would include the file formats for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, 
movie and audio formats, etc.
    I thank you for your time.
    Saif A. Warsi



MTC-00003943

From: James E Bauer, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:37pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed Final Judgement
    I believe that the continuing success of our high tech 
industries is a critical part of our national future, and recommend 
that the settlement to which Microsoft has agreed is crucial to our 
getting back to work.
    Please expedite this process with a minimum of recrimination and 
adverse comment.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Bauer, M.D., M.Div.



MTC-00003944

From: Andrew Chen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 2:43pm
Subject: opinions about anti-trust settlement with Microsoft
    I think that in the settlement Microsoft must donate real money, 
instead of computers and (Microsoft) software, so that schools can 
have their own choices of computers and software.
    We want to give the freedom back to the customers and fair 
competition to companies. If the schools have to accept the Windows 
again as the results of anti-trust settlement, then such settlement 
ends up committing more monopoly for Microsoft. If so, I do not 
believe that the federal attorneys are doing a good job to protect 
the consumers.
    Andrew Chen
    CC:Andrew Chen



MTC-00003945

From: zmoran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well done and thank you.
    RJ Moran
    825 S. Tamarind Cir
    Barefoot Bay, Fl 32976



MTC-00003946

From: Alfred E. Spurr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The U.S. government is finally promoting the FREE enterprise 
system that this country was built on. Breaking up Microsoft would 
only make a mess out of a company which is only guilty of being 
competitive in a free enterprise system. Microsoft even helps its 
competitors by including some of their products on it`s system. The 
government did not break up IBM and look what that company has 
contributed to the business world.
    Thank you, U.S. Government



MTC-00003947

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a brief note to record my support for your efforts and the 
results in this settlement. Let`s get this issue completely behind 
us. In my opinion, our country has much more constructive tasks to 
accomplish than to drag down the engines of our economy. Thank you.
    John A. DeNinno, Ph.D.
    19213 51st Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98155
    [email protected]



MTC-00003948

From: Joseph Regina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    The purpose of this letter is to express my support for the 
settlement proposed by the Justice Department regarding the 
Microsoft case. I would like to congratulate the principal 
architects of this settlement. Excellent work. It is my opinion that 
the settlement strikes a difficult balance. I believe it will force 
Microsoft to rethink its culture towards a more `Live and Let 
Live'` approach towards competitors. I don`t believe it is the 
government place to pick winners. Consumers do a much better job. As 
a personal computer user for the past twenty years I have personally 
reaped many benefits over the evolution of PC operating systems. 
Programs that used to cost $40-200 dollars each (disk 
optimizers, disk defragmenters, color management, scanning software, 
etc...) are now much improved and free. For that I don`t think 
Microsoft needs to be punished. Much more needs to be integrated 
into the operating system to make them more useful and secure. I 
hope Microsoft continues to add features without raising prices. I 
do understand Microsoft`s competitors complaints, and there is merit 
to some of their complains. I believe the behavioral remedies 
proposed by the DOJ are quite appropriate.
    Keep up the good work.
    Best regards
    Joseph Regina
    [email protected]



MTC-00003949

From: Kirk S. Kuzma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft has been done wrong by

[[Page 24392]]

the DOJ, and it is time to end it.
    My simple view on the action brought against Microsoft is sheer 
amazement at the lack of understandanding for the software industry, 
and the difficulty of creating software for thousnads of differant 
configurations of personal computers.
    For example, PC manufacturers often use substandard components 
of several different varieties when creating PC for large customers. 
When this occurs, Microsoft has to include device drivers for every 
one of these devices. Try setting your monitor to a specific brand, 
you will be presented with several thousand choices from several 
hundred manufacturers. Add to the mix all the peripherals and you 
will see how many resources have been devoted to this single aspect 
of windows.
    It makes common sense to me for Microsoft to be able to control 
the base operating system as shippied initially to the customer. 
When manufacturers bundle helpful tutorials, additional software, or 
other Value Added Extras, they are invariably installed incorrectly, 
poorly documented, are of poor quality, and in most cases, affect 
the stability of the Operating System. As the feature set of Windows 
has increased over the years, the complexity of these features has 
been skillfully seperated into components which can be used by any 
number of applications that desire to use them. Like the Web Browser 
component. From the first day, this component was available to me 
for use in my Visual Basic applications. Netscape on the contrary 
was nearly unusable from other applications, and their philosophy 
was quite draconian_You must be contained within their browser 
if you wished to utilize the services that exposed.
    I have written several emails in the past, and it is clear that 
the whole case was driven not by the factual realities of software 
development, but the hidden agendas on the lobbyists who represented 
the companies that had painted themselves into a corner by creating 
huge slipshod applications that could no longer adapt to the 
marketplace. The truth is the same today_ Poorly written code 
stays around for a lot longer than people realize, and in my 
experience, most companies are loaded with substandard systems. I`m 
truly convinced that the action and finding against Microsoft 
precipitated the collapse of the market, as it said to the entire IT 
industry, dont try succeed or the government will intervene. The 
worse part was that the technical community was kept quite distant 
from the case, and I would challenge the so called court experts to 
explain the technologies exploited by Microsoft to achieve browser 
superiority. I doubt if they could. In fact, the government was 
never able to explain it.
    In the Software Development world, personalities take second 
place to quality, yet we reward the the most skilled political 
lobbyist by listening to their dishonest tales of conspiracy when 
they fail in their own business. Microsoft has done more good for 
standards that any other company in the world_and the 
government finds this bad? What is the message you are trying to get 
across?
    If you really want to do some good, go after all the Spammers 
and disseminators of Viruses and Trojan Software and make the 
penalties severe.
    Sincerely
    Kirk S. Kuzma
    Sr. Software Engineer



MTC-00003950

From: Bob Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    Microsoft`s offer to supply software and hardware to schools is 
pure marketing. In doing so, they are extending their monopoly and 
creating an additional revenue stream that will pay out as schools 
are forced to upgrade existing software to match Microsoft`s ever 
changing file formats. This will also likely bind schools to 
Microsoft`s present and future licensing schemes where the software 
becomes cost prohibitive.
    A far more equitable solution would be to place the cash at the 
school`s disposal and let the normal rules of consumer choice apply. 
The schools could exercise their judgement to purchase Microsoft`s 
products or those of a competitor as they see fit.
    Regards,
    Bob Greene



MTC-00003951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice department could very well spend more time on 
projects that have an immediate effect on the economy. Take a look 
at the variances in gasoline prices in the west. Blatant price 
fixing at its best! The Micrsoft team is benefitting the economy 
with its state of the art products. Let their crybaby competitors 
wail all they want. Instead, they should just get busy, innovate and 
create new products and enjoy the fruits of the American free 
enterprise system like Microsoft did.



MTC-00003952

From: Gary Strauss
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The wording of the settlement document covers the case of for 
profit organizations and businesses very well but specifically 
excludes the not-for-profit groups that at the present time 
constitute the major competitors of Microsoft. The not-for-profit 
competition I refer to includes the Apache web server, the Linux 
operating system, the open office suite, sendmail, and Samba. The 
terminology limiting the recourse of not-for-profits needs to be 
revised to allow them the same rights as given to the for-profits.
    Gary C. Strauss
    American Megacom Inc.
    Phone: 734.779.4826
    Mobile: 734.812.5592
    Fax: 734.464.8828



MTC-00003953

From: James W. Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Subj: (1) Microsoft Settlement
    (2) ?Don?t kill the Golden Egg that hatched the Goose!?
    Myself and many other Small Businesses around the United States 
cannot help but be appalled at the Political circles that are 
kowtowing to AOL-TIME WARNER CONGLOMERATE, Sun Micro Systems 
and others. Please take the time to read my feelings, as well as the 
feeling of many others. The 9 States are attacking and litigating 
Microsoft, just as they did the Tobacco Companies. After the full 
litigation was over in Florida, for Example, the purpose for which 
the Litigants (the states lawyers sued for), not one RED CENT has 
been expended for those with Tobacco related illnesses. I know, I 
had an Uncle, Charlie Hay, who passed away in Dade County, Florida 
November 6, 2001 with CPD (Chronic Pulmonary Disease) from Smoking, 
and he was fortunate to have Family members take care of him! This 
is a farce of the highest order.
    The American Public is sincerely becoming fed up with all these 
activities at the expense of the State & Local Tax payers. Also, 
many of us Computer users, Prior to Microsoft Windows Operating 
Systems and Office Applications, found the Computer environment was 
very unfriendly, and Apple had a monopoly of the Windows ICON type 
programs. Microsoft innovated a way to make regular Pc`s act like 
Apple computers. This opened up the market for many PC manufacturers 
and the information industry. Please refer to the following URL, 
http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/info/
ms_schumer_response.asp
    This is a letter I just read to Senator Charles Schumer of New 
York, who it appears, is on the take from AOL-Time Warner and others 
who oppose any efforts by Microsoft to improve the ease of use of 
the windows operating system. He has been holding meetings with the 
Opponents of MICROSOFT Corp. in an effort to prevent them from doing 
their business. If this is allowed to continue, none of us in 
business in the United States are safe from these `Left Hand 
Liberal Wingnuts Socialists'.
    Microsoft has developed their software to the point where the 
entire world can communicate. My little company, Holland Signal, 
Inc. http://www.holland-signal.com, is able to communicate with our 
customers? worldwide on a Peer-Peer level that is un-paralleled in 
the History of the world. We have been using Microsoft, and other 
Software products of theirs, as well as other software Providers for 
over 15 years now. And they have steadily improved my companies 
operations tremendously, at a very affordable price.
    My customers and Associates in Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, 
Panama, Argentina and other locations in South America, France, 
Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as 
well as

[[Page 24393]]

Australia, New Zealand, Korea and South East Asia, and not to 
mention some 50 plus of my Extended family members can all 
communicate with me via the Internet and Microsoft Office Documents, 
MS Outlook (my scheduler and Internet Client), MSN Messenger, Net 
Meeting and a many other software systems and sub-systems, such as 
Adobe Acrobat and other Adobe products. All of my Foreign Clients 
and Associates marvel at the stupidity of our government allowing 
these attacks upon Microsoft. They cannot believe a National Asset, 
such as Microsoft is under such continuous attack. And, Microsoft is 
a National Asset. Stick your heads into any office near you and 
inquire as to the preference of their Software on their computer, 
and which one they use the most. You will find out very quickly, our 
Industries run predominantly on Microsoft. The reason is simple. It 
is easy to use, and it has commonality across the USA and the world, 
thanks to Microsoft `we have Compatibility'.
    It is time to call a halt to these Un-American Acts. It is to 
the point that I would welcome a return to the 1950s` when we had 
the house Un-American Activities committee, which would investigate 
these shenanigans. These Clinton and Schumer types, we have become 
fed-up with. And I have a lot of friends in the Elks, Moose, 
American Legion, D.A.V. and other organizations, to which I belong, 
who just can`t believe this type stuff is allowed to continue.
    Please let our feelings be known. Please ?Don?t kill the Golden 
Egg that hatched the Goose!?
    Sincerely,
    James W. Holland
    Holland Signal, Inc.
    P.O. Box 33607
    Indialantic, FL 32903-0607
    Tel.: +1-321-727-8737
    Fax : +1-407-650-2826
    e-mail: [email protected]
    
    web: http://www.holland-signal.com 
    CC:Bill Nelson,Bob Graham,Howard Futch



MTC-00003954

From: GC Research
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft`s monopolistic behaviour should be stopped as soon as 
possible. I strongly support California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, 
Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah and West Virginia and the 
District of Columbia for their continued battle to end this 
monopoly. Further, microsofts attempt to reacha settlement via 
donations to schools only serves to strenghten the monopoly by later 
needs of upgrades by schools. How long is this going to last?
    I hope that the DOJ comes to a solution that benefits our 
country



MTC-00003955

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In regards to the proposed settlement between the United States 
and Microsoft Corporation, I find that it is of some note that it 
appears from reading that the United States has the only right to 
withdraw it`s consent to the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
    Secondly, as I felt from the beginning of the entire process, 
perhaps the United States is , for some unknown reason, afraid of 
Bill Gates and his `power' as in the amount of money the 
corporation has earned, therefore went after him and the company 
with a vengeance.
    I only know that if the other companies had invested as much in 
R&D perhaps they too, would have been able to come up with some 
of the programs Microsoft has , was, and will be producing., Instead 
of whining about how Microsoft had a monopoly, they should have been 
busy re-investing their monies in trying to get to the same place in 
the computer/internet industry.
    As to the nine states still trying to perhaps overrule the 
proposed accepted settlement , i think they are wasting the 
taxpayers time and money. After all, who are they to second guess 
the court and make another newer settlement proposal, while the 
court entertains the proposed settlement before it now. I am of the 
opinion that the anti-trust laws are extremely out of date, 
antiquated , and need to be revised. The ant-trust laws , as they 
are today, do not adequately address technology in the slightest , 
especially at the rate it is advancing. I have only seen, a 
`supposedly' good law, one that is `supposed to 
protect' a company, end up to be rather one that does nothing 
but stifle creativity. And that is exactly the result of our anti 
trust laws as they exist today.
    I see nothing wrong with someone being inventive or innovative 
and taking something beyond that of the `accepted' 
process or progress of a saleable item. That is a smart 
businessperson.
    I understand that Microsoft Corp. put the pressure on 
manufacturers to use their products, and that Microsoft is being 
punished for doing that. However, to be forced to give away codes, 
etc. is taking someone`s inventive processes and is not only unfair, 
but an actual theft of intellectual property. So is that to be 
allowed?
    If these other companies cannot figure out what Microsoft has 
figured out, they don`t deserve to be in competition with any 
company.
    If the other companies refuse to pay their employees the best 
wages possible, they have no right to complain about the progress 
that the Microsoft Corp. has made by hiring the best and paying good 
wages for their services.
    If the other companies choose not to re-invest profits to allow 
the creation of innovative practices, they have no right to be in 
business, let alone right at all to complain about the business 
practices of another company.
    All these other companies, still complaining, have yet to reach 
anywhere near where Microsoft has taken technology.
    I question whether or not all of these complaining companies 
have even tried to match or even begun to try to meet the advances 
Microsoft has made in the area of technology. That most likely has 
not occured because they are too busy whining and complaining.
    I do not believe that the government has the right or should 
ever have the right to make a company give up their intellectual 
property assets to make another company happy or allow them to 
compete in the market place on someone elses laurels..... I believe 
in free enterprise to the fullest possibility and that means 
government keeps hands off private business.
    I had a political science teacher once say to my class that the 
`power is where the money is' and for all of us not to 
forget it, and it is this statement that keeps coming to mind these 
past few years. I realize now that for government, that may be a 
correct statement, but for our government to go after a corporation 
that is only in business to advance technology as we know it, the 
government has made a grave error in judgement. Bill Gates does not 
want to be president or anything else, for that matter, except who 
he is as we see him today. A man of great forsight, a man willing to 
put his money where his mouth is, and a man who wants nothing more 
but to make communication and life better for the citizens of the 
world.
    In another vein, an example comes to mind. It is of some 
interest to me to note that in the United States there are many 
medical laboratories in every state , in most large cities. However, 
as an example of a monopoly, there is only one company in the entire 
United States that medically tests for allergy to latex. They charge 
whatever they want to charge,for that particular test and guess 
what? They get their fee! Is that a monopoly? What has stopped any 
other testing facility from performing that test? A citizen is 
forced to use only that particular laboratory located in Florida.
    It would seem to me that since, this is only one particular 
example , there are surely, many other examples just in that 
particular industry alone. My guess is that it`s expensive to set 
that testing up in a lab and therefore other labs just don`t bother 
to re-invest their earnings and offer that service. They probably 
figure that since there`s already one lab performing that test, no 
more are necessary. I would differ on that issue. There`s no healthy 
competition there at all.
    It`s the same thing with the other technology companies who 
whine and complain that Microsoft has a monopoly .. They probably 
figured that since one company already had found ways to surpass 
them, they would just complain loudly and try to make that company 
share their inventive process. Why should they be rewarded? And 
finally, since the government uses Microsoft products themselves, 
why haven`t they switched to another company`s products instead? We 
all know the answer to that question. The other company`s products 
aren`t that good. Why is that? Need I repeat the above comments?
    I think the government has done a real `number' on 
one company who has outmanufactured all the other software 
companies. The government is responsible too, in a sense, for the 
tremendous loss of funds in the stock market in all fields of 
technology, which in turn hurt many citizens

[[Page 24394]]

right in their pocketbook. Maybe the government thought that if they 
could cause that loss among consumers, that the consumers would side 
with the governemnt and sawy public opinion as to Microsoft 
products. Personally, i think that was a grave error on the part of 
the Justice Department.
    I really wonder when this is all over, the court has made their 
decision, how long it will take the various technology companies to 
start complaining again as Microsoft continues their inventive 
processes.
    I am very glad that Gates and Microsoft fought this battle. The 
life of technology depended on it! I hope too, that it taught the 
Justice Department a lesson.(Although i`m not sure they truly 
understand what lesson they have learned). In my mind, they had 
nothing else to do and therefore had to justify their jobs. I`ll 
never feel any differently.
    I think the Justice Dept. should go after other companies and 
encourage them, no.....force them to be competitive, especially 
companies like the medical testing labs mentioned above. That to me 
would certainly justify their jobs. Maybe they should make that 
Florida lab share their work effort in the area of allergy testing. 
Then the consumer would be truly helped.
    I am very anxious for the court to accept the proposed 
settlement and be done with this. I am also very anxious for the 
court to deny the nine states` separate proposal and get on with 
other more important issues that truly affect society at large.
    Sincerely,
    Lynnette Goldner
    1164 South Wellesley Avenue
    Los Angeles, CA 90049
    310-207-5036



MTC-00003956

From: Zemne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement!
    To whom it may concern,
    If all concerned took more time to work on new ideas instead of 
trying to break Microsoft it would be great! Microsoft is an 
essential part of many people`s lives and has helped many young 
people get a good start in life.
    Companies should spend less time trying to get Bill Gates! Let 
the man do what he does best and quit wasting our money trying to 
break the Microsoft Company....
    Thank you,
    Zemne



MTC-00003957

From: Troy Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I`ve read reports of the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case with great skepticism, and today I have found that 
my skepticism was well-deserved.
    The executives at Microsoft are no doubt very intelligent 
people. Having completely dominated the market for operating 
systems, office applications and now web browsers, it appears that 
Microsoft is planning to use the DOJ`s proposed settlement to put a 
stake in the heart of its only remaining competitor: the open source 
community. Under Section III(J)(2), Microsoft will be permitted to 
withhold crucial APIs and documentation from any non-profit 
organization. This will effectively kill open source projects like 
Samba_a non-profit, publicly-built replacement for Microsoft`s 
file server software. Section III(D) specifies that Microsoft must 
supply APIs to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs and OEMs, but these are 
defined in the footnotes as only commercial entities. Under this 
proposed settlement, Microsoft will have successfully beaten back 
the only entity strong enough to compete with it.
    I thought Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its monopoly 
power? How is this proposed settlement going to prevent further 
abuse? This settlement isn`t punishment for Microsoft`s abuse of 
power, it`s a reward. I smell lobbyists and campaign contributions. 
Stop trying to give away the entire computer software industry to 
Microsoft, the company`s cut-throat greed needs no encouragement. I 
highly recommend reading Robert X. Cringely`s article on this topic: 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Sincerely,



MTC-00003958

From: Mark Povenmire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Would you please stop this foolishness with the Microsoft case? 
It is starting to get a little annoying. Why should any company let 
any other competing company have codes that should be kept private? 
Leave them alone, and quit wasting my tax dollars by fighting a 
company that has an aggressive business strategy. I like Microsoft 
products very much, so please don?t try to change them.
    Thank you for your time,
    Mark Povenmire



MTC-00003959

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this whole matter has been a witch hunt at tremendous 
taxpayer expense (how much has it cost???). And at tremendous 
inconvenience for the average computer user like me.
    I`ve read the proposed settlement terms and I think it`s lop 
sided in favor of the DOJ. But I guess if we are to get this thing 
solved and get on with our lives, letting the DOJ save face is the 
only way to proceed. What a way to run a government!
    James R. Larrimore
    205 Vernon Avenue
    Glen Burnie MD 21061
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003960

From: John Schuetz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What has happened to the free enterprise system in America? It 
sounds to me like there are a lot of sore losers out there who are 
trying to jump on the bandwagon and to get something for nothing.
    If it weren`t for Microsoft, where would we be today in our 
ability to do the many functions which the computer is capable of 
doing? There are other operating systems available if someone 
chooses not to use Windows. Having Windows as the standard does make 
sense and it simplifies trying to use other computers, in that a 
person does not have to retrain in learning a new system when 
changing jobs.
    My hat goes off to Microsoft and I would think that our 
government and all the blood sucking lawyers that keep agitating the 
lawsuit should find something else to occupy their time. The economy 
is already in enough of a tailspin without having to put up with the 
uncertainity which this type of trial is imposing on the citizens of 
this great country.



MTC-00003961

From: Jim Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It was very clear to me that the suit in the first place was not 
only to punish Microsoft but to help those companies unable to 
compete in the first place because of their reluctance to provide a 
unified product to the public. We never the learned the lessons from 
VHS vs Beta nor Columbia vs RCA protocols for 33 rpm recording etc 
etc etc. As I have personally discovered multiple OS and software 
protocols hinder my freedom by prohibiting sending pictures of 
school projects to parents in other parts of the world.
    Tithe school I work at uses Apple protocols and most industry 
and parents in the world use Microsoft based OS and software. The 
suit was partisan on the part of the government in the first place. 
A better approach would be the separation of browsers from OS but 
allowing free installation to users at the time of purchase. I have 
always used both IE and Netscape as needed_there are no 
issues. I think Microsoft products need to be better NOT limited by 
government. Bill Gates also needs to help others in the country more 
(vis a vis the latest school imitative) Don`t make life tougher for 
me the public because some people (industries & companies) need 
the government to run corporate as well as private lives.



MTC-00003962

From: Michael Banet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:54pm
Subject: They must be split, or STOPPED
    I oppose the kindness in allowing Microsoft to get out of this 
settlement with a small punishment, the company should be split. How 
much money have they slipped under the tables?
    Michael Banet
    80 Harriman Woods Drive
    Harriman, NY 10926
    845-782-3105
    914-661-6624
    Michael Banet
    Web Master:

[[Page 24395]]

    MyMac.net
    http://MyMac.net/
    Ondras Resort
    http://ondras.tsx.org/
    ...Lost Depths...
    http://nin.mymac.net/
    Email:
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00003963

From: thebirdsalls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
    In my opinion:
    All Government issues and pursuit of advantage over Microsoft 
should cease.
    Microsoft has been a benefit to the entire worldwide computer 
industry. They just do it better most of the time. Overall, no one 
has done it as well as they have. Sure, they do some things that 
irritate but so it is with everything. America particularly has 
benefited. Governments should not persist in legally trying to kill 
the geese that lay golden eggs to the direct disadvantage of us, the 
consumers. Microsoft`s competitors have been allowed to start and 
keep this attack going. NOT FAIR!
    Microsoft deserves the fruits of their labor. Competitors using 
Government should not be allowed to punish a successful business.
    The settlement should be imposed on all states to the direct 
benefit of the consumer.
    Now, I would never vote for Bob Butterworth, A.G., Florida 
because of his holdout for greater return leveraged out of 
Microsoft.
    Richard E. Birdsall
    1896 Peachtree Ave.
    The Villages, FL 32162
    352-259-9870



MTC-00003964

From: Barbara Stepan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I hope that measures are not taken to stop the inovation process 
at Microsoft because we will all lose with that approach. We are all 
right now free to choose what programs and operating systems we wish 
to use.
    We can judge for ourselves which is better. The public is paying 
less each year for Microsoft products as they are keeping the prices 
down. The public is not suffering from Microsoft practices as we are 
from cable TV and phone companies where we have no choice. We are 
bombarded by unsolicited calls over the phone by computer generated 
and unknown caller calls with no numbers to call back and let them 
know we are either interested or not interested in their products. 
This is totally unfair and we are paying for the phone service, not 
them.
    I would not be surprised if Microsoft`s generosity all over the 
world out does not surpass the Government`s. Millions of people 
trust Microsoft with their retirement survival. Can we trust the 
government with our Social Security?
    Please do not stop competition and the free market for Microsoft 
when the people do have choices.
    Thank you,
    Barbara Stepan
    [email protected]



MTC-00003966

From: Matthew Arant
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 4:22pm
Subject: opinion on Microsoft proposal
    It seems to me that Microsoft should pay a cash penalty and not 
a PIK that is structured as advertising for... Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Matt Arant
    Pocket PC magazine
    www.PocketPCmag.com
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00003967

From: marc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am an american citizen living in Houston, Texas. I am unhappy 
with the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft was found guilty, 
and I believe that breaking up the company is the only long term 
solution. marc
    `Back in 1974, when IBM was building its embedded crypto 
chip for online banking, the NSA oozed up and said why don`t you IBM 
guys throttle that back to 56-bit DES? And IBM didn`t fuss, IBM was 
all groovy about it. They didn`t say, you government dorks, get 
lost, we`ll protect our freedom to non-innovate by throwing wads of 
cash and crushing you until we can buy ourselves a nicer 
President.'
    _bruce sterling http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/
251-300/00283_geeks_and_spooks.html



MTC-00003968

From: Damour, James A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing today to comment on the proposed Final Judgement of 
the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial. While I acknowledge that Microsoft 
has developed many products of great value to consumers, I feel that 
they have unfairly exploited their monopoly position in so-called 
desktop computer operating systems to crush many competing products 
and commercial producers.
    The proposed Final Judgement does too little to punish 
Microsoft, to compensate competitors, or to prevent continued abuse. 
I strongly encourage the Court to reject the proposal. If the Court 
chooses not reject the proposal, I see little hope for Microsoft`s 
commercial competitors. Fortunately for the American consumer, there 
are a number of strong non-commercial competitors to Microsoft. The 
Free Software Foundation, the Apache Foundation, and the SAMBA 
organization are all not-for-profit organizations that produce 
software products that directly compete with, and in many cases, can 
be used in place of, Microsoft products. Among their other virtues, 
these Open Source Software products are available for zero price for 
anyone who wishes to download them from the Internet as they were 
developed by volunteers. The zero price and voluntary contributions 
have allow these products to flourish in the face of previous 
Microsoft`s anti-competative practices. Some industry observers 
(including some Microsoft employees, cf. http://www.opensource.org/
halloween/halloween1.html) currently consider Open Source Software 
products to be Microsoft`s primary competition in their market 
segments, and sometimes they actually hold *dominant* market 
positions (cf. http://www.netcraft.com/survey). As such, many people 
expect Microsoft to attempt to use its monopoly position to crush 
these non-commercial upstarts.
    Sadly, the proposed Final Judgement may be just the tool 
Microsoft needs to accomplish this task.
    To quote from last week`s editorial by Robert X. Cringely 
(http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html), 
`Secion III(J)(s) 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, 
...'ï¿½1A` Not only does this language allows Microsoft to 
set the terms as to what is and what is not a viable business and 
thus ignore any business based upon the Open Source Software but it 
precludes Microsoft from having to divulge this information to any 
organization that is not a business.
    The last time I looked, the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and 
Federal Judiciary were not considered `businesses'. 
Section III(J)(2) taken with Section III(D)_which requires 
Microsoft to disclose information and APIs to allow access to non-
Microsoft `middleware' products, but only to commercial 
concerns_seem directly aimed at the very market segments where 
organizations developing Open Source Software have made their 
greatest inroads against Microsoft`s monopoly. These sections of the 
proposed Final Judgement must be reworded to reflect the continuing 
contributions made by not-for-profit organizations to the software 
industry and to the American consumer. Failure to do so will allow 
Microsoft, a company guilty of using its monopoly position in anti-
competitive practices, to freeze out its greatest remaining 
competitors.
    Thank you for your time.
    James Damour
    [email protected]
    Principle Consultant
    Keane, Inc.
    474-4637



MTC-00003969

From: Steve Toth
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud the Dept. of Justice and the nine states who are 
finally proposing a settlement with Microsoft. This case has never 
been about the consumer. This case has always been about Sun, Oracle 
and AOL attempting to use the legal system to thwart a competitor. I 
do not agree with using our fine

[[Page 24396]]

 system of justice for these kinds of purposes. Our country has 
wasted enough financial resource, personnel and effort in pursuing a 
company that has demonstrated excellence and works actively to 
contribute to the community and the country on an ongoing basis. 
Microsoft has acknowledged previous wrongdoing, appears to be 
actively working to remedy any reoccurence in the future and appears 
to be willing to reach a fair and reasonable settlement. I encourage 
the Dept. of Justice to settle this case as rapidly as 
possible_that is the course of action that will finally be in 
the best interest of the consumer. Thank you for the opportunity to 
express my opinion on this matter.
    Steve Toth
    Senior Account Manager
    Semaphore Corporation
    2001 Sixth Ave. Suite 400
    Seattle, WA 98121
    Off: 206-905-5015
    Cel: 206-510-2406
    Fax: 206-905-5003
    [email protected]



MTC-00003970

From: Michael Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:34pm
Subject: MICROSOFT AND APPLE
    I recommend that Apple`s suggestion be followed: the current 
settlement, with the schools getting Microsoft software, just allows 
Microsoft to gain a foothold in that market. The solution/punishment 
allows Microsoft to increase its hegemony. The DOJ looks like a 
Microsoft puppet in the current arrangement.
    Michael Sullivan [email protected]



MTC-00003971

From: John Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:39pm
Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement
    P.S.
    I am a registered voter in Alameda county in California, and a 
U.S. citizen.
    John Williamson
    Product Support Manager, Simucad
    510-487-9700x206
    [email protected]
From: John Williamson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:08 PM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice 
department is very fair and in the best interests of the consumers 
and the United States of America.
    The nine states who are trying to obtain a different settlement 
are just responding to campaign contributions from companies trying 
to gain political and business advantage.
    John Williamson
    Product Support Manager, Simucad
    510-487-9700x206
    36091 Bettencourt St.
    Newark, Ca. 94560
    [email protected]



MTC-00003972

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:43pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft
    It is time the Justice Department got out of the business of 
attempting to destroy an asset of the United States. This Company 
has done more for this country than all of the Activities suing 
Microsoft. Once this suit is settled Microsoft will continue to 
surpass all those attempting to destroy the Company.
    The public wants Microsoft`s products and will not buy the 
products of others that are less than acceptable. I and my Company 
will continue to by Microsoft products.
    Putting Microsoft products in schools of this nation will garner 
more Microsoft customers. This is a smart action on the part of 
Microsoft. How can other vendors not see that this is not a good 
idea for Microsoft?
    A. Pressley
    523 Valhalla Dr
    Columbia, SC 29229-3320
    803-788-3293



MTC-00003973

From: Michael Arick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    Please try to stop the Microsoft Settlement. There are many 
flaws with the document, but the worst one is the repeated attempts 
to sideline Open Source efforts against Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Open Source applications, such as the Apache Foundation`s Apache 
web-server are not necessarily produced by for-profit organizations. 
In fact, this is part of what allows them to succeed against 
Microsoft (see the original Halloween document, produced by 
Microsoft in 1998: http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
halloween1.html). Not-for-profit organizations should have the same 
rights as other software development houses to Microsoft`s internal 
APIs. Consider the following web-site article by Robert X. Cringely, 
a highly respected commentator on the tech-industry: http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    His most relevant quote toward this issue is the following 
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, 
...'
    Hence, any non-profit organization, such as the Apache 
Foundation, will not have access to the information, but Apache is 
the software used on nearly 60% of web-servers in the country 
(according to the Netcraft survey, http://www.netcraft.com/survey/). 
Of all organizations, it seems clear that Microsoft`s most-
successful rivals should have access to the information they are 
required to release. This settlement specifically stops the 
information from being freed in this way. Hence, it won`t be a 
strong remedy.
    Thanks for considering these thoughts.
    Michael Arick



MTC-00003974

From: Jim Bode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that a company should have the right to add additional 
value to their products without the government`s interference. I 
totally disagree with the DOJ`s claims in this lawsuit. Microsoft 
has NOT hurt consumers in any way. Microsoft`s competitors want the 
government to do what they, the competition, can`t do; beat 
Microsoft. We, the consumers, have made our voices heard with, among 
other things, our wallets. I am ashamed of our government, 
specifically the previous administration, for trying to fight the 
battle for Microsoft`s competitors. Microsoft is not a public 
utility that we are forced to do business with. We have a choice. 
Please do not allow anything to interfere with Microsoft`s, or any 
other company`s, right to innovate.
    Thank you,
    Jim Bode
    Bode Enterprises Web Site 



MTC-00003975

From: DrewAIX5
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I understand that the US government is having a hard time with 
the Microsoft antitrust case. Coming from the technology industry it 
is easy to see the monopolistic behavior from Microsoft. But looking 
at the technology industry from the outside in, is no easy feat.
    I just hope that when this is all over, Microsoft will be 
sharing it`s programs with other operating systems like linux, and I 
hope that they don`t gain a monopolistic hold on the internet which 
I`m afraid has already begun. When I buy a new PC from Dell, 
Gateway, IBM any of the most popular vendors, I HAVE TO BUY 
MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP even if I never plan to use it. I would want to 
buy one with Linux but I can`t. In fact I can`t even but one without 
an OS and install Linux myself. No matter what I do I still have to 
pay a licensing fee to Microsoft even if I never use it!
    Where is the consumer choice? WHY exactly don`t I have a choice? 
Not only do I have to buy the Microsoft product but Microsoft 
DEMANDS that I register it and when I do THEY AUTOMATICALLY PLACE MY 
PERSONAL INFORMATION into their Passport database! I don`t want that 
either! I, in no way shape or form wish to have my personal data put 
into a database that was already compromised once in the few short 
months of it`s existence.
    Microsoft will be building this database of people, keeping all 
our information in it, but if the Government was to try to do the 
exact same thing that (Private Industry) Microsoft is doing, there 
would be mad protests in the street, protesting big brother.
    They can, will, and do get away with it because everyone knows 
that the court

[[Page 24397]]

system in this country moves slowly, and that technology is 
constantly changing at an extremely fast pace. By the time the 
government actually has a case together and is ready to take it to 
court, all the rules have changed, and whatever Microsoft was doing 
they don`t anymore (because it doesn`t suit them), and they are on 
to taking over the next new technology that the government isn`t 
even aware of yet. It`s a circle.
    I hope that this chance to break the circle is not wasted. I 
don`t want to see the deterioration of free enterprise in the 
computer business any longer.
    Thank you,
    Andrew Townsend



MTC-00003976

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is unconscionable to allow Microsoft`s remedy in the 
government`s anti-trust case against it to be applied to ONLY 
COMMERCIAL interests.
    To specifically exclude Open Source, Not-for-Profit, and other 
`freeware' products/vendors/organizations from 
consideration of any kind reveals the basis of the proposed 
`solution' to be an unbelievably perverted view of the 
state of the computer industry, today. Microsoft exists because it 
has trashed every competitor that rose their head above the crowd.
    What will Microsoft get away with, regarding Apache, Pearl, 
Linux, DAV, LDAP, FreeBSD, WAP, HTML, XML, CORBA,... (the list goes 
on) if this proposed `settlement' goes through as is? I 
believe I have the answer_`Embrace, extend,... 
extinguish.'
    To coin a phrase `You ARE the weakest settlement... 
goodbye!'
    Mike Sipin
    Frustrated, in CA
    [email protected]



MTC-00003977

From: Mike Chytracek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This email is in reference to the remedies in the Proposed Final 
Judgement filed by microsoft. For them to be able to exclude not-
for-profit organizations access to Microsoft`s API`s, Documentation, 
or Communications Protocols would be in effect, continuing to keep 
their main competition from succeeding. Microsoft`s biggest threats 
to dominating the Internet world are products such as Apache, 
Sendmail, Perl and PHP. All open source non-commercial products that 
are developed by not-for-profit organizations.
    The DOJ needs to understand that they just can not compete on 
the level with Microsoft technically.
    They can not allow Microsoft to make their own recommendations 
for a `Remedy'.
    Mike Chytracek
    Application Developer
    SGSNet, LLC
    600 W Jackson
    Chicago IL 60661
    For My PGP Key: http://www.sgsnet.com/mchytrac/mypgpkey.html 
<_ Another
    Non-Commercial
    product, PGP



MTC-00003978

From: Zimran Ahmed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement`s inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to:
    1) Middleware
    The current language in Section H.3 states `Microsoft 
Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating 
with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of 
general Web browsing)' does nothing to limit the company`s 
ability to tie customers and restrict competition in non Web-based 
networked services under .NET, as they fall `outside the 
context of general Web browsing'.
    Microsoft has already begun abusing its desktop monopoly to tie 
customers int .NET revenue streams and set up a new monopoly over 
the network.
    Part 2 of the same section states `that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement...' essentially gives Microsoft a veto 
over any competitor`s product.
    They can simply claim it doesn`t meet their `technical 
requirements.'
    2) Interoperability
    Under the defition of terms, ``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.' This definition 
explicitly excludes the SMB/CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the 
Microsoft RPC calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately 
interoperate with Windows 2000. Microsoft could claim these 
protocols are used by Windows 2000 server for remote administration 
and as such would not be required to be disclosed. The Samba team 
have written this up explicitly here:
http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-
OP-MS
    3) General veto on interoperability in section J., the document 
specifically protects Microsoft from having to `document, 
disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or 
Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the 
disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria.'
    Since the .NET architecture being bundled into Windows 
essentially builds `anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, and authentication 
systems' into all levels of the operating system, ANY API, 
documentation, or communication layer can fall into this category. 
This means that Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming 
it`s part of a security or authorization system, giving them a 
complete veto over ALL disclosure.
    4) Veto against Open Source
    Substantial amounts of the software that runs the Internet is 
`Open Source', which means it`s developed on a non-
commercial basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers. Examples 
include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c., 
Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to groups that 
fail to meet `reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.' This explicitly gives them a veto over sharing any 
information with open source development projects as they are 
usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis (and therefore would 
not be considered authentic, or viable businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a 
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing 
as well as other networked services such as are those being included 
under .NET).
    2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols 
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration 
calls).
    3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to `anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication 
systems' to all.
    4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from 
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Zimran Ahmed



MTC-00003979

From: Chris Eddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement opinion
    To the DOJ:
    The settlement is a joke. It does almost nothing to address 
MSFT`s historically outrageous behavior nor curtail future repeats 
of the same.
    I was in the software business for 15 years and over that time 
dealt with dozens of MSFT employees, from developers to the 
Director/VP level. I`ve partnered with MSFT, sold to MSFT and 
competed directly with MSFT. The problem at MSFT not a couple of 
over-zealous executives_an anti-competitive attitude permeates 
the entire corporation. They consider the law as an impediment; an 
obstacle to be avoided or conquered.
    I don`t have a solution, but I know their behavior will not 
change without compulsion and education. This must take place at all 
levels_every employee who interacts with

[[Page 24398]]

the outside world needs to learn respect for the law.
    We are entering a very dangrous period. The last several years 
MSFT has had fend off attacks from numerous well funded internet 
startups. Even a focused giant like MSFT had difficulty subduing all 
these competitors simultaneously. At minimum these companies kept 
MSFT honest in many emerging markets. But the internet frenzy is 
over and the startups are weakening. We are now at risk of MSFT 
extending their monopoly from the desktop to the entire internet. 
Then you`ll have a much bigger problem to fix.
    Thank you for your time,
    Chris Eddy



MTC-00003980

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Kelly
1707 Deepwoods Trail
Leander TX 78641
December 10, 2001
Public Comment
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of 
restoring competition to the computer industry would require at 
least the following:
    1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full 
access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft 
cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
    2) All communication protocols used by all Microsoft products 
must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to 
any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to 
change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such 
changes are made available to any parties requesting them. This 
clause must include also file formats used in any Microsoft 
products. The documents must be made available for free at the 
Microsoft web site, not just in MSDN or through some other expensive 
service or licensing. The documentation must be released at least 60 
days before the publication of the product, and also 60 days before 
the publication of any updates. Microsoft itself must follow the 
documentation and not make any unpublished private extensions on top 
of the published protocols. This clause must apply also to any 
security protocols or file-format encryptions. There might still be 
loopholes for protocols requiring patented or otherwise closed or 
proprietary third-party components. Microsoft should be forbidden of 
using such 3rd-party components to circumvent the requirements.
    3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs 
(Application Programming Interfaces).
    4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the 
terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as 
`trade secrets' must be disclosed.
    5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to 
restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, 
along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be 
prohibited from selling `dual-boot' systems, where the 
system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating 
system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
    6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or 
developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
    7) Microsoft may not meddle in the legislative processes of 
Federal, State or local governments or bodies that make 
recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime 
model of behavior that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Kelly



MTC-00003981

From: TMAC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you truly want to level the field Microsoft should be 
required to port Microsoft Office to Linux And the API`s (not 
Windows Source Code) should be documented and published for anyone 
to use_even a single person who may want to write a program to 
run on windows



MTC-00003983

From: Steve Phillips
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement offer is inadequate ...
    Dear People,
    Microsoft`s offer to donate billions of dollars of their own 
software to schools seems especially craven to me. Such a donation 
amounts to a one billion dollar marketing commitment by Microsoft in 
the education marketplace, a commitment that no other company is 
capable of making.
    If Microsoft is allowed to go forward under the current 
(revised) proposal, it seems certain to me that essentially all of 
our schools will be required to use, purchase, and maintain software 
manufactured by Microsoft for years to come.
    It would be more equitable to require Microsoft to donate cash 
to the schools.
    _scp
    Steve Phillips [email protected]



MTC-00003984

From: Dermot Gately
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Folks,
    I just want to add my voice to the list of concerned citizens 
that feel that Microsoft is getting off way too lightly based on 
what I read on the settlement documents with the DOJ.
    Their punishment should be financial...cold hard cash. Give that 
to the foundation. Allow the foundation to give it to school 
districts and let those school districts spend it on the 
technologies of their choice.
    Allowing Microsoft to provide their software is absolutely no 
punishment at all and is simply making the DOJ a marketing partner 
in their efforts to make the world run on Microsoft products at the 
expense of other software vendors.
    It only expands their grasp...`seed the educational 
institutions and reap the benefit later when those kids hit the 
business world'.
    Please do not acquiesce to the current offer terms.



MTC-00003985

From: Dalton, Paul
To: Microsoft Case at DOJ (E-mail),Lessig (E-mail)
Date: 12/10/01 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft`s X-Box
    I thought you might be interested in this portion of the latest 
Robert Cringley article in InfoWorld:
    `Meanwhile, a reader has reminded me of recent reports 
based on Microsoft`s admission at Comdex Las Vegas that it loses 
around $100 per unit on the X-box game console, with breakeven not 
expected until sometime in 2004.
    You have to ask yourself whether selling below cost is 
`seeding the market' or if it`s that other technical 
term, `dumping,' given the company`s plans to turn the 
consoles into Microsoft-affiliated Internet gaming machines.' 
OR . . . Microsoft could be simply `buying' the market 
for game hardware with the eventual intent to do in the game 
industry just what it did to Netscape: Seize the market away from 
Nintendo, Sega & Sony so that Microsoft is the dominant player 
in yet another market where it effectively has `the operating 
system' (in this case, the hardware contains the operating 
system, which doesn`t get licensed to other `box' 
makers). Once Microsoft has a high enough percentage of the hardware 
market, it effectively controls the game operating system market. At 
that point, Microsoft will be able to play the same sorts of tricks 
on game developers that it has in the past on software developers: 
Giving Microsoft`s own developers either or both of more or earlier 
information than is given to competitors in the game development 
market, thereby giving Microsoft_once again_an unfair 
advantage.
    Just my thoughts.
    Paul Dalton



MTC-00003986

From: Clint Lord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the MS/DOJ settlement. Below are my 
suggestions for changes that should be made to the settlement:
    1. MS should be required to publish the entire Windows API. This 
would include every possible call to the OS. Including API calls 
that are currently only shared between MS OS division and MS 
Application division.
    2. If MS `bundles' any software with the OS (ie. 
Internet Explorer) they would be required to publish its entire API 
as well.
    When I say publish, I mean available to anyone that wants 
it_no stipulations... it would be publicly published.
    This would solve several problems:
    1. MS doesn`t have to show one line of source code to the world.

[[Page 24399]]

    2. No more unfair advantage to MS Application division.
    3. This wouldn`t allow MS to `turn off' an API 
option just to shut down a competitor. They would have to publish 
the change to the API some time before it was released.
    4. This would offer the opportunity for competitors to actually 
create a competing OS that is 100% compatible with Windows apps. 
Talk about leveling the playing field.
    I believe this is a very simple and yet very effective method to 
level the playing field with MS and the rest of the software 
development world. They have been found guilty of monopolistic 
behavior and this would help their competitors compete as well as 
dissuade MS from future monopolistic behavior.
    Thank you for taking the time to review my comments.
    Clint Lord
    CEO/Senior Programmer Analyst
    The Voodoo Cube, Inc.
    CC:Russell May



MTC-00003987

From: Mikko Moilanen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:11pm
Subject: Anti trust case
    I am very disappointed about your way of dealing. If Microsoft 
are forced to give their uselicenses to poor schools, it is same as 
nothing. Monopoly only hardens. What thei can do is give hardware. 
Surely you understand without any problem.
    Mikko



MTC-00003988

From: Warren Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I would 
like to point out that no settlement will be effective if it does 
not address one very important activity that Microsoft has 
consistently used to strengthen its monopoly position. This is the 
activity referred to as `embrace and extend'. This term 
is even used in Microsoft`s own internal documents:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
    My concern is Microsoft`s activities in `embracing' 
open standards, such as the protocols that allow the web to work, 
and then `extending' them, without releasing the details 
of the extensions, citing copyright/patent issues.
    This effectively locks competitors out of the market. This 
behavior is intentionally done to strengthen Microsoft`s monopoly 
power, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.html
    Any settlement which fails to address these issues is only 
strenghtening Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Warren Mann
    Kansas City, MO



MTC-00003989

From: Sam Winch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is unfair to non-profit 
software organizations, such as Linux, Apache and SAMBA, which will 
be effectively killed if it goes through as proposed.
    Although it has a nice, `feel-good' veneer to 
it_with computers going to poor schools_the proposed 
settlement also effectively grants Microsoft a license to establish 
a new monopoly in the education market, one of the only places where 
they have real competition from Apple. I strongly suggest you 
reformulate the settlement in a way that actually punishes Microsoft 
rather than rewarding them for their years of predatory monopolistic 
behavior and years of putting other companies out of business.
    A good settlement would open their sourrce code to all software 
competitors (including non-profits), and to have them pay $10 
billion for computers that do NOT run their operating system, and 
for software NOT made by their company. I`m sure they could write a 
check for that much without blinking.
    sincerely,
    Dr. Samuel P. Winch
    1507 Woodcrest Circle
    Harrisburg, PA 17112
    (Note: this opinion is personal and almost certainly does not 
reflect the opinion of my employer)



MTC-00003990

From: Anderson, Ken
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 6:17pm
Subject: Thanks!
    As a Microsoft software user, as a software developer, and as a 
Microsoft investor, thank you for moving on.
    Ken Anderson. President
    Anderson & Associates, Inc.
    100 Ardmore St.
    Blacksburg, VA 24060
    540 552 5592 fax 540 552 5729
    800 763 5596
    [email protected]
    http://www.andassoc.com



MTC-00003991

From: Brad Borland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:22pm
Subject: Comments
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I concur with the actions of the DOJ and Microsoft in reaching a 
settlement. It is in the best interest of the consumer, tax payer, 
software developers, the US Government and anyone with a pension or 
profit sharing plan. It may also expedite the ability of Microsoft 
and the EU to reach an amiable settlement.
    While there are some sour grapes, there are really no losers.
    Brad Borland



MTC-00003992

From: Stuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Ms Hesse
    Being a member of the open source movement. I find the proposed 
DOJ settlement with Microsoft both incomplete and dangerous. Most of 
my customers use SAMBA a product that emulates Microsoft LAN 
software. SAMBA is completely unprotected by this agreement from 
predatory practices we know will ensue from Microsoft. Why does this 
settlement only protect commercial entities? Microsoft is a monopoly 
which will continue to play `hard ball' to protect it`s 
turf against all comers. If this settlement continues as read, I 
believe that the IT economy will suffer greatly from lack of 
innovation, fewer consumer options and even more Microsoft lock-in 
than exists currently.
    I believe that if the settlement were to be just, Microsoft 
would be forced to open all standards they propose to competition 
from all comers. These standards would be available as they were 
developed enabling comment and a watchful eye to be cast by the 
wider IT community.
    Your sincerely
    Stuart Guthrie
    Managing Director
    Eureka IT Pty Ltd
    Sydney, Australia



MTC-00003993

From: Robert Cortese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m sure you guys are away of slashdot, anyways I submitted a 
comment that I thought was pretty good on the MS subject so I 
thought I would share it with you guys down at the DOJ. I`ll 
summarize now, basically schools do not need more computers taking 
up space, they need new facilities instead of the delapidates peices 
of crap we call schools now. Here is my slashdot comment, enjoy!
    1 thing I havent seen on this thread is what the teachers 
responses were to the MS settlement deal. Listening to Rush 
Limberger this morning, he said that the teachers said screw the 
computers, just give us the money. After watching the track record 
of these teachers over the last 30 years, my only answer to them is, 
Do you realy think we`re going to trust you with all that money 
after the way you left our public schools systems in such shambles? 
Where america used to be first in acedemia we are now 4th behind 
asian countries. I`ve watched PBS specials on how asian schools 
conduct themselves, it is allmost a throwback to american schools in 
the 30`s and 40`s. Teachers use corporal punishment, shame and guild 
trip techniques, get involved with parents and generally do all the 
things we americans tossed out of our schools years ago, mainly 
discepline.
    I think computers are going to do more to hurt than help 
honestly. I remember working for the pleasonton union school 
district, it was a constant challenge to fend off the waves of would 
be script kiddies and hackers that habitate the k-12 system. The 
company I worked for was not cheap either, I was whored out at 
$150@hr to clean up these little `messes' that 
the kids made on the network.
    Another thing scary about computers in schools is it will 
justify even less spending on academic supplies such as textbooks, 
pencils, papers. The teachers will spend less time teaching the 
children how to work

[[Page 24400]]

through problems and school is going to become a very cold place 
with little to no interaction between student, teacher and parent.
    MS should be forced to pay, but are k-12 really the right 
answer? How about donating a computer to every high school graduate? 
Instead of using them as a `learning tool' why not use 
them as an incentive to get kids to hit the books harder. Of course 
we could use china`s techniques of public humiliation (read dunce 
cap) and caning to make kids focus. Being that we are america, we 
spend too much time worrying about these kids rights, fuck em I say, 
my tax dollars are paying for their education, not a good time. 
There is a third option of course, this was really popular in the 
80`s and 90`s. We could make MS buy massive quantities of ritilin 
for our kids and dispense it in their milk. Like bart simpson says, 
`No itchin or twitchin cause I take my ritlin'. Being 
one of `those' kids who was called down to the nurses 
office to take that crap, nah too publicaly humiliating (other kids 
said we took crazy pills)
    All jokes aside I think the best thing for MS to do is to buy up 
property and erect schools. Even if the Oakland school district got 
new computers, there is no data wiring, and I doubt the electrical 
is any good either. It`s still going to be the same old drab 
emotionless schools that they are now. Space is what schools need 
more than anything. How many times have you driven past a school 
only to see 3 or 4 of those `temporary' trailers parked 
on the blacktop. Our school buildings have become the equivelent of 
trailer parks, our kids are the equivelent of trailer park trash. 
This is what needs to change, not @%#%@ more 
computers to take up %@#-%@ more space. Am I the 
only one that see`s this or am I a crack smoking lemur?



MTC-00003994

From: Jon Benton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    If it is true that the language of the Microsoft Settlement 
precludes Open Source and Government bodies from gaining access to 
vital Microsoft API source code, I believe that would be an 
egregious and shameful miscarriage of justice.
    Perhaps the definition of a `competitor' who is 
allowed to view the API code needs to be changed to more widely 
encompassing definition which includes entities like the Open Source 
community and Federal, State, and possibly local governments.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Benton



MTC-00003995

From: Dave Owen (Los Angeles)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 6:45pm
    Subject: Please do not allow Microsoft to extend its` monopoly 
into school s as a `punishment'
    Simply put_if cigarette companies were 
`punished' by providing cigarettes to schools free of 
charge, this would provide a short-term financial drain on the 
company, but a long-term financial gain to the company.
    Similarly_if Microsoft is `punished' by 
providing Microsoft software to schools free of charge, this would 
provide a short-term financial drain on the company, but a SHORT-
term and long-term financial gain to the company for the following 
reasons:
    _If children are taught using Microsoft programs, they 
will be significantly more likely to use these programs as 
adults_long-term gain.
    _If children are taught using Microsoft programs, their 
parents will be significantly more likely to purchase these programs 
for doing schoolwork at home_short-term gain.
    _If schools utilize Microsoft programs, they will need to 
hire Microsoft-trained individuals as support staff_short-term 
gain.
    _If schools utilize Microsoft programs, eventually the 
free settlement software will be out of date and they will need to 
purchase updated Microsoft software_long-term gain.
    _If schools utilize Microsoft programs, eventually the 
free settlement software will be out of date and they will need to 
make significant infrastructure revisions to utilize any alternative 
to the outdated Microsoft programs_long-term gain.
    As a 30-year-old working professional who was exposed to 
computers at a young age, ALL of which has been obsoleted by current 
technologies, I humbly submit the following:
    The technology our children learn will be obsoleted very 
quickly, likely before they leave college. We serve them better by 
teaching technology theory, rather than sitting them in front of a 
computer just like their home computer and saying `you know 
what to do'.
    The best way to teach technology theory is to use tools that are 
extremely fundamental; for instance, you do not teach math by 
teaching a student how to use a calculator. The calculator is a 
useful tool, but working math problems out by hand is an extremely 
fundamental tool. At the same time, there are circumstances (such as 
figuring SINE and COSINE) where a calculator is a boon. This is why 
calculators and hand calculation are both taught and supported in 
schools.
    For computers, the most fundamental tools available can be found 
on computers that support `command line' access, such as 
DOS, UNIX, Linux, and BeOS (among others). At the same time, 
computers are also used for word processing, to run training 
programs, and to teach skills such as typing. Other, less 
fundamental tools are better suited for such use. This is why 
computers of all kinds must be taught and supported in 
schools_by teaching our children to use the right tool for the 
job, giving them a firm grounding in fundamentals, and exposing them 
to different (and ever-changing) technologies, we will give them a 
most fundamental tool: the skill to examine, choose, and adapt.
    Extending the Microsoft monopoly further into our schools will 
not help us accomplish this task_instead, it will teach our 
children that there is only `one' kind of computer, and 
it is the only kind of computer they should bother to learn. Such 
complacency is abhorrent in an educated and industrialized society.
    A far better lesson to our children, as well as to Microsoft, 
would be a settlement that increases the range of computer equipment 
available, increases the computer/student and computer/classroom 
ratio, and provides monies to hire trained support staff.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00003996

From: Joe Pybus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a retired investor trying to manage my assets so that they 
will outlive my wife and me, I ask that you expedite the Microsoft 
settlement. Something also needs to be done to put an end to the 
grandstanding states attorney generals in this case specifically and 
in general. We as stockholders of the corporations that make this 
country`s economy strong are paying a heavy price for the combined 
efforts of your and the states attorney generals.
    After spending twenty-six years abroad during my working career 
in competition with foreign companies, I strongly believe the anti-
company position our government takes is counter productive and not 
in the best interest of the companies, the company shareholders, the 
national economy or the U.S. citizens in general. Our companies are 
handicapped by our government while our foreign competitors are 
assisted by their governments! Significant costs are incurred in 
pursuing these matters that do not lead to any real benefits except 
to line the pockets of the attorneys. Let`s do what we can to level 
the playing field and utilize these highly qualified attorneys in 
productive endeavors!
    Sincerely,
    Joseph E. Pybus, Jr.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003997

From: Elizabeth Ghaffari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft in USPS Mass Marketing Effort
    `Elizabeth Ghaffari' 
 11/29/01 3:01 PM
    Imagine my surprise this morning as I picked up my stamps at the 
USPO and saw the public property inside covered with posters for 
Microsoft`s latest version of their windows product. Not only that, 
but counters were covered with freebie demo CDs showing how 
wonderful their new product is.
    Yet, there`s nothing on display stating the truth that 
Microsoft`s XP works ONLY with new PC hardware, that all older PCs 
cannot operate with this new product. Talk about lack of truth in 
advertising_ AND the USPS is helping!
    As an American taxpayer, I really do not like the USPS giving 
their public property over to the same firm that is being 
investigated for so many antitrust activities both in the US and 
abroad.
    Elizabeth Ghaffari
    [email protected]



MTC-00003998

From: Charles Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24401]]

    Note: I am not a lawyer, and thus do not fully understand the 
proposed settlement being discussed. I am merely running on the 
information provided me by several news outlets as to the exact 
terms of this agreement. Allowing Microsoft to settle this antitrust 
lawsuit by giving away a mere one billion dollars in software and 
hardware to schools is preposterous. While I applaud their 
ingenuity, it reeks of the Internet Explorer undercutting all over 
again. Many school districts use Apple Macintosh products to power 
their learning and library computers. Allowing Microsoft to simply 
give away their software, all over again, into a market in which 
Apple has traditionally been dominant is foolish and counter to the 
idea of punishing a monopolist. Simply allowing them access to a new 
market in this guise is unconscionable, especially since part of the 
remedy may be `paid' in software. Microsoft sets the 
price for its product, and it loses nothing (not even in an 
opportunity cost) by giving the software away to a market that would 
not puchase it in the first place. However, they stand to gain 
substantially when the support funds run out, and the schools find 
themselves in the position of having to pay to maintain their free 
software from only a few short years before. They become locked into 
the cycle of upgrades, just like many corporations, and Microsoft 
gains a new steady revenue stream.
    Explain to me again: How is this punishment, exactly? Do not let 
Microsoft make any part of its settlement payment in kind, be it 
software or hardware. Force only cold, hard cash from them. I 
implore you, let justice be served.
    Charles Johnson



MTC-00003999

From: Wade Tregaskis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
     
effectively summarises the most gross errors in the settlement 
details. As for the front of the settlement in general, how about 
Microsoft_ rather than being able to freely run rampant 
through the education market with the government`s blessing, 
smashing a market which has remained competitive so 
far_provide a more realistic sum ($10 billion [or more] US 
seems less laughable) for an independant third-
party_government assigned board of industry 
specialists_to purchase and distribute hardware and software 
amongst the proposed users_low end schools, charity`s etc. 
This board could adopt a multi-platform approach, utilising a full 
range of the available resources_Apple and Intel/AMD/etc 
hardware, Sun, MacOS, Linux [various flavours], Solaris, maybe some 
Unix distro`s, etc.
    The end result would be a `seeded market`, full of a wide range 
of different vendors, who can then compete after the settlement, 
providing motivation to lower prices and provide superior products, 
due to the investment already made by those vendors in the 
settlement. In addition to this, those who suffered from Microsoft`s 
disreputable practises must be compensated. The current settlement 
offers absolutely nothing for this, and one would think this would 
be the aim of the entire case. This is not a morale issue being 
debated. If it was, it would not have taken 2 years to reach any 
kind of verdict, let alone resolution. Microsoft are inarguably 
morally injust, even now. They have mocked the entire case through 
to the present moment, and will continue to do so, by repeatedly 
applying the same tactics to current markets that they did to past 
ones, the tactics and practises which brought about the court case 
in the first place.
    No, this is purely a money-case, with no direct morale issues 
being accounted for. So, money must be granted to those who deserve 
it. The individuals and companies which were crushed by Microsoft`s 
illegal practises. A sad irony that many of those companies no 
longer exist because of Microsoft, but their founders and past 
employee`s could be tracked down and compensated appropriately.
    And final third step to ensure Microsoft cannot 
run_too_rampant in future would be to assign 49% of it`s 
total stock to a wide range of companies and individuals outside of 
Microsoft as a two-fold attack. These companies would then be better 
able to survive Microsoft`s monopoly if they received dividends 
directly from it, and by having such a substantial share of the 
company, the majority would be able to have substantial influence on 
the companies lesser workings. It`s funny how when some /non-
American/ guy in some far off country blows up a few buildings, it 
only takes a few days for America`s egotistically-run government to 
blow the crap out of that country, even with the knowledge he`s not 
even there anymore. Yet, a company that has had such a profoundly 
negative effect on the entire world in so many ways, such that it 
can be closely compared to the xenophobic conquests of Genghis Khan, 
is allowed to exist. And if the settlement goes through in it`s 
present state, it`ll exist with the support and *help* of the US 
Government. Insanity, it seems, will need to be redefined to contain 
this new world.



MTC-00004000

From: Fran Cooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:04pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft/D.of J. settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly object to the proposal that Microsoft be allowed to 
donate computers and software to schools in exchange for the 
settlement of the antitrust suit against them. While on the surface 
the proposal appears to have merit, it should be noted that the 
education market is one of the few areas where Microsoft does not 
dominate. To allow them to strengthen their presence in schools 
constitutes a reward, not a punishment! Microsoft must pay a real 
penalty for their unfair and predatory business practices!
    Fran Cooley



MTC-00004001

From: Adam Loutzenhiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having reviewed the documents related to the settlement and 
being a developer in the software industry myself, I suggest that 
Microsoft release the source code for their products and nullify any 
existing anti-competition agreements they have with various other 
companies. One of the main obstacles to competition with Microsoft 
that other companies face, and especially the open source movement, 
is the format of the documents in which their programs save, 
particularly the Microsoft Office family of applications. Because 
Microsoft solely controls the formats of these files, it is nearly 
impossible to write a program that can read these files. Many 
businesses are therefore reluctant to switch over to an alternative 
office suite than Microsoft Office because they use programs such as 
Word and Powerpoint that save in formats that can not be imported 
into other programs. Because they have literally volumes of 
information locked in these closed format files, they are locked 
into perpetually using Microsoft Office as their office suite. In 
addition, the file formats that these programs use are moving 
targets _ that is, with every new release of Microsoft Office, 
Microsoft changes the file format, which has the effect of breaking 
various legally reverse-engineered import filters, such as used by 
AbiWord. If Microsoft were to release the format of these files, it 
would be possible to create an import function in competing products 
that would allow true competition. Instead of competing over which 
product a business has used the most in the past, products would 
compete over features and ease of use, if Microsoft would open up 
their file formats.
    Additionally, Microsoft has entered into anti-competition 
agreements with various other companies. Although these agreements 
have a wide range of effects, two of the most dangerous to the free 
market are forcing hardware manufacturers to write drivers 
exclusively for Windows and preventing computer manufacturers from 
preloading other operating systems on a same computer that has 
Windows preloaded.
    Forcing hardware manufacturers to write drivers exclusively for 
Windows hurts the free market by locking businesses into using 
Windows because of the somewhat lacking hardware support under other 
operating systems. There is no reason that hardware manufacturers 
can not release documentation on the protocols that their hardware 
uses to interface with a computer, except for a previously existing 
anti-competition agreement with Microsoft. I remember that when I 
used to buy a printer, included in the manual would be complete 
documentation of the interface used by the printer to print colors 
and graphics. Now, when I buy a printer, this documentation is not 
to be found, because nearly all major printer manufacturers have 
agreements with Microsoft that they will only use this information 
to produce drivers for use under Windows. Although it`s true that 
the Foomatic project has legally reverse-engineered drivers for 
various printers whose manufacturers are under these agreements, the 
Foomatic drivers are often lacking in features that make other 
operating systems

[[Page 24402]]

unattractive to owners of these printers. This is an aspect of 
Microsoft`s monopoly that isn`t merely limited to printers.
    I also have an MP3 player that I find more convenient to carry 
around than my CD player, but I need to use Windows to load music on 
to it, because there only exist drivers for Windows for my MP3 
player. If hardware manufacturers were allowed to publish the 
protocols that their hardware uses, it would make competition based 
on merit, rather than who-knows-who. The bootloader issue is equally 
important. Many users do not know how to install software on their 
computers, much less an entire operating system. Unfortunately, this 
means the most users are locked into using whatever operating system 
comes preloaded on their computers. It is presently uneconomical for 
a computer manufacturer to risk not preloading a computer with 
Windows simply because other operating systems have been stifled as 
I`ve pointed out above, and most users do not have the previous 
experience with other operating systems that would allow them to be 
comfortable using them. If other operating systems were preloaded 
along side Windows, uses could play around with them and become 
comfortable in their usage, to the point where competition with 
Microsoft would be reduced to objective measures such as speed, 
usability, and stability. It is uncompetitive of Microsoft to 
actively prevent other operating systems than Windows from getting 
their due market exposure.
    Using myself as an example, I`ve found that only my ability to 
scrap and hack together a usable system has allowed me to get away 
from Windows. Unfortunately, not many other computer uses share my 
level of expertise, and there isn`t enough of myself to help every 
user who is dependant on Microsoft`s products switch over to 
alternatives. In conclusion, the most fitting way to punish 
Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices is to force them to 
stop the very things that make them anti-competitive. To wit, 
Microsoft must publish the source code of their products, which 
includes documentation on file formats, as well as other important 
items that I haven`t mentioned such as the NT File System used in 
Windows XP and API that is only available to Microsoft developers, 
and Microsoft must let manufacturers out of anti-competitive 
agreements. If Microsoft`s punishment is provide any amount of free 
software to public schools, it will only further Microsoft`s 
monopoly, because it will stifle price competition from operating 
systems such as MacOS and Linux. Additionally, forcing Microsoft to 
port their programs to other operating systems than Windows instead 
of opening up their source code will effectively do nothing, because 
users will still be dependant on Microsoft products. The problem of 
Microsoft`s stifling their competition comes from their infectious 
closed-source policies, which spread by anti-competition agreements 
to other companies, and the solution to Microsoft`s monopolistic 
behavior must follow in suit. Microsoft must be forced to release 
all of their source code.
    Adam Loutzenhiser, [email protected], http://
velex.tabris.net/ AIM: v313x, Yahoo: v313x `All in all it was 
all just the bricks in the Wall.' _Pink Floyd, Another 
Brick in the Wall, Part III __-BEGIN PGP 
SIGNATURE__- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: 
For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8FU/
xFDcZZpveFKoRAh6BAJ9A3j6SPnRSayX/D5J6r1mxLfqwYQCdFCZe 
iYIF5X60KmrEhatm25adK90= =xE96



MTC-00004002

From: Josh Berkus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:11 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing as my right under the Tunney Act to comment on the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department Of Justice. 
As a professional technologist and an American taxpayer, I must 
express my opinion that the proposed settlement is no settlement. 
For four years my tax money paid for the Department of Justice to 
prosecute Microsoft, resulting in a verdict of guilty. Yet under the 
terms of the proposed settlement, Microsoft will not merely not be 
punished, they will actually be encouraged in their monopolistic 
behavior. To name some specifics:
    API DISCLOSURE: The current proposed settlement would allow 
Microsoft to continue shutting out its competitors through arbitrary 
and secret changes to the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 
of their products. While the settlement claims to address this 
issue, in fact, it allows Microsoft to continue their monopolistic 
practices. In particular:
    Section III(J)(2): This section specifically says that Microsoft 
only needs to disclose its APIs to entities that meet Microsoft`s 
criteria as profitable businesses. This section would allow 
Microsoft to arbitrarily deny access to APIs to anyone they didn`t 
like, particularly Open Source not-for-profits.
    For example, I currently run SAMBA servers for 3 non-profit 
organizations in order allow their Windows computers to interact 
with the their inexpensive Linux file servers. Under the proposed 
settlement, Microsoft could deny the SAMBA Project, a not-for-profit 
entity, any access to its APIs. This would force the non-profits who 
depend on me to purchase expensive Microsoft server software they 
cannot afford.
    Section III(D): Microsoft is also allowed to deny disclosure of 
APIs that might compromise security. This criteria gives Microsoft a 
pretext for denying access to any Middleware API in a competitive 
market for `security reasons,' and to keep that API 
secret to themselves. All APIs have a security aspect if viewed in a 
particular way, and you may be sure that Microsoft will view them 
that way. My proposal for this issue is that Microsoft be required 
to publish all of its APIs for free to the World Wide Web, without 
licensing or `click-through' agreements. Microsoft 
should be required to maintain these public API documents as long as 
any of the related products are sold in the United states, and be 
required to respond to reports of inaccuracy.
    Numerous Open Source software projects, such as Apache and Open 
Office.org, have put their APIs into the public domain and this has 
made that software better, more secure, and more popular. Microsoft 
has no justification for denying this suggestion except to continue 
its illegal monopoly parctices.
    THE $1 BILLION GIVEAWAY: Microsoft proposes that, to remedy the 
states` claims of consumer harm, they will give away $1 billion 
worth of hardware and software to American public schools. This is 
not a concession from Microsoft, it is part of their sales strategy. 
Apple and Open Source technology currently dominate the eductional 
market, and Microsoft`s share of this market is shrinking due to the 
high price of Microsoft`s products.
    If permitted, this `giveaway' would trick many 
desperate schools into accepting Microsoft software because it is 
`free.' Microsoft would not, however, continue to 
support this software and hardware for free in perpetuity, and 
schools would soon find themselves in debt to Microsoft in order to 
maintain the software and hardware they were given under the 
settlement. Additionally, learning Windows in school to the 
exclusion of other operating systems will cause our children to grow 
up unaware that there are alternatives to Microsoft, thus preserving 
Microsoft`s illegal monopoly into another generation.
    To be blunt, Ms. Hesse, this portion of the settlement talks is 
tantamount to allowing Microsoft to become a heroin dealer to our 
schools. Drug dealers, as you know, often give the first one for 
free. Instead, I propose that Microsoft be asked to give away 2 
billion dollars in cash to an independant foundation administered by 
representatives of Microsoft`s competitors (such as Sun and Red Hat) 
and the Department of Education, and not by Microsoft or their 
business partners. This foundation would be directed to give the 
money to any school to purchase the computers and software they 
want, or even purchase books and hire computer teachers and network 
engineers, with a mandate for the fountation to distribute 100% of 
the money within 2 years.
    I hope that my comments help the Department of Justice come up 
with a better settlement, one that truly prevents Microsoft from 
repeating their illegal monopolistic practices.
    Josh Berkus
    Josh Berkus
    Complete information technology and data management solutions 
for law firms, small businesses and non-profit organizations.
    [email protected]
    (415) 565-7293
    fax 621-2533
    San Francisco



MTC-00004003

From: Bob Tanner
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24403]]

Date: 12/10/01 7:14 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement If the information provide here: 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Is correct Section III(J)(2) must contain language including 
not-for-profit organizations like the Apache Group and Samba Group. 
The language could be interpretted as only applying to for profit 
orgranizations.
    Section III(D) should also include language to disclose this 
same information to not-for-profit organizations.
    Bob Tanner  Phone : 
(952)943-8700
    http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux Fax : (952) 
943-8500
    Key fingerprint = 6C E9 51 4F D5 3E 4C 66 62 A9 10 E5 35 85 39 
D9



MTC-00004004

From: Tom Garlick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:15 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that Microsoft is a monopoly and acted illegally to 
maintain that status, a settlement based on the distribution of more 
Microsoft software seems truly ironic.
    The assumption that Microsoft software in particular benefits 
schools `to prepare students for the business world' is 
not necessarily on target. One goal of technology education at the 
K-12 level aims at teaching software concepts, rather than 
vocationally training students on particular programs. That is, the 
same lessons can be learned from any `office suite' or 
via any `web browser' or on any `operating 
system' to adequately prepare students. A true `public 
benefit' the settlement could provide would be to give the 
choice to schools, not Microsoft. For example, Microsoft could 
provide generic resources (e.g. cash, equipment, etc.) that leave 
the schools free to choose their own software technology.
    Thank you.
    Tom Garlick
    A concerned citizen against monopolies and unfair business 
practices.
    San Francisco, CA 94112
    415-584-5533
    [email protected]



MTC-00004005

From: Rick Curry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:30 pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement
    It is my opinion that the US government has been way too lenient 
on Microsoft. The usual reason I have seen for this leniency has 
been that Microsoft employs a lot of people and other jobs also 
depend on Microsoft continuing to pursue their usual practices 
unfettered by any government restrictions. The inherent speciousness 
of this argument is appalling. Anti-trust legislation was originally 
made into law specifically to deal with companies which have gotten 
too large and must be controlled. An argument that this legislation 
should not be applied because a company has gotten too large is at 
the very least disingenuous.
    In addition, serious and irreparable harm is being done to US 
businesses because of Microsoft practices. Not only do their 
practices limit competition from US companies, Microsoft is also 
forcing critical technologies overseas. Microsoft forces technology 
overseas by the following methods:
_Microsoft forces US businesses to use Microsoft products 
only, putting US businesses at a disadvantage by limiting their 
access to new technologies.
_Microsoft uses intrusive information gathering techniques 
which some countries find unacceptable. In these countries, 
different technologies are created and exploited which avoid this 
Microsoft hegemony. As these technologies mature, they will become 
the new global standard for computing and us
    Businesses will be left out of it.
_Finally, Microsoft actively supports moving any technology 
jobs it possibly can to countries where the labor rate is more 
favorable. Many of these technologies are more art than engineering; 
when the job is moved overseas, the art becomes lost to the US and 
becomes the property of other nations_ nations which can now 
set whatever price on these technologies that the market will bear. 
There is still time to resurrect high technology in the US. This 
window of opportunity will not remain open forever and other nations 
will fill the void of reliable competitively-priced software which 
Microsoft is creating through their monopolistic business practices. 
Please put a muzzle on this Jackal of a company before it is too 
late.
    Rick Curry
     KCO x4684 http://www.cipcug.org/
trindflo



MTC-00004006

From: John R. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:33 pm
Subject: Money for schools
    I feel that allowing Microsoft to get a larger foothold in the 
education market is a monopolistic action in and of it`s self, not a 
punishment. This will just be another way for Microsoft to force 
their will on people, and more importantly on young impressionable 
children. I feel that to punish monopolists, they should pay with 
reduce power or a fine or both, but not with control of a new market 
in which they currently only have a small foothold.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Miller
    2164 Wildhorse Drive Aurora, IL 60504
    630/375-6754
    630/697-2910 cellular



MTC-00004007

From: Paul Colley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:54 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to express my deep disappointment with the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case.
    First and foremost is that Microsoft has been found guilty of 
breaking the law and they are not being penalized in any way. There 
is no fine or compensation to cover ill-gotten gains. There is only 
a list of `restrictions', many of which Microsoft has 
been told to obey before and which have been totally ignored.
    Secondly there is grossly inadequate ongoing oversight of 
Microsofts practices. A three-person team to be located and paid by 
Microsoft removes much of the teams credibility. The fact that 
Microsoft chooses one of the members and has veto over the selected 
of another makes for even less credibility. The severe restrictions 
on who the team can speak to and the sheer scope of what must be 
scrutinized means there may as well be zero ongoing enforcement.
    Finally, the fact that Microsoft gets to decide who is a viable 
`business' and therefore who it must share it`s source 
with means that they can totally ignore and undermine their only 
serious competitors in any number of areas. The most obvious example 
is the Open Source Software movement that is clearly not a 
`business.'
    Please read the following resposes to the proposed settlement 
for further detail as to its fatal flaws:
    Ralph Nader
    http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Robert Cringley
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Thanks,
    Paul Colley
    1933a Delaware St.
    Berkeley, CA 94709



MTC-00004008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:02 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please do consumers a huge favor and DO NOT leave the language 
of Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) as is. If you really are 
interested in promoting competition and innovation, level the 
playing field by allowing open source software to compete 
unobstructed by Microsoft`s interpretation of `business 
criteria'. If there is ANY competitive threat to Microsoft at 
all_it is in the open source world, specifically linux. 
Microsoft is fully aware of this and the DOJ is playing into their 
hand if language such as this is left in the settlement.
    As a side note, it is totally misguided to allow Microsoft to 
extend their monopoly by allowing the company to be 
`punished' by putting their software in our school 
systems for 5 years. This would eventually punish Apple and others 
and not Microsoft at all! And it is not doing those school systems 
or the kids a favor. Take a hard look at RedHat`s counter offer of 
providing ALL school systems the software and support. If that 
happened, you would see ALL KINDS of educational software being 
ported/written for linux in no time at all! Give it some thought, 
please!
    Please take these comments seriously since many companies and 
individual careers

[[Page 24404]]

depend on the direction of the software industry. If Microsoft is to 
have a competitor on the desktop it will probably come from linux. 
BUT if linux is to really have a chance to compete for the desktop 
then it needs to be seen as having a chance of success so that 
software vendors will put resources into writing applications 
targeted for linux_without fear of reprisal from microsoft!
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and time!
    Russell Crow



MTC-00004009

From: Michael Brewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:13 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has hurt the consumer, and stifled the computer 
industry as a whole with it`s anticompetitive actions. The current 
settlement proposal is heavily weighted towards Microsoft`s 
advantage. Asking Microsoft to pay reparations to the citizens of 
the United States by giving to education is noble. However, the 
details of the arrangement leave much to be desired.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to use any of its products as 
tender for repayment. This allows Microsoft to repay the taxpayers 
of this country by increasing its market share, which is 
counterproductive to any anti-trust resolution. Furthermore, 
Microsoft is able to produce their software from an infinite 
resource. Any cost in providing software to the educators would be 
negligible whether the software is delivered through a physical (CD-
ROM) or virtual (network) medium. Allowing Microsoft to settle its 
punishment with copies of its own software is akin to allowing them 
to print their own money. If Microsoft is to offer goods rather than 
money as a repayment, they must be products of another company, and 
must not contain any Microsoft products.
    This settlement also addresses the issue of Microsoft`s behavior 
in a poor fashion. Microsoft is allowed to have an internal team 
that is responsible for making sure they stick to the conditions of 
the settlement. Furthermore, Microsoft gets to choose the primary 
officer of this team, and in turn that officer has input on the 
selection of the rest of the team. This is not an effective means of 
controlling a company that has previously shown its willingness to 
disregard conditions placed upon it. I agree that the team should 
have an internal presence within the organization so that they may 
have better insight into the company`s actual tactics. But Microsoft 
should have no input into the members of the team. Instead 
individuals from the computer industry should be allowed to submit 
themselves to a court which will make the decision on behalf of the 
citizens of this country.
    Another failing of the proposed settlement is the fact that it 
does not address unbundling of Microsoft`s key technologies for 
extension of their monopoly from their operating systems. During the 
trial Microsoft made strides in integrating even more technologies 
into Windows XP in order to extend their monopoly into other areas 
including digital photograph processing, and user authentication. 
Any acceptable settlement needs to address the current abuses by 
Microsoft, as well as placing restraints on using their monopoly to 
take over other segments of the computer industry.
    Regards,
    Michael Brewer



MTC-00004010

From: Wes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:23 pm
Subject: MicroCrash rain on the planet
    Good day,
    Why would you support a company that produces bug filled 
software that charges you for a defective product. Here is our new 
OS for $199.00 Rev.. Now remember to download all of the patches. Oh 
by the way here is rev. 2 that fixes all of the bugs we left in 
Rev.. for another $199.00. I refuse to buy any products manufactured 
by Micro Crash!!!! At least the developers of Linux are listening to 
what the people want!!! A solid OS and not taking use for every 
penny they can get. Every single time Micro crash releases a piece 
of software it is the same thing over and over!!!! Nothing but a 
milking of we the people. But of course that`s not right anymore!!! 
We the government, for the government, by the government!!!!!
    The news media talks about how United we Stand after the Trade 
Center attacks!!! More like United we stand screwing each other out 
of a dollar!!!! Put a stop to this company shoving their defective 
software down our throats!!!! We the people, what happened to our 
rights to having a choice!!!!!
    Thank you for nothing!!!
    Wes Youmans



MTC-00004011

From: Elgin S. Perry, Ph. D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:28pm
Subject: micro$oft
    Dear sirs:
    I am pleased to see the a requirement in the settlement 
agreement that: Disclosure of Middleware Interfaces Microsoft will 
be required to provide software developers with the interfaces used 
by Microsoft`s middleware to interoperate with the operating system. 
This will allow developers to create competing products that will 
emulate Microsoft`s integrated functions.
    However, I feel that this measure will be ineffective unless 
Microsoft is also required to maintain these operating system 
interfaces in a constant state for sufficient time for a competitive 
market to develop. In the name of innovation, Microsoft has 
continued to introduce continuous minor changes to their operating 
systems and other software products so that 3rd party developers can 
never achieve full compatibility with Microsoft software. Because 
Microsoft currently enjoys and ill-gotten monopoly, it is not 
possible to compete without full compatibility. It is my opinion 
that an industry committee should be formed to establish standards 
and that Microsoft should be required to adhere to them.
    Regards,
    Elgin Perry



MTC-00004012

From: Lorenzo Vg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Were it mine to do, here is what I would order. Microsoft is 
prohibited from shipping any form of internet (web) browser for 10 
years. Microsoft may not ship any software that potentially 
interconnects with any other software where the software to be 
shipped does not comply with open standards. Interconnect includes: 
file formats, public APIs, Network Protocols, others as may be 
defined by the special master.
    Microsoft must publish interface specifications for all APIs 
used by any application software authored, branded or funded by 
Microsoft. The special master may define other interfaces as 
necessary. Microsoft must pay $100Billion to a pool of Netscape 
shareholders. The pool is to be divided according to number of 
shares held, ... something equitable.
    Microsoft must release all desktop software, Office, Access, 
Money, Flight Simulator, Front Page, Net Meeting, etc. on MacIntosh, 
Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris. Such release must have all the 
features that the equivalent Windows application has and cannot have 
a defect rate greater than that for the Windows release.
    Microsoft may not ship any applications programs bundled with 
its operating systems. Each application must be packaged, and priced 
separately. Microsoft must divest itself of any business ventures 
not related to software development. This includes MSN, travel, 
shopping, other business as defined by the special master.
    A special master will be appointed to assure Microsoft`s 
complaince. The special master must be known to be 
`hostile' to Microsoft. The special master must be 
approved by Sun, AOL, Bruce Perens. ... How do I apply for this job?
    The special master may assess additional penalties against 
Microsoft for violations of the judgement. The penalties may be any 
anything, up to and including liquidation. Such assessments may not 
be appealed. The special master may order named Microsoft officers, 
key employees, and contractors (inculuding legal counsel) jailed for 
up to 5 years and/or fined up to $50Billion, depending on ability to 
pay, per offense, for contempt if, in his sole judgement, they have 
knowingly and/or willfully, or through incompetence, violated the 
terms of the judgement. The sentence to be served in Sherrif 
Arpaio`s (some county in Arizona) jail.
    Microsoft must publish a double-page spread in at least one 
`leading' newspaper every day in every state for at 
least 2 years stating what predatory practices they committed and 
who they targeted. Microsoft will appologize for their past 
behavior. Officers, directors, contractors (including legal counsel) 
for Microsoft will not contest any civil claims for damage caused by 
their predatory practices and will pay, to the limit of their 
resources, all claims.

[[Page 24405]]



MTC-00004013

From: Todd Spears_
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw,TCSpears_ebay@ho..
.
Date: 12/10/01 8:37pm
Subject: I`m sorry....
    I`m sorry but I have to voice my opinion and disagree with the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. The settlement as laid out does 
absolutely nothing to curb or stop Microsoft and their illegal 
business practices. I have used personal computers since the late 
80`s the original DOS operating systems and in that time I have seen 
our choices in software expand to include many different types of 
operating systems, word processors, databases, and 
spreadsheets_only to collapse back upon itself to where there 
really is only one or two choices. And the choice everyone is left 
with is Microsoft.
    This has primarily happened due to the practices of Microsoft on 
the free market. I remember years ago a friend of mine worked for a 
computer manufacturer (Packard Bell) and he told me that thru 
exclusive contracts and refusal to ship items (would you like MS 
Word with that? No.. I`m sorry we cannot ship the rest of your order 
for eight weeks. Oh, you`ll take the MS Word? We`ll have your order 
out tomorrow). And that was only one of their dirty tricks.
    The next in their bag of tricks is the proprietary 
format_their software will really only work with other 
Microsoft software. Then, in order to remain compatable more and 
more people are forced to choose Microsoft products. The same thing 
goes with the bundling of the browswer and media player. Any market 
the Microsoft feels threatened by they simply lock their own product 
to the operating system and use that same operating system to 
disable any competitors products. This has happened to me 
personally. Using their updating service one day I found that in 
upgrading itself the media player has also disable the other two 
types of players on the computer.
    The final thing that scares me with regards to Microsoft is 
their overall plan to make ever person who uses their software pay a 
yearly subscription fee. At the same time they provide no real 
service or guarantee for this subscription fee_I as a consumer 
must pay the fee, but they as the provider of the service must 
provide nothing. According to the license agreement (as I understand 
it) they don`t even have to provide a product that works. They have 
no responsibility to do anything_even if their product goes so 
far as to harm your computer.
    Another thing I`ve found is you cannot even buy a computer 
without paying a fee to Microsoft_they have exclusive 
contracts with all of the top computer manufacturers. Between Dell, 
Compaq, Sony, Hewlitt-Packard and IBM they control almost 75% of the 
computer market and yet you cannot buy a system from them without 
paying a fee to Microsoft whether you want to or not.
    I don`t know what the solution is_whether to breakup 
Microsoft or just seriously curtail their illegal/immoral 
actvities_but I do know that though I`ve never seriously 
looked into Linux I may start too.
    Sincerely,
    Todd C. Spears



MTC-00004014

From: Barbara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sunflower
    To whom it may concern, Dec. 10, 2001.
    Please, Please do not let Microsoft off easily. Their methods 
and intentions are obvious and if you do not protect us in all 
aspects of this matter you should not be protecting us.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Brooks
    3802 Dartmouth
    Garland, TX 75043
    972-864-5654



MTC-00004015

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Given the length of time and considerable expense to the 
taxpayers of the country suggest that the time is ripe to conclude 
the matter against Microsoft and allow them to resume the levels of 
innovation that lead them to become the dominant player in the 
software business. Even though I don`t believe that Microsoft was 
guilty of anything other than providing the best solution to 
consumer`s needs this settlement will get business back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Weiland
    6550 4th Ave NW
    Seattle WA 98117-5006



MTC-00004016

From: Kristian Benoit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:07pm
Subject: Antitrust
    Are kidding ???? your goiing to ask microsoft to give software 
and hardware to american schools, cause they of their 
monopol. . . isn`t that just a way to give them a little 
bit more power over the next generation of student? Isn`t Microsoft 
behind that? They want to look good so they`re gonna give, cause de 
DOJ will ask them to do so . . . but that just giving them 
more and more power. They should give money to the education, to the 
university, a university that will work on another os than windows, 
a university that work to help the community, Linux. But you are on 
their side you are not for justice, cause your american, and in the 
american way there is no place for the community, just for the one 
that can give you money



MTC-00004017

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:09pm
Subject: Arbitration
    If you believe we have a choice try to use the other available 
OS`s out there. Try to locate a copy of Microsoft Media Player for 
Linux . . . . . however, many web pages display 
the media files in the Media Player format only. Microsoft has 
gotton so big, we really don`t have no choice but to use their 
product or give up something we really would like to use. I use 
Linux, (several versions), RedHat and SuSE primarily. I also use 
Windows 98, ME, and Windows XP. I have to use the Microsoft Products 
because I have to be able to do some things only available using 
their products. I am trying to learn Linux because I want to 
completely rid myself of MS products. Nevertheless, until the day 
arrives that Microsoft either shares the code so their monopoly on 
the industry can be broken, I am stuck using their product. This 
means I HAVE TO PAY whatever they ask because that is the way it 
goes. I am glad some of the states seen fit not to give into 
Microsoft like the Department of Justice has. I am also frustrated 
with the level of security offered with Microsoft products. I am so 
frustrated over all of this crap. One day, I will without the 
goverments help, teach myself enough to rid myself of Microsoft 
Programs. P.S. I would consider a future purchase of Microsoft 
Products only if the price of the product was substantially lower., 
i.e., $25.00 per license copy.



MTC-00004018

From: elisabeth evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:12pm
Subject: microsoft
    so glad you agreed to settle!



MTC-00004019

From: Ralph J. Hochman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am at a loss to understand the basis for the entire case. I 
have followed it reasonable close and I just can not understand why 
a company that wins in the market place is penalized. I think our 
inter-national competitors are laughing at us and wondering what 
kind of funny stuff we are smoking.
    There are many large companies that could put a great deal of 
cash back into R & D and product development and truly be fierce 
competitors. It is a sad day for the concept of capitalism when the 
successful companies have to be held back by the Government.
    By this standard, I would think that you would be all over Wal-
Mart_whose stated objective is to ultimately be the only place 
to shop in America. The real devastation done by Wal-Mart in many 
small towns throughout America is unbelievable_but no one 
jumps on them.
    They just keep on growing and everyone loves them. As to the 
concept that Microsoft has charged too much for its software_I 
find this part of your case absolutely outrageous. Since when has 
the ultimate consumer become so dumb that he can not decide 
`what`s a reasonable price'? In college I was taught 
that price is a deal between willing buyers and sellers_I 
guess your staff would rather decide what`s reasonable_heaven 
help us all when the Government decides what`s reasonable. If the 
fiscal responsibly of Government to date is any sign of its ability 
to use fiscal savvy, then I think we are all in trouble.
    Microsoft has created a market when there was not one_This 
new market has allowed

[[Page 24406]]

me to my work without expensive techies to bleed me dry programming 
propriety software and computers that never were very good in the 
first place.
    Hail to Microsoft_the consumer`s hero.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Hochman



MTC-00004020

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:34pm
Subject: Seems to me your missing the whole point here.
    Seems to me your missing the whole point here. Microsoft is all 
about taking over the market. That`s been their strategy from the 
start of the company. They do it well. It`s just about impossible to 
buy a computer today without getting a Microsoft product preloaded 
on it. Several of the PC manufacturers/builders have complained 
about it. They get a cut rate on Microsoft products if they only 
offer Microsoft products. If that doesn`t stifle competition what 
does? Microsoft never has had a better product than anyone else, 
they`ve just had (and have) a better marketing team. Microsoft`s 
lock on gaming (directX protocol) virtually insures that every home 
will have a computer running a Microsoft operating system. OS/2 (a 
much better, more stable PC platform both from the client and server 
standpoint), Linux (cute and a viable system in it`s own) and OS/x 
(apple`s entry) don`t stand a chance in the home market as long as 
the directX standard is Microsoft only. 
Browsers. . .forget the browsers, they`re a dime a dozen. 
People will use whatever`s on the machine, if it bothers them 
they`ll download another one. But the directX 
standard. . . there`s a problem. All of the PC games that 
are worth buying and many that aren`t are written to that standard 
and will not run on any other platform. Until directX is available 
on OS/2, Linux and OS/x you`ll have no competition for Microsoft.
    The battle is almost over. Microsoft has so much market control 
unless they are broken up the other companies don`t stand a chance. 
Let`s quit just playing lip service to this situation. Microsoft is 
nothing more than a technical terrorist holding the world at bay 
with viruses and blue screens of death.
    oh well. it`s not like anyone is really going to read this 
anyway.



MTC-00004021

From: John C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz
Garmatz Federal Courthouse, Suite 4415
101 West Lombard St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives. America is based on freedom of choice; but 
students in Americas` public schools can only learn to use 
computers, an essential skill for the coming generation of 
employees, on the products provided to them. Today, the Dept. of 
Justice has an opportunity to broaden the scope of that choice and 
thus empower generations yet unborn. It also has the opportunity to 
cave in to Bill Gates and thus must choose between greatness and 
ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
    http://opensourceschools.org/article.php`story=200 
11207001012102
    
    [opensourceschools.org]
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. 
Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as 
the Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools 
would eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of 
funds to re-license / upgrade their software.
    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html [yahoo.com]
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
_passion
    All though I didn`t write this I agree with the content.
    John Constantine



MTC-00004022

From: Amy Rupp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the proposed Final Settlement of the Microsoft Anti-
trust litigation and feel that it does not effectively remedy the 
harm done to consumers and competitors by Microsoft over the years. 
It specifically prohibits known blatant abuses of monopolistic power 
and appoints a technical oversight committee to ensure that those 
abuses do not occur again, but it in no way gives relief to the 
injured parties. To encourage and allow competition in the 
marketplace, Microsoft must be disallowed to compete at every level 
of software present in a computer`s operating system, firmware, and 
applications. To allow Microsoft to continue as a single business 
entity gives a de facto advantage to Microsoft products which are 
synergistic or rely upon other Microsoft products. For example, it 
would be easy to rewrite the Windows operating system to prefer 
specific attributes that only Microsoft employees know about; 
conversely, Microsoft employees who write applications can 
disproportionately impact the continuing redesign and evolution of 
the Windows operating system.
    Given that Microsoft has blatantly violated anti-trust laws in 
the past and has already eliminated much, if not all, of the 
competition in the numerous markets it competes in, it needs further 
restriction or the situation will repeat itself. I liken it to 
having scorched the earth in a particular area. For years 
afterwards, nothing will grow but weeds, especially because the 
seeds that would have otherwise blossomed into plants have been 
killed by heat. Such plants are called competitve, invasive, and 
advantageous. It takes years for nature to rediversify such land; 
but intense effort by man can restore the balance and ensure that no 
one species overdominates. The proposed settlement fails to do this 
because it does not take into consideration the fact that Microsoft 
has already scorched the earth and gained unfair advantage. Instead, 
free of competition, this settlement will allow Microsoft to once 
again overdominate and invade the marketplace. Only a settlement 
which limits the number of areas Microsoft can compete in, or breaks 
Microsoft up into business units which have no more advantage to 
each other than an independent company and a Microsoft unit would 
have can possibly lead to a balanced marketplace. For now Microsoft 
`weeded out' the marketplace and freed itself of 
competitors. Now we must turn to the government to check Microsoft`s 
unhealthy spread.
    Sincerely,
    Amy Rupp



MTC-00004023

From: Erik Odegard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:45pm

[[Page 24407]]

Subject: In Support of the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As a professional working in the Information Technology field, I 
support Microsoft`s right to innovate, and urge a quick settlement 
to the US vs. Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Odegard
    HYPERLINK `mailto:Eriko@dslnorthwest. 
net'[email protected]



MTC-00004024

From: David Looke
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The whole basis of the trial against Microsoft is misguided and 
this latest settlement is not in the best interest of consumers. It 
is however in the best interest a handful of Microsoft`s competitors 
who being unable to beat Microsoft in the marketplace, have resorted 
to the courts (without just cause).
    It is not in the best interest of consumers to cobble Microsoft 
by trying to prevent it from enhancing it`s products when that 
enhancement may harm a competitor.
    A. When Microsoft added IE (Internet Explorer) and made it part 
of the operating system, that approach added many benefits to 
consumers.
    1. Software developers were able to add support for Internet 
functionality into their applications, knowing that that 
functionality would be in the operating system. There`s a number of 
benefits to software developers in this approach. For example, they 
can program to a known code base without the headaches associated 
with trying to support multiple different APIs and components and 
versions of each. Microsoft`s approach can also reduce the cost for 
developers and therefore consumers by not requiring that software 
developers purchase and ship additional components as part of their 
application.
    2. Software developers could add Internet browsing within their 
application via an ActiveX component_something that Netscape 
had consistently refused to do. This meant customers could browse a 
web site as part of the functionality of any third party 
application. It also made it easy for developers to add automated 
updating of their application over the Internet, from within their 
application.
    3. Microsoft`s integrated IE, was necessary for the Microsoft 
Help system to work. In Windows 98, Microsoft swapped to HTML Help, 
which is a help system based upon compiled HTML. IE was necessary 
for this to work.
    For consumers this added many new benefits, including the 
ability to link to web pages from within the help system which made 
it easy for help system developers and technical documentation 
writers to provide updated documentation via this mechanism. 
Microsoft took this approach as part of it`s stated strategic 
direction, to implement HTML across their product range.
    4. It`s been the history of the software industry that vendors 
keep adding functionality to their products_functionality that 
often harmed their competitors. Most consumer friendly operating 
systems have consistently added new functionality with each release 
of their product. Microsoft has always added new functionality. From 
simple things like adding a TCP stack which meant that the previous 
suppliers of TCP stacks suddenly found themselves without a viable 
product. One company that had built it`s business around supplying a 
TCP stack was put out of business. (A TCP stack is an inherent part 
of the communications capability of a computer and a basic component 
of Internet communications).
    Microsoft added a mechanism that enabled applications to 
communicate within Windows (DCOM) and this meant that Hewlett 
Packard`s product NewWave, was suddenly unviable. In the software 
development industry there`s been a long tradition of this happening 
with vendors like Borland, Microsoft, and previously Symantec and 
Watcom, continually adding new functionality that meant some third 
party supplier`s product became defunct. There`s actually thousands 
of examples of one vendor adding functionality to their product that 
then made there competitors products unviable, and in every case I 
can think of, consumers benefited.
    Therefore I don`t believe any action with regards the 
integration of the browser is necessary, warranted or in the best 
interests of consumers.
    B. With regards Microsoft preventing computer resellers from 
modifying some components of the desktop, it is Microsoft`s product 
and I think they have a right to determine whether it is modified or 
not by the reseller. In fact, nearly every vendor has contracts that 
require distributors and resellers to agree not to modify in any 
way, the software that they sell. Most people don`t have a problem 
with this as it is their intellectual property and any changes can 
reflect on their company and product.
    This litigation against Microsoft over this issue appears to 
have singled out Microsoft solely because of their dominance within 
the operating systems area. However Microsoft shouldn`t be able to 
restrict resellers from also selling and loading onto the computer 
competing products, but this change to Microsoft`s contracts has 
already been made and accepted as a result of previous litigation. 
In my opinion no further action is needed on this issue.
    C. I don`t know where this claim that Microsoft threatened and 
mislead software developers comes from as I`ve never heard of them 
doing this. As the main distributor of software development tools in 
Australia, we have contact with more commercial software developers 
than anyone else in this county. I`ve never heard Microsoft threaten 
or mislead developers over Java. Rather the contrary. I`ve heard Sun 
mislead and threaten quite a lot. Anyway, this is complete nonsense. 
Microsoft has not threatened or mislead developers with regards 
Java_we would have heard about it if they did. Sun themselves 
has recently stated numerous times that Java does not in any way 
compete with Windows. When Java was first released I can remember 
them claiming otherwise, but they seem to have changed their mind on 
this issue. So if Sun and Microsoft both claim that Java doesn`t 
compete with Windows, I can`t see how the submission can claim that 
Microsoft tried to `subvert Java middleware technologies that 
threatened Microsoft`s operating system monopoly'. Java is an 
application development language for goodness sake, it`s got nothing 
to do with the operating system As I stated at the beginning, this 
case is misguided. In fact some of the antagonists in this case are 
in fact worse offenders of restrictive practices than Microsoft. But 
I don`t believe Microsoft to be guilty of most of the charges that 
have been bought against them.
    Unfortunately many people see Microsoft as responsible for their 
computer system crashes, when in fact it is usually always an 
application or utility that is at fault. Microsoft has successfully 
published and marketed their APIs (APIs that other vendors have 
traditionally charged a lot of money for) and produced easy-to-use 
development environments that make it easy for developers to write 
Windows applications. Because it is now relatively easy and 
inexpensive to write Windows applications, many novice programmers 
have done so, producing applications that are buggy. In fact the 
calibre of most programmers is less than we would want and the use 
of runtime debugging and testing tools is less common than it should 
be_so most applications have bugs that can crash the 
applications and sometimes the operating system. This has lead many 
users to blame Microsoft.
    Also, I`m concerned that Universities continue to indoctrinate 
their students to be anti-Microsoft. When these students graduate, 
they are invariably anti-Microsoft. This makes them more difficult 
to train as most application development around the world is done in 
Microsoft Visual Basic or Microsoft C++ using the millions of 
components written for these compilers.
    The Internet is a great tool, but it does make it easy for 
people to shoot their mouth off and hide behind anonymity. Many kids 
and other young people have been very vocal over this issue in 
recent years. They need to be able to state their opinions, but 
unfortunately many of them belong to the anti-Microsoft brigade and 
basically do not have the experience to know what they are talking 
about. They`ve simply followed the propaganda from the Universities, 
Sun Microsystems and jumped onto the media hype and bandwagon 
regarding this issue rather than taking a considered approach. In 
fact many people treat this issue with religious zeal_the lack 
of facts and logic supports the anti-Microsoft stance.
    When I look at the where most of the vocal people in this issue 
come from I find they are mainly Apple users, University related 
people and students, Sun and other Unix users, and kids. However, 
these are the people who form the 5% of computer users who use 
alternate operating systems. The other 95% of computer users are 
generally happy with Microsoft and their products! How then can this 
litigation be justified in a `democratic' country when 
the bulk of computer users, particularly in the business world, are 
happy with Microsoft and their products?

[[Page 24408]]

    Regards,
    David Looke,
    MicroWay Pry Ltd
    David Looke, MicroWay Pty Ltd_Programming Tools
    PO Box 84, Braeside VIC 3195. Australia.
    Tel: (03) 9580-1333, Fax: (03) 9580-8995
    email: [email protected], http://www.microway.com.au 
ABN: 56 129 024 825



MTC-00004025

From: John Peters Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You know, this whole thing pales to insignificance compared to 
General Motors` alleged monopoly abuse. I hear that they are 
requiring their dealerships to accept delivery on SUVs that the 
dealership has no way in Hell of ever selling! The only way to get 
ahead in this industry is to be a `yes-man', and the 
newspapers all print whatever they feel that their best advertisers, 
the auto industry, wants them to. Talk about conflict of interest! 
Their management is clueless! Leave poor Microsoft alone, and go 
after these planet destroyers!
    http://community.webtv.net/JohnPeters2/ElNinoEvents
    http://community.webtv.net/JohnPeters2/Prettykittens



MTC-00004026

From: John A Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have reviewed the terms and found them severely lacking. There 
are 3 things missing that need to be included before consumers will 
gain significant protection from Microsoft:
    1) The Java Virtual Machine from Sun_needs to be included 
in Internet Explorer: 2 Reasons why this is critical;
    a) Microsoft has done much to damage Java through the use of 
non-Java compliant software such as their current implementation of 
the JVM and their broken development tools for Java_especially 
Visual J++. By including the standard Java VM, they will begin to 
make up for the needless damage they have done to this technology.
    b) The Government is required to make all public facing and some 
internal internet content Section 508 Compliant_i.e. 
accessible to individuals who may be blind, or otherwise needs to 
use assistive technologies. The Sun Java VM implements an 
accessibility API (part of JFC/SWING) while the Microsoft JVM does 
not. In other words, the Microsoft JVM is counter-productive for 
efforts to make the web a more accessible place for individuals with 
disabilities, while the Sun JVM has taken a leadership role in 
championing accessibility
    2) Microsoft should be required to keep passport free_now 
and forever, with the additional restriction that its code be shared 
with all identified competitors. As a universal authentication 
mechanism, charging for this service will likely follow after this 
case is closed_ unless explicitly required. Additionally, by 
taking what was essential MIT`s Kerberos and proprietizing 
it_Microsoft will be taking (yet again) what was a good 
example of open standards excellence and converting it to a less 
well understood target for hackers accross the internet.
    3) Microsoft should be required to modify their .NET 
architecture to ensure interoperability with XML web services than 
those developed for the Windows platform; i.e. they should be barred 
from restricting .NET components from working only with passport and 
other windows software.
    This may be the most critical restriction moving forward, if 
Microsoft is to embrace open standards_this piece needs to be 
present. Otherwise the entire content on the internet may some day 
become wrapped in proprietary microsoft protocols, authentication 
mechanisms, and other software agents that would make it hostile to 
other competing technologies.
    If there are any questions regarding my comments, I am reachable 
at 206-267-0071 EST.
    Thanks for this opportunity to comment.
    v/r
    John Brown



MTC-00004027

From: Mark Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer or in other words; the supposed reason the 
antitrust law was put in place. Reading about the alternative 
proposals from other `voices' in the industry I see very 
little to protect me and a whole lot about how to improve the 
industry position of Microsoft`s competitors. If you really want to 
see a complete monopoly, try to buy a piece of hardware compatible 
with an Apple computer from someone besides Apple; you can`t. Some 
other companies have tried to manufacture Apple compatible hardware 
only to fall victim to Apple`s anticompetitive practices.
    The fog caused by political contributions of many of Microsoft`s 
competitors (PACs) has created a feeding frenzy by state attorney 
generals who saw their state treasuries grow from tobacco 
settlements. Expecting to get the same from Microsoft, a company who 
never killed anyone and never mislead consumers, proves to us all 
that companies can use the legal system to improve their market 
position rather than spending the money on research and development 
to give me, the consumer, a better product. I believe many of 
Microsoft`s competitors are and will be following that same business 
practices they do not want Microsoft to be able to use. I do not 
believe protecting the consumer had much to do with the original 
action and in many ways, if Microsoft were to cease providing their 
products many consumers would suffer.
    Check out what company provides the most help and aid to enable 
the handicapped to use computers. I know which company that is. My 
father was sightless (that`s blind to all of you aren`t familiar 
with the term), but was able to use a computer thanks to the help 
provided unselfishly by Microsoft. When he had problems getting his 
voice synthesizer to work, his calls to Microsoft not only were 
handled with the utmost importance, but on more than one occasion, 
when answers could not be given at lower levels, Mr. Gates himself 
handled the calls. The ability to use a computer enhanced my 
father`s life greatly as it would anyone who is blind. I wish all of 
the whining technology companies spent what Microsoft spends to be 
sure their products can be used by the handicapped (Not a bad thing 
to include in a ruling, something that actually helps consumers, not 
just companies).
    It`s not difficult to see the hidden agendas of the politicians 
involved with the Microsoft case. Hatch listens closely to a company 
named Novell (Definitely a monopoly in networking before Microsoft 
released NT). Many members of congress listen closely to the wants 
and complaints from one of their favorite investments, which is 
located about 30 minutes outside of Washington DC, and is probably 
the biggest monopoly in history (AOL). Preservation of AOL`s instant 
messenger monopoly has lead them to absolutely refuse to participate 
in an open standard so all operating systems and browsers, not just 
AOL`s, could talk to each other. Microsoft was one of those parties 
seeking an open standard and AOL refused. The only way I can talk to 
my children at college using instant messenger is to install AOL 
software that installs other AOL software that is difficult to 
remove and causes non-technical computer users to sign up for AOL 
internet access whether they want to or not.
    It is my hope that after all the whining is done, and the 
ulterior motives of all the parties are examined, the Justice 
department will see fit to rule in a way that will protect me and 
other consumers, not merely enhance the market position of 
Microsoft`s competitors. I wish these companies would spend half of 
that money they spend harassing Microsoft on research. They would 
have better products and consumers like me would be the big winners. 
Some of the proposed `remedies' may actually hurt the 
consumer. It is important that companies that actually innovate and 
not just litigate be allowed to improve their products.
    Technology can help the handicapped live better quality lives, 
but everyone ignores them because they can`t afford to buy it. Any 
company that spends research money to help the handicapped, knowing 
full well the return is in good will, not bigger profits, should be 
applauded, not sued.
    Like most consumers, I can`t afford big political contributions 
to get my voice heard, but it was my understanding that`s why the 
Justice Department is there.
    Thank You,
    Mark Walsh, An American Consumer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004028

From: Steve Slater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:20pm
Subject: Concerns about the Microsoft Settlement
    I object strongly to any discrepancies drawn between `For 
Profit' businesses and `Not For Profit' 
businesses, `Open Source', etc. in the Microsoft vs DOJ 
Settlement.

[[Page 24409]]

    Make sure Steve Satchell is involved in regulatory enforcement.
    Steve Slater



MTC-00004029

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:33pm
Subject: About the judgement
    1 Billion Dollars to put computers and Ms software in U.S. 
schools? They make it back on their MIDDLEWARE and I think WPA (the 
schools should get about 10 good installs?)!
    Thank You
    Aron Baird



MTC-00004030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:35pm
Subject: Suit against Microsoft
    How much money, tax money, has been spent by the government on 
this case?
    How much more? Is there no limit? Get on with it. This isn`t the 
Nurnberg trials. . .
    Lorette Schneider



MTC-00004031

From: Robert Breidecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I am very disappointed in your settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement is very weak and does little to change Microsoft`s 
behavior in the future and punish them for breaking the law in the 
past. The ideas proposed by the nine states that have not settled 
are much closer to where the DOJ should have settled. You settlement 
is so weak that it actually may do more harm to the computer 
industry and consumers than if there were no lawsuit at all.
    Robert Breidecker
    7258 Cornell Ave.
    St. Louis, MO 63130



MTC-00004032

From: Trey Ackerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement_Thanks.
    To Whom it may concern:
    I just wanted to say that I believe the DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft is too lenient. I wish you had been successful in 
splitting the company into two separate entities: Windows OS and 
Applications. Personally, I prefer to run Windows as an application 
under Linux. This way I don`t have to reboot my PC when Windows 
crashes.
    Just the same, thank you for your efforts and better luck next 
time!
    Regards,
    Trey Ackerman
    2825 Blackwood Drive
    Nashville, TN 37214
    USA



MTC-00004033

From: Ray and Helene Reinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
HELENE & RAY REINMAN
40455 Parado Del Sol Temecula, Ca. 92592 (909) 303-1606
December 10, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    It`s about time the Justice Dept. and the States` Attorneys 
General got off Microsoft`s back. The Sept. 11th N.Y. disaster 
should have given them the wake up call they needed to know that 
they have not been doing their jobs to protect the American citizens 
and taxpayers. If the CIA, FBI, and the local states were doing 
their jobs, and looking for real enemies, perhaps this could have 
been averted. As a government we still have not learned history`s 
lessons. The tragedies of Dec. 7, 1941, the first bombing of the 
twin towers, and the USS Cole incident are more examples that we 
have become lax and complacent with national security. Perhaps this 
is because we are preoccupied with less pressing issues, like 
attacking our strong technology industry led by companies like 
Microsoft. We are a country in a recession, and we are presently in 
a desperate struggle for survival as a nation, with a faceless 
enemy. Our economy needs to be kept as strong as possible to avoid 
economic collapse. We cannot, and must not tear down the companies 
that have given strength and hope for America. This is political and 
economic suicide.
    Bill Gates is not a terrorist, and Microsoft is not the enemy. 
Few companies have paid more taxes, employed more tax-paying 
American citizens, or launched more related businesses (which in 
turn have paid taxes; employed more workers, etc.etc.) than has 
Microsoft. They have been the premier technical company that led the 
technical economic boom over the past 20 years. They are the major 
holding in mutual funds, union funds and credit unions in the U.S. 
As such they are the hope and future of America`s working class, and 
the bread and butter of the retirement dreams and plans of the 
taxpayers, who pay the bills for the beltway bureaucracy. By 
attacking companies like Microsoft, we are attacking America and all 
it stands for. And in the process bleeding it economically. It is 
illogically asinine to attack one of America`s icons of capitalism, 
when the real, deadly fanatics who have sworn to destroy us continue 
to exist and work their deadly destruction. Will it be nuclear next 
time?
    It is time to move past the crybabies who started this suit 
(AOL, Sun, Netscape, and Oracle), and who couldn`t make it on their 
own, with inferior and expensive products, and seek out and attack 
the real enemies of America. The American economic system works. 
People buy what they consider the best product at the best price for 
the job they want to get done. Stop wasting the taxpayers money on 
worthless lawsuits, that attack the very strengths of American 
capitalism and entrepreneurial intelligence. The American consumer 
has for years cast its vote for the best, least expensive and most 
effective products. And the PC standard, Windows, is no exception. 
In true democratic fashion the consumer has elected and supported 
the finest software product ever produced. The one that standardized 
applications so that all users would have a common data processing 
modus operandi to execute their tasks. Let not the politicians or 
the government attempt to take away that election, and the 
tremendous revenue that it supplies to the state and federal 
governments.
    Governments do not make money, and politicians do not produce 
any money, or add to the gross domestic product. Only good companies 
like Microsoft make money, employee people and pay billions in 
taxes. The only thing the government and the politicians can do is 
spend, spend, spend. The Justice Department would do well to 
remember from whence their money comes; and that this is still 
government of the people, by the people and for the people. And by 
attacking good American companies like Microsoft, they may as well 
as dogs_bite the hand that feeds them. Surely they are not 
that stupid, shortsighted, or preoccupied that they cannot see the 
real danger, and their own political demise by such a continuance? 
May you and your department choose wisely.
    May God bless America, and Microsoft.
    Sincerely, Ray Reinman



MTC-00004034

From: imroscoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What a joke. Lets force them to give away more of what they were 
forcing on us in the first place. Now the organizations that 
couldn`t afford Microsoft products can replace their free Unix 
platform . Can you spell M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y?



MTC-00004035

From: George Welch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:53pm
Subject: My Comments on Microsoft Case
    I was mad at Microsoft when they caused me problems with 
Netscape, but we shouldn`t stay mad forever. They have been punished 
and the Fed`s will be watching them closer in the future. The rest 
of us and especially the attorneys, should stop the whining and 
`JUST GET OVER IT'!
    Thanks for the chance to share my thoughts.



MTC-00004036

From: Bryan W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    The current settlement with Microsoft is clearly inadequate to 
1) make them pay for the crimes they committed, and 2) ensure that 
furter anti-trust violations don`t re-occur. Here is 
the_minimum_that needs to be imposed for their criminal 
conduct
    1) $3,000,000,000 fine.
    2) All versions of MS operating systems up to but not including 
Windows XP should be made open source, with the copy right to expire 
1) in 5 years 2) on court order, should MS be found not to be in 
compliance with the settlement.
    3) Microsoft should have to publish on the web the price 
schedules for operating systems, so that no preferential contracts 
can be made.

[[Page 24410]]

    4) API`s are to be immediately made availible to all, without 
charge, so that open source software can make use of them, without 
having to be a commercial interest.
    5) All contracts restricting the sale, manufacture, or product 
of dual-boot systems are to be null and void.
    6) Microsoft must resume free support of their products. Current 
support options are all fee based.
    7) Microsoft must support Java on all operating systems.
    8) Explorer must be unbundled from the OS.
    Thank you
    Bryan Waterman



MTC-00004037

From: Chris Menzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please note that Section III(J)(2) of the Proposed Final 
Judgement potentially plays right into Microsoft`s hands. It says 
that Microsoft needn`t share its APIs and communication protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet criteria for a being a business that are ESTABLISHED BY 
MICROSOFT itself. Microsoft might well try to use this clause to 
torpedo its central threats, namely, the flagship products of the 
Open Source free software movement that created the Apache web 
server that dominates the internet_and which Microsoft would 
dearly love to supplant with its own buggy, high-priced, and 
insecure web server_the ubiquitous programming language perl, 
the Linux operating system (the most serious competitor to Windows), 
and samba (a program for enabling Windows clients to see a Linux 
server as a Windows server).
    Please ensure that this clause is revised in such a way as to 
ensure that sophisticated, secure, high-quality free software will 
continue to be a vibrant alternative to Microsoft products for all 
computer users.
    Thank you.
    Christopher Menzel
    [email protected]



MTC-00004038

From: Ron Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope the government will finalize the current settlement with 
no additional penalties to Microsoft. This suit has gone on too long 
and was clearly brought on at the urging of Microsoft`s competitors. 
There has never been any harm to consumers and in fact the consumer 
has been the beneficiary of Microsoft`s low pricing and 
standardization. The competitors, if successful, would be just the 
reverse. High prices and little if any standards.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Ron Nelson
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00004039

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read the article at:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Jon Fowler



MTC-00004040

From: aerland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ:
    Several sections of the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
appear not to be reining in its abuse of its monopoly power, but 
rather empowering it to extend that power!
    For instance Section III(J)(2)(c) effectively gives Microsoft 
the power to kill not-for-profit and other Open Source projects with 
a clause that permits them to determine if a business `...(c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...' I urge you to reconsider the fundamental nature of this 
settlement, lest it have the effect of further extending the power 
of the convicted monopolists, Microsoft Corporation.
    A. Erland
    [email protected]



MTC-00004041

From: Andrew Peter Reynolds Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:08am
Subject: tunney act
    bill gates built a better mouse trap, and now you people [doj] 
want to punish gates??? I`m not a bill gates fan, I`m an mac-
fanatic. but to punish gates makes no sense. on the other hand, it 
doesn`t make any sense to allow him to capture the educational 
market. that`s all mac has, that and the ever shrinking video 
capable machine market. let gates make a monetary settlement, in the 
form of grants, to lower socio-economic school, and then let the 
schools buy mac. that seems fair.
    apreynoldsjr
    [email protected]
    give it a rest doj...aren`t there enough legitimate crooks 
around for you to chase.



MTC-00004042

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:18am
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I am shocked at the leniency that Microsoft will receive in the 
latest proposed antitrust settlement. Microsoft has for years 
bullied and illegally used its monopoly power to quash competition 
and force its products upon consumers, and I see nothing in the 
proposed settlement that will prevent them from doing so in the 
future. Microsoft did not emerge victorious in the word processor, 
spreadsheet, and internet browser markets because its products were 
vastly superior to those of its competitors. It did so solely by 
illegally leveraging its monopolistic position in the operating 
system market. Am I to believe that Microsoft Word was so much 
better than the once reigning word processor, WordPerfect, that 
Microsoft now deserves to hold 94% of that market? Or that Lotus` 
spreadsheet and Netscape`s Navigator browser were so inferior to 
Microsoft`s products, that their markets now rightly belong entirely 
to Microsoft as well? I personally did not switch from using 
WordPerfect to MS Word several years ago because I thought that the 
latter was a superior product. I was forced to do so because all of 
the PCs at my workplace came preloaded with Microsoft products at 
the expense of its competitors, thanks to Microsoft`s illegal 
bullying of PC manufacturers. Now that Microsoft has already taken 
these markets and overwhelmed its competition with its monopolistic 
leveraging, is the latest settlement proposal somehow going to right 
these past wrongs, ensure a completely level playing ground in the 
software market, and bring these pioneering companies back to the 
prominence that they truly deserve? The fact of the matter is the 
damage has already been done, Microsoft has won on its own terms, 
and its technology is now even more deeply entrenched in the market. 
The latest antitrust remedy will do little to rectify this 
situation. If Microsoft`s operating systems will still be free of 
any significant restrictions, if they do not open up their APIs, and 
if they can still bundle anything they want with their operating 
systems, what exactly are they sacrificing? Many of the provisions 
of this mild settlement reflect changes that Microsoft has already 
made, so the settlement itself seems to be a moot point now.
    I am frankly very surprised that the Justice Department chose 
not to break up Microsoft into two separate companies: one which 
develops operating systems, the other which develops applications. 
This seemed to be the most logical and fair remedy, as it would 
ensure that Microsoft could not continue to tie its applications so 
closely to its operating systems. At the very least, Microsoft would 
have had to consider every company`s applications equally in 
determining which to bundle with its operating systems. Given 
Microsoft`s historical disdain for fair play and its reputation for 
evading past remedies, does the Justice Department truly believe 
that Microsoft will suddenly stop using its monopoly to favor its 
own applications? It seems obvious to me that Microsoft will 
continue to have an unfair advantage over its competitors.
    It is clear that Microsoft currently has the power to control 
the direction of computing, regardless of how popular or powerful 
competing technologies may have proven themselves to be. Take Sun`s 
Java technology, for example. Microsoft is the only company in the 
world that has the power and audacity to exclude something like 
Sun`s Java Virtual Machine from future versions of its operating 
systems. Over the past five years, Java has established itself as 
the undisputed de facto standard for running applications on 
multiple platforms, and yet Microsoft won`t include this technology 
in Windows. Java has taken the software industry by storm since its 
emergence, and yet Microsoft has decided to go against this 
overwhelming tide. Can you think of any other software company in 
the world that could conceivably reject a technology that`s as 
popular and as mature as Java already is today, and still get away 
with

[[Page 24411]]

it? Microsoft`s advocacy of `innovation' only seems to 
apply when it is done on Microsoft`s terms, using Microsoft 
technology. Their definition of `innovation' seems to 
involve identifying a competitor`s product, buying it outright or 
coming up with their own version which runs only on Windows, killing 
off the competition using their monopoly, and then declaring to the 
world that they have `innovated' for the benefit of 
consumers. They are attempting to do this now by subverting Java as 
the predominant multiplatform technology and replacing it with their 
own `.Net' technology.
    I used to scoff at the idea of Microsoft being able to dominate 
the Internet, but it has now become clear to me that not only is 
this entirely feasible, it is exactly what they will succeed in 
doing without a stronger antitrust remedy. Microsoft will continue 
to leverage its monopoly to advance its .Net technology while 
killing off Java and other companies` innovations unless the Justice 
Department does something to rectify the situation. To be fair, 
Microsoft has surely had an enormous positive impact on the industry 
as a whole, though for the most part this has meant standardizing 
the entire world on a Microsoft platform. What they have 
consistently done to the detriment of consumers has been to 
illegally use their monopoly to kill off competitors` innovations in 
favor of their own version of `innovation'.
    What consumers need now is a remedy that will prevent Microsoft 
from forcing its products upon us, while other companies` valuable 
innovations fall by the wayside. While the computer world has become 
a better place with Microsoft in it, it would certainly become much 
better place if only it played fairly. I hope that the Justice 
Department will reconsider the current proposal in favor of a 
stronger response to Microsoft`s predatory, unfair, and clearly 
illegal tactics.
A Concerned Consumer (and user of Microsoft products)



MTC-00004043

From: Ilan Rabinovitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I suggest you do not accept any settlement in which Microsoft 
may offer free software and services instead of money or other 
restrictions. Allowing them to provide educational institutions with 
free software will only strengthen their monopoly by forcing their 
software on todays youth. Possibly accept Red Hat`s offer to provide 
all software and training services for free if Microsoft provides 
hardware as payment for their wrong doings and anti-competitive 
practices.
    In addition any provisions in the settlement that apply to 
Microsoft`s competitors should also apply to open source, public 
domain, educational, and non profit projects/groups/organizations. 
The MSFT monopoloy has hurt these groups just as it has hurt 
comercial competitors. Microsoft recently retired windows 95. This 
and other products such as DOS, Windows 3.x, etc should have their 
source code opened and made available under a license that allows 
the code to benefit the public. Example licenses that would benefit 
the public: GPL, BSD, Public Domain, etc. You should consider 
requiring them to open the code to other products as well. For 
example Internet Explorer and other versions of windows. In all 
cases code which is offered should be released under licenses that 
dont hinder the ability of the public to make use of the code. 
Finally please consider limiting Microsoft`s ability to enter the 
home entertainment system market. This will allow them to spread 
their monopoly to the machines that run our homes. I for one do not 
look forward to a day where Microsoft runs all aspects of my life. 
As it is their sub par software has made our lives more difficult by 
introducing regular crashes and security issues into a majority of 
the computing systems in the world.
    Ilan Rabinovitch
    Los Angeles, CA 91316



MTC-00004044

From: Steve Kinney
To: Microsoft ATR,groupmind2 @yahoogroups.com@inetgw
Date: 12/11/01 1:27am
Subject: anti-trust settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This message is in response for the solicitation of public 
comment on the proposed settlement in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft, 
Civil Action No. 98-1232. I find the settlement completely 
unacceptable. The proposed settlement rewards Microsoft for breaking 
the law. There are no provisions in the settlement that would 
interfere in any way with Microsoft`s anti-competitive practices, as 
the Redmond giant continues to employ illegal means to leverage its 
operating system monopoly into application software, network 
protocol, and Internet server monopolies.
    The well publicized `penalty' chosen by Microsoft, 
that it provide software to some public schools, is nothing more 
than an extension of their already well established policy of 
providing `free' software to any educational 
institution, in order to exclude other companies` products from 
their campuses. I place `free' in quotation marks, since 
the software offered is always network server software, which if 
accepted, excludes other operating systems from the school`s local 
network of computers. Microsoft`s competitors offer measurably 
higher performance, in speed, scalability, security, and 
reliability, along with superior customer support, and lower cost to 
the user. All Microsoft can offer to counter this competition_ 
from innovative U.S. companies like Sun, Red Hat, and Mac_ is 
to foster an educational environment where `Microsoft is the 
only company whose products you have ever seen or learned how to 
use.' Why is it OK for Microsoft to break the law? A private 
conference between Bill Gates and George W. Bush, was documented by 
the Dallas Morning News on July 9, 1999. This meeting was followed 
by over $35 million in Microsoft contributions to the Bush campaign, 
accomplished through direct Microsoft sponsorship of the most 
productive `Pioneer' fund raisers for the Bush campaign: 
Microsoft executives collected full time pay from Microsoft, while 
working full time as fund raisers for the Bush campaign.
    The Bush Administration`s Department of Justice, proposes that 
Microsoft choose exactly how it will be `penalized' for 
breaking the law, and allows Microsoft to freely re-define U.S. law 
as it will be applied to their own business practices in the future. 
I would suggest that the Department of Justice officials` first 
loyalty should be to the law of the land. This would require the 
enforcement of anti-trust laws as written and voted into force by 
Congress. Even when the convicted offender is Microsoft.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Steve Kinney



MTC-00004045

From: Wendell Schubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:25am
Subject: MS Settlement is not in my best interest
    I do not feel that the currently proposed Microsoft/DOJ 
settlement is in my best interest. It does not punish Microsoft for 
abusing it`s monopoly power, and will not stop Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse that power. The current settlement effectively 
does nothing to make Microsoft play fairly in their markets.
    I would much prefer to see Microsoft broken into FOUR competting 
companies (ie: TWO applications companies that must compete in the 
same market and TWO operating systems companies that must compete in 
the same market). I also believe that the courts should have stopped 
the release of Windows XP until a settlement is completed as Windows 
XP further abuses Microsoft`s monopoly power (practically forcing 
users to participate in their new Passport services) as well as 
infringes on freedom of speech (handicapping your encoding auto to 
the mp3 format in favor of their proprietary wmf and the 
`Smart Tags' feature in the illegally integrated 
Internet Explorer that can effectively edit sites webpages).
    Sincerely,
    Wendell Schubert
    6755 SW Princess Ave
    Beaverton, OR 97008



MTC-00004046

From: Matthew Geiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:33am
Subject: Feedback on proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I understand the Justice Department is soliciting US public 
comment about Microsoft`s proposal to supply computers and software 
to underprivileged school districts to satisfy the punishment phase 
of its legal settlement over monopolistic practices. I dearly hope 
the Justice Department won`t allow Microsoft to use its proposed 
settlement to extend its monopoly and potentially generate more 
revenue for itself by locking the neediest school districts across 
the US into the Microsoft product-upgrade cycle. I also trust the 
department sees the inherent disingenuousness of

[[Page 24412]]

Microsoft providing the lion`s share of the settlement value in 
software whose marginal cost to Microsoft is next to 
nothing_but which is being valued at off-the-shelf prices for 
the purposes of the settlement.
    In evaluating the true worth of the Microsoft settlement, it`s 
most informative to note the offer by Linux distributor Red Hat to 
provide operating system software, desktop applications and updates 
to these systems for free to these same school districts. That would 
maximize the value of the settlement for these school districts by 
investing all of the Microsoft payout in tangible computer hardware, 
which can operate on open-source software for free. The difference, 
Red Hat estimates, will allow qualifying schools to receive an 
average of 70 computers each, as opposed to the 14 each they would 
get under the Microsoft proposal. All this without raising the 
nominal amount of Microsoft`s settlement.
    I doubt there would be a warm reception at the DoJ for a 
proposal by major tobacco companies to settle their legal damages 
partially by supplying heart-lung machines to the nation`s neediest 
hospitals and then satisfying the balance of the settlement in 
cartons of free cigarettes to the neighboring communities.Yet, this 
example isn`t without parallel to the current Microsoft case. 
Indeed, considering that this settlement itself stems from 
Microsoft`s monopolistic practices and price-fixing, it clearly 
better serves the sense of justice that Microsoft`s punitive 
settlement should help engender healthy competition in the 
marketplace_as well as provide maximum benefit to our 
educational system.
    For the record, as a user of both Microsoft and open-source 
software at home and in the workplace, I`m fairly agnostic about the 
roles and performance of both. Having installed and administered a 
number of open-source-based servers, applications and security 
tools, I am continually impressed by the stability and functionality 
of this free software. At the same time, I certainly appreciate that 
Microsoft has put a great deal of research into developing its 
product line. But Microsoft`s marketing practices consist of just 
the sort of abusive, manipulative behavior that the US` fair trade 
laws were designed to protect the public from. Please don`t let 
Microsoft similarly abuse and manipulate this nation`s justice 
system.
    Yours sincerely,
    Matthew Geiger
    Matthew Karl Geiger (US citizen)
    21 Oxley Walk
    Singapore 238594
    [email protected]



MTC-00004047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:04am
Subject: Please listen to Apple Computer...
    To Honorable J. Frederick Motz,
    I support and volunteer my time and equipment to help my three 
daughters in three schools in the San Jose, CA area: Mulberry 
Elementary, Baker Middle School and Westmont High School. All three 
schools have a mix of computers, but the Macintosh systems are the 
most prized for their ease of use, installation and training. I`m a 
software engineer and manager for 20+ years, and have used Windows, 
Macintosh and Unix systems many times, but I highly recommend using 
Mac systems at the schools. I back this up with donating time and 
equipment.
    I strongly object to rewarding Microsoft for their moral and 
civic failures by helping them corner the education market. 
Determent, not rewards should be what the court is looking for.
    Ken Abrams
    [email protected]
    4074 Keith Drive
    Campbell, CA 95008



MTC-00004048

From: Frederic Soulier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    Please do not let Microsoft off the hook so easily, they have 
done enough damage and harm to too many companies to not be punished 
in some ways. They are going to exit this case even stronger than 
before, free to use their power to harm consumers and companies 
beyond any possible repair.
    Regards,
    Frederic Soulier



MTC-00004049

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As Microsoft claimed during the trial, times and the nature of 
business have changed. The anti-trust enforcement that was 
meaningful three-quarters of a century ago are not necessarily so in 
the twentyfirst century. Specifically, the settlement takes into 
account only established, for-profit, business entities, as defined 
by Microsoft itself. Talk about letting the fox guard the henhouse! 
In today`s world of computer software, Microsoft`s most dreaded 
competition is not a business, but free software. For example; 
Apache, Sendmail, and Perl rule the internet, and yet they are all 
free. SAMBA, another freebie, is widely used to let real servers 
serve Windows shares. Without the knowledge which this proposed 
settlement guarantees to businesses, SAMBA won`t be able to keep up.
    Even the US government is denied the information. Remember the 
story of the new battleship that had to be towed back to harbor on 
it`s maiden voyage because it`s Microsoft-driven computer system 
failed? The DOD, NASA, NIST, and assorted national laboratories are 
all prime contenders to need the information that is being 
dispensed.
    This proposed settlement needs another going-over. At the very 
least, the US government should be included. Organized free-software 
efforts are also vital. Better still, why not just require that the 
knowledge be put in the public domain? If it can be made available 
to the so-called arch-rival businesses, why not to Joe Public? In 
any case, Microsoft should not be allowed to set any standards for 
eligible recipients_that is an obvious conflict of interest.
    Don`t be fooled by my address; I am a US citizen.
    NHA
    [email protected]+41 31 342 8129
    MC-OP-MIT-SWM-TSWSwisscom Mobile AG



MTC-00004050

From: Dale Pedersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 4:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am hoping that you will accept this e-mail as my comment on 
the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. The trial concluded 
that Microsoft is a predatory monopolist. That couldn`t be more true 
and is something anyone familiar with the computer industry has 
known for many years. My concern is that the proposed penalties are 
not strong enough. The proposed settlement seems more like a slap on 
the wrist than what is really needed, something with teeth. Please 
do what you can to throw the book at them. All the public is asking 
is for the government to make the punishment fit the crime. Pretend 
that you`re the Taliban and make the remedy merciless!
    Dale Pedersen
    CMR 420 Box 741
    APO, AE 09063



MTC-00004051

From: Lawrence Sproul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 5:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Where are the protections for Non-profit, opensource, and 
government entities?
    And why does Microsoft get to choose it`s own criteria for 
determining what businesses can participate in the benefits.
    Shouldn`t this be done by the Independant Committee?



MTC-00004052

From: Denis Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 4:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir,
    Microsoft has broken US laws.
    When reaching a settlement please remember that justice must not 
only be done, but must be seen to be done!
    To introduce free Microsoft software into schools would seem to 
sanction Microsoft`s behavior and to suggest that the US Government 
rewards such law-breaking.
    Please punish Microsoft so the punishment not only equals the 
crime, but can be seen by all to equal the crime.
    Denis Williamson



MTC-00004053

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:05am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs,
    I am of the opinion that the Microsoft settlement amounts to a 
`a slap on the wrist,' and am extremely concerned that 
it will result only in an increase of the current Microsoft 
monopoly. Please do not play into their hands.

[[Page 24413]]

    R/S,
    Scott R. Taylor



MTC-00004054

From: Duane C. Mallory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern:
    I read with some interest the deal worked out between the 
Government and Microsoft: I must say that I really can not believe 
the outcome. The government, by winning the case against Microsoft, 
is in a position to be sure that justice is served. From everything 
that I have read, and believe I understand, the following is what I 
think of the current settlement.
    1) Microsoft has been found guilty of Anti-trust violations.
    2) Microsoft, under the current settlement, is not only let off 
the hook, but is in a stronger position than ever before in that 
they can decide what constitutes action required on their part.
    3) Open source software, such as Linux, Apache, SendMail, and 
SAMBA, are going to be damaged by this settlement as Microsoft will 
argue that they are NOT a Commercial / Business entity in the true 
sense_they are Not-for Profit entities. This basically means 
that any access to API`s, code, or other areas that could benefit 
these companies in an effort to compete fairly will not be available 
to them.
    4) There is absolutely NO MONETARY FINE imposed on the company 
for their crimes!
    All in all I would say that the settlement is laughable. 
Unfortunately, I believe there are quite a number of companies and 
organizations who will not be laughing if this settlement is allowed 
to go through as is. It is sad to think that, in a great country 
such as ours, perhaps crime does pay after all.
    Best Regards,
    Duane Mallory
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:04am
Subject: Against DOJ sweatheart deals!
    The DOJ should be ashamed.
    I use UNIX. Why should MS be allow to penalize me by using UNIX 
to get rid of UNIX??
    The whole US can see what a weak sweatheart deal they`re trying 
to make. Its no wonder consumer trust and trust in the government is 
at an all time low.
    My option:
    1) let MS keep their broken code which is their 
property_we DON`T want it
    a) we DON`T want it furthed_we want it LESSENED
    b) so we DON`T want the code pubished !!!
    c) we DON`T want MS_we want [Sun, Apple, Linux, AIX, HP-
UX, ...]
    d) the LESS distribution of their terrible code the BETTER
    2) force them to comply with standards or halt sales a) like 
netscape plugins, like ANSI C, etc...
    3) all `giveaways' should be effective to EFFECTED 
CONSUMERS in the form you know damn well we`re asking for. And that 
ISN`T a giveaway to the government school funds in your pockets: you 
asses!
    That`s the three fingered solute to MS_who have wasted 
millions of manpower hours in needless lock-ups_and litterally 
years of mine. Intentional lies about a product can`t be 
disclaimed_even a fool would know that.
    I read all their damn `developer' lies as a 
kid_for years_until I was an adult and realized how they 
had lied. They owe me for that. MS can stuff it. I might add that 
their `we`re allowed to lie' `contract' 
didn`t apply to me as a minor; as such contracts are invalid with 
minors.
    MS has harmed several of my development projects intentionally 
due to their childish competitive bull_stifling science and 
development: for instance: database connectiviety for Mathematica to 
meantion one. But do I have recourse?? No_thank to you people!
    Ah yes...
    Have a BAD day
    John D. Hendrickson



MTC-00004056

From: Susan Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:17am
Subject: The microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I never do anything like this, but I feel so strongly that I 
must speak out about this travisty. Microsoft has brought mediocrity 
and a complacency for inferior software to the software market. 
Before Microsoft, any company who dared to ship a product so riddled 
with bugs and defects as the microsoft products would have gone out 
of business.
    People are fed up with microsoft, but have nothing else to use, 
so they tolerate the poor products and poor support. Letting 
Microsoft get away with putting their software in schools for free 
is rewarding Microsoft for their illegal activities. That will allow 
another generation to be brainwashed into using microsoft products 
before they even get out into the real world. I am enclosing an 
article from one of Microsoft`s own user publications, which says it 
better than I can, and reflects how most of us out here feel.
    Thank you for reading this_the microsoft article follows
    Susan Dwyer
    * AN ANALYSIS AND OPINION OF THE STATES` PROPOSED MICROSOFT 
REMEDY As expected, on Friday the District of Columbia and the nine 
remaining US states allied against Microsoft presented their 
proposed remedy for Microsoft`s antitrust case. After the watered-
down and ineffectual proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
US Department of Justice (DOJ) and nine other US states last month, 
I didn`t expect much from this proposed remedy. But this proposal is 
far more realistic and pragmatic than the earlier proposed 
settlement, and I strongly urge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to 
wholeheartedly reject the DOJ agreement and adopt this proposed 
remedy instead. In this analysis and opinion, I`ll examine the 
remedial proposals the states have presented and explain why they 
represent a more suitable punishment for Microsoft`s repeated 
violations of US antitrust law.
    But first, a quick review. The US Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia unanimously agreed with the earlier ruling that 
Microsoft had illegally maintained its desktop OS monopoly by 
`suppressing emerging technologies that threatened to 
undermine its monopoly control.' Microsoft prevented these 
technologies, which included Sun`s Java and Netscape`s Web browser, 
among others, from succeeding by maintaining what the Court of 
Appeals called the `applications barrier to entry,' in 
which a dominant platform such as Windows stays in power by keeping 
consumers locked in. As noted in the proposed remedy, `the 
applications barrier to entry, coupled with Microsoft`s 90 percent 
plus market share, gave Microsoft the power to protect its 
`dominant operating system irrespective of quality' and 
to `stave off even superior new rivals.'' To 
specifically combat Java and Netscape, Microsoft `aggressively 
and unlawfully prevented these rivals from achieving the widespread 
distribution they needed to attract software development and 
ultimately make other platforms meaningful competitors with 
Microsoft`s Windows operating system.' The proposed remedy 
also notes that the US Court of Appeals `cataloged an 
extensive list of anticompetitive [and] exclusionary acts by which 
Microsoft artificially bolstered the applications barrier to entry, 
including commingling the software code for its own middleware with 
that of its monopoly operating system, thereby eliminating 
distribution opportunities for competing middleware; threatening to 
withhold and withholding critical technical information from 
competing middleware providers, thereby allowing Microsoft 
middleware to obtain significant advantages over its rivals; 
threatening to withhold porting of critical Microsoft software 
applications and financial benefits from those who even considered 
aiding its rivals; contractually precluding [PC makers] and 
ultimately end users from the opportunity to choose competitive 
software; and even deceiving software developers to conceal the fact 
that the software they were writing would be compatible only with 
Microsoft`s platform.' The list is long and, sadly, only a 
subset of the strategies that Microsoft has employed over the years 
to stifle competition and innovation.
    After losing its appeal, Microsoft entered a new phase of its 
antitrust trial. Kollar-Kotelly recommended that the company attempt 
to settle the case, and the court eventually provided a mediator. 
Then on October 31, the last day of mediation, Microsoft and the DOJ 
shocked the world by announcing a settlement. However, Microsoft 
critics immediately denounced the settlement as being too lenient on 
the company. Even I referred to the settlement as `a travesty 
of justice that leaves an illegal monopoly in a position of power, 
enabling Microsoft to continue harming competitors, partners, and 
even customers' (see the URL at the end of this article for my 
take on the DOJ and Microsoft settlement).

[[Page 24414]]

    As a result, the District of Columbia and nine of the 18 states 
allied against Microsoft refused to sign the agreement, calling on 
antitrust precedent and noting that `the suit has been a 
futile exercise if the Government proves a violation but fails to 
secure a remedy adequate to redress it,' and `a remedies 
decree in an antitrust case must seek to `unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct' to `terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future.'' So the states` 
proposed remedy, delivered Friday as required, addresses these 
issues and punishes Microsoft for its illegal behavior. And the 
proposal elegantly explains why Microsoft should be punished in a 
manner more appropriate than that in the DOJ settlement.
    `A meaningful remedy must do more, however, than merely 
prohibit a recurrence of Microsoft`s past misdeeds,' the 
proposed remedy reads. `[First,] it must also seek to restore 
the competitive balance so that competing middleware developers and 
those who write applications based on that middleware are not 
unfairly handicapped in that competition by Microsoft`s past 
exclusionary acts, and [secondly,] it must be forward-looking with 
respect to technological and marketplace developments, so that 
today`s emerging competitive threats are protected from the very 
anticompetitive conduct that Microsoft has so consistently and 
effectively employed in the past. Only then can the applications 
barrier to entry be reduced and much-needed competition be given a 
fair chance to emerge.'
    The states even specifically take a jab at the proposed DOJ and 
Microsoft settlement. `Unlike the previously announced 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft, these remedies create a 
real prospect of achieving what the DOJ said it intended to 
accomplish: `Stop Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, 
prevent any recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore 
competition in the software market.''
    Here are the states` proposed remedies. I`ve ordered them by 
magnitude, with the proposed remedies I consider the most important 
listed first.
    1. Microsoft should be required to license its Office source 
code so that competitors can sell Office on rival platforms. 
`To begin to erode the applications barrier to entry that was 
enhanced by Microsoft`s unlawful behavior, and thereby begin to 
`pry open to competition a market that has been closed by 
defendants' illegal restraints,` Microsoft should be required 
to auction to a third party the right to port Microsoft Office to 
competing operating systems,' the proposal reads. Also, 
Microsoft should be forced to continue offering its Macintosh Office 
product, with the stipulation that each revision of that product 
ship within 60 days of each Windows version of the suite and include 
similar functionality. And Microsoft should be forced to auction off 
Office licenses so that at least three companies can port the suite 
to the platforms of their choice; Microsoft will receive a royalty 
for each auction but no further payments. And Microsoft will be 
required to give the third parties all the technical information 
needed to make the ports successful.
    This controversial remedy hits Microsoft right in the gut 
because it hands over some of the company`s crown jewels_the 
source code to its dominant Office products_to competitors and 
opens up the Office productivity market once again. Critics have 
long maintained that Microsoft`s OS monopoly is unfairly bolstered 
by users` reliance on Office, and this proposal seeks to answer that 
complaint. Indeed, given that many of Office`s features have found 
their way into Windows over time and that the Office team has had 
unfair and early access to internal Windows technologies for years, 
it`s only fair that competitors get the same benefits.
    2. Microsoft should be forced to open-source Internet Explorer 
(IE). Much of the original trial focused on Microsoft`s illegal 
bundling of IE in Windows solely to harm its competitor Netscape; 
the Appellate Court finally ruled that Microsoft designed IE not to 
make browsing more attractive to users, but to discourage PC makers 
from distributing rival products. In other words, the company 
`integrated' IE into Windows solely to harm Netscape, 
not to help its customers. `Eliminating Netscape and 
establishing [IE] as the dominant browser was a critical component 
of Microsoft`s monopoly maintenance strategy,' the proposed 
remedy notes. `Given that Microsoft`s browser dominance was 
achieved to bolster the operating system monopoly, the remedial 
prescription must involve undoing that dominance to the extent it is 
still possible to do so. Accordingly, the appropriate solution is to 
mandate open-source licensing for [IE], thereby ensuring at a 
minimum that others have full access to this critical platform and 
that Microsoft cannot benefit unduly from the browser dominance that 
it gained as part of its unlawful monopolization of the operating 
system market.' If the court enacts this proposal, Microsoft 
will have to disclose and license the source code for all current 
and future versions of IE and any related Web-browsing functionality 
found in various versions of Windows. This action will give 
competitors and other developers a perpetual, royalty-free license 
to create any derived products they want, without fear of 
retaliation from Microsoft. As with the Office porting proposal, 
this proposal hits right at the heart of the matter and is an 
appropriate remedy for a company that abused competitors, partners, 
and users through its anticompetitive bundling of IE and Windows.
    3. Microsoft`s bundled software should be unbundled from 
Windows. As with the previous proposal, this requirement relates to 
Microsoft`s illegal commingling of IE and other middleware with 
Windows, which deterred PC makers and users from installing 
competing products. The states give Microsoft two options: Either 
cease bundling middleware such as IE, Windows Media Player (WMP), 
and Windows Messenger in all current and future versions of Windows, 
or start selling Windows versions that don`t include those bundled 
applications. If the court chooses the latter option, those 
unbundled Windows versions should cost significantly less than the 
versions that include bundled software and should function properly. 
This requirement applies to Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, 
and Windows NT 4.0, but not to Windows 98 or Win98 SE, for some 
reason.
    Again, I endorse any remedy that addresses a specific area in 
which the court found Microsoft guilty of breaking the law. Indeed, 
the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously 
upheld the earlier District Court ruling that Microsoft bundled 
middleware such as IE solely to `deter computer manufacturers 
from installing a rival browser such as Netscape Navigator. 
Microsoft offered no specific or substantiated evidence to justify 
such commingling, and such commingling had an anticompetitive 
effect.' Users and PC makers should be able to choose whether 
to install Microsoft or third-party middleware, and this proposal 
makes the choice possible. Contrast this solution to Windows XP, 
where users can`t uninstall components such as WMP, Windows Movie 
Maker (WMM), and Windows Messenger, let alone replace them with 
other software.
    4. If Microsoft knowingly violates the terms of this remedy, the 
company should be forced to license the source code of the product 
in question. Given Microsoft`s repeated violation of previous 
agreements, this proposed remedy is key. If the court finds in the 
future that Microsoft illegally commingled software code into 
Windows, for example, the company will have to freely license the 
Windows source code to the appropriate parties. `If the Court 
determines that Microsoft has knowingly committed an act of Material 
Non-Compliance, the Court may, in addition to any other action, 
convene a hearing to consider an order requiring Microsoft to 
license its source code for the Microsoft software that is 
implicated by the act of Material Non-Compliance to anyone 
requesting such a license for the purpose of facilitating 
interoperability between the relevant Microsoft product and any non-
Microsoft product,' the ruling reads. If the court finds that 
Microsoft knowingly engaged in a pattern of noncompliance, the 
company will have to pay fines and suffer further appropriate 
remedies.
    This remedy is crucial because it openly warns Microsoft about 
the consequences of its future behavior, giving the company no 
wiggle room to `reinterpret' its legally binding conduct 
remedies as it has so often in the past.
    5. Microsoft should be forced to adhere to industry standards. 
Microsoft frequently `embraces' open standards only to 
`extend' them with proprietary additions that make 
interoperability with non-Windows platforms difficult or impossible. 
The states refer to this practice as the `co-opting and/or 
undermining of industry standards,' and they point to 
Microsoft`s specific behavior regarding Java: The company 
`purposely deceived software developers into believing that 
the Microsoft Java programming tools had cross-platform capability 
with Sun-based Java' when they didn`t. Under terms of this 
proposal, Microsoft would again have two options: The company could 
adopt and

[[Page 24415]]

implement industry standards into its products and not modify them 
at all. Or it could modify these technologies and supply the changes 
to any party that requests them. Furthermore, Microsoft couldn`t 
require third parties to use standards-based technologies it had 
modified.
    This is another compelling request, because it addresses a 
specific behavior Microsoft has long been guilty of. If enacted, 
Microsoft`s embrace-and-extend strategy will be open to competitors 
and thus rendered moot.
    6. Microsoft should be forced to distribute Java with Windows 
and IE. According to the states, `Microsoft`s destruction of 
the cross-platform threat posed by Sun`s Java technology was a 
critical element of the unlawful monopoly maintenance violation 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft continues to enjoy the 
benefits of its unlawful conduct, as Sun`s Java technology does not 
provide the competitive threat today that it posed prior to 
Microsoft`s campaign of anticompetitive conduct. Because an 
appropriate antitrust remedy decree should, among other things, 
attempt `to deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation,' Microsoft must be required to distribute Java with 
its platform software (i.e., its operating systems and [IE] 
browser), thereby ensuring that Java receives the widespread 
distribution that it could have had absent Microsoft`s unlawful 
behavior, and increasing the likelihood that Java can serve as a 
platform to reduce the applications barrier to entry.' Under 
the proposal`s terms, this bundling would continue for 10 years and 
would require Microsoft to continue developing modern versions of 
Java that conform to Sun`s latest Java specifications.
    This is the only part of the proposal I disagree with, largely 
because Sun has never opened up Java to an internationally 
recognized standards body (I likewise reject any argument that Java 
is a de facto standard). During the company`s original trial, the 
court asked Bill Gates about Microsoft bundling Netscape Navigator 
in Windows. Gates replied that that would be like requiring Coca-
Cola to include one Pepsi in each of its six-packs of Coke. I agree 
that such a requirement is ludicrous, as is requiring Microsoft to 
bundle Java with Windows. The remaining proposed remedies are less 
exciting and more closely mimic the remedies in the DOJ`s proposed 
settlement. Thus, I`ll cover them more succinctly.
    7. Microsoft should be required to reveal all interoperability 
technologies so that `Microsoft middleware developers [don`t] 
receive preferential disclosure of technical information over rival 
middleware developers.'
    8. Microsoft should have to license its intellectual rights when 
necessary to meet the requirements of this remedy. Some of the 
aforementioned proposals will require Microsoft to license its 
intellectual property to third parties. The company will have to do 
so when appropriate.
    9. Microsoft should have to provide uniform and 
nondiscriminatory licensing to PC makers, regardless of their 
relationships with Microsoft and Microsoft competitors.
    10. Microsoft should be prohibited from entering into agreements 
that would harm competition. Furthermore, `Microsoft must also 
be prohibited from taking certain actions that could unfairly 
disadvantage its would-be competitors, whether by knowingly 
interfering with the performance of their software with no advance 
warning or entering into certain types of contracts that could 
unreasonably foreclose competing middleware providers.'
    11. Microsoft should be banned from retaliating against 
companies or users that choose non-Microsoft technologies.
    12. Microsoft should be prevented from forcing PC makers and 
users to choose Microsoft-only solutions. No Microsoft middleware 
can be included in Windows unless it can also be removed and 
replaced by PC makers and end users.
    13. Microsoft should be prohibited from requiring partners to 
sign noncompete agreements, such as the agreement it allegedly tried 
to enter into with Netscape.
    14. Microsoft should be required to undergo regular compliance 
certification to ensure that it meets the requirements of the ruling 
against it. This certification will include an internal compliance 
officer, annual compliance certifications, a compliance committee 
consisting of at least three members of Microsoft`s Board of 
Directors, and extensive internal-document retention.
    15. A Special Master should be empowered to promptly investigate 
any future complaints against Microsoft.
    16. Microsoft should be required to report any potential 
technology or corporate acquisitions to the plaintiffs for review 
because the company has used such acquisitions in the past to extend 
its monopoly power.
    Folks, this proposal represents your tax dollars at work. I 
salute the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia for erecting a logical and workable remedy that addresses, 
rather than rewards, Microsoft`s illegal, anticompetitive behavior. 
Just weeks ago, it seemed that Microsoft would escape punishment, 
but these proposed remedies give new hope that justice will be 
served. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly can at least find a happy middle 
ground between the DOJ`s proposed settlement and this more 
reasonable set of remedies, we might see competition and innovation 
return to the computer industry. If I`m not mistaken, that was the 
original point of this legal nightmare.
    Susan Dwyer
    State of Connecticut
    Judicial Branch
    Information Technology Division
    99 East River Drive
    6th floor
    East Hartford, CT 06108
    voice: 860.282.6467
    fax: 860.282.6401
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00004057

From: Robin (Roblimo) Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:25am
Subject: Criminals must be punished
    If Microsoft can be convicted of criminal behavior in a federal 
court and then have the Department of Justice decide no punishment 
is warranted, other criminals are going to expect the same 
treatment. We might as well not have a DoJ if we are going to 
prosecute criminals, convict them, and then not punish them.
    Or does Microsoft get special treatment because of large 
contributions to the Republican Party and individual Republican 
candidates? Either way, the DoJ`s failure to ask the judge to impose 
harsh penalties against Microsoft sets a bad precedent.
    Anyone who has raised a child knows that when you threaten 
punishment and don`t carry out your threat, the child behaves worse 
than ever in the future. That child`s brothers and sisters, too, 
learn that their parent`s threats are toothless and can be ignored.
    The other potential message here is, `Give lots of money 
to the political party in power, and you can break federal laws 
without fear of punishment.'
    Let`s not send either message. Let`s punish lawbreakers, both so 
that they don`t repeat their crimes and so that other potential 
lawbreakers get the message that we Americans don`t tolerate illegal 
behavior, even by people or companies who have enough money that 
they can buy access to highly-placed government officials.
    Thank you in advance for doing the right thing, both as 
Americans yourselves and as public servants who work for *all* U.S. 
citizens.
    Robin Miller
    6665 Aspern Drive
    Elkridge MD 21075
    phone 410-215-2894



MTC-00004058

From: Praising Jesus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am the pawn in all this litigation. I am the consumer. I 
continue to read about the `harm' Microsoft has done to 
me and how the damage should be mitigated. Poppycock! Microsoft has 
only helped me. I have bought almost every product they make from a 
Systems or Office perspective. When MS-DOS came out, it was 
fashioned after some very arcane programming principles which made 
it difficult to use (CP/M). Microsoft heard our cry and MS-DOS was 
continually improved by adding features like a text editor, a file 
manager, etc., etc. many things that were being charged hundreds of 
dollars for, Microsoft incorporated in their next version of the 
Operating System to make my life easier, cheaper, faster and make 
computing more accessible to the lay person. When it was clear that 
Apple had a good idea with Graphical Interfaces, Windows was born. 
Again, missing almost everything I needed to work with it. 
Aftermarket products were offered at hundreds and thousands of 
dollars by all the companies out there. So bad was the bilking of 
the public, the shareware market was born to save us from software 
authors.
    Microsoft, however, continued to hear our pleas and made their 
software cheaper, easier and more feature-filled than their 
opposition. Most of the add-ons were inferior, by design,

[[Page 24416]]

to allow the after-market to prosper_ which it did and still 
does. However, Microsoft continued to supply the things most users 
were interested in. Games, system management tools, elementary word 
processors, network connections_they gave users what they 
wanted to keep software people from bilking them for non-descript 
add-ons. During this period, you couldn`t even share a word 
processing document with a friend. Every piece of software was 
unique and did not meet any standard format. I once had to purchase 
Word, Word Perfect, Amipro, Lotus 1-2-3, Excel, 
QuatroPro, Visicalc, Powerpoint, Harvard Graphics, Coreldraw, dBase, 
Access, Foxpro, Procomm, and a host of smaller programs just to 
communicate with my employees who were bringing things from home. It 
was an impossible situation. Microsoft resolved this for me by 
creating an Office Suite and pricing it reasonably enough that 
people could buy it for use. Their competitors refused to lower 
prices and eventually went out of business.
    Finally, Microsoft has only ever had two actual operating 
systems, MS-DOS and Windows NT. Every version of Windows (3.0, 3.11, 
Win95, Win98, Win98SE, and Millennium Edition) are all just a 
graphical user interface built on top of MS-DOS. You can try it 
yourself, each version can be simply booted as MS-DOS. At the 
familiar > prompt, simply type WIN to run the interface. Now a 
case can be made that each iteration was merely an upgrade to the 
original MS-DOS system. Each upgrade added so many features, the 
price increased accordingly. You could say that Microsoft built 
their base by allowing users to incrementally fund their upgrades to 
an operating system they purchased long ago. However you frame it, 
Microsoft gave users what they wanted and needed. Their competitors 
did not. I bought my first copy of Microsoft Office for less than I 
paid for my first copy of WordPerfect. The real bottom line is 
this_the only thing that will damage me is these states 
winning this lawsuit and causing me irreparable harm and expense by 
reverting back a system which blatantly exploited users while their 
was no competition ($700 and $800 word processors, $900 
spreadsheets, etc.). Microsoft made competition, Microsoft made a 
superior product, Microsoft standardized the software industry and 
made personal computing possible, and now we want to punish them for 
it.
    This lawsuit is clearly an attack by their competitors 
attempting to find a way to exploit the consumer through 
protectionism and forcing competition to go away. I object to the 
terms of the settlement. While Microsoft has made some poor 
decisions, the very people suing them have made very similar 
decisions. It is the height of hypocrisy to charge that Microsoft 
was so much *MORE* egregious that they deserve punishment. I frankly 
don`t even think we need a settlement, Microsoft should be allowed 
to continue their business as they have and let other companies get 
competitive or get out. However, since they have acted a bit too 
arrogantly and have coerced some suppliers to go along with their 
business practices, then settle this by making them stop doing it. 
They don`t need any great penalties since they really haven`t done 
anything that wouldn`t have happened anyway. I even question that 
they are a monopoly. I can buy at least five different operating 
systems now. I can buy dozens of office applications now. While they 
have the overwhelming market share, how can they be considered a 
monopoly when there are still such a large number of users and 
competitors who do not use their product? My current employer 
adopted their product not because of coercion, not because of 
superiority. Just like the war between Beta and VHS in the video 
industry, just like the war between cassette and 8-track in the 
audio industry, my employer chose Microsoft because standardization 
was essential and Microsoft made the most logical product at the 
time that decision was made. Once that decision was made, changing 
horses in the middle of the stream became an unsound economic 
decision. Microsoft got where they are because they offered the 
`best value' at the time a decision was made. Once the 
decision was made, they won the war. It doesn`t make sense to switch 
to other products. Artificially forcing the consumers and businesses 
to spend billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars to retrain 
people on inferior products, inflated in price from protectionism 
and throwing standardization out the window is ludicrous_ 
particularly in the name of `protecting' those same 
people.
    My opinion, drop this ridiculous suit and tell the states, and 
their politicians, to go garner votes some other way than at my 
expense. If I am forced to buy a `stripped down' version 
of Windows and pay for common options that were part of my operating 
system, I should have the right to start my own suit for the damages 
caused me.
    Michael Paul Deslippe
    15644 Blain Road
    Mount Sterling, OH 43143
    (740) 869-1189



MTC-00004059

From: cole man
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:28am
Subject: microsoft
    Microsoft needs to separate its operating system from 
application software. Make it compete like other software 
developers. No bundling of its browser, firewall, media player, or 
anything else.



MTC-00004060

From: Phil Mendelsohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment upon the settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust suit.
    I believe the proposed agreement is not binding enough, 
especially when Microsoft has shown in the past that they are likely 
to either bend or disregard the rules of any restrictions put 
against them. Specifically, the area of greatest concern is that 
section III(J)(2) provides that Microsoft need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    There is absolutely no reason why Microsoft, the guilty party, 
should be the judge of whose business meets or doesn`t meet some 
criteria of being a business. This is truly giving the fox the keys 
to the hen house.
    Furthermore, and most importantly, there exists some very 
important software that is created by other than for-profit 
organizations, including the U.S. Government and its agencies. While 
trying to protect themselves from revealing source code to hobbyists 
or their own competition, the language here would provide an opening 
to prevent legitimate and serious public software creators, such as 
N.A.S.A., from qualifying to get a license allowing them access to 
the API or documentation in order to do their jobs.
    Also, in section III(D), when the groups Microsoft have to 
disclose information to for said groups products to interoperate 
with Windows are listed, all are considered as for-profit companies 
only.
    By not allowing for a person or foundation to put a product that 
interoperates with Microsoft`s products on the market for 
philanthropic or whatever reasons, this proposal limits the market 
in ways that are not in keeping with the intent of anti-trust law.
    Microsoft is trying to avoid the commoditization of their 
product, plain and simple, by holding the market hostage. And they 
will continue to do so, as long as people don`t have the freedom to 
ignore them.
    Microsoft is supposed to be ordered to compete fairly. This 
agreement lets them avoid competition from other than the profit 
based sector, a luxury that no other manufacturer enjoys.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Mendelsohn
    143 Bates Ave.
    St. Paul, MN 55106



MTC-00004061

From: Jason Greenwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:37am
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement'
    I know what I know about the proposed settlement from all of the 
Media attention this case has garnered. I was a Windows user and now 
run Linux as a result of what I strongly believe to be totally 
outrageous, unfair and illegal business practices by Microsoft. I 
just want to state before the court that I feel that any remedy 
MUST, for the sake of the law, be much more than a token handslap 
against this behemoth of a company that can manage nearly ANY 
financial storm the DOJ sees fit to throw at it. Don`t let MS get 
away with what they`ve done, truly LEVEL the playing field and keep 
the open source software community a legitimate concern in the 
process. Many computer users out there imlore you to carefully 
consider your findings, as it affects so many the world over.
    Kind Regards,
    Jason Greenwood

[[Page 24417]]



MTC-00004062

From: Bob Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:45am
Subject: Free enterprise market?
    A truely free enterprise market is one that has competition, it 
also tends to be self regulating, Microsoft only has the leading 
edge, now. Leave the market alone, and someone will develope a 
better product!
    There is a good thing in Microsoft, don`t bugger it up with 
gov`t regulation and beaurocracy!



MTC-00004063

From: Michael Fortin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I opposed to the settlement as it stands. I have two major 
objections. One is that by giving money, software and computers to 
schools, microsoft will be extending its monopoly into the education 
market. One of the few areas where microsoft still has competition. 
That competition being apple.
    Two is that the language of the settlement would be very 
damaging to the open and free software movement. Free and open 
source software such as Samba, Apache and linux would loose market 
share. I am speaking primarily of Section III(J)(2) and Section 
III(D).
    Thank you
    Michael Fortin
    849 Kirkwood Ave
    Atlanta Ga 30316



MTC-00004064

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It appears to me that the proposed settlement of the us 
government`s antitrust suit with microsoft is a near complete 
victory for microsoft. I am very concerned as a computer science 
professional (an Associate professor at Georgia State University, 
although these are my personal opinions and not those of the 
university or my department) that the closing of previously open 
standards will adversely affect research, development and future 
economic vitality in computer science. Since non-commercial groups, 
which includes open source developers, government organizations, and 
academics appear to have no rights under the settlement we can be 
effectively shut down by microsoft. This is not good as the basis 
for our nation`s strength comes from its diverse and active economy. 
By the way I am not anti-microsoft per se, I even own stock in the 
company. I am just very concerned that the mis-application of anti-
trust laws in a technological field will severely damage our nation.
    rob
    robert w. harrison
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    http://www.cs.gsu.edu/cscrwh
    404 651 0668



MTC-00004065

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:21am
Subject: Funds for education
    As an independent computer proffesional in North Carolina, I 
would like to add my name to the list of those who`ve expresed the 
gravest disappointment at the acceptance by my state and others of a 
settlement that does not go far enough to protect innovation, 
consumers, and entrepeneurs from Microsoft`s continuing anti-
competitive practices. It is my hope that the Attorneys General of 
the dissenting states (California, Iowa, Connecticut, et.al.) will 
succeed in securing appropriate remedies.
    Paul Smith
    President, Acme Communications
    http://www.acmecomm.net/
    [email protected]



MTC-00004066

From: Tom Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:27am
Subject: true punishment
    Dear DOJ:
    I am pretty disgusted with your actions on Micro$quish (ie 
microsoft). To suggest that they give `free products' to 
schools is outrageous! You just will let them increase their market 
this way. A much better solution would be for them to provide 
HARDWARE on which is PRE INSTALLED linux.
    Then there would be no question that it would be to the benefit 
of the children. I`m shocked that they have pushed you around this 
much. Perhaps they are paying you off?
    Thomas D. Schneider, PhD
    107 Alessandra Ct #208
    Frederick, MD
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004067

From: Steven R. Bowers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    You realize that this decision will be viewed as the government 
knuckling under to Microsoft`s political influence. If the 
government cannot or will not enforce the law, then what will now 
happen in the market place will be directly traced back to this 
decision. I would not want my name attached to this decision. Maybe 
you know something that has eluded a lot of the critics (and a large 
portion of them are not competitors) about this situation.
    To the future view of this decision,
    Steven R. Bowers



MTC-00004068

From: Paul Healey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:28am
Subject: Oppose current Microsoft settlement
    Hello.
    I am writing to let you know of my strong opposition to the 
proposed settlement mediated between DOJ and Microsoft. I have 
followed Microsoft`s behavior for many years, and I continue to be 
amazed at conduct which can only be described as amoral. I am 
particularly surprised that the proposed settlement seems to leave 
Microsoft unpunished for its continuing flaunting of the law.
    Of course, punishment for past lawbreaking is less important 
than corrective action, and it seems to me that this settlement 
leaves Microsoft in a position to continue its monopolistic 
practices exactly as before. I support the nine Governors` proposal, 
although I think that even they have paid too little attention to 
the bundling problem_by which I mean not only the practice of 
forcing consumers to pay for options they don`t want, but the added 
insult of forcing them to load those options on their computers.
    Paul Healey
    [email protected]
    4141 Cowell Blvd. #41
    Davis, CA 95616
    Tel. (530) 753-9275



MTC-00004069

From: w.s.meyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:41am
Subject: Comment Microsoft Antitrust settlement
    Renata Hesse,
    While large corporations with team of attorneys struggle for 
advantage in the Microsoft settlement, the people hurt the most, the 
users, come away empty handed.
    The Court has concluded Microsoft is a monopoly, this is a fact. 
What is also fact is the Microsoft Windows operating system was and 
still is unreliable. So much so that Windows lack of reliability 
became a joke. Similar to Ford Motor Company, Microsoft just did not 
care about the customers.
    The people hurt most were the users who lost hours of work every 
time Windows would freeze. I would ask the Court to consider 
compensation for this direct injury.
    Microsoft has a data base of every Windows user for the time 
period of the government`s antitrust case. Use that data to identify 
claimants. For myself, I have lost an average of 3 hours of work a 
week as a direct result of Windows. Assuming an hourly wage of 
$24.00 per hour and 2 weeks vacation a year, that would make my out-
of-pocket loss $3,600.00 per year. Assuming a 5 year period, that 
would be compensation in the amount of $18,000.00. This would be 
fair and reasonable for the grief Microsoft and Windows has caused 
me.
    Following this proposed formula would also be a major economic 
boon to both the business community who would receive the bulk of 
the refunds but also we end users forced to purchase an unreliable 
product.
    W.S. Meyers
    167 Wyandotte Drive
    San Jose, CA 95123
    (408) 363-3542
    [email protected]



MTC-00004070

From: Javier Olguin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing this response to the proposed Microsoft Settlement. 
I have been working in

[[Page 24418]]

Information Technology since I graduated High School. I have 
personally witnessed the rise of Microsoft as someone in the 
`trenches'. While many good things have come about from 
Microsoft, there are behavioral aspects that require intervention.
    My primary case and point is the emergence of Microsoft Office. 
I was at a company that had deployed Lotus 123 and WordPerfect. Both 
of these products were what I considered best in class. Microsoft 
Excel and Microsoft Word were adequate, but not exceptional.
    License and support cost for 123 and WordPerfect were not 
exorbitant. As the company was moving to the newer versions of the 
products, we ran price differentials on the individual costs of 123 
and WordPerfect for each computer. The upgrade was not cheap. 
Microsoft on the other hand began to bundle Excel and Word into the 
Office Suite. The individual prices for Excel and Word were 
comparable to 123 and WordPerfect.
    The Office suite was significantly discounted. I clearly 
remember our Director saying that the price difference was just too 
great to be ignored. I also recall the director jokingly saying that 
they were probably selling the Office Suite at a loss to gain market 
share. In addition he also predicted that if they continued this, 
they would eradicate the other competing products and eventually 
raise prices due to their monopoly position. I only wish that I knew 
where that director was now in order to compliment his foresight.
    The real reason for writing this is to make a recommendation to 
the court. I recommend that Microsoft be forced to implement the 
Office Suite for alternative platforms such as the Linux operating 
system.
    This remedy has two purposes:
    1)If you really want to spur competition along the operating 
system realm, port the primary business tool to Linux. Linux is an 
operating system that has become the primary default competitor to 
Windows. Linux is however, a weak competitor due to the lack of 
business applications. If you port the Office suite, this would 
encourage companies and some consumers to migrate to Linux and yet 
maintain compatibility with their existing documents and 
spreadsheets they have today.
    2)There is an additional benefit to having Microsoft port the 
Office Suite to various platforms. For any feature implemented into 
the Windows version of the suite, the exact same functionality would 
be implemented on all the other platforms. This would help prevent 
any anti-competitive practices in which Microsoft builds secret 
interfaces from the Office suite into the Windows operating system. 
Microsoft`s chief claims during the trial was that times and the 
nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust enforcement 
ought to be different today than it was when the laws were first 
passed in the early part of the last century. This argument 
evidently didn`t resonate with the court, though, since Microsoft 
was found guilty. Now Microsoft is using the same letter of the old 
law to not only get a better deal, but literally to disenfranchise 
many of the people and organizations who feel they have been damaged 
by Microsoft`s actions.
    One of the remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. But 
Microsoft`s greatest single threat on the operating system front 
comes from Linux and it also faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache, Sendmail, and Perl, all come from non-profits. Yet not-for-
profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed 
settlement.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business:
    `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...'
    Open Source projects use Microsoft calls and the settlement 
gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    Under this definition, 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. While it`s true the government buys 
commercial software and uses contractors who make profits and Open 
Source software is sold for profit by outfits like Red Hat.
    Microsoft has shown by its past aggressive marketing tactics 
actions that they probably made sure that these sections were 
included. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY 
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.



MTC-00004071

From: Justin Seiferth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:54am
Subject: Comments from Consumers
    I feel left out in this settlement. I don`t care what Microsoft 
does or who they sell to- I don`t use their software. I do however 
hope I will be allowed to continue to use what I prefer and that`s 
where I feel this settlement falls short.
    I won`t quote paragraphs or cite examples. You`re more familiar 
with the settlement and the cause than I could ever hope to be. I do 
wonder how many on the DoJ staff or the Executive Staff use 
something other than Microsoft products. Please talk with those 
people, should there be any, to discuss how they will feel when 
Microsoft uses the loopholes and generosity of this settlement to 
ensure any and all alternatives are destroyed.
    It`s choices and alternatives that make our country great. What 
was good for GM wasn`t that good for the US. The US has grown and 
prospered. GM got what it wanted but the corporation has withered 
from it`s former self and done tremendous damage in the process. 
Microsoft has gotten what it wanted from the settlement. They may 
eventualy wither- though that is not my wish. I just hope they do 
not bring the rest of the US IT industry down along with it as GM 
has seemingly done to our once dominant position. On the other hand, 
where judgements were `harsh' those companies and 
industries have blossomed. I hope the Executive Branch and the DoJ 
will reconsider the provisions of this settlement and draft 
something to take both the needs of the consumer and the good of the 
nation into account.
    vr/
    Justin Seiferth
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004072

From: Michael L Kornegay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As Microsoft has abused their powers and their monopoly status 
allows them to unfairly dominate the client desktop operating system 
market I recommend that any settlement include:
    o For any release (including widely distributed pre- releasees 
of software aka alpha/beta) of software that runs on a client 
desktop system that Microsoft provide a `fully' 
documented file format for all such software.
    For example, this would require them to `fully' 
document the file format of Microsoft Word. This would allow 
competitors to compete in the `word processor' 
application market space providing consumers a choice. This should 
be done for all such applications including but not limited to those 
in their `office' suite.
    o For any release (including widely distributed pre- releases of 
software aka alpha/beta) of software that communicates accross 
network connections in both intra and inter machine scenarios, that 
Microsoft provide a `fully' documented network protocol 
and message specification for all such protocols.
    For example, this would require them to `fully' 
document SMB/CIFS aka Microsoft Windows Networking such that 
Macintoshes, linux, and so on could fully participate in a Microsoft 
network. For example, this would require them to `fully' 
document `.NET`

[[Page 24419]]

such that they do not use their monopoly power with that 
architecture.
    The penalty for not complying should be that they will be 
prevented from selling or distributing such non complying products 
until they comply with the above requirements.
    How all this is worded must be done VERY carefully, Microsoft is 
great at finding loopholes in legal and other dealings.
    Please seriously consider this,
    mlk
    CC:michael.kornegay @mlksys.atlanta.ga.us @inetgw



MTC-00004073

From: Charles Nofsinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    The proposed deal with MS is seriously flawed in not forcing 
them to make their API`s open for all, including not-for profit 
organizations, obviously this restricts the governments rights 
versus microsoft as well. Please consider opening their API`s and 
interoperability to all.
    Sincerely,
    Dr Charles Nofsinger, MD



MTC-00004074

From: Magnus, Jonathan E.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 10:22am
Subject: Settlement
    I work in IT for SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. We are a part of Exxon/
Mobil. I have worked in IT since 1976. Back then I was able to read 
virtually all of the information that came out about it every month. 
It would be one thing if this current situation were benign (like 
CISCO) but this a only the latest in a series of offenses that have 
set the IT industry back time and time again.
    There is a pattern here. Not only one of theft, intimidation and 
ignoring the Courts, but one of more emphasis on `hype` than 
reality. Virtually 100% of the viruses that have hit the world in 
the past 5 years have taken advantage of the same few security flaws 
in Microsoft products. Look at the huge dollar losses because of the 
poor quality of the product. This is not `Innovation', 
this is pursuit of profit at all cost. If Microsoft is so 
`good' why not fix the problem?
    I realize that Microsoft is a large company and that it will be 
difficult to provide any judgement that is satisfactory to every one 
involved. This is not the first time Microsoft has been in court for 
this, if the company is not broken up it will probably not be the 
last.
    If this court is `soft` on Microsoft, the industry as a whole 
will continue to suffer (sales are down now because there are no 
significant new feature in the new products) and the average citizen 
may believe that the financial ability of Microsoft to contribute to 
political causes may be the real reason behind the judgement.
    I believe that the decision must be something that Microsoft 
considers `harsh'.
    The real question is, `Is Microsoft so big that our laws 
no longer apply?' You have to decide.
    This situation has led to one that I believe is even more 
serious and contributes to the `digital divide`. The Microsoft 
philosophy of `ship it and we will fix it with Service 
Packs' has produced a similar philosophy in virtually all of 
the current PC hardware and software vendors; virtually no product 
works `out of the box`. No matter what you buy, you immediately have 
to download a `patch` form the Internet. This patches are usually 
equal in size to the software that came with the device and 
sometimes they are even larger. This has produced a PC that requires 
a high-speed Internet connection or a payment to a consultant to 
make it usable. This is a passive form of discrimination as only 
those who can afford $50 per month can keep their home computer 
running.
    Software and Hardware should work as it is shipped. The IT 
industry can do this, they have chosen not to partly because they 
have watched Microsoft get away with it year after year. (Of course, 
this ignores the basic premise of the suit that those who can least 
afford to pay software prices that have been inflated by a monopoly 
are forced to pay too much to even get a computer.)
    This is a very disturbing trend. A computer should be viewed 
like an automobile; it should not require frequent trips to the 
`garage` to keep it running. Real Innovation, in my opinion, should 
be able to provide this to us. The PC has been turned into something 
that provides a constant source of income for `insiders`, not a 
reliable product for consumers.
    Should the `digital divide` be allowed to get worse? You have to 
decide.
    Jonathan E. Magnus
    Systems Analyst
    SeaRiver Maritime, Inc



MTC-00004075

From: Mark Gannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Your proposed settlement with Microsoft would have no impact on 
the competitive landscape and would result in no change to 
Microsoft`s illegal monoply practices.
    Section III(J)(2) and III(D) allow Microsoft to limit access to 
its API to commercial concerns approved of by Microsoft. This is no 
change from the way that Microsoft behaves today. Many companies 
working closely with Microsoft are granted access to its source 
code.
    Additionally, these sections prevent Open Source software 
products like Linux to have access the source code. The Samba 
Project (http:;//www.samba.org) allows Unix systems to interoperate 
with Microsoft Windows over a network. This package is key for many 
companies and organizations seeking to relief from Microsoft`s 
onerous monoply practices. Not only does Samba enable individual 
entities to avoid the monoply, many businesses also use it as the 
foundation of products. For example, many vendors in the Network 
Attached Storage (NAS) market, use Linux and Samba as the core of 
their product. Allowing Microsoft to determine who and how other 
organizations get access to their source codes and APIs means that 
this settlement would have no impact on the competitive landscape. 
Companies and organizations that wanted to avoid the Monoply 
practices of Microsoft, would be unable to take advantage of this 
provision. Given the court`s finding that Microsoft has illegally 
used its monoply power, the only appropriate way to level the 
playing field is to require Microsoft to allow unrestricted access 
to all of its source code without any license restriction to 
everyone.
    Regards,
    Mark Gannon
    [email protected]



MTC-00004076

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:52pm
Subject: http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/Bill Gates
    Microsoft at one time had to compete with other software 
companies. It has indeed done well in becoming the dominating force 
in retail software. If the powers that be can see this then let the 
competion (who might have a more innovative idea) have a chance at 
success (by sole decision of the consumer) as `the giant` has 
enjoyed. I as a consumer hate things forced onto me and it is the 
sentiment of most.
    Thanks.



MTC-00004077

From: java cruise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m dismayed at the recent settlement with Microsoft. We 
consumers, when faced with a monopolistic entity such as Microsoft 
don`t not have much recourse. Normally with a company a consumer can 
decide not to buy a product if a company starts producing poor 
quality products, not so with a monopoly. As a developer and long 
time software engineer I have recommended much better quality 
software products in lieu of equivalent functionality Microsoft 
products to management only to be told they were concerned about 
compatibility problems. So, at work we are forced to use buggy, 
insecure Microsoft products. My productivity over the years has 
continued to decline. I`m constantly fighting the products made by 
Microsoft trying to get them to work. Continual resets, advertised 
functionality that plain and simple does not work which when you 
point it out to Microsoft tell you that you have to buy the next 
version. Gun! If I buy a TV, a car or any other consumer products 
that does not work I do not have to BUY THE NEXT VERSION so why does 
the government allow Microsoft to do this?
    Please take into consideration that I do not ask for controls 
against Microsoft lightly. I live in the same region as Microsoft. 
Anything that you do to open up the market to other competitors 
against Microsoft is likely to affect me adversely in the short 
term. But I`m willing to make that sacrifice. I see great peril 
ahead for our economy if something is not done about Microsoft. We 
tracked in a development group the direct time lost to crashes in 
Microsoft products. For 40 people the average was 5.5 hours per 
week/per person! I worked on other computing environments where we 
had

[[Page 24420]]

maybe 10 hours per year, and this were older systems. Microsoft is 
supposed to be the `modem operating system' with 
`new and improved' applications. I really think 
Microsoft should change their motto.
    `We are Microsoft. We don't care, BECAUSE WE DON`T 
HAVE TO!!!ï¿½1A'
    You are the consumers only hope. Do not forsake us.
    Sincerely,
    Concerned in Seattle



MTC-00004078

From: William Mitchell Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What we need is the interoperability infomation, such as file 
formats and API`s, not the programs themselves.
    Wm



MTC-00004079

From: Bill Squire (123)billsf(125)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:01am
Subject: Absolutely brilliant on RHAT`s part!
    YES,
    Make MSFT really pay in full! I don`t get it how a $0.25 CD can 
qualify as $100. Keep education free, even in the US, there needs to 
be freedom of the kids to learn a real OS. I`m grateful for having 
Unix as my first (and present) OS.
    Fair is fair. Microsoft forks over the true cost in hardware and 
the `punishment' (well deserved) is they are NOT allowed 
to use their software in American schools.
    Allready, here in Europe, Microsoft is losing this area quickly 
and they never realy had the classroom in the first place.
    PLEASE, PLEASE show a bit of respect for your education systems 
by keeping Microsoft out of the classroom!
    Thank you_If anybody read this
    Bill Squire
    Engineer



MTC-00004080

From: Matt Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement as it stands.
    In Section III(J)(2), I would like to see Microsoft`s concept of 
a `business' incorporate not-for-profit organizations. 
In Section III(D), I would like to see that information regarding 
middleware be available to all middleware providers, and not just 
commercial middleware providers.
    As the settlement stands, Microsoft will emerge from the anti-
trust trial capable of leveraging it`s monopolistic tendancies 
against not-for-profit organizations. Since there really not very 
many commercial companies left that provide similar services as 
Microsoft, we don`t want that.
    Thanks,
    Matthew Francis



MTC-00004081

From: Jeff Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:36am
Subject: The Red Hat Proposal
    My name is Jeff Ramsey. I am an MIS Administrator for a fencing 
manufacturing company in Washington State. I believe by allowing 
Microsoft to `give' it`s software to our nation`s 14,000 
poorest schools, you are only locking those schools into an ongoing 
license agreement in which Microsoft would then have the opportunity 
to change some of the company`s software standards, causing the 
schools to need to purchase more MS software to stay compliant with 
the rest of the world. The proposal made by Red Hat CEO Matthew 
Szulik to have MS put that money into hardware for the schools, and 
use Red Hat`s Linux software for free is a better bargain from all 
angles. Forcing MS to give its software to 14,000 schools is not a 
punishment because it enables MS to continue its monopolistic ideas 
by way of making upgrades and security patches cost more than they 
should. Some of those upgrades will be necessary for the schools to 
continue to operate computer labs and classes in a secure 
environment. So instead of making MS go without dinner, you will be 
adding 14,000 more schools to the pot.
    The proposal from Red Hat to give the 14,000 schools Red Hat 
Linux software for free and force MS to either give the schools 
money or computer hardware is a win-win situation. Here is some of 
what that proposal includes:
    1. Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software 
donation to the purchase of additional hardware for the school 
districts. This would increase the number of computers available 
under the original proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, 
and would increase the number of systems per school from 
approximately 14 to at least 70.
    2. Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red 
Hat Linux operating system, office applications and associated 
capabilities to any school system in the United States. Not just the 
14,000 poorest schools, but any of them.
    3. Red Hat will provide online support for the software through 
the Red Hat Network.
    4. Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time 
limit at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew 
their licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no 
time limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red 
Hat Network online distribution channel.
    My opinion in the matter is simple: Allowing Microsoft to give 
out its own products to schools is not a punishment for the company, 
it`s an investment. I sincerely hope that you will take Red Hat 
Inc.`s proposal into careful consideration.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jeff Ramsey
    MIS Administrator
    Tubafor Mill, Inc.



MTC-00004082

From: Fred Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft is runnung amuck
    Even Microsoft`s offer to provide software to poor schools is 
self serving. It makes poor people future consumers of MS 
products_not that that`s a bad thing because everyone should 
be computer literate, but MS is not punished in the process.
    Fred Brown



MTC-00004083

From: Jeremy M. Dolan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:56am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I don`t understand why Microsoft is not even getting a slap on 
its wrist for it`s years of illegal monopoly maintaince. The 
proposed settlement is a complete joke. Unless it is your strategy 
to come up with a settlement so rediculous the judge has to throw it 
out, you all should be investigated for bribery and contempt of 
court. Your technical consultants were either ignored, complete 
idiots, or also on the take.
    Sincerly,
    An outraged U.S. citizen



MTC-00004084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:58am
Subject: The microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I support apple`s position that Microsoft should fund the 
settlement in cash, not with inflated software costs.
    In a recent wall street journal article, the biggest issue with 
computers in the classroom in poor districts is maintenance, so the 
cash is more important to the poor school districts.
    The settlement should focus on the whole support picture because 
just donating software will not give the poor districts what they 
need, a complete package of hardware, software, and technical 
support.
    Thanks.
    Ed Matysiewicz



MTC-00004085

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:58am
Subject: Argument to settle with Microsoft on present terms
    The ability of American business to communicate digitally on a 
common platform, (Microsoft DOS, Windows, and Office) has been a 
major driving force in the huge gains made by American business over 
a little more than a decade. The anti-trust suit against Microsoft 
was based more upon trying to give competing companies an advantage, 
than it was about Microsoft`s abuse of its patents and copyrights.
    The states that are holding out from the settlement, are very 
clearly establishing that they wish to obtain special benefits for 
companies in their states, over and above the agreement reached 
between Microsoft and the other states. This process has not been 
handled fairly from the beginning, when a clearly prejudiced judge 
presided over the case, and subsequently, as states, such as my home 
state of California, have attempted to upset a very equitable 
settlment agreement.



MTC-00004086

From: Holland, Jason
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 12:05pm

[[Page 24421]]

Subject: Help Close the Digital Divide

    Please encourage Microsoft to provide resources to those 
farthest from the technology revolution: The `Have-Not' 
side of the digital divide. I support Red Hat in their efforts.
    Thank you, Jason
     Jason 
Holland IT Consulting Practice Manager 919.379.8000 
[email protected] 



MTC-00004087

From: Edwards, Catherine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please do consumers a huge favor and DO NOT leave the language 
of Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) as is. If you really are 
interested in promoting competition and innovation, level the 
playing field by allowing open source software to compete 
unobstructed by Microsoft`s interpretation of `business 
criteria'. If there is ANY competitive threat to Microsoft at 
all_it is in the open source world, specifically Linux. 
Microsoft is fully aware of this and the DOJ is playing into their 
hand if language such as this is left in the settlement.
    As a side note, it is totally misguided to allow Microsoft to 
extend their monopoly by allowing the company to be 
`punished' by putting their software in our school 
systems for 5 years. This would eventually punish Apple and others 
and not Microsoft at all! And it is not doing those school systems 
or the kids a favor. Take a hard look at Red Hat`s counter offer of 
providing ALL school systems the software and support. If that 
happened, you would see ALL KINDS of educational software being 
ported/written for Linux in no time at all! Give it some thought, 
please!
    Please take these comments seriously since many companies and 
individual careers depend on the direction of the software industry. 
If Microsoft is to have a competitor on the desktop it will probably 
come from Linux. BUT if Linux is to really have a chance to compete 
for the desktop then it needs to be seen as having a chance of 
success so that software vendors will put resources into writing 
applications targeted for Linux_WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL FROM 
MICROSOFT!
    Also, please consider Steve Satchell for the three member 
committee to oversee Microsoft`s adherence to the deal.
    Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and time!
    Catherine Edwards
    SAS Programmer
    Peopleclick
    919-645-2986
    [email protected]
    



MTC-00004088

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft scares me. Their operating system is endangering 
humanities right to privacy. The general public does not even know 
this is occurring_I don`t even think the government is aware.
    Set up a firewall and watch how often microsoft accesses the 
computer via the internet.
    Their should be no settlement at this point_you need to do 
more research.
    Albert Aumenta
    SGI Der-2019
    519 First Street
    Troy, N.Y. 12180-5536
    phone 518-271-8959
    fax 518-271-6868
    vnet 483-2648
    vnet is not connected to direct line



MTC-00004089

From: Adrian Byng-Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:28pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft should be more severely sanctioned for 
its anti-competitive behavior. It is important at this time to make 
sure that this behavior does not continue. Perhaps the most 
effective way is to have Microsoft release the source code for its 
Operating Systems (or at least the main core of them). Microsoft has 
imposed itself on 95% of the desktop systems. However it has done so 
through an unfair advantage: its monopolistic network. Releasing 
operating system will help to restore the competitive balance to the 
market.
    I am a computer programmer and web designer at the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. I should make it clear that the views that 
are presented hear are strictly my own and necessary those of MIT.
    I believe that Microsoft should be more severely sanctioned for 
its anti-competitive behavior. It is important at this time to make 
sure that this behavior does not continue. Perhaps the most 
effective way is to have Microsoft release the source code for its 
Operating Systems (or at least the main core of them). Microsoft has 
imposed itself on 95% of the desktop systems. However it has done so 
through an unfair advantage: its monopolistic network. Releasing 
operating system will help to restore the competitive balance to the 
market.
    Releasing the source code to the public will open the market in 
a couple of ways. First off, it will ensure that software 
manufacturers are on equal footing with Microsoft. Because 3rd party 
software manufacturers aren`t privy to the inner workings of the MS 
operating systems, they are less able to compete with the Microsoft 
programmers. This should not be allowed to continue. Opening the 
Operating System Source will nullify Microsoft`s advantage for 
developing software to run on its own operating system. Microsoft`s 
software will have to compete based on its functionality and 
performance, not on the fact that its programmers get insider 
information.
    Releasing the source code to the public (vs. just to computer 
manufacturers) will also help to restore competition to the 
operating system market. At this point it is very difficult for an 
emerging operating system to be successful due to Microsoft`s 
strangle hold on the OS market. This is because most software is 
built around Microsoft Windows. Operating systems can only be as 
popular as the software that they support. If one releases a great 
operating system_it might just disappear because there is no 
word processor or spreadsheet for it. However, with the Windows 
source code open, operating systems will be better able to emulate 
Windows and thus run windows software. To continue to succeed (or 
dominate), Microsoft will have to prove itself by the quality of its 
products and service; not just its universality. Operating system 
competition can only benefit consumers with better products at more 
competitive prices.
    Microsoft should also be prohibited from leveraging hardware 
manufacturers and computer retailers for a certain amount of time (5 
years at least). As a preventative measure, I believe that Microsoft 
should be prohibited from penalizing companies that don`t bundle 
their computers with Microsoft software, particularly Windows. This 
should further open up competition in the OS/PC market.
    Although most of the debate has revolved around Microsoft 
Windows, Microsoft Office should also be addressed. I believe that 
this is an excellent product that has universal appeal. However 
Microsoft has historically used this product to unnaturally control 
the market. Word and Outlook use formats that are inherently 
proprietary so as to prevent users from migrating or using other 
products. Microsoft has consciously stayed away from proven, open 
and universal standards that foster the easy transfer of 
information. Instead they have relied on proprietary/closed formats 
to maintain their dominance.
    I submit that Microsoft has intentionally made it difficult for 
other programs to open word documents or for people to transfer 
other document formats (such as Star Office). This kind of sabotage, 
known as `Breakware', should be illegal. Right now 
Office persists as a standard because it is the only set of programs 
that can open much of the knowledge as it is stored in Microsoft 
formats. This bothers me because it implies that much of my work, 
done in Microsoft Word for example doesn`t exclusively belong to me. 
The files have a Microsoft cachet that I am forbidden from breaking. 
If Microsoft were to stop making Office for later versions of its 
operating system, I might be unable to open my files. Information 
should be kept in open formats to foster knowledge transfer and 
persistence. Program choice should be left up to the user. Office is 
an excellent product. Surely its functionality can be separated from 
the way in which it stores information. Microsoft should be given 2 
choices. Either they should adhere to existing open standards, or 
the document storage formats they use should be opened up.
    This letter simply wouldn`t be complete without addressing 
Internet Explorer. Clearly Microsoft has destroyed the browser 
market by `giving away' internet explorer. However, 
there is no version of this for Linux operating systems for example. 
I believe that MS

[[Page 24422]]

browser dominance can be addressed in the same way as the other 
areas: OPEN THE SOURCE CODE. It`s free anyway_why not make the 
code freely available. This should again nullify Microsoft`s 
unnatural advantage.
    It is important for us to create a fair playing field for the 
computer industry. This has been one of the most dynamic sectors of 
our economy for the past decade. However, I believe that Microsoft`s 
advantage has promoted mediocre products. If we intend to remain 
competitive with emerging markets, we need to make sure that our 
products can stand on there own. Open the source code. American 
ingenuity will make up the difference.
    Adrian



MTC-00004090

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:26pm
Subject: You have got to be kidding me.
    If you let Microsoft make money off the settlement by giving 
away something that costs them nothing (copies of their software) 
and infects the minds of young children with the Microsoft virus, 
you guys are a bad as them. Their smug lawyers have actually stated 
on TV that they are happy about the settlement allowing them to 
`Influence thousands of young computer users' by 
indoctrinating them into the world of daily crashes, 
incompatibilities, and forced use of substandard software.
    Make them give hardware only, and not just from their cronies 
and subsidiaries. Better yet, make them give COMPETITORS software 
like *ï¿½1Absd or linux. I hate them for the productivity they 
have cost us. Look in the mirror and realistically answer the 
question `How much time have I wasted trying to make [Access, 
Excel, Word] do something I could have done in 2 seconds with a 
[Rolodex, Calculator, Typewriter]. There are better solutions and 
they do not enrich a bloated monopoly. The computer this was 
composed upon contains no trace of the microsoft virus. It is 
attacked daily by Outlook macro viruses, but is impervious to them. 
It runs at 20 Mhz and has 8 Mb of RAM. There is no microsoft 
operating system that will run on it. It, however, supports IPv6, 
secure access, and a host of other features that microsofts current 
crop of operating systems do not.
    If a human read this, thank you for taking the time. Put a 
checkmark in teh `opposed' column in your Access 
database.
    Sigh.
    Ian A. Harding
    Tacoma Washington



MTC-00004091

From: Dave Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Section III(J)(2) contains strong language against not-for-
profits: `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:'
    Would this mean Microsoft can continue attempting to abuse 
standards bodies and standards like:
    Kerberos (http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/) or the Web itself: 
(http://www.w3.org/)?
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft IIS is Apache, which comes 
from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache practically 
rules the Net, Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights under 
the proposed settlement. It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Dave Hunter



MTC-00004092

From: terry benshoof
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:43pm
Subject: a vote for microsoft
    AS MUCH AS I AM FOR FAIR COMPETION, THE CREAM WILL RISE TO THE 
TOP. AS FOR MY TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT WISELY, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THE 
COMPETION HAS GOTTEN A FREE RIDE ON THIS LAW SUIT, MERGED IN THE 
MEAN TIME, AND STILL WITH ALL OF THIS NOISE ARE NO BETTER TODAY THAN 
YESTERDAY. I JUST CAN SEE SPENDING ALL THESE MILLIONS FOR WHAT? 
AGREE AND LET`S MOVE ON.



MTC-00004093

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sir,
    I have had the opportunity to read the proposed settlement 
between the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft and I wish to 
inform you this settlement will make Microsoft stronger than it is 
now. There is no protection for non-business (open source software) 
in the settlement and the proposal does not properly discipline 
Microsoft for their past behavior. The only proper way to discipline 
Microsoft is to publish the Window`s code. Access to this code would 
allow other companies to compete with Microsoft on an even footing.
    Sincerely,
    John T. Mitchell, PMCP, MCSE+I, TCO Expert
    Technology Solutions Consultant_Project Manager
    Sprint 
Eï¿½Solutions, 
Detroit
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Text Page: www.messaging.sprintpcs.com/sms/, 7346749877
    Voice: 734 674-9877
    `Just as water reflects the face, so one human heart 
reflects another.'



MTC-00004094

From: hildy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention: U.S. Department of Justice,
DC Federal District Court
RE:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (Antitrust)
    To the Court;
    Thank you for this opportunity to allow my opinion to be 
considered in this court. I have read and followed with much 
interest the proceedings concerning the above Antitrust law suit, 
which in part states:
    I. NATURE OF THIS ACTION
    1. This is an action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act 
to restrain anticompetitive conduct by defendant Microsoft 
Corporation (`Microsoft'), the world`s largest supplier 
of computer software for personal computers (`PCs'), and 
to remedy the effects of its past unlawful conduct.
    2. Microsoft possesses (and for several years has possessed) 
monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s `Windows' operating systems are 
used on over 80% of Intel-based PCs, the dominant type of PC in the 
United States. More than 90% of new Intel-based PCs are shipped with 
a version of Windows pre-installed. PC manufacturers (often referred 
to as Original Equipment Manufacturers, or `OEMs') have 
no commercially reasonable alternative to Microsoft operating 
systems for the PCs that they distribute.
    It is my opinion; the basis of these proceeding against the 
Microsoft Corporation is in error, as explained above in Parts 1 
& 2. I am not an attorney, nor do I thoroughly understand the 
reference to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, but, the first 
line of section 2 states; `Microsoft possesses (and for 
several years has possessed) monopoly power'.
    From the following sentence, or definition, I understand the 
meaning of `monopoly' as:
    1.Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or 
selling a commodity or service.
    2.Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control 
over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
    3.a. A company or group is having exclusive control over a 
commercial activity.
    b. A commodity or service so controlled.
    4.a. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have 
a monopoly on the truth. b. Something that is exclusively possessed 
or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male 
monopoly.
    Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English 
Language, Third Edition Copyright (c) 1992 by Houghton Mifflin 
Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie 
Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution 
restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United 
States. All rights reserved.
    From my perspective, and understanding the above definitions, I 
will attempt to explain my views as follows;
    1. Exclusive control,... Microsoft doesn`t exclusively control 
the market place with regard to computer software operating systems. 
Anyone can acquire or purchase several computer software operating 
systems from other software manufacturers.
    2. Law. A right granted by a government,... I don`t know of any 
government entity, including the US Federal Government, who

[[Page 24423]]

has proclaimed Microsoft to be the sole and exclusive source of 
computer software operating systems, do you?
    3.a. A company or group having exclusive control, and b. A 
commodity or service so controlled,... The Microsoft suite of 
software has become the product of choice by a majority of users 
and/or suppliers of PC`s, over other suppliers or manufacturers 
competing in the market place. I can think of many products or 
services by others which also have been favored by consumers over 
similar offerings, does that mean they are monopolists too? How does 
the U.S. Department of Justice or the DC Federal District Court 
equate this definition?
    4. Exclusive possession or control,... Certainly the fourth and 
last definition doesn`t apply either. Microsoft does not have 
exclusive control or possession of computer software operating 
systems. Certainly there has been some `arrogance' 
displayed from the marketing of Microsoft products, but again, I can 
think of numerous examples of similar claims, even by some of the 
those supporters of this Anti-trust lawsuit. I cannot understand how 
any person of normal intelligence could assert this as an argument 
or a basis for a law suit, can you?
    With respect to my arguments above and the obvious confusion 
regarding this law suit in general; I believe this law suit is the 
result of angst or frustration by other software vendors. They have 
convinced a few powerful policy makers of the US Government to file 
this suit on their behalf and hopefully enabling them to challenge 
or market their products and services against the more popular and 
superior software products from the Microsoft Corporation.
    With respect to the U.S. Department of Justice, It is my 
understanding the function of the U.S. Government and all it`s many 
entities is; to protect and serve the United States of America and 
the American way of life, enabling the citizens to select the 
products or service of their choice. I don`t believe, upon further 
consideration of the above facts, the U.S. Department of Justice 
wishes to be a part and party to the desires of a few individuals 
and their financial interests or businesses over the detriment of 
another. In my opinion; it is wrong to handicap or regulate one 
business over another for the perceived benefit of the entire United 
States of America and it`s citizens.
    As generally accepted, the Democratic market place of the U.S. 
is usually the deciding factor of who supplies and provides superior 
products. It is simply a matter of choice by the consumers, and in 
this case, it `presently' appears to be Microsoft 
Corporation.
    Just as a foot note and an example worthy of consideration in 
context with this law suit; I believe from hind sight, it was a 
major mistake by the U.S. Department of Justice to have broken up 
AT&T Corporation and enabled a so-called `free 
market' for the telecommunications industry. Of course this 
has only become obvious over time, and it serves as an example of 
governmental `interfering' in such a crucial 
infrastructure of this country. I think some other form of 
regulation would have better served the growing needs of this 
nation.
    I also believe the Computer Industry, and the present form of 
the Internet, including the developing, evolving, technologies which 
serve it should be allowed to develop unhindered from any 
governmental regulation or control. It could become another disaster 
for such a promising technology to be handicapped at such a crucial 
time of its evolution. I think it would be a mistake to allow a few 
near sighted governmental bureaucrats or policy makers to inspire 
their power or control over such a potentially beneficial 
technology.
    Again, thank you for allowing my views to be included in your 
decision process, for such an important developing technology.
    Sincerely;
    D.F. Hildermann



MTC-00004095

From: Edward Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is in response to the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe this agreement 
does nothing to protect the consumer, private industry, and 
government from the prior excesses of Microsoft. I urge you to 
reject the settlement on those grounds. Microsoft has used its 
monopoly of the PC desktop to further its own ends at the expense of 
others. While this may seem like fair competition it reduces the 
competitors to Microsoft. As a consumer, I already have to put up 
with buggy software which is exploited by hackers almost daily. If 
it were not for open source programs like Linux and BSD, the 
consumer would have little choice. This settlement allows Microsoft 
to continue to incorporate free code from the open source community, 
modify it so it will only work for Windows OS machines, then release 
it as its own proprietary software.
    The original remedy had its merit, but I also believe that 
industry should break up companies. If you allow this settlement to 
go through, please make sure that impartial, intelligent people sit 
on the three member panel. Steve Satchell` s name comes to mind as 
an excellent candidate.
    Regards,
    Edward W. Ray
    P.O. Box 2488
    Orange, CA 92859



MTC-00004096

From: Jason Jeremias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
feel the settlement is entirely to weakly worded. Here is my main 
concern, Microsofts biggest rivals are not companies at all. If you 
take a look at Microsoft`s products and who has any chance of 
competing with them in most cases the competing products are free 
software or open source software. Here`s a breakdown for you.
    Microsoft ProductBiggest Competing Product WindowsLinux 
(www.linux.org) IISApache (www.apache.org) Windows File & Print 
SharingSamba (www.samba.org) CUPS (www.cups.org) Internet 
ExplorerMozilla (www.mozilla.org) Netscape (www.netscape.com) 
OfficeNo competitor with a chance.
    As you can see above most Microsoft products have a 
`free' or `Open source' rival. Many of the 
Free products will be harmed by this settlement. The reason is 
Microsoft does not have to provide them any API`s or disclose any 
information to allow these products to continue to be compatible 
with Microsofts Monopoly. According to the settlement Microsoft only 
has to disclose to Commercial companies, and only if they meet 
Microsoft Criteria. Does this seem fair? I think not. Also I believe 
Microsoft should have to make its Office Document standards open. 
Its unrealistic to think Microsoft will ever not have a monopoly in 
the Office application market if its competitors can never be 
compatible with the Microsoft counter parts. Everytime any 
competitor comes close to achieving an acceptible level of 
compatibility to a Microsoft Office application. Microsoft releases 
a new version with a new document format.
    Summary:
    Free and Open Source product should be considered and given the 
same rights as Comercial products. If they are not included in the 
settlement Microsoft will find a way to exclude them. This will in 
fact Harm not help Microsofts Largest Competitors. In the end the 
settlement will be just another way for Microsoft to maintain its 
monopoly position. Microsoft will use the settlement as a way of 
excluding its largest competitors, the free and open source products 
that are scaring it today.



MTC-00004097

From: Ron Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I think that allowing Microsoft to provide schools with their 
software will eventually lead to the demise of Apple Computers. It 
just does not make any sense to me to do this.
    Microsoft provides software and then corners the market in the 
schools. They already have the business market cornered. This 
settlement will insure that Microsoft will continue to grow and will 
be a huge anti trust problem.
    Think about it gentlemen.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Martin
    Owner/Integrated Computer Resources



MTC-00004098

From: Bailey, Bruce
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a long time computer user who just started working for the 
Federal Government.
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement does not go far enough. 
Microsoft was, after all, found guilty. The implication being that 
the remedy should be significant. Ideas that I have heard that 
would, in my professional opinion, be acceptable include one or more 
of the following:

[[Page 24424]]

    (1) Open source Windows 3.11 through Windows 98.
    (2) Make Windows 3.11 through Windows 98 available for free to 
schools, libraries, non-profit organizations, individuals with low 
income, and perhaps others.
    (3) Auction the rights to port the Office XP Suite to Linux, 
with the profits going to Apple Computer. The primary objective here 
is ensure that there be a competitive product offering to Windows 
Office XP Suite. The secondary object is to reimburse one of the 
companies most severely damaged by Microsoft illegal business 
activities.
    (4) Open source Internet Explorer. This is logical since 
Netscape and Navigator was the one of the primary casualties of 
Microsoft`s illegal business practices. There is little point in 
financially reimbursing the current Netscape organization in any 
way, as the original company has been destroyed.
    (5) Split Microsoft into two or more companies. This represents 
my own personal perspective and does not represent the Department of 
Education in any way.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Bailey
    ED OCIO Technology Center
    400 Maryland Avenue, SW
    Washington, CD 20202
    202/260-4101



MTC-00004099

From: jim(a)lineaux.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:39pm
Subject: My opinion on the proposed settlement
    The settlement appears entirely too weak to make a differerence 
for competitors at this time. Even Now, Microsoft continues 
unabated. Finally, Microsoft`s dominance is a direct result of the 
anticompetitive behavior they have demonstrated.
    If these measures were enacted years ago, it might have made for 
a more competitive IT landscape. Instead, stricter measures need to 
be created to `level the playing field.'
    Microsoft is still leveraging themselves into every market they 
can. Microsoft is able to conquer any market it enters: PDAs, 
Broadband, Console Games, Browsers, Media Players, Development 
languages, etc. Microsoft has not risen to a dominant position 
because of quality products. Look to the average of two security 
advisories a week they issue. Look to the notoriously buggy software 
releases, that have even crashed when Bill Gates was demonstarting 
them. The position of advantage they now hold is directly the result 
of their anticompetitive practices. In sum, Microsoft needs more 
than a slap on the wrist. They need to be penalized in a meaningful 
way for other companies to EVEN HAVE A COMPETITIVE CHANCE. Please 
make a difference for us. Please try to increase the chances for the 
next generation of entrepreneurs to be able to compete.
    Thank you,
    Jim Kreinbrink
    [email protected]
    303.333.5466_voice
    303.388.7437_fax
    http://www.lineaux.com



MTC-00004100

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I write to express my serious reservations about the terms and 
language of the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Corporation`s 
antitrust violations conviction.
    My first objection is to any acceptance of the distribution of 
any Microsoft product as an element of the remedy. Considering that 
the case against Microsoft centered on a product the corporation 
gave away as part of a strategy to prevent competition, exercise 
market dominance and abuse the position that a monopolistic control 
of any market affords, it seems almost comical that software 
gieaways, particularly to a captive audience such as schoolchildren, 
would even be considered by the Department of Justice. I also object 
to the language of the proposed settlement in several particular 
instances. In particular, it is generally recognized and has been 
acknowledged by Microsoft that one of the greatest current threats 
to their continued market dominance is open-source software and 
operating systems such as Linux and Apache. I point specifically to 
Section III(J)(2) which gives Microsoft the power to define 
`reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of [businesses for which 
Microsoft must license API, Documentation, and Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization].'
    For these standards to be truly reasonable and objective, they 
cannot be defined by the Microsoft corporation. Furthermore, the 
general language of the proposal must be changed to reflect the 
protection of not-for-profit corporations as such organizations are 
clearly poised to play an integral role in the creation of a more 
freely competitive and thus healthy capitalistic software business 
environment. In the increasingly networked world of computer 
software the control of authentication and authorization is 
tantamount to the control of software markets. While standards are 
necessary to insure that corporations are not forced to authenticate 
and authorize `nuisance' entities, definitions must be 
establish by objective standards bodies representing all major 
players including critical not-for-profits such as the Apache 
Foundation.
    Again, under the definitions in Section III(D) it is only 
necessary for Microsoft to disclose the information necessary to 
make software inter-operate with Windows at the 
`middleware' level to commercial entities. It should be 
noted that not only not-for-profit but Governmental agencies risk 
being exluded by the narrow and commerical-centric nature of these 
definitions. Again, Microsoft must not be allowed to define these 
terms as it renders the antitrust decision against them virtually 
powerless.
    Thank you very much for your consideration of these objections.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan M. Hamlow
    PO 3171 Minneapolis MN 55403



MTC-00004101

From: Charles Guy
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 12/11/01 1:47pm
Subject: The bully
    Some comments on the proposed antitrust settlement.
    I do not compete with MicroSoft at this time. I design computer 
hardware, rather than software. I have done computer design from the 
time that the IBM antitrust suit was in the federal court system.
    I think the settlement offers little if any relief to the 
platiffs. MicroSoft is a monopoly, as already determined by the 
courts. MicroSoft needs to provide all documentation on its software 
to ISV (Independent Software Vendors). This information should be 
made available under the following conditions:
    A reasonable fee for the documents is to be set by an 
independent entity No criteria is to be set by MicroSoft regarding 
who can recieve these documents This information should be available 
to ISVs at the same time MicroSoft starts development All OS 
features must have clearly defined interfaces MicroSoft must fix all 
bugs determined to be a problem by an independent entity.
    MicroSoft must continue support for bug fixes for at least 5 
years following product release This is for all reported bugs in the 
first 5 years Bug fixes are completed when the problem is solved as 
determined by an independent entity Innovation at MicroSoft is 
primarily in the form of new ways to destroy competition. Some 
examples include:
    OS changes to Windows to prevent the correct function of Word 
Perfect.
    OS changes to Windows to prevent the correct function of Borland 
C and C++
    OS changes to Windows to prevent the correct function of PC 
Tools by Central Point Software
    OS changes to Windows to prevent the correct function of 
Netscape
    OS changes to Windows to prevnet the correct function of Paradox
    OS changes to Windows to prevent the correct function of Quatro 
Pro
    And the list goes on and on and on and on .....
    So that is how MicroSoft became a monopoly, plus IBM put them in 
that position.
    I have not noticed any real innovation to the MicroSoft OS that 
was not copied in some form from existing successful software. If 
you know of a place where they innovated I would be interested in 
hearing about it. Windows itself in nothing more than an imiitation 
of what Xerox did with their Star system back in the early 80`s.
    The main problem I have with MicroSoft is that their software is 
full of bugs. They have no incentive to fix it, as happy customers 
might not buy the next release.
    Charles B. Guy
    Voice:(503) 628-0643 FAX (503) 628-5401
    email: [email protected]
    Avsys Corp. www.avsyscorp.com



MTC-00004102

From: Naylor, John
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 2:01pm

[[Page 24425]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to whom it may concern,
    i believe the injection of more microsoft software is 
ridiculous. how can we find a company guilty of running a monopoly, 
and then expand that monopoly as a resolution.
    red hat linux had what seemed like a great solution. microsoft 
provides $1 billion worth of hardware, red hat supplies free 
software, and many more students are exposed to computers.
    _john naylor
    adp



MTC-00004103

From: Andrew Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:01pm
Subject: Sell out to Microsoft
    To DOJ;
    It sure looks like MS got everything it wanted. The must have 
donated a lot of money to the Bush campaign. Looks very very 
suspicious.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to control both the Operating 
System and the Applications. They repeatedly have demonstrated a 
willingness to engage in unethical behaviour to push their poor 
quality product on users. The OS and the APPS should be split into 
separate companies. MS also spies on its users by gathering data 
about them through the OS and various Apps. This practice should be 
illegal, corporate entities can be trusted only to `maximize 
stakeholders wealth', within or outside the law depending on 
consequences. Corp's will misuse the data absolutely without 
doubt and should be barred from gathering it at all.
    Sell Out Sell Out Sell Out. DOJ cannot be trusted to act in the 
best interests of society.
    Andrew Peck
    P.S. If I was an American I would be ten times more pissed off 
with my own government.



MTC-00004104

From: Eric Rehnke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for allowing the public to comment on the appropriate 
remedies to help mitigate the damage done by The Microsoft Company 
to its competition in the past and into the future.
    To begin with, I was particularly vexed by the fact that the 
government case against Microsoft seemed to center around the theory 
that it was bad to embed the added functionality of an internet 
browser into the operating system itself. I felt that although this 
was happening and a case could be made that this was a bad thing, 
the far greater threat from Microsoft was always in the restraint of 
trade area, where Microsoft threatened to stop Compaq from bundling 
Windows 95 with Compaq computers unless Compaq ceased bundling the 
Netscape browser with its computers. But, that is water under the 
bridge.
    Please make sure that Microsoft is forced to share information 
that will allow the not-for-profit organizations that created and 
continue to support such applications such as APACHE, SAMBA, LINUX, 
PERL and other such software to interoperate with Microsoft 
products. These software applications have the best chance of 
competing with Microsoft in an open marketplace and Microsoft is 
already expending much of its resources to fight against these OPEN 
SOURCE `enemies' of Microsoft market domination. This is 
the area of the `remedies' that need to opened up so as 
to allow these not-for-profit organizations to have free access to 
the information they need to support their software systems.
    The following text has been copied from the Dec. 6 2001 column 
by Robert X. Cringely:
    `........ 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. .........'
    In closing, if only one thing can be done to force Microsoft to 
fairly compete in the marketplace, PLEASE ALLOW NOT-FOR-PROFIT 
ORGANIZATIONS OPEN ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO 
INTEROPERATE WITH MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS.
    Thanks for you consideration,
    Eric C. Rehnke
    24343 Seagreen Drive,
    Diamond Bar, CA 91765
    909-861-8429
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004105

From: Leonard Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:04pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement comment
    I am really baffled by the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I fail to see how the currently proposed remedy will 
compensate for the damage that Microsoft has already done. Telling 
them to play fair now is like asking Hitler to stop invading other 
countries after he`s already conquered all of Europe. What`s the 
point? Why did DOJ suddenly reverse itself and reject the idea of 
breaking up Microsoft?



MTC-00004106

From: Vladimir G. Kogut
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Rather sooner then later consumers will be cut off having any 
choice but Microsoft Software.
    To really fix that problem:
    #1. The definition of the general term `Operating 
System' (OS) should be established desirably not by Microsoft 
but by independent scientists and businessman.
    #2. Microsoft must ship its `pure' Windows OS 
that is precisely in compliance with that OS definition.
    Thanks,
    Vlad



MTC-00004107

From: jim (sparky)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe the government should have stayed out of Microsoft `s 
business all along. The original suit was ill conceived. A liberal 
Clinton Administration filed the suit for the benefit of a few 
companies that could not compete in the free enterprise marketplace.
    There should have been nothing more than a mandated separation 
of the Windows operating system and browser software.
    I find it extremely interesting that the settlement requires 
Microsoft to do the very thing for which the original suit was 
filled. That is give away free software. Now, with this settlement, 
Microsoft will be installing their product line in schools for 
millions of future generations of customers to use. What started 
because Microsoft imbedded their Internet browser software into 
their Windows operating system has become a government forced 
sponsorship and usage of their products.
    Microsoft produces and markets many fine products. I use many of 
them both at a business and personal level. However, I feel that 
because of the terms of the Federal settlement, that long term 
computer software technology will only be slowed by lack of active 
competition. Millions of young adults will enter the workforce 
knowing only the use of their products. Because of this public 
schooled-trained labor pool business will have little choice but to 
buy and use the same products.
    The true long-term winners in this settlement will not be the 
workforce of America but rather Microsoft and professional class 
action litigators like Stan Chesley. From a strictly political 
viewpoint I understand your actions. I just wish it could be 
otherwise.
    While I will not say that Microsoft is getting some kind of 
sweetheart deal, I must wonder why they are spending so much money 
to sell the settlement.
    Please do nothing that adds to the monetary cost of this 
settlement. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The consumer 
will be the final bill payer for any settlement. It will become a 
cost of doing business and the

[[Page 24426]]

next generation of products will reflect those costs.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Cliff Jr.
    11808 Liming-Van Thompson
    Hamersville, Ohio 45130
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004108

From: M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:07pm
Subject: Simple Statements of Fact
    Simple Statements of Fact
    Not your area but, anyone who was serious about internet 
security would start by forbidding Microsoft software from 
connecting to the internet. Not within you power I know but, 
blocking Microsoft from selling operating systems would probably be 
the simplest way to promote a strong, competitive computer industry. 
Call it a good deed, improving the computer user`s experience would 
be reason enough to do so. They simply aren`t good at OSes. Now we 
get to you, Microsoft has a long, well-established history of 
abusing their monopolistic position and have shown neither remorse 
nor any intent to correct their future conduct.
    Question: Are the DOJ and other plaintiffs going to do anything 
about that or just cave in to the plutocratic interests of Dubya and 
other conservative socialists?
    M



MTC-00004109

From: Joe W Walz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settle
    1 Billion dollars in software give away to schools is going to 
kill all the education resellers in this the country. This will cost 
Microsoft 1 million dollars in media cost to product the software on 
the CD`s. Cost the educational resellers to go out of business and 
more. Help Microsoft promote it`s software etc. We need to re-think 
this issue. Microsoft needs to give the money`s to the school then 
purchase the software via educational resellers. Let`s get your acts 
together about this issue.
    Joseph W Walz
    President
    Unique Software Corporation



MTC-00004110

From: Ben Pearre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud the proposal that Microsoft would have to open its 
APIs to competitors (Section III)_it shows a good 
understanding of what allows Microsoft to abuse its monopoly. 
However, the provision is basically useless: Microsoft gets to 
choose to whom to release its APIs. Microsoft`s main competitor is 
hobbyists, not a corporation. Indeed, most of the Internet runs on 
free software_almost all routing, mail delivery, most web 
servers, etc... A provision forcing Microsoft to reveal its APIs 
only to what Microsoft deems to be a Corporation is no remedy at 
all_Microsoft will be able to continue to strangle its main 
competitors: the Apache web server, the Sendmail and Postfix mail 
systems, the Secure Shell, the Samba server, Netscape/Mozilla/etc... 
all extremely important and popular software with few or no 
commercial alternatives except for those from Microsoft. In order 
for the provision to be useful, it must force Microsoft to reveal 
its APIs to ANYONE, preferably on Microsoft`s main web server.
    Microsoft knows all this_why else would they be so adamant 
about the provision that would allow them to deny access to the API 
to active developers? The DOJ certainly must know most of this, 
though whether this provision just slipped in unnoticed or the DOJ 
didn`t realise how important free software is I don`t know.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Pearre
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    [email protected] http://hebb.mit.edu/ben



MTC-00004111

From: Asbury Lenny-LASBURY1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I have tried to remain current on the provisions of the 
Microsoft Settlement of the Anti-Trust/Monopoly case.
    I do not entirely agree with the decision of the court, 
specifically, I do not feel that there was a preponderance of 
evidence that showed Microsoft to have a monopoly, or to have abused 
a position of dominance in the software market.
    Regardless, the proposed remedies in the settlement do not 
appear to be excessively damaging to Microsoft, or the software 
community at large. The distribution of software to students and 
educational institutions by Microsoft has always been the 
cornerstone of my argument that Microsoft had NEVER abused their 
position.
    Specifically, Microsoft has always made software available to 
educational institutions at substantial discounts off the list 
price. As a former university student, I have obtained thousands of 
dollars of software from Microsoft at a small fraction of the 
advertised cost.
    I feel that the requirement for Microsoft to distribute software 
materials to the educational community as the specified remedy in 
this case is entirely appropriate. It expands a behavior that 
Microsoft has continuously shown to be part of the Microsoft 
corporate culture. Instead of receiving these materials at 
percentage discounts off the list price, the poorest and most needy 
communities will receive these valuable materials at 100% off the 
list price.
    I have never worked for Microsoft. I work for Motorola. My 
current employer has gained valuable expertise and skills from the 
discounted materials that Microsoft made available to me when I was 
a student.
    I feel certain that the entire US economy will benefit greatly 
from the free distribution of software from Microsoft to the 
educational community. This is a settlement with incalculable value 
to America, because it extends the skills of our future workforce.
    I whole-heartedly support this settlement.
    Len Asbury, CQA, CSQE
    Quality Systems Technician
    (817) 245-7443
    RAB QMS Internal Auditor N0817741



MTC-00004112

From: Sagstetter, Philip W
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 2:52pm
Subject: Comment on microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is much too lenient. 
Letting Microsoft give software to schools is like encouraging 
advertising. The schools then must buy into the restrictive 
Microsoft license scheme. The licenses require the schools to buy 
Microsoft product upgrades in the future.
    I prefer the Red Hat Linux offer. Let Microsoft pay real money 
to schools. Let the schools use whatever computer software they 
want. For example, the schools may want to buy Apple computers for 
graphics training.
    Another problem is the disclosure of APIs, interfaces, file 
formats, documentation, protocols, etc.
    This should not be limited to Commercial Businesses, as defined 
by Microsoft.
    All this info should also be disclosed to Non-profit 
organizations and Government Agencies.
    The greatest potential future competition to the Microsoft 
monopoly is Linux.
    Most Linux companies are non-profit, or could be defined that 
way by Microsoft.
    Because Linux development is by volunteers, Microsoft cannot 
undercut Linux companies into bankruptcy. Linux and other Open 
Source or Free Software projects are the only serious prospective 
competition for Microsoft in the future. They must be given fair 
access to information to compete.
    Finally, Steve Satchell sounds like a well-qualified person to 
be on the three-person committee that will oversee Microsoft under 
the proposed settlement.
    [email protected]
    8832 West Ida Place
    Littleton CO 80123-2354



MTC-00004113

From: none na
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:07pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    Thank you for taking the time to read this. I have been 
following the anti-trust case against Microsoft and feel compelled 
to write and express my feelings. I understand that under the 
current proposed settlement, Microsoft would not be required to 
disclose details about various Microsoft Application Interfaces to 
non-profit organizations. Apparently only businesses would apply. 
This restriction is unacceptable. One of Microsoft`s biggest 
competitors is the open source community and this settlement would, 
in effect protect Microsoft, not the public at large. Since, 
Microsoft OS runs on %45 of all web servers and %95 of all client 
systems, anything other than complete and open documentation of 
Microsoft`s API`s should not be allowed. This would protect 
Microsoft`s intellectual property while allowing any third party to 
develop products and programs that function in a Microsoft world.

[[Page 24427]]

    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Zack



MTC-00004114

From: qwest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft verses open source
    I am happy to see that the Justice dept is beginning to go after 
the mega corp. But I feel that the proposal that Microsoft is making 
is not one of justice, but one to increase there control over the 
computer industry. If Microsoft was to supply all the schools with 
Microsoft products then it will just increases there already 
exploding income and do nothing but increase there hold on the 
students in there future. If they are trained on Microsoft product 
in school then that will be all they know when they graduate and 
that will be all they will buy and support. Is this a good 
punishment for Microsoft? A punishment that will increase there 
profits and improve there monopoly in the computer industry in the 
future. But with an open source operating system like Linux, then 
the student will have a choice and be able to be exposed to two 
types of O/S. And with the open source software the students will be 
able to learn more about the computer with the ability to program 
and learn just how an operating system works in stead of moving a 
mouse and click on a screen.
    Go ahead and let Microsoft add there software to the schools, 
but also have them add another operating system so the students can 
make there choice and learn different Operating systems



MTC-00004115

From: Earl Newborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft (MS) has been convicted of misusing their software 
monopolies in restraint of trade, and this verdict has been upheld 
on appeal. Therefore, the treatment of this conviction by the 
Ashcroft Justice Department as a partisan political matter is not 
only shameful but dangerous to US economic health, I`m writing this 
to protest the way the Justice Department has handled this 
settlement.
    As long as MS is permitted to eradicate non-MS software by abuse 
of their monopoly position, the US will become increasingly locked 
into control of computer operations by a small group of MS 
executives whose sole interest is their own monetary gain. The 
evolution of computer operations has already been seriously retarded 
by this monopoly, and it will become increasingly so in the future, 
leading to US computer technology being dependent upon increasingly 
outmoded software. For example, in the latest MS operating system, 
?Windows XP?, we?ve seen a new MS practice of non-MS code being 
disabled in favor of inferior MS code, and this practice will 
doubtless intensify as MS becomes increasingly bold in abuse of 
their monopoly. This is not in the interest of US economic health.
    A handling of this settlement that recognizes the importance of 
US economic health would have two facets:
    1. Punitive. MS has profited for many years through abuse of 
their software monopoly. They should be punished for these illegal 
actions. It would be appropriate to levy large fines on the 
individual MS executives responsible for these activities, but doing 
so would be difficult administratively. Instead, MS itself should be 
fined. A $25 billion dollar fine seems about right. That would still 
leave MS with a cash account of $15 billion, an amount that other US 
corporations can only dream of.
    This money should be placed in a fund to be administered by a 
court-appointed body. It would judge whether to grant funds to 
nonprofit organizations that apply for them. An initial grant of $1 
billion or more should be made to schools to use as they see fit for 
purchase of computer technology. This would replace the MS proposal 
of their donation of MS software to schools, since this activity, if 
approved, would probably lead to the destruction of Apple 
Corporation, one of the few remaining sources of innovation in the 
computer world.
    2. Administrative remedy. Any action here should be aimed not at 
the destruction of MS ?Windows? and ?Office? monopolies; large US 
organizations need the ease of communication that these universally-
employed systems furnish. But, the stultifying effect produced by MS 
actions designed to retain and extend these monopolies should be 
attacked.
    The simplest way to do this is to admit the monopoly and place 
all MS software in the public domain. Were this done, competing but 
compatible versions with valuable software innovations would quickly 
appear, which would advance US software development greatly. The MS 
code should be deposited with a court-appointed body for sale to 
applicants. Revenues could go to MS. When MS writes a change in this 
software that change should be withheld from public domain for a 
time (one year?) sufficient to allow MS to make a profit on its 
research investment. This would allow MS to truly produce the 
innovations that they constantly claim to produce, although hitherto 
their software development has actually been not innovation but 
purchase or copying of the innovations of others.
    G. E. Newborn



MTC-00004116

From: lowell2@webbster-prmt@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:55pm
Subject: http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/
    It is clear that not only will the computer industry suffer from 
the settlement, but rather the precedent set by the findings, 
ruling, & subsequent punishment. It will not be long before 
other industries find the `Yes you are guilty BUT we`re not 
going to do anything about it' useful for their own 
monopolistic activities.



MTC-00004117

From: William A. Ogden
To: Microsoft ATR,WISAG @DOJ.STATE.WI.US@inetgw
Date: 12/11/01 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Trial
    Good Day,
    Since college in the mid seventies, I am and have been a 
computer industry professional. Starting with main frame computers I 
moved to microcomputers in the late seventies. During the 
intervening years, I have been involved in programming solutions in 
FORTRAN to BASIC, from dBase IV to FoxBase, and from MS Access to 
FileMaker Pro. Working with CPM, Apple DOS, MS/DOS, Mac OS, and 
Windows, I provided a variety of professional computer services. I 
have designed, implemented and maintained network architectures. I 
have setup and maintained e-mail servers, file servers, web servers 
and many other network based services. I feel well qualified to 
comment on the proposed agreement between Microsoft and the United 
States Justice Department.
    In the early days, I watched as Microsoft brought a level of 
professionalism lacking in much of the microcomputer industry. Their 
products, such as `Microsoft`s CPM Card', were well 
thought out and implemented. Later, their GUI windowing products for 
the Mac OS were some of the best of class. Developed and available 
years before Microsoft Windows became popular, in the early 
nineties.
    However since the mid to late eighties I have seen a change in 
Microsoft`s professionalism. Rather than present products based 
wholly upon merit, which they did in the beginning, they began using 
questionable tactics to eliminate their competition. These 
questionable tactics, eventually found illegal by the courts, have 
eliminated my ability to choose which product I deemed best.
    Watching the Microsoft anti trust trial during the last few 
years, I have been fascinated by the ups and downs of the case and 
also frustrated by it`s lack of progress. I have followed the 
trial`s proceedings in the news and have read many of the published 
legal papers. I am amazed by the number of times Microsoft`s 
representatives twisted words and meanings in their testimonies, 
giving all observers, including the judge, an impression of deceit.
    Now Microsoft is guilty of breaking the law. The trial court 
said so and the Appeals Court affirmed it, unanimously 7 to 0. And 
that takes us to the recent agreement between Microsoft and The 
Justice Department. Where, after reading the settlement agreement, I 
find no penalty and no punishment for Microsoft. Does this mean 
Microsoft is exempt from the Rule of Law?
    What I do find is the Agreement regulates Microsoft`s behavior, 
much like the agreement in 1994 where Microsoft consented ?to 
refrain from anticompetitive bundling and licensing of its Windows 
operating system.? (CNET News.com-September 25, 1997) And of course 
it was Microsoft`s ignoring this decree that gave rise to the anti 
trust case. And even if the intent of today`s Proposed Agreement is 
followed honestly and ethically, Microsoft`s past successes using 
these, proposed banned, behaviors make any behavioral remedy moot. 
All effective competition has been eliminated, so how are behavior 
limitations on Microsoft going to jump start competition?

[[Page 24428]]

Plus the Proposed Agreement puts Microsoft in charge as all 
competitors are under the requirement ?that the licensee?(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...?.(section J 2(b),(c)) And 
even Microsoft could not meet the requirements under section J 2(a) 
of the Proposed Agreement. `Microsoft has demonstrated time 
and again that through their sheer power and immense wealth, they 
can easily evade behavioral remedies designed to constrain their 
unlawful activity,' said Edward J. Black, president of the 
Computer and Communications Industry Association, which backs 
Microsoft`s corporate adversaries.?
    Let me finish by asking the questions. How can any settlement 
with Microsoft be just five years? Particularly when section D 
requiring disclosure, and section H, of the Proposed Agreement does 
not require Microsoft`s compliance for a year. How can any law 
breaker, proven and affirmed to be so in a court of law, not be 
punished? If you have enough money and you burn someone`s house 
down, we let you go if you promise not to do it again. How can we, 
as a country based on the rule of law, allow a company proven to 
have broken that law, benefit from their crime and there be no 
material consequences.
    I ask you to please find a way to bring fairness and open 
competition back to our industry. Let new ideas find a fertile 
environment to flourish. Please let the market place, not 
Microsoft`s special interests, determine what software products and 
internet services I purchase and support.
    Thank you,
    William A Ogden
    Director of Technology / Network & Technical Manager
    [email protected]
    The Prairie School
    4050 Lighthouse Dr / Racine, WI 53402
    Phone: 262-260-6808



MTC-00004118

From: Shannon Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:37pm
Subject: Glad to Hear It
    To Whom It May Concern:
    For a while when Microsoft was first being tried, I believed 
that the company should be convicted. It seemed that they were most 
certainly a monopoly based upon the fact that one could only 
commercially buy a PC with Windows in it, and that Microsoft bundled 
much of their software with the operating system. While I was too 
young to fully understand it at the time, I had also heard that 
Microsoft engaged in some blatantly monopolistic practices. Then the 
case seemed to fade from the public eye, and I personally forgot 
about it for some time. Just recently it became important again, and 
I heard that the trial was coming to an end. After having spent five 
more years on the computer and having experimented with Macintosh 
& Linux operating systems, I decided that Microsoft was not a 
monopoly at all. The company produces a product that is superior for 
their target audience, is the most readily available and most widely 
supported on the market, and is easier for those who have little or 
no computer experience to use.
    The company cannot be blamed for this, and it is therefore in 
the best interest of the computer industry and the consumers to just 
leave things as they are. I hope that the ruling is not changed, and 
that Microsoft can continue to improve their operating systems 
(hopefully improving in leaps and bounds, like the move from Windows 
9x to XP) and their hardware for many years to come.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Shannon



MTC-00004119

From: Aurelien Marchand
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 3:40pm
Subject: Great Solution
    DOJ US Attorney: Microsoft Corp.
    Aurelien Marchand,
    Programmer/Analyst/Web Developer
    Research Capital Corporation
    Phone: (416) 860-7790
    Reply to: [email protected]
    



MTC-00004120

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:42pm
Subject: questions about Microsoft Settlement
    Hail!
    It has been detailed in certain corners of the media that the US 
Department of Justice intends to punish Microsoft Corporation by 
having them provide computer hardware, software and consulting to 
schools at a cost to be deteremined by Microsoft.
    Another part of the settlement is that Microsoft will reveal 
thier proprietary interfaces to commercial competitors.
    My question is this: Doesn`t putting Microsoft products and 
employees in front of schoolchildren make thier monopoly more 
ubiquitous, and strengthen thier monopoly?
    Another question: Microsoft has used methods other than 
proprietary interfaces to keep commercial competitors from 
surviving. Microsoft didn`t have a way to deal with the Open Source 
community, till this settlement was handed to them. Now, Microsoft 
can stop using industry standards and come up with thier own, 
implement proprietary interfaces for everything, and the government 
and businesses have to buy Microsoft products; Apple can`t release a 
compatible product the same day as Microsoft because they won`t have 
to release the interface specifications till release date. By the 
time Apple or Novell catch up, Microsoft can revoke product licenses 
and release another `enhanced' specification.
    Poof! Instant Dictator! Give Bill Gates an aircraft carrier or 
he`ll revoke the Pentagon`s NT licenses!
    The most logical conclusion would be to halt proprietary 
interfaces and use industry standard ones. That means that an old 
Amiga or Mac Classic can get mail from a Microsoft mail server. Need 
a new feature? Fine! Propose a standard that any programmer, 
commercial, home or in the open source community, can understand. 
Let people buy the best product, and upgrade after they outgrow 
older products.
    Don`t limit the publication of Microsoft`s proprietary standards 
to commercial companies; they no longer constitute a credible 
competitor. I`m not telling you to shut down Microsoft and make 
everybody use Linux, I`m asking that Microsoft face the possibility 
of an entity as big as itself. This might even be to thier own 
advantage; they`d be forced to make the best products possible.
    Here`s the off-the-wall proposals:
    1. Limit Microsoft to Fifty employees, and the salary of the 
highest paid executive can only be twice that of the janitorial and 
mailroom staffs. Base salary dictated by the need for everyone for 
food, clothing, shelter and transportation, and then demonstrated 
value to the company dictates the amount of additional compensation.
    2. Microsoft speaks as though they value innovation, so support 
thier innovation. That was Microsoft BASIC for CP/M. Allow Microsoft 
to sell as many copies of this as they want, but they can`t sell 
operating systems, applications, or other programming languages. 
Just BASIC.
    Now, don`t the above arguments sound reasonable?
    L-3 Communications
    Communication Systems West
    4 North 2nd Street, Suite 500
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. (408) 291-5160
    Fax (408) 291-5166



MTC-00004121

From: Aurelien Marchand
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 3:51pm
Subject: FW: Great Solution
From: Aurelien Marchand Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 3:40 PM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Great Solution
    DOJ US Attorney: Microsoft Corp.
    Aurelien Marchand,
    Programmer/Analyst/Web Developer
    Research Capital Corporation
    Phone: (416) 860-7790
    Reply to: [email protected]
    



MTC-00004122

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am quite troubled by the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
and with the administration`s encouragment to have the Justice Dept 
settle. I would like to respectfully propose the following:
_If you want to end their monopoly, you need to have a core of 
people trained to use other systems, what better way to ensure that 
than by installing competing products

[[Page 24429]]

in America`s schools. We should require Microsoft to purchase 
$1,000,000,000 in hardware and/or COMPETING software. Any software 
donated by Microsoft should not count towards the $1,000,000,000 in 
sanctions.
_If Microsoft chooses to donate software to the schools, it 
must not be pre-installed on any system, it must have a perpetual 
license, so that the schools do not need to pay in the future to 
continue to use the software `donated' to them and it 
must come with an agreement for at least 20 years of support (and if 
the product it discontinued before that time, Microsoft must give 
them free upgrades to the newer system including hardware upgrades 
to the recommended levels). Microsoft must not be allowed to escape 
it`s support obligation by discontinuing a product line and 
requiring the schools to purchase an upgrade.
    Microsoft is being allowed to extend it`s monopoly to future 
generations by this settlement. This is supposed to be punishment 
for corporate misbehaviour, instead, they are being allow to 
penetrate the educational sector (the only area they have failed to 
gain access to) as part of a settlement. Microsoft is not actually 
paying anywhere near $1B for this settlement, they are including 
software with a retail cost of $100`s but an actual cost to produce 
of more like 25 cents. The net cost of all bundled software to 
Microsoft is likely to be less than the cost of one song for one ad 
campaign, and will yield them an army of Microsoft users. (eg Start 
Me Up, by Rolling Stones costed MicroSoft, IIRC, $16M) Microsoft has 
violated the terms of previous settlements and yet there is 
insufficient and vauge overview of the enforcement of these 
sanctions. The previous sanctions have failed to reform them.
    Respectfully yours,
    Larry Plato 734 604 9399
    Speaking only for myself
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 4:10pm
Subject: Why did Microsoft get better treatment than IBM
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    As a citizen that does not use Microsoft or IBM products. (I 
make my own computers and use Linux) I fail to understand why the 
Department of Justice failed to give equal treatment to Microsoft as 
it once did to IBM. We do business with the U.S. Government . They 
require us to submit our proposals and bids in Microsoft Word 
format. I now understand why your regulations are the way they are 
and it is wrong. Why can not the U.S.Government be fair to all 
companies in this country.
    We citizens get the impression that there may be some in the 
U.S. Government that find the latest settlement beneficial and I 
wonder if that may be financially and or politically so. I find 
myself gravely concerned, as to if the Department of Justice 
represents this nation and its citizens or just the powerful 
corporations. It certainly looks from my point of view that the 
Department of Justice is in league with Microsoft. If that is the 
case you have performed a great disservice to the whole of the 
citizenry of this nation.
    If your thinking is correct in your decision we can expect to 
find in the future one car company, one cookie company, one computer 
company, one grocery store company, one military contractor, one 
lumber company and one software company.
    Your decision was not a fair and just decision for this country 
period. Microsoft is not a company that I would like to see 
providing all the software for this nation. Half maybe at best but 
not the current dominance that it was handed to you your department.
    I do support your efforts in the war on terrorism and personally 
think other than this Microsoft decision you are doing a fine job. 
Please fix this problem before Microsoft controls every computer in 
this country.
    Sincerely
    George Van Tuyl
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00004124

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 5:44pm
Subject: Anti-Trust
    The USA law SHOULD be equal for everybody in the USA. Nobody is 
excluded from that privelage.
    If the USA starts `wheeling and dealing' than the 
government will create a precedent for ever.
    Only competion will thrive the free market, and innovate 
computing in this particular case.
    regs
    HGM Duijker
    ps Imagine the USA with Only Ford,
    only General Elecric, only Standard Oil, This means NO 
competion.
    NO competion is the downfall of the society.



MTC-00004125

From: Derek McCabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am outraged about this proposed `settlement'. 
Since when you companies in this country get to pick their own 
punishment. This is a slap in the face to every citizen in the 
United States. And further, donating `Microsoft 
equipment' is not a punishment at all. This only increases 
Microsoft marketshare!!!!!! How about they donate $1 billion in CASH 
to the schools. Or even better yet, how about donate $1 billion to 
the people and companies that Microsoft hurt, AND WAS FOUND GUILTY. 
The bottom line is a lot of people were hurt when Microsoft rolled 
over these fledling companies. Jobs were lost, economy hurt, 
innovation squashed, and dreams crushed. Those people should benefit 
from any punishment given to MS. Don`t think for a second that I 
believe schools don`t need it, but let those who suffered at the 
hands of MS benefit from their penalties.
    Derek McCabe
    Project Manager, Creative Practice
    Tallan
    Mobile 203.449.3828
    [email protected]



MTC-00004126

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed here seems to assure more of the 
behavior the other 8 judges found them guilty of. For example, this 
proposal leaves people like SAMBA totally at Micr.`s mercy. There is 
no provision for Micr. to share APIs with non-profit groups.
    James Lamm Ph.D. computer science



MTC-00004127

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    This is my first time e-mailing the DOJ in regards to anything. 
I am so glad that it is about something that is very close and dear 
to my heart. I am so pleased that the TPA was passed I personally 
feel that this country must pick it self up and start to get the 
ball rolling again with this awful slump in the economy. I feel that 
each and every company has the choice to work their hardest to 
developed the high-tech industry. It is critical to us all to have a 
better economy.
    I personally feel that Microsoft has been nothing but a whipping 
boy for no good reason at all. It was a shame that a Judge could be 
so biased as Judge Jackson was. If that is the kind of judges we 
have in this country deciding such important issues we are headed 
for a lot more trouble.
    I personally feel that Microsoft has suffered enough through 
this long court struggle.
    This is America the land of the free, so lets allow the high-
tech industries the opportunity to innovate & compete, and stop 
wasting precious time in the courts. Every other company who was on 
the bandwagon in the class action suit had and has the change to 
succeed on their own merits and not trying to destroy such a 
wonderful company as Microsoft who has and still gives us all the 
best of what a company can give.
    I am so pleased that again I was given a chance to express my 
feelings.
    Warmest regards,
    Mikki



MTC-00004128

From: Arturo Sedo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 5:24pm
Subject: current settlemenet is a joke!
    As long as Microsoft doesn`t publishes all protocols they use to 
interact with other products, they should be broken up. What I think 
the DOJ should do is allow Microsoft to use only internationally 
accepted protocols. The law should not allow microsoft to accept and 
extend protocols. Also Microsoft should publish the Word format so 
other companies can write a competing application. the same goes for

[[Page 24430]]

Excell. Or force Microsoft to write only in xml or an accepted 
format like that.



MTC-00004129

From: Darryl Wilburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:11pm
Subject: On Microsoft
    Dear sir:
    I`m not sure how much weight that a letter from a computer 
professional like myself brings to bear on the recent Microsoft 
legal preceedings. My opinion is simple. I believe we should have a 
choice as to what OS we choose to run. Yes, it`s true that I have a 
choice today, Microsoft, Linux, or ?? Those are the only two OS`s 
that a home user like myself can even consider. That`s OK, two is 
better than one. The impact the Microsoft has on the world is huge. 
Using Linux, I can`t visit certain websites because they don`t 
develop websites that support Netscape, or any of the many browsers 
that are included with Linux. Because Microsoft has the world by the 
throat, we`re forced to use IE as our browser of choice. Some 
choice! Microsoft Office is the defacto standard when it comes to 
office applications, because intentional or not, other office suites 
don`t perform as well on Windows.
    Again, I`m not sure what a letter from someone like myself 
really means in the grand scheme of things, but this America, and I 
felt some obligation to state my opinion. I don`t think there is 
anyway that another company can compete in today`s marketplace with 
the way that the table is slanted toward Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Darryl Wilburn



MTC-00004130

From: Pauline Freise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:28pm
Subject: No creative possibility?
    Micro$oft has ruined programmers and most of all it has 
destroyed design and innovation. We had many programmers in the past 
with excellent ideas about how to design work-able software and 
programs. This monopoly destroys innovation and ideas. There is no 
more room for being creative now? How do we see the light here? We 
recognize that Windows is efficient, but allows no room for 
creativity or design `by it`s own design' and 
`refer to copy right and other programmer issues like 
following windows standards for interface design issues'.
    ?who`s standards
    Pauline Freise



MTC-00004131

From: David Frossard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
c/o
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To the Court (re: United States vs. Microsoft proposed 
settlement):
    I am writing as a private citizen (albeit one with decades of 
computing experience and intimate knowledge of the computer 
industry) under the provisions of the Tunney Act (Antitrust 
Procedures and Penalties Act) 15 U.S.C. ? 16 requiring 60 days of 
public comment on proposed antitrust settlements.
    I object strongly to the proposed DOJ-MS settlement, which will 
do little or nothing to (1) punish Microsoft for past uncompetitive 
monopoly behavior; (2) prevent Microsoft from engaging in such 
behavior in the future; (3) divest Microsoft of the fruits of its 
past behavior; (4) increase competition in markets controlled by 
Microsoft. In fact, certain provisions will tend to increase 
Microsoft`s monopoly and may especially put Open Source competitors 
to Windows, such as Linux, at a further competitive disadvantage. 
Have we learned nothing from previous, toothless settlements between 
the DOJ and Microsoft? At a minimum, a truly effective agreement 
should include (but not be limited to the following) provisions:
    1. Microsoft must publish and open all Application Programming 
Interfaces (APIs) to the general public (i.e. to ALL competitors, 
not just a select few), on penalty of massive fines or contempt-of-
court citations. (I suggest that a bounty system could be put in 
place, whereby those identifying unpublished Microsoft APIs would 
receive a large payment for their efforts; other methods may also 
suffice.) This provision the only way to ensure that Microsoft`s few 
remaining competitors are able to fairly compete in the Windows 
application space_that Microsoft can`t continue to use secret 
APIs to make its products function better than competitors` when 
running under Windows. (As opposed to Microsoft`s famous in-house 
slogan, circa 1990: `Windows is not done until WordPerfect 
won`t run.)
    2. Microsoft must publish and open all document formats to the 
general public, under similar penalty terms. Today, competitors to 
Microsoft Office are locked into that application primarily because 
competitors can not perfectly translate to/from Office to/from 
competing applications. Indeed, it is widely known in the industry 
that Microsoft changes its formats regularly simply to foil the 
efforts of its competitors to inter-operate cleanly with Office. If 
Office formats were truly open_and thus understandable _ 
competitors could at least try to challenge Office in that space.
    3. Microsoft should pay a massive fine based on the fruits of 
previous illegal monopoly behavior. Currently Microsoft has an 
estimated $40 billion in cash reserves. It is not unreasonable to 
fine the company, say, half of that_$20 billion_ to 
remove illegally gotten financial gains.
    4. There should be setup a streamlined system by which 
complaints about Microsoft`s inevitable flouting of this settlement 
(see, e.g., the previous MS-DOJ settlement) are quickly resolved 
_ perhaps by binding arbitration supervised by this Court, 
rather than by further, lengthy antitrust suits brought by the 
government. Much more can be done here, but these are the four most 
important elements, in my opinion, of a just and comprehensive 
settlement_as opposed to the abject surrender offered by the 
DOJ here.
    I hope you will reject the current proposed settlement and 
protect the interests of consumers and competitors alike by imposing 
far more comprehensive remedies.
    Sincerely,
    David Frossard
    418 Sunset Dr.
    Golden, CO 80401



MTC-00004132

From: Preston Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom ever is in charge of making these deal with Microsoft. I 
think you are letting Microsoft off the hook way too easily. I am 
ashamed at my government`s actions that let a company destroy so 
much innovation and lie, cheat and steal to get control of the 
market.
    So I hope you understand that your actions of allowing Microsoft 
to get a away with these actions only set a precedent for all 
companies in the future to get away this crap and manipulation.
    Punish Microsoft for what they have done, do you think they will 
learn with a slap on the wrist?
    I thought our elected officials were smarter than that.
    Please make the right decisions and bring justice to this 
industry. Punish Microsoft and make them pay 1 billion cash, not in 
software that furthers their monopoly.
    Cheers
    Preston Hall
    President
    Cobalt Multimedia Inc. & Affordable Dedicated Servers
    http://www.cobaltmultimedia.com
    http://www.affordable-dedicated-servers.com
    Local: 360 752 0161



MTC-00004133

From: Andy Romeril
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:52pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To the DOJ,
    As a taxpayer and long-time computer professional, I feel that I 
must strongly protest the proposed settlement with Microsoft as 
wholly inadequate and failing to meet even the most basic test as a 
`reasonable' remedy given the company`s past actions.
    Please reconsider your decision in light of the overwhelming 
response being made by the computer industry and consumers. This is 
a pro-Microsoft, anti-consumer decision which the observer can only 
interpret as a blatant move by the Administration to make 
concessions favorable to Microsoft.
    We, the people, will not accept this solution.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Romeril
    Sr. Platform Engineer
    eiStream ViewStar, Inc.
    PS_To my friends, you can get more info here:
    http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/



MTC-00004134

From: Pete Schmidt

[[Page 24431]]

To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a professional IT engineer and I am displeased with the 
proposed settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft. While 
Microsoft has been found and affirmed to be guilty of illegally 
exploiting its monopoly on the desktop, the proposed settlement 
appears to fail to address the three main requirements of such a 
settlement: (a) prevent future illegal behavior by Microsoft, (b) 
redress the damages to consumers, and (c) set an example to 
discourage illegal behavior by other corporations and discourage 
investors from investing in corrupt organizations.
    Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to back up my 
position with historical data and specific issues with the proposed 
settlement if that would be helpful.
    Peter Schmidt, Ph.D.
    The Alliance for Lifelong Learning
    420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2820
    New York, NY 10170
    646-825-5226
    [email protected]



MTC-00004135

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:21pm
Subject: Opion on DOJ & Microsoft
    Anything short of separating Microsoft into 2 separate entities 
(operating system, applications) is short-sighted. The consumer and 
the economy will benefit from this separation. Even Microsoft would 
benefit in the long run.



MTC-00004136

From: Daryl Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    i agree with this article. please read it in the interest of 
justice.
    thank you,
    daryl williams
    [email protected]
    530.622.4262
    



MTC-00004137

From: Rouleau, Joseph S
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Questions
    Dear Justice Department,
    As a proposed settlement against a Microsoft, ideas have been 
publicized that the guilty corporation should merely donate its 
product (software) or funds to be used for computer-related 
equipment. Is this truly what children want or need? Arts and sports 
programs are being cut so that children can learn how to sit in 
front of a computer terminal, and this antitrust 
`remedy' only propagates the problem! Microsoft most 
assuredly deserves a severe fine_a monetary figure much 
greater than the figures generally discussed today_but that 
money should be donated to schools and charities with no strings 
attached whatsoever. Schools have many needs far more critical than 
the latest computer software, and they should use it to address 
those urgent needs. Knowing that education departments struggle with 
inadequate budgets, how would Windows-specific computer equipment 
that may not integrate with their current educational computer 
systems aid children at all? The goal of education is to foster the 
talents and interests of children so that they can pursue their 
dreams and live prosperous lives in society. They should not need to 
learn a monopolistic corporation`s latest software!
    In fact, if any stipulation is placed on the use of money 
Microsoft is forced to donate, it should be that the money NOT be 
used to purchase computer platform-specific equipment or software. 
There should be no computer system favoritism in schools. Can`t we 
spare one part of our children`s environment that is sheltered from 
an endless barrage of corporate advertising? Sitting for hours a day 
in front of a Microsoft computer and they going home to play with a 
Microsoft X-box or surf the Microsoft .NET with Microsoft Web TV or 
watch the MSNBC news is the absolute worst future i can imagine for 
our society. How is Microsoft`s plan to be the sole industry leader 
in all information-related arenas different from George Orwell`s Big 
Brother? But this is precisely what is happening as we allow 
corporate monopolies and duopolies to set precedents and policies. 
How quickly the naive consumer will compromise principles and 
sacrifice his freedoms for the sake of instant satisfaction and 
convenience. It is left to a wise government to save us from 
profiteering corporations!!!
    Microsoft has clearly demonstrated its disdain for limitations 
of any kind. In the perfect world, its self limitation would be 
automatic and there would be no need for sanctions. But in the 
perfect world we would also have diverse computer operating systems 
that interface seamlessly; we would have fully operating system-
independent hardware. Microsoft Windows today can be sold at 
literally any price because the world`s computer infrastructure is 
now practically built to operate with Microsoft electrons. Business 
and technological diversity, like biodiversity, is necessary for our 
long-term health and survival. Elimination of Microsoft`s domination 
of all aspects of a consumer`s computing experience is not going to 
be achieved by merely fining them, and it certainly won`t be solved 
by teaching another generation how to use Microsoft software.
    Sincerely,
    J Rouleau
    Bothell, WA
    CC:`business(a)seattletimes.com`



MTC-00004138

From: Mark Potochnik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:51pm
Subject: Antitrust
    I like the Red Hat solution to the antitrust settlement.... For 
the cost of the combination of Windows and Microsoft windows, One 
BRAND NEW computer could be supplied.....
    Mark Potochnik
    4559 S Vermont Ave
    St Francis, WI 53235-5758



MTC-00004139

From: Peter Rowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madame,
    I would like to strongly oppose your proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. It is poorly crafted with exceptions that allow 
Microsoft to continue their monopolistic behavior. It reads as if a 
decent proposal was first crafted and then someone amended each 
clause to allow Microsoft a way to circumvent it. I can give you a 
personal example of how ineffective this agreement will be: my 
current ISP `Qwest' is eliminating residential DSL 
support which is getting migrated to Microsoft`s MSN as a result. 
This morning (December 11, 2001) I carried out the migration. 
However my Eudora email program no longer works. According to 
Microsoft Support:
    http://supportservices.msn.com/us/content/qanda/_email/
_port25.htm it will only work with Microsoft`s Outlook or 
Outlook Express email programs. The reason cited is 
`security'. In other words I can now only use 
Microsoft`s email program to access my email, I have no other 
option. All other competitive email programs are locked out. 
Remember in the proposed settlement the clause that makes exceptions 
when `security' is involved? Well, this is how Microsoft 
interprets that. Should an ISP really be allowed to dictate what 
applications I can or can`t use? The proposed settlement is so full 
of holes like this that Microsoft can easily circumvent almost every 
piece of it. Their past behavior guarantees that they will.
    On a bigger note though the potential to continue to stifle 
innovation with this proposed settlement is almost too much to bear. 
First of all Microsoft does not innovate, although they now have a 
policy of using the term each time they speak. No, Microsoft started 
with DOS_something cloned from a very successful OS called CP/
M, no longer in business. Then came word-processing and spreadsheet 
applications that companies like WordPerfect and Lotus truly 
innovated and developed. These companies were behemoths but are now 
decimated even though they had superior products. Of course there`s 
Microsoft Windows which we know came from the likes of Apple and 
Xerox, and how long can they last? Then there`s the PDA, developed 
by Palm, rapidly losing market share to the Windows-tied Microsoft 
PocketPC. There`s the Microsoft IE browser which drove Netscape out 
of business_a company that literally invented the Internet as 
we know it. There`s music and video players; how long can 
RealNetworks last? And the list goes on. In fact, it is extremely 
difficult to name a single product that Microsoft has innovated and 
in every case the DOS/Windows monopoly is what allowed Microsoft to 
remove the innovative competition. The point is that innovations 
come from outside of Microsoft, mostly from small, truly innovative, 
companies. They need these companies_the very ones they drive 
out of business. A sobering way to think of it is: if Microsoft can 
annihilate someone like Netscape_ the innovators of something 
as huge as the Internet_then what

[[Page 24432]]

chance does any other small company have, what can some small 
company do that would be bigger than the Internet? What product 
could Microsoft not annihilate?
    Another example is Java. Java is truly a great technical 
product. In essence it allows new programs to be developed but more 
importantly it `contains' these programs as they run in 
what is called a `sandbox' to make sure they are safe. 
While not perfect yet by any means the correct architecture is there 
to build on. Contrast that with Microsoft`s initial answer to 
Java_ re-branding their existing OLE to ActiveX. The big 
problem with this is that ActiveX programs run unguarded in the 
machine so programs are free to do anything with no constraints. It 
was easy to see how viruses and so on would proliferate, and they 
did. Where Java was really intended though was to provide a common 
environment for all computer programs so that they could run on any 
platform. Microsoft`s reaction to that was to pollute Java by 
locking it to proprietary parts of Windows in an attempt to 
destabilize the marketplace. They were successful. Now they`ve 
entirely removed Java from Windows. None of this is of benefit to 
the consumer_in fact it is the very opposite. Microsoft has 
now cloned Java (they call it C#) and will use it as the 
foundation of their .NET strategy. An all too familiar outcome.
    The real problem then is Microsoft`s use of their Window 
monopoly to relentlessly pursuit and cause the destruction of 
companies who do truly innovate combined with the fact that 
Microsoft then delivers inferior product. As proof of this you have 
to look no further than the latest related out- of-business company, 
hacked IIS website, or Outlook virus. The correct answer is to split 
up the Operating System from Application Development but 
unfortunately that opportunity appears gone now. You must do 
something to put a constraint on Microsoft`s tie of applications to 
the Windows operating system or true innovation, not what Microsoft 
talks about, will be greatly stifled in the future. The current 
agreement is very naive in it`s attempt to achieve these goals. The 
United States runs a great risk that just like the auto industry 
foreign interests will ultimately capitalize on this and offer 
superior products that consumers will migrate too.
    I have no connection to Microsoft or any of it`s competitors.
    Thank you,
    Peter Rowe
    13301 Leslie Lane
    Lake Oswego
    OR 97034
    Tel: 503-697-4211



MTC-00004140

From: Florin Andrei
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:56pm
Subject: the solution is wrong
    Hi,
    I believe DoJ is wrong. It looks like Red Hat`s proposal is much 
better:
    http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press/
_usschools.html _
    Florin Andrei
    `Engineering does not require science.'_Linus 
Torvalds



MTC-00004141

From: Nicholas Riegel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft`s Proposed Remedy
    If you haven`t heard of Read Hat`s proposal for Microsoft`s 
antitrust settlement, you need to consider it. As I understand the 
current proposed settlement, Microsoft would donate its software and 
computers to some of the nation`s poorest schools. The problem with 
this proposal is that it spreads Microsoft`s market in the guise of 
philanthropy.
    Additionally, under Microsoft`s proposal, only after a few years 
Microsoft will be able to start charging licensing fees for the 
`free' software that it supplies. It costs Microsoft 
very little to actually produce the software that it is placing in 
the schools. So the only real cost is the hardware and time.
     A better proposal is be one that has been offered by Red Hat 
that allows Microsoft to give back to some of the neediest consumers 
while not promoting the growth of the company. Allowing Microsoft to 
pay for placing computer hardware in the schools, and allowing Red 
Hat to place the software on those computers, is a much better 
remedy for all parties involved. Red Hat is an American company that 
produces an award-winning version of the up-and-coming Linux 
operating system. By allowing Red Hat to place its software and 
operating system on the computers that Microsoft purchases, it a 
guarantees that the money and effort that Microsoft puts forth will 
benefit only the students and not Microsoft`s pocket and market 
share. It further allows more competition against Microsoft by 
introducing new computer users to software that is just as capable 
as Microsoft Windows. Furthermore, Linux is a growing software 
movement that by its very nature prevents the emergence of an 
abusing monopoly. The way that Linux is developed ensures that any 
company, or individual for that matter, can contribute and/or 
produce software for the operating system. It ensures that no one 
company will have so much power to stomp on and `squash the 
competition' in any monopolistic manner. Linux is about truly 
open standards that allow companies and individuals to fairly 
compete on an even playing field.
     I encourage you to, at a minimum, deny Microsoft`s current 
proposal for remedy. It would only prove that Microsoft is more 
powerful the United States federal government in further serve 
Microsoft`s monopolistic practices. I realize that the United States 
economy is currently going through a recession. A recession is no 
excuse to allow a recognized monopoly to continue to abuse the law. 
One of the fundamental economic lessons indicates that business 
performance is cyclical. Microsoft is plenty powerful, and is 
nowhere near being `down and out'. The reality is that 
short of closing down Microsoft altogether, almost no remedy would 
significantly hurt Microsoft and cause them to go out of business. I 
encourage you to seek other options that spur competition as opposed 
to giving Microsoft more of an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00004142

From: Jim Haliburton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:00pm
Subject: Settlement
    Good day:
    As a Canadian we did not get the press coverage that was often 
the case in the US on this matter. Also in a strictly legal point I 
as a Canadian probably don`t have much standing in US eyes.
    I have been in the IT business for too long. What has been a 
fond hope is that a real penalty would be assesed to Microsoft. If 
any other industry was controlled or monopolized as much as the 
desktop computer industry it might appear to an outsider that it was 
a government agency. If this was a consumer product the consumer 
product safety branch would have removed the product from shelves 
years ago. If it was an auto the whole company would have been 
recalled.
    The economic impact of Microsoft`s monopoly, which judgement of 
being a monopoly was not overturned, as I understand, has been 
severely detrimental. Because of the stranglehold this monopoly has 
created world wide, people and businesses are being negatively 
impacted by poor quality, worm and virus prone, insecure software. 
The economic impact of Microsoft`s all pervasive position is just as 
detrimental to the world as the World Trace Center bombing. It just 
happens a few dollars at a time at every desk for every user every 
day, not dramatically, not live on TV. Microsoft has created a 
monopoly where mediocracy is the norm and quality products are 
either shunned, ridiculed, bought out and shut down, or destroyed by 
the practices that the court found monopolistic.
    In Canada we have no government that either understands this or 
has the intellectual resources to take on Microsoft. The wealth of 
Gates turns a lot of political heads.
    Many of us were hoping that a committed US DOJ would be able to 
do what everyone else in the world is unable to do. Some 
international agency can tell you how many countries Gross Domestic 
Products does it take to reach the wealth of Mr. W. Gates.
    Today the US is the only power that can engage in sustained 
military actions on the other side of the world. Taking on those 
persons and organizations that kill and maim is the responsibility 
of a great and just power. One had hopes that same committment would 
have continued in the attempt to take on the software terrorist that 
is Microsoft.
    In reality it appears that Bin Laden and the other terrorists 
were pushovers compared to Microsoft.
    I am saddened and disappointed in the settlement.
    Regards
    Jim Haliburton
    James A. Haliburton
    On-Site Computer Services of Halifax
    Suite 100, 25 Walton Drive
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Canada B3N 1X6
    Cell/Pager : (902)499-5250
    Home/Office : (902)477-8342
    e-mail: [email protected]

[[Page 24433]]



MTC-00004143

From: Henry Cross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement & Open Source
    Some of the verbiage of the proposed remedy does not allow for 
competition from Microsofts greatest competiton_Open Source.
    Please fix this verbiage:
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section,
    Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    This verbiage should be fixed if this is to be a 
`remedy'.



MTC-00004144

From: Don Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust
    I am writing you in support of the settlement that was reached 
with Microsoft. Interestingly (though not surprisingly), I am doing 
this by following a link from Red Hat Software (a Microsoft 
competitor). I am an Information Technology expert and have followed 
this trial closely. From its very beginnings, I think the strong 
competitive forces in the technology sector (AOL/Netscape, Sun, 
Oracle, and other smaller companies such as Red Hat) have used and 
manipulated the Department of Justice and the Justice system to 
enhance their respective positions as vigorous competitors of 
Microsoft. I find this approach underhanded and devious.
    That said, Microsoft is not without blame in the current 
situation. When Microsoft made the decision to bundle in disk 
compression technologies (in or around 1993) in order to eliminate 
Stacker Software. Then, in 1995, when Microsoft made the decision to 
offer a free (unprofitable) version of Internet Explorer 1.0 in 
order to drive customers away from Netscape it crossed the line and 
used unfair practices in the marketplace.
    I feel that the proposed settlement punishes Microsoft 
sufficiently and hopefully ensures free market competition without 
the radical step of breaking up the company.
    Don Norton
    Chattanooga, TN



MTC-00004145

From: Dean Durant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:10pm
Subject: linux should be allow to compete so should samba and 
apache. Please take note of the article by Rob Cringely.
    Here`s my nod for Steve Satchell.



MTC-00004146

From: Micheal Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:27pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    As a taxpayer and long-time computer professional, I feel that I 
must strongly protest the proposed settlement with Microsoft as 
wholly inadequate and failing to meet even the most basic test as a 
`reasonable' remedy given the company`s past actions and 
current direction. Please reconsider your decision in light of the 
overwhelming response being made by the computer industry and 
consumers. This is a pro-Microsoft, anti-consumer decision which the 
observer can only interpret as a blatant move by the Administration 
to make concessions favorable to Microsoft at the expense of the tax 
paying public.
    We, the people, will not accept this solution.
    Sincerely,
    Micheal Black
    Information Systems Engineer
    eiStream ViewStar, Inc.



MTC-00004147

From: Joe W Walz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft 1 billion dollars software give away. We still have 
problems with Microsoft selling practices. Why does Microsoft sell 
Office small business to Dell and Gateway for $30 a unit and sell 
them for $150 to us. DOJ has now play right in the hands of 
Microsoft by giving away 1 billion dollars in software which will 
not cost Microsoft more than the cost of putting the software on a 
CD. Microsoft for year has given away software for years to get 
market share and now DOJ play right into the hands of Microsoft. I 
have been working in this industry for 15 years and allot of small 
companies are gone due to Microsoft intregating software into it`s 
own products. Companies like Wordperfect who had the word processing 
market, Lotus who had the spreadsheet market, etc. If this 
settlement goes through many educational resellers will go out of 
business. The only way this is going to work if Microsoft gives the 
money to the schools and the educational resellers are able to sell 
these product to the schools so that we will not be left out in the 
cold.
    Thanks
    Joseph W Walz
    President
    Unique Software Corporation



MTC-00004148

From: Dan Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial Settlement
    I am writing this to add my voice to the many who have already 
done so. It`s pretty obvious that what was done was wrong. The bully 
in the software industry has not been punished. In fact, the bully, 
has been rewarded. Justice was not done.
    I`ve been pretty naive about the legal system my whole life. I 
had the idea that it was about making things fair and helping 
people. Having never been to court, I`ve been able to blunder along 
with this idea. A couple of years ago, OJ Simpson was on trial. The 
result was unexpected and appeared wrong. I thought the OJ case was 
an anomaly. After this Microsoft settlement and a few other 
examples, I am beginning to see that the purpose of American justice 
is to help the rich and punish the poor.
    May God help us all.
    Dan Larson
    CC:attorney.general@ po.state.ct.us@ 
inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00004149

From: Highlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel the settlement is too tough on Microsoft.
    David Winkler



MTC-00004150

From: Carter, Stuart T (N-Ciber)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/11/01 10:46pm
Subject: I think the settlement is wrong for America in the long 
haul...
    Forget the fact that the United States is in a recession right 
know. I feel as though the Ashcroft Justice Department would have 
allowed Microsoft to win this historic battle from the get-go. I am 
a Republican, but I do not feel that this decision is what is best 
for the American, much less the world`s, computer industry.
    I don`t think that anyone can deny that Microsoft has a monopoly 
of the PC marketplace. While not splitting Microsoft up in the short 
term is probably going to spare the NASDAQ a few months worth of 
pain, it will have long lasting repricussions for startup businesses 
to be able to compete in today`s PC marketplace. What happened to 
Netscape will eventually happen to other competetors. Corel`s 
WordPerfect is a perfect example. It was driven from the Windows 
marketplace because Microsoft had not only the ability to include 
trimmed down versions of Word (Wordpad), but they could market it 
for free with architectural ties to the Operating System.
    The difference between companies that have distributions of 
Operating Systems like Linux, is that they are not trying to compete 
in more than one marketplace. You don`t see RedHat with an office 
suite, for instance. They are content fighting it out with other OS 
manufacturers based on the merits of their product. Microsoft for 
years has been using

[[Page 24434]]

a brilliant marketing campaign to make people believe that they have 
to have their OS, even at the expense of over hyping the product, or 
flat out lying about them. It pains me to say this, but the DOJ 
under the Clinton administration was on the right track. Sever the 
ties between Microsoft`s Windows division and their applications 
division. Allow them to bundle Internet Explorer with Microsoft 
Office, if they choose. But if other companies are going to have a 
fighting chance against Microsoft, they have to have the ability to 
compete.
    Microsoft is too big. They control the destiny of all 
`little guy' startup companies around the world. A small 
company may make a superior product to something Microsoft could 
make, but as long as Microsoft is as big as it is, all it will have 
to do is make a comparible product and release it for free. It has 
the financial backing to take a money loss on a free product, if it 
will ensure that the other company goes bankrupt (Netscape).
    I have been in this industry for a number of years, and it 
saddens me to see the lack of honest competition that there once 
was. The UNIX/LINUX world is the exception. These companies create 
free software that is portable, and they even play nice together. 
They come up with standards together (POSIX), develop languages 
together (JAVA), and have the same, although not just one, windowing 
environment (KDE, CDE, GNOME, etc.).
    The DOJ needs to rethink this stance, because if they do, 
competition will flourish, which in turn will make the stock markets 
stimulated. If they don`t, Microsoft will eventually be the one 
standard with the motto: `do it our way, or don`t do it at 
all'.



MTC-00004151

From: J. Scott Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to let you know how disappointed I am in the 
settlement you made with Microsoft. I feel like you have snatched 
defeat from the jaws of victory. While the settlement contains some 
good ideas (like not letting them control the boot-loader), it 
doesn`t go far enough and it doesn`t outline what the consequences 
are if Microsoft violates it. I also believe that a completely 
independant (from Microsoft) should oversee Microsoft`s behavior. 
Microsoft`s behavior has stiffeled innovation in the industry for 
years and put far too many companies out of business with their 
practices. They have damaged the computer industry and hurt the 
public in the process. They should have to make amends for what they 
have done and have extremely tight restrictions on what they can do 
in the future. My only hope at this point is that the Judge turns 
down the settlement. What you should do is support the nine states 
proposal, now that has some teeth in it.
    J. Scott Edwards
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004152

From: DickW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Steals and Bundles
Renata Hesse, trial attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St. NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530.
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    Since 1983 I have made my living with computers and have 
purchased them, installed software, set up and configured local area 
networks, and programmed several applications using a certain 
database software.
    Over the years it became evident that Microsoft does not 
innovate. Instead, it waits until somebody else develops a market 
for a new software or software concept. Then, Microsoft uses its 
monopoly power to crush this start up company and includes the 
intellectual property of this crushed company in its next version of 
DOS or Windows, etc., as an `innovation.'
    Microsoft inhibits free trade and freedom to innovate and preys 
on new startup companies to force them out of business or forces 
them to sell out cheaply. Microsoft is a detriment to our supposedly 
free society.
    Remember DOS 6.0? Microsoft was caught with its hand in the 
cookie jar and was forced to remove all copies of DOS 6.0 from 
dealer shelves. It had been found to have stolen the code for a new 
software concept from the company that originally produced it. A 
revised DOS 6.2 came out 3 months later after the legal proceedings 
against Microsoft had run their course. Microsoft is a thief!
    Another example of Microsoft`s perfidy is the manner in which it 
`sucked the air' out of Netscape by stealing the look 
and feel of Netscape and then forcing the code for the Microsoft 
version of its browser into what should have been just an operating 
system. Microsoft used its monopoly position to crush what it saw as 
a competitor. Now, most users are not allowed to choose their own 
browser and the Microsoft Internet Explorer and its Outlook Express 
software have become a playground for hackers throughout the world. 
Time and again users of Outlook Express are required to download 
another `fix' to protect themselves from viruses and 
worms. This is mostly because of the sloppy programming practices of 
Microsoft and the manner in which what should have been an ancillary 
program such as a browser, was forced to become part of the 
operating system.
    Frankly, I fear for the safety of my country. Many parts of our 
government are becoming increasingly dependent on Microsoft 
software.
    Millions of computer hackers throughout the world are set on 
damaging Microsoft, because they hate this company, and with good 
reason it seems. We put many parts of our government at peril 
because Microsoft has intertwined too many parts of its software 
into what should have been just an operating system. This is poor 
programming practice and leaves too many computer systems open to 
nefarious intrusion.
    So, the safety of our country, the freedom of consumer choice, 
the damages I have incurred by being forced to purchase unwanted 
software, are just some of the reasons I hope much needed controls 
will be placed on Microsoft. It is a monopoly that is running amuck.
    Unfortunately, too many consumers don`t understand enough about 
computer software and they think they are getting something 
`free' when the browser is mixed into the operating 
system. This is not the American way. Microsoft is inhibiting the 
progress of computer software, is destroying initiative amongst 
independent programmers, has constricted my freedom of choice and 
has forced me to purchase software I don`t want to use.
    I want you to force Microsoft to conform to the demands of the 
various state Attorneys General still holding forth their suits 
against Microsoft. I don`t want what many see as a Bush DOJ 
`sellout' to Microsoft to rule my life. I am a citizen, 
I am a computer professional, my opinion should be considered.
    Richard Westenskow
    6141 Elm Ave.
    Loves Park, IL 61111



MTC-00004153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice Representative,
    Again, I wanted to express my disappointment with the Microsoft 
settlement. This time, I am writing about a particular issue... I am 
particularly concerned about the passages which talk about those 
excluded from access to the API`s. The language is written so that 
Linux, Apache, and other open source developers would not have 
access to the API`s just because they do not work for a company. 
This is a case where Microsoft is secretly slipping in some verbage 
so they can fight their chief competitors in the server markets, 
members of the open source software community.
    One could also interpret the verbage in a way that would 
indicate that our own government (e.g., branches of the military, 
U.S. Department of Justice, NASA) and members of the university 
communities would not have access to the API`s.
    These exclusions are unacceptable. So much of the Internet 
depends on the Apache web server and the Linux operating system. So 
much web processing is done with Perl, an open source scripting 
language. Many branches of the goverment and universities are 
implementing systems and doing valuable research work using open 
source software. All of these developers should have access to the 
MicrosoftAPI`s, not just developers working for conventional 
businesses.
    The software industry has been using open source software ever 
since the 1960`s. The goverment and universities have produced a 
wealth of software since then also. We can not exclude these 
communities from this settlement.
    Anne E. Jablinske
    [email protected]



MTC-00004154

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 24435]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have been following this case from the beginning, and all 
along, I had a lot of faith that the verdict and settlement would be 
tough, but fair. As silly as it might sound to some in this day and 
age, I have faith in the judicial system, that most of the time, it 
sees clearly, and its sense of justice unwavering.
    Which is why the Microsoft settlement has shaken me quite a lot. 
I mean, miscarriages of justice usually occur during the 
trial_not during the sentencing phase. In particular, I`d 
never expect to see the following:
    * A just-convicted killer being given a concealed weapons 
permit, a gun, several boxes of ammo, and a head start;
    * A just-convicted embezzler being given the passwords to the 
Federal Reserve`s computer system, a Swiss bank account, and the 
master keys for ATMs.
    * A just-convicted monopolist being given an edict to extend 
their monopoly for pennies on the dollar, lock out most of its 
competitive threats from competing with it, and make a tidy profit 
in tax breaks.
    And yet, this last one is exactly what has transpired in the 
proposed settlement.
    * Allowing Microsoft to satisfy the monetary penalties for 
pennies on the dollar by extending their monopoly to elementary and 
secondary educational facilities_an area currently represented 
well by its competitors. This would harm its competitors (Apple, Be, 
and various Open Source operating systems).
    * Allowing Microsoft to keep private interfaces, documentation 
or protocols from organizations that don`t meet Microsoft`s 
criterial for a business. This would harm its competitors (various 
Open Source programming efforts).
    Software like Samba, Apache, Perl_all terribly useful 
tools put together by volunteers_would be crippled 
immeasurably by the restrictions in Section III of the proposed 
settlement, which would greatly harm the ability of Open Source 
software to compete on a level playing field, all while allowing 
Microsoft to support (badly) the Open Source protocols, blaming any 
poor performance on those efforts (a tactic they`ve used on a 
multitude of occasions already).
    I hope that the Department of Justice reconsiders this proposal 
in a new light. The manipulation that Microsoft is doing on this 
boggles the mind, and yet it seems disturbingly close to being 
allowed to happen. Under no circumstances should the convict be 
allowed to perpetrate the crime as part of the punishment, nor 
should the convict be allowed to dictate how who against whom they 
can commit the same crime again, more effectively.
    Don`t permit this to happen. Please.
    Ken McGlothlen
    Seattle, Washington
    [email protected]



MTC-00004155

From: Pete Wason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:29pm
Subject: Nail Him Now Before He Owns Everything
    Nail Gates. Gates is EVIL. M$ is at it again, jamming Windows XP 
down the throat of the public. Hmmm.... I wonder why it only runs 
well in 256MB of RAM? Crappy software, perhaps? Or maybe Bill is 
just honoring that deal he made with the RAM manufacturers....
    By the way, there`s another thing you should be looking at: Why 
many ISP`s and websites, in order to be `compatible with the 
latest internet software from M$', are now becoming 
*incompatible* with internet software running on non-M$ systems.
    Don`t we have standards? And aren`t standards something that we 
all agree on, not something dreamed up by the richest f*** in the 
world?
    I`ve been surfing for years with non-M$ systems, and now I`m 
finding that slowly, ever so slowly, I am being blocked out of this 
site and that site, just because `well, if you were using 
Internet Explorer under Windows XP, you wouldn`t have any 
problems...'
    Yeah, right.
    Except one REALLY BIG PROBLEM. I`d be using CRAPPY SOFTWARE.
    Just my opinion ;-)
    Pete Wason
    Hy Noom Publications



MTC-00004156

From: Gavin Vess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I am saddened by the lack of protection DOJ has afforded 
consumers and competitors in the recent settlement lacking both 
protection and punishment.



MTC-00004157

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:46pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    This settlement with MSFT is a mistake. Dont do it.
    thank



MTC-00004158

From: Kevin Low
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You guys won`t do any harm to economy if you just do what you`re 
supposed to do_beat Microsoft and make them pay. Instead you 
just think short-term and let Microsoft go because you believe this 
will help boost the economy. Come on! This is a chance of a lifetime 
to do something about it. With over $30 billion to spend, Microsoft 
isn`t going to just drop dead. That money is not going to be used 
for innovations. It is just to stifle competition and beat its 
rivals. It is a real waste you guys come so close just to give it 
all up. Think of what will happen if AT&T isn`t broken up 20 
years ago_our phone, our cable, the internet will probably be 
all AT&T. Let`s do something for the future economy and get a 
better deal for the settlement.
    Thanks,
    Kevin.



MTC-00004159

From: tony clapes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have taken the liberty of marking up and annotating the 
Proposed Final Judgment to effectuate its stated purposes. On the 
basis of extensive experience with administered antitrust and 
intellectual property regimes such as is proposed in the PFJ, I can 
see a number of places in which the language will have proved ill-
advised in the implementation. The most closely analogous regimes 
with which I have had in-depth experience are: the 1956 IBM Consent 
Decree; the IBM Undertaking in the EU; the IBM-Fujitsu arbitration; 
and a confidential settlement regime in a major software copyright 
case involving IBM and another major supplier of computer hardware 
and software.
    As co-counsel for Bristol Technology Inc., I had access to much 
of the evidence in the Microsoft case, as well as independent access 
to some of the major interested third parties and amici, and 
independent access to Microsoft documents, executives and employees. 
While much of the foregoing access was under protective order or 
other confidentiality restriction, and I have therefore not relied 
on it in formulating my attached comments, you may rest assured that 
I do not speak in ignorance of the evidence in US v. Microsoft, of 
the dynamics of the PC operating systems business or of the views of 
the more active third parties and amici.
    The views expressed in the markup are my own, at the moment. I 
am not acting on behalf of anyone in this matter. Since it is an 
open-source draft, however, other persons may make use of it in 
framing their own comments, or may suggest to me revisions that I 
decide to post in subsequent drafts.
    If you have any questions about the attached markup, please 
don`t hesitate to contact me.
    For more information on my background, see: www.dmpress.com/
cv.htm
    Quotable, Dynamic Open Source (QDOS) Draft Final Judgment in US 
v. Microsoft (Rev. 0.5) * Below is an open source draft based as 
much as possible on the settlement reached by the Justice Department 
and Microsoft, but with changes necessary to make the remedies 
effective, as compared to the language that was changed, which will 
not produce effective remedies. This draft, being `open 
source', may be freely copied and distributed, and may be used 
to create derivative works that can be freely copied or distributed. 
No attribution is necessary. If you find it helpful, take and do 
with it what you will.
    The stated aim of the MS/DoJ Proposed Final Judgment is to 
`provide a prompt, certain and effective remedy for consumers 
by imposing injunctive relief to halt continuance and prevent 
recurrence of the violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that 
were upheld by the Court of Appeals and restore competitive 
conditions to the market.' USDOJ Competitive Impact Statement, 
11/15/01. However, like all settlements, this one is a compromise, 
and it is one in which the parties have addressed most of the 
problems, but not solved them. Basically, the structure of the deal 
is sound, but the content will not, without changes in

[[Page 24436]]

the areas indicated below, provide a remedy that is either prompt, 
certain or effective.
    Most if not all of the alterations below are self-explanatory 
and obvious to anyone in the software industry. They are based on 
the author`s experience with supervised antitrust and intellectual 
property settlements. For the markup-challenged, strikethroughs mean 
delete, boldface means add. Annotations are also in boldface. Send 
comments, questions or report bugs to [email protected]. 
Also, as with open source code generally, the author will accept 
improvements and post them in subsequent beta or release updates. 
The webmaster will collect such submissions as well. Note: the 
author may or may not find your submission to be an improvement.
    Despite the fact that the Justice Department`s abandonment of 
the remedy of splitting Microsoft into separate companies, one for 
systems software and one for applications software, the fact that 
the trial judge felt it necessary to impose such a drastic remedy 
strongly suggests that an effective remedy, one that restores 
competition, probably lies at the interface between the OS and the 
apps. The DoJ seems to think that middleware is the key to solving 
the problems at that interface. It is not. The key is to open up the 
interface and close down the money the money that flows from 
Microsoft to third party developers at that interface. That reality 
is what drives the following redraft.
    Of course, the remedy is constrained by the scope of acts found 
unlawful; at the same time, it may go beyond simply enjoining past 
behavior in order to restore competitive conditions. That is why the 
open-source redraft is based so heavily on the Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    ALC, 12/02/01
    I. Jurisdiction
    This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action 
and of the person of Microsoft.
    II. Applicability
    This Final Judgment applies to Microsoft and to each of its 
officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, successors and 
assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or participation 
with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final 
Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
    III. Prohibited Conduct
    A. Microsoft shall not alter Microsoft`s commercial relations 
with an OEM, or withhold Consideration from that an OEM, because it 
is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
    1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or 
licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any 
Non-Microsoft Middleware;
    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System or (c) includes 
only a non-Microsoft Operating System; or
    3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for 
under this Final Judgment. [If Microsoft alters its relations with 
an OEM for any of the 3 reasons, the government have to prove not 
only that it happened but that the purpose was 
`retaliation'. It makes no difference to the OEM what 
Microsoft`s actual intent was; the OEM `gets the 
message'. Also proving subjective intent is so difficult that 
the antitrust laws at one time jettisoned the requirement in pricing 
cases.]
    Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from 
enforcing any provision of any license with any OEM or any 
intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final 
Judgment.
    Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM`s license for a 
Windows Operating System Product without having first given the 
Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the proposed 
termination and not less than thirty days` opportunity to cure. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Microsoft shall have no obligation to 
provide such a termination notice and opportunity to cure to any 
Covered OEM that has received two or more such notices during the 
term of its Windows Operating System Product license.
    Nothing in this provision shall prohibit from providing 
Consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or 
service where that Consideration is commensurate with the absolute 
level or amount of that OEM`s development, distribution, promotion, 
or licensing of that Microsoft product or service, except that 
Microsoft is prohibited from providing Consideration to any OEM with 
respect to any Microsoft Platform Software product.
    [The OEM`s already procure vast quantities of platform software 
from Microsoft. There`s no commercial justification for Microsoft 
paying any consideration to an OEM for acquiring its platform 
software. MS Consideration comes in the form not only of money but 
also of technical support, access to MS `secrets', 
marketing support and certification. Allowing MS to favor large OEMs 
in these respects weakens smaller OEMs who may he more willing to 
venture into Linux and other non-MS platform software.]
    B. Microsoft`s provision of Windows Operating System Products to 
Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license agreements with 
uniform terms and conditions. Without limiting the foregoing, 
Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty for 
Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be 
established by Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to 
the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs, that provides for uniform 
royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that:
    1. the schedule may specify different royalties for different 
language versions;
    2. the schedule may specify reasonable volume discounts based 
upon the actual volume of licenses of any Windows Operating System 
Product and [Allowing Microsoft to group products for purposes of 
determining quantity discounts provides a benefit not consonant with 
the antitrust justifications for quantity discounts: lower product 
costs or meeting competition. It facilitates a kind of 
`bundling' of separate products that is more a reward to 
Microsoft than a remedy.]
    3. the schedule may not include market development allowances, 
programs, or other discounts in connection with Windows Operating 
System Products [The original 3B fails to recognize the commercial 
realities. Under this provision, Microsoft may offer 
`uniformly' various allowances programs or discounts 
that are in practical terms only applicable, useful or attractive to 
targeted OEMs. In other words, what is in form nondiscriminatory can 
in fact be discriminatory. There`s no reason to allow these 
amorphous forms of largess to be used to sweeten quantity 
discounts.]
    C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee 
from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
    1. Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries 
for, any Non-Microsoft Middleware or any product or service 
(including but not limited to IAP products or services) that 
distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft 
Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a 
Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, 
or menu entries for applications are generally displayed.
    [The exception clause deleted above is vague, ambiguous and 
incomprehensible. What is a `list' in Windows terms 
except a program name and an icon? The deleted language allows 
Microsoft documentation to define where an OEM may place its icons, 
shortcuts and menu entries. It allows Microsoft to define where non-
MS products will be accessible in what is now a modest part of the 
Windows desktop, but could at any time be a larger part.]
    2. Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by 
installing and displaying on the desktop shortcuts of any size or 
shape so long as such shortcuts do not impair the processing of the 
user interface components of Windows Operating System Products. 
[`Functionality' is vague and ambiguous. As long as the 
shortcuts don`t impair the processing of the Windows GUI, MS should 
not be able to restrict their installation or display.]
    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.
    4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating 
Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-
loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the 
Windows Operating System Product.
    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.

[[Page 24437]]

    6. Exercising any of the options provided in Section III.H of 
this Final Judgment.
    D. Starting one month after the submission of this Final 
Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, the APIs and related Documentation 
that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows 
Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of 
Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D 
shall occur no later than the first major beta test release of that 
Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows 
Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section 
III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner. All disclosures under this 
paragraph shall be updated to inform recipients of such disclosures 
of any changes in the APIs and related Documentation disclosed.
    [a. Why should the intial disclosures be delayed by year? The 
calls to an OS function should be readily identifiable in the 
middleware code.
    b. Disclosure via MSDN requires people who wants this info to 
join MSDN and thereby identify themselves to MS and subject 
themselves to unwanted contacts from MS. There`s no need for this. 
The info can be posted in the clear on MS` web site, with a click-
through agreement.
    c. The change from `last' to `first' is 
to make the disclosure provision commercially effective by getting 
the disclosures to third parties in time to allow them to have a 
chance of getting product to market before MS floods the market. 
Even first beta is somewhat late for this purpose, d. Obviously, the 
disclosures should be updated as MS middleware is upgraded, enhanced 
or `fixed'.]
    E. Starting one month after the submission of this proposed 
Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use 
by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any 
Communications Protocol as that protocol is, (i) implemented in 
Windows Platform Software that may be installed on a client 
computer, and (ii)/or can be used to interoperate natively (i.e., 
without the addition of software code to the client operating system 
product) with any Windows Operating System Product.
    [a. For each protocol implemented there was an MS development 
requirement and a resulting project. MS knows today what 
communications protocols it has implemented. There`s no reason to 
wait. If practicalities dictate a saving clause requiring MS to 
submit within a month protocols documented in its code, and submit 
undocumented protocols within 60 days after, that would be OK.
    b. what should be disclosed is the protocol as implemented by 
Microsoft, not the abstract protocol,
    c. The disclosed protocols should include those implemented 
before the Judgment too, since those will be the bulk of the 
protocols in the code for some time to come.
    d. The included products should be those capable of running on a 
client and those that can be used on a client, not those actually 
running on a client. Otherwise the parties will constantly be 
arguing over what a `client' is. (It appears that the 
parties adopted the undefined term `client' because they 
meant to include more types of equipment than those included in the 
defined term `Personal Computer'.)
    e. The disclosed protocols should include those used in peer-to-
peer communications, not just those used in communications between 
client and server. The phrase `products marketed as its 
successors' is a huge loophole that allows MS to stop 
providing protocol information simply by changing its advertising or 
branding. Note here that this draft uses a definition of Windows 
Operating System Product that includes Windows servers.]
    F. Starting one month after the submission of this Final 
Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with Windows 
Platform Software, the APIs and related Documentation that are used 
by Microsoft applications software products to interoperate with 
Windows Platform Software. In the case of a new major version of 
Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D 
shall occur no later than the first major beta test release of that 
Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows 
Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section 
III.F shall occur in a Timely Manner.
    [The foregoing addition addresses a key omission from the 
original draft: the reinforcement of monopoly power through 
manipulation of APIs at the application software level. 
`API', after all, stands for `Application 
Programming Interface', even though its usage in this document 
doesn`t originally address Application Programming Interfaces. The 
pernicious effect on third parties, particularly ISVs, of leveraging 
control over application interfaces as between Windows and MS 
applications can be quite profound.]
    G. 1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV 
because of that ISV`s or IHV`s:
    a. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any 
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any 
software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft 
Platform Software, or
    b. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for 
under this Final Judgment.
    2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a 
Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any 
Consideration on an ISV`s refraining from developing, using, 
distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft 
Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that 
competes with Microsoft Platform Software. Microsoft may enter into 
agreements that are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable scope 
and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation of 
the ISV to use; or distribute any Microsoft software or to develop 
software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft, so long as such 
agreements do not have the effect of conditioning the grant of 
Consideration on an ISV`s refraining from developing, using, 
distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft 
Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that 
competes with Microsoft Platform Software.
    [Why prohibit these loyalty arrangements and then provide an 
exception big enough t0 drive an 18-wheeler through? There should be 
no exceptions to this prohibition. Microsoft should not have power 
to condition providing marketing support, technical support, early 
access to information or any other consideration on loyalty to 
Windows. Such agreements, disguised as `nondisclosure 
agreements', can prevent the world`s most important ISVs from 
working in any meaningful way with other OS or middleware suppliers. 
MS can provide consideration on reasonable terms, including 
confidentiality if reasonable, but only if they don`t have the 
effect of freezing out MS` OS and middleware competitors.]
    3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from 
enforcing any provision of any agreement with any ISV or IHV, or any 
intellectual property right, that is not inconsistent with this 
Final Judgment.
    H. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:
    1. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on 
the condition that such entity distributes, promotes, uses, or 
supports, any Microsoft Platform Software [MS should not be allowed 
to bribe people to distribute, promote, use or support its platform 
software products. Period. The exception in the original language is 
completely unworkable, because in order to curry MS` favor, third 
parties will sign anything (and have). What does it mean for MS 
obtain such abject obeisance in `good faith'?]
    2. any IAP or ICP that grants placement on the desktop or 
elsewhere in any Windows Operating System Product to that IAP or ICP 
on the condition that the IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, 
promoting or using any software that competes with Microsoft 
Middleware. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from 
entering into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) any bona fide 
joint development or joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, 
IAP, ICP, or OEM for a new product, technology or service, or any 
material value-add to an existing product, technology or service, in 
which both Microsoft and the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute 
significant developer or other resources, that does not expressly or 
by its operation or effect inhibit such entity from competing with 
the object of the joint venture or other arrangement.
    [a. MS can enter into `any bona fide joint venture', 
but `any joint development or joint services 
arrangement' (whether bona fide or not, apparently)? This 
asymmetrical drafting seems to invite trouble.
    b. There are so many vague terms in the above paragraph that it 
appears either to have been severely under-negotiated or grossly 
over-negotiated. E.g., `arrangement', `joint 
services', `material value add',

[[Page 24438]]

`significant... other resources', `competing with 
the object'. The range of relationships permitted is therefore 
large and ill-defined, and it is completely unreasonable to permit 
MS to prohibit competition across that range of activity. Instead, 
the only such ventures or arrangements permitted should be those 
that do not inhibit competition. Otherwise, MS could prevent 
hundreds of third parties from applying their expertise in support 
of nonMS OS or middleware suppliers for significant periods. 
Alternatively, the paragraph can be deleted in its entirety.]
    [The above sentence allows MS to enter into arrangements that 
preclude competition simply by licensing the other party`s 
trademark.]
    I. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for 
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment 
to the Court, Microsoft shall:
    1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the 
desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via 
standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each 
Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by 
(a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the 
desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating 
System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for 
applications are generally displayed, and
    [The phrase `limited to products that provide particular 
types of functionality' is useless as a delimiter; every 
product provides a particular type of functionality. In any case, 
the deleted exception allows MS to do on a part of the desktop what 
it is prohibited from doing on the rest of the desktop. Does anyone 
wonder which part of the desktop will grow, and which shrink, under 
such strictures? Moreover the exception allows MS this freedom with 
respect to any `list' of icons, shortcuts or menu 
entries. What is an icon but an image with associated text? What is 
a list but an item-by-item display of entries? How does a 
`list' of icons differ from a desktop display of icons? 
Query: should the prohibitions this section III.I be extended to 
cover nonMS apps as well as nonMS middleware?]
    (b) enabling or disabling automatic invocations pursuant to 
Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that are used to launch Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products or Microsoft Middleware Products. The 
mechanism shall offer the end user a separate and unbiased choice 
with respect to enabling or removing access (as described in this 
subsection III.I.1) and altering default invocations (as described 
in the following subsection III.I .2) with regard to each such 
Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and 
may offer the end-user a separate and unbiased choice of enabling or 
removing access and altering default configurations as to all 
Microsoft Middleware Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Products as a group.
    2. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily available from the 
desktop or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation 
kits), and Non-Microsoft Middleware Products to designate a Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in place of that 
Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice versa).
    [a. Requiring confirmation from the user to confirm their intent 
to substitute a nonMS middleware product is an unnecessary 
inhibitor. This paragraph seems aimed at preserving MS hegemony on 
the desktop by requiring those users who would eliminate MS 
middleware that is invoked in a visually prominent way to think 
twice.]
    3. Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a) 
automatically alter an OEM`s configuration of icons, shortcuts or 
menu entries installed or displayed by the OEM pursuant to Section 
III.C of this Final Judgment.
    [a. subparagraphs (a) and (b) are inconsistent with one another.
    b. Section IIIC permits OEMs to configure the desktops on their 
own machines. MS should not be allowed to undercut that privilege at 
all, otherwise the purpose of IIIC is undercut.] Notwithstanding the 
foregoing Section III.I.2, the Windows Operating System Product may 
invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which: [The 
deleted exception is too broad. The parenthetical probably belongs 
after `interoperating', but even in that case, the 
exception would be overbroad. Since a reasonable purpose for for the 
breadth is not evident, it should be deleted.]
    2. that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to 
implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to 
be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for 
valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality 
indispensable to a Windows Operating System Product, provided that 
the technical reasons are described in the disclosures required of 
Microsoft by Sections IIID., IIIE., and IIIF. of this Final 
Judgment.
    [a. Only where a middleware function is indispensable to Windows 
and not provided in nonMS middleware should Windows be able to 
invoke MS middleware instead of the nonMS middleware selected by an 
OEM or user.
    b. This subsection would disadvantage any nonMS middleware that 
chose not to utilize every function of Windows, no matter how 
trivial.
    c. The technical reasons should be described when disclosures 
called for in 3D and 3E are made so that nonMS middleware vendors do 
not waste development moneys on ineffectual solutions.] Microsoft`s 
obligations under this Section III.I as to any new Windows Operating 
System Product shall be determined based on the Microsoft Middleware 
Products which exist(a)seven months prior to the last beta test 
version (i.e., the one immediately preceding the first release 
candidate) of that Windows Operating System Product, or (b) as of 
the time for disclosure under Sections IIID., IIIE. or IIIF. of this 
Final Judgment, whichever first occurs.
    [As soon as the referenced disclosures are made, nonMS 
middleware vendors and OEMs will start adapting their products. If 
there is something they need to do to avoid MS interference with 
their ability to alter the MS desktop, they should be told what it 
is from the outset. Lengthy betas for Windows versions are not 
uncommon due to MS` tendency to want to ship versions before they 
are stable, and without the change suggested above, OEMs and most 
particularly nonMS middleware vendors could waste substantial 
development effort.]
    J. Microsoft shall offer to license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, 
and OEMs any intellectual property rights owned or licensable by 
Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the options or 
alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment, 
provided that
    1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary 
consideration, are reasonable and non-discriminatory;
    2. the scope of any such license (and the intellectual property 
rights licensed thereunder) need be no broader than is necessary to 
ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP or OEM is able to exercise the 
options or alternatives expressly provided under this Final Judgment 
(e.g., an ISV`s, IHV`s, IAP`s, ICP`s and OEM`s option to promote 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Products shall not confer any rights to any 
Microsoft intellectual property rights infringed by that Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product, unless Microsoft has refused to 
license such rights for use in such Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product);
    3. an ISV`s, IHV`s, IAP`s, ICP`s, or OEM`s rights may be 
conditioned on its not assigning, transferring or sublicensing its 
rights under any license granted under this provision, where such 
condition is commercially reasonable; [For example, sublicensing or 
assigning to a wholly-owned owned subsidiary would be reasonable 
more often than not, as would assigning rights to an acquiring 
company. DoJ seems to feel that the overall requirement of 3.I.1 
that license terms be reasonable negates the need for a restatement 
of the reasonability requirement here. Maybe, but why leave the 
matter to interpretation?]
    4. the terms of any license granted under this section are in 
all respects consistent with the express terms of this Final 
Judgment; and
    5. an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM may be required to grant to 
Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms a license to any 
intellectual property rights it owns that are extensions of the 
intellectual property licensed to such ISV, IHP, IAP or OEM and 
actually implemented in the products or services of such ISV, IHV, 
IAP, ICP, or OEM relating to the exercise of their options or 
alternatives provided by this Final Judgment; the scope of such 
license shall be no broader than is necessary to insure that 
Microsoft can provide such options or alternatives. [A blanket 
grantback of license to all intellectual property rights that a 
third party `may have' that relate to its options and 
alternatives under the Final Judgment (including, apparently, 
trademarks and trade secrets), whether they have anything to do with 
Windows APIs or GUI or not seems excessive, to put it mildly. 
`May have' could include rights that are not owned, but 
licensed from others. `Related to' could refer to 
internal design of the third-party`s middleware, application 
software or GUI personalization. The changes suggested

[[Page 24439]]

above would limit the grantback to rights owned by the third party 
that arise from development work done by or for the third party 
utilizing IP rights granted by MS under the Final Judgment. In the 
Competitive analysis statement, the DoJ worries about a third party 
that has patented a feature of its middleware or applications 
software that consists of a particular pattern of calls to the 
operating system, and that the Final Judgment might require 
Microsoft to disclose that feature to the interfaces used by that 
third party to others so they could implement similar features. 
However, if all information about calls to the operating system are 
available to all ISVs, then how they make use of the calls is in 
element of their competitive advantage, and they are entitled to 
protect it. One hopes the Final Judgment does not allow Microsoft to 
pass valuable intellectual property of one ISV on to other ISVs 
willy nilly. There is a real-world reason why Microsoft would need a 
license from one third party in order to be able to provide the same 
interfaces to all third parties, but it`s not the DoJ`s reason: 
third party may figure out how to fix a bug in an API, or how to 
improve an API, and tell Microsoft. Microsoft may wish to fix or 
improve the API. If it does so, the fix or improvement should not be 
for the benefit of the clever third party only; Microsoft should be 
a be to license it to others. Of course, the clever API should be 
able to collect a royalty.]]
    Beyond the express terms of any license granted by Microsoft 
pursuant to this section, this Final Judgment does not, directly or 
by implication, estoppel or otherwise, confer any rights, licenses, 
covenants or immunities with regard to any Microsoft intellectual 
property to anyone.
    K. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols that are not required to be used in 
order to achieve interoperability with Microsoft Platform Software 
and the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a 
particular installation or group of installations of Microsoft anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, 
interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if 
lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent 
jurisdiction. In circumstance (b), if such nondisclosure impairs 
interoperability with Microsoft Platform Software, Microsoft must 
use its best efforts to create an alternative API, interface or 
other information that provides comparable functionality.
    [a. A real problem is identified in subparagraph (a), but the 
solution is pernicious. Security is a serious problem for Windows, 
and MS should not be discouraged from addressing that problem; on 
the other hand, MS should not be able to integrate security 
solutions into its products in such a way as to frustrate 
interoperability. The proposed added language is designed to prevent 
that.
    b. Subparagraph (b) does not relate specifically to security. 
The `government agency' could be a court enjoining MS 
from infringing someone`s patent or copyright. Where a function 
utilized by MS applications or middleware becomes unavailable to 
applications or middleware competitors, MS should provide a 
reasonable alternative.]
    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 for 
certifying the authenticity of its business, [a. The standards 
`reasonable' and `objective' invoke 
community opinion, not the opinion of a single entity, and certainly 
not an entity with a strong interest in limiting disclosures made 
under the Final Judgment.
    b. Using `viability' as a criterion for allowing 
access to APIs will prevent legitimate startups and small companies 
from using the benefits of the Final Judgment to compete with larger 
beneficiaries, and will require financial and technical assessments 
that entail disclosures to Microsoft the nature of which may 
discourage participation in the benefits of the Final Judgment.]
    (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program 
using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols 
verification by a reputable third party, 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.
    [The third party verification should be independent of MS; 
perhaps arranged by the TC. Allowing Microsoft to select the third 
party is like allowing the fox to select the guard for the 
chickens.]
    L. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for 
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment 
to the Court, Microsoft shall (a) separately price Internet 
Explorer, Outlook Express, MSN Messenger Service, windows Media 
Player and Net Meeting as offered in Windows Operating System 
Products, (b) and provide a means through the user interface to 
those products for users to delete the code that provides the 
functionality of those products (but not functionality essential to 
other components of Windows Operating System Products), (c) arrange 
for such act of deletion to create a proof of deletion, which the 
user can provide to Microsoft in exchange for a rebate in the amount 
of the price so established, and (d) offer options (a)-(c) 
above for any new functionality that Microsoft makes available 
either through a graphical user interface launch capability or by 
automatic opening of a Top Window in a Windows Operating System 
Program.
    [This paragraph is intended to halt the extension of Windows` 
monopoly power into middleware and applications sectors, and restore 
competitive conditions, for the products listed above, in a 
nondisruptive way.]
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
    A. Enforcement Authority
    1. The Plaintiffs shall have exclusive responsibility for 
enforcing this Final Judgment. Without in any way limiting
    2. To determine and enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, 
duly authorized representatives of the United States, on reasonable 
notice to Microsoft and subject to any lawful privilege, shall be 
permitted the following:
    a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all 
source code, books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, e-
mail, electronic files and other documents and records in the 
possession, custody, or control of Microsoft, which may have counsel 
present, regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
    [The change adds electronic records to the inspection list.]
    b. Subject to the reasonable convenience of Microsoft and 
without restraint or interference from it, to interview, informally 
or on the record, officers, employees, or agents of Microsoft, who 
may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this 
Final Judgment.
    c. Microsoft shall report annually on its activities relating to 
compliance with this Final Judgment. Upon written request of the 
United States, on reasonable notice given to Microsoft, Microsoft 
shall submit such other written reports under oath as requested 
regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
    [Although the TC is to report on its own activities, the TC 
report is no substitute for a regular, comprehensive report by MS. 
The need to produce such a report is additional motivation for MS to 
comply on a timely and complete basis.]
    3. The United States shall not disclose any information or 
documents obtained from Microsoft under this Final Judgment except 
for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, in 
a legal proceeding to which the United States is a party, or as 
otherwise required by law; provided that the United States must 
provide ten days` advance notice to Microsoft before disclosing in 
any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding) to which 
Microsoft is not a party any information or documents provided by 
Microsoft pursuant to this Final Judgment which Microsoft has 
identified in writing as material as to which a claim of protection 
may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.
    4. The United States shall have the authority to seek such 
orders as are necessary from the Court to enforce this Final 
Judgment, provided, however, that the United States shall afford 
Microsoft a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations of 
Sections III.C, III.D, III.E, IIIF.and III.I, provided further that 
any action by Microsoft to cure any such violation shall not be a 
defense to enforcement with respect

[[Page 24440]]

to any knowing, willful or systematic violations.
    B. Appointment of a Technical Committee
    1. Within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties 
shall create and recommend to the Court for its appointment a three-
person Technical Committee (`TC') to assist in 
enforcement of and compliance with this Final Judgment.
    2. The TC members shall be experts in either (or both) the 
business or the design and development of systems software. No TC 
member shall have a conflict of interest that could prevent him or 
her from performing his or her duties under this Final Judgment in a 
fair and unbiased manner. Without limitation to the foregoing, no TC 
member (absent the agreement of both parties):
    [There should be the flexibility to appoint to the TC someone 
with business sense.]
    a. shall have been employed in any capacity by Microsoft, or by 
any competitor to Microsoft in respect of Microsoft Platform 
Software, within the past year, nor shall she or he be so employed 
during his or her term on the TC;
    [As originally written, this requirement would essentially have 
limited TC members to being academics, since virtually everyone in 
the software industry competes with MS in some way. Even the 
limitation to platform software may be too broad.]
    b. shall have been retained as a consulting or testifying expert 
by any person in this action or in any other action adverse to or on 
behalf of Microsoft; or
    c. shall perform any other work for Microsoft, or for any 
competitor of Microsoft in respect of Microsoft Platform Software 
for one two years after the expiration of the term of his or her 
service on the TC.
    [Again, this requirement as originally written was too 
restrictive. It may still be too restrictive for anyone in the 
software industry not on the verge of retirement.]
    3. Within 7 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the United 
States and Microsoft shall each select one member of the TC, and 
those two members shall then select the third member. The selection 
and approval process shall proceed as follows.
    a. As soon as practicable after submission of this Final 
Judgment to the Court, the United States and Microsoft shall each 
identify to the other the individual it proposes to select as its 
designee to the TC. The United States and Microsoft shall not object 
to each other`s selection on any ground other than failure to 
satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.2 above. Any such objection 
shall be made within ten business days of the receipt of 
notification of selection.
    b. The United States shall apply to the Court for appointment of 
the persons selected by the United States and Microsoft pursuant to 
Section IV.B.3.a above. Any objections to the eligibility of a 
selected person that the parties have failed to resolve between 
themselves shall be decided by the Court based solely on the 
requirements stated in Section IV.B.2 above.
    c. As soon as practical after their appointment by the Court, 
the two members of the TC selected by the United States and 
Microsoft (the `Standing Committee Members') shall 
identify to the United States and Microsoft the person that they in 
turn propose to select as the third member of the TC. The United 
States and Microsoft shall not object to this selection on any 
grounds other than failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 
IV.B.2 above. Any such objection shall be made within ten business 
days of the receipt of notification of the selection and shall be 
served on the other party as well as on the Standing Committee 
Members.
    d. The United States shall apply to the Court for appointment of 
the person selected by the Standing Committee Members. If the 
Standing Committee Members cannot agree on a third member of the TC, 
the third member shall be appointed by the Court. Any objection by 
Microsoft or the United States to the eligibility of the person 
selected by the Standing Committee Members which the parties have 
failed to resolve among themselves shall also be decided by the 
Court based on the requirements stated in Section IV.B.2 above.
    4. Each TC member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months. 
At the end of a TC member`s initial 30-month term, the party that 
originally selected him or her may, in its sole discretion, either 
request re-appointment by the Court to a second 30-month term or 
replace the TC member in the same manner as provided for in Section 
IV.B.3.a above. In the case of the third member of the TC, that 
member shall be re-appointed or replaced in the manner provided in 
Section IV.B.3.c above.
    5. If the United States determines that a member of the TC has 
failed to act diligently and consistently with the purposes of this 
Final Judgment, or if a member of the TC resigns, or for any other 
reason ceases to serve in his or her capacity as a member of the TC, 
the person or persons that originally selected the TC member shall 
select a replacement member in the same manner as provided for in 
Section IV.B.3.
    6. Promptly after appointment of the TC by the Court, the United 
States shall enter into a Technical Committee services agreement 
(`TC Services Agreement') with each TC member that 
grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to permit the TC 
to perform its duties under this Final Judgment. Microsoft shall 
indemnify each TC member and hold him or her harmless against any 
losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses arising out of, or 
in connection with, the performance of the TC`s duties, except to 
the extent that such liabilities, losses, damages, claims, or 
expenses result from misfeasance, gross negligence, willful or 
wanton acts, or bad faith by the TC member. The TC Services 
Agreements shall include the following.
    a. The TC members shall serve, without bond or other security, 
at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and conditions as 
the United States approves, including the payment of reasonable fees 
and expenses.
    b. The TC Services Agreement shall provide that each member of 
the TC shall comply with the limitations provided for in Section 
IV.B.2 above.
    7. Microsoft shall provide the TC with a permanent office, 
telephone, and other office support facilities at Microsoft`s 
corporate campus in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft shall also, upon 
reasonable advance notice from the TC, provide the TC with 
reasonable access to available office space, telephone, and other 
office support facilities at any other Microsoft facility identified 
by the TC. The TC offices provided by Microsoft hereunder shall not 
be accessible by Microsoft personnel except in cases of physical 
emergency.
    [Obviously, the compliance authority should have secure 
facilities.]
    8. The TC shall have the following powers and duties:
    a. The TC shall have the power and authority to monitor 
Microsoft`s compliance with its obligations under this final 
judgment.
    b. The TC may, on reasonable notice to Microsoft:
    i. interview, either informally or on the record, any Microsoft 
personnel, who may have counsel present; any such interview to be 
subject to the reasonable convenience of such personnel and without 
restraint or interference by Microsoft;
    ii. inspect and copy any source code, books, ledgers, accounts, 
correspondence, memoranda, e-mail, electronic files and other 
documents and records in the possession, custody or control of 
Microsoft personnel;
    [Better to repeat the inspection list from A.2.a above than to 
create confusion by mentioning only one of the items from that 
list.]
    iii. obtain reasonable access to any systems or equipment to 
which Microsoft personnel have access;
    iv. obtain access to, and inspect, any physical facility, 
building or other premises to which Microsoft personnel have access; 
and
    v. require Microsoft personnel to provide compilations of 
documents, data and other information, and to submit reports to the 
TC containing such material, in such form as the TC may reasonably 
direct.
    c. The TC shall have access to Microsoft`s source code, subject 
to the terms of a source code Confidentiality Agreement, as approved 
by the United States and to be agreed to by the TC members pursuant 
to Section IV.B.9 below, and by any staff or consultants who may 
have access to the source code.
    The TC may study, interrogate and interact with the source code 
in order to perform its functions and duties, including the handling 
of complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.
    d. The TC shall receive complaints from the Compliance Officer, 
third parties or the United States and handle them in the manner 
specified in Section IV.D below.
    e. The TC shall report in writing to the United States every six 
months until expiration of this Final Judgment the actions it has 
undertaken in performing its duties pursuant to this Final Judgment, 
including the identification of each business practice reviewed and 
any recommendations made by the TC.
    f. Regardless of when reports are due, when the TC has reason to 
believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to comply 
with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately 
notify the United

[[Page 24441]]

States in writing setting forth the relevant details.
    g. TC members may communicate with non-parties about how their 
complaints or inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, so long as 
the confidentiality of information obtained from Microsoft is 
maintained.
    h. The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, with 
prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the United 
States, such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the 
qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for 
the TC to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Final 
Judgment. The compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be 
based on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the 
individual`s experience and responsibilities.
    i. The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred, 
including agreed upon fees for the TC members` services, subject to 
the approval of the United States. Microsoft may, on application to 
the Court, object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other 
expenses. On any such application: (a) the burden shall be on 
Microsoft to demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) 
shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application 
(including reasonable attorneys` fees and costs), regardless of the 
Court`s disposition of such application, unless the Court shall 
expressly find that the TC`s opposition to the application was 
without substantial justification.
    9. Each TC member, and any consultants or staff hired by the TC, 
shall sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting disclosure of any 
information obtained in the course of performing his or her duties 
as a member of the TC or as a person assisting the TC to anyone 
other than Microsoft, the United States, or the Court. All 
information gathered by the TC in connection with this Final 
Judgment and any report and recommendations prepared by the TC shall 
be treated as Highly Confidential under the Protective Order in this 
case, and shall not be disclosed to any person other than Microsoft 
and the United States except as allowed by the Protective Order 
entered in the Action or by further order of this Court.
    10. No member of the TC shall make any public statements 
relating to the TC`s activities.
    C. Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer
    1. Microsoft shall designate, within 30 days of entry of this 
Final Judgment, an internal Compliance Officer who shall be an 
employee of Microsoft with responsibility for administering 
Microsoft`s antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure 
compliance with this Final Judgment.
    2. The Compliance Officer shall supervise the review of 
Microsoft`s activities to ensure that they comply with this Final 
Judgment. He or she may be assisted by other employees of Microsoft.
    3. The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for performing 
the following activities:
    a. within 30 days after entry of this Final Judgment, 
distributing a copy of the Final Judgment to all officers and 
directors of Microsoft;
    b. promptly distributing a copy of this Final Judgment to any 
person who succeeds to a position described in Section IV.C.3.a 
above;
    c. ensuring that those persons designated in Section IV.C.3.a 
above are annually briefed on the meaning and requirements of this 
Final Judgment and the U.S. antitrust laws and advising them that 
Microsoft`s legal advisors are available to confer with them 
regarding any question concerning compliance with this Final 
Judgment or under the U.S. antitrust laws;
    d. obtaining from each person designated in Section IV.C.3.a 
above an annual written certification that he or she: (i) has read 
and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final Judgment; and (ii) 
has been advised and understands that his or her failure to comply 
with this Final Judgment may result in a finding of contempt of 
court;
    e. maintaining a record of all persons to whom a copy of this 
Final Judgment has been distributed and from whom the certification 
described in Section IV.C.3.d above has been obtained;
    f. establishing and maintaining the website provided for in 
Section IV.D.3.b below.
    g. receiving complaints from third parties, the TC and the 
United States concerning Microsoft`s compliance with this Final 
Judgment and following the appropriate procedures set forth in 
Section IV.D below; and
    h. maintaining a record of all complaints received and action 
taken by Microsoft with respect to each such complaint.
    i. Making copies of the Final Judgment available to all 
employees responsible for design and development of Microsoft 
Platform Software or for relations with ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs or 
OEMs, and obtaining certifications from them of exactly the same 
type and form as described in paragraph C.2.e. above.
    [Obviously, all such MS employees should read and commit to the 
Final Judgment, the provisions of which they will be involved in 
implementing.]
    D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution
    1. Third parties may submit complaints concerning Microsoft`s 
compliance with this Final Judgment to the United States, the TC or 
the Compliance Officer.
    2. In order to enhance the ability of the United States to 
enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, and to advance the 
parties` joint interest and the public interest in prompt resolution 
of issues and disputes, the parties have agreed that the TC and the 
Compliance Officer shall have the following additional 
responsibilities.
    3. Submissions to the Compliance Officer.
    a. Third parties, the TC, or the United States in its discretion 
may submit to the Compliance Officer any complaints concerning 
Microsoft`s compliance with this Final Judgment. Without in any way 
limiting its authority to take any other action to enforce this 
Final Judgment, the United States may submit complaints related to 
Sections III.C, III.D, III.E, III. F. and III. I to the Compliance 
Officer whenever doing so would be consistent with the public 
interest.
    b. To facilitate the communication of complaints and inquiries 
by third parties, the Compliance Officer shall place on Microsoft`s 
Internet website, in a manner acceptable to the United States, a 
copy of this Final Judgment and the procedures for submitting 
complaints. To encourage whenever possible the informal resolution 
of complaints and inquiries, the website shall provide a mechanism 
for communicating complaints and inquiries to the Compliance 
Officer.
    [The procedures [or submitting complaints would be more or less 
meaningless without access the Final Judgment, which is the context 
for the complaints.]
    c. Microsoft shall have 30 days after receiving a complaint to 
attempt to resolve it or reject it, and will then promptly advise 
the TC of the nature of the complaint and its disposition.
    4. Submissions to the TC.
    a. The Compliance Officer, third parties or the United States in 
its discretion may submit to the TC any complaints concerning 
Microsoft`s compliance with this Final Judgment.
    b. The TC shall investigate complaints received and will consult 
with the United States regarding its investigation. At least once 
during its investigation, and more often when it may help resolve 
complaints informally, the TC shall meet with the Compliance Officer 
to allow Microsoft to respond to the substance of the complaint and 
to determine whether the complaint can be resolved without further 
proceedings.
    c. If the TC concludes that a complaint is meritorious, it shall 
advise Microsoft and the United States of its conclusion and its 
proposal for cure.
    d. No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC may be 
admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any 
purpose, and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in 
court or before any other tribunal regarding any matter related to 
this Final Judgment, unless the conduct of Microsoft or its 
personnel vis a vis the TC or in respect of the TC`s 
responsibilities is at issue in the case.
    [There are certain types of court proceedings that could not 
sensibly proceed without such testimony.]
    e. The TC may preserve the anonymity of any third party 
complainant where it deems it appropriate to do so upon the request 
of the United States or the third party, or in its discretion.
    V. Termination
    A. This Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of 
the date it is entered by the Court. It will automatically be 
extended unless this Court determines to the contrary as to all or 
any portion of this Final Judgment prior to the expiration date.
    [Five years is a grossly insufficient period of time to restore 
competitive conditions to the market.]
    B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found 
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of knowing, willful and 
systematic violations, the United States may apply to the Court for 
an additional one-time extension of this Final Judgment of up to 
five years, together with such other relief as the Court may deem 
appropriate.
    VI. Definitions
    A. `Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)' means 
the interfaces, including any

[[Page 24442]]

associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware or 
Microsoft application software running on a Windows Operating System 
Product uses directly or indirectly to call upon that Windows 
Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that 
Windows Operating System Product.
    [Changed to include application interfaces and in recognition of 
the fact that many (perhaps most) calls to Windows functionality are 
indirect.]
    B. `Communications Protocol' means the set of rules 
for information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Products or successors 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 only to remotely administer Windows 2000 Server and 
products marketed as its successors.
    [Changed to account for peer-to-peer protocols and to restrict 
the exclusion of W2Ks remote administration protocols. Note: W2Ks, 
in this draft, is included in Windows Operating System Products.]
    C. `Consideration' means any monetary payment or the 
provision of preferential licensing terms; technical, marketing, and 
sales support; enabling programs; product information; information 
about future plans; developer support; hardware or software 
certification or approval; or permission to display trademarks, 
icons or logos.
    D. `Covered OEMs' means the 20 OEMs with the highest 
worldwide volume of licenses of Windows Operating System Products 
reported to Microsoft in Microsoft`s fiscal year preceding the 
effective date of the Final Judgment. The OEMs that fall within this 
definition of Covered OEMs shall be recomputed by Microsoft as soon 
as practicable after the close of each of Microsoft`s fiscal years.
    E. `Documentation' means all information regarding 
the identification and means of using APIs that a person of ordinary 
skill in the art requires to make effective use of or effectively 
implement those APIs. At minimum, such information shall be of the 
sort and to the level of specificity, precision and detail that 
Microsoft customarily provides for APIs it documents in the 
Microsoft Developer Network (`MSDN').
    F. `IAP' means an Internet access provider that 
provides consumers with a connection to the Internet, with or 
without its own proprietary content.
    G. `ICP' means an Internet content provider that 
provides content to users of the Internet by maintaining Web sites.
    H. `IHV' means an independent hardware vendor that 
develops hardware to be included in or used with a Personal Computer 
running a Windows Operating System Product.
    I. `ISV' means an entity other than Microsoft that 
is engaged in the development or marketing of software products 
designed to run on a Windows Operating System Product.
    J. `Microsoft Middleware' means software code that
    1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating 
System Product to update that Windows Operating System Product;
    2. is Trademarked;
    3. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a 
Microsoft Middleware Product; and
    4. includes at least the software code that controls most or all 
of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware.
    Software code described as part of, and distributed separately 
to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall be deemed Microsoft 
Middleware unless the TC determines, pursuant to a request from 
Microsoft, that it shall not. The TC may establish guidelines for 
Microsoft`s guidance in determining which updates are to be 
considered Microsoft Middleware under this Final Judgment.
    [In aid of undoing the adverse effects of MS. activities found 
to have been unlawful, the presumption of this paragraph should be 
that software described as middleware should be deemed to be 
middleware unless some independent authority says it should not.]
    K. `Microsoft Middleware Product' means
    1. The functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft`s 
Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, 
Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows Operating System 
Product, and
    2. For any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or 
sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is 
part of any Windows Operating System Product
    a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software or
    b. Functionality provided by Microsoft software that_
    i. Is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any 
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by 
Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows 
Operating System Product; ii.is similar to the functionality 
provided by a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and iii.is 
Trademarked.
    Software code that Microsoft describes or markets as being part 
of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, 
or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of a 
Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall 
be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware Product.
    [Changed to be consistent with last paragraph of Section J. 
above.]
    L. `Microsoft Platform Software' means (i) a Windows 
Operating System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product.
    M. `Non-Microsoft Middleware' means a non-Microsoft 
software product running on a Windows Operating System Product that 
exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through published APIs, and 
that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-Microsoft 
Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely 
in whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software 
product to be ported to or run on that non-Microsoft Operating 
System.
    N. `Non-Microsoft Middleware Product' means a non-
Microsoft software product running on a Windows Operating System 
Product (i) that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through 
published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable 
with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for 
applications that rely in whole or in part on the functionality 
supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that 
non-Microsoft Operating System, and (ii) of which at least ten 
thousand copies were distributed in the United States within the 
previous year.
    [Original excluded low-volume middleware for no apparent reason. 
The Competitive Impact Statement naively indicates that programs 
without a million copies distributed are either `minor' 
or `nonexistent'. This severely disadvantages new 
entrants.]
    O. `OEM' means an original equipment manufacturer of 
Personal Computers that is a licensee of a Windows Operating System 
Product.
    P. `Operating System' means the software code that, 
inter alia, (i) controls the allocation and usage of hardware 
resources (such as the microprocessor and various peripheral 
devices) of a Personal Computer, (ii) provides a platform for 
developing applications by exposing functionality to ISVs through 
APIs, and (iii) supplies a user interface that enables users to 
access functionality of the operating system and in which they can 
run applications.
    Q. `Personal Computer' means any computer that can 
use a video display and keyboard (whether or not that video display 
and keyboard is included) and that contains an Intel x86 compatible 
(or successor) microprocessor. Television set top boxes, handheld 
computers, game consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital 
assistants are examples of products that are not Personal Computers 
within the meaning of this definition.
    [The original definition is too restrictive. Personal computers 
are commonly used by multiple persons at a time. (E.g., for 
collecting personal info, depositing cookies, viewing webcam scenes, 
processing web-based applications, messaging.) They are also used as 
web servers and other types of servers.]
    R. `Timely Manner' means at the time Microsoft first 
releases a beta test version of a Windows Operating System Product 
that is distributed either to 200 or more ISVs or to 150,000 or more 
beta testers of any description
    [The fact that the beta has gone to 200 ISVs means that the APIs 
are working at a reasonable level of stability. It also means that 
200 ISVs favored by MS have a competitive advantage over other 
ISVs.]
    S. `Top-Level Window' means a window displayed by a 
Windows Operating System Product that (a) has its own window 
controls, such as move, resize, close, minimize, and maximize, (b) 
can contain sub-windows, and (c) contains user interface elements 
under the control of at least one independent process.
    T. `Trademarked' means distributed in commerce and 
identified as distributed by a name other than Microsoft or Windows 
that Microsoft has claimed as a trademark or

[[Page 24443]]

service mark by (i) marking the name with trademark notices, such as 
or, in connection with a product distributed in the United States; 
(ii) filing an application for trademark protection for the name in 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office; or
    (iii) asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in 
a demand letter or lawsuit. Any product distributed under 
descriptive or generic terms or a name comprised of the Microsoft or 
Windows trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms shall 
not be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final Judgment. 
Microsoft hereby disclaims any trademark rights in such descriptive 
or generic terms apart from the Microsoft or Windows trademarks, and 
hereby abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the future.
    U. `Windows Operating System Product' means the 
software code (as opposed to source code) distributed commercially 
by Microsoft as Windows 2000, Windows XP, and predecessors and 
successors to the foregoing, including without limitation the 
Personal Computer versions of the products currently code named 
`Longhorn' and `Blackcomb' and their 
successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. 
Subject to the provisions of this Final Judgment, the software code 
that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
    [a. Microsoft and DoJ may like to think that the world has 
shifted to Windows Professional and XP, but that is not the case. To 
be effective, these remedies need to apply to 32-bit versions of 
Windows still in active use.
    b. The distinction between server and client versions of these 
products has in the past been thought to be artificial and in some 
cases trivial. Under those circumstances, Microsoft should not be 
given an opportunity to evade the Final Judgment by tacking the word 
`Server' to the end of a product name.]
    VII. Further Elements Jurisdiction is retained by this Court 
over this action and the parties thereto for the purpose of enabling 
either of the parties thereto to apply to this Court at any time for 
further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to 
carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify or terminate 
any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish 
violations of its provisions.
    VIII. Third Party Rights Nothing in this Final Judgment is 
intended to confer upon any other persons any rights or remedies of 
any nature whatsoever hereunder or by reason of this Final Judgment, 
or to restrict in any way any rights or remedies of any nature 
whatsoever conferred on any other persons otherwise than by reason 
of this Final Judgment. [It would he a more effective settlement if 
third parties were given rights and remedies directly, but then 
again there might be no settlement at all if MS were faced with 
private litigation over violations of the Final Judgment. In any 
case, the Final Judgment should make clear that as a result of the 
settlement third parties do not lose any rights or remedies they 
would otherwise have.]
    * Formerly, `Quick and Dirty Open Source Redraft'. 
Revs 0 and. 1 were Quick and Dirty. Revs 0.2-0.4 were 
internal. Rev .2 is more reliable and reasonably stable. For those 
not conversant with Microsoft history, QDOS was the operating system 
bought from Seattle Software and turned into DOS, the first 
operating system for the IBM PC.



MTC-00004161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:33am
Subject: DoJ settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case is 
insufficient
    The proposed settlement between the US Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is insufficient to remedy the anticompetitive practices of 
Microsoft. My main concern is regarding the finding upheld by the 
appeals court that Microsoft `attempted to mislead and 
threaten software developers in order to contain and subvert Java 
middleware technologies'. Microsoft should now be required to 
include a certified compatible Java virtual machine. In the time 
since Microsoft engaged in illegal conduct against Java, it has 
developed competing middleware which it is bundling in the operating 
system as part of it`s so-called .NET environment. Microsoft, having 
engaged in illegal conduct to delay the industry acceptance of Java, 
now feels safe to exclude Java. This damage needs to be remedied but 
is not addressed in the proposed settlement. Microsoft should be 
compelled to include Java for a period that will compensate for the 
damage inflicted by Microsoft`s illegal conduct.
    The preceding is a minimal addition that I believe should be 
imposed on Microsoft. The ultimate solution is to separate 
Microsoft`s platform development (the Window`s operating system and 
.NET services) and the application divisions (the browser, Office, 
etc.). This is the only way to be certain that other software 
application companies can compete fairly with Microsoft 
applications. Until this separation is made, Microsoft applications 
will continue to unfairly influence extensions in the Microsoft 
platform and to unfairly gain advance knowledge of features 
available in the Microsoft platform. Furthermore, the operating 
system source code should be made open to other computer companies 
so that they may develop and market operating-system enhancements. 
This will allow competition in the PC operating system, which has 
stagnated as Microsoft merely extends their monopoly by tightly 
coupling applications to the operating system. New versions of the 
operating system have added integrated web browser functionality, 
collaboration applications, and other applications but, meanwhile, 
the operating system core has remained largely unchanged since the 
release of Windows 95 and Windows NT more than 6 years ago. The 
operating system should be made open to give others the opportunity 
to extend platform functionality.
    Let me close by saying that it is my belief that the current 
stagnation in the computing industry is largely due to Microsoft`s 
uncompetitive practices. They have not only actively thwarted 
competition, as found by the appeals court, but have created 
disincentives to competition by expanding their definition of 
`operating system' to include emerging applications and 
`middleware'. Microsoft should be forced to include 
Java, separate the company`s platform and application divisions and 
open the operating system to competition as a minimal remedy for 
their uncompetitive behavior. This will also allow other companies 
to compete fairly and innovate without fear that years of investment 
and innovation will show up as a mere feature of the next release of 
Windows. Effective measures to counter Microsoft`s illegal conduct 
must be taken to ensure the health of the US Technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    James M. A. Begole, Ph.D.
    Computer Scientist
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004162

From: Joe Huwaldt Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust trial. How does it restore competition? What 
does it do for the hundreds of competitors who are no longer even in 
business because of Microsoft`s illegal monopolistic behaviors? What 
does it doe for the maligned partners let alone the customers who 
have been short changed again and again? Microsoft has been found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly in federal court. This guilt was 
affirmed in the appeals court. Microsoft is guilty. Keep that in 
mind. Any settlement that doesn`t address their past misbehavior and 
that doesn`t prevent it from happening again is not in the best 
interests of this country and is an affront to the law.
    I am an aerospace engineer who has no connection to either 
Microsoft or any of it`s competitors. However, I have been forced to 
be one of their `customers' against my will for many 
years both at home and at work and have always been greatly 
disturbed by their blatantly illegal behavior. Never has there been 
a company that was more hated by it`s unwilling customers than 
Microsoft. The fact that no one will even attempt to compete with 
them for fear of being unfairly crushed should be proof enough that 
something more drastic than a slap on the wrist needs to be done. 
Microsoft doesn`t believe in their guilt. Their motivation for this 
settlement, therefore, is simply to get on with business as usual. 
That is to say, back to the behavior that got them before this court 
in the first place! Their record at keeping within the constraints 
that have been placed on them by the court in the past is dismal. 
They will NOT be constrained by behavior limitations in the future. 
Therefore, if something serious isn`t done, they will be back before 
this court again before long. Let`s end this now, while we have a 
chance.
    Let`s say that they do live within this settlement (which they 
won`t) and they do give up the monopolistic behaviors described in 
this settlement. Microsoft looses some old monopolistic weaponry 
that it can use on it`s customers and competitors. But, so what, it 
has already identified a new monopolistic weapon that makes all the 
old ones totally

[[Page 24444]]

obsolete anyway. Microsoft has found that weapon in .NET. Whether 
people like .NET or not, they`ll get it as old computers are 
replaced with new ones. Within three years .NET will be everywhere 
whether customers actually use it or not. Even if they hate it and 
are infuriated by it, they will be forced to use it and have it on 
all their computers. And that ubiquity, rather than commercial 
success, is what is important to Microsoft.
    .NET is essentially a giant system for tracking user behavior 
and, as such, will become Microsoft`s most valuable tactical tool. 
It is a system for tracking use of services, and the data from that 
tracking is available only to Microsoft.
    .NET allows Microsoft (and ONLY Microsoft) to track where all 
system calls are going and what services are or are not being used. 
If calls are going to third-party software packages, Microsoft will 
know about it. With this information, Microsoft will know which 
software packages to ignore and which ones to destroy. With this 
information, Microsoft can create it`s own implementations of 
competing products and integrate them into their .NET framework, 
thus easily eliminating any third-party competitor. Microsoft can 
also use the .NET generated market research that Microsoft gets for 
free, and nobody else gets at all, to change Windows to give 
automatic preference to Microsoft`s own middleware. They can give 
the appearance of openness without actually being open. These 
behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the proposed settlement 
with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee the continuation of 
Microsoft`s monopoly on applications and services as long as they 
have an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft talks about 
`innovation,' this is what they mean. Nothing is going 
to change.
    I generally agree with Robert Cringely`s suggested remedy which 
can be found at the following URL: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit19991118.html Much of the following is a paraphrasing 
of Cringely`s proposed remedy and I believe that this is how the 
court should deal with Microsoft:
    1) Microsoft`s operating system division must be completely 
separated from the rest of the company by a `Chinese 
Wall'. There is nothing new or draconian about this. Defense 
contractors, such as the one I work for, have been doing this 
successfully for decades. Employees may not discuss projects with 
those outside their group, period. This will ensure that other 
divisions of Microsoft will have exactly the SAME access to the 
operating system API as competitors. Microsoft can still innovate 
and manage the future of it`s operating system, but everyone will 
have equal access to those innovations.
    2) The only divestiture that is required of Microsoft is that 
they MUST spin off their programming language businesses. This is 
critical and levels the playing field. Especially in light of the 
new .NET strategy. For application development, Microsoft will be 
required to use someone else`s compilers and languages. This forces 
Microsoft to provide good information to the compiler makers before 
it can use any improvements in it`s own products. This helps 
requirement #1 work.
    One of the strategies at the core of .NET is that Microsoft will 
have 100% control of all programming languages and development 
environments that can be used to write programs that work with .NET. 
This completely blocks entry to .NET services by all potential 
competitors. Microsoft says they are supporting a wide array of 
programming environments for .NET, but they are controlling all the 
specifications and all the implementations. If Microsoft wants to 
build in a special capability that only Microsoft`s application 
developers can access, they have complete freedom to do so.
    3) Microsoft must establish a fair and consistent pricing 
strategy for all their products. This model should insure all OEM`s 
get the same price and terms. Upgrades should cost less than the 
original product. Product price increases should be governed by 
investment and inflation. Establish a fair and consistent product 
license agreement that follows established industry norms. In a 
sense, Microsoft has from time to time resorted to 
`dumping.' Access and Internet Explorer are the most 
notable examples of this. Microsoft must be prevented from 
`dumping.'
    4) Microsoft must establish clear product maintenance and 
support rules. All products are to have a predetermined warranty 
period of 18 months to three years. Microsoft will fix all product 
defects and provide those fixes free of charge during the warranty 
period. Consumer protection provisions will be improved to provide 
reasonable product support assistance.
    5) Microsoft must establish corporate ethical guidelines that 
are responsible and consistent with US industry practices. Microsoft 
should not be allowed to raid talent from competitors. People can 
freely apply to work at Microsoft, but Microsoft can not initiate 
the process.
    6) Finally, many companies and their employees were financially 
damaged by Microsoft. Microsoft should pay compensation to those 
clearly injured by their monopolistic activities. Priority should be 
given to insure employees are fairly compensated. The total cost of 
the damages paid by Microsoft should not exceed 15 percent of their 
net income for the next 10 years. No punitive damages should be 
levied against the company.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Ad astra,
    Joe Huwaldt
    CC:Doug Babst,Joe Huwaldt (at work)



MTC-00004163

From: Robert D. Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:38am
Subject: Settlement
    Very bad settlement. Talk about rewarding `Evil 
Doers'. If MSFT wishes to help the bad schools, it should give 
them 1/2 of the $30B it has accumulated from its illegal practices.
    Robert D. Roberts
    Sonoma CA



MTC-00004164

From: Daniel Carrera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 1:55am
Subject: RedHat`s proposal on Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Dear Justice Department member,
    I am writing to express my support for RedHat`s proposed 
alternative for the Microsoft antitrust settlement. RedHat has 
proposed that all the money that Microsoft was currently planning on 
giving in the form of software be redirected towards providing more 
hardware for the poorest schools in the country. RedHat then 
proposes to offer all necessary software to the schools, itself, 
free of charge, plus technical support. This proposal has many large 
advantages over the original plan. Problems with the original 
proposal:
    1) In giving so much Microsoft software to the schools, the 
original proposal would result in extending Microsoft`s dominance 
over the education sector. This does not make sense since the reason 
why there is a settlement is that Microsoft was found guilty of 
illegal monopolistic practices.
    2) Microsoft`s software lisences would expire after 5 years. 
After that time, the schools would be under great pressure to start 
paying very large software fees to Microsoft which ultimatelly hurt 
their funds very severely. The alternative would be to move away 
from Microsoft products, but that would be very difficult because 
the curriculums would already be based around the Microsoft 
software. Benefits of RedHat`s proposal:
    1) RedHat offers to provide all the necessary software to the 
schools free of charge. Unlike Microsoft`s proposal, this offer will 
not expire. The RedHat software, including all upgrades, will remain 
completely free to all the schools in the US indefinitely.
    2) RedHat extends the proposal to add free customer support to 
the schools (also for an unlimited time). With this proposal, the 
schools can safely build a curriculum around the software available. 
They can rest secure in the knowledge that the software the might 
enjoy, will remain available to them at no cost.
    3) In redirecting the cost of software towards hardware, many 
more schools would be able to benefit from this settlement. This 
change would more that cuadruple the number of computers brought to 
the schools (from 200,000 to over a million). The number of 
computers per school would grow from 14 to over 70.
    It is clear that this new proposal brings a much greater benefit 
to the schools.
    4) RedHat`s proposal also extends to many more districts. If 
Microsoft provides the hardware for the 14,000 poorest school 
districts in the US, RedHat will provide the software for every 
single school district in the entire country.
    5) This proposal has the final benefit of putting the decision 
on which software is run (and thus what students learn) right where 
it should be: on the hands of educators and parents. Since there is 
no requirement to use the RedHat software, and no loss if they 
don`t, the choice remains theirs.
    On the merits of RedHat software: I am an educator myself. I am 
a Mathematical Physicist currently teaching at the Unversity of 
Toronto and next year I will start teaching at the University of 
Maryland. I can testify as

[[Page 24445]]

to the merits of the software that RedHat is offering to the 
schools. This is the same software that I use myself.
    For the areas of mathematics, science, and engineering, there is 
simply no coparisson. There are very powerful utilities that make 
excellent teaching instruments for all the sciences. The mathematics 
and scientific software available for this platform (free of charge) 
is of a variety and quaility that simply has no comparisson under 
the Windows operatins sytem (including commercial software). I use 
this software myself in my own teaching.
    In other areas, the RedHat software will provide excellent tools 
for image manipulation, vector graphics, office applications and 
more. For computer science, RedHat is offering the best possible 
platform for software development. Educators have a choice of an 
immense array of the best programming languages in the world, each 
with its own strength, all available by default.
    It is my honest opinion as a scientist and educator that the 
software that RedHat is offering free of charge far surpases what 
would be available to the schools through Microsoft software. I 
would like to strongly encourage the Justice Department accept the 
offer from RedHat and greatly extend the help offered to the most 
needy schools in the nation.
    If you wish to ask questions or clarifications about any of what 
I have written here, please do not hesitate to ask. I am a strong 
believer in the importance of education, and this is a great 
opportunity to help those who are least capable of affording one.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Carrera.



MTC-00004165

From: Bob Ulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:16am
Subject: APPROVE THE NEW SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT!
    It`s good for America! It`s good for the underprivileged! I say 
where would America be today without MICROSOFT! It has raised the 
bar with it`s excellent products!
    Bob Ulmer
    Owensboro, KY



MTC-00004166

From: Martin van Iersel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:06am
Subject: ms and the rest
    If you let ms install their systems into school for free you 
will have just given them a monopoly on the schools as well. And 
area where apple still has a good grip. If you want to get rid of 
the monoply i think you should make ms give all the data required to 
allow other operating system run windows products from games to 
office suites.



MTC-00004167

From: David Madison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. Re: The Tunney Act and the Microsoft 
Case
    Please, please don`t back down now. Microsoft should have been 
stopped a long time ago. We still have a chance to try to make 
things right.
    David Ljung Madison



MTC-00004168

From: Bruce Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:33am
Subject: Help-We Need Help
    I am writing as a long time school teacher. This is my 31st 
year. I teach in Adams County School District 50 in Westminster, 
Colorado. I am the PE teacher and school technology rep for Fairview 
Elementary School. My school district is very poor. Our schools are 
old, and we cannot even afford to repair them properly, much less 
stay technologically able. This summer, I went to the Technology In 
Education conference in Snowmass, Colorado. A representative was 
there from the Colorado Department of Education. He characterized 
various school districts as being technologically 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 
generation. My school district was pre 1st generation by those 
standards. We do not have the luxury of making sure that our 
technological marketplace is diverse in it`s PC community. We have 
no Apples in our district. This is not because we are part of a 
Microsoft monopoly, but because we couldn`t afford them. They are 
more often found in more well to do communities. At least that is 
true in Colorado. The nature of Microsoft`s potential settlement 
would provide the only scenario that might help out a school 
district like ours. We can never hope to even stay in the race by 
local mill levy. Our only chance is that some technological giant 
could toss a few crumbs our way. This would be no small thing. 
Technology could help our majority population of minorities acquire 
tools to move out of the barrio.
    Please consider ruling positively in favor of Microsoft`s offer. 
As long as you act as a watchdog to make sure that they are fair in 
their allotments, this could do a great deal to help 
underpriviledged school districts like ours. The issue of fairness 
in the business community should be greatly secondary to making sure 
that all America`s students have the opportunity to learn to use 
technology in their daily lives.
    Thanks Very Much,
    Bruce C. Hanson
    Fairview Elementary School
    7826 Fairview Ave.
    Denver, Colorado 80221
    303-428-1405



MTC-00004169

From: DE WOLF PETER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:37am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    It is quite amazing and funny to watch the game between DOJ and 
Microsoft. In the Clinton period MS was told to split the company; 
now it`s Bush time and a penalty combined with some charity will do 
it. It`s called a settlement, I think even DOJ can not compete with 
the army of lawyers from MS. If DOJ accepts this settlement, MS 
shall even extend its monopoly on the desktop.
    It`s impossible they can get out of it that easy.
    Peter De Wolf
    Siemens Business Services



MTC-00004170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Suggestion
    To whom it may concern.
    As you might know_For a computer to be useful for people 
to use, it must have what is known as a `killer 
application'. For several years Microsoft has been gobbling up 
or putting out of business every company that makes any product that 
has to do with office productivity. I.E. Word Processor, Spread 
Sheet, Presentation Software, etc. They, then, have been making this 
technology work only on the Microsoft operating system platform. My 
suggestion is_Not To Breakup Microsoft_But force them to 
port their killer applications, (Word, XL, PowerPoint, ETC), to the 
other major operating systems.
    This way, we, (The Consumers), could choose the hardware and 
operating system that meets our requirements separate from the 
application software we need to be productive. In other 
words_If I decide to buy a Ford, I`m still free to put any set 
of tires I wish onto my Ford, I`m not required to use Firestone 
tires. The application software, (Tires), should be separate from 
the Operating System, (Ford). There are many superior operating 
systems out there, but we are forced to use an inferior operating 
system because we must use the defacto standard office productivity 
software.
    Thanks.
    Steve Hansen
    [email protected]



MTC-00004171

From: Carpenter, Craig
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 3:24 am
Subject: RE: Opposition to Microsoft `settlement'
    I am vehemently opposed to Microsoft`s proposed settlement. 
*Proposed `settlement' is engineered by Microsoft not 
the DoJ *DoJ appears to be caving in, perhaps it wishes to get this 
case out of the way for political reasons. *Microsoft appears to be 
sidestepping the Tunney Act. with false information. *Microsoft is 
in denial of the true nature of itself and it`s practices. I hope I 
have some influence with this brief email. I know there are many who 
oppose this `settlement' many who don`t care and many 
who favor it, the point is they have been proven guilty, so let the 
punishment fit the crime. Microsoft will not change their practices 
without adequate incentive.
    Thank you,
    Craig Carpenter



MTC-00004172

From: Joshua N Pritikin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:13 am
Subject: antitrust settlement
    I would very much like to see Microsoft forced to accept Red 
Hat`s proposal for the antitrust settlement.
    For details, see: http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/

[[Page 24446]]

    Thanks,
    -j Victory to the Divine Mother!! after all, http://
sahajayoga.org http://why-compete.org



MTC-00004173

From: jp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:07am
Subject: Disappointment and outrage 12 December 2001
    I can`t believe it!!! Millions of dollars spent on this suit and 
the result is as if there were never a lawsuit! Allowing Microsoft 
to say whether it violates_any_agreement is like asking 
any criminal if he / she broke the law!!!! Hah! They `didn`t 
really _mean_ to do it, it just happened that 
way'! 30 billion dollar$ _does_ buy the law.
    John Miley



MTC-00004174

From: Bob Thomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The settlement as proposed will do little, if anything, to 
impact on Microsoft`s monopoly on the desktop Operating System and 
Web Browser markets. It is unlikely that anyone in the IT industry 
who has knowledge of these markets would believe this settlement 
will have any impact whatsoever. In this it appears to the vast 
majority of those `in the know' that the US Government 
is powerless to punish corporations which break the laws of the US. 
Looking in from Europe this creates an extremely negative impression 
of the US government and it`s attitude to business. The nation which 
is seen around the world to encourage entrepenuership will be seen 
to favour the largest coroporations at the expense of innovation and 
new businesses. Microsoft has a long history of, what it 
euphemistically calls, `Embrace and 
extend'_Aquisition of competing companies and their 
products_the proposed settlement does nothing to address this. 
As such start-up companies will continue to bring products to market 
only to have them snuffed out by Microsoft by way of Microsoft using 
their vast resources to develop a similar product faster than the 
smaller company can build their market share or by Microsoft simply 
purchasing the company or it`s product and absorbing it and the 
company.
    Make no mistake that Microsoft has never innovated_ it is 
hard to name a product that Microsoft have developed themselves 
which displays technical innovation that was not already present in 
other products. With their continued monopolies with the PC desktop 
OS and the Office Suite Microsoft will continue to have control over 
these markets and I cannot see anything in this settlement which 
will curtail this.
    What is most disturbing however, is the case`s complete abscence 
of addressing the issue of the installed OS on PCs as purchased. It 
is almost impossible to purchase a PC without a Windows Operating 
System per-installed. There is no consumer choice. There is no 
technical reason why this should be the case. It is entirely the 
result of the restrictive licensing practices which Microsoft has 
forced upon PC manufacturers.
    It is also the case that the impression given is that Microsoft 
have covinved the US Government that any impact on Microsoft will 
affect the entire IT industry. This is tantamount to nonsense. 
Microsoft have a huge market captilisation by virtue of it`s 
monopoly and it undoubtedly overvalued. There are huge areas of this 
industry that Microsoft have little influence on_the danger is 
that the lack of controls proposed in this settlement opens the door 
to Microsoft opening up new monopolies in the markets they have 
little control over at the moment. So, far from aiding the IT 
industry, the settelement as proposed would weaken it in the future 
by discouraging innovation and business startups and putting several 
other large players out of business resulting in huge job losses and 
a lack of competition.
    In short this settlement should be completely discounted and 
redrawn with a view to addressing the following issues :
    1) Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing it`s monopoly in 
the PC desktop OS market.
    2) Microsoft usesd dubious and illegal practices to create a 
monopoly in the web browser market.
    3) There is no consumer choice in purhcasing a PC with a pre-
installed
    OS (As most PCs have a pre-installed OS)
    The measures should include:
    1) Microsoft should be barred from signing exclusive agreements 
with PC manufacturer`s which preclude the manufacturer`s from 
supplying PCs with more than one OS already installed (Dual boot).
    2) Microsoft should be requird by law to release full details of 
APIs for all Operating System and Web Browser products as far in 
advance of release as possible.
    3) Microsoft should be required by law to release details of all 
file formats used by Office products so that competitors can develop 
products which read and write these formats_This could be 
implemented by way of a licensing mechanism so that the intellectual 
property involved is not simply `given away'. The 
current situation is analogous to a situation whereby CDs 
manufactuered by Sony are only playable on Sony CD players.
    4) A review should be made in 5 years and if Microsoft is still 
felt to be abusing its monopoly then the company should be split 
into an operating system and services business and an applications 
business.
    As a UK resident I await with interest the outcome of the EU 
Competition Commission`s investigation into Microsoft. I hope the EU 
shows more bravery, insight and integrity than seems to be on 
display in the US DOJ.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Thomson,
    Director,
    tty Ltd.
    Bob Thomson, Sun Certified Solaris System and Network
    Administrator.
    Web: http://www.tty-ltd.co.uk
    Phone: +44 (0)7970 700089



MTC-00004175

From: phoenix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:59am
Subject: One point to fix
    One undeniable fix would be to force the company (MS) to reveal 
its file formats (like `.doc' `.ppt' , etc) 
to the public; to disallow them from changing even a single 
`1' or `0' in the coding of the file formats 
of a released product without giving 100% complete detail of the 
changes; and not allowing them to release such changes into a 
product until a given (long) amount of time after it is confirmed 
that all competitors have the details. In effect, the company`s file 
formats will be public domain and allow competition with the 
products it`s monopoly helped it to make prolific.



MTC-00004176

From: Wesley Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 5:25am
Subject: please put the squeeze on microsoft
    You know they`re monopolists I am a web developer and former 
systems admin for a MS Windows NT network. They`re lame. I for one 
say `Put the squeeze on them.'
    Sincerely,
    Wesley Gibbs



MTC-00004177

From: Robert Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 5:50am
    Microsoft is obviously a Government sanctioned monopoly. I guess 
mony can buy almost anything. Microsoft software forces it`s 
political viwes and religious views into the operating system. 
Application software that is doing well in the marketplace is either 
bought by Microsoft or challenged by Microsoft`s own competing 
product. A company with the sole desire that all software come from 
or created with software from Microsoft is a dangerous monopoly. 
With the power over the operating system that they alone dictate, 
they can invade the privacy of your computer at will. I doubt a 
firewall is of much use against their backdoors into virtually every 
piece of software they make. With as many lines of code that their 
operating system contains, it would take a very long time to seal 
all of the chinks in their armour.
    That is why it is so easy to hack into the operating system. If 
the DOD is using MS operating systems, I shudder with fear. The 
settlement was not even equal to a hand slap. They have closed the 
doors of many good companies with their tactics. They deserve to be 
fined and limited in scope as to their product line. You might say 
that freedom of speech is at stake here. Linux is the only thing 
stopping Gates empire from total domination of the PC market. You 
broke up the AT&T monopoly, big oil, and refuse to let some 
airlines to merge even though it will most likely mean the demise of 
both because of it. Microsoft is obviously a VERY close friend of 
the US Government to get away with all of their unfair practices.
    I am ashamed of the way our government responded. I am proud to 
be a US citizen. Our freedoms did not come cheap. We are letting one 
company take over the way we shop, where we can browse, what

[[Page 24447]]

 information we can access, and open our personal data to them at 
their leisure. Please protect our freedoms that were fought for by 
so many.
    Robert C Warren
    `Hear, O Israel:The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You 
shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul 
and with all your strength.'
    Deuteronomy 6:4-5



MTC-00004178

From: Brad Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My tax dollars pay your salaries.
    So, please, do your job? don`t let Microsoft off so easily. 
Don`t agree to a settlement that will put Apple Computer in 
jeopardy. Don`t let George W. Bush strong arm the justice department 
into turning tail and letting Microsoft win.
    Do your job.
    PLEASE.
    Brad Bauer
    A concerned US Citizen



MTC-00004179

From: Dexter Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2001-12-12
    Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
    1. The action against Microsoft should never have been launched 
during the last Administration, and the sooner it is wound up, 
without damage to this quintessentially American company, the 
better.
    2. We sometimes seem to have a death wish. As in the AT&T 
dismemberment of 1983/1984, we have in Microsoft a company that is 
admired throughout the world, yet some seem to derive a perverse 
satisfaction from seeing whether they can smash it up.
    3. It is one thing to go after a company on antitrust grounds if 
it threatens to corner the market on a physical resource such as oil 
or silver. But intellectual property is infinitely expandable. If 
Microsoft does not keep investing better intellectual mousetraps, or 
if the buying public believes it is overcharging, it will quickly 
lose ground to competitors. The competitive system is self-
correcting. There is no need for government to step in. There is 
need for government not to step in.
    4. Microsoft`s competitors should fight it in the marketplace, 
not in the courtroom. It`s shameful enough for the CEO of a 
competing company to come whining to the Department of Justice when 
he fails to obtain the results he desires in the marketplace; it is 
downright disgusting to see him crossing the ocean to denounce his 
countrymen from Microsoft before officials of the European 
Communities.
    5. The bundling charge took first place for absurdity. One may 
as well tell a car manufacturer not to include tires, or a radio, 
with his product.
    6. The States should have no role in in the Microsoft matter or 
in similar matters involving companies that are clearly national in 
character.. The Constitution gives the regulation of interstate 
commerce to the U.S. Congress. The threat to companies of hostile 
action (sometimes, as in this case, politically motivated) by 
regulatory authorities of 50 states unnecessarily raises the cost of 
goods and services and harms U.S. competitiveness.
    Thank you for considering my views.
    Dexter Anderson
    29 Sherwood Drive
    Westerly, Rhode Island 02891-3701
    [email protected]
    CC:Anderson Dexter



MTC-00004180

From: Richard Ollerenshaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:30am
Subject: Encouraging anti-competitive practice
    A watered down settlement is just the signal the world needs 
that America encourages unfair domination by those with money and 
power. A fair and open marketplace is clearly unnecessary to the US, 
or at least that is the signal being sent out.
    Richard Ollerenshaw



MTC-00004181

From: RZ German
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:50am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    1. Problems with the proposed settlement:
_not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the 
proposed settlement.
_Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
_Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the 
national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology_even the Department of Justice 
itself_have no rights.
    2. I support Steve Satchell for the three-member committee 
stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced.
    RZ German
    Ohio Citizen



MTC-00004183

From: CoastNet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:41pm
Subject: why not?
    Go for the Red Hat approach. Microsoft are after all just mass 
marketing a mediocre product, give someone else a go!



MTC-00004184

From: William A. Perrotto III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the DOJ settlement pact. It seems more like 
giving a thief the keys to the city. The only way competition can be 
re-introduced to the market is for stricter actions. The rouge 
states who side against the settlement have my vote at this time and 
are pushing the right buttons to boot. Microsoft will take advantage 
of any legal documents they have to in order to continue on the path 
they have walked for a very long time. The only true punishment is 
one that can not be undone. These people systematically eliminated 
competition and anything they didn`t agree with. They have done this 
for years, and the punishment should match the crime. If you are 
really fighting for us, stop playing around and take them to the 
mat. After all if you are in this for the commerce world then they 
are crushing the commerce world. If you are in this for the people 
then they are abusing and swindling the common man. Either way, M$ 
wins and every one else loses.
    William A. Perrotto III



MTC-00004185

From: Marc van der Erve PhD
To: Microsoft ATR,jeremy.wagstaff@dowjones. com@inetgw
Date: 12/12/01 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft bashing_A customer`s perspective
    Dear Jeremy,
    I read The WallStreet Journal daily and glance through your 
column regularly. I am one of the silent majority that you have 
ridiculed into reacting to relentless and, in my view, unfair 
bashing of Microsoft (i.e. both by media and courts on both sides of 
the Atlantic).
    My compliments for getting me out of my hole, though! Indeed, 
your column is striking a chord but, I believe, a false one! 
Although Microsoft does not need my help at all, I would like to 
make the following sobering points knowing that I have no time to 
generate the detail needed for a court case.
    For whatever the customer`s view is worth to you, here is my 
perspective.
    MS`s ADDED VALUE IS IN HANDLING COMPLEXITY
    I recognize some of the problems that you are referring to but 
they have largely been resolved in later versions, such as Windows 
Professional 2000 and XP.
    The referral to other suppliers with similar, witty, but 
generally not better software `toys' has been 
symptomatic in `reviews' like yours. But, in doing so, 
you are forgetting one important thing! The true benefit to 
customers is not only in userfriendliness but also in managing the 
complexity of their tasks. For example, although I might fancy the 
presentation of an odd diary application over that of Outlook, 
Outlook as part of an highly integrated suite grandly improves my 
effectiveness as a user. The added value of Microsoft to the user 
(and to the economy at large as so many of us are using MS products) 
is in its handling of the increasing complexity of tasks, data and 
communications. Hence, the suite of highly integrated MS systems can 
only be complex in itself and, as a result, can only be more error 
prone than independent toys. However, the net benefit of using 
Microsoft`s products by far exceeds some of the adverse situations 
that might occur.
    The ways in which MS deals with individual customers by far 
outshine those of

[[Page 24448]]

other suppliers when it comes to support. I have had grave 
experiences with the software from IBM and Ericsson (Symbian) which 
compared to the true plug-and-play features of MS are plainly 
irritating. Many of my investments in non-MS software-driven 
products have gone down the drain because either the products did 
not work or the support provided was either not there or clumsy to 
say the least.
    In my book, Tablets of Light (Laws of the Networked Society), in 
the chapter on EVOLUTION, I refer to Microsoft when I discuss its 
`ability to adapt,' i.e. based on its capacity to listen 
and react constructively to customers. Having studied behavior, 
organizations and complexity at large, I am personally amazed as to 
how MS has been able to maintain and improve its responsiveness.
    MS IS FACILITATOR OF INNOVATION
    Indeed, MS is not necessarily known for its inventions but above 
all for its capacity to refine and commercialize products. Many of 
the features built into its software have been obtained and licensed 
from smaller, best-in-class innovators on the market. In that light, 
MS actually triggers and supports innovation as it provides a market 
to those who manage to invent the ultimate. Of course, in order to 
manage complexity, MS must adhere to a certain architecture which is 
why MS requires that architectural requirements are met. Still, the 
architecture of MS is mutating as new features and inventions see 
the light through the eyes of independent entrepreneurs and software 
developers. Of course, as you observed in XP, whenever the 
management of complexity is hindered by foreign applications, the 
performance of a system may degenerate gradually. I am sure that as 
part of your research, you must have been loading a lot of software 
on your system with understandable consequences. In other words, it 
is in the interest (and the responsibility) of the customer to help 
maintain an environment on his system which manages complexity well.
    In a more interactive economy, competition changes from a one-
to-one bull fight for supremacy to the `generation of 
variety.' Variety brings with it the chance that one or a few 
variations will fit the needs of an unpredictably evolving market. 
Traditional competitors, such as Sun, IBM and others, are 
competitors no longer if they do not bring innovative products to 
the table. MS, as any other business, is best served by an 
increasing variety of product inventions which they are eager to 
include if the customer so desires. Variety indeed remains an 
impetus for improvement.
    I don`t think the above is new to you. Hence, as bashing MS is 
`in' today, any media and judicial attention seems 
supersticiously opportunistic and not always beneficial to the 
interest of customers. Most of the noise made in Europe and the US 
can be led back to competitive barriers that are caving as a result 
of the irresistable product offerings of MS and, above all, the lack 
of innovativeness of established industries. In that sense, I am not 
at all proud of being a European! Although, many innovative ideas 
can be found in the organizations of established industries, only a 
few succeed to bring them to the market. Sometimes, these companies 
may pull it off once, but they fail in creating an environment (like 
that of MS) which absorps new inputs and mutates products and 
services continuously.
    By all means, competition is essential to innovation and 
progress (progress generally equivalent to the increasing complexity 
of natural and virtual life forms). However, competition should be 
driven by variety not bashing!
    Last, but not least, what a joy is it to work with XP, i.e. its 
impeccable communications (ADSL), its handling and printing of 
pictures, etc! I was pleased to read in an earlier column that your 
sons seemed to judge the MS character differently as they could not 
part from the X-Box. Or, was it another columnist?
    Kind regards,
    MARC VAN DER ERVE PhD
    EVOLUTION MANAGEMENT
    Management Consultants
    Rue des Colonies 11, B-1000 Brussels Belgium
    Office: +32 2 517 70 97, Fax: +32 10 84 24 50
    Website: http://www.evolutionmanagement.net
    http://www.evolutionmanagement.net
    E-mail: [email protected]
    CC:RFC-822=mailto:managers@microsoft. com?body=Mike%20...



MTC-00004186

From: Tony Castaldo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have three comments:
    1. It is completely inappropriate for Microsoft to only have to 
reveal API information to commercial entities. The software that 
overwhelmingly runs the the Internet is Apache and SendMail, and 
although Microsoft dominates the desktop, Linux is a major 
competitor of Microsoft as an operating system on Servers. All three 
of these are open-source and free software maintained by the 
community. They are not profit-oriented. Although there is a loose 
organization in charge of each, they are not formal businesses and 
could not be described as commercial. Yet they are potent forces 
providing great value to both business and society as a whole; they 
can be thought of as non-profit organizations staffed by volunteers 
for the joy of contributing. This Settlement screws them. Microsoft 
should not be allowed to pick and choose who gets the API 
information AT ALL, it should have to publish the APIs on its 
website for all to see and read; it should be included in the help 
system for its C++ and other languages, just like the MFC (Microsoft 
Foundation Class) help. Make them tell EVERYBODY.
    2. It is completely inappropriate for MICROSOFT to make the 
determination of which entities ARE commercial businesses! They are 
the guilty offenders, for God`s sake, why do they get to decide 
what`s a `real' business and what isn`t? By this 
agreement, Section III(J)(2)(c), they could decide anybody with less 
than ten billion in revenue isn`t a real business. Being the 
offender most damaged by revealing anything, I don`t believe 
Microsoft is capable of establishing `reasonable, 
objective' standards.
    They don`t even have to tell us WHAT these `reasonable, 
objective' standards of being a business ARE, they can just 
say `It`s uh, not you!'
    3. Schools. Why should Microsoft be REWARDED by this Settlement? 
Schools is about the only place Apple competes evenly with 
Microsoft, and this gives Microsoft an edge! If Microsoft wants to 
do this, fine, but let them do it separately from the Settlement. 
Any money Microsoft shells out should go to the plaintiffs, pure and 
simple. Also, this lets Microsoft substitute software for money, and 
the software probably actually costs them five bucks a package, 
which counts as a hundred bucks. This whole school thing is crazy, 
it`s some sort of red herring.
    Finally I have read some about Steve Satchell and heard good 
things about his experience and intelligence; I think he would be a 
good candidate for the compliance team.
    Anthony M. Castaldo
    11819 Gallery View
    San Antonio, TX 78249
    (210) 690-5233



MTC-00004187

From: M. G. Fred Kick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should have been settled years ago, I feel it was a 
very costly procedure not only for Microsoft but also for the 
taxpayer. The courts should not stop progress and with the 
interaction of the DOJ development slowed and the cost goes up. 
Settle in the interest of the Consumer/Tax payer.
    M.G. Fred Kick



MTC-00004188

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft
    This company hired some of the best, smartest, and innovative 
minds in the country. They stuck their necks out years ago to 
invent, promote, and market one of the best products ever seen. But 
the real key here is: THEY DID NOT DO THESE THINGS AT THE EXPENSE OF 
THE CONSUMER. Their products are affordable to all. They are largely 
what makes America and Americans great. They should be left alone.
    Dave Watson
    Uniontown, Ohio



MTC-00004189

From: Saalo Sparkes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:17am
Subject: MS Antitrust
    Hi there,
    I`ll brief. The problem with Microwuss[soft] is that they know a 
good thing when they see it. And, because it`a better than anything 
they could think of they try to rubbish it. Take Win XP, for 
example, it looks nice and it`s easy to use, but it need large 
computer resources (200Mhz Processor, 128MB Ram, etc) which most 
people don`t have. OK, that`s good for me `cos it means I can sell 
those people upgades, but you don`t want to buy a new OS only to 
find it won`t

[[Page 24449]]

work. If I had my way I`d encourage my customers to use Linux 
systems mainly due to the fact it has Open Source_it`s the 
best thing that happened to OS`s.
    What more can people want?
    Yours Saalo Sparkes, 9th Dimension IT



MTC-00004190

From: carrie schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE DO NOT ACCCEPT MICROSOFT`s PROPOSAL.
    1-They are guilty. Treat them as such. Have them pay resitiution 
to those that they have most injured.
    2-If they are to donate to schools_PLEASE have Microsoft 
donate cash and not software to schools. Allowing them to donate 
` software' to schools only further`s their monopoly 
under the guise of a penalty by introducing their software to 
schools in which their competitors have managed to somehow hold on 
to. Most schools know what they need most. Does Microsoft really 
know ?If Microsoft is really so ` pro schools' have them 
donate money_otherwise the unecessary and unused software 
might end up as CD ornaments for holiday decorations.
    3-Do not allow Microsoft to place anyone on the board. (why 
would you allow such a thing?? Why would they have any members on 
this board at all?? Why should they have any say in this at all? 
Sounds like they are proposing more of a business deal and not 
seeing this as a punishment. I see no remorse in that proposal.
    4-Perhaps you could have every member of the Microsoft 
corporation do 1 year of physical community service work in schools 
or in non profits such as the United way or the Red cross, cleaning 
highways_teaching people how to read, helping feed the 
homeless at the holidays. Allowing Microsoft to send a few software 
CDs will not really impact them. Have Microsoft do something that 
will cause them to truly reflect on what they have done. They put 
people out of work not because they sold a better product, but 
because the excluded the competitors, right?
    Is that really the true American way?
    All the best,
    carrie lee



MTC-00004191

From: Jason Anderssen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I live in Australia, and really dont have a right to put my 
views forward, however, I would like to try at least put a few views 
forward and hope these are heard.
    Firstly, I do not believe microsoft plays fairly with others at 
all and have seen and read to many incidents that have not been 
fair, but for some reason, they (Microsoft) can get away with it 
every time. All I want to see is Microsoft to play fair and compete 
fairly with other companies. Personally I, and many believe that 
Microsoft is above the law anyway, and if America does actually 
prove it self, would monitor and help other companies to be able to 
compete on a level playing field with microsoft. Lets put the above 
words into perspective a little. Since Microsoft does not allow 
developers or other companies to see the underlying code to the OS, 
how can anyone create a third Party product to compete with there 
`Add_On' products. Microsoft will alway have the 
upper hand and produce a product that works faster and more 
efficient than a third party can ever do. So lets take the motor 
industry into consideration as an example. If a third party brakes 
product could not perform as good or as reliable as the original 
manufacturers brakes, accidents would happen more often and would 
then be dangerous to use these third party products on your motor 
vehicle. This be unfair to both the third party company producing 
the products and the consumer as well.
    Secondly, why is it in the past that when a company acheives (I 
have only heard this, but maybe you can correct me on this) 70% 
monopoly, the company is split up, but microsoft some how acheives a 
90% monopoly and manages to still stay together and above all is 
dictating how they should be `punished' (If you even 
call the punishment a punishment). This is the reason that microsoft 
is declared in many places as Americas new Government. Ultimately, 
Microsoft is above the Law and America is defensless.
    What I personally think should happen to them is as follows....
    1. Open up the core operating system source code, this would 
allow companies to compete better with microsoft. (However, they can 
keep the source to there own `Add_On' products 
because this is what they actually are.)
    2. If Microsoft uses standards from other companies or 
organisation`s, they must be forced to obey by there specifications, 
none of the extend rubbish. What should happen is they should have 
to submit the change to the protocol to the board of who maintains 
the standards, and only add the extension`s if the board approves of 
it. (Kerberos as an example).
    The reason I am adding this is simply because Kerberos is NOT 
THERE PROTOCOL. So why should they add extensions to it and WITH 
HOLD the changes from the world. This is not fair at all!!!!! (I 
believe this has been rectified, but shows there true colors 
anyway!!!)
    3. Any new product that is attached and uses the network through 
`proprietery' protocols should be opened up for others 
to investigate and interoperate with. Anyhow, I could keep going but 
I have said a few things to start what I feel and think. Just incase 
you just dismiss this letter becuase it is not American Originated, 
I should not waste my entire time writing a letter that will most 
likely end up in the trashcan anyway.
    Yours Sincerely
    Jason Anderssen



MTC-00004192

From: John Setzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:55am
Subject: Dear Sirs,
    Dear Sirs,
    I have many thoughts on the Microsoft Anti Trust Trial. My first 
thought is that Microsoft has definitely used illegal methods to 
gain market share. Using this as a base, Microsoft has dominated the 
market. By allowing Microsoft to continue to dominate the market, we 
allow Microsoft to reap the benefits of prior illegal methods. The 
thoughts of allowing Microsoft to further increase their current and 
future dominance by teaching children (the future users) on their 
platform is ludicrous. If there is one place that Microsoft can be 
penalized is by a forced introduction of competitor platforms in 
school systems. Redhat, a linux based operating system, could be 
installed in schools across the country. If this were to happen, 
there would be a shift in future developments on alternative 
platforms, instead of Microsoft platforms. If we allow Microsoft to 
go unpunished for their illegal methods, then we have not made the 
competitors whole. A result of decreased competition is lower 
quality or less innovation in the marketplace. Microsofts monopoly 
on the operating system industry has created a slowdown in industry 
development and large barriers to entry for other innovators.
    Please take this into consideration, and do not allow Microsoft 
to `give' the gift of Microsoft to our children. 
Microsoft is using the same methodology a low end drug dealer uses 
to infiltrate high schools.
    John C. Setzer



MTC-00004193

From: Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:55am
Subject: opinion
    I heard that you were collecting opinions, so here`s mine. I 
think that the DOJ has really dropped the ball on this one. By 
making Microsoft donate PC`s to schools you`re just enforcing the 
monopoly. It was my understanding that the punishment should help 
break the monopoly. It really makes you guys look like something 
shady is going on behind the scenes.
    My two cents.
    Eric Johnson
    ï¿½ï¿½ E L E V E N ï¿½ï¿½
    http://www.designeleven.com



MTC-00004194

From: Richard Reddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello DOJ,
    I can see how this matter has become something entirely 
political. No matter. I am all in favor of Open Source and the free 
software movement. My new PC is running GNU/Linux, a stable, 
powerful, robust OS that includes hundreds of free utilities and 
applications. Thousands more are available on the web. Open Source 
is the fastest growing software movement of all time, and already 
has 20 million users.
    I am elated to find out that DOJ and Microsoft are both 
irrelevant, in light of larger movements of users who see a need for 
social change. If MS has a lock on the market, and charges high 
prices_and DOJ caves into political pressure from GOP, it 
doesn`t matter at all. You are both irrelevant to me, and I

[[Page 24450]]

intend to keep it that way. DOJ failing to do anything noteworthy in 
antitrust is not the problem. I feel the problem is the model of 
`intellectual property' which drives the world of 
proprietary software. Proprietary software is an inferior product in 
the first place, and also rediculously expensive. Obviously there is 
too much corruption to police the markets with the interests of 
consumers (computer users) in mind. But, we are certainly smart 
enough, and energetic enough to send Microsoft packing! In twenty 
years, they will be a monopoly without users. It`s difficult to 
dislike Gates, who really is a wonderful fellow_the most 
generous philantropist we have seen in decades. But, monopolistic 
influence greatly inhibits innovation, gouges consumers, buries 
competitiors and it`s not where we want to go. I say we put the 
entire model of proprietary software on the slag heap, along with 
the `market' we hear so much about, that relies on 
throwing people in jail, should they exhibit normal user behaviors 
in violation of copyright. MS is so unpopular they will never be 
able to hang on to users, who now have attractive alternatives.
    Can`t say I think highly of DOJ! Rest assured your counterparts 
in Europe, as well as individual states_will not be 
succeptable to manipulation by the Bush Administration. This is the 
only explanation that seems to account for letting MS off the hook, 
but some states and nations are not inclined to politicise matters 
of unfair competition.
    Richard Reddy
    Boston



MTC-00004195

From: BILL EDWARDS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:31am
Subject: leave them alone
    you cant get your own job done so be quiet
    Sincerely
    OAKDALE
    MOM



MTC-00004196

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/12/01 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft DOJ settlement
    I am writing to make my voice heard about the DOJ`s settlement 
of the Microsoft case.
    Due to Microsoft`s past behavour regarding licensing, I think 
that it is important to include a provision to allow people to not 
have to pay for Microsoft software by default. You should require 
that the Microsoft software be an independant removable option from 
the purchase of any computer, much like a monitor or a printer or 
other peripheral might be.
    This would allow people who don`t use Microsoft software to not 
pay for it. Related to this, if the computer manufacturer has it as 
an option, people should be allowed to have both the Microsoft OS 
option and an alternative OS option be both installed on the same 
machine. Microsoft`s current licensing with most major computer 
manufacturers currently appears to disallow this, thus discouraging 
people from exploring alternatives to Microsoft`s OS.
    Since Microsoft has established an effective standard for common 
file formats for office communications through the widespread use of 
its Office software applications, it should be forced to publish 
those formats publicly so that anyone may produce software capable 
of reading and writing those types of documents. It should also 
provide those formats in a timely fashion so that competing office 
applications could work shortly after a new format is produced by 
the Microsoft software. These formats should be available to anyone 
willing to write software to read these files, not just for-profit 
companies.
    Many people believe that Microsoft`s Applications programmers 
get special information from the OS group about hidden or 
undocumented APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) in the OS. I 
think that the reality is less sinister than this. However, the 
Applications group will have access to internal Microsoft documents 
about APIs that may not get published publicly, whether this failure 
to publish those APIs is intentional or not. These APIs should be 
available to anyone who wishes to write software to use these APIs, 
not just for-profit companies. To improve competition and the 
quality of Microsoft software, Microsoft needs to publish all the 
APIs it has developed for is Operating Systems. This should also 
help change the perception that Microsoft changes its APIs 
gratuitously to force people to buy new versions of its software, 
rather than changing their APIs to improve the software. 
Additionally, interoperability has always been an important concept 
in distributed systems. Since Microsoft has been increasing its 
capabilities in the distributed systems via their new operating 
systems, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, it is important that their 
software`s network APIs are well documented. For instance, in 
Windows 2000, they took a commonly defined Kerberos (an 
authentication API) implementation and changed it enough so that 
other operating systems were unable to use it. Then they failed to 
properly document the changes they made to the standard. This sort 
of behaviour on Microsoft`s part should be stopped.
    There is evidence they are planning on using a similar strategy 
to prevent people from choosing other network services than their 
own. Since they own the OS that the vast majority of people use to 
access the internet it is apparent they plan to force people to use 
only their services rather than allowing people to choose which 
services best meet their needs. With any other company, these 
tactics might be viewed as good competitive practice. However, given 
the power Microsoft has in the personal computing industry, these 
tactics are anti-competitive and must be addressed to prevent their 
further monopolization in these areas.
    James Klaas
    350 Skydale Dr.
    Ann Arbor, MI 48105
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00004197

From: Jerry Rappard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:51am
Subject: Easy
    You are being much to easy on Microsoft. They continue their and 
expanded their monopoly activities with the XP operating system. 
What was your pay off from Bill, a few million. He will never miss 
it, hope you can live with yourself for being so easy on a person to 
the likes of Bill Gates. I bet you are sorry you didn`t get a chance 
to get a payoff from ATT or IBM.
    Shame on you!



MTC-00004198

From: John Parziale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:55am
Subject: Public Comment on the Proposed Microsoft Antitrust 
Settlement Agreement
    Your Honor,
    This proposed settlement does not address Microsoft`s illegal 
practices as found in the earlier case and appeal. The proposed 
settlement agreement will not remedy either the past or future 
abusive business practices of the Defendant, or the Defendant`s 
misuse of its monopoly position in the personal computer market.
    The instant litigation arose from the Defendant`s violation of 
an earlier consent agreement. While the proposed settlement 
agreement appears to be comprehensive and effective in remedying the 
defendant`s past illegal behavior and instituting policies and 
procedures to prevent their recurrence, approval of this settlement 
agreement merely postpones to another day and another court the task 
of imposing a solution that protects the consumer from the 
Defendant`s illegal practices and overwhelming market power. That 
market power will not be held in check by this proposed settlement 
agreement; instead, the proposed agreement as currently structured 
will assure the Defendant that `business as usual' is 
the norm, that Microsoft can continue to wield its dominant position 
in personal computer operating systems to suppress competition, 
pervert industry standards, and embrace and extend its market power 
to the detriment of the consumer and the independent software 
development community.
    I strongly urge the court to reject the proposed settlement 
agreement negotiated between the US Department of Justice and the 
nine concurring states with Microsoft. I will leave a detailed 
analysis of the defects in the proposed settlement agreement for 
others_they are too numerous for this comment. Approval of 
this proposed settlement agreement would be ineffective, short-
sighted and counterproductive. My thanks to the Court for an 
opportunity by a member of the public to comment on a important 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Parziale
    6159 Parchment Court
    Haymarket, VA 20169



MTC-00004199

From: Julian Opificius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:59am
Subject: who owns who

[[Page 24451]]

    This whole situation is a travesty of justice. It seems like 
Microsoft has bought the legal system in this country. Break them 
up_force the separation of OS from applications, and penalize 
them for their monopolistic behavior.
    Julian A. Opificius.
    802 Fawn Road, Elk River, MN 55330.
    Home: 763.441.1291, Cell: 763.360.5919
    [email protected] ICQ: 3268206



MTC-00004200

From: Virgil Bube
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:55am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Not that I expect my opinion to make much difference, but the 
only settling I see in this `agreement' is the DOJ`s 
lawyers caving in. There is nothing to benefit the consumer, in fact 
it smacks of being the same deal that was `reached' 
several years ago in which Microsoft was to keep the manufacturers 
of competing software products updated on changes being made to the 
operating system so their products would work,, and Microsoft 
(almost) immediately turns around and releases new versions of its 
non operating system software well in advance of the release of the 
next version of the OS. Which is at least partly why this suit was 
brought.
    The agreement as it reads now leaves everyone else playing 
catch-up and not knowing what tricks Microsoft will pull to make 
sure that competing products don`t play well with Windows, at least 
without the end user jumping through several hoops. This is what 
Microsoft wants, they rely on the consumer to NOT buy anything else 
when something that works, usually poorly in comparison, is already 
in front of them. Microsoft snubbed its nose at the web when it 
first came along, and the little it has to the game is far 
overshadowed by the way it is trying to control everything by 
ignoring existing standards, and not WORKING with others to make it 
a better place, but to control it.
    I feel it is a waste of my tax dollars to have gone this far, 
only to give them the financial slap on the wrist that has been 
agreed to by the DOJ and some of the states. They have been found 
guilty and should be punished. The little man does not have the 
money to fight a financial monster like Microsoft, and must rely on 
the system to look out for his/her rights. Microsoft should, at the 
very least, be made to use existing standard, and, where there are 
no set standards, made to work with third party companies to set a 
standard so everyone that makes a word processor, spreadsheet, 
database, or whatever application/program is playing on a level 
field. Since Microsoft controls both the operating system and the 
software applications/programs it does have the inside scoop on what 
is needed to make them work within the new OS and force the 
competition to play catch up.
    To take Microsoft`s argument that things other than what is 
specifically named in the guilty verdicts that have been reached is 
a disservice to the populace that the original anti-trust laws were 
intended to address.
    Virgil C. Bube
    309-58-4244



MTC-00004201

From: Conlon, Patrick
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    It concerns me greatly that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case might end up rewarding the plantif in the 
long-run. A give away of Microsoft software to needy schools (be it 
a nice gesture) does nothing to help the real people that Microsoft 
has crushed with their monopolistic policies through the years.
    I also hope that the Tunney Act procedures are held to and that 
the DOJ doesn`t end up with Microsoft people on the three-member 
committee stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. 
I suggest that Steve Satchell be seriously considerd for one of 
those 3 positions. He knows the commercial side of the software 
industry. He is a confident and fluent speaker, which might come in 
handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest.
    Patrick Conlon
    Color/Images Production Manager
    The Wall St. Journal
    Temp#609-520-4929



MTC-00004202

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dept. of Justice:
    I am providing a brief opinion on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am currently working as a computational researcher in 
a pharmaceutical company. I am 37 years of age and have a Ph.D. 
level education. Microsoft`s proposed settlement is simply mind-
boggling. It will serve as nothing more than a fantastic advertising 
opportunity for Microsoft, giving them a foothold into the education 
market from which they will later extract support and upgrade fees, 
which all the time offering the students only a single alternative 
to operating systems: WINDOWS. The technology behind Windows is 
stagnant and highly proprietary. Instead of progressing through 
improvements and working with other developers to adopt and maintain 
standards for sharing information, Microsoft stifles all efforts to 
do so. Their browser (Internet Explorer) embeds code from Microsoft 
Office (namely Excel and Powerpoint), and does not abide by WW3 
standards. Their J++ perversion of the open-source Java language 
will read Java, but not write code that can be read as standard Java 
(again, locking you into Microsoft products). Sun offered a 
portable, shared, open-source product, and Microsoft corrupted it 
into a proprietary, non-standard, non-portable code.
    To offer Microsoft the opportunity to essentially adverstise 
within schools with software and operating systems is unacceptable. 
Given the opportunity to CHOOSE among operating systems and evaluate 
alternatives, any intelligent, innovative student would easily see 
the limitations of Microsoft`s proprietary old-time technology and 
adopt a more progressive, innovative, open-source platform such as 
RedHat Linux (or any Linux operating system) immediately. These 
systems provide superior selections of software INCLUDED with their 
distributions (not extra charge for every program, compiler, etc. as 
from Microsoft). They are free of charge. What better way to educate 
our children, with unlimited use of the RedHat Linux operating 
system across ALL their computers, with no upgrade charges ever. The 
software and operating system can be downloaded for free. The 
decision here is easy.
    Please don`t perpetuate Microsoft`s monopolistic infection into 
our children`s schools. Give them a choice, and they will choose the 
(1) superior, (2) standardized, (3) FREE operating system RedHat 
Linux (or any other Linux vendor).
    Kevin Condroski, Ph.D.
    Computational Research Scientist
    303-386-1235



MTC-00004203

From: John Kumpf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:21pm
Subject: microsoft case comments
    A settlement in the Microsoft case is a contradiction.
    Why?
    Microsoft`s corporate philosophy and business plan is 
maintaining its monopoly in Windows and leveraging that monopoly to 
succeed in other markets. It would never agree to a settlement 
agreement that prevented it from `including new features in 
their operating system,' as they have said many times 
publicly. But such a settlement is exactly what`s needed. The 
settlement must prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior.
    Specifically, the Competitive Impact Statement (which I read at 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm) makes no mention of 
Microsoft`s publicized attempts to leverage their monopoly in their 
.NET initiative and its centralized use of Microsoft`s Passport 
service and MSN. These efforts are designed to further protect 
Microsoft`s OS monopoly by preventing independent development of the 
market. Microsoft`s efforts here are also intended to extend its 
monopoly to the internet. They are a widely recognized case of 
Microsoft`s `Embrace, Extend, Extinguish,' technique. 
Jamie Love and Ralph Nader have a well thought-out web page on the 
issue which is fully support: http://www.essential.org/features/
msfinalorder.html My comments are mine alone, and not representative 
of any other organization.
    John Kumpf
    Alternate email:
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    09.11.01
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004204

From: Alessandro Abate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,

[[Page 24452]]

    I am not a lawyer but usually when a person or company is found 
guilty, they don`t get to make demands about their form of 
punishment. Why then is the Department of Justice bending over 
backwards to please Microsoft. Microsoft has shown its disdain for 
previous controls over its nefarious behaviour. Any punishment and/
or settlement has to take into account that Microsoft will try to 
get around any limits that are put on its behaviour.
    Microsofts` settlement proposal is nothing less than a shopping 
list of the things that would help it expand its monopoly into new 
areas and protect it form competitors. Its proposal to give away 
Microsoft software to schools would extend their monopoly into one 
of the few areas where it does not currently own the market. 
Furthermore the proposed settlement does not provide any protection 
for the biggest threat to Microsoft, the open source software 
movement. Any settlement should make sure that Microsoft does not 
use its monopoly powers to further extend its market illegaly and 
that the open source movement is protected as well.
    The biggest competitor in the server market to Microsoft is 
Apache, an open source program given away for free by a non profit 
organization. There is nothing Microsoft would like more than to see 
programs like Apache dissapear. Aside from being more reliable these 
open source products are more secure and better designed. Businesses 
are begining to wake up to this fact. If Microsoft gets its way the 
open source movement will wither before businesses can take 
advantage of it. Without real competition there is no way to keep 
Microsoft honest and there is no incentive to innovate. What 
Microsoft usually calls innovation really means extending their 
illegal monopoly. If the government does not protect the few options 
available to consumers, we will not have these options in the 
future. Microsoft will make sure of that.
    You must treat Microsoft like the illegal monopoly that it is. 
You cannot let Microsoft dictate the terms of the settlement. If you 
do, they will continue to extend their monopoly to the detriment of 
the entire computer industry.
    Alessandro Abate
    [email protected]
    1291 Nightingale Avenue
    Miami Springs Florida 33166
    Telephone: (305) 887-3546
    `I am convinced we have to use Windows_this is the 
one thing they don`t have. . . We have to be competitive 
with features, but we need something more_Windows integration. 
If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly 
that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and 
Windows together.' Using Microsoft`s code name, Memphis, for 
the next version of Windows, Allchin concluded that, `Memphis 
must be a simple upgrade, but most importantly it must be a killer 
on OEM shipments so that Netscape never gets a chance on these 
systems.'
    Jim Allchin,
    Microsoft Senior Vice President
    Source: US Department of Justice, Antitrust Suit Against 
Microsoft
    



MTC-00004205

From: George Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:38pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to make the following comments about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement:
    1) The fact that Microsoft is specifically exempted from having 
to cooperate with those THEY do not consider to be a business` 
effectively blunts competition from free software. And in fact 
Microsoft themselves have identified free software as their number 
one potential competitor. If this settlement is really about 
restoring competition to the software industry, why does it contain 
such a gaping hole? Their should be NO discretion allowed on 
Microsoft`s part as to who they are required to share their 
technology with, that discretion if any should be assigned to the 
independent overseers.
    2) This settlement does much to attempt to restore competition 
to the application software market, but does not even address the 
operating system software market. While it prevents Microsoft from 
using their OS monopoly to leverage their applications, it does 
nothing to prevent Microsoft from using their applications monopoly 
(MS Office) to leverage their OS. Microsoft has in fact previously 
threatened to pull their office suite product from the Mac OS in 
order to stifle just this kind of competition. Microsoft knows that 
they face little competition from the Mac OS and are loath to offer 
their office suite product for deployment on any OS that might prove 
to be an effective competitor. Microsoft should be required to 
license their office suite for porting to other OS`s in order to 
restore competition to the OS market. Otherwise, they`re complete 
dominance of the desktop market will be used by them to effectively 
leverage the OS market as a whole, and marginalize they`re 
competition.
    Sincerely,
    George H. Mitchell
    4497 Excelsior Rd
    Eureka CA 95503-6180



MTC-00004206

From: Tempas Jeff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Deal
    You have once again allowed Microsoft to continue its predatory 
practices with the latest settlement. What prevents Microsoft from 
continuing to buy out their competition or force them out? I`ll give 
you a recent example. Corel had a very nice alternative to the 
Windows/Office productivity solution with Linux and its WordPerfect 
suite. It was so good that many Linux users saw it as a legitimate 
competitor in the business environment. What did Microsoft do? They 
infused Corel with money and killed their Linux offering.
    If you really want to keep Microsoft honest, they will have to 
be split into two companies. Selling both an operating system and 
applications allows them to leverage both to promote each other. You 
have companies buying Office because it only runs on Windows and 
people using Windows so they can be compatible with other Office 
users. One feeds on the other. Microsoft has become so large and 
wealthy that they can buy out anyone who competes with them either 
directly or through litigation. It`s the DOJ`s job to protect the 
consumer when this happens.



MTC-00004207

From: xian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like my comments to be reflected in the Federal Register 
regarding the Microsoft settlement case. While the remedies 
addressing Microsoft`s obligations to the corporate sector do much 
to redress the harm done by their business practices, the remedies 
*must* include protections for the not-for-profit and government 
sectors as well. Microsoft`s chief competition in the desktop and 
network operating systems markets are in the not-for-profit. The 
not-for-profit sector also provides significant competition in the 
software market. The government also needs the same access to source 
code, API`s, documentation, and communications protocols as the 
corporate sector, so that the government does not become obligated 
to turn to outsourcing as the only means of developing computing 
solutions for evolving governmental needs. As a matter of national 
security, especially, our government requires this access. As the 
remedies have been currently formulated, they fall far short of 
providing the protections that guarantee a truly level playing field 
in the global computing industry. Failure to amend these remedies to 
include the above referenced issues is tantamount to granting 
Microsoft a guaranteed position of dominance in the marketplace, 
putting all parties involved, from programmers, to consumers, to our 
elected officials, to our governing agencies, at a supreme 
disadvantage.
    Frank Balsinger
    Takoma Park, MD 20912
    301-891-8555



MTC-00004208

From: John Yost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 12:56pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    I would like to express my opinion to the fact that the proposed 
Microsoft settlement will destroy America`s leadership in the 
computer software industry.
    Their policies destroy any competition. Their next step .net 
will have every user paying a few cents every time we turn our 
computers on. Now is the time to reign in this monopolistic giant
    Very Truly Yours
    A computer user since 1967
    John D. Yost
    Senior Vice President
    Rado Enterprises Inc.



MTC-00004209

From: Danan Jay Sudindranath
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24453]]

Date: 12/12/01 12:58pm
Subject: comment on microsoft case
    Microsoft`s business practices and subsequent monopoly power 
have without a doubt stifled my choices as a consumer of computer 
hardware and software.
    Some of the major problems I see that need to be rectified:
_Microsoft`s business practices make it nearly impossible to 
purchase an x86 based personal computer with operating systems other 
than theirs.
_Microsoft`s bundling of products along with their operating 
system leads to the elimination of 3rd party competing software, 
thus reducing my choice as a consumer.
_Microsoft`s monopoly power results in hardware and software 
developers not developing equivalent software for operating systems 
other than Microsoft`s.
    Additionally:
_Microsoft has the power to leverage its monopoly to enter and 
dominate new markets.
    I strongly urge the Justice Department and the Supreme Court to 
bring a firm and fair punishment upon Microsoft to penalize them for 
damage they have done to the consumer and the computer industry. I 
also urge the court to put strong limits on their business practices 
so that they are forced to compete on a level playing ground with 
other companies. This will lead to more innovation and progress in 
the industry.
    Danan Sudindranath



MTC-00004210

From: Randy Ennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 1:05pm
Subject: Inadequate remedy in Microsoft v. Dept. of Justice
    As a citizen negatively affected by the actions of Microsoft in 
maintaining its monopoly, I would like to offer my views concerning 
the proposed remedy in this case. As the proposal currently stands, 
there is little, if any, actual penalty to Microsoft. In addition, 
Microsoft is currently engaging in sponsoring legislation which 
would, in effect, make it illegal and `UnAmerican' for 
me to continue using the open source operating system (Linux) which 
I currently use.
    A more appropriate solution might be as follows:
    1. Require Microsoft to publicly document its file formats, to 
allow complete interoperability with other software/operating 
systems. This could help sponsor more competition in the market 
place by allowing companies to develop software which would be able 
to read and create files compatible with Microsoft Office products. 
One of the most common complaints is from people who cannot (or do 
not know how) to read documents produced by competing manufacturers` 
products. Another on-going problem is that when Microsoft 
`upgrades' it`s office products, documents produced in 
the upgraded version are unreadable by prior versions of the 
software, effectively requiring that companies and individuals spend 
millions of dollars `upgrading' software simply to be 
able to read documents from other users. No other software company 
has been as egregious in this as Microsoft. Most manufacturers will 
attempt to provide some form of backward compatibility, even in a 
new format, if at all possible. Not so, Microsoft. In addition, 
other manufacturers are unable to provide software which will read/
write these formats, as they are completely closed to anyone outside 
Microsoft unless an expensive Non-Disclosure Agreement is completed, 
which many small companies cannot afford, effectively locking them 
out of real competition.
    2. Require Microsoft to publicly document all networking 
protocols. The future for the world is in networking 
interoperability, and Microsoft has done much to proprietize public 
protocols, making it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to create 
software with full interoperability with Microsoft`s protocols. If 
these protocols were publicly documented, it would benefit users the 
world over, by allowing software to be developed which would be able 
to interoperate correctly with all other software. It would also 
allow more secure products to be developed, security being an area 
in which Microsoft has an abysmal record. Security is probably one 
of the most important areas in which the open source community can 
contribute, as it is the most secure software available, as security 
updates are available usually within hours of discovery, and due to 
the open nature of the source code, companies and individuals are 
constantly testing and updating it to make it more secure.
    3. Remove Microsoft`s close alliances with hardware vendors. As 
it stands today, it is nearly impossible to purchase a new PC from 
any major vendor without some form of Windows operating system and 
software already installed. This should be an extra-cost option 
available from the manufacturer, allowing the vendor to offer any 
other available operating system of it`s choice, or even a 
`bare' computer to which the user may add his own 
operating system/applications.
    4. All API`s (Application Programming Interfaces) must be 
publicly documented, including currently `undocumented' 
ones. Microsoft has always maintained a lead over other developers 
by being able to utilize publicly undocumented features of it`s 
operating systems to enhance certain performance characteristics of 
its software. These should be opened to the public to allow 
manufacturers to create software which can take advantage of 
currently unknown features, allowing users to experience software 
which can enhance their experience in computing, rather than 
requiring manufacturers to devise `work-arounds' to 
enable features in their software. I would also advise close 
government oversight on Microsoft`s new .Net initiative (including 
Passport). The wording of licensing agreements for these 
intitiatives indicates that Microsoft doesn`t want to play fairly in 
any field upon which it decides to play, and could allow Microsoft 
to effectively steal ideas simply because they were created using 
these services.
    I hope that you will consider adding these restrictions to any 
penalty brought to bear against Microsoft. It is only by cooperation 
and openness that we will be able to fully realize the promise of 
this new `electronic age'. Indeed, it was those traits, 
along with the willingness to express new ideas and follow new 
dreams, which helped to create the greatest country on Earth. Don`t 
allow Microsoft to trample upon these ideals.
    Sincerely,
    Randy Ennis
    708 N. Westfield St.
    Feeding Hills, MA 01030



MTC-00004211

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft `settlement'
    Microsoft`s proposed settlement would only increase its market 
share, especially with the new plan to team with a company which 
emulates Macs. Schools have been the last real holdout for Macs for 
a long time, and Microsoft wants to insure that every computer runs 
Windows so they can put harsh upgrade and licensing fees on the rest 
of the world and help drive hardware sales up with inefficient, 
`eye candy' operating systems. In my opinion, the only 
acceptable end to this is an end to bundling Microsoft internet 
access with the operating system (MSN threatens to become another 
destructive monopoly), an end to Microsoft`s behind the scenes dirty 
handling with computer manufacturers (making deals which threaten 
them financially if they allow customers to request other operating 
systems or even word processors), and large fees not only to the 
states but also to Corel, whose word processor has almost been wiped 
out by Microsoft`s dirty dealing, and the Mozilla Organization, 
which is the successor to the practically dead Netscape browser 
group (giving the money to AOL instead of the independent Mozilla 
organization would only help AOL to become another monopoly).
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Jensen



MTC-00004212

From: Dennis J Bouvier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The Microsoft corporation has done more damage to the future of 
computing than can be measured. The actions taken do not go far 
enough.



MTC-00004213

From: Purdum, John (123)10-6(126)Indianapolis(125)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that government intervention of Microsoft`s 
business practices undermines the basis of free enterprise 
established within the United States. I`m a software engineer that 
writes applications for Windows environments as well as Unix, Linux, 
etc. Windows has created excellent products that appeals to users. 
Its not a question of guerilla marketing or forceful contracts. Its 
the fact that Microsoft has made a name for themselves and can 
demand

[[Page 24454]]

certain things. If other operating systems were as efficient then 
vendors would just simply use theirs. The point is, consumers have 
made the choice and that angered other CEO`s with inferior product. 
I`m a firm supporter of open source and my favorite language to 
develop in is Java, but I don`t like the fact that the government is 
stepping in realms they really shouldn`t involve themselves in. Our 
country became successful because of competition. This competition 
makes other companies develop bigger and better products. This 
intervention will only hinder the process. Not to mention the fact 
that has anyone ever thought about the amount of money Microsoft has 
made other companies. By creating languages such as VB, C++ and 
making their OS and development IDEs extensible has lead to billions 
in third-party software sales annually. This is just another case of 
`the giant is too big and I don`t like it!' The problem 
is the government doesn`t realize that, if they want to make things 
fair, they would have to shut down Microsoft as a whole. Interfering 
like this will only make Microsoft bigger, stronger, and A LOT 
wealthier! Their products will become better and they will spread 
their reach over more industries. Even the government should think 
twice about pissing off a company like Microsoft. Maybe thats why 
this all came about!!!
    Good Luck,
    John Purdum



MTC-00004214

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:13pm
Subject: Settlement Proposal is no punishment
    Unbelievable:
    If ever there were an unchallenged monopolistic entity in the 
history of America it is Microsoft. Microsoft then used that 
monopoly to force lagitament Companies out of business or as close 
to it as possible, by either offering a Microsoft version of the 
product free (Internet Explorer web browser) or by packaging there 
own version of a popular software into the Windows operating system 
(Eliminating the need for the competing software).
    The governments final decision on how to punish Microsoft for 
these crimes (The practices they used are illegal and hence crimes) 
is to have Microsoft give its software to schools around the country 
for free....thereby extending and enforcing there monopoly for 
generations to come??? Please tell me how this is punishment? Please 
tell me how this gives justice to the thousands of companies that 
were forced out of business and lost there livelihood?
    By this standard of `justice' (And I use the term in 
its loosest since) a fitting punishment for a company that broke 
into Microsoft headquarters and stole all the source code for all 
there software and then redistributed it under there own company 
name to profit by billions would be to have that company give 
Microsoft some free software. Then everythings OK right? Yeah we 
forced you out of business and caused thousands to lose there jobs 
and took away your livelihood, but hey. . . . heres a free 
CD.
    If this is to be what `Justice' is to be in this 
country, then Im going to move my family to Russia, or Afghanistan, 
or Iraq where their since of justice is far superior to that of the 
United States.
    Paul Queen
    Apparent Citizen of The United States Of Injustice
    (714) 863-7118



MTC-00004215

From: Ross Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comment
    Hello,
    As a person deeply involved with computer matters, I find the 
proposed settlement disturbing. I have no animosity towards 
Microsoft, per se. In fact, I made a rather significant amount of 
money off Microsoft stock from 1992-1999. I made this money 
because I came to realize at that time that Microsoft`s control of 
the underlying operating system of all IBM PC-compatible computers 
gave them an insurmountable advantage over all application vendors 
that chose to use the IBM PC platform. This has not changed. In 
fact, the snowball is rolling downhill. Microsoft used its operating 
system dominance as a lever to dominate office productivity 
applications and suites. With that done, it uses proprietary file 
formats to ensure the maintenance of that situation. Now Microsoft 
is trying to use its dominance on the PC-platform to control network 
protocols and, ultimately, the Internet itself. It is likely to 
succeed if not restrained.
    These systems should, for the public good, be based on 
published, public specifications.
    I feel that it is imperative that any just settlement require 
Microsoft to make freely available complete and accurate 
specifications of all its application programming interfaces, file 
formats, and network protocols. There is no great intellectual magic 
to these things. They are only critically important because the 
sheer dominance of Microsoft gives them importance. Once this is 
required of Microsoft then it is my hope that we will see a more 
level playing field and that protocols will no longer needlessly 
proliferate. At this time much extra work is done simply because 
Microsoft`s advantage increases if it generates new, proprietary 
methods for doing things that are already being done successfully 
with open standards. This is NOT in the public interest and only 
serves to help maintain and extend Microsoft`s monopoly positions.
    I hope you will give my thoughts at least their due 
consideration.
    Thank you,
    Ross Baker_Devices for the Future
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a 
revolutionary act. George Orwell



MTC-00004216

From: Sonne, Byron
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 2:25pm
Subject: Renata Hesse, Department of Justice re: Microsoft case
    Greetings,
    As a computing professional with many years of experience in the 
field, I have great concerns regarding the Microsoft Antitrust case. 
The company has, I remind the judge, 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. 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.
    Respectfully yours,
    Byron Sonne



MTC-00004217

From: Keith Frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:29pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    As someone knowledgeable about computing and the computing 
industry, I cannot see how the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case offers any remedy for the antitrust violations of 
which Microsoft has been found guilty. The proposed settlement not 
only contains no meaningful penalties; it actually advances 
Microsoft`s operating system monopoly, and allows Microsoft to 
continue to extend it to the Internet.
    Any just penalty would require at least the following three 
measures:
    1. Microsoft operating systems must be sold only as added-cost 
extras with new computing systems, so that users who do not wish to 
buy Microsoft software are not forced to do so. This requires not 
only that computer sellers offer their computers without the 
Microsoft operating system, but that they also offer to sell the 
Microsoft operating system without a computer, for a price equal to 
the difference in price between the computer system without the 
Microsoft operating system, and the computer system

[[Page 24455]]

with it. Only in this way, can Microsoft truly be prevented from 
maintaining their monopoly position by unfair business tactics.
    2. The specifications of all present and future Microsoft 
document file formats must be made public, so that documents created 
in Microsoft products can be read by software from other makers, on 
Microsoft or other operating systems. In addition, the Windows 
application programming interface (API) must be published in full, 
to allow all other makers to write software for it.
    3. Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and reviewed by an independent network protocol body. This is to 
prevent Microsoft from extending its operating system monopoly to 
seizing effective control over the Internet. Our rights as citizens, 
to a fair and competitive marketplace, are at stake. Microsoft has 
shown itself to be an aggressive, unprincipled monopolist, and needs 
to be reined in, if we truly want a vital, innovative computer 
software industry in this country.
    Keith L. Frost
    1912 8th Avenue West
    Seattle, Washington 98119



MTC-00004218

From: rlboyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement was a nice way to show the world that 
`Department of Justice' is a misnomer. Maybe you should 
change your name to the `Department of Business Interests and 
Bribes'. The courts found Microsoft guilty of illegally using 
their monopoly power. Instead of having the punishment fit the crime 
you give them yet another slap on the wrists. Their is no way for 
the settlement to be enforced because if Microsoft doesn`t abide by 
the settlement what is their punishment? Two more years oversight. 
Wow, Microsoft will really want to avoid something that strict. We 
both know the best way to restore competition in the software 
industry is to split up Microsoft. Where would we be if Standard Oil 
or AT&T was still intact? With $36 billion in the bank, 
Microsoft has the cash to continue to eliminate competition in the 
industry by buying up weaker competitors weakened by the current 
economic climate. You split up Microsoft and you divide the amount 
of cash they have. A three-way split would be very effective.
    When you split the company, not only do you divide the cash they 
have but you also separate the tools used to maintain their 
monopoly. The first tool is the market share they have in the 
Operating System market. This monopoly powered their take over of 
the Internet Browser market through bundling. People would rather 
use the browser that came with the operating system than take the 
time to download a browser from a competitor (a feat that could take 
30 minutes to 1 hour back in the days before wide adoption of 
broadband). The download time is very inconvenient. The only way to 
put competitors on equal footing is to either ship the Microsoft 
Operating System with Microsoft Internet Explorer and other browsers 
or ship the Microsoft Operating system with no browsers. This allows 
people to choose their browser based on the quality of the browser 
and not convenience. This would work for other software as well. 
Splitting the current company into three companies, one for 
operating systems, one for multimedia and internet applications, and 
one for office software would help ensure that Microsoft no longer 
has an unfair advantage through bundling of their own software with 
their Operating System. We can already see that they are using the 
bundling strategy in the new Windows XP Operating System. They have 
bundled their own browser, media player, software to encode music to 
Microsoft WMA format but not MP3 format. It seems that the DOJ 
bowing down to Microsoft hasn`t slowed Microsoft down one bit.
    You need to force Microsoft to open up ALL APIs, not just those 
that Microsoft doesn`t deem to be a security threat, to allow other 
software to work as tightly with Microsoft Operating Systems as 
Microsoft software. You need to force Microsoft to release 
information to allow other software to read patented file formats 
such as .doc and .asf/.wmv and future formats. Also, any Microsoft 
networking protocols must be open to prevent them from taking 
control of the internet.
    I can`t even buy a name brand PC without a Microsoft Operating 
System on it. Don`t believe me? Try buying one from Dell, HP, 
Gateway, IBM, Compaq. See what I mean. The Microsoft monopoly must 
not be extended if for no other reason that national security. The 
Center for Strategic and Internation Studies has already released 
that study that says the use of Microsoft software poses a security 
risk.
    In closing, the settlement is another example that law in this 
country applies to some and not to others. So, I don`t expect you to 
do anything that might be confused for JUSTICE in this case. You 
are, afterall, an impotent organization, headed by a right-wing 
fanatic, appointed by a illegitimate president.



MTC-00004219

From: Scott Greathouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Ma`am:
    I am extremely concerned about the nature of the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement creates 
no real limitations on Microsoft`s behavior and, in fact, may 
encourage the Microsoft monopoly by giving it ready access to young 
computer users. In the long term, this settlement will only prolong 
this matter.
    The alternate remedy offered by those states opposed to the 
current settlement is excellent. However, I suspect, given 
Microsoft`s consistent past record of disregard for legal authority, 
that this remedy would not be enough. The only way to truly restore 
competition in the operating system market, and those markets that 
it affects, is to require Microsoft to reveal the source code for 
the Windows operating system. For example, Microsoft could be 
required to include media containing the source code with every copy 
it sells. This would allow competing companies to write software 
that interacts with the Windows operating system and protocols. It 
would also allow programmers of other operating systems, like the 
Macintosh operating system or Linux, to make their operating systems 
compatible with Windows software like MS Office or Media Player.
    Microsoft would have to un-bundle any product whose source code 
it wanted to keep secret. This would encourage them to un-bundle 
certain applications, such as Internet Explorer and Media Player, 
which have become the focus of concern for many people.
    While Microsoft would complain loudly about this, such a remedy 
would not destroy any of Microsoft`s intellectual property rights. 
It would still be illegal to copy or distribute MS Windows without 
paying for it. Software is distinctly different from other products 
in that the underlying functioning of a product can be completely 
obscured. With any other product, an analysis by a knowledgeable 
individual will reveal how the product works so that other products 
can be designed to work with it. However, if a device is patented, 
it is illegal to reproduce it without the permission of the patent 
owner. The same protection is given to software through copyright 
law. The real reason that Microsoft is opposed to releasing the full 
source code for its operating system products is that it knows that 
such a remedy would force it to compete once again. The operating 
system monopoly that Microsoft maintains has been very profitable, 
so it is understandable that the company would be strongly opposed 
to the measure. Again, the remedy would be that when Microsoft sells 
a copy of the Windows operating system, that the full source code of 
it and any applications bundled with it (e.g., Internet Explorer and 
Media Player) be included on separate media (like CD-ROMs). No other 
remedy would be necessary were this remedy implemented.
    Thank you for your time,
    Scott A. Greathouse
    System Administrator
    Behavioral Health Concepts, Inc.
    Columbia, Missouri
    http://bhcinfo.com/



MTC-00004220

From: Denise K. Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to say that I believe what the government and 
competitors are trying to do to Microsoft is unfair and unjust. Why 
is it a crime to be extremely good and successful in business? This 
whole case is built off of jealousy that other companies could not 
succeed as well as Microsoft or did not think of something first.
    Microsoft took the software industry to the next level when 
companies like Lotus, Novell, and WordPerfect became complacent. If 
the government is going to punish Microsoft for being innovative and 
capturing the market then why not look at the other companies, like 
Oracle and SUN, who are trying but have not succeeded at doing the

[[Page 24456]]

exact same thing. SUN has their own hardware and their own operating 
system that runs on their platform. Open source is not an option. Is 
the government going to force every software company to make their 
products open source? And think of the logical consequences to such 
actions. No further innovativeness, no real competition, and then 
think of the security issues. If Windows and/or other products are 
made open source can you just picture some person not having enough 
knowledge/skill and trying to modify code and then destroy peoples`/
companies environments all because the product was open sourced.
    Let me give you an analogy: Let`s say that I own my own cookie 
business. I start it up using a family recipe that was passed down 
for generations. I start out small and because they are so good my 
business booms and I start expanding all over. Pretty soon when 
anyone thinks about cookies they think about my company and me. Now, 
some other cookie maker comes along and because they do not do as 
well in the business as me they start to complain and make a lot of 
noise. Then they get other cookie companies to do the same. Is it 
fair to say that the government would then ask me to share my recipe 
for my cookies as well as my success?
    I don`t agree that the 9 states that don`t want to settle should 
be given that choice. They are only looking out for what is best for 
their individual state and not the public. It is in the best 
interest of the public to have this case resolved once and for all.
    Thanks for taking the time to read.
    Denise Robbins
    Program Manager
    [email protected]



MTC-00004221

From: Matt Soccio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:45pm
Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft penatly
    I am a Unix system administrator at Penn State University, and 
the political and economic ebb and flow of the computer industry has 
a deep effect on my job and how well I can do it. I am very 
concerned about the current Microsoft case and the impact that it 
will have on my ability to keep a heterogenous computer network 
running smoothly for years to come. Since 90% of my department uses 
Unix workstations, we currently have to jump through hoops in order 
to communicate with the countless number of people who use Microsoft 
products exclusively. Those professors who are amply funded, usually 
opt for a desk with two computers, one Unix, and one Microsoft. On 
the other hand, those people who are not amply funded, and cannot 
afford a high-powered Unix workstation, often choose a really fast 
Pentium class machine and use one of the free versions of Unix, with 
a great deal of sucess and satisfaction. When these Pentium-class 
machines break and are under warranty, I often have to push very 
hard on the manufacturer to support the hardware since there is no 
longer a Microsoft OS present. Lastly, I would like to point out 
that the recent security issues with Code Red, Nimda, Sircam, etc. 
have all been made possible because of loop holes in Microsoft code. 
I feel that one of the reasons that these incidents have had such a 
massive impact on the internet is because Microsoft guards its code 
so closely. If it is scrutinized by the computing community, it can 
be fixed before things reach such critical levels.
    In conclusion, I feel that the current suggested penalties do 
not go far enough to break Microsoft`s monopoly in the computer 
industry. I suggest the following:
_Break Microsoft`s anti-competitive deals with PC 
manufacturers. Currently, the only real choice to a consumer when 
purchasing a PC, is which version of Microsoft`s OS they want. I 
would like to be able to order a PC without an OS, or a freely 
available OS, and still get the hardware support that is offered by 
the big name PC manufacturers.
_Force Microsoft to make its binary formats available to the 
public. If this code was made available, files created on Microsoft-
based machines would be able to be properly filtered so that they 
would be useable on other platforms.
_Force Microsoft to make the code for its networking protocols 
freely available. This will reduce the grief that is suffered by 
countless users who have to integrate combinations of Microsoft and 
non-Microsoft computers and servers on their networks.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Matt Soccio Manager, Network and Information Systems
    Penn State University Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics
    445 Davey Lab 814-863-4465
    [email protected] www.astro.psu.edu



MTC-00004222

From: Glenn Maxey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: RFC-822=pavlicek@ linuxprofessional 
solutions.com@in...
Mail : Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Whereas you can go after Microsoft for its business dealings in 
the past, the settlements do nothing to resolve the issues of the 
future.
    `As far as consumers are concerned, our true grievances 
against Microsoft are:
_data incompatibility and proprietary formats.
_unresponsiveness in fixing long-standing software problems.
_circumventing and deliberately polluting open standards.
_opening the door to trampling our rights.
    The punishment/resolutions to Microsoft should be:
_Forcing open both their APIs and their source code using a 
Software Public Libary.
_Forcing adherence to open published standards.
_Forcing support for the life of hardware.
    The benefit to the consumer:
_hardware can be supported much longer.
_software does what you need it to do.
_custom software is affordably available.
_your data remains compatible.
_you can do it yourself if you`re so inclined.
    Forcing open both their APIs and their source code.
    The concept of a Software Public Libary is that all published 
software (Microsoft or otherwise) should be required [by 
international law] to be available in the library: executables, 
DLL`s, object, and [XML tagged and commented] source code. Most 
executables, DLL`s, and objects cost money to download. The money is 
collected either through direct online purchases or maintenance 
agreements. The charge for executables depends on the level of 
testing and certification performed before being made available. The 
source code should cost little (or nothing) to download, because 
small royalties can be imposed on all for-profit derivative 
products. Although the person should have to register themselves and 
agree to some limitations, they are free to make improvements to the 
software and to write new software that more fully integrates into 
what already exists. Improvements to the software can be checked 
back into the library and made available to others. Anybody writing 
improvements to code can collect proportional royalties on their 
incremental improvement based on actual new/altered code and the 
level of testing/certification it passed. Because all published 
software works need to be in the library, any code that is re-used 
or borrowed from another product can have proportional royalties 
diverted off of the new product to compensate those initial efforts 
for a limited period of time (say, 7 years from its first 
publication date which was the spirit of the original copyright 
laws).
    Various rules can be put in place that protect source code 
exposure for a short time limit (unless appropriate fees/royalties 
are paid) or that limit check-in of altered source code (unless the 
new implementation is truly unique and better). Existing software 
source control tools can easily test for uniqueness while benchmark 
performance and usability tests can also verify improvement. 
Microsoft makes money by being the software integrator, tester, and 
certifier. An external oversight committee helps manage and schedule 
which fixes coming from various sources need to be integrated so 
that it doesn`t become a Microsoft-only shop.
    Any code coming from others that hasn`t been integrated, tested, 
or certified would still be available in the library, but at reduced 
prices. Independent Software Developers can make money off of 
royalties coming from their improvements to products. Consumers 
benefit by getting more rebust code that supports new and old 
hardware platforms and software releases. Because proportional 
royalties are paid for derivative products_no revenue 
lost_, there would be less incentive for proprietary 
solutions. If the solution works, is open, and nobody is being 
ripped off for their creative efforts, there would be less incentive 
to `re-invent the wheel' and more incentive `to 
spend our time building on what already works.' This is what 
the consumer wants.
    Forcing adherence to open published standards. People are 
putting their lives into

[[Page 24457]]

the digital realm, from family histories to the digital family 
albums to e-mail correspondence and love letters... not to mention 
the family videos soon to appear on DVD. Is the digital electronic 
age taking our histories to hell in a hand basket? Microsoft has 
been the ultimate drug dealer. The bloat of their software has 
necessitated upgrading hardware. However, the true nicotine in the 
Microsoft/Intel addiction is data incompatibility and proprietary 
formats.
    Microsoft is leading us very much astray. They constantly force 
us to upgrade. Like junkies needing a fix, if you don`t upgrade, you 
are left out and can`t even work. We`re literally losing touch with 
our (personal) history, because corporations like Microsoft force us 
to upgrade beyond the technical ability to go back and review what 
was done before. Microsoft among others are doing all in their power 
to steal our personal information, our personal data, and our 
personal correspondence ***by locking them in proprietary data 
formats.*** (Windows XP adds yet another wrinkle to stealing 
personal information.)
    My personal data and correspondence needs to more accessible (by 
me), not less. It is, afterall, **MY** address book, **MY** e-mails, 
and **MY** information. It is bad enough fighting 5.25' 
floppies, 3.5' floppies, CD-ROM`s, and zip disks. But 
Microsoft deliberately encodes my information into formats that 
require Microsoft tools and upgraded hardware to do anything with. 
Microsoft has a history of polluting open standards (HTML, Java, 
XML, MP3...). It is one thing to propose improvements to the 
standard boards; it is another to forge ahead with a solution in 
parallel that creates confusion and incompatibilities in the market 
place.
    Look at how little and/or poorly Microsoft supports HTML/XML. 
What happened to the push towards true OPEN STANDARDS that are 
independent of tools? I shouldn`t have to have a Microsoft hammer 
and Microsoft wrench set in order to fix my data house. For no 
**good** reason, Microsoft implemented non-standard Java. They 
produce the absolute worst HTML code and are poised to non-
standardized the already standard-approved XML. MP3 is the first 
format that can truly start to transcend the limitations of the 
hardware format. It can be at home on a website, on a computer, on a 
CD-ROM, on a walkman-type player, on a home stereo system, as an e-
mail attachment... MP3 made it possible to get music that the big 
music industry would not produce or would not re-release because of 
low volumes and marginal revenues.
    And now Microsoft Windows XP has its own media player format 
which limits where you can play your music and for how long. 
Microsoft obviously agreed to help enforce digital rights management 
(DRM) with their XP operating system. This helps out the very 
powerful music and movie lobbies.
    Consumers benefit by having standards, because it frees them in 
the selection of a vendor. When we talk about civil liberties and 
freedom of speech, we should realize that propietary data formats 
attack those very tenants. We need a combination Declaration of 
Independence and Emacipation Proclaimation for the user-data. 
` ... All user-defined data is considered equal and has 
certain unalienable rights, one of which is the freedom of religion 
(...err, operating systems and editors). Data conversion is a form 
of taxation without representation, particularly when information 
gets lost in the process or when you have to pay extra for the 
feature. All data belongs to the user and not to the tool or tool 
vendor that created the data.'
    Forcing support for the life of hardware.
    Software and hardware manufacturers should support the true 
lifetime of a machine. A computer isn`t normally exposed to the 
elements and has few moving parts. It should theoretically last 
longer than a car. Microsoft doesn`t make it easy to get over 
America`s negative reputation as a throw-away society.
    We should still be finding worthwhile uses for that old computer 
hardware. We should still be programming for those old processors. 
The tragic state of high-tech today is that you can barely even 
**give away** your old computer, because you can`t get equipment or 
newer software. Having Public Software Libraries is a start to 
keeping old hardware viable in today`s world. Opening the door to 
trampling our rights.
    Look through the license agreement provided by Microsoft for 
Windows XP. Not quoted exactly and emphasis added, parts of their 
license agreement state: `Microsoft may collect and use 
techical information gathered *in any manner* as part of the product 
support services... Microsoft and their affiliates may disclose this 
information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies 
you... Microsoft may use this information to improve their products 
or to provide customized services or technologies to you.' By 
stating that Microsoft can gather information `in any 
manner', they give themselves permission to sort through my 
trash and bug my telephone line. With Remote Assistance, they can 
put things on my computer without me knowing it. Whenever I`m 
online, their `in any manner' programs will be running 
in the background and communicating with their hosts. Cookies are 
technical information. Just by viewing what files are present and 
processing the cookies on my machine, they can come up with a pretty 
good profile of who I am, where I`ve been online, what I`ve 
purchased, etc. They can pass this on to e-mail spammers and 
telemarketers_ after filtering my name. Spammers and 
telemarketers don`t need to know my name in order to provide 
`customized services' to me; they figure that I`ll give 
them my name when I actually order. In any event, we all become easy 
targets for the advertising and marketing industry.
    Who needs carnivore if you`ve got Windows XP? Why did the 
government back down against Microsoft?
    Microsoft Windows XP now has the power to monitor and enforce 
what is on everybody`s computer. This is more powerful than 
carnivore. In the near future, you can bet that one of the 
`customized services' that Microsoft will be providing 
you might be a couple of cops knocking on your door to take you 
away.., if a routine remote search on your computer turned up 
unregistered programs, bootleg MP3s, controversial material, 
questionable associations in your Outlook address book...
    OPENING UP the source code is the only way to guard against 
having software trample our rights in background processes without 
our knowing it from `leased' and soon-to-be 
`rented'
    Microsoft software.
    Glenn Conrad Maxey
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    735 South Bryant
    Denver, CO 80219 (USA)
    (h) Tel. +1 303.282.4578
    (w) Tel. +1 303.223.5164



MTC-00004223

From: Aker, Susan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 3:06pm
Subject: The Proposed Remedy
    Attn: Renata Hesse
    The case against Microsoft proved them most definitely guilty of 
anti-trust violations, and, yet, by reading the proposed remedy, I 
see nothing that will effectively limit them from continuing the 
very same practices. Their monopoly in the area of personal computer 
operating systems, under the proposed remedy, will continue 
unchanged. There is no punishment here for wrongdoing and is, 
instead, only a light tap on the hand and a reminder that they will 
be watched. But the watchers, those not employed by Microsoft, will 
be unable to effectively rein in the company when they return to 
their illegal practices. This remedy shows itself to be no remedy at 
all, having so many loopholes that even a person untrained in 
legalese can see them. Please look to a different remedy, something 
that Microsoft will not easily agree to_after all, if they 
agree, especially so quickly, it must not be any kind of hardship 
upon their business practices. Perhaps a breakup of the company is 
not necessary, but whatever punishment is given for illegal 
activity, it should be in the form of a punishment and not a small 
inconvenience.
    Thank you for your time,
    Susan Aker
    288 Gregory Dr.
    Jasper, GA 30143
    770-735-6069
    770-393-5436



MTC-00004224

From: Jerry Kreps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom, in the DOJ, it may concern, if anyone in the DOJ is 
even listening:
    I read the following remark in a talk-back forum. I believe that 
`Shiva' is correct in his assessment. More than likely 
it is because powerful politicians, businessmen, pension funds, and 
other lobbies have justified this `settlement' on the 
basis that anything which hurts Microsoft hurts the economy. (More 
than likely they are just looking out for their own portfolios and 
retirement funds_the people be damned!) This presupposes, of 
course, that any damage that might occur if Microsoft were held to 
the penalties the law

[[Page 24458]]

allows would be greater than the harm Microsoft has already cost the 
economy in lost production due to crashes and reboots, inflated 
prices for their products and `upgrades', lost assets 
due to theft because of Microsoft`s abysmal security, or jobs that 
Microsoft has destroyed when they pirated other companies software 
and `rolled' it into their OS. I doubt that assumption 
and I am sure that if this `settlement' is allowed to 
stand we will witness more blantant criminal behavior than has gone 
on in the past. In fact, three months before this settlement was 
annouced, last August, Microsoft must have gotten wind of it because 
it suddenly stopped acting reasonable and began demanding that PC 
vendors NOT install any other OS on the PCs they sell, nor include 
the ability to all the customer to install or dual boot any other 
OS_a clear violation of the Sherman-Clayton antitrust act. One 
of countless Microsoft behaviors that you, the DOJ, seem mindless 
of.
    The 800 lb Gorilla can get away with such actions for two 
reasons:
    1. They have a MUCH larger purse than many of their victims and 
can outlast them in court in most instances, if the victims can even 
afford to take Microsoft to court in the first place, and
    2. the Department of Justice, the defender of the people against 
injustice and evil doers, has demonstrated a remarkable incompetence 
in snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. What else can be 
said when the DOJ wins two verdicts and still lets the convicted 
criminal write a `settlement' so outrageous as to give 
the criminal MORE power than they had before being convicted?
    I feel as much anger toward the incompetent DOJ lawyers and our 
legal system as I do for Osama BIn Laden, Al Qui`ade and the 
Taliband. Regrettably, I feel the die as been cast, and the actors 
are merely looking for ways to float the `settlement' in 
the best light possible, or drag it on till no one cares.
    Our forfathers are rolling in their graves.
    Jerry Kreps
    521 West Garber Avenue
    Lincoln, NE 68521
    Shive wrote:
    `This takes the cake!
    Imagine a mafia boss is convicted for running a protection 
racket, extorting protection money from customers by criminal 
threats and putting all competing businesses out of business by 
leveraging his criminal protection racket. After the conviction the 
Judge sits with the convicted felon and discusses with the felon 
what his punishment should be (note this is not plea 
bargaining_this happens AFTER the conviction). The punishment 
agreed with the felon then comes out like this:
    `The felon may continue the same criminal activities for 
which the felon has been convicted (ie: extracting protection money 
through criminal threats and acts and putting competitors out of 
business by running and leveraging his criminal protection racket) 
in relation to companies or persons that don`t meet the felon`s 
criteria as a business: '...
    (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by the 
felon for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...', This is what you have you have got folks! I cannot 
believe that even the most ignorant lawyer would come up with 
something like this as a punishment. I am now absolutely convinced 
this is the most blatant corruption at the highest levels. Al Capone 
never had it this good!
    Shiva '



MTC-00004225

From: Leachman, Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the 
proposed Final Judgement regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case. I 
only have a few comments, and I will try to be brief. I do not 
believe the remedies outlined in the proposed settlement are fair.
    ONE TIME
    1. Too much value placed on Microsoft`s donated software
    I believe too much of the settlement is based on `$X worth 
of Microsoft software'. They couldn`t sell this software to 
schools and shouldn`t be allowed to credit the price against the 
settlement as if cash traded hands. Let them credit $1/CD-ROM 
to cover printing costs, perhaps a 50% discounted price against the 
software on the CD, but not more.
    2. Insufficient monetary penalties
    No company is richer than Microsoft, and since this is due to 
enjoying and exploting an illegal monopoly, I feel stricter cash 
penalties are in order. Perhaps they cannot `give it 
back' but you could and should make them pay it out.
    ONGOING
    3. Insufficient technical disclosure
    I believe there is far too much `fine print' about 
the specifications Microsoft will publish in the future. Please 
force them to publish complete source for every published software 
offering, perhaps after a 6 month period covered by the of 
`intellectual capital' copyright provisions today. This 
will force them to continually innovate, while allowing competitors 
a better chance of actually competing.
    4. Insufficient funding for oversight committee
    I think the oversight committee is a great idea, but wish there 
was more direct funding/staffing. I am sure Microsoft will take care 
of their appointee, but believe more should be done to guarantee the 
People`s appointee, and the third appointee, have adequate staff to 
research the information behind the issues. As it stands now, it 
appears Microsoft could easily overwhelm the committee in data that 
would hamper adequate resolution of complaints.
    Again I thank you for the opportunity to comment, and for your 
consideration to my suggestions.
    Rob Leachman
    [email protected]
    PO Box 931
    Corvallis OR 97339



MTC-00004226

From: Greg Machala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:32pm
Subject: Settlement suggestions
    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 it 
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 do 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

[[Page 24459]]

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.
    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 tried to figure out 
how Microsoft`s networking protocol works to 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 wording in the 
DOJ solution give Microsoft new LEGAL grounds to shut down apache 
servers and put into there place...Microsoft products. This 
certainly does not half 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 addition 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
    Calera, AL 35040



MTC-00004227

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    I feel compelled to tell you that as a consumer I feel 
disenfranchised by the results of the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. While I use many of their products, I do not wish them to 
continue having the godlike powers which they currently have in the 
marketplace as it would continue to put big holes in my pocket. 
Currently, there are several trends which keep and will keep 
Microsoft on top.
    The first of these is that Microsoft collects more 
`tax' on every computer sold than any givernment in the 
world. This is because you have to pay for Microsoft software 
whether you want it or not. Microsoft`s argument is that the refund 
for said software should come from the OEM, while the OEM claims the 
refund should come from Microsoft. Frankly, I am content with 
Windows 95 and will continue to use it for as long as it remains a 
viable product. The biggest reason for this? I can do every function 
that is currently available on the newer operating systems with much 
better performance. Why? smaller faster Kernel is why. Microsoft`s 
decision to integrate Internet Explorer and Media Player into their 
OS have stolen system performance, so I have no interest in 
upgrading to the latest greatest Microsoft OS, yet the MS deal with 
OEMs basically forces me to pay an MS tax if I want new hardware. 
This is major gripe number 1. I want to be able to buy a computer 
from a major manufacturer (Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM,) without having to 
buy a new OS.
    Major gripe number two. MS has announced that it will no longer 
support Windows 95 or Windows NT. If they are no longer going to 
support it, they should have to release the source code so we can 
support it ourselves. I think this should be the case for all 
products that MS chooses not to support. They should have to make a 
choice, continue support in perpetuity or release the source code. 
They should also have to release the source code on any product on 
which the patent has run out. I myslef can not write code for beans, 
but there are many people out there who can and do. This would allow 
the users to provide their own support. This is especially important 
with regards to security fixes and drivers.
    Major gripe number three. Prior to going into the antitrust 
hearings, MS had to provide information regarding APIs to anyone who 
wished to write code. Period. If I wanted to write software that 
would work on the MS OS, all I had to do was purchase the 
development kit and I would get all the APIs necessary to code 
functioning software. I am concerned that this will no longer be the 
case with the new agreement. It could put an end to shareware and 
freeware. Specifically I refer to Section III(J)(2) which states 
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. Let 
me give you two expamples. One: I am a small PNP who needs to write 
a custom software package to manage the tasks which I perform for 
the community. Because what I do involves the personal information 
of people in general and US Citizens in particular, I want that 
information to be secure. Under the old arrangement MS would have 
had to provide this information to me, under the new deal MS no 
longer has to provide me this information. Two: I am a programmer 
who gets an idea. I want to develop this idea on my own or with the 
help of a few friends. This idea involves me providing content 
through MS new .NET channel. I am not a business, so MS does not 
have to provide me with any documentation, etc. Suddenly my idea, 
which might have earned me a small fortune and significantly 
inreased my tax obligation to the US Government, is completely 
unworkable because MS determines that I am not a business and 
therefore chooses not to provide me with the information I need in 
order to have THE FREEDOM TO CREATE:. Those words, the freedom to 
create, combined with the freedom to innovate, are the words that MS 
used to beat the US DoJ over the head with again and again. It 
should be noted that, when they say that, MS really means the 
freedom for MS to create or the freedom for

[[Page 24460]]

MS to innovate, especially if it will put a competitor out of 
business. This is the MS version of freedom. For these reasons, I 
think it should be law that ALL APIs, Documentation and 
Communication Protocols related to any product have to be available 
to EVERY US Citizen who requests it. PERIOD. This should also apply 
to everyone, not just Microsoft. Anything else gives MS an unfair 
advantage in the marketplace, all of hich means that I will have to 
pay more and more for MS products as they gain marketshare in an 
area. If we do not force MS to keep this information freely 
available, then MS will do the same thing that they did with Office 
and Internet Explorer and Media Player and . . . the list 
goes on and on. They will develop proprietary protocols, in what 
they claim is `the interest of performance,' which will 
not interact well with anything except their propritary protocol. 
They will use this to become so powerful that they will be able to 
defy the US Government with impunity. Excuse me, I forget, they have 
already done that and won when they released Windows 98.
    As regards Section III(D), I would like to see the addition of 
Government Agencies (that`s right, the current language does not 
FORCE MS to release this information to the government, do you think 
they will do it voluntarily?) and finally I think there should be a 
clause added which states `. . . and any other party 
or parties who wish to create software or hardware that will 
interact with or use a Microsoft Product.' By adding this 
phrase to the language, the only requirement I have for getting 
information from MS about how to interact with their products is 
that I wish to create. Note that I am not advocating that MS give me 
the source code for their product, but rather access to their APIs, 
the documentation for the APIs, and any and all communication 
protocol information required to use their authentication for what I 
want to create.
    One final comment. This has to do with recommending a change to 
copyright/patent laws. The truth is that software code is obsolete 
in 5 years. Windows 95 gave way to Windows 98 in only 3 years. 
Windows NT version 4 gave way to Windows 2000 in 4 years. Windows 
2000 gave way to Windows XP and Windows .NET Server in less than 2 
years. For this reason I propose that copyrights for software be 
limited to five (5) years. Companies have already gotten all of 
their R&D money and a good bit of profit out of it by then 
anyway. I further recommend making this change retroactive to all 
source code ever written. Remember, the idea behind copyrights and 
patents was to allow companies exlusive rights to their products or 
licensing fees for their products so that they could recoup their 
investment. This typically happens with software in one to five 
years, hence the recommendation for a five year copyright/patent on 
software.
    Thank you for your very kind attention,
    John Tatum
    [email protected]



MTC-00004228

From: Greg Machala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:50pm
Subject: Settlement issues
    See attached file
    To whom it may concern,
    I am an IT Officer with NOAA. We use open source software a lot 
and feel the DO J/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.
    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 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 wording in the 
DOJ solution give Microsoft new LEGAL grounds to shut down apache 
servers and put into there 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

[[Page 24461]]

and more functional that Microsoft`s that will fully communicate 
with Microsoft products and services and allow them to work with 
rival operating systems.
    BENEFIT. S: 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-00004229

From: Barry Craigen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:52pm
Subject: Attn: Renata Hesse
    In regards to Microsoft vs. USDOJ,
    First, let me say that I am not an American, but rather a 
foreign (Canadian) consumer and computer enthusiast. I have, 
however, been following the case, and believe that the outcome will 
have ramifications which transcend international borders.
    As so many others have no doubt pointed out, the decision of the 
court to this point has been that Microsoft has a monopoly position 
in the desktop operating system market, and further that they have 
used and continue to use illegal business practices to maintain and 
extend that position in the PC market.
    Given the decision of the courts, the questions which need to be 
asked regarding fairness of the proposed settlement are as follows:
    1. Does the proposed settlement adequately impose punitive 
damages on the guilty party?
    2. Does the proposed settlement restrict the business practices 
of the guilty party in such a manner as to restore integrity to the 
marketplace?
    3. Does the proposed settlement sufficiently restore a level 
playing field to the software market by removing control of the 
API`s, file formats and interfaces from Microsoft? After reading the 
proposed settlement, I am not convinced that it fulfills ANY of the 
objectives which a reasonable settlement would fulfill.
    PUNITIVE DAMAGES:
    There is nothing in the way of punitive damages to either 
Microsoft Corp. or the executives who knowingly and willfully broke 
the law. I must ask, then, if this settlement goes through in its 
present form, what ever happened to the basic principle of law that 
criminals should not be allowed to profit from their crimes?
    Microsoft and their employees should be forced to divest 
themselves of all shares currently held in other high tech. 
companies, and forbidden to collectively own more than 5% of any one 
company. All executives who have worked at Microsoft over the years 
in which the crimes were committed should be fined 25% of their net 
worth to be paid out in full within 12 months (and yes, jail terms 
for those who do not comply). And Microsoft Corp. should pay a one 
time fine of at least 10% of their revenues over the years in which 
their crimes were committed.
    The proceeds from these fines should be spent on computer 
equipment for schools in less fortunate areas of the world 
(including the poorer districts in the US) with the proviso that the 
computers may not ever use Microsoft software.
    INTEGRITY TO THE MARKET/LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:
    The proposed settlement does not, in my opinion, sufficiently 
accomplish this for a number of reasons.
    First, we must ask who the most viable competitors to Microsoft 
are. The Open Source community of developers are pretty much the 
only serious competition Microsoft has at this point. All other 
`competition' seems to limit themselves by not 
developing for the PC platform. There are a few notable exceptions. 
Corel owns a very small part of the Office Suite market, but since 
Microsoft purchased a 50% stake in the company, they stopped 
development for alternative platforms, and pulled their Operating 
System from the market. In the browser market, there are basically 
two major competitors on the Windows platform_Netscape (owned 
by AOL who still has their clientele using Internet Explorer over 
their own in house product), and Opera (a promissing little company 
who are finding it very difficult to keep going in the face of 
reduced opportunity afforded by a market dominated by Microsoft).
    Next, we must ask what the primary means of software 
distribution is. In one word, `Preload'. Consumers won`t 
actively go out and look for alternative software to that which 
comes preloaded on their computers at the time of purchase_at 
least not in numbers sufficient to sustain competition. Thus whoever 
controls the preload, controls the market. Here again, I find the 
proposed settlement lacking. As a consumer, what I find repugnant 
about the current market is that I don`t have a reasonable 
opportunity to say NO to Microsoft product at the time of purchase. 
My preference is for the Linux Operating System and the wide variety 
of software available for it. However, if I try to purchase a 
computer in any store (Even in major centres), I must pay for a 
Windows license (even if I have no intention of keeping Windows on 
my computer). There is no mechanism in place to be reimbursed for 
that purchase. This is the result of exclusive contracting, and 
provides a mechanism for Microsoft to impose other unwanted product 
on the unwary consumer. A mechanism for compensation to consumers 
should be imposed, and since this was determined by the courts to be 
a Monopolitic practice, the provisions of the Sherman Act for triple 
damages should be put into play here_furthermore, the retail 
price charged for Windows should be the basis for compensatory 
action. Even if I have the opportunity to say NO at the time of 
purchase, Microsoft can still make life difficult for me, and others 
like me. One of their favorite tricks has been to use their file 
formats, API`s and Communications/Networking protocols to make 
themselves incompatible with everyone else on the market. The 
proposed settlement takes a cynical stab at solving this one, but 
will effectively have no impact on the market because it leaves 
Microsoft in charge of the whole process (including determining who 
may have access to the necessary information to built alternatives, 
under what conditions, and at what price). A much simpler solution 
would be to require them to publish all API`s, file formats and 
communications/Networking protocols under the Public Domain license. 
Furthermore, if they are found by a panel of industry experts to be 
violating the intent of this section, a severe penalty should be 
applied with no further appeal process (Including fines for all the 
executive, as well as the developers who assisted them).
    SUMMING UP:
    It is my opinion that the proposed agreement between Microsoft 
and the DOJ will have little or no impact on the current state of 
affairs. Furthermore, it is woefully inadequate in imposing punitive 
damages for past actions or future violations. For these reasons it 
should be rejected. A solution so lacking makes a farce of the 
criminal justice system.



MTC-00004230

From: James Spack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the complaints of Steve Jobs of Apple, are just that 
sour apples. He is afraid that Microsoft will take some of his 
business away from him, but his company has done the same thing to 
get the monopoly it has in education now. Apple is well known for 
giving free and heavily discounted computers and software to schools 
to get an inroad into the schools. Then once the kids start using 
the software and computers they can expect that parents will buy 
similar units for home use as the kids are already familiar with the 
programs and equipment.



MTC-00004231

From: Dale W. Way
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentle people,

[[Page 24462]]

    I would like to add my voice to the chorus of people objecting 
to the settlement with Microsoft. It will not blunt this 
particularly ruthless and amoral company`s continued quashing of 
competition. Their recent and transparently self-serving attempt to 
bribe their way into domination of the education market by 
`giving' away their products to school as recompense for 
their guilty monopolists behavior should reveal this to even the 
most technologically and business-illiterate in the legal community.
    I am particularly concerned with the loophole that requires them 
to play nice only with other business entities, not not-for-profit 
entities. Everybody knows the non-profit institutions of the Open 
Software movement are prime competition to Microsoft`s extending 
their domination beyond the desktop, yet this is precisely the area 
of competition Microsoft is free to trample, according to the 
settlement. This settlement does not due justice to Microsoft`s 
criminal behavior nor effectively prevent them from continuing it.
    Thank you.
    Dale W.
    Way Oakland, CA
    USA



MTC-00004233

From: Jon Pugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Court:
    I have been watching Microsoft for years. I had the opportunity 
to join Microsoft when I graduated college in 1983 but did not 
pursue it because I considered them to be the bottom feeders of the 
software industry even then. Their primary concern at the time was 
capturing the business software market. Instead, I joined the 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory doing high energy physics 
computer support and then moved to Apple Computer in 1992, where 
they were doing user centric computing instead of business oriented 
computing. I am currently working for Adobe Systems, making cross 
platform publishing software, so that the freedom of words can 
continue to ring across America. I have been critical of Microsoft`s 
practices all through this time period. I have watched them destroy 
company after company. Where are Borland, Ashton-Tate and Lotus 
these days? Crushed. Even IBM has felt their sting. Apple was nearly 
crushed and seems to be propped up as a foil from complete monopoly 
status these days. Netscape has even disappeared in the time this 
trial has taken. My email signature for a long time was `What 
are you doing to stop the Microsoft juggernaut?' and I have 
written web pages which describe my opinion of how and why Microsoft 
is so dominant in this industry and so concerned with squishing 
every opponent they encounter:
    http://www.seanet.com/jonpugh/microsquish.html
    Watching this anti-trust trial has been difficult. I had such 
high hopes and was so pleased with the way David Boies roasted 
Microsoft`s defenders, showing them to be biased and incorrect, if 
not out and out lying. Judge Jackson`s exasperation with Microsoft 
showed me that he was understanding how these people worked, with 
weasel words and shifting definitions.
    Then the world changed with the administration change and the 
Justice Department caved in completely to Microsoft, as many people 
expected. Now the various settlements appear to hand Microsoft 
everything they desire, and my hope that America is fair has begun 
to wane. I had hope when the Supreme Court upheld Microsoft`s 
determination as a monopoly, but these settlements (both the anti-
trust and class action suits) indicate that someone either doesn`t 
understand the situation or is actively working for Microsoft. 
Please put some teeth into this settlement or reject it completely. 
Do not hand the industry over to Microsoft. It will be the 
instigation of a new Dark Age, when everyone must use Microsoft 
software or write everything themselves.
    And we will write everything ourselves rather than tie ourselves 
to the horror than is Microsoft.
    Jon Pugh
    Senior Computer Scientist
    18306 Andover
    Edmonds, WA 98026
    (425) 640-0835
    [email protected]



MTC-00004234

From: E. Jonathan Hardy Hardy
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/12/01 1:40pm
Subject: TechWeek TV agrees with Redhat proposal
    Just wanted to voice the opinion of many of our viewers here in 
the Capitol city of Hartford, CT. The Proposal for software seems 
much better. It would allow students at an earlier age to get used 
to using another operating system shared by many companies_not 
just one. As an activist in my community regarding technology 
issues, we feel that it is extremely important to get the actual 
machines in the hands of the students. Software can be donated a lot 
easier than the machines themselves. This proposal that would allow 
Microsoft to charge for the software is an extreme disgrace to our 
judicial system. They end up with a whole lot more paying customers 
when they would like to renew their software in five years, and in 
the long run, that would pay off big-time for them. The whole point 
here is a punishment/settlemant_not guaranteeing future sales 
of their operating system at the expense of our childrens education.
    E. Jonathan Hardy
    TechWeek TV!_Co-Producer and Tech Journalist



MTC-00004235

From: Ian Ballantyne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to comment on, and object to, the currently 
proposed settlement with Microsoft in the antitrust case.
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial_and it faces a growing threat on the applications 
front from Open Source and freeware applications. The biggest 
competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is Apache, which 
comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation. 
Apache runs an outright majority of web servers in the internet. 
Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-profits, are 
also critical backbones on the internet. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that Microsoft need 
not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies 
that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: 
`. . . (c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, . . .' Such language, and 
therefore the settlement, gives Microsoft the right to effectively 
kill products such as Apache, Sendmail, Perl, and every other not-
for-profit software product that must in some way communicate or 
work with Microsoft products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only. It therefore excludes those not-for-profit 
foundations and the developers associated with them from obtaining 
critical information to make the products of those foundations 
compatible and able to function with Microsoft products. Under this 
deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national 
laboratories, the military, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, even the Department of Justice itself, have no rights.
    If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF IT. Microsoft will find a way to shut out Open Source 
and not-for-profit developers and the products they work on. The 
proposed three person commitee will be powerless to change this 
since it is a legally binding settlement. This settlement will 
further assist Microsoft to destroy any competition that

[[Page 24463]]

Microsoft does not approve of, such as Apache, Sendmail, Samba, 
Perl, and the Linux operating system itself.
    This settlement at best does extremely little to curb the power 
of Microsoft. In my opinion as a professional software developer, 
this settlement in fact gives Microsoft even more power than they 
had before. That`s because they now have a legally binding document 
that allows them to fully legally justify their refusal to provide 
critical information, or for that matter any information at all, to 
not-for-profit foundations and individuals who may develop products 
that must somehow work with Microsoft products. If this deal goes 
through as it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the case not 
just unscathed, but stronger than before and with what is 
essentially a stamp of approval from the United States Department of 
Justice itself for their business practices in the past. For the 
reasons stated above I object to the proposed settlement between the 
United States Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    I support a much more stringent settlement, such as that 
proposed by the 9 states that have refused to sign onto the proposed 
antitrust settlement. The settlement proposed by these 9 states 
provides much better opportunity for competition in the software 
market place. It makes Microsoft much less able to discriminate to 
whom they provide necessary technical information to make competing 
software products, particularly Open Source products and products 
from not-for-profit foundations, interoperable, therefore 
stimulating competition and variety in the software market place.
    Yours faithfully
    Ian Ballantyne
    Maerzstrasse 52/8
    1150 Vienna
    Austria, Europe



MTC-00004236

From: Jay Moran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I`m writing concerning the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    For the most part, I am ambivalent concerning Microsoft and the 
antitrust case. Having said that, I have to admit that the 
settlement is laughable in two very important regards.
    First, it displays a lack of ignorance of how Operating Systems 
and Software Application interoperate.
    Second, it imposes no penalties on Microsoft vis-a-vis their 
business concerns.
    As to the first point, telling Microsoft that they have to allow 
developers access to the Application Program Interfaces (APIs) is no 
great threat.
    MicroSoft will force users to use their software development 
platform. This, by its definition will prevent other OS users from 
accessing applications that will become platform dependent. It will 
also limit the types and kinds of advances that can be made, due to 
the prohibition on knowing what MicroSoft will be doing next with 
their OS. Presumably, their in-house developers will access to the 
next generation APIs well before mainstream developers get the 
opportunity.
    Secondly, you`re saying MicroSoft can basically proceed as they 
have all along, with no real change. What you`re seeing with Java 
will be the same going forward. Kodak is already getting squeezed 
out of the desktop software market. To say that proprietary access 
is not only okay for certain software, but IS OKAY shows a 
disconnect between antitrust law basics and reality. It would be 
like breaking up Standard Oil and saying that have to be able to 
sell other types of gas and that they can continue to sell gas as 
long as they use their own pumps. Nothing is going to make them 
offer other pieces of software (especially if the Federal Government 
can`t get them to do it.) I have to admit, I stand in awe and wonder 
how so many otherwise intelligent people could have studied this 
issue for so long and come up so short in demonstrating 
understanding.
    I wonder how many small software operations are going to be shut 
down due to this blind abeyance to MicroSoft? I wonder if the 
Department of Justice cares.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph F. Moran
    9 Horseshoe Court
    Atco, NJ 08004-2922
    856-719-6819



MTC-00004237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been keeping up on the limited information about this 
case. I am sure my one letter isnt going to make a lot of 
difference, but I must send it out, just at the chance that it may 
make a difference. I am a linux user, and have been for 6 years. At 
first, it was a hobby, to toy around with, but now, it is the 
primary operating system on my computer, and also runs my business. 
I have put a lot of faith in Linux, because I feel it has matured 
enough to become a viable option.
    This is not primarily a technical point I am trying to make, but 
an economic one. When I first started using linux, I didnt have a 
lot of money. I was a struggling student, and I couldnt afford much 
for my primary passion, which was (and still is) computers. I wanted 
to write programs, create graphics, and other things with computers. 
One of the problems was, I was using computer hardware which was 
horribly out of date, and wasnt really up to the task of performing 
in the manner in which these programs required. Even if it did, 
hardly could I afford the tools. I still remember saving money for 5 
months to purchase a copy of Corel Draw, so I could create graphics.
    Software was just entirely too expensive. Not that it isn`t 
justified; I feel that these companies deserve to reap the rewards 
of creating a good product, on the other hand, I was a poor student, 
without hundreds of dollars to throw at the latest and greatest 
software. Plus, I wasnt using this software to make money, I was 
only using it to learn, for my own personal benefit. This made it 
hard to justify spending a lot of money on it, even if I had it.
    Some people in this situation would turn to piracy. They would 
copy the program from a freind, or get it off the internet, because 
they couldnt or didnt want to pay for it. This wasnt an option for 
me, as I have always been an honest person, and was brought up to 
take the honest path in life. This meant, for me, making do with 
what I had, or, as I stated, saving for months, and putting forth a 
lot of money to see if it was right for me. Then I found Linux. A 
free operating system, I didnt mind downloading it and trying it 
out. It was hard at first, to use, but after a while, I became 
accustomed to it. I had noticed, that all the programs I had wanted, 
were included for free. A state of the art graphics program. A 
compiler. CAD utiltities. This thing had it all. Plus, my old 
computer ran a lot better under linux, which meant I didnt have to 
upgrade my computer as often.
    I owe my whole career to Linux. Without it, I probably wouldnt 
be where I am today. As a result, I was able to advance and learn 
without financial boundaries, or becoming a thief. Today, my company 
depends on linux. We do high-end graphics work with `the 
Gimp', and our servers all run on linux. The money we save on 
software and licensing goes to gimp.org, and other foundations to 
keep them running. It really is a better deal. And now that I can 
afford high-end software, I still use linux as a primary tool, as it 
has developed into a professional class platform. When I hear that 
Red Hat wants to donate Operating Systems to schools, and have 
Microsoft donate hardware, I think thats great. I have personal 
reasons to be biased about it, but I think its a great idea. It lets 
poorer schools give kids a better education, and can mean the 
difference in millions of childrens lives. For `poor 
kids' who otherwise may not have any chance of acheiving thier 
goals, this may enable them to get marketable skills, a good job, 
and succeed in the workforce. This could enable a whole new 
generation of technically skilled individuals, who could grow 
together, and advance us farther than we ever imagined. With people 
coming from all areas of the country, rich or poor, we end up with a 
larger amount of technically skilled people, and advancement of our 
quality of life is that much faster. There could be the next Bill 
Gates, the next technical genius, sitting in a poor school in the 
middle of the inner city, sitting on a winning lottery ticket, 
holding the key to curing cancer, and this op
    Jeremy



MTC-00004238

From: Ray Whitfield
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Ray Whitfield
1715 14th Place
Plano, TX 75074
    This comment regards the proposed remedy for the case U.S. v. 
Microsoft wherein

[[Page 24464]]

the U.S. Department of Justice has won the case but lost the 
settlement. As someone familiar with the computer industry, and the 
stifling effects of Microsoft`s monopolies in this area, I cannot 
see how the proposed settlement will fix the problem. Microsoft has 
been found culpable as a market monopolist and one should expect 
that the settlement would reflect this. This settlement as it stands 
now provides no real determent against the abuses for which it was 
design to prevent: thereby, not only does it fail in it intended 
goal but it further emboldens Microsoft to continue down this path 
and only guarantees that Microsoft will be back before the courts 
for a third time. Please remember that the first settlement with 
Microsoft had no real effect and the company has been maintaining 
its monopoly status in other ways not contemplated by the original 
settlement. This new settlement must be more comprehensive and 
foresight full than the last; it must be in the people`s interest, 
not Microsoft`s: after all Microsoft is the abusive monopolist. 
Microsoft controls the operating system and the office productivity 
markets and indeed there have been no challenges to Microsoft`s 
position in either of these markets for many years for which the 
previous settlement was supposed to correct.
    The settlement as it stands now must also include these points:
    1. A punitive assessment that will be felt by the company. It 
must be large enough to give Microsoft pause and make it think twice 
about future abuses.
    2. In order to level the playing field and allow for competition 
in the operating system market in a meaningful way all Microsoft 
operating systems must become extra-cost options in the purchase of 
new computers. The purchaser of a computer does not have to buy a 
Microsoft operating system if they do not want to.
    3. Also in order to level the playing field in the application 
markets then all bundled components in Microsoft operating systems 
must be unbundled and either made separate products each for sale on 
its own merits or with drawn from availability. The user who does 
not wish to purchase Microsoft applications will not be forced to do 
so even if they use a Microsoft operating system. This recognizes 
the point that the vast majority of computer users don`t have any 
choice of operating system and must utilize a Microsoft operating 
system in order to even use a computer.
    4. It is not enough to force the publication of the operating 
system API`s (these are the mechanisms by which applications 
interact with the operating system). Microsoft has a monopoly in the 
Office productivity segment of the market and in recognition of this 
then the settlement must have a provision such that all present and 
future file format specifications of all of Microsoft`s products 
must be made public, placed on a easy to find address on the 
internet at Microsoft`s expense and that they must be kept up to 
date reliably available and accurate in a very timely fashion.
    5. There must be a provision for appointing a Special Master who 
will determine Microsoft`s compliance on all points of the 
settlement. This is to ensure that any corrective action that 
Microsoft may need to take in order to maintain compliance with the 
settlement is performed in a timely manner. The computer industry 
moves and changes quickly and as a result by the time an infraction 
is brought to court in normal circumstances then the harmed 
commercial entities will most likely not exist and there by in 
effect help Microsoft maintain its monopoly positions even if found 
guilty of violation. Delay tactics must not be allowed to frustrate 
the goals of the settlement.
    Also the Special Master will decide what API are excluded from 
publication based on their appropriateness of exclusion for security 
or antivirus reasons as provided in the existing settlement. It is 
in the country`s best interest to have a meaningful punishment 
against Microsoft not a swift one that does not protect the markets 
from unfair competition.



MTC-00004239

From: Peter Cleaveland
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/12/01 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m an internet programmer for Online Documents, Inc. I use 
Microsoft products all day, but I have serious misgivings about the 
terms of the proposed settlement.
    Please make sure the Microsoft Antitrust settlement does not 
contain language that exempts Microsoft from co-operating with not-
for-profit and open source organizations. Section III(J)(2) and 
Section III(D) are particularly troubling examples where cooperation 
with commercial enterprises and businesses is required, but 
cooperation with the Open Source movement and academic efforts is 
not. These not-for-profit enterprises are the source of a great deal 
of innovation and the single greatest long term competitor to 
Microsoft. Please don`t allow the terms of the settlement give 
Microsoft license to undercut these efforts. Microsoft was found to 
be breaking the law by behaving in an anti-competitive manner, 
right? Lets not give them a tool to continue that behavior.
    Along a similar lines, please don`t let Microsoft flood the 
educational market (one of the few places they don`t dominate) with 
(supposedly $1 billion) of their own products at almost no real cost 
to themselves. Dumping product at below cost to stifle competition 
is a classic anti-competitive strategy in it`s own right. Why should 
we reward Microsoft`s criminal, anticompetitive acts with an 
invitation to do more of the same? It would be much better for the 
educators to have $1 billion in cash to buy technology of their own 
choosing. That would actually be a penalty to Microsoft. The current 
proposal seems more like a reward.
    Peter Cleaveland



MTC-00004240

From: Ricevuto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Will the comments be made public? Will you be posting a link to 
all the comments on this website? I would be interested in reading 
what other people have said (anonymously, I hope).
    Also, great job on this website! This is what democracy is all 
about.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Ricevuto
    e-mail: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004242

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 6:02pm
Subject: Opposition to microsoft antitrust settlement
    Mr/Mrs Renata Hesse,
    I would like to voice my opposition to the microsoft settlement. 
I feel that if the courts have found microsoft to be in violation of 
the antitrust laws, then they should pay a stiff penalty for 
breaking that law. I also feel that any resolution that does not 
allow for stiff penalty will show americans that if you break the 
law, the only punishment you will get is a penalty, that will allow 
you to continue your monopoly. When AT@T and IBM were found 
to be monopolies, they were broken up and had to pay a stiff penalty 
for breaking this law. Microsoft is a monopoly that has hurt 
competition in many areas. If they have a product that can withstand 
the pressures of competition, then they will show this by the sales 
of their products. I a consumer, do not like the fact that if I buy 
a system and don`t want microsoft on it, I still have to pay the 
price as if it was present on the system. Resellers, manufacturers, 
still have to pay microsoft and that cost is push on to customers 
like myself.
    Also according to reports that microsoft may have to put 
system`s into poorer schools would further it`s monopoly, this is a 
very bad decision and I for one, would not be happy about it. Also I 
feel that microsoft should as part of their punishment, have to 
purchase systems with other OS`s and put them for free into the 
poorer school districts. This would be a fair solution. And have to 
pay the government back all that it spent to prosecute them for 
their crime, and break up the company Did you know that if microsoft 
continues it`s monopoly, that it will control most of the data on 
every server, and that microsoft can at it`s decretion, do whatever 
it feels necessary with that data. Would you be confortable in 
knowing that all your personal data belongs to microsoft and that 
you may have to pay large amounts to retrieve this data, and also 
that the servers it sits on, because of the Microsoft OS is not 
secure allowing terrorist and any hacker to obtain this information. 
Would the Government like to know that it`s top secret information 
is controlled by microsoft and that anyone may have access to that 
information. If you feel comfortable with knowing that a corporate 
company has control over all data on the internet and private 
networks, and can do with it what it wants, then you are sadly 
mistaken. What are we showing our children about the law, when a 
company that has committed a crime, is let off with a slap on the 
wrist and has successfully controlled the U.S. Government and let 
them know that they cannot do anything with microsoft because it 
rules this country and not our Government.

[[Page 24465]]

    Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to read 
this, I hope that by voicing my opinion it will not fall on deaf 
ears.
    Jonathan Spearman
    3535 14th St #2804
    Plano,Texas 75074
    May GOD Bless america!.



MTC-00004243

From: Charlie Zender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 6:05pm
Subject: Reject Microsoft`s proposed settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Microsoft`s proposed settlement is, in my opinion, a cynical sop 
to public opinion, and a dangerously flawed one at that. Microsoft 
proposes to `donate' their software to the one 
marketplace segment that they do not already completely dominate, US 
schools. That in itself is reason enough to reject the settlement. 
There also does not seem to be any type of punitive action against 
Microsoft for violating the previous (1995?) consent decree. This 
company uses its OS monopoly to break into new markets and destroy 
competitors so often and predictably that one wonders when they will 
get more than a slap on the wrist. Forbidding MS from charging more 
for windows to manufacturers who want to ship their machines with 
multi-boot OSs, forbidding MS from requiring that MSIE be used to 
access crucial websites (using `embrace and extend' 
tactics on HTML), these are the areas that really make a difference 
and need to be addressed.
    Respectfully,
    Charlie Zender
    Professor of Earth System Science
    Charlie Zender [email protected] (949) 824-2987/
FAX-3256, Department of Earth System Science, University of 
California, Irvine CA 92697-3100



MTC-00004244

From: Sean Wolfe
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 6:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ folks:
    Please note this individual`s comments on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. As a Linux and open-source enthusiast and Internet 
professional, the extremely light proposed settlement causes a lot 
of concern. Microsoft`s ability to stongarm other entites with its 
desktop_OS monopoly, and its push into other fields, needs to 
be curbed. I for one am paranoid that we may live in an even more 
Microsoft-centric world.
    Open source and third-party companies must be given more access 
to Windows resources such as APIs, etc. I for one think Internet 
Explorer should be separated from Windows and installed separately, 
to allow companies like Netscape and others to survive. And please 
don`t contribute to Microsoft gaining market share by letting them 
`donate' software and hardware to the education 
community, one of the last non-Microsoft markets! Thank you for your 
attention._Sean.
    Sean Wolfe, IT Coordinator
    Ticketmaster Arizona
    602.438.4110 x1211
    [email protected]



MTC-00004245

From: Rodman Brett
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]...
Date: 12/12/01 5:08pm
Subject: Compelling Federal Interest for Certiorari in The MicroSoft 
Case
    December 12, 2001
From: Brett A. Rodman Diogenes Unlimited Political Consulting temp 
address 102 Reid Road West Columbia, TX 77486
To: Attorneys` General of the States of The United States of America
Subj: `Compelling Federal Interest' for a Writ of 
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States of America 
concerning The MicroSoft Anti-Trust Case
    cc: The Securities and Exchange Commission
    The European Union
    The United States Senate
    Attorneys` General,
    The MicroSoft Corporation, and Bill Gates have been able to 
amass the great amount of wealth that they possess as a result of 
widespread ignorance on the part of the judicial community, and the 
public to a great degree, concerning computers, the internet, and 
technology. More specifically, as the Internet, and Commerce 
conducted, with regard to its technological advancements remains a 
legal `no man`s land' concerning applicabililty of legal 
standards governing taxation, contracts, the public welfare, and 
anti-trust and competition standards regarding the same commerce The 
Microsoft Corporation and Bill Gates are able to escape legal 
scrutiny, indictments, and penalties, forfeitures, and damages.
    The technology associated with the High-Tech Internet 
`MarketPlace', and the `Commerce' conducted 
therein is relatively new. In fact, it has been proliferate for only 
the greater part of ten years now. Therefore, it is understandable 
that the Legislative, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Infrastructure 
of the United States Government, and the Fifty States of the United 
States of America have difficulty in comprehending or delineating 
the implications of, or codifiying and prosecuting with facile 
intergrity and efficiency, criminal and civil tort breeches, and 
commercial standards, and or proprietory and fair practices 
standards pertinent to this new high-tech commercial market space.
    Over the last year, I have done academic research, concerning 
how the Constitutional and Legal Protections, Guarantees, 
Immunities, and Priveleges of the Bill of Rights, most specifically 
regarding political and speech rights, apply on the internet. This 
being an estblished area of interest of mine, I would like to offer 
the following metaphor, and thoughts, concerning the 
`Microsoft Monopoly` over `High Tech Commerical Air 
Space' and how it is detrimental to the general welfare of the 
public and the American People.
    The Internet is a Super Highway. It represents a high-tech Super 
Highway of Commerce, Industry, and Capitalism. Just as the Assembly 
Line was the `life's blood` of the American Industrial 
Revolution, so to is the Internet, the life`s blood of the New 
Information Technology Economy of the 21st century. However, 
juxtaposing the two, the goods, services, and commodities produced 
by the Assembly Line were available to the American Consumer at a 
ubiquitious level to all of the American People who could afford 
them. This was due to the self-regulation of industry and laissez-
faire economics creating equitable supply and demand structures in 
the marketplace of the goods and services created by the assembly 
line.
    Unfortunately, one of the negative effects of the 
`Microsoft Monopoly`, with regard to its Windows Operating 
System, as the only feasible accessing device to this Information 
Technology Economic Market Place has been the disenfranchisement of 
a large segement of the American Population towards entry into, and 
the benfits of this Market Driven Economy. For the most part, this 
has its greatest effects at the lower end of the Economic Spectrum 
in the lower income, and moderate to lower income wage sectors of 
the American Economy. This has in effect, due to this Monopoly, 
catalyzed greater disparities in income distribuition, savings, 
disposable income, and the accumulation and accruement of wealth 
into the hands of the top-teir of the wealthiest of Americans. This 
problem dynamically proliferates itself, as the express intent of 
the Internet is to expedite, and initiate a more dynamic high-speed 
development of capital transactions and the ability to engage in 
commerce. The amazing effectiveness of the Internet has as a 
tangential effect catalyzed a proliferation of negative aspects for 
the General Welfare of the American Public as a whole.
    The MicroSoft Corporation, and Bill Gates, have in fact 
established a system, whereby access to The High Tech Information 
Market Place of Commerce, Goods and Services, and Capitalism 
requires that they are payed a tax by the American People desiring 
to utilize this Market Place. As it currently stands, it is nearly 
impossible to find a computer operating system, or server that is 
accessible in the public and private realm that will access this 
market place, without first having to access and utilize the Windows 
Operating System, and pay `a tax` to the MicroSoft Corporation 
acting as a quasi-governmental agency exercising full authority over 
the Internet, and the right to engage in Commerce, and Capitalist 
functions therein. Mr. Gates, and the MicroSoft Corporation`s 
defense is, that you should not penalize sucess. I invented this 
system, therefore I am justified in establshing an `Operant 
Monopoly` thereto due to this. Though this argument it sound, it 
lacks validity, cogency, and the the dictates of American 
Jurisprudence and Common Sense. Utilizing this argument, it could be 
supposed, that the person who invented concrete should be given a 
`tax revenue' everytime a new road is paved, brige 
built, or driveway poured, or more than this every time a road is 
utilized by a vehicle. As this metaphor applies to the Super-Highway 
of Commerce, imagine that the company that invented concrete was 
allowed to tax every person who utilized the streets, roads, and 
highways of the United States of America in both the private and 
public realms. The person that invented

[[Page 24466]]

concrete would have, in effect established a toll-booth at the end 
of every american driveway, established, erected and protected by 
the American Government so that the inventor of Concrete would get 
their tax-money for use of the streets, roads, and highways of the 
United States of America. More than this, every time Public 
Transportation was utilized, the tax-money derived from the use of 
the streets, roads, and highways would not go to the local, state, 
or federal government, but to the inventor of concrete, collected 
for them by the Government, at the expense of the tax-payer. This is 
a clear and unambigious Constitutional Violation abrogating The 
Exclusive Taxation Powers of the United States Congress provided for 
under Article I, Sectioin 8 of the Constitution of the United States 
of America.
    The Consent Decree agreed to by the Justice Department of the 
United States of America, Forty One of the States of the United 
States of America, and The MicroSoft Corporation provides no real 
remdy. Instead of breaking up the `Operant Monopoly', 
and institution of `illegal taxation` by the monopolist, the 
government made a deal with the company to establish a `bi-
lateral operant monopoly` with the company that as it applies to our 
metaphor, makes the `toll booths` at the end of driveways (The 
Sun Micorsystems Java systems). It is proposed by the consent 
decree, that by dividing the `Operant Monopoly,` and 
`illegal tax money` with Sun Micro Sytems (the toll-booth 
operators) that in effect this will serve as a Judicious Remedy of 
what should be deemed as a monopoly over entrance to a market place 
in the Public Domain. This is a clear and convincing violation of 
United States Title Code 15, Section 1, The Sherman Act, and though 
subtle, and implicit in nature, a violation of United States Title 
Code 29, Sectioin 151, The Wagner-Connery Labor Relations Act.
    The content, purview, and express intent of the Wagner-Connery 
Act generally provides for remedy of corporate and lavor relations. 
However, as it concerns the omnipresent proliferation of the 
Internet and high-speed communications as a requisite entry point 
for access to the Information Technology Market Place of Commerce 
and Capitalism over the past teny years the Wagner-Connery Act is 
applicable. Invevitably, or unfortunately ultimately invariably at 
the least, in this instance, access to the Information Super 
Highway, and the Informatioin Technology Market Place of Commerce 
and Capitalism requires a financial transaction, apparent as a 
`quasi-governmental information technology tax` with the 
MicroSoft Corporation and the Corporate interests of Bill Gates. In 
doing this, as the Information Technology Market Place of Commerce 
and Capitalism, is in fact an artifice and institution of the Public 
Domain, the MicroSoft Corporation has enacted a `taxatioin 
system', provided for by the Government, using tax-money to 
collect the tax revenue for a private institution. As such, through 
this tax, The Micro-Soft Corporation, and Bill Gates has established 
an employeer-employee relationship with not only his company and the 
Citizens of the United States of America, but The Citizens of the 
World, desiring access to this Informatioin Technology Market Place 
of Commerce and Capitalism.
    This Monopoly however is elusive, difficult to understand with 
respect towards current commercial codes, and anti-trust standards, 
and therefore is difficult to prosecute with effectiveness, or offer 
equitable remedy against, due to ignorance of how it is established, 
and the intracacies of Information Technology Systems. Due to this, 
this real, and established in fact `Operant Monopoly', 
provided for by the Government, utilizing the tax revenue of the 
American People as a means to exact the `tributes', 
`taxes', and `fees' derived thereto appears 
as a pernicious, and dangerous threat to the General Welfare of the 
American People. Its appearance, manifestation, and proliferation 
threatens the economic viability of the United States Economy due to 
its devastating potential to subordinate and disenfranchise a large 
segment of the America Public, and further proliferate the gap 
between rich and poor in America.
    The parents patriae relationship between the Microsoft 
Corporation and the American Public, as it is manifest as a 
employeer-employee relationship for all desiring access to the 
Information Technology Market Place of Commerce and Capitalism, 
pursuant to USC Title 29, Section 151, The Wagner-Connery Act, does 
in fact;
    `(a) impair the efficency, safety, and operationa of the 
instrumentalities of commerce' is in fact;
    `(b) occurring in the current of commerce' does;
    `(c) materially affect, restrain, and control the flow of 
raw materials and manufactured or processed goods from and into the 
channels of commerce, and the prices of such materials and goods in 
commerce' and in fact; `(d) causes the dimunition of 
employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or 
disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of 
commerce'
    This is caused when the necessity of access to the Information 
Technology Market Place of Commerce in Capitalism is in fact 
necessarily directed through, and provided for by the exclusive 
necessity to use the Windows Operating system prior to entrance to 
this Public Domain and Venue. This principle and perspective gains 
reinforcement through the application of the public-function test. 
As a result, a large segment of the American Public, and in this 
case the World Population is disenfranchised from access to the 
Commerce and Capitalist Marketplace by the artificial prices that 
are established by the Microsoft Corporation, and its competitors in 
this sector concerning Information Technology Systems, Equipment and 
Facilities necessary for entrance into the Market itself. Allowances 
by other computer companies, and corporations operating in this 
economic sector are intracted into the pricing of their commodities, 
goods, and services. As a result, competitors, to maintain 
competitive profit margins, to keep up with MicroSoft as a viable 
invesment opportunity, pad prices, artificially inflate costs to the 
consumer, and enhance dividends as a means to compete with Microsoft 
and its `Operant Monopoly`, and `illegal taxation 
artifice' established as a requirement for access to, and 
entrance towards engaging in Commerce and Capitalist Activity in the 
Information Technology Market Place. This does in fact, 
disenfranchise a large segment of the American Public and Citizens 
in Foreign Countries, and exacerbates not only wealty disparities on 
the personal and micro levels, but undermines efforts by states, 
governments, and fledgling markets, economies, and arbitrage systems 
from stabilization.
    As this is the case, I offer that pursuant to United States 
Title Code 15, Section 8, and United States Title Code 15, Section 
11, established as a Constitutional Violation of Article I, Section 
8 of the Constitution of the United States of America, provided for 
under Article V of The Bill of Rights of the same, that the 
Microsoft Corporation should be required to forfeit the license to 
the Windows Operating System to the United States Government, and be 
subject to Treble Damages to the Fifty States of the United States 
Government. Due Compensation, as required by law, should be offered 
in the amount of the Company`s `real value' after such 
legal taking, and Attorney`s Fees, Damages, and Compensation have 
been paid by The Microsoft Corporation.
    I look forward to hearing from your organization concerning this 
matter.
    Very Truly Yours,
    I remain,
    Brett A. Rodman
    Start of forwarded message
    Subject: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments
    To: [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], 
[email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected]
From: Rodman Brett 
Date: 20 Nov 2001 12:06:51 PST
November 20, 2001
From: Brett Anthony Rodman Diogenes Unlimited Political Consulting 
temp address 1009 11th Street NW Washington, DC 20001
To: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 450 Fifth Street 
Washington, DC 20549 202-942-7040
Subj: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments
Ref: (a) Ltr to Brett A. Rodman dtd February 18, 2000 from the SC 
Department of Commerce
cc: The South Carolina Legislature

[[Page 24467]]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Film Office of South Carolina
The SC Economic Development Authority
The South Carolina Department of Commerce
The Apple Corporation
The MicroSoft Defense Site
The Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division
Offices of the Attorney General SC, CA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MA, MN, UT, 
WV
International Anti-Trust Agencies
Brendan Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Williams & Connoly
The College of Charleston SEC,
    My name is Brett Anthony Rodman, I run a small political and 
legal consulting entrepreneurial enterprise. I am interested in the 
MicroSoft Case, but have little time to research the issue right 
now.
    However, I have a `hunch' that I was hoping your 
agency and the cc: line addresses might be interested in undertaking 
dudilligence concerning its validity. For, if it is true it speaks 
to the business practices of MicroSoft, not only in the area of 
Information Technology, but its investments in other areas of the 
economy. It concerns the `intellectual property rights' 
to offer an IPO, and garner `venture capital` for the 
Construction of a Movie Studio in the State of South Carolina.
    In February of 2000, I authored, and delivered a hand-written 
copy of a 30-year Economic Redevelopment plan for the State of South 
Carolina. The State of South Carolina acknowledged receipt of this 
plan, which included the construction of a `movie studio` with 
Reference (a).
    I contend for the record, that my former employeers, Practical 
Holdings Limited of 206 Sak`s Fifth Avenue Building, and Zebo`s 
Restaraunt and Brewery of 275 King Street Charleston, SC did 
conspire, to defraud me of the rights to this `intellectual 
property' through threats, intimidation, bribery, and 
eventually a `murder attempt' in front of St. Louis 
Cathedral in New Orleans, LA resulting thereof, for their own 
pecuniary, fiduciary, and economic benefit. I originally made this 
contention, and my desire to see the matter investigated to the 
United States Secret Service Field Office and Special Agent Kenny. 
At the time of the Field Interview, Special Agent Kenny mentioned 
that he did not feel that the American Government could investigate 
pertinent to 10th and 11th Amendment concerns. The same behavior 
that was exhibited in Charleston, SC, has now continued through 
three other state jurisdictions. The States of Texas, Missouri, 
Louisiana, and even to a lesser degree the District of Columbia.
    Throughout the breadth of this three year hate crime, and I 
would contend human rights abuse i have kept the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation through e-mail, and the United States Secret Service 
through e-mail and interviews updated on the progress of these 
individuals and their criminal behavior. Unfortuantely, the 
coconspirators at Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery have extensive 
connections through the nation`s capital and getting any type of 
investigation initiated has been difficult. You can contact the Ned 
Twining, formerly one of the largest shareholders of Exxon Oil for 
details on the behavior of his investment at Zebo`s Restaraunt and 
Brewery.
    This brings me to the possible involvment of the MicroSoft 
Corporation. As everyone in the financial world is well aware, all 
corporations have people on the street, as information represents 
money. Microsoft obviously, as they have more money have more people 
on the street. I contend for the record that the Co-conspirators to 
defraud me of my property did in fact approach the Microsoft 
Corporation for Deveolpment money to investigate the possiblity of 
the construction of a movie studio in South Carolina.
    In fact, I conted for the record, that my employment by Debra 
Rosen, Tony Stroupe, and Mark Barhyte at Practical Holdings Limited, 
and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brwery was nothing more than a 
dudilligence effort to gather enough information to be able to 
commit identity fraud, so as to garner investment capital from 
sources banking in the Bank of Japan Monetary System. I have made 
this contention, and sent documentation to the Embassy of Japan, and 
the Consulate of Japan in Houston to enummerate these concerns.
    Moreover, Practical Holdings Limited was working on a 
Interactive Museum Project with the Gates Foundation in Charleston, 
SC. I contend that this is the point in time where, `money to 
be put on the street' was garnered as, `investigative 
capital' or plans `formulation money. This money was 
then used to intimidate, bribe, buy off justice officials and police 
officers, and eventually have me stabbed in the streets of New 
Orleans. I feel that if the MicroSoft Corporation offered money for 
this project, or funneled money to his people in the street, through 
quasi-jobs (i.e. payments for doing nothing), Mr. Gates was aware of 
what the money was being utilized for, approved of this, and in fact 
established a high tech concentration camp, a hate-crime, and a 
human rights abuse for his own amusement. Of course assuming that 
he, as the richest man in the world could just buy the problem away 
later.
    I do sincerely hope that you will look into this matter, and 
contact the aforementioned individuals. As it is my contention that 
if Mr. Gates was involved he is subject to the provisions of USC 
Title 18 Section 96, and forfeitures contained therein, to the 
Treasury Department of the United States of America.
    The international community and economic police agencies can 
contact any foreign students who attended the College of Charleston 
from 1997 to 2000, to ask them what they might know about any of 
this. A good place to start with any dudilligence would be 139 
Calhoun Street, the Trio Club.
    In earnest, I am, Brett A. Rodman
    By the way, one other person you can contact is Professor 
Bjerken of the College of Charelston Philosophy Department. I took a 
Chinese and Japanese Religions Class from him. There was a girl (red 
head) named Katy who sat next to me in class. One day she waked by 
me, and condesendingly muttered under her breath at me, `your 
taking on Microsoft'.
    Apparently, MicroSoft has purchased the American Government and 
Legal System.
    FindLaw_Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community http://
www. FindLaw.com



MTC-00004246

From: Martin J. Stadler, B.Sc.Eng.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 6:26pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlements
    N.B. My personal views are not necessarily shared by my employer
    Dear sir(s),
    It is no surprise that a change of administration in the USA has 
resulted in a change of official attitude towards the multitude of 
serious criminal offenses committed by Microsoft.
    It should NOT be neglected, however, that the Microsoft monopoly 
and the consequent LACK of product quality costs the United States 
and other western economies hundreds of billions of dollars every 
year, in lost productivity, computer down-time and loss of valuable 
data due to abysmal operating system security.
    Personal injuries from sheer frustration are incalculable, and 
the fear of yet another `Microsoft Experience' can be 
paralyzing. The pace innovation within the computer industry is 
over-shadowed by chaos, and contrary to Bill Gates` ranting(s), 
monopoly has not brought order.
    The time has come for governments to treat computer operating 
systems as an essential public utility and to regulate them 
accordingly.
    Respectfully Martin J. Stadler, B.Sc.Eng. (TE), EIT.
    N.B. My personal views are not necessarily shared by my employer



MTC-00004247

From: Tim Ambrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 6:58pm
Subject: Support of Microsoft!
    To whom it may concern,
    It is time to leave Microsoft alone to do it`s great work for 
the good of both the nation and the world. This company has 
compromised fully and I`m sure way beyond what it feels is fair. It 
is obvious that they are just warn out and want it to end at any 
cost.
    Again, please advise all these enemies of Microsoft to stop this 
war for the good of the consumer and the right to inovate!
    I love all of their products and just want more.
    Very respectfully,
    Tim Ambrose,



MTC-00004248

From: GERALD THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    HI I HAVE USED WINDOWS FOR 10 YEARS I HAD NO PROBLEM NOT USEING 
THERE INTERNET. I USED A LOCALE START UP COMPANY CFANET . IT WAS 
BOUGHT OUT BY ERIENET,THAN VOYAGERNET, THAN CORECOM. THUR ALL OF 
THAT I HAD NO BLOCKAGE FROM MICROSOFT. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM PUTTING 
YOUR OWN COMPANY ON WINDOWS. IT IS STILL ON MY START PAGE I DON`T 
USE IT ???? I AM 70 AND DON`T KNOW A LOT ABOUT COMPUTORS

[[Page 24468]]

BUT WINDOWS IS EASY TO USE. I AM ON MY 3RD COMPUTOR.
    THANK YOU
    GERALD THOMPSON



MTC-00004249

From: Dwight Bale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:09pm
Subject: Justice & Microsoft Settlement
    I propose to the DOJ that they do their job in straightening out 
the criminal Justice System. Have someone do a quality review and 
get something going to make it more efficient. For example the Jury 
system stinks, at best.
    I am sure you can pass this off as not relevant to your 
division, but someone somewhere should be doing something about it 
as we are still operating the same as 50 years ago.
    Please pass this on, but it will probably get buried in the 
bureaucracy, anyway..
    Dwight Bale
    401 Auburn Ave
    Auburn, WA 98002



MTC-00004250

From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:19pm
Subject: proposed Microsoft settlement and the non-settling states
    Sir or Madam,
    The non-settling states are getting a far better deal with the 
current settlement than they deserve. Their goals are to prop up 
competitors that are very sorry business-people.
    Please give them what whining kids deserve most, either a kick 
in the pants or a new diaper.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Patrick Chaffey, OCP, CPA
    17516 NE 138th St.
    Redmond, WA 98052
    ps_OCP stands for Oracle Cerified Professional. This 
certification is about 180 degrees opposite from loving Microsoft 
products.



MTC-00004251

From: Ed Lyons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    First of all, let me thank you, the government for giving the 
ordinary citizen the chance to submit comments on this case.
    I am against the settlement for two reasons: it does not 
adequately punish past behavior and will not deter similar behavior 
in the future.
    I am a software developer who works primarily with middleware 
and the Java programming language.
    Even at the level of code itself, Microsoft thwarts innovation 
and intentionally prevents competing technologies from either 
working well or working at all. There is a grand design at hand that 
will not be undone by consent decrees. Microsoft`s entire company is 
dedicated to monopolization and exclusion in everything they do. 
Their identity is so well established that I do not believe that 
they can truly be punished and deterred by something they see fit to 
agree to. Would it make sense to forge an agreement with a fox to 
not eat chickens from the coop when he is hungry every night? Would 
it not make more sense to erect an impassable fence instead?
    Yes, it would take a few more years to properly impose a remedy 
on them. But it will take many more years when you have to start 
this process again. You should already know this as they willfully 
violated the last consent decree. Has a lengthy trial full of lies 
and half-truths convinced you that their management team is somehow 
more committed to honesty this time? Microsoft, who won`t even pay 
the search for truth enough of a compliment to even admit that 
Windows is a monopoly, is sure you will rather cut your losses 
rather than go the distance. It knows that violations of the new 
decree will carry on for years in further litigation. It believes 
that you don`t really want to go the distance. I hope that you don`t 
prove them right.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Lyons
    Boston, MA



MTC-00004252

From: Brian P. Kasper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:45pm
Subject: Settlement is a Travesty
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am alarmed by the Microsoft settlement currently proposed by 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic tactics. It is a 
prime tenet of open-market systems that monopoly power cannot be 
tolerated and must be eradicated.
    Microsoft has suggested that they provide their software to 
schools as a remedy. This is a bad idea in two senses.
    First, Microsoft is permitted to specify the cost of their own 
software when the amount of the remedy is calculated. At this point, 
the unit cost of a copy of Windows XP to Microsoft is the cost of 
the creation of the media and packaging, but they can claim the full 
retail cost per copy, greatly decreasing the impact of the remedy.
    Second, by providing schools with Microsoft software, the 
Department of Justice will be acting, in effect, as a Microsoft 
distributor and a perpetrator of the Microsoft monopoly. Since the 
Microsoft software will be the first software used by many of these 
children, they will grow up with the mindset that Microsoft software 
is the easiest to use and `best', simply because it`s 
the software with which they are most familiar.
    The remedy is also replete with loopholes and muddled language 
which would permit Microsoft to continue its unfair domination of 
the computer software marketplace, especially in regards to 
nonprofit or `open source' companies.
    I plead with you not to implement the currently-accepted remedy. 
In my thinking, these are the critical changes that must be 
enforced:
    (1) Microsoft must adhere to accepted standards and be prevented 
from creating proprietary closed extensions to said standards
    (2) Microsoft must not give their application developers unfair 
advantages because they control the operating system. This could be 
implemented, for example, by separating the parts of Microsoft that 
create operating-system and application software and forcing the 
application software portion to compete in the open market
    (3) Microsoft must be punished so that the punishment has an 
effect. A fine levied upon a multibillion-dollar company must be 
commensurably larger than that appropriate for smaller companies.
    (4) Any settlement must not be a vehicle for increasing 
Microsoft mindshare
    I believe, for example, that the modified settlement proposed by 
Red Hat, Inc. is a much more appropriate remedy in that it addresses 
my two specific concerns with the current remedy.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this 
letter.
    Brian Kasper



MTC-00004253

From: Ken Sallot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I write to you this evening in regards to the settlement 
proposal with Microsoft Corp. Specifically, I would like to comment 
on proposed restrictions that Microsoft would have to comply with, 
and the proposed restitution Microsoft will have to pay for their 
monopolistic practices. I would also like to take this opportunity 
to discuss possible remedies that could be considered. I am making 
my commentary, as is my right as a United States citizen, during the 
Tunney phase of the settlement.
    From what I understand of the proposal for restrictions that 
Microsoft will have to comply with is that Microsoft will be 
prevented from giving special price breaks to different computer 
OEM`s. The proposal, as I read it, is that for a five year period 
Microsoft will be required to provide uniform pricing on the 
Microsoft Windows operating system, as a method to restrict 
Microsoft from applying `punitive' pricing tactics for 
supporting competitive operating systems.
    However, I am concerned that there were no provisions made to 
ensure the same does not happen with other Microsoft products. 
Considering that Microsoft manufactures many software products 
besides the Windows operating system, I would not be surprised to 
see Microsoft offer their `preferred partners' special 
bundle packages on other select software applications in an effort 
to circumvent the restrictions on Windows price breaks. Special care 
must be made to ensure that Microsoft does not take advantage of 
this loophole as a method to punish vendors for supporting 
competitive products.
    Secondly, I would like to comment on the punishment and 
restitution that Microsoft should make for their actions. The idea 
that Microsoft should give $1 billion dollars in computer equipment 
to school districts across the United States is an excellent idea. 
However, I am concerned that Microsoft could use this settlement to 
their advantage

[[Page 24469]]

in a couple of ways that would only allow them to extend their 
monopoly. I`ll explain my point of view more clearly below.
    1. Microsoft has proposed that they will supply software, 
hardware, and training to the sum of $1,000,000,000. However if 
Microsoft were to valuate their software products at full retail 
value, the actual number of computers provided would be a paltry 
sum. Microsoft Office Professional edition currently carries a 
retail price of $579, and Microsoft Windows XP currently has a 
retail price of $299. Since just about every computer provided 
through this solution would most likely include Windows and Office, 
the software would comprise $878 of each computer.
    Considering that a generic Celeron based system with 256MB RAM 
and 17' monitor can be found for under $500, it quickly 
becomes obvious that over 70% of Microsoft`s proposed settlement 
would be in the form of their software products. The one billion 
dollar settlement quickly becomes three hundred million in hardware 
and seven hundred million in software.
    2. By providing systems which only run the Microsoft Windows 
operating system, and the Microsoft Office productivity suite, 
Microsoft will dramatically increase their presence into markets 
which they do not currently control a monopoly. K-12 educational 
markets are currently split almost equally between Windows based 
machines and Apple Macintosh based systems. The infusion of one 
billion dollars worth of Windows machines into the educational 
market would irrevocably shift the balance between the two companies 
in this market.
    3. My understanding is that the term of the software licenses 
that Microsoft will provide as part of the settlement will expire 
after five years. This means that eventually the schools that have 
received this `gift' from Microsoft will have to turn 
around and purchase new licenses for the hardware if they wish to 
continue running Windows and Office.
    The idea that this is even in the proposed agreement is 
repugnant to me, and I fail to discern how this is any different 
than a street-corner drug dealer giving his future customers their 
first `taste' for free. I am very concerned that once 
the school districts that have received these computers have become 
dependent on Microsoft products that Microsoft will be rewarded in 
the form of new license sales once the five year term has expired.
    Additionally, I would like to offer my commentary on what I feel 
would be reasonable measures to consider for punitive measures.
    Some companies have recently offered to provide free copies of 
the Linux operating system and application software for each and 
every machine that Microsoft purchases as part of the settlement 
agreement. Their proposal suggests that Microsoft should focus that 
billion dollars on PC Hardware, and they will provide the software 
and support for the software for free. Although I personally think 
the Linux operating system is excellent, I feel that their 
suggestion might be too radical and would give the Linux operating 
system a monopoly in the educational market. I do not think we 
should replace one monopoly with another, even if that other 
monopoly is `free.'
    Instead, I believe that a more reasonable solution would be to 
split the computers purchased between Apple Macintosh computers and 
generic `PC'`s running the Linux operating system. This 
would allow a diversity in the computer systems among the schools 
that would benefit from the billion dollar grant, but at the same 
time it would not reward Microsoft for their prior transgressions, 
unlike any solution which includes Microsoft products.
    Additionally, I feel that Microsoft should provide 
specifications to their present and future document file formats so 
that applications can be developed on operating systems that 
Microsoft does not support. This would allow users of alternative 
operating systems to `speak' to Microsoft products, such 
as Office and Visio, as well as allow people to migrate their data 
away from Windows. Currently, many users of Microsoft products are 
locked into the Windows Operating system, unless they are willing to 
recreate their data from scratch. The Visio product is one of the 
most notorious for this, but the Microsoft Office suite is not 
immune from this. Indeed, there are instances where a document 
written in one version of MS-Office is unreadable in another.
    Microsoft Networking Protocols should also be published so that 
Microsoft Windows will be able to inter-operate with other operating 
systems. For example, Microsoft has repeatedly made changes to their 
CIFS protocol which have caused problems for products that compete 
with Windows Server by speaking this protocol. The SAMBA product is 
one example of a competitor to Windows Server that continuously has 
had to play `catch up' in order to communicate with a 
copy of Windows that has the most recent service pack applied to it.
    If the national interest is to be served, then it is crucial 
that Microsoft`s` monopoly should not be extended as a result of the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Sallot
    4235 NW 20th Ter.
    Gainesville, FL 32605



MTC-00004254

From: Andres Mera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settelman
    I am in favor to help Microsoft.



MTC-00004255

From: Apple [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date 12/12/01 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Folks at the Department of Justice, (favorable to 
Microsoft)
    Here are my feelings about the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
begin with my history of owning an Apple computer. My story helps 
make most of my points.
    Late January, 2000, myiMac Special Edition arrived. It 
constantly crashed. I called Apple Techsupport. They had me reload 
& reload the operating system & go through many other 
lengthy procedures. After a couple months, I shipped it to an Apple 
service provider, who pronounced it `A-OK' and shipped 
it back to me. I plugged the iMac back in, ran it, crashed 
immediately. I purchased `AppleCare', the extended 
warranty, as I realized I had huge problems on my hands. Under this 
warranty plan, a technician will come to your home. There was one 
problem after another, aggravated by the fact that Apple often had 
to wait weeks to get the parts in stock.
    Eventually, the Appleservice provider took the iMac from me, 
bringing it to the shop, where it was declared dead on arrival. 
Apple promised to replace the machine.
    Chicago was hit shortly thereafter by a terrific snowstorm, 
making it impossible for me to get the machine back. Apple insisted 
that I personally return the machine before they would issue a 
replacement. Why? Their dealer was already in possession of the 
machine. I called Apple many times, I was treated badly. Finally, I 
asked for a refund. I was told, `Would Ford give you a refund, 
so you could go buy a Chevy;'?.
    It should be understood that I had spent hundreds of hours on 
the phone with Apple, often waiting 45 minutes on hold.
    When my replacement machine came, I could not sell it, though I 
tried. The snow storms left all Chicagoans not wanting to drive or 
go anywhere that was not absolutely necessary.
    Eventually I sold it to an individual who wanted it for its 
`iMovie' software, which permits editing videos right on 
the computer. Surprisingly, the buyer told me he owned two Apple 
laptop computers, both non-functional. He told me that many people 
had posted similar problems with these models at the Apple web site. 
Apple considered this a `known issuer'.
First iMac serial #: SG953EAP-HQS
Second iMac #:RN04008DJVA
    I WANT TO SHOW THAT APPLE IS NOT BEING DESTROYED BY MICROSOFT, 
APPLE IS BEING DESTROYED BY APPLE.
    Apple is one of the only true competitors for home computers. 
Apple differs from Microsoft in that Apple not only writes its own 
software, but holds exclusive rights to the design of its Apple 
computers. Apple controls both the hardware & software aspects. 
Therefore, if a problem arises, Apple can`t point a finger at anyone 
else.
    From what I have read, Apple has by far the best software for 
editing movies, & Apple computers are the choice of most 
companies that do video production for advertising. Isn`t that 
giving Apple an unfair advantage? Shouldn`t they be punished for 
hogging the entire video market? Applef`s iMacs, until recently, had 
no way to save to floppy disk or make backups to a CD. This was odd, 
since Apples carry a premium price. Apple started 
`iTools', a service for Apple users, so they could store 
things on Apple`s computers via Apple`s website. I did just that. 
And Apple lost my files. Since I had no other way to back things up, 
everything was lost when the dealer took my first iMac away to the 
shop. I had to re-create some time consuming graphics. I created 
& saved them using Apple`s `AppleWorks' suite of 
programs. AppleWorks is a word processor,

[[Page 24470]]

spreadsheet, database, drawing & painting program. One file, 
which I so painstakedly re-created, became corrupted, & never 
printed out right. (Same printer, now on a PC, works splendidly.) 
While I went through my 10 month ordeal with Apple, they sent me the 
newest version of their AppleWorks software. It crashed at the 
slightest provocation. It was worse than the first version.
    MICROSOFT IS CRUSHING APPLE? For those who choose to use Apples 
in a business environment, they often find Apple`s Appleworks is 
simply not suitable for the job.
    Fortunately, Microsoft makes software, Microsoft Office & 
Microsoft Word for the Apple computer. Without Microsoft, many Apple 
users would be up a creek.
    MICROSOFT OVERCHARGES FOR SOFTWARE? Maybe, maybe not. I wish 
software were a lot cheaper. If one wants to buy the latest, 
greatest version of Microsoft Windows, Windows XP, it will cost 
$100. If one wishes to buy the latest version of Apple`s operating 
system, called OSX (operating system 10) it will cost between $100 
& $130. I am still receiving many Apple-oriented mail order 
catalogs from Apple mail order companies. The price seems to 
fluctuate, and I don`t know why. If Microsoft IS overcharging for 
software, then so is Apple. Why aren`t Apple`s sins under 
investigation?
    CHICAGO SUN TIMES, TUESDAY DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 50: Article: 
Microsoft changes court offer An excerpt:
    `Apple holds nearly half the pre-college educational 
market and analysts said that share could be threatened by the 
settlement.' (End of Quote)
    What? Apple holds 50% of that educational market, yet when it 
comes to buying a homecomputer, 95% choose not to go with an Apple, 
the very computer they may have learned on. Something is very wrong 
here. I had to learn the Apple on my own (my first computer), since 
no one I knew had an Apple. Then, because of my total lack of faith 
in Apple, I switched to a PC after 18 months. It is not pleasant to 
have to throw away everything you`ve learned to learn a new system. 
Why, if 50% of kids grow up using an Apple, do they choose to buy a 
PC? Apple certainly didn`t make much of an impression on these kids.
    As an Apple user for some 18 months, I followed all the Apple-
related news on the web. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, had cut the sales 
staff that dealt with schools. Is this Microsoft`s fault that Jobs 
made a poor decision? Apple could be holding much more than that 
50%. Apple could be offering free stuff to our schools. But they 
aren`t doing so. They want the DOJ to punish Microsoft, and turn 
some of the proceeds over to Apple, a company which in many ways is 
more guilty than Microsoft. I don`t recall Microsoft trying to 
convince me not to use a Mac. I had free choice. Apple convinced me 
not to use an Apple.
    MICROSOFT`S OFFER OF A BILLION DOLLARS OF HARDWARE & 
SOFTWARE IS A SCAM_THE SOFTWARE COSTS THEM ALMOST NOTHING.
    Consider this: Dell Computer runs a contest, you can win a $4000 
computer if you get lucky. We all know $4000 is what we would pay 
for that computer. It does not cost Dell $4000 to give it to me if I 
win. Most people understand the concept of profit, and I think any 
company that writes software would understand the difference between 
intellectual & tangible property. Steve Jobs of Apple, whose 
company actually charges more for software than does Microsoft, 
wants to be on the receiving end of Microsoft`s 
`punishment'. As I stated in my `Apple ownership 
history`, Apple made it clear that it didn`t matter what I`d been 
through with Apple to get it to work. They weren`t going to give me 
money so that I could go support another brand. Apple simply can`t 
compete, though they have a large presence in the educational arena, 
& they were the first to introduce modern operating systems. 
Apple is not being destroyed by Microsoft, in fact, Microsoft is a 
blessing to them. Apple is being destroyed by Apple. I FIND IT 
EXTREMELY DISTASTEFUL THAT A COMPANY SUCH AS APPLE, ACTUALLY MUCH 
DIRTIER THAN MICROSOFT, WANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION. 
APPLE`S SINS ARE `UNDER THE RADAR' BECAUSE NO ONE REALLY 
CARES ABOUT A LITTLE COMPANY WITH LESS THAN 5% MARKET SHARE.
    THERE IS ANOTHER OPERATING SYTEM FOR BOTH THE PC & THE APPLE 
IT IS CALLED LINUX
    Linux is an operating system that is free. The original 
`inventor' copyrighted it & gave it away. The idea 
was that no one could own it. If a company can improve the thing, 
they can charge for the improvements they have made. Users can make 
all the copies they want & distribute them. A friend could give 
me a copy. He could charge me for his time & the CD, if he 
wishes. Since this is a `free' operating system, why 
isn`t everyone using it? In spite of the fact that many companies 
produce Linux, (Redhat, Caldera, Xandros, Mandrake, etc.) almost no 
one can produce a version that doesn`t require advanced knowledge 
& some special skills. You need to understand how to correct 
faulty installations by using your knowledge of Linux. If you can`t 
load the darn thing, how can you ever learn it? Some, smarter than 
I, have succeeded at installing the Linux operating system. I 
succeeded, after a 2 hour call to Canada. The thing only took 10 
minutes to boot up, & began to crash. I could install it a 
different way. But I would still need to replace my modem with a 
different modem, if I want to get on the internet. Microsoft Windows 
is a large, bulky operating system, but it pleases most people. At 
present, Linux seems primitive. Its like going back to outhouses, 
cars without power brakes or steering, and fireplaces. Who wants to 
go back to those `goodold days'? Amazon.com has switched 
to Linux & made it work. A few other companies are going in that 
direction. So Microsoft DOES have competition in that market. Maybe 
one day Linux will be ready for us average guys. I hope so. 
Microsoft isn`t holding these many companies back. They can`t, as 
yet, compete fully with Microsoft. Apple`s new OS is sort of related 
to this Linux. Has Apple chosen wisely? Only time will tell. As much 
as it irks me, there`s a chance Apple could succeed, even surpass 
Microsoft windows. Will the DOJ then come along & punish Apple, 
requiring Apple to make some of Apple`s settlement available to buy 
Microsoft products?
    ONE LAST POINT-MAYBE NOT ALL THAT IMPORTANT I am just sick of 
hearing how Microsoft forces folks into a never ending cycle of 
purchasing upgrades. Microsoft will not come to your home & beat 
you up if you don`t upgrade. The word processor that works so well 
today will be equally good 3 years from now. I think of Microsoft as 
the kitchen-sink-company.
    They throw in every possible feature, including the kitchen 
sink. I don`t think there will be any great technological advances 
in writing letters in the near future. Microsoft Word has too many 
darn features. If people want to buy new software, they do it for 
the same reason that women buy the latest fashions, they don`t need 
the stuff (I`m not too slick with a word processor, don`t blame 
Microsoft if I`ve made mistakes in this letter.) Thereare a few 
people still working with Windows 95 & many people working with 
Windows 98. If Microsoft`s registration policy is overly 
restrictive, the market will punish them. So far, despite all the 
complaints, the majority still chooses Windows. The market has 
spoken. Microsoft has lots of money. They`re no more guilty than 
their competition. Let Microsoft give a billion dollars, it won`t 
hurt them. But let them take pride in donating their own product. 
Don`t force them to support the even-dirtier competition. All of a 
sudden, Apple & Redhat Linux stick their noses in this thing. 
Apple & RedHat never expressed much concern about our schools 
before this. They want to collect welfare from Microsoft, & pull 
it off as caring, social responsibility. If they care so much about 
our schools, let them make separate contributions to the school 
systems.
    Out of things to type, finally,
    William Borg
    1931 N.Spaulding BSMT
    Chicago, Il60647-3733
    773-235-0332
    I apologize_AOL always messes up the formating of the 
stuff I type.



MTC-00004256

From: Jon (038) Sara Bonesteel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I have a number of issues with the proposed settlement for 
Microsoft. In short, this proposal provides Microsoft (MS) the means 
by which to become EVEN more of a Monopoly. I certainly understand 
that the new administration is very monopoly and business friendly 
(especially with failed energy trading firms, but that`s a different 
story), but please address my following concerns in the Federal 
Register. As a disclaimer, I have copied some of this text from a 
Robert Cringley article. I have verified the quotes.
    (1) 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,

[[Page 24471]]

or Communications Protocols affecting authentication and 
authorization to companies that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria as a 
business: `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'. The phrase `established 
by Microsoft' allows MS to disallow any information to 
strictly `non-commercial' concerns even though they may 
be bigger real competitors (e.g. Apache, or Linux). This allows MS 
to squash any (their call) non-commercial threat.
    (2) 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.
    (3) The educational software distribution gives MS a gift of an 
additional entrance into the one market where they are not currently 
a monopoly. By gifting MS products to the schools, competitors such 
as Apple are put at a significant disadvantage. Is this a 
settlement?
    Seems like furthering monopoly power to me.
    Thanks
    Jon Bonesteel
    57 Tuxedo Rd
    Montclair, NJ 07042



MTC-00004257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I was with IBM in the Governments rediculous antitrust suit 
against that company...finally ended after 40 years. Is this a waste 
of taxpayers money or what.
    Why doesn`t the government put the consumers interests 
first>?
    Punishing folks who are successful is counter to what US is all 
about. You are aiding our foreign competitors by punishing MS and 
others who do well. The market and the competitors will take care of 
folks before they get out of hand. The government needs to STAY OUT 
of areas they know little about, namely computer software. You have 
NO idea of the detrimental ramifications to taking drastic action 
against Microsoft.
    The whole browser deal was redicoulous. I have always used 
Netscape instead of IE...with NO problem. Microsoft in NO way 
prevented me from using other browsers. Govt does not understand 
that, I guess.
    Get these few last governors out of the picture and get the 
agreement signed and lets all move on and quite wasting taxpayers 
money!!!



MTC-00004258

From: Tay (038) Kathleen Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Greetings! I wanted to make my extreme distaste of Microsoft 
known. The company has demonstrated over and over that it will lie, 
cheat, and steal to achieve its goals. Please push for the harshest 
punishment possible. I would put the breakup option back on the 
table.
    Sincerely,
    Tay Bass
    3530 Harwich Dr.
    Carlsbad, CA 92008
    (760) 720-3630



MTC-00004259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 9:02pm
Subject: Complaints about Microsoft
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Hopefully this complaint is not too late. Approximately 2 1/2 
years ago, when I bought a computer from Gateway, I asked to have 
Word Perfect Office and not Microsoft`s office installed. That was 
no problem, but within 6 months of the first purchase, when we went 
to purchase another computer, Gateway indicated Microsoft no longer 
let them substitute Word Perfect, so we were forced to buy Wod 
Perfect separately, while MS Office was included in price . It is 
discouraging that Microsoft`s bundling practice has virtually 
eliminated all competing office suites, though its product is not 
superior. Law firms throughout the country were forced to change 
systems to Microsoft word, though it was not as well suited to the 
practice. This was because business users had switched because the 
products were bundled or tied to the Windows operating system. MS 
clearly has monopoly power and these practices should have been 
illegal As a result of these illegal actions we can expect few if 
any improvements to be developed by competitors as they no longer 
have any market share. For my purposes the Word Perfect/Corel 
products were clearly superior to microsoft, but it isn`t clear they 
will be able to remain in business.
    Fortunately by not using microsoft, our office has avoided 
virtually all virus attacks. Just like it is dangerous to eliminate 
all varieties of a plant, because the entire species could be wiped 
out by an insect, fungus, etc to which that plant is not immune, so 
the vulnerability of our computer systems to viruses is a result of 
the nearly complete elimination of competing operating systems and 
software, particularly e-mail and internet services.
    MS Internet Explorer should be unbundled and be sold separately. 
At home on Windows 95 I was able to uninstall explorer, but until I 
did, it was clearly programmed to cause my computer to crash when I 
used Netscape. At work when I uninstalled explorer, my whole hard 
disc crashed and everything had to be reinstalled. Microsoft has not 
built a great product and compared to what others have created, but 
have been unable to market, perhaps not even good. It is outrageous 
that a settlement would include giving microsoft computers to anyone 
as that is a great advertisement and only increases their market 
share. I would hope the court would not approve a settlement, that 
did not require Microsoft to sell explorer separately_in fact 
that should be a different company_but if not they should not 
be allowed to sell it below cost, and never to give it away with 
Windows. They should be required to give cash to schools to purchase 
a computer system and networks of their choice.
    For 3 years I ran a Novell network for a law firm, having 50 
computer users. In that time, we never crashed once (it was DOS 
based and so more stable than windows). We could work from home, and 
access information through a modem at that time. It was very 
discouraging to see how often windows based system crashed for other 
administrators. We did have Windows and could use it if necessary, 
but rarely was there any need, which probably is one reason we were 
never down. Unfortunately Windows NT will probably drive Novell out 
of business also, though NT is an inferior product.
    Again, I hope it isn`t to late to lodge these complaints.
    Thanks for the opportunity.
    Patricia Gray



MTC-00004260

From: Karulal Choudhary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    The settlement is a big insult to the US Judiciary System and 
criminal collusion between the Justice Department and the covicted 
monopoly. Kindly consider the following facts:
    1. Microsoft has killed a very innovative and revolutionary 
company called Netscape. It must be punished severely for that 
crime. The judge should not hear any argument or compromise on this 
fact. The Justice Department just turned its eye on this very simple 
crime.
    2. Microsoft has illegally charged the vulnerable people and 
companies for its software. If you see the trend in the IT industry 
for last 10-15 years, the hardware prices have dropped from by 
10 times (from $4000-$5000 range to $400-$1000) and their capacity 
and power has increased by 10-15 times, where as Microsoft has 
sold the same junk again and again at the same or increased price. 
They have never reduced their software`s prices while the whole 
industry have reduced their prices by 10-15 times.
    3. The Distict court and the Appeals Court have unanimously 
convicted Microsoft as illegal monopoly, it must be punished. Even 
though it`s very rich and influential, I think the US Judicial 
System must be higher and powerful than any criminal.
    4. I term Microsoft as a Tech Terrorist. It has terrorized many 
small companies including Netscape, Apple, Novell, IBM, Sun, Coral, 
and many many more. I have seen it for last 10-15 years.

[[Page 24472]]

    Let justice prevail.
    With regards,
    Karulal Choudhary
    544 Central Avenue #105
    Alameda, CA-94501



MTC-00004261

From: Pedro Villavicencio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 9:33pm
Subject: Comments to proposed settlement
    In my opinion the settlement is incomplete; it does not prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its practice of copying popular ideas with 
the purpose of incorporating them as enhancements into their 
operating systems (all of them). I would like to add to settlement 
two more ways to prevent Microsoft`s monopolistic practices. The 
first is to prohibit the company from developing development tools 
such as Visual Studio by spinning off the Software Development Tools 
section; this will prevent Microsoft from decoding and rewrite 
somebody else code (a process called reverse engineering). The 
second is to prohibit the company from participating in any entity 
discussing industry standards; if Microsoft is a market leader and 
innovator then they have enough recognition to establish the so 
called `de facto' standards without major difficulties.
    Best regards,
    Pedro Villavicencio
    VNcs
    12/12/01
    Pedro Villavicencio
    [email protected]



MTC-00004263

From: David Lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I have worked in the Information Technology field for the last 
30 years. I remember operating some of the first 
`computer' equipment that IBM manufactured while I 
served in the U.S. Navy. Beginning in those early years it seems to 
me that technology is developed, implemented and replaced at an ever 
faster pace.
    As in other fields, when one Company exerts total or near-total 
control of a product arena, innovation advances at the pace of the 
controlling Company. I believe Microsoft nowadays has less 
motivation for innovation due to their 800 lb gorilla demeanor.
    As someone who is in the middle of the IT field I can firmly say 
that there are other Operating System (OS) softwares that would 
offer substantial competition to Microsoft if the playing field were 
even somewhat level. Do not believe for a minute that Microsoft will 
change their predatory ways. The existing DOJ/Microsoft settlement 
has the cart (Microsoft) leading the horse(DOJ).
    David Lowe
    7924 Ditzler Ave
    Kansas City,Mo. 64138
    [email protected]



MTC-00004264

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My wife and I hope hope that one policy is used in this 
settlement and that is being fair, the one word that Microsoft does 
not understand. We would like to put in a good word for the 
appointment of Steve Satchell to the three member committie that is 
to be appointed.
    Paul S. & Germaine K. Mitchell
    3564 Union School Road
    Chester, IL. 62233



MTC-00004265

From: Zimran Ahmed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I recently came upon a patent filed by Microsoft for digital 
rights management at the operating system layer.
    This patent grants Microsoft the right to effectively veto any 
competition for digital rights management infrastructure. Moreover, 
the proposed DoJ settlement (section j) specifically protects 
Microsoft from having to `document, disclose or license to 
third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or 
layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would 
compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or 
enforcement criteria'
    You will notice that since Microsoft`s entire operating system 
is moving towards digital rights management, the settlement protects 
them from having to disclose *any* portion of it to anyone else. 
This clearly renders the current settlement entirely ineffectual, as 
everything the company does is exempt under this clause.
    Sincerely,
    Zimran Ahmed



MTC-00004266

From: BFGalbraith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft crimes against humanity
    Dear well intentioned Department of Justice,
    When you`re average user buys a computer, he pay`s Microsoft an 
extra $60_ $120. For what? For some things that Linux does 
better. The illusion is that Windows is easier to use. In fact, the 
learning curb on some Linux distributions is much less starting from 
scratch then for Windows. Since these distributions are free, and 
since you do not have the option of getting Linux machines at most 
stores because of Microsoft market control, Microsoft is basically 
stealing $100 from everyone who buys a computer, not to mention 
limiting innovation and competition between operating systems.
    What`s worse is the `Micorsoft office suite', which 
runs hundreds of dollars, compared to the equivalent software for 
Linux, which runs tens of dollars or often is just free.
    Also, if there is a problem with Linux software, chances are you 
can get something done about it. And legally, you are usually 
allowed to try. Not so with Microsoft. Microsoft encourages people 
to accept failure, not think, and blame thier problems on others.
    How many community colleges offer courses in how to use Windows? 
Many indeed. How about Linux courses? This much rarer. What is more 
needed? I want to study Linux in school right now, but there just 
isn`t anything besides a 1 credit computer lab. On the other hand, 
there`s at least 20 credits offered here (Olympic college in 
Bremerton WA) in using the Microsoft office suite. Microsoft is 
socially and intellectually damning.
    If Jesus from the New Testament were here, would he support 
Windows or Linux? He certainly would not support Microsoft.
    Please end this social/economic abomination. Please bring us 
justice.
    Patriotically yours,
    BFGalbraith
    Hack and Slash Project Manager
    [email protected]



MTC-00004267

From: ark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:49pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) and Standard Oil Co. 
were not half as monopolistic as Microsoft is and will continue to 
be unless they (msft) are punished severely. Microsoft`s tactics are 
unethical and un-American, as long as they are permitted to spread 
half-truths about their own and other companies products the 
Personal Computer market will continue to suffer. Microsoft has 
never made a significant contribution to this arena. All 
advancements have been made by Macintosh or the numerous Unix/Linix/
Open Source open-minded, free-thinking, innovative programmers, only 
to have Microsoft steal their work and mutate it into their own 
bastardized, resource hogging version (microsoft will most likely 
add their famous paper clip [it looks like you`re writing a letter] 
to what ever they steal). From DOS (CP/M) to Windows 3.x/95/98/ME 
(Mac) and Office (Perfect Office, Novell) to NT/2000/XP (VMS) 
Microsoft has followed their classic SOP; steal, steal, steal.
    Please, do the world a favor_put Microsoft in its place.
    Mark P. Meland
    CMI MIS
    Phone: 952-876-8441
    Pager: 612-648-9872/ark.page



MTC-00004268

From: Daniel Corbett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/12/01 11:57pm
Subject: Monopoly
    I guess I can see the logic. I mean, MicroSoft IS a monopoly, 
but they are an AMERICAN monopoly, now aren`t they?

[[Page 24473]]



MTC-00004269

From: a
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:08am
Subject: microsoft and USA
    First off, I`m not writing this letter to crush Microsoft. Cause 
I know it will not happen in my lifetime. Second off, I`m not 
writing this letter to ask for anything more than your time. Cause I 
know I`m not a US Citizen or anu special person.
    To me, Microsoft is abusing too much on its domination power. I 
won`t call this a monopoly, since They have not controlled the whole 
market. Just... almost dominate it. And when more people are moving 
into Microsoft world than moving out of it, this is the proof that 
Microsoft is abusing its dominance. There should be an equal 
balance. Everyone knows that. When one company become larger and 
larger, the small get smaller. When the rich get richer, the poorer 
can`t get any richer. When thing get out of controlled, it must be 
controlled.
    I`m not saying that government should intervene in the business 
world. It would destroy the fair competition. But this is an 
exception. The existence of Microsoft has almost made fair 
competiton thing of the past. To proof my point. Why would 
Microsoft, tried so hard to open out AOL Instant Messager`s network? 
Would they do so if they can`t be sure that they can win out even in 
a fair competition environment? If that`s the case, then this means 
Microsoft has grown too big. They`ve covered almost all the segments 
of Tech industry and they are getting stronger.
    I can`t bear to see what fair competition will look like in the 
next 10 years. Or 20 years. Forget about start-ups innovation, or 
innovation-that-made-people-free-to-decide. Just look at dominate-
more-industry-kind-of-innovation by big corporations. You call that 
having IE inside an operating system an innovation? What about XML? 
To me, it`s a real innovation as they proliferates communication of 
different and incompatible devices or software to talk to each other 
and share information. Java too, is a good one. And Microsoft has 
tried hard to destroy this kind of innovation. Even though Microsoft 
does not seems to hate XML. They are making their own version of 
XML... again... after the Java.
    Well, I really don`t know but I don`t see MS Word to use XML and 
can be open with any other word processor. I still can`t see windows 
app fully utilizing XML and can be run on any operating system. I 
just don`t see that happening. They`re still depending on their 
dominance, reluctant to cut prices and to give consumer more freedom 
to choose.
    Over the years and have seen step by step by Microsoft how to 
destroy open standards and to develop their own standards and to 
gain more market share and force other companies or consumer to use 
their software and uneasy to migrate to other platforms. Until I can 
see Microsoft providing a full migration software from windows to 
Linux or other OSes this will remain true. If I was the judge I will 
prosecute them on the fact that they reduced consumer`s choice and 
implementing features to made migration to other platforms a harder 
task alone. Not to mentioned that their shown of a monopoly 
company`s behavior by implementing their own remedy. By donating 
more Microsoft software to school for... FREE? And... to get more 
market share? What kind of remedy is that?
    That`s all I have to say whether that this letter will taken 
into account, depends on the intelligence of the people that will be 
reading this letter.



MTC-00004270

From: John D. Hardin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:12am Subject: Microsoft Settlement
17014 Broadway ave.
Snohomish, WA 98296-8031
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
E-mail: [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?'_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 `Dual 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 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

[[Page 24474]]

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,
    (signed) John D. Hardin
    17014 Broadway ave.
    Snohomish, WA 98296-8031
    CC: email, mail, fax
    John Hardin KA7OHZ
    ICQ#15735746
    http://www.impsec.org/jhardin/
    [email protected]
    pgpk -a [email protected]



MTC-00004271

From: Crystal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:52am
Subject: Microsoft/Redhat proposed settlement
    I am a woman of few words (if you can believe that), so I will 
make this short.
    Anybody who thinks that Microsoft`s proposed settlement is 
better than RedHat`s settlement is obviously insane. Anything that 
puts more computers in front of students, educating them in some of 
the most important skills they could ever use in the business world 
today and years from now, is a very good thing.
    Thank you and have a happy holiday season,
    Crystal Zeestraten
    [email protected]
    and,
    Christian Boynton
    [email protected]



MTC-00004272

From: Kelley G. Tedd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:41am
Subject: Frustration with Microsoft
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a staunch Republican, a 28 year-old US Citizen and CEO of a 
prominent mid-sized European IT-services company. I have no business 
ties in any way to Microsoft nor is Microsoft a competitor of mine 
or my Company. I have been living in Europe for 8 years, but follow 
US events and politics very closely and I am very proud of our 
President, George W. Bush! I am likewise exceptionally pleased with 
all of the cabinet picks and those that President Bush have chosen 
to help him run the Government. However, despite all of this I am 
appalled by the proposed Settlement Agreement between the US Justice 
Department and Microsoft!!
    Microsoft is a very good company in the way that it sells, 
markets, and builds a business. Mr. Gates is a business-man`s role 
model; however, his company has broken the Law and US Courts have 
agreed, but it appears that this is not the prominent concern of our 
Justice Department that otherwise acted in a fair and evenly-handed 
way in the almost first year of this Administration. I am dismayed 
and flabbergasted that the Justice Department has decided to take 
the preverbal quick road to ending the Court Actions against 
Microsoft through such a powerfully unfair Settlement.
    Not only is this highway robbery against users around the world 
and a slap against fair business practices, but it is also an 
embarrassment to fair Administration. How will the US Justice 
Department look when other Court Actions do what this Antitrust 
Trial could have and should do?! I`ll tell you how the Justice 
Department will look: squeamish and weak. Not to mention one who 
does not defend the rights of Computer Users everywhere. Microsoft 
has broken the law, it has been proved in a US Court of Law, it has 
and continues to affect users in an adverse way, and should this 
Settlement between The US Justice Department and Microsoft be the 
last word on behalf of the Justice Department in this Anti-Trust 
Case, the US Government will join Microsoft in robbing users around 
the world! I request that you respectfully consider this experienced 
opinion and upon request would be pleased to offer additional 
information for the cause of fairness!
    Best Regards,
    Kelley G. Tedd



MTC-00004273

From: Leon Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:12am
Subject: Comment on Proposed Microsoft Monopoly Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    A signed copy of the body of this email will be forwarded by 
surface mail via Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney with the Antitrust 
Division of the Department of Justice in Washington.
    IDENTIFICATION
    My name is Leon Brooks, I was born on the 30th day of August, 
1962 in Merritt, British Columbia, Canada of Australian parents and 
have been a resident in Australia for the past 37 years. My current 
address is 5 Lisle Street, Mount Claremont (6010), Western 
Australia. My usual email address is 
[email protected]. I am a director of the Information 
Technology company Cyberknights Pty Ltd, which creates, modifies, 
repairs and administers computer software. I can be contacted by 
telephone (voice or SMS) on +61-409-655-359.
    RELEVANCE
    The decisions made in this case, although occurring within 
United States jurisdiction, will have a significant impact on 
computer practice, policy and law worldwide, including Australia and 
Canada.
    In the course of my work in the computer industry I am called 
upon to work on programs and data run and stored on computers within 
the United States mainland (through remote access tools like 
OpenSecureShell and CVS). I have had 21 years of experience in 
working with software, including proprietary software, including 
Microsoft products. I have lived through the events which led to 
Microsoft being convicted as a monopolist and had to deal with 
difficult situations created by those monopolising actions.
    I have created and modified (and continue to create and modify) 
both proprietary and various forms of Open Source software, 
including software licenced under the Free Software Foundation`s GPL 
and software licenced under other Open styles of licence such as 
those termed `BSD-like' and `freeware.'
    COMMENT ON SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
    PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING PROPOSAL
    1. The educational domain is one of the few computer-user areas 
not yet completely dominated by the monopolist, and the proposed 
monopoly settlement, prima facie, simply gives government sanction 
to the monopolist overwhelming their major proprietary competitor, 
Apple Computer Corporation, by extending the monopoly products into 
this area.
    2. The proposed settlement would also allow the monopolist to 
enjoy the fruits of its illegal labours, give it enormous tax 
breaks, and allow it to be claiming to do genuinely good, charitable 
and useful things when the net effect of the proposed remedy would 
actually be a financial benefit to the monopolist. Even without the 
tax breaks and direct monopolising effects, consequential sales of 
other monopoly software would more than pay for the 
`donation.'
    3. The amount of the donation is insignificant. The monopolist 
currently has_cash_holdings valued at in excess of 
thirty times the amount being considered in the remedy. To put this 
in context, if your gross income is USD $200,000.00 per annum and 
you have USD $1,000,000.00 cash in the bank plus USD 
$1,000,000,000.00 in other assets, will a once-off tax-deductible 
fine of USD $18,000.00 deter you from practices which increase your 
income by an extra 8% (USD $16,000 in round 1) per annum?
    4. The enforcement measures are insignificant and have no timely 
and powerful backing. The monopolist all but ignored the last set of 
antitrust measures imposed on it. In order to get the monopolist to 
obey any rulings not staggeringly favorable to it, there will need 
to be stiff, clear and specific non-compliance penalty clauses in 
place from the start, backed and adjudicated by people willing to 
actually apply them.
    5. No provision has been made for reimbursement of damages to 
any of the plaintiffs. Far from being a penalty or a remedy of any 
kind, it is (fancy words aside) effectively a direct sanction for 
and encouragement of monopoly. The English terms for this kind of 
remedy are all long-winded, but the Jews have a single word 
`chutzpah' (or `hutzpah' in some dialects) 
to describe it. I should not like to have my name associated with 
its implementation at all, let alone published for posterity in the 
Federal Register and spread across cover stories in legal and 
computer-related media around the world.
    FAVOURABLE POINTS IN EXISTING PROPOSAL
    1. It ends the current round of these legal proceedings quickly.
    IMPORTANT ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL
    1. The National Security implications of having the vast 
majority of users working through a single software set, 
particularly a set with a highly disproportionate number of ongoing 
security issues, have not been addressed.

[[Page 24475]]

    2. The financial and military risks of having a significant 
percentage of the nation`s capital dependent upon or running through 
a single corporate entity have not been addressed. Consider a 
heavily industrialised nation that loses most of its computing power 
(data access) through a custom-written Windows virus or a bomb at 
MSN just as another WTC-sized terrorist event gets underway, or 
another stock-market crash begins.
    3. The stability of a nation which allows so many resources to 
be tied up in what amounts to a single privately controlled business 
entity has not been addressed.
    4. The remedy fails to address or even hint at the contributions 
of key people behind the deliberate and strategic monopolisation. To 
be fair and just, the remedy should include significant penalties 
for the individuals responsible for directing it during its 
establishment and ongoing maintenance.
    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
    Many individuals have lost their entire livelihood through the 
monopolistic actions of the defendant, and have not been represented 
in the proceedings simply because they cannot afford to. This should 
be borne in mind when framing the nature and size of penalties. Many 
other individuals have been so frustrated and demoralised by the 
monopolistic actions of the defendant that sheer accumulated 
pessimism has prevented them from bringing suit. Such an 
accumulation of wealth (approaching $1 trillion if all companies 
involved are considered together with personal fortunes) must have 
come from somewhere. Unless it can be shown that the defendent alone 
provided more than this value in services to the communities from 
which this fortune came, the difference represents a loss to those 
communities and must be reimbursed to them.
    IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
    It is not easy to apply any sensible amendment to the existing 
proposal which will address more than one or two of the many issues 
still unresolved. It would be simpler and more just to discard it 
and build a very simple proposal to replace it. The purpose of a 
monopoly is to achieve control, and through that control to acquire 
assets. Therefore the ideal remedy is to remove control and assets 
from the monopolist since this directly contradicts their reasons 
for deliberately constructing a monopoly. In this case, the 
monopolist is a company which cannot think for itself, a company 
which is directed by owners and managers, so it would be most 
appropriate if the remedy included those managers.
    AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
    ASSET REMEDY
    That Microsoft pay a fine of 10% of their nett worth, 20% of 
which is due and payable on the day of imposition and the balance at 
3% of the initial value [note 1] on the first day of each succeeding 
calendar month until the balance is paid, into a fund.
    The penalty fund will be managed by people and organizations 
with no personal or corporate ties [note 2] with Microsoft, or with 
any of their first and second-level managers. This fund may then be 
drawn upon by the existing plaintiffs in the value of half of their 
proven claims, and any remaining monies are to be allocated to 
registered charitable organizations on application, such 
organizations to have no personal or corporate relationship to 
Microsoft or any first or second level Microsoft managers, and 
applications to be limited to one per financial year and in amounts 
less than the minimum of $10 million or the organization`s previous 
financial year`s gross income not including previous applications, 
or $100,000 if this is their first year of operation. Each first-
level Microsoft manager (e.g. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer) pay a fine 
of 20% of any monies or shares granted to them by Microsoft and 
related companies or people, shares to be valued at the start of the 
day of imposition or if already sold or traded then at their sale or 
traded value. Terms of payment as for Microsoft.
    Any second-level Microsoft manager (ie anyone who has reported 
directly to a first-level manager) pay a fine of 10% assessed as 
above.
    The penalty for failure to promptly comply would in the first 
instance be a doubling of the amount not being complied with, due 
and payable immediately, and 2% per month interest on outstanding 
balances; and in the second instance the immediate bailiff/sheriff-
supervised liquidation of randomly chosen corporate assets until the 
then-due amount is met [note 3].
    CONTROL REMEDY
    Microsoft, together with any company ever owned or controlled by 
it, or by its first- or second-level managers, to promptly (ie 
completed within a year) publish [note 1] detailed specifications 
for all of its data file formats, software and hardware APIs and 
networking protocols, together with dual GPL and BSD-licenced [note 
2] working software examples in source and not dependent on 
proprietary code or development tools [note 3]. Microsoft to 
continue to so publish for ten years any new or altered file format, 
software/hardware API or networking protocol BEFORE the file format, 
software/hardware API or networking protocol is used (including for 
beta testing, giveaways, lease, hire, sale or similar arrangement) 
by people other than Microsoft employees or contractors.
    Complete source code and documentation for any product no longer 
supported must be promptly published under a GPL licence [note 4], 
by the end of 2002 for products already unsupported and before 
support is withdrawn for any product still supported on day of 
imposition.
    The penalty for non-compliance would in the first instance be 
the immediate recall of all related products until one month after 
correct publication was made, and in the second instance a fine of 
one billion dollars for each product in violation, due and payable 
immediately with further penalties as above.
    EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PROPOSED ASSET REMEDY
    1. The penalty is stiff, but will surely be legally mitigated by 
Microsoft, and represents only a small fraction of the real damages. 
It directly addresses a motivation for creating and exiting a 
monopoly. It also acts directly to temporarily limit the growth of 
the monopolist. Such a limit will assist alternative technologies in 
having a fair chance at establishing themselves in the marketplace.
    2. To help in avoiding the inevitable efforts to circumvent the 
remedy.
    3. A less direct penalty would invite legal haggling; lesser 
penalties have proven to be ineffective in past actions.
    EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PROPOSED CONTROL REMEDY
    1. Publish as in, make freely available. A USD $10,000.00 fee 
for a paper manual set represents a serious investment for a very 
small company, an individual, or even a quite large company in a 
country with USD $20-a-month average wage. Publishing the 
specifications in unadorned standard HTML illustrated with standard 
PNG images on a freely accessible website would be suitable.
    2. The BSD-style licences permits incorporation into proprietary 
products, without which the remedy would not be as useful to 
producers of proprietary software. The GPL licence permits 
incorporation into the growing Free (Libre) Software base and offers 
protection against legal trickery in a Microsoft-amended BSD-style 
licence. Microsoft use BSD-style licenced software in their own 
products. The website at http://www.opensource.org/ has examples of 
these licences available.
    3. Dependence on tools or libraries for which a developer must 
obtain a possibly exclusive licence and/or pay a substantial fee to 
use would be an effective barrier to competition from individuals or 
nations in impoverished locations.
    4. GPL is singularly appropriate here because it makes the code 
maintainable by third parties including the users themselves, but 
(legally at least) prevents entrepreneurs from rebranding, 
recompiling and marketing entire product lines in competition with 
Microsoft as if they had invented them.
    SUMMARY
    The remedy which I propose here is crude and almost certainly 
unworkable even when phrased in careful legalese, but I believe it 
represents a necessary starting point, and when suitably diluted by 
negotiations may result in a workable solution which does address 
concerns about not only direct monopolisation but also the risk to 
the American nation and consequently the world of letting so many 
eggs collect in one corporate basket.
    Thank you for giving due consideration to this comment on the 
case.
    Leon Brooks



MTC-00004274

From: James Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:23am
Subject: Punishment?
    For the government to allow Microsoft to escape any penalty by 
allowing Microsoft to give software to schools is like punishing a 
fox by locking the fox in a henhouse full of chicken. For any judge 
to spend more than 5 minutes realizing this is a joke only shows the 
government is not serious about breaking Microsoft`s monopoly and 
the judge is clueless. The settlement would only be taken out of 
Microsoft`s advertising budget.

[[Page 24476]]

    If the government allows Microsoft to escape punishment with 
their proposed plan, the government show just create a Department of 
Microsoft and admit defeat and humiliation.
    Jim Cook



MTC-00004275

From: Bob Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May it please the court,
    I appreciate as a consumer, the opportunity, and right to 
comment on the settlement agreement between the Microsoft 
Corporation, and the United States Department of Justice. My 
comments come as a consumer, specific to the issues that relate to 
my purchase, use, and experience with the many software products 
available today, which include those developed and sold by 
Microsoft.
    In the roughly three years that this case has been under trial, 
I have read much of the available information on the trial, as well 
as the many, many statements given by competitors of Microsoft, and 
their concern with Microsoft`s behavior, both before and during the 
trial. Never in my recollection of watching the business world have 
I observed such a concerted effort by numerous companies to malign 
and destroy the image, perception, and products, of a successful 
company. And what amazes me even more is that to a large degree, 
these companies employ many of the very same tactics used by 
Microsoft yet without any apparent threat of reproof. America Online 
(heretofore referred to as AOL) is a company that for every intent 
and purpose, has today the vast majority of Internet users as 
customers for their service. Effectively, they are presently as we 
speak, a monopoly in that industry. Yet to read any news publication 
today, the most that fact will bring is a limp assertion that yes, 
AOL is the predominant Internet Service Provider (heretofore 
referred to as ISP), with roughly 30 million subscribers, and it is 
left at that. No one is investigating AOL, no Congressional Hearings 
are scheduled, and in fact, great care is taken to ensure that their 
product and service in this industry is insulated from competition.
    During their recent merger with Time Warner, Inc., the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) had the opportunity in their review 
of the merger, to require AOL to make their instant messenger 
service compatible with other similar services. As a consumer, I can 
instantly relate to the importance and advantage of such a 
requirement. The FCC however did not capitalize on that opportunity, 
and as a result, the media giant continues to lock out users of 
other ISP services from communicating with AOL subscribers.
    In comparison, when I review and observe the Microsoft case, as 
well as comments associated, I see that products where I as a 
consumer realize a benefit, are under constant scrutiny, not only 
from the government, but even more so from competitors. For example, 
the various versions of the Windows operating system have for years 
offered a form of a media player, which is presently under dispute 
by many competitors, as that application or device resides within 
the latest version of the Windows product, Windows XP. For years 
that was not a concern, but now another company exists, 
RealNetworks, which offers for free a download player called 
RealPlayer. Suddenly a benefit that I had as a consumer with the 
purchase of an operating system is threatened because another 
company wants to limit what is contained within the operating 
system. Regardless of the fact that any consumer can download for 
free the RealPlayer, RealNetworks Inc., for one, among others, 
protests the inclusion of Microsoft`s Media Player within the 
operating system because it competes directly with what RealNetworks 
would like to give away for free. The bottom line? As a consumer, I 
see the potential of a very robust and `application 
capable' operating system, one that offers me great 
flexibility and performance, being required to reduce it`s service 
and functionality to me so that others can improve their opportunity 
to compete. Yet the fact is, this product offered by RealNetworks is 
an easy download, and is often loaded onto machines alongside of 
Microsoft`s Media Player anyway. Twenty years ago, there might have 
been a case to consider here. Consumers were still getting their 
feet wet in determining the right hardware and software to purchase, 
and many were easily confused, and possibly misled in the process. 
Today however consumers are quite prepared to make well informed 
decisions about their hardware and software purchases. With a 
plethora of information available, through various forms of 
communication (media, print, Internet, classes, service companies, 
etc) the consumer has more than enough information available to help 
them in their purchasing decisions. And frankly, that is supposed to 
be what all of this is about: The consumer, and the protection of 
their purchasing power and decisions.
    In fact, everyone from Senator Orrin Hatch, to Ann Bingham (head 
of Antitrust Division, original investigation, 1995) to Judge 
Penfield Jackson has stated all along that the it was the consumer 
they were representing in their fight against Microsoft. However the 
ramifications of their actions has been anything but positive for 
consumers. I have today countless choices of software I can run on 
my PC, simply because of the operating system standard provided by 
Microsoft. I do not use Microsoft software exclusively, nor do any 
of the people I see regularly who work with computers. As a 
consumer, I feel I am quite well informed about what products exist 
in the marketplace, and I am quite confident I can make intelligent 
choices about the products I wish to purchase. However I believe 
that of ALL the interests represented in the courtroom, in the 
media, and in print, the consumer`s interests have been the least 
heard or considered. Companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, AOL, 
Novell, Apple, & IBM are not nearly so interested in what works 
well for me as a consumer, as they are interested in gaining market 
share for their own respective companies. If this settlement is 
derailed, through the lobbying of companies like this, it will prove 
once and for all that competition, and consumer choice in the 
marketplace, no longer determine or direct the outcome of products 
and services, as they have for the last several hundred years.
    Market share, and competitive advantage cannot and should not be 
awarded in a courtroom. The measures within this settlement 
agreement are sufficient to ensure that Microsoft cannot take unfair 
advantage of, or punish any company in the future. At the same time 
however it preserves Microsoft`s right and ability to continue to 
provide the best product possible, which is for me, the consumer, 
the best and only appropriate outcome.
    The additional measures sought by the nine rouge states go well 
beyond what is necessary, and actually threaten the intellectual 
property of one of the country`s most successful businesses (and 
this frankly, threatens us all). No other company in this country 
(or the world for that matter), has been required to dismantle it`s 
showcase product, to it`s own demise and destruction, simply to 
appease the wishes of less successful competitors. To do so now, 
would unfairly serve only those companies, and would destroy much of 
the gain realized by consumers through Microsoft`s achievements in 
product integration. If this court truly values the purchasing power 
of millions of consumers, who are today quite savvy about what kinds 
of software they need and want, it will allow this settlement to 
stand, and repel the imperious demands of the nine states that 
remain as extreme and overreaching.
    Thank you for your time and attention to review my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Robert S. Rasmussen
    [email protected]



MTC-00004276

From: koby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:47am
Subject: Microsoft should do this
    Hallo,
    I believe that microsoft should do these next things: Microsoft 
should give money to schools. money, not products, money! about 50% 
of its years income for 5 or 10 years. Microsoft should give money 
to apple for stealing ideas in the os. (for the last 10 years). 
Microsoft should give money to the open source companys. (companys 
that Microsoft dose not own). Microsoft should pay a fine of about 
70% of its year income. Microsoft should give money to support 
advretising other softwer companys.
    thank you.



MTC-00004277

From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:37am
Subject: Do SOMETHING
    Microsoft has been found guilty of anti-competitive buisness 
practices right? Strong action MUST be taken to break thier 
monopoly. The proposed settlement will not change Microsoft`s 
monopoly. As a concerned citizen of the United States I beg you to 
take strong action to alleviate this

[[Page 24477]]

thorn in the side of this nation`s greatest jewel, a strong healthy 
COMPETITIVE capitalism.
    Thank you



MTC-00004278

From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:01am
Subject: Microsoft `settlement`
    12th of December, 2001
    This letter is written with respect to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Let me state that I am a software architect and database 
administrator and have been in the IT industry for about 16 years. 
In addition I have a B.S. degree in Computer Science with a g.p.a. 
of 3.792 on a 4.0 basis so I am reasonably intelligent and have 
direct experience in the field that Microsoft is involved in. I have 
worked on everything from embedded systems in assembly language up 
through 4GL systems running on UNIX and pretty much everything in 
between. I have developed on Micrsoft based platforms as well as DEC 
and UNIX based systems and so have seen many different aspects of 
the industry. During my 16 years in this business I have repeatedly 
seen the impact of Microsoft`s behavior and watched them crush 
promising technologies and products from competing companies by the 
use of their position on the PC desktop. Rarely have they won a 
market by technical excellence or innovation I might go so far as to 
say never. They have used whatever means at their disposal, whether 
ethical or otherwise, to take over market after market, and along 
the way have done a very real dis-service to the industry and to the 
consumer. It is patently obvious that the company is now using their 
dominance in the desktop OS market and the Office software market to 
charge ever increasing amounts for their software and to damage the 
abilitiies of other companies to properly engage in producing 
competing products. In the end those of us in the industry would 
just like to see real competition re-introduced into the software 
market so that there could be real innovation along with non-
monopolistic pricing for PC based software. The current settlement 
proposal does nothing to provide for any of that, and in my view, 
actually rewards Microsoft for their illegal behavior. To call the 
DOJ/Microsoft proposal punitive is like calling the Taliban 
tolerant_a complete reversal of the sense of the word 
involved. Many of us in the industry have a deep concern about where 
the internet technologies will be in five years if this settlement 
is made law. Will the internet wind up just being an extension of 
the MS desktop monopoly? If they are not restrained in a very real 
fashion that will indeed be the result and then the whole world will 
really get to suffer as every action taken on the internet will have 
an attendent fee being sent to Redmond Washington along with the 
company probably making a mockery of the idea of personal privacy on 
the internet. I hope our government, that at least states it`s love 
of freedom, can see clearly enough to realize that the software 
industry, and therefore our nations economy and commerce, cannot be 
truly free while an un-restrained Microsoft roams the land 
unfettered.
    Rich Mycroft
    770-667-5484
    255 Summerfield Drive
    Alpharetta, GA 30022
    [email protected]



MTC-00004279

From: Michael McLay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:46am
Subject: One addition to the Microsoft remedy
    I very much liked and agreed with Dan Kegel`s analysis of the 
proposed Microsoft remedies. His edits of the proposed remedies are 
available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy.html. What follows is a 
description and justification for one additional remedy.
    Bundling Internet Explorer into the Microsoft Windows operating 
system is not the central cause of Microsoft`s ability to control 
the desktop. The non-disclosure of the file formats used by 
Microsoft Office is the key factor in the ability of Microsoft to 
retain monopoly control of the desktop.
    Ownership of the file format essentially makes Microsoft a co-
owner of the contents of those files. Even the Federal government is 
held hostage to Microsoft by the secrecy of these file formats. 
Eliminating Microsoft`s control over the content will eventually 
lead to the creation of a more competative market. The disclosure of 
the file formats will enable alternative office suites, such as 
StarOffice, OpenOffice, and KWord to enter an open market for office 
document processing.
    The Microsoft Office tools have been designed as an easy to 
learn and use starting point for creating content used in the 
business process. For many business activities the creation of the 
data is just one step in a workflow process. The Microsoft non-
disclosure policy, that allows them to maintain their vice like grip 
on the users, has harmed their customers by limiting the ways in 
which user can access the data contained in the documents to only 
those methods which are approved by Microsoft. The Microsoft .NET 
proposal will work to exploit this situation by extending control 
over a larger portion of the workflow within organizations. This 
next exploitation will be enabled if the injustice of the Microsoft 
non-disclosure policy is allowed to continue. Unlocking the content 
of the documents produced by Microsoft Office, by requiring a full 
disclosure and cooperation in the definition of the format, will 
enable alternate workflows to make use of the document contents, 
such as post-processing by tools such as Python, Perl, and XSTL.
    The inequity of the non-disclosure policy to the customers of 
Microsoft Office can be eliminated by requiring full disclosure of 
the file format. Given the Microsoft track record, the disclosure 
must be supported with evidence and tools that demonstrate that the 
disclosure is honest and correct. This can only be done by providing 
software that proves the disclosure to be correct. This is a 
punishment for the crime committed by Microsoft, so the fix should 
not entail additional costs to the end user. The cost to Microsoft 
to produce the documentation and software would be insignificant 
relative to their income off of the Office product. The following 
set of requirements for the file format disclosure are required in 
order to keep Microsoft from obstructing the free use of the content 
of the files. The interoperability with OpenOffice is particularly 
important to the end user. A more detailed justification for the 
terms can be provided if necessary.
    An Additional Term for the Remedy
    Within six months of the final settlement Microsoft will release 
bi-directional translators that move data between the Microsoft 
Office native file formats for PowerPoint, Word, and Excel and a 
documented XML file format. The mapping must follow the architecture 
used in OpenOffice as closely as possible. This includes the 
separation of bitmapped pictures into separate files and the use of 
zip to compress the resulting collection of files. The element and 
attribute names of OpenOffice should also be used, unless a 
rationale for non-conformance is provided. The translators will be 
made available for all versions of Microsoft Office dating back to 
Office95.
    The translators will be made availble for free download over the 
Internet. The translators will not require the installation of 
Microsoft Office on the system on which the translators are present. 
The translators must support a simple command line interface that 
specifies the input file name and the output file name. No GUI based 
interaction should be required when the command line is used. No 
external applications will be launched by the translator 
application. No licensing restrictions will be made on the 
translators. A W3C XML schema (XSD) that precisely defines the 
constraints on the elements and attributes of the file format must 
be supplied with each translators. Documentation describing the 
function of each element and attribute in the schema must be 
supplied. The W3C XML schema (XSD) and the documentation must be 
approved by an oversite committee. The bi-directional translators 
must demonstrate round-robin testing of any Microsooft Office 
document without loss of data. When a document is read back into 
Office from the XML file and the document is written out to the file 
a second time the order and content of the elements and attributes 
must remain unaltered. The XML file must conform to the canonical 
XML file format. The correctness and completeness of the translators 
will be assessed by an independant court appointed oversight 
committee. The source code for the translators must be made 
avaliable under terms compatible with Open Source Software.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004280

From: James C. White/mediaone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    My opinion is that the antitrust action against Microsoft should 
be concluded as soon as possible according to the proposed 
settlement agreement.

[[Page 24478]]

    I am 45 years old and have worked in the software business for 
the past 20 years as an engineer and consultant. The software 
business is a highly competitive industry characterized by brainy 
people, money, and light speed. Microsoft has earned it`s leadership 
position by producing some of the industry`s best software at the 
lowest price possible. Many competing companies demand drastically 
higher prices for their products. Oracle`s database software sells 
at a list price of over 100 times the list price of Microsoft`s 
competing product. Sun Microsystems products also carry heavily 
inflated prices, when compared with Microsoft. These companies are 
seeking to cripple Microsoft`s business by government intervention 
because they have failed to compete fairly with Microsoft on 
software quality and pricing in the marketplace. Without Microsoft, 
consumers of software products would be paying a multiple of the 
price they currently pay for their software. No company has ever 
served product consumers more faithfully and effectively than 
Microsoft. It is ironic that millions of tax and shareholder dollars 
have been fed into this sorry spectacle of antitrust action in the 
name of protecting the consumer. I can think of nothing more 
inflationary and damaging to our economy than to introduce legal 
restrictions on Microsoft`s business that will favor their 
adversaries and their exorbitant pricing schemes. Public confidence 
in the judicial system as well as the financial markets rests on the 
outcome of this case. If Microsoft can be successfully assaulted 
through the courts in this way, then no person or company is safe 
from such a blatant misuse of our system of justice.
    Respectfully,
    James C. White
    Winchester, MA
    My company website:
    http://people.ne.mediaone.net/dpci/index.html



MTC-00004281

From: B. L. Jilek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 8:10am
Subject: The microsoft curse.
    I`m writing to say my piece on Microsoft. I used MS Windows for 
the first year I used a computer. I was not happy with being held 
into a certain way to do things on my computer. I found linux then 
and now No Microsoft software is on any of my computers. I wanted to 
learn programming but could not because Software for Windows was too 
expensive. Hardware was also if I wanted to keep up with the latest 
Windows version. Linux provided me a way to learn and it came with 
all the software I needed.
    The curse is that I cannot do simple things like visit certain 
web pages without Internet Explorer. I can`t get any game I want to 
play without having Windows. I can`t buy any piece of hardware that 
I want without having windows. I can`t buy a new computer without 
being forced to pay for windows. This should be stopped. I don`t 
have anything against Microsoft except for this. I choose not to run 
their software because I don`t like to be locked into one way of 
doing things. I also don`t have the extra money to pay $200.00 for 
the upgrade to XP and the extra hardware it would require. I would 
like to be able to have software vendors writing software for Linux. 
I would gladly pay for a Linux version of the Newsreader Forte Agent 
for example.
    I would also like to go to a hardware vendor and get Linux 
version of the drivers for their video cards or what ever.
    I would like to be able to play DVD`s without having to worry 
about breaking some idiotic law designed to force people to use 
windows.
    This is all I want. To be on a level playing field and enjoy the 
same considerations with my chosen OS.
    Thank you for listening.
    B. L. Jilek  _> 
Put_crowbyte_in the subject or mail to me will bounce if 
your not on my nobounce list.
    GPG: 0x8ABA0CE6 (Preferred) PGP: RSA-0x64183EA1 DSS-0x66FF0BC1
    Linux user: 163800 ICQ: 83785391 http://www.geocities.com/
bljilek



MTC-00004282

From: paula price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 9:04am
Subject: MicroSoft settlement
    I do not understand why anyone would think the class action 
settlement resolves any of the problems related to Microsoft`s 
monopolization of the software industry. Doesn`t anyone see that by 
giving the software to schools, they are only perpetuating the very 
problem they have been complaining about. This will give Microsoft 
the corner on the software market for the next generation.
    Microsoft`s manipulation of the public became very real to me 
recently. I was doing research on WestLaw and had unbelievable 
problems printing my cases. After several unsuccessful attempts, I 
called WestLaw. WestLaw`s representative asked me if I used 
Microsoft Internet Explorer. When I said I did, he explained that 
Microsoft has blocked nearly all browser plug-ins that are not 
Microsoft. In other words, because WestLaw does not use a Microsoft 
ATP browser plug-in, I can no longer print directly from WestLaw to 
my printer. I must now download my research (or e-mail it to 
myself), then open and print. Microsoft is costing me time and my 
employer money. I am on a network and cannot change my internet 
access software. So, I have to accept that it now takes several 
steps instead of one click to complete my research. Thank you Bill 
Gates.
    Sincerely,
    Paula Price
    Paralegal
    Consumer Protection Division
    Office of the West Virginia Attorney General



MTC-00004283

From: Deke Weinblatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 9:18am
Subject: Please reconsider settlement
    Department of Justice
    Please, I beg of you, don`t allow Microsoft to increase their 
market share by allowing them to give their operating systems and 
software to such a key market, our youth.
    I was able to learn different operating systems, Macintosh, 
Unix, Windows, because the schools that I attended were able to get 
an even mix of computers/operating systems and software allowing me 
to see the `whole' picture. Microsoft today not only 
doesn`t encourage its customers to use its products based on 
quality, it becomes the standard, therefore you have no other 
choice. If Microsoft is allowed to do this, I am fearful for our 
future.
    I would prefer a cash donation to schools or no fine at all over 
this proposed settlement.
    Deke Weinblatt
    15740 Rockford Road Apartment 201
    Plymouth MN 55446
    763-550-9651
    CC:Sales



MTC-00004284

From: Otto Marroquin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 9:22am
Subject: * Please liberate us from MS tied software.
    The software from MS tie every software package to depend on 
another one, so we have to buy it from them !!



MTC-00004285

From: Mike Stevenson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement will potentially cause great 
harm to the Open Source software movement.
    The settlement allows Microsoft the ability to `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...'
    Open source organization, such as Apache, Perl, LInux, etc, 
which are not-for-profit, will not meet this criteria. In fact, all 
branches of the government including The Justice Department, will 
also fail to meet this standard.
     This is a tremendous flaw in the settlement that will have a 
large, negative effect on domestic and international businesses, 
educational bodies, and individuals.



MTC-00004286

From: Joeri Sebrechts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 9:46am
Subject: comment on the settlement
    Hello,
    For the last decade, I have been involved in the computing 
industry as a consumer and developer, and have seen the events 
regarding Microsoft`s monopoly unfold from the first row. I 
therefore believe to have an opinion worth hearing regarding this 
case.
    There are two things an appropriate anti-trust case remedy must 
seek to fulfill: it must repair damages done, and it must prevent 
future damages. In this specific case, the damages done to consumer 
choice by the illegal maintaining by Microsoft of their OS and 
browser monopolies must be undone,

[[Page 24479]]

and a set of rules must be setup to make sure Microsoft has to act 
correctly in future years, accompanied by a set of punishments if 
Microsoft were to abuse their monopoly position again. These 
remedies can not be delayed, or lessened by a need to resolve this 
case quickly. If this case is not resolved correctly then consumers 
and businesses in the US, and across the globe, will suffer in the 
coming years due to maintenance of the status quo, which is 
Microsoft not acting in a legal manner. A soft or hasty approach 
will lead Microsoft to the obvious conclusion that it is `all 
right' to abuse a monopoly position, and will offer no 
inducement to stop their current illegal behavior.
    In view of this, the settlement as proposed by Microsoft and the 
DOJ is inappropriate. It does NOT repair damages done, and although 
it sets up a number of behavioral limits to Microsoft, these are not 
extensive enough in scope to cover all the ground this case covers, 
and have no set of adequate punishments if these limits are broken.
    So, what would I personally consider appropriate measures? 
Firstly, damages done must be undone. While there are a number of 
businesses involved in this case, which deserve compensation, the 
most important party which has suffered under Microsoft`s illegal 
actions is the end-of-line consumer. Microsoft`s actions have led to 
less choices, and higher prices. The most important problem is the 
binding of the Windows operating system to new systems sold. There 
can be no effective competition in the operating systems market as 
long as you can not walk into a store and buy a computer with the 
operating system of your choice, without having to also buy a copy 
of Windows. Microsoft must be forbidden to make deals that disallow 
PC`s to be sold without a copy of Windows. Also, current deals that 
aim to achieve that effect must be renegotiated to comply with this 
new behavioral limit.
    Another large party harmed by Microsoft`s actions are the 
developers of software interacting with Microsoft software. The 
consistent efforts of Microsoft to break compatibility of Windows 
with competing products maintains their monopoly. This must be 
stopped. Any and all information interchange protocols used in the 
Windows and Internet explorer products, or parts thereof, must be 
fully documented, so competitors can be offered a levelled playing 
field with Microsoft`s own software developers (of products which 
run on top of the Windows or Internet Explorer products). This 
includes file formats, data sharing protocols used in networks, and 
so called `objects'. In addition, Microsoft can not 
enforce licensing of patents which block competitors` products from 
inter-operation with the Windows and Internet Explorer products.
    Otherwise, they could price the competitors right out of the 
market, again maintaining their monopoly, which would be illegal. As 
a third hatch to this, all application programming interfaces 
(API`s) offered by the Windows and Internet Explorer products must 
be fully documented (with the documentation available freely, or at 
the cost of the information carrier), again allowing competitors to 
write programs that interact with the Windows and Internet Explorer 
products. All new API`s also fall under this rule, so Microsoft can 
not move away to undocumented API`s once they have made 
documentation available. The above mentioned patent rule also 
applies to these API`s, to make sure everyone (including the so 
called open source community, which can not afford paying licensing 
rights), on equal terms, can write programs that drive and interact 
with the Windows and Internet Explorer products. The above mentioned 
rules only apply to the Windows and Internet Explorer products, 
because they were the ones directly mentioned in this case. 
Microsoft holds another monopoly however, on the Office product, 
which comprises Word, Excel, Powerpoint and various other programs.
    These might be used as stepping stones to dodge the rules 
applied by the above set of remedies. More importantly, one of the 
most used information interchange formats is the Word .doc format. 
Although part of this format has been documented, it has proven to 
be nearly impossible to offer full compatibility. Since in the 
business world everyone uses Word, as a business you have no choice 
but to also use Word, since no other product will edit (there is a 
free viewer available, but viewing is only part of the equation) 
received word documents meant for revision, like contracts, for 
example. These problems also apply to the other components of the 
Office suite. It would be best for the business world as a whole if 
the Office file formats were fully documented. I understand this may 
fall outside of the scope of this trial. But someday someone will 
have to deal with this problem, because it is an even bigger problem 
than the Windows and Internet Explorer monopolies.
    Finally, to ensure interaction with the Microsoft platform, any 
networking protocol designed and used by Microsoft must not only be 
fully documented, but also reviewed by an impartial standards body 
to make sure it can be used by anyone freely, purely on an 
interaction basis. Therefore there can be no patents blocking use of 
the protocol. The reason why this is important can be seen by the 
impressive hoops competitors have to jump through just to be able to 
inter-operate with Windows systems. An example of this is the samba 
server (http://www.samba.org), which is a file sharing server 
designed to mimic a Windows file sharing server on another operating 
system. Despite years of active development and reverse engineering 
in trying to obtain full interoperability with Windows clients, they 
still haven`t achieved their objective. Microsoft keeps changing the 
protocols involved to remain incompatible. This kind of monopoly-
enforcing behavior must be stopped. All these behavioral limits must 
be enforced by an independent group, with the option to apply 
appropriate punishment (in cash or in other measures) should 
Microsoft not live up to them. This to make sure Microsoft actually 
complies with the rules set up by the court in remedying Microsoft`s 
illegal monopoly.
    I hope this comment, and the many more just like it, will show 
that the IT community at large feels the current settlement is a 
failure. I agree that solving the situation quickly is desireable, 
but not at the expense of the general public, and the business 
community, which will certainly be the case if the current 
settlement is approved.
    Have a nice day,
    Joeri Sebrechts


MTC-00004287

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 12/13/01 9:55am
Subject: MIcrosoft
    Microsoft has profited from its control of the desktop operating 
system market for the past several years and managed to destroy 
innovation. There are several steps that could be taken to increase 
competitiveness to this market arena that have not been mentioned 
yet.
    1: At the current time PC makers only offer desktop machines 
with Microsoft OS`s on them and usually only the most recent one. 
This inables them to get the maximium profit margine per new PC 
sold. This is commonly called the Microsoft tax by most none 
Microsoft users. The solution to this would be to require PC 
manufactures to offer a chose of which OS they wanted on there new 
PC or let them install the OS from there old PC (provided that PC no 
longer had that OS on it). This would also require PC maker to offer 
PC`s with no OS on it at all.
    2: At the current time the goverement requires all none 
Microsoft OS`s to be certified before they are used on goverenment 
PC`s. This provides Microsoft with a major advantage in the 
Government sector and excludes other more stable OS`s(UNIX, LINUX 
and BEOS).
    3: Liability has never been assessed to Microsoft for issues 
caused by there OS`s instability. If it was possible to sue 
Microsoft for there product quality and require the OS`s to be 
stable Microsoft would find it safer to remove extra applications 
for there OS that they have dought about.
    Thanks
    Tommy Snodgrass



MTC-00004288

From: Michael Satterwhite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 9:55am
Subject: Mixed feelings
    First: overall, I am not sympathetic to the Justice case. As a 
consumer and independent developer, I see little to no merit in the 
original case. Specifically:
    (1) They were charged with anti-competitive practices for giving 
away their browser. Excuse me? Netscape had been giving away *THEIR* 
browser for for years when Microsoft came on the screen. You *COULD* 
buy Netscape, but you could also download it free with full 
licensing off their web site. How is it wrong for Microsoft to do 
the exact same thing that their competitor was doing?
    (2) It was offered as an anticompetitive practice that Microsoft 
priced Windows at the price that would bring in the most 
money_essentially in the middle of the range that they could 
charge. A monopoly would charge the maximum. True anticompetive 
practice would demand the

[[Page 24480]]

minimum. Microsoft simply did what was fiscally sound.
    (3) The very definition of monopoloy was manipulated to create 
one. Let`s ignore Apple and Linux (the consumers have, but that`s 
the nature of a free market!!) Forget the Unix market. Once you rule 
out everything except the market Microsoft is in, then you have a 
monopoly. That`s not right. That said, Microsoft is powerful enough 
that the government should probably keep
    *LEGITIMATE* oversight to keep them `honest'. As an 
example (but not limited to), their new `activation 
license' has tremendous power to be abused. Each time a copy 
of the software is installed, you have to activate it throught MS. 
If your hard disk crashes (or you install a larger drive)_and 
this *IS* going to happen_you have to justify to Microsoft why 
you are reinstalling the package. They are probably going to be 
reasonable, but they have the power to prevent the consumer from 
reinstalling and using software they bought and paid for. This gives 
Microsoft unprecedented power to control a user`s computer. The 
practice should be questioned, at least.
    Things such as this should be monitored for abuse. With this in 
mind, however, the settlement is correct.



MTC-00004289

From: Barry Trout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find this settlement an outrange. Basically, the settlement 
just makes Microsoft`s monopoly position stronger by givving them a 
bigger piece of the market.
    Where is the sense in this?
    Microsoft should be fined a specific dollar amount and the money 
used to buy hardware. Then you can use free software to enable many 
more students computer access. Redhat has said they would provide 
the operating system to run this computers. Not only would this 
prevent the settlement from doing more damage than its fixing, but 
it will allow for a lot more kids to use newer computers. Sun 
Microsystem offers a free office suite, which would be another huge 
cost saving.
    The kicker is, that this software will actually give the kids 
more tools and resourecs to learning a computers, programming, and 
other computer related taks. And, they get the source code to these 
programs so they can find out how to write an office app or database 
engine.
    Free things that run on redhat.
    Programming
    perl
    python
    c
    c++
    any many more
    Database
    mysql
    postgressql
    + more
    Office
    KOfficce
    Openoffice
    Staroffice
    + more
    Plus tools to learn networking, system administration and many 
other things.
    StarOffice www.staroffice.com
    OpenOffice www.openoffice.comj
    Rehat www.redhat.com
    PS. If you need more insite please let me know, I would love to 
point you in the right direction.



MTC-00004290

From: Karen Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:23am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement_Voice of Dissent
    Calling the plan for Microsoft to give $1 billion in refurbished 
hardware and software to the poorest schools a settlement would be 
laughable if it weren`t so disturbing.
    Microsoft makes no educational software save for its Windows 
platform and the Apple OS would not work on the refurbished hardware 
they propose on giving. Furthermore, if for example half of the $1 
billion settlement were to consist of MS software it would cost them 
nowhere near $500 million . . . As mentioned by countless others the 
education market is one of the few areas where Microsoft and the 
hardware makers that utilize the Windows OS do not dominate with 
Apple maintaining its fair share of the education market. If the 
schools received cash they would be be free to chose the hardware 
and software of their choice which they believe would best serve 
their students and educators. The fact that Apple has continued to 
thrive in the education market while its overall market share is 
estimated @ 5% cannot simply be an accident.
    At the very least the dissenting states proposal that 
Microsoft`s Office Suite be compatible with competing software 
platforms must be condition of the settlement. It is a long held 
belief that Microsoft agreed to continue producing its Office Suite 
for the Mac platform due to Apple`s agreement to feature Internet 
Explorer as the default web browser on the Mac.
    The settlement as is cannot and should not stand.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Weber
    Brooklyn, NY



MTC-00004291

From: Sidney Moglewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:26am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
    The Government settlement with Microsoft was very disturbing as 
a strong indication of the DOJ failure to protect the public 
interest in favor of the political interest. This settlement 
obviously ignores the vast body of evidence developed previously by 
DOJ against Microsoft. Respect for the even-handed application of 
the Law by DOJ will only be diminished in the public eye. This is 
very unfortunate during these critical times. I have no connection 
with Microsoft or any other high-tech company and am only an 
unfortunate user of Microsoft Windows doing the quality control work 
by actual use that properly should have been done by Microsoft prior 
to release of their inadequately tested and poor security products. 
The DOJ settlement will not correct these practices by permitting 
the continued monopoly of Windows and Office. Sincerely, Sidney 
Moglewer, 1866 Forest View, Prescott, AZ 86305.



MTC-00004292

From: FIRSTNAME LASTNAME
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer and consumer, I feel shamed by DOJ`s 
settlement with Microsoft. If Microsoft is unchecked for its 
notorious behavior, who will invent except Microsoft`s 
`Innovation'?
    I came from China and have a real understanding of corrupted 
govement due to unchecked power. There will be a similar consequence 
for unchecked Microsoft.
    Yuhong Wang
    [email protected]



MTC-00004293

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I have worked as an IT professional since 1985 and have stayed 
on the cutting edge the entire time.
    Under Related Documents, the first link entitled Complaint (5/
18/1998) I read the following false statement. To me this one untrue 
statement ruins the whole case against Microsoft
    2. Microsoft possesses (and for several years has possessed) 
monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s `Windows' operating systems are 
used on over 80% of Intel-based PCs, the dominant type of PC in the 
United States. More than 90% of new Intel-based PCs are shipped with 
a version of Windows pre-installed. PC manufacturers (often referred 
to as Original Equipment Manufacturers, or `OEMs') have 
no commercially reasonable alternative to Microsoft operating 
systems for the PCs that they distribute.
    Contrary to what is written in red, PC Manufacturers DO have a 
reasonable alternative to Microsoft operating systems. That 
operating system is free unless you pay for support or manuals. That 
operating system is Linux. Another option is IBM OS/2. 
Unfortunately, IBM seemed incapable of properly making their 
operating system work with their own computers and peripheral 
devices. When they lost the operating system wars, it was due to 
their own failures and consumers recognizing that.
    How can Microsoft compete with something that is free? The 
answer is to make your product so good and so easy to use that 
everyone still wants it. I used to dislike Microsoft products 
because I considered them of inferior quality. However, their 
products are currently superior quality and are much more cost-
effective for a business to run with. This competition has been good 
for consumers.
    For example, Oracle is extremely expensive (years ago you 
couldn`t touch it for

[[Page 24481]]

under $50,000) and it takes a highly-trained expensive person to 
keep it running. Microsoft`s competing product SQL Server goes for 
about $1,500 and can run efficiently on much less expensive 
equipment virtually maintenance free. Compare the price of a Sun vs. 
Intel and you will see a huge difference.
    The thing that has irritated me throughout this entire fiasco is 
that the government says they are trying to protect consumers. If 
Oracle, Sun and IBM would have had their way consumers would never 
be able to afford or understand their products. Microsoft has 
brought computers to the common people and the common people love 
them for it.
    If you want to chase after someone harming consumers, then go 
after the electric companies. When they shut off an elderly person`s 
power because they can`t afford to pay it out of their meager Social 
Security check and then die of heat or cold, you tell me who is 
hurting consumers. Hmm let`s see, a $99 operating system or a $200/
month electric bill? You figure it out. Go after the phone companies 
who don`t shut off services when customers request and then continue 
to charge and then send collections agents their way.
    In fact, go after the biggest monopoly there ever was! This 
monopoly is like a parasite which only drains life and offers 
nothing in return. When a business is working, they are there to get 
their share of the profits yet they offer no help in return. When 
that business pays out wages, they are their to take from the 
business again and from the employees. When the employee goes to the 
grocery store they take some more. When that employee tries to start 
a small family owned business, they are there to take food out of 
the children`s mouths. They create laws so complex that only highly 
paid professionals can understand them. They makes new rules at a 
whim and yet ignorance of their rules is unpardonable. This monopoly 
takes about 40% of a small business profits or individual person`s 
income. Sometimes more and sometimes less. They get a cut of every 
financial transaction that occurs yet they did nothing to 
contribute. When a son or daughter has an incurable disease, they 
are there to hold back progress, yet a pill to kill unborn babies 
they do not halt. Guess who or what I am referring to! If you want 
to judge others, start within our (I`m ashamed to say 
`our') own corrupt government! Its not the government 
itself that is corrupt, but the people who disguise themselves as 
`public servants' but do that which is not right.
    ...And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth 
afar off: for truth is fallen in the street , and equity cannot 
enter. Isaiah 59:14. Fortunately, we have a President who seems to 
be a righteous man. Maybe he can help make a difference!



MTC-00004294

From: Chuck B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:39am
Subject: Every Day User
    I just wanted say that as an everyday user of PC computers and 
software for work and home use, the key element of commonality and 
compatibility between all of the structure. All though Microsoft has 
over reached it bounds, they have brought to the industry those 
elements of standardization and flexibility between equipment and 
software.
    Many industries over years have evolved so that platforms are 
inplace for competitors within that industry can 
participate....auto, telephone, home appliance, etc. Each have their 
respective marketing agendas to capture the market dollar.
    We do not need this industry to revert to the early days, 
60-70`s, when software and equipment issues made it impossible 
for the general public to take advantage of the capabilities of the 
industry. It has taken almost 40 years for this industry to evolve 
to its current level of user comfort.
    Chuck Burger
    Semi-Retired



MTC-00004295

From: Vemuri, K. Rao
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I worked in computing for almost 20 years, and I am amazed at 
what may be allowed to happen in the context of the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Rapid growth in computing has made this technology so ubiquitous 
that computing standards should now be considered an infrastructure, 
and not just property of the industry participants_just as the 
network of roads are not the property of any automotive company. No 
corporation should be allowed to control such a vital 
infrastructure, if innovations in computing are going to be the best 
they could be, to the benefit everyone. This antitrust case is more 
important than any such case in the past, including the IBM case 20 
years back, since computing is now ubiquitous. Given that computing 
permeates every aspect of life in the modern society, it has become 
the most critically important technology. Allowing Microsoft (or any 
other corporation) to hide the de-facto standard file formats and 
protocols in such a vital industry is tantamount to allowing the 
creation of a monopoly of unprecedented power. This will stunt the 
growth of computing technology, so that it can never deliver all it 
could. Also, no corporation should be allowed to unilaterally extend 
the otherwise standard formats, thereby simultaneously making those 
formats less useful and hinder technical progress.
    I believe the current settlement will allow Microsoft to 
dominate computing to such an extent that true innovations in 
computing will be held back. The society will benefit a lot less 
from computing than it would otherwise, even while filling up the 
Microsoft coffers to an even greater degree.
    Thank you,
    K. Rao Vemuri
    4313 Woodbine Ct.
    Murrysville, PA_15668



MTC-00004296

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am for the current settlement as defined by the DOJ, 
Microsoft, and many of the States. The additional things wished for 
by the nine dissenting States are intended to benefit Microsoft 
competitors. There is nothing in these additional punishments that 
address consumers in any fashion whatsoever. The punishments these 
States want is totally inappropriate. Anti-trust laws are not 
intended to be used to prop up competitors.
    The only settlement that will matter is one that addresses 
consumers. These other things, forcing Microsoft to make the source 
code to Windows public domain is to essentially strip Microsoft of 
the benefit of their Copyrights. Is this how we reward intellectual 
property companies that are successful? We strip them of their 
products and put the those products in the public domain? That is 
wrong! We must not set that precedent as it will certainly have a 
chilling effect on innovation. And the government should not get 
into practice of product design. The Government should not design 
Microsoft`s products. In any event the Appeals court said the 
bundling issue had not been proved and would have to be re-tried. 
Well these nine states do not want to re-try that aspect. Instead 
they are pushing to the remedy phase without a trial again! This 
should be tried in a court of law! How can the states ask for a 
punishment that is not a result of a trial? It is wrong! The states 
do NOT have the right to force product designs on Microsoft 
especially considering that that part of trial was rejected by the 
appeals court.
    Thank You,
    Bruce Garrick
    Sr. Application Developer
    Total info Services
    888-634-9942 x2484
    [email protected]



MTC-00004297

From: Dan Vaughan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case Comment
    Hello,
    I am an average American citizen without ties to Microsoft. I 
feel that the government and the outstanding states continuing the 
long drawn out expensive trial are in error. It astounds me that as 
a small business owner we are encouraged to innovate and strive to 
create better products and services only to see our fate crushed if 
we reach the level of success that Microsoft has achieved. Please 
move to end this trial and let Microsoft continue to innovate new 
products and services to ENHANCE the software industry and give 
competitors something to strive for.
    This case seems to me to be telling the American public that the 
government knows better than we do what kind of software we should 
run. If companies compete with Microsoft they can actually make 
better products. A prime example of this is Intuit Software 
companies Quicken software. This product outsells Microsoft`s Money 
software because it is a better product. Please do not allow the 
pressure of these states, that are only fighting this due to the 
fact that big Microsoft competitors reside in their states, to speak 
for the American public.
    God Bless America!
    Signed By:

[[Page 24482]]

    Dan Vaughan
    Knight Products Company, Inc.
    www.kpcsupplies.com
    (800)262-4116



MTC-00004298

From: ATRXEB01.WTGATE. 
`[email protected]@inetgw'
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1 l:35am
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft case results
    I think that the government has been too lenient on (if not 
aiding) Microsoft with its verdict.
    1) To allow Microsoft to `donate' their products to 
schools is aiding them to increase their monopoly by training 
students to use only their products.
    2) To allow Microsoft to continue to include their programs in 
their operating systems essentially gives them a monopoly on all 
aspects of computer software.
    3) To allow Microsoft to undermine, corrupt, and otherwise 
defeat the use of any programs but their own is to force all other 
companies into bankruptcy.
    4) To allow Microsoft to keep their source code private with no 
good controls is to further aid in their monopolistic endeavors.
    Thank you in advance for considering my comments,
    Sincerely,
    Barbara M. Wales



MTC-00004299

From:
    Travis McGee
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 11:54am
Subject: Show your real Patriotism and Leave Microsoft Alone!!!!!
    Dear John Ashcroft,
    Re: 60 day comment period
    Microsoft is the most respected company in the World. Bill Gates 
is the most respected non plitical leader in the World. Microsoft is 
successful because their products are the Best in the World. Steve 
Balmer is the best CEO in the World.
    Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the best foundation in 
the World. Microsoft brings us the most valueable export dollars. 
Please stop being the Puppet of Microsoft`s competitors and be used 
in this shortsighted prosecution of an institution that is more 
American the the apple pie.
    Please stop this Clinton`s/Democrats` trend of Government 
controls everything & therefore we should kill the most 
successful in the market place.
    Microsoft is America`s flagship, a company dear to our hearts. 
God Bless America
    Thank you for everything John Travis McGee
    A Card Carrying and a Devoted Republican



MTC-00004300

From: Roper Mountain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 11:51am
Subject: Can Microsoft antitrust case now; ill-conceived; gone on 
too long!!
    Gentlemen:
    It is my considered opinion that the Microsoft antitrust case 
was ill-conceived originally. It has gone on far too long, becoming 
a legal charade. This country owes a debt of gratitude to the 
Microsoft Corporation and Mr. William Gates for the preeminent 
position of leadership in information acquisition, processing, and 
presentation it presently enjoys.
    The public can see through this veiled attempt at fleecing the 
recently financially successful entrepreneurs and corporation. Go 
punish Ford and Firestone for the Explorer rollover tragedies. These 
companies are sufficiently legally sophisticated to fend the Justice 
Department off for several lifetimes. Where is the top level 
management decision making capability at the Department? This 
Microsoft thing appears to have been out of control from the 
inception.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004301

From: David Blair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:02pm
Subject: Please carry out justice!
    It seems that Microsoft`s power is overwhelming. Of course with 
a monopoly already illegally established, those people bound by that 
monopoly wish to see this case decided for Microsoft. They fail to 
see the long term effect or even stop to realize how many smaller 
innovative companies have been swallowed up by Microsoft and have 
disappeared from the horizon.
    I find it ironic that one remedy proposed by our own DOJ would 
only INCREASE Microsoft`s monopoly into that last frontier that has 
eluded them thus far....EDUCATION. And in this process hurts a truly 
innovative company, Apple Computer, which truly seems vested in 
helping schools.
    Please don`t let this juggernaut overwhelm you too and become 
just another lemming that has jumped off the cliff at Microsoft`s 
beckoning. I have faith that you will carry out the appropriate 
justice. Microsoft`s activity was deemed illegal. In my opinion the 
answer should not only include remedy but some punishment for their 
actions. Thank you for you time and indulgence
    `True eloquence consists of saying all that should be 
said, and that only.'
    Francois de La Rochefoucald
    David L. Blair
    Green Valley Area Education
    Agency 14
    [email protected] 1405 N. Lincoln, Creston, IA 50801
    http://www.aea14.k12.ia.us Voice: 515.782.8443 FAX:.4298
    CC: April Kerychuk,Dennis LaMasters



MTC-00004302

From: Benjamin C. Boynton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 11:58am
Subject: In Support of U.S. Poor Schools
    Sir or Madam,
    This new settlement is great! I believe this new settlement is 
more of a benefit to the schools and RedHat Linux is sufficient for 
their needs.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Christian Boynton, registered voter.



MTC-00004303

From: Mark Hurty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:11pm
Subject: Settlement Issues
    Microsoft`s suggestion that the DOJ force holdout states to 
accept their settlement proposal is un-fair. Microsoft`s settlement 
proposal offers them an opportunity to extend and enhance the 
monopolistic behavior of which they were found guilty. Rewarding 
Microsoft by forcing a non-remedial settlement on the holdout states 
is unconscionable.
    Mark Hurty_
    Mark Hurty [email protected]
    http://www.medicineman.com
    Direct Telephone: 650.325.4819
    Medicineman Office: 415.647.4242



MTC-00004304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:17pm
Subject: MS settlement
    Microsoft has accomplished great things in the standardization 
of the computer industry; much as Hitler rebuilt Germany and Stalin 
ran Russia. They must be as tightly regulated as possible. They must 
also be made to provide a functional operating WINDOWS which they 
have never done. All WINDOWS operating systems have been 
fraudulently marketed as none of them have ever worked properly. 
Microsoft has always refused to stand behind their product and has 
refused to compensated buyers for their defective programs. This 
must change!
    If any other major corporation pulled these stunts, or produced 
a product as defective as WINDOWS; Congress would put theme out of 
business. XP had four `service packs' released in the 
first two weeks of it`s sales; and new patches are still coming out. 
It would be the same as if Pontiac sold a car that was recalled four 
times in the first two weeks after you bought it. If you bought a 
car with the defects of WINDOWS, it would qualify for the lemon laws 
in the first month of ownership. This is now a consumer issue and 
not just a commercial issue as it was ten years ago.
    Get real; you are condescending to and protecting a con man with 
this nonsense.
    Al Martin
    PO Box 2234
    Edison, NJ 08818
    [email protected]



MTC-00004305

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 
([email protected]) on Sunday, November 4, 2001 at 
10:51:11
    Name: James E. Felton
    phone: 501-760-6201
    address: 156 Madill St.
    city: Hot Springs
    state: AR
    zip: 71913
    other: ON
    othertext: Microsoft Settlement
    Radio1: contact_asap comments_questions: Many of the 
articles I`ve read in

[[Page 24483]]

newspapers (and websites) suggest that we should let Microsoft off 
easy because it is hurting our economy. Is that what we want to 
teach our children? That we won`t prosecute `crime' if 
it hurts our economy?
    Microsoft has been proven guilty of serious crimes that affect 
all consumers, and all businesses, and in fact, may affect our 
entire future. And we`re going to let them off easy? Meanwhile, 
someone like A. Alfred Taubman of Detroit faces a strong possibility 
of 3 years in prison, and $300,000.00 in fines for MUCH lesser 
crimes (charged with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by fixing 
prices at Christie`s and Sotheby`s auction houses) because 
prosecution of his crime doesn`t negatively affect the economy.
    This is ridiculous. Microsoft was PROVEN GUILTY. Most of the 
charges were upheld by the Appeal`s Court. The evidence is a matter 
of PUBLIC RECORD. Bill Gates, and other Microsoft executives SHOULD 
BE IN PRISON. Instead, they stand to walk away with a slap on the 
wrist!
    PLEASE stand firm against Microsoft! This proposed settlement 
DOES NOT adequately address the crimes. It might have been 
acceptable IF Microsoft had been willing to settle BEFORE they were 
convicted. But it certainly is not acceptable afterwards. If the 
States sign on to this settlement they are basically allowing Bill 
Gates and Microsoft to walk away LAUGHING at our system of justice.
    REMOTE_ADDR: 63.254.228.4



MTC-00004306

From: Wang, Bill
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed settlement. It is reasonable and good for 
consumer.
    Bill Wang



MTC-00004307

From: Clara Bow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:31pm
    I believe Microsoft`s settlement is more than fair. Let`s take 
the state politics and anti-competitive practices of Microsft rivals 
OUT OF THIS PROCESS.



MTC-00004308

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 
([email protected]) on Monday, November 5, 2001 at 
07:30:27
    Name: Douglas Metcalfe
    address: 113 North Star Road
    city: Imperial
    state: PA
    zip: 15126
    info_antitrust: ON
    Radio1: contact_asap comments_questions: Stand up 
for the Rule of Law! This settlement by the DOJ is a travesty, and a 
perversion of the anti-trust laws of this Country and this State. 
Rewarding a predatory monopolist for it`s continued and ongoing 
breaking of the law will dishonor the legal system. Take a look at 
Windows XP and .Net!
    With this settlement the cancer that is Microsoft will 
metasticize into control of the Internet as well as the desktop.
    REMOTE_ADDR: 165.247.93.29



MTC-00004309

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 
([email protected]) on Monday, November 5, 2001 at 
10:56:16
    Name: Peter RF Baxter
    phone: 304-636-2467
    address: 199 Summit Street
    city: Elkins
    state: WV
    zip: 26241
    other: ON
    othertext: Microsoft Suit
    Radio1: contact_asap comments_questions: PLEASE 
DON`T SETTLE WITH MICROSOFT!!! Bush administration has sold us all 
out with hardly a slap on their wrists. Microsoft is a predatory 
menace to all consumers. Hang in there and fight it out, please! 
West Virginia computer users are counting on you, now.
    REMOTE_ADDR: 208.192.20.227



MTC-00004310

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 
([email protected]) on Tuesday, November 6, 2001 at 15:44:25
    Name: Jennifer Stathakis
    phone: 3042967550
    address: Rt 8 box 289
    city: fairmont
    state: wv
    zip: 26554
    info_antitrust: ON
    Radio1: contact_asap comments_questions: I want to 
express my hope that West Virginia is one of the states that has 
rejected the `micro-soft' settlement. Please continue to 
pursue our rights!
    REMOTE_ADDR: 208.33.84.12



MTC-00004312

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 
([email protected]) on Tuesday, November 6, 2001 at 16:12:09
    Name: Meredith Dixon
    phone: (304) 986-1944
    address: Rural Route #3, Box 85-B
    city: Mannington
    state: WV
    zip: 26582
    other: ON
    othertext: Microsoft case
    Radio1: contact_asap comments_questions: Please 
don`t give in and accept the Justice Department`s 
`settlement'. I`ve read it all the way through; it 
doesn`t solve anything, and the slap on the wrist it does give 
expires in five years. Microsoft is both unscrupulous and out of 
control. I`d like to see it broken up, as the judge originally 
suggested, but if that can`t be done, then at least significant 
sanctions should be imposed on it.
    You don`t actually need to contact me about this matter at 
all_I just wanted to give my opinion, and I`ll know your 
decision soon enough through the news_but I don`t see any way 
to turn off the `Please Contact Me As Soon As Possible' 
button on your webform. I`m running Netscape 4.7x. 
REMOTE_ADDR: 63.66.163.7



MTC-00004313

From: Justice Lrm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    To whom it may concern;
    It would appear that the American Dream has all but dissapeared 
inside the American Monopolies. I do not see any attempt by our 
government to even make an honest attempt to break up the, possibly 
biggest on earth, monopoly that is Microsoft.
    Bill Gates and company have the resourses to buy their form of 
justice, and it would appear that they are succeeding very nicely. 
While they have billions of dollars to spend in an effort to remain 
the Top Dog, the true innovators in the computer indusrty are being 
stomped on by the Microsoft Monopoly. And, the DOJ appears to be 
totally unwilling to even make an honest attempt to rectify this 
blatant misbehavior of Micosoft`s.
    It simply furthers my opinion of government: easily bought off 
by the highest bidder, no moral character, in office strictly for 
their on benefit, and of no use to anyone.
    Please prove me wrong.
    Lonnie



MTC-00004315

From: Mike Doyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    DOJ Leadership,
    The entire Microsoft case has been a mistake. I buy Microsoft 
products because they are a great value. If they continue to offer 
the best value I will continue to buy them. When they stop offering 
the best value I will buy something else. That is the way 
competition must work and the Government needs to get out of the 
way. I is not our Governments place to provide an advantage between 
companies competing between each other for my business. Please stop 
the madness and end the Microsoft case now.
    Mike Doyle



MTC-00004316

From: Michael Nicholson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:37pm
Subject: Against the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I`ve been following the trial since its inception, years and 
years ago. I am still in a state of shock and disbelief, since after 
all this time and stalling Microsoft is poised to get away with 
their crimes and perpetuate more crimes. And they may be able to 
`force' the settlement on the hold-out states?
    I find this unacceptable.
    Microsoft argues that the process is now at the remedy stage, 
and that punishment should not be doled out. How can this

[[Page 24484]]

argument be logical in any sense? Any remedy that reduces 
Microsoft`s potential to remain a monopoly is, by default, a 
punishment. Therefore, to stay a puhishment is to withhold a remedy.
    I do not agree with the terms of the remedy that the DOJ and the 
compliant states have worked out with Microsoft. I believe that the 
proposed `remedy' will open doors for Microsoft in the 
education market. This is clearly in Microsoft`s best interest. I 
also don`t agree that Microsoft will lose incentive to innovate if 
they are forced to expose code for some of their software or if 
their software cannot be bundled with the operating system.
    The name of the game is consumer choice. I am with the hold-out 
states, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, 
Kansas, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Utah, as well as the District 
of Columbia, in my desire to hold Microsoft to a more stringent 
remedy to their Anti-Trust and Monopolistic policies and practices.
    Sincerest regards,
    Michael Nicholson
    4517 Camino de las Estrellas
    Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00004317

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 
([email protected]) on Wednesday, November 7, 2001 at 
10:01:28
    Name: Wayne Miller
    other: ON
    othertext: No reply necessary
    Radio1: contact_asap comments_questions: I wanted 
to thank you for not signing off on the Justice Department`s 
agreement with Microsoft. I do not feel that the agreement can be 
enforced and it relies on Microsoft to clean up its own act with 
little oversight or enforcement possibilities. Microsoft`s track 
record in cleaning up its own act would suggest that different 
tactics are necessary.
    REMOTE_ADDR: 63.23.214.168



MTC-00004319

From: Keith.Wurzbacher@ walgreens.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Proposal offers Schools No choice
    US DOJ,
    Please do NOT accept Microsoft terms to buy used or refurbished 
computers for schools. This will force schools to accept more bad 
and old microsoft garbage. This would give Microsoft a further 
advantage instead of a viable solution.
    If instead, Microsoft would give money to the schools, then the 
schools could decide for themselves what would be best for 
them_Not dictated by microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Keith Wurzbacher
    199 Bernard DR
    Buffalo Grove, IL 60089



MTC-00004320

From: Watkins, David
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 12:39pm
Subject: FW: Microsoft settlement
From: Watkins, David
    Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:37 AM
To: `[email protected]'
    Cc: `[email protected],'; 
`[email protected],'; `
    [email protected],'; 
`[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Bush,
    I write to express my deep concern over the Justice Department 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I belive it to be 
misguided and in the long run detrimental to consumers and the 
informational technology industry in general. It rewards rather than 
punishes a convicted monopolist for its behavior by fostering its 
inroads into education, one of the few areas it has yet to dominate. 
Microsoft`s strategy has always been to use its OS monopoly to 
leverage its other businesses. It has shown no remorse or even 
acknowledgement of itsr overly aggressive practices. Microsoft 
protests but sounds like Brer Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into 
the briar patch. It has never been especially innovative, and the IT 
industry has always had to look elsewhere for technological 
advances. Please do not sell out the future for transient economic 
gains despite our current economic woes.
    Sincerely,
    David L. Watkins, MD
    Dallas, Texas



MTC-00004321

From: macmd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:53pm
Subject: Free PR for Microsoft
    How does letting Microsoft take over the Education market show 
the people of the world that you care about diversity in capitolism?



MTC-00004322

From: Warren F Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:57pm
Subject: Antitrust
    Like most Americans, I have tried to follow the arguments, pro 
and con, respecting Microsoft`s (MS) supposed monopoly status in the 
world of computing and the internet. I am not an authority on 
anything, but know a little about many things, especially computers, 
how they work and function in the real world. I feel qualified to 
give some general comments on what I think is a travesty of the 
American judicial system. In brief, keep government out of the 
legitimate interests of those who need to react to technological 
changes like the cheetah. Those who cannot compete, whose 19th 
century mechanical mindset make them more like the three-toed sloth, 
should simply admit their incompetence and leave the field to others 
who can compete. Turning to government in the interests of quote 
smoothing the playing field unquote has become the game of the 
century. It is the first resort of the incompetent. It needs to 
stop! The goal is excellence, not mediocrity. But more of that 
later.
    The Netscape browser was and continues to be what one web site 
called `technologically inept.' As one who has used both 
browsers, IE and Netscape, I can tell you that IE is vastly superior 
in its ability to interpret code and bring useful information to the 
desktop. Netscape lost because it was an inferior product, not 
because MS used unfair business practices. Like the sloth, it simply 
couldn`t keep up with the cheetah.
    MS`s vision that in order for the public to prepare itself to 
deal with an entirely new way of communicating you needed to 
integrate the desktop with the web, using the web browser as a 
bridge, is so innovative and fresh that the 
`competition' still doesn`t get it. They think the way 
to solve it is to follow the old fallacy that bigness is goodness. 
So companies like Netscape were interlocked with other monopolies 
like AOL. Where was the government throughout that charade of a 
merger? AOL`s corporate culture is the most controlling environment 
I have ever encountered. As a former user, I can tell you that it 
was virtually impossible to open my web browser, much less use it.
    If Windows is a monopoly it`s because of integration. The best 
way to approach any human problem is to develop a synergistic 
solution. The result of the integration of desktop, browser and 
internet was a reality which is greater than the sum of its parts. 
The best I can compare it to is the way a biological system 
functions. Integration produced a flexibility that is virtually 
unlimited in scope. The only monopoly here was the public 
recognition of a superior product, not to mention the fact that 
Gates` original agreement with IBM was that his code be included on 
every machine built using PC architecture. Please notice that even 
XP has a rudimentary form of MSDOS in the OS`s ability to open a 
command line and run legacy programs. This has never changed since 
Windows was invented. And let me regress: if Windows was simply a 
Mac knock off, why didn`t Apple sue for breach of proprietary 
interests and intellectual rights? Windows was produced 
independently as an outgrowth of DOS. People misinterpret results 
and origins all the time. It is possible to arrive at the same 
destination by taking different routes!
    Consumers were not hurt, ever. Only competitors. But that`s the 
nature of the free market. You compete and somebody loses. Why 
reward the losers? It only produces mediocrity. Which leads me to 
recall an old saying. It went something like this: the nail that 
sticks up too much always gets hammered. MS was the nail, the hammer 
was the DOJ wielded by sore losers. If progress is our most 
important product, this travesty of an antitrust law suit just set 
us back to 1891, when the Patent Office director closed the doors of 
his office by commenting that everything of any usefulness had now 
been invented. He must be smiling in his grave!
    Sincerely yours,
    Warren F Taylor
    Porterville, CA



MTC-00004323

From: WJ Cornelieus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 12:54pm

[[Page 24485]]

Subject: Microsoft is a psychopathic monopolist
    Hello DOJ Antitrust Division.
    Based on what I`m hearing in the news about Microsoft`s proposed 
settlement remedies, it is my opinion that any settlement that you 
reach with Microsoft is not going to be any more meaningful than 
Chamberlin getting Hitler to sign an agreement committing Hitler to 
be a really fun guy from then on.
    The key to resolving this issue is to somehow impress upon Mr. 
Gates that the `game' is over.
    Thank you for at least listening.
    M. Clark



MTC-00004324

From: st9668nh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:02pm
Subject: not acceptable
    To whom it may concern,
    The current proposal Microsoft offered is unacceptable. They 
said that the schools could load applications that were offered by 
other companies such as media player or instant messanger. Well, all 
these are free. Quicktime, reelmedia player, Aol Instant Messanger, 
yahoo messanger, they are free with a charge for an upgraded 
`Pro' version which most schools wouldn`t need. This is 
no harm to Microsoft. The next suggestion was to allow a dual boot 
on the computers. Well, I`m not sure but I don`t think many students 
use Solaris, Unix, or Linux to run their word processing 
applications and especially the ones that come from the countries 
poorer schools. They would be greatfull just to use a computer. Also 
Apple Computer`s Macintosh OS does not run on an intel based 
computer so the largest holder of market share in the school sector 
would be hurt the worst.
    As you can see from these examples, there would be no real 
change in the agreement because there is no monetary value to 
Microsofts suggestions. The idea of a settlement is to punish a 
company for their wrong doing which would include doing commercial 
harm to the offending company yet Microsoft does not feel they 
should be harmed for what they did. It appears that Microsoft is 
trying to get away with a slap on the wrist when what they need is a 
good canning. Apple Computers CEO Steve Jobs had the best 
suggestion. Microsoft should be forced to pay one billion in cash so 
the schools can use the money to purchase whatever hardware and 
software they want. This would keep the company competing for market 
share instead of one particular company jumping to number one over a 
monopoly settlement.
    Please review these thought and comments and seriously consider 
forcing Microsoft to accept the terms of a proposal or face further 
punitive damages.
    Thank you for your time,
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Thurnau



MTC-00004325

From: Todd Little
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I have recently read the proposed settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. As a software developer for the 
last 25 years, I can find nothing in the form of a remedy in the 
proposed settlement. At best the settlement curtails Microsoft`s 
past monopolistic behaviors, but does nothing to punish Microsoft 
for its past antitrust violations.
    It would appear that someone convinced the DoJ that requiring 
Microsoft to end its previous monopolistic behaviors and publish 
specifications about its middleware is going to somehow foster 
reasonable competition. Instead, what I see is that Microsoft will 
be free to use its position as a monopoly on middleware to further 
its control on the middleware market. Their latest attempt is to try 
and limit the ability of Java to compete with their products by not 
shipping support for Java in their operating systems. Thus, it will 
be necessary for an OEM, manufacturer, or the end user to now 
explicitly load Java support. This is just but one small step 
Microsoft will take with its monopoly to try and prevent 
technologies like Java from competing with Microsoft`s proprietary 
middleware technology.
    With the terms of the proposed settlement, Microsoft has little 
reason to foster competition and will use its position as a monopoly 
on middleware to expand its middleware into other areas. Their .NET 
initiative is exactly that.
    So I ask, `What exactly is the Department of Justice doing 
to end Microsoft`s monopoly? How does the Department of Justice 
reasonably expect Microsoft`s competition to compete against a 
monopoly that has not been curbed in the slightest?'
    Todd Little
    1155 W Illinois Ave
    Palatine, IL 60067
    847-202-1031



MTC-00004326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:29pm
Subject: comment
    I think it is time the government got on with other problems and 
left Microsoft alone, it is a wonderful company and does so much for 
so many people and yet a few Democrats cant let it go. How much is 
this costing us for them to keep after Microsoft. You did it to 
A.T.T. many years ago and that has been a mess ever since, why is it 
when anyone in this country is successful the goverment steps in and 
ruins it. Some of these people need to get a life there are so many 
people that need help right now why not concentrate on them. 
Elizabeth Fletcher



MTC-00004327

From: Ned Glick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:33pm
Subject: Enforcement
    The proposed settlement seems very weak.
    Mechanisms are needed to assure that future anti-competitive 
uses by Microsoft of its monopoly powers can be challenged quickly 
and with minimal costs. Enforcement of remedies should be clearly 
specified, and speedy.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    My comments are in the attached PDF James Richard Tyrer
    James Richard Tyrer
    [email protected]
    United States Department of Justice
    [email protected]
    Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT and the 
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT and it is my opinion in general that 
the proposed settlement does not:
    1. Provide sufficient relief to consumers for the damage they 
have suffered as a result of MicroSoft`s illegal actions.
    2. Provide adequate measures to properly restrain MicroSoft from 
future illegal actions.
    3. Provide sufficient measures to ensure competition in the 
future.
    4. Provide adequate measures to ensure MicroSoft`s compliance 
with the Judgment.
    More specifically: I All customers that choose to use non-
MicroSoft products are damaged every day by their methods of 
attempted market monopolization. The best example of this is the 
World Wide Web.
    Although the case focused on MicroSoft`s attempts to put 
NetScape out of business and their actions in coercing Apple 
Computer to use the Internet Explorer browser, I do not think that 
these were the ultimate purpose_these were not ends in 
themselves. MicroSoft`s intent appears to be the ultimate control of 
web content production and distribution (servers). Their method is 
simple: MicroSoft web content production software and their web 
server software_most specifically the so called ` Active 
Server Page [ASP] and the IIS web server_produce HTML code 
that is not compliant with the W3C standards. This would be a very 
poor market strategy for any company that did not hold a virtual 
monopoly. However, for a monopolist it appears to work.
    On IBM PC compatible computers there are still several web 
browsers available, but if you use one of them you keep running into 
web pages that don`t work correctly. I have submitted some of these 
to the W3C`s validation program (at their web site) and they have 
numerous errors in them. But, I assume, that they work correctly on 
MS IE. So, their software produces non-standards compliant web pages 
that only work on MS IE.
    There is no possible business rational for this strategy. It 
would not work for a small company! If a small company introduced 
such software that required users to use their web browser, they 
would quickly go out of business. But, with a monopoly and their web 
browser available free, this tends to encourage people to use their 
web browser on Windows. After all, it is available free or it came 
with the computer. People try MS IE, and it works so they keep using 
it. The only major barrier to this strategy was Apple

[[Page 24486]]

Computer and evidence at the trial indicated how they coerced Apple 
Computer into switching to MS IE. So, with makers of standards 
compliant browsers almost completely shut out of the market, MS is 
now free to set the standards for web content.
    I should point out how difficult it is for another company to 
make a new browser. The MS IE browser is standards 
compliant_it will work with standards compliant web pages, but 
it will also display the non-compliant web pages produced by MS 
software. Mr. Gates has stated that IE is the most compliant browser 
available. Quite true since it not only displays standards compliant 
HTML but also MS generated HTML. But, how is any other company going 
to accomplish this. MS has no printed standards for their version of 
HTML. It is basically impossible. And, even if some succeeded, MS 
could just make changes to their secret `standard' and 
simply tell users to download the latest version of IE.
    I do not believe that disclosure as outlined in the Settlement 
would cure this problem since it really appears that it is a 
question of MS IF. being very tolerant of mistakes in a way that 
could not be stated in a standard. However, there is a very simple 
solution to this problem. MicroSoft must be required to, after a set 
date, guarantee that all web content produced by their software will 
be 100% compliant with the current W3C standards for HTML and CSS. 
This would create a bright line, the W3C validation programs already 
exist and it is a clear binary question_either a page passes 
or it doesn`t. There would be no arguing over whether or not some 
disclosure met the requirements of the Settlement.
    I note that if this were the case, that MS software produced 
fully W3C compliant web content that the questions of the free 
distribution of the browser and their attempts to put NetScape out 
of business become much less relevant because their ultimate ends 
could not be achieved. II The Impact Statement states that the 
Settlement will benefit consumers by: Ensuring that software and 
hardware developers are free to develop, distribute, or write to 
software that competes with Microsoft middleware or operating system 
software without adverse action by Microsoft, by prohibiting 
Microsoft from retaliating against developers or conditioning 
consideration on a developer refraining from developing, 
distributing or writing to software that competes with Microsoft 
platform software.
    I do not believe that the prevention of retaliation is 
sufficient to achieve this goal. I emphasize here the development of 
operating system software. The Statement concentrates on 
`middleware'. However, disclosure of the technical 
details of middleware is not sufficient to ensure competition in 
operating system software in all respects. While it will have some 
positive effects on server software, it will have little or no 
effect on desktop operating system competition.
    For there to be competition in the desktop operating system 
market, the Settlement must achieve at least some of the results 
which would have resulted from the break up of MS. In this context, 
a major defect in the Settlement is that the required disclosure of 
APIs and other information is: for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product[.] First, 
this would appear to contradict the section from the Statement 
quoted above, and, certainly could be used to prevent the disclosure 
of such information for the purpose of writing software to compete 
with MS operating system software.
    The common wisdom is that what is now holding other operating 
systems back_preventing effective competition with MS_on 
the IBM PC type personal computer is not Windows, but rather it is 
the MS Office Suite. For a Settlement to provide the needed relief 
to consumers, it must address this point.
    I also note that I believe that these limiting conditions on 
disclosure will lead to constant wrangling over what must be 
disclosed to who and further legal action. What is needed is full 
disclosure of the API without conditions. Specifically that it be 
made available for the purpose of producing competing operating 
systems.
    There also needs to be a bright line, as stated above in regard 
to web browsers. The reasons for this should be clear to anyone 
familiar with the case. MicroSoft have shown themselves to be 
devious and egregious liars. Experience with the previous case about 
the web browser issue have clearly shown that MS will not act in 
good faith.
    The best way to deal with the disclosure issue is with a 
standard. Therefore, I recommend that MS be required to submit the 
Windows API to an IEEE standards making committee and that a 
published standard be produced within a set time at MS`s expense. 
And after the publishing of the standard that MS be required to 
contract with two independent software and testing companies to 
produce the software necessary to test both the Windows operating 
system and the Office Suite for compliance with the standard. This 
software should be generally available for a reasonable fee to cover 
the costs of materials and distribution only. After a reasonable 
time, MS should be prohibited from selling any version of Windows or 
the Office Suite that does not comply with the published standards 
as determined by the two independent software and testing companies.
    Alternately, they could be allowed to convert to fully POSIX 
compatible software and stop selling software that uses the current 
Windows API.
    The same standards making should also be applied to the client/
server and middleware issues.
    III It has been conjectured that if MS was broken up, that the 
application company would make the Office Suite available for other 
IBM PC operating systems. This is not totally certain, but we can be 
sure of the pattern of selectively offering the MS IE explorer for 
various platforms. It is available for Windows and the Mac OS. A 
little known fact is that it is also available for UNIX. 
Specifically, it is (or was) available for Solaris and HP-UX. 
The Solaris was available for Sparc only_the UNIX version is 
not available for UNIX running on Intel x86 processors. This is not 
a rational business decision since the demand for these versions is 
consideraly less than it would be for Linux and BSD running on Intel 
processor systems. It should be clear that their objective is to 
push the Windows monopoly in preference to promoting the use of 
their browser. I would, therefore, recommend that MS be required to 
make the Office Suite available for Linux and Solaris (both Sparc 
and Intel processors). To ensure competition and compliance in the 
case of Linux (and because this appears to be possible) I would 
recommend that they be required to provide two versions. One (for 
Linux) independently ported and sold by CodeWeavers with a usual and 
customary royalty arrangement. And the other (for Linux and Solaris) 
a MS version ported with the aid of their current Windows to Unix 
porting software as available from MainSoft or their own WISE 
software. MicroSoft to pay all development costs.
    IV I believe that MS should be in some way penalized for their 
illegal conduct and the damage done to consumers over the past 10 or 
so years, that they should be fined. I would suggest that instead of 
a fine that they be allowed to donate One Billion Dollars to the 
Free Software Foundation. This would be a charitable contribution 
since the FF is 501 (c) (3). This would also promote competition in 
the personal computer market. This may sound odd, but since it has 
been much more difficult for MS to retaliate against the open 
software community, many (including myself) believe that the best 
chance for competition with MS software (in the near future) is the 
open source movement.
    V The greatest harm to me as a consumer has been the Novel, 
WordPerfect, UnixWare fiasco. I presume that you are aware of the 
fact the Novel purchased WordPerfect (and Quattro Pro) and UnixWare 
with the intention of offering an office suite not only for Windows 
but for UNIX as well. It is my understanding from what I have read 
in the IT trade press that MS coerced Novel with the threat that 
they would make the next version of Windows totally incompatible 
with Novel Netware. As a result, Novel sold WordPerfect to Corel 
Corporation and UnixWare to SCO.
    Corel is now slowly getting out of the WordPerfect business and 
slowly their business continues to decline. SCO was only interested 
in the OS and had their own fight with MS about that. UnixWare was 
then sold to Caldera.
    As I remember, this also spelled the end of the OpenDoc project 
which would have greatly increased competition in the office suite 
market by promoting an open document format. The result of this is 
that I (and all consumers) can NOT purchase the WordPerfect Office 
Suite for UNIX (Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc.). Something must be done 
to redress this.
    I don`t know what the best way to redress this would be. It 
would clearly depend on whether the successors in interest to Novel 
were interested in doing anything about it. What is certain is that 
MS should provide the finances.
    A possible suggestion is that a joint venture be formed to 
develop WordPerfect Office Suite for UNIX (including UnixWare, 
Solaris and Linux). For example, Novel, Caldera, and

[[Page 24487]]

Corel could form a corporation to do this, each buying in with $100 
Million in stock (stock swap) and MS would be required to buy in 
with $1 Billion in stock but MS would receive nonvoting shares. The 
corporation could then sell the M* stock as needed to finance their 
operations. There are many other methods and permutations that would 
server as well including some form of non-commercial only open 
source.
    But, something must be done to address this point because 
without real competition to MS Office Suite, there will never be 
real competition in the desktop operating system market. NOTE: I 
note in closing that some of my suggestions will require MicroSoft 
to invest money in new business ventures. In the case of 
WordPerfect, this is somewhat punitive, but in the case of porting 
MS Office Suite to other platforms, I believe that this is in the 
best interest of the company and that they have not done so not for 
rational business reasons but for reasons of monopoly maintenance. 
In both cases, they might make money on the deal. The 9 dissenting 
states have demanded the MS Office Suite be ported but they have 
gone too far in requiring that MS not earn royalties on its sale.
    The issue of whether various actions by MS are rational business 
decisions or done for the sake of monopoly maintenance is probably 
the most important issue in the case. I feel that it is on this 
basis that the success of any settlement should be judged. If they 
continue to make marketing decisions based on monopoly maintenance, 
then the settlement will have failed.
    James Richard Tyrer



MTC-00004329

From: Paul D. Weatherford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:42pm
Subject: Whatever you do....
    I am a lowly computer user and I wrankle because I am forced to 
use Microsoft Operating Systems. Also, the control they use with 
their ?xplorer` is excessive.
    That is also true of Netscape to some extent. They are trying to 
compete with Microsoft on their terms and in the process are making 
their Browser les than desirable.
    The Browser should be sparated from the operating system. The 
Operating System Windows XP should be devoid of advertising gimmicks 
that force you to use anyone`s software. Software for other uses 
should stand along and compete in the marketplace. Thank You.



MTC-00004330

From: John Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    (I`m not sure if this is the right e-mail address or not for 
responding to the antitrust settlement that was proposed about a 
month ago. If it`s not please disregard this e-mail and I truly 
apologize for incorrectly sending it.)
    I wanted to state that I`m not confortable with the settlement 
as it stands now. I can`t see where any part of if will truly limit 
Microsoft from using its same predatory acts to force people to use 
software they don`t want. The main issue I have is with Microsoft 
`tying' code for ordinary applications into its 
operating system and then calling it necessary for the functionality 
of the operaing system. That`s a lie.
    The operating system (Windows) worked before without the code, 
and other OSes have those same types of applications and they don`t 
require the applications to be `tied' in order for the 
OS to work. This whole issue could be solved if Microsoft would just 
`componentize' its operating system. Let me explain. 
Microsoft `tied' Internet Explorer to its operating 
system because it stated that it would be the user a better 
`user experience' when using a computer. The concept/
direction they chose to better the customer`s experience in and of 
itself is not wrong. In fact, Microsoft will be the first to admit 
that that`s why they did it in the first place. The problem is that 
the way they went about it was wrong. Instead of `tying' 
the browser to the operating system, they could have made it a 
component (much like the plug-in concept in most other 
applications). This means that, if coded to a pre-set list of APIs, 
a browser can be `plugged into' the operating system; 
thereby, allowing the user to use the browser`s interface to 
navigate through his/her computer. Obviously, since Microsoft will 
have created the APIs, their browser would be the first one capable 
of working with the `new Windows feature'. However, now 
other browser companies could tailor their browser to work with this 
new feature if they wanted to. This would promote healthy 
competition by allowing multiple companies to write a component (in 
this case a browser) to work with the new operating system feature. 
This also gives the users the experience that they wanted as well as 
the freedom to choose which company they want to deliver that 
feature to them.
    The component concept described above would easily apply to all 
other areas of debate that are currently be discussed in the anti-
trust case. This way Microsoft can keep their code that`s behind the 
APIs secret; and yet still open the feature up to other companies so 
their applications can work with it if they so choose. In short, 
Microsoft`s current philosophy of `tying' the feature to 
the operating system and then stating that the operating system 
wouldn`t work without it is wrong. If they are forced to build these 
features as components (or plug-ins), then we wouldn`t be in the 
anti-trust nightmare we are currently in.
    Therefore, in my personal opinion, I would be happy with any 
anti-trust settlement that forced Microsoft to stop providing a 
feature to users by `tying' it to the operating system, 
but provide it as a component plug-in so other companies are free to 
come up with something better if desired. This would be a win-win 
for the users, third-party companies, Microsoft and the government.
    Thank you for you time.
    John Jacobs
    Computer Consultant
    Digital Fusion, Inc.



MTC-00004331

From: Corn Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:45pm
Subject: Reevaluate Microsoft Settlement
    Atty. General Ashcroft,
    As a citizen of the United States of America I am thankful for 
our judicial system and its ability to bring about resolution to 
increasingly complex matters. However, given the findings of fact by 
the courts, it is difficult for me to comprehend how greatly 
disproportionate the penalties and remedies are as proposed by the 
US Department of Justice and accepted by some of the other states 
bringing suit. It seems to be clear to the courts that the actions 
of the Microsoft Corporation violated both the letter and the spirit 
of the law and constituted monopolistic and predatory behavior. As 
with any other company engaging in monopolistic behavior, the 
penalty and remedies proposed should be severe given the nature of 
the crimes. The current Microsoft/DOJ settlement does not give us 
that, and in some cases appears to actually work against the victims 
of Microsoft`s monopolistic behavior. This is the third time 
Microsoft has been to court for anti-trust allegations. It is clear 
that the `slap on the hand' approach is not working to 
remedy their behavior. The proposed settlement is worse than a slap 
on the hand_it perpetuates Microsoft`s monopoly and in some 
cases will actually stifle competition. Clearly the American 
consumer does not benefit from the current settlement proposal. 
While I don`t believe the proposal from the nine dissenting states 
is necessarily the best remedy, I do believe an appropriate 
settlement should include both corrective and punitive actions. The 
purpose of the judicial system is not simply to say, `Don`t do 
that again,' it is to provide punitive measures to prevent a 
company from engaging in similar behavior. Without real punitive 
measures there is no force of the law to prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in the same behaviors it always has. It is for these 
reasons that I urge you to reevaluate and withdraw the settlement 
proposal and pursue more appropriate corrective remedies and 
penalties to prevent Microsoft and other like corporations from 
engaging in destructive and anti-competitive behavior.
    Cornelius Walker
    11 Arcadia Lane
    New Milford, CT 06776
    [email protected]



MTC-00004332

From: msn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I would like to add my opinion and support of the proposed 
settlement. Through out this trial, it has never been proven to 
me_a consumer_that I was harmed by Microsoft`s predatory 
practices. I do believe that strong-arm business tactics were used, 
and as a result, competing businesses were harmed. But I believe 
it`s probable this harm resulted from their failure to create and 
market superior products.
    Greed has no limits once an attorney is involved; i.e., the 
`tobacco settlement'of years past. How much did the 
consumer recover in

[[Page 24488]]

those states? There is nothing complicated about right and wrong! 
Thank you for listening.



MTC-00004333

From: Dan Murdock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:52pm
Subject: judgement
    I am writing to express my views on the Microsoft trial. 
Microsoft in my opinion is a HUGE monopoly that the government seems 
scared of trying to stop. Forcing Microsoft to donate computers to 
poor schools will do nothing except increase the strangelhold 
Microsoft has on the industry. If Microsoft was forced to play fair 
and open up their code, we would have seen great strides in 
technology long ago, not just the things that Microsoft wants us to 
see. I hope and pray you will not allow Microsoft to continue to 
hold technology back simply for their financial gains.
    Thank You
    Dan Murdock
    Senior Technician
    Freshwater Education District
    Staples, MN 56479



MTC-00004334

From: Scott Ellsworth
To: Microsoft ATR,Microsoft [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/13/01 2:00pm
Subject: For the sake of American competitiveness and worker 
productivity, do not accept the MS settlement
    The recent settlement proposal by the DOJ does not actually 
remedy the results of Microsoft`s rapacious practices, nor does it 
put anything effective in place to prevent similar practices in the 
future. Further, the counter-proposal to put more Microsoft products 
and equipment in the hands of the schools only furthers their 
monopoly. This is no more the way to discourage rapacious practices 
than an exotic dance is the means to discourage rape.
    Accepting this settlement is not in the interests of the 
American people at large, American workers using computers, or 
American workers maintaining those computers. The only settlements 
that can be actual remedies are those that either split Microsoft or 
that force them to open their source code now and forever on 
anything in use by more than half the people in the target market.
    I am a software consultant. I work in biotechonology, but I have 
also done work in secure access, cryptography, database design, and 
mathematical modelling for econometric forecasting software. In all 
of these fields, we have felt the cold hand of Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices hanging over us like a pall. My clients in 
Irvine, Long Beach, and Carlsbad, CA, have all complained of 
predatory practices.
    My wife is a member of the Management and Information Services 
division of the city of Newport Beach. She reports similar practices 
taking place in her place of work.
    Both Isis Pharmaceuticals and the city have been threatened by 
Microsoft within the last six months, in an effort to get them to 
start using annual licenses. In the words of one Microsoft 
representative, `unless you can prove that every PC has the 
exact same copy of Windows and Office that came in the box with it, 
it is not enough to have sufficient licenses, registration cards, 
and CD packs. We will take you to court, and we will win, because it 
is impossible for you to prove that you are in compliance. It will 
cost you more to fight us on this, than to just pay the license fee 
for our new program.' This blackmailer was claiming that even 
though the organization had bought and paid for valid licenses, 
Microsoft would force them to prove this. I find this most 
distressing, as the rep had been invited to the location to propose 
license options. These people wanted to make sure they were within 
the bounds, and were willing to listen to a presentation on the 
topic, but instead, they received threats.
    Threatening someone`s livelihood in these troubled times is, to 
me, no different than threatening to dynamite a business if it does 
not pay protection money. I would have hoped that the Department of 
Justice would try to protect us from such threats, but I accept that 
Microsoft is powerful enough to threaten the state itself. Still, 
the state has the ultimate power in such a struggle, and I hope that 
the individual states, and the country as a whole will use that 
power.
    Microsoft has proposed donating millions of dollars of software 
and hardware to schools. I applaud their charity, but feel they must 
be forced to donate actual cash, which the schools may use as they 
see fit. At most, the schools should be asked to spend the money on 
computers, software, and training, but the brands and models should 
be up to the schools and the parents of the districts affected.
    These schools will not be able to buy new machines any time 
soon, thus they will end up training yet more people to use Windows. 
Given that education is one of the few markets where Apple Computer 
has a strong share, I cannot see such a gift as anything more than 
further advancing their hegemony.
    As part of my job, I routinely use Windows NT, Windows 2000, 
Linux, Solaris, and MacOS X, as I must use what the client wants. I 
can recommend, suggest, and encourage, but at the end of the day, a 
consultant must do what the client asks. I prefer MacOS X for both 
client and server applications, but I have set up Linux and Solaris 
servers, and Windows front ends as well. I can do this because we 
are using open source databases that run on all three, and our 
client software is written in Java. We find that Windows requires 
greater maintenance, has more downtime, and has larger security 
holes, but each customer makes the decision they need. Open source 
software, and cross platform Java let us give the customer what they 
desire, without locking them into a single vendor or platform.
    Microsoft has done everything in its power to make this more 
difficult. This is a clear sign of intention on their 
part_they do not want people to have a choice, nor do they 
want people to pick the best solution for them. For some, Windows is 
the best choice, and they are welcome to it. For those with 
different needs or desires, shouldn`t we be encouraging them to pick 
the best, most efficient choice? As they see it, not as Redmond 
does?
    Thus, I encourage the federal government to revisit the 
settlement, and reconsider forcing them to open their source code. 
Reconsider splitting them into separate divisions. Decide what will 
give Americans choice. We have three auto makers in this country, 
and they have to hustle to compete with foreign models despite being 
on their toes. I fail to see how having all of our operating system 
and software eggs in one basket will make us more competitive in the 
world market.
    I encourage the states to stay strong. Do not let Microsoft 
threaten, browbeat, and cow you into accepting a settlement that 
will harm the workers and residents of your states. They want to get 
their hooks in deeper, and they do not believe you can hurt them.
    Prove them wrong.
    Microsoft now feels that they are invulnerable. If Microsoft 
gets away with its lunatic settlement offer, or even gets away with 
destroying Netscape, and getting OS dominance by threats and 
intimidation, then we no longer deserve to be competitive. We will 
have sold our freedom for a handful of pottage, and I, for one, do 
not find that a fair trade.
    Scott Ellsworth
    Computer Specialist
    Alodar Systems
    24596 Via Tequila
    Lake Forest, CA
    92630



MTC-00004335

From: Dave Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled at the continuous quest to further punish 
Microsoft. Those who would benefit from this would not be consumers 
but companies that cannot compete. Also I am sure there are some 
politicians who would benefit from this situation. The Microsoft 
Litigation has been going on for three years, it should be over 
with.



MTC-00004336

From: Eveland, Mike
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft class-action suit
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The class-action suit filed against Microsoft by several states 
is groundless and a disgrace to our judicial system and the laissez-
faire philosophy. The individual states have no valid argument or 
claims against Microsoft and its unethical to even consider it. 
Microsoft has done nothing to these states, businesses or their 
citizens that could in any way warrant a law suit with compensatory 
damages. Let`s call it what its is_a sham. Consider 
this_If the DoJ rules in favor of the states, they will be 
setting a case law precedence for future decisions that could cause 
severe damage to our free enterprise system for ever. Rule against 
this class-action suit_It`s not only the right thing to do, 
it`s the only thing to do.

[[Page 24489]]



MTC-00004337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having read the proposal carefully and considered the impact of 
its terms and conditions on the parties I feel that this is a fair 
settlement and should be adopted immediately. As a former ( now 
retired) global class procurement manager for a number of high tech 
manufacturing companies wherein I purchased thousands of computers 
and actively participated in the first licensing agreement for 
Windows NT, I feel very qualified in reviewing this settlement. It 
is time to put this matter behind us and move on. Microsoft needs to 
have room to operate its business and I believe this agreement will 
prove adequate to the task of mitigating any future inappropriate 
business practices. I also hope it stops the carping from the states 
Attorney Generals and their shadows from Sun, Apple and Netscape. 
They were simply out maneuvered by a more capable company. Morris C. 
Foutch, CPM



MTC-00004338

From: James W Walden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please modify Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) of the 
settlement to provide for the description and licensing of Microsoft 
APIs, documentation, and communication protocols to not-for-profits 
as well as to for-profit companies. This change will protect 
important non-for-profit projects such as Samba which are essential 
to many businesses and not-for-profit entities.
    James Walden `Fall leaves blanket ground
    Sr Internet Software Engineer Redmond dreams darkly, beware
    Intel Microelectronics Winter brings penguins'
    (503) 456-2199 _Kevin Hackman



MTC-00004339

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:20pm
Subject: Spread Your Limited Resources
    Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, As you consider this matter 
please think of the limited resource that everyone has_time. 
Hasn`t the US Government spent a disproportionate amount of time on 
this matter already? When will you make an end? What do you think 
you will accomplish for the Consumer from all this? If you somehow 
did create a significant new operating system out of all this it 
certainly would not benefit my family or yours who have a 
significant learning curve and inconvenience so that can`t be the 
desired end point, can it?
    Do a reality check. Our economy continues to stumble and 
Congress continues to vacillate. Next year is an election year. Get 
your priorities in order. Please. Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    Raymond Petrone, P.E.



MTC-00004340

From: Jueri Svjagintsev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:20pm
    What kind of a joke is the Microsoft settlement? I think that 
The DOJ has let itself get completely run over by the Microsoft 
monopolists. This is not in the publics interest and will only lead 
to further stifling of competition.
    Sincerely Jueri Svjagintsev



MTC-00004341

From: Clyde and Jean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:25pm
    This suit seems more an assist to Microsofts competitors than 
concern about MS`s so called monopoly position in the market place. 
It is difficult to see how the customer is benefited by any of the 
`remedies' that have been proposed.
    The best thing for the consumer is competition among the the 
companies. As MS improves it`s products the others must improve 
theirs instead of the expecting the government to provide them with 
a favored position that does not benefit the consumer in the long 
run.



MTC-00004342

From: Ellen Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:26pm
Subject: Complain and Final Judgment
    I have read the above, and I am solidly in Microsoft`s court. I 
feel the energy, enterprise, and creativity of this company have 
contributed to our economy and its products have set a standard for 
competitors to meet. We have an obligation to support our giants 
rather than destroy them. Weaken Microsoft and the ripple effect 
will be felt throughout the industry. Are they arrogant? I don`t 
know, nor do I care! And, whose standards of arrogance are being 
used to judge the partners? Frankly, I think the complaint against 
them is arrogant.



MTC-00004343

From: Karl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:35pm
Subject: Break the Law, Pay a Penalty
    My understanding of Civil Law is the injuring party needs to 
provide restitution to the injured parties. I think Microsoft 
playing victim is a pretty good indication that this company shows 
no remorseful for any of the illegal activities that they have 
already been convicted of. They continue to exhibit the same 
behavior and have pushed forward with the same plan of abusive 
tactics during the entire proceedings. In the time since they were 
convicted of monopolistic behavior they have used their power over 
the market to get an even stronger foothold on whatever they 
currently control, expanded to control even greater markets and have 
positioned themselves to takeover even more. The current proposed 
settlement will be a small speed bump and will easily be 
circumvented by Microsoft, and with the way they easily manipulates 
the Justice Department the proposed settlement will probably be mute 
by the time any actual sanctions are imposed. Microsoft will draw 
this out even further and nothing in the proposed settlement will 
have any baring on any of Microsoft`s plans. Look how they were able 
to get Windows XP to market dispute their earlier conviction.
    Now I am a believer in the free market. But the free market only 
operates if the rules and principles with which fair competition are 
governed are followed by everyone who participates. Microsoft has 
been convicted of breaching those rules. Now it is time for them to 
provide restitution. The compromising of principle is a greater 
detriment to society than the rise and fall of Microsoft. They 
themselves have confessed that alternatives exist. There will be a 
cost involved to the general public, but the cost to society is 
greater if we compromise the our belief in the notion of fair play. 
Choose and choose wisely.



MTC-00004344

From: Annette Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was extremely displeased to see that certain states refused to 
settle the Microsoft lawsuit. It is my opinion that their refusal to 
do so is not for the reason of benefiting consumers. Instead, the 
purpose is to inflict maximum financial and commercial harm on 
Microsoft so that competitors of Microsoft who are located in those 
states can gain commercial advantage over Microsoft. Though very 
successful in their own right, these companies didn`t have the same 
amazing level of success as Microsoft. They haven`t been able to 
surpass Microsoft`s success by normal competitive means, so they are 
trying to do it by lawsuit, even if it means harm to consumers. The 
financial penalties that have already been inflicted on Microsoft 
have more than paid for any perceived `wrongdoing' they 
may have committed in zealously pursuing success in the high tech 
industry. In my opinion, by attacking Microsoft in such a jealous, 
vindictive and selfish way, the initiators of this lawsuit are 
responsible for accelerating the serious financial downturn the high 
tech sector has experienced since the lawsuit was filed. The high 
tech sector`s troubles ultimately affected the entire business world 
in a seriously negative way. The goal of these lawsuit initiators 
was not to stop Microsoft from doing something illegal; it was to 
seriously harm Microsoft as a competitor by any means necessary, 
even if it meant harming a thriving and vibrant economy. That 
economy was due in no small part to the economic riches Microsoft 
brought to millions of people directly and indirectly.
    By harming Microsoft to the extreme extent that they have, these 
people have seriously harmed consumers, individual investors, small 
businesses, and large businesses nationwide, and even worldwide. 
Ironically, Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, Jim Barksdale, et al, and 
their respective cohort states got hit by the economic downturn that 
their lawsuit precipitated. They miscalculated by thinking a lawsuit 
against Microsoft would result in a surgically precise knockout 
punch, with no harm to themselves. Despite their miscalculation, 
these men are still immeasurably rich. I, on the other hand, 
suffered great financial harm when my measly 2000 shares of 
Microsoft stock

[[Page 24490]]

plunged in value to such an extent that I had to sell them. I had a 
margin loan on those shares, which I had used to finance a business 
project. In August, 1999, at 50 years old, I left a full-time job to 
go into business for myself and complete this project. I used the 
value of my 2000 shares of stock to finance it. I had planned to pay 
off the loan once my project started generating income and then save 
the shares for their original intended purpose: as a retirement 
fund. When the value of my shares plunged to such an extent that I 
had to cash them in to pay off the margin loan, it seriously harmed 
my project and my financial condition. In fact, I had to call a halt 
to the work in 2000 until I could find other means to resume and 
finish my project. It wasn`t until just this month that I was able 
to raise the funds necessary to do so. I am now in serious debt, 
thanks to Scott McNealy, Larry Ellison, the US DOJ, et al. I am not 
alone in this situation.
    Thanks for nothing. SETTLE THIS LAWSUIT NOW before any further 
harm is done to us little people!
    Annette R. Hall
    Washington State



MTC-00004345

From: J Grizzle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 2:56pm
Subject: Make it right now or you condem the future
    When I buy a television from Sony. They do not tell me how to 
use it, where to use it, what I can add to it, which part of the 
house to place it, or weather or not I can sell it or give it away.
    When I buy a car from Ford. They do not tell me where I can 
drive it, how to drive it, what color or parts I can change or use 
on it. So why do we now allow Microsoft to dictate to us through the 
`Windows XP' ($200 to $300). On how we can use it, where 
we use it, How many times and places we can use it. as well as to 
answer to them on when we do major changes to our personnel 
computers.
    They have been left un-challenged and now we are here. I am just 
Joe Average. I use a slow system at home that runs Windows 98. I do 
not use Outlook, I do not use Internet Explorer (I use Netscape that 
I bought years ago), I do not use other applications that are 
embedded in the operating system. However, I would be forced to buy 
a bigger and faster p.c. Just to use `XP'. I do not use 
Instant message, I will not edit video, I will not use their media 
player (I use a free one off of the internet). I will not use there 
calendar function (I bought Calendar Creator years ago.) However, 
because these application are embedded it means that this operating 
system is a resource hog. More disk space is used for stuff that I 
may never use. More memory is required to work the machine, because 
the code is so bloated. Memory should be used to run what is 
selected to run. Not run what Microsoft thanks you may run.
    You have to ask 2 questions. 1.) What is the basic definition of 
an operating system ? 2.) Why are applications that can be bought 
off of a shelf being embedded ? Once they embedded other 
applications in the operating system, it stopped being an operating 
system. It is much more. Once you answer these two questions it is 
simple. This is about control, me only and money.
    If the application writers at Microsoft can write the 
applications as modules. The cost, size and waste of resource by the 
operating system will be little. They then can sell the applications 
as separate packages to those that want to edit video or use a media 
player.
    For Microsoft to say that they can not remove the code, it is 
bogus. Are they saying that they do not have change control/quaility 
control (ISO9000) on their product ? If they can write the code to 
insert it. There is always a way to back it out. Forever on window 
98. If I do upgrade it will be to an Linux operating system with no 
bells and whistles. ($50) Also, It will run on my current hardware. 
Can not afford to buy new.
    These statements are no reflection of the company I work for, 
They are my own comments.
    Sincerely Your,
    John Grizzle



MTC-00004346

From: Regina Villalpando HTML EMail Services (038) WebTEKGroup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 3:01pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement Deal is FAIR
    I believe the Microsoft settlement deal is fair. Their product 
should be open sourced just like Macromedia`s Flash is open sourced. 
They produce an inferior product that`s always plagued by breakdowns 
and problems. I hope the settlement goes through as planned without 
Microsoft`s intervention.
    Kind regards,
    Regina Villalpando



MTC-00004347

From: Hotmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 3:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The U.S. businesses and Microsoft have the freedom to innovate. 
It is time the nine states against Microsoft realize the United 
States is a Republic and not a communistic nation. Our ability to 
compete is what has made us a great nation. Our fine U.S. Government 
should realize the nine states against a settlement, as proposed, 
are competitors and not the majority of the people.



MTC-00004349

From: John Kundert-Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR, Microsoft 
[email protected]@inetgw,...
Date: 12/13/01 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear attorneys general,
    While I do not currently live in any of the states that are 
holdouts to the proposed Microsoft settlement, I have lived in two 
(California and Massachusetts) previously, and am certainly a 
citizen of the USA in any case, and thus feel my comments should be 
heard regarding this proposed settlement.
    First, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with the 9 states 
that have not yet signed off on the proposed settlement: this 
settlement, far from aiding the businesses and public who have been 
harmed by Microsoft`s predatory practices, actually harms us.
    One area that is particularly offensive to me, given that I have 
worked in the education field for over a decade now, is Microsoft`s 
attempt to subversively instill good will toward itself via an 
inexpensive donation of refurbished computers plus a number of 
software titles that, one, are Microsoft titles, and two, cost the 
company perhaps 1% of their claimed value of $850 million. If this 
portion of the settlement is approved, not only will Microsoft not 
spend anything like the $1 billion they claim, they will shove their 
software down the throats of millions of the very children who have 
almost no recourse to other computing resources, removing their (and 
their school districts`) choice of computing platform and software. 
Far from remedying monopolistic practice, this proposed settlement 
will only increase the monopoly powers of the company into areas of 
the education market_and for very little outlay of cash as 
well!
    Beyond this one particular element of the settlement, I simply 
see no strong remedies in it that will either improve the lot of 
competitive companies (not to mention those that have been run out 
of business by the company in years past), or will improve the 
choices and competitive environment for us consumers.
    In addition, from what I have been able to glean from the news, 
Microsoft through its lawyers is attempting to make the DOJ and 9 
holdout states into the villains now. This is a patently ridiculous 
claim, as this group has spent years and countless dollars to punish 
a company that continues to this day to wield its monopolistic 
powers as flagrantly as they did when the whole case began. If a 
more radical settlement to this case is not accepted, Microsoft will 
happily pay their `slap on the wrist' punishment and 
continue with their monopolistic tactics, all the while beating 
their chests and claiming they have been unfairly treated.
    After all this preamble, my suggestion is simple: treat 
Microsoft fairly for what they have done this past decade. In my 
opinion, the more radical settlement solutions proposed by the 9 
states just barely qualifies as fair treatment for this 
reprehensible company.
    Thank you for your time, and all of your work in this case!
    John
    John Kundert-Gibbs, Director
    Master of Fine Arts in Computing
    404 Edwards Hall
    Clemson University
    Clemson, SC 29634
    864 656-6977
    [email protected]



MTC-00004350

From: Peter Difatta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 3:37pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
    Renata Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U. S. department of Justice
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I`m appalled that the Microsoft antitrust suit is being watered 
down on the basis of

[[Page 24491]]

national efficiency because of current global conflicts. From my 
viewpoint, this is the most significant antitrust suit to have been 
filed in the last 60 years and it shouldn?t be soft peddle.
    I`m just an average consumer, and what bothers me is that I have 
little choice when buying computer products. I don?t like Microsoft 
products or the way the company conducts business and try to avoid 
them, but because of the stance of laissez faire the government took 
years ago and because of misguided legal rulings, Microsoft was 
given the opportunity to develop a monopoly that increases in 
strength daily, and if given the latitude will continue to extend 
its tentacles thereby weakening the economic functioning of our 
nation. Microsoft is a predator and should be stopped. A perfect 
example is Microsoft`s intention, even after last years ruling that 
Microsoft was truly a monopoly, they intended to allow their web 
browser to replace existing adds on a web page with ones of their 
own choosing. Doesn?t that say something right there! Microsoft, 
because of its monopolistic power, has hindered the development of 
the computer industry. It makes inferior products and stymies 
innovation. The nation (and the world) would have been much further 
along if Microsoft`s predatory tactics had been stopped earlier. I 
believe that a ?standard operating system? shouldn?t be owned by any 
one company and that to truly break up this insidious monopoly, the 
government should work toward removing the basic operating system 
that seems to be a standard away from Microsoft`s control. This 
source code should be free to all computer makers. This could be 
done fairly, to appropriately compensate Microsoft and within an 
acceptable time frame. Think of this approach in this regard. When 
television was developing, there were numerous scanning systems 
developed by several companies all incompatible with each other. For 
the television industry to develop, a common system had to be agreed 
upon to be used by all. Therefore the industry developed and matured 
without any one company having a great advantage over any other. How 
would it be, that in order to produce and broadcast a new television 
program, one would have to purchase scanning technology software to 
be able to broadcast your program. And new versions of it would be 
coming out on a regular basis so even old programs would constantly 
have to be upgraded? The end user would have to buy the technology 
too. That`s exactly what Microsoft does. And unlike pharmaceutical 
drugs where patents run out after so many years and then become 
available to any manufacturer, Microsoft is able to change it`s 
operating system slightly to maintain the monopoly. This needs to 
changed.
    It is highly important for the future of the industry that other 
companies as well as average consumers like myself be given a fair 
chance. And if we aren?t, you will still have continued lawsuits 
about this problem.
    This is an issue that to me is more important than terrorist 
attacks. I can to a reasonable degree with caution and awareness 
defend myself against terrorist activity. But Microsoft is 
everywhere and almost has the ability to control everything you 
read, hear or see. Take MSNBC, for instance. I can?t isolate myself 
from a monopoly that is already too powerful that it may be too 
late. But, that`s what the courts are for. Please use your power to 
correct this error that has gone on for too long. Institute the most 
comprehensive remedies discussed. Even that won`t be enough.
    Peter J. Difatta
    (a consumer)
    4312 Coastal Highway
    St. Augustine, FL 32084
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00004351

From: James Duberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Final Judgment fails to protect `not for 
profit' enterprises, such as Apache, Sendmail, Perl and Samba. 
In fact, as drafted, the Final Judgment will allow Microsoft to 
easily destroy these projects by withholding access to information 
that Microsoft will be required to provide to `for 
profit' businesses.
    This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.



MTC-00004352

From: Michael Schwarz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:03pm
Subject: Ineffective punishment for a virulently anti-competitive 
company
    I do not believe that Microsoft will in any way modify its 
behaviors as a result of this decision. Three people, no matter 
their qualifications, cannot possibly monitor compliance over a base 
of billions of lines of code. Microsoft has demonstrated a repeated 
and constant pattern of bullying, evasion, threat, and abuse of 
monopoly power. So long as that monopoly exists, their power remains 
undiminished for they can maintain their freedom of action through 
obfuscation.
    Microsofts executives have been openly defiant of the Court, 
they have misrepresented evidence (as in the videotape evidence that 
allegedly showed a single computer system before and after removal 
of IE which, under cross examination was shown to be two completely 
different systems with a different mix of software), they have an 
institutional inability to see the illegality and immorality of 
their actions.
    I believe a structural remedy is the only solution that will 
have any lasting effect, and I believe a remedy harsher than Judge 
Jackson`s is necessary. I believe the company should be split into 
systems, applications, and media. I believe the matter will be 
before the courts again. Next time `.NET' will be the 
center of their monopoly power. Microsoft has accepted this 
judgement and is about to do precisely what they did with the 
MS-DOS consent decree: They will, in essence, 
`rename' their monopoly (MS-DOS became Windows95): 
Windows will become `.NET.'
    The presently proposed settlement (admitting that I am a 
computer professional and not a lawyer) seems to me wholly 
inadequate to prevent the ongoing pervasive violations of law 
endemic to the Microsoft culture.
    Michael A. Schwarz
    [email protected]



MTC-00004353

From: FAN1957
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Now that the government has foolishly spent millions of 
taxpayers dollars on this frivolous suit, I think it is high time 
that an end be brought to this situation. Surely our government has 
more important things to spend their time on than this outrageous 
suit.
    The FREE ENTERPRISE system which has made this COUNTRY so great, 
is apparently being overlooked by a bunch of greedy lawyers and 
states who want to jump on the band wagon and try to get something 
for nothing.
    Let this NOT continue to drag on...it has already exceeded the 
limits of justifiable time. Reach an amicable decision and let this 
country get on with more important issues at hand.



MTC-00004354

From: PAUL HENRY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft is not a monopoly
    Microsoft is not a monopoly, the court is wrong this seems more 
like a mafia shakedown for money than justice served, competitors 
such as aol /time Warner, oracle, apple, sun micro seem to be more 
at the heart of this matter . each of the aforementioned companies 
have billions at there disposal to innovate operating or any other 
products but they choose instead to use the courts to keep Microsoft 
from creating great products instead of competing fairly on the 
marketplace, bill gates started with nothing but a vision, competing 
products available in the market today include Linux, Solaris, the 
many flavors of UNIX, apple, be, dos, caldera, Cobol, 
ect. . .consumers already have a choice as the people who 
own apple computers can attest, a apple computer by definition is a 
personal computer, the same as one with windows, no difference. real 
networks media player does more harm to the consumer than win media 
player i.e forcing you to use real and making it a pain if you don`t 
whereas Microsoft media player only load`s when asked, when I loaded 
Broderbund print shop aol loaded without asking the icon on the 
screen warned me that by deleting it I would not unload the program 
to go to add/ remove programs where it could not be found a ploy to 
keep the average computer user in confusion to fool them into 
loading there program. shame on the justice dept. the only thing 
that has come out of this is less innovation and when the settlement 
is over the consumer will pay more like the tobacco settlement . 
this shake down by the government and Microsoft`s competitors has 
caused the consumer`s irreparable harm already please drop this case 
immediately if you really want to help the consumer as this consumer 
has had to much help already



MTC-00004355

From: Barb (038) Bill Roby

[[Page 24492]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think it is high time to get off the back of Microsoft. I 
wonder how much money the Government and State Governments have 
spent in the hopes of getting a wind fall of money they are not 
entitled to and the fact big Business`s is successful. Is it greed 
or jalousie?
    Bill Roby, Oklahoma City.



MTC-00004356

From: Donald Shannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft systems, I am concerned than government 
is coming down so hard on Microsoft and their user-friendly systems. 
I find their systems to be easy to use and any computer user can 
easily utilize the systems of other manufacturers if for some reason 
they dislike the Microsoft systems. It seems to me that the states 
and competitor companies who are sueing Microsoft are doing so only 
to try to win a competative advantage.
    I am concerned that the definition of monopolistic practices is 
being distorted in Microsoft`s case, while being ignored in the case 
of foreign oil companies who have been allowed to buy control of 
smaller oil companies and thereby create monolpolys which allow them 
to control fuel prices to the detriment of we, the consumers.
    Microsoft and their systems have contributed greatly to the 
knowledge and efficiency of our nation. They should be rewarded for 
their contribution, not punished.



MTC-00004357

From: Lanny Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:27pm
    Dear Sirs,
    I own a small business with 30 networked computers all running 
Microsoft products. I pay a full time person on staff to run all 
computer issues in the company. The compatibility of products is of 
the utmost importance in transferring documents, email systems, 
database use etc.. I am actually old enough to have bought expensive 
enterprise computers and hired a programmer to create an accounting 
program to just do accounting for my company. The grief I went 
through in the early days of computers was intolerable. I am 
personally very grateful that a company with enough market power 
exists to have created standards out of chaos. With a multitude of 
different software vendors these days a definite choice exists for 
anyone to do anything they want to with or without Microsoft. I 
chose Microsoft products over all others because I need seamless 
operation of software products at a very reasonable cost. I am told 
by my son that Linux is a superior operating system. I still don`t 
buy it because the overall cost of compatiblility and retraining is 
not worth it. Microsoft is not the evil empire eventhough they used 
every tactic to get their OS on the desktop. I neither like or 
dislike them as a company, I just happen to think they provide me 
with the best overall tools at the best overall cost in the software 
industry.
    The idea that antitrust will create more choice is a very 
debateable advantage. Time after time we see examples of well 
meaning misguided individuals imposing their own biases on 
consumers.Choice in electric power delivery in California brought on 
a crisis throughout the nation. Some nit wit thought they could 
wring the last bit of profit out of power and everyone just spent 
more money buying generators to keep their respirators going at 
home. The real long-term cost of that decision was astronomical.
    Similarly, consumers in the computer area just need products 
that all work together. And, they must continue to rapidly adjust to 
market demands. If other companies can convince consumers that they 
have great products through marketing and performance they should 
win in the marketplace over a company that many say is holding the 
market back. My opinion is that moving too rapidly with a wide 
variety of products subjects the market to incompatibility and 
almost immediate obsolesence. Fortunately, I have had the funds to 
purchase a great many software products over the years, but the 
constant search among poor product performers really cost me a great 
deal more money than I should have spent. If Microsoft offers a 
product in an arena that I need, I always buy it and I have yet to 
be disappointed in either performance or price.
    I have read the settlement proposal from start to finish. As a 
businessman I would fight to the death to prevent being shackled in 
competition the way this proposal ties up Microsoft. An independant 
committee reviewing constantly every strategic decision would be 
intolerable I feel Microsoft has only accepted this onerous 
settlement to avoid an incredibly brutal fate.
    I graduated from The Wharton School of Business at the 
University of Pennsylvania with an MBA and I have 30 years of 
running my own businesses.I am definitely opposed to inflicting 
restrictions on business because consumers ultimately pay the cost 
of these inefficiencies. It is similar to some idiot suggesting that 
businesses be taxed more so that individuals can be taxed less. In a 
competitive marketplace all business taxes are passed directly on to 
the individuals purchasing products. Instead I suggest that if 
someone has broken the law they pay appropriate fines for having 
done so or they do some jail time like my school mate Michael 
Milken.It seems to have done him some good. I`m not suggesting that 
Mr. Gates does time, but as a businessman the threat of personal 
loss or incarceration is a far greater deterent than even having to 
deal with some rediculous committee overseeing and running my 
business.
    Further, the persons you are trying to punish will be punished 
rather than consumers who just want products that work seamlessly 
together at a fair price. If you want a real solution, you will 
create a judgement that recognizes wrong doing in the past with real 
teeth for the future to prevent recidivism which does not create 
inefficiencies in the marketplace that consumers end up paying for 
anyway.
    Sincerely,
    Lanny Smith, President Coverstar Inc. Provo Utah
    OS X_the biggest thing since point & click 
[email protected]



MTC-00004358

From: Chris Roveto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Finally this thing is coming to an end! New Mexico dropped its 
case against Micrsoft. I applauded our Democrat A.G. for that stroke 
of good sense althugh it came a bit late. I wish MY government had 
spent the time, effort and MONEY going after Bin Laden, killer of 
thousands as fervently as it went after Microsoft, creator of 
thousands of jobs. It should be obvious by now, this case and 
Greenspan`s incessant rate hikes in 1999 caused the stock market 
debacle that has plagued the country for the past 2 years. American 
dreams of an early, fulfilling retirement (as well as a large 
percentage of most state pension funds) vanished before our eyes. 
The budget surpluses greedily eyed by politicians will likewise 
vanish as those capital gains turn to capital losses, all tax 
deductible. When the government undertakes a project with this much 
downside it must have a good reason, right? Whining netscape browser 
users and misguided mac heads do not seem a good enough reason to 
me. There are several choices of operating systems available to 
anyone who wants to pick up a mouse and install them on their 
system. For those not sophisticated enough, it doesn`t matter they 
don`t care what operating system they use. they just want good 
software choices. multiple operating systems mean less software 
chioces. Remember when VHS tapes became the standard, beating out 
Beta, movie availability soared as all resourses could be channeled 
into one format. This analogy applies in this situation as well as 
has become obvious to many.
    Hopefully, now the government can start to go after REAL 
monopolies_like the public school system.
    Chris Roveto



MTC-00004359

From: Ben F. Padgett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:30pm
Subject: What would one expect?
    To Whom It Concerns:
    Sometimes I marvel at statements made by our Congressional 
leaders. Some seem skeptical of the settlement reached by the DOJ 
because of what competitors are saying. What would one suspect from 
competitors? It would be a much better world if one would hear, 
`Well, yes, I think that Microsoft has been punished 
enough.' Or, `You know, we had out chance but just could 
not turn the corner.' Competitors will blame their failures on 
those who are successful in the same field. I think what should have 
never been in the first place should be closed today.
    I used Netscape for a long time during the early days of 
Internet communicating. Long after Explorer hit the market, Netscape 
was my browser. With hard work and investments, Microsoft was able 
to write a better program and when they did I switched

[[Page 24493]]

to Explorer. I`m not the only person that made the switch and it had 
nothing to do with bundling or availability. It had to do with 
Netscape falling behind the developmental process.
    Microsoft has saved me a ton of money with good software and I 
would like to see it continue. I`m sure that Netscape and Sun take a 
much different view than me because they are competitors and I am a 
most satisfied consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Ben F. Padgett



MTC-00004360

From: Steve Wiedemann
To: Microsoft ATR, microsoft 
[email protected]@inetgw,...
Date: 12/13/01 4:44pm
Subject: How can this be?
    A settlement that helps the most anti competitive company in 
history extend its reach and further undermine healthy competition? 
IS SOMEBODY OUT OF THEIR MIND? This is like punishing a drug cartel 
kingpin by forcing him to donate 10,000 pounds of heroin to the 
inner city schools. It will simply extend the problem. Please don`t 
let this happen. Make Microsoft donate $800,000 of non Microsoft 
specific aid to schools if you truly want to punish them. Otherwise 
I`d have to suspect this is graft made in Microsoft heaven.
    I`m in the position of making sure all of our platforms 
interoperate at our company. You`ve heard it a million times but at 
every turn, the entire computer industry almost without exception is 
striving to connect themselves to the mainstream of technology. At 
the same time, Microsoft is working very hard to submerge these 
efforts and replace them with seemingly identical but crudely 
inferior solutions and standards. The only reason anybody uses their 
technology is because it`s bundled with their systems. For example, 
QuickTime is the crown jewel of multimedia embraced by most of the 
industry, yet Microsoft sees this technology as stiff competition 
that needs to be killed. They continually make sure it is as 
difficult as possible to use this and other much better technologies 
that they don`t get paid for.
    Microsoft preys on the continued bafflement of their less 
technical customers to extend their `technologies.' In 
fact, I`m quite sure Microsoft hasn`t had a relatively original idea 
in the last two decades. Most of their successful products were 
either purchased or outright stolen from the rest of the industry, 
modified to only work in their world and released in a way that 
makes the original technology irrelevant. I`m sick to death of 
having what technology I may or may not use be dictated by a self 
interested corporation like Microsoft. Pull the plug on them. Break 
them up and make them compete on the technology level and not with a 
gun to our heads. _
    Steve Wiedemann



MTC-00004361

From: Wiggers, Tom
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 4:45pm
Subject: The proposals of the nine states and DC are just and fair. 
MS is hurting competition.
    Please impose the proposals of the nine states and District of 
Columbia on Microsoft. It frightens me as an American that Microsoft 
seems more powerful than our justice system.
    When our free enterprise system is not effectively regulated, 
when corporations are allowed to rely on unethical business 
practices rather than product merits to compete in the marketplace, 
the terrific benefits of capitalism to society are greatly 
diminished. Innovation is not rewarded; mediocrity prevails.
    Case in point: In the 60`s and 70`s, automobile innovations were 
not happening because the entrenched Detrioters killed any new 
competition. When you look back now, you can see how poorly 
engineered the cars were as a result of this stagnation of new 
ideas. But the Japanese were outside the influence of Detroit and 
started innovating like crazy. They really shook up the auto 
industry and scared the [censored] out of us. But now look how we 
the consumers have benefited. The average consumer can now afford a 
car that will easily last 200,000 miles, the knobs don`t fall off, 
the paint resists rust, and almost every car has power windows, air 
conditioning and a zillion cup holders. The Japanese really upped 
the ante to everyone`s benefit. One might ask where we draw the 
line. Answer: When corporate practices are allowed to inhibit 
healthy competition. By any measure, Microsoft is abominably beyond 
this line and is thumbing its nose at our free enterprise system, 
the DOJ, and consumers. In this respect, Microsoft Corp. might even 
be characterized as being `un-American'.
    Competition is absolutely sacred. Fair Enterprise = Free 
Enterprise.
    Sadly, Mr. Gates is modeling very clearly to our children that 
ethics are an obstacle to success.
    Sincerely,
    T. Wiggers
    Beaverton, Oregon



MTC-00004362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 4:49pm
Subject: Settlement/Punishment
    It is evident from reading the Final Judgment that Microsoft 
clearly violated the law. It is further apparent to me, that other 
than enforcing the law by inspection and the TC`s given authority, 
and the proposed $1billion offer that Microsoft proposed for the 
nations poorest schools, that little is actually being given up for 
the many years of overcharging the consumers of the world for their 
products. Besides, it would further enhance their monopoly, by 
providing a market that Apple Computers have had a good footing with 
and an excellent relationship with the many educational institutions 
it provided with computers and software.
    I want to see a stronger punishment handed down by the courts. 
Microsoft should be fined in the billions, because of the billions 
they earned using the illegal tactics of monopoly and 
`extorting' OEMs, ISVs, IHVs, etc. It was reported that 
Microsoft CEO Bill Gates was worth $70 billion, prior to the 
downturn in the stock market last year. Money that was earned from 
the way that his company conducted business over the years. The 
proposed settle offer that Microsoft has made is an embarrassment to 
the DOJ, the courts, and the many plaintiffs, that have waited for 
so long now for a settlement to be made.
    Although I would like to see the company split into at least two 
entities; one that would be the Windows Operating System and the 
other one the Office Suite and other software products developed by 
Microsoft. And it should be stipulated in the Final Judgment that 
this entity would be subjected to the same limitations as those 
mentioned in the current Final Judgment as to what and when they can 
have access to, in regards to APIs and source code relative to their 
ability to develop applications and hardware drivers for use under 
the Windows Operating System.
    In addition, Microsoft should be made to pay fines or 
restitution to the many software developers, that were unfairly 
denied the ability to compete with Windows and other Microsoft 
products. Perhaps an amount that is calculated as the market share 
other vendors could realistically have earned, had Microsoft played 
on an even field. Fred Marsico
    Information Systems and Technology Specialist
    PO BOX 564
    Monroe, OR 97456-0564



MTC-00004363

From: Mike Millson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:13pm
Subject: Response To U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation Proposed 
Settlement
    Following please find my response to the U.S. v. Microsoft 
Corporation proposed settlement. I also faxed a letter with this 
content on December 12, 2001.
    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

[[Page 24494]]

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 APIs to allow competitors to build 
products that will interop 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.
    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 blas 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.
    Thank you,
    Mike Millson
    AableTech Solutions, Inc.
    770.414.8834
    770.414.8206 fax
    http://www.atsga.com



MTC-00004364

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:32pm
Subject: MSFT CASE
    This case has gone too far...too long. As a customer I don`t 
feel MSFT did me any harm. In fact MSFT products have been 
instrumental in my learning to use the computer and benefit from 
many `efficiencies'. The product prices are forever 
decreasing...and the quality of the products are forever improving. 
LET THE MARKET GOVERN THIS BUSINESS AND LET COMPETITORS CRY ON 
ANOTHER SHOULDER...NOT MY GOVERNMENT`S. Help make the world safer, 
keep out non- US citizens who aim to destroy us. Use our resources 
to productive ends and not chasing after MSFT for no wrongdoing.
    V.P.Miele



MTC-00004365

From: Ken Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:27pm
Subject: Microsofts Scam
    To Whom It May Concern.....
    To say I`m disappointed is to say the least..
    I have been in the computer industry for 20 years and find your 
actions to be undescribable....
    Microsoft have out play their hand to the destruction of the 
industry, major competitors have been consumed with 
`free' software being given away as part of the 
operating system. My books define operating systems as the interface 
between application software and the hardware. Internet Explorer 
doesn`t seem to fit here.....
    The only hope left now is that the E.U. will censure them 
because you cannot.. A question now begs, what deal was done?
    Yours Sincerely
    Ken Harrison



MTC-00004366

From: Carl Michal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:34pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney, Suite 1200,
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,
601 D St. NW,
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed settlement 
to the Microsoft antitrust trial.
    I believe that the settlement, as proposed, will not serve the 
public interest, and that additional features must be incorporated 
within it in order to ameliorate the current market conditions which 
contribute to Microsoft`s maintenance of its monopolies.
    Because the most successful competitors in recent years in 
product markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly 
(eg. personal computer operating systems, Internet browsers, and 
office productivity software) have arisen from the open source 
software community, I believe it is of extreme importance that any 
settlement protect and enhance this community`s ability to produce 
products that provide end-users with viable choices.
    In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection is not 
provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow 
Microsoft to continue to hinder the open source software community`s 
efforts. The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and 
licensing of intellectual property. I fear that any information 
disclosed by Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or 
developers under conditions of a non-disclosure agreement, thus 
preventing the implementation of such protocols in an open source 
project or product.
    This settlement, if implemented as proposed, will serve to 
entrench Microsoft`s monopolies further, by allowing it to exclude 
the open source software community from any future technologies and 
APIs it develops. As this community is currently one of Microsoft`s 
most serious competitors, it seems unbelievable that the proposed 
settlement will aid Microsoft in eliminating this 
`threat' to their monopolies.
    As an example of the current `problem' of 
Microsoft`s monopoly in the OS and office productivity software 
markets, I point to the ubiquitous `.doc' file. This one 
proprietary file format I believe is one of the cornerstones of 
Microsoft`s OS/productivity suite monopoly. Many people I know in 
the academic and business communities regularly purchase updated 
versions of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office for the sole 
reason that their correspondents send them .doc files as e-mail 
attachments. The options for importing these files into 3rd party 
applications are many; however, having personally tried a large 
number of such programs, both free and commercial, I can safely say 
that many work well some of the time, none work well all of the 
time. The continuing cycle of forced upgrades to maintain 
compatibility with correspondents lies at the heart of Microsoft`s 
monopoly.
    As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that Microsoft 
should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the file 
formats used by its products to anyone who sends or receives files 
in such formats and requests the information.
    Left unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe in the 
future. It has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is 
considering moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and 
Office software. In this case, files created with licensed software 
and saved in proprietary formats may be permanently unavailable to 
the creator or owner of the data in the file if a user or company 
chooses to terminate its license. I may own the copyright of the 
work I create, but that is of little value if the only copy of the 
work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do not have 
access.
    Of course the .doc file format is not the only proprietary file 
format Microsoft products use, and the arguments above apply equally 
well to other products and file formats. The .doc format is likely 
the most important however, because text-based documents appear to 
be the most commonly shared and transmitted.
    A second cornerstone of Microsoft`s monopoly is the fact that 
many computer manufacturers will not sell computer hardware without 
a Microsoft OS. I understand that the proposed settlement will 
prevent Microsoft from entering into exclusive arrangements with 
vendors, but I believe that stronger protections are required.
    If Microsoft`s agreements with computer vendors forced the 
vendor to disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the 
Microsoft products included, it would help consumers choose products 
and vendors that were appropriate to their needs. As an example, I 
point to Dell which will, as far as I can tell, not sell a computer 
without a Microsoft OS and office productivity suite. If

[[Page 24495]]

purchasers knew that without these products they could save some 
number of dollars, that now often amounts to a sizeable percentage 
of the computer package purchase price, they could apply pressure to 
the vendor to provide alternative (likely less expensive) products. 
Microsoft has stated concerns that selling computers without 
operating systems equates to software piracy. This assertion is 
absurd, and has become irrelevant with Microsoft`s newest release of 
Windows XP, which requires license activation.
    Having consumers and end-users with more information is clearly 
in the public interest. All of what is suggested here concerns 
supplying information that enables computer users to make informed 
decisions, and to access their own work on their own computer.
    In summary, I believe the proposed settlement is seriously 
lacking, and will, if implemented as proposed, aid Microsoft in its 
efforts to hinder its most viable competitors. Any successful 
settlement must protect the rights of computer users to choose the 
products they desire to access their data.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Michal
    Department of Physics & Astronomy
    University of British ColumbiaTel: (604) 822-2432
    411-6224 Agricultural RdLab: (604) 822-3898
    Vancouver, BCFax: (604) 822-5324
    Canada V6T 1Z1Email: [email protected]



MTC-00004367

From: Joseph Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to congratulate the DOJ`s stellar work in bringing 
Microsoft to justice. By forcing the company to donate $1 billion 
dollars (in cash, equipment and software) you really hurt them. Oh 
wait, now that I think about it you actually just increased 
Microsofts market share dominance and hurt it`s only viable 
competitor Apple Computer. It just goes to show you that if your a 
big corporation with unlimited resources, you can buy anything in 
this country including justice (and DOJ personel). Lets hear it for 
the good ol US of A!
    Joseph Henry
    604 Riverside Ave. Apt. 2
    Park Rapids, MN 56470
    218-732-7664



MTC-00004368

From: Joseph Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:53pm
Subject: Dear Department of Justice,
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I would like to express my feelings on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am vehemently opposed to it as it is written for a 
number of reasons. First, as it is written the settlement won`t be 
able to stop Microsoft from illegally using its market power and 
isn`t easily enforceable. Second, The $1 billion donation to schools 
will only strengthen Window`s (Microsofts) position in education at 
the expense of Apple Computer. Although the schools will be able to 
spend the cash portion however they seem fit, what operating system 
do you think most will choose if they are given loads of referbished 
Windows machines (as well as a bunch of Windows only based 
software). Lastly, $1 billion isn`t enough. For a guy like Bill 
Gates, who has built his personal net worth to over $87 Billion 
through Microsoft`s monopolistic practices, $1 billion is pocket 
change to keep the Federal Government at bay. The way I see it this 
settlement does exactly the opposite of what antitrust laws are 
intended to do. It slaps the wrist of a monopolistic company, 
imposing no real sanctions and at the same time erodes the market 
share of it`s only viable competitor (Apple Computer).
    Please don`t let Microsoft get off this easy.
    Joseph Henry
    604 Riverside Ave, Apt. 2
    Park Rapids, MN 56470
    218-732-7664



MTC-00004369

From: Linda Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft. It is a company that employs thousands of 
people in an industry that was almost nonexistent 25 years ago. 
Microsoft has made technology easy for the average person to learn 
and to use. Why would we punish a company that has contributed so 
much to society? I for one am happy that there is essentially one 
operating system. I can`t image the problems we would encounter if 
everyone used different operating systems to `talk' to 
each other. PLEASE SUPPORT MICROSOFT. Thank you.
    L. Quick, Connecticut



MTC-00004370

From: John Kristjansson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:00pm
Subject: Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Historically, Microsoft has had little problem with deliberately 
changing their operating system source code in order to destroy a 
competitor`s competing, and oftentimes superior, products_a la 
`it ain`t done `til Lotus won`t run'. These practices 
have led to a situation where the consumer has become convinced that 
the only safe product to buy is one manufactured or endorsed by 
Microsoft. They have employed underhanded tactics in their licensing 
schemes to prevent PC manufacturers from offering competing products 
alongside the Windows platform_the infamous boot time license. 
Further, they use federal certifications, specifically the Orange 
Book (DOD Trusted Computer Systems Evaluation Criteria), in order to 
convince the consumer that their products are more secure than they 
really are(Orange Book C2 certification applies to standalone 
machines rather than a networked o/s). I won`t even touch the topic 
of software bundling at this point, only the illegal maintenance of 
a monopoly. I am not convinced that the settlement, which has 
aspects that appear to help reinforce their monopoly position, goes 
far enough in remediating the conditions which led the DOJ to 
prosecute an antitrust suit against Microsoft. I feel that the only 
possible resolution that will prevent further illegal maintenance of 
their monopoly is to place the source code of their current 
operating system and its immediate predecessor in public scrutiny 
under a license similar to the Artistic License, as well as a 15-
month ban on any further operating system releases. This will have 
the effect of lowering the barrier to entry in the marketplace, 
allowing a certain amount of competition to redevelop in the 
marketplace, and ultimately improve the overall security of the 
architecture. While this may sound a bit extreme, the actions that 
Microsoft has taken in the past are no less extreme, and their 
current activities and plans appear to make their past misconduct a 
more desirable situation. They must be held liable for their 
actions, and suffer the consequenses.



MTC-00004371

From: Karen Messenger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:03pm
Subject: Don`t allow Microsoft to determine what is a `viable 
business'
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Having seen the proposed settlement, I would like to register my 
strong objection to it. The agreement is full of loopholes, whereby 
Microsoft is allowed to determine, at its own discretion, whether to 
adhere to certain principles. For example, Microsoft is required to 
make available its APIs, but only to organizations which Microsoft 
deems to be `viable businesses'. This is outrageous! 
What constitutes a viable business?
    I am an independant software developer. I have spent 3 years 
developing ground-breaking Internet technology designed to 
facilitate free broadcasting of media (e.g. video) between 
communities of cooperating clients (see www.freebeam.com for a short 
explanation). I have applied for a patent. I have acquired no 
outside funding. My business development plan calls for giving away 
my software for free, for some years, in order to develop a user 
base. After that time, I expect to derive income from patent 
royalties paid by large-scale commercial users. I expect I may 
derive no income for several years, in other words. Eventually, it 
will be very lucrative for me, so that makes up for it.
    Am I a `viable business'? Will Microsoft be required 
to make their APIs available to me? If not, then I would be unable 
to compete on an equal basis with competitors which Microsoft deemed 
to be `viable'. That would be self-fulfulling.
    In the interest of fair play for small-scale developer/
entrepreneurs, such as myself, I implore you to reject the proposed 
settlement. Such a settlement would very clearly tend to squelch 
small-scale developers_a powerfully innovative force. 
Microsoft should not be able to exercise its own judgement in 
deciding how to live up to the terms of the agreement. The terms 
should be interpreted and enforced from outside of Microsoft. To do 
any less would be to further entrench Microsoft`s illegal monopoly.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 24496]]

    Chuck Messenger
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004372

From: John Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Did someone sell out to Microsoft, that they effectively have no 
punishment to go with their conviction? They are still at their old 
tricks, so STOP THEM ALREADY!
    John Jensen
    520 Goshawk Court
    Bakersfield, CA 93309
    icq #: 18494316



MTC-00004373

From: Ellsworth, Jenny
To: `Microsoft.atr (a)usdoj.gov', `Microsoft 
Comments (a)d..
Date: 12/13/01 6:24pm
Subject: Please Reject the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    As a remedy for Microsoft`s abuse of monopolistic power, it 
would be better to forbid them to give their products to schools 
than to require it. I am an IT professional for the City of Newport 
Beach, and an important part of my job is computer training. I know, 
from observing users in our Microsoft-dominated environment, that 
exposure and training are the determining factors for a user`s 
choice of software. Allowing Microsoft to monopolize the 
schoolchildren and future computer professionals of this country 
will only serve to ensure that they continue to monopolize the 
software industry in years to come.
    In addition to serving Microsoft`s business needs of the future, 
such so-called `charity' would cost them pennies to 
provide software to schools, and offer Microsoft both tax benefits 
and good public relations. Microsoft has in the past regarded the 
DOJ as giving them a mandate to monopolize the software industry, 
and this would be no different. Were they to provide cash, rather 
than software, to be used as the schools need to use it, that would 
be a great aid.
    Allowing PC makers to install non-Microsoft software is not 
sufficient to enable competition. Microsoft must be made to separate 
the operating system from their other applications. Many users I 
know are at least somewhat confused about the difference between 
Windows, Office, and the Internet. This is the result of Microsoft`s 
deliberately ambiguous naming conventions and the interaction 
between Microsoft products that cannot be matched by any other 
software manufacturer. I realize that dissociating their OS and 
other software is a tall order, but without such a move, competitors 
will not succeed.
    Microsoft clearly believes that the DOJ and the State Attorneys 
General will not act against them. This has made them arrogant. They 
feel safe to act in a non-competitive manner, bullying companies and 
extorting money from them. When Newport Beach`s IT department 
invited their reprentative to help us be in complience with their 
license agreements, the person from Microsoft spent most of his time 
threatening to audit us, telling us why piracy was bad, and often 
insulting us. To quote their representative when we produced our 
evidence of legitimate purchases, `That and a dollar will buy 
you a cup of coffee,' and, `You know, we audit cities 
like you, and we win. Ask your city attorney; he will tell you it 
isn`t worth it to fight us.' Remember, we invited them to 
visit us. We asked for their help. They acted like bullies. Coercion 
through legal action is distasteful in a major corporation, but is 
illegal in a clear monopoly.
    Microsoft must be made to clarify their licensing. Although we 
had paid for every single copy of Microsoft software, we, as 
intelligent computer professionals, couldn`t understand the 
requirements well enough to comply with them. The licensing 
requirements are deliberately confusing and hard to comply with, and 
Microsoft knows that most companies will simply pay for more 
licenses, rather than try to fight them on an audit.
    Please, do not allow Microsoft to infiltrate schools to increase 
their monopolistic power. Please, demand that Microsoft separate 
their OS from their other software. Please, require that Microsoft 
establish clear licensing that doesn`t lead to entrapping customers.
    These opinions represent my observations as an IT professional 
in an organization of over 400 people. The views do not necessarily 
represent those of the City of Newport Beach.
    Jenny Ellsworth
    MIS Technical Services Specialist
    City of Newport Beach
    3300 Newport Blvd.
    Newport Beach, CA 92663



MTC-00004374

From: Robert Neely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:42pm
Subject: One citizen`s view
    I have been a DOS & Windows user since near day one and have 
NEVER been disappointed in Microsoft`s updating of existing software 
or maintenance of adequate customer service. This entire litigation 
seems to be solely motivated by other software manufacturers who 
were able to attract the attention of some office-holders.
    I have yet to hear of even one consumer who claims to have been 
damaged by Microsoft`s products. This entire matter seems to have 
jealousy as a base. Will someone please breath some common sense 
into the case? Thank you.
    Robert Neely,
    3055-84 N. Red Mountain,
    Mesa, Arizona 85207; 480-641-9578



MTC-00004375

From: Joan Amino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Can we get off Microsofts case and let them get on with their 
business. I cannot believe that we are holding them up to appease 
some of their competitors. Let`s get off their backs. PLEASE!!!



MTC-00004376

From: Russell Yuma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I do not believe that Microsoft has done anything against the 
law that harms consumers in anyway. The complaints against Microsoft 
were brought about mostly by competitors of Microsoft. The states 
that have not agreed with the settlement are wrong and no more 
punishment should be made against Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a most successful company that Benefits Consumers. 
Competitors should not be able to use the Justice Department and 
courts to gain a competitive advantage.
    Russell Yuma
    PO Box 165
    Oakland, OR 97462



MTC-00004377

From: John Gelston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am a retired Boeing Company computer research and technology 
manager with 31 years of computing industry experience. I have first 
hand knowledge of the industry and its evolution. Competitors of 
Microsoft have succeeded in misleading government lawyers. They have 
characterized Microsoft`s success as the result of illegal activity. 
Microsoft became successful long before anyone could have called 
them a monopoly because they understood consumers` (both commercial 
and individual) desire for products that worked well together on the 
personal computer. With all due respect, lawyers are not competent 
to evaluate what software product designs are good or bad for 
consumers! The marketplace is!
    In the existing federal/state government suit, claims of damage 
to consumers are speculative at best. If valid, one would expect the 
plaintiffs to have been a host of corporate users rather than 
government lawyers parroting claims of disgruntled competitors. 
Where were the damaged consumers in the case? It was some of 
Microsoft`s competitors, with their ringleader Scott McNealy, not 
consumers, who contrived the idea that consumers were being harmed 
and initiated complaints against the software company. The 
plaintiffs have not shown damage to consumers. We are expected to 
take on faith that helping competitors by harming Microsoft will 
somehow help consumers. Hogwash!
    Claims of anti-competitive practices by Microsoft focus on hard-
nosed business practices. While some of their tactics are deemed 
unacceptable due to their now dominant position, they are common 
among competitors in the industry. It is a fact that there is no 
industry that is any more competitive. The rapid rate of change in 
the software industry has been brought on by competitive innovation. 
The barriers to entry are nil. Linux, a significant alternative to 
Windows, came out of a dorm room. Anyone

[[Page 24497]]

that can program can become a billionaire if they have the 
initiative. The fact that the marketplace freely gravitates to de 
facto standards of one vendor does not mean they are being harmed! 
There is no other example in human history of such rapid increase in 
the benefits, features and functionality of product offerings 
accompanied by plummeting prices. Consumer damage is laughable! 
Every business and individual user around the world has benefited 
from Microsoft in one way or another. Before their contribution, the 
personal computer relied on a chaotic mish-mash of incompatible 
software, appealing to only the techie world. Microsoft`s great 
success is due to overwhelming marketplace desire for and acceptance 
of the benefits they provided, more than any heavy-handed 
competitive acts they are charged with. I include a direct quote 
from a piece on this subject by Bob Williams of the Evergreen 
Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan public policy research 
organization in Washington State.
    [`Microsoft`s actions have increased the rate of 
technological development, but the same cannot be said for the 
actions of the government. Thousands of hours of labor and millions 
of dollars have been diverted from technological research and 
development to respond to the government`s lawsuit.
    `The government`s case falls short in several areas, most 
notably in the government`s misuse of antitrust laws. The 
proliferation of new products on the market and falling prices make 
it difficult to defend the idea that Microsoft`s alleged 
monopolistic activity has harmed consumers. Consumers do not have to 
buy Microsoft products if they don`t want to. This was illustrated 
best by an attorney from Ralph Nader`s organization who criticized 
the size of Microsoft`s market share, then proceeded to undermine 
his own argument by proudly stating that his office used no 
Microsoft products.
    `It is litigation-happy state AGs who are harming 
consumers, not Microsoft. Certainly the rapid increase in useful 
technology has created enormous challenges for our society and many 
issues must be addressed, but the response from government should 
not be to crush all innovation by over- regulation and litigation. 
If the federal government is going to look suspiciously at lower 
prices and improved quality as evidence of illegal activity, 
American consumers are in big trouble.
    `State attorneys general need to let this lawsuit end and 
focus on true threats to America`s citizens and consumers. ]
    Respectfully,
    John H. Gelston
    9811 Marine View Drive
    Mukilteo, WA 98275
    425-349-1628
    [email protected]
    CC:Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Patty Murray, 
msfin@...



MTC-00004378

From: Chris Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern,
    I hope and pray that the DoJ has the common sence to realize the 
chance at hand to to make a stronger economy. By forcing microsoft 
to open up source code, especially that of their Office suite, it 
could be ported or atleast partially used to help other vendors 
compete.
    If the unix environment had a compatable office suite it could 
be used on more desktops at offices. Companies would then have more 
money to spend in other areas, such as user training, pay raises, 
technology advancements by being able to afford bright new 
programers that wouldnt have as much of a chance in a proprietary 
world. The list go on and on.
    If the Apple/MacOS environment had another option than microsoft 
office that would also open doors for new jobs, and the before 
mentioned benefits. MS claims that if they open the code they will 
not have any incentive to better the product? Then what drives the 
free software movement? The people that either don`t get paid or get 
paid very little. What keeps them improving their product? It`s 
because they love what they do, and want to help people.
    It should be obvious to everyone by now, with the momentum the 
open source people have built up that MS is trying desperatly to 
keep themselfs in the #1 position and not let anyone else even 
close. While competition is healthy, and almost all companies see 
that, even if they dont like it, microsofts tactics are unreasonable 
and should not go unnoticed by the courts.
    Making MS open their office code to the public is a good and 
fair judgement I believe. I don`t think their InternetExplorer code 
is as much of a big deal because with their latest release it has 
dropped support for some of the most common internet plugin software 
making it not the best choice of internet browers.
    But I ask you to also consider how when MS updated their newest 
version of msn.com the site refused service to non IE browsers. That 
should be noticed as a blatant DoS (Denial of service) which has 
been pursued by the FBI. I think MS should be treated as any 
`hacker' the uses a DoS attack because the outcome is no 
different, its a Denial Of Service.
    Thank you for your time, and I hope you make the right choice in 
this matter.
    Chris Griffin



MTC-00004379

From: lloyd olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    My husband and I think that the last five {holdout} 
states are completely out of line in trying to inflict more 
penalties on Microsoft. The first solution, one with providing 
software to the under privileged is enough. Let Microsoft do their 
things and help the country out of recession. sincerely, Eileen and 
Lloyd Olson



MTC-00004380

From: Roland Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I very much disagree with the settlement reached with Microsoft. 
They are a preditory company and will do anything to anything to 
crush oposition. The idea of letting them indoctrinate school 
children as a punishment is to idiotic to even comtemplate.



MTC-00004381

From: Monica Samec
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 8:38pm
Subject: Proposal Re: Microsoft anit-trust settlement
    Dear Justice Department member,
    I am writing with regards to the Microsoft antitrust settlement. 
The Linux company, RedHat has proposed that all the money that 
Microsoft was currently planning on giving in the form of software 
for the poorest schools in America be redirected towards hardware. 
Red Hat then promiss to provide software to the schools, free of 
charge, with several additions:
_Red Hat will provide software for ALL the schools in America.
_Red Hat will also provide training and technical support.
_Red Hat`s offer does not expire, ever. The Microsoft one 
expires after 5 years.
    This proposal has many large advantages over the original plan. 
Problems with the original proposal:
    1) Don`t punish a monopoloy by extending it and giving it a 
foothold in the nation`s most vulnerable.
    In giving so much Microsoft software to the schools, the 
original proposal would result in extending Microsoft`s dominance 
over the education sector. This does not make sense since the reason 
why there is a settlement is that Microsoft was found guilty of 
illegal monopolistic practices.
    2) After 5 years, the most vulnerable schools will be trapped.
    Microsoft`s software lisences would expire after 5 years. After 
that time, the schools would be under great pressure to start paying 
very large software fees to Microsoft which ultimatelly hurt their 
funds very severely. The alternative would be to move away from 
Microsoft products, but that would be very difficult because the 
curriculums would already be based around the Microsoft software.
    3) Most of the money that Microsoft would be 
`giving' would be entirely fictional to them.
    Microsoft`s proposal also serves to avoid paying the penalty 
imposed on it. Independently of how much Microsoft charges for its 
software, it costs next to nothing to print another CD. Also, it 
doesn`t cost Microsoft anything to give someone a lisence. A lisence 
is not a product that must be manufactured, it doesn`t cost the 
provider anything.
    Benefits of RedHat`s proposal:
    ** Schools get a much greater assistance.
    1) Over 5 times more computers for the schools. In redirecting 
the cost of software towards hardware the number of computers given 
would jump from 200,000 to over a million. The number of computers 
per school would grow from 14 to over 70.
    2) More schools are benefited. Every single school in America 
gets Red Hat software, not just the poorest 14,000. It is clear that 
this new proposal brings a much greater benefit to the schools.

[[Page 24498]]

    ** More seccurity for the schools to build a curriculum.
    2) Red Hat`s offer does not expire.
    The RedHat software, including all upgrades, will remain 
completely free to all the schools in America indefinitely.
    3) Red Hat also offers free technical support and training.
    Just as important as having access to software, is being trained 
in it and having someone responsible when you have difficulties. Red 
Hat offers technical support and training, also for an unlimited 
time. With this proposal, the schools rest secure in the knowledge 
that the software the enjoy will remain available to them at no 
cost. It is now possible to build a curriculum.
    ** Red Hat`s software is better:
    Red Hat`s software consists of the Linux operating system and an 
very large selection of applications for it.
    1) Linux easily the most reliable and flexible operating system 
in the world. Schools don`t have to worry about downtimes.
    2) Linux is fast and efficient. The schools can keep their 
hardware longer.
    Windows has a tendency to grow larger and slower over time, 
forcing consumers to purchase newer hardware to be able to upgrade. 
Not so for Linux. Linux itself grows very little over time (in some 
areas it actually gets smaller and faster). This frees schools from 
the need of continuous expensive upgrades.
    3) The Open Source software running on Linux is of excellent 
quality.
    * Computer Science.
_Linux offers the best selection of computer languages of any 
platform, as well as more tools for programming than any other 
operating system. Several of these (Perl, Python, PHP, Tcl, etc) are 
accessible to young children, and others (C, C++, Java, etc) can be 
taught at a high school level.
_Linux offers more tools for programming (program debuggers, 
editors, etc) than any other operating system.
_The Linux compiler for C and C++ is probably the best in the 
world.
_Linux comes with the best web server in the world: Apache. 
Schools can use it to allow students to make their own websites.
_Linux comes with many excellent tools for website development 
which are certainly accessible to both a younger audence and 
profesionals alike.
    * Science and Mathematics.
    For the areas of mathematics, science, and engineering, there is 
simply no coparisson. The tools in Linux are many, they are the most 
powerful, the most efficent, and they are free. This is why, UNIX 
and Linux are the standard platform for the physical sciences and 
math. To learn more about Linux and children, please visit 
www.linuxforkids.com
    * Imaging.
    Red Hat provides the excellent program GIMP (GNU Image 
Manipulation Program)_GNU is an organization responsible for 
some of the best software in the world.
    Children can use this tool to create astounding artwork which 
might then be used on a printing press or on a website. References: 
www.gimp.org, www.gnu.org
    * Other.
     Red Hat`s software also contains several excellent office 
applications, vector graphics tools, multimeda, etc. Now that you 
have seen an overview of what Red Hat is offering to the schools (I 
left out much for space reasons), I would ask you to find out 
exactly what Microsfot is offering to the schools and make a 
comparison. It is my honest opinion that the software that Red Hat 
is offering free of charge far surpases what would be available to 
the schools through Microsoft software.
    I would like to strongly encourage the Justice Department accept 
the offer from RedHat and greatly extend the help offered to the 
most needy schools in the nation.
    If you wish to ask questions or clarifications about any of what 
I have written here, please do not hesitate to ask. I am a strong 
believer in the importance of education, and this is a great 
opportunity to help those who are least capable of affording one.
    Sincerely,
    Monica Samec



MTC-00004382

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 8:57pm
Subject: AtATgram: Over Before You Knew It (12/13/01)
    Brian  is sending you a scene 
from _As_the_Apple_Turns!_Scene 
3451 follows:
    Over Before You Knew It (12/13/01)
    `Tis a sad day, indeed, for `Redmond Justice' 
has finally wound to a close. That news may come as a shock to those 
of you who have been following the antitrust action from the very 
beginning, because you probably thought that a federal judge still 
needs to approve the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department before the case can officially be considered over 
and done with. We thought that, too, but evidently we were 
wrong_ at least, if Microsoft`s latest actions are any 
indication.
    See, faithful viewer CHOLLYHEAD noticed a CNET article which 
reports that Microsoft has already gone ahead and named two 
`compliance officers' responsible for ensuring that the 
company sticks to the behavioral changes outlined in the consent 
decree. That`d be the_new_consent decree, mind you, as 
opposed to that old one from `95 which Microsoft treated with as 
much respect as it would a used Kleenex facial tissue. But hey, this 
time will obviously be different_ these two compliance 
officers will make sure of that! Especially since one of them is 
already on the Microsoft payroll in the company`s `Law and 
Corporate Affairs antitrust practice group.' (Way to inspire 
confidence...)
    Now, clearly Microsoft wouldn`t jump the gun and appoint 
compliance officers before the settlement was even 
_approved,_ right? As Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer 
himself stated, `As a major employer and a leader in our 
industry, we take our legal obligations very seriously.' 
Therefore, the company would _never_ try to influence 
a judge to approve a proposed settlement by enacting the 
restrictions in said settlement before it`s been given the go-ahead. 
No sirree Bob. Apparently all that stuff we heard about a sixty-day 
period of public comment followed by another thirty days of Justice 
Department response before the judge even has the 
_option_ of approving the settlement was just a hoax.
    Then again, if Microsoft _is_ enacting compliance 
months before the settlement is even approved, we can only hope that 
the judge isn`t na?ve enough to fall for a blatantly transparent 
`we`ll be good little boys' act. As faithful viewer 
JONATHAN FLETCHER pointed out, the Senate Judiciary Committee is 
pretty skeptical about the settlement proposal, at least according 
to the New York Times, so here`s hoping that people in general 
aren`t really as painfully stupid as Microsoft seems to think they 
are. As for those nine states still pushing for tougher (read: 
`actual') penalties, check out The Register`s commentary 
on Microsoft`s ranting attempt to get the judge to force them to 
accept the settlement as it`s currently worded_ it`s worth a 
giggle. And here`s hoping that Microsoft`s voluntary early 
compliance with the as-yet-unapproved consent decree only shows the 
judge just how ineffectual those `remedies' will be 
before she actually accepts or rejects it...
    To see this scene as it was meant to be seen, complete with 
links to articles and formatted as originally broadcast, visit: 

    To see the complete, unadulterated episode in which this scene 
was originally broadcast, visit: 
    As the Apple Turns: 
    This Scene: 
    This Episode: 
    Copyright (c)1997-2001 J. Miller; please don`t forward 
without this attribution and the URLs above. Other reproduction 
requires J. Miller`s explicit consent; please contact him at the 
site. Thanks.



MTC-00004383

From: Rich Hurd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 8:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi
    I am a student thinking of being a teacher. Information 
Technology can and will shape the teaching profession in the future. 
Please dont put Microsoft in charge of that future by allowing the 
current settlement terms to go forth. If they continue and extend 
there monopoly, I wont teach Math or Science. I will do something 
else.
    Thanks for listening
    Rich Hurd



MTC-00004384

From: Hurd, Richard P
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/13/01 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    I am a student thinking of being a teacher. Information 
Technology can and will shape

[[Page 24499]]

the teaching profession in the future. Please dont put Microsoft in 
charge of that future by allowing the current settlement terms to go 
forth. If they continue and extend there monopoly, I WILL NOT teach 
Math or Science. I will do something else.
    Thanks for listening
    Rich Hurd



MTC-00004385

From: Patricia J Bennatts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 9:21pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft free to improve, invent and share their 
innovations PLEASE !!!!!!
    Please stop this stupid case to prohibit excellence in designing 
better and more desirable ways .. Stopping competition ties the 
inventiveness of Microsoft because the others can`t or don`t have 
the expertise to do so.. Let us complement this company under seige 
and value the good opportunities it offers to so many to make a good 
living and keep the economy progressing ... PLEASE LET US BE FAIR TO 
THIS GOOD COMPANY AND STOP TRYING TO PUT THEM DOWN Also note they 
don`t hoard their wealth but contribute to many educational and 
philanthropic organization ... They are for excellence and continue 
to keep the marketed products ever new and wondrous.



MTC-00004386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 9:26pm
Subject: Breakup
    I support breaking up Microsoft and think the current agreement 
you have made with Microsoft is a plain giveaway to them. They are a 
ruthless monopoly!!!
    Concerned citizen



MTC-00004387

From: Len Bloch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to offer feedback on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. There are many aspects of the settlement which I feel 
could be improved, but I will focus on the requirement that 
Microsoft disclose some of their code to other companies.
    I am fully in favor of disclosure, but I feel that the 
disclosures should be made to the public at large, and the all 
members of the public should then have the right to modify and use 
the code. Microsoft`s most significant competition comes from the 
free software movement, and it is crucial that the disclosures 
become available to anybody who wants to compete with Microsoft, 
even if they are not a `company'.
    As for the proposal that Microsoft be required to port their 
office applications to at least three other operating systems. It 
should be specified which operating systems, with the understanding 
that it should be widely used systems, like Linux and Open BSD.
    Remember, Microsoft has been found guilty of criminal 
activities, and the remedies need strengthen Microsoft`s main 
competition or they will not work as remedies. Microsoft`s biggest 
competition comes from free software. By making more and better free 
software available, everybody will benefit.
    Aloha,
    Len Bloch



MTC-00004388

From: James Brundege
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. It is my understanding that the settlement requires 
Microsoft to disclose information on their APIs, protocols, etc. to 
competing businesses, but that this requirement does not extend to 
non-profits and government agencies. This is a critical problem with 
the settlement as proposed! As a developer of bioinformatics 
software for the scientific community, I develop free and open 
source software that fills critical scientific niches. This work is 
paid for by government grants. This type of software is critical for 
the research community, and it, like most software, must interact 
with systems operating under the Windows OS. This has become 
increasing difficult as open standards have been ignored to generate 
a competitive advantage. If non-profits, universities, and other 
sources of free software are locked out of the settlement agreement 
it will impede our ability to produce these niche programs. This 
will ultimately harm major government directives in bioinformatics 
and other areas.
    I thus request that you reject the Microsoft settlement as 
proposed. Please reconsider the settlement to include provisions to 
give non-profits and other organizations the same competitive rights 
and the same access to Microsoft APIs and protocols that businesses 
are guaranteed in the current settlement.
    Thanks you,
    James Brundege, Ph.D.
    Division of Medical Informatics, BICC
    Oregon Health & Science Univ.
    3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd
    Portland, OR 97201
    Phone: 503-494-7906 Fax: 503-494-4551
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00004389

From: Rolf Paloheimo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to inform you of my discomfort wioth the settlement 
that the government has entered into with Microsoft.
    The settlement:
    *does not give Microsoft any incentive to stop deceiving its 
customers,
    *does not punish microsoft for attempting to deceive the 
government and the public,
    *institutionalizes microsofts monopoly.
    I hope that the court will reconsidor this settlement.
    Thank you,
    Rolf Paloheimo
    http://healthyhousesystem.com
    Creative Communities Research Inc.



MTC-00004390

From: Gary Rost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is still plenty to complain about in the text of the 
proposed settlement, itself.
    Those who followed the case closely will remember that one of 
Microsoft`s chief claims during the trial was that times and the 
nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust enforcement 
ought to be different today than it was when the laws were first 
passed in the early part of the last century. This is a fast-moving 
industry based on intellectual, rather than industrial, capital, 
goes the argument. Sure, Microsoft is on top today (and every day 
since it got bigger than Lotus around 1986) but, hey, that could 
change in a Redmond minute. This argument evidently didn`t resonate 
with the court, though, since Microsoft was found guilty. Keep 
repeating to yourself: `Microsoft is guilty.'
    Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning 
this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better 
deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft`s 
actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will 
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before.
    Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgment 
specifically protect companies in commerce_organizations in 
business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because 
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against 
`competing' commercial software vendors like Netscape, 
and other commercial vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for 
example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind 
of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that 
will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist. Section III(J)(2) contains 
some very strong language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the 
language says that it need not describe nor license API, 
Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting authentication 
and authorization to companies that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria 
as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The

[[Page 24500]]

settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these 
products. Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. 
It deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only. But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, 
the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, 
the military, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology_even the Department of Justice itself_have no 
rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary 
and that B-52s don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. Is the 
Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. They showed 
through the case little understanding of how the software business 
really functions. But they are also complying with the law which, as 
Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with the market realities 
of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were 
first being enforced, the idea that truly free products could become 
a major force in any industry_well, it just would have seemed 
insane.



MTC-00004391

From: karsten koepcke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/13/01 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I`ve been in the computer business for about 20 years. I think 
this settlement is a total capitulation by the DOJ. The government 
is supposed to protect and encourage competition. All this does is 
allow Microsoft to continue its monopolistic practices. Judge 
Jackson had the right idea. Breaking the company up, much like 
Roosevelt did with the oil, steel and railroad trusts, is the right 
thing to do. No large, and especially no monopoly, enterprise is 
interested in innovation much less competition. To the contrary it 
is in their best interest to stifle innovation. Is there anyone out 
there who cares about `We the people'???? The government 
seems to have a phobia in regard to competition. You break up 
AT&T and then you allow the Bell Companies to merge! And now 
with Taunzin Dingle you want to stifle competition in the 
telecommunications arena. I just don`t get it.
    Sincerely,
    Karsten Koepcke



MTC-00004392

From: Patrick Thurmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:15am
Subject: Your doing the right thing!
    Your doing the right thing! The MS settlement is absolutely 
correct. I do not want to see MS busted up. Thank you for holding 
steady to your decisions.
    Happy Holidays,
    Patrick Thurmond



MTC-00004393

From: Philip Sandiford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:19am
Subject: One Public Comment on Microsoft Punishment
    I`ll be brief. Microsoft has been found guilty. They are not 
repentant, in fact, they defy the court`s judgment. The company has 
so much leverage that points raised within the Bush administration 
include the negative impact on the economy if the punishment is too 
severe, as well as the costs in time and expense.
    I am not a wise man and will not pretend to know the 
`just' answer but I hope `the dollar' 
doesn`t sully the correct remedy. I will gladly pay my part if 
society must also share a price to correct the unlawful behavior of 
those found guilty. Better that then increasing the public cynicism 
towards the court and Government.
    Please don`t allow these giants to believe they have grown above 
the law.
    Philip T. Sandiford
    Spokane Washington



MTC-00004394

From: T Paluchniak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement the Justice Department has 
negotiated with Microsoft. The settlement proposed by the nine 
dissenting states makes more sense. The DOJ`s settlement does not do 
enough to insure that Microsoft does not further abuse its monopoly 
power. For example, the settlement now claims Microsoft does not 
have to afford certain protections to small developers unless they 
have been in business for a year, and have given out more than a 
million copies of its software. Whoever negotiated this has little 
knowledge about how the software industry works. In a year Microsoft 
could have already stomped out the competition. Such as a deal does 
not encourage competition, it hinders it drastically.
    Furthermore, the proposed deal does not even require Microsoft 
to admit guilt, which makes it harder for companies like Netscape to 
collect damages resulting from Microsoft`s illegal activities that 
brought it into court in the first place.
    For some one such as myself who chooses to use alternative 
products such as the operating system put out by Apple Computer I 
personally am injured by Microsoft`s practices because Apple is 
continuously threatened by Microsoft, which uses its monopoly power 
to get Apple to do things its way. Apple is afraid Microsoft will 
stop making Microsoft Office for it (which is is profitable for 
Microsoft) because Microsoft claims that it will stop making it. 
Apple then is forced to stop competing with Microsoft in certain 
areas, as no Microsoft Office would mean the death of Apple. Again 
this hurts competition. Worse it hurts me the consumer who likes to 
have a choice in the computer operating system market.
    Microsoft shows no sign of letting up either, just look at its 
proposed settlement in being heard in Boston. Microsoft wants to 
punish itself by expanding its own market share at Apple`s expense. 
How does this help competition? It does not.
    I plead that the court will truly come up with a solution that 
sends a clear message to Microsoft that illegal competition is not 
tolerable.



MTC-00004395

From: mikey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:46am
Subject: MS Settlement
    Call this justice NO I call it a mockery. You have told 
Microsoft that because it has money it can buy its way out of 
breaking the laws. this is it too you have sent the signal that 
because they have money they can force there way on Us the many 
citizens of this great country



MTC-00004396

From: Josh Wurzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a user of an alternative platform, as an investor, as an 
educated student, and as a republican, I can not agree with 
Microsoft`s settlement. This concession by the world`s largest 
software company is clear an attempt to 1) look generous to the 
public 2) solve a major problem for the company and 3) continue to 
do business as usual. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft`s 
presence and tactics hurt the economy far more than to help it, and 
this will not change if this settlement goes through. In fact, 
Microsoft will become even more bold than it did after the trial a 
few years ago. Nothing will stop them from using their market share 
to dominate every conceivable market. People do not buy windows 
because they want to. People buy windows (and other microsoft 
products) because `everyone else uses them'. And people 
do not use these products for their quality, they use them because 
Microsoft forces vendors to cater to their demands, bundling their 
products and threatening retribution if strict rules are not 
followed. It takes no psychic to see where Microsoft is going with 
its current technologies. Do you really think Microsoft would launch 
subscription-based software if it did not have a monopoly? Now, it 
can FORCE people to use its operating system, and to repeatedly pay 
for the privilege of doing so. This is WRONG, in the very truest 
sense of the word.
    With .net in the near future, Microsoft is going to be in a 
position to virtually control the internet. How much more grabs for 
power will it take before something is done to stop

[[Page 24501]]

them? How long before Bill Gates can threaten to take down the 
entire world wide web if billions in ransom are not paid? The idea 
seems far-fetched now, but it didn`t take much threatening from 
Microsoft to get a small city in Virginia to cough up nearly a 
million dollars. And even if it is un-realistic to assume that Bill 
Gates is involved in some world-domination scheme, the fact is that 
his company puts him in a position to go through with it, if he 
should ever want to. We can`t allow companies to have this much 
control over the population.
    Please see Microsoft`s offer for what it is: a pathetic attempt 
to ingratiate itself to the world while offering no real solution 
for its behavior.
    Thank you,
    Josh Wurzel
    Bring MATLAB to OS X for Macintosh! Sign the petition!
    http://www.PetitionOnline.com/matlabx/petition.html



MTC-00004397

From: suzerain.studios
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:18am
Subject: Settlement Proposal Comments
    To whom it may concern:
    As an American citizen who relies on computers for his everyday 
life, and for putting bread on my table, I`m extremely concerned 
about the proposed settlement proposal in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. It doesn`t even begin to address the ethical breaches of 
repeatedly building from antitrust status to promote future product 
exposure. Microsoft is in a dangerous position where they could 
become more powerful than any single company, individual or country 
in history. Why? They are the leaders in an industry that is rapidly 
controlling more and more of everyday human life. Computers store 
DNA records, medical records, salary information, credit card data, 
and so on. Further, the network between computers is rapidly 
becoming the most important communications infrastructure between 
people. Communications lies at the heart of what makes a society 
able to function.
    If any one entity gains control of the communications 
infrastructure, it will mean bad things for ordinary citizens. Any 
Microsoft settlement must do a few things:
    (1) Prevent them from repeating the same ethical misgivings in 
future universes (i.e., networking protocols, networking software)
    (2) Punish them for moving to keep people from technologies they 
wanted (Netscape`s browser, QuickTime, etc.), for stifling the 
development of open protocols which would ease development of online 
product.
    Therefore, I am disheartened, and would like to see the 
following:
    (1) Any future networking protocols that Microsoft develops must 
be governed by truly open, multinational and multicorporate 
standards bodies which can keep the specifics of communication open 
for developers.
    (2) A `fine' of enough to affect the company (i.e., 
in the billions). I think the money should be paid back to an entity 
that helps the very consumers they have adversely affected with 
their anticompetitive behavior (perhaps to fight hunger, or help 
people, or assist schools with getting the technology they wish to 
purchase).
    Cheers,
    Marc Antony Vose
    Suzerain Studios



MTC-00004398

From: Speedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:42am
Subject: Microsoft must be punished.
    Briefly, the views expressed are similar to those in this 
article: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3952/1/. 
This is where I saw the need to contact you regarding this issue. To 
Whom it may concern.
    I wish to express my concern at the unjust 
`penalties' that Microsoft has been offered. The anti-
trust case has proven the company to be trading in a way to retain a 
monopoly, and this is now where the penalties are to be given. 
Instead, they have been offered compromise after compromise, without 
having to compromise themselves.
    I am not a resident of the US, but rather of Australia. Thus, I 
offer this email as an opinion of a resident of the internet. As a 
part of the Linux community. As a person with enough technical 
insight to understand what needs to be done in the industry to 
benefit both sides. I am disgusted at the way the US DoJ has handled 
this case, after it was already proven but yet to be settled. I am 
disgusted even more at the backflip done by the Bush administration 
to not punish a criminal, as was found in the courts of the Clinton 
administration. I won`t even go into the evidence that Microsoft had 
pumped a lot of money into Bush`s campaign. This is not about 
politics, but about justice and the IT industry.
    I am not a lawyer, and I am not a Microsoft user. How many 
messages supporting Microsoft will be from normal users? Not many, I 
would assume. But why would Microsoft need users to write in with 
bad spelling and grammar, when they can pay lawyers to write full 
dissertations which are littered with Latin?
    Microsoft has it`s place in this world, and a decent agreement 
would benefit them, as well. It would force them to write more 
secure and stable systems, while allowing others (Linux, FreeBSD, 
and all the other free and proprietry Operating Systems) to be a 
choice for the end user. When I buy a computer, I hate the fact that 
I often have little to no choice about software. I can buy pieces 
and build my own, but if a large chain was offering a system for a 
budget price, why am I then forced to buy Window`s with it? I could 
save another hundred dollars and have it loaded with Linux. Or with 
nothing at all, leaving it up to me to choose (there`s that word 
again). But only if Microsoft is forced to comply with the law.
    We need at least three items dealt with:
    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 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.
    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 
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.
    3) 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 
to the point about Microsoft needing to remain as it is for 
`National Security'? HA! Ask the NSA what operating 
system they recommend. Better still, here is the address you may 
find the information: http://freshmeat.net/redir/selinux/7258/
url_homepage/ (NSA Security-enhanced Linux is a set of patches 
to the Linux kernel and some utilities to incorporate a strong, 
flexible mandatory access control architecture into the major 
subsystems of the kernel. It provides a mechanism to enforce the 
separation of information based on confidentiality and integrity 
requirements, which allows threats of tampering and bypassing of 
application security mechanisms to be addressed and enables the 
confinement of damage that can be caused by malicious or flawed 
applications. It includes a set of sample security policy 
configuration files designed to meet common, general-purpose 
security goals.)
    Why would a company, who have hijacked an entire industry and 
created their own `standards' without allowing others to 
use those standards (case in point: Word documents), be more secure 
than one whose standards are open? Any attempt by Microsoft to say 
otherwise should be regarded as fraud, or at least contempt. After 
all, what would happen if the `security' was, at some 
point, compromised? Would Microsoft take responsibility? I doubt it.
    Thank you for letting me participate in this decision.
    Shane Phillip Ravenn
    219 Duffield Rd
    Clontarf QLD 4019
    Australia



MTC-00004399

From: Conrad Gempf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:47am
Subject: Microsoft Penalty Phase
    As an American citizen living abroad, I have great hope that the 
United States courts will accomplish something that I see for myself 
no other body can: restore competition and fair play to the computer 
industry. My `day job' is not directly in computers, but 
in theological education.

[[Page 24502]]

However, I have been involved with writing for computer journals 
both in print and online for some time. I think most people in the 
industry are under no illusion about Microsoft`s claims to want 
`to innovate'. They have systematically moved into every 
lucrative field that they could by copying or buying out the 
competition and then leveraging the new product with their vast 
operating system monopoly. We have seen this happen with their 
buying of a web-browser and renaming it Explorer to compete with 
Navigator, we`ve seen it with their copying of the Palm handhelds, 
and nowadays we`re seeing it with the launch of yet another games 
platform, with promises of integration to Windows and their new 
vision of a corporately-controlled internet and with their efforts 
in media players in Windows.
    They maintain their monopoly in a way which quite evidently has 
strangled the competition. The numbers speak volumes. Even people 
who think that the Microsoft Windows operating system is superior to 
the Mac operating (and those people are not that easy to find) do 
not think that, on merits alone, it would deserve 95% of the market. 
It`s not *that* much better. Consumers simply don`t have a choice.
    Even people who think that Microsoft Word is a better word 
processor than the pre-Windows 95 market leader Corel Word Perfect 
do not believe that it is 98% better.
    Microsoft has and keeps the monopolistic market share that it 
has not because consumers choose them, but because manufacturers and 
consumers are made to choose them.
    Microsoft have, we all know, broken agreements in the past. In 
the face of having been found guilty and having had that conviction 
upheld unanimously, they are still quite publicly maintaining that 
they have not done anything wrong. They cannot, therefore, be relied 
upon to conform willingly with the spirit of a voluntary penalty 
_they do not, apparently, understand what the courts are 
saying to them about their past behaviour.
    A just and effective penalty would have to restore the 
possibility of competition. One of the best tests of a penalty would 
be the possible effects in the marketplace in terms of restoring 
competition and allowing the alternatives of the Microsoft Windows 
operating system to regain marketshare that reflects how consumers 
regard them on their merits.
    In many ways, the structural remedy seemed to me ideal, both in 
terms of what it would accomplish and in terms of how little 
continual monitoring would have to be done by other people. I 
recognise that, for some reason, this has been withdrawn from 
consideration. But something needs to be done that is more drastic 
than the proposals that some of the States have accepted.
    Saying `You must behave lawfully from now on' is not 
a penalty, it doesn`t go beyond what any ordinary company would have 
to do. A repeat offender like Microsoft needs to be penalised in 
such a way as to artificially restore the balance it has wrongfully 
tipped in its favour, and preferably in ways that quickly give a 
boost to those competitors, like Apple, who have been directly 
harmed by their practices.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Conrad Gempf, PhD
    US citizen,
    Lecturer in Theology in London, UK



MTC-00004400

From: Tuukk4 (124)(091):)(060)-(060)(124) p4s4n3n
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft
    hi,
    I agree completly with there arguments
    * 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.
    These arguments can be found on http://www.linuxplanet.com/
linuxplanet/opinions/3952/2/ Also I like see Microsoft be more 
polite to open source community/free software foundation. Everyone 
have right to exist without rasism. GPL is about freedom (I think 
you americanz admire that:).
    All the bugs should be let out to public as soon as possible. 
All the bug data and securitys holes should be informed. Microsoft 
should collect any information from it`s customers without asking it 
directly with email (Ok button isn`t enough).
    Money giving schools is fine but schools should have right to 
choose what they want to use. these are the main things.
    Tuukka
    Wallankumous alkaa ajatuksesta



MTC-00004401

From: Campagna, Tim
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 4:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please explain how giving more market share to the behemoth 
Microsoft is a punishment for it`s action`s. Is it not in plain site 
that Microsoft wants to push this through as fast as possible 
because they know they`re getting off with nothing less than an 
advance in the education market. This is absolutely ridiculous!
    Microsoft has a strangle hold on the business market and 
couldn`t push companies like Apple out of the education market with 
it`s system alone, so now they must use their monopolistic ways to 
attempt a take over. What`s amazing about this is that the govt. 
wants to hand it to them with this settlement. Do not let Microsoft 
bully you! Please!
    We need fare competition, let them compete for their money back, 
make them cough up the cash and let the schools decide.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Campagna
    Newport Beach, CA



MTC-00004402

From: tc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 4:43am
Subject: Drop the Case Against Microsoft
    I believe the government`s case against Microsoft is an 
absurd abuse of process whereby Microsoft`s competitors have 
attempted to use the power of government to achieve what they could 
not do in the free marketplace. This case should absolutely be 
settled at as little cost to Microsoft as possible. I am not a MS 
stockholder, but I believe that MS should be praised for making 
computers accessible to the average person rather than being 
persecuted for its success.
    Anthony R. Conte



MTC-00004403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:50am
Subject: Comments on the proposed anti-trust settlement
    I am an American citizen living abroad:
    Richard Baggarley
    Paul-Ehrlich-Weg 2
    78549 Spaichingen
    Germany
    I fail to understand how the proposed settlement punishes 
Microsoft for its illegal activities. On the contrary, this 
`remedy' only serves to increase Microsoft's 
presence in the education computer market. The dollar value of the 
settlement is minute since it costs Microsoft very little to 
manufacture copies of software. I`m sure that a settlement more in 
line with the gravity of the illegal activities of which Microsoft 
has been found guilty can be developed. Do not `punish' 
lawbreakers by allowing them the means to continue their illegal 
behavior.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Baggarley



MTC-00004404

From: Michael Vander Sande
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:00am
Subject: Comments on
    Renata,
    It is good that the Federal government is reconsidering the 
proposed Microsoft settlement as it fundamentally wrong to provide 
Microsoft with a clear path to expand it`s general monopoly. The 
education market is one of very few that Microsoft controls and 
allowing them to freely promote, evangelize and otherwise steal 
market share seems more like a gift than punishment. We should not 
be suggesting, or

[[Page 24503]]

polluting, the minds of educators and students to use Microsoft 
versus it`s competitors by forcing Microsoft products and services 
upon them. Microsoft products have proven to be less than easy to 
use, prone to security risks and generally unreliable. Please don`t 
force children and educators to use them, instead provide a choice 
to those who seek it.
    I look forward to staying informed of your decisions and am 
hopeful they will result in all that is fair and right.
    Best Regards,
    Michael Vander Sande
    the Project House
    859.431.4157
    859.250.1313_cell
    [email protected]



MTC-00004406

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:40am
Subject: Justice
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Please consider my choice/voice to have Microsoft 
`punished' or held accountable for trying to elliminate 
its competition. If the company was found guilty and lost its appeal 
why would they not be punished. No one would give me that break.
    Bill Welter
    Orlando, FL



MTC-00004407

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
    From: `Carlos Edwards' 

    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:49 AM
    Subject: Microsoft
    I am very disappointed with the out come of the Microsoft trail. 
I believe harsher penalties should be enforced. Please do not back 
down, do not settle.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Edwards
    270 South 5th Street
    Brooklyn NY, 11211



MTC-00004409

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
    From: `Brian Higgins' 

    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:00 AM
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    I am utterly appalled by the decision of the US Justice 
department to settle the Microsoft suit as described in the press. 
The DOJ settlement agreement is a joke and a total affront to the 
consumer. I trust that you and your staff will not buckle under to 
the Microsoft propaganda. The courts have ruled that Microsoft has 
acted as a monopoly and we as consumers need to see the law upheld, 
the events of Sept 11 notwithstanding.
    Please prosecute this case with vigor. Support the consumer.
    Thank you
    Brian Higgins
    3202 Grosbeak Court
    Davis, CA 95616



MTC-00004411

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
    From: `Rutherford, Ronald'
    
    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:44 AM
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings. This is just a short note to say that I also believe 
that the proposed Microsoft settlement, as it currently stands, is 
unacceptable.
    Please keep up the fight. Thanks.
    Ron Rutherford
    Seattle



MTC-00004415

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
    From: `Tom Moore' 

    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:13 PM
    Subject: Stay the course!
    To the Attorney General:
    I cannot urge you in strong enough terms to continue on your 
path of seeking to punish Microsoft for its egregious antitrust 
violations.
    What they have done_and what they still plan to 
do_to the computer industry, and, by extension, almost every 
industry in America, is outrageous.
    I`m extraordinarily disappointed in the federal government`s 
abdication of its duty in this matter. It is now up to you to 
protect businesses like mine, and families like mine, from 
Microsoft`s relentless and lawless clutches.
    Thank you.
    Tom Moore
    Tom Moore
    President, Landslide Design
    [email protected]
    11 Forest Ave., Rockville, MD 20850
    phone: 301.762.0627 fax: 301.762.5156



MTC-00004417

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
    From: `Jonathan Ness' 

    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:46 PM
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello West Virgina AG,
    I want you to know that I support your continued fight to pursue 
justice against the Microsoft monopoly and it`s anti-competitive 
business tactics. They sure got off easy in that settlement. Please 
don`t give up the fight to ensure that they change their ways. 
Thanks!
    Jonathan Ness
    10520 19th Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98125



MTC-00004418

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
    From: `Jack Tyler' 
    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:22 PM
    Subject: I support further prosecution of Microsoft
    I am a resident of Memphis, TN. 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.
    Jack tyler
    JTEC
    http://www.jtectn.com
    memphis, TN



MTC-00004419

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message

    From: `Ron LaPedis' 

    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:38 AM
    Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    I would like to commend you for not accepting the proposed DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft. I believe that it has been shown time and 
time again, that Microsoft `extends and extinguishes.` That is, 
while appearing to support a standard, such as Java or Kerberos, 
they then add extensions to it that will only run on the Microsoft 
operating system (OS) platform.
    When threatened by Netscape, which sold a browser which allowed 
web pages to be displayed on any platform, they developed their own 
browser and tightly integrated it into the OS then bundled it free 
of charge. Coupled with web pages that used coding which would only 
work on the Microsoft browser, they took over the market, 
effectively eliminating Netscape as a viable company. And this was 
AFTER a consent decree with the DOJ in an earlier case!
    With Windows XP, Microsoft is attempting to take over access to 
the Internet, forcing users to use their middleware and go to 
Microsoft approved sites when a URL (web

[[Page 24504]]

address) is mistyped. Microsoft MUST be reigned in as a convicted 
monopolist, or there will be no choice whatever left for consumers.
    I sincerely hope that you and the other dissenting state 
attorneys general will work for a settlement with teeth in it which 
will prevent Microsoft from crushing the competition through illegal 
practices, of which it has already been convicted .
    Ron LaPedis
    2115 Sea Cliff Way
    San Bruno, CA
    650-359-9887
    http://realpens.com



MTC-00004421

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message

    From: `TechSupport->CBC-Saint Louis'
    
    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:54 PM
    Subject: Microsoft `Settlement'
    Dear Sirs:
    I am very glad that you are resisting the effort of Microsoft to 
get off scott-free from their monopolistic behavior. Please, since 
the Federal Government has caved in to Microsoft, continue this 
battle until real remedies AND punishments have been levied against 
Microsoft.
    I find it very difficult to understand how a company can be 
found guilty, egregiously guilty in fact, of crimes, and all the 
Federal Government wants to do is to get them to promise to maybe 
never do it again! An individual, or a company without limitless 
pockets, that were to be found guilty of such behavior as has 
Microsoft, would be facing strict punishment that would make them 
truly regret committing such crimes and would make them think twice 
before committing such crimes again. Remedies for the future are 
needed, as well as punishments for past misbehavior. This is the 
second time that Microsoft has been found guilty of essentially the 
same crime_does the Three Strikes and you`re out rule apply 
here? Because they will be back in court for the same crimes again!
    Thanks for your care for the consumer. Please don`t give up!
    Brother Ray Bonderer, FSC
    CBC-Saint Louis
    Christian Brothers College High School
    Technology Coordinator
    6501 Clayton Road
    Saint Louis, MO 63117-1796
    314-721-1200



MTC-00004422

From: Joe (038) Micki Wilder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:43am
Subject: Let go Microsoft!
    It was fair what the Dept. of Justice and the 9 states & 
Microsoft agreed on . Let go of this great company and get on with 
National Security.



MTC-00004424

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message

    From: `Patrick McDonald'
    
    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:26 PM
    Subject: Keep them on their toes
    To whom this may concern,
    Congratulations on not selling out to Microshaft, an unrepentant 
monopolist, bully, and lawbreaker of unique proportions. 
Congatulations on being clever enough (or honest enough) to not fall 
for their `compromise offer' that conveniently lets them 
walk away from legal proceedings... while laughing loudly at the 
federal and state governments, law-abiding corporate entities, and 
consumers. Please don`t give up; the importance of staying the 
course is as immense as Micro$oft`s repeated and conscious violation 
of fair competition laws. Your perseverance and determination will 
have crucial repercussions, not only for your constituency, but also 
for people living as far away as snowy Canada, and even beyond.
    Best regards,
    Pat McDonald



MTC-00004425

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message

    From: `Dave Coker' 
    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:29 PM
    To whom it may concern :
    I am totally appalled by the current MicroSoft settlement.
    For years they have without restraint of any kind practiced a 
predatory form of business. They have effectively increased costs 
and limited consumer choice, all in the course of their efforts to 
control and increse market share.
    I plead with you to revisit this decision as soon as possible, 
before it is too late.
    In closing, as a Computer Professional with over twenty years 
experience I am obliged to point out that many lay people don`t 
really know what they are being deprived of because of Microsofts 
practices.
    Please correct this wrong.
    Dave Coker



MTC-00004431

From: Berl R. Oakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I am e-mailing with respect to the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. It is my firm belief that the proposed settlement is 
inadequate to prevent Microsoft from continuing its pattern of abuse 
of its monopoly power. Indeed, judge Jackson1s remedy was probably 
inadequate. A more reasonable solution would have been to break the 
company into four or more companies. The currently proposed remedy 
is clearly and obviously inadequate. It is important to note that 
Microsoft has engaged in illegalities repeatedly and over a very 
long period of time. It has successfully thumbed its collective nose 
at previous rulings and has shown that it can not be trusted in any 
way.
    In addition, the wide-spread use of Microsoft software 
(particularly in the networking area) is a threat to national 
security. Microsoft has been very weak on security issues and the 
wide-spread use of a single platform makes us particularly 
vulnerable. Given the damage caused by kids engaged in mischief, it 
is frightening to consider the damage that could be caused by a 
serious cyberterrorist.
    In addition, antitrust enforcement has been much too permissive 
in recent years. For one example of many, we get our news from fewer 
and fewer sources because of mergers of news organizations. This is 
unhealthy for democracy. When companies become very large and the 
management makes serious mistakes, the entire country suffers. Japan 
certainly has experienced this in the past decade in the banking 
sector. There are only a small number of banking corporations in 
Japan and they all made bad real estate loans a decade or more ago.
    This has stifled credit flow and hindered economic recovery. The 
Enron debacle in the US may have similar (although one hopes not as 
severe) consequences. It is time for antitrust enforcement to regain 
some teeth. A just penalty for Microsoft must include, at a very 
minimum, the following.
    First, Microsoft products must be extra-cost options on 
computers. Now they are bundling products into an operating system 
that has become extremely expensive (half the cost of an entry level 
computer). This clearly stifles competition as one is unlikely to 
pay for a program from a Microsoft competitor if one has already 
paid for the Microsoft version as part of the operating system or as 
an add-on that comes with the operating system.
    Second, Microsoft applications should be required to use open 
document formats (such as XML). These document formats must be 
approved by an independent body (as is the case with XML). Microsoft 
must not be allowed to modify these formats to make them Microsoft- 
or Windows specific. As long as Microsoft1s closed formats are a de 
facto standard, other companies will be at a significant competitive 
disadvantage. Requiring Microsoft to use open document standards 
will help level the playing field. The value of open document 
standards (e.g. HTML, PDF) is apparent from how remarkably they 
fostered the growth of the internet. If Microsoft is not required to 
use open document formats, the specifications of their current and 
future document formats must be made public so that other software 
development companies can design their software to open, read and 
save Microsoft format documents. This is a simple matter, but is 
hugely important.
    Third, Microsoft must be forced to respect open standards such 
as JAVA. This will allow developers to create cross-platform 
applications which will give users more software choices. Microsoft 
has responded to the promise of JAVA by producing a modified version 
that is Windows-specific. This is clearly an effort to hinder the

[[Page 24505]]

development of cross-platform software and, thus, reduce the choices 
available.
    Fourth, any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in 
full and approved by an independent network protocol body. It is 
apparent that Microsoft would like to control the internet (note 
their .NET strategy). It is of paramount importance that they be 
prevented from doing so.
    Fifth, Microsoft must be required to produce (or in some cases 
continue to produce) versions of their most popular software such as 
Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc. for platforms other than Windows 
(Macintosh, Linux). These applications must be cost-competitive and 
features competitive with the Windows versions. This would go some 
way toward allowing these platforms to compete with Windows. Please 
note that I have no financial interest in antitrust actions that 
might restrict Microsoft. I do not work for a Microsoft competitor 
and I suspect that I own more Microsoft stock through mutual funds 
than that of all of its competitors. My motivations are simply an 
interest in fairness and the well being of our country.
    Yours sincerely,
    Berl R. Oakley, Ph. D.
    Professor of Molecular Genetics
    The Ohio State University



MTC-00004433

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:06am
Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement
    __Original Message__
    From: `Dennis & Diana Wright' 

    To: 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:50 PM
    Subject: Thanks!
    Thanks to your state for having the credibility and will to not 
agree to the bogus Antitrust settlement agreed to by nine of the 18 
states and the U. S. DOJ.
    The settlement negotiated by USDOJ and Microsoft and the nine 
states is an absolute disgrace. It will have no effect on the crimes 
committed by Micro$oft. They will continue their predatory practices 
and thumb their nose at the courts as they have in the past. 
Microsoft has severely damaged the Computer Industry through their 
practices and continue to do so.
    I and many Americans will view this bogus settlement as another 
example of political contributions to the Republican Party and this 
administration being rewarded generously through this lame 
settlement.
    I encourage you to push for punishment that will change these 
predatory practices and level the playing field for smaller 
companies. I commend you for your courage and your attempt to 
squeeze justice out of this process.
    Thanks,
    Robert Wright



MTC-00004435

From: Piolino, Thierry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 10:10 am
Subject: Miscorsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have been following the proceedings for quite a while and I 
was struck by the `penalty'. In simple words DoJ says: 
`Microsoft, you are a bad boy. Promise that you will not do it 
again.'
    Microsoft has been found guilty of its de facto monopoly and 
with its new operating system Windows XP it is `cementing` its grip 
on that monopoly. Under the guise of `this is what people 
want' Windows XP locks out standards owned by competitors 
(Java from Sun Microsystems, QuickTime from Apple, audio and video 
formats from RealNetwork). This is why I have certain concerns about 
any effect that the opening of the Windows application program 
interface might have.
    Some people argue, that it is a question of National Interest. 
Remember the USS Yorktown (CG-48, Ticonderoga-Class AEGIS 
cruiser, lying dead in the Atlantic water after a complete crash of 
Windows NT, forcing her to be towed back to Norfolk, VA). Remember 
all viruses running on Windows, Outlook or Office.
    For me `National Interest' means interest for the 
Nation, nor for Microsoft ALONE. If MS gets some benefits, that is 
OK, but if only MS gets benefits and the rest of the world gets 
harmed, it is not National Interest, but Microsoft interest.
    Microsoft should be punished for practicing illegally (and not 
thanked and encouraged to do so).
    Merry Christmas and rule wisely.
    T. Piolino



MTC-00004436

From: Brian Densmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    You really need to get some professional software and hardware 
engineers on your staff. This proposed settlement is ludicrous. You 
don`t seem to even have a basic understanding of the computer 
industry. This settlement would be far more damaging to the computer 
industry than is the current situation. If you allow this settlement 
to happen, you will have cleared the way for Microsoft to 
systematically wipe out all serious competitors. Example:
    Microsoft would be able to define its own standards and block 
and seek to destroy all opposition on the web server front. Apache 
is the leading webserver in use today, but since it is part of a 
not-for-profit company Microsoft could attack this company in much 
the same way as it destroyed Netscape. This is a seriously flawed 
document. Go back to the drawing board and start over.
    Take it from a professional computer software engineer (go check 
it out I`m in the Who`s Who for the IT industry [or whatever they 
called it], or at least I was at one time_I really don`t keep 
track of that stuff, too busy writing code).
    By the way, in case you forgot. The courts found Microsoft 
guilty, not non-compliant. These guys are criminals, you should 
treat them accordingly.
    Best Regards,
    Brian Densmore
    
    Associate
    CompuTech Business Solutions, Inc.
    http://www.ctbsonline.com/
    (816) 880-0988 x215



MTC-00004437

From: Neal T Konneker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:13am
Subject: Opposed to settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It does nothing 
more than reiterate existing laws in more specific terms. Since 
Microsoft violated these laws before, simply restating them in more 
detail accomplishes nothing. It offers little if any protection to 
Microsofts future competitors and no redress for those companies 
harmed by Microsoft in the past.
    Neal Konneker



MTC-00004438

From: John Lightsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    My name is John Lightsey and I`m a computer programmer and 
systems administrator for a small web development company in Houston 
Texas. Though I don`t have an opinion about the legal wording of the 
proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement, I do feel qualified to 
voice my own opinion about its spirit.
    The question of wether or not Microsoft holds a monopoly 
position in the desktop OS marketplace is already resolved. They do 
hold a monopoly and have for some time now. The question of wether 
or not Microsoft misuses their monopoly has also been resolved. They 
have misused it on numerous occasions in very direct way and are 
continuing to do so today. The proposed settlement, while 
acknowledging these facts, does little to prevent or halt current 
and future abuses of Microsoft`s monopoly position. For example, it 
is patently obvious that Microsoft illegaly tied Internet Explorer 
into the Windows OS in order to destroy the market for third party 
web browsers, why is Microsoft STILL being allowed to bundle it in 
Windows XP. Why is there so little discussion of compensating the 
parties who were directly damaged by that action (Netscape, Mozilla, 
Opera, etc)? And, as a consumer, why do I still not have the option 
of purchasing a retail version of Windows without Internet Explorer 
built into it with the cost of Explorer reduced from the price?
    This same line of reasoning applies to a wide variety of 
programs being bundled with the latest release of Windows which in 
reality are not a part of the operating system itself. Media Player 
(Microsoft`s latest anti-competitive move very obviously designed to 
kill off third party applications like Real Player, Winamp, Power-
DVD, Win-DVD which had done so well on Windows 95/98), its 
integrated firewall (destroying the market for products by Norton, 
Black Ice, Zonelabs and others), CD-burning capabilities (Nero, 
EZCD-Creator, CDR-Win), .Net capabilities (Java). The list of 
all the markets for third party applications that Microsoft has 
already destroyed is quite voluminous. The list of what companies 
they are directly targeting

[[Page 24506]]

 with their latest OS release is also quite lengthy. Microsoft`s 
contention with Internet Explorer has always been that it is 
`free'. So, are all of these applications similarly 
`free'? If so, why doesn`t Microsoft make versions of 
these `free' applications available for other Operating 
Systems? The answer is obvious...these programs simply aren`t free. 
They have a cost associated with them, and that cost is being 
directly rolled into the cost of the OS. So, if I`m already a happy 
consumer of RealMedia`s products, why am I being forced to purchase 
Media Player? If I`m already happy with Nero as my CD burner, why am 
I being forced to buy the bundled Microsoft CD Burner? Out of the 
$200 cost for a full version of the Home Edition of Windows XP how 
much of the money am I spending on Microsoft products that I`m 
perfectly content to purchase from third parties? Unfortunately, 
when you combine the Microsoft bundling practices with it`s other 
practices designed to force upgrading in order to maintain 
compatability you get a very nasty combination that will most 
certainly destroy any consumer choice in these areas in a very short 
time span. In fact, the length of time it has taken just to decide 
wether or not Netscape was pushed out of the browser market illegaly 
has seen the birth and the first stages of the death of valuable 
markets in CD burning software, personal firewalls, and integrated 
media applications. As a consumer, the government`s nod of approval 
towards Microsoft`s actions in this regard are quite disheartening.
    Personally, I stopped using ALL Microsoft products when I read 
the news that the government was throwing in the towel and giving 
microsoft the go ahead to do as it pleases. It`s quite obvious 
Microsoft has no intentions of stopping it`s practices which will 
ultimately destroy the markets for any and all profitable third part 
computer applications. It`s also becoming quite obvious that the 
current administration is not interested in addresing the 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft. As a programer I worry that if 
I ever build a profitable business off an application designed to 
work in Windows, I would be in jeopardy of having the functionality 
of my product integrated into the OS and any future market for my 
product destroyed. As a consumer, I`m disturbed to find that the 
government has no intention of creating a level playing field on 
which products can compete on the basis of merit, rather than the 
financial clout of their creators or their forced purchase through 
bundling. As a result I`ve started using Linux and contributing to 
the development of a truely free desktop OS. Though I do beleive 
many Microsoft products stand on their own merits (the core of the 
Windows OS, Office, Visual Studio) the fact that neither the 
government or Microsoft intended to halt the continued unfair, and 
IMHO illegal, anti-competitive practices or Redmond is really making 
it an all-or-none decision. Everything is Microsoft`s or nothing is 
Microsoft`s... Things like the Frontpage 2002 End Users Licensing 
Agreement, and it`s conditions that you can`t use the product to 
design a website critical of Microsoft or its subsidiaries, make it 
obvious that the `Everything is Microsoft' route will 
eventually destroy the computer industry.
    Wether or not you agree with anything I`ve had to say up until 
this point, before I close I`d just like to mention another concern 
I`ve had recently. Many industry insiders are claiming the Desktop 
computer will fall by the wayside in another decade. While I don`t 
necessarily agree with this prediction, it appears that Microsoft 
does. The X-Box, Windows CE, and .Net seem to be the spearhead of 
their advance into these new markets. Backed by the financial clout 
their OS monopoly has produced and their complete control of the 
desktop and it`s standards for communication with other devices, 
Microsft is pushing its way into these new markets with the 
intention of dominating them as well. It has been reported, for 
instance, that Microsoft LOSES $100 on each and every X-box sold. 
Given that fact, how long is it going to take Microsoft to turn it`s 
OS monopoly into a game console monopoly, into an internet appliance 
monopoly, into a PDA OS monopoly. I hope that any changes to the 
current settlement will take considerations like these into account, 
and that these issues can be addresed prior to Microsoft using its 
current monopoly to become the defacto standard in these new markets 
as well.
    Thank you fo your time.
    John Lightsey
    [email protected]
    1526 Richeleiu ln
    Houston Tx, 77018
    (713)812-1389



MTC-00004439

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I maintain the computer systems for a computing facility in the 
biomechanical engineering field at a leading university. I am not 
content with the proposed settlement of the antitrust suit currently 
pursued against Microsoft. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
monopolistic behavior that negatively affects the consumer. The 
proposed settlement does not go far enough to prevent further 
illegal behavior. Microsoft has demonstrated in the past a 
willingness to skirt the letter and intent of former consent 
decrees. Several weaknesses in the proposed settlement allow for 
continued harmful behavior with little remedy. We need a better 
settlement that also addresses past injuries to the consumer and 
discourages ongoing illegal behavior. This settlement falls short of 
that.
    Thank you for your consideration. I can offer further details 
and specific examples should you be interested.
    Kirk Gunsallus
    Biomedical Mechanics
    232 Upson Hall
    Cornell University 14853



MTC-00004440

From: Jelagin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:34am
Subject: Public comment_Microsoft antitrust remedies
    Gentlemen,
    Thank for the opportunity to express my opinion regarding this 
issue. I am aware that my message is only one of many that you are 
receiving, and I am especially appreciative if an actual human being 
is reading this (besides someone from the FBI or NSA). If I am wrong 
on this assumption, shame on you for not caring, and shame on me for 
believing in the system. Enough of that, lets get to the heart of 
the matter; I`ll try to make it quick and painless:
    1. Microsoft has an unfair, and illegal, monopoly (you know this 
already).
    2. The remedy you propose does nothing to break up that 
monopoly, in fact, it assists them in establishing new monopolies 
(re: the education market).
    3. The penalties you propose are not severe enough to prevent 
them from continuing their current business practices.
    4. While this may not be the case, many perceive this as a 
politically influenced process, which leads people to speculate if 
the outcome of this issue would have been different, had a few 
hundred people in people in Florida were more adept at using a 
butterfly ballot.
    Thank you for your time,
    Andy
    Andy Jelagin
    Network Administrator
    Kaleidoscope Imaging, Inc.
    700 N. Sacramento, 2nd Floor North
    Chicago, Il 60612
    www.ksimage.com



MTC-00004441

From: Greg Granger
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 10:35am
Subject: Travesty
    This toothless agreement with Microsoft is a travesty of 
justice. Mr. Charles A. James needs to be investigate to determine 
why he would broker an agreement so hurtful to the American People. 
This has given the impression to the citizens of the United States 
(and the rest of the world) that in American Justice is for sale. It 
is a very very sad day. Millions were spent to bring MS to court and 
they were found guilty of Anti-Competitive behavior in both the 
original trial and the appeal.
    But I suppose that`s unimportant, in the U. S. today, Mr. James 
is justice. I suppose we can in the next ten years expect another 
6-8 fold increase in software prices, buggier software and a 
continued lack of support. No doubt this is ok with Mr. James as 
long as he keeps Bill Gates happy. I also found it very interesting 
that the wording on the agreement was changed from `The United 
States Government' and `The People of the United 
States' to `The United States Department of 
Justice', no doubt this insures that even the few points of 
this agreement that require any participation from MS will be 
ignored. Certainly, unpatriotic (isn`t that the term for person who 
have no concern for their country or it`s citizens) people like Mr. 
James won`t trouble MS and the wording of the agreement insures that 
not other part of the government can/will either. Even if MS were 
force to following the largely vacuous wording of the agreement to 
the letter, it`s

[[Page 24507]]

wouldn`t effect their monopolistic stranglehold over the software 
industry.
    I will be writing my representatives requesting that Mr. James 
and Mr. Ashcroft be investigated. We need people of unquestionable 
patriotism and integrity working and leading the Deparment of 
Justice. We cannot afford to have men who through appathy, 
incompetence or corruption make a mockery of our Justice system and 
by extension our Country.
    Greg Granger
    R4305 x15876
    `Happiness is good health and a bad memory.' Ingrid 
Bergman



MTC-00004442

From: Earl Helbig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We think the time is overdue to resolve this ongoing dispute. 
Freedom to innovate is curtailed by dragging out this dispute. It is 
more important to get our country moving again.
    In the national interest, find a suitable way to let Microsoft 
forge on with its proven track record of innovation.
    Ruth and Earl Helbig



MTC-00004443

From: Mark Tennent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:40am
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite 1200, Antitrust 
Division, Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 
20530 From: Mark Tennent, 71 Wish Road, Hove BN3 4LN, UK Re: U.S. v. 
Microsoft
    I understand that public comment has been invited on the above 
case and hope that as a non-US resident my comment is valid. I have 
been involved in the computer industry since 1985, before Microsoft 
held a near world-monopoly position in software. Since 1985 I have 
observed that as Microsoft`s influence has grown, they have actually 
kept users of their operating systems and software at a 
disadvantage. Their operating systems are prone to attack by 
computer virus writers_and subsequently have been responsible 
for an immense cost to the world in recovering from the effects. 
Often the reason for the easy access offered to virus writers is due 
to Microsoft`s badly or incompetently written software. Because of 
their control of the operating system they are also able to prevent 
faster development of computers and software by deliberately not 
supporting existing standards, such as MP3, or by making other 
companies software incompatible with Microsoft`s, such as Apple`s 
Quicktime, or by refusing developers access to Microsoft`s codes. 
Consequently they have held back their own customers and limited 
their choices.
    Currently I choose not to use a Microsoft operating system and 
avoid Microsoft applications because I have learned from experience 
of both that they are seldom the best tools for the purpose in hand. 
If Microsoft is allowed to extend their monopoly position it will 
have a great effect in limiting my own choices in software and what 
I am able to do with it. Microsoft were guilty of taking a 
competitor`s product, Sun`s Java, and changing it to make it 
proprietary to Microsoft. I am still suffering from the effects of 
this.
    For example: I use on-line banking services, accessing my 
accounts from my computer. However, I am often barred from doing so 
unless I use specifically Microsoft operating systems and software. 
The only reason for this is that access has been blocked 
deliberately for non-Microsoft users. My bank, my Visa card supplier 
and others, operate similar secure services but on open-source 
applications and operating systems instead of Microsoft programs. 
They are able to be accessed from any computer that can use the 
Internet.
    Another example is where the UK Government used to run its on-
line services on open-source operating systems, at that time I had 
full access to the services. Microsoft was contracted to improve the 
services and since then they are only available to computers running 
Microsoft operating systems and applications. This has prevented me 
from using the facilities I used to have, to pay taxes and such like 
over the Internet. Microsoft have been found guilty of maintaining a 
monopoly yet the proposed settlement does little to correct the 
situation. Microsoft will not suffer in any way for their guilt and 
will themselves supply the controllers to prevent future 
transgressions. Already their proposed settlement of other 
cases_by donating software and computers to 
schools_seems deliberately designed to extend their monopoly 
into an area where, so far, they have not gained an overwhelming 
control, by damaging their biggest rival, Apple Computer.
    I respectfully suggest that Microsoft have no intention of 
following the instructions of the court unless it has a beneficial 
effect for Microsoft. The penalties imposed should curb their 
behaviour and punish them for their past mis-behaviour. At the very 
least the settlement should contain the following three elements.
    1. Microsoft be prevented from insisting that computer 
manufacturers must sell computers with Microsoft operating systems 
or only Microsoft products. This will allow computer manufacturers 
to supply computers with or without Microsoft operating systems with 
no fear of losing their licence to sell Microsoft products. In 
addition they should be able to place whatever other applications on 
the computers and make any icons or links to those applications 
appear on the computer`s desktop at start-up time and to open as the 
default application in preference to Microsoft`s.
    2. Microsoft`s present and future document file formats be made 
public, so that documents created in Microsoft applications may be 
read by programs from other makers, whether on Microsoft`s or other 
operating systems. This is in addition to publishing Microsoft`s 
Windows application program interface so that other authors will be 
able to write applications for Microsoft operating systems.
    3 All Microsoft networking protocols should be published in full 
to prevent Microsoft from extending their control of the Internet 
and that and programming instructions be removed that prevent other 
operating systems from accessing applications running on Microsoft 
servers and applications.
    MARK TENNENT



MTC-00004444

From: John Zukowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to send a note that I feel the proposed settlement 
will not prevent Microsoft from further monopolizing the desktop 
computer arena. The proposed alternatives from the holdout states 
(mine includes / Mass.) provides, in my opinion, better remedies.
    John Zukowski



MTC-00004445

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:02am
Subject: (no subject)
    Dear Sirs,
    Between the Justice Department and Mr. Greenspan, those of us 
who are retirees are really having a difficult time.
    Settle this suit, those states who are unwilling to settle are 
not helping me, the hunt and pick user, but those companies who have 
just not gotten the message. Use the KISS system, you know, keep it 
simple, stupid. There are plenty of systems for those companies that 
use this commercially, but for me I need the Windows and Word 
programs provided by Mircrosoft, so please, for my use and my pocket 
book. Put an end to this thing. I have felt from the beginning that 
the Justice Department was not interested in those who use the 
Mircosoft systems, but in those local companies who had been setting 
on their hands too long and the market had passed them by.
    Thank you.
    Anna C. Maier-Sugg



MTC-00004447

From: Duncan Holley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing this letter as a response to the 
`penalty' that Microsoft Corporation is to receive in 
the proposed settlement of their anti-trust violation case. As a 
professional in the IT industry, I come into contact with Microsoft 
products, and those of their competitors, every day, and I feel that 
through this experience, I am qualified to comment on the issue at 
hand.
    Microsoft has already been found quilty in this case, and 
therefore, I will not discuss here the issue of their market place 
dominance, or the practices which brought the courts to this 
decision. However, I look at the proposed settlement and find myself 
asking several questions:
    1) Why a settlement. Traditionally, are not settlements reserved 
for out of court decisions, reached before a defendant is found 
guilty of a crime? Why should a defendant have any right to 
influence his or her own sentence, after he or she has been

[[Page 24508]]

found guilty? Seemingly, this is the duty of the judge or jury, and 
not of the defendant. In light of this, I propose that Microsoft 
have no further input into the outcome of this case, beyond that of 
this public forum, which they are as entitled as the rest of us to 
partake in.
    2) If a settlement, why this one? While on the surface, the 
support for financially challenged children is a noble ideal, it 
simply does not address this issues that are brought up in this 
case, nor remotely punish Microsoft for their illegal activities. In 
a statement released earlier in the week, Microsoft reacted with 
venom to the idea that the nine states which still pursue the case 
against them were attempting to punish the company. Forgive me if I 
am incorrect here, but isn`t that what we are supposed to do with 
those that break the law, punish them? Below are the flaws I see in 
the current settlement, please review them at your liesure.
    * Microsoft`s competitors are in no way compensated for the 
damage the Micorsoft`s abuse of monopoly powers has caused. While I 
understand the reality that each of these competitors would benefit 
only mildly from a financial perspective, isn`t it up to those 
bodies to decide how the money should be spent, not Micorsoft? 
Additionally, the sheer volume of parties damaged by Microsoft`s 
illegal activity is what would make each individual settlement so 
small. It seems to me that this implies Microsoft has hurt too many 
parties too be punished so lightly.
    * Microsoft stands to Gain More Marketshare from this action. 
They will provide their equipment to school children, therefore 
increasing their marketshare. Even if they pay a small fee here, 
they will recoup it in the future, as these children will become 
accustomed to working with Microsoft equipment, and be more likely 
to use it in the future. This means that the settlement is a tool 
for Microsoft to Further Enhance It`s Monopoly.
    * If my understanding is correct, Microsoft stands to MAKE MONEY 
on the settlement. The production costs on a Windows CD are likely 
no more than a dollar each. If they are allowed to treat this 
penalty as a charitable donation, they will actually return more 
money in tax benefits than they spend in production costs.
    In short, I hardly see how a settlement in which the Guilty 
party is not responsable to those it has injured, is given a tool to 
further perpetuate it`s crime in the future, and even makes the 
perpetrator a few dollars on the side, is in any way a penalty for 
the great disregard Microsoft has shown for the law, the government, 
and the American consumer. The administration has set as a goal that 
this issue be finished in a final way, that it not reoccur, and we 
do not see Microsoft back in court every five years. The way to do 
this is to actually penalize them. By rewarding them, we are 
incouraging these individuals to not only continue to break the law, 
but to get it brought back to court. It seems to help their 
business. Remember, the last time they were found guilty of an anti-
trust violation, they ignored the penalties put against them. It 
seems this time a more serious punishment is in order.
    And if you simply must make them give one billion to the 
schools, just make it in cash, and say that no one is allowed to buy 
Microsoft software or hardware with that money. Apple, Sun, and 
Linux systems are all viable alternatives, and, as a member of the 
IT community, it is my experience that learning UNIX skills will 
make an individual at least as employable as learning Windows 
(Windows is so dominant in the home market, that those of us with 
UNIX skills are rare) and this will benefit those kids as well.
    Sincerely,
    Duncan H. Holley
    9451 Lee Hwy #304
    Fairfax, VA. 22031



MTC-00004451

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
__Original Message__
From: `rj friedman' 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:56 PM
Subject: MS Settlement is Unacceptable
    As a concerned US citizen living abroad, I wanted to write to 
let you know that I am extremely disturbed at the proposed terms of 
settlement that the US Dept. of Justice has agreed to with 
Microsoft.
    Given Microsoft`s past history of manuevering around their 
supposedly binding agreements; given the huge number of loopholes in 
the proposed agreement; given the overall weakness of the remedies 
in relation to the crime; it would make a mockery of all the time, 
effort, and money that went into the proceedings to date, to accept 
those terms.
    I appreciate the stand that West Virginia has taken to this 
point, and would like to STRONGLY urge the Attorney General to 
continue holding out for a more just and more meaningful remedy.
    RJ Friedman



MTC-00004452

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
__Original Message__
From: `George Wagner' 

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: More on the Microsoft settlement
    After reading more on the Microsoft settlement, I am even more 
concerned. While the point of this was to reduce or eliminate 
Microsoft`s use of their monopoly to expand its markets, the 
settlement forces them to do just that. It has Microsoft providing 
hardware, software, and training for schools. While I am all for 
helping out schools, all this does is increase Microsoft`s 
marketshare, and in the long run makes them more money than it costs 
through upgrades and replacements. Providing straight funding with 
no strings attached would allow the schools to use the funds for 
whatever the SCHOOL decides is needed.
    Additionally, the settlement doesn`t appear to address any of 
Microsoft`s new markets such as Internet transactions, Microsoft 
could be paid a fee for every transaction made with the computer. 
This could be huge. In addition, their software license agreement 
borders on a protection racket, dealing with the software as more of 
a lease than a purchase.
    Microsoft`s foray into the game console`s is another example 
where their sheer force has made them a contender in a market where 
they have had no reputation. Had it not been for their monopoly, 
there would have only been moderate interest until the product 
actually hit the market.
    There are other examples, but I am sure that you get the idea, 
and I hope that you are able to do something about it.
    George Wagner



MTC-00004453

From: rsobba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I believe Microsoft is running an illegal monopoly and believe 
the would will greatly benefit from a competitive market (which is 
currently not the case.) Please let me know if I can do any thing to 
help this cause, i.e. petition, e-mail, letters...etc.
    Sincerely
    Rick Sobba
    7739 Fontana
    Prairie Village, KS. 66208



MTC-00004454

From: jda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to express my profound disagreement with the 
settlement of the Microsoft monopoly case proposed by the US 
government. The proposed remedy has little teeth, and the 
`penalty' is actually a prescription for extending the 
monopoly into the sphere of education. The proposal put forward by 
the dissenting States is better. In particular, Microsoft must be 
obliged to provide its de facto monopoly software (Office) on other 
(non-Windows) platforms, in particular the MacOS and Linux. 
Furthermore, if Microsoft is to donate resources to poor schools, it 
should be in the form of cash, not refurbished (obsolete) computers 
and their own software_these will inevitably have the 
paradoxical effect of furthering Microsoft`s presence one of the few 
arenas in which it does not already enjoy a monopoly. If the 
reimbursemet was only in the form of money, Microsoft would have to 
compete on an equal footing with other platforms/vendors who provide 
technology for the classroom. That is, they will have to earn their 
way in (like the other vendors) with out an unfair advantage.
    The proposal, as it stands, is an obvious and cynical maneuver 
by Microsoft to further its monopoly status at little actual cost to 
itself. It should be soundly rejected.
    Jonathan Ashwell
    8903 Seneca Lane
    Bethesda, MD 20817



MTC-00004455

From: Chris nelson

[[Page 24509]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am very disturbed at the prospect of the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft anti-trust action going into effect. In my work as 
an aerospace engineer I am exposed to the negative effects of the 
Microsoft monopoly on a daily basis. The hassle caused by 
substandard software quality, incompatible interfaces, poor 
security, and undocumented formats is a present reality, not a 
theoretical abstraction, for me. I had hoped that, after all the 
time and money spent pursuing the case, after having convicted 
Microsoft of illegally maintaining their monopoly, and after the 
conviction had been sustained by the appeals court, that Microsoft 
would actually be facing punishment for its misdeeds. Instead, the 
current settlement would seem to set the fox in charge of guarding 
the coop, with the promise that he won`t take any more chickens- 
unless he decides that he really needs to. How does this settlement 
even pretend to penalize Microsoft for the things they have been 
convicted of doing? In many ways, it would appear that this 
settlement actually improves Microsoft`s position as a monopoly.
    In my opinion, a just settlement (one designed to limit 
Microsoft`s ability to repeat its misdeeds) should include:
    1) Microsoft`s operating system API should be released to the 
public. Not just some of it, but all of it- especially the parts 
dealing with security. How is one to write a secure program in a 
Windows environment if Microsoft is obfuscating the API? Further, 
this release should truly be made to the public, not just to the 
companies that Microsoft deems significant enough to warrant it.
    2) Microsoft`s document formats should be made public (as above, 
I mean by this `released to anyone who is interested'). 
This would allow competitors to write products which can seamlessly 
access documents produced in Microsoft applications and restore 
much-needed competition in this area (which is one of the prime 
leverage points that Microsoft uses to preserve its monopoly).
    3) Microsoft software should be prohibited from being bundled 
with hardware purchases. While one would not want to stop people 
from buying their products at the same time that they purchase a 
computer, they should be a separate line item with a price tag 
attached to it. In this fashion, the myth that Microsoft operating 
systems come `free' with a computer would be dispelled, 
and, if the price was not right, then people would be able to 
evaluate other alternatives. In addition, those who never wanted to 
buy a Microsoft product with their new system would not be forced to 
pay the so-called `Microsoft Tax' as they usually are 
now.
    4) Microsoft should be required to make it`s operating system 
available to hardware manufacturers and resellers according to an 
openly published price schedule with uniform terms and conditions 
and a common date of availability. This would prevent recurrence of 
the blackmail strategies in which Microsoft withheld an operating 
system from a vendor (or made it available at a significantly higher 
price than competitors were paying) until the vendor complied with 
Microsoft`s demands regarding competing products.
    A settlement with the above points would truly work toward the 
elimination of the stranglehold currently held by Microsoft in the 
arena of operating system and office productivity software. 
Accomplishing this would, in the end, benefit everyone in the nation 
as competition resulted in better products at lower prices. Indeed, 
virtually the entire world would benefit from it.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Chris Nelson
    Chris Nelson
    [email protected]
    931-454-6696
    Home address:
    431 Campfire Dr
    Murfreesboro TN 37129



MTC-00004456

From: Julie Rubenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:01pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    I wish to offer my comment on settlement of the Microsoft case 
and important lingering issues I believe will still haunt Windows 
users, a group which pretty much equates to the general public at 
this point in our technological development.
    I am a trained attorney, with basic education in antitrust law 
and a 25 year career in the public policy arena, currently working 
in the field for a United States Senator. It`s been my observation 
as an early (1993) user of the Internet and a lifelong devotee of 
the Macintosh operating system, that Microsoft has pulled out every 
stop, at every opportunity, to prey upon its own customers 
throughout the distribution network as well as upon the end user 
market. I applauded the government`s pursuit of this case and the 
excellent work Joel Klein performed on its behalf. Settling out at 
this point is a capitulation of important principles that will 
reverberate for many years to come, to the shame of this 
Administration. Is this the legacy you want to leave?
    Further, I have grave concerns about allowing this monopoly to 
continue its overwhelming market dominance in this new era of 
terrorist threats, dangerous computer hackers and the possibility of 
network communications breakdowns. Reliance on a single operating 
system makes each and every one of us that much more vulnerable to 
this type of attack, so all the more reason to foster, not dampen, 
competition in this industry.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Julie Rubenstein
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004457

From: Brian Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well, I must that I have a mixed reaction to the proposed 
`settlement'. First off, just from a philosophical point 
of view, I can understand Micrsoft`s contention that the added 
functionality provided was simply giving the end user more for their 
dollar.
    And I must also say that much of this litigation has sounded 
like propped up `sour grapes' from Mr Barksdale and 
Netscape, however, there are other issues which this litigation 
didn`t even attempt to address which is quite simply,
    `How did Microsoft`s behavior in obtaining exclusive 
contracts to access points, web server services, and by contracting 
with numerous supposedly independent Internet Service Providers 
affect the access market?'
    Much of the debate has centered around whether Microsoft`s 
integration of additional software functionality was a violation of 
the Law, however you folks don`t see the true strategy behind 
Microsoft`s latest initiative.
    You seem to believe that they don`t care how the people connect, 
they simply want to be able to control the market once they do. And 
since there are numerous access `players' in the market, 
everything must be honky dorey.
    I think if you did a little more `investigative' 
work instead of spending your time juggling through mounds of 
paperwork, you`d understand the true `intentions' of 
this corporation. Anybody even tangentially involved in this 
industry sees it as plain as day, unless they`ve been too befuddled 
by their overreliance on a single application.
    They, meaning Microsoft, don`t mind the antitrust ruling at all, 
since it still allows them to be probably the largest player in the 
access business. And access in combination with the leasing of Ware 
products, not HOME INSTALLED SOFTWARE, is what it`s going to be all 
about in the coming years folks.
    Sure they`ll sell their lion`s share of standalone Office 
products, but office has competitors. With Microsoft`s Cash 
reserves, and their ability to institute the forthcoming 
`passport' system, their jewel has slipped right under 
your eyes folks.
    They will argue there are thousands of Independent Access 
Providers, however, Microsoft is now poised not only to dominate the 
desktop but to dominate the very market which we all foolishly 
thought would be a free, more open way of doing business, the 
Internet itself and how people connect with each other.
    But if you want my opinion on the case before the court, this 
seems like a bunch of litigation over whether Netscape is better 
than IE. So since it`s simply a squabble between two companies who 
both were given access to the Public Markets in the form of Stock 
Issues, warrants and the rest, there won`t be much sympathy in the 
end user community for either player.
    The question actually centers on this, `Why shouldn`t 
Microsoft be allowed to extend their product beyond the traditional 
sit at home and type on the computer realm?' Why shouldn`t 
Microsoft be able to compete for the very market that their desktop 
systems helped to create, almost by mistake.? I don`t think even 
years ago the computer industry realized how big a market to the 
home user, independent internet `access' would be.

[[Page 24510]]

    So not only will Microsoft control the method of displaying web 
pages, via ISS, and their rolling out versions of ASP and .NET, but 
they will also be able to track every single consumer in the form of 
either their passport system or through acquisitions such as Hotmail 
and other services. Microsoft is probably the least concerned with 
end user privacy of any company in the market. They print out nice 
little privacy policies and the rest but behind the scenes I think 
we all know what they`re going after.
    I don`t know if it`s exactly the `freedom to 
innovate' scenario Bill likes to describe, but I`d be more 
concerned with Microsoft`s behavior in dealing with the actual 
access points including the telecommunications providers, backbone 
providers (UUNet), Qwest, etc etc, then I would be with Microsoft`s 
dealings when it comes to simply producing standalone applications 
like Office and IE.
    Because we all know, unless we`re floating around in some sort 
of self induced trance, that the Bottleneck is where it`s going , 
not the standalone `blip blip blip' of typing your self 
printed flyer for your local yard sale.
    I applaud the DOJ`s efforts, but I must say folks that in some 
respects, you missed the boat. Microsoft will go on, and they will 
be stronger than ever. Nice try though, who could expect a 
bureaucratic organization like the DOJ to actually have any clue 
about what`s really going on besides typing complaints with 
footnotes on their Microsoft Word desktops provided by Michael 
Dell.`



MTC-00004458

From: Cadet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:11pm
Subject: justice
    Dear DOJ,
    Please do not let microsoft decide it`s own punishment. They are 
a company with a total disregard for the law and the justice 
department. They have bullied and strong armed the industry to their 
advantage. They do not promote innovation, they ether aquire it or 
destroy it. They cannot compete evenly on the merit of their 
products, so they use anti competitive tactics to compensate. 
Punishment should be harsh and final!!
    Thank you for you`re attention,
    Christian Manasse
    971 E Monterey St.
    Chandler, AZ. 85225



MTC-00004459

From: Quinn Perkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    I strongly urge the courts to reject the current settlement 
proposed by Microsoft. The only way to repair the damage Microsoft 
has done to the software industry over the past five years is to 
implement the following:
    1) Require Microsoft to continue development of Office and 
Internet Explorer at an acceptably high level for the Macintosh 
operating system. Apple cannot fairly compete with Microsoft because 
they hold development on the Mac platform for these two key areas 
over Apple`s head.
    2) Prevent Microsoft from pressuring PC manufacturers to include 
their Windows operating system, Internet Explorer browser and 
Windows Media Player multimedia device. To allow for fair 
competition, buyers of PCs should have options available to them.
    3) Prevent Microsoft from forcing their ISP partners (such as 
Qwest Communications) from restricting use of operating system, 
browser or media player. If one wants DSL in Denver, one has to be 
on a Windows PC, using Internet Explorer if they deal with Qwest.
    There will not be a second opportunity to remedy this situation. 
The political courage needs to be found to reign in Microsoft and 
restore competition and consumer choice to the computer and software 
industries.
    Quinn Perkins
    10309 West Fair Ave #C
    Littleton, CO 80127



MTC-00004460

From: Bruce Moore
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a joke. It will allow Microsoft to keep its 
monopoly with HUGE barriers to entry into the software OS industry. 
This settlement has so many loopholes I`m suprised that the 
Department of Justice just asked for a Congressional bill that would 
grant a monopoly and give them all the power they want to 
continually break the anti-trust laws of the United States.
    This settlement isn`t even a slap on the wrist, more like a 
handshake and a pat on the back telling them `hey don`t worry 
the nations economy and the approval rating for the Bush 
administration is more important than law.
    Bruce Moore
    Web Programmer
    Quickdinero Inc.



MTC-00004461

From: Tristan Ishtar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am upset that the government is apparently letting Microsoft 
off the hook in this antitrust case. While I`m glad that Microsoft 
is not being broken up (just look at what that did for the telephone 
industry!), I feel that there needs to be an actual punishment 
imposed and mechanisms put in place to prevent Microsoft from owning 
the internet and the software industry.
    Competition is good for any industry. Please make sure that 
Microsoft gets spanked for past infractions and prevented from 
committing future ones.
    Thank you,
    Tristan Ishtar
    Orlando, FL



MTC-00004462

From: Wenger, John R
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata 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, I remind the judge, 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. 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.
    Also, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has 
pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually poses a 
national security risk.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Jack Wenger, IS Mid-Tier Administrator
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
    `Black holes are where God divided by zero.'
    Albert Einstein



MTC-00004463

From: tkj
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:22pm
Subject: Please dont let MS off the hook!
    Dear Members of US Government, the Litigation Team, and those of 
the various States of these United States of America.
    It would represent a serious travesty of justice and would 
represent terrible policy were Microsoft Corp. be allowed such a 
meaningless and insulting end to this matter.
    Microsoft`s greed, furthered by its proved arrogance and 
disregard for any concept of fairness in the American business 
world, must not be rewarded. Many millions of our citizens have been 
harmed by Microsoft. Products famous for promulgating insecurity and 
all sorts of vulnerabilities to our institutions have been forced 
down the throat of the buying public which, in its innocence, 
carries the MS banner aloft, unwittingly betraying basic tenents of 
fairness that have helped make our country great.

[[Page 24511]]

    Of all possible influences for good that can befall a nation, it 
is the IDEA of `fair play` that is at the heart of our 
freedoms, our willingness to defend our way of life with our lives, 
and our confidence that we`re doing the right thing for our 
children.
    Do not let the harm done by this company go rewarded by such 
weak and unenforceable terms of the proposed agreement.
    jon anderson, md
    32 school st
    northampton, ma. 01060



MTC-00004464

From: Thomas W. Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:28pm
Subject: Bad settlement
    To the lay person it was clear that Microsoft was a monopoly. 
The findings of fact determined that Microsoft was a monopoly. The 
trial demonstrated Microsoft`s propensity to deceive, manipulate and 
otherwise try to unfairly use the judicial and legislative system in 
their favor. The proposed settlement does not do nearly enough to 
protect the consumer and Microsoft competitors from their unlawful 
acts. It does not adequately punish Microsoft for their previous and 
continuing bad behavior.
    The present settlement should be rejected. We need stronger 
remedies.
    Tom Carr
    Professor of Mathematics
    Dallas, TX



MTC-00004465

From: George Chamales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:32pm
Subject: A humorous look at the world ahead.
    I`m sending you this e-mail from 2021_40 years after IBM 
released its first personal computer_in a last attempt to 
prevent the mistakes in computer development that put civilization 
in jeopardy... Not everything is awful. Some things are just, well, 
weird. For instance, Apple Computer continues to do well, but not 
for its stockholders. The company gained tax-exempt status as a 
religion in 2015. Authorities were convinced the designation was 
appropriate after many users took to flagellating themselves in 
public when Steve Jobs failed to make any significant new-product 
announcements at Macworld in Boston. Apple evangelists have become 
common in shopping malls and airports. The cult tends to attract 
very nice people, and they`ve managed to integrate into society 
quite well. The rest of us simply avoid talking about technology 
around them lest we get flooded with irate e-mail.
    Bill Gates has been barricaded for the last two years in a vast 
subterranean bunker, along with a core group of true believers from 
the old Microsoft Corp.
    Gates and his minions literally went underground in 2019 after 
the Supreme Court ruled against the company for the 1,249th time in 
the antitrust case that began in 1997. Authorities gave up trying to 
extract them after concluding that cracking open the bunker might 
hurt the people inside, who technically weren`t criminals because 
they`d never actually been charged. Various philanthropic groups 
tried to `deprogram' followers of the man who once 
headed Microsoft and entice them out of the bunker. But the would-be 
rescuers were usually met with derisive laughter. The Microserfs 
said they`d only emerge from their shelter if the humanitarians 
correctly answered three riddles.
    One group, having craftily recruited a team of Linux 
programmers, was able to pass the test. But those inside insisted 
that the Linux folks must have cheated and thereafter refused to 
respond to any more entreaties from the outside.
    The only reason we know they`re still alive down there is the 
frequent issuing of news releases, such as the one yesterday 
declaring that Microsoft takes security very seriously. In recent 
weeks, the releases have sometimes taken on a more plaintive tone, 
offering bug fixes for Windows Uber Grande users in exchange for a 
case of Malomars.
    But the problem relating to the licensing system Microsoft 
established remains. Some years ago, the company stopped selling 
software outright and instead set up a subscription-based system. 
Users paid a fee, just like the cable bill and got to use a 
Microsoft operating system or Microsoft software, like the Office 
suite.
    As a result, when Microsoft decided to issue an upgrade, we all 
upgraded pretty much simultaneously because the company eventually 
would cut off access to the older software. It wasn`t too long 
before everybody, everywhere, was running exactly the same thing.
    This had some great advantages. Computers got a lot simpler and 
more reliable because they didn`t have to be quite as flexible. 
Things such as technical support and interoperability issues largely 
disappeared. All our appliances pretty much run on a stripped-down 
version of the Microsoft operating system, everything from the 
microwave oven to the thermostat. The problem is, because everything 
runs the same operating system_even my electric 
shaver_once somebody discovers a security flaw, it can bring 
down our computers. All the computers. All over the world. In some 
places, the power is on for only a couple of hours a day now. It`s 
not safe to drive because the traffic lights can`t be trusted. 
Torch-bearing mobs occasionally break into the homes of known 
technologists and . . . well, let`s just say we`re starting to run 
low on people who can fix things. We`re on the brink of disaster, 
akin to the great corn blight of 2012. Then, all commercially 
planted corn had been made genetically identical, which produced 
spectacular yields. But when a new disease infected a crop in a 
small field in Iowa, it ripped through all the corn around the world 
because none of the plants had any resistance to the blight. God, 
what I wouldn`t give to taste Frosted Flakes again. This story can 
be found at: http://www.dickypimpkins.com/article.php`sid=34
    Thanks for your time,
    George Chamales
    College Student majoring in Electrical Engineering.



MTC-00004466

From: Stephen Putman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I wish to take advantage of the Tunney Act public comment period 
to express my sincere disappointment with the settlement reached 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation in the 
antitrust matter currently being litigated.
    I am a Senior Consultant with a major software company, 
frequently implementing solutions using Microsoft software. I also 
possess a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics with a 
concentration in Antitrust Policy. With this combination of 
experience, I have been following the progress of this case with 
great interest.
    Microsoft has shown all of the classic behavior traits of an 
abusive monopolist throughout its corporate history. They have 
routinely intimidated competitors, kept prices artificially high in 
relation to other portions of the computer industry, and restricted 
innovation in the overall computer industry. They also do not have 
the incentive to correct major design flaws in their products 
because of lack of competition brought on by their monopoly 
position. This results in a computer industry that frustrates most 
people who use the machines I spend a good portion of my days 
explaining problems inherent in their systems and often times having 
no good answers.
    During the course of the current litigation, the behavior of 
Microsoft was proven to be anti-competitive. Even though the 
original remedy for their transgressions was overturned on appeal, 
the fundamental finding of monopoly power was not. The settlement 
that you have reached does not address this basic fact, based on 
antitrust precedent. In my mind, the best examples of proper 
remedies in a case like this are the Standard Oil case in the early 
1900s and the ATT case of 1984. In both cases, the abusive 
monopolist was split into multiple entities, and the result was more 
competition, better products, and lower prices for consumers. This 
settlement does not achieve anything close to this, which means the 
status quo is maintained, to the detriment of everyone concerned 
save one party Microsoft.
    Microsoft has made the argument that any remedy in addition to 
your settlement would be inefficient economically. In this, I agree 
additional items of remedy would make my occupation more difficult 
in the short run because integration of disparate software products 
is inherently difficult in the current evolutionary state of the 
computer software industry. However, the currently proposed 
settlement does not adequately address the proven behavior of the 
company, nor ensure that this behavior would not reoccur. One can 
only hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will see this and rule 
appropriately, which would include harsher penalties than you have 
proposed.
    I cannot help but think that the current political environment 
has contributed to the Departments desire to settle this matter in 
the way it has chosen to do so. It is quite unfortunate that the 
Department of Justice cannot rise above political expedience and 
pursue this matter to its logical conclusion,

[[Page 24512]]

protecting the interests of the public at large instead of the 
interests of a major corporation. But, based on the actions of the 
Department in other areas recently, I cannot say I am surprised. I 
fully expect this criticism to be sent to the electronic trash bin, 
after my name is added to the Departments Treason list for speaking 
out against your performance in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen J. Putman
    Antelope, CA



MTC-00004467

From: Steve Rudeseal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Requiring that Microsoft donate software to schools does nothing 
to remedy their illegal business practices. What it does in fact, is 
allow Microsoft an unfair advantage in a market in where Apple is 
competing successfully. 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 through both 
legal and illegal means. Therefor, 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 business 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 web 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 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 
playing field. This solution would not require Microsoft to open up 
its source code, but it would ensure interoperability with 
competitors products.
    Steve L. Rudeseal
    System Administrator
    TraceAnalysis, Inc.
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00004468

From: Kevin Colussi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:41pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    To Whom it may concern:
    I`m writing on behalf of the proposed settlement of the U.S. v. 
Microsoft case. I do not agree with the decision and would only 
agree with the decision if the following were included in the 
settlement.
_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.
    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, 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, 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.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Colussi
    3711 Rock Haven Dr.
    Greensboro, NC 27410



MTC-00004469

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:45pm
Subject: Argument against the Consent Decree
    As a member of the computer industry, I am very familiar with 
the adverse effects of Microsoft`s monopoly. Contrary to the 
statements of the US Department of Justice in its impact statement 
discussing the Consent Decree, the remedies settlement embodied in 
the Consent Decree fails to achieve the ends mandated by the Court 
for the following reasons:
_it fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its statuatory 
violations,
_it fails to ensure that competition is likely to result,
_it was an agreement reached for the purpose of expediency, 
not for ensuring an adequate remedy and,
_it establishes an untenable precedent for future antitrust 
cases.
    The Federal Government has already found Microsoft in violation, 
but this 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 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.
    If the national interest is at issue, as the judge has 
suggested, we must stop the growth of Microsoft`s operating system 
monopoly. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has 
pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually poses a 
national security risk.
    This case is of great importance not only to national security, 
but to the US economy and future competitiveness of US industry. We 
must take the time to craft a careful and deliberate remedy for the 
sake of our nation`s health.
    Sincerely,
    David Michael Wuertele
    Palo Alto, CA



MTC-00004470

From: Joseph Blough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider this settlement in the Microsoft (MS) 
antitrust case. The settlement (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/
trial/nov01/11-02settlement.asp) in no way prohibits MS from 
using predatory practices against competitors or consumers since 
there are huge loop holes that MS can (and will) use. A good 
analysis of one such hole can be found here http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?1tsn=2001-11-06-005-20
-OP-MS.

[[Page 24513]]

    The Christain Science Monitor went so far as to call Windows XP 
a `tourist trap' where they suck you into using nothing 
but their software with their proprietary file formats. This is 
surely not the behavior of a company that plans to make amends and 
compete fairly with its competitors. As a linux user, I have seen 
how many options a user can have as far as computer operating 
systems (OS), software, and file formats. Microsoft seeks to remove 
these options through OEM agreements/arm-twisting hidden behind a 
`trade secrets' tag. The internet is a OS non-specific 
and browser non-specific medium, but MS is even taking that away. 
Windows XP heavily pushes you toward MSN in an attempt to overtake 
their latest competitor AOL. Personally, I use a local Internet 
Service Provider (ISP), but soon I`m sure MS will make it 
unprofitable to be a small time local ISP.
    Consider this recession and how so many smaller computer 
software companies have had to close their doors. The main reason 
that many of these software companies remain small is that most of 
the money in the computing industry ends up in Redmond. Other 
companies only hope is to be bought by MS. MS monopoly eats into the 
revenue of practically every aspect of the computing industry (OS, 
ISP, office productivity, hardware, and now even console video 
games). These smaller companies can grow and hire more employees if 
only they have the assurance that MS is not able to use it`s 
monopoly to destroy the smaller company.
    Please, in the interests of protecting the consumer, do NOT 
accept that settlement. It will lead to unprecedented abuses by MS 
resulting in the loss of choices for many computer users. Many users 
do not even realize that they have a choice thanks to MS`s past (and 
ongoing) strategies.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00004471

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Following are my comments for the public record regarding the 
Microsoft settlement.
    Microsoft code should be made public to such an extent that 
programmers can write topnotch programs that are fully compatible 
with Windows. They should also be required to release such code that 
allows other programs to interface with their operating system so as 
to allow easy file translation between different programs such as 
word processing, spread sheets.
    Their internet activities and code should be sufficiently open 
so that they cannot gain control of the net via their operating 
system through required registrations etc. Programs to make their 
browser Java compatible should be provided in the operating system 
as readily available and visible option to allow consumers to 
install the necessary code for cross compatibility. Kid`s programs 
should remain compatible with Windows and Macintosh. Microsoft 
should be required to continue making Macintosh specific Microsoft 
Office programs available on a regular basis.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to extend the reach of their 
operating system via `giveaways' in the public school 
system. If there is such a program it should be in cash with no 
strings attached as to where the money is spent on computers and 
software and the amount should be larger than currently indicated.
    They should be prohibited from engaging in tactics that 
intimidate or enter into deals that require/allow programmers/
companies from publishing competing software.



MTC-00004472

From: Brian Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:53pm
Subject: P.P.S
    Oh and by the way, I use Microsoft products because I simply 
think they are in every way shape and form superior to competitors 
products offered currently, so don`t think I`m just a mindless 
Microsoft basher with an Interior decorator who thinks Linux is just 
the COOLEST. . . Not.
    Microsoft kicks butt, that`s why people buy their stuff, so 
let`s move along now folks and get on to the 21st century.
    I`m just concerned over how little the general public actually 
understands about how these companies actually operate, but who am I 
but another senseless user behind a keyboard with a satellite dish.
    God Bless the USA!



MTC-00004473

From: Fidel Davila
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Comments
    I am writing to state my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
anti-trust settlement. In general, the proposed settlement does 
little to change the underlying monopolistic practices of Microsoft 
Corporation. First, history has shown that monopolies must be broken 
up into several entities OR become regulated if they are to stay as 
single units. Standard Oil and AT&T are just two situations that 
prove that break-up of monopolies lead to future increased 
competition and better services for the US public. And, investors in 
these companies ended up in better economic positions. Barring 
break-up, strict regulatory control like AT&T before its break-
up is required to control the monopoly. The proposed Microsoft 
settlement does not break-up the company to increase competition nor 
provide sufficient regulation to prevent continued monopolistic 
practices.
    Second, controlling Microsoft in current monopolistic areas will 
not prevent Microsoft from using their monopoly to control other 
areas of the digital realm. Microsoft wants to monoplize the PDA 
arena with its Pocket Windows system, television recording with its 
Ultimate TV, digital game boxes with their X-boxes, and regular 
television through set top box software being developed. They will 
use the same tactics used in gaining monopolies in web browsers and 
multi-media players to dominate these other areas. So, limiting 
Microsoft`s monopolistic practices in some desktop operating systems 
and extensions areas will do nothing to control them from acquiring 
monopolies in these other areas noted.
    Microsoft`s distain for the US anti-monopoly laws and 
unrepentant attitude revealed itself in Microsoft`s initial proposed 
settlement with the nine states that opted out of the Federal 
settlement. Their proposed settlement actually would have increased 
their monopoly into the educational area_one of the few areas 
they do not monopolize. Their arrogance at using a anti-monopoly 
settlement to extend their monopoly is incredible. The current 
proposed settlement does nothing to change this arrogance.
    In summary, Microsoft`s problem is one of attitude and 
processes. The current settlement does limit these marginally in the 
areas where Microsoft currently has monopolies but does nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from gaining monopolies in other areas of the 
digital realm. So, Microsoft keeps their current monopolies and is 
allowed to gain monopolies in other areas. Where do we_the 
general public_win? Given the current distaste for regulatory 
control of businesses, the only credible action is the break-up of 
MicroSoft into multiple entities. These would be at a minimum: a) an 
operating/server systems unit, b) applicants unit and c) multi-media 
unit. Then and only then will Microsoft units be in positions to 
cooperate with others to compete. With competition, the public will 
win!
    Fidel Davila
    5909 Edinburgh Drive
    Plano, Texas 75092
    972-378-9996



MTC-00004474

From: Ernie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 12:55pm
Subject: microsoft anti trust trial
    Hello,
    I was recently informed by a news web site I frequently visit 
that public comments were now being taken about the Microsoft trial, 
and the punishments, if any, they will face. Although I realize one 
voice may be lost in the shouts of millions of others, I felt that I 
had to respond, to at least show my support for some sort of major 
punishment for Microsoft. I am a user of Free Software. I run Linux, 
and OpenBSD, both of which are Freely available, and Open, operating 
systems. Many people around the world use software like this, and I 
won`t bore you with the reasons. With Microsoft in control, free 
programs and operating systems such as the ones I use, and the many 
others in use around the world, will have a harder and harder time 
communicating with those who choose (or had chosen for them) 
Microsoft`s Windows Operating Systems.
    Microsoft has continually done things to promote anti-
competitive behavior. They have changed their networking protocols, 
their .DOC word file format, and even the format of their file 
system from release to release. Although there may be technical 
reasons behind their changes, you would never be able to get that 
information from them. All of this is showed in mystery, as is their 
right as a private company, and yet Windows and MS Office are the 
most widely used pieces of software around. Yet only Windows can 
read and write the doc format with 100% compatibility, forcing you 
to use

[[Page 24514]]

Office, and a Windows based machine. If you want to network with 
Windows, you are forced to use their ever changing network 
protocols, and so on. It is with much doubt and trepidation I look 
forward to the coming months, and with it, Microsoft`s ultimate 
fate. I feel that punishments need to be put in place, punishments 
that will foster competition in the technical market, and allow 
Microsoft to no longer maintain the stranglehold they have now.
    At a minimum, I feel:
    Microsoft should have to publish the format of its Microsoft 
Office suite. This will allow open communications between users of 
differing operating systems, regardless of the program they use.
    OEM computer vendors should be allowed to change and modify the 
Windows desktop as they see fit, and Microsoft should no longer be 
allowed to `strong-arm' those vendors into installing, 
and only installing, its Windows operating system. Windows XP does 
not need to be any better or different than its predecessors for it 
to become to standard. New computers will simply come with it pre-
installed, and the consumer will not have a choice.
    Microsoft`s networking protocols must be published IN FULL, and 
approved by an independent body, such as the IETF. I have no problem 
with Microsoft also donating large sums of money to the poorer 
school system around the world, education is very important; But, to 
allow them to simply further their dominance by letting them flood 
the school systems with their own software is insane. That will 
simply increase their dominance, and the cost to them will be 
minimal. In fact, its really more of a benefit for them, than 
anything. They should simply donate cash, and let the schools have 
the choice that a consumer walking into his local computer store 
does not have (the choice of not getting a computer with Windows).
    I hope my comments will be taken seriously. Microsoft, which 
started as small as any company, has grown exponentially since. They 
seem to not represent the ideals that founded this country: 
Openness, fairness, and a willingness to cooperate. Ernie Cline



MTC-00004475

From: Eric Ries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the recent proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. As a member of the 
computer software industry, I am concerned about the precedent 
created by this proposed settlement. If it is the court`s ruling 
that Microsoft is in violation of relevant antitrust laws, then it 
is imperative that the penalty imposed be adequate to address those 
violations. The proposed settlement does nothing to reduce 
Microsoft`s monopoly power in any way. Furthermore, it sends the 
signal that Microsoft`s methods are acceptable_even 
necessary_for success in the software industry.
    Like many others, I am myself uncomfortable with excess 
government intervention in my industry. However, if government is to 
have a role, it should be a constructive one. I therefore would like 
to add my support to several other remedies being proposed by 
various scholars and industry experts. I feel that these remedies 
would be more effective at reducing Microsoft`s monopoly power, and 
be easier and simpler to implement, leaving less room for ambiguity. 
They are:
    1) De-coupling Microsoft software products from OEM computer 
hardware products. This would allow other companies to compete with 
Microsoft for the OEM markets in operating systems and office 
productivity software.
    2) Requiring that Microsoft allow other operating systems to 
have access to the hardware `boot loader' which controls 
which operating systems a computer may run. Microsoft has used both 
technical and legal means to shut out various competitors from 
access to this vital system component, most notably Be, Inc.
    3) Require Microsoft to publicize full details of all of their 
APIs, file formats, and network protocols. This would require 
Microsoft to go back to competing on the technical merits of its 
products.
    In any event, I urge the Department of Justice to reconsider its 
proposed settlement with Microsoft and replace it with something 
that is both less ambiguous, more appropriate as a remedy, and more 
comprehensive in its scope.
    Thank you for your time,
    Eric Ries
    950 Crane St #1
    Menlo Park, CA 94025



MTC-00004476

From: John Beidelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:16pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft_Public Comment in opposing 
settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement of the case U.S. v. Microsoft 
on these grounds:
    1. Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft maintains its 
dominant monopoly in operating systems and office applications 
software, contrary to sound public policy. This is the root of the 
problem. If you control the operating system, you control the 
desktop, the applications, the application programming interfaces 
(APIs), the network, and everything else that runs atop or in 
conjunction with the operating system. We`re talking about the crown 
jewels of the information age. I can`t believe that this nation 
could bust up the anti-competitive and illegal monopolies of 
Rockefeller and Morgan, but can`t come to grips with the challenge 
presented by Gates and Ballmer.
    2. The proposed penalty for Microsoft`s offenses pales in 
comparison to the additional market capitalization they achieved by 
their illegal and harmful conduct. (They got away with it!) Indeed, 
if they are allowed to pay this proposed paltry penalty with 
software (in lieu of cash) to needy schools, their marginal expense 
is negligible_and Microsoft succeeds in capturing a new market 
presently held by Apple Computer. This part of the proposed penalty 
is preposterous! I remind you that the purpose of a penalty is to 
penalize, not do further harm.
    3. By allowing Microsoft to `embrace and extend' 
internet standards and circumvent open APIs on the public internet, 
there is a real chance that the internet will become more and more 
inaccessible to those unable or unwilling to adopt Microsoft 
products and standards. This would be tyranny.
    For these reasons and others, I oppose the proposed settlement 
and urge the Department of Justice to remove it from the table. Any 
settlement should be a cash only settlement and should provide no 
clauses to enable Microsoft to strengthen its negotiating position 
in the marketplace.
    Respectfully yours,
    John D. Beidelman



MTC-00004477

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed by Microsoft appears to be reasonable, 
fair, and just. Let`s quit punishing success and put this ill-
concieved action against Microsoft to rest. Significant harm has 
already occurred to consumers as a result of this action through the 
curtailment of innovation and increase in cost. Enough is enough!
    Regards,
    Jerry Effenberger
    17511 32nd. Ave. N. E.
    Seattle, Wa. 98155



MTC-00004478

From: Steve Brewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:23pm
Subject: Proposed settlement unacceptable
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is unacceptable. The 
nature of the settlement itself is unacceptable because Microsoft 
has already shown that it does not believe its past behavior was a 
violation of law and it has consistently flouted consent decrees and 
rulings of the course in the past. There should be some remedy which 
actually reduces Microsoft`s potential to illegally extend their 
monopoly into other businesses. A consent decree seems unlikely to 
accomplish that.
    Furthermore, the language used provides loopholes for Microsoft 
to not release information to programmers working on open source and 
free software alternatives to microsoft software, especially with 
respect to file formats. Even if the consent decree were followed, 
it would give Microsoft new tools to fights its only serious 
competitors.
    Please reject this settlement and impose a remedy on Microsoft 
that will have the effect of actually limiting their ability to 
extend their monopoly into other businesses. Without such a remedy, 
it seems certain that we will be back in this same situation again 
soon.
    Steven D. Brewer 

[[Page 24515]]

    http://revo.ne.mediaone.net/ï¿½7Esbrewer/
    Ne lauxdu la tagon antaux vespero.



MTC-00004479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft
ATR,antitrust @ftc.gov @inetgw, Ralph@essen...
Date: 12/14/01 1:26pm
Subject: `How Much Do We Need To Pay You To Screw 
Netscape?'
    CC: letters@latimes. com@inetgw,letters@ 
sjmercury.com@i...
    Re: Bin Laden Tape Sparks Debate
    `This is your lucky day...according to profit Ronnie 
Reagan, peace be with him.'



MTC-00004480

From: Brad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement currently proposed by Microsoft does little to 
penalize them and potentially does a lot of harm by allowing them to 
extend their monopoly into education.
    Brad Brooks
    West Hills, Ca



MTC-00004481

From: Kevin Gryczan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:36pm
Subject: Public comment on MS v. DOJ Antitrust case
    I have been a user of Microsoft products since MS-DOS 6.2 
I know Microsoft has published quality software and should be 
allowed to continue doing so. What I disagree on is the marketing 
tactics that Microsoft has used to expand its business at the 
expense of third-party competition keeping a level playing field, 
particuarly in the area of office applications and suites. I feel 
that an appropriate punishment for Microsoft for its violation of 
anttrust law is the following:
    1: The proposed donation of computer equipment and software to 
poor school districts should be computer equipment purchased by 
Microsoft, with no software installed, and software being made 
available through grant money provided by Microsoft for the school 
districts to spend on software as they wish. School districts can 
then decide, with the help of IT professionals such as myself and 
others, which software packages and operating systems they can 
purchase and utilized on these donated computers.
    2: Any Microsoft proprietary document file formats should be 
made open, and developers should be allowed to have unrestricted 
access to software development kits to develop programs that can 
read from, write to, and modify these documents. With this clause as 
part of a final judgment, better quality software products, such as 
a version of Microsoft Outlook that contains very few security holes 
which can be exploited through the spread of e-mail 
`worm' viruses can be developed.
    3: Any standards and protocols that Microsoft has establshed 
while it was operating as a monopoly must be made open, with 
unrestricted access to developer kits and documentation for software 
and hardware developers wishing to utilize these standards and 
protocols. Again, this will level the playing field, with better 
quality products being developed by many manufacturers and 
developers.
    The real issue at hand here is how fair is it to the consumer to 
allow Microsoft to continue operating under their current business 
practices.
    Kevin Gryczan
    Software Technician
    InfoRad, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00004482

From: Sean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:36pm
Subject: Bad settlement Idea
    Hello,
    Having spent much of my career as an Information Systems 
professional dealing with Microsoft and it products, I have to add 
my voice to the multitudes that think your proposed settlement is a 
bad idea. I have seen many good products go out of existence because 
of their inability to maintain their user base after Microsoft has 
decided to compete. The worst part of it is this; the competing 
Microsoft product is not as good, is more expensive, and generally 
doesn`t play well with the other applications. It is impossible to 
get rid of, as it is `part of the operating system' or 
`is required to work with the Microsoft Server software' 
or some other tie in. Please do not take the offer settlement, it is 
to my detriment, and the detriment of all of those who make a living 
in the internet community.
    Thank you,
    Sean Flynn
    Partner
    STModdell.com Security Consulting



MTC-00004483

From: David Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement.
    To whom it may concern. I want to know why a corporation that 
has been found to be engaging in an illegal monopoly is now going to 
be given the opportunity to legally continue said monopoly. If I 
were convicted of a crime, would I be given the settlement that 
allows me to legally commit the same crime over and over again? I 
think not. Microsoft is the great stifler of innovation. Look at 
Java. Java is an awesome programming language whose greatest 
attribute is platform-independence (that means the same code can run 
on Macintosh, Unix, or Windows without being re-written), yet 
Microsoft goes MILES out of its way to ensure that Java is not 
implemented properly in there operating system. It sickens me to no 
end. Please, do the right thing and deny the settlement that 
Microsoft has been pushing for.
    Regards,
    David Freeman
    14500 Cottingham Dr.
    Austin, TX 78725
    [email protected]



MTC-00004484

From: Dan Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:50pm
Subject: Why microsoft software should not be in public schools.
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer programmer who has worked as a system 
administrator and a technical support provider for unix, windows, 
and macintosh machines. I`m currently working on an electrical 
engineering degree from the University of Utah. I`ve been very 
concerned about the Microsoft Settlement currently proposed by the 
Department of Justice. The Microsoft Windows Operating System is 
uniquely unsuited to the public education sector. I believe this to 
be true for a number of reasons:
    1) There are several very good Operating Systems available free 
of cost (all of the distributions of both Linux and BSD can be 
obtained for free, the GNU Hurd will soon be freely available). My 
wife teaches seventh grade english and I believe it`s evident that 
there are many ways in which the funds allocated for public 
education could be better spent than on complicated and cripplingly 
expensive licenses.
    2) Microsoft software makes an effort to hide from the user many 
of the fundamental processes that a computer routinely performs in 
day to day operation. The objective of hiding these preocesses is to 
make a computer easier to use and probably accounts, in large part, 
for Microsoft`s success in the market, but does not seem suited to 
educating young people about how computers work. If a person can use 
a unix clone operating system (such as Linux, BSD, or Hurd) that 
person can easily adapt to Microsoft software and is often more 
competent than life long Microsoft users. As the goal is education 
it seems apparent that unix clones are the better alternative.
    3) Most operating systems in use today (including the MS Dos 
Operating system upon which the windows operating systems are based) 
are based on Unix. This makes it a very easy jump from Unix to any 
other Operating System.
    4) The freely available software is most often willing to 
furnishthe source code for the Operating Systems and all 
applications. The educational value of this for Computer Programming 
students cannot be overstated. For students to be able to examine 
the source code of professionals will help produce a generation of 
skilled, creative programmers with very professional coding styles.
    5) Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. Adam Smith warned of 
the dangers of Government Sponsored Monopolies. To place Microsoft 
Software in schools is a government endorsement of their product. 
This could certainly viewed as a sanction. There are many 
distributions of opereating systems furnished entirely by not-for-
profit volunteer organizations. (Look at www.debian.org and 
www.gnu.org for starters). The use of these non-corporate operating 
systems would help to protect capitalist ideals of a free market and 
of no government endorsements of corporations.
    Taking into account the considerations that makes Microsoft 
software unsuitable for public education, I feel strongly that the 
anti-

[[Page 24516]]

trust settlement ought to be altered such that Microsoft makes their 
contribution to public education entirely in computer hardware, and 
that software better suited to public education be selected by 
schools to be put on those machines.
    Dan



MTC-00004485

From: Michael Haisley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:50pm
Subject: Public comment
    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, I continue, would at barest minimum 
include three additional features: *Any remedy seeking to prevent an 
extension of Microsoft`s monopoly must place Microsoft products as 
extra-cost options in the purchase of new computers, so that the 
user who does not wish to purchase them is not forced to do so. This 
means that for the price differential between a new computer with 
Microsoft software and one without, a computer seller must offer the 
software without the computer (which would prevent computer makers 
from saying that the difference in price is only a few dollars). 
Only then could competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    *The specifications of Microsoft`s present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft`s or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
`hooks' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    *Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet. 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.
    Michael A. Haisley Jr.
    Chief Executive Officer, Phenotek Corp.



MTC-00004486

From: Brian McHugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 1:59pm
Subject: Please accept settlement
December 14, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject:Microsoft Settlement
VIA EMAIL
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am aware that the Department of Justice is accepting public 
comment on the Microsoft settlement and write to support the 
proposal. Our country is in a recession. President Bush and 
Republican leaders in Washington are working to pass legislation 
that would stimulate the economy. People are out of work, businesses 
are cutting costs and laying off workers and families are tightening 
their budgets.
    The absolute last thing we need right now is for the federal 
government to continue to spend taxpayer dollars in pursuit of this 
private company. Microsoft employees thousands of people and makes a 
major contribution to our economic vitality. The federal government 
should follow the lead of taxpayers and families and limit its 
spending. This will not only help the economy, it will allow 
Microsoft to prosper and continue to have a positive impact in our 
country.
    Thank you for your commitment to public service.
    Sincerely,
    Brian McHugh
    McHugh Funeral Home
    283 Hanover Street
    Manchester, NH 03104



MTC-00004487

From: Victoria Welch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:01pm
Subject: Comments on microsoft anti-trust case.
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    My comments for the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case. Microsoft has 
been determined guilty of violating anti-trust laws and the penalty 
phase just seems to miss the mark, I am hearing comments on the 
street that the U.S. Government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of 
Microsoft. I will admit that I find the `penalties' 
somewhat perplexing in that they certainly seem to miss the mark 
rather completely.
    I personally think that is probably a little radical, but then I 
see demo copies of Microsoft`s XP operating system on all the 
workbenches of my local post offices and I do wonder what is going 
on here. I do not see any other vendors product demos available 
there. This seems to indicate implicit approval of Microsoft 
products and no other by a government entity?
    The following are the flaws that I see in the 
`penalties' that essentially seem to leave Microsoft 
better off than they were before the trial.
    I do not see that Microsoft is penalized in any way in that 
there is no separation of integrated software that harms and stifles 
competition to the microsoft operating system. Further I see no 
provisions for computer manufacturers to be able to offer other and 
more viable operating systems in a fair and price competitive 
atmosphere_ essentially nothing has changed.
    I do not see that the proprietary protocols for the operating 
system, networking and other elements are to be made public in order 
that others may have equal opportunity to develop applications in a 
spirit of healthy competition and to encourage innovation. Microsoft 
appears to be allowed to maintain the closed, proprietary and 
monopolistic systems that started this process. Again it appears 
that nothing has changed and it will be business as usual for 
Microsoft.
    In Washington State, Microsoft continues with its obnoxious and 
heavy handed practices only now in a new area. Their handling of 
their Internet Service Provider (ISP) business seems to be following 
the same basic marketing strategy that they used with their 
operating systems. This has even been noted in the Seattle Times 
Newspaper in a city where normally Microsoft can do no wrong:
    Again, it appears to be business as usual for Microsoft. Thus I 
am perplexed at the current `penalties' being 
`imposed' on Microsoft. They seem to be more of an 
encouragement for Microsoft to continue in the same ways it has been 
and those are the very same ones that brought this issue to the DOJ 
in the first place. If these are implemented as currently stated 
then fair business practices, innovation and competition are DEAD in 
the computer field.
    I do use Microsoft products, a very few are reasonably decent 
but I am forced to use others because the only option I have for 
them is other Microsoft products. Because of this my time is 
considerably less efficiently used in repairing and working to keep 
the systems going rather than accomplishing work that I need to do. 
If one does not expect much from the computers running Microsoft 
products then they are not the absolute worst products on the 
planet. If you expect much from them and/or use them heavily then 
you are going to rather constantly going to have them fail to the 
loss of time, effort and money. On days when I am working hard it is 
common to have to reboot my machine to recover my working ability at 
least several times. As time goes on from the initial (or subsequent 
complete re-install of the operating system) the situation grows 
steadily worse. The overall cost of running Microsoft products is 
incredibly high and far higher than it ever should be were Microsoft 
concerned with more than creating a market for the next version of 
its products. Bluntly quality is not job one.
    In order that Microsoft be brought into line and with any hope 
of curbing their horrid business practices, it will take REAL 
penalties and serious oversight. With the obscene amounts of money 
that Microsoft has managed to accumulate through its less than fair 
business practices (to be kind) there is some doubt as to whether 
that can actually be accomplished. It has become quite obvious to 
anyone working in the field that there is no honor or integrity in 
Microsoft, only the search for more money in complete disregard for 
the good of the industry, the users and at this point in time it 
becomes

[[Page 24517]]

rather blatantly obvious that national security is at risk due to 
the poor quality and serious lack of attention to security that is 
epidemic in their products. That alternatives are few is a direct 
result of the issues that DOJ is supposed to be addressing in this 
matter.
    I`ve been told that I am wasting my time here in that Microsoft 
can pay people to submit positive comments for this business 
enhancing solution that has been proposed as a 
`punishment'. They have done the same things in the 
past, that is pretty much common knowledge. I can only hope that DOJ 
will prove wise, not be bought out by Microsoft and free the 
industry for the good of the consumer and the country. Thank you for 
your time and effort in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Christine V. Welch
    4337 8th Avenue NE, Apartment #C-107
    Seattle, Washington 98105
    (206) 634-0984
    [email protected]
    Victoria Welch, WV9K, DoD#-13, SysAdmin SeaStar.org, 
vikki.oz.net
    `Walking on water and developing software to specification 
are easy as long as both are frozen'_Edward V. Berard.
    Do not unto others, that which you would not have others do unto 
you.
    `Micro$oft Windows. I`ll bet you can`t install it just 
once!'



MTC-00004488

From: Richard Hecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:05pm
Subject: Settlement comments
Richard A. Hecker_Senior Software Engineer
42906 47th Street West
Quartz Hill, California 93536
Renata Hesse_Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata;
    I thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns about 
the proposed settlement. This case has been difficult from the start 
and I have followed the progress of it diligently. As a Senior 
Software Engineer, my understanding of the claims has motivated me 
to give serious consideration to the proposed settlement. I hope the 
invitation to use this email account was sincere and that my views 
will be given equal weight as the comments that are submitted via 
other means.
    Perhaps my biggest concern involves the attitude Microsoft 
displayed throughout the process. The litigation phase is over and 
the facts are clearly established. As a monopolist, Microsoft must 
follow the law. It will encourage them to break the law if you 
minimize the penalty. Their view of the law was expressed by some of 
the evidence they tried to submit and I was shocked from a 
professional standpoint.
    I am also concerned that this settlement does little to 
eliminate the gain Microsoft accrued from killing their competition. 
If Microsoft keeps the gains from their previous illegal action, how 
can we expect the new competition to fair against them? I would like 
to see a settlement that provides assurances for such fair 
competition.
    I see this settlement as having national significance in my own 
specific way. Microsoft is a large company with many shareholders 
and they contribute a significant amount to our economy. I see them 
as collecting monopoly benefits from the desktop section of this 
computer revolution. I expect that this desktop section will 
continue to drive productivity gains. Healthy competition based upon 
open standards is important. Full disclosure of all file 
specifications and application programming interfaces should be a 
minimum requirement. I would also like to see complete documentation 
of their network protocols as they expand their .NET services. 
Basically, I want to eliminate any aces they might try to conceal up 
their sleeve. In summary, the proposed settlement does not suffice. 
I know it will require more effort but the health of our desktop 
industry warrants it.
    Richard



MTC-00004489

From: Mike Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:03pm
Subject: Public comments: Penalty phase of Microsoft Case
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    Having heard and read stories about the proposed settlement and 
what it contains (or lacks) I am pressed into sharing my comments 
and ask that you give them your consideration. I think they are 
directed to the heart of the matter.
    From my perspective, Microsoft has been found guilty of hoarding 
thus the penalty, to be just, must require them to share.
    All of the proposed settlement points do not address this issue 
so I ask that you include the following remedy.
    The specifications of Microsoft`s current and future file 
formats must be made public, so that files created by Microsoft 
applications can be read by programs from other makers, on any 
operating systems.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Michael Lee Smith
    3355 Claire Ln #903
    Jacksonville, FL 32223-6661



MTC-00004490

From: mike stephen
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/14/01 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530;
    Please I beg of you........... If you let Microsoft get away 
like the current proposal suggests, We (the computer professionals) 
may never be able to dig ourselves out from the pit Microsoft has 
cast us all into.
    Microsoft products by virtue of being a monopoly, have been 
designed without concern for security or reliability. I can prove 
that the design of Microsoft products leads to the spread of 
countless virii in the computer industry. They (Microsoft products) 
are the perfect products to use to send damaging virus from many 
groups like the terrorists from Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, 
Egypt.... And do not imagine that these places have not already done 
damage.
    And it is not only because Microsoft products are in such wide 
use, but the real problem is that the products have been very poorly 
designed. It seems Microsoft has enough money to do the job right, 
so the remaining reasons why the products are so poorly written is 
that there is currently no need to be `Best of breed'. 
when you are the only option.
    It will not be long till they (the terrorists) discover that 
they can inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. All this 
because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, and instead of actually 
writing well designed programs, they spend all the energy they have 
to simply maintain that monopoly.
    Often I give speeches to information technology groups that 
state.... `Without Microsoft in the industry, we would be at 
least 10 years ahead of where we are today'. But because of 
the constrictive designs and monopolizing practises of Microsoft, no 
possible competitive products have been able to get a start.
    As just one example: IBM wrote a fine operating system called 
OS/2 in 1992. Only today some 9 years later is Windows XP beginning 
to catch up to the technical capability of OS/2. In fact it still 
has a long way to go to catch up to OS/2 in security and 
reliability. What happened? IBM could not get any hardware vendors 
to carry the software because Microsoft had tied up all 
manufacturers of computers to include with each and every computer, 
a copy of Windows. This in spite of the fact that many wanted to use 
OS/2 instead of Windows. What happened to anyone who decided to use 
OS/2 was they also paid and received a copy of Windows that they did 
not desire.
    The only way to get the marketplace back in order is to separate 
the computer hardware from the operating system. When you go to a 
store to buy a computer, you should be able to buy any computer 
available without having to also purchase an operating system. That 
choice should be made at the time of purchase rather than included 
in the cost of the computer.
    Please suggest that all operating systems should be available as 
separate products. The purchase of a computer should not also be the 
purchase of products from Microsoft.
    It is much akin to buying a car, and with that car purchase, it 
also comes with a coupon for gasoline from the Microsoft gasoline 
company. We agree that the car uses gasoline, and we all buy 
gasoline, but what if we prefer to buy gasoline from Shell rather 
than prepay for gasoline from the Microsoft gasoline company? Should 
we not have the option of not prepaying for fuel from the Microsoft 
gas company?
    Please at least bring this option up. It solves all the problems 
inflicted upon us by Microsoft and some of their abuses of the 
Sherman act. It also requires little supervision, and levels the 
playing field for others to play.
    I suggest this (above) in addition to any penalty that might be 
given Microsoft

[[Page 24518]]

because of the illegal activities regarding the Sherman act. It`s 
just that without the above mentioned separation of operating system 
from the hardware, we will not see any competition in the operating 
system industry. And when I imagine where we (the users of 
computers) could be were it not for Microsoft, I am almost brought 
to tears over the condition Microsoft has left the computer industry 
in.
    We are a multi Trillion dollar industry, and to be controlled by 
illegal means, by one company that has already shown distain for the 
law and ethical business practises, means unless someone like you 
makes a move to change it, you will be remembered as part of the 
problem rather than as part of the solution.
    Mike Stephen
    Computer consultant
    MCSE, IBM BesTeam, CNE.



MTC-00004491

From: Kenny, Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am a software developer living in Cincinnati, Oh (who works 
with Microsoft products), and I would like to register my total 
dissatisfaction with the DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft. It amounts 
to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and does almost nothing to 
rectify the situation. Consumers will be in no better situation that 
they were before this case.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Kenny



MTC-00004492

From: Andy Freed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Comments
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200,
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is a sham. We should expect 
this from them by now, but we shouldn`t accept it. If Microsoft is 
allowed to choose the terms of their own punishment, they will 
choose to advance their own software. The current wording of the 
settlement is very different from the original ruling by Judge 
Michael Penfield, and lacks any true punishment for maintaining a 
monopoly.
    There are plenty of arguments for breaking the company up. This 
is what was originally ordered by Judge Penfield, but was overturned 
in later rulings. This would be the best solution and punishment for 
Microsoft. As a Mac User, I avoid their operating system whenever I 
can. However, their Office software suite is excellent on the 
Macintosh platform, and only continues to get better. This software 
was created by a separate group, one that operates outside the realm 
of Microsoft and its operating systems. This shows that Microsoft 
doesn`t require co-development of its software and operating system. 
However, by tying the two, they can successfully prevent the use of 
their software on other platforms.
    The current settlement, as proposed by Microsoft, should be 
thrown away. I think a situation that truly punishes the corporation 
for violating anti-trust laws, which they have been convicted of, is 
needed. This could range from splitting the company into separate 
entities, or forcing Microsoft to share their source with 
developers, so other companies can have equal access to information 
that is pertinent to developing good software.
    Microsoft has not been reprimanded for their monopolistic 
behavior, which they have not changed as of yet. They have also used 
their powers as a monopoly to extend other software, services, and 
protocols which will continue to advance their position as a 
monopoly. This case affects everyone who uses computers, in some way 
or another. The correct response to this case has nothing to do with 
the settlement that Microsoft has proposed. It should be thrown 
away, and a new settlement, something closer to Judge Penfield`s 
ruling should be used.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
    Andy Freed
    1415 SW Custer Dr. #A6
    Portland, OR 97219
    503-246-4836



MTC-00004493

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:22pm
Subject: comment on the settlement
    Microsoft has, I remind the judge, 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. As a consumer I have repeatedly forced to 
pay extra and recieve inferior customer service because there is no 
recourse. A just penalty, I continue, would at barest minimum 
include three additional features:
    Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft`s 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    The specifications of Microsoft`s present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft`s or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
`hooks' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and 
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent 
Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    Sincerely,
    Rock Roskam
    P.O. Box 14466
    RTP, NC 27709



MTC-00004494

From: Jed Haile
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:23pm
Subject: Objection to Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice Official and Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I have spent a large amount of time studying the proposed 
settlement for the Microsoft antitrust trial and I must express my 
extreme displeasure with the settlement.
    Both the initial trial verdict and the appeals verdict upheld 
the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly that has illegally used it`s 
monopoly power to deny other companies a chance to compete, and to 
control the flow of technology. Microsoft official were evasive and 
borderline to committing perjury in their testimony during the 
antitrust trial. Microsoft willfully disregarded the terms of their 
1995 consent decree. What reason does any of us have to believe that 
Microsoft will honor the letter or the spirit of the proposed 
settlement? There are no strong enforcement clauses in the 
settlement, and there are enough exemptions and loopholes to make it 
entirely unclear what the settlement even restricts or enforces.
    When the 18 states and the Department of Justice began this 
antitrust action against Microsoft the goal was to establish that 
Microsoft had illegally exercised monopoly power and to obtain 
punishment for that crime and to insure that Microsoft would no 
longer be able to commit further crimes of this nature. The proposed 
settlement does none of these things. Nowhere is there any 
punishment for Microsoft`s breach of law, and the settlement 
contains enough exemptions and exclusions to leave Microsoft a broad 
lattitude to operate how it pleases. The settlement effectively 
makes it legal for Microsoft to continue their illegal practices.
    The settlement is hopelessly biased in Microsoft`s favor and I 
believe that Microsoft`s past behavior warrants extreme reason to 
believe that Microsoft has no intention of honoring this settlement. 
Microsoft has never acknowledged their guilt, Microsoft has never 
accepted responsibility for their crimes, and Microsoft will 
certainly never agree to sign a settlement that limits their ability 
to continue to operate as they accustomed. The only option is to 
have punishment and corrective measures IMPOSED on Microsoft. I 
would ask that the court consider the new settlement terms being 
proposed by the states that have not yet agreed to the settlement. 
The simple fact that not all the states are satisfied with the 
settlement should be ample warning that there are serious reasons to 
object to this proposed settlement. I urge the Department of 
Justice, the State Attorney Generals, and the Judge officiating over 
this trial to reject this proposed settlement. A great amount of 
time, money and effort have gone into establishing that Microsoft 
did indeed violate

[[Page 24519]]

the law, and this settlement does nothing to justify that great 
effort.
    With all respect,
    Jed Haile
    290 E 13th St
    Idaho Falls, Id. 83404
    Phone:
    (208) 522-4518



MTC-00004495

From: Tony Kocurko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:08pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement of Microsoft Antitrust Case
14 December 2001
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 A1E 5H3
Office 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 e-
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 Text 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 manufacturers 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,
    Anthony J. Kocurko
    P.S. Please note that a FAX version of this note is being sent 
to one of 202-616-9937 and 202-307-1545.



MTC-00004496

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:40pm
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft settlement proposal
    My name is Titiimaea Ala`ilima and I am a computer professional 
in Cambridge, MA. I have read of the proposal for a settlement and I 
must say I feel very strongly that this is an entirely 
unsatisfactory remedy to the antitrust violations of Microsoft. It 
entirely sidesteps the issues at hand of abuse of monopoly power, 
giving no restitution to those who have actually been harmed by 
their anti-competitive practices. It is a work of pure public 
relations. Their so-called penalty involves giving away a certain 
dollar value of software, with the valuation of that software self-
determined as a result of their monopolistic manipulation of the 
market. And it only serves to entrench their monopoly even further 
by training more children on their proprietary software. There is 
scarecely any sense of the word in which I would consider this a 
penalty, much less a reasonable remedy proportional to Microsoft`s 
culpability.
    Why not take the proposal offered by Red Hat, a distributor of 
the popular Linux operating system? If Microsoft wants to channel 
their punishment towards the benefit of needy children, why not do 
it in a cost-effective manner. They could provide hardware, the 
prices of which they have not themselves artificially inflated, and 
a more cost-effective operating system could be provided for these 
machines from another source, Red Hat themselves, for example, who 
have offered to provide the operating system software completely 
free of charge. This would impose a real, measurable financial cost 
to Microsoft, and a real benefit to society, without furthering the 
monopoly that Microsoft is in trouble for abusing.
    It may seem like expediency would serve the interests of all 
involved, but I think this nation and its economy will suffer if we 
let Microsoft continue to dictate its own terms. The government will 
have wasted all of its time and money in prosecuting this case 
successfully if this settlement is accepted. This decision demands 
careful deliberation. The public may be tired of seeing this case in 
the news, but we must not let that dictate the merits of pursuing it 
further. The future of computing is at stake.
    Sincerely,
    Titiimaea Ala`ilima
    180 Third Street
    Cambridge, MA 02141



MTC-00004497

From: John Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:43pm
Subject: Giving away intellectual property
    Some of the states have suggested that Microsoft be forced to 
share its source code for Office and Internet Explorer, among other 
remedies, in punishment for its recent `conviction' for 
anti-trust violations. My opinion: BAD!!
    Microsoft should NOT be forced to disclose the `secret 
formula' which it has spent BILLIONS of dollars and MILLIONS 
of man-years to develop. The purpose of any remedies should NOT be 
to `punish' Microsoft for the alleged offenses (I still 
don`t believe their conviction is valid, but. . .) but to set 
guidelines to control any future `abuses'.
    The `reveal your source code' solution is the 
equivalent of disemboweling someone for running a red light: 
effective (in that the person is unlikely to run any more red 
lights) but excessive (obviously).



MTC-00004498

From: Adolf von W(00FC)rttemberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Microsoft is a creative company. Leave these guys alone.
    Adolf V. Shastri von Worttemberg, Ph.D, MCP
    Computer Lab Manager/Sanskrit Professor
    Emory University, Atlanta, GA
    Office Ph.: 404-727-7619
    Cell Phone: 404-314-3056
    Home: 770-963-2699
    ***People often find it easier to be a result of the past than a 
cause of the future.*** Idam satyam: . denn so redet m i r die 
Gerechtigkeit: die Menschen sind nicht gleich. Und sie sollen es 
auch nicht werden.



MTC-00004499

From: Tony Kocurko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:18pm
Subject: A Thousand Pardons, Ms. Hesse!
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    After FAXing a copy of my previous e-mail regarding the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case, I discovered that my

[[Page 24520]]

(non-Microsoft) spell checker happily let me give you the title 
`Trail Attorney'. Of course, if you`re originally from 
Wyoming, this may well be the case. However, since we don`t know 
each other, I beg your pardon.
    Regards,
    Tony Kocurko
    Seismological Systems Manager (Phone: 709-737-8898 
or -8142)
    Department of Earth Sciences
    Memorial University of Newfoundland
    St. John`s, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X5



MTC-00004500

From: David L. Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand from Robert Cringley`s article, `He`s Not in 
It for the Profit_Steve Satchell for Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Compliance Committee!' (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html), _this_ email address/Subject 
combination is the online place to register my comments on the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. If this is not 
so, please let me know.
    I have been very troubled by the turn in this case since Judge 
Jackson`s ruling was overturned. I do not believe the best interests 
of the public, indeed, the entire planet, are being served any 
longer. Microsoft was proven to be guilty of very serious 
anticompetive behavior, yet the government appears to have backed 
off any serious response to that guilt. I regret the actions of 
Judge Jackson that have muddied the waters of the appropriate 
response_break up the monopoly! I see no other guarantee that 
will restore proper market forces and the ultimate good of 
competition fostering better products enhancing the quality of life. 
As long as Microsoft remains unchanged in its determination to use 
every possible means of abusing its monopoly position for its own 
gain at the expense of everybody else, and this seems to be the case 
still and into the foreseeable future, then it is the duty of the 
government to intervene and mete out the proper remediation. To not 
do so dooms us all to more abuses and their costs.
    Judge Jackson had the right idea. Please deliver us from the 
monster in Redmond.
    May the LORD God bless you abundantly!
    Dave Craig



MTC-00004501

From: Roger Ayers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am an interested technology consumer and citizen of Washington 
State. I have followed this case from Day 1, including the original 
consent degree and the history leading up to the original District 
Court Filings. I have read, as suggested, the documents related to 
the proposed settlement, as well as all current District Court 
Filings and Appeal Court Filings. I find the proposed settlement 
preposterous and insulting to previous DOJ antitrust 
administrations, the informed public, and myself. It fails all forms 
of reasonableness in light of the District Court Finding of Facts 
and the Conclusions of Law, and the unanimous Appeals Court Ruling. 
It also ignores the basic evidence established throughout the 
history of the case, including Microsoft`s current willingness to 
continue past transgressions into new areas as they attempt to 
extend their monopoly into new markets. I propose that the Court 
throw out the proposed settlement and instill the two simple 
remedies as best explained by the author of the attached article. 
Please allow me to include my suggestion of proper remedies as 
contained in the attached article. If this is not acceptable, please 
reply so I may remove the link and author my remedy within my text.
    Thank you.



MTC-00004502

From: Pete Parks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:06pm
Subject: Voodoo Economics
    To whom it my concern:
    If Coke was given the same opportunity as Microsoft is being 
given. Non-Coke drinkers would have limited choice, which means the 
consumer suffers. It`s sad to see that justice makes the victims 
suffer to the same crimes that monopolist tries to create in the 
first place which is `limited choice'.
    While getting my college degree my economics professors each 
stated the best economy is the economy where the consumer has 
multiple sources from which to make a choice. In addition the 
freedom to make the choice is what America is suppose to be about.
    Please side on the consumers side by making Microsoft payout 
money to the schools so they can decide what`s the best choice for 
them (note it might not even be a computer). Otherwise, it just like 
the joke the average American is hearing right now `first hit 
is free kid!' states the school drug dealer. Once the first 
hit has taken effect these school become an annuity based cash cow 
for Microsoft.
    Pete Parks



MTC-00004503

From: Logan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:29pm
Subject: Anti-Trust
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Years spanned into decades as I formulated my own personal view 
of morality in this world. Years of experience and learning have 
come together to form the three basic principles by which I live. 
These principles may be best described as `truisms' 
because of their base nature, yet they remain effective in day to 
day use. They are:
    `If it ain`t yours, don`t touch it'
    `Lead by example and others will follow'
    `That which does not kill us, makes us stronger' 
(her Friedrich Nietzsche)
    In respect to the anti-trust case against Microsoft all of these 
truisms can be applied, and in all cases to less than satisfactory 
implications. First, a word about my true interest in this case.
    Nearly seven years ago I had my first experiences with the 
internet. One of those experiences was with a burgeoning new 
technology known as Java. I downloaded an application that allowed 
one to create Java Applets for implementation on the web. This 
software was known as `Liquid Motion Pro.' I was 
thrilled with the product as it allowed me as a creative designer to 
make things happen that were never before available to a `non-
programmer.' Three weeks after this initial download, a 
message was posted on the manufacturers site stating that they had 
been purchased by Microsoft and that further development would be 
implemented by that company. A new web address was given to view the 
progress of the product. Two weeks after that, the product was 
discontinued and trash-canned by Microsoft.
    Since that time I have watched as dozens of innovative 
applications simply go away due to the influence of this all-
devouring monster known as Microsoft. They have trashed, beaten on 
and devoured more innovation and and innovative spirits than 
anything I`ve seen in my lifetime.
    This breaches the first of my base tennets of living. If it 
ain`t yours, don`t touch it. Microsoft seems to understand this 
ideal, but from a strange sense of perspective. If they can`t touch 
it, they find a way to make it their own, then they break it. If 
they can`t break it, they make it so no one else can touch it. 
Example: Bungie Software at one time was the only major manufacturer 
of games for the Macintosh platform. They were to have released a 
ground breaking game called `Halo' for simultaneous 
release on Mac and WinTel. After having been purchased by Microsoft, 
they are only writing software for the proprietary Microsoft gaming 
system known as Xbox.
    Lead by example and others will follow is supposed to be an 
inspirational slogan designed to motivate people to `do the 
right thing.' Lead by example for Microsoft has led to the 
capture of the major share of processor market by Intel. A company 
which produces inferior products for the non-professional 
market(check the benchmark tests of Pentium-IV vs the DEC Alpha EV67 
or the Athlon XP). A company which has forced everyone to conform to 
their standard of chip architechture. Not surprising is this 
company`s close working relationship with Microsoft. (A secondary 
truism that may be used effectively here is `birds of a 
feather...')
    That which does not kill us. Well, this only applies if we do 
not die in the trial. Many companies who have fought against this 
Goliath have died. Many more will continue to die by their hand. 
Some who see their comrades fall by their side decide simply not to 
fight. How many of these corpses on the field of battle does there 
need to be in order to see this company for what it is?
    I am not a legal expert. I am a layman. And as a layman I have 
to gather information and make decisions to the best of my ability 
based on a few simple principles. I used to have faith in this 
country. I served in it`s armed forces. Now I see the winds of 
change beginning to blow.
    As I see it, in my own small way, the anti-trust laws were 
established to promote fairness in business practices_to 
create an environment of competition_in a free and open 
market. They were also designed to

[[Page 24521]]

increase the technological innovations available to the public, 
thereby increasing the standard and quality of living for every 
citizen (not to mention the advancement of military capabilities).
    What seems to be advancing is the idea that money makes might 
and might makes right. Through legal wrangling about the comments 
that a judge made about their company during the trial they wiggle 
their way into a legal impass. Their defense was not `We`re 
not guilty' their defense was `You didn`t follow 
proceedure.' After a costly stalemate the monopolists simply 
turn around and say `we`ll give you some money so you can 
fight your war and you make this all go away'
    What appears to be huge amounts of money are about to be sloshed 
in the direction of the government. That is what the settlement is 
about. This is not about what is right or wrong, but about the size 
of the payoff. If it was about right or wrong, this case would have 
been taken to the Supreme Court and Microsoft would have been 
confirmed as guilty. I begin to realize that soon I will be at my 
desk forced to stare at the incredibly inane flag of the conqueror 
as I start up my computer for the third time that day and repeat the 
mantra to myself `Resistance is futile, you will be 
assimilated', then wonder if I`ll have enough money to pay to 
vote for president on the next election day.
    Thank You,
    Logan
    Creative Director,
    USinns.com



MTC-00004504

From: George McCullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:11pm
Subject: COMMENT ON MICROSOFT AND DOJ SETTLEMENT
    As part of the public comment on the Microsoft settlement, I 
would like you to know that I believe your settlement with Microsoft 
is fair and just. While we waste our time with Microsoft, we are not 
paying attention to other companies that are anti-competitive. For 
example, the cable TV industry. I have a choice whether I wish to 
use Linux or Windows on my PC, and I can choose what media player or 
browser I would like to use by either buying it, or downloading it 
for free. I do not have a choice with my cable TV access. I cannot 
choose the channels I wish to see (I pay for all or none). What 
about cable broadband internet access? It seems that a lot of 
consumers are stuck without a choice there. Do we punish one company 
because they out-smarted their competitors? What about AOL? 
Netscape, Sun and Oracle? Should they US Govt help them compete? I 
think that has no bearing on consumer choice. I support your 
settlement with Microsoft. After this is settled, maybe cable TV 
operators or AOL should be next.
    George McCullen



MTC-00004505

From: Matt Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:12pm
    As a linux user since 1995 I can proudly say the MS is not the 
only horse in town, please remember this.
    And consider the following:
    *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.
    Matt Williamson
    < [email protected] >



MTC-00004506

From: Greg Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:24pm
Subject: Please reconsider you settlement before its final.
    This is not meant to be a bash, only my personal opinion that 
soon I will have no choice to but to use Microsoft products for 
everything I do on my computer. While this isn`t such a horrible 
thing in and of itself, the fact that I won`t have a choice makes me 
feel extremely exposed. I will be paying more because they will have 
me right where they want me and in that day there will be no turning 
back.
    I am completely happy with my copy of Windows 2000 professional 
BUT I know that soon if I want to log on to my banks website I will 
have to use an array of Microsoft products. This means I will have 
to upgrade to Windows XP, because Microsoft won`t release the 
necessary components for Windows 2000 NOT because they are 
technically unable, but because they have a monopoly and can force 
me too. Force me to pay for the another copy of windows (keep in 
mind I`m completely happy with W2K), use Microsoft Internet Explorer 
etc etc.
    Please DO NOT settle with the current agreement. It does not 
help consumers to essentially let MS walk away with no fines, no 
punishment and most importantly no real way for new products to come 
into the market.
    Thank you
    Greg Baker



MTC-00004507

From: Annalisa_SecureStore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:23pm
Subject: Auguri!
    Scalda il tuo inverno e quello dei tuoi cari.
    Approfitta di questa occasione anche per Natale!
    Tutto questo all`indirizzo: http://ghirosonno.monrif.net
    oppure http://scaldaletto.xoasis.com_http://
spazioweb.inwind.it/scaldasonno
    DIRETTAMENTE DALLA FABBRICA A CASA TUA!!!
    ***L`OFFERTA E` VALIDA FINO AD ESAURIMENTO ***
    Tutti i dati sono trattati in conformita` con la Legge 675/96.



MTC-00004508

From: Paul Burkeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:30pm
Subject: Harsher Penalties for Microsoft
    Please, please, please impose harsher penalties upon the 
software giant Microsoft.
    Their maintaining of a monopoly is hurting us computer users. 
They make proprietary formats, and people accept them because of the 
huge hold they have on the market. They can charge whatever they 
want for their software (which is the only way to access these 
formats), essentially forcing people to pay outrageous prices to get 
work accomplished. If there were more competitors in this area, 
prices would be cheaper, and we wouldn`t have to conform to 
Microsoft`s way of doing things.
    Microsoft keeps making their own standards on the internet. They 
make others conform to what THEY want. That isn`t how the internet 
is supposed to be. One company isn`t supposed to dictate how things 
are viewed and interacted with. One company isn`t supposed to have a 
stranglehold on the future of computing.
    Please?
    Paul Burkeland



MTC-00004509

From: Shawn E Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
    Shawn E MatthewsWhile it`s not perfect (what is these days), it 
is better than nothing. It`s time to move on ... the States, while 
thinking that they`re taking the best interests of the people in 
hand, are only making this worse by dragging it out.
    Technology changes at lightning speed, what was wrong two years 
ago is no longer relevant today. I wonder, will the same level of 
scrutiny be applied when other monopolies like AOL Time Warner are 
investigated? Let`s hope so.
    Thank you,
    Shawn E Matthews.



MTC-00004510

From: Warren Downs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 4:02pm
Subject: Comments on settlement
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice 601 D Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20530
    To whom it may concern:

[[Page 24522]]

    I`m writing to express my concerns with the proposed Microsoft-
DOJ settlement. As a user of the Linux operating system, who has 
used multiple computer operating systems, including Microsoft 
Windows (in various incarnations) and IBM OS/2, I have found Linux 
to be the most flexible and useful basis for my computing. However, 
it is my concern that the proposed settlement will, far from opening 
up competion in the marketplace, actually assist Microsoft in 
removing my choice to use an alternative operating system.
    Here are some of my specific concerns, which I hope will be 
addressed by the final settlement (and are not addressed by the 
currently proposed one):
    1. When friends, family, and business associates send me 
Microsoft documents (e.g. Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, 
Powerpoint presentations), I need to be able to view those documents 
without being forced to use Microsoft products. Or, at the bare 
minimum, by using Microsoft applications on top of Linux, should 
that be an option. At present, there are a number of non-Microsoft 
products which attempt to read Microsoft file formats. However, they 
are hindered by Microsoft`s frequent undocumented file format 
changes. At a bare minimum, I would request that Microsoft 
applications (e.g. MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Microsoft Money, 
Internet Explorer, Outlook/Outlook Express, including Windows 
Address book file formats such as .wab and .pab) should be available 
to run on Linux. It seems unfair to require Microsoft to port them 
to Linux, because there may be other operating systems which should 
also be supported. Rather, I feel it would be better if Microsoft be 
required to license the porting to third party companies. For 
programs which Microsoft charges for, such as MS office, the 
licensing wouldn`t be free, but the price of the end product should 
be no more expensive than it`s counterpart on Windows. Thus, 
Internet Explorer for Linux should be free, just like it is in 
Windows.
    Microsoft will claim that Internet Explorer is part of the OS, 
as it is integrated into Windows. Regardless whether that is the 
case or not, users consider it to be an application, and as long as 
Microsoft continues to encourage Internet Explorer specific 
enhancements to the web pages on the internet, Microsoft should be 
required to make Internet Explorer available to other operating 
systems. Otherwise, we`ll all be forced to use Windows in order to 
view web pages.
    However, the best solution to the file format problem, would be 
to require Microsoft to make these file formats public documents. 
Microsoft could then keep their intellectual property, but third-
party programmers would be able to produce compatible programs, so 
end-users such as myself would be able to access their data on 
alternative operating systems such as Linux.
    2. Similarly, I need to be able to share information between my 
Linux computer and computers running Windows. At present, I am able 
to use the Samba (http://usl.samba.org/samba/samba.html) file 
sharing system on Linux to retrieve my files from the office 
computers. However, should Microsoft continue to make undocumented 
(and even patent-restricted!) changes to their network protocols, 
this option may not remain available to me.
    Microsoft will claim that it is necessary to restrict details of 
their file formats and network protocols for security reasons. It is 
true that, in many cases, their file formats and network protocols 
attempt to be secure through obscurity, rather than through 
provably-secure algorithms. See http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/-taver/
security/secur3.html for a definition of `security through 
obscurity'.
    However, the notable insecurity of Windows even without its file 
formats and network protocols being publicly documented should be 
testament enough that obscurity isn`t helping security in this case. 
Instead, were Microsoft required to document their protocols and 
file formats, they would be more inclined to fix any security 
problems that came to light, and users of alternate operating 
systems such as Linux would be able to interoperate with their 
Windows-using co-workers, friends and family.
    Therefore, a useful remedy would be one that requires Microsoft 
to publicly and non-discriminately document any changes to their 
network protocols, to be approved by an independent network protocol 
body.
    3. In point #1, I mentioned the option of running Microsoft 
applications on Windows. At present, there is an effort, known as 
the Wine project (http://www.codeweavers.com/), which is attempting 
to make it possible to run Windows applications on Linux. It has 
been largely successful with applications which are written to use 
only the publicly-documented Windows Application Programming 
Interface (API) which Microsoft already provides.
    However, it is well known that Microsoft applications (and 
perhaps those of a few other companies in close association with 
them) make use of undisclosed interfaces between Windows and the 
application. This makes it impossible to run those applications 
using an interface (such as Wine) created from only the public 
documentation. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Microsoft 
applications have been the least successful at running on Linux 
using Wine.
    A useful remedy should require Microsoft to document all 
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) which are used by any 
applications which it sells separately from Windows, bundled with 
Windows, or downloadable from Microsoft`s website. This would at 
least make it possible to interoperate with Windows users by using 
the native Windows applications on Linux. However, it is Microsoft`s 
trend to actually work against this option, in spite of being under 
anti-trust investigation. Microsoft licensing agreements for many of 
their applications currently state that you may only use the 
application in conjunction with Microsoft Windows. Thus, even if it 
were technically possible to run the Microsoft application on Linux, 
those licensing agreements would make it illegal! This is 
unconsionable, and should be addressed by requiring that Microsoft 
licensing agreements allow usage of their applications in 
conjunction with alternate operating systems, if the user so 
desires.
    Of course, Microsoft doesn`t wish to allow or encourage piracy 
of their software, and rightly so. However, as long as they maintain 
a monopoly, restricting interoperability with users of alternate 
operating systems, they should also allow their applications to be 
used in conjunction with alternate operating systems, as long as the 
application is legally owned by the user. Applications which are 
freely downloadable for Windows users, should also be freely 
downloadable for Linux and other operating system users.
    4. When I purchase my next computer, I should be able to 
purchase the computer without Windows, or with Windows but without 
any bundled Microsoft applications, if I so desire, at a reduced 
cost. It is unfair of Microsoft to require bundling their products, 
or allow unbundling but only if the purchaser pays a penalty.
    In order to be effective, a remedy must insure that, as a 
monopolist, Microsoft should be required to allow sales of Windows 
with or without bundled applications, with no penalty in the latter 
case. And Microsoft should not be able to penalize a computer vendor 
for selling some of their computers without Windows, either. This 
means that the software should also be available separately from the 
vendor, priced the same as the difference between the cost of the 
computer with and without the software. Only then will competition 
be able to flourish.
    In closing, though my comments are written from the point of 
view of a Linux operating system user, I believe that it will be to 
the benefit of all computer users, including those using Windows, 
and yes, even Microsoft itself, for effective remedies to be taken 
in this case. I believe that the remedies I have proposed are 
reasonable, and I hope that the court will agree with me. I am not 
writing on behalf of a large competitor of Microsoft, and I strongly 
object to Microsoft`s claim that this whole case is about it`s 
competitors. It is of unmost concern to me, that I be allowed choice 
in what operating system and programs I use on my computer, and I 
believe there are many other users who feel the same. At present, we 
feel that we are held hostage to the infrastructure provided by 
Microsoft.
    I am not antagonistic to Microsoft, and if I could be assured 
that I would have freedom of choice regarding the operating system I 
use, I would be happy to use and pay for Microsoft applications. 
However, my experience has been to the contrary, and I feel that 
only government intervention and continued supervision of Microsoft 
will be able to ensure that freedom of choice.
    Sincerely,
    Warren E. Downs
    525 S. Williwaw
    Palmer, AK 99645
    (907) 745-6811



MTC-00004511

From: Herbst, Mike M.D.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft anti-trust case settlement. I 
believe that it neither

[[Page 24523]]

punishes Microsoft for past abuses nor effectively prevents future 
abuses.
    I support measures to require Microsoft to reveal and license 
its source code for Windows operating systems. I believe that the 
Microsoft dual monopolies in the operating system business and the 
application business should be strictly separated.
    Michael Herbst, MD
    Chair, Santa Monica_UCLA Medical Informatics Committee



MTC-00004512

From: Jake Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement View.
    I view the settlement of the US Department of Justice`s v. 
Microsoft to be inadequate. I urge you to reconsider the 
ramifications of the agreement the Microsoft is so heartily agreeing 
to.
    I belive that all current Microsoft Software should be 
relicensed underthe GNU gpl scheme. All future Microsoft releases 
should be required to have no extra software bundled with it. For 
example, an operating system would be sold as an operating system 
with no extra applications. Internet Explorer would come as a 
separate product, so would Wordpad, Notepad, and any other 
applications that are not necessary or inherent in the operation of 
the system. This means, no bundled e-mail clients or games either.
    Essentially an operating system sold by Microsoft would be the 
kernel,memory debug tools for kernel crashes and a Window manager or 
Shell.There are two reasons for this, it forces Microsoft to compete 
in several arenas legitimately. Instead of relying on the fact that 
they`ve made it hard for people to go out and use/install other 
softare. It also provides people the ability to show who they truly 
support as a business.it is fair to Microsoft in that they can 
charge for the software products that they currently bundle and make 
even more money (if their`aftermarket' product is truly 
that marketable or saleable).These `aftermarket' 
products should be bundled in packages of no more than two prodcts. 
In otherwords, a Word Processor/Spreadsheet package could be made 
available, or any other combination of two products bundled could be 
made available.
    On another level Microsoft`s hardware, software, and services/
internetdivisions should be split up. As we can see from past this 
did not hurt AT&T or any of the spinoffs. As a matter of fact, 
AT&T has had a few major spinoffs since the creation of the baby 
bells (eg Lucent). On top of these measures, Microsoft should pay 
back the rest of the industry that it has helped to stifle by, 
creating endowments for open source development. Essentially, they 
should create seed funds for full time open source development 
teams. The teams would work on software that doesn`t compete with 
Microsoft`s kernel products, eg. Linux open source software.
    I personally think that this settlement gives Microsoft the 
ability to make money in three well defined separate arenas. I also 
believe that it levels out the playing field a little bit. With 
Microsoft`s new .net strategy, they should be more than happy to 
open up the source code of their prior products. They should realize 
the profit potential of selling software as separate packages, 
rather than bundling with an OS to stifle competition. They should 
realize they have a well established internet presence that nearly 
stifles competion on its own.
    I hardly think my proposal is harsh. The reason being, is that 
it stillallows Microsoft to make enough money to satisfy any greedy 
executive. Of course the lynchpin to it all is 3 oversight groups. 
One to monitor their sales of bundled software, one to monitor their 
funding of open source development and making sure that the open 
source development is adequately used. The third group would monitor 
internet services/hardware sales (making sure drivers for their 
products are available to otherOS`es, and making sure that their 
internet services are truly compatible,(the most recent incident of 
them blocking other browsers to their content is outrageous)).
    Bill Gates is a driven man, he should be up to the challenge of 
making three separate enterprises run well without each other.
    Jake Burns



MTC-00004513

From: TOM HAVILAND
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 4:23pm
Subject: I am against the current settlement
    I am against the current Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I do 
not believe it provides any remedy to their past and current 
practices. In fact I believe that it was developed with an eye more 
toward sexpediency than justice. Any settlement should contain the 
following restriction: Microsoft must publish all internal file 
formats and APIs to an independent 3rd party standards body. 
Additionally, Microsoft must submit any network protocols that it 
develops to an independent 3rd party standards body. Microsoft may 
not develop or deploy any products based on these file formats, APIs 
andnetwork protocols until the standards body approves and publishes 
same. No protocol, API, or file format may be encumbered by patent 
restrictions.
    Thank you
    Thomas Haviland
    100 Duxbury Road
    Bolton, Vermont 05676
    CC:senator_leahy@leahy. senate.gov@inetgw



MTC-00004514

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 4:37pm
Subject: Submittance of comments regarding the DOJ/Microsoft 
Settlement
    The Department of Justice is doing the world no favor by 
settling with the conditions they have set. Microsoft has been 
devising ways to bend the conditions to their advantage ever since 
their creation. Microsoft does not create programs, but rather is a 
business machine. Microsoft has not sold software since the mid to 
late 80s, rather they have sold infleunce. By IBM making a fatal 
mistake and selling off DOS (they thought no money could be made by 
selling software at the time, they thought the bucks were in the 
hardware) Microsoft gained a foot hold in the standards of the PC. 
Through this, they`ve decided who suceeds and who fails by using 
their image. Talk to anyone in america, it`s very doubtful you will 
find many who do not know who Microsoft is, and how powerful they 
are. Through design they try to make the market theirs. By 
implementing their own `bastardized' standards (ala 
Java, the Kerbos networking protocol, microsoft proxy server etc.) 
they make it so you can only use their products or products approved 
by them. Back in the day, there was an authentication protocol 
called CHAP (an open standard was used called CHAP 80) Microsoft in 
an attempt to sieze control of the market implemented a version 
called `CHAP 81' which was basicly the same thing except 
it involved `handshaking' that would refuse connections 
to non CHAP 81 servers. In doing so they tried to push their OSes 
and networking products, but it failed miserably. Microsoft is like 
the mythical Hydra Hercules fought, this punishment will be like 
cutting off the heads, and there will merely be more in the places 
of the ones you cut off. Aim your attack for the heart of Microsoft 
instead. Some people say release the source code to Microsoft 
programs, but that`s a punishment that would ultimately lead to 
their total destruction. Microsoft serves a place in socciety that 
is very important, as does windows. If you want to hurt microsoft 
without killing them, force them to release the source code to the 
version of software that was formerly released or after 3 years of 
the software being sold in retail (eg Windows ME whereas Windows XP 
is the current home edition, NT version 4.0 whereas Windows 2000 (NT 
5) is the current version, and so on under the GNU Public liscense. 
Also allow versions of their software over 8 years old to become 
part of the public domain. There should also be a strict forbiddance 
for Microsoft to bundle more then the basic software (e.g. the 
updated versions of the Windows 95 install, as well as drivers such 
as DirectX) and they should be forced to put the rest on seperate 
CD(s.) If you have any issues that you desire to regard in this 
commentary, please email me at the address above. I will be happy to 
take any of your questions or comments to the best of my ability.
    Regards,
    Alan H Draconic



MTC-00004515

From: Terence E. Shelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    You should be ashamed of your proposed settlement with 
Microsoft! They are an abusive illegal monopoly and we the taxpayers 
pay your salary to protect us from them.
    Microsoft does not invent. I have challenged several news groups 
to name a single software invention from Microsoft, so far there are 
two, BOB and DLL hell. Everything else was invented by others, 
mostly individuals and small companies,

[[Page 24524]]

only to have Microsoft copy their ideas and bake them into their 
product lines. This usurping of others ideas is the greatest 
hindrance to advancement for the software industry today. Nobody 
wants to put down the time and effort to write neat and useful 
programs because they know they will never be able to capitalize on 
it, Microsoft will copy it and get all the money. What will your 
proposed settlement do to hinder this in the future? As far as I can 
see nothing! At least the `hold out states` proposed solution 
provides a glimmer of hope for breaking the monopoly. They appear to 
be doing your job. When I was an officer in the Navy we were 
restricted in our purchases from IBM because they were quasi-
monopoly. Does that restriction still apply? Hopefully so! That 
would put the entire US government including the DOD out of 
Microsoft`s pocket. That would break the monopoly and rekindle the 
innovation in the software industry.
    Terence E. Shelton, MCSE
    Systems Administrator
    Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers Inc.
    8080 Park Lane #600
    Dallas, Texas 75231
    Phone 214.739.4741



MTC-00004516

From: Juan Rivero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a computer user, developer, and educator, I wish to express 
my concern about the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement. My 
understanding of the matter is that Microsoft has been found guilty 
of Sherman Act violations, and that the public has been asked to 
comment on the penalty phase of the case. It is my opinion that the 
settlement, as currently stated, does nothing to remove the 
Microsoft monopoly and in fact enhances it.
    As far as I can determine, Microsoft is not required to take any 
significant steps to relinquish its monopoly of the Software Systems 
market. At a bare minimum, the settlement should additionally:
    (1) Require full publication of all file formats, especially 
those of Word Processors and Spreadsheets, so that competitors can 
produce equivalents of e.g. MS Word without being unduly handicapped 
by proprietary formats.
    (2) Require that any network protocols invented by Microsoft be 
approved by an independent organization, in the same way that other 
protocols are.
    (3) Require that retailers be permitted to sell computers with 
any operating system at all (including none) preinstalled, and 
adjust the price of their machines accordingly.
    The issue of open file formats is extremely important, as MSWord 
files exchanged over networks have become a *de facto* standard for 
both business and governments; these organizations are reluctant to 
consider any alternatives to Microsoft operating systems because of 
the unavailability of MSWord-compatible products on the alternative 
platforms.
    If a national security issue is at stake here, as the judge 
apparently has suggested, then all the more reason not to extend the 
Microsoft monopoly. The National Security Agency, who is surely 
qualified to judge, has stated for example that Windows NT is not 
auditable. In this case, it becomes desirable to allow alternative 
platforms an opportunity to enter the market without undue 
hindrance. This opinion is my own, and in no way do I pretend to 
represent the University of Alaska or any other institution.
    Yours,
    Juan Rivero
    Dr. Juan Rivero, University of Alaska Southeast
    http://www2.jun.alaska.edu/ï¿½7Ejfjr 
email:[email protected]



MTC-00004517

From: Perrault, Brian
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
December 14th, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to voice my concerns over Microsoft`s monopoly of 
the software and specifically, operating systems, industry.
    First of all, let me thank you for taking the time to consider 
my comments. It is much appreciated that this opportunity has been 
granted to the public, I am most appreciative that I live in a 
society where I am able to participate in such dialogue.
    I feel that the suite of operating systems which Microsoft has 
delivered to the public for the past 10 years have been poor in 
quality, at best. Furthermore, Microsoft`s brute-force mass 
distribution of their product, has brought our society to a point 
where consumers and businesses cannot function without their 
product. This is a serious issue which must be dealt with 
immediately. Microsoft cannot continue to operate with the business 
practices they have employed in past years.
    An appropriate alternative would be to break up Microsoft into 
several pieces. One piece would control development of their 
operating system, one would control their suite of office products, 
and a final one would control their suite of web software. 
Furthermore, Microsoft should be forced to sell a stripped-down 
version of their Windows operating system, which would allow users 
to customize their software options. Thank you for your 
consideration in this matter. I encourage you to use the full force 
of the law to save our society from this plague which is Microsoft.
    Sincerest thanks,
    Brian J Perrault
    Group 99
    Advanced Space Systems and Concepts
    MIT Lincoln Laboratory
    Lexington, Massachusetts 02420



MTC-00004518

From: Jon Sellers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 5:12pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Jon Sellers. My address is 5541 Oak Hollow Drive, 
Titusville, FL 32780. I would like to make public comment on the 
proposed settlement for the Microsoft case.
    I have over 15 years of experience in the systems management and 
software development fields and I am currently an Information 
Systems Manager with the Brevard County Board of County 
Commissioners. The opinions stated here are strictly my own and do 
not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer.
    The current proposed settlement will have no affect on the 
maintenance of Microsoft`s monopoly in desktop operating systems. 
The basis of this monopoly is simple:
    1. Control of the Application Programming Interface (API) to the 
Windows operating system. By maintaining this control, Microsoft can 
modify the API to its advantage and to the disadvantage of its 
competitors.
    2. Control of the file formats associated with its products. A 
commercial competitor cannot be assured its products will work with 
these formats which again, can be modified to Microsofts advantage.
    3. Control of the network protocols associated with its network 
protocols. The argument is exactly the same as above.
    Because the settlement proposed by Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice will not rectify any of these fundamental problems, it 
will not have any effect on Microsoft`s maintenance of its monopoly.
    It is my stated opinion that a better settlement would be to 
simply require that the above are made into public standards, 
alterable only by the consensus of an organization whose members 
represent both Microsoft and its competitors.
    Jon Sellers



MTC-00004519

From: Mike Dewey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:11pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft`s antitrust case
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I would like to express my concerns about the penalty phase of 
the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust case. My qualifications for 
commenting on this case are that I am a computer programmer and I 
have been working in the computer industry for nine years. I do not 
have any ties to the parties involved in this case other than I am a 
user of their products.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of violating U.S. antitrust 
laws, and therefore a just penalty must not encourage the 
continuation of this monopoly. The proposed settlement, however, 
would not punish Microsoft at all, and would actually help them hold 
onto their unfair advantage. I feel that the major reason that 
Microsoft has been able to hold onto their monopoly is that they do 
not make their file formats and other protocols public. In order for 
competing products to move into a space that is controlled by 
Microsoft, they must be able to interact with Microsoft products. 
However,

[[Page 24525]]

this competition cannot spend their resources creating new features 
because they are constantly playing catch-up with Microsoft`s 
changing proprietary protocols. I think that it is very important 
for any penalty to include opening file formats, as well as having 
all of their protocols approved by an independent body of computer 
professionals and academics.
    Another concern that I have is that Microsoft`s settlement 
proposal involves distributing their software to our public schools. 
This is not a punishment at all, but rather a way for the company to 
guarantee that our next generation of computer users were raised on 
Microsoft products. I fully endorse the idea that any capitol 
exchanged as part of the punishment should go toward the public 
good, but it should not be done in a way that just makes the problem 
worse.
    In closing, I would like to address the issue of how this 
settlement will affect our national interest. Computer systems most 
definitely play a role in our overall national security, and as 
things stand today they are our Achilles heel because they are 
controlled by a proprietary monopoly. When network protocols are 
open and public they can be reviewed by hundreds of people around 
the world, and this makes them more secure. I realize that this may 
be contrary to what one might think, but in the computer world 
secrecy always leads in insecure products. As an example, the web 
server made by the open source Apache group is the most widely used 
server in the world, yet it has been more than three years since a 
known remote root exploit has occurred through Apache. Microsoft`s 
IIS server, on the other hand, is closed source and proprietary. IIS 
has had several major exploits in the past several months (the code 
red worm for instance).
    I appreciate that you took the time to read my comments, and I 
hope that you take them into consideration when you make your 
decision.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Dewey
    307 MacArthur Blvd.
    Oakland, CA 94610
    (510) 839-1892



MTC-00004520

From: Sugars, Kirk
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 5:25pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to express my deep reservations and concerns about 
the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case.
    First of all, Microsoft was indeed found guilty of violating the 
Sherman Anti-Trust act. Having worked with their products in a 
corporate setting for nearly two decades, I can personally attest to 
the damage their unfair tactics have caused the marketplace. The 
most notable would be the destruction of competition by buying out 
competing products, killing innovation by promising the same 
function in some future release of their operating system, or the 
maintenance of a monopoly (through onerous licensing practices) that 
is based on products that fail to meet necessary standards for 
security and stability. Having looked at the proposed settlement, I 
cannot see how the settlement addresses any of the CAUSES of the 
problem, or incents Microsoft in any way to change their behavior in 
the future. Quite the contrary, the settlement is almost a kiss and 
an apology to Microsoft for `all their trouble with this 
annoying lawsuit.' This does not appear to me to be in the 
public interest.
    Secondly, I would like to suggest that this case and its 
consequences are of historic proportions. In my job I have spent 
many hours trouble-shooting instabilities in Microsoft`s operating 
systems, fighting viruses that were virtually `invited' 
into the systems by their poor design decisions, and developing 
work-around`s to the systems` limitations. All the while my choices 
have been limited by the unethical tactics of Microsoft. The future 
of our nation may well depend upon our ability to establish public 
control of, or at least influence over, the technological 
foundations of our economy. We cannot afford to `hand over the 
keys' to a company that has shown that it can`t be trusted. I 
see no sign of remorse or any intention to behave differently in the 
future on the part of the defendant. Therefore, they should not be 
`set free.'
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Kirk Sugars
    VP-Systems Liaison Manager
    Technical Services Group
    Bank of Albuquerque
    3900 Vassar Dr. NE
    Albuquerque, NM 87107
    505-855-0802
    [email protected]



MTC-00004521

From: Robert Ridgard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 5:22pm
Subject: MS court decision
    Please consider that MS`s `reluctance' to accept the 
`punishment` of placing PC`s and software in schools 
sounds too much like Brer `Rabbit pleading' please don`t 
throw me in that brier patch`. It gives MS a segue into a market 
they had little presence in previously. Then there`s the 
`refurbished' PC option. Sure, an old PC is better than 
none, but a new one would be more useful to students AND would 
represent a more convincing decision. Plus, without adequate tech 
support and training, the computers are just boat anchors in 
Arizona! I urge, at the very least, that proper (not just 
`adequate') training personnel be provided.
    Thank you
    Robert L. Ridgard
    32779
    Your focus determines your reality.



MTC-00004522

From: Bransky, Alex
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 5:22pm
Subject: suggestion
    You should have Microsoft supply schools with computers that run 
Linux or Macintosh.
    Alex Bransky
    Anagram International
    Eden Prairie, MN
    952-949-5727



MTC-00004523

From: Clewley,Daniel T
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 5:24pm
Subject: Reject the DOJ Settlement
    C C: `thurrott(a)win2000mag. com`
    I urge the Honorable Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to reject the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of 
Justice (DOJ) . I strongly support that the proposed remedy from the 
remaining states and ask that it be accepted. Adopting the DOJ 
settlement will reward Microsoft for its past criminal actions, 
encourage future misconduct, damage the few remaining viable 
competitors, and force consumers to continue to pay inflated prices 
for inferior software. The attached analysis and opinion from the 
Editor of Win 2000 Magazine accurately conveys my beliefs regarding 
how and why the convicted monopolistic Microsoft corporation should 
be punished. `Unlike the previously announced settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft, these remedies create a real prospect 
of achieving what the DOJ said it intended to accomplish: 
`Stop Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, prevent any 
recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore competition in 
the software market.'ï¿½1A'
    Daniel T. Clewley
    700 North Alameda Street,
    Los Angeles, CA, 90012-2944
    (213) 217-7576_phone (213) 830-4574_fax
    [email protected]
    ..... Original Message .....
From: WinInfo Daily UPDATE
    [mailto:[email protected]
ag.net] Sent:
    Monday, December 10, 2001 1:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: WinInfo Daily UPDATE, December 10, 2001
    1. NEWS AND VIEWS (contributed by Paul Thurrott, News Editor, 
[email protected])* AN ANALYSIS AND OPINION OF THE 
STATES` PROPOSED MICROSOFT REMEDY As expected, on Friday the 
District of Columbia and the nine remaining US states allied against 
Microsoft presented their proposed remedy for Microsoft`s antitrust 
case. After the watered-down and ineffectual proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and nine 
other US states last month, I didn`t expect much from this proposed 
remedy. But this proposal is far more realistic and pragmatic than 
the earlier proposed settlement, and I strongly urge Judge Colleen 
Kollar-Kotelly to wholeheartedly reject the DOJ agreement and adopt 
this proposed remedy instead. In this analysis and opinion, I`ll 
examine the remedial proposals the states have presented and explain 
why they represent a more suitable punishment for Microsoft`s 
repeated violations of US antitrust law.
    But first, a quick review. The US Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia unanimously agreed with the earlier ruling that 
Microsoft had illegally maintained its desktop OS monopoly by 
`suppressing emerging technologies that threatened to 
undermine its monopoly control.' Microsoft prevented these 
technologies, which included Sun`s Java and Netscape`s Web browser, 
among others, from succeeding by

[[Page 24526]]

maintaining what the Court of Appeals called the `applications 
barrier to entry,' in which a dominant platform such as 
Windows stays in power by keeping consumers locked in. As noted in 
the proposed remedy, `the applications barrier to entry, 
coupled with Microsoft`s 90 percent plus market share, gave 
Microsoft the power to protect its `dominant operating system 
irrespective of quality` and to `stave off even superior new 
rivals.'ï¿½1A` To specifically combat Java and Netscape, 
Microsoft `aggressively and unlawfully prevented these rivals 
from achieving the widespread distribution they needed to attract 
software development and ultimately make other platforms meaningful 
competitors with Microsoft`s Windows operating system.' The 
proposed remedy also notes that the US Court of Appeals 
`cataloged an extensive list of anticompetitive [and] 
exclusionary acts by which Microsoft artificially bolstered the 
applications barrier to entry, including commingling the software 
code for its own middleware with that of its monopoly operating 
system, thereby eliminating distribution opportunities for competing 
middleware; threatening to withhold and withholding critical 
technical information from competing middleware providers, thereby 
allowing Microsoft middleware to obtain significant advantages over 
its rivals; threatening to withhold porting of critical Microsoft 
software applications and financial benefits from those who even 
considered aiding its rivals; contractually precluding [PC makers] 
and ultimately end users from the opportunity to choose competitive 
software; and even deceiving software developers to conceal the fact 
that the software they were writing would be compatible only with 
Microsoft`s platform.' The list is long and, sadly, only a 
subset of the strategies that Microsoft has employed over the years 
to stifle competition and innovation.
    After losing its appeal, Microsoft entered a new phase of its 
antitrust trial. Kollar-Kotelly recommended that the company attempt 
to settle the case, and the court eventually provided a mediator. 
Then on October 31, the last day of mediation, Microsoft and the DOJ 
shocked the world by announcing a settlement. However, Microsoft 
critics immediately denounced the settlement as being too lenient on 
the company. Even I referred to the settlement as `a travesty 
of justice that leaves an illegal monopoly in a position of power, 
enabling Microsoft to continue harming competitors, partners, and 
even customers' (see the URL at the end of this article for my 
take on the DOJ and Microsoft settlement).
    As a result, the District of Columbia and nine of the 18 states 
allied against Microsoft refused to sign the agreement, calling on 
antitrust precedent and noting that `the suit has been a 
futile exercise if the Government proves a violation but fails to 
secure a remedy adequate to redress it,' and `a remedies 
decree in an antitrust case must seek to `unfetter a market 
from anticompetitive conduct` to `terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future.'ï¿½1A` So the 
states` proposed remedy, delivered Friday as required, addresses 
these issues and punishes Microsoft for its illegal behavior. And 
the proposal elegantly explains why Microsoft should be punished in 
a manner more appropriate than that in the DOJ settlement. `A 
meaningful remedy must do more, however, than merely prohibit a 
recurrence of Microsoft`s past misdeeds,' the proposed remedy 
reads. `[First,] it must also seek to restore the competitive 
balance so that competing middleware developers and those who write 
applications based on that middleware are not unfairly handicapped 
in that competition by Microsoft`s past exclusionary acts, and 
[secondly,] it must be forward-looking with respect to technological 
and marketplace developments, so that today`s emerging competitive 
threats are protected from the very anticompetitive conduct that 
Microsoft has so consistently and effectively employed in the past. 
Only then can the applications barrier to entry be reduced and much-
needed competition be given a fair chance to emerge.'
    The states even specifically take a jab at the proposed DOJ and 
Microsoft settlement. `Unlike the previously announced 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft, these remedies create a 
real prospect of achieving what the DOJ said it intended to 
accomplish: `Stop Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, 
prevent any recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore 
competition in the software market.'ï¿½1A`
    Here are the states` proposed remedies. I`ve ordered them by 
magnitude, with the proposed remedies I consider the most important 
listed first.
    1. Microsoft should be required to license its Office source 
code so that competitors can sell Office on rival platforms. 
`To begin to erode the applications barrier to entry that was 
enhanced by Microsoft`s unlawful behavior, and thereby begin to 
`pry open to competition a market that has been closed by 
defendants` illegal restraints,` Microsoft should be required to 
auction to a third party the right to port Microsoft Office to 
competing operating systems,' the proposal reads. Also, 
Microsoft should be forced to continue offering its Macintosh Office 
product, with the stipulation that each revision of that product 
ship within 60 days of each Windows version of the suite and include 
similar functionality. And Microsoft should be forced to auction off 
Office licenses so that at least three companies can port the suite 
to the platforms of their choice; Microsoft will receive a royalty 
for each auction but no further payments. And Microsoft will be 
required to give the third parties all the technical information 
needed to make the ports successful.
    This controversial remedy hits Microsoft right in the gut 
because it hands over some of the company`s crown jewels_the 
source code to its dominant Office products_to competitors and 
opens up the Office productivity market once again. Critics have 
long maintained that Microsoft`s OS monopoly is unfairly bolstered 
by users` reliance on Office, and this proposal seeks to answer that 
complaint. Indeed, given that many of Office`s features have found 
their way into Windows over time and that the Office team has had 
unfair and early access to internal Windows technologies for years, 
it`s only fair that competitors get the same benefits.
    2. Microsoft should be forced to open-source Internet Explorer 
(IE). Much of the original trial focused on Microsoft`s illegal 
bundling of IE in Windows solely to harm its competitor Netscape; 
the Appellate Court finally ruled that Microsoft designed IE not to 
make browsing more attractive to users, but to discourage PC makers 
from distributing rival products. In other words, the company 
`integrated' IE into windows solely to harm Netscape, 
not to help its customers. `Eliminating Netscape and 
establishing [IE] as the dominant browser was a critical component 
of Microsoft`s monopoly maintenance strategy,' the proposed 
remedy notes. `Given that Microsoft`s browser dominance was 
achieved to bolster the operating system monopoly, the remedial 
prescription must involve undoing that dominance to the extent it is 
still possible to do so. Accordingly, the appropriate solution is to 
mandate open-source licensing for [IE], thereby ensuring at a 
minimum that others have full access to this critical platform and 
that Microsoft cannot benefit unduly from the browser dominance that 
it gained as part of its unlawful monopolization of the operating 
system market.'
    If the court enacts this proposal, Microsoft will have to 
disclose and license the source code for all current and future 
versions of IE and any related Web-browsing functionality found in 
various versions of Windows. This action will give competitors and 
other developers a perpetual, royalty-free license to create any 
derived products they want, without fear of retaliation from 
Microsoft. As with the Office porting proposal, this proposal hits 
right at the heart of the matter and is an appropriate remedy for a 
company that abused competitors, partners, and users through its 
anticompetitive bundling of IE and Windows.
    3. Microsoft`s bundled software should be unbundled from 
Windows. As with the previous proposal, this requirement relates to 
Microsoft`s illegal commingling of IE and other middleware with 
Windows, which deterred PC makers and users from installing 
competing products. The states give Microsoft two options: Either 
cease bundling middleware such as IE, Windows Media Player (WMP), 
and Windows Messenger in all current and future versions of Windows, 
or start selling Windows versions that don`t include those bundled 
applications. If the court chooses the latter option, those 
unbundled Windows versions should cost significantly less than the 
versions that include bundled software and should function properly. 
This requirement applies to Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, 
and Windows NT 4.0, but not to Windows 98 or Win98 SE, for some 
reason.
    Again, I endorse any remedy that addresses a specific area in 
which the court found Microsoft guilty of breaking the law. Indeed, 
the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously 
upheld the earlier District Court ruling that Microsoft bundled 
middleware such as IE solely to `deter

[[Page 24527]]

computer manufacturers from installing a rival browser such as 
Netscape Navigator. Microsoft offered no specific or substantiated 
evidence to justify such commingling, and such commingling had an 
anticompetitive effect.' Users and PC makers should be able to 
choose whether to install Microsoft or third-party middleware, and 
this proposal makes the choice possible. Contrast this solution to 
Windows XP, where users can`t uninstall components such as WMP, 
Windows Movie Maker (WMM), and Windows Messenger, let alone replace 
them with other software.
    4. If Microsoft knowingly violates the terms of this remedy, the 
company should be forced to license the source code of the product 
in question. Given Microsoft`s repeated violation of previous 
agreements, this proposed remedy is key. If the court finds in the 
future that Microsoft illegally commingled software code into 
Windows, for example, the company will have to freely license the 
Windows source code to the appropriate parties. `If the Court 
determines that Microsoft has knowingly committed an act of Material 
Non-Compliance, the Court may, in addition to any other action, 
convene a hearing to consider an order requiring Microsoft to 
license its source code for the Microsoft software that is 
implicated by the act of Material Non-Compliance to anyone 
requesting such a license for the purpose of facilitating 
interoperability between the relevant Microsoft product and any non-
Microsoft product,' the ruling reads. If the court finds that 
Microsoft knowingly engaged in a pattern of noncompliance, the 
company will have to pay fines and suffer further appropriate 
remedies. This remedy is crucial because it openly warns Microsoft 
about the consequences of its future behavior, giving the company no 
wiggle room to `reinterpret' its legally binding conduct 
remedies as it has so often in the past.
    5. Microsoft should be forced to adhere to industry standards. 
Microsoft frequently `embraces' open standards only to 
`extend' them with proprietary additions that make 
interoperability with non-Windows platforms difficult or impossible. 
The states refer to this practice as the `co-opting and/or 
undermining of industry standards,' and they point to 
Microsoft`s specific behavior regarding Java: The company 
`purposely deceived software developers into believing that 
the Microsoft Java programming tools had cross-platform capability 
with Sun-based Java' when they didn`t. Under terms of this 
proposal, Microsoft would again have two options: The company could 
adopt and implement industry standards into its products and not 
modify them at all. Or it could modify these technologies and supply 
the changes to any party that requests them. Furthermore, Microsoft 
couldn`t require third parties to use standards-based technologies 
it had modified.
    This is another compelling request, because it addresses a 
specific behavior Microsoft has long been guilty of. If enacted, 
Microsoft`s embrace-and-extend strategy will be open to competitors 
and thus rendered moot.
    6. Microsoft should be forced to distribute Java with Windows 
and IE. According to the states, `Microsoft`s destruction of 
the cross-platform threat posed by Sun`s Java technology was a 
critical element of the unlawful monopoly maintenance violation 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft continues to enjoy the 
benefits of its unlawful conduct, as Sun`s Java technology does not 
provide the competitive threat today that it posed prior to 
Microsoft`s campaign of anticompetitive conduct. Because an 
appropriate antitrust remedy decree should, among other things, 
attempt `to deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation,` Microsoft must be required to distribute Java with its 
platform software (i.e., its operating systems and [IE] browser), 
thereby ensuring that Java receives the widespread distribution that 
it could have had absent Microsoft`s unlawful behavior, and 
increasing the likelihood that Java can serve as a platform to 
reduce the applications barrier to entry.' Under the 
proposal`s terms, this bundling would continue for 10 years and 
would require Microsoft to continue developing modern versions of 
Java that conform to Sun`s latest Java specifications. This is the 
only part of the proposal I disagree with, largely because Sun has 
never opened up Java to an internationally recognized standards body 
(I likewise reject any argument that Java is a de facto standard). 
During the company`s original trial, the court asked Bill Gates 
about Microsoft bundling Netscape Navigator in Windows. Gates 
replied that that would be like requiring Coca-Cola to include one 
Pepsi in each of its six-packs of Coke. I agree that such a 
requirement is ludicrous, as is requiring Microsoft to bundle Java 
with Windows.
    The remaining proposed remedies are less exciting and more 
closely mimic the remedies in the DOJ`s proposed settlement. Thus, 
I`ll cover them more succinctly.
    7. Microsoft should be required to reveal all interoperability 
technologies so that `Microsoft middleware developers [don`t] 
receive preferential disclosure of technical information over rival 
middleware developers.'
    8. Microsoft should have to license its intellectual rights when 
necessary to meet the requirements of this remedy. Some of the 
aforementioned proposals will require Microsoft to license its 
intellectual property to third parties. The company will have to do 
so when appropriate.
    9. Microsoft should have to provide uniform and 
nondiscriminatory licensing to PC makers, regardless of their 
relationships with Microsoft and Microsoft competitors.
    10. Microsoft should be prohibited from entering into agreements 
that would harm competition. Furthermore, `Microsoft must also 
be prohibited from taking certain actions that could unfairly 
disadvantage its would-be competitors, whether by knowingly 
interfering with the performance of their software with no advance 
warning or entering into certain types of contracts that could 
unreasonably foreclose competing middleware providers.'
    11. Microsoft should be banned from retaliating against 
companies or users that choose non-Microsoft technologies.
    12. Microsoft should be prevented from forcing PC makers and 
users to choose Microsoft-only solutions. No Microsoft middleware 
can be included in Windows unless it can also be removed and 
replaced by PC makers and end users.
    13. Microsoft should be prohibited from requiring partners to 
sign noncompete agreements, such as the agreement it allegedly tried 
to enter into with Netscape.
    14. Microsoft should be required to undergo regular compliance 
certification to ensure that it meets the requirements of the ruling 
against it. This certification will include an internal compliance 
officer, annual compliance certifications, a compliance committee 
consisting of at least three members of Microsoft`s Board of 
Directors, and extensive internal-document retention.
    15. A Special Master should be empowered to promptly investigate 
any future complaints against Microsoft.
    16. Microsoft should be required to report any potential 
technology or corporate acquisitions to the plaintiffs for review 
because the company has used such acquisitions in the past to extend 
its monopoly power.
    Folks, this proposal represents your tax dollars at work. I 
salute the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia for erecting a logical and workable remedy that addresses, 
rather than rewards, Microsoft`s illegal, anticompetitive behavior. 
Just weeks ago, it seemed that Microsoft would escape punishment, 
but these proposed remedies give new hope that justice will be 
served. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly can at least find a happy middle 
ground between the DOJ`s proposed settlement and this more 
reasonable set of remedies, we might see competition and innovation 
return to the computer industry. If I`m not mistaken, that was the 
original point of this legal nightmare.



MTC-00004524

From: Timothy Taebel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    As a end user, I am grateful to the people at the Microsoft 
organization. I am 60 years old and never have had any formal 
training in the usage of computers. All I know, is that the cost of 
computers continues to fall and they are easier to use which is most 
beneficial to me and my family. It seems to me that the folks at 
Microsoft got up earlier, worked later and smarter than their 
competition and made the best mousetrap. The only mistake that 
Microsoft made is they weren`t politically savvy. While Microsoft 
was tending to their knitting, the out witted competition cried foul 
and hired a bunch of lawyers and lobbyist. Then unfortunately the 
states got involved as their politically motivated Attorney Generals 
decided that suing Microsoft was good for the advancement of their 
careers. It seems to me that nobody is speaking up for the consumer, 
who has benefited immensely from the products from Microsoft. The 
lawsuit is nothing but a waste of tax payers money and should be 
resolved as quickly as possible. I

[[Page 24528]]

suggest the competition should just try to make a better product at 
a cheaper price and the public will buy it.
    Thank You
    Timothy C. Taebel
    2020 Goldengate Dr.
    Michigan City, In. 46360



MTC-00004525

From: David Morrissey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 5:42pm
Subject: Public comment
    Hello...my name is David Morrissey.
     I am not in favour of this settlement. I am an individual who 
understands many of the aspects of the computer industry. Within 
that sphere, I feel that the need for a hasty resolve is not as 
important as a proper resolve.
    This is the aspect of the trial where Microsoft`s punishment for 
breaking the law is being created and myself I would wish to see the 
following also included as they have all been raised my many voices 
from many corners of the issues.
    1. Microsoft to offer the windows operating system`s without 
additional software included or embedded to OEM`s with both:
    A) a price difference which reflects the cost of products such 
as MS Office instead of say 5-20$ dollars. Example-if MS 
office costs 100 dollars...I would like to see the price of the 
Office free windows OS 100 dollars cheaper.
    B) A uniformed contract set up which would prevent MS from 
favouring or punishing OEM`s who choose one variety or 
`flavour' over another. My feelings for this are that MS 
will be limited in it`s ability to abuse it`s monopoly in the OS 
market if it is unable to retaliate against manufacturers who wish 
to either not support Microsoft`s other products and or choose to 
support a competitor`s instead.
    2. Microsoft must be made to release information required by 
competitors in a public and universal form in a timely manner. As 
they are a monopoly they must not be able to choose who may and may 
not and in what order and when software developers gain access to 
required Microsoft product information or `hooks' as 
their called.
    3. Details of document file formats of Microsoft programs 
(Office) must also be made public and universal in a timely manner. 
If not then fear of another monopoly may prove warranted but 
unheeded.
    4. Microsoft must not be allowed to create proprietary 
networking protocols which may take away from the internet as a free 
and open place devoid of the requirement for one company over 
another. Any new networking protocols Have to be FULLY documented 
and reviewed by an established Independent body such as tcp/ip is 
today. This could in effect remove the Open Source movement and 
competitors such at Linux, the fastest growing operating system 
avalible, from being a viable solution to an Internet virually 
inclosed behind a Microsoft yoke.
    5. The moniting will last only a few years. What will happen 
after that is over? I feel that as long as there is a monopoly, then 
Microsoft should be held in check to prevent it from abusing it`s 
monopoly. Hence the two items should be linked together in some 
manner where reports of abuse may be investagated where the monopoly 
abuse issue is called into question.
    6. In the punishment stage I do no believe that Microsoft should 
have a hand in selecting who will be chosen to see that the 
punishment will be observerd... Or to have say in when and where 
these 3 purposed wardens can go and see within that area. More to 
the matter, here while the purposed agreemenet is being reviewed and 
this request of comments from the general public is being asked for, 
Microsoft has selected 2 of the people that MS says will oversee 
that it conforms to the agreement which MS also say through these 
actions will be agreed to by the DOJ. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/
stories/news/0,4586,5100682,00.html This leaves myself feeling that 
my time in responding to this request for public responce carries 
little to no weight. Big time buisnees and big time goverment?
    7. There is NO penalty being required of Microsoft. They will 
pay no fines, they will have nothing laid agaisnt them. This illegal 
abuse of it`s monopoly has streagthened and benifited Microsoft 
greatly at the cost of others. And those others will not recover 
from it or see any of their loses returned to them. Indeed this is 
more than worth it to MS to continue to break the law in order to 
break competitors.
    8. The ability to embed software which directly compeates with 
competors such as Internet Explorer, must be removed to prevent 
effective bundeling. MS has the ablitiy to merge into the operating 
system a number of programs and software which will be paid for via 
higher OS prices and or licences fee`s as the case may become.
    Microsoft in this matter is not being properly addressed by the 
purposed agreement. I feel that the public would be better 
represented by a new sentence which would address the above 
concerns.
    This company has been mentioned by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies as a possible threat to national security. I 
would like to see it removed from gaining that sort of position. I 
fail to see how without addressing the above issues this agreement 
intends to effectively do this.
    This company has also repeatedly made statements and remarks 
reflecting a goal to the only operating system available including 
comparisons to items such as the Open Source moment`s Linux to 
Cancer. It may be well pointed out at this time that Microsoft is 
itself funning FreeBSD, a free open source OS, for it`s hotmail 
service as I write this letter.
    Thank you for your time and I hope that my time in this letter 
as well as others writing in will have some voice in this matter. 
Computers can be very complicated devices, and many people do not 
carry the level of understanding some of the more technical aspects 
of the issues dealt with in this case. I hope only the letters you 
recieve from those who do understand some or much of this case aid 
in adding weight against this agreement (or as the public opinion 
may go), and is not just an exercise in public relations.
    Sincerly
    David Morrissey.



MTC-00004526

From: Ted Kim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 5:50pm
Subject: Public Comment RE: US vs. Microsoft
    As a longtime computer user, I find that the proposed settlement 
regarding the Microsoft Anti-Trust case to be inequitable and not in 
the best public interest. The proposed settlement does nothing to 
punish or curtail Microsoft`s monopolistic business practices. In my 
humble opinion, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to further 
its monopolistic business practices with no competition and with the 
Court`s blessing. Gladly I observe that the Court has not gone 
blindly down that primrose path and is hearing other players in the 
industry to gather their opinions before acceptance of the proposal.
    The Court is now determining the penalty to Microsoft for 
violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Microsoft has been found to be 
illegally maintaining a monopoly of the operating systems market. 
Any penalties handed down to Microsoft should include, but not be 
limited to the following in my opinion.
    1. Microsoft operating system software should be billed, listed 
as, and invoiced to the consumer as a separate option on any 
computer purchases. This allows for the consumer the choice of not 
buying Microsoft`s operating system and using another competing 
product. This also negates the argument from retailers that 
`the computer will not run without Windows!' There are 
alternatives to Microsoft`s operating system. This allows those 
consumers, that choose not to use Microsoft product, not be punished 
for taking advantage of choices that are in the marketplace.
    2. Specifications for past, present and future file formats must 
be publicly published by Microsoft. This is to ensure that third 
party vendors and programmers may design and make software to work 
with Microsoft product, not only on Windows, but on other operating 
systems.
    3. Although already proposed, there should be more firm standard 
to be adhered to in regards to the public publishing of Application 
Programming Interfaces or API`s. They should be fully disclosed and 
not partially disclosed and key important pieces not published as 
has happened in the past. A neutral panel or a neutral third party 
should be placed in charge of oversight.
    4. Specifications for past, present and future network protocols 
should also be published and approved by a neutral third party. This 
is to ensure that Microsoft does not extend its monopoly to the 
Internet and become the de-facto standard.
    I thank the Court for hearing my opinion, and hopefully my 
opinions and the opinions of others will help you in this monumental 
decision.
    Respectfully,
    Ted Kim
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    3736 Colonial Avenue
    Los Angeles, CA 90066

[[Page 24529]]

    `Difficulties exist to be surmounted.'_Ralph 
Waldo Emerson



MTC-00004528

From: Paul Van Noord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
12/14/2001 5:22 PM
Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
    To whom this concerns;
    I am a computer consultant who focuses on small businesses, 
churches, missions and families. I build systems, write custom 
applications and train users. I have been in business since 1989. 
This needed to be said to lend credibility to what I have to say.
    First, this is an anti-trust suit. Why? Because Microsoft cannot 
be trusted. If this were a different time in history Bill Gates` 
name would be Al Capone. The primary difference between these two 
men is their choice of weapons and the playing field. Both are/were 
driven by greed and an insatiable desire to control people.
    Any settlement that increases the distribution of Microsoft 
products is totally contrary to what is needed to send a message to 
the up and coming `wannabes' that the type of Microsoft 
crime does not pay. AOL got where they are by giving away their 
software. Now you are proposing to do the same for Microsoft? Please 
do not do it.
    Make Microsoft refund to any purchaser who asks, a substantial 
portion of the Windows purchase price as just compensation for 
manipulating them. Also, require their operating systems to be made 
open source and available to anyone. They can keep their proprietary 
applications but the operating systems should be open source because 
they are the weapons used to bludgeon purchasers into using their 
software. No Microsoft software should be part of any settlement. 
Only cash should be involved.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Van Noord
    Common Sen$e Consulting
    6480 Thoman Drive
    Spring Grove PA 17362
    717-633-6392 Fax 717-633-9886



MTC-00004529

From: Raul X. Garcia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I feel the present settlement agreement regarding the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust suit is contrary to the purpose of the suit and it`s 
legal proceedings. The fact that Netscape as a browser company is no 
longer, and that Microsoft gave away it`s competiting product, under 
the disguise of being part of the operating system, speaks for it`s 
self. Being a computer professional, I find it puzzling that 
Microsoft has captured 90% of the PC operating systems, office 
suites. It as if there are no other alternatives out there. Based on 
the wording of the agreement (which I feel has been written by 
Microsoft) there are loop holes which Microsoft will take advantage 
of. There have been and will continue to be companies victimized by 
Microsoft. Which will only result in a benefit for Microsoft, and 
detriment for the consumer.
    I also believe, that appointing Steve Satchell to the Microsoft 
Compliance Committee, will bring it a certain degree of 
creditability and dignity.
    Thanks,
    Raul X. Garcia
    Wk. 626-287-8520
    Hm. 626-442-6521
    Em. 626-278-4479



MTC-00004530

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust@ ftc.gov@inetgw, 
Ralph@essen...
Date: 12/14/01 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony` The IBM Monopoly Torch
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,letters@ 
sjmercury.com@i...
    `What do you expect!!? What do you expect!?? Uncle Sam 
PASSED the IBM monopoly torch to Microsoft in 1982... you think we 
should hand it off to Joe Q. Public? Jesus Christ, Uncle Sam, you 
made the decision to screw Joe Q. Public then, so live with 
it!'
    `All I say to Uncle Sam is Ka Ching, Ka Ching...ha ha, 
speak their language, they listen...'



MTC-00004531

From: Eric Swanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Final Judgement
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
TO: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
FROM: Eric Swanson
2934 Folsom Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415-377-6531
[email protected]
REGARDING: Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Final Judgement
    Dear Renata Hesse and All Those It May Concern:
    I am writing as a concerned citizen to register my comments on 
the PFJ now being considered in the Microsoft antitrust case 
currently before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the US District 
Court in the District of Columbia.
    As a technology consultant, an expert implementor of both 
Microsoft`s and other technology platforms, and a 20-year veteran in 
information technology, I believe the proposed settlement would be 
completely ineffective in correcting the harm Microsoft has done and 
continues to do to the computer industry overall. I won`t belabor 
the point of how Microsoft`s practices have limited my choices as a 
technology consumer_after all, their misdeeds have already 
been proved_but I will comment briefly on what I believe is 
wrong with the propsal.
    First, the requirement that Microsoft disclose necessary 
software interfaces for the purpose of allowing competitors to 
develop network products and middleware that work with Microsoft 
systems may be well intentioned, but appears entirely toothless. 
This appears to require only that Microsoft disclose these 
interfaces upon release of the operating system that uses them. This 
still leaves a period of months or years when Microsoft internal 
developers will be aware of planned interfaces and can develop for 
them without competition. By the time external competitors catch 
up_perhaps six to eighteen months later_Microsoft could 
be nearly ready with another new OS release, complete with another 
window of advantage. To be effective, I believe this measure must 
require that Microsoft release such interface information even as it 
is being developed, so that outside developers can begin developing 
with accurate specifications at the same time it becomes practical 
for Microsoft developers to begin.
    Second, the idea that Microsoft should be allowed any role in 
selecting the Technical Committee that will oversee its compliance 
(much less the very substantial role proposed) seems patently 
ridiculous. Any body that oversees compliance should be appointed by 
the Court, and selected based on technical skill, legal acumen, and 
a real understanding of how Microsoft`s previous actions have caused 
harm. I endorse appointing a single special master to oversee this 
process, but at the very least any committee should be appointed by 
the presiding judge_or at least somebody other than a proven 
antitrust violator.
    Third, the proposal does not define to my satisfaction how one 
finds whether Microsoft is `retaliating' against a 
competitor. As written, it seems to require that a court proceeding 
determine Microsoft`s intent in order that they be held responsible. 
To me, this seems like a recipe for more years-long bouts of legal 
wrangling. Instead, I believe that biased treatment plus an 
identified motive for Microsoft should automatically be construed as 
retaliation unless Microsoft can prove otherwise. For example, if 
Microsoft changes some licensing terms for a competitor that 
recently started shipping systems with Linux instead of Windows, 
that change in terms would be automatically taken as 
`retaliation'_the burden shifts to Microsoft to 
prove conclusively that the change was not retaliatory.
    I have quite a few other disagreements with the proposed 
judgement, but there are people far more qualified than I to expand 
upon them.
    I echo most of the sentiments of Attorneys General Bill Lockyer 
and Tom Miller, and many of the non-Microsoft industry leaders who 
have spoken about this issue. In short, I recommend taking a much 
harder line against a company that has shown not only violation of, 
but complete contempt for, the antitrust laws of our nation. If we 
fail to contain this threat, Microsoft and other large companies 
will be sent a terribly permissive message. Please don`t let this 
happen.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Swanson (via email: [email protected])



MTC-00004532

From: Wizard

[[Page 24530]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a software developer for nearly 20 years, I find myself 
concerned with the details of the proposed settlement in Microsoft`s 
antitrust case. As stated, I have been developing software for 
Microsoft`s operating systems (OSs) as well as OSs from Sun, DEC, 
HP, and Linux. Since the inception of Windows 95 however, I have 
shied-away from any sort of development on Microsoft`s OSs. I have 
done so because I believe that by developing software for Microsoft 
OSs, I am condoning the behavior that Microsoft has in the past, and 
continues to, exhibit in regards to it`s competition.
    I believe that any settlement with Microsoft that fails to 
directly and strongly address the central issue of the case by 
forbidding any similar practice in the future is irresponsible on 
the part of the DoJ. To this end, I believe that the DoJ must 
enforce a policy that does the following:
_The DoJ must ensure that any computer system sold that can be 
a target for a Microsoft OS, must declare the separate price of that 
OS and sell it separately for that price. It can include additional 
Microsoft products as a `package' with the installed OS 
for no additional cost, but the base OS must be a separate cost.
_Microsoft must make it`s storage format for files of any and 
all of it`s products that have benefited from it`s monopoly. This 
would include all of the applications associated with it`s Office 
suite, as well as Outlook Express, NetMeeting, and many others. This 
will help to level the playing field back to something that 
resembles fair. As it stands presently, the companies cannot compete 
as long as Microsoft is so far ahead.
_Microsoft cannot be allowed to create proprietary network 
protocols. All protocols that are intended to communicate beyond the 
physical boundaries of the machine must become a matter of public 
record, without restrictions on it`s use. Any and all network 
protocols should be approved by some governing body providing 
oversight in such a manner as to ensure interoperability with other 
OSs. Microsoft should not be allowed to extend existing protocols 
without first seeking public comment on such extensions, and then 
publishing all of the details of the proposed extension. It can 
however, add functionality to existing systems provided that such 
added functionality does not interfere in any way with the proper 
implementation of the existing systems, and provided that the 
specification of the existing systems allow for such added 
functionality.
    I feel most strongly about the last item. Microsoft has already 
extended the Kerberos standard to meet it`s own desires (see http://
www.usenix.org/publications/login/1997-11/embraces.html). This 
extension is not only proprietary, but it`s not compatible with the 
existing Kerberos V5 standard. This has the interesting effect that 
the NT domain controller must be a Microsoft product, and that, I 
believe, is intentional.
    The end result with what Microsoft is doing, is that it is 
intentionally developing it`s OS in such a way as to make it 
extremely difficult to integrate other OSs into a Microsoft 
environment. With their existing monopoly, I believe that this is 
the HEART of why the antitrust settlement must take these items into 
account. As long as Microsoft is allowed to continue to benefit from 
it`s monopoly status, there will never be any real competition in 
the marketplace, and that is just un-American.
    Thank you for your time,
    Grant Mongardi
    Software Developer
    Scituate, MA.
    [email protected]



MTC-00004533

From: Alan J. Ecklof
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:28pm
Subject: Why now?
    The fact that Microsoft is being punished now for behavior 
everybody knew was occurring since at least 1994, is like closing 
the barn door after the horse is out. Those who turned to IBM`s OS/2 
for a far superior OS in the early to mid-nineties are well aware of 
how MS manipulated the independent vendors. By making intentionely 
premature promises of a new OS(Windows 95) delivery, MS forced them 
to allocate resources to Windows development and ignore an OS that 
was better(by Gates` own admission) and already existed. The 
infamous MS software delays came to be known as vaporware. This led 
to a dearth of applications for OS/2 and no new OS for Windows 
machines. When it finally arrived, it was more hype than substance. 
I, personally, stopped using OS/2 when MS made a minor change to the 
Win32 service and forced IBM to pay `again` for the right to be 
compatible, which according to sources was the last straw and led to 
a niche OS.
    As far as forcing computer mfrs. into expensive licensing deals, 
that is only another example of how a monopoly can extend its reach 
and force people to by their software, when that may not be the 
buyer`s first choice. Now the problem has become trying to punish 
the company after it `finally' has gotten it right and 
made a product that is worthy of praise (WindowsXP). This would only 
serve to make life difficult for all that use Microsoft products and 
possibly regress to the bad old days. This would have been a perfect 
scenario 4-7 years ago when Microsoft products were still, 
basically, expensive garbage and their far superior competitors 
still had some semblence of market share to further develop. Now 
it`s nothing more than window dressing and does nothing to repair 
the software companies ruined by these illegal practices. In 
addition, some of the plaintiffs, AOL in particular, are no better 
than the defendant.
    I wish I had a dime for every hour I spent trying to keep an MS 
Operating System alive and working or just reinstalling it again.
    Please don`t do anything that would bring back those days.



MTC-00004534

From: Jim O`Dell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    As a Operating Systems Analyst I have a serious interest in 
computers, and their operating systems(OS). Please do not let 
Microsoft get away with unfairly, and illegally, cornering the 
computing market.
    Microsoft has effectivly a strangle hold on OS`s, and the 
applications that run on them.
    By controlling the OS`s Application Program Interface (API), and 
the release dates of applications that must use the API, they keep 
anyone else from competing.
    The only hope of leveling the playing field, and increasing the 
quality of programs that the world depends on, is to force Microsoft 
to adhere to Open Standards. Open Standards by their nature allow 
the world of computing to interface, interact, and grow.
    BTW, the Internet is a prime example of how Open Standards can 
allow may diverse systems to work together.
    Jim O`Dell
    24429 Tyann Ct.
    Moreno Valley, Ca. 92551



MTC-00004535

From: John Hilker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I am one who feels that the proposed settlement between my 
government and Microsoft who was found guilty of violating portions 
of the Sherman Act is far from being in the best interest of me and 
is clearly not in the nation`s interest. Microsoft may be a 
formidable component of our nation`s economy but it`s dominance is 
transitory. The decision on a penalty for Microsoft`s behavior will 
have a long standing, precedent setting effect. Might makes right 
may be nature`s example but our country was founded on a premise 
that the people must be shielded from oppressors.
    I find it offensive that Microsoft is being allowed to thumb its 
nose at the People who have proven the guilt of the company in its 
behavior towards its customers and competitors.
    Thank you for the opportunity register my opposition to the 
proposed settlement.
    John Hilker
    256 Genthner Road
    Waldoboro, ME 04572



MTC-00004536

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 6:57pm
Subject: comments on the Microsoft settlement
    The breakup of the Bell Telephone monopoly spawned many new 
technologies and services which would never have happened otherwise.
    There is now a thriving industry of local and long-distance 
phone carriers, DSL services, etc. Similarly, a real end to 
Microsoft`s monopoly on computer software would spur huge growth and 
competition in operating systems and application software. The 
global internet holds fantastic promise

[[Page 24531]]

for new applications, new ways of connecting people, and incredible 
innovation. Building these new things and offering them at 
reasonable prices is not in Microsoft`s interest when they have a 
monopoly, and is not possible for other companies. Break up the 
monopoly, and I believe we`ll see enormous economic growth, as new 
companies spring up to compete.
    To effectively allow competition, the settlement must enforce 
the publishing of standards. There are many standards we take for 
granted in everyday life without which whole industries would be 
impossible. Light bulbs all have the same type of socket. No one 
company has secret control over a socket standard, so no one company 
has a lock on selling the fixtures *and* the lights.
    So Microsoft must be forced to expose their interfaces. 
Interfaces include APIs of course, but they importantly include 
document formats. A document saved in Microsoft Word *must* be 
openable (correctly) in a competing word processor program, and 
other programs must be able to correctly write files which MS Word 
reads. Sending and receiving documents is a fundamentally important 
communication, and if Microsoft is the only company which can sell 
software to read documents published by others, Microsoft`s monopoly 
will continue unaffected, and new companies and new economic growth 
will not appear. In essence, *every* interface between one piece of 
software and another must be made public. This should be true not 
only for Microsoft, but for every software company. Interfaces 
include:
_network protocols
_Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
_document formats
    and possibly others. There must be no `secret 
handshakes' exchanged by Microsoft software which keeps others 
from competing.
    As a Ph.D. student in Robotics with Masters and Bachelors 
degrees in Computer Science and several years in the programming 
industry, I have a good deal of experience with different software 
systems. It is my firm belief that Microsoft`s software is as 
unreliable as it is and as expensive as it is because of Microsoft`s 
monopoly. It is also my firm belief that other companies have been 
prevented from offering competetive software products because of 
Microsoft`s monopoly. The court has found Microsoft guilty of 
maintaining a monopoly. The penalty given to Microsoft is a critical 
opportunity to enliven the whole nation`s economy, but it must be 
done carefully, and include the publication of all interfaces.
    Thank you,
    David Hershberger
    1235 Bellerock St.
    Pittsburgh PA 15217



MTC-00004537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Sirs and Madams:
    Microsoft`s proposal to distribute their software to needy 
schools to atone for their monopolistic behaviour is ludicrous. 
Addicting yet another generation to their software exacerbates 
rather than mitigates the problem. While young and flexible, 
students should learn that alternative computing environments, such 
as Linux, BSD, UNIX, MacOSX and BeOS exist and have considerable 
virtues. In particular, students should be exposed to the open 
source movement, because of its low cost, intellectual freedom, and 
technical excellence. Education in the comparative merits of these 
systems is vastly preferable to indoctrination in the Microsoft 
way... Microsoft`s proposed remedy is blatantly self-serving and an 
insult to intelligence.
    A sensible way to reduce Microsoft`s stranglehold on the 
software market is to *compel* them to open their proprietary Office 
file formats to the software world. I believe the sole reason 
Microsoft`s OSes are so widely utilized is the public`s addiction to 
their proprietary Office applications. Only by opening/documenting 
Microsoft`s proprietary Office file formats, can competing office 
products, such as Sun`s StarOffice, gain a competitive foothold. 
Without the capability to convert documents to and from Microsoft 
Office format, alternative office application software will *never* 
break through Microsoft`s entrenched user base.
    Microsoft`s strategy of usurping and perverting open standards 
in their exclusive interest is well documented (http://
www.opensource.org/halloween/) and must be curtailed. It is time to 
reverse this parasitic process, and make their proprietary 
`standards' open to the public. All 
`standards' should be public.
    While compelling Microsoft to make its Office software available 
for Linux or MacOSX would benefit those OSes in the short-term, it 
would increaser Microsoft`s dominance in the Office applications 
arena in the long run. I believe that opening/documenting the Office 
file formats would be a far more effective means of simulating 
software innovation and development.
    While the courts have found Microsoft to be a monopoly, the 
DoJ`s recent actions suggest that there will be no meaningful 
penalty. By putting Microsoft above the law, Microsoft`s predatory 
behavior will become more egregious. Although Microsoft`s malicious 
actions toward Netscape and Sun were serious, they pale in 
comparison to their apparently little-known, yet long-standing 
licensing practice that forbids or penalizes computer resellers from 
setting up dual-boot systems capable of running other operating 
systems. Microsoft must be compelled to cease and desist in this 
particular anti-competitive practice!
    Microsoft has recently waged a libelous war against the the open 
source software movement. Their officials have called the movement 
`un-American', `communist', and `a 
cancer'. There can be no doubt that Microsoft will stop at 
nothing to erradicate the open source movement. The DoJ`s ultimate 
goal *should* be to insure that this kind of predatory Microsoft 
behaviour is banished from the face of the earth. Any settlement 
wording that requires Microsoft to share its APIs and file formats 
with other software businesses MUST BE WORDED TO EXPLICITLY INCLUDE 
THE MEMBERS OF THE FREE SOFTWARE MOVEMENT!
    Anyone who doubts the value of a diverse `gene pool' 
in the software field should pay closer attention to the litany of 
virii that plague Microsoft, but not other, OSes. A huge amount of 
time, money and productivity have been wasted as a result of 
Microsoft`s inability or lack of motivation to secure its OSes. 
Further, the never-ending cycle of pointless `upgrades' 
that Microsoft has used to sustain it`s revenue stream should offend 
rational people everywhere.
    Respectfully,
    Dr. Stuart R. DeGraaf
    Advisor Engineer / Systems Architect
    Northrop Grumman ESSS
    Baltimore, MD
    410-531-0061 (home)
    [email protected] (home)
    410-765-4560 (work)
    [email protected] (work)
    CC:DeGraaf, David,Thyberg, Robert



MTC-00004538

From: Mike Muldoon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:05pm
Subject: Public response to Microsoft settlement action
    Renata 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 three 
additional features:
    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 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.
    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 
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.
    3. 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.
    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

[[Page 24532]]

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, 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,
    Mike Muldoon
    Senior Architect
    Digital Age Media



MTC-00004539

From: Cage, Russell
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 7:08pm
Subject: Comment on settlement proposal
Russell Cage
1615 Morton
Ann Arbor MI 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, install and remove software functionality in distinct, related 
units. If functionality such as an insecure web browser can be 
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-00004540

From: Graham, J. Christopher
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 7:16pm
Subject: My opinion on the MS case
    I think that Microsoft should be SEVERELY punished for its 
monopolistic, heavy-handed practices. Industries and innovation 
elevate when there is competition in the marketplace. The technology 
industry_and as a result the business and home 
users_have suffered due to Microsoft running its competitors 
out of business. The initial judgment that was passed down is a 
joke_they need to be hit hard_financially or otherwise. 
As an independent technology consultant, whose organization is a 
Microsoft Consulting Partner_I am disappointed in the number 
of vendors or solutions that my clients have to choose from.
    J. Christopher Graham
    Baker Robbins & Company
    Knowledge, Solutions, Partnership
    Ph: 312.425.4458
    http://www.brco.com
    This transmission and all attachments are the copyrighted 
materials of Baker Robbins & Company



MTC-00004541

From: Kengo Hashimoto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:31pm
Subject: Comment from a non-MS user
    To all whom it may concern:
    I, as do millions of other citizens across the world, have an 
interest in sterner remedies, be it conduct or structural, in the 
United States vs. Microsoft Corporation case.
    As the largest publisher of operating software and business 
applications software in the world, Microsoft is at a unique 
position to create an illegal monopoly in more ways than one. Some 
of these have been shown in court, and Microsoft has been found to 
be guilty of illegal monopolistic practices.
    What concerns me about the current conduct of Microsoft is as 
follows: First, there is virtually no way for a consumer or a 
business to purchase a PC from a large vendor, such as Dell, without 
having some version of a Microsoft operating software pre-loaded on 
it. Second, Microsoft is notorious for creating non-documented 
application programming interfaces for use by Microsoft programmers, 
but not by their competitors in the applications field. Finally, as 
the largest producer of operating environments and Internet 
software, they alone can create non-standard extensions upon the 
languages spoken between computers, called protocol, potentially 
locking out competitors.
    It is vitally important for a consumer or a business to be able 
to purchase a computer from a large OEM without Windows preloaded on 
it. Despite what Microsoft may claim, computers without Windows is 
not a hotbed of piracy. In fact, Microsoft themselves have taken 
steps with their newest operating environment, Windows XP, to 
prevent such casual copying. Therefore, in order to level the 
competitive playing field for different operating 
environments_such as BeOS, a potential PC version of MacOS X, 
Linux, Sun Solaris, to name a few_these machines should be 
made available without any operating environments, with separate 
prices for machines. For businesses, the situation is slightly 
different. Most large businesses purchase a business-wide license 
for operating environments from Microsoft. If these machines are not 
made available without an included Windows license, then these 
businesses will in effect end up paying twice for the same product. 
Of course, having two price lists, one for computers with, and the 
other for computers without, will have secondary beneficial effect 
of exposing what the various OEM prices for Windows are, and will 
prevent Microsoft from `punishing' OEM`s who sell other 
operating environments (as happened with IBM`s PC division in the 
early 1990`s, when they chose to offer the IBM OS/2 operating 
environment as well as that of Microsoft`s).
    Of course, changes in the way Microsoft handles their Windows 
applications programming interface (API) needs to change as well. It 
is often rumoured, and once proven, that Microsoft maintains a list 
of API methods that are not available outside of Microsoft. What 
this allows Microsoft to do is to create two methods for receiving 
operating environment support for such common tasks as opening a 
file, differing in execution speed but otherwise identical in 
function. As virtually everything a program or an application can 
do, it must do so via calling the API methods, a Microsoft 
application, with the faster of the two

[[Page 24533]]

method calls available to it, will have a distinct and unfair 
advantage over the non-Microsoft competition. Obviously, these 
method calls are not limited to opening files, and can include, but 
not be limited to: launching new programs, opening a new network 
(including Internet) connection and reading in and writing out to 
it, opening a file and reading from and writing to it, displaying a 
graphics, and playing a sound.
    As for Internet standards of protocols, there already exists 
several independant bodies for creation and maintenance of 
protocols. These include, but are not limited to, the World Wide Web 
Consortium, the Internet Engineering Task Force, ANSI, and ISO. 
Unfortunately, with Microsoft`s track record of building their own, 
proprietary protocols that compete with the open protocols created 
by these independant committees, Microsoft has often closed the 
doors on competing operating environments on different platforms. 
For example, in the translation of human-readable domain names (such 
as www.sun.com) to machine-readable numeric representation (such as 
192.168.1.2), performed by nameservers, Microsoft has already 
created a non-standard extention to their own system, such that a 
non-Windows nameserver takes a performance hit against a Windows-
based nameserver when the client is also running Windows.
    Similarly, Microsoft has created their own then-proprietary and 
closed extention to the Kerberos network authentication protocol 
with the introduction of Windows 2000. Because of their immense 
size, allowing this conduct can and will stifle innovation by their 
competitors, which is exactly what Microsoft has been found guilty 
of.
    I would like to believe that Microsoft will not continue these 
behaviours, now that the courts have deemed them illegal. However, 
in the case of criminal behaviour by an individual, we as a society 
do not, after finding such a person guilty of the deed, tell them 
merely to stop doing that deed, and let them go. Instead, 
oftentimes, we incarcerate that individual. Similarly, we must place 
strict penalties upon Microsoft, as they have broken a law, and must 
be punished.
    Sincerely,
    Kengo Hashimoto
    I request that my contact information be kept private, but for 
the purposes of full discloser it is as follows:
    Contact Information:
    email: [email protected]
    phone: 314-878-4610
    address: 1265 Whispering Pines Dr., Saint Louis, MO 63146



MTC-00004542

From: Logan Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:30pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
    From my understanding of the proposed settlement, Microsoft is 
hardly being penalized for their previously uncompetitive maneuvers 
and even gaining the legal right to maintain its monopoly of the 
operating systems market. Any penalty that is assessed should not be 
payable in Microsoft Software any more than printed `Microsoft 
Dollars' would be a reasonable currency. For mere pennies on 
the dollar, Microsoft can reduce the fine from millions to a few 
thousand dollars. For the penalty phase, I would recommend at least 
several hundred million dollars in levied fines for their cavalier 
disregard of anti-trust law, payable directly to the US government, 
with absolutely no PR value for Microsoft, and no forced further 
integration of Microsoft products in school systems.
    The key to breaking the monopoly on Operating Systems is first 
to allow buyers their choice of operating systems. Previously this 
choice was heavily discouraged by Microsoft. A remedy to this 
problem would be to make the choice of an operating system entirely 
distinct from the hardware_each buyer purchases a computer at 
a `base price', and any operating system, setup costs, 
etc. are added to this base price afterwards. In other words, no 
more package deals. Also, all computer resellers should pay the 
exact same price for the Microsoft software, regardless of how many 
other operating systems they offer to consumers.
    Another consideration is the proprietary formats that Microsoft 
has established for programs running solely on its operating system. 
This can do little but maintain the necessity of their own operating 
system, and force users to purchase `compatible Microsoft 
operating systems and programs'. A fitting solution to this 
concern would be to force Microsoft to release the details of the 
proprietary file formats so closely integrated into their operating 
system_word, excel, etc. Then, should someone wish to produce 
an application for another operating system that was compatible with 
the Microsoft standard files, they would be able to. This would help 
to make the choice of operating system just that_a choice.
    In short, I feel the proposed settlement is little more than a 
mockery of the anti-trust law that it supposedly upholds. I would 
like to see a real settlement that would force Microsoft to end 
their stranglehold on the operating system market, and punish them 
for maintaining that stranglehold for way too long.
    Sincerely,
    Logan Harper
    5500 Wabash Ave.
    Terre Haute, IN



MTC-00004543

From: Donovan Bernauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:35pm
Subject: Settle!!! Settle!!! Settle!!!!
    Sincerely,
    Donovan Bernauer



MTC-00004544

From: Andrew Gillean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:47pm
    I do wish you people would get off Microsoft`s case and do what 
you are supposed to be doing. Without Microsoft`s Internet Explorer 
being given away way back when we would still be paying someone like 
Netscape money to have the technology to access the 
`Web'.
    Would you please remember that.
    The other `free' browsers would not even exist if it 
were not for Microsoft`s efforts.
    A Satisfied Microsoft Customer,
    Andrew Gillean ([email protected] )
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004545

From: Ed Reames
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:48pm
Subject: COMMENT ON MICROSOFT AND DOJ SETTLEMENT
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear M. Hesse,
    I believe that you have erroneously settled with Microsoft. You 
should have required much more in settlement terms. Microsoft can 
really do whatever they want under the terms of your settlement.
    I have been in the computing and telecommunications business for 
about thirty years. I do not think that you have done anything that 
will cause Microsoft to change their opertions.
    Respectfully,
    Calvin E. Reames, Jr.
    14504 Ascot Square Court
    Boyds, MD 20841-9036
    301/353-9027
    CC:Paul Sarbanes,Connie Morella,Barbara Mikulski



MTC-00004546

From: Aaron R. Kulkis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Considering the GREAT amount of harm which Microsoft has caused 
to it other businesses through it`s anti-competitite practices... I 
notice that the currently proposed remedy consists of
    A) PROMISES from Microsoft not to do it again.
    (Just like Germany promised to not invade any neighbors in the 
1940`s)
    B) Microsoft giving away CD-ROMs of their 
software....thereby FURTHER extending the monopoly by eliminating 
sales opportunities by competitors.
    C) No TANGIBLE punishment in the form of fines of the 
corporation and/or jail time for officers of the corporation who 
made these criminal decisions.
    (B) and (C) need to be changed.
    Microsoft must NOT be allowed to further destroy competitor`s 
opportunities to even gain customers, and Microsoft MUST suffer 
SIGNIFICANT punishment in the form of LARGE fines (large enough to 
have a REAL DETERRENT EFFECT... that is, on the order of $1 Billion 
or more). If Microsoft`s investors get hurt...well, that`s the price 
of choosing to become part of, and benefit from the behavior of, a 
criminal organization.
    Aaron R. Kulkis
    Computer Systems Engineer
    General Motors Corporation



MTC-00004547

From: Anthony Hologounis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:03pm
Subject: Please stop the Microsoft monopoly
    Hello

[[Page 24534]]

    Please make note that I do not agree with the DOJ decision with 
respect to Microsoft. They are a monopoly and they have harmed the 
consumer.
    Cheers
    Anthony



MTC-00004548

From: Phillip Hofmeister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:18pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a concerned citizen of the State of Michigan who sees the 
proposed DOJ and Microsoft settlement to be inadequate for true 
justice and the national interest.
    As can be seen throughout the course of the past 20 years, 
Microsoft`s market share in the computer industry has steadily 
risen. Along with this rise has also come a rise in prices of 
Microsoft`s operating systems and software (a rise in price that is 
faster than the rate of inflation). One can only assume this rise 
will continue as Microsoft`s hold on the market becomes stronger. 
This is the exact reason that unregulated monopolies are NOT in the 
favor of national interest. As Microsoft continues to drive 
competition out of the market its prices will only continue to rise 
(I would be highly surprised if anything contrary to this happens). 
The proposed settlement does not adequately protect consumers and 
competition from this horrible, grim future.
    A few of the many problems I see with the proposed judgement are 
mentioned below:
    III.C.1 ...provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory 
with respect it non-Microsoft and Microsoft products.
    This portion of the judgement is open to manipulation and 
interpretation. What exactly qualifies as `non-
discriminatory'? It is not specified in the definitions. This 
leaves the door open to a year or more debate down the road as to 
what is discriminatory and what is not, which equates to loss of 
several thousands of dollars in taxpayers` money in legal expenses. 
This is definitely not in the public`s best interest.
    II.C.2 ...so long as such shortcuts do not impair the 
functionality of the user interface
    One again, this statement is opened to much interpretation and 
the same problems as section III.C.1 (mentioned above).
    IV.A.2 To determine and enforce compliance with this Final 
Judgment, duly authorized representatives of the United States and 
the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and subject 
to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following:
    Not that I do not trust Microsoft, but what would prevent them 
from `loosing' such documents when they receive this 
notice? Who could prove if this `loss' was accidental or 
intentional? The plaintiff`s should have the right to inspect 
documents and source code without notice.
    IV.A.4 The Plaintiffs shall have the authority to seek such 
orders as are necessary from the Court to enforce this Final 
Judgment, provided, however, that the Plaintiffs shall afford 
Microsoft a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations of 
Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H, provided further that any 
action by Microsoft to cure any such violation shall not be a 
defense to enforcement with respect to any knowing, willful or 
systematic violations.
    There is no limit place on what is a `reasonable 
time'. Is it a year? A week? During this time it takes 
Microsoft to `cure' the problem it is still there. 
Microsoft should be required to pay damages for the time the problem 
was not `cured'. This provision would encourage them to 
`cure' the problem quicker. In addition, there is no 
provision that says what will happen if the problem reappears after 
it is `cured'. Does the process start over again with 
the same problem as the first time?
    V.A Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment 
will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by 
the Court. Why does Justice and a settlement that is supposedly in 
favor of the nation`s interests expire? Are we only concerned with 
the nation`s interest for 5 years? This clause effectively allows 
the whole battle to begin once more in 5 years. I do not believe 
anyone wants to endure this battle again. I would urge the 
reconsideration of this proposed settlement.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Phillip Hofmeister
    6080 Academy Drive
    Saginaw MI 48604
    [email protected]



MTC-00004549

From: Blake Buzzini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:25pm
Subject: Fully Support Proposed Settlement
    I fully support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the DOJ. It strikes the right balance between addressing the issues 
found by the court and ensuring that technology companies can 
continue to improve their products.
    Many who support stricter sanctions prefer to ignore the facts 
of the case in favor of pushing their own technological agendas 
(Linux users, the Free Software Foundation). Still others are simply 
jealous of Microsoft`s success (Sun, Oracle, AOL, Novell). I urge 
the Court to ignore these zealots and sore losers and approve the 
proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Blake Buzzini



MTC-00004551

From: Preston A. Elder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case.
    Hi,
    As a member of the wider internet community, I would like to 
voice my opinion of the proposed settlement by the US Dept. of 
Justice in regards to the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. Microsoft has 
been proven (and upheld) to be a monopoly, a corporation that 
stifles competition_however it seems the proposed settlement 
is little more than a slap on the wrists saying `bad 
boy', but does not really address stopping Microsoft from 
BEING a monopoly.
    Microsoft was proven to attain its monopoly status by such 
things as bundling software items with their operating systems (even 
if the user did not want to install the extra software on their 
machine), and worse, making it difficult for any user of these 
operating systems to chose to use a compeatitors product, and KEEP 
using it.
    For example, if someone installs one of Microsoft`s operating 
systems, Windows Media Player is installed, weather the user wanted 
it or not. The user must then take extra steps to NOT use Windows 
Media Player. To add insult to injury, after the user gets their 
system fully setup to use an alternate product, and then must do 
something as innocent as upgrade Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
Windows Media Player is installed aswell and set as the default 
player again. Even though the user did not want a newer version of 
Windows Media Playe, it was upgraded for them, and its dominance re-
established. This is obviously monopolistic behavior, and the 
settlement proposed by the Dept. of Justice does not really restrict 
such behavior.
    In addition, Microsoft has taken active roles to try and lock 
out anyone who chooses to use another operating system, by 
deliberately making Microsoft operating systems use slightly 
modified internet protocol standards, that are just different enough 
to make them not work with any non-Microsoft product, however, 
Microsoft still calls them a `standard' implementation 
of the protocol in question. A recent example of this was 
Microsoft`s using the Kerberos standard for their Windows 2000 
network authentication schemes. Only after much pressure from the 
technically aware did Microsoft releace the source code to their 
proprietary extensions (to a public standard), and even then forced 
people who viewed these extensions to agree to a click-through 
license that essentially ment no-one could implement them for 
compatability.
    Microsoft should be subjected to two destinct restrictions. 
Given their market possition, any protocols Microsoft invents 
instantly become a kind of de-facto standard, however most are not 
published, and must be reverse engineered to allow other operating 
systems and applications to communicate effectively with Microsoft 
products. This essentially gives Microsoft a `stifling' 
possition in the market, especially as more laws such as the DMCA 
start to restrict the right to engage in activities such as reverse 
engineering. Therefore, Microsoft should be compelled to release 
full documentation on any new protocols and standards they employ. I 
also believe that some kind of third-party review committee should 
continually be involved in the process of creating these new 
standards, to ensure that Microsoft does not try and create a new 
protocol or standard that, by its very nature, precludes any 
competing product (such as another operating system like the Linux 
or Solaris operating systems) from implementing these protocols or 
standards, and effectively ensures that people must use

[[Page 24535]]

Microsoft only systems to be able to use whatever has implemented 
this standard.
    Even if Microsoft is not broken in to two or more companies (it 
really is so large, and stifling, it should be broken into three 
destinct companies)_a better solution to their monopolistic 
behavior would be to force them to be more honest with the public, 
and open up their development process a little. Microsoft is such a 
widely used product, and a critical part of most desktop computers, 
that the amount of secrecy in-built into Microsoft`s systems is more 
harmful than good. This in itself has been proven by the recent 
spate of virii that has attacked Microsoft systems, servers and 
desktops alike. Most of the time, by the time a hole in a Microsoft 
product is exploited, the problem is already known by Microsoft, but 
they cover it up, and hope nobody notices. If Microsoft had more 
open standards, such as opening up Microsoft`s programmatical 
interfaces (API`s, etc), and their file formats, these kinds of 
problems would be known alot earlier, and more importantly, fixes, 
patches, and even prevention by things such as virus scanners would 
be achieved much easier.
    This would also have the added side-effect of helping end 
Microsoft`s monopoly. It is well known that many applications 
Microsoft releases, such as Microsoft Office, use `back-
door' hooks into the various Microsoft operating systems. This 
means that products like Microsoft Office have more intergration, 
and can be alot faster than any compeating product could ever 
achieve because the developers of Microsoft Office have much more 
knowledge of and access to the program interfaces that the various 
Microsoft Windows operating systems use, which means they can stifle 
the competition by ensuring their product is always better because 
of the various tricks it can employ.
    Microsoft recently sent a memo out to all the major PC vendors 
stating that they should NOT allow any consumers who purchase a PC 
from them to purchase it without a Windows operating system. The 
reasoning behind this was `Since they are going to buy it 
anyway, this will help cease the increasing trend of software 
piracy'. This is clearly monopolistic behavior. There is an 
increasing number of users, businesses, and even governments that 
are NOT using Windows on their desktop and server machines, instead 
they are using alternatives such as Linux, Solaris, and other unix 
variants. However increasingly, every time a new PC is sold, the 
user is forced to purchase the Windows operating system with it, 
even if they have no intention of using it.
    This behavior is increasing Microsoft`s monopoly in two ways. 
Firstly, they get more and more `sold' copies of their 
Windows operating system even from users who did not want it in the 
first place, and secondly, most of these systems come with Windows 
pre-installed, which means that users arent getting a choice of 
which operating system they wish to use, and Microsoft once again 
(as with their software bundling) is forcing the user to go through 
extra effort to NOT use a Microsoft product. In addition, most PC 
vendors have to pay Microsoft weather they put the Windows operating 
system on a new PC they sell or not, which effectively means there 
is `no cost difference' between a PC with or without the 
Windows operating system_which means even if a user DOES 
manage to purchase a PC without the Windows operating system, they 
still end up paying for it anyway, as its already been added into 
the cost of their new PC by the vendor.
    Microsoft products have been proven by multipal studies to be 
the biggest security risks on the internet. Microsoft`s attitude and 
assumptions mean that more and more security flaws are being 
released in each successive product, and having farther and farther 
reaching concequences. With Microsoft introducing their new .NET 
initiative, this prospect is even scarier, as Microsoft will be 
forcing EVERYONE who wants to use their .NET systems to give 
Microsoft personally identifying information, which, as part of 
their licensing agreement, they may share with anyone they wish to. 
Microsoft`s closed archetecture, and monopoly in the marketplace 
means that everyone will be forced to start giving up any 
information Microsoft wants_a scary prospect when you think 
about all the recent virii, and vulnerabilities found in Microsoft 
products (especially when compared to their compeatitors).
    Finally, the Dept. of Justice settlement, apart from being too 
minimalistic in its conditions placed on future Microsoft business 
practices, also only gives Microsoft a slap on the wrist 
financially. Microsoft will be spending $1.1 billion dollars getting 
new computers to needy schools, a worthy and noble thing to do. 
However looking deeper, they will only be spending $200M on actual 
computer equipment, and the rest on software, their own software. 
They will be working out this $900M cost based on retail, or 
slightly discounted costs of their products. However this costs 
relatively little to Microsoft itself. The software is already 
created, and actually burning it to CD, and issuing site licenses 
for it is an extremely cheap process. Microsoft may say its worth 
$900M, and it would indeed be that much to buy if a business wished 
to purchase the same amount, however it costs them much less. Thus 
it ends up being only a small financial hit to the company, 
especially when you think about their profits from just one year.
    There have been several offers from other companies, such as 
RedHat Inc. to make this a more equitable deal_by forcing 
Microsoft to pay the entire amount in hardware costs_something 
they cant just make cheaply and assign any price to it. RedHat even 
offered to supply all the software free, and give indefinate support 
and upgrade, as opposed to Microsoft`s limited support and upgrade 
offer. I believe these kinds of offers by third party companies 
should seriously be considered as part of any Dept. of Justice 
settlement.
    In summary, Microsoft`s monoply has far-reaching effects, both 
now and especially in the near future. Microsoft stifles competition 
by changing or inventing standards that block compeating products 
from communicating to Microsoft products. Microsoft uses special 
code within its products to ensure that any product they make will 
always be faster or better intergrated than any compeatitor could 
be_infact, they`ve been caught in the past writing specific 
code to hinder compeating products! Microsoft ensures that a user 
will have to go through more effort to try and use (or keep using) a 
compeating product, than they would to use a Microsoft product. All 
of this behavior requires a stiffer repremand than the current Dept. 
of Justice settlement gives. Microsoft will push any settlement to 
its absolute limit, and find any loophole that is left in 
it_however with Microsoft`s current dominance in the PC 
market, looking forward, we cannot allow Microsoft to maintain to 
its current practices, especially when Microsoft could soon be the 
gate keeper of thousands, even millions of peoples personal 
infromation.
    Thank you for your time,
    PreZ
    Owner, Shadow Realm (http://www.srealm.net.au)
    Systems Administrator, GOTH.NET (http://www.goth.net) 
Development Head, Magick IRC
    Services (http://www.magick.tm) Maintainer, CoreWars (http://
www.corewars.net)
    Founder, DARKER.NET (http://www.darker.net)
    CEO, RelicNet IRC Network (http://www.relic.net)
    Death is life`s way of telling you you`ve been fired.
    _ R. Geis



MTC-00004552

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Name: Anthony J. Natoli
Organization: CEREBRAL PROPERTY LAW OFFICE
    DISCLAIMER: I am not and have not been an employee, shareholder, 
or business partner of Microsoft, and I, as an attorney, do not and 
have not had Microsoft or any of its business partners as a client.
    Statement: I strongly support the proposed settlement in U.S. v. 
Microsoft I find the proposed settlement of the antitrust case of 
U.S. vs. Microsoft to be a fair and balanced resolution of the 
issues, protecting and helping consumers while also acknowledging 
the legitimate rights of Microsoft to practice its business.
    I submit the following comments on the proposed settlement as a 
concerned consumer, a technophile, an intellectual property 
attorney, and a U.S. citizen:
    1. As a consumer:
    a. I have determined, from over two decades of using technology, 
that there has been significant price stability and/or reduction in 
prices of software and other components used in consumer devices and 
applications, generally referred to as `computers' and 
`the Internet', based on the business activities and 
products of Microsoft;
    b. I have determined that there is and has been significant and 
valuable competition and choices available to me, as a consumer, to 
obtain more and better computers and uses of the Internet based on 
the business activities and products of Microsoft; and

[[Page 24536]]

    c. I have determined that the proposed settlement is far more 
beneficial to consumers such as myself instead of the more harsh or 
draconian remedies proposed by other parties, with such suggested 
remedies including divestiture and/or breaking up of Microsoft, or 
stripping Microsoft of its intellectual property and/or its ability 
to innovate in consumer-related computing, including the Internet 
and browsers for use with the Internet.
    2. As a technophile:
    a. I have seen and benefited greatly from the advances in 
computing brought on by the business activities and products of 
Microsoft, especially market-driven standardization over two 
decades, of systems and components for use on or with Microsoft 
products and related products, including operating systems, graphic 
user interfaces, productivity suites, and Internet browsers;
    b. I have seen and benefited greatly from the advances in 
computing brought on by the entry by Microsoft into different and 
diverse markets involving many areas of computing, including 
personal computers, wordprocessing and other productivity 
applications, and the Internet; and
    c. I am wary of any government action which may decrease 
interoperability and standardization of computing technologies, such 
as the situation presented twenty years ago with far too many 
competitors pushing and selling disparate and incompatible computing 
platforms and software, with such chaotic conditions being 
potentially revisited and brought on by any government`s imposing 
and implementing the more harsh or draconian remedies proposed by 
other parties, with such suggested remedies including divestiture 
and/or breaking up of Microsoft, or stripping Microsoft of its 
intellectual property and/or its ability to innovate in consumer-
related computing, including the Internet and browsers for use with 
the Internet.
    3. As an intellectual property attorney, experienced in patents, 
copyrights, software, and licensing and business agreements:
    a. I favor the ownership and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights as an incentive for Microsoft, as with all other 
entitled entities, to innovate with the promise of reward via 
legitimate and enforceable government granted or recognized limited 
monopolies, for a limited time, as per Article I, Section 8 of the 
U.S. Constitution;
    b. I believe that the compulsory licensing of intellectual 
property rights by Microsoft to other parties including competitors, 
as found in the proposed settlement, is an appropriate remedy and 
balancing of interests for permitting the government to apply and 
enforce antitrust laws under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. 
Constitution in view of the intellectual property rights granted by 
law under the U.S. Constitution, with such compulsory licensing of 
intellectual property being well known and applied in other 
countries but generally unheard of in the U.S. and so being 
extraordinary but reasonable for enforcing the U.S. antitrust laws; 
and
    c. I deplore the statements and attitudes of certain critics who 
blithely pooh-pooh, dismiss, or otherwise put no value in the 
intellectual property rights entitled to Microsoft, in its software 
and/or business licensing practices, so that such critics may pirate 
or otherwise obtain the intellectual property of companies for 
little or no payment of justifiable royalties and/or recoupment of 
research and development costs (and allegedly justified by such 
critics pompously in crying `information wants to be 
free!'), with such royalties and recoupments owed to Microsoft 
or other software creators.
    4. As a U.S. citizen:
    a. I favor the present market system in the U.S. to permit 
Microsoft to utilize any and all business practices which are well-
established and commonly used throughout multiple industries, 
including the computing industry, such as the free distribution of 
software such as Internet browsers to increase market share, a 
practice conducted extensively by Netscape (but unfortunately only 
in the past in order for Netscape to establish over 90 % market 
share in the browser market) with its freely downloadable browser 
available years before Microsoft even had an Internet browser to 
itself freely distribute;
    b. I deplore the unequal application of the antitrust laws by 
the U.S. government in pursuing Microsoft, which has clearly 
benefited consumers, when there are many other businesses, including 
competitors of Microsoft, with more egregious practices and/or more 
monopolistic market power of certain other companies, such as the 
over 90 % market share of the Netscape browser at one time, via the 
aforementioned free distribution of software, as well as Cisco 
Systems which, for a number of years in nationally broadcast 
advertisements in television and other media, touted that over 90 % 
of the Internet systems used Cisco servers, without any 
investigation of Netscape or Cisco by the Federal Trade Commission 
and/or the Department of Justice of such pervasive and (according to 
some of Microsoft`s critics) presumptively monopolistic market 
power; and
    c. I seek a final resolution of this antitrust case against 
Microsoft in order to permit Microsoft to continue to further 
advance computing and Internet applications, for example, via 
WINDOWS XP and OFFICE XP, and to spur the recovery of the U.S. 
economy from the current recession for the betterment of all 
citizens of the United States.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00004553

From: Lee Bane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:03pm
Subject: MS Settlement_My Comments
    Please!!
    Set down and ask yourself, is this settlement the right way to 
protect the public? For now and the future.. or is this the right 
way to protect the big money people so they can buy more favors and 
forget the public interest. I am 76 years old and would like to just 
have a nice `bread & butter' operating system that I 
could add things to it that I want not what some big ole bully wants 
to put on it . Please, again what is right and what is wrong?
    Thank you for your good service to ALL of us voters.
    Lee Bane
    [email protected]
    www.banefamily.com



MTC-00004554

From: John Maxwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    I have never had to deal with such an aggravating, arrogant, and 
despicable organization as Microsoft.
    Whether I want their products or not, I have to pay a premium on 
each computer I buy because of their licensing practices. The 
government`s total failure to treat them as the monopoly they are 
cost me money every time I buy a Personal Computer, forcing me to 
support them whether I want to or not.
    Since they own the market, Microsoft seems to care little if the 
products they sell are substandard_in fact their poor 
practices have been adopted by competitors since there appears to be 
no recourse for consumers. A case in point is the proliferation of 
virus attacks launched through the same errors and poor practices 
that have existed for the last five years in their software. We 
would not allow this incompetence bordering on fraud in other 
industries to continue indefintely, but the government ignores 
Microsoft`s repeated failures to provide their customers a reliable 
product.
    I actually feel the blame belongs to the US government. This 
cut-throat operation has been unchecked for years, and the excuse is 
the consumer can always pay again for another operating system, pay 
again for non-Microsoft products to replace the ones they have 
already bought bundled into the machine, and the customer can always 
pay yet again for add on products such as anti-virus programs to 
make the Microsoft products almost safe to use. I submit if these 
were cars that consumers had to buy replacement brakes, replacement 
seatbelts, and functioning doors because those supplied at the 
factory were known to be defective, the Justice Department would 
have stepped in almost immediately.
    And now that Microsoft has managed to drive most of its 
competitors out of business, the government is suggesting consumers 
let this organization automatically update users` software, forcing 
them onto th Internet whether they want to go or not. WHAT does 
Microsoft have to do to show the government that it has no ethics, 
no morals, and cannot be trusted to keep its word_yet again?
    The Department of Justice should be ashamed.



MTC-00004555

From: Eric Crone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft comments to webmaster`s inbox
    The two attached emails came into the Antitrust Webmaster inbox.
    Best Regards,
    Eric Crone
    202-307-2782
    CC: ATRMAILD:ATRMAILD. ATRISG01:ATRMAILD. ATRISG01(HESSR...
    Date: 12/14/2001 03:33 pm (Friday)

[[Page 24537]]

    From: Stoney, Ericka
    o: Atr, Webmaster
    Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust case
    Original Message __-
From: Wojtyniak, Tim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 
Friday, November 02, 2001 10:30 AM
To: ASKDOJ; `senator(a)stabenow.senate.gov'; 
`senator(a)stabenow.senate.gov'
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
    I hope that what I am hearing is not correct about the wholly 
inadequate `settlement' in the Microsoft-DoJ anti-trust 
suit. If it is, I must protest that the DoJ is failing to protect me 
and all consumers from a monopolist convicted in Federal court of 
anti-competitive behavior. This settlement not only has no 
teeth_and Microsoft has shown a propensity toward failing to 
comply with the letter of agreements, not only the intent_but 
misses the point entirely that some proactive sanctions are 
necessary to keep Microsoft from illegally defining the future of 
ALL electronic technologies to it`s tastes_and the detriment 
of all others. Despite their protestations, Microsoft`s tactics do 
NOT benefit consumers in the long run. They benefit Microsoft alone. 
Consumers benefit from a legitimately open, competitive marketplace 
where companies are not allowed to use monopoly power in illegal 
ways to extend their market dominance.
    To the DoJ:
    As a US citizen, I am counting on you to vigorously enforce the 
laws of this country and not defer the opportunities of all 
Americans and all American companies to earn their success in the 
modem marketplace.
    If I am misunderstanding the position of the DoJ, I apologize 
and would appreciate some further information about how the DoJ 
intends to proceed on the case.
    To my esteemed representatives in the 107th Congress:
    As my elected representatives, I am counting on you to look 
after my interests in this matter. Note that these are the interests 
of a citizen, first-most, and, secondarily that of a consumer. I 
trust that, while you hold elected office and thus have additional 
considerations and responsibilities, you still share the concerns of 
all citizens for just laws and enforcement of laws to protect the 
true American ideals, not the false ideals of greed and dishonesty 
so prominently displayed by the Microsoft Corporation.
    Best,
    Timothy A. Wojtyniak
    [email protected] [email protected]
    2614 S 9th Street
    Kalamazoo, MI 49009
    Date: 12/14/2001 03:32pm (Friday)
    From: Stoney, Ericka
    To: Atr, Webmaster
    Subject: FW: USDOJ Comments_Microsoft settlement
    __- Original Message __-
From: WOLF [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 
November 02, 2001 5:04 PM
To: ASKDOJ; [email protected]
Subject: USDOJ Comments_Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ and Connect State Attorney General Blumenthal; As a 
personal computer user I am dismayed at the happenings with the 
DOJ`s lawsuit with Microsoft. Microsoft has shown total disregard 
for the government (re issue in 1995 where microsoft violated an 
agreement with you, and the recent XP operating system) and for 
computer manufacturers and finally final users. Their products are 
ridden with hidden functions that spy on users, and are not reliable 
in terms of operating smoothly, and the easy of hackers to gain 
access to personal/corporate computers.
    I agree with the following:
    The Washington-based Computer and Communications Industry 
Association charged the administration wasn`t pushing for tough 
enough penalties such as requiring Microsoft to disclose its source 
code blueprints for its flagship Windows operating system. 
`The Justice Department isn`t settling this case, it is 
selling out consumers, competition, and all those who want a 
vibrant, innovative high tech industry contributing strength to our 
economy,' the group`s president, Ed Black, said in a 
statement.
    I am very disappointed that the government that we the people 
have elected has decided to go soft on microsoft. Judge Thomas 
Penfield Jackson`s decision to breakup microsoft and impose strict 
regulations of microsoft and their behavior was the most appropriate 
action to be taken for this monopolistic company whose only desire 
it seems is to continue it`s domination by whatever means it 
chooses. And it seems the government has no objections to it. Does 
the LAW apply only to one group, and not others? What happened to 
the other monopolies in our past? Railroad and telephone and oil 
companies were all broken up, and became separate companies, not 
owned by the original monopolistic company. Why is that not 
happening here?
    About the recent terms of settlement: What is the government 
thinking? The source code of microsoft contains many secrets that if 
discovered would show just what they are up to. There are many sites 
on the internet that show a great deal of hidden activities that 
microsoft has embedded in the operating system. What are they 
hiding? Microsoft needs to be broken up. Period. Their source code 
needs to be made public, and only then will we know just what they 
are up to. And only then will computers be made secure, applications 
will be made by others (and that will stimulate job growth) that 
actually work without crashing and then the people will have more 
faith in their elected officials. Unbundling of certain parts of the 
operating system should not just include them, or hide them. They 
need to be removed from all source code, and only installed at the 
users discretion, not hidden in the background.
    Remember that the government is made up of those elected by the 
PEOPLE, NOT monopolistic corporations. YOU are our protection 
against them, as they strive to impose their shoddy products upon us 
while stifling competition. Please reconsider your agreement. This 
case has dragged on for a long time. Do not let the events of 
September 1lth be an excuse to roll belly up to a rich monopoly (how 
did they get so rich?!). If it goes longer, that`s ok, just do the 
right thing for a change: represent the people, follow the LAW, and 
enforce it strictly.
    I thank you for your time and attention.
    Regards,
    Phil Rizzuto, JR.
    361 West Main Street
    Cheshire, CT. 06410-2414
    203.605.5696



MTC-00004556

From: Tom Kiatchuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives. America is based on freedom of choice; but 
students in Americas` public schools can only learn to use 
computers, an essential skill for the coming generation of 
employees, on the products provided to them. Today, the Dept. of 
Justice has an opportunity to broaden the scope of that choice and 
thus empower generations yet unborn. It also has the opportunity to 
cave in to Bill Gates and thus must choose between greatness and 
ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with 
apopulation of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
    http://opensourceschools.org/article.php`story=200 
11207001012102 [opensourceschools.org]
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. 
Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true

[[Page 24538]]

 donation of indefinite duration, just as the Red Hat offer is. 
Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools would eventually have to 
abandon their training programs for lack of funds to re-license / 
upgrade their software.
    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html [yahoo.com]
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.



MTC-00004557

From: James Z. Coleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft, Owns what they MAKE, not the Goverment!
    Hey,
    What`s the deal... Microsoft has its right to what they make... 
Why should our Government care... Microsoft made Windows, Microsoft 
can decide if they want Internet Explorer or any thing else in 
there... That`s their Business, not Sun Micro, or you name it! If I 
made Windows, I`d be up there like Microsoft. I`d protest to the 
ending day... You have NO Control over what people put in their 
software, they made it, they decide on it! Unless something is 
copyrighted.
    What I think... I think everyone is being a BIG BABY. If AOL and 
SUN Are upset and everyone else... Why doesn`t Sun go with Linux, 
and AOL make an AOL O.S of their own, and not of Microsoft!
    Second, Microsoft holds the right to their source... I don`t 
think ANY STATES, should be trying to force Microsoft for open 
source... I`d leave any State over that reason. I`d hate them to NO 
END. I think its bad enough for this to go on.
    There are other companies and people that need to be in court 
besides Microsoft!
    James
    James Z. Coleman_Owner
    Digital Advance_Computer & Internet Specialists
    [email protected]
    Phone: 731.402-3444
     http://
www.digitaladvance.net



MTC-00004558

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ever since the antitrust case began I have felt that Microsoft 
was being prosecuted for being good at their business. I disagreed 
with Judge Jackson`s ruling then and I still disagree. I would 
prefer to see all charges against Microsoft dropped.
    Peter S Hanson



MTC-00004559

From: Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:19pm
Subject: Disappointing
    www.slashdot.com and other technical/software web news spots 
have begged readers like myself to send in our 2cents worth of 
comments towards the outcome of this trial. Therefore, please read 
below. Reading through the technical/software news, it appears that 
this trial is taking a disappointing turn for the worse since the 
outcome appears that Microsoft will be allowed to be a monopoly, but 
will have the additional legal backing to keep doing even more of 
it. The first trial was correct in attempting to split Microsoft 
into 2 separate groups. The reason for that is that the operating 
system group would be {forced} to lay an even and fair 
playing field for anyone and everyone wanting to create programs to 
run on the Windows operating system, while the application software 
group would be equally on a level competition field by 
{only} using the known application interfaces provided to 
everyone by the operating system group.
    Please....To keep Microsoft the way it is now behaving with only 
a task force of 3 people to keep Microsoft honest by looking at 
millions and millions of lines of source code would be a 
disappointing result of the trial. Microsoft is based on all major 
continents last time I checked. 3 people is simply not enough to 
look at all that information and deal with all the extra issues that 
will be thrown at them on top of all that. It is too many tasks for 
too few people and things will be easily obfuscated past such a 
small group. If you decide to go this way, please add more people.
    Microsoft strongly relies on the fact that customers do not go 
beyond loading the initial CDrom or bootdisks. Therefore if your 3 
people find problems {after} the CDroms are sent out in 
public, you have just lost what you wanted to achieve. Few people 
actually update their machines with the fixes presented afterwards 
and the only way to be sure that the majority of users use the 
updated version is to physically send customers updated CDroms which 
Microsoft will not want to do at all. Despite all the patches and 
software updates and fixes presented on the Microsoft website, it 
prefers to know that the majority of users has non-updated.... 
Windows98 CDrom_it is difficult to remove Internet Explorer 
Windows2000 CDrom_it is difficult to load a competing 
operating system.
    WindowsXP CDrom_it is impossible to remove Internet 
Explorer and it is taking a big hit against a company called SUN by 
leaving out Java. Please.... Separate Microsoft Applications from 
the Microsoft Operating System in some form or manner so that it is 
a level playing field for everybody. Right now Microsoft has the 
inside scoop on Microsoft while everybody else is on the outside 
looking in and only able to use the published/known operating system 
interfaces. If a person, group, or business is to create a program 
using only the known application Program Interfaces (APIs), 
Microsoft has the homegrown advantage to be able to create a 
quicker, fancier version competing against that product. We all 
watched NETSCAPE die to a former shadow of what it could have become 
because it was starved for income against Microsoft`s free Internet 
Explorer plus all the twists and turns put into the operating system 
to keep Netscape Out.
    If you do not separate applications from operating system in 
some form so that everybody has a fair chance, you will be seeing 
history repeat itself. BORLAND (a competing programming language 
company) and several other companies used to create very good 
compiler programs for Microsoft DOS and early Windows but they are 
mere shadows of themselves since they do not have insider 
information like the Microsoft compiler language programmers have 
access to. Right now, I won`t be surprised if Adobe ACROBAT and 
other great programs become part of the Microsoft stable in a few 
years. The reason for saying that is that they have incorporated 
Microsoft`s Visual Basic into their program(s) and since they have 
no competing product to replace it, Adobe Acrobat is either going to 
be a mere shadow of itself in the future or it will have to be sold 
to Microsoft itself when it eventually gets cornered with no 
alternatives to Visual Basic and the information Microsoft decides 
to present or break. Please have all application program interfaces 
(APIs) for the operating system brought out for everybody to use so 
that others can bring out competitive products.
    Being a monopoly isn`t wrong if you are the biggest fish in the 
pond, especially if all things are considered equal, fair and played 
on a level playing field, but doing actions to hinder fair 
competition and maintain that monopoly should be considered illegal.
    Sincerely,
    Jose Da Silva,
    11280 Westminster Hwy,
    Richmond, BC, V6X-1B3,
    Canada



MTC-00004560

From: Alex Zarenin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would like to express my overall satisfaction with the wording 
of the proposed settlement. I think it properly addresses rights and 
obligations of all the parties and provides environment in which 
innovations from all sides may thrive.
    I also think that provisions of this settlement will be 
beneficiary to consumers community by providing them with stable and 
rich operating environment without unduly limiting the choices and 
preferences.
    It is true that Microsoft presently has a dominant role on the 
desktops; however this role was obtained as a result of fast and 
innovative development and, as a result, sufficiently good offering. 
Windows OS obtained its present position in competition with other 
OSes, such as OS/2, Macintosh, X/Windows etc. Moreover, even today 
its dominance is challenged daily with new offering (supported by 
pretty large companies, such as IBM, Sun, etc)_Linux,

[[Page 24539]]

System 7 just to name a few. As such I don`t think that Microsoft 
has a true monopoly, which would imply that they may stop 
development and just reap the benefits of previous work for times to 
come_it has to improve its offering every day just to maintain 
this leading position.
    In my opinion the states that continue pressing additional 
charges against Microsoft and do not agree to the proposed 
settlement are just blinded by the Microsoft-bashing 
mentality_their proposals would skew the marketplace towards 
Microsoft competitors and would let mediocre companies, such as 
Netscape, to make huge profits of the consumers and corporations by 
selling to them products that otherwise comes from Microsoft for 
free (like browser or Media player).
    Netscape Navigator version 2 was much better then Internet 
Explorer 2_ and it was dominating the market! However since 
then IE was greatly improving with each new release (and still was 
free!), while Netscape Navigator was lagging behind, which made it 
lose the market share. Similarly other companies should compete with 
Microsoft by providing better products, which in these years of 
instant communications will immediately attract consumers` 
attention!
    In conclusion I would like to suggest some minor additions to 
proposed settlement:
    For section `C' I would suggest to allow Microsoft 
to imbed in OS tools and features that would allow end users (and 
only end users!) to revert to Microsoft-provided versions of 
middleware and other tools, which were replaced by the OEM, if user 
feels that these replacements are detrimental to the stability or 
usability of the system. For example a user should be given an 
option to revert customized versions of the browser (installed, for 
example, by Comcast or AOL) to the vanilla version of this product.
    For sections `D' and `E' I would suggest 
that Microsoft should not only made appropriate APIs and interfaces 
available to broad developers community (through MSDN or similar 
ways), but also take effort to submit them for non-binding review to 
corresponding committees (such as WWW consortium etc). The non-
binding nature of these submission should not preclude Microsoft 
from implementing solutions that receive negative reviews; however 
negative reviews of appropriate APIs or interfaces will open the 
doors for competitors to provide alternative products, add-on tools 
etc.
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments to 
this settlement!
    Alex Zarenin, Ph. D. in CS



MTC-00004561

From: Bol, Chris
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/14/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrus Case
    To whom this may concern,
    Microsoft has proposed to donate products to failing schools to 
help educate the children in Microsoft Products, this only further 
their holds in the market place. I manage the the web and networking 
divisions at a small West Michigan computing firm. There are many 
solutions that Linux can provide to us, but we can`t find people 
with appropiate training. Use Microsoft money to purchase Linux 
products to truly give our children a diverse education, filling 
huge gaps for network managers and programers world wide.
    Thankyou,
    Chris Bol
    [email protected]
    www.issol.com
    616-785-0745 x 113



MTC-00004562

From: Josh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft have an illegal monoply
    Microsoft have an illegal monoply, they leave consumers no 
choice but to use MS software for general use, eg games, movies, web 
sites. This is wrong and should be stopped.



MTC-00004563

From: Dennis Jugan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An apologue of the proposed Microsoft settlement A man intending 
to rob a bank parks his car and walks away without feeding the 
parking meter. While `busy` at the bank, a parking enforcement 
person places a ticket on his car. His criminal act completed, he 
walks briskly back to his car with $20,000 tucked in a bag. Noticing 
the ticket, he rips it off the windshield, throws it aside, and 
escapes.
    The ticket prompts the police to investigate him as a suspect in 
the robbery. Evidence is abundant. He`s arrested and goes to trial 
in what everyone presumes to be an open-and-shut case.
    Having failed to pay his parking ticket, he`s served with papers 
to appear in traffic court as well, where he`s found guilty and 
fined $100. The district attorney strikes an outrageous plea 
bargain: Pay the $100 parking fine and we`ll drop the bank robbery 
charges.
    This is no stupid man. He walks out of the courthouse minus 
$100, but enjoys the freedom to return to a locker at the bus 
station where he retrieves $20,000 in ill-gotten gains and begins to 
case the next bank. Bank robber takes all.....Microsoft takes all !!
    Any reasonable person would recognize this hypothetical plea 
bargain as an unconscionable travesty of justice. Yet parallels can 
easily be drawn to the Microsoft settlement.
    In the case of Microsoft, there is an undeniable maintenance of 
monopoly at the expense of competitors and the consumer. The remedy 
must ensure a reasonable opportunity for the market to return to a 
level playing field. Microsoft`s behavior must also be closely 
scrutinized by a special master that fully understands the nuances 
of information technology as they relate to Microsoft`s incorrigible 
conduct of the past as well as the company`s announced designs for 
the present and the future in this market and in other unrelated 
markets.
    The nine dissenting states have put forth a comprehensive remedy 
that promises a fair redress on the part of Microsoft and allows for 
the necessary requirements and scrutiny that Microsoft has proven 
necessary by its record of flaunting past legal agreements with the 
courts and its persistent misdeeds in the marketplace.
    I encourage the court to dismiss the Department of Justice`s 
`plea bargain' settlement with Microsoft and to pursue 
the recommendations thoughtfully set forth by the Attorneys General 
of the nine dissenting states.
    Dennis Jugan
    393 Devon Drive
    Johnstown, PA 15904
    [email protected]



MTC-00004564

From: Curtis(u)E(u)Combs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 4:07am
Subject: antitrust case
    dear sir
    i work at a campus in south georgia where, like most campuses, 
computers are a part of everyday use. my system administrator is 
constantly having problems with the lack of security installed with 
windows operating systems and it is a constant headache for him, i 
am forced by an unknoledgeable manager to use microsoft windows, and 
on a daily basis i`m made well aware of its uselessness. i`m a linux 
user. i am very competant and very aware of the needs of others who 
are not technically minded, i work with them everyday. i only wish 
that i had a suitable alternative not only the the constant failings 
of the operating system but to its shortcoming and its inablities to 
efficiantly provide constant stable, reliable performance. please, 
please, for the future of our children do not let microsoft continue 
to influence our market and continue providing us with less than 
workable environments for computing and yet continue to profit from 
it i would not expect to have to pay for a haircut in which the 
barber only cut a single hair and said that he has done his job, i 
would not expect to be arrested because i didnt pay, because the 
barber had brought the local police with his money.
    thank you
    curtis e combs jr
    [email protected]



MTC-00004565

From: James Saunders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 5:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The consumer has not been harmed, quite the contrary. Is this 
the price of success in this country? If you really want to go after 
a monopolist that is gouging all of us, try Frito Lay. Sincerely, 
Pat Saunders



MTC-00004566

From: Roland Seuhs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The best settlement would be if Microsoft is forced to charge 
the same price for Windows and have to treat PC-makers the same way.
    This way, PC-makers could preinstall non-Microsoft operating 
systems without being afraid of facing higher price for Winodws-

[[Page 24540]]

licenses. Of course Microsoft should be allowed to give volume-
discounts, but for 100,000 licenses, they would have to charge the 
same, no matter if the PC-maker installs competing operating systems 
or not.
    For example Vobis, a big PC-maker and former market leader in 
Germany was nearly driven out of business because Vobis decided to 
preinstall OS/2 on some computers and Microsoft responded in 
shipping delays and higher license-prices. A fair license price 
which is the same for all PC-makers would solve that problem.
    This settlement would also help competitors in the application 
market, because PC-makers could preinstall non-Microsoft 
applications without fear. For example Microsoft threatened several 
PC-makers not to preinstall Netscape. Since this solution is very 
fair (Microsoft still can set the prices, still can give volume 
discounts, they just have to treat every customer the same) I think 
Microsoft will have a very hard time arguing against it.
    Thanks for listening and regards,
    Roland Seuhs



MTC-00004567

From: Dr. Martin Senftleben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 9:00am
Subject: Request for justice
    Dear Sir,
    I have noticed the ongoing attempts to reach a settlement 
between the DOJ and possibly the mightiest software company in the 
world, Microsoft. Microsoft has not become the mightiest because of 
the quality of their products, but because of their marketing 
methods, which forced me more than once to buy a computer with their 
operating system already pre-installed. I never ran this OS, but yet 
was forced to pay for it_no vender would give me any discount 
when removing Windows, actually, they refused to do that or offered 
to do it only at a high price.
    Further, Microsoft did everything possible to avoid 
compatability with other products, once their operating system was 
established. The history is well known and has been on trial. I have 
knowingly been a victim_others never knew they were_of 
this misuse of monopoly power.
    If you want to reach a settlement rather than breaking 
Microsoft`s monopoly, then I request that a fair chance is given to 
every other software manufacturer. This can be reached only if 
Microsoft is forced to do the following:
    1_The Microsoft Windows OS must be an option for every 
consumer, i.e. computers which have Windows pre-installed must be 
more expensive than computers without this OS, and computers with 
the same hardware configuration, but another OS must not cost more 
than a computer with Windows pre-installed.
    2_Microsoft products besides the pure OS must be an option 
which needs to be paid, and must not be combined with Windows as has 
been with Internet Explorer and appears to be with the .NET 
technology in Windows XP, for example.
    3_Since Microsoft`s Windows has become kind of a standard, 
it`s programming interfaces must be completely public. This is 
necessary for other software manufacturers to be able to exploit 
Windows functions to its fullest, since Microsoft has this advantage 
for its own products.
    4_The document format of Microsoft applications must be 
fully public, so that migration from Microsoft products to other 
products becomes simple. The strongest reason for not migrating to 
another, competetive product for most people is the fear that they 
cannot handle their documents which have been created in Microsoft 
products any longer.
    5_Microsoft must never be able to seize control of the 
Internet. Hence, any new networking protocol which might be 
incorporated into a Microsoft product has to be public, in order to 
enable others to use this protocol. Best would be to have an 
independent body keep control over the protocols used in the 
Internet.
    6_Focusing on Microsoft products poses a high security 
risk, as has been proven hundreds of times every year. Yet, more and 
more companies feel forced to use such products, thus risking the 
security of their own confidential data (and eventually presenting 
it unknowingly to Microsoft on a silver tablet?). This fact should 
be reason enough to make sure that Microsoft must not be enabled to 
control any section of the market, as it shoudn`t be the case with 
any company in this highly vulnerable area.
    Please consider all facts very carefully. Do not give up our 
independence as consumers, and do not risk the national security by 
leaving an area uncovered which can be used by Microsoft to unfold 
it`s power even further.
    Thank you very much,
    Dr. Martin Senftleben, Ph.D.
    using Red Hat Linux 7.2
    my webpages:



MTC-00004568

From: sbskinner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Below describes just one of the problems I have with the 
administration`s settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. 
Although the below experience I had this morning is trivial, I 
thought you might like to view it from a very basic consumer 
standpoint. I am sending this also to the AGs of Massachusetts, 
California, West Virginia, Minnesota and to the District of Columbia 
(I haven`t at this time located the remaining AGs rejecting the 
settlement),as well to you at the Department.
    Suzanne B. Skinner
    To: Microsoft Customer Service
    Dated December 15, 2001
    `For the last week or more, every time Ia fter I signed 
into hotmail, whether via Netscape Communicator 4.78 or from IE 6, 
the home page either didn`t load at all, OR I had to keep refreshing 
the page to make it load. Then, next, while trying to access my 
inbox/junk mail boxes, the same thing occurred. Finally, this very 
morning and as I speak, when I logged on via IE, half the home page 
appeared on the screen AND the other half of the screen had that 
disgusting white page that said to `Detect network 
settings,' etc, because my browser could not support nahda 
nahda nahda... Also my IE often a/or continually rebuffs my ability 
to access even the most innocent of sites: e.g. last night to get to 
Google I had to perform the most herculean efforts and even then, 
most of the links (e.g. such real horrors as perhaps symantec, 
ancestry.com, also came up with the white `network ... page 
and I was unable to get through. Fully exasperated, I then disabled 
cookies entirely (usually I keep them to return to sender), and the 
same tragic story was repeated. Netscape, while giving me the very 
same Hotmail issues, does allow me, even with cookies returned to 
sender, access to these above-mentioned wild sites without problem.
    WHAT IS HAPPENING?
    Suzanne B. Skinner
    P.S. Speaking of bugs, at least three or four times over the 
each of the last five or six weeks, that `do you wish to debug 
now' error pops up. I would be glad to debug, if only the 
process didn`t seem to occupy a vast amount of time, thereby leaving 
me too exhausted to finish up the rest of what I have to do online.
    sbs
    P.P. S. NOW: I am unable to send this email to you because, even 
though THERE IS NOT TOPIC TO BE SELECTED IN THE TOPIC AREA DROP-DOWN 
MENU, I CANNOT SEND THIS TO YOU BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SELECTED A TOPIC! 
THIS IS REALLY BAD, GUYS. I have to cut and paste this complaint 
into a word document to save it so I can send it via some other 
route. What a disaster.
    P.P.S.S. NEXT NEXT: I have tried to follow your rotten process 
to get to tech support, and low nothing I can do can get me there. I 
am only trying to report a problem with Hotmail; I have been sent 
all you?re your 900 sites and get stuck back where I started. This 
is a really asinine ?computer lack of support? program. I could get 
Bill Gates or the Pentagon more easily than getting through to 
you?no wonder every one I know is hoping that Linux is us and 
running lots of stuff in the near future. Just now, immediately 
before I was retuned to the ?get help from a Microsoft support (the 
operative word) professional, I was given a full screen announcement 
that LO there was a run time error. Are you guys talking with each 
other? Where the heck is the ability to reach customer service? I am 
planning to send a copy of this notice to the justice departments 
anti-monopoly unit, as well as to the attorneys general of every 
state and ? if I have to ? every European Community nation that 
refuses to settle the anti-trust suit against you.
    Now I have to find another way to reach Customer Disservice, 
without going through this painful and futile process.'



MTC-00004569

From: Mike Goodman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Agreement
    I would like to speak my mind on the impending anti-trust 
agreement with

[[Page 24541]]

Microsoft. The original judgement should have been left in place, as 
a computer/technology professional I have long been plagued by 
Microsoft`s attitude towards business and the public in general. 
Bust`em up, nothing less will do.



MTC-00004570

From: Jeff and Shauna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 10:17am
Subject: What Happened?
    I would like to add my two cents to the whole mess. The best 
thing for the world is to break up Microsoft. One it punishes them. 
But more importantly it would be the best thing that could happen 
for the industry. It would force Microsoft to either create a stable 
and open operating system or they would go out of buisiness. It 
would force Microsoft to create software that works equally well on 
Linux or Mac as it does on Windows. In the end Microsoft would 
become a great competitor in the industry, not an overbarring 
monopoly.
    Jeff Swenson
    Driggs, ID
    ps. I use Linux exclusivly at home. I use Windows at work. I am 
not anti-Microsoft. I am strongly in vavor of more real options.



MTC-00004571

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Trial Comment
    To whomever it may concern,
    I believe that the decision made by the Department of Justice 
and the nice settling states was a fair and adequate one. It will 
impose certain restrictions to allow competitors to be able to get 
their products out to consumers and also give them an equal chance 
where one was not present before. Although, what I don`t agree with 
at all is the fact that the remaining nine states are choosing to 
pursue this further. There should be no way that the restrictions 
they have suggested should go through or even be considered. 
Allowing other companies access to protected source code violates 
patent laws and making it so that Microsoft will not be able to add 
anything to their OS is unspeakable. It is afterall their piece of 
software and any company should be able to create something and add 
to it what they please. Offering two versions, being a light version 
and a regular version makes perfect sense, but not just a stripped 
down version. We see now that competitors such as Sun Microsystems, 
AOL-Time Warner, Oracle and Apple have continually intervened with 
the trial proceedings and now they are coming out with techonologies 
and products that will damage Microsoft. While consumers should be 
protected, the United States and its parties are not and should not 
be out to destroy companies that contribute so much revenue to the 
overall economy. Another retrcition asked by the states is that 
Microsoft include the Java VM by Sun Microsystems in their OS. This 
is absurd, as in 1997, Sun sued Microsoft for using it and modifying 
it, making it clear that they didn`t want them to use it. Why would 
it be forced on them now? Furthermore, how can anyone even fathom 
the idea of forcing competing software on another company. It makes 
sense when Bill Gates made the comparison of saying that we can`t 
force Pepsi to bundle a can of Coke with every six pack. Just like 
you can`t get a Mercedes Benz dealership to make and sell Toyota 
cars for them. It just doesn`t make sense any way that you put it. 
Consumers should have a choice, yes, but this choice is up to them 
to create for themselves. It was deemed that Microsoft should not 
decide what consumers should be able to use, but equally the Federal 
Government and governments of the individual states should not 
credit themselves with the authority to be able to do this either. I 
hope my comment has been taken to heart, because Microsoft is one of 
the greatest innovators in the history of US enterprises and hurting 
them more than necessary is a huge and terrible mistake. They make 
excellent products and I have benefited from them for many years. As 
a consumer I don`t see where the harm came in in the first place, 
but these other restrictions are ludacris in their very nature. If 
it goes through, we would be destroying the very principles on which 
the concept of Free Market enterprises was created, it is an attack 
on her soul.
    This should be considered as well as many other points, I have 
not been able to mention.
    Your truly,
    Stephen Ristich



MTC-00004572

From: Dr. Volodymyr Kruglov
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/15/01 10:34am
Subject: On MS cases_a view from abroad
    Dear Sir,
    I have wrote you, because I am worrying on the result of the 
Microsoft-DOJ and Microsoft-19 states cases. Let me discribe my own 
position that has shared with many friends of mine.
    1. From our own experience we know very well that MS is using 
predatory practice_it is just impossible to buy PC without 
some Windows installed, even in Russia and Ukraine. Moreover, nobody 
never returned money, if I need not in their Windows.
    2. Quality of MS Windows (all versions) is low: you can observe 
this, even via watching TV or reading the newspapers_permanent 
noise on `compromised Web sites', `new 
viruses' and similar. But, if you choose an alternative 
OS_Mac OS, Linux, OS/2_you will immediately be faced 
with troubles_some sites will reject to service you; there is 
not broad support from vendors and so on. Instead, everybody will 
propose you plenty of mediocre Windows-XYZ programs.
    3. Few years ago, when the historical case against Microsoft has 
started, we have obtained some hope to see punished predator. All 
this process was, unfortunately, very long, but it showed to all 
(unblind) persons, what kind of tactics was used by MS: for killing 
OS/2, for struggle with Netscape, with attempts to remove or reduce 
Java etc. It was, sometimes, even funny to see, how 
`great' Bill Gates impudently lying, how MS witnesses 
had permanent troubles with truth. The result was: guilty, should be 
splitted and it was just great! You can tell that Judge Jackson did 
mistake_he gave interviews to the newpapers_yes, it was 
tactical mistake, but I can understand this: what should you feel on 
MS, when you were forced to hear their lying for almost 3 years? 
And, also, the Appeal Court has never changing the main case result: 
they were agree that MS is guilty!
    4. When we started to hear talks on `settlement', I 
couldn`t even think that such a variant is possible. After this, we 
started to hear on attempts to mediate states` cases. It was 
especially intresting to read on MS proposal to settle_via 
introducing themself in the one of the last sectors of market, where 
they weren`t presented yet. It was strange, it was horrible ... We 
heard a lot on `fair game', `competition', 
holy `American Justice', `innovations of MS' 
(may be, MS Mouse?), of course. But please tell me, in what country 
the person, who was already announced guilty, has (with the help of 
government) opportunity to escape from real charges and to enter to 
a new beautiful marketing sector_schools? Sorry, but we can 
not see any justice in the lastest news_we could see only new 
victories for MS (and the absense even the `commom 
sense' in American Justice).
    If MS escapes their punishment, we will know very well, what is 
the meaning of `Justice' in the USA, but, in this case, 
please avoid using of words aforementioned in the future_now 
we will know, how much these words cost!
    Sincerely yours,
    Volodymyr
    PS
    Microsoft should be destroyed!



MTC-00004573

From: Joey Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 12:08pm
Subject: Settling the case with Microsoft
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer programmer and Systems Administrator with more 
than 8 years of experience with varying Operating Systems, and feel 
it my moral and civic duty to speak out against the proposed deal 
with Microsoft to settle the antitrust case.
    Like the majority of the other programmers that I personally 
know, I have watched most of the recent legal developments 
concerning the so-called `Tech Sector' with fear and 
trepidation. I am not a lawyer, but I have tried to understand how 
the Justice Department thinks that the proposed settlement will 
solve anything.
    It has been found that Microsoft holds a monopoly in Operating 
Systems Software, and that Microsoft has acted to maintain that 
monopoly, in clear violation of the laws of the United states. It 
has also been found that this monopoly has allowed Microsoft to 
create a `Barrier to Entry' for Application developers 
(see `Competitive Impact Statement', III.B.2).
    I am not a lawyer, but it seems fairly clear to me that any 
action taken should strive to remove from Microsoft the power to 
maintain this monopoly. I cannot understand how the proposed 
settlement addresses this issue. In fact, the language of the 
proposed settlement in several areas gives Microsoft a government 
enforced monopoly, by hiding it behind such concepts as 
`security' and `anti-piracy'. By

[[Page 24542]]

using these words that are so emotionally bound, they have 
manipulated their way into a proposed settlement that does nothing 
to stop them from continuing their anti-competitive practices.
    I would like to propose some additional actions that, from a 
computer programmer`s point of view, are the barest minimum action 
that would remove this Microsoft from this position of power.
    (I) In addition to the proposed requirement that Microsoft make 
available their `API`s and other Documentation', there 
needs to be some provision made to allow the public to obtain the 
file formats for both existing and future Microsoft products.
    (II) Microsoft should not be allowed to set the terms and price 
of distribution for such API`s, Documentation, of file formats. I 
can understand if Microsoft feels they need to be fairly compensated 
for this information, but allowing Microsoft to set the price would 
give them the power to put this documentation out of the reach of 
those who best stand the chance to break this monopoly, and those 
most hurt by it.
    (III) In the `Revised Proposed Final Judgement', I 
propose that the following sections should be stricken: III.J.2(b), 
III.J.2(c), III.J.2(d)
    These conditions make it possible for Microsoft to exclude from 
these reparations the group that Microsoft`s CEO himself has 
declared to be the single biggest threat to their businees. I`m 
speaking of an international community of programmers who volunteer 
their time to give to the world software that is technically 
superior, freely avialable to everyone (including the background 
logic, or `source code'), and not legally encumbered by 
crippling or binding licenses. I speak of the people collectively 
referred to as the `Open Source Community'. I am a 
member of the Open Source Community, and have repeatedly attempted 
to legally obtain from Microsoft documenation that would allow me to 
release a product that either competes with, or cooperates with, 
Microsoft products, and had these attempts blocked simply due to my 
involvement in Open Source. In the past, there was nothing I could 
do except attempt to legally reverse engineer this information. But 
if we are to truly achieve a result which will allow a competitive 
marketplace, we must remove this `Applications Barrier to 
Entry', as discussed in `Competitive Impact 
Statement', III.B.2. III.J.2(b), III.J.2(c), and III.J.2(d) 
give Microsoft all the ammunition they require to maintain this 
barrier.
    (IV) If it is determined that Microsoft should make some sort of 
financial reparations, it should be declared that this may NOT be in 
the form of Microsoft Software, as this would simply allow Microsoft 
to spread their monopoly even further under the guise of compliance 
to the settlement.
    These opinions are likely quite naive from a legal viewpoint, 
but from the viewpoint of a computer programmer, this is the minimum 
that will give us empower us to overcome the barriers Microsoft has 
thrown in our way.
    In closing, I would like to draw your attention to the comments 
made by Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat, Inc., generally regarded as 
the most successful company selling and supporting open source 
software. `...contrary to the statements of the US Department 
of Justice in its impact statement discussing the Consent Decree, 
the remedies settlement embodied in the Consent Decree fails to 
achieve the ends mandated by the Court for the following reasons:
it fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its statuatory violations,
it fails to ensure that competition is likely to result,
it was an agreement reached for the purpose of expediency, not for 
ensuring an adequate remedy and,
it establishes an untenable precedent for future antitrust 
cases.'



MTC-00004574

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 12:44pm
Subject: REMOVE SUCCESS
    This is to confirm your removal from our database. You will 
receive no further emails from F1Trading.com



MTC-00004575

From: Marc (038) Denise Bryant
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/15/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I would just like to comment on the Microsoft anti-trust case. I 
know quite a bit about computers. I feel Microsoft has taken over 
the computer industry. I have seen many good companies that made a 
better product, but were bought out by or put out of business. I`ve 
seen good programs that are coded well but no longer are available 
because of Microsoft. One can argue `It`s a free country, they 
can do what they want'. The truth of the matter is we have 
many freedoms in this country however we have no freedom of choice 
when it comes to Microsoft. There are other operating systems 
available, but who can go up against Microsoft. You may have the 
best product, but you`re never going to sell it because Microsoft 
won`t let you. Does that sound like freedom to you?
    very truly yours
    Marc C. Bryant



MTC-00004576

From: Joseph Boschert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    As a student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, I see 
first hand the harm that is done when mixing Microsoft and 
education. I wont go into great detail, because I believe the CEO of 
Red Hat Inc. already discussed it, but I do feel that by donating 
software and hardware to poor education disctricts is a suitable 
punishment for Microsoft. I do favor the proposal that has been 
making the rounds about Microsoft donating $1 billion in hardware, 
and having Red Hat, Inc. donate all the software to run on the 
Microsoft donated hardware. I see this a perfect opportunity to 
introduce competition into the marketplace, and have Microsoft do 
the `right thing' by giving poor educational school 
districts the appropriate means of computing technology. I do not 
see any solutions brought to the public as suitable. As you look to 
your constituents for answers to this complex monopolistic 
situation, I hope you continue to read and listen to suggestions. 
Thank you for your time.
    Joseph Boschert
    UW-Whitewater Student



MTC-00004577

From: Steve Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 1:42pm
Subject: Comments on Settlement_United States vs. Microsoft
    Comments on proposed settlement for civil action No. 
98-1232: Without doubt, I cannot agree more with the proposed 
settlement. Primarily for the following reasons:
    1. In the civil action, numerous allegations are presented that 
are no more than unproven statements of marketing hype and 
propaganda. It`s no surprise that the statements are one-sided and 
ignore Netscape`s public comments regarding the demise of 
Microsoft`s commercial viability which are equally meaningless. 
Attorney`s are highly skilled at avoiding lies, but extremely 
skilled at presenting misleading information.
    2. There is a monopoly in PC operating systems, however it, has 
been created by competitor incompetence, sloth and greed. PC OEM`s 
are only interested in what earns them the most profit and America`s 
millions of large and small businesses cannot afford the expense of 
maintaining, training, installing and resolving compatibility issues 
of multiple PC operating systems . As it is, having to maintain 
separate server and PC systems is more than enough headache and 
there are strong financial forces to compel the fusion of these 
systems.
    3. Microsoft failed at the outset to enhance Windows Explorer to 
have the capabilities of Internet Explorer. The internet is simply 
one large array of hard drives. Every computer should be able to 
connect to these shared drivers. There is no need for separate 
`Explorers' or `Navigators'. However, there 
is nothing to prevent a competent product from being commercially 
successful if consumers and businesses identify ownership value. 
Unfortunately, there has never been a market for a separate 
`browser'. Netscape`s theft of the browser concept and 
attempt to create a marketable product is something they have every 
right to attempt, but this product concept is doomed from the 
beginning.
    4. Alternative operating systems have been soundly rejected by 
the marketplace for reasons of commonality, cost of training and 
lack of return of investment for businesses. The Apple monopoly 
could have been wildly commercially successful, except they chose to 
maintain high prices. The high cost of operating system entry is 
hard work, investment and technical competence. Allegations that a 
Microsoft operating system monopoly makes it more difficult to 
market a competing operating system are correct, however, there are 
no barriers to marketing any other software product as thousands of 
large and small companies have done,

[[Page 24543]]

provided there is a viable marketing concept and perceived value to 
the product.
    5. There is no browser threat to an operating system. This is a 
totally ludicrous statement and is not just my opinion, but the 
opinion of hundreds of PC experts that have published over and over 
again how totally void of technical knowledge such a statement is. 
Quoting Microsoft statements to the contrary is simply mis-use of 
marketing propaganda, proves nothing and has no basis in fact.
    6. Software that runs on multiple operating systems is no threat 
to Microsoft. JAVA, which is not a competitor to the Microsoft 
operating system, is being avoided more and more by many PC users 
because it is the language of choice of many hackers and PC 
terrorists. The demise of JAVA is dependent on it`s authors making 
it a safe and viable product. Their technical competence and 
business acumen is on trial in the eyes of the market place. I know 
of no reason to run JAVA on my computer and simply avoid all web 
sites that try to load it on my machine. Microsoft does not force 
any PC user to install their operating system. But like junk mail, 
numerous web sites offer it daily. Linux, Unix, Beos and several 
operating systems are available, but do not provide the features and 
benefits of Windows and will not even be cosidered by businesses.
    7. This action has never been in the interest of consumers. 
Netscape and Sun have used their political influence to leverage 
anti-trust concepts to a new level of distortion. Ambitious 
politicians like Bill Lockyer have been financially induced to 
support egregious legal actions by companies that have lost billions 
of hardware dollars to windows PCs. That is, thousands of small 
companies that could not afford $60,000 work stations with 
proprietary UNIX software, can now use $3,000 PCs to engineer 
products that consumers demand. Increased productivity due to 
Microsoft innovation is the real benefit of a free market. This is 
why Netscape and Sun are losing billions due to the demise of their 
empires and why they are in such a panic to get revenge by 
destroying Microsoft. They are using the legal system to compensate 
for their business failings. Did the largest makers of the buggy 
whip sue Henry Ford for anti-trust behavior?
    Steven Black
    1916 Camas Court SE
    Renton, WA 98055



MTC-00004578

From: Dave Muse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    to: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite 1200, Antitrust 
Division, Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 
20530 Greetings,
    As a long-time computer hobbyist (since about 1979) I have long 
lamented the slow but steady demise of choices in the computer 
operating system and computer applications market, brought about by 
Microsoft`s increasing dominance.
    Many users of computers are relatively new to computing, and 
cannot appreciate what can or should be different about this 
marketplace. But I had to watch, over the years, many excellent 
software products vanish by being forced out of business or bought 
up by Microsoft_and in most cases I did not feel that the 
competing Microsoft products were as good (in any way but marketing) 
as what was no longer there.
    I am very disappointed at the proposed settlement supported by 
Microsoft and the DOJ. I believe it is full of the very sort of 
loopholes that Microsoft can enjoy exploiting to its advantage. 
Where is the punishment for what Microsoft has been found guilty of? 
Do not make the issue into one of national security, or the strength 
of our economy; this is the time to fix the problem and get it 
behind us. The task will not become easier, indeed, much longer-term 
damage to our competitive marketplace could eventually result.
    In my opinion, what consumers need, at a minimum, to be able to 
truly choose alternatives to Microsoft are:
_Both the Windows API and Microsoft document formats (MS Word, 
MS Excel, etc) must be made freely available. This will enable 
competitive products to view and edit documents created by Microsoft 
products., and to create programs that can run on Windows as well as 
Microsoft`s applications do. Open standards benefit everyone except 
a monopolist.
_Microsoft 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. Again, open standards are in everyone`s 
interest except Microsoft.
_Microsoft products should be provided only as extra-cost 
options on personal computers. I should always have the choice of 
whether or not I`m going to buy a Microsoft product.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Muse
    200 Burt Ave
    Jackson MI 49201
    [email protected]



MTC-00004579

From: mitchell@deckard1. mcmurdo.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 2:21pm
Subject: Break the application lock
    Microsoft`s lock on the computer industry stems from its 
proprietary file formats. In short, everyone runs Word because the 
only way to share a document is by using the same application to 
read/write it. Other programs _try_ to read/write .doc 
files, but invariably they fail in some way or another. As a result, 
to be fully compatible, you must use Word as well, because that is 
what everyone else using. And this isn`t just Word, but all the file 
types; spreadsheets, presentations (powerpoint), etc.
    IF the format of these files were openly published, then any 
software company could write programs that read and wrote to those 
specifications. Any company then has the chance to write the next 
`killer word processor/spreadsheet/etc' based on the 
functionality and user-interface of their program. They are not 
locked out because it isn`t compatible with whatever program 
currently has the greatest user-base.
    As an example of this in other technologies; anyone can make a 
tv because the broadcast format is well documented and it will work 
with everyone else`s. We aren`t tied to choosing a CBS tv because we 
want to watch a few CBS shows.
    Likewise, we are not tied to using MCI (in the telephone 
industry) because that is what our friends/work/etc uses. We are 
free to choose our own telephone company and can talk with anyone 
else regardless of what telephone company they use. In the same goal 
as standards in other communication areas, file formats should also 
be standardized. That would allow people to choose what company/
program they want to use based on their own preferences, not because 
they have to conform to what everyone else uses.
    Any company selling a `communications' program (that 
is what documents, spreadsheets, presentations, etc, programs are, 
they communicate ideas to other people) must conform to a 
standardized way of exchanging that information. As changes are 
needed to the standards, those changes must be at the very least, 
well publicized, and ideally would be reviewed and incorporated into 
the standards such that everyone has equal access to the new 
extensions.
    With this solution adopted, it allows Microsoft to succeed or 
fail based on the quality of their own products and allows other 
companies to enter the market and compete equally. Further more, 
Microsoft is then not being `penalized' by the 
government for being successful, as the very staunch Microsoft 
supporters view it.
    Sincerely,
    Richard
    Richard Mitchell_Airborne Oceanographic Lidar
    [email protected]_Laboratory
    [email protected]_(shining a little light 
on the world)



MTC-00004580

From: Steve Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 2:33pm
Subject: My comments re: US vs Microsoft
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the case. I am a software developer with over ten years in the 
industry. I have worked with Microsoft products and others for most 
of those ten years. I have seen the harm that the Microsoft monopoly 
does to the industry.
    THE SETTLEMENT IN MANY WAYS MAKES THINGS WORSE
    The settling of this suit on the terms proposed would be a 
travesty. Although convicted of many violations of antitrust law, 
the settlement does not require Microsoft to admit any wrongdoing 
and they have not done so. Worse yet, the settlement resolves many 
of the ambiguous portions of earlier decisions upon which most of 
the case was argued_ in Microsoft`s favor! Microsoft`s ability 
to destroy competition by incorporating new features into the 
Windows operating system has been explicitly allowed. How is that a 
reasonable outcome of a case where the defendant was convicted?

[[Page 24544]]

    MICROSOFT`S PREDATORY DESTRUCTION OF THE INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE 
INDUSTRY
    I remember in the early 1990`s when Microsoft was eager to get 
Independent Software Vendors to write to the Windows platform; I 
remember a few years later seeing Microsoft enter the market with 
competing applications to those which had been written for the 
Windows platform. Software Vendors who may have envisioned years of 
profitable activity as a `partner' of Microsoft now 
found that their partner was directly competing with 
them_enabled by the unfair monopoly Microsoft enjoyed over 
Operating System distribution through new computer sales. Today, the 
Independent Software industry is a shambles. In the late nineties, 
venture capital for competitors to Microsoft dried up. The filing of 
US vs. Microsoft in 1997 temporarily reversed this trend as 
Microsoft temporarily was forced to stop some of its most egregious 
predatory practices. This settlement, if adopted, will revert this 
industry to this unhealthy state.
    POOR SECURITY PRACTICES BY MICROSOFT PROTECTED BY ITS MONOPOLY
    Microsoft products are notorious for the poor security they 
provide. Much of today`s problems with viruses and other malicious 
junk distributed on the Internet would be lessened if this security 
were improved. A marketplace in which only Microsoft products were 
readily available would remove whatever incentives Microsoft has to 
improve this aspect of their products. And recent comments prove 
that they still don`t get it.
    Recently, Scott Culp, Manager of the Microsoft Security Response 
Center issued a broadside to the industry calling for there to be 
less talk about known security weaknesses in Microsoft products. 
Rather than fixing problems, they want to be free to hide problems 
and be shielded from bad publicity.
    The less `monocultural' the general computing 
environment is within society, the more security there will be 
against these threats. Thus diversity in computing environments is 
in and of itself a benefit to the general health of our networked 
computing environment. And this is all the more true when the 
dominant player is the weakest link in terms of security.
    DISCRIMINATION AGAINST `OPEN SOURCE' SOFTWARE
    There are other problems with the settlement, even with some of 
the sections that would seem to be improvements. Certain sections of 
the settlement protect Microsoft`s competitors `in 
commerce' against actions which Microsoft has committed 
before. Netowrk protocols, file formats and similar technical 
information must be freely shared with these competitors.
    But the `in commerce' clause protects Microsoft from 
disclosing this information to what have become its most important 
competitors_Open Source software, which has emerged as a 
viable alternative in many areas, particularly the Internet. Because 
Open Source is not distributed on a for-profit basis, it is not 
protected as are commercial software companies. Worse yet, Microsoft 
is permitted to set the criteria designating to what businesses it 
is required to release this information.
    And yet many Open Source applications have been adopted for use 
by for-profit companies, as well as the Unites States Armed Forces 
and other branches of government. They find it to be not only cost-
effective but also find the ability to fix bugs themselves an 
advantage that cannot be duplicated in the world of commercial 
software, where bugs can take months if not years to be fixed, if 
they are fixed at all. Also, Open Source programs such as SAMBA 
allow Windows computers and non-Windows computers to coexist and 
communicate well on the same local-area networks, a big advantage. 
If Microsoft is not required to release its network protocols to the 
Samba project, this facility will be killed, thus forcing many 
customers who might otherwise not wish to buy only Windows computers 
to do so, thus FURTHERING THE MONOPOLY EVEN MORE.
    The restriction on providing protocols only to organizations 
`in commerce' must be lifted. There is no reason why 
these specifications should not be freely available to anyone. Some 
might object that this would release information compromising 
security_this is refuted by the mess that already exists with 
unreleased information, as well as by the fact that other 
organizations which DO release this information have far fewer 
security problems than Microsoft systems. At a minimum the decision 
of who to release to should NOT be made by the convicted defendant 
in this case, Microsoft.
    LACK OF CONSUMER CHOICE IN NEW COMPUTER PURCHASES Another 
problem is the whole problem of customers forced to take operating 
systems they may not want when purchasing a new computer. If a 
consumer wishes to run a different operating system on a new 
consumer, that consumer should not be forced to pay for an OS he or 
she will not use. This practice should be forbidden since it is at 
the core of so many of the abuses on which Microsoft was convicted.
    CONCLUSION
    In conclusion, it is my belief that this settlement is a total 
cave-in to the convicted defendant in this case, and would 
effectively remove this industry from antitrust protections of the 
law. While the original remedy of breakup ordered by Judge Jackson 
is not a necessity (and many sincere people have questioned its 
effectiveness), the terms of this settlement need to be tightened to 
prevent Microsoft from the abusing the great wiggle-room this ill-
advised settlement gives them.
    Sincerely,
    Steven M. Cohen
    335 Darrow Avenue
    Evanston, IL 60202



MTC-00004581

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@ 
inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 12/15/01 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Proud American, Please Be Happy
    CC: [email protected]@ 
inetgw,letters@sjmercury. com@i...
    `Instead of crash-proof unix, consumers get pure 
unadulterated koran.'
    `Instead of exciting software enterpreneurship, young 
graduates can worship at my mosque.'
    `Instead of implement paradigm shifting ideas, all nerds 
grow beards or wear burqas.'
    `This I choose for you, proud American, please be happy. 
Okie dokie? Ha ha ha ha...'



MTC-00004582

From: Lonnie Rolland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 2:46pm
Subject: doj settlement
    Sir:
    I honestly think ( and there is plenty of proof to back it up ) 
that Microsoft is `killing' off many, many nitch markets 
in the computer industry. You could see it 5 years ago. You can see 
it even better today. Is justice blind ? ( or corrupted ? ) There is 
a whole army of extremely un-happy programmer wanting to do 
something about this. Fix the problem now. Do we really need 
`democrats' back in the public office in order to fix 
the glaring wrongs. Prove me wrong !
    Disgusted,
    Lonnie Rolland
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004583

From: George Beekman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 3:04pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    DOJ,
    I`m writing to express my shock and dismay concerning the 
settlement proposed by the Bush administration in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The proposed settlement has several serious 
shortcomings:
    1. It does not punish the company for its illegal activities
    2. It does little to prevent future illegal activities
    3. It essentially rewards the company for its abuse of power
    4. It effectively increases the company`s market share, 
strengthening its monopoly position.
    For a settlement to be fair, it must:
    * make it easier for competitors (AOL, Apple, Sun, Oracle, and 
others) to penetrate markets that Microsoft dominates
    * make it harder for Microsoft to abuse its monopoly status.
    * discourage other companies for engaging in illegal 
monopolistic practices.
    The current settlement proposal isn`t justice. Our government 
must do more to bring Microsoft to justice.
    Sincerely,
    George Beekman
    3825 NW Hayes
    Corvallis, OR 97330



MTC-00004584

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 3:11pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Anti Trust Case
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney.
    People knowledgable in computer technology and unbiased by 
connections with Microsoft know and declare the

[[Page 24545]]

obvious. Microsoft has used its enormous financial power to crush 
smaller competitors. In the process it has stifled the innovation 
typical of those lean operators whose bottom line depended on truly 
`doing it better,' rather than on massive advertising 
campaigns.
    The findings that Microsoft is in violation supports the voices 
thus speaking out. It does not intimate the damage to private 
enterprise when they disappeared, one after the other nor the 
enormous loss of the technology these innovators had been 
contributing. Security is but one example. The loss of billions of 
industry dollars when hackers attack through the myriad, continuing, 
security leaks in Windows software is unnecessary. Far better 
security is available in other systems. Microsoft callously ignores 
this.
    Remedies should be commensurate with the massive culpability of 
Microsoft. Serious penalties and corrective measures are in order. 
As should be expected, current proposals, written by Microsoft 
itself, actually enhance their monopoly, and deepen the 
technological loss to the American people. The posturing of 
Microsoft`s legal cadre notwithstanding, breaking up Microsoft, 
therefore their monopoly, is step in the right direction. Such 
breakups in the past have proven to give birth to many new 
technologies.
    Further, because of their immense power:
    1. Microsoft should be prevented from forcing their system to be 
installed on any new machine whether by old or new schemes. Schemes 
designed to bypass this intent by `creative' pricing or 
clever wording should be flatly prohibited.
    2. Microsoft should be ordered to make their system APIs 
available in full to all software developers equally. That is, they 
should not charge more or license less to a competitor than to a 
partner.
    3. Microsoft should be ordered to make all their networking 
standards public, therefore prevented from secretly making competing 
browsers disfunctional.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Lalone
    9835 Standifer Gap Rd
    Ooltewah, TN 37363



MTC-00004585

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,rremington 
@webtv.net@inetgw,mcarona@...
Date: 12/15/01 4:26pm
Subject: Financial News 12/15/2001
    Business & Financial News from 11/1/2001 to 12/15/2001
    Houston based Enron Corporation lays out the plan for Chapter 11 
bankruptcy. The failed Azurix water unit and wind energy assets may 
be sold for $4-$6 billion dollars. Other assets as the energy 
trading unit may be sold to one of three financial bidders including 
JP Morgan Chase, Citicorp, two of the largest Enron creditors, or 
UBS Warburg. Enron employee 401K pension funds were vested in Enron 
stock, now virtually worthless! Enron`s total bank debt, including 
bonds and derivatives is about $15 billion. Accounting firm Arthur 
Andersen`s CEO has been quoted as saying that Enron did not disclose 
subsidiary company information to Andersen, a felony violation of 
SEC regulations. Enron hid negative balance sheet information 
through affiliated companies.Total value of failed Enron Corporation 
is over $60 billion dollars, including stock and preferred 
shareholders values.
    The Microsoft Anti-Trust Deal is under bipartisan fire in 
Congess. The Senate Judiciary committee has been overseeing the 
Justice Department`s proposed deal, with nine states still pressing 
for tougher terms. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has received an 
antitrust lawsuit from 29 states. The attorneys general alleged that 
the Company illegally kept generic versions of its BuSpar anxiety 
medication off the market, cheating consumers out of millions of of 
dollars.
    Prudential Financial launched the largest IPO ever in the 
insurance business, selling $3 billion dollars of stock to 
investors.
    AOL Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin announces his retirement from 
the Company, effective May 2002, the earliest date his employment 
contract offered.
    Vivendi-Universal executive Edgar Bronfman, from the Seagrams 
family, resigns the number two position at the media conglomerate. 
French based Vivendi retains Jean-Marie Messier as CEO.
    Barry Diller, of USA Networks and the Home Shopping Channel has 
been named chief executive of Universal Studios, overseeing all 
theme parks, television, and motion picture operations. The huge 
music & publishing division of Universal will remain under 
separate management. Vivendi-Universal has announced a financial 
partnership with Echostar /DirecTV in the range of $1.5 billion 
dollars. The strategic partnership is designed to provide content 
for HDTV and traditional satellite subscription broadcasts.
    The Federal Reserve Bank reduces the prime rate for the 11th 
time this year.
    Hollywood studios and directors agreed this week on a new three 
year contract six months earlier than the deadline in May 2002. Run 
away productions to foreign countries has been one of the major 
issues in resolving conflicts early.
    Major League Baseball places contraction on hold until 2003. 
Speculation from many general managers is based on elimination of 
collective bargaining and other labor/salary issues wrapped up in a 
smokescreen of talks regarding team elimination.
    `Anaheim Angels` Done Deal Disintegrates'. Headlines 
from the Orange County Register detail Disney executives nixing a 
negotiated trade with the Chicago White Sox involving Angel Darin 
Erstad and the Sox` Garland, Singleton, & two minor league 
players.
    ABC & AOL Sports purchase 6 year rights to broadcast the 
NBA, winning the bid from NBC.
    NBC announces the elimination of broadcast advertising bans on 
hard liquor commercials, allowing Smirnoff vodka and other Diageo 
brand to advertise on the peacock network from 9-11 PM and on 
the Tonight Show with Jay Leno & Saturday Night Live. ABC, CBS, 
& FOX networks will allow only beer and wine advertisements at 
this time.



MTC-00004586

From: Lou Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 4:34pm
Subject: microsoft
    Quit wasting tax dollars trying to punish Microsoft for 
exercising free enterprise. This country is a capitalistic society 
and free enterprise is one of the core principles.
    I run a small business and no one is wasting tax dollars to 
limit my competition. The market decides if I am providing products 
and services at the right price and quality.
    Lou Owens



MTC-00004587

From: Ray Ashmun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 5:09pm
Subject: settle
    You need to keep asking yourself, where is the consumer outcry 
about Microsoft. There isn`t much, because most people are very 
happy with the current situation. I`m an old-time pc user and 
remember how things were before Windows. It cost us a fortune in 
money and work to get the necessary utilities up and running in our 
computers. Now we save time and money with almost everything in 
Windows. I don`t want to go back to the old days and I will continue 
to purchase Microsoft products for as long as they are available. It 
is disgusting to me that you have allowed competitors who are unable 
to develop decent products to convince you that everything will be 
better as soon as you cripple Microsoft. The entire PC revolution 
would be much farther behind where it is today if it hadn`t been for 
Microsoft. Most if us chose Microsoft when given the chance, and 
will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
    Leave things alone and settle this court case now.
    Ray Ashmun



MTC-00004588

From: lmuntz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft attitude toward intellectual property
    I am a doctoral candidate in English at the University of Iowa 
and serve as a teaching assistant at UI and at Mt. Mercy College in 
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The temptation that essay-for-sale-or-trade 
websites offer to undergrads is quite strong and offers a constant 
battle for those of us who wish to prevent plagiarism and teach our 
students how to perform rigorous, honest intellectual work. The 
publication of the following article on Microsoft`s website Slate 
undermines such attempts. For a corporation that portrays itself as 
concerned about intellectual property rights and about making the 
Internet a learning tool for students, the promulgation of such an 
article on-line by MSN indicates at the least a faulty editorial 
policy and at most an arrogance about or negligence in enacting the 
corporation`s policies and missions, in my opinion.
    I appreciate having this venue by which to comment.
    Lori Muntz

[[Page 24546]]

    Original Message From  
shopping
    Adventures in Cheating
    A guide to buying term papers online.
    By Seth Stevenson
    Posted Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 11:04 AM PT
    Illustration by Nina Frenkel Students, your semester is almost 
over. This fall, did you find yourself pulling many bong hits but 
few all-nighters? Absorbing much Schlitz but little Nietzsche? 
Attending Arizona State University? If the answer is yes to any or 
(especially) all these questions, you will no doubt be plagiarizing 
your term papers. Good for you_we`re all short on time these 
days. Yes, it`s ethically blah blah blah to cheat on a term paper 
blah. The question is: How do you do it right? For example, the 
chump move is to find some library book and copy big hunks out of 
it. No good: You still have to walk to the library, find a decent 
book, and link the hunks together with your own awful prose. 
Instead, why not just click on a term paper Web site and buy the 
whole damn paper already written by some smart dude? Que bella! Ah, 
but which site?
    I shopped at several online term paper stores to determine where 
best to spend your cheating dollar. After selecting papers on topics 
in history, psychology, and biology, I had each paper graded by one 
of my judges. These were: Slate writer David Greenberg, who teaches 
history at Columbia; my dad, who teaches psychology at the 
University of Rhode Island (sometimes smeared as the ASU of the 
East); and my girlfriend, who was a teaching assistant in biology at 
Duke (where she says cheating was quite common). So, which site wins 
for the best combination of price and paper quality? I compared free 
sites, sites that sell `pre-written papers,' and a site 
that writes custom papers to your specifications.
    Free Sites
    A quick Web search turns up dozens of sites filled with free 
term papers. Some ask you to donate one of your own papers in 
exchange, but most don`t. I chose one from each of our fields for 
comparison and soon found that when it comes to free papers, you get 
just about what you pay for.
    EssaysFree.com: From this site I chose a history paper titled 
`The Infamous Watergate Scandal.' Bad choice. This paper 
had no thesis, no argument, random capitalization, and bizarre 
spell-checking errors-including `taking the whiteness 
stand' (witness) and `the registration of Nixon' 
(resignation). My judge said if they gave F`s at Columbia, well 
Instead, it gots a good old `Please come see me.'
    BigNerds.com: Of the free bio paper I chose from this site, my 
judge said, `Disturbing. I am still disturbed.' It 
indeed read less like a term paper than a deranged manifesto. 
Rambling for 11 single-spaced pages and ostensibly on evolutionary 
theory, it somehow made reference to Lamarck, Sol Invictus, and 
`the blanket of a superficial American Dream.' 
Meanwhile, it garbled its basic explanation of population genetics. 
Grade: `I would not give this a grade so much as suggest 
tutoring, a change in majors, some sort of counseling .'
    OPPapers.com: This site fared much better. A paper titled 
`Critically Evaluate Erikson`s Psychosocial Theory' 
spelled Erikson`s name wrong in the first sentence, yet still won a 
C+/B- from my dad. It hit most of the important points-the 
problem was no analysis. And the citations all came from textbooks, 
not real sources. Oddly, this paper also used British spellings 
(`behaviour') for no apparent reason. But all in all not 
terrible, considering it was free. OPPapers.com, purely on style 
points, was my favorite site. The name comes from an old hip-hop 
song (`You down with O-P-P?' meaning other 
people`s ... genitalia), the site has pictures of coed babes, and 
one paper in the psych section was simply the phrase `I wanna 
bang Angelina Jolie' typed over and over again for several 
pages. Hey, whaddaya want for free?
    Sites Selling Pre-Written Papers
    There are dozens of these_I narrowed it down to three 
sites that seemed fairly reputable and were stocked with a wide 
selection. (In general, the selection offered on pay sites was 10 
times bigger than at the free ones.) Each pay site posted clear 
disclaimers that you`re not to pass off these papers as your own 
work. Sure you`re not.
    AcademicTermPapers.com: This site charged $7 per page, and I 
ordered `The Paranoia Behind Watergate' for $35. Well 
worth it. My history judge gave it the highest grade of all the 
papers he saw_a B or maybe even a B+. Why? It boasted an 
actual argument. A few passages, however, might set off his 
plagiarism radar (or `pladar'). They show almost too 
thorough a command of the literature.
    My other purchase here was a $49 bio paper titled `The 
Species Concept.' Despite appearing in the bio section of the 
site, this paper seemed to be for a philosophy class. Of course, no 
way to know that until after you`ve bought it (the pay sites give 
you just the title and a very brief synopsis of each paper). My 
judge would grade this a C-in an intro bio class, as its 
conclusion was `utterly meaningless,' and it tossed 
around `airy' philosophies without actually 
understanding the species concept at all.
    Illustration by Nina Frenkel
    PaperStore.net: For about $10 per page, I ordered two papers 
from the Paper Store, which is also BuyPapers.com and AllPapers.com. 
For $50.23, I bought `Personality Theory: Freud and 
Erikson,' by one Dr. P. McCabe (the only credited author on 
any of these papers. As best I can tell, the global stock of papers 
for sale is mostly actual undergrad stuff with a few items by hired 
guns thrown in). The writing style here was oddly mixed, with bad 
paraphrasing of textbooks_which is normal for a 
freshman_side by side with surprisingly clever and polished 
observations. Grade: a solid B.
    My other Paper Store paper was `Typical Assumptions of Kin 
Selection,' bought for $40.38. Again, a pretty good buy. It 
was well-written, accurate, and occasionally even thoughtful. My bio 
judge would give it a B in a freshman class. Possible pladar ping: 
The writer seemed to imply that some of his ideas stemmed from a 
personal chat with a noted biologist. But overall, the Paper Store 
earned its pay.
    A1Termpaper.com (aka 1-800-Termpaper.com): In some 
ways this is the strangest site, as most of the papers for sale were 
written between 1978 and `83. I would guess this is an old term 
paper source, which has recently made the jump to the Web. From its 
history section, I bought a book report on Garry Wills` Nixon 
Agonistes for $44.75, plus a $7.45 fee for scanning all the 
pages_the paper was written in 1981, no doubt on a typewriter. 
Quality? It understood the book but made no critique_a high-
school paper. My judge would give it a D.
    I next bought `Personality as Seen by Erikson, Mead, and 
Freud' from A1 Termpaper for $62.65 plus a $10.43 scanning 
fee. Also written in 1981, this one had the most stylish prose of 
any psych paper and the most sophisticated thesis, but it was 
riddled with factual errors. For instance, it got Freud`s 
psychosexual stages completely mixed up and even added some that 
don`t exist (the correct progression is oral-anal-phallic-latency-
genital, as if you didn`t know). Showing its age, it cited a 
textbook from 1968 and nothing from after `69 (and no, that`s not 
another Freudian stage, gutter-mind). Grade: Dad gave it a C+. In 
the end, A1 Termpaper.com was pricey, outdated, and not a good buy.
    With all these pre-written papers, though, it occurred to me 
that a smart but horribly lazy student could choose to put his 
effort into editing instead of researching and writing: Buy a 
mediocre paper that`s done the legwork, then whip it into shape by 
improving the writing and adding some carefully chosen details. Not 
a bad strategy.
    Papers Made To Order
    PaperMasters.com: My final buy was a custom-made paper written 
to my specifications. Lots of sites do this, for between $17 and $20 
per page. PaperMasters.com claims all its writers have `at 
least one Master`s Degree' and charges $17.95 per page. I 
typed this request (posing as a professor`s assignment, copied 
verbatim) into its Web order form: `A 4-page term paper on 
David Foster Wallace`s Infinite Jest. Investigate the semiotics of 
the `addicted gaze' as represented by the mysterious 
film of the book`s title. Possible topics to address include 
nihilism, figurative transgendering, the culture of entertainment, 
and the concept of `infinite gestation.' ' This 
assignment was total hooey. It made no sense whatsoever. Yet it 
differed little from papers I was assigned as an undergrad English 
major at Brown.
    After a few tries (one woman at the 800 number told me they were 
extremely busy), my assignment was accepted by Paper Masters, with a 
deadline for one week later. Keep in mind, Infinite Jest is an 
1,100-page novel (including byzantine footnotes), and it took me 
almost a month to read even though I was completely engrossed by it. 
In short, there`s no way anyone could 1) finish the book in time; 
and 2) write anything coherent that addressed the assignment. I 
began to feel guilty. Some poor writer somewhere was plowing through 
this tome, then concocting a meaningless mishmash of words simply to 
fill four pages and satisfy the bizarre whims of a solitary, 
heartless taskmaster (me). But then I realized this is exactly what 
I did for all four years of college_and I paid them for the 
privilege!
    When the custom paper came back, it was all I`d dreamed. 
Representative sentence:

[[Page 24547]]

`The novel`s diverse characters demonstrate both individually 
and collectively the fixations and obsessions that bind humanity to 
the pitfalls of reality and provide a fertile groundwork for the 
semiotic explanation of addictive behavior.' Tripe. The paper 
had no thesis and in fact had no body_not one sentence 
actually advanced a cogent idea. I`m guessing it would have gotten a 
C+ at Brown-maybe even a B-. (Click here to read the rest of 
the paper.) If I were a just slightly lesser person, I might be 
tempted by this service. One custom paper off the Web: $71.80. Not 
having to dredge up pointless poppycock for some po-mo obsessed, 
overrated lit-crit professor: priceless.
    sidebar
    Return to article
    Infinite Jest
    Introduction
    Wallace`s fictional narrative Infinite Jest is an epic approach 
to the solicitous and addictive nature of humanity. The novel`s 
diverse characters demonstrate both individually and collectively 
the fixations and obsessions that bind humanity to the pitfalls of 
reality and provide a fertile groundwork for the semiotic 
explanation of addictive behavior. Although Wallace may have 
actualized the concept of the `addicted gaze' to the 
literal or physical response to the viewing of Incandenza`s coveted 
film the Entertainment [Infinite Jest], it is manifested 
symbolically throughout the novel in the distractions of its 
characters.
    Nihilism
    It would appear that Wallace has chosen society`s most 
frequently rejected and denounced individuals as the vehicle for the 
narrative search for and preservation of the ultimate fix, which is 
illustrated by the obsession for Incandenza`s film. At the same time 
and despite their diversity and distinctions, these individuals will 
ultimately represent the inextricable and covert characteristics of 
nihilistic behavior.
    School-aged malcontents, drug addicts and the physically 
challenged all attempt to get a hold of a copy of the film and 
experience its pleasures at any cost. Ironically, it was the film 
maker James Incadenza`s habit to regularly observe the depravation 
of Boston`s crowded street milieus, where `everyone goes nuts 
and mills, either switching or watching' (620). It is not 
surprising therefore that he should develop a film that would be 
perceived as the panacea to the entertainment addictions of the 
masses.
    Figurative Transgendering
    Wallace devotes a substantial amount of space to the 
illustration of the contradictions of gender, where the adoption of 
gender behavior or symbols contrary to the character`s true gender 
can be analyzed. The occasion of Hugh Steeply in drag as he met with 
Marathe to discuss the emergence of the Entertainment`s cartridge 
may have served the literal purpose of the agent arriving incognito 
however his devotion to applying feminine mannerisms appear to go 
above and beyond the call of duty (90). In spite of his practice, 
Marathe nevertheless describes Steely`s appearance as `less 
like a women than a twisted parody of womanhood' (93).
    Wallace also presents the steroid-driven objectives of a number 
of the female tennis player`s like Ann Kittenplan. `who at 
twelve-and-a-have looks like a Belorussian shot putter' (330). 
It may be fair to assume that their desire to acquire a manly 
physique is not entirely confined to the advantages it offers on the 
tennis court. In his notes, Wallace suggests that the 
`gratification of pretty much every physical need is either 
taken care of or prohibited' by the tennis academy (984). 
Clearly, the administration of steroids or any other drug of choice 
is prohibited by the ETA considering the wide scale purchase of 
`clean' urine for the academy`s drug testing.
    An Endless Jest
    Perhaps the most significant example of the addicted gaze is 
demonstrated not so much in the stationary and fixated attention to 
satisfying one`s obsession but in the demand for the continuous 
pursuit of it. The halfway house/rehab center, Ennet House, 
represents the often ineffectual and delusional pursuit of ridding 
oneself of addiction. A clear example of the deceptive environment 
of rehab is demonstrated by Lenz`s use of cocaine while at the 
facility. For many of the residents like Lenz, the limitations at 
Ennet House are often so unbearable that its residents are driven to 
the use of drugs in order to preserve their sanity. Ironically, 
Lenz`s stash of cocaine works as a contrived temptation that 
undermines any true potential for ridding himself of his addiction.
    Conclusion
    Wallace`s Infinite Jest is a chaotic amalgam of humanity and the 
similarly depraved behaviors that they demonstrate in the pursuit of 
amusement and satisfaction. Although the restrictions to their 
attainment are clearly represented by the physical entities of the 
Academy, the Ennet House and the wheelchair, they are also fostered 
by them.
    If Incandenza`s `Accomplice' is any indication of 
the content of the Entertainment, it only reinforces the contention 
that human nature includes the inherent desire to not only view the 
depravity and debauchery of human behavior but even more, to 
participate in it. There is little to ponder why so many of 
Wallace`s characters must depend on their mind and body altering 
drugs of choice, if not to influence how they are viewed by others 
then at the very least to make more palatable their own perceptions 
of self.
    John L.`s monologue delivered at one of the AA meetings 
illustrates the destructive implications of either reasoning: 
`all the masks come off and you all of a sudden see the 
Disease as it really is??and see what owns you, what`s become what 
you are_' (347).
    References
    Nihilism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] 
Available: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm.
    Wallace, David Foster. Infinite Jest. New York: Little, Brown 
& Co., 1996. for future reference



MTC-00004589

From: Todd Chilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    Hi,
    In regards to the attached email, my thoughts are as follows. I 
think Microsoft winning (winning in my definition meaning slaps on 
the hand being irrelevant...) is very disheartening. The reason it 
is disheartening is because it sends the message that our own 
government is not really in control, nor has the actual ability and/
or care to note and control such behavior. If you will notice that 
Microsoft is using the `loss' to market there own 
products yet again. And once again, our judges and government 
officials just aren`t bright or competent enough to see through 
these things.
    On another note, I make a living supporting NT and Unix networks 
and I am currently using MS products to send you this message. I 
would like to see sensible cases and sensible reprimands. Companies 
like Novell and Sun that do not really `compete' with MS 
and then sue is a little ridiculous as well. Novell just sat there 
and watched the giant come without really trying to compete. Sun has 
never targeted the home user or even the low end server market, yet 
the complain about MS? We need research, relevant facts, and 
accurate penalties. I actually don`t hate MS. I hate a system that 
allows companies like MS to do whatever they want with nothing more 
than a inconvenience or the ability to turn their 
`punishments' into `advantages.'
    Thank you,
    Todd Chilson
    P.S. In all sympathy to government officials, I know they have a 
very hard job and they are doing the best they can with enlightening 
counter-arguments to my position. I believe in them equally, but 
this is my opinion as it stands today.



MTC-00004590

From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    I personally don`t see how consumers have been harmed by any of 
the so-called actions of Microsoft. In fact, consumers have 
benefited. Microsoft has bundled other products into the operating 
system so the consumer doesn`t have to buy them separately. This is 
a win for the consumer. There is no consumer or consumer group that 
can say this is not a benefit to them. Where can you get an 
operating system which comes with audio and video editing 
capabilities, CD writing capabilities, and built-in networking, for 
$100 (or less). You can`t. Check the price of Novel`s operating 
system, or Sun`s operating system. They cost much more.
    It is obvious that this case has been spearheaded by Netscape. 
Netscape originally gave their browser away for free to flood the 
market. Microsoft has been accused of this too, but Netscape did it 
first. Unfortunately for Netscape they did not have the capital to 
hold them over while they gave away a free product. Microsoft came 
along with their own browser, and late in the game I might add. 
After several revisions, Microsoft`s browser became superior to 
Netscape`s browser. Netscape buried themselves, Microsoft didn`t 
bury them.
    Ronald Listo

[[Page 24548]]

    11006 Old Cheshire Lane
    Chester, VA 23831



MTC-00004591

From: Karl Vogel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Greetings:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement language lets the company off 
far too easily. If the deal goes through without modification, I 
believe Microsoft will actually become stronger and better able to 
act as an industry monopoly.
    As I understand the proposed final judgment, remedies 
specifically protect organizations in business for profit. This is 
fine as far as it goes, but Microsoft`s greatest current threats 
come from the non-commercial arena: Linux-based systems on the 
operating system front, the Apache webserver on the IIS-alternative 
front, and the Gnome and KDE GUI packages on the desktop front. 
These three competitors are all not-for-profit in nature, and not-
for-profit organizations seem to have no rights at all under the 
proposed settlement.
    Section III(J)(2) says that it need not describe nor license 
API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business:
    `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...' In other words, Microsoft can now effectively 
kill any not-for-profit product which makes use of Microsoft 
protocols, which doesn`t amount to much in the way of punishment for 
precisely that sort of past behavior. The biggest loser in this 
settlement would seem to be the U.S. government, as it also doesn`t 
qualify as a for-profit organization. This includes your office, the 
military, and anyone else working for the government who might 
benefit from some real competition. Finally, nothing in this 
proposal would prevent a future Microsoft monopoly based on .NET and 
HailStorm.
    Recommendations:
    * People should be able to create independent implementations of 
Microsoft APIs without fear of legal retaliation. This is the only 
way that other organizations can hope to make their products work 
and play nicely together with MS products on an MS desktop.
    * Instead of auctioning the right to port Office to specific 
systems, or forcing them to give up code for IIS, simply require 
that MS Office work properly when installed and run under the 
`Wine' emulator for Intel-based systems. This prevents 
MS from making a product dependent on undocumented Windows features, 
without hobbling them or making them give up their corporate crown 
jewels.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy.html holds more specific language 
changes for the proposed final judgment.
    Please rethink this. You can get a very clear picture of a 
company just by watching what they`re willing to do to get the last 
5% of a market. If Microsoft had been willing to settle for 85% of 
the desktop, do you think this trial would have happened in the 
first place? Winning is one thing, but winning by any means 
necessary is another. Thank you for your time.
    Karl Vogel
    Wright-Patterson AFB
    Beavercreek, OH



MTC-00004592

From: Dave Gant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 9:48pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I think it`s utterly ridiculous to reward a monopolist entity 
that has proven time and again to have no respect for morality, fair 
play, or even the law. If the DOJ cannot see that the placement of 
one`s product in an institution for education is a huge benefit, I 
have honest concerns about the competence of the government to deal 
with these matters in today`s world. If this settlement goes 
through, it will send the message to businesses that fair 
competition and business ethics are an optional hindrance.
    Dave Gant



MTC-00004593

From: morrownr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/15/01 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
    After having read the agreement between the USDoJ and Microsoft 
concerning the settlement of the ongoing case I must say that I feel 
justice will not be served by this agreement. I have followed the 
small computer software industry for many years and I identifed what 
I thought to be illegal activity by Microsoft as early as 1986. I 
then watched as the years passed and the increasingly obvious 
illegal activities increased. I watched as the DoJ made a couple of 
attempts to curb this illegal activity in the early `90`s but 
Microsoft totally ignored both the letter and the intent of the 
agreements they signed with the DoJ. Microsoft has not and nor do I 
expect them to show any regard for the laws of the United States of 
America until far more reaching corrective action is taken. 
Microsoft has made billions by disregarding the law. The current 
settlement allows them to keep it all. This is simply not right. It 
is also not right that the company be left with the same structure 
that it has today. This company must be broken up to stop the 
illegal activity. A strong message needs to be send to the business 
community...that the laws of the United States will be enforced.
    Regards,
    Nick Morrow



MTC-00004594

From: Louis Vonderscheer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 12:09am
Subject: Comment
    As an end user of computers and software I feel I must protest 
the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Case. To me it seems a 
small slap on the wrist for a company that has a virtual monopoly on 
both operating system and applications.
    Most executives that choose the software for companies will pick 
Microsoft much as they used to pick IBM. They are afraid of 
incompatibilities when using 3rd parth software.
    Microsoft has bought their compitition, or dried up their sales 
by announcing a competing product to be released `real soon 
now'. Much software that I have used over the years is now 
gone, replaced by some `kitchen sink' variety, bundled 
into the current Windows version. Now we are stuck with Access, Word 
and Excel, while old industry standars like Paradox, Lotus and 
WordPerfect are fading into obscurity. It would be nice to have a 
choice in software at least if not the OS. I like General Motors but 
I want more then Chevrolet available. We need the competition.
    Thank you for your consideration
    Louis A. Vonderscheer
    Redding, California.



MTC-00004595

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/16/01 2:31am
Subject: USPS Mail Tampering
    During the past weeks I have been receiving encoded messages as 
to the origins of the shenanigans, hijinx, assaults, and felonies 
against me while living at 62 Trofello Lane, Aliso Viejo, CA. This 
supposed secure gated community at the edge of Soka University, has 
operations funded by a Mission Viejo based company, Benchmark 
Funding. The tip, provided by the local USPS carrier is only one of 
the many discoveries of subversion & deception here.
    Additional stalling and funding by Canadian based companies as 
well as the entry of a `planning' neighbor from St. 
Louis via Laguna Niguel reeks of another`s idea of how I should live 
my life. Tonight`s mail featured a card addressed to this woman`s 
(Laura) three year old daughter (Brianne) with our 62 Trofello 
address. Last week, my only income, the California unemployment 
check arrived after 10 business days from the date it was mailed 
from Sacramento, normally a one to two day trip even with the 9/11 
security and holiday mail demands. Someone, I believe one of the 
residents living on my block, intercepted my unemployment check for 
over a week, and then placed it in a US Postal mailbox for a second 
routing through the US Postal Service. I have timed the prior 
receipt of this biweekly check and have received it directly in two 
days from the US Postal carrier when I wait for my mail at home. I 
shouldn`t have to do this!
    Apparently someone`s thinking I would stay at home for weeks 
while my check was lost, as my bank account is close to zero. Wrong! 
I will continue to sell personal items in order to live normally by 
searching for employment in an area of my choice. The Merino 
community in Aliso Viejo is not even

[[Page 24549]]

close to an area that I desire to reside in. I want my money 
rightfully returned to me without delay in order to continue living 
without others dictating business for me.
    This is the United States, folks. For over 35 years I have been 
enslaved while my money and royalties were intentionally withheld in 
order to clone a replacement musician for the Chicago Blackhawks 
Hockey Team, and later, as a `Project' for Canadian 
funded television shows and other nonsense. Additional royalties and 
revenue have been illegally used by others without my consent, 
resulting in a multi-decade fight for my rights to live in a safe, 
secure community of my choice, not another`s decision.
    A strategically placed December 17, 2001 People Magazine with 
George Harrison on the cover features an article by Susan Forward 
titled `Ties That Bind' `Outraged By Your In-Laws? 
Author and self-help guru Susan Forward has some tips for easing the 
strain'. Referring to the intense abdominal strains from the 
multiple poisoning by my sister, Bonnie, her husband, Al Rex, as 
well as my parents during the past year, the People feature descries 
the various varieties of poisonous in-laws with her new book, 
`Toxic In-Laws: Loving Strategies for Protecting Your 
Marriage'. Reciprocal communications or assistance from the 
Orange County Sheriff`s Department and the United States Department 
Of Justice are less than direct to me. An occasional feature article 
by someone unknown to me may be left in my view at the 24 Hour 
Sporting Club in Irvine. Big deal, all it confirms is that someone 
deliberately poisoned me, I already knew that, as well as some of 
the motives for the assaults.
    Official replies or settlements after decades of investigations 
and over three years of my direct communications have yet to occur. 
COX Cable, one of the media & communications conglomerates 
bidding for the $60 billion dollar assets of AT&T`s cable 
communications division has been active plotting behind the scenes. 
Cox Cable provides the telephone communication at the Merino 
community as well, forcing me to choose yet another cellular 
provider, Verizon, in order to obtain return calls from employers.
    Friday`s edition of the LA Times Living section features two 
cartoons in the comics pages relevant to my complaint. The first is 
Real Life Adventures on page E21. The authors, Wise & Alderich, 
choose to show a couple behind a hedge with the words, `NUDIS 
COLON'. The author could have chosen the exact wording, Nudist 
Colony, however the encoding is for New Disney Colon, referring to 
the continued attacks and subsequent `creative juices' 
prepared in Tropicana Pure Premium Orange juice with a special 
`White Cap', the company my father retired from.
    I now believe that my brother`s `spastic colon' and 
colon surgery for Crohn`s disease several years ago was actually 
caused by my family`s intentional poisoning against him, without his 
knowledge of the origins of the attacks. Barry is intelligent and 
has clued me into my mother`s subversive personality in his jewelry 
business years ago. It has taken me longer, unfortunately, to 
believe that parents could be so cruel! The discoveries of the 
chronic Muenchausens Proxy and `Toxic In-Laws' Syndromes 
proven frequently with attacks from my parents, sister, and her in-
laws. I belive my mother`s brother, Allan, an insurance agent, has 
interfered with my money. Allan`s mysterious disappearance overseas 
on cruise ships coincides with `Disney done deals that 
disintegrate' and other fizzled plots.
    Above the Real Life Adventure is the Over The Hedge comic. This 
comic has been mentioned in several of my previous US Justice 
communications. This entire week has been devoted to the theft of 
$30 million dollars by the `mastermind' critter against 
the `turtle' character through credit card fraud. The 
settlement occurs in Saturday`s edition when an African credit card 
is used to pay off the debts incurred. This cartoon is close to the 
truth, folks!
    I am requesting your immediate attention to my complaints! This 
situation is degrading daily and will result in EXTREMELY 
UNPREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR if my money is not returned to me 
immediately. I have waited for over 15 years and have informed the 
US Department of Justice regarding the truth in the deceptive 
business and theft of my money and assets. I deserve the opportunity 
to live my life in security and peace, away from my family`s 
continued attacks and interference! There is adequate comfortable 
safe housing available in other areas! You know it, and so do I.
    DO IT NOW !!
    DO NOT DELAY THIS ANY MORE !!
    Robert Remington



MTC-00004596

From: Ryan Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 3:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice,
    I am concerned about the anti-trust settlement with Microsoft. 
It is clear that Microsoft is guilty of antitrust violations. 
Although I am not an expert, I have been keeping up with the case 
and would like to express my concern with the way that the agreement 
addresses open source software and other access to the API`s 
associated with Windows. It seems clear to me that the power Windows 
holds over the market is much more than a coupled browser, but the 
way that Microsoft can leverage that monopoly to increase the 
barriers to entry of other software makers into producing software 
for Windows.
    Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) both contain language that 
could damage free software and other enterprises that Microsoft does 
not consider a business. Since programs like Apache and Linux make a 
huge difference in the server market, and consequently the internet, 
this language essentially gives Microsoft the keys to the gate 
regulating the connection of PC`s with internet servers. 
Additionally, since these programs are maintained by large 
communities of people not formed into a legal entity, they have 
little way to legally fight Microsoft if Microsoft decides they are 
not worthy of the API`s necessary to interface with Windows.
    This language would also hurt the government, NASA and any other 
non-profit scientific or other organization that would like to 
interface with Windows. Please look at this area further and do not 
give the company a chance to strengthen it`s position in the market. 
Additionally, it does not seem like the agreement provides enough 
penalities to the company for it`s monopolisitic actions. Microsoft 
should not be stopped from competing fairly in the marketplace, but 
they should be given a new way to strengthen their position either. 
It is not enough just to make it available to remove coupled 
programs or to change certain features. The benchmark should be 
whether or not the average computer user is able to make that choice 
when they buy their computer. As one last point, I would like to 
advocate the selection of Steve Satchell as a member of the three 
member watchdog committee over Microsoft. Robert X. Cringley has 
recommended him highly and I have learned to trust Mr. Cringley`s 
opinion after having read his column for a long time.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan C. Johnson
    Los Gatos, CA



MTC-00004597

From: Alex Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 3:48am
Subject: DOJ v. Microsoft comments
    Below are my comments regarding the conclusion of the US v. 
Microsoft trial, in accordance with the public comment period. I 
hope they are considered in the resolution of this case:
    I have followed the trial very closely, and am most disappointed 
with the resolution proposed. I do not feel as though Microsoft has 
respected the court at any stage of it`s trial, and has acted with 
distain toward our entire system. Furthermore, I feel as though the 
Attorney General after the change in the administration has pursued 
this issue with less vigor than is appropriate for a case with such 
far-reaching implications. I hope that the Court again finds against 
Microsoft, a company that does not respect it`s customers, 
competitors, or the legal system. Please punish Microsoft in a way 
that will make it take notice, and that will help competition. I`m 
very concerned that favorite technologies such as Quicktime and Java 
will be knocked out using the same unfair Microsoft practices that 
already cost consumers innovative products like Netscape, and has 
hurt the adoption of the Macintosh OS.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Alex Johnson
    3438 Vista Ave
    Cincinnati, OH 45208



MTC-00004598

From: Dan Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Other than some vague language about `harming 
consumers', I could find no specific statements in the 
complaint that clearly defines what the damage has been to 
consumers. The complaint itself clearly focuses on competing 
products and

[[Page 24550]]

Microsoft`s competitors. While not specifically mentioned in the 
complaint, anyone familiar with computer industry knows who these 
competitors are. It is clear this complaint was fostered by these 
competitors and not by consumers.
    From a consumer`s (and industry participant`s) viewpoint, the 
complaint seems like a contradiction in that producing affordable 
software requires a ubiquitous platform and re-useable 
infrastructure, but a ubiquitous platform and re-useable 
infrastructure(according to the complaint) somehow equates to a 
monopoly. In addition, moving functionality down into the platform 
has always been a way of achieving re-usability and thus reducing 
software development cost. Microsoft`s competitors understand these 
basic tenets and are coming up with alternatives to achieve 
ubiquity; they just don`t do it as well and efficiently as 
Microsoft_yet.
    I had a vision of what our world would look like when I started 
out in the computer industry some 30 years ago. Microsoft has done 
more to advance that vision by making it possible for the masses to 
afford computing devices. We are still in the vision`s infancy. The 
evolutionary process will continue to weave exciting new 
capabilities into the consumer`s daily processes. Microsoft 
understands this and is aggressively bringing these new capabilities 
to the masses. They are also empowering many whole industries and 
individuals to take advantage of exciting new opportunities.
    I would suggest our government send a loud message that reaching 
any vision is not accomplished by filing complaints, but instead by 
innovation and hard work. From a consumer`s viewpoint we are 
punishing success; exactly the wrong message we should be sending. 
Tell the computing industry (and all other sectors) to focus less on 
fostering legal action and more on building competing platforms, 
providing re-useable infrastructure, achieving ubiquity, and 
ultimately providing markets with cost-effectiveness solutions to 
process improvement.
    Dan Cannon
    [email protected]



MTC-00004599

From: Steven Zaveloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms.Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing regarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust litigation.
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a travesty of justice. 
Its effect will be to make it even easier for Microsoft to make its 
operating systems even more pervasive and its monopoly position more 
secure_with a tax write-off to boot.
    Yours truly,
    Steven H. Zaveloff [email protected]
    P.O. Box 200203 Tel: (512)219-7142
    Austin, Texas 78720-0203 Fax: (707)988-8694
    http://www.foreignword.com/cv/document_353.htm



MTC-00004600

From: Zach Arnold, JMaD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    I am of the opinion that the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement is a sham. It would not promote competition in any way. 
Microsoft, which has been found to be guilty on numerous occasions, 
does not deserve such a blatant concession by the federal 
government.
    Zach Arnold
    [email protected]
    `If you`re not going to be better tomorrow than you were 
today, what need have you for tomorrow?'
    Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav



MTC-00004601

From: Robert Constant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 12:42pm
Subject: AntiTrust Settlement
    The case should be settled. Microsoft wants to settle the case 
and now the States are are holding up the process with more demands. 
The States that are holding out are of course the States that have 
Competitors to Microsoft. Hopefully this is not a case of 
Competitors basically trying to get want they want from Microsoft by 
USING the Goverment. I believe that what the goverment has put 
forth. It is not up to the goverment to try and make a competive 
arena. Punish the Micorsoft for its behavior, not make its 
competitors get a free ride or even to playing field for them.



MTC-00004602

From: Ryan, Randy
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/16/01 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I work in public education and experience Microsoft everyday. 
While I feel that they are somewhat over-zealous in grabbing every 
penny they can from all users of their software, it still is the 
only way to fly.
    There are other solutions we could use, but truthfully, 
Microsoft has a very good and stable product. I think that this is 
because of the resources they have and if they don`t protect their 
position in the marketplace, then all computer users will suffer.
    Don`t tear apart the best thing for computers, but don`t let 
them just run roughshod over us either. I trust that the DOJ will 
make the correct decision as long as the justices in question keep 
an open mind and take in both sides of the case....the consumer and 
the company.
    Thanks for the opportunity to air my position.
    Randy Ryan
    Marble Falls, Texas



MTC-00004603

From: Mike Westkamper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the settlement that has been publicly 
touted in this case. From my perspective as a business person in 
this industry, Microsoft has destroyed competition, stifled 
creativity and has exposed this country to irreparable harm. The 
arrogance shown by this monopoly and defiance of the law coupled 
with products which expose us to significant harm are a direct 
result of their apparent invulnerability.
    The settlement is a coup for Microsoft. It provides junk 
computers and Microsoft software to kids. A marketing win for them. 
Nowhere do those who were harmed see compensation or recognition.
    I hold that Microsoft should be made accountable to those who 
claim harm from their manipulation of the market as a monopoly. 
Further, Microsoft should be made to compensate those who have been 
harmed by the poor software allowing hackers to infect their sites.
    I would gladly offer additional comments if you would like 
another voice in the chorus.
    Mike Westkamper
    President, WEI Inc.
    CC: Connecticut Attorney General,Mike Westkamper



MTC-00004604

From: Starr81
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I found on the Internet that citizens may comment on the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. Therefore, I offer these 
thoughts: The proposed settlement is a travesty. It is the desired 
product of a clever defendant who has found a prosecutor eager to 
throw Br`er Rabbit back in the briar patch.
    The settlement fails to honor the verdict of the trial court and 
the unanimous conclusion of appellate judges. It even defies common 
sense, because it leaves a monopolist in undisturbed control of the 
market. PC shoppers will continue to find no choice but machines in 
which Microsoft`s operating system has already been installed. 
(Apple doesn`t count, because it has a miniscule and declining 
percentage of the market.)
    Pre-installation of the operating system means the consumer 
cannot know what is being paid for Windows, and what the price would 
be if the computer came with no operating system or an alternative 
system. Worse, it effectively defines other software options, 
leveraging Microsoft`s power. The only answer is a remedy that 
prevents Microsoft from preventing consumers from making an informed 
choice. The consumer must be offered a true choice. This requires 
two things. First, that Windows be `un-bundled,' so that 
computers be offered and priced on the basis of all of these 
options: with no operating system included, with a sysem such as 
Linux, and with the buyer`s choice of Windows ME, 98SE, 2000 or XP. 
(The latter choice is necessary to prevent Microsoft from forcing 
consumers to accept Windows XP`s special `hooks' that 
will lead to control of software application markets Microsoft 
doesn`t already dominate.)
    Second, Microsoft must be forced to allow the natural 
development of alternative

[[Page 24551]]

operating systems. Its 90% control of the word processing/
spreadsheet/etc. office software package market is part and parcel 
of its monopolist power; Office strengthens Windows, and Windows 
strengthens Office. Accordingly, Microsoft must be compelled to 
develop or license versions of Office for Linux (and any other 
competitive system that may arrive), much as it currently does for 
Apple`s machines. This must continue to be required as long as 
either Windows` or Office`s share of the `IBM-
compatible' market is greater than fifty percent. Only when 
Microsoft voluntarily chooses to market application software on a 
non-discriminatory basis can one conclude its monopolist personality 
has changed. In sum, the acid test of a settlement should be this: 
if the defendant is happy to enter into it, then the prosecution has 
been duped and justice will be denied.
    Gerald Starr,
    Norman, Oklahoma



MTC-00004605

From: Edward Styles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Now I agree that Microsoft should face penalties that will slow 
the grow of this monopolistic practice.
    Now we are all aware of monoploies. The utilities and cable 
companies are examples of monoploies. I feel that if Microsoft 
became a monopoly because it was just the best product for the job I 
would say let them be, but I cannot say that. Microsoft is a product 
that I am forced to use. I also have to pirate the software because 
there is no way to learn about the software for IT jobs. Two wrongs 
don`t make a right but how can I learn about it if I can`t afford to 
use it. What does Microsoft have to say to that.
    Also I feel that Linux should be pushed into schools. The money 
saved could be used on teachers and better classrooms. Open source 
technology would be great for that. Also there is a place for 
Windows and Office. I do feel the companies should be split so that 
it can promote competition and through this competition better 
products. I do not wish for Microsoft to fail, we need Microsoft, 
but we also need choice as well. No penalities, just the company 
split.



MTC-00004606

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 1:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a senior programmer analyst with long industry involvement, I 
strongly agree with the counter-proposal for settlement of the 
United States vs Microsoft offered by the 9 states and am vehemently 
opposed to the proposed final judgement of Nov. 6th.
    In my opinion, the proposal of November 6th would not restore 
competition and sends the wrong signal to an organization that 
rationalizes criminal behavior as `innovation'. I feel 
that even the stronger counter-proposal by the dissenting states 
does not go far enought in punishing Microsoft corporation for ill 
gotten gains.
    Sincerely,
    Richard T. Van Cura
    14256 Jennifer Road
    Omaha, Ne 68138



MTC-00004607

From: John Bekas Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 2:40pm
Subject: DoJ vs Microsoft settlement
    Dear DoJ
    I am writing to you in response to the settlement terms of the 
antitrust case against Microsoft. I am extremely disappointed with 
the outcome, as Microsoft is receiving little or no punishment for 
their actions. As a software developer in Chicago, Illinois, I am 
sorely disappointed that the federal goverment and my own state 
government have given up the fight and have decided to settle on 
terms favorable to Microsoft. The courts have ruled that Microsoft 
is indeed a monopolist. Not only that, they ruled that Microsoft 
abused this monopoly. Therefore, I believe Microsoft should be 
treated accordingly.
    I understand that ongoing court cases take time and cost a lot 
of money. Plenty of both have been invested over the past few years 
of litigation. However, coming to a settlement favorable to 
Microsoft, such as this one is, is equivalent to throwing away all 
of the time and money invested in the case.
    One example of abuse I experienced came about a few years ago 
when I was purchasing a new computer from Dell. At the time, IBM`s 
OS/2 Warp was an alternative operating system which I was interested 
in running on my new system. When asked if I could receive my 
computer with OS/2 Warp installed instead of Windows 95, the sales 
person said no. When asked if I could receive my system with no 
operating system installed, the sales person again said no. When I 
persisted, the sales person changed his attitude and said that I 
could get the system without an operating system installed; however, 
the system cost remained the same. I was unable to purchase a new 
system without paying Microsoft for software that I had no intention 
of using.
    I have no idea whether this situation has changed in the past 
few years. Instead, I have discovered that if I assemble a system on 
my own, no software is included. Unfortunately, a typical computer 
generally does not have this option.
    As for software and bundling, I believe Microsoft abuses this 
power greatly. Although the common person probably does benefit from 
the inclusion of Web Browsers, Media Players, Image Manipulation 
Tools, etc., many power users uninstall these 
`freebies,' and instead opt to purchase more fully 
functional software. Unfortunately, these users are forced to pay 
for the included software in order to upgrade their operating 
system. If Microsoft was truly interested in including software that 
was of use to a majority of users, why do they not include Microsoft 
Word or Microsoft Excel with their operating system? I would imagine 
that more people probably use a word processor or spreadsheet than 
Media Players or Image Manipulation Tools. My guess is that 
Microsoft no longer has any competition in these markets and has no 
incentive for forcing their use. When is the last time someone sent 
you a document in Word Perfect format?
    I also want to touch on the proposed settlement of the Class 
Action lawsuits currently being proposed by Microsoft. Please do not 
let them extend their monopoly further by allowing them to install 
$1 billion of their software in needy schools. Instead, let 
Microsoft donate their money and let the schools decide which 
solutions they are interested in buying. Apple Computer has focused 
on software designed for children and they should be given a fair 
opportunity to compete for installation rights in these schools. 
RedHat Software is willing to donate free software (with no time 
limit) to these schools if the settlement money is given in the form 
of hardware and not software. Any of these alternative options will 
increase competition and will not just help Microsoft extend their 
grasp to new areas.
    In closing, I think that the proposed solution from the 
remaining states in the antitrust case is much better suited to the 
crimes committed. In particular, I`m referring to the stricter 
punishments for non-compliance that the states are 
requesting_namely, the opening of source code to the Windows 
OS if Microsoft is found to be continuing its anticompetitive 
behavior during the next few years.
    Thanks,
    John Bekas, Jr.
    Software Developer
    Chicago, Illinois



MTC-00004608

From: Roger O`Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 3:07pm
Subject: You have NBC, you have a part of Apple, please don`t take 
the Education
    You have NBC, you have a part of Apple, please don`t take the 
Education market!



MTC-00004609

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 6:19pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft and your DOJ Action_STOP your actions 
against this Fine American Company!
    Gentlemen:
    This email is to let you have one more American citizens opinion 
about YOUR actions ...the actions of our elected government 
officials and how you spend MY tax dollars. Microsoft has been shown 
to be a monopoly. This is not illegal. The lawsuits propagated 
against this fine company were brought during the liberal 
administration of the past 8 years and the era of `competitive 
lawsuits' as a method of competing in a market where the 
companies supporting the lawsuit were unable to produce a product 
that was competitive. Said another way: STOP your actions against 
Microsoft and live with the current settlement that has been 
proposed. This company has been damaged enough even though they do 
NOT deserve these actions!
    They make a wonderful product...one that consumers WANT to buy. 
They make it better than OTHER competitors can make it and they 
market it `CHEAPLY'...well within

[[Page 24552]]

the product development and production costs. They do not make a 
huge profit for what they charge. In fact the profit they make is 
THEIR business...not the consumer or government`s business. Let them 
alone to continue to produce a better mousetrap! STOP being 
`bought' by other competitors! MY TAX vote says leave 
them alone!
    I am not a Microsoft employee or have anything to do with their 
company. I simply use their products. I believe that THIS company 
should be PROTECTED by your DOJ from these frivolous lawsuits 
brought by competition that cannot simply come up with a competitive 
mousetrap! By the way...I am extremely computer fluent and KNOW much 
about computers and all software involved! Personally I PREFER 
Microsoft software to all of the rest...and I have bought and used 
the rest!
    The point is I am an American Taxpayer, a businessman and a 
VOTER. Please respect my vote and bring back some decency to our 
government at the DOJ levels by CUTTING your DOJ actions and 
departments. LAYOFF many of your unneeded lawyers and put our TAX 
dollars back into the consumer`s hands and OUT of the government 
BUREAUCRACY!
    Thank you,
    Bill Martin
    2850 Country Club Blvd
    Orange Park, Fl 32073
    [email protected]



MTC-00004610

From: Steven B. Ronsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 7:16pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    I am an IT professional who specializes in creating applications 
for the Microsoft Windows environment.
    I am extremely disappointed in the proposed remedy which holds 
no hope for forcing Microsoft`s compliance to non-predatory 
practices. I am appalled to think that, after five years of 
litigation, the DOJ feels this is a satisfactory conclusion. It 
really begs the question of where Microsoft is investing its 
political contributions and reflects very poorly on the entire 
administration.
    A fitting solution would be much closer to remedy originally 
proposed by the trial judge.
    Steven B. Ronsen
    72 Norwood Ave.
    Buffalo, NY 14222
    (716) 881-4809
    Steven B, Ronsen
    [email protected]
    (716) 881-4809



MTC-00004611

From: alan malnak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be advised that I have read most of the legal documents 
concerning the Microsoft settlement and am of the opinion that the 
settlement is fair and just.
    It seems to me, that as indicated in the Microsoft brief, much 
of the opposition to the settlement comes from companies that have 
selfish motives.
    Having Microsoft reveal as much as the opponents request would 
be similar to the government ordering Coco Cola to reveal its recipe 
to all of the competitors on the street.
    We even see our elected official taking the part of companies 
that are located in their political district.
    Despite what may be claimed, can anyone really say that 
telephone service is better or cheaper for the consumer since the 
inception of all of the smaller companies since the court ordered 
breakup ?
    In addition, and one only has to look at the Market history to 
come to an obvious conclusion, as Microsoft goes so goes the market. 
Many company pension plans are suffering severe loss in value as a 
result of the drop in Microsoft stock and the effect it has on other 
investments That may not be of great importance to some, but it is 
to me since I am retired and cannot vote myself a larger pension and 
increased health benefits as our elected officials do.
    Again, I am in total support of the settlement agreed to by the 
Government and Microsoft.



MTC-00004612

From: Frederik Eaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must be required to provide documentation about APIs, 
ABIs, and communications protocols to individuals and developers of 
free software, not just to commercial vendors. A large part of 
Microsoft`s competition comes from free software community, and to 
deny its members the same rights as commercial interests under the 
new antitrust settlement would be absurd.
    If there will be any kind of committee appointed to oversee 
Microsoft, Steve Satchell should be on it.



MTC-00004613

From: Patrick J-Whitty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft: Enough is Enough
    I am writing this email as a concerned American citizen. Ever 
since the beginning of the anti-trust case against Microsoft, I have 
learned more and more about how they connived and manipulated their 
way to success. I`ve learned how they tried to muscle other 
companies out of business because they didn`t want to have any 
competition. This is wrong. Microsoft is a monopoly, and monopolies 
do nothing but harm this country. They stifle innovation and they 
place power into the hands of the wealthy.
    Just because Judge Jackson`s ruling was overturned does not make 
these facts untrue. Microsoft does nothing but harm others. I am 
appalled that Judge Kollar-Kotelly would use the disasters of 
September 11 to try to shield these crooks from the justice they 
deserve. This is downright tasteless.
    Microsoft must be brought to justice. Their programs should all 
be open sourced, people should be given the opportunity to choose 
whether or not they want Windows, and Microsoft should not be 
allowed to dominate the Internet.
    I hope other Americans see what I have seen. What is decided 
with Microsoft will affect the rest of the world for years to come. 
They must be stopped and brought to justice.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Johnson-Whitty



MTC-00004614

From: Yev Bronshteyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As it stands, I believe the proposed settlement is insufficient. 
While giving certian limited freedoms to the manufacturers, I 
believe all parties involved have lost track of those for whom the 
settlement is necessitated_the consumers.
    As a consumer, I am entitled to demanding free choice in buying 
a product, and to government protection of my choice. In regards to 
Microsoft settlement, this applies as folows:
    * The consumers must be given inalienable right to select any 
and all of the software he/she purchases with a new computer. This 
includes both middleware and operating systems.
    * The consumer must not pay for any software he/she does not 
receive as a result of making the decision described above.
    * No OEM or retailer should suffer any financial loss for 
granting a consumer the afore-mentioned fundamental freedoms, and no 
party should (yes, even Microsoft) should gain from denying these 
rights to the consumer. Specifically, this translates into:
_No exclusivity contracts with OEMs. Microsoft must not be 
allowed to enter into contracts that bind the OEM to providing any 
Operating System and/or middleware on all or any specific fraction 
of systems sold but that OEM.
_No discounts to OEMs based on their choice of operating 
system or middleware.
    Any settlement that fails to provide for the above rights are 
included in ironclad, incontravertible language with no 
`exceptions', falls short of satisfactory to the needs 
of the consumers.
    As a consumer, I thank you for your concern for our interests.
    Yev Bronshteyn.



MTC-00004615

From: Yev Bronshteyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As it stands, I believe the proposed settlement is insufficient. 
While giving certian limited freedoms to the manufacturers, I 
believe all parties involved have lost track of those for whom the 
settlement is necessitated_the consumers.
    As a consumer, I am entitled to demanding free choice in buying 
a product, and to government protection of my choice. In regards to 
Microsoft settlement, this applies as folows:
    * The consumers must be given inalienable right to select any 
and all of the software he/

[[Page 24553]]

she purchases with a new computer. This includes both middleware and 
operating systems.
    * The consumer must not pay for any software he/she does not 
receive as a result of making the decision described above.
    * No OEM or retailer should suffer any financial loss for 
granting a consumer the afore-mentioned fundamental freedoms, and no 
party should (yes, even Microsoft) should gain from denying these 
rights to the consumer. Specifically, this translates into:
_No exclusivity contracts with OEMs. Microsoft must not be 
allowed to enter into contracts that bind the OEM to providing any 
Operating System and/or middleware on all or any specific fraction 
of systems sold but that OEM.
_No discounts to OEMs based on their choice of operating 
system or middleware.
    Any settlement that fails to provide for the above rights are 
included in ironclad, incontravertible language with no 
`exceptions', falls short of satisfactory to the needs 
of the consumers.
    As a consumer, I thank you for your concern for our interests.
    Yev Bronshteyn.



MTC-00004616

From: Bill Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my opposition to the settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I am not a lawyer but a user of personal 
computers, a tool essential to my livelihood for approximately 20 
years. I have used many personal computing operating systems over 
the years, including those made by Microsoft (MSDOS, Windows 3.11, 
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows XP 
Pro), Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple Computer. 
My opinion is that operating systems other than Microsoft`s have 
been superior in features and performance at each stage of 
development of the personal computing platform. Yet Microsoft 
achieved a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of the personal 
computer market. Microsoft`s illegal behavior in maintaining and 
expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90 per cent of the market 
effectively destroyed all existing competitive personal computing 
operating systems in the process, save one, and perhaps prevented 
others from being developed.
    I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Second, it 
forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to 
prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is inadequate.
    Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting illegal 
acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a miniscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement.
    Microsoft was also convicted of illegally tying its products to 
its monopoly operating system but that conviction was overturned on 
appeal based on the standard used by the District Court judge to 
convict Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the District Court for 
further consideration. A decision to not pursue the illegal tying 
issue is formalized in the settlement even though the Justice 
Department announced that it would not pursue it before entering 
into the settlement. In my experience it is indeed Microsoft`s tying 
of its products to its monopoly operating system that has been the 
most damaging to competition in the personal computing market. 
Microsoft was initially found guilty of illegal tying and the 
remanded issue should be pursued. The settlement formally forecloses 
the opportunity to do so. Finally, the settlement is inadequate to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing its practices of illegally 
maintaining its monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an unrepentant 
criminal. As an example, its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating 
that he does not even know what a monopoly is after Microsoft was 
convicted of being one. It is totally incredulous to believe that 
Microsoft will simply go forth and be a good corporate citizen. 
While the settlement contains provisions to enforce its restrictions 
through oversight, the burden is on the government to catch 
Microsoft in the act and, if so, then Microsoft is simply returned 
once again to proceedings such as these. Where is the incentive for 
Microsoft to comply? My mind boggles in that this is the second time 
that a settlement of this nature has been reached with the same 
convict. The second is no more satisfactory than the first. Any 
resolution of this case against Microsoft must provide appropriate 
incentives for the unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.
    Respectfully,
    William W. Fox, Jr.
    9805 Fox Rest Lane
    Vienna, VA 22181
    703-281-3126



MTC-00004617

From: Benjamin Everson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 11:19pm
Subject: the settlement is flawed
    I will keep this brief_the settlement in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case is severely flawed. MS has been found guilty, yet 
the DOJ has found it more appealing to just make the case go away 
rather than really trying to solve the problem that has been 
determined to exist. Please don`t allow this mistake to happen. If 
you do, I promise it will come back to bite us all. The Internet is 
supposed to be an open community, not owned by any one entity. This 
will cease to be true if Microsoft is not reigned in, and the day 
that happens will truly be a sad one.
    Ben Everson



MTC-00004618

From: Michael Longfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/16/01 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am one of many people upset by the potential ramifications of 
the Settlement. Although I do not live in your jurisdiction (I am 
Canadian), I am nonetheless concerned. I use Microsoft products. Yet 
I do not think they should be given the opportunity to strengthen 
their market position in schools as punishment for their other 
monopolistic practices. The suggestion of Steve Jobs, requiring 
Microsoft to provide money not software and hardware, is worth 
greater consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Longfield



MTC-00004619

From: C. R. Brade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don`t see how this settlement changes anything. Microsoft (MS) 
already has a foundation (started after the suit, I think) that 
donates money that K-12 schools can apply to, how does expanding the 
visibility of such PR do anything to change MS. Microsoft used to 
have a lower market share than Borland for the then popular C++ 
Programming Language software; MS didn`t have a better product and 
couldn`t get Borland (Enprise(sp.?)) to sell their company to MS, so 
they took over half of Borland`s top programming staff (wages that 
no one else could match). Borland never did get anywhere near their 
marketshare in programming language software back. Sure MS might of 
had to pay Borland (briefly changed its name) a fine, but I am sure 
MS has more than made of the difference. Why should MS ever deal 
ethically with anyone? If they get caught they may pay a fine, but 
the fine won`t be enough to make them suffer any long term loss in 
any area.
    Everyone knows that the Apple Computer Company`s strategy that 
helped them get a foothold in the K-12 schools was its heavy rebate 
program for schools to buy one of their computers. What this 
settlement would do is basically give MS the same strategy to slowly 
remove Apple`s presence. Why not require that the computer`s not run 
MS software? Money not used can grow interest deferred and be used 
for improving technical training in non-Microsoft equipment. The Red 
Hat people said they would provide free Red Hat Linux OS`s with 
technical support for the schools MS gives equipment to. There is a 
glut of MS certified people, why not train some disadvantaged 
children in high school/ jr. high in Linux administration. There are 
probably many inner city or Appalachian Mountain children who would 
jump at the chance. Companies in economically disadvantaged areas 
would then have someone to hire who knows how to run a server with 
very low site license fees and has

[[Page 24554]]

a lower number of security issues requiring patches with each new 
release. This could help a new company compete and 
grow_helping a company grow and employ more tech. savvy 
employees which could help the area no longer be an economically 
disadvantaged area. Note Linux has in some cases been put on 
computers and have them run compatible applications that choke on MS 
OS & software. If not why not require MS if it takes more than 
10% (when agreed upon market share rate) of Apple`s K-12 OS share in 
K-12 schools during and 2 years after of this billion dollar K-12 
assistance phase; require that MS pay an additional one billion (at 
one year anniversary date of first payment) plus whatever percent of 
share loss over 10% times 100 billion until either MS for over a 
year doesn`t exceed its when agreed upon market share rate or holds 
less than 65% of the market share in all of the following: PC OS`s, 
word-processing packages [note the large share they took from with 
bundling (WordPerfect/ Lotus 1-2-3)], programming 
language software, and internet browsers.
    Maybe it is true that money talks and big corporations never 
have to apologize as long as they have the money. I hope I am wrong, 
but the case of the intermittent windshield wiper patent comes to 
mind.
    C.R. Brade
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00004620

From: Wes Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft`s Monopoly
    I have been using both Microsoft operating systems and the 
Macintosh for as long as they have existed. I could write a long 
letter, but I won`t. It is very clear to me that on many occasions 
Microsoft has used their dominance of the operating system marked to 
further their monopoly. You might not realize that they have done it 
in the word processing market in Japan.
    Today let me just say that I am seriously concerned about two 
things. First, by putting their media player into Windows and making 
it the first choice media player, they have taken a big step towards 
squeezing out Apple Quicktime and RealNetworks RealPlayer.
    Secondly, there is Microsoft Passport, which is collecting a lot 
of data about subscribers and forcing all who are using Microsoft 
Hotmail, Microsoft Network, and Microsoft Developers` Network to 
subscribe if they want to continue to receive those services. I 
think it is a very unhealthy thing for this service to be under 
Microsoft`s control at all, and it will be very unfortunate if they 
dominate this field as well as the operating system market.
    Very Sincerely Yours,
    W. Wesley Peterson
    Professor of Information and Computer Sciences
    University of Hawaii
    [email protected]



MTC-00004621

From: js aal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:15am
Subject: Proposed settlement is an embaressment to the US/DOJ
    Ladies/Gentlemen;
    As I reviewed the proposed settlement offered Microsoft in its 
recent anti-trust suit, I am struck by the lack of any real penalty 
to Microsoft. The original trial judge found MS guilty of being a 
monopolist and ordered a series of remedies. The appeals court did 
not agree with the remedies, but they did uphold the finding of 
monopolistic actions. This confirms the need for some sort of 
penalty or sanction that forces MS to end their monopolistic 
actions.
    The DOJ proposals to settle this case clearly have an odor of a 
payoff of some sort. MS has hired the right type of Washington, DC 
attorneys, it has sponsored the right lobbyists, BUT it has yet to 
admit the monopolistic practices and show some sort of remorse. The 
company has continued in the same course it has prior to the trial.
    DOJ should ask for two things:
    1. Disallow the OEM relationship MS has with the makers of 
personal computers that allows them to ship a unit with MS installed 
along with along with the placement of unique icons that tie the 
machine back to other MS products.
    2. Force MS to publish the full interface specifications to its 
Windows operating systems packages. This should be a standard that 
all other vendors (including other divisions within Microsoft) would 
use in developing their applications.
    There is a precedent for the second penalty, because that is the 
condition forced upon IBM when it settled with DOJ in one of its 
several anti-trust cases. IBM continued to prosper as did many of 
the smaller ancillary companies.
    That is anti-trust justice displayed in the past. I hope DOJ and 
the US Court system has the same courage to do this today.
    Have a great Day!
    Alex Lukshin



MTC-00004622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 4:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear to me that the Consent Decree was reached for the 
purpose of expediency rather than a sustainable result. When the 
result of the antitrust litigation has been upheld by the highest 
court in the nation, why is a lower court and, more specifically, 
the Justice Department willing to accept a less favorable settlement 
to consumer than the Microsoft proposed settlement when the finding 
of guilt was still at issue. I find it inconceivable that a firm 
with 96% marketshare, which has routinely annihilated competitors in 
its path, be offered improved terms after guilt has been 
established. I find that it is with deep regret, that contrary to 
the statements of the US Department of Justice in its impact 
statement discussing the Consent Decree, the remedies settlement 
embodied in the Consent Decree fails to achieve the ends mandated by 
the Court for the following reasons:
    * it fails to deny Microsoft the fruits of its statuatory 
violations,
    * it fails to ensure that competition is likely to result,
    * it was an agreement reached for the purpose of expediency, not 
for ensuring an adequate remedy and,
    * it establishes an untenable precedent for future antitrust 
cases.
    I feal that 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 three additional features:
    * Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft`s 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    * The specifications of Microsoft`s present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft`s or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
`hooks' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    * Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    There is considerable national interest in this issue, it is 
crucial that Microsoft`s operating system monopoly not be extended. 
This is a 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.
    I would like to finish by quoting the nine State Attorneys 
Generals who are opposing the settlement `Nothing in the text 
of this agreement forces Microsoft to change its business practices 
and technical implementations in the least.'



MTC-00004623

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 4:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement must be amended.
    To the U.S. DOJ et al:
    Good morning. My name in Michael Mohr. I am writing to you today 
to share my opinion regarding the Microsoft antitrust

[[Page 24555]]

settlement. Having used PCs for almost a decade now, I am familiar 
with most Microsoft operating systems, including DOS, Windows 3.11, 
Windows 9X, and NT. After reading about the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the USDOJ, I am outraged that such nonsense 
could come about. Please read first my experiences as a Windows 98 
user, and then my recommendations on what should be done.
    After many years experimenting with various operating systems, 
including all of Microsoft`s and quite a few unices, I have come to 
the conclusion that Windows 98 is the operating system that I must 
keep installed on my laptop. Note that I said must, not wish to. Go 
into any Staples, Office Depot, Circuit City, or Office Max and take 
a look at the software on the shelves. Look closely and you will see 
that all the software available runs solely under Microsoft`s 
Windows operating system. You will not find software for Solaris, 
UNIX, BSD, Linux, QNX, or any other operating system. This also 
poses a problem in the arena of device drivers, which are often 
solely distributed for the Windows OS. This is a result of 
Microsoft`s OS being bundled with almost all new computers sold 
today. Why is this so? Because Microsoft has more money and power 
than the other developers. It lets them freely violate the Sherman 
Antitrust Act without fear of reprecussion from the government, as 
shown by your settlement. It also lets them crush competetion before 
it has its legs under it, as shown by AOL`s buyout of Netscape.
    In addition to this, I have recently begun to notice strange 
things happening when I run Internet Explorer. It crashes 2 to 3 
minutes after execution, without fail, every time. Now this wouldn`t 
be so much of a problem for me, except that the browser is actually 
the operating system. Hence, when the browser crashes, the operating 
system crashes, often leading to a complete system freeze or a blue 
screen. This requires the computer to be shut down, power removed, 
and booted again.
    Every 2 to 3 minutes. Imagine if your computer frize every 2 
minutes at work and you lost all data you had input in that time. 
You would be pretty angry, wouldn`t you? Moreover, you would be 
unable to get any work done at all. I have been forced to use 
Netscape Communicator to browse the web. At least when Netscape 
crashes (and it happens a lot less than Internet Explorer does), it 
doesn`t crash the entire operating system.
    Now take all of this and compare it to Linux. If an application 
fails, it can be easily terminated from a command prompt. If the 
graphical interface crashes (which happens QUITE infrequently), it 
can also be shut down and restarted from a command prompt. This is 
the result of a very smart group of people who designed the OS to be 
modular. If one part fails, all of the other parts are completely 
independant, and therefore a crashing browser will not take down the 
entire system. Try to find any Windows server with a continuous 
uptime of 6 years and you will be looking for the rest of your life. 
Anyhow, that ends my complaints against Microsoft (for now). Here 
are some suggestions that you may wish to consider when finalizing 
the settlement with MS.
    (1) Anything that MS does which is intended to expand its 
monopoly MUST be offered as options which cost more money. In this 
way, a computer buyer who does not wish to purchase these options is 
not forced to do so.
    (2) All distributors or vendors should be required to offer 
their new computers with a choice of non-Microsoft operating systems 
such as Linux, QNX, or nothing at all. In addition, these vendors 
must ship their computers with hardware which is compatible with all 
operating systems offered. For example, the notorious Lucent 
Winmodem should not be shipped with Compaq laptops because it was 
designed for use ONLY under Windows.
    (3) Microsoft`s present and future document formats should be 
made public so that other applications running on other operating 
systems are able to read and save into these formats.
    (4) All 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. 
Microsoft must not be allowed to extend its OS monopoly and other 
choices must be available to consumers, right there, on the front 
page. 100 percent compatibility for Linux should be offered in all 
desktops and notebooks.
    Thank you for your time. I hope that you take my words into 
account when finalizing your judgements.
    Michael Mohr



MTC-00004624

From: Jonathan Kingaby
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 4:56am
Subject: Public Feedback
    I have been using Microsoft Products for over 10years and 
generally I think they are great.
    However, a genius it does not take to realise that they have 
been up to some very suspect shenanigans since about 1990. I would 
not want to see them shutdown, split up or otherwise reduced since 
in many ways they are the engine room of the good ship IT economy. I 
would like to see a tougher stance taken though and a more punitive 
slap delivered.
    Regards
    Jonathan Kingaby
    Development Manager
    Elan Computing
    Elan House
    5-11 Fetter Lane
    London
    EC4A 1QX
    The information in this email is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and access to 
this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or opinions 
presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Elan. If you are not the intended recipient, any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to 
be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When 
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this 
email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the 
governing client engagement letter or contract. If you have received 
this email in error please notify the Elan Helpdesk by telephone on 
+44 (0) 20 7830 1542



MTC-00004625

From: Gerald S. Abreu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 7:23am
Subject: The Microsoft Case
    As I see it competition would force Microsoft to improve the 
quality of its products in areas including but not limited to 
reliability and security. The settlement before the judge would 
benefit only Microsoft; a sterner settlement would benefit 
everybody. I think now is the time to move the world in the 
direction of open markets and opportunity in the field of personal 
computing.
    Thank you and sincerely
    Gerald S. Abreu
    104 Linden Lane
    Culloden, WV 25510



MTC-00004626

From: david javid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 7:48am
Subject: COMMENT ON MICROSOFT AND DOJ SETTLEMENT
    Hello,
    I think it is a shame that Microsoft has to be punished for the 
good it has done to the public across the World. The World owes 
B.Gates for making computer technology available to all men and 
women, old and young, white and black, rich and poor, even in the 
remotest part of the World and in any language at an affordable 
price. More importantly, I admire Bill Gates for providing an 
environment in which every interested person or body can learn, 
educate and flourish in the field of computers and computing. This 
is in contrast to the behaviour of some other corporate operating in 
the high technology market and for some reason CISCO comes to my 
mind!!
    Regards
    David Javid



MTC-00004627

From: Aaron Katz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my opposition to the settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I am not a lawyer but a user of personal 
computers, a tool essential to my livelihood for approximately 20 
years. I have used many personal computing operating systems over 
the years, including those made by Microsoft (MSDOS, Windows 3.11, 
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows XP 
Pro), Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple Computer. 
My opinion is that operating systems other than Microsoft`s have 
been superior in features and performance at each stage of 
development of the personal computing platform. Yet Microsoft 
achieved a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of the personal 
computer market. Microsoft`s

[[Page 24556]]

illegal behavior in maintaining and expanding that monopoly to in 
excess of 90 per cent of the market effectively destroyed all 
existing competitive personal computing operating systems in the 
process, save one, and perhaps prevented others from being 
developed.
    I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in any way compensate for 
the effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. 
Second, it forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its 
attempt to prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is 
inadequate.
    Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting illegal 
acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a minuscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement.
    Microsoft was also convicted of illegally tying its products to 
its monopoly operating system but that conviction was overturned on 
appeal based on the standard used by the District Court judge to 
convict Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the District Court for 
further consideration. A decision to not pursue the illegal tying 
issue is formalized in the settlement even though the Justice 
Department announced that it would not pursue it before entering 
into the settlement. In my experience it is indeed Microsoft`s tying 
of its products to its monopoly operating system that has been the 
most damaging to competition in the personal computing market. 
Microsoft was initially found guilty of illegal tying and the 
remanded issue should be pursued. The settlement formally forecloses 
the opportunity to do so.
    Finally, the settlement is inadequate to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing its practices of illegally maintaining its monopoly. 
Clearly, Microsoft is an unrepentant criminal. As an example, its 
CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that he does not even know 
what a monopoly is after Microsoft was convicted of being one. It is 
totally incredulous to believe that Microsoft will simply go forth 
and be a good corporate citizen. While the settlement contains 
provisions to enforce its restrictions through oversight, the burden 
is on the government to catch Microsoft in the act and, if so, then 
Microsoft is simply returned once again to proceedings such as 
these. Where is the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My mind 
boggles in that this is the second time that a settlement of this 
nature has been reached with the same convict. The second is no more 
satisfactory than the first. Any resolution of this case against 
Microsoft must provide appropriate incentives for the unrepentant 
criminal to comply with the law.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron M. Katz
    Beverly, MA 01915



MTC-00004628

From: Jeremey Wise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I am a Technical Computer Consultant for one of the world`s 
largest computer resellers in the world. I have both an MCSE, CNE, 
and other certifications (tried for RHCE but failed on first try). I 
only say these things as examples that I understand the industry.
    I have been following the MS antitrust case closely from the 
aspect of its direct impact on my wellbeing. I do believe that MS 
did and does still participate in very anti-competitive activities 
to the extent of falling under the auspices of antitrust. Yet, I do 
not believe it is the job of the government to break them up. I 
believe that free market will solve this issue in the long run. My 
concern, and why I am writing this letter, is that the proposed 
solution of having MS purchase hardware and provide the software for 
schools makes no sense. In all my years of consultation I have 
strived to help companies understand Total Cost of Ownership is the 
real gauge of a successful deployment. In the proposed settlement MS 
would not be helping the school systems in any way by adding there 
software to the settlement. Hardware is less than 1% of the total 
deployment and maintenance cost. Not to say this would not help out 
schools. If that is how the government wishes to punish MS, and MS 
is ok with that, then ok. But please asses the total cost long-term 
before letting them tack on the software pieces.
    MS software like any software is a license that is essentially 
`leased`. The end user must eventual upgrade to retain any level of 
support. MS also, to there credit, has built a structure that 
provides disincentive to its customers to retain older software via 
support, or integration of new software being contingent on upgrade 
of the old software infrastructures.
    Synopsis: I believe that the hardware purchase aspect of the 
settlement, if agreed to by both sides (MS & DOJ) to be a viable 
one. The adding of software to the mix will, in the long run, cost 
the US Governement far more and to a large extent further expand the 
hold that MS will hold over the market sector, a market sector which 
is particularly sensitive to monetary constraints that would be 
enforced vi upgrade incentive build into MS marketing strategies 
(the upgrade concerns of the government are reflected in there 
maintaining a high amount of Macintosh systems in schools which have 
a very different software marketing strategy than MS). I am not 
objecting to MS holding a large sector of the market. Just that if 
the stated goal of MS is to demonstrate, via this act of donation, 
there intent to follow non anti-competitive strategies. Then they 
should be open to alternative solutions of software where the later 
upgrade fees are not a concern.
    Jeremey Wise (MCSE,CNE,CSE)



MTC-00004629

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of 
Justice 601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001 
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement`s inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to: 1) 
Middleware: The current language in Section H.3 states 
`Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use 
in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the 
context of general Web browsing)' does nothing to limit the 
company`s ability to tie customers and restrict competition in non 
Web-based networked services under .NET, as they fall `outside 
the context of general Web browsing'. Microsoft has already 
begun abusing its desktop monopoly to tie customers into .NET 
revenue streams and set up a new monopoly over the network.
    Part 2 of the same section states `that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement...' essentially gives Microsoft a veto 
over any competitor`s product. They can simply claim it doesn`t meet 
their `technical requirements.'
    2) Interoperability Under the definition of terms, 
`ï¿½1A`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.' This definition explicitly excludes the SMB/
CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC calls needed by 
any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with Windows 2000. 
Microsoft could claim these protocols are used by Windows 2000 
server for remote administration and as such would not be required 
to be disclosed. The Samba team have written this up explicitly 
here: http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20
-OP-MS
    3) General veto on interoperability In section J., the document 
specifically protects Microsoft from having to `document, 
disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or 
Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the 
disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria' Since the 
.NET architecture being bundled into Windows essentially builds 
`anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, and authentication systems' into all levels of the 
operating system, ANY API, documentation, or communication layer can 
fall into this category. This means that Microsoft never has to 
disclose any API by

[[Page 24557]]

claiming it`s part of a security or authorization system, giving 
them a complete veto over ALL disclosure.
    4) Veto against Open Source Substantial amounts of the software 
that runs the Internet is `Open Source', which means 
it`s developed on a non-commercial basis by nonprofit groups and 
volunteers. Examples include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under 
section J.2.c., Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to 
groups that fail to meet `reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business.' This explicitly gives them a veto 
over sharing any information with open source development projects 
as they are usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis (and 
therefore would not be considered authentic, or viable businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a 
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing 
as well as other networked services such as are those being included 
under .NET).
    2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols 
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration 
calls)
    3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to `anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication 
systems' to all.
    4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from 
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.
    Additionally,
    5) Keep Microsoft out of the classroom. It is bad enough having 
to use their desolate software at work, don`t force it onto children 
who are so malleable and may still have a chance to become creative 
and improve the world. Giving away antiquated software and hardware, 
which is what the $1,000,000,000.00 would be, becomes a tax write 
off. Make them purchase $1,000,000,000.00 worth of NEW, state of the 
art goods in the open market. What an economic stimulus that would 
be!!! And, make them provide services to set up and maintain the 
equipment, in addition to the $1,000,000,000.00 worth of goods.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Schwartz



MTC-00004630

From: Schultz, Michael S
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 9:02am
Subject: Thoughts
    Greetings,
    My name is Michael Schultz, and I am an IT Professional working 
for Pfizer. After reading about the settlement, I was disappointed 
in the results. Microsoft has been using their heavy handed 
practices for years to gain an edge on the competition. However, 
they have also been an incredible boon to the digital community by 
bringing the computer to households much as TVs in the past. Their 
bad practices need to be curtailed, so other companies can compete, 
but you don`t want to cut the legs out from under a company that has 
done so much in this field.
    The settlement as I would have it:
    1. MS must stop their heavy-handed practices against 
competitors. (If you can`t beat em, buy em attitude, and forcing PC 
manufacturers to do ANYTHING other than install the OS)
    2. MS can continue to offer their `all-in-one' 
package for their OS, but they must also offer a `Lite' 
version for those who want the OS, but not be forced to use anything 
else.
    3. The losers from MS actions are the people. Because of this, I 
recommend that all fines against Microsoft go towards a commission 
to provide learning materials and computers to public schools.
    I know it seems like a very simple solution, but it`s all that 
we have been asking for. Stop MS from forcing things down our 
throat. Allow the competition room to enter the market...as 
competition makes BOTH parties better. And finally, fine MS enough 
for them to take notice, but not enough to injure the companies 
growth...putting this money toward something benificial to the 
people.
    Heck, I`d have this whole thing over in a day!
    Michael S. Schultz
    SMS Consultant
    (860) 441-1022
    LEGAL NOTICE
    Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential 
and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. 
Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not 
an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-
mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is 
unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, 
please inform the sender immediately.



MTC-00004631

From: Harry Hochheiser
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/17/01 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust agreement is 
does not go far enough. By leaving the basic components of 
Microsoft`s dominance in the PC operating system and office 
application markets untouched, this proposal does little, if 
anything at all, to enhance meaningful competition. This proposal 
should be replaced by a stronger settlement that opens the way for 
realistic opportunities for competition in desktop operating system 
and productivity software.
    Microsoft`s dominance in the OS market has led to a situation 
that is fraught with dangers for the computer-using public. The 
susceptibility of Windows machines to viruses points out the costs 
of a closed, vendor-driven operating system: substantial economic 
inconveniences caused by Code Red and related viruses are directly 
attributable to Microsoft design and marketing practices, and could 
easily have been avoided. Furthermore, operating costs due to 
reliability and usability problems of Microsoft software place a 
burden on businesses, schools, and government agencies that make 
substantial use of computers.
    Microsoft`s monopoly on the operating system and office 
applications has also led to a slowing in innovation: without 
meaningful competition, advances in application tools, interfaces, 
and reliability have slowed. New releases of Microsoft products 
appear to be driven by a desire to sell additional software 
licenses, rather than by any meaningful innovation. Microsoft 
products that are shipped bundled with new computers should be 
priced separately, to provide consumers with information necessary 
to make informed decisions about the costs of Microsoft products.
    Any settlement should include provisions that would create the 
realistic possibility of a completely compatible alternative to 
Windows and the Office Suite. Specifically:
    Operating systems API interfaces, file formats, network 
protocols, and other details should be published and freely 
available to any interested software developers. Provision of this 
information post-fact to commercial developers on a fee basis is 
insufficient. Substantial fees for access to this information would 
essentially close off the vital open-source community ,and delays in 
dissemination would significantly reduce the value of this 
information.
    New versions of software should maintain compatibility with 
older Microsoft products and existing competitive products. In 
particular, Microsoft should be required to use file formats that 
are baked on community-supported consensus and widespread 
publication.
    Microsoft products must respect ongoing standards efforts and 
refrain from using extensions that place competitors at significant 
disadvantages. Microsoft-specific extensions HTML tags that go 
beyond accepted standards of the World Wide Web Consortium have made 
use of Netscape Navigator increasingly difficult. Where standards 
such as HTML exist, Microsoft should be required to adhere to 
standards as published.
    Microsoft and its supporters can be expected to argue that these 
measures would raise the cost of innovation and stifle advances in 
the state of the art. The recent history of the computer industry 
does not support this view. Efforts such as SMTP and POP3 protocols 
for Internet mail, the World wide web, and Linux have proven the 
ability of open standards and common shared platforms to foster 
development of software that innovates and provides value to end 
users. The Microsoft settlement must be strengthened to achieve 
these goals.
    Harry [email protected]
    Human-Computer Interaction Lab, University of Maryland
    Director-at-Large, Computer Professionals for Social 
Responsibility
    http://www.cs.umd.edu/ï¿½7Ehsh http:/www.cpsr.org
    (Affiliations provided for identification purposes only. I do 
not speak for either U. Md. or CPSR)



MTC-00004633

From: Daniel Mann_Centreville KW164
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24558]]

Date: 12/17/01 9:26am
Subject: The Proposed Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am 21 years old. I`m about to graduate from college, and I 
have grown up with computers. In school, I have used mostly Macs, 
and in work, I use windows machines exclusively. That is to say I 
have extensive experience on both platforms. I think that the 
proposed settlement is a joke. Not only does it excuse the findings 
of fact and the verdict of the court, but also the settlement offers 
a public relations coup by allowing Microsoft to 
`donate' 500 million dollars of their own products. This 
costs them very much less than they propose. The duplication of 
software is very inexpensive. In a year, nobody will remember that 
it was due to an antitrust conviction that the software was even 
donated. I feel that the punishment necessary is far greater than 
what is being offered. If Microsoft cannot be split, then I urge you 
to open the windows source code, offer unbundled versions of 
software, require full java support as a standard feature, and 
require development and production of office and internet explorer 
software for all competing platforms. Additionally, strict fines 
should be imposed. Perhaps half of the damages, or roughly 6 Billion 
dollars could be a more equitable compromise. Thank you for your 
time.
    Daniel Mann
    MCA
    Keller Williams Realty
    Centreville, VA
    P: (703) 815.5700 F:(703) 815.5707



MTC-00004635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:27am
Subject: settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am 21 years old. I`m about to graduate from college, and I 
have grown up with computers. In school, I have used mostly Macs, 
and in work, I use windows machines exclusively. That is to say I 
have extensive experience on both platforms. I think that the 
proposed settlement is a joke. Not only does it excuse the findings 
of fact and the verdict of the court, but also the settlement offers 
a public relations coup by allowing Microsoft to 
`donate' 500 million dollars of their own products. This 
costs them very much less than they propose. The duplication of 
software is very inexpensive. In a year, nobody will remember that 
it was due to an antitrust conviction that the software was even 
donated. I feel that the punishment necessary is far greater than 
what is being offered. If Microsoft cannot be split, then I urge you 
to open the windows source code, offer unbundled versions of 
software, require full java support as a standard feature, and 
require development and production of office and internet explorer 
software for all competing platforms. Additionally, strict fines 
should be imposed. Perhaps half of the damages, or roughly 6 Billion 
dollars could be a more equitable compromise. Thank you for your 
time.
    Daniel Mann



MTC-00004636

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __Original Message__
From: `Herb Himmelfarb' 
To: `Himmelfarb, Cyn & Herb' 

Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:15 PM
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-00004639

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __Original Message__
From: `Blaize Clement' 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Microsoft
    Just one example of how Microsoft has an unfair advantage is 
that as a freelance writer, I am not able to submit work to many 
publications or internet sites because I use a Mac. I should not be 
forced to use a Windows-based program to sell my work when I prefer 
the more efficient Apple system. Please don`t let Microsoft control 
my personal choice and that of a lot of other writers.
    Thank you,
    Blaize Clement



MTC-00004641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:35am
Subject: Opposed to the Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    As a computer profesional and avid user of computers I oppose 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft`s efforts have damaged 
the creativity and vitality of the American software industry. A 
broad industry with multiple players will produce higher quality 
software that will more directly benefit the consumer and American 
businesses. There is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft`s 
practices of bundling software have offered consumers any advantage. 
The quality of their software has cost consumers and business large 
sums of money. The constant upgrade cycles have promoted their 
bottom end, but have not drastically improved or changed the 
computing experience. Since 1995 there have been at least 6 
Microsoft OS upgrades. Four of them have been of equal quality and 
problems which have been sited as reasons for upgrading namely 
stability and usability. The user interface of OS have not changed 
substantially since 1984 when Apple introduced the Macintosh.
    If the government does not take an extremely active role in the 
the punishment of Microsoft they will cause the software industry to 
irreparably damaged. In the long run this will hurt America and 
American interests. Without competition there is no true progress. 
In this case, there is already insufficient competition, to promote 
true advantages and benefit to the consumer. Please re-think this 
settlement and attempt a more comprehensive and restricive solution.
    Sincerely
    David Armour



MTC-00004643

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __Original Message __
From: `Gordon Krum' 
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Greetings,
    As a programmer who specializes in educational projects I can 
tell you from personal experience that the way Microsoft conducts 
business has held back the usefulness of computers to education at 
all levels. Schools just can`t cope with the additional expenses 
generated by Microsoft`s attempts to own the world. The losers here 
are our kids and therefore our society. Allowing Microsoft to buy 
their way out by giving schools hardware and software will only 
increase the problem by further limiting competition. Instead, and 
at least, make them give the thing the value most COLD HARD CASH and 
let the schools decide how to spend it without restrictions of any 
kind.
    Some excuse Microsoft by saying that they are just good 
technology manipulators. So were the robber barons of almost a 
century ago. Through new technology they then and Microsoft now 
manipulated, circumvented, squashed and laid waste the honest well 
intentioned efforts of many people all in the name of filling their 
own wallets. If what the robber barons did was criminal then what 
Microsoft is doing is criminal.
    Having lived and worked in the silicon valley I know that there 
are thousands of Gates want to be`s. How this settlement goes down 
sends a message to the entire industry about what behaviors will or 
will not be tolerated.
    Please make it a RESOUNDING message!
    Gordon Krum, programmer
    [email protected]
    4151 Olive Hill Rd.
    Fallbrook, Ca 92028



MTC-00004644

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    As a computer profesional and avid user of computers I oppose 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft`s efforts have damaged

[[Page 24559]]

the creativity and vitality of the American software industry. A 
broad industry with multiple players will produce higher quality 
software that will more directly benefit the consumer and American 
businesses. There is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft`s 
practices of bundling software have offered consumers any advantage. 
The quality of their software has cost consumers and business large 
sums of money. The constant upgrade cycles have promoted their 
bottom end, but have not drastically improved or changed the 
computing experience. Since 1995 there have been at least 6 
Microsoft OS upgrades. Four of them have been of equal quality and 
problems which have been sited as reasons for upgrading namely 
stability and usability. The user interface of OS have not changed 
substantially since 1984 when Apple introduced the Macintosh.
    If the government does not take an extremely active role in the 
the punishment of Microsoft they will cause the software industry to 
irreparably damaged. In the long run this will hurt America and 
American interests. Without competition there is no true progress. 
In this case, there is already insufficient competition, to promote 
true advantages and benefit to the consumer. Please re-think this 
settlement and attempt a more comprehensive and restricive solution.
    Sincerely
    David Armour



MTC-00004645

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
From: `Wilner, Richard A.'

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement.
    Microsoft has been getting away with activities like this for 
years. From stealing the operating system from the Macintosh to 
pulling the rug out from under developers that were developing 
applications for OS/2, to taking control of the internet with their 
browser. With money brings power and they have much to much power. 
They wiped out Netscape by offering their browser for free and 
putting it on every PC that was sold
    Richard Wilner
    Command Media
    AEW & EW Systems
    Phone (516) 575-0997
    Fax (516) 346-2577
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00004646

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
From: `JLilly' 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Microsoft settlement offer perpetuates the monopoly
    Dear Sir,
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft to supply schools with 
computers and software does nothing but further entrench their 
monopoly. In fact, it leverages their share into one of the last 
markets where there is still real choice; education.
    Instead of letting Microsoft dump their software into the 
nations schools, I suggest having Microsoft pay that same amount in 
cash, perhaps for a `technology' earmarked fund, and let 
the schools choose what they want to do with it. If they choose 
Microsoft, more power to them. If they continue to use Macs, that`s 
fine too. At least they will have a choice, and they won`t have the 
monopoly hoisted onto them under the false pretense of a 
`gift.'
    John Lilly



MTC-00004647

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
From: `Marcus Nelson'

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Microsoft
    Please do not let Microsoft get away with this. When I first got 
into computing fifteen years ago, there were several multi-media and 
office solutions. Prices were competitive and acceptable (around 
$150 or so), now it`s almost $600 for the professional version. The 
fact is, it is in my best interest to have to use their proprietary 
solutions to work with their other products. How much longer will it 
be before this will be a requirement?
    When a company gets as big as MS, it is very easy for them to 
either steal another smaller companies intellectual property, 
knowing their own lawyers are stronger and can drag it out until the 
smaller company has to cave in. Or they can just buy the company out 
and bury it. This is not innovation. It`s tyrant bully-ism at it`s 
finest. No company can compete against this.
    Please consider cafefully the judgements placed upon MS. They do 
not deserve to get off easily. If they do, we`ll be right back here 
again in a couple of years.
    Regards,
    Marcus Nelson
    CELLULARONE
    Regional IS Coordinator
    Wisconsin/Michigan 1
    5000 Stewart Avenue
    Wausau, WI 54401
    Cellular (715) 571-0051
    Fax (715) 551-2300
    Office (715) 551-2554
    [email protected]



MTC-00004648

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Original Message
From: `Tony Palumbo' 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:44 PM
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern...
    I have just finished reading an article about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement and can only shake my head in disbelief. While 
I agree that severe penalties are in order, the form of this 
settlement will only further establish the monopolistic behavior 
that MS already enjoys.
    YES ... forcing them to spend $1 billion on the poorest school 
districts is a wonderful idea and I applaud the effort. 
Unfortunately, this also helps the Microsoft WinTel cartel into a 
more dominant position. Wasn`t this entire case about CHOICE
    A better idea would be to force Microsoft to outfit these 
schools with software/hardware solutions from its competitors 
(Apple, Linux, Sun)
    This settlement is neither in the interest of consumers who will 
further have their ability of choice eroded, nor those business and 
their employees who will be forced out of business as MS is allowed 
to play the same games it has since its inception.
    Thank you for your consideration
    Anthony J. Palumbo
    80 Ridge Road
    Hackettstown, NJ 07840



MTC-00004649

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __- Original Message __-
From: `Ken' 
To:  Sent: Wednesday, November 
21, 2001 12:26 PM
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
    The proposed settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft is weak, will not stop future abuses, and does not protect 
consumers. This settlement favors Microsoft to such a degree that it 
would appear that Microsofts donations to the Republican party and 
the Bush presidential campaign were a quid pro quo, and this 
directly affected the course of the Justice Department in settling 
the case. As a consumer, I find it incredible that the defendant in 
this case has gotten so much influence regarding the nature of the 
punishment. This is not justice and its not a remedy for proven 
anti-trust violations.
    The settlement does not address unfair advantages Microsoft has 
gained using illegal behavior. Companies have been destroyed, not 
though fair competition, but rather by Microsofts monopoly tactics 
to maintain and increase their market share. For all practical 
purposes, there is no longer any competition in the browser market. 
Microsofts competitors have been harmed and many companies 
completely destroyed.
    The proposed restrictions will not prevent further abuses. Just 
look at the features that Microsoft has bundled, or in some cases 
excluded, in its new Windows XP just

[[Page 24560]]

released in October of 2001. It was proven in the anti-trust trial 
that Microsoft attempted to coerce, bully, and illegally obtain and 
maintain a monopoly with multimedia application technology to the 
detriment of Real Media, Apple Computer, and others. They include 
their own multimedia player and exclude other similar products from 
other companies. By removing support and making it difficult for 
consumers to add competing products that are often superior to 
Microsofts bundled products, consumers have been harmed.
    They have removed support for Java from Windows XP which will 
disrupt e-commerce and Java based applications delivered over the 
Internet. This has harmed Sun and other companies that have invested 
heavily in Java based technology that Microsoft considers a threat 
to their monopoly. Microsoft has modified their version of another 
technology, JavaScript, the programming language for Web browsers. 
These changes to Microsofts implementation of JavaScript are 
intended to hijack the previous JavaScript standard and make it 
their own. As a result, only Microsoft Web browsers will handle this 
new standard properly. The examples go on and on. Consumers have 
been and continue to be harmed.
    The proposed 3 member panel that will oversee Microsoft will 
likely be biased in favor of Microsoft, or at the very least, not 
fair in protecting consumers. With one member chosen by Microsoft, 
one chosen by the Justice Department, and the third chosen by these 
two members, the judgment of the panel will be questionable. With 
their oversight activities done in secret and their salaries paid by 
Microsoft, it looks like the fix was in and Microsoft won.
    Ken Goff
    422 5th Street SE
    Watertown, SD 57201
    (605) 882-1917



MTC-00004653

From: Chris Lee
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/17/01 9:50am
Subject: MS is found GUILTY and gets away w/`MURDER'!
    BAD SETTLEMENTS WILL LEAD TO FURTHER COURT ACTIONS, WHICH MEANS 
MORE RESOURCES AND MONEY WILL BE EXPENDED IN THE FUTURE TO CORRECT 
THE CURRENT MISTAKE!!!! HOW CAN MS WIN WHEN IT LOST THE TRIAL AND 
THE APPEAL??????
    December 17, 2001
    For Microsoft, a Season of Triumph
    By STEVE LOHR
    or most technology companies, the fall of 2001 was a season to 
forget, with its deepening sales slump, losses and layoffs. But for 
Microsoft (news/quote), it was a time of triumph, even some 
vindication. In the federal antitrust case that Microsoft fought so 
long, with so little success, things turned in the company`s favor 
when the Bush administration decided to settle in November.
    Within weeks, Microsoft announced a settlement with plaintiffs 
in more than 100 private class-action antitrust suits. To be sure, 
protests remain. Some states that sued Microsoft are urging a 
federal judge to toughen provisions of the settlement with the 
Justice Department, and there are objections to the class-action 
deal. A European investigation also continues, although Microsoft 
says it wants to settle that case as well. In all, however, 
Microsoft has made rapid, dramatic strides toward finally putting 
its antitrust troubles behind it.
    The proposed settlement in the crucial federal case is widely 
seen as a Microsoft victory. It would not restrict the company`s 
product designs, allowing Microsoft to fold software into its 
Windows operating system for potentially huge new markets, including 
online shopping, personal identification and downloading music and 
movies over the Internet. Those features are found in the recently 
released Windows XP.
    And the drastic sanction of splitting Microsoft up the remedy 
championed by the Clinton administration, and approved by a lower 
court judge, but regarded quite skeptically in a federal appeals 
court ruling in June was rejected by the Bush administration.
    But the settlement terms do require Microsoft to share technical 
information with competitors and industry partners more openly. In 
addition, Microsoft would be prohibited from bullying other 
companies with anticompetitive contracts.
    Some Microsoft rivals and industry commentators argue that the 
case could do a lot to encourage competition, by forcing Microsoft 
to change its corporate behavior.
    Microsoft`s legal team is certainly echoing the behavioral 
theme. `The client has learned a lot through all this,' 
said William H. Neukom, the tall, silver-haired general counsel and 
legal field general in Microsoft`s antitrust battles.
    Mr. Neukom, 60, is stepping down next year, and his designated 
successor, Bradley P. Smith, suggested that priorities for Microsoft 
would be to establish a `strong track record of 
compliance' with the settlement order and to `strengthen 
our ties with the rest of the industry.'
    But legal pressure is not the only thing forcing Microsoft to 
change. Technology trends notably the spread of Internet technology 
are equally responsible.
    Over all, investment in technology may have slowed, but Bill 
Gates, the Microsoft chairman, believes that some cooling off may be 
healthy. With the get-rich-instantly mentality of the dot-com bubble 
gone, Mr. Gates said, chatting with journalists in October, `I 
think the environment for doing major research and development real 
innovation is better now than it was before.' Certainly it is 
for Microsoft, which is sitting on $36 billion in cash.
    Microsoft is putting some of its capital to work by investing 
heavily in the development of `Web services,' mainly 
clever software sent over the Internet to automate all kinds of 
business and personal tasks. A company`s data will be linked with a 
supplier`s to replenish needed parts automatically, for example. Or 
a person`s scheduling data, stored on a PC or hand-held computer, 
will interact with the dentist`s data to set up an appointment or 
with an airline to arrange travel.
    To realize these goals will require open communications in 
software, which raises privacy and security issues that must be 
resolved. The move will also require businesses to form partnerships 
and trusted relationships with other companies. This will mean a 
change of many corporate cultures, including Microsoft`s.
    Consequently, over the next several years, it will be very 
difficult to determine the legacy of Microsoft`s antitrust 
conflicts, because so many other forces will also be shaping the 
company and the industry.



MTC-00004654

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01-9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __- Original Message __-
From: `Stephanie Santmyers' 

To:  Sent: Wednesday, November 
21, 2001 6:49 PM
Subject: microsoft settlement_No
    If Microsoft wants to give schools a billion it must be in cash. 
Poor schools need books, supplies, and breakfast programs for 
students not computers. Microsoft wants to make good little consumer 
Microsurfs.
    Stephanie Santmyers



MTC-00004658

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01-9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __- Original Message __-
From: `Don Adams' 
To:  Sent: Thursday, November 
22, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: MS antitrust
    I can`t believe Microsoft is getting off so easy. After reading 
an superior article in Wired magazine I believe MS should be 
severely punished or it will continue it`s anti competitive 
behaviors. Only the government can protect consumers from a giant 
like MS.
    Don Adams



MTC-00004659

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01-10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __- Original Message __-
From: `Doug Walker' 
To:  Sent: Friday, November 
23, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Unhappy with federal settlement
    I am very unhappy with the Federal government`s settlement of 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft broke the law! The 
punishment is far too mild. Furthermore something needs to be do to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing these violations. It appears our 
government has failed to do its job.
    I am very happy the West Virginia Attorney General did not join 
the Federal government`s settlement. Keep up the good work. I am in 
support of your decision.
    Doug Walker
    2743 Blackburn Drive
    Davis, CA 95616

[[Page 24561]]



MTC-00004660

From: JOHN BONANNO
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft again!!!
    `I would like to express my opposition to the settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am not a lawyer but a user of 
personal computers, a tool essential to my livelihood for 
approximately 20 years. I have used many personal computing 
operating systems over the years, including those made by Microsoft 
(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 
4.0 and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Texas Instruments 
and Apple Computer. My opinion is that operating systems other than 
Microsoft`s have been superior in features and performance at each 
stage of development of the personal computing platform. Yet 
Microsoft achieved a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of the 
personal computer market. Microsoft`s illegal behavior in 
maintaining and expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90 per cent 
of the market effectively destroyed all existing competitive 
personal computing operating systems in the process, save one, and 
perhaps prevented others from being developed.
    `I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Second, it 
forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to 
prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is inadequate. 
`Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting illegal 
acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a minuscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement.
    `Microsoft was also convicted of illegally tying its 
products to its monopoly operating system but that conviction was 
overturned on appeal based on the standard used by the District 
Court judge to convict Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the 
District Court for further consideration. A decision to not pursue 
the illegal tying issue is formalized in the settlement even though 
the Justice Department announced that it would not pursue it before 
entering into the settlement. In my experience it is indeed 
Microsoft`s tying of its products to its monopoly operating system 
that has been the most damaging to competition in the personal 
computing market. Microsoft was initially found guilty of illegal 
tying and the remanded issue should be pursued. The settlement 
formally forecloses the opportunity to do so. `Finally, the 
settlement is inadequate to prevent Microsoft from continuing its 
practices of illegally maintaining its monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft 
is an unrepentant criminal. As an example, its CEO Steve Ballmer was 
quoted as stating that he does not even know what a monopoly is 
after Microsoft was convicted of being one. It is totally 
incredulous to believe that Microsoft will simply go forth and be a 
good corporate citizen. While the settlement contains provisions to 
enforce its restrictions through oversight, the burden is on the 
government to catch Microsoft in the act and, if so, then Microsoft 
is simply returned once again to proceedings such as these. Where is 
the incentive for Microsoft to comply? My mind boggles in that this 
is the second time that a settlement of this nature has been reached 
with the same convict. The second is no more satisfactory than the 
first. Any resolution of this case against Microsoft must provide 
appropriate incentives for the unrepentant criminal to comply with 
the law.'
    Ditto JOHN BONANNO
    J.S. Bonanno Inc.



MTC-00004667

From: Peter Ekstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 10:19am
Subject: anti-trust penalties
    `I would like to express my opposition to the settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am not a lawyer but a user of 
personal computers, a tool essential to my livelihood for 
approximately 20 years. I have used many personal computing 
operating systems over the years, including those made by Microsoft 
(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 
4.0 and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Texas Instruments 
and Apple Computer. My opinion is that operating systems other than 
Microsoft`s have been superior in features and performance at each 
stage of development of the personal computing platform. Yet 
Microsoft achieved a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of the 
personal computer market. Microsoft`s illegal behavior in 
maintaining and expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90 per cent 
of the market effectively destroyed all existing competitive 
personal computing operating systems in the process, save one, and 
perhaps prevented others from being developed.
    `I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Second, it 
forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to 
prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is inadequate.
    `Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting 
illegal acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a minuscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement.
    `Microsoft was also convicted of illegally tying its 
products to its monopoly operating system but that conviction was 
overturned on appeal based on the standard used by the District 
Court judge to convict Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the 
District Court for further consideration. A decision to not pursue 
the illegal tying issue is formalized in the settlement even though 
the Justice Department announced that it would not pursue it before 
entering into the settlement. In my experience it is indeed 
Microsoft`s tying of its products to its monopoly operating system 
that has been the most damaging to competition in the personal 
computing market. Microsoft was initially found guilty of illegal 
tying and the remanded issue should be pursued. The settlement 
formally forecloses the opportunity to do so.
    `Finally, the settlement is inadequate to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its practices of illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an unrepentant criminal. As an 
example, its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that he does 
not even know what a monopoly is after Microsoft was convicted of 
being one. It is totally incredulous to believe that Microsoft will 
simply go forth and be a good corporate citizen. While the 
settlement contains provisions to enforce its restrictions through 
oversight, the burden is on the government to catch Microsoft in the 
act and, if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once again to 
proceedings such as these. Where is the incentive for Microsoft to 
comply? My mind boggles in that this is the second time that a 
settlement of this nature has been reached with the same convict. 
The second is no more satisfactory than the first. Any resolution of 
this case against Microsoft must provide appropriate incentives for 
the unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.'
    Peter Ekstein
    Miami, Florida



MTC-00004668

From: Matt Brittenham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 10:21am
Subject: Don`t let Microsoft off so easy
    I`m sure you`re aware of the facts and Microsoft`s history with 
regard to the previous consent decree in 1995. I`m also sure you 
will have plenty of other correspondence to sift through on this 
subject. so I won`t bore you by trying to support or argue my 
opinion, but merely offer the opinion that the proposed settlement 
is a terrible idea. If it is to be a penalty make it hurt, if it is 
to be a protection, at least make it something that protects other 
software companies in some way. The proposed settlement neither

[[Page 24562]]

 punishes nor protects, and at worst it could further embed 
Microsoft`s monopoly into the Education market.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Brittenham



MTC-00004673

From: Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    These are not my own words but I am in full agreement.
    Alex Castillo
    214 Lynnhurst Dr.
    Ormond, Fl 32176
    `I would like to express my opposition to the settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am not a lawyer but a user of 
personal computers, a tool essential to my livelihood for 
approximately 20 years. I have used many personal computing 
operating systems over the years, including those made by Microsoft 
(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows T 
4.0 and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Texas Instruments 
and Apple Computer. My opinion is that operating systems other than 
Microsoft`s have been superior in features and performance at each 
stage of development of the personal computing platform. Yet 
Microsoft achieved a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of the 
personal computer market. Microsoft`s illegal behavior in 
maintaining and expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90 per cent 
of the market effectively destroyed all existing competitive 
personal computing operating systems in the process, save one, and 
perhaps prevented others from being developed.
    `I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Second, it 
forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to 
prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is inadequate.
    `Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting 
illegal acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a minuscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement. `Microsoft 
was also convicted of illegally tying its products to its monopoly 
operating system but that conviction was overturned on appeal based 
on the standard used by the District Court judge to convict 
Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the District Court for further 
consideration. A decision to not pursue the illegal tying issue is 
formalized in the settlement even though the Justice Department 
announced that it would not pursue it before entering into the 
settlement. In my experience it is indeed Microsoft`s tying of its 
products to its monopoly operating system that has been the most 
damaging to competition in the personal computing market. Microsoft 
was initially found guilty of illegal tying and the remanded issue 
should be pursued. The settlement formally forecloses the 
opportunity to do so.
    `Finally, the settlement is inadequate to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its practices of illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an unrepentant criminal. As an 
example, its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that he does 
not even know what a monopoly is after Microsoft was convicted of 
being one. It is totally incredulous to believe that Microsoft will 
simply go forth and be a good corporate citizen. While the 
settlement contains provisions to enforce its restrictions through 
oversight, the burden is on the government to catch Microsoft in the 
act and, if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once again to 
proceedings such as these. Where is the incentive for Microsoft to 
comply? My mind boggles in that this is the second time that a 
settlement of this nature has been reached with the same convict. 
The second is no more satisfactory than the first. Any resolution of 
this case against Microsoft must provide appropriate incentives for 
the unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.'
    Thank you



MTC-00004674

From: james stanley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 10:43am
Subject: My Feedback
    Stop wasting tax dollars and leave Microsoft alone. Give them 
the $1B education settlement and move on.
    James T. Stanley
    Technical Product Manager
    Powerway, Inc.
    (317) 915-6140



MTC-00004675

From: Steve Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opposition to the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft aantitrust case. I have served as a Director of 
Information Technology for over 10 years and am also an attorney. 
This settlement does not address the fundamental issue of 
Microsoft`s illegal monopoly. Through the years, Microsoft has 
stifled superior products, such as Corel WordPerfect Office, the 
Macintosh OS, and Novell NetWare, to name a few. Microsoft has 
stifled these products and sought to force consumers to use its own 
inferior versions of these products through heavy-handed tactics and 
leverage of its illegal monopoly. The only way to prevent expansion 
of Microsoft`s monopoly and hopefully reverse it is to break the 
company up into smaller companies and I urge the Court to reject the 
current settlement proposal.
    Steve Watkins
    590 Kirkwood Dr.
    London, KY 40744



MTC-00004676

From: Patton, Simeon
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 11:29am
Subject: Settlement
    it would not serve the children of poor neighbor hoods to be 
subjected to the microsoft control. It is a great jester for them to 
provide computers to all these schools but that cost absolutely 
nothing it`s a tax write off( big penalty there). Further more at 
the end of this school computer deal, will we the tax payer before 
to pay MS more for new license fees on each of the computer(I don`t 
think so) what a deal give computer and software away get tax break 
then charge them back for licenses and hardware upgrade and not only 
do we make money but we further our dominance in the computer 
business. WOW that was will thought out. on top of that we`ll be 
getting all of the youngest minds drugged into the MS cartel, 
forever a junkie to a bad drug. This is not a punishment the selling 
of the American youths to corporate America.
    Please do not make the children suffer just to bring a end to 
this.



MTC-00004677

From: caezar5
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 11:50am
Subject: comments
    I am a student at Mechanicville High School, in New York. For my 
12th grade English term paper, I will be writing about why Microsoft 
is a monopoly. I would like to ask you one question. Why do you 
think Microsoft is a monopoly?



MTC-00004678

From: Tim Breaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:05pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft penalty
    Gentlemen_
    I was more than shocked to note that the penalty phase of the 
Microsoft anti-trust trial did not actually apply any penalties 
after the court confirmed that the anti trust infraction had 
occurred in fact. Microsoft has always manufactured inferior 
products (with only one historical exception) and bludgeoned their 
competitors through intimidation and through extending their 
operating system monopoly to other services. Microsoft (according to 
the court) maintained their operating system monopoly. I certainly 
agree with this finding. Their ensuing success with Microsoft Office 
and Internet explorer was based ONLY on the pre-existing power of 
their operating system monopoly and not on the strength of the 
products. Microsoft`s tactics has generally been to release inferior 
products, give them away as part of a `deal' with the 
operating system, get them entrenched, and then slowly upgrade 
quality. This give Microsoft years to complete development of a 
product, where competitors need to create a great one out of the 
gate, and then maintain superior function in perpetuity.

[[Page 24563]]

    The only product that Microsoft ever introduced that was a 
credible competitor to its peers (at introduction) was Excel. Excel 
was introduced in the late 1980s and was superior to the entrenched 
competitor (Lotus 1-2-3) but (humorously) did not run on 
Windows because Windows was not yet capable enough. Excel was 
introduced on the Macintosh. Hmmm. I wonder where Microsoft got the 
display ideas to make Excel function on Windows? Microsoft deserves 
to incur a real penalty. The penalty should include:
    1) Pricing of the MS operating systems must be separate from the 
purchase of a PC. That would let competitors actually compete. Even 
on price. Imagine that.
    2) Microsoft must publish of file standards for all Microsoft 
application products, particularly Microsoft Office products. That 
way, competitors with better products could displace them
    3) Microsoft should be precluded from using any API (application 
programming interface) to Windows that they have not published. That 
way, others could use their monopoly as well as they do. Microsoft 
would still have a timing advantage, as they would always help 
themselves first (that is they would release their APIs internally 
before they would externally) but Microsoft actually is not that 
strong at development, so they would still lose some market share 
over this.
    4) Any network protocol that Microsoft releases should be 
approved by an independent protocol committee, to preclude Microsoft 
from using its existing monopoly base to supplant the heterogeneity 
of the internet.
    I am happy to discuss this further.
    TSB
    Tim Breaux
    Chief Executive Officer
    Full Market Value, Inc.
    `The Multiple Listing Service of Excess Computer 
Equipment'?
    Phone 503.221.7800
    Fax 503.221.7820
    [email protected]
    FullMarketValue.com



MTC-00004679

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply disappointed by the current settlement proposals. 
Microsoft is a twice convicted monopolist and is getting away with a 
slap on the wrists. I am a graphic artist that has been using 
computers for 16 plus years. Being a graphic artist, most of my 
computer use has been based on Apple`s Macintosh platform, but I 
have used others, including Microsoft Windows. As a consumer, over 
the years I have witnessed Microsoft Corporations very aggressive 
behavior. I am no lawyer, but I consider some of the following to be 
anticompetitive, monopolistic behavior.
    Years ago I used a software program that was first marketed by 
the former Aldus Corporation_Aldus Persuasion. Persuasion 
became an Adobe product after Aldus was purchased by Adobe. 
Persuasion was a presentation graphics program. Persuasion was 
considered by myself and others to be a much superior program to 
Microsoft`s PowerPoint. Adobe, for whatever reason, decided to stop 
marketing Persuasion not long after Microsoft starting bundling 
PowerPoint for free with their Office suite of products. 
Coincidence?
    Perhaps, but how could Adobe compete in a marketspace where the 
competition gives their product away to gain market share? Now, I 
and everyone I work with uses PowerPoint. It has become the defacto 
standard for electronic presentations because it was bundled with 
Microsoft Office.
    I have also witnessed two occasions, where in my opinion, 
Microsoft has made financial investments in their competitors to 
keep them in business: My first example is Apple Computer, the only 
company with an operating system that can even be considered 
competition for Microsoft`s Windows. Apple computer was in grave 
financial health and Microsoft made a $150 million dollar investment 
and a five year software commitment. I think most people in the 
industry would agree that Microsoft`s commitments saved Apple 
Computer from going out of business.
    My second example is Corel Corporation. Corel is the maker of a 
suite of office products that are the only software programs that 
can be considered competition to Microsoft`s Office software. 
Microsoft made another huge financial investment to keep Corel from 
going out of business. This time though, the investment raised so 
many eyebrows that Microsoft had to withdraw their name and the 
strings attached to the investment, yet leaving Corel with the 
financial investment to keep the company viable.
    In my opinion, Microsoft`s own monopolistic behavior has forced 
them to invest in their competitors to keep them from going out of 
business. The investments sustain Microsoft`s only viable 
competitors. If that isn`t evidence of total and complete control of 
a marketspace, I don`t know what is.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Rassel
    338 Edgewater Road
    Sheboygan, WI 53081
    [email protected]
    V 920.459.8375
    F 920.459.9655



MTC-00004680

From: Robert Burcham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is foolhardy to believe that a monopoly such as Microsoft 
will ever play fair. They will not. They are a bigger monopolistic 
force in their industries than Bell ever was, and yet there seems to 
be a magic new standard applied to this case.
    The company should be broken up. It is a crime against the 
future if they are not.
    And for God`s sake, why would you ever want to 
`punish' a monopoly by giving them NEW CUSTOMERS? If MS 
is allowed to `donate' software to America`s schools, 
what boat will those schools be in 5 years from now? We will be able 
to simply chalk them up as the latest group of consumers stripped of 
choice and indentured to MS unchecked illegal business practices.



MTC-00004681

From: Smith Eric D Contr ASC/YSXI
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Please insist on another look at the Microsoft case. Microsoft 
has consistently used illegal (much of their technology was openly 
stolen) and unfair tactics (antitrust prctices) to propagate 
mediocre software. They consistently ignore international software 
standards so that their software forces users to use MS software for 
something which should have been done using existing international 
standards. Worse yet, they force users to upgrade to newer versions 
of existing MS software (for example, they force the latest version 
of their browser just to display help pages in a nonstandard HTML 
format). Perhaps more importantly for the governement, the software 
they produce is riddled with huge, undocumented security holes. 
Their web server (IIS) alone has been known to have almost daily 
security fixes released. Almost all the viruses have beeen aimed at 
known security vulnerabilities in MS products such as OutLook, 
Exchange, IIS, etc.
    1. The proposed settlement should be tossed.
    2. Various agencies of the US government should be ENCOURAGED to 
use standard `Open Source' software where possible.
_Occurance of viruses would be reduced to near nonexistant.
_Using the Apache web server (most popular in the world) would 
save billions by providing for a more stable and secure web server 
environment. Almost all web server targeted viruses would be 
eliminated.
_Using Open Office, www.openoffice.org (or the slightly 
enhanced Star Office), instead of MS Office would save hundreds of 
billions of dollars just in the DoD and would eliminate most of the 
viruses aimed at MS Office.
_Using the more stable Linux operating system accross the DoD 
would save hundreds of billions of dollars in software purchases and 
licensing. It would also eliminate virtually all major viruses.
    3. Please encourage the Justic Dept to enforce antitrust laws.
    Thank you for your continued hard work,
    Eric Damon Smith



MTC-00004682

From: McCay, Joseph
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 12:43pm
Subject: The Microsoft Case.
    I believe the current proposed solution does nothing to stop 
Microsoft`s behavior. Even during the court case, Microsoft has 
continued the practices of pushing there monopoly. They have been 
slapping the court in the face. Recent examples of this would be 
Windows XP. Windows XP includes the MSN (Microsoft`s equivalent to 
AOL) built into the operating system. They

[[Page 24564]]

are trying to force AOL, Prodigy, et. al. out of business with the 
same tactics that have been ruled a violation of the Antitrust 
clause. They continually show complete disregard for the courts of 
the United State of America and the people prosecuting them. If you 
take a closer look at Windows XP, I am sure you will find many 
problems. Please reconsider you stance against Microsoft and move 
forward with harsher penalties that will actually force Microsoft to 
change their ways.
    Microsoft is stifling innovation. They have never really been 
innovative. They only `borrow' open source code that 
doesn`t require changes that are made to be open source too (BSD 
style licenses), and they `embrace and extend' open 
standards to prevent a standard from gaining any momentum. The 
embrace the standard, and then they add proprietary technology that 
only they can use. I am sure you will find more if you start 
looking.
    Thank you for your time.
    Joseph L. McCay



MTC-00004683

From: Lawrence D.W. Graves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:30pm
Subject: comments on US v. Microsoft settlement
    This e-mail is to communicate my strong opposition to the terms 
of the proposed settlement.
    Let me state at the outset that I support government 
intervention in commercial spheres only within the exercise of its 
constitutionally-granted powers, and then only when market forces 
will not remedy the perceived problem. Further, I generally believe 
that not all monopolistic competition is bad, as there are many 
industries in which the traditional economic model with its 
`dead weight loss' is simplistic and ignores the 
benefits of reinvestment of the monopolistic prices in a manner that 
shifts the supply curve downward (the Schumpeter analysis). In 
short, please accept that I am a very reluctant advocate of 
government action in the anti-trust arena. Nevertheless, the 
Microsoft case is one where I feel that government intervention is 
not only appropriate now, but actually is long overdue.
    Microsoft is a company that has achieved and perpetuated its 
market dominance by various unfair means, only a few of which were 
brought into issue and proven in the present case. Moreover, 
Microsoft shows absolutely no sign of changing its ways. If ever 
there were a case where structural relief was warranted, this is it.
    I was dismayed at the judgment of Judge Jackson when he 
prescribed structural relief, but not in the way that Microsoft was: 
breaking the company into only two pieces (without soliciting the 
input of experts on this point) is clearly inadequate. The Microsoft 
juggernaut was able to succeed largely as a result of improperly 
exerting its control over one part of the software market (operating 
systems) and leveraging this into others (e.g., internet browsers, 
office suites). On the facts known to the industry, I would suggest 
a break-up into at least the following: (1) consumer operating 
systems, (2) corporate/server operating systems, (3) consumer 
applications, (4) corporate applications, (5) internet-related 
applications and services. With a prohibition against preferential 
treatment by and for any other companies spun out in the break-up, 
this would allow each of the new companies to act in an 
independently-rational way, rather than as now (where, for example, 
the MS Office suite is not ported to run on Linux, despite the clear 
market for it).
    The proposed settlement does little to address the company`s 
past misbehavior, and puts all of its past conduct out of the reach 
of future enforcement. Failing to pursue, now and to the utmost, the 
government`s remedies will effectively immunize Microsoft against 
governmental sanction for any misbehavior for the next decade. I 
cannot imagine a worse result to consumers in the computer industry.
    Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of the 
foregoing comments.
    LDWG
    Lawrence D.W. Graves
    [email protected]
    Fierst & Pucci LLP
    (413) 584-8067
    64 Gothic Street
    (413) 585-0787 (FAX)
    Northampton, MA 01060
    PGP key at pgp.com



MTC-00004684

From: Caveman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Case
    As a long time computer user, and now, a software quality 
engineer at the Checkfree Corp, I would like to give a few thoughts 
on what judgements should be given to Microsoft in the Anti-trust 
settlement and the technical elements of such a settlement.
    First, I believe it is important for Microsoft to remain intact, 
as one company. Microsoft has been an industry leader, and it would 
not benefit the computer industry, or Microsoft`s ability to deliver 
its product, by breaking up the company.
    Next, it is very important that Microsoft be reigned in with 
regards to its licensing and fees policies that currently are in 
place. Because of its sheer size and familiarity in the marketplace, 
Microsoft has been able to provide computer makers with deep 
discount prices on their software, but then they turn around and 
make end-users pay very high fees for access to the software. This 
creates a problem, because for the computer makers who do not have 
much of an interest in how their customers actually use the 
computer, so in almost all cases they will pick the cheapest 
operating software to package with their computer so that the 
customer can use the hardware that they make. Because Microsoft`s 
software is therefore so well distributed, the end user is forced 
into a relationship where the middleman (the computer manufacturers) 
get what they want, Microsoft gets what they want (high licencing 
fees), but the end user doesn`t get what they want (effective 
product support and low costs). Because their are really two 
products involved, software and hardware, a lack of accountability 
is also introduced since Microsoft can blame the hardware companies, 
and the harware companies can blame Microsoft when something is 
defective for the end user. And the end user has no recourse to 
determine the exact party at fault, because they need to pay 
ridiculously high licensing costs to Microsoft to determine how the 
software code is using the hardware. Think of the Firestone/Ford 
Explorer tire blame game that is still going on, which hasn`t 
benefitted the consumer at all.
    Lastly, I believe that an Operating System, such as Microsoft`s 
recently release WindowsXP need only to provide the necessary 
protocols and low level functions to run the computer hardware. All 
other software that Microsoft packages with their current operating 
systems software is superfalous. OfficeXP, Outlook, Internet 
Explorer, etc. all have been woven so closely with the Operating 
System software so as to close out other software companies 
attempting to build equivalent alternatives. This is not needed. I 
have no problem with Microsoft developing protocols to run extra 
software packages such as these more efficiently than their 
competitors software, but to exclude access to these operating 
system protocols so that a competitor is intentionally hindered in 
making the most efficient use of the Operating System is wrong. This 
is an attempt to increase market share_only_using 
monopolistic tactics, and does not allow creativity or competition 
in the marketplace.



MTC-00004685

From: Chris KeepsSecrets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opinion in the matter of United States 
v. Microsoft. I believe that it will be inherently impossible for 
Microsoft to remain in it`s current state and not be considered a 
monopoly. As long as Microsoft is allowed to coordinate their 
operating systems Division and Software departments in coordination, 
the consumer will lose out. Microsoft has shown in OS`s such as 
Windows XP that they are willing to sacrifice user security in order 
to advance initiatives such as Microsoft Passport and .NET. I 
believe the only remedy to the current situation is to create 2 
separate entities to handle software and operating systems. I must 
strongly object to the regulations in this settlement and ask for a 
new set of guidelines Thank you for your time.
    Chris Bradshaw
    Columbia Missouri



MTC-00004686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the dissenting states who desire 
to tie Microsoft compliance to source-code publishing. Microsoft has 
a track record of finding loopholes in consent decrees, and the less 
that is left to interpretation the better. Please give this decree 
teeth, but also keep the

[[Page 24565]]

constraints within reason so Microsoft will stop trying to win via 
courts and marketing and go back to software development.
    Regards,
    Andrew Cook_Senior Network Engineer
    Sprint LTD_Advanced Network Services
    Tallahassee, Florida
    PH: (850)847-0457
    FX: (850)656-6133
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00004687

From: Jason A. Bubenicek
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 1:07pm
Subject: A Simple Solution the Microsoft Fine
    Hi,
    Microsoft should have to pay the $1,000,000 in cash. The money 
should go a special school technology committee. This committee will 
take requests for technology from all IT departments at the nations 
`poorest schools'.
    All the requests should be tallied, the best ideas win. Emphasis 
should be placed on shared/networked technology. A community should 
be created that schools can connect to and share information. That 
should be one of the biggest points.
    The system should only use technology that is standards based 
(XML, HTTP, HTML, SOAP, SMTP, SQL Databases, etc.) Once this system 
is developed, the money should be evenly divided between the schools 
to purchase whatever hardware and software they choose. The only 
stipulation is that whatever they purchase will have to connect to 
this standards based network system that has been created.
    Each school`s IT manager would then petition all the major 
hardware/software vendors for bids on the system they want to setup.
    All the above should foster competition, reliance on standards 
based systems, a connected/shared environment, use of the private 
market to get the best price and above all a rich set of tools for 
the education of our students.
    Jason Bubenicek



MTC-00004688

From: Scott Purl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1. When I worked at a university, we were covered by the site 
license negotiated with Microsoft, which allowed us to not budget or 
buy the operating system on new PCs. However, the vendors were not 
allowed to sell the computer without the operating system, thus 
allowing Microsoft to double-bill the University.
    2. These new PCs fequently had Microsoft Office 
`bundled' with it. We were again covered by a site 
license, and the vendor was not allowed to un-bundle the Office 
sofware. Double-billing again by Microsoft.
    3. Seperating Microsoft into two companies would probably not 
remedy the situation. However, requiring Microsoft to not bundle 
software with the operating system, and to not require bundling by 
hardware sellers, would probably be a good start. I would suggest 3 
required operating system offerings: (1) No Microsoft Operating 
system, (2) Basic, (3) Deluxe with previously bundled applications 
(image processing, windows media player, internet explorer, outlook 
express, solitaire/freecell/pinball).
    4. I fear that the seperation of Microsoft into two or more 
companies would result in more monopolies.
    Cheers,
    Scott



MTC-00004689

From: jonathan hirschman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I firmly believe that the proposed DOJ settlement for Microsoft 
does not serve either the best interests of the consumer or the 
business community at large. I`d like to recount several experiences 
that underscore that conviction.
    I`ve been involved in the IT and Interactive Media industries 
since the `80s, and I`ve seen how Microsoft has stifled competition, 
progress and made the technological workplace less efficient as a 
result. Additionally, Microsoft has made my life as a consumer more 
difficult, removing choices that I`d like to see in the marketplace.
    Examples:
    * While overseeing a switch-over from a DOS environment to a 
Windows environment in the early `90s, my company (Newkirk Products, 
Inc. in Albany, NY) was forced to remove DR-DOS from all machines, 
and move instead to MS-DOS. Why? Because Windows 3.0/3.1 was 
purposely made to not function on DR-DOS. Newkirk was actually 
paying extra to use DR-DOS (most PC`s came with MS-DOS at the time, 
bundled in) since it was far superior. Newkirk was compelled to move 
to Windows due to the business community`s wholesale move to Office. 
Companies were moving to Office not because it was the best software 
at the time, but because Microsoft`s bundling practices at the time 
made it the cheapest. Newkirk had been using Borland and other 
office productivity products up to that time. Newkirk did not want 
to move to Windows, had their been versions of Office for other GUI 
products of the time (for example, GEM, from DRI, which was more 
functional and more advanced than Windows at the same time).
    The move to Windows ended up increasing costs, overall, as 
Windows did not work on existing PCs as well as competing GUI 
products. It was, however, a case of either being able to trade 
documents with other companies, or not being able to.
    Moving to MS-DOS, in turn, made it more difficult for Newkirk to 
continue using Novell`s Netware product. Again, Newkirk felt 
compelled to move to Windows NT. Microsoft`s predatory pricing at 
the time also helped fuel management`s decision; NT was given away 
nearly for free at the time, even if the official pricing didn`t 
reflect that.
    When I left Newkirk after 6 years, it had gone from a multi-
product environment to one that was exclusively Microsoft products. 
Microsoft`s lock on both the operating system market, and the 
applications market, effectively forced Newkirk off of a technology 
path that was essentially non-Microsoft.
    * As an Executive Producer at Time Inc. New Media`s Pathfinder, 
Microsoft`s grip on the industry became even more accute. Pathfinder 
was one of the first commercial Internet sites, and was the first 
`portal' as well. Microsoft effectively forced many 
technological choices upon us due to bundling Internet Explorer with 
Windows. Despite the fact that Netscape`s browser was far superior, 
Pathfinder was forced to `dumb down' its Web site so 
that Internet Explorer users wouldn`t be left out.
    It was clear to me that users only used Internet Explorer since 
it was shipped with their computers, not because it was a good 
product. During my exposure to users of the Internet, it became 
clear to me that if no browser had shipped with Windows, users would 
have picked Netscape almost all of the time.
    * Two other events from my days with Pathfinder bear recounting: 
In 1995, we were visited by a representative from Microsoft that 
told us that Microsoft was going to dominate the Internet, and that 
if we didn`t fall in line with their techological vision, we`d be 
`swept aside'. It made more than a few senior executives 
nervous.
    It is my understanding that, later, Microsoft even took the step 
of proposing a `quid pro quo' arrangement with 
Pathfinder: that if Pathfinder changed its site to 
`favor' Internet Explorer, Pathfinder would enjoy both 
the latest inside track technology from Microsoft as well as 
lucrative `banner' advertising. This was rejected due to 
concerns of journalistic integrity and general ethics.
    * As an end-user, I enjoy the benefits of Linux and other 
`free' operating systems and related technologies. 
However, Microsoft`s industry dominance has strangled efforts for 
innovation on non-Microsoft platforms.
    One example is computer games. Microsoft, again, due to their 
platform ubiquity, was able to compel game publishers to change the 
APIs that they used for creating the games. In the `90`s, many, if 
not most, game publishers were using OpenGL as their graphical API. 
OpenGL is cross platform, which means that it is relatively easy for 
game publishers to port their software to Macintosh or Linux should 
they wish to do so. However, Microsoft, again using bundling 
tactics, forced the industry to move to DirectX_a Microsoft 
only API. As a result, most games realistically cannot be ported to 
other platforms_it is too expensive an endeavor to re-write 
them from the ground up.
    As a result, at least partially, there are very few games for 
the Macintosh and Linux. If Microsoft were forced to move their 
gaming technology (as well as their other software) to ther 
platforms, consumers would greatly benefit from increased choice. 
Although there are efforts to clone Microsoft`s API on other 
platforms, my understanding is that such efforts have no standing in 
the current settlement. They should.
    Microsoft`s dominance of network operating systems have also 
spawned work-alikes, such as Samba. Samba allows anyone to run 
Microsoft file and print sharing

[[Page 24566]]

protocols, but for free. It is an excellent product that large 
companies such as HP have based for-pay products on. However... 
Microsoft keeps on changing their proprietary APIs, seemingly to 
`break' compatibility. This is a well known fact in the 
Samba community.
    Since Samba is the only real competitor to Microsoft`s 
networking operating systems, it deserves standing in any 
settlement.
    Lastly:
    I believe that the only way to effectively stop Microsoft from 
their stifling effect on the technology world at large is to split 
the company into two or entities. One such entity, Applications, 
should be mandated to provide equal version of their software on at 
least three non-Windows operating systems., preferably those with 
the largest user-bases. I believe that Microsoft`s source code 
should be open to examination by competitors, including those that 
represent `free' products like Samba. I believe that 
Microsoft`s source code should be released to the public domain 
within a year of commercial release, to ensure that there are no 
hidden functions or agendas within their products.
    Hopefully letters such of this one will have an effect on the 
outcome of this case. I sincerely believe that the current 
settlement will do very little to rein in Microsoft`s continuing 
abuse.
    jonathan hirschman



MTC-00004690

From: yonder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:42pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    By definition, a monopoly must be detrimental to or restrict 
competition. Many people will remember a little feature in early 
versions of Internet Explorer for Windows 3.1 that disallowed the 
downloading of Netscape citing that the file was too large. Yet 
somehow I was still able to download larger files than Netscape from 
other sites. I was even able to download the same Netscape 
executable that IE felt was too large from alternate sites. While 
this example was from many years ago, I believe that Microsoft`s 
aggressive corporate philosophy has remained unchanged. More 
recently you may note that Microsoft has included in its end user 
agreement for Frontpage 2002 the following clause:
    `You may not use the Software in connection with any site 
that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or 
services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of 
these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or 
promote racism, hatred or pornography.'
    While the legality of this clause is questionable at best, what 
remains clear is Microsoft`s commitment to eliminating criticism and 
competition. It has been their argument that federal intervention 
and restriction on their business practices stifles innovation. I 
think you must ask yourself what kind of corporation refers to 
preventing the downloading of competitive products and making 
critical speech a violation of an end user agreement innovation. You 
will also remember Kodak`s suit against Microsoft over desktop photo 
software. Why would it be so difficult for a user who has installed 
Kodak software to use it as a default with Kodak digital cameras? 
This may be a long shot but I think it has something to do with the 
percentage Microsoft makes off of every photo processed with the 
default XP software. They have done much worse things that tying 
Internet Explorer to Windows and have to wonder why the DOJ was so 
quick to attempt dropping the case. The coming of Windows XP, 
Microsoft .NET, and Passport tracking only signals worse things are 
to come, especially if the settlement proposed by Microsoft is 
accepted. I do not feel that training millions of children on 
Microsoft products from an early age is an appropriate remedy for an 
existing monopoly. If they truly cared about providing kids with 
computers, why have they violently rejected to proposal to provide 
schools with alternate operating system based systems (Mac OSX, 
Linux, etc...)?
    As a computer software professional and a security advocate, I 
implore you to look closer at the consequences of allowing current 
trends to continue. I would like to believe that any software 
company I create has a fighting chance of competing with Microsoft 
supported companies.
    Jaymin Benjamin Kessler
    [email protected]
    1.201.967.1601
    378 Harrison St
    Paramus, NJ 07652



MTC-00004691

From: Vince Pratt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been found guilty. It is my opinion that the 
Proposed Final Judgment will do little or nothing to stop the anti-
competitive practices from Microsoft. It is my belief that Microsoft 
should also be held accountable for the security and reliability of 
it`s products. Here are a few examples of actual issues I take with 
Microsoft.
    In Windows 2000 operating system software of course comes with 
the Internet Explorer web browser software and Outlook Express email 
software. On a recent occasion I wanted to remove Outlook Express 
from the computer as I did not want to use it and because of 
security (virus) concerns. I would like to point out the Microsoft 
has a Control Panel to Add/Remove programs to/from the computer. The 
end user has no option during install or by using Add/Remove 
Programs to remove Internet Explorer or Outlook Express. One might 
think well since I don`t want Outlook Express I`ll just manually 
throw the program into the trash. Well that will not work. The 
operating System will not allow the end user to remove Outlook 
Express. Below is a link to the Microsoft document that describes 
the steps necessary to remove Outlook Express. I would like to point 
out that 80% of computer users would not be able to complete the 
steps described.
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx`scid=kb;EN-US;q263837
    I link to a Slashdot article from 12/12/2001:
    http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/12/1357232.shtml
    Which links to the original article here :
    http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011211S0054
    These articles speak about Microsoft now entering into a new 
market. DVD players. It seems Microsoft now wants to have it`s own 
proprietary CODEC (Compressor/Decompressor) installed into every DVD 
player that exists. My question is why is Microsoft able to `set 
standards` when we have committees of experts and academics that 
develop and set `industry standards`. This shows how Microsoft 
operate. There are perfectly viable standards out there right now 
that work on all computing platforms. This will harm anyone who does 
not want to run on the Microsoft platform.
    I would just like to have my opinion known. I believe that the 
Proposed Final Judgment will do nothing to help protect consumers or 
other technology companies. I believe that the states proposal does 
a great deal more to punish Microsoft. After all they were found 
guilty and are supposed to be punished for their behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Vince Pratt
    Network Administrator
    LeMoyne-Owen College
    Memphis, TN 38126
    901-942-6252 Voice
    901-775-7600 FAX



MTC-00004692

From: Josh York
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft.
    Greetings,
    I am Josh York an Information Technology professional and I have 
followed this case from the beginning.
    The Monopoly that Microsoft maintains over the Personal Computer 
Desktop Operating System market must be stopped. Allowing them to 
extend their monopoly to our children is downright absurd! Giving 
Microsoft a foot in the door of our education systems is appalling 
do not want my children to grow up and know nothing but 
Microsoft...allowing them to pump our schools full of their 
Monopoly-ware will provide them with an Army of young adults who 
only use Microsoft products.
    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. Only then could competition 
come to exist in a meaningful way.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to offer benefits to companies for 
selling their software preinstalled. This FORCES customers to pay 
high prices for Microsoft`s monopoly-ware, ensuring the nourishment 
of the software giant. Computer companies have paid Microsoft large 
sums of money for every computer sold for far too long,*this is 
because computer companies have no real alternative.* This MUST 
stop. And this is the only way it will happen, Microsoft enforces 
this policy with monopolist aggression.

[[Page 24567]]

    Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and 
approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent 
Microsoft from seizing control of the Internet. Microsoft is 
notorious for using a VERY monopolistic and unfair business practice 
to drive competition our of markets: Protocol switching. Open 
standards drive the internet and all Technology. Microsoft wishes to 
use their own trademarked protocols to monopolize markets they 
cannot dominate using Fair . For inbusiness practices stance: 
Microsoft Windows 3-windows XP use the SMB protocol for file and 
printer sharing, This protocol is being utilized by Red Hat Linux, 
Novells` NetWare, Sun Microsystems` Solaris, and other Operating 
systems to interface with Microsoft software. Studies show that Red 
Hat Linux, Using the SMB protocol, can OUTPERFORM Microsoft`s OWN 
servers, using SMB to provide files and printers to Microsoft`s 
clients. Microsoft sees a threat in these companies ability to 
provide services to their clients so they try to are seeking to 
disable their ability to do so by rejecting the standards.
    I also propose that Microsoft`s Operating System and 
Applications divisions be Seperated,not into two, but into MANY 
companies.
    Here is a list of proposed split results:
    Microsoft Windows OS. (Win 95,98,Me,XP,Windows 2000 Pro,NT 
Workstation.)
    Microsoft Office/Visual Studio/Internet Explorer/Other 
Development.
    MSN /MSN messenger/Hotmail
    Windows Embedded/MS compact edition
    Microsoft Entertainment/ MS-Media player/MS-Xbox/MS gaming Zone.
    Microsoft Server OS.(Exchange-Server,Microsoft Data 
Center,Internet Security and Acceleration Server, .Net server,2000 
Server,Win NT server,SQL server,IIS server,Back office,Sharepoint 
server,Biztalk,) Having separate Desktop and Server OSes would force 
Microsoft to adhere to Open standards.
    Splitting Office and Development suites from the main 
distribution could lead to the Development of Office for Unixes 
(Linux,Sun Microsystems` solaris ect..),as well as lead to better 
development tools for other platforms.
    Splitting the Embedded division would help enforce the use of 
open standards, many companies believe that PDAs and Pocket-PC`s are 
to play a big role in Microsofts` future, and aid in their monopoly 
of Software. Creating a Microsoft Entertainment company will help 
keep Microsoft from using things like Hotmail and Passport to force 
their customers to use their Email or Internet service providers 
(ISP). The separation of the ISP and messenger would keep Microsoft 
from using their OS monopoly to put companies like AOL out of 
business.Currently Windows XP only ships with Microsofts ISP 
connectivity and Messenger software,this is a very blatant 
monopolistic practice.
    That is all,
    Thanks
    Josh York.
    My Opinions do not reflect the opinions of anyone but 
myself,that includes my Company.
    This Document is free to distrubute, copy, quote, Plagarize and 
spray paint on a wall if you want...Just give credit where credit is 
due.
    Special thanks to: [email protected] For Content 
provided by he.



MTC-00004693

From: Sam Steingold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 1:48pm
Subject: MS settlement_break-up is necessary!
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Given the Microsoft`s history of ignoring anti-trust settlements 
with the government, I see no reason to believe that they will 
behave any better now.
    A monopoly will never change it`s behavior as long as it is a 
monopoly. No agreements, no oversight, no committees_nothing 
will change that. In my opinion, the only way to contain Microsoft`s 
monopolistic anti-competitive behavior is to split the company.
    Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/sds)



MTC-00004694

From: John Monahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft `punishment'
    Dear Sir(s),
    Microsoft should not be allowed to escape with such a 
`punishment' as giving away a boatload of their own 
software that costs them very little to reproduce.
    Besides, it will give them stronger hold on the education 
market, which is one of the very few markets that MS does not 
already have a stranglehold on. As Steve Jobs of Apple Computer, 
Inc. has said, if MS wants to give the $1 Billion dollars to the 
schools, then let the schools decide how they want to spend the 
money. This would be fair to MS`s competitors and giving $1 Billion 
in ACTUAL MONEY (not their own software) may be a true and just 
punishment.
    Thank you,
    John C. Monahan
    Webmaster of www.bright.net
    In-House Network Administrator, Com Net, Inc.



MTC-00004695

From: Justin Mahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
    I think Microsoft should be broken up into operating system and 
other components as a company. Look what happened to the Microsoft 
Office `firewall` that Microsoft was supposed to have from the last 
decade.
    Justin Mahn
    439-67-2244



MTC-00004696

From: William Affleck-Asch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William C.S. Affleck-Asch
3648 Francis Ave N, #B
Seattle WA 98103-9323
Phone 206-632-3010
    In regards to the proposed final settlement of the US v 
Microsoft case, I believe that I may have some relevent points to 
make, both as a long-time investor and as someone who has worked 
with (and for) Microsoft.
    Please note that I live in the Seattle area and through 
investments in Microsoft owe the establishment and ownership of my 
first house. I worked for one of the direct contractors of 
Microsoft, and have been a Microsoft Certified Professional and many 
of my friends and neighbors work for or have worked for them.
    In my opinion, the current final settlement is unworkable. 
Microsoft is unlikely to abide by the constraints in terms of 
business practices, as in the tech industry it is easier to use 
legal loopholes or gray areas to attack one`s opponents and crush 
them at the early stages of marketing, than to play totally by the 
book. Historically, this has been one of Microsoft`s chief tactics, 
and it is unlikely that their behavior would be changed under this 
final solution.
    The main problem that I see is that the tech oversight committee 
is toothless. Without the ability to delay or force immeadiate (90 
day or less) remedies, they would be a reactive committee that could 
only admonish Microsoft, and by the time anything would occur, 
Microsoft would have succeeded in demolishing their opponent in a 
tech sphere.
    The second, and perhaps most egregious, problem is that the 
offer to provide Microsoft software and hardware to public schools 
would have the unintended effect of increasing Microsoft`s 
profitability and ability to dominate the software market, 
particularly in terms of education. This could be easily remedied by 
requiring Microsoft to donate the $1 billion with no strings tied as 
to the hardware or software chosen.
    In fact, it would be preferable for Microsoft to basically write 
a blank check, by having a form where one chose between PCs and 
Operating Systems_where one could choose to receive a 
Microsoft software bundle at the educational discount rate (e.g. 
WinXP plus OfficeXP for $100) or a similar solution from a Linux 
provider (since they admit this is their competition_and since 
I have read that Red Hat will provide a similar solution for free). 
It also should be vendor neutral in terms of what networking 
solutions are required_for many schools it is the server 
software and hubs, routers, and gateways that cost the most.
    Beyond this, however, my only point is that Microsoft maintains 
its dominance in PC OS market primarily through the use of continual 
changes to standards and protocols_a requirement to fully and 
quickly publish any such documents and specifications and do so at 
no or minimal charges would be the easiest way to bring back 
competition in this sphere.
    Sincerely,
    Will Affleck-Asch
    current member of the B.F. Day school PTSA in Seattle
    current member of the 43rd District Democrats_currently 
serving as their Secretary, but not speaking for them past member of 
the 36th District Democrats_King County Democratic Central 
Committee alt(m)

[[Page 24568]]



MTC-00004697

From: DYMOND Christopher S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Reneta B. Hesse,
    I`m writing to express my shock and dismay concerning the 
settlement proposed by the Bush administration in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. For the settlement to be fair Microsoft it should 
make it easier for competitors to penetrate markets that Microsoft 
dominates. The proposed settlement does very little to accomplish 
this, in fact it would appear to give Microsoft a win by helping 
them to move into the markets (such as schools) where they are not 
dominate.
    Sincerely
    Christopher Dymomd
    Salem Oregon
    (503) 378-8325



MTC-00004698

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:16pm
Subject: Proposed Final Judgment
    As I understand it you are required by law to make yourselves 
available to public comment, but I thank you for the chance to put 
in my concerns regardless of why you read them. I also am quite sure 
that in a high profile case you are getting much in terms of input, 
so I`ll keep this short and to my primary concern. In that past 
Microsoft has shown great contempt for both the free market and the 
court in it`s business practices. This was proved in the case.
    I don`t agree with the settlement that has been proposed. It 
seems to me that it is a terribly light slap on the wrist for a 
company that, by it`s own admission, is central to the computing 
economy to suffer so little for such egregious crimes.
    However, there is little I can do except to state that I hope 
stronger punishment can be given in place of the current PFJ.
    Assuming that the PFJ is put into action *please* make sure that 
the supervisory functions are actively executed and that all future 
violations (at this point I think we must assume there *will* be 
future violations since Microsoft has shown no remorse for it`s past 
illegal behavior and, in fact, have built the largest software 
company in the world using said practices) be quickly dealt with.
    The problem with the software industry is that it moves so much 
more quickly than the court system. In the current context Netscape 
is a great example of a company that Microsoft put out of business 
using illegal practices, but there are dozens of others. I have 
worked with several databases, GUI tools and general utilities made 
by companies that no longer exist because Microsoft colluded to put 
them out of business using illegal practices.
    As I say earlier I think the PFJ is a startlingly punishment 
free proposal for such egregious crimes. My preference would have 
been a fine of $17B (the amount of free cash that Microsoft has in 
the bank right now) as it seems the only thing they respect is the 
dollar. If it cannot be, then please make certain that future 
violations are dealt with swiftly. It`s the only way that 
competition if going to be reintroduced to the competitive market.
    rw2
    Rich Wellner
    531 Canyon Trail
    Carol Stream, IL 60188



MTC-00004699

From: Michael Peele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My suggestions, as a voting, taxpaying US citizen:
    Do not allow Microsoft to spread its software as a 
`cost' to Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to donate 
software to schools, let it, but remember that the incremental cost 
of producing software is zero. Do not allow Microsoft to spread its 
software to anyone for any reason as part of this settlement. Make 
Microsoft pay the fees in CASH. US Currency only. Not stock, not 
software, not hardware, CASH.
    I like Red Hat software`s suggestion from Matthew Szulik.
    I would really like to see Microsoft split up.
    I would like to see Microsoft compete fairly in all markets.
    Michael Peele
    Georgetown University



MTC-00004700

From: Anthony K. Galanis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to submit my opinion on the Microsoft antitrust 
case during the 60-Day public feedback phase.
    This case in no way represents the best interests of the 
consumer. This case is all about Microsoft`s competition. You cannot 
compare the computer software industry to anything else that has 
existed before. It does not work the same way. Things that used to 
take years in other markets can take days in this market. Innovation 
and improvements are based on an iterative standard. The consumer 
has chosen their standard and it is Windows. Millions and millions 
of people appreciate and choose Microsoft`s software and they want 
to be able to reap the benefits of having a standard. There is much 
more software available to solve almost any problem. Have you tried 
to find a program for the Amiga, Linux or even Macintosh. It is 
difficult because not many developers make programs for them because 
they can`t make money. From an economic standpoint, there are more 
benefits from having one dominant OS. As a consumer I have many, 
many more choices because I do have Windows. For my other OS`s my 
choices are very, very limited.
    When a new technology come around, the best of breed is usually 
purchased by Microsoft (the original development company wins) and 
then that product is integrated into Windows (which then benefits 
millions upon millions of other users who otherwise would never have 
been exposed to that technology). If a better solution exists that 
is not Microsoft`s, people can still go out and buy that if they 
choose. Microsoft`s not stopping that.
    Here is a good example. Take the backup utility and the disk 
defragmentor. Both would be considered middleware. Both serve the 
purpose for millions of users. Those users don`t have to go out and 
purchase a $49.99 backup program and a $49.99 disk defragmentor 
program, which of course would not benefit them at all. Yet other 
backup programs and disk defragmentor programs are flourishing in 
today`s market. They add additional abilities that Microsoft`s 
`middleware` does not, so they succeed. You don`t see any plain 
backup or defragmentor programs out there because everyone with 
Windows already has one. This drives innovation because it forces 
manufactures to improve upon the `standard` to succeed. It has 
worked very well in the past. Look at all of the amazing things that 
a consumer can get for less that $200.
    The hot issues are of course IE and Media Player. If these 
products we not the best, they would not succeed. If Microsoft was 
not constantly improving them or not following standards, they would 
end up like the backup or defragmentor programs, still included for 
out of the box functionality.
    But if the States have there way, all middleware would be 
striped from Windows, forcing consumers to once again purchase every 
little thing. It is very obvious what the benefit is to Microsoft`s 
competition but what exactly is the benefit to consumers?
    I do not think it is any coincidence that all of the states 
remaining in the antitrust case represent Microsoft`s biggest 
competitors. Where are the consumers that are supposed to be 
complaining that the states so vehemently claim to be protecting?
    Do I think Microsoft is perfect? No. Did it pull some shady 
deals with PC manufactures? Probably. So fine them for that and make 
it illegal for deals like that to be made again. But wait, isn`t 
that what AOL is trying to do right now? If Microsoft can`t make 
exclusive deals, then nobody else should be able to either.
    The World and humanity itself benefits from having a `standard` 
operating system. The Internet is where it is today in no small part 
to the integration of IE with Windows. The digital music and video 
will experience similar benefits from Media Player. All consumers 
will win. Only the competition that does not have a compelling 
product will lose.
    One last note on Java. Sun refuses to submit Java to a standards 
body leaving it as a proprietary programming language. This is very 
much unlike Microsoft`s C#, .Net, XML and DHTML initiatives. 
Microsoft should in no way be required to integrate Sun`s Java 
virtual machine (VM) into Windows. I used to program in Java and 
very much appreciated Microsoft`s extensions to the language. It 
made programming for the Windows environment much, much easier. But 
Sun did not own those extensions so the sued Microsoft. Now the want 
their VM included. Give me a break. They had it made and they bit 
their own leg off. Too bad for them.
    Please don`t take away my benefits because a lot of very rich, 
jealous competitors did not succeed.

[[Page 24569]]

    Thanks you for your time,
    Anthony K. Galanis
    CTO
    qBill, Inc.



MTC-00004701

From: Steve Russo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:16pm
Subject: Nail them to the cross.
    As a valid MCSE, I would like to say that I am dissapointed 
about the outcome of this court case. I think that you are letting 
them off to easily. I would like to see something done about how 
they have repeatedly broken the law. I don`t care if Mr. Bush is 
president, and I don`t care if the sales of their products bring us 
out of a recession. What I care about is JUSTICE. Don`t let them put 
their junk in schools! If ATT&T had tried to put more phone 
systems in libraries as the settlement for their case, they would 
have been laughed out of court. The same should be done for 
Micro$oft. I feel that it is wrong that everytime I buy a new PC, I 
need to pay for a windows os to come with it. I DONT USE THEIR OS`s! 
I shouldn`t need to pay for it. This is a monopoly and I am not 
happy about vendor lock-in. I want to see you people get off of your 
asses. Do something about them instead of taking bribes from them. 
Let justice prevail!
    Thanks,
    Steve
    PS Also, if you do do something about them, please sleep better 
at night knowing that you did the right thing. We can`t get back the 
companies that we lost, but we can do something about the companies 
that we WILL lose. PSS If you would like more information about me 
or my MCSE information, please email me back. I will gladly give you 
my Microsoft Certificate numbers.



MTC-00004702

From: Lord Sith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Department of Justice;
    The events and findings of the second MS anti-trust trial were 
more or less brought about by Microsoft`s willful failure to follow 
either the letter or the intent of the first consent decree.
    Given the numerous exemptions and limitations placed on items 
set forth in section III (Prohibited Conduct) of the `Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment' I fear that this settlement is doomed 
to suffer similar fate. Too many loopholes are available for 
Microsoft to skirt around the intent of this judgment.
    It is my opinion that this proposed settlement is not strong 
enough to control or curtail Microsoft`s monopolistic behavior.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jonathan Call
    Springville, UT



MTC-00004703

From: Smith, Wayne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:16pm
Subject: Proposed Remedy
    To Whom It Should Concern:
    The schools of America do NOT need a bunch of out-dated PC 
machines running Microsoft software_as proposed. 
Software_free to schools, and also nearly free to Microsoft.
    There are countless numbers of software producers who work hard 
to sell there wares to the education market. Government-sponsored 
`give-away' programs as proposed in the Microsoft remedy 
simply shuts out all other competition...and you call that punishing 
a monopolist company for past transgressions?
    A fair solution would be to have Microsoft PAY cold, hard, CASH 
to the schools to use on needs educators identify. The cash amount 
should be significant and on-going for a period of at least 12 
years, so that each of the 12 grades could benefit over time by the 
purchase of NEW technology OR reduction in class size, or other 
enhancements that educators know will make a real impact in learning 
improvement. My government should not be assisting a law-breaking 
monopolist in finding new ways to shut out its competitors in the 
education market.
    Show me you understand what is at stake in this case by 
rejecting this `free software-hardware' bait.
    Microsoft did not get to be so big by being the best or by being 
dumb. They got caught violating laws designed to protect us. Punish 
them, do not reward them!
    Wayne Smith
    3043 Shannon Lakes North
    Tallahassee, FL 32309



MTC-00004704

From: Jason LaVoie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a member of the software industry whom is intimately familiar 
with Microsoft`s Windows NT based operating systems, I find the 
settlement agreement with Microsoft Corporation unsatisfactory. The 
three member oversight committee is laughable. First and foremost it 
is open for corruption (e.g. payoffs.) Secondly, it is far too 
subjective. Thirdly, I possess severe doubts this committee is going 
to have any real bearing on Microsoft`s practices.
    More needs to be done to open up the marketplace for 
competition. I do not feel the current settlement is going to change 
the landscape of the desktop operating system market. Microsoft 
ships unstable and often junky operating systems to people who can 
barely use a computer. The end user suffers while Microsoft takes 
its time shipping service packs. Most end users do not even know 
what a service pack is, let alone know how to install it. In any 
other market this practice would be unacceptable. Perhaps service 
packs to prematurely shipped cars that fell apart while driving 
would be appropriate? Microsoft gets away with this behavior because 
it CAN. Capitalism works because of competition, and Microsoft has 
none. Linux is not and may not ever be a viable competitor in the 
Desktop Operating System market.
    I believe more can and should be done to curb the anti-
competitive behavior of Microsoft and to open up the marketplace for 
competition. The current settlement does not effectively accomplish 
either of these goals.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jason LaVoie
    34 Maple Ln
    Mahopac, NY 10541



MTC-00004705

From: Charles Duffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good day. As a free software developer and an employee of a 
company which deals primarily in software developed through non-
commercial means, I`m concerned about the current settlement`s 
implication that only for-profit, commercial entities should have 
access to Microsoft`s APIs. Much software developed not-for-profit 
has commercial impact or usage; developers of such software should 
be recognized without the need for a commercial entity to represent 
their interests.
    As an example, the WINE project is a development effort which 
seeks to build an application programming interface permitting 
software written for Windows platforms to function on UNIX-based 
operating systems such as Linux. While WINE presently has commercial 
backers and has been used in some commercial products (such as 
CorelDRAW for Linux), for much of its development life its 
development was run by a loosely affiliated group of developers.
    If providing commercial interests with access to 
interoperability information is in the public good, providing 
similar access to non-commercial interests is no less so; such open 
access benefits both personal users and commercial interests which 
make use of the fruits of such development efforts. For these 
reasons, I urge that the language recognizing only commercial 
interests in the proposed settlement be striken.
    Thank you kindly for your consideration.



MTC-00004706

From: Matthew Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Regarding the proposed settlement of the case Microsoft vs 
USA_this settlement proposes to solve the problem of 
Microsoft`s anti-competitive behavior, and change the fact that 
competing in the markets (principly those of operating systems and 
office software) that Microsoft control is currently very difficult. 
A large part of that difficulty are problems with the 
interoperability with those Microsoft systems_if I write some 
wordprocessing software, for example, which is better than Microsoft 
Word, I cannot hope to get any market penetration, due to the fact 
that my software will not be able to be compatible with data 
generated by Microsoft`s version_which is the current industry 
standard. This is obviously bad for competition. The same is true of 
operating system protocols, notably the SMB protocol that Microsoft 
use for networking file sharing and authentication_they have 
frequently updated this so that other Operating Systems (for example 
Linux) will not work correctly.
    I think (and I know that I am not alone in this) that any 
attempt to make that market

[[Page 24570]]

more competative would have to begin my requiring MicMicrosoft 
Settlement.rosoft to release details of these formats, and restrain 
from making undocumented changes that break compatibility with other 
systems. If this was the case, the software would have a greater 
chance of competing purely on merit, which is, of course, the ideal.
    Given that the proposed settlement has a Technical Oversight 
Committee to ensure compliance with the judgement, I hope you will 
consider this as a condition they should enforce, either that 
specifications for these are released so that other software can be 
compatible with Microsoft products, or that they should look closely 
at that issue with regards to deliberate changes that they make to 
file formats and protocols, that are primarily designed to break 
functionality, rather than implement new features, or if new 
features are added, that this be done in such a way as to leave 
existing functionality in place.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Matthew Johnson. 
    Why the EU-CD is bad_don`t let this become law!
    http://eurorights.org/eudmca/WhyTheEUCDIsBad.html
    `They that would give up essential liberty for temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
    Benjamin Franklin
    `Those who desire to give up Freedom, in order to gain 
Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.'
    Thomas Jefferson



MTC-00004707

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case since its 
early beginnings. I would like to humbly suggest a possible remedy. 
Years ago, IBM released the IBM PC. Although the PC is now the 
computer hardware platform of choice (as opposed to Apple`s 
Macintosh or the now defunct DEC Alpha), very few of the PCs sold 
today are actually made by IBM. The creation of the IBM-compatible 
computer allowed third party companies to sell computers on which PC 
software would run, without having to pay residuals to IBM. This 
allowed the explosion of diversity of software that we have enjoyed 
over the last decade. As hardware competition brought computer 
prices down, consumers benefited from the broad variety of offerings 
and software vendors flourished on platform that allowed them to 
sell to a wider audience than ever before. What I propose is simple: 
we need to encourage the creation of Windows-compatible operating 
systems. If there were other companies besides Microsoft who could 
sell an operating system that could run the same programs as 
Windows, at no additional expense to the consumer or software 
vendor, then Microsoft`s monopoly would be broken without directly 
penalizing them. In fact, if there were an industry of Windows-
compatible OS vendors, each one would try to distinguish itself by 
bundling useful software or partnering with other software companies 
to provide value-added packages. While Microsoft remains a monopoly, 
these practices make competition nearly impossible, but in a free 
market with fair competition these same tactics become acceptable 
and even encouraged.
    Consider the case of Netscape Navigator vs. Internet Explorer. 
When Microsoft decided to bundle IE with Windows, there wouldn`t 
have been any problem is Netscape could have made a deal with a 
competing OS vendor to bundle its software. But since there were no 
competing vendors, Netscape`s demise was guaranteed.
    So how do we encourage and empower companies to create Windows-
compatible operating systems? By exposing the internals of Windows 
to the public. If the source code for each version of Windows that 
was obsolete ( no longer on store shelves ) was released to the 
public under an open source license like the GPL, it would allow 
third party companies to create compatible operating systems. 
Microsoft could still compete and even dominate the industry by 
producing high quality software and bundling them with the latest 
version. However, since many software products require it in order 
to run, tightly bundled software like DirectX which provides 
additional graphics capabilities to Windows programs would also have 
to be made open source (except for the latest version, of course). 
If this remedy is applied, it would benefit all parties involved: 
consumers benefit from lower prices on software and operating system 
upgrades, software vendors could sell their products to a larger 
market, computer science researchers benefit from the years of 
technical innovation that made Windows possible, and Microsoft can 
still remain the leading operating system vendor in the market (at 
least for the next five years).
    Dan Nolan
    Software Engineer,
    National Instruments.



MTC-00004708

From: Micah Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My correspondance with you today is in response to a call for 
public comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I am the president of a small software development company in 
Houston, Texas. We develop web-based applications that employ open-
source tools including the Linux OS, the Apache web server, and the 
PERL scripting language. I write to you today because I believe my 
perspective as a technical professional in the computer industry and 
my experience with my customers over the past four years may help to 
support the position that an expeditious, rather than a settlement 
that addresses the monopolist abuse perpetrated by Microsoft will do 
further damage to an industry that has already seen abusive use of a 
monopolist position. The proposed relief settlement may have been 
appropriate in reducing monopolist abuse six or seven years ago when 
competitive products such as office suites and web browsers existed, 
but today it would serve as a `20-20 hindsight' 
commentary on monopolist abuse.
    One example of the direct damages incurred on consumers and my 
customers is the inability to deploy alternative desktop solutions 
to a purely Microsoft based environment. The solution is not 
infeasable because of any technical deficiency in alternatives or 
lack of functionality, but rather becase of a monopolist abuse of 
proprietary file formats. The Microsoft Office suite changes file 
formats routinely to prevent competitive office suites from 
succesfully implementing import filters for those formats. The 
proposed settlement includes a remedy for this situation, but does 
so a Microsoft`s discression. This power to decide what information 
and to what extent it is made available is exactly the abuse that 
has damaged the free and open software marketplace. By routinely 
changing published standards and advertised intentions to keep their 
competitors one step behind.
    In a truly free and openly competitive marketplace, a company 
would /* never*/ change their file formats so radically, but rather 
work to support third-party filters and products to allow consumers 
to more easily manipulate their data. The remedy does nothing to 
insure that Microsoft will not continue their abuse of these 
notorious strongholds. My customers routinely ask me for 
alternatives to the high cost of proposed Microsoft solutions and 
for the time being we are able to offer such solutions in limited 
cases. However, these limited cases too are falling into peril as 
Microsoft continues to abuse industry standards. One of my customers 
was recently quoted an e-mail system costing in excess of $45,000 US 
to support roughly a 400 user community. Because we were able to 
convince our customer to not restrict themselves by using Microsoft 
Outlook clients, we were able to implement an competitive solution 
for $2500 US.
    The entire project, however, was predecated on the customer not 
using Microsoft Outlook`s group calendaring features. Had they 
insisted on that their business need for group calendaring be based 
on Microsoft Outlook, then the ONLY usable solution would be 
Microsoft`s Microsoft Exchange server. The protocols and formats 
used by the Exchange mail server are routinely changed, not well 
documented for third-party developers, and are not developed as an 
industry standard. Forcing Microsoft to devulge it`s proprietary 
data formats means more than monitoring their license agreements 
with third-party companies at this point. To fix years of abuse, the 
information must be made, free of charge, to a wider group of 
software developers, thus helping to restore competitiveness to 
these areas of the industry. Making the information available free 
of charge will allow Microsoft`s competitors to offer solutions that 
can co-exist with todays Microsoft domainated landscape.
    If time and effort is not taken to thoroughly evaluate the 
reprecussions of a hastily made settlement, the software industry 
will

[[Page 24571]]

continue to wither in the hands of a monopoly company. Strength in 
our economy and society has been achieved through radical diversity. 
The software industry in years past has seen tremendous strides from 
it`s diversity. Any entity that threatens that diversity by 
strangling competitors and prohibitively raising the barrier for the 
entry of new products must be seen as a threat and as destructive to 
our economy.
    If Microsoft is not firmly held at bay until a monopoly no 
longer exists, competitive products and corporations such as mine 
will simply fail to survive. Not because they don`t offer superior 
products or services, but because they cannot find entry into an 
industry that uses /*exactly one */ vendor for all of it`s core 
software needs.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Micah T. Quinn
    Quinn Team Incorporated
    Micah T. Quinn
    President



MTC-00004709

From: Tony Kimball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 3:44pm
Subject: Comments on Proposed Settlement
    Lectori Salutem:
    Pursuant to the announced proposed settlement conditions which 
purport to provide remedy to the antitrust violations for which 
Microsoft has been found culpable, I write to provide for the record 
my specific objections, as a computing professional of 12 years 
experience in the field:
    Firstly, the proposed settlement fails to provide effective 
remedy in that restrictions on interface disclosure are left to the 
judgement and discrimination of the culpable party, and explicit 
conditions are placed on disclosure requirements, which prevent 
public-interest organizations from obtaining essential information 
enabling the development of interoperable components.
    Secondly, the proposed settlement fails to provide effective 
remedy for the damaging monopolistic practice of hiding the cost of 
Microsoft products in the cost of purchasing a computer or other 
device. Unless consumers are able to purchases devices at lower cost 
in the absence of a Microsoft product, all consumers are in effect 
being taxed to subsidize Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Thirdly, the proposed settlement fails to provide effective 
remedy because it does not require Microsoft to provide adequate 
disclosure of file formats, type library formats, document formats, 
network protocols, and other crucial related interfaces to the 
public, or even to purchasers of Microsoft products. As a result, 
public-interest development organizations and commercial competitors 
alike are prevented from providing product offerings which are 
competetive with Microsoft products in performance and capability.
    Fourthly, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to avoid 
compensating the public for its criminal practices, places the 
burden of paying for the costs of obtaining remedy on the goverment 
and the people, rather than upon the culpable party, and in fact 
assists Microsoft in extending its monopoly into the educational 
systems of the various states.
    Fifthly, the proposed settlement does nothing to protect the 
public from the evident intention of Microsoft to subvert the global 
Internet as a tool of monopoly extention, and to the detriment of 
the privacy of all persons, by insinuating proprietary protocols 
into the conduct of commerce, and enforcing the disclosure of 
detailed personal and financial information to entities controlled 
by Microsoft. Sixthly, the historic and continuing failure of 
Microsoft to provide secure information systems constitutes a dire 
threat to the national interest and security, which can only be 
prevented by placing Microsoft installations on equal competetive 
footing with installed computer systems which use more robust and 
secure software systems. Microsoft has placed backdoors in its 
operating systems which allow surreptitious access to private 
information by unauthorized parties. Until and unless the source 
code for all of Microsoft`s software components are available for 
public inspection, continued security lapses and abuses must be 
expected. The only effective means of resolving these problems, both 
the competetive disadvantage of non-Microsoft systems, and the 
instability and insecurity of the predominant Microsoft systems, is 
to require that all of the source code for Microsoft`s system 
software as distributed with OEM computers and appliances must be 
made available to all persons constructing interoperable or 
competing software. The proposed settlement, to the detriment of the 
security, stability, and viability of nations economic, military, 
and emergency systems infrastructure fails to provide any such 
requirement or stipulation.
    In summary, the proposed settlement provides no effective remedy 
to the illegal practices of Microsoft, and imposes a substantial 
penalty on the wronged parties (the goverment and public of the 
United States) by failing to exact compensation for court costs or 
for damages done.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Lee Kimball
    1822 N Park St
    Fergus Falls, MN
    56537
    [email protected]



MTC-00004710

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 12/17/01 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony` Wall Street Journal`s Double Standard
    CC: [email protected] @inetgw,letters 
@sjmercury.com@i...
    Re: Haitian Connections_How Clinton`s cronies cashed in on 
foreign policy.
    We are not suggesting that Fusion`s business in Haiti is 
illegal.
    ...We are saying that Fusion`s Haiti deal is sleazy.
    Sleazy like Bill Gates`s modus operandi or different than that 
of Wall Street`s poster boy?
    `My friends at Dow Jones, they know who to criticize and 
who not, ha ha ha...'



MTC-00004711

From: Steven Bach
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 12/17/01 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to protest the proposed DOJ settlement with 
MicroSoft. The net result of this settlement is in no way punitive, 
nor does it help to resolve past damages, or do enough to prevent 
future predatory monopolistic behavior by Microsoft.
    Specifically, currently many of MS`s most serious competitors 
are Open Source software projects headed by non-profit foundations. 
Section III(J)(2) makes it clear that these groups would not be 
entitled to API documentation. While it is outrageous that only for-
profit corporate entities would be considered worth of 
documentation, the fact that no for-profit corporate entities appear 
to be able to compete with MS, while projects run by various non-
profit foundations are in many cases more successful than MS 
(Apache, BIND, sendmail) makes it ludicrous. This must be addressed.
    Section III(D) makes it outlines that MS will disclose 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(!). The most 
important competition is running on a non-commercial level. Consider 
that even our Gov`t, for instance NASA, the national laboratories, 
the military, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology_even the Department of Justice itself_have no 
rights. In some cases nat`l labs and other groups produce free 
software, and it makes no sense for the gov`t to exclude itself from 
the right to access MS`s APIs. This too must be addressed.
    Even with these aspects rectified I do not think that the 
settlement is adequate. A split of the company into four groups (HW, 
Developer Tools, Applications, Server Software), along with a 
substantial fine would be the only proper way to dispense justice to 
the guilty party.
    Thanks for your time,
    Steven Bach



MTC-00004712

From: Byron York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see an investigation started that looked in to 
George Bush and John Ashcroft`s dealings with Microsoft. As the 
Proposed Final Judgment was obviously written by an attorney for 
Microsoft, and not the DOJ, I feel it would be prudent to look in to 
the back room deals that made the settlement possible.
    I believe there are major abuses of power, fraud, conflicts of 
interest, and other high crimes and misdemeanors that were committed 
in Microsoft`s name. The real

[[Page 24572]]

culprits, Bush and Ashcroft, should pay for their crimes. There is 
no way a reasonable person can look at how Ashcroft has handled this 
case since he took over and not see the glaring capitulation that 
the DOJ has handed Bill Gates.
    Why surrender when you have won? Nine federal judges agree: 
Microsoft is an abusive monopoly and needs to be punished. Why, 
other than fraud or an abuse of power, would the DOJ give up like 
this?
    `The best thing that happened to Microsoft in years was 
George Bush being elected president.' THAT is not how JUSTICE 
is supposed to work in this country. The law, and the enforcement of 
the law, should be blind to who is sitting in the White House. The 
DOJ`s actions in this matter have left a bad taste in my mouth and 
have brought into question the entire system of justice in this 
country.
    Hoping that the real criminals behind this fiasco are brought to 
justice,
    Byron York
    713.416.4487



MTC-00004713

From: Lysinger, Sam (ISS Atlanta)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/17/01 4:12pm
Subject: Microsft anti-trust case
    Hello,
    After reviewing the documents regarding the charges against 
Microsoft and spending many years using and supporting their 
products (I write this email using Microsoft Outlook), I feel that 
the US Courts should throw the book at Microsoft.
    Most of the argument regards Web Browsers. Why is it that 
Microsoft Outlook, an email program, requires Internet Explorer in 
order for it to function? Web browsing and email are completely 
unrelated things. This alone tells me that I am being forced to use 
Internet Explorer on some level or other.
    Most people don`t take the time to download Netscape if another 
web browser is already on their computer. This is laziness, and not 
Microsoft`s fault but they are exploiting the basic human desire of 
taking the path of least resistance in doing a task. To make it more 
interesting, HTML is a computer langauge that is platform 
independant. Why is it that Microsoft added specific HTML tags that 
only work in Internet Explorer. Most people don`t think about it, 
but there are web pages I cannot browse without their html browser. 
I don`t particularly like their browser, it functions fine, but I 
prefer the layout of Netscape. If you were to surf Microsoft`s web 
page with a competitors web browser, you will find it difficult at 
best. This is clearly forcing me to use another piece of web 
browsing software, theirs, when I need to download a patch or 
security update for the windows operating system.
    I like choice, I like Windows NT and 2000, I totally hate win95 
and win98. I like unix and I like Mac OS also. I like Excel and I 
hate Microsoft Word with a passion (I use Word Perfect for DOS and I 
think much could also be said about Microsoft forcing application 
competitors out of the market but I don`t want to take up too much 
of your time).
    I do not like being forced into using something and I feel that 
I am. This is why the 13 colonies kicked out the English and this is 
why we broke up Standard Oil and IBM.
    I`d like to see justice done.
    Thanks for your time,
    Sam Lysinger
    IT Infrastructure
    [email protected]
    404-236-4063
    Television is so educational, every time I turn it on I want to 
go to the library and get a book.



MTC-00004714

From: Jerry Seeger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 4:21pm
Subject: thoughts on the antitrust settlement
    I am rather perplexed and amazed by the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust violations of Microsoft. Perplexed because the 
settlement is so weak that it is not a punishment at all and amazed 
that anyone thinks it would change Microsoft`s behavior after the 
brazen way the company rolled over the last consent decree.
    Microsoft broke the law. Microsoft is continuing with the exact 
same illegal behavior in Windows XP by bundling CD-burning software, 
instant messaging, and a host of other features. As an example, the 
CD-Burning features in Windows XP are vastly inferior to other 
commercial (non-free) products, but despite the higher quality the 
independent vendors cannot compete with free. Yet, if the features 
listed above are intrinsic features of an operating system which 
should be available at no charge, why do you have to pay an extra 
$200 to connect securely to Microsoft`s own servers? Which one of 
those sounds more like a necessary operating system feature that 
should not cost extra? The extra cost for a secure connection to a 
Microsoft server is an example of what happens when Microsoft has no 
competition in a market. This so-called settlement merely 
legitimizes Microsoft`s continued predatory behavior. More 
competitors will vanish each year, until there is only one software 
company. Any software maker who makes a useful product for the 
windows platform will eventually be replaced by second-rate, but 
free, software from Microsoft.
    Jerry Seeger
    Vice President of Software Engineering
    BinaryLabs, Inc.



MTC-00004715

From: Andrew W. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strenuously object to the settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I am a student, programmer and computer technician. 
I do technical support on both Windows and Macintosh computers, and 
it has been my experience that Windows is a far inferior operating 
system. It crashes more frequently, is harder to use and users are 
far less time-efficient on the Windows machines. Despite this, 
Windows runs on 90% or more of the computers in America.
    Microsoft was convicted of engaging in illegal activities that 
enabled it to create and maintain a monopoly. There is no penalty 
suggested for such illegal activities in the settlement, merely 
clarifications that hope to prevent further illegal continuation of 
the monopoly. I do not believe these will prevent such a 
continuation, and a penalty should be required in response to the 
illegal actions performed so far.
    I am also skeptical about the availability of unbiased persons 
to sit on the technical committee. Microsoft`s effect on the 
computing industry is such that there would be very few people with 
such technical knowledge that would not have any predisposition 
towards Microsoft.
    In addition, the matter of illegally tying applications to the 
operating system has not been adequately addressed. Microsoft was 
initially convicted of illegally tying, but was overturned on 
appeal. Since then, it has been remanded to the District Court for 
consideration. This settlement prematurely closes the issue of 
illegal tying before it can be considered properly. This settlement 
is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, especially the lack of a 
penalty. There is no incentive for Microsoft to comply with future 
requirements, as they have not been penalized for their actions, 
merely to cease such actions. What is to stop them from engaging in 
further activities knowing that there will be no drawbacks beyond 
stopping them? It would be akin to debating whether to take a 
miracle drug with the long term effects of water. No, there is no 
incentive here to prevent further abuse of the legal system, or of 
the market through the use of illegal monopolies.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew W. Hill



MTC-00004716

From: Matthew Toczek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    It is my opinion that Microsoft has already proven it does not 
respect and will not abide by antitrust laws in this country. I 
appreciate your work and time spent in attempting reasonable 
compromise with Microsoft; however, it is not your fault a legal, 
lasting and appropriate solution cannot be made_it is 
Microsoft`s. As such, I feel the only way to get the point across to 
this gigantic corporation is through extensive legal and economic 
means.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Toczek
    public key: www.wpi.edu/toxic/public_key/
public_key.html
    CC:Matthew Toczek



MTC-00004717

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    This letter presents my response to the revised proposed Final 
Judgement to resolve the United States` civil antitrust case against 
Microsoft, which is currently up for public review. I am a citizen 
of the united states, and a resident of Ithaca, NY.
    I. Critique of Proposed Final Judgement

[[Page 24573]]

    The proposed Final Judgement that the US and Microsoft agreed to 
on November 6th appears to have the best intentions, and addresses 
many of the major issues raised by the case. Unfortunately, I feel 
that it falls short of being an effective remedy.
    I agree with many of the points in the following critique of the 
proposed final judgement, and it is more complete than my own 
statement will be. Please review the statement on the 
antitrustinstitute.org website at: http://
www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/149.cfm
    There is much to consider in that document, the points in the 
proposed final remedy that I consider most important to review are 
that:
    (1) it makes no attempt to address `ill-gotten 
gains' garnered by microsoft through its anticompetitive 
practices. This is a serious shortcoming because the company`s 
illegal tactics have placed it in a very advantageous position in 
the industry. In order to make anticompetitive behavior 
unprofitable, there must be substantive punishment that reduces 
those gains.
    (2) the anti-retaliatory clause is insufficient. Section 3.A.1 
specifies that Microsoft shall not retaliate against and OEM for 
`developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or 
licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any 
Non-Microsoft Middleware;'. Section 6.L defines Microsoft 
Platform Software as `(i) a Windows Operating System Product 
and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product.' As I read this 
clause, it still allows retaliation against OEM`s for developing, 
distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing, software that 
competes with other Non-Platform Microsoft Products, such as Office, 
.Net, and other applications. This opens an important window for 
Microsoft to continue its anticompetitive practices.
    (3) the api disclosure provision in section 3.D is impossible to 
enforce. The only way to ensure that microsoft isn`t hiding 
undocumented API`s is to audit the source code. No body with 
sufficient manpower has been appointed to do this. A more 
appropriate solution would be to require disclosure to API`s AND 
source to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. They could then audit 
suspect code themselves, and present an informed complaint to the 
Technical Committee, which could verify and investigate.
    (4) The only punitive measure specified to discourage Microsoft 
from non-compliance is a 2 year extension of the terms of the 
judgement. If Microsoft is not complying with the judgement anyway, 
this is an extraordinarily ineffective punishment.
    II. Support for Plaintiff Litigating States` Remedial Proposals 
(December 7, 2001)
    The proposal filed by the state on December 7th, 2001 is a much 
more complete remedy. The proposal is available on the web at: 
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remedy_filing.pdf
    (1) It addresses the Microsoft`s ill-gotten gains in section H 
by Open Sourcing the code to Internet Explorer. The Court`s Findings 
of Fact, issued on 11/5/99, state that Microsoft successfully used 
its monopoly power to increase the market share of Internet 
Explorer. These findings of fact can be found on the US Department 
of Justice webpage at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/
msjudgex.htm#vh By Open Sourcing the code to Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft is deprived of the gains associated with their anti-
competitive behavior. Additionally, consumers and the entire 
computing industry benefit by augmenting the publically available 
software infrastructure of the internet.
    (2) Section E offers a stronger anti-retaliatory clause which 
covers all microsoft products, and not just Platform Products.
    (3) Section C offers an API Disclosure provision that is 
enforceable. ISV`s, OEM`s, etc are provided access to source as well 
as API documentation. This will allow them to inspect suspicious 
code and present well informed complaints to the Technical 
Committee.
    (4) Section O offers excellent punitive measures in the event 
that Microsoft does not comply with the Judgement. Additionally, 
section L of this document provides excellent protection against 
Microsoft co-opting and breaking standards compatibility, as the 
findings of fact show it did with the JAVA standard. This topic is 
not addressed in the Proposed Final Judgement.
    III. General suggestions
    Unbundling microsoft middleware/products/services is a superior 
solution than requiring alternatives be bundled as well. The latter 
has the effect of favoring a small number of well established 
middleware/products/services by creating large barriers of entry to 
new middleware/products/services that are not included in the OS 
distribution.
    Mandating that Microsoft offer licenses to third-party companies 
to port its applications to alternative Operating Systems is a 
superior solution than requiring that Microsoft maintain ports of 
particular products to particular OS`s. Determining whether a port 
of a given application to a given platform can be profitable is 
difficult and should be decided by the market. Microsoft should not 
be allowed to lock-out existing markets by not porting applications 
and not allowing others to do so. However, is it not feasible to 
expect Microsoft to port every application to every platform. There 
is not always a demand.
    There should be a reward in the event that microsoft makes every 
effort in good faith to comply with the judgement. Perhaps make the 
judgement applicable for 10 years, with an option to terminate the 
measures in 5 if microsoft makes efforts in good faith to comply.
    IV. Relevant Links
    (1) The Proposed Final Judgement (11/6/2001) http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    (2) The commentary on the Proposed Final Judgement at 
antitrustinstitute.org http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/
149.cfm
    (3) Plaintiff Litigating States` Remedial Proposals (12/7/2001) 
http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-remedy_filing.pdf
    V. Closing
    Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope an appropriate 
set of remedial measures can be decided upon soon.
    Mike Lococo
    Coordinator Computer Facilities
    221 Tjaden Hall
    College of AA&P
    Cornell University
    14853
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004718

From: Frank Carreiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a quick note regarding the settlement with Microsoft Corp.
    I am rather disappointed with the DOJ. Despite the facts behind 
the case and a higher court supporting the facts, I was hoping 
Microsoft would be penalized for exercising regularly their monopoly 
powers. How many people do you know running Microsoft products? How 
many run alternative operating systems. Now we have Windows XP. At 
$300 a copy I`m outraged. Over time products usually get better and 
cheaper for the home user. Not in this case. I believe this is the 
most Microsoft has charged for an operating system to date.
    Fortunately there are a large number of people walking away from 
Microsoft. I am now running RedHat Linux 7.x for over 90% of my 
computer usage these days. At every opportunity I push Linux as a 
solution simply because it`s high quality software without the 
Microsoft bugs. Someday we all should have the joy of working on a 
computer that is reasonably priced and very productive.
    Speaking of which. I do run a couple of SAMBA servers 
(www.samba.org) which permit me to connect my friends computers and 
communicate with them. If I am reading this deal correctly SAMBA and 
every other product in Linux which can communicate with Windows will 
be killed. Some deal. Giving Microsoft MORE power to monopolize the 
world? I don`t believe this has been well thought through. I would 
strongly suggest everyone pay closer attention to what is going on 
here. Also the not for profit organizations such as Apache would be 
in great jeopardy.
    Section III(J)(2) concerns me a great deal. You may wish to re-
read it as it seems to allow Microsoft to define what is a business 
(well.. just about). Right now the biggest threat to Microsoft is 
open source software. I think we all understand just how well 
Microsoft`s security by obscurity has worked in the last few years. 
Pathetic would be kind in my estimation. Certainly the other OS`s 
have their share of problems however it IS easier to troubleshoot 
and fix problems with 10,000 people looking at the code over 100 
people doing the same work. Over time it becomes harder and harder 
for bugs to creep in as more people get involved. In closing I don`t 
believe splitting the company into two entities will solve the 
problem at hand however the other end of the spectrum also does not 
resolve our concerns with Microsoft. Some middle ground must be 
reached. Microsoft must not be allowed to continue operating as they 
have in the past. Ma Bell and the oil companies from the early 
1900`s were not allowed to continue their

[[Page 24574]]

monopolistic practices after the courts ruled against them. Why 
should Microsoft be allowed?
    There are better alternatives to Microsoft which are just as 
difficult to learn and use. Give them a chance to prove themselves. 
I believe the economy will turn around as they contribute in their 
own way. Other countries have learned what open source can give 
them. Let us be leaders and not followers in technology. Else we 
will be eating their dust in the years to come.
    Frank Carreiro



MTC-00004719

From: C HOFFNER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    (A Problem_Partial Standards)
    Standards are rules system components must embody to interact 
correctly with other components. Without standards it is impossible 
to build a new component to extend or upgrade the original system. 
Components of the DOS and Windows operating systems are at three 
levels. The drivers at the bottom level include the hardware 
interface. The applications at the top level include the user 
interface. There are three areas where the software industry depends 
on standards to ensure aftermarket products are compatible. These 
three areas are file formats, application interfaces, and 
communication protocols. The de jure standards defined by the CCITT 
and similar bodies inherently promote competition. On the other 
hand, the de facto standards defined by the Microsoft monopoly 
effectively stifle competition.
    In the telecommunications industry, de jure standards have 
become a part of the culture. In fact, de facto standards are not 
viewed as standards at all since they change at the dictates of a 
single company. The de facto standards from Microsoft stand in stark 
contrast to those from AT&T and IBM. Entire books have been 
written on undocumented DOS and Windows. Missing information is only 
found by reverse engineering. It is not that Microsoft fails to 
provide details of the standards it defines. It is rather that they 
are all too often incomplete and inaccurate. Something must be done 
to level the playing field.
    (A Solution_Improved Disclosure)
    Before computer programmers write any code, systems engineers 
write a set of specifications. Among other things, these spell out 
the standards, both de facto and de jure, the software must 
implement. Because communications protocols found in Microsoft 
products are those drafted by standards bodies in the 
telecommunications industry, complete and accurate documentation is 
available to competitors. This is not the case with the 
documentation for file formats and application interfaces. In fact, 
it is sometimes necessary to find what works by trial and error. The 
result is unexplained failures.
    Standards documents are of use to developers rather than end-
users. They should be tracked and updated in a manner consistent 
with industry practice. The consumer benefit is higher quality 
products. Changes to file formats and application interfaces may be 
made late in the development cycle. A product group that is ISO-9001 
certified will have procedures for updating the specifications 
accordingly. To ensure responsible use of its de facto standards:
    (1) Order Microsoft to seek ISO-9001 certification.
    (2) Order Microsoft to provide missing information.
    (3) Impose harsh fines for repeated non-compliance. Improving 
disclosure of de facto standards is not all that is needed. It is a 
problem by itself, but only a part of the broader problem. But here, 
the example of AT&T and IBM can help in fashioning a solution.
    Sincerely,
    Charles W. Hoffner



MTC-00004720

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the US DOJ:
    For what it`s worth, it is time for you to hear from the 
backbone of the US economic system_The small business owner. 
Below is a copy of an email that I sent to Microsoft. It was written 
from the culmination of many years of my frustration with attempting 
to use Microsoft`s products. This direct lack of respect for 
customer service sent me over the edge. And so, I send this to you 
to read and understand that the economy will never realize the true 
efficiency gains from Microsoft software because we spend twice as 
much time as we save with it on the phone with poor customer service 
issues. Bottom line = If there was a competing operating system out 
there to which I could easily switch, I would be gone from Microsoft 
in an instant. Please negotiate a settlement that encourages better 
service and/or competition. If I receive a response from Microsoft, 
I will submit it for your review as well.
    Respectfully submitted,
    John M. Hynes
    Partner
    Excidian, LLC
    To whom it may concern (Manufacturing/Engineering/whoever):
    I own a small business. I purchased a computer from Gateway with 
your Millenium product on it and a FREE upgrade to Windows XP. 
Gateway tells me that I will have to wait for my upgrade until next 
spring even though they are shipping new computers with their OEM 
version of XP on it now. Microsoft customer support had a great deal 
of difficulty explaining this to me (I cannot believe you leave your 
customer service people hanging out to dry without the info to 
explain these problems), but from what I can understand, Microsoft 
tweaks each OEM version so that it runs correctly with each 
manufacturer`s BIOS. I cannot believe that you cannot burn enough 
upgrade disks so that your OEM customer, Gateway, does not have to 
tell their customers that they will have to wait until the spring of 
2002! Or, did you release the XP version before the bios designs 
were ready and now software engineering cannot keep up? Or, did 
Gateway run a promotion to keep selling computers and screw their 
customers that were stupid enough to buy a device with Millenium 
(and I write that branded product name with disdain)? Can someone at 
Microsoft explain why I will have to wait until the spring of 2002 
for my upgrade from Millenium to Windows XP? I`m thinking right now 
that if there were competition for operating systems, this type of 
`glitch' would not happen. If I could easily switch to a 
competing operating system right now, I would do it. I certainly 
would not run my small business like this. Show me your 
entrepreneurial spirit. Show me that you want to under promise and 
over deliver. Show me that you want to keep your customers happy 
enough so that no other competing operating system would be able to 
take customers from you. Show me that you care enough by letting 
Bill Gates read and answer this email. Better yet, send me my 
Gateway customized upgrade from Millenium to Windows XP!
    John Hynes
    Excidian, LLC
    (724) 728-8477
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004721

From: Patrick McCloskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons.
    First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly.
    Second, it forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, 
its attempt to prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is 
inadequate. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY STILL UP TO THEIR SAME OLD TRICKS AND 
THINK YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FOOLS.
    Patrick McCloskey



MTC-00004722

From: Pam Takada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement, I am opposed to the settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I wish to register my OPPOSITION TO THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT, 
which is too lenient. I am an ordinary citizen with no connection to 
the case. I feel that Microsoft is a monopoly and that the 
settlement is a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. Clearly, the 
evidence shows the monopolistic and predatory behavior of Microsoft.
    The settlement only serves Microsoft`s interest in further 
propagating its monopoly. A suitable settlement would include the 
breakup of Microsoft into 2 or more companies.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Kevin Takada
    916 San Ramon Ave.
    Huntsville, AL 35802
    [email protected]
    256-881-7750



MTC-00004723

From: jackie lightfield

[[Page 24575]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed terms of the settlement, in particular `that 
Microsoft does not have to disclose portions of the APIs that might 
`compromise the security of anti-piracy, antivirus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
systems' is problematic. Under such vague definitions, 
Microsoft would be able to avoid other provisions of the settlement 
by invoking this clause. I don`t think it was the intent of the 
courts to create a case law that is unspecified and therefor 
unenforceable.
    Much like there are Government regulations separating the 
consolidation of power amongst owners of broadcast and newspaper 
media companies in the same markets, there too should be regulations 
against the consolidation of of power amongst a single company in 
the technology market.
    It is imperative that the industry adopt standards in order to 
assure interoperability. This is the area that I hope the Department 
of Justice review and determine that an enforcement of published 
standards, long before the release of software, would provide 
competition an equal opportunity to develop for the operating system 
in question, and as a by product, create better software. Under the 
proposed settlement there are no time provisions, that would define 
clearly the period in which new APIs can be introduced and 
disseminated. Further, there should be a classification of where, 
within the operating system code, such portions of the API as it 
related to security of anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing, 
digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, are 
utilized, and what alternatives the Operating System will provide 
for third-party software to utilize such API calls. For example, a 
chat service that requires authentication, should not require that 
the chat service `recreate: authentication, encryption or 
other such code, in order to perform correctly on the operating 
system.
    regards
    jaqueline lightfield
    president
    http://www.blowtorch.com
    interactive publishing technologies
    tel 203/497-8832 fax 203/497-8836
    * http://www.yourct.com *



MTC-00004724

From: Ken Worthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:17pm
Subject: Software monopolies and Microsoft
    Hello.
    The government`s solution to its case against Microsoft, and its 
strategy in pursuing the case, are completely misguided and 
ineffective. In short, MICROSOFT`S MONOPOLOY MUST BE ELIMINATED, NOT 
MITIGATED, AT ITS SOURCE, BY FORCING THE CREATION OF OPEN STANDARDS, 
PARTICULARLY THE STANDARDIZATION OF THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE 
OPERATING SYSTEM AND APPLICATIONS AND THE STANDARDIZATION OF FILE 
FORMATS, SUCH AS WORD PROCESSING DOCUMENT FORMATS.
    The government has managed to get this case completely wrong. 
There is a fact about software development which is essential to 
Microsoft`s position which has been obscured by the whole 
conversation. That`s because the correct distinctions between more 
traditional technologies and software have not yet been discerned. 
This case is not, at its essence, about `unfair' 
practices, but rather aobut the very existence of a harmful and 
unnecessary monopoly control over what should be in the public 
domain_operating system and file format interface 
specifications. The fact is that monopoly proprietorship of 
operating system and file format interfaces is NOT essential to 
interoperability. A standard IS essential, and that standard will 
either be intentionally created/maintained, or it will be 
spontaneously generated by whichever company has an early market 
lead. In the case of the operating system / application interface, 
Microsoft was lucky enough to have an early lead, and its momentum 
in the control of the operating system interface has lead to a huge 
market advantage which has only grown and will continue to do so. In 
addition, they have been able to parlay their position as controller 
of that standard into the monopoly control of yet more standards, 
particularly the file format standards for word processing and 
spreadsheets.
    The very fact that the solutions arrived at involve simply 
penalizing Microsoft for unfair business practices and reforming 
those practices reveals that there is a real lack of understanding 
that it is not simply Microsoft`s use of their defacto monopoly 
position that is harmful, but rather the very existence of that 
monopoloy position, which, contrary to much of what they and others 
say is NOT essential for the health of the industry and innovation, 
but rather extremely DETRIMENTAL to those things. Evidence of the 
latter is the fact that Microsoft continues to produce defective, 
inefficient operating systems (which are continually purchased due 
to their monopoly position, NOT their quality), that are quite 
inferior to readily available alternatives which do not enjoy a 
monopoly hold on the operating system to application interface.
    Microsoft`s astounding success and wealth has been gained 
primarily due to their monopoly control over these interfaces. 
Because of that, they now should be forced to fund the creation of 
an independent industry consortium or standards board responsible 
for creating and developing the open interface standards, and they 
must be forced to conform to those standards in all of their 
products. At that point, the market will be truly open and free and 
other competitors will be able to actually compete with Microsoft. 
Microsoft knows full well that when this happens, their market hold 
will dissolve because other companies are more streamlined and 
efficient and will be able to produce these products at a fraction 
of the price. The result will be the release of the vast human 
resources now occupied by Microsoft, into more efficient and 
productive companies. This would be the most positive development in 
the software industry, perhaps ever.
    These thoughts come from about 15 years` experience as a 
software developer and observer of the software industry. Now that I 
am in graduate school, I see firsthand many more of the negative 
effects of Microsoft`s monopolies. In academia, as in much of the 
rest of society, word processing documents cannot usually be 
accessed by other people unless they are in Microsoft`s proprietary 
`Word' .doc format. That is simply because it has become 
the defacto standard format. There is no reason why one company must 
control the defacto standard format; it could as well be controlled 
by an open standards board who are responsible for its maintenance 
and technical development. Also, we are effectively required by the 
defacto operating system standard to have Microsoft Office as our 
operating system for computers; this is because many of our scholars 
require certain programs which only work on that operating system. 
If Microsoft did not own the defacto standard operating system 
interface, ANY vendor would be able to produce operating systems 
which would run all of those applications that we need. The 
interface itself would be developed in such a way as to benefit 
consumers and the industry as a whole rather than being developed 
primarily at the discretion and for the benefit of a single company.
    The fact that it is the operating system / application interface 
which Microsoft controls (and is the defacto standard) is obscured 
in most of the discussions that I have seen in this case. Government 
lawyers have ASSUMED that it is the operating system itself, rather 
than the interface to it which is central to the monopoly, but this 
is false. The following analogy should illustrate the point: In the 
world of transportation, imagine that one single company owned all 
of the information (and patents) needed to construct a road or 
highway (other companies might be able to make railroads, for which 
the exact design specifications are public knowledge). This company 
basically owns the interface between roads and cars. Other companies 
can produce cars to drive on their roads (because they publish that 
side of their interface), but other companies cannot produce roads 
on which those same cars can drive, because patent law prohibits 
them from building roads to those secret, proprietary 
specifications_the road/car interface specification. You would 
think it is absurd, but this is exactly the situation we are in with 
software. One company got an early lead in producing desktop 
operating systems, gained momentum from the market`s deep need for a 
standard interface, and has reaped the rewards ever since, to the 
detriment of industry and consumers. Please make Microsoft give up 
its proprietary control of operating system and file format 
interface specifications, and create an open standards board to 
administer industry-wide standards for these things.
    Thank you very much,
    Kenneth Worthy
    University of California, Berkeley



MTC-00004725

From: Taran Rampersad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 9:29pm
Subject: Public Comment Regarding Microsoft Inc.`s Case

[[Page 24576]]

    To Whom It May Concern:
    For the record, I am a Software Developer who has worked in the 
industry for almost 10 years. I have used many Microsoft products, 
and have enjoyed the increasing abilities of software systems 
developed by Microsoft. I also enjoy using other operating systems, 
but as a software developer, I have to follow market trends to keep 
myself fed_regardless of the market trends.
    However, it is apparent that Microsoft has attempted to maintain 
a monopoly on the Internet Web Browser market to any casual software 
user. It is more apparent to a software developer who work within 
Microsoft operating systems. The technical aspects involved in the 
operating system itself, specifically, development with the 
Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of `.Net' 
technology marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so) 
to Internet Explorer, and the operating system. Furthermore, 
specific training programs such as MCSE (Microsoft Certified 
Software Engineer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer) 
are geared towards maintaining the Internet Browser market by way of 
gearing Microsoft Certified individuals (who pay for courses and 
tests!) to use only Microsoft Products. Operating Systems. Software. 
Software Development. In an internet enabled world, these are the 
tools for maintaining a monopoly on the Internet Browser Market.
    One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on 
the level that Microsoft Inc. has. Yet that is my point. Nobody 
should. Freedom of Choice.
    The newer versions of Windows have the internet technologies 
wrapped in them. This IS an obvious attempt to maintain a monopoly 
on the Internet Browser market. They may be able to prove that they 
did not do it `on purpose`, but they have done it. If I run over a 
man with my car, and I broke a traffic law while doing so, the 
offense is manslaughter. It I planned to do it (premeditated), it`s 
Murder 1.
    The fact remains that a man would be dead. The fact remains that 
Microsoft has leveled the playing field. Odds are that when this is 
read, it will be read on a Windows NT 4.0 machine. Why? Because the 
U.S. Government has certified Windows NT 4.0 as a secure operating 
system. Furthermore, this mail message will probably be read through 
another one of Microsoft`s applications.
    The U.S. Government, for lack of any other `secure` operating 
system, has gone with the highest bidder. Neil Armstrong quipped 
about going to the moon on everything built by the lowest bidder, 
and here the United States states that we`ll go with the ONLY 
software manufacturer that creates an operating system.
    This seems counterintuitive. Freedom of Choice. If you need more 
proof than the software that the reader of this document is using, 
and my ability to predict that, I`m at a loss.
    These two points highlight the fact that the average American 
consumer is paying more than once for the same software_first 
as consumers, then as taxpayers. When banks charge twice for ATM 
withdrawals, we cringe and say that it may be legal, but it is 
obviously immoral. Given, the hardware manufacturer is hiding the 
price of the operating system on new computer systems, the fact 
remains the same. This is a sticky situation, but legal recourse in 
the interest of the people of the United States (and the rest of the 
world!) should contain the following items:
    (1) Microsoft products_or products of any software 
manufacturer_must be sold as separate items by computer 
vendors. Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other software 
manufacturers then also have a chance to compete. Installation of 
the USER SELECTED software can remain free.
    (2) 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.
    (3) The specifications of Microsoft`s past, present and future 
document and network formats must be made public, so that documents 
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other 
makers, on Microsoft`s AND other operating systems. This is in 
addition to opening the Windows Application Program Interface 
(`Windows API`, the set of `hooks' that allow other 
parties to write applications for Windows operating systems), which 
is already part of the proposed settlement.
    (4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software Engineering 
Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well as insight 
into their development process for Operating Systems. SEI level 3 is 
required by the United States Government for software companies that 
supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999). This 
certification was created to protect the government from software 
manufacturers that had no software development process. This same 
certification should protect the average consumer, AND insight into 
the Software Development Process for creation of their operating 
systems would give software manufacturer`s a chance to keep up with 
Microsoft.
    (5) Device Driver information for new operating systems MUST be 
made public prior to the release of the operating system by a 
minimum of 6 months. This is VERY important when dealing with future 
web enabled embedded devices. This is also very important to the 
average consumer_they get a better product!
    This judgement is not only of import to the United States, where 
it is a national issue. It is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue, since 
the monopoly itself extends to all corners of the world. Judgement 
in this case MUST be fair to the consumer, because future cases 
along these lines will look toward this precedent. And, in future, 
it may not be as domestic an issue.
    Furthermore, if Microsoft Inc. were a foreign company, this 
would be seen as a security issue. It should be seen this way 
despite the fact that Microsoft is a domestic software manufacturer 
for the SAME reasons.
    Please realize that the implications in an internet based 
society reach further than the next few years.
    They affect society ad infinitum.
    Thank you,
    Taran Rampersad
    2546 Oak Trail West, #203
    Clearwater, FL 33764.



MTC-00004726

From: Derek Chen-Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Derek Chen-Becker and I am currently a Graduate 
student at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri. I am 
writing to voice my concern with the proposed remedy for the 
Microsoft Anti-trust settlement. Specifically, I feel that the 
proposed remedy does not in any way recognize the significance of 
non-commercial works and the importance of maintaining open 
standards to the process of innovation in the computer industry. The 
Internet, originally DarpaNet, was conceived on the basis of open 
standards to ensure interoperability between disparate systems. The 
proposed remedies would allow Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in 
the personal computer market to impose de facto standards without 
requiring that these standards are open for interoperability 
purposes. Without this requirement, Microsoft can effectively stifle 
competition in any one area by changing its standards enough to 
break competing products.
    As a graduate student, I am aware of many projects written for 
non-Microsoft operating systems which are used to allow 
compatibility between systems. For instance, the Samba project 
(http://www.samba.org) provides network filesystem 
compatibility between Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating systems. 
This project is non-commercial and is effectively in the public 
domain. Section I.1 specifies that all terms be reasonable and non-
discriminatory (RAND), but what is RAND for a commercial entity is 
hardly RAND for a non-profit project composed of volunteers.
    I feel that without modifications to the settlement that provide 
for requirements of open standards, Microsoft will have little 
incentive to change its current practice of breaking 
interoperability with non-Microsoft systems.
    Thank You,
    Derek Chen-Becker
    Derek Chen-Becker
    [email protected]
    http://cec.wustl.edu/dwb2



MTC-00004727

From: Craig Ogle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/17/01 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an Australian Computer user for the last 15 years I have seen 
the rise of personal computers. This has been an amazing journey. 
The darkest part of computing has been the rise of the Microsoft 
Corporation as it has constricted competition and forced IT`S 
standards upon the computing world. I think the settlement that 
Microsoft wants to reach is a slap in the face for justice (world 
not just American). This corporation who has destroyed countless 
companies, has to be held accountable for its actions.

[[Page 24577]]

    Please as a concerned world citizen do not let Microsoft 
railroad the justice system at it has done the computer world.
    Craig Ogle
    4 Sylvia Crt Eatons Hill
    Queensland Australia 4037



MTC-00004728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 12:17am
Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST
    `Red Hat'  
wrote:
    November was a busy month for Microsoft and the US judicial 
system. It began when the Department of Justice announced it had 
reached a settlement of the antitrust suit against the company. The 
DOJ had previously found Microsoft to be a monopolist, but the 
settlement included no punishment for past actions and left doubt as 
to its protections against future monopolistic practices.
    The DOJ is collecting your letters about the settlement via 
email. We encourage you to share your opinions.
    send your letters to: [email protected]
    That`s my opinion. The global position of Microsoft`s Windows 
has made it the world`s leader in operating systems. That is ok as 
long as it is considered as a market competition. But, when such a 
leader position is used to remove competitive products in areas that 
are not so close to (or just not needed to be used by) an operating 
system_then it is the monopol.
    It makes me wonder why the DOJ (or any other US official) 
doesn`t include any punishment for past actions, because that might 
motivate other similar cases. In the same time, looks that such 
`justice' is very `gentle' to the monopolyst 
that is an US company. Would it be the same when a non-US company 
behaved like Mocrosoft? It won`t be good if such 
`justice' works for only those players who might belong 
to the US `national interests', but does not for others.
    Regards,
    Misko



MTC-00004729

From: David C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    `I would like to express my opposition to the settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am not a lawyer but a user of 
personal computers, a tool essential to my livelihood for 
approximately 20 years. I have used many personal computing 
operating systems over the years, including those made by Microsoft 
(MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 
4.0 and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore, IBM, Texas Instruments 
and Apple Computer. My opinion is that operating systems other than 
Microsoft`s have been superior in features and performance at each 
stage of development of the personal computing platform. Yet 
Microsoft achieved a monopoly, i.e. in excess of 70 percent of the 
personal computer market. Microsoft`s illegal behavior in 
maintaining and expanding that monopoly to in excess of 90 per cent 
of the market effectively destroyed all existing competitive 
personal computing operating systems in the process, save one, and 
perhaps prevented others from being developed.
    `I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Second, it 
forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to 
prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is inadequate.
    `Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting 
illegal acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a minuscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement.
    `Microsoft was also convicted of illegally tying its 
products to its monopoly operating system but that conviction was 
overturned on appeal based on the standard used by the District 
Court judge to convict Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the 
District Court for further consideration. A decision to not pursue 
the illegal tying issue is formalized in the settlement even though 
the Justice Department announced that it would not pursue it before 
entering into the settlement. In my experience it is indeed 
Microsoft`s tying of its products to its monopoly operating system 
that has been the most damaging to competition in the personal 
computing market. Microsoft was initially found guilty of illegal 
tying and the remanded issue should be pursued. The settlement 
formally forecloses the opportunity to do so.
    `Finally, the settlement is inadequate to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its practices of illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an unrepentant criminal. As an 
example, its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that he does 
not even know what a monopoly is after Microsoft was convicted of 
being one. It is totally incredulous to believe that Microsoft will 
simply go forth and be a good corporate citizen. While the 
settlement contains provisions to enforce its restrictions through 
oversight, the burden is on the government to catch Microsoft in the 
act and, if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once again to 
proceedings such as these. Where is the incentive for Microsoft to 
comply? My mind boggles in that this is the second time that a 
settlement of this nature has been reached with the same convict. 
The second is no more satisfactory than the first. Any resolution of 
this case against Microsoft must provide appropriate incentives for 
the unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.'
    You can`t be serious about letting Microsoft off the hook !
    Sincerely,
    David C. Hill
    Arvada, Colorado
    `Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, 
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, 
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the 
success of liberty.'
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    1/20/61
    Dave Hill  :-)



MTC-00004730

From: Ted McFadden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Suit
    To whom it may concern:
    I was made aware of this e-mail address by an online forum, and 
wish to contribute my opinion to the trial, for whatever it may be 
worth. Microsoft makes itself to appear harmless, but in fact they 
are a gigantic international monster, crushing any and all 
competition in its path to maintain its own kingdom. While this in 
itself may not be a bad thing, consider that the ideal Microsoft 
world basically consists of us `low-life' consumers 
feeding them money on their own terms. Microsoft does not care 
whether the customers are happy; they simply want money, and they 
will do anything in their power to get it. Recently, Microsoft has 
been issuing progressively worse software (starting with the release 
of their Windows 95 operating system, and continuing today in the 
form of their Windows XP operating system), but a lack of a real 
choice has subjected many (including myself) to Microsoft`s whim.
    As an American who believes in the freedom to choose, I object 
to Microsoft`s continued abuse of their monopoly power, especially 
after having been disciplined once. Microsoft was given a second 
chance by the 1995 Consent Decree, issued by the highest law of the 
land (our own Supreme Court). They not only disobeyed the Decree, 
they insulted the very heart of our judicial system by doing so. The 
punishment for doing so should *NOT* give them the chance to extend 
their monopoly power further, as the current proposed settlement 
would allow. I, personally, am all in favor of Microsoft donating 
money instead of software and hardware, to let the said schools 
choose their own preferred route. Not only that, Microsoft should 
make information about competition available to the said schools, so 
the schools can make an informed choice. If the schools choose to go 
with Microsoft`s software, then so be it.... at least they had the 
ability to choose.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Ridout `Ted' McFadden



MTC-00004731

From: John McBride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 1:38am

[[Page 24578]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As stated on the subject line, I am writing you this letter in 
regard to the proposed settlement between the United States Justice 
Department and the Microsoft Corporation. I must tell you up front 
that I am not a lawyer or economic specialist. My only real interest 
in the case stems from my profession as a computer programmer, a 
means with which I have earned my living (to some extent) since the 
mid 1980s.
    As outlined at the DOJ website, I have reviewed the various 
sections of the document found at :
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    As I am a simple person, I am partioning this message into three 
parts. The first part will address the shortcomings I perceive in 
the proposal, the second part will address what I believe to be 
positive areas of the proposal, and the final section will be a 
declaration of my personal concerns about the overall proposal.
    I will quote the portions of the document that concern me, then 
follow the quote with some type of comment.
    Part One: Shortcomings of the Proposal:
    `Section III. Prohibited Conduct'
    `A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...'
    `B. Microsoft`s provision of Windows Operating System 
Products to Covered OEMs...'
    `C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any 
OEM...'
    Microsoft`s upcoming strategy is to replace hardware OEMs 
(Dell,HP,Compaq) with their own hardware platform, and derivitives 
of the same, known as `The Xbox'. These prohibitions are 
meaningless in such a scenario.
    `Section III. Prohibited Conduct'
    `E. Starting nine months after the submission of this 
proposed...'
    `D. Starting at the earlier of the release of...'
    Part of the text includes the wording `..for the sole 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product...' Does this mean that any code written must, at the 
time of execution, be connected on at least one end to a Microsoft 
product? In other words, Microsoft is guaranteed 50% market share 
during a transaction instance? If this interpretation can be made, 
it is hardly a penalty_it is guaranteed market share.
    `Section III. Prohibited Conduct'
    `F.2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement 
relating...' The wording is so complex that it will be, in 
practice, easily circumvented.
    `Section III. Prohibited Conduct'
    `J.1; J.2 ...' IP, Piracy, Hackers...this is an 
enormous loophole; an open hoop that Microsoft will jump through in 
an instant. These two sections, in many ways, invalidate the entire 
proposal.
    Part Two: Positive Areas of the Proposal:
    Anything exposing the inner workings of the Windows System, both 
the protocols and APIs, so that programmers, researchers and 
scientists can make their products work efficiently and 
competitively with the Microsoft Platform are beneficial. I hope 
that Section III.E,D can be interpreted in such a way that no 
Microsoft product need be present in the transaction using such 
exposed protocols and APIs.
    Part Three: Declaration of Personal Concerns:
    My primary personal concern is that, at nearly every technical 
conference I attend, there is an increased Microsoft presence at a 
rate that far exceeds the market saturation of General Motors 
(1950`s) and IBM (1970`s)_both of which had dealings with the 
US Government regarding antitrust issues_in the American 
marketplace Given the extreme market penetration, the continuing 
patterns of abuse, and a marketing department that (quite frankly) 
lies at every opportunity, all I can say about Microsoft (with 
regards to this proposal) is the following statement:
    `As a result of this proposal, Microsoft will have an 
increased presence on computers and computing devices in the near 
and long term. Consumers will continue to have less choice in the 
computing environments they use, as such, the proposed settlement 
will not have accomplished its goal_to end the Microsoft 
monopoly on computing devices'.
    If the DOJ and Federal Government were serious about increasing 
consumer choice, you would have found a way to mandate Operating 
Environments (in general) on a percentage basis, in much the way 
broadcasting and monetary environments are regulated. Indeed, the 
political arm would have insured that no platform ever control more 
than, say, thirty percent of the user or server environment. Until 
the Federal Government and the DOJ acknowlege this reality, my 
choice in computing environments is, quite simply, Microsoft. The 
proposal has not, and will not, change this reality.
    Thank you for your fine service, and I strongly appreciate this 
opportunity to express my opinions.
    Sincerely,
    John McBride,
    North Edwards, CA



MTC-00004732

From: Scott Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 2:07am
Subject: Settlement Comments
    Dear Renata Hesse;
    I wish to go on record as I feel I have been materially harmed, 
as have all businesses and software developers in America. Microsoft 
sets a standard for compatability for nearly all computer systems in 
the United States. Competing systems by other vendors, such as 
Compaq, IBM, RedHat, SGI are frequently and genereally rejected for 
applications for which they are technically superior and more cost 
effective because they do not meet this standard of compatability 
set by Microsoft Corporation. The standard that Microsoft sets 
shifts to suit Microsofts needs. When competing products are able to 
interoperate with their file formats, programming conventions, or 
network protocols, Microsoft quickly changes the standards. As a 
result, people and companies genereally fear to use anything not 
endorced by Microsoft, as they know it will soon be incompatable. 
This afflicts even vendors who wish to support Microsoft, by 
building their software exclusively on this platform. Any company 
that makes good or useful software for Microsoft quickly finds that 
Microsoft has a version of their own software that is tightly 
integrated with Windows that is difficult to remove or replace. This 
has happended to Lotus, to dBase, to Netscape, to Harvard Graphics, 
to WinAmp_and hundreds of other companies and products.
    A previous computer software and hardware monopoly, before being 
broken up, held the market from any outside innovation, and provided 
standard software programming processes and computer systems. These 
systems are the heart of many large companies, including my current 
employer, Qwest. These systems became deeply entrenched, after 15 
years of monopoly. It has proven impossible to replace these 
computers or move the software off of them, due to their proprietary 
nature. The backbones of thousands of companies like Qwest/USWest 
are these ailing, proprietary, hulking beasts. They cannot be 
upgraded any longer to deal with the new demands increased capacity 
and business models have placed on them. Modern software design 
processes and methods don`t apply to them. Even today, as each year 
goes by, it becomes harder and harder to replace them.
    Closed, secret systems owned by a single vendor are creating 
time-bombs for the future. While businesses know they will never be 
able to run software for Windows on any other system, they are 
failing to consider the fact that the face of computing will have 
completely changed in 10 years. Unless Microsoft`s protocols, file 
formats, and `API' (software`s specification for 
interfacing to the operating system) are not intentionally 
minipulated to maintain incompatability and secrecy, we will face 
this same legacy, and this same disaster, again. Billions of dollars 
will be spent maintaining systems from a previous generation, while 
businesses information backbones could easily be taking on new 
shapes and dimentions. Every business bullied into using Microsoft 
products today for fear of being subjected to incompatability will 
find the future holds much greater threats.
    This monopoly will essentially be leagized if Microsoft`s offer 
is accepted. The corporations, software developers, computer 
manufacturers, and consumers deserve better then this. Microsoft can 
maintain a viable product and business without this. The quality of 
Microsoft`s product will not noticibly deteriate, and will likely 
improve, if they are not held in a status where they can refuse to 
interoperate with other vendor`s products. Data and resources being 
shared between computers will produce a more diverse, competitive 
market. Businesses will be able to elect to use software, hardware, 
and other technology that best suits their needs, including new, 
untested, experimental and futuristic ideas. Businesses will be at 
liberty to plan and build for a future, and to take this future in 
their own hands.

[[Page 24579]]

    Thank you sincerely for your time and attention on this grave 
matter.
    Scott David Walters
    16231 E Balsam Dr
    Fountain Hills, AZ 85268



MTC-00004733

From: Christopher Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 2:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Apparently it is quite impossible for non-technologically 
enhanced people to look at the situation logically-especially US 
Justices. Trust in that if Microsoft is penalized to the letter and 
spirit of the law-that the sky won`t fall. There are alternatives to 
Microsoft. It is incredulous to my mind that Microsoft has been 
allowed to thrive. Apparently Mr. Gates can buy ANYthing-even 
justice. I wish you all a lifetime of windows for your actions to 
date, may you live with unstable operating systems. thousands of 
computer viruses, and a stagnant tech sector due to your laissez-
faire policies. Not to mention a megalomaniac named Gates. Usually I 
am sympathetic to people of Mr. Gates nature, for he is truly a 
unique individual. A real shame that due to his business practices 
and unrepentant behavior he is no better than a criminal, and since 
he is super-wealthy can buy what he wants. For myself I will not 
purchase Microsoft software, nor will I use it unless it is free, 
and superior. Fortunately Microsoft Macintosh products are superior 
in this area where Microsoft has had to compete with other Macintosh 
products. Microsoft CAN do a good job of software if they have to. 
Why do they have to under the settlement you propose?
    I would rather not service Microsoft OS based computers in my 
work, and since I an a Macintosh specialist I don`t have to. Even 
the new Windows XP will crash if a real load is put into the OS-not 
to mention the back orifices that report the contents of your hard 
drive to Redmond every time you connect to the internet. I realize 
that Microsoft has a piracy of software problem-but I am not 
prepared to live in a world where some engineer can look at the 
contents of my hard disk whenever I use the net. No thanks America, 
I`ll stick with my Mac.



MTC-00004734

From: Karl Fusaris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 6:37am
Subject: Rewarding Crime
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Rewarding criminals in exchange for their crimes sends the wrong 
message to everyone.
    Yours truly,
    Karl Fusaris



MTC-00004735

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 7:34am
Subject: [email protected]
    Just upgraded to windows XP and wanted to share some concerns I 
have as a consumer.
    During the upgrade process from Windows 98 MS informed me that 
Java would no longer work with my new system and must be removed for 
the upgrade. It also informed me that my Adaptec CD software would 
have to be removed as well.
    While the Java issue makes me laugh the Adaptec issue IS 
SERIOUS. The reason being the software WILL WORK ON WINDOWS 2000 BUT 
NOT XP. XP uses the EXACT same `kernal` as Windows 2000. So to use 
the analogy of a car I should be able to use the same gas but now I 
have to visit a different gas pump for CDs!
    On further examination I find that MS is making it difficult for 
me to work with MP3 but PUSHING their own WMA format for CD data. I 
COULD NOT EVEN READ my Quicken data from a CD-RW disk because XP 
changed the driver.
    Now for the cleancher ...
    MS HAS LOCKED DOWN ACCESS TO DRIVERS. IF YOU WRITE A DRIVER FOR 
MS THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT NOW. So now unless I do a deal with MS my 
driver would NOT GET USED by the average consumer. MS will use this 
to force upon consumers hardware and media that the consumers will 
have NO CHOICE on.
    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop this. The American software market 
will go to Japan or Europe if the bright minds in this country are 
not given access to the OS.
    MS was born on 3rd base and wants everyone to think they got 
there by hard work. Well if MS is TRULY a competitive company then 
shouldn`t their application divisions have to play by the same rules 
as everyone else?
    MS only has to hit it out of the infield for THEM to get a 
homerun. For everyone else writing software you have to swing blind 
folded and HOPE you hit it.
    I see no way for a software company to make money writing 
software that run on Windows. MS continues to dump on the market and 
sit on their cash. If an oil company was in the car buinsess would 
you let them give away CARS?
    Then how can an OS company give away applications while still 
making money selling them? Why can`t everyone see that if Ford and 
Exxon where the same company and DESTROYED ALL THE OTHER ONES that 
it would be a BAD THING. Operating sytems and application software 
SHOULD BE considered seperate markets. IF REVENUE IS GAINED. MAKE MS 
GIVE AWAY EITHER THE APPLICATIONS OR THE OS. MAKE THEM PICK.
    No other software company can give away free code without 
someway to make a profit.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Tidwell
    Raleigh, NC



MTC-00004736

From: Andrew Kuenzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is absolute joke that you would allow this company to 
settle when you have mountains of evidence and countless witnesses 
to the fact that this company has demonstarted, and continous to 
demonstrate monopolistic behaviors. It really makes me wonder what 
kind of justice we have when you have solid evidence to a crime, and 
from my last review of the laws of the United States, monopolistic 
behavior is a crime, and you choose to settle instead of procecute 
to the fullest extent. It would not surprise me to read that the 
justice department will also settle with Bin Laden for 2 years 
probation or a settlement of $100,000. You always take the easy way 
out. There are reasons laws are created. Either you enforce the laws 
or you change them.



MTC-00004737

From: PRAXIS Institute
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 8:37am
Subject: MS Settlement
    Greetings and good day.
    We are requesting information on how to provide services to over 
20,000 low income, at-risk, under-served, under-represented minority 
and ethnic youth. The Microsoft settlement with the DOJ is an answer 
to our prayers. We currently operate computer repair classes for our 
youth and families, but we need software and computers for their 
homes and their schools. Lots of schools. Could you please give us 
the relevant contact information from both the U.S. and Microsoft?
    Thank you. We can be reached at 215.769.2441, 215.514.7680, 
781.239.0115, and through this e-mail address.
    Horace Arthur Trent III
    President and CEO
    PRAXIS Institute
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004738

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my strong reservations regarding the 
settlement reached with Microsoft. A company which limits consumers 
access to competitors software should not receive such a liberal 
settlement. The source code for the Windows platform should be open 
source so that all vendors would have an equal footing. There should 
be strict restrictions on the aggressive marketing policies of this 
company.
    Best Regards
    Immanuel Babu
    860/ 543 6246



MTC-00004739

From: Marc Schafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 9:14am
Subject: comments
    Attached, please find my comments regarding the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit.
    Marc Schafer
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing this letter to express my dissatisfaction with the 
proposed settlement against the Microsoft monopoly. I have worked in 
the software industry for 10 years now. Great strides have been 
taken in that time and Microsoft has made many contributions; 
however, they have used their power and control in the market to 
limit consumer choice.
    They have taken advantage of their operating system monopoly to 
take over

[[Page 24580]]

every area of application software seen as profitable. They do this 
by providing their own internal developers with the Applications 
Programming Interface (API) for the Windows operating system well 
before the public has access to it. Some parts of the API are never 
published at all. Microsoft has also used bundling to great 
advantage. The anti-trust action started as a result of their unfair 
competitive practices used against Netscape and the results can 
already be seen. Microsoft has used it monopoly in web browsers to 
begin modifying existing web standards into proprietary, 
undocumented extensions that render some web pages unviewable in 
Netscape. Many content creators using Microsoft tools are not even 
aware that are using these extensions resulting in numerous pages on 
the web that simply don`t work with anything but Microsoft tools. 
Microsoft enjoys unrivaled market power and uses its wealth to 
maintain this dominance. Licensing agreements with computer vendors 
ensure that the discount for ordering a machine with Windows 
installed is almost nothing while the retail purchase price of the 
operating system is large. As a frequent linux user, I have also 
seen companies producing software for both operating systems get 
purchased by Microsoft and forsake their linux products within 
months afterwards.
    Despite their numerous abuses, the current proposed settlement 
does nothing to improve the comptetive situation. In fact, donations 
to schools will only cement Microsoft`s position by training a new 
generation of computer users in a Microsoft only environment. The 
remedies against the monopoly must include the following:
    1. Microsoft products must be listed 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.
    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 
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.
    3. Applications in markets where Microsoft enjoys a monopoly due 
to past anti-competitive behavior must be made available on non-
Windows operating systems. For example, Internet Explorer should be 
ported to Linux/Unix along with the Microsoft Office Suite. Selling 
these products on other operating systems would generate revenue for 
the company yet they refuse to do it because it weakens their 
stranglehold on the market.
    4. All 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 
they are trying to do right now by subverting Java and introducing 
extensions in their web server which are undocumented and work only 
with Internet Explorer.
    5. Microsoft must make available for sale a `bare-
bones' version of its operating system to prevent bundling. 
Although great arguments have gone on about what constitutes a 
`bare-bones' operating system, there are examples to 
work from. Linux, for example, still fits entirely on a single 1.4MB 
floppy disk.
    6. Microsoft must be prevented from entering the hardware 
market. The introduction of the XBox clearly paves the way for a 
future for where Microsoft software will be the only choice and it 
will only work well on their own hardware. Without these remedies 
there will be no other operating systems, web browsers, or office 
productivity suites. The United States is a world leader in 
technology for the digital age. It is time for Microsoft`s control 
over the future of the entire industry to be broken so that other 
innovators may have their chance to shape the future.
    Sincerely, Marc Schafer



MTC-00004740

From: Brendan Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    Just wanting to convey my disbelief at the proposed settlement 
for the Microsoft anti-trust case. Allowing Microsoft to provide 
software to schools will have the effect of strengthening their 
position, not punishing them for past vioalations and preventing new 
ones. Any settlement MUST punish Microsoft for their past abuse of 
their monopoly position, prevent future abuses, compensate victims 
of the abuse, and allow current and future competitors a level 
`playing field`. Nothing else is good enough; nothing else will send 
out a clear message that huge corporations such as this will not be 
allowed to abuse their extremely priveleged position.
    Regards,
    Brendan J Moore
    23 Buller Road
    Brighton
    BN2 4BH
    United Kingdom



MTC-00004741

From: Thomas Diehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 9:40am
Subject: Public Comment
    I usually do not comment on issues such as this trial, but I am 
baffled by how much leeway Microsoft has had in determining its own 
punishment for abusing monopoly power.
    If a person commits and is convicted of murder, there is very 
little disagreement on whether jail time is appropriate punishment. 
The defendant doesn`t decide the nature of the punishment. While I 
understand that there is little well defined precedent for this 
case, that does not justify repeated rebuttals of punishment until 
they fit within the control of Microsoft.
    I would like to add my own suggestion for part of the punishment 
appropriate to the crime. One of the reasons Microsoft maintains a 
monopoly is control of the Office software sales. I would think 
removing proprietary rights to any file formats of current and 
future (5+ years) mocrosoft products would be appropriate. I believe 
that if this is done, it would allow competitors access to the 
market since purchasing microsft software would not be required for 
compatibility. This could have addressed issues with Java 
compatibility, preventing the continous upgrade path Microsoft 
forced on the office software consumers, and several other area 
where Microsoft is trying to gain control, such as video and audio 
formats, graphics drivers and others.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this. as I have watched 
this case through several phases, the arrogance and poor morality of 
Microsoft has made itself readily apparent. I believe something must 
be done that will actually changed how business is done at 
Microsoft. The current settlement does not appear to offer any 
repercussions that could prevent microsoft from maintaining a 
monopoly through abuse of that monopoly.
    Sincerely yours,
    Thomas Diehl



MTC-00004742

From: Jason Glazer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the proposed settlement will prevent Microsoft 
from abusing its monopoly position in the software market in the 
future. I call for structural remedies. Innovation is the 
cornerstone of the software industry yet innovation throughout the 
industry has slowed to a trickle. Microsoft provides innovative new 
features slowly in a measured approach so that they can ensure 
continued upgrades to software in future years. Office and Internet 
Explorer have seen very few real innovations since competition has 
ceased. No real competition or innovation is possible unless the 
competitive threat that exists today as Microsoft is removed from 
the industry. Microsoft prevents new companies from starting based 
simply on the fear that if they become successful they will face 
Microsoft.
    Instead of the current settlement, please recommend that 
Microsoft be broken into many small companies (about 20). Each 
`sub-Microsoft' would be provided the entire set of 
source code and 1/20th of the employees chosen by lottery. These 
companies not be allowed to rejoin in any form for at least 15 years 
nor allow any of the companies to hire any programmer from any of 
the competing companies for the same 15 years. Any collaboration 
between the companies would be prohibited unless done in a open 
forum that anyone could attend for the cost of attendance. If 
Microsoft has been shown to have abused its monopoly position than 
only structural remedies can have any lasting effect.
    Jason Glazer

[[Page 24581]]



MTC-00004744

From: Mark Carrara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 12:57pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft products, specifically the Windows 
Operating system I do not feel that the proposed settlement is a 
fair remedy for the illegal activities that Microsoft was found 
guilty of committing. Contrary to Microsoft`s current spin on the 
matter, they were found guilty and the verdict was upheld by the 
appellate court. The only question open is that of a fair remedy. I 
feel that the remedy proposed by the current DOJ is based on 
political considerations and not what is fair for users and the 
country as a whole.
    One argument put forth by the supporters of Microsoft is that it 
is in the `national interest' that they not have harsh 
remedies applied. With the rapid reduction in the cost of computer 
components the operating system is becoming one of the most 
expensive `part' of a modern computer. If Microsoft was 
not allowed to maintain the monopoly it has on operating systems, 
costs to consumers, including businesses, would be reduced, 
increasing profits throughout the economy.
    Any remedy needs to address the ability of purchasers of 
computers be allowed to reduce their costs by not buying Windows 
when they purchase a new computer. Also sanctions must be put in 
place to prevent Microsoft from extending their operating system 
monopoly to other areas, such as the Internet.
    Mark Carrara Technology Coordinator School District of Gilman 
325 N. 5th St Gilman, WI 54433



MTC-00004745

From: David J. Liszewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I suggest that this remedy be implemented and enforced as soon 
as possible. Today it is impossible to buy an Intel-based personal 
computer without paying for Microsoft software. I hope that the 
penalties are a sufficient deterrent: any amount less than hundreds 
of millions or billions is immaterial to them.
    Sincerely,
    David J. Liszewski



MTC-00004746

From: Chris Compton
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/18/01 2:12pm
Subject: Commentary on Microsoft settlement
    While the DOJ settlement does seem a little light to me, it is 
the best offer on the table for the United States. The other states 
want to destroy Microsoft, you cannot let this happen. Despite the 
personal interest of the people at Oracle, Sun, et. al., Microsoft 
has propelled the microcomputer industry foreword to a standard. 
This benefits everyone (including people that don`t own computers). 
I have been a professional programmer since 1989, and while I still 
prefer the Mac OS, I believe that especially with the current 
economy we need to SETTLE THIS CASE BASED ON THE DOJ RECOMMENDATION 
IMMEDIATELY.
    Thanks,
    Chris C.
    P.S. In my personal opinion Larry Ellison is even less relevant 
than Steve Jobs.



MTC-00004748

From: Alexander Hutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Remedy
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am writing to you to express my extreme displeasure with the 
proposed anti-trust settlement.
    The reasons for my displeasure are simple. If, in fact, 
Microsoft is a monopoly and has abused its position as found by the 
court system, then the settlement only serves to strengthen that 
monopoly, NOT remedy the situation.
    It will not seriously punish Microsoft for the following 
reasons:
    1.) The cost of goods provided do not equate to a `cost 
detriment' for the amount stated. Software, aside from the 
time to develop, the $1.00 or so it would cost to produce the CD and 
paper goods, only has value to the consumer. So even a billion 
dollars worth of software `donated' to schools might 
only actually cost Microsoft a hundred thousand dollars worth of 
$.02 compact discs.
    2.) Microsoft has an enormous cash position. Even if they were 
to somehow be forced to pay 1/10 of their liquid assets, they`d 
still have more money than 99.999% of the businesses in the world, 
and certainly a grossly large amount when compared to various 
competitors. So much cash that, it would not put them or their 
business practices at risk, nor would it serve to curtail their 
monopolistic practices at all. Furthermore, the remedy will actually 
HELP Microsoft. If, for example, you were a rich Arab speaking 
nation that desired to influence the western world into increasing 
trade with your homeland. One way you could naturally affect that 
outcome would be if all children attending American schools were to 
learn Arabic. What better way to make sure that happens than to 
donate what seems like a huge sum of goods and services to the 
`impoverished' school systems of America? How much 
better for you if your donation actually didn`t tangibly cost you 
any real considerable cash flow? Soon, these schools, whose foreign 
language programs have been languishing without proper funding, 
would almost automatically be producing young citizens to be fluent 
in Arabic_thus increasing the probability that when they 
entered the job pool they would use these skills to betterment of 
themselves and said Arab nation. In the same way, planting Microsoft 
products in schools (one of the few niche markets that Microsoft 
does not own 95% market share) will only encourage future use of 
their products and services, and wide spread adoption of their 
technologies. This remedy actually hurts competition, and increases 
their market share even more. Please consider other options, I would 
recommend options that actually increase the adoption of open 
standards authored and steered by multi-vendor bodies.
    Thank You
    Alex Hutton
    Principal
    Alexander Hutton, L.L.C.
    http://www.alexhutton.com
    614.596.0967



MTC-00004749

From: ross
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/18/01 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement IMHO Microsoft is a monoply.
    1) OS dominance leveraged to maintain/create Application 
dominance
    2) Application platform exclusivity to maintain/expand OS 
dominance Remedy/Solutions:
    1) Seperate the OS from the Apps.: seperate the development/
marketing decisions of MS-OS from MS-APPS, this may 
require seperation of money/ownership.
    2) If MS provides an application free/below market value, then 
they should have to garantee it remains free for lets say 10years, 
that way we ensure it is not leveraging its OS profits for 
APPlication development. (Maybe allow pay-for distribution if app is 
pulled from market for 2yrs prior to return to the market place)
    3) MS should offer OS-build-in-apps(free) as a second source-cd 
distribution seperate from their OS. Also these free apps should be 
installed in the same manor as other third party vendors. Should not 
be placed on start-bar as intrinsic to the OS.
    4) If a MS-App gains a certain percentage of OS saturation or 
profit margin, then it should be required to port that app to other 
OS`s Overview/Background/Discussion: MS (Microsoft) dominance as an 
OS (Operating System) provider gives them leverage as an Application 
provider. MS has manipulated it`s OS to gain Application market 
share. This has occured by devalualing the actual cost of 
Application development from the App to the OS. In a Second method 
MS has modified its OS to give it`s Applications prominance: by use 
of default settings and uninstallable Apps: DirectX, Internet 
explorer are not uninstallable (I believe MS`s latest audio/visual 
player behaves the same). Thirdly, MS has limited OEM`s ability to 
`bundle' third party apps with new machine sales. MS has 
used pricing leverage to limit third party inclusion.
    MS does not provide it`s excellent Application to other OS`s 
(except in the MS-office/MAC case). The is small sales benefit of 
porting MS-Word to Linux/Solaris definitely out ways the possible 
loss of Desktop OS share. (IF MS-word was available to Unix, there 
would be very little push to move from Unix to MS-OS.) But, 
because of the MS-word reliance on MS-OS there is a trend to move 
from Unix to MS-OS. In my employment case, most users have two 
machines, one to run engineering apps and another computer to run 
MS-OS/MS-Office. I believe MS does not port it`s Apps to Unix 
because it would negatively effect MS-OS market share. Overall 
MS does a wonderful job on its user interfaces and with 
interoperablity of its applications, but I believe the ability of 
microsoft to leverage it`s

[[Page 24582]]

OS dominance to benifit it application market and it`s ability to 
limit its apps to a particular platform restrict industry growth and 
increase reliance on MS instead of providing a better market.
    I think the proper solution is to seperate the development/
marketing decisions of MS-OS from MS-APPS, this may 
require seperation of money/ownership.
    BTW: Having MS pay for computers and OS`s for schools and local 
governments is not a solution, it has nothing to do with the 
problem. It is just greedy politicians looing for handouts from 
greedy corporations.
    Ross M. DeStafeno



MTC-00004750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 4:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I agree with many that a rush to settle this case can only aid 
Microsoft in achieving its continuing malpractice. I will leave it 
it position to expand its dominance of the software industry.
    Henry G. Adams



MTC-00004751

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I find it hard to believe what is going on with Microsoft. As a 
shareholder of Apple stock, I must add that the settlement is 
extremely mild and will likely jeopardize Apple`s share of the 
education market. I am against the settlement and the new proposed 
settlement from Microsoft. `Microsoft`s proposed settlement 
compels schools to adopt Microsoft technology. Most educators, along 
with Apple, think this is simply wrong. Any settlement must 
guarantee that schools have the freedom to choose, and this requires 
that Microsoft pay their penalty in cash, not donated Microsoft 
software which will cost them only pennies on the dollar. A $1 
billion cash penalty represents less than 3 percent of Microsoft`s 
$36 billion cash hoard,' said Jobs._taken from http://
www.maccentral.com
    Thank you,
    Steven Lewis
    1010 Lee St
    Barboursville, WV
    25504



MTC-00004752

From: rshiller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am very disappointed that the government has caved in to the 
Microsoft Corporation. First, $1 billion is a drop in the bucket 
compared to what they have cheated its customers and suppliers out 
of. Second, the $half billion in software devoted to operating 
systems(OS) costs Microsoft practically nothing and gives their 
monopoly in operating systems a boost, giving them new markets(some 
punishment!). Third, there is no protection from or punishment of 
Microsoft continuing its monopolistic practices. Red Hat has offered 
to give these schools free operating systems if the amount Microsoft 
was to use for OSes is given to the schools in cash instead of 
software. This seems like a good deal too good to refuse! Please put 
me on any mailing list you have that would keep me informed about 
what you are discussing or doing on the Microsoft matter.
    Thank you,
    Robert N. Shiller



MTC-00004753

From: Scott M. Fulton, III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepersons:
    Attached to this e-mail are my comments with regard to the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft antitrust matter. I am a 
published author, editor, and developer of software, currently in 
partnership with Ingenus. My credentials are explained in the 
attached comments. I thank you for directing this document to the 
proper authority, and wish you the best of holidays.
    Yours sincerely,
    Scott M. Fulton, III
    Senior Partner, Ingenus
    5664 Fen Court
    Indianapolis, IN 46220 USA
    voice: (317) 475-0212
    Ingenus
    5664 FEN COURT
    INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220 USA
    (317) 475-0212
    [email protected]
    Scott M. Fulton, III
    Jennifer Fulton
    PROFESSIONAL I.T. SERVICES
    Editorial Consulting
    Engineering Training
    Research
    18 December 2001
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    United States Dept. of Justice
    601 D. Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ingenus
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am submitting to you this document in accordance with the U.S. 
District Court`s request for public commentary in the matter of the 
proposed settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft, Civil Action No. 
98-1232, and New York v. Microsoft, Civil Action No. 
98-1233.
    I am currently a computer book author and private computing 
consultant, and until very recently, was employed with CMP Media, 
Inc. as a Senior Editor for the Planet IT Web site_one of the 
recent victims of the `dot-com fallout.' I have been a 
published author, editor, and correspondent in the field of 
computing for over 17 years, several of those years having been 
spent as one of Computer Shopper magazine`s original contributors. 
Under the pseudonym `D. F. Scott,' I am the author of 13 
books, nine of which are on the subject of Microsoft Visual Basic, 
one of that company`s most prominent programming languages. I am 
currently working on my fourteenth title, on the subject of the 
Microsoft Access 2002 database. As an author, programmer, and 
private consultant, I am intimately familiar with Microsoft`s 
products, applications architecture, and corporate history. I have 
developed software using Microsoft products for 23 years.
    I know Microsoft, and I know my industry. I thoroughly 
comprehend how Microsoft`s products, agendas, and conduct have 
shaped and defined computing as we know it today. I have friends and 
colleagues who work at Microsoft, and I have others who work with 
its current partners, its former partners, and its direct 
competitors. Having read Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson`s Findings of 
Fact in the civil matter as rendered 5 November 1999, and having 
shared my opinions at length with others directly affected by those 
Findings since that time, I can state without hesitation that there 
is nothing in those Findings to which I take exception, or about 
which I personally can find any reason to disagree. I call your 
attention to the fact that these Findings of Fact were given 
deference by the Court of Appeals, despite that certain elements 
were called into question, and despite the disqualification of the 
judge. The Appeals Court`s thorough study of the Findings of Fact, 
as well as the other evidence in the case before the District Court, 
uphold a quintessential truth whose importance transcends any 
scrutiny of judicial misconduct: Microsoft`s conduct as a 
corporation and a manufacturer of computing products, is predicated 
upon an internal policy of deception, which includes deceiving 
customers, deceiving competitors, deceiving partners, deceiving its 
own vendors, and at some level, deceiving its own staff.
    Although the Appeals Court_with reluctance_deferred 
to Judge Jackson`s Findings of Fact, it appears to me that the 
settlement currently proposed by Microsoft and the Justice Dept. has 
ignored the basic tenets of those Findings. This proposed settlement 
does not specify the actions of a company that has violated the 
Sherman Antitrust Act_a fact which has been upheld by the 
Appeals Court. Instead, it is a document with ample evidence of 
being scripted by a company entangled in its own self-importance and 
intoxicated by a fundamental belief in its own immunity, and having 
been agreed to by a plaintiff that no longer represents the cause of 
fairness in free enterprise originally championed by Joel Klein and 
Janet Reno.
    That Microsoft Corp. has monopoly power in key markets is not in 
dispute. To hold monopoly power in this country is not illegal, and 
in certain conceivable circumstances, it may even be justified. 
Microsoft achieved its monopoly power through means which stand the 
test of legitimacy under the closest scrutiny. Throughout its 
history, the company has shrewdly and wisely taken advantage of 
imminent and remarkable opportunities. Its initial agreement in 1981 
with IBM, allowing it to produce compatible operating systems for 
non-IBM computers, actually created an industry where there had not 
been one before, and which actually might never have been. That 
competitors, including IBM, have been unable to produce viable 
alternatives to MS-DOS or Microsoft Windows, can indeed

[[Page 24583]]

be attributed to failures in foresight, design, and marketing solely 
on the part of those competitors. Generally, the prominence of 
Microsoft Corp. can be credited to its own legitimate successes, and 
to its competitors` legitimate shortcomings, wild notions, and 
simply wrong ideas.
    But once Microsoft attained its lofty position, the measures it 
took to fortify, protect, and defend that position were clearly 
immoral, unethical, and as the Court of Appeals has upheld, illegal. 
The antitrust case against Microsoft has been mainly about deception 
as a means not of attaining prominence, but of ensuring it. Any 
remedy imposed upon Microsoft, or settled upon by Microsoft and the 
Justice Dept., must acknowledge this deception, must take steps to 
completely disable and render defunct Microsoft`s means of deception 
in the future, and must in some measure compensate those who were 
harmed_if not monetarily, then through good faith measures 
that go beyond the requirements of an ordinary company to do 
respectable and competitive business in its chosen industry. As it 
stands now, the proposed settlement may actually be used as a tool 
to extend and sustain the sheath of deception Microsoft has sewn, to 
further its own interests, and to continue the basic falsehood that 
the state of the computing industry now is as it should be.
    ENTER THE DUNGEON
    Once it became a monopoly as early as 1988, Microsoft`s 
executives almost immediately adopted a Watergate-style cloak-and-
dagger approach to its internal corporate and even personal conduct, 
to the extent that some executives were privately relishing in the 
opportunity for them to emulate Nixon`s `plumbers,' or 
characters from `The Godfather,' or anti-heroes from 
comic books, or even leaders of the Third Reich. The company`s chief 
executives not only tolerated but helped foster this new approach, 
like `dungeon masters' in a role-playing game 
encouraging nastier self-characterizations by players who deemed 
themselves `evil.' Before the company had actually 
violated the law, Microsoft`s executives were adopting other-worldly 
roles, imagining themselves as saviors of the world but rebels 
against the establishment, immunized from the laws that apply to 
mere mortals. It was this immersion in this surrealistic fantasy 
vision that empowered Microsoft not only to commit its undisputed 
violations of antitrust law, but also to defend its conduct to this 
very day as somehow fair, honest, innovative, and pro-competitive.
    In 1994, Newsweek correspondent Michael Meyer sat in on a 
meeting of Microsoft`s key executives, including then-CEO Bill 
Gates, and product managers who were discussing_while fully 
aware of Meyer`s presence_the lackluster performance of their 
personal accounting software, called Microsoft Money, against a 
competitor, Intuit`s Quicken. (Later, Microsoft and Intuit announced 
a merger, which even later fell apart.) In his 11 July 1994 article 
entitled, `Culture Club,' Meyer recounted his 
experiences in the boardroom:
    Then comes a strange moment, the sort of thing that happens 
often at Microsoft, which seemingly within moments turns disaster 
into salvation. Talk has turned to broader trends in banking. 
Where`s it going, what`s in it for us. Banks are dinosaurs, says 
Gates. We can `bypass' them. [The Money product manager] 
is unhappy with an alliance involving a big bank-card company. 
`Too slow.' Instead he proposes a deal with a 
small_and more easily controllable_check-clearing 
outfit. `Why don`t we buy them?' Gates asks, thinking 
bigger. It occurs to him that people banking from home will cut 
checks using Microsoft`s software. Microsoft can then push all those 
transactions through its new affiliate, taking a fee on every one. 
Abruptly, Gates sheds his disappointment with Money. He`s caught up 
in a vision of `the transformation of the world financial 
system.' It`s a `pot of gold,' he declares, 
pounding the conference table with his fists, triumphant and hungry 
and wired. `Get me into that and goddam, we`ll make so much 
money!'
    Here is Microsoft in action. In just three hours, it laid plans 
to buy at least two companies, ditched an alliance with a major 
financial institution, opted for another and made major moves into 
`two incredible new worlds,' as Gates put it_home 
banking and sports entertainment. Another company might take months 
to accomplish as much. It is important to note here that, seven 
years later, none of this `of gold' thinking actually 
led anywhere_not for Microsoft Money, not for Microsoft Corp., 
and not for the world financial system. Nothing took place that day, 
or any day since, on this particular subject that offended anyone`s 
rights or broke any laws. Nor was Microsoft Money as a software 
product the least bit improved. Meyer was astonished by Microsoft`s 
`accomplishment,' but today, little evidence of it 
remains outside of this article.
    What did happen that day in 1994 is an example of how Microsoft 
approaches its everyday business: not by applying itself to the 
truths and principles and operating parameters of its chosen 
industry, and not by solving the arguably solvable problems put 
before it, but instead by concocting a fantasy world where Microsoft 
is the world`s great benefactor, the great multitude is the 
recipient of its mercy and grace, and all other entities in the 
computing industry are either_to borrow a recently reborn 
phrase_'with us or against us.' This is a world 
where media entities such as Newsweek, and professional observers 
such as myself, should stand in awe of that company`s 
`accomplishments,' as if its role-playing conquests held 
tangible value in any currency in which common people trade.
    How MICROSOFT LOST THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
    In another civil matter separate from the suit brought forth by 
the Justice Dept., the Canadian software producer Caldera took 
action against Microsoft in U.S. District Court in Utah, on behalf 
of a product it had acquired from Novell Corp._a competitive 
operating system called DR-DOS. (This civil action was later 
settled, and the specific terms of that settlement were 
undisclosed.) As revealed by evidence subpoenaed by Caldera and 
presented in its Consolidated Statement of Facts, Microsoft`s 
executives openly conspired to develop MS-DOS in such a way 
that compliance with its principles would mean, by definition, 
incompatibility with DR-DOS. Later, these same executives came 
up with the idea of tying MS-DOS together with 
Windows_the first instance of `tying' in the 
company`s history_in such a way that DR-DOS users would 
be artificially prohibited from running Windows 3.1. In fact, as the 
evidence in Caldera v. Microsoft indicates, Microsoft`s idea of 
tying MS-DOS to Windows derived from its efforts to thwart the 
development of DR-DOS, and may have been created for that 
specific purpose alone and no other.
    The Consolidated Statement in the Caldera case uses subpoenaed 
internal documents and e-mails from Microsoft executives to draw a 
picture of a company whose central, overriding, and only interest 
from 1990 to 1995 was not to produce a viable operating system for 
consumers, but to prevent Digital Research, and then Novell, and 
then Caldera from doing so. (Granted, IBM`s OS/2 was also a Windows 
competitor during this time, although the Caldera Statement makes 
little mention of that system.) According to the Statement, in the 
summer of 1990, Microsoft`s OEM sales force was directed to only use 
per-processor terms in licensing agreements with both small and 
large PC manufacturers, in order to prevent, as one account manager 
put it, `losing them to DR.' Per-processor licensing 
practices was the subject of one of the Justice Dept.`s first civil 
actions against Microsoft, and was a matter of contention throughout 
the current civil case. Such exclusionary licenses made it cost-
prohibitive for manufacturers to offer DR-DOS, or any other 
alternative operating system, to their customers while at the same 
time maintaining their critical link to Microsoft. As Microsoft`s 
company memoranda_excerpted in the Caldera 
Statement_indicate, the company was fully aware of that fact. 
For instance, there is this note of congratulations:
    Congratulations are in order for John `DRI Killer' 
McLaughlan (No, he isn`t having another baby) who signed a $2.5M 
agreement with Acbel (Sun Moon Star). The agreement licenses DOS 5 
per processor on a worldwide basis for 3 years (they will be 
replacing DRI DOS which they currently ship outside the US).
    In July 1991, Novell announced its merger with DR-DOS 
producer Digital Research, in order to build a stronger, more 
complete operating system product line that could compete on the 
same level as Microsoft, and that could be licensed to IBM, which 
had already identified itself as an interested party.
    In a memorandum to fellow executives dated March 1992, Microsoft 
Vice President (now Senior Vice President) Jim Allchin spelled out 
his perception of the threat imposed by Novell: I still don`t think 
we take them as serious as is required of us to win. This isn`t IBM. 
These guys are really good; they have an installed base; they have a 
channel; they have marketing power; they have good products. AND 
they want our position. They want to control the APIs, middleware, 
and as many desktops as they can in addition to the server market 
they already own. We need to start thinking about

[[Page 24584]]

Novell as THE competitor to fight against_not in one area of 
our business, but all of them.
    If you want to get serious about stopping Novell, we need to 
start understanding this is war_ nothing less. That`s how 
Novell views it. We better wake up and get serious about them or 
they will eventually find a way to hurt us badly. Allchin`s concept 
of `war' sparked then-Windows Product Manager Brad 
Silverberg to advocate developing Windows 3.1 intentionally so that 
it gave DR-DOS users the impression that it could not run on 
that platform. The Caldera Statement provides this e-mail exchange 
between
    Silverberg and his deputy (now Senior Vice President), David 
Cole: Cole: A kind-gentle message in setup would probably not offend 
anyone and probably won`t get the press up in arms, but I don`t 
think it serves much of a warning [* * *] What is the guy 
supposed to do? Silverberg: what the guy is supposed to do is feel 
uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-
dos and then go out to buy ms-dos, or decide to not take the risk 
for the other machines he has to buy for in the office. With company 
policy having been determined that the Windows user should be made 
to feel uncomfortable with the notion of using a non-Microsoft 
product, work began on how to intentionally develop the beta code of 
Windows 3.1 so that parts of it fail to execute on a DR-DOS 
platform. In an e-mail discussion excerpted in the Caldera 
statement, a developer of Windows 3.1 told his development manager, 
Phil Barrett, of an incompatibility he discovered between a disk 
cache utility for 3.1, code-named `Bambi,' and 
DR-DOS. The developer reports that he has created a build of 
the utility that solves this problem. Nevertheless, Barrett suggests 
in his response that this fix never see the light of day:
    heh, heh, heh * * * my proposal is to have bambi 
refuse to run on this alien OS. comments? The approach we will take 
is to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be 
something like `Invalid device driver interface.' The 
actual error message in Windows 3.1 Setup would read, `The XMS 
driver you have installed is not compatible with Windows. You must 
remove it before SETUP can successfully install Windows.'
    Whether on direct instruction to do so or working on his own 
initiative, a Microsoft programmer made contact with Andrew Dyson, a 
technical support analyst at DRI, and in so doing identified himself 
as `Roger Sour, Director of Windows Development, 
Microsoft.' Explaining that he was trying to solve an 
incompatibility problem with the `memory control 
blocks,' this Microsoft developer requested information from 
Dyson on whether DRI has written Windows code to detect whether a 
program is running under a DR-DOS or MS-DOS platform. In 
the interest of fair play, Dyson submitted this information; but 
later, a DRI official wrote `Roger Sour' (whether or not 
he knew Sour existed is beside the point) to tell him that DRI was 
aware of Microsoft`s plan to make Windows 3.1 fail on DR-DOS. 
The letter stated, `Usually, when a software manufacturer 
feels that something in our operating system is preventing their 
application from running well, that company works with us to resolve 
the actual, perceived, or potential conflicts.'
    In a letter dated 1 November 1991, Phil Barrett responded to the 
DRI official that there no `Roger Sour' at Microsoft, 
and added, `Perhaps you may have been the victim of a 
prank.' This `prank' was reported to the Federal 
Trade Commission, which contacted Microsoft later that week. News of 
the FTC contact prompted David Cole to write the following in an 
executive memo:
    The bothersome part is where the hell is DRI getting their 
information. Are they just speculating? Seems like a pretty risky 
thing to do with the FTC? Did they interpret `Roger 
Sour' thing broadly and conclude we are doing it for Windows?
    What bothered Microsoft more than the possible appearance of 
impropriety was the possibility of a mole within the company. For 
the next year and a half, Microsoft would deal with DRI, Novell 
(which acquired DRI), and the FTC as a single monkey on its 
back_the collective entity preventing Microsoft from smoothly 
integrating itself into the corporate computer network. Beginning in 
1992, Microsoft would develop the entire Windows platform into 
`Chicago`_a confusing amalgamation of possible 
development scenarios which only Microsoft would be able to 
decipher, leaving confused independent developers and consumers to 
sort them out for themselves. In a 16 June 1992 strategy document 
circulated by Microsoft`s then-Vice President Brad Silverberg, the 
company outlined its concept of Chicago as a product that could be 
packaged three ways_as Windows for Workgroups, as plain 
Windows, and as MS-DOS. Thus, the answer to the question, 
`Are you merging MS-DOS with Windows?' could be 
`Yes,' and the answer to the question, `Are you 
maintaining the two product lines separately?' could also be 
`Yes.' This obfuscation, according to documents, was 
crafted deliberately for the sole reason of throwing off the 
competition and keeping consumers guessing, thus fulfilling the 
following directive Brad Silverberg had made in late 1991:
    This is a very important point. We need to create the reputation 
for problems and incompatibilities to undermine confidence to 
drdos6; so people will make judgments against it without knowing 
details or fats [sic].
    In 1993, following its acquisition of DRI, Novell re-engineered 
DR-DOS to become Novell DOS 7_a product which it 
promised would not only serve as a cohesive network and desktop 
platform, but which would also run Windows 3.1 without problems. At 
long last, the monkey on Microsoft`s back became too much for 
Chairman Bill Gates, who on 21 July wrote the following memo to his 
subordinates:
    Who at Microsoft gets up every morning thinking about how to 
compete with these guys in the short term_specifically cut 
their revenue. Perhaps we need more focus on this. After their 
behavior in this FTC investigation, I am very keen on this. Once 
again, Gates infuses his fellow executives and product managers with 
a lofty vision of Microsoft as having carte blanche, on account of 
its size, to set the rules for the industry, even if it means 
teetering on the edge of implying that it`s above the law. With 
Gates, there is never a smoking gun. The job of providing the smoke 
is left to others, such as Jim Allchin who, in an 18 September 1993 
memo, advised the following:
    Sentiment is against us. We can and MUST turn this around. As we 
become more aggressive against Novell product and marketing-wise, we 
must get our mouth in order. The press, etc. is very sketical of us 
so one slip up and we get set back quite a ways. This really isn`t 
that hard. If you`re going to kill someone there isn`t much reason 
to get all worked up about it and angry_you just pull the 
trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to 
smile at Novell while we pull the trigger.
    The strategy that Microsoft concocted is for the company to 
represent Chicago as the successor to MS-DOS 6.3, and as 
perhaps Windows bundled with DOS and perhaps Windows merged with 
DOS. Consumers and businesses considering their upgrade options 
would have to consider the extent to which they considered Windows 
an asset. Not knowing whether the two products would bundle or 
merge, consumers were forced to evaluate MS-DOS as though it 
were Windows, and not for its own merits_which, against Novell 
DOS, were admittedly lacking. As long as Windows continued to 
support Novell NetWare_and it did, quite 
completely_consumers would conclude they had nothing to lose 
from their current NetWare investment, if they were to choose an 
all-Microsoft upgrade path for the future, which included DOS as 
well. The decision to actually merge DOS with Windows was withheld 
until the last possible minute_in 1994, well after what was 
supposed to have been Chicago`s initial release date. This decision 
was the coup de grace to Novell DOS, indicating to buyers that there 
would be no need for a DOS once Windows 95 was installed.
    Consumer confusion about Microsoft`s course of action led to the 
desired result: Buyers turned away from Novell, believing what 
Microsoft itself calls its own `FUD messages' (fear, 
uncertainty, and doubt) about the future reliability of Novell DOS 
in tandem with Windows. The term `FUD' is said to derive 
from a similar term used by Pres. Nixon`s famous 
`plumbers`_the people hired to spread rumors and 
false information about possible presidential opponents. It is a 
term which shows up in Microsoft internal memos and documents as 
though it were its own brand name.
    MIRACLE INGREDIENTS
    The DR-DOS story is important because the behavior of 
Microsoft during the early 1990s established a prototype for its 
behavior during the `browser wars`_one of the 
current antitrust action`s two key periods of interest. It is in 
some ways humorous to note that Microsoft held little or no regard 
for the Internet as a global information resource, until such time 
as it perceived that resource as a threat to its business. Bill 
Gates actually wrote an entire book, `The Road Ahead,'

[[Page 24585]]

that was a national bestseller, and that afterwards was amended as a 
`Special Edition' after its author had received too many 
inquiries about its omission of the Internet as a topic. Microsoft 
is not a company that believes in creating opportunities, or even in 
finding fair and open opportunities outside of its own corporate 
walls. This is a company whose key success during the 1990s was 
stifling the opportunities of others in order to protect its own 
products and intellectual assets.
    After Novell had been thoroughly decimated by Microsoft FUD, the 
company turned its attention in late 1994 to Netscape, as the 
threat-on-the-horizon it needed to continue to function the way it 
had trained itself to do. Microsoft, as we all know now, perceived 
Netscape Navigator as a platform that could potentially be leveraged 
to distribute a future form of Sun Microsystems` Java as a 
substitute operating system. The cross-platform capabilities of Java 
awakened developers to the potential of crafting applications that 
did not need to rely on the resources of any one operating system 
exclusively_especially Windows.
    As Judge Jackson`s Findings of Fact show, Microsoft`s internal 
policy was to develop its own Java programming language and 
applications resources_called J++_to appear to be 
compliant with Sun`s Java, while actually presenting Java developers 
using Windows with non-portable libraries. Jackson writes:
    In a further effort intended to increase the incompatibility 
between Java applications written for its Windows JVM and other 
Windows JVMs, and to increase the difficulty of porting Java 
applications from the Windows environment to other platforms, 
Microsoft designed its Java developer tools to encourage developers 
to write their Java applications using certain 
`keywords' and `compiler directives' that 
could only be executed properly by Microsoft`s version of the Java 
runtime environment for Windows. Microsoft encouraged developers to 
use these extensions by shipping its developer tools with the 
extensions enabled by default and by failing to warn developers that 
their use would result in applications that might not run properly 
with any runtime environment other than Microsoft`s and that would 
be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to port to JVMs running on 
other platforms. This action comported with the suggestion that 
Microsoft`s Thomas Reardon made to his colleagues in November 1996: 
`[W]e should just quietly grow j++ [Microsoft`s developer 
tools] share and assume that people will take more advantage of our 
classes without ever realizing they are building win 32-only java 
apps.' Microsoft refused to alter its developer tools until 
November 1998, when a court ordered it to disable its keywords and 
compiler directives by default and to warn developers that using 
Microsoft`s Java extensions would likely cause incompatibilities 
with non-Microsoft runtime environments.
    The part of this story that Judge Jackson didn`t touch on, and 
that was not introduced as evidence, concerns Microsoft`s efforts 
during 1996-1999 to promote a cloudy but potentially promising 
future system called ActiveX as an alternative to Java for 
developers, and an alternative to Netscape for Windows users. Just 
exactly what ActiveX was, is, or was supposed to be, isn`t entirely 
clear. I understand this fact better than most people alive. In 1996 
and `97, I wrote a book on ActiveX technology for developers, 
with the full cooperation of a major worldwide publisher. For the 
better part of two years, I wrote seven complete drafts of this 
book, overhauling the content each time in order to keep up with 
Microsoft's mind-boggling changes in its definition of the 
product/concept/marketing scheme.
    In an early document for developers such as myself, dated 18 
June 1996, Microsoft defined ActiveX in this way:
    ActiveX is a set of open technologies that bring the power of 
the personal computer to the ubiquitous connectivity of the 
Internet. ActiveX takes the Internet beyond static text and picture 
documents to provide users with a new generation of more active, 
exciting, and useful experiences. For intranet developers (intranets 
are private Web sites published on internal, corporate networks), 
ActiveX provides core functionality for building robust enterprise-
wide applications that offer enhanced functionality and productivity 
beyond basic HTML document sharing.
    So in June, at least, ActiveX was a multimedia standard for Web 
sites. The very next month, Microsoft announced it was turning over 
stewardship of ActiveX to an independent body. In its press release, 
Microsoft quoted an independent industry analyst as stating the 
following:
    COM and DCOM_the foundation for ActiveX_constitute 
the most widely used object framework, but as technologies owned and 
controlled exclusively by Microsoft, they were not vendor-
independent solutions. In the hands of a neutral standards body, 
ActiveX can become a vendor-independent solution, enabling 
interoperability while allowing both developers and customers to 
take full advantage of their existing investments in OLE and DCOM 
technologies. `COM and DCOM' are, respectively, the 
Component Object Model and the Distributed Component Object Model. 
These are legitimate architectures which, in my view, represent some 
of the best ideas Microsoft has ever put forward. COM enabled source 
code from diverse and varied applications and program components to 
address one another dynamically, using a common framework and an 
amendable object language. This way, old programs could conceivably 
determine the capabilities of newer programs when they shared the 
same system, under a multitasking framework such as Windows 95. DCOM 
extended these principles to program components over a network, so 
server-based components could communicate with client-based 
components and provide them with requested resources. These were 
delicately intricate systems, but they were constructed with the 
best of intentions, and their creators deserve respect.
    But it was apparently never the intention of Microsoft`s 
executives to exploit the full potential of COM and DCOM. Instead, 
they deployed ActiveX as a marketing tool to befuddle the market as 
to Microsoft`s intentions, and to repeat the company`s successful 
strategy against DRI and Novell, this time to kick Netscape and Sun 
Microsystems into the death spiral.
    Developers such as myself were given a myriad of mixed and often 
self-contradictory messages. In the summer of 1996, we were told 
that ActiveX was a system that would be deployed on Microsoft`s 
Internet Explorer Web browser, to enable online applications from 
Windows servers to utilize controls_buttons, menus, lists, and 
common `user interface' elements_whose programs 
were deployed on the client side, thus freeing bandwidth and 
relieving much of the burden on the server. This was_and still 
is_a good idea. We were told that ActiveX controls would make 
use of a Windows feature called Object Linking and Embedding (OLE, 
pronounced `olay') to enable their code to be called up 
on the server side by container programs on the client 
side_again, a good idea. This utilization of resources would 
free the controls programs from the constraints of the client-side 
architecture called Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC)_the 
architecture upon which Microsoft`s Office applications are based. 
(Microsoft`s developers are indeed capable of creating good ideas, 
and executing good plans based on them.)
    In the fall of 1996, the FUD began. Microsoft offered developers 
a free, limited edition of its Visual Basic development environment, 
geared exclusively toward the creation of ActiveX controls. These 
controls, we were told, leveraged the power of MFC to make them more 
fully integrated with Windows. This went against the company`s 
original design strategy, for reasons we couldn`t yet fathom.
    While the newly-formed `ActiveX Working Group,' 
assigned stewardship of the ActiveX standard, did establish a Web 
site for a brief period, the group only held a few token meetings, 
and even then with a subset of its membership. Many members listed 
on the Web site were surprised to find they were members at all. As 
soon as January of 1997, the Working Group had become a non-entity.
    Later that same month, Microsoft announced its intention to 
deploy a network communications system then called Microsoft 
Transaction Server (MTS), and to market that system under the 
ActiveX collective umbrella. MTS would be the hub of a system that 
processed DCOM transactions over networks and over the Internet, 
between Microsoft servers and client systems that were running 
ActiveX controls. What confused us at first was the fact that DCOM 
was not OLE, so the ActiveX controls we had now appeared not to be 
the ActiveX controls we were supposed to build for later. 
Furthermore, the new controls_to be created using that free 
edition of Visual Basic_could only operate within the confines 
of a single, designated container program_which, not 
coincidentally, was part of Internet Explorer 3.0. So it appeared 
that the capability of Netscape Navigator to be adaptable, through a 
third-party product, to display and use ActiveX controls, was due 
for extinction.
    By the spring of 1997, Microsoft had announced the replacement 
of its core database transaction protocol with something

[[Page 24586]]

called ActiveX Data Objects (ADO). This protocol would be used by 
Microsoft Office applications, and would be licensed for free to 
developers making their own programs for data transactions. For ADO 
to be deployed in a network environment, it appeared, the server 
would need to run MTS. So if everyday applications wanted to take 
advantage of Web deployment capabilities, Netscape was appearing to 
be less and less of an option. ADO objects were not 
controls_what`s more, they weren`t COM objects or DCOM objects 
either. So the umbrella seemed to be reaching further. Almost every 
Windows protocol had something to do with ActiveX_and thus, by 
association, something to do with future deployment over the 
Internet.
    In the summer of 1997, Microsoft sprung the trap. MTS as a 
product was integrated with Internet Information Server, and very 
soon thereafter, IIS was incorporated as a native part of Windows NT 
4.0. If your server had NT4, it had IIS, so it had MTS. On the 
client side, Internet Explorer would be `sewn' onto the 
front end of Windows 98, not as an integral part or even an 
inseparable one from Windows 98, but a part which the common user 
could not easily detach from it. Suddenly, the whole world of 
Windows closed in on itself, excluding Netscape and Sun technologies 
and immediately rendering them obsolete. Users abandoned Netscape in 
droves, and within only a matter of months. Sun`s efforts to develop 
Java further, gradually slowed to a trickle. The death spiral still 
worked.
    The code of conduct which the Appeals Court upheld as illegal 
use of Microsoft`s monopoly power, stems directly from the code of 
conduct Microsoft taught itself in fending off the DR-DOS 
threat. It is not the behavior of an established, experienced 
company whose leadership position is bestowed upon it by its 
customers and partners. It is the behavior of an adolescent, 
catapulted quickly to prominence in a young industry, without ever 
having found the time or the inclination to learn how success may be 
achieved fairly and with honor. It is a spoiled brat kid that never 
listened to its elders, and has never come to appreciate the world 
outside of itself. It has erected its own psychological 
`barrier to entry' that prohibits it from absorbing 
anything of positive benefit_any new ideas, any good 
alliances, any substantive partnerships_from the outside 
world, out there, where the enemy lives. Paranoid, over-sensitive, 
and withdrawn, it hides out in its room, nails a `Keep 
Out' sign to its door, locks the door shut, loses itself in a 
video game, and drowns itself out with loud music laced with 
messages of pessimism and disdain. It is the unloved child. It is 
built in the image of its maker. It will not listen to reason.
    Within the locked, sacrosanct confines of corporate headquarters 
or boardrooms, no fantasy world is illegal. Corporate fiefdom or 
chivalry may assume any degree of distortion, and black may very 
easily be declared white without objection. It is when these bizarre 
practices lead directly to tactics of deception, sabotage, and bad 
faith against not only a company`s competitors but also its 
purported partners, and to a calculated campaign of consumer choice 
control, that they impede upon the rights of individuals, of 
companies and corporations, and of an entire industry. Microsoft`s 
private fantasy world has evolved into a dangerous corporate 
subculture whose principles and motives threaten the very way 
business is done in America, in Canada, in Asia, in Europe, and 
anywhere there is a microprocessor.
    When faced with a situation where the only rational option is 
for Microsoft to solve its own problems, Microsoft chooses instead 
to go on the attack against some outside enemy that could 
potentially expose or spotlight those problems. As a result, those 
problems may never be solved, but the enemy du jour becomes so 
damaged that the continued existence of those problems in the 
context of the industry as a whole, becomes inconsequential. To this 
day, serious bugs and deficiencies in Microsoft`s operating systems 
and applications, discovered by myself and others and duly reported 
to Microsoft, remain uncorrected, quite possibly for fear of the 
political cost of exposing the problem by making the world aware of 
its solution.
    Microsoft`s distorted perception of the computing industry, and 
of the world as a whole, is important because of a fact which Judge 
Jackson came to realize but, all too soon, commented on: Any conduct 
remedy which relies solely upon Microsoft`s own ability to 
scrutinize, admonish, and improve itself through its own means, will 
be treated by Microsoft`s executives with disrespect and contempt. 
It`s like a parent ordering his wayward son to shape up. The 
executives of Microsoft are as unwilling to consider such an order 
as an adolescent boy, bottled up in his room, is willing to remove 
his headphones and listen to his dad for five seconds. They are 
likely to ignore such an order altogether. I say this with the 
utmost respect: They don`t give a damn what you think.
    FIRST NOVELL, THEN NETSCAPE, NOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
    Microsoft is a company which views all events and actions 
relevant to the computing industry, taken outside of its corporate 
headquarters, as attacks against it. These include not only new 
product announcements from Oracle or marketing agreements from Sony, 
but legal maneuvers, motions, and actions from the Justice Dept., 
and judgments and decisions from the courts. Microsoft`s executives 
are charged with the mission to manipulate circumstances to its own 
advantage, so that the enemy`s actions end up reinforcing the 
company`s prominence. Bill Gates calls this mission `kicking 
them into the death spiral.' Here`s how the death spiral 
works, paraphrased from Microsoft`s own internal documents:
    1. Make agreements with the enemy that build an interdependence 
between the enemy and us.
    2. Generate uncertainty about our future course of action, to 
throw the enemy off-track.
    3. Propose a clear solution to the uncertainty that depends upon 
a certain set of rules, and make it impossible for the enemy to turn 
you down.
    4. Change the rules so that the enemy is forced to live with its 
own decisions, while we move to an entirely new world where the 
rules are different and we own the territory.
    The proposed final judgment before you now, presented by 
Microsoft and the Justice Dept., is yet another clear example of the 
death spiral methodology, this time applied to the American justice 
system. Just as Novell was compelled to commit itself to a category 
of products that appeared to have been rendered obsolete, and 
Netscape was compelled to commit itself to offering for free a 
product that once generated revenue and that had been rendered in 
most consumers` minds unnecessary, the Justice Dept. and the 
District Court are being compelled to accept a vision of Microsoft`s 
conduct for the future that is incompatible with Microsoft`s own 
vision of the future. Microsoft plans to change the rules, to pull 
the rug out from under you, and move on to a new territory where it 
gets to make new rules.
    Last 12 December, Microsoft counsel Charles F. Rule presented a 
statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, defending its Proposed 
Final Judgment (PFJ) as taking corrective measures that are far 
broader than may even be necessary, given that `four-
fifths' of Judge Jackson`s findings were invalidated, by his 
estimate, by the Appeals Court. As with most prepared statements 
before a Senate committee, the latter part that no one has time to 
read aloud, is `read into the record' without objection. 
The body of this statement explains the three-part provisions of the 
PFJ. The following excerpt explains the Judgment`s provisions with 
regard to the category of software called middleware:
    The case that 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 entry 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

[[Page 24587]]

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.
    To summarize: It is conceded that Microsoft acted unlawfully to 
thwart any action that Netscape and Sun may have taken to use 
Navigator and Java as leverage for the distribution of an operating 
platform that substitutes for Windows. Microsoft is to be praised, 
says Rule, for its broad definition of middleware as more than just 
Web browsers, but many categories of software with functionality 
that currently isn`t part of an operating system_software that 
could not displace Windows in and of itself, because it isn`t really 
an operating platform like Java anyway. `A broad catch-all 
definition of middleware,' Rule calls it_essentially, 
any software that isn`t Windows. Defined so broadly, anything that 
isn`t on the Windows Setup CD-ROM could potentially be defined as 
middleware. The settlement`s provisions would, conceivably, apply to 
Microsoft`s treatment of the producers and manufacturers of any non-
Microsoft package on a store shelf or Internet download site. Which 
sounds perfectly wonderful if we allow ourselves to forget recent 
history: Microsoft has a reputation for incorporating features from 
non-Microsoft software packages_or features which at least 
appear to incorporate their functionality_in new versions of 
Windows. The new digital photo management features of Windows XP are 
a clear and present example. What is to prevent Microsoft from 
adopting any new feature into Windows, thus narrowing the feature 
set of `middleware' at will? Certainly not the proposed 
judgment, which includes specific provisions enabling Microsoft to 
share resources with a third party for the development of products 
that compete with that party. From the top of page 5:
    Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering 
into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) any joint development or 
joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM for a 
new product, technology or service, or any material value-add to an 
existing product, technology or service, in which both Microsoft and 
the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute significant developer or 
other resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the 
object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable 
period of time.
    So conceivably, if we accept Mr. Rule`s explanation, a category 
of software that was middleware in the past, could at Microsoft`s 
discretion no longer be middleware today or tomorrow. But if you 
read the Definitions section of the PFJ, you discover Mr. Rule`s 
explanation isn`t entirely accurate. In this section, there are two 
main categories: Microsoft Middleware, and non-Microsoft middleware. 
The definition of middleware as `Internet browsers, email 
client software, networked audio/video client software, instant 
messaging software' applies only to the Microsoft category. In 
other words, the broad definition applies only if Microsoft is the 
producer of the broadly defined products. Non-Microsoft middleware 
is defined later in the same section in this way:
    `Non-Microsoft Middleware' means a non-Microsoft 
software product running on a Windows Operating System Product that 
exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through published APIs, and 
that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-Microsoft 
Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely 
in whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software 
product to be ported to or run on that non-Microsoft Operating 
System. In other words, any product that exposes its own 
functionality to outside developers in the same way for Windows as 
for other operating systems, enabling them to conceivably write code 
that supports that functionality, for instance, for Macintosh, 
Linux, and Windows simultaneously. This isn`t exactly Rule`s 
`broad catch-all definition' that applies to instant 
messaging. Essentially, what this truly refers to is any software 
that establishes dependencies with other software, apart from the 
native dependence that all Windows software has with the Windows 
operating system.
    Speaking as a developer, I can speak with experience: This 
definition may sound quite broad, but it isn`t. Excluded from this 
definition are the drivers that software requires to be able to, for 
instance, print an image on the printer or display something on-
screen_drivers are always considered part of Windows, even 
though Microsoft may not have written them. Excluded from this 
definition are the kinds of products whose mutual benefit, from the 
perspective of the user, is derived from their being bundled 
together rather than from their communication with one 
another_for example, Netscape Instant Messenger`s bundling 
with Netscape Navigator. Excluded from this definition are programs 
that establish dependencies on categories of data (as opposed to 
programs or source code) that rely on the native operating system 
independence of the system that uses them_as, for example, MP3 
music files are non-specific to Windows or Macintosh or Linux.
    It is not broadness that distinguishes Microsoft`s legal 
definition of middleware, but fuzziness. Depending on how you look 
at it, and where you look for it, it can be anything at any time. 
The conduct restrictions in the PFJ prohibit Microsoft from entering 
into agreements with manufacturers that, in turn, would prohibit 
them from choosing their own middleware for their own systems. Such 
restrictions would be important if we could be certain what it is 
that Microsoft is prohibited from prohibiting.
    This fuzziness extends to the present moment. As I write, the 
entire ActiveX marketing scenario is in the final stages of being 
disbanded, in favor of a program architecture that replaces it 
entirely: the .NET (pronounced `dot-net') architecture. 
The basic principle of .NET is that Windows may be enhanced to 
include a just-in-time compiler (JIT) whose job is to execute 
programs in the Windows environment. The role of the JIT is 
analogous to that of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), although 
Microsoft`s implementation will have no cross-platform capabilities. 
Conceivably, as developers are compelled to switch their program 
architectures from the now-obsolete COM to the new .NET, the 
architectural model of the Windows application may be redrawn in 
such a way that `apps' become satellites of a 
sort_small, shared components designed to interoperate and, in 
so doing, produce a collective, de facto application on behalf of 
the user. In such an architectural model, middleware by one 
definition would not exist. The reason is because the functionality 
of a collective .NET application would not have to be 
`exposed' like the opening of a telephone 
directory_and as the PFJ expects_but is instead derived 
as a result of an independent assessment by Windows of the 
collective capabilities of the .NET component programs. Imagine 
telephones that could publicize their own phone numbers, and you get 
a glimpse of the idea.
    The architectural concepts underlying Microsoft`s .NET 
architecture are among the best ideas the company`s developers have 
ever conceived. Nonetheless, the mechanism is being put in place 
today for Microsoft to change the rules yet again. Microsoft itself 
has stated in press conferences throughout the antitrust 
proceedings, that the rules of the computing industry change so fast 
that, by the time a judgment or settlement is finally reached, its 
terms will have been rendered obsolete by the very evolution of the 
industry. Microsoft is actively working to demonstrate this 
principle, and we must see .NET not only as a good idea, but a 
warning. As long as we consider Microsoft the de facto keeper of the 
computing dictionary, we will render that company of changing its 
terms_and to some extent, our lives as a result_on a 
whim.
    Microsoft has a history of making its enemies follow a set of 
rules, which it then changes. Provisions in the PFJ would prohibit 
Microsoft from excluding from any party the right to include icons 
and menu selections on its systems that point to any software it 
chooses. As both a developer and an editor, I have heard 
news_whether it be controlled leaks or the usual 
FUD_that Microsoft is considering eliminating the 
`Desktop' as a feature of Windows, replacing it with a 
more resplendent, multimedia-oriented, Web-based system that`s 
possibly tied into its MSN network. The Windows Desktop is where all 
the icons and menu selections are. If Microsoft changes the rules, 
these provisions would immediately be rendered archaic.
    The provisions of the Proposed Final Judgment as they stand 
today would restrict Microsoft to behaving as we would expect any 
large, successful company to behave with regard to its partners, 
competitors, supporters, and customers, had that company attained 
its position of prominence by legitimate means. What the PFJ would 
have us forget is that Microsoft has a duty, at this point in its 
history, to make reparations to those parties whom it knowingly and 
willfully deceived. It must behave not as an ordinary large company, 
but as one with unordinary obligations to the market in which it 
does business: to provide its partners, competitors, supporters, and 
customers with more than is expected of the company that has 
operated in good faith, competed on the quality of its products and

[[Page 24588]]

services, and has not broken federal and state laws.
    MICROSOFT`S WORLD, AND OTHERS
    Unlike any single corporation in any other industry in the 
world, Microsoft has attained the freedom to dictate not only the 
terms of the course of action for others in that industry, but also 
the very terminology, principles, and rules of existence by which 
that industry operates. In 1984, an operating system was a 
`bootstrap' program whose basic function was to engage 
the computer, take keyboard commands from the user, and give the 
user some rudimentary access to stored files. In 2001, the operating 
system has become something which removes red-eye from photographs, 
bounces instant messages to digital cell phones, and handles 
copyright infringement management on behalf of music 
publishers_and all of these things, not particularly very 
well. This transfiguration of the concept of the operating system is 
referred to by Microsoft as `innovation.' No similar 
concept of innovation can be applied to any other industry in the 
world. In our own fantasy world, we can imagine an automobile 
industry whose leader endows its products with microwave ovens, 
paper shredders, and Spanish teachers. We can imagine the 
manufacturer calling these developments `innovation.' 
And we can argue that such developments would not be illegal in and 
of themselves. But even in that fantasy world, we cannot concoct a 
situation where the inclusion of these features in automobiles would 
in any way impede, hinder, or prohibit a consumer`s means of nuking 
a hot dog, shredding a letter, or counting to diez by any other 
method.
    Microsoft`s incorporation of often arbitrarily-chosen new 
features in its operating system, by design, impedes the channel of 
delivery for any company whose business is specifically to provide 
those features. Knowing that, Microsoft has created its own little 
market where partners and potential partners bargain for prominence. 
The price of a partner striking this bargain is often the 
termination of its own native distribution channel for its 
product_without Microsoft`s backing, neither the product nor 
the company can exist. And yet Microsoft itself has shown it had no 
intention for its partnerships to continue for any longer than it 
could conjure its own, self-branded alternative. Microsoft used its 
partnerships to develop new markets in voice recognition, storage 
security, file backup and restoration, messaging, imaging, 
multimedia, database organization and translation_markets 
whose main channel of distribution were controlled by Microsoft. 
Once that market exists, Microsoft rescinds its partnership and 
offers its own `innovation' as a substitute.
    The Definitions section of documents in the current antitrust 
case, including the overturned District Court`s Final Judgment, 
paints an outline for a newcomer to planet Earth of an industry 
constructed in general accordance with Microsoft`s current vision. 
What an operating system is, what a `browser' is, what 
an application is, what a database is, are definitions that could 
have been supplied by a Microsoft manual. That a company should have 
such a defining vision should never be made illegal_any 
American company should be free to dream of redefining its industry. 
But the very definitions of these things as we have come to 
understand them, derive from Microsoft actions taken to defend its 
own prominence and thwart enemy attacks. Had these actions never 
been taken, our very understanding of the parts of a personal 
computer may be almost unrecognizable to the inhabitants of this 
world. Taking that into account, any remedial measure which accepts 
the present state of computing at face value, without taking into 
account not only what computing is becoming, but also what it might 
have been today had Microsoft never acted with such aggression and 
deception, is of no benefit to the companies outside of Microsoft 
who each should have the right to challenge Microsoft`s prominence 
in a fair and competitive manner.
    We use personal computers today whose processing power and data 
address capability supersede that which the Dept. of Defense 
categorized as `supercomputing' only eight years ago. 
Knowledge of their technology falling into the hands of enemies of 
the U.S., was considered a threat to national security. The 
processors on our desktops are capable of calculations which, as 
late as 1989, were deemed impossible given the laws of physics. Yet 
what can we truly do with these computers? Can we calculate the 
trajectories of celestial bodies? Can we give them voice commands 
and ask them to perform sophisticated analyses of financial 
transactions, bodily functions, or legal maneuvers? Can a computer 
tell me what I`m eating that jeopardizes my cholesterol rate? Can we 
make heads or tails of Enron`s bookkeeping strategy?
    These are jobs, the basic functions of which supercomputers of 
the 1980s could perform with ease. Yet the modern, everyday personal 
computer, whose processing ability supersedes that of those machines 
by orders of magnitude, just barely delivers enough power for you to 
type a letter, or keep a list of your colleagues` phone numbers, or 
even play a decent game of chess with you. Crashing has become one 
of the fundamental functions of a computer. Entire careers are spent 
by system administrators whose principal jobs are helping their 
users recover from system crashes. We speak often of how the 
computers on-board Apollo 11 had one-fourth the processing power of 
a T.I. pocket calculator. Today, an everyday personal computer, 
capable of literally millions of times the processing power of 
Apollo 11, has difficulty running a real-time simulation of the 
Apollo 11 on-board computer, without being bogged down by the 
colossal overhead incurred by the operating system. Most of us 
computer users and developers are just barely eking out our everyday 
jobs.
    Had there been a true state of competition between Microsoft and 
other producers of operating systems over the last 15 years, this 
pitiful state of existence would never have come about. Microsoft 
yesterday and today has employed brilliant programmers, with the 
capability to endow computers with extraordinary functionality and 
richness of experience. These programmers_not just those 
outside the company_have been handicapped by the crippling 
weight of the monstrosity that has become Microsoft Windows, a 
platform that transforms the definition of `moving 
target' into an unfathomable, four-dimensional puzzle from 
which rational minds can barely escape.
    It is bewilderment in the apparently minuscule importance of the 
law within Microsoft`s own little world, that Judge Jackson 
attempted to express_and which, sadly, he did at the wrong 
time and with improper motivation. Judge Jackson`s judgment was 
indeed clouded, as was Joel Klein`s, and those of the other parties 
in this case who have attempted to craft an appropriate remedy for 
Microsoft`s offenses. To date, no solution on the 
table_including the breakup of the company_has taken 
into account this obvious fact: Any remedy that fails to render the 
future executive conduct of Microsoft or its successor companies 
innocuous to those whom its prior conduct knowingly deceived, is no 
remedy at all.
    NEW CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT
    Tough love, for a misbehaving adolescent child, often mandates 
that the parent be willing to cut that child off_not to kick 
him into the death spiral, but to make him live with his own 
choices. Microsoft would have itself continue to live in a world 
defined by the agreements it makes with others_how free and 
open they are, how restricted and narrow they may be, but in any 
event, how many agreements there are! It is my suggestion to you 
that, in the interest of tough love, Microsoft should be cut off. We 
must take steps to force Microsoft to live with the decisions that 
it has already made for itself. We must allow Microsoft to live in 
the world it has constructed for itself. But we must not allow 
circumstances to continue which force, or compel, or rely upon any 
other company doing business in the computing 
industry_software, hardware, services, networking, or 
elsewhere_to have to make any agreements with Microsoft 
whatsoever just to stay alive.
    What if we`re sick of Microsoft? Why must developers, 
manufacturers, vendors, and retailers be forced to endure even the 
fairest and most legally honorable of relationships with a 
corporation that has proven its inherent incapability to see value 
in the ideas, works, and products of others outside its own doors? 
Why must the rest of the computing industry be bunched together 
under the category of `third party' by legal definition?
    In the early 1980s, the computing industry at large made a 
collective decision to support a single, pre-eminent operating 
system, and to trust Microsoft with the stewardship of that system. 
This decision was not reached by having been kicked into the death 
spiral. This was a rational decision made by honest, persevering 
corporations whose mutual interest was to build an industry together 
so that each could prosper.
    Microsoft Windows did not, as Microsoft`s self-authored history 
proclaims, compete head-to-head with other operating systems on 
equal turf, and achieve a position of prominence through 
overwhelming customer acclamation. MS-DOS_and by 
succession, Windows_were handed this position of prominence on 
a silver plate, under the

[[Page 24589]]

auspices of a bond of trust between Microsoft and the rest of the 
computing industry. This trust was the collective property of the 
computing industry. Microsoft violated, ruined, and destroyed that 
trust. Entire corporations were destroyed as a result, and others 
today struggle simply to break even.
    To presume that Microsoft can make reparations for this 
violation by way of an agreement stating that it promises this will 
never, ever happen again, is to ignore the extent of the damage that 
was done. For Netscape, Sun, and Novell, the death spiral was indeed 
devastating, but their survival is foreseeable. They may each yet 
rise from the ashes, with or without Microsoft`s aid_and they 
may be better off without it anyway. These are companies that may 
never benefit from any settlement on the content of future 
agreements with Microsoft. These companies don`t want future 
agreements with Microsoft.
    The offended parties in the Microsoft antitrust matter are 
Microsoft`s many software development partners, the computer 
manufacturers who depend on Windows, the retailers who have the 
right to sell the products they want to sell, and most importantly, 
the consumers and businesses who rely on Windows every day. The 
state of Windows today_and as a result, the state of the way 
their businesses work every day_was designed, planned, built, 
and executed in bad faith.
    In the interest of crafting a proper redress, I make the 
following suggested replacements for the terms of the District 
Court`s Final Judgment:
    1. Microsoft should cede stewardship of all components of its 
operating system directly related to the function of maintaining the 
readiness and usability of the computer, to an independent Licensing 
Bureau. This Bureau may be comprised of representatives of software 
manufacturers (including Microsoft); hardware manufacturers; leaders 
in services, support, and education. Any element of Windows whose 
basic function does not directly relate to the operability of the 
computer and its peripherals, may be retained exclusively by 
Microsoft. This definition may include Media Player, Outlook 
Express, and such elements that Microsoft has called 
`Microsoft Middleware.' This central element of Windows 
is referred to here as the Windows core.
    2. Representatives of lawmaking entities worldwide will be 
appointed as special liaison to the Licensing Bureau, for the 
purpose of overseeing all development, licensing, and educational 
operations. This includes representatives of the US Justice Dept., 
but may also include representatives from the various plaintiff 
states, from Canada, from the EU, and elsewhere.
    3. The Licensing Bureau will make public all relevant 
information required by any independent developer to be able to 
create an application or program for any purpose that developer may 
conceive, in a timely manner such that a program constructed using 
this information may be guaranteed to run on the most premium 
version of Windows commercially available for a period of time 24 
months following the developer`s receipt of the information. Costs 
incurred for this publication will be assumed by the Bureau, and the 
Bureau will be free to make certain premium versions of its 
publications_such as 
`courseware`_commercially available.
    4. The Licensing Bureau will serve as the central authority for 
licensing of shared Windows components to independent developers, 
for inclusion in independent programs. This way, developers who use 
a compiler package will be able to incorporate elements of shared 
code necessary for the software to perform common functions, such as 
display buttons and present menus.
    5. Members of the Bureau will grant themselves licenses to 
produce, develop, distribute, and sell operating systems with any 
package, design, or name they may choose, but which has guaranteed 
compatibility with the Windows core, and whose principles comply 
completely with the level of interoperability and communication 
required by the Windows core. Costs incurred for licenses will be 
paid to Microsoft Corp., and for the first two years, Microsoft will 
be credited in any non-Microsoft version of Windows as the creator 
of Windows. For example, `IBM Windows' may include this 
message: `Based on Microsoft technology.' (Use the 
`Intel Inside' logo for a prototype.)
    6. Each member of the Bureau will retain the right to develop 
(or `innovate') its own exclusive packaging arrangement 
for its own version of Windows. Hypothetically, `HP 
Windows' could include HP`s own choice of media player, e-mail 
client, or instant messenger; and HP may even choose to make a 
`plain' version of Windows available without these 
items. Meanwhile, Microsoft may continue to offer Windows Media 
Player, Outlook Express, and MSN Messenger. Fair market competition 
will determine which package is superior.
    7. It will be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the 
Bureau to determine for the benefit of its own members, as well as 
the computing industry at large, the developmental strategy for the 
Windows core, to assign the tasks of development to Microsoft teams 
or to teams from other companies, to manage the development process, 
and to ensure compliance with the interoperability principles of the 
Windows core. Microsoft has a seat at the table, but it`s a seat 
among equals. It can elect to play along, or go home and sulk.
    At this time in the history of the computing industry, and of 
the country as a whole, it is incumbent upon us all to get smarter 
very quickly. We now live and work in a society dependent upon the 
free and expedient flow of information. The computing industry has 
helped the concept of information to evolve to include not just news 
and mail, but functionality_the type of work that can be 
performed by software and yet represented digitally.
    Microsoft`s most ardent supporters have argued that it should 
not be the business of the federal government to interfere with, 
place controls on, or make restrictions to the free flow of 
information, or to any company that facilitates this flow of 
information. They are right. Acceptance of the Proposed Final 
Judgment as it presently stands, is a tacit surrender and assignment 
of all rights to restrict the free flow of information, by the 
federal government, to a single company. The Proposed Final Judgment 
defines the future as a magnification of the present_in a 
state of existence that does not appear to have evolved much from 
where we stand now. And yet we know that the company to which the 
government would, in effect, render this authority is capable of 
using its own monopoly power in deceptive ways to manipulate the 
information industry in such a way that every single transaction 
comes closer and closer to flowing, at some point, through 
Microsoft.
    `Get me into that,' Bill Gates is quoted as saying, 
`and goddam, we`ll make so much money!' The free flow of 
transportation was engineered by geniuses_Henry Ford, John A. 
Roebling, Norman Bel Geddes_and championed by 
presidents_Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight 
Eisenhower. The free flow of ideas is one of the basic principles 
upheld by the United States Constitution. Up to now, all successful 
freedom has been constructed and established on solid principles. 
Are we truly prepared to draw up a statement that speaks for all of 
us as a people and a nation, that serves as a catalyst for the 
surrender of the free flow of information not to an institution 
defined by principles, but a corporation defined by deception? We 
are a smarter people than that. We know, for a fact, that all 
information, all knowledge, all wisdom is truly free, and that all 
people are entitled to fair and equal access. This principle will be 
demonstrated, clearly and unequivocally, either in the relative 
peace of today or in the turmoil of the future. You may spare the 
people a great ordeal now, against a powerful yet unprincipled 
force, by putting a stop to the death spiral. The way you do this is 
the way you deal with a wayward adolescent: Stop making deals. Take 
away its power. Spell out the law. And don`t get kicked in yourself.
    Yours sincerely,
    Scott M. Fulton, III
    Senior Partner, Ingenus



MTC-00004754

From: Jay Starkman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 4:34pm
Subject: Awful settlement proposal with Microsoft
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Your proposed `settlement' with Microsoft still 
leaves me with an intrusive Windoz operating system that I can`t 
avoid using because it`s a monopoly. As a monopoly, other vendors` 
software is written to run only on Windoz. MS makes sure that the 
Windoz API calls cannot be emulated by another OS. A real settlement 
would require MS to publish all its APIs so that other OS`s could 
write emulation code allowing Windoz-specific software to run on 
non-Windoz OS`s like Linux and OS/2. It would allow me (not just 
computer manufacturers) to remove unwanted software like Outlook 
Express, NetMeeting, and Front Page. It would give me access to 
hidden directories and hidden registry entries. It would give me a 
choice of which OS I want to run given software and give me control 
over Windoz OS if I chose to use it.

[[Page 24590]]

    I use both OS/2 and Linux, but it`s becoming harder and harder 
as MS tightens the noose around those systems. Even surfing the 
Internet, there are sites written specifically for MS Internet 
Explorer and the Windoz user. The .NET and Passport initiates will 
seal Internet into the MS corral. Your `settlement' 
unchains a tyrant MS on the world. Innovation will suffer. So will 
my pocketbook. Just try to find a copy of Windoz XP for a non-fair 
traded price. Why did they even bother with a 
`settlement'. It`s a capitulation.
    The second tragedy of September 11 is that it led to the 
unleashing of Microsoft.
    Please fire every lawyer in the anti-trust division Justice 
Department.
    They`re all incompetent.
    -Jay Starkman, CPA
    Atlanta, GA
    P.S. In 1973, I was employed by Price Waterhouse to assist with 
their anti-trust matters. I`ve got first-hand familiarity with the 
resources and connivance used to get the government to drop that 
case. The Justice Department is again being taken for fools. And you 
are!
    Jay Starkman, CPA
    Voice: 404_636-1400 Fax: 404-636-1130
    2531 Briarcliff Road, Suite 116
    e-mail: [email protected]
    Atlanta, Georgia 30329
    Internet: http://www.starkman.com



MTC-00004755

From: Karl Zaske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the antitrust action against 
Microsoft Corporation is most alarming. As I understand it, instead 
of punishing MS for violating the law, this settlement rewards their 
misdeeds by providing them an unfair competitive advantage in one of 
the few markets where they have not been able to bully their way to 
domination, K-12 education. How can this possibly make sense? 
As punishment for abuse of monopoly power the remedy is to increase 
the monopoly? It`s my opinion that Microsoft is making a fool of the 
DOJ, and Lord help consumers if this settlement goes through.
    Sincerely, Karl Zaske



MTC-00004756

From: Rich Murdock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    I have worked in Education as a computer Technician for 3 years 
and I have seen over and over Microsoft pushing out the smaller 
companies. No one can compete with them because they have the money 
to push out the little guy who needs to make a profit on everything, 
where Microsoft can afford to loose money just to get their foot in 
the door. Like this new proposal, it`s like convicting a child 
molester and then for a punishment make him the director of a 
daycare center. If you want to punish Microsoft don`t give them the 
oppertunity to molest more kids, make them pay by breaking them up 
or give half of last years income in cash to needy schools. This 
helps everyone, the schools need money and Microsoft has unfairly 
earned the money so take it away and give it to the needy.
    Rich Murdock
    Freshwater Education District
    Computer Technician



MTC-00004757

From: Jeremy Richter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 6:21pm
Subject: Very Upset Citizen
    As a citizen of the United States who believes in the spirit of 
competition, I am deeply concerned about the steps being taken to 
settle the Microsoft Antitrust case. I am a Macintosh user and like 
the choices that are provided to me using Apple`s operating system. 
But with Microsoft`s recent suggestion that a fair settlement could 
be reached by donating software to underprivileged schools, I am 
outraged. This is such an obvious ploy to gain additional customers 
that I can`t believe the government is not objecting to it. Didn`t 
they break the law? How does donating software to schools remedy the 
monopoly stranglehold they have in the PC industry? Allowing 
Microsoft to donate a billion dollars worth of software completely 
wipes out any competition. How can Apple and other companies compete 
with Microsoft in the education market if Microsoft`s software will 
be for free? This isn`t a remedy; it`s simply creating an even 
bigger beast that will further destroy competition.
    Make Microsoft donate billions in cash for its previous 
violations and have an independent organization manage how the money 
is dispersed. Currently, Microsoft has over $36 billion dollars in 
cash, so I`m pretty sure a few billion would not hurt them in the 
long run. This would be the right thing to do. In addition, 
Microsoft should be required to provide its popular Office Suite to 
both the Macintosh and Linux platforms indefinitely (and they should 
be released at the same time as the Windows versions and have the 
same features).
    I am confident that most consumers believe preserving 
competition is worth having to spend a little more time and money to 
implement the right remedy for Microsoft`s wrongdoings.
    Thank you for your time and consideration
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Richter



MTC-00004758

From: Gregory J. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m quite displeased that my government has decided to let 
Microsoft off the hook when they have been declared a monopoly. The 
terms of this settlement does little to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing their monopolistic practices and does nothing to punish 
them from their past regressions. Microsoft has proved itself as a 
fierce competitor and will stop at nothing to own what ever market 
it wishes to own. It will try and try again destroying it`s 
competitors or at the last resort buying them out. At work I use a 
MS operating system, MS Office, we have MS servers and I use a MS 
web browser. Forget about using an `alternative' web 
browser, my IT department forbids it because it would be 
incompatible although technically possible. MS marketing at work!
    Now they want to control my personal information with their .NET 
initiative. They say it`s because that is what people what and they 
are just trying to give us what we want. The real reason is because 
MS wants to own a potential market and keep the rewards for 
themselves. They have shown that they have no interest in security 
or doing anything of interest to the user. They don`t make changes 
until they are forced to and then they are often do a poor job or 
steal from other companies. I certainly do not trust Microsoft. From 
a Wired article: `Microsoft chairman Bill Gates on Thursday 
defended the settlement as tough but one that `we`re really 
pleased to have.' If Microsoft is glad to have it then it 
clearly does not go far enough. I hope that the judge will reject 
this settlement as inadequate. I also hope for a Department of 
Justice that is interested in protecting the interests of American 
citizens rather than the interests of large corporations.
    Gregory J. Smith
    1840 Peach Rd. NE
    Rio Rancho, NM 87124
    (505) 891-6160
    [email protected]



MTC-00004759

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
December18, 2001
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 onissues 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 resistefforts of 
Microsoft competitors to undermine the proposed settlement of 
thecase.
    The American HomeownersGrassroots Alliance is the national 
advocacy organization representing, alongwith its sister foundation, 
the nation???s 70 million homeowners since 1983. Ourinterest in this 
case comes from the fact that nearly 60% of homes have one ormore 
computers. Those tools are increasingly important to homeowners who 
dependon them as tools for personal and business communications, 
financial managementand planning, adult and children???s education, 
and also to manage the rapidlygrowing number of home-based 
businesses.
    In the early history ofthe personal computer industry there were 
many choices for operating systems,much as there are in

[[Page 24591]]

cellular telephones in the U.S. today. The utility ofpersonal 
computers was undermined by the inability of software written for 
oneoperating system to work on a different operating system, just as 
theincompatibility of today???s cellular telephone operating systems 
is a limitingfactor in their value to consumers. Over time the 
development of many types ofsoftware for the Windows operating 
system lead more and more consumers toselect the Windows operating 
system. Consumer preference for a wide variety ofsoftware 
applications, convenience, and ease of use also lead to a 
consumerpreference for the integration of software applications into 
the Windowsoperating system.
    The evolution of theWindows operating system into an industry 
standard through consumer choice isthe most valuable consumer 
benefit of Windows. Actions taken to addressMicrosoft behavior 
should, in no case, undermine the current right of consumersto 
select Microsoft operating systems and popular arrays of integrated 
softwareapplications.
    We believe the revisedproposed final judgment strikes the right 
balance in effectively addressingMicrosoft???s unacceptable 
practices and also preserves consumer choice. Theagreement calls for 
uniform pricing and allows computer makers flexibility toconfigure 
Windows and promote non-Microsoft programs. Both interfaces 
andprotocols necessary for other software to work with Windows must 
disclosed, andboth retaliation and exclusive agreements are 
prohibited. An independentlyappointed permanent technical committee 
will monitor compliance and assist withdispute resolution. The U.S. 
or any of the states have a right to inspect allMicrosoft documents 
and all source code for any Microsoft program, interviewany 
Microsoft employee, and order Microsoft to prepare any report under 
oathregarding any issues relating to the final judgment. Any person 
may complainregarding noncompliance to the Justice Department, the 
states and/or thetechnical committee and the plaintiffs can 
immediately initiate proceedings tohold Microsoft in contempt. We 
see no loopholes in this remedy.
    Our members have noturged us to support more stringent sanctions 
against Microsoft. In fact webelieve there is little or no consumer 
opposition to the revised proposed finaljudgment. We oppose many of 
the suggestions of Microsoft competitors, directlyor through their 
influence of federal legislators, state attorney generals, third 
party organizations, for settlement provisions designed to increase 
their market share. These companies do not represent consumers, and 
consumers havemade their preference for the Windows operating system 
known by their actionsin the marketplace.
    We thank you for theopportunity to present our views on this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Beth Hahn
    President



MTC-00004761

From: Kent L. Shephard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have followed the case carefully and seen the effects of 
Microsoft`s violation of anti-trust statutes. Microsoft has shown 
that it can`t be trusted to not engage in this type of behavior. 
They had been brought before the court previously and found guilty 
of similar behavior. This settlement does nothing to protect the 
consumer or competition from Microsoft`s abusive monopoly.
    Quite frankly, this settlement had no teeth. What happens if 
Microsoft finds itself again guilty of this behavior? What action 
will be taken and what is the penalty? I see nothing outlined. Do 
they just get to walk and be told `don`t do it again'? 
What happened to punishment for prior actions? Do they just get away 
with putting companies out of business? Blatantly ignore the law and 
walk away?
    I say this with the utmost respect. This settlement stinks.
    Sincerely,
    Kent L. Shephard
    Kent L. Shephard
    B2C2, Inc.
    ASIC Design Manager
    (510)814-7373 x153
    [email protected]
    The opinions expressed are mine
    and not those of B2C2, Inc.
    If I expressed them, they would have to be mine wouldn`t they?



MTC-00004762

From: Bill Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 8:43pm
Subject: comments on proposed Microsoft settlement
    As someone who has long believed that government anti-trust 
enforcement was unnecessarily heavy handed, I am nonetheless 
appalled and outraged by the Justice Department`s handling of the 
Microsoft case.
    I have studied what I can find about the terms of the agreement, 
and find myself wondering whether Mr. James had the wool pulled over 
his eyes due to his ignorance of (and/or bad advice on) the 
technical aspects involved, or whether `the (political) fix 
was in.' I am a retired Fortune 500 corporate financial 
executive, and as such, with in-house legal assistance, negotiated 
many eight figure financings and other agreements. I have never seen 
an agreement so full of loopholes. I honestly believe that the 
settlement agreement is worse than no settlement at all.
    For the last four years, I have worked as the (volunteer) 
computer staff person for a local professional performing arts 
organization. I first built the network, including repairing and 
upgrading a hodge podge collection of donated PCs and building the 
server. I have then kept the network maintained since then, 
upgrading it when necessary. As such, I have greatly expanded my 
long time computer hobbyist`s knowledge and am well aware of 
Microsoft`s transgressions. I have watched them target and destroy 
many entrenched or potential competitors by improper use of their OS 
monopoly. I have seen them tell outrageous lies to the public, and 
later to the courts, to maintain and build their monopoly. I am a 
lifelong believer in free markets and capitalism; their behavior is 
an embarrassment to me and gives aid to those who would replace our 
economic system with socialism or state capitalism.
    To refute just one faulty Microsoft technical argument that DOJ 
improperly accepted, secrecy is not a necessary, nor even a 
reliable, way to build a secure operating system. Microsoft used the 
secrecy = security argument to sell DOJ on allowing it to improperly 
keep parts of its OS inaccessable to firms writing competitive 
applications. Yet the most secure PC operating system in the world 
(Open BSD Unix) has made its code public. The ultimate security 
comes from having others review the code to find flaws. Microsoft`s 
secrecy policy does not work; new security holes are found weekly. 
Secrecy merely delays the discovery of problems until the software 
is in wide use_maximizing the problem. The public would be 
better served by requiring them to publish their OS 
secrets_better served through improved detection of security 
holes, and also by facilitated competitors who are able to better 
program applications to run on Microsoft`s operating systems.
    I will not get into other technical issues here; they are well 
documented in the industry press and the Wall Street Journal. And 
their transgressions are well documented in the court record. Where 
is the punishment for their past misdeeds and perjuries? Where is 
the incentive for them not to continue the practices that the 
appeals court has properly found to be illegal? Where is there a 
single provision in the agreement that does not have at least one 
large loophole? They have clearly demonstrated that they will use 
(and extend aggressively) any opening that they can find (or create 
(or imagine).)
    Microsoft has made fools of the DOJ. Please go back to the 
negotiating table or the courtroom. Further delay in justice is 
better than legitimizing Microsoft`s illegalities and other 
misdeeds. The health of our economy demands it.
    William R. Martin
    2725 River Road
    Virginia Beach, VA 23454-1210
    [email protected]



MTC-00004763

From: Mark Taggart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 9:06pm
Subject: An outsider`s viewpoint
    Make them give cash_$1 Billion_there`s my opinion. 
If they don`t like it, raise it to 1.5 billion, and keep going up 
because they are wasting your time and our tax dollars. I`m willing 
to be the tax payers have already paid a hefty sum for these 
hearings and with the $1 billion fine at hand we will at most break 
even. I`m not going to bother you with my reasoning any more than 
that.
    Have a good day,
    Mark Taggart



MTC-00004764

From: David Phillips

[[Page 24592]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 10:35pm
Subject: Comment on proposed Microsoft Settlement
2689 Elmwood Avenue Apt 2
Kenmore NY 14217
716-874-9407
[email protected]
    Greetings.
    I`m writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. 
Microsoft`s major penalty should be financial. They benefited 
enormously from direct and indirect effects of the intimidation 
tactics they employed. Also, they got caught lying bare-assed to 
Judge Penfield, which is a major disgrace. Under no circumstances 
should they be allowed to use a legal penalty to dump hardware and 
software onto a market segment, such as Education, which has seen a 
fair amount of competition over the years. For Microsoft to use your 
settlement as a `free` way to kill Apple Computer, for instance, 
would be adding serious insult to real injury.
    Alternatively, let Microsoft pay cash_not credit, not 
millions of copies of their inferior software with a marginal 
production costs of pennies per unit_to a completely 
independent foundation which can allocate funds to help EDUCATION. 
Not necessarily only for the most needy schools, but for the most 
needy geographical areas, such as rural or inner-city school 
districts. Some of those billions of dollars could_should the 
foundation so decide_go to local Headstart programs, for 
teacher professional development or to help school districts attract 
better-quality teachers. Math and Science teacher shortages, and the 
need to recruit girls into these fields, could be among the areas 
addressed by this foundation.
    To recap: Microsoft should just pay money. Lots of it. And the 
recipient foundation must be COMPLETELY independent of Microsoft. 
And the funds should be able to be spent to alleviate ignorance.
    Clearly, Microsoft`s own executives could have used some civics 
lessons when growing up. How about we break that cycle of ignorance 
in this generation?
    Thanks very much,
    David Phillips, PhD.



MTC-00004765

From: Ole Sock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 11:23pm
Subject: Open letter to the confused Attorney Generals
Subject: Open letter to the confused Attorney Generals
    The attorney generals in all 50 of our states should realize 
that the biggest monopoly of all is the `Government (sic 
Public) Education System'. In order to curry favor with the 
influential education bureaucracy the two party politicians have 
allowed the fox into the hen house, fully disregarding the sound 
government procurement principle to never `sole source'. 
In this respect the politicians have failed the taxpayer miserably. 
Even though we now have 5 year vesting the future looks grim for 
millions of baby boomers who have been bashed about with downsizings 
in the `private sector'.
    Competition and the supposedly global free market are the built 
in checks and balances to keep `private' sector goods 
and services reasonably priced. The `public' sector 
worker is largely immune from NAFTA and FAST TRACK. This is unfair 
and its further unfair to encumber an innovative company such as 
Microsoft which competes in the private sector. It`s companies such 
as Microsoft that eventually produce a product to serve the public 
by taking over an entity that in its present state is cumbersome and 
an expensive burden on the backs of society. Our aging populace 
could better use these saved dollars for medical needs. Therefore I 
ask the AGs to stop encumbering our free market companies and direct 
their attention to areas that are bigger concerns to the taxpayer.
    I challenge all states attorney generals to rid us of our 
biggest monopoly and stop violating the constitutional rights of 
America`s children, which under the present situation does not 
provide an equal opportunity to education. Dangle that education 
dollar in front of our private sector technological companies and 
let the innovation of the free market bring a better and equal 
education to America`s children at a cost that is determined by the 
free market.
    If any of you 50 need further convincing in free markets for 
education try WWW.FRIEDMANFOUNDATION.ORG.
    Ray Bastings
    29 Hickory Lane
    Malvern Pa 19355
    [email protected]



MTC-00004766

From: laspencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/18/01 11:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsoft should be split up into 3 companies.
    1. An operating system company.
    2. An application software company.
    3. A web browser company.
    Microsoft has clearly abrogated the traditional rules for 
monopoly control. They are unrepentant. It is time for the federal 
government to limit Microsoft`s power.
    Lee Spencer
    3323 Seawind Circle
    Anchorage, AK 99516
    [email protected]
    907-345-0772



MTC-00004767

From: Bill Defelice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my concern to the settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I am a computer support professional of 
more than 22 years with the past 16+ of those years spent in the 
area of education.
    I have used a variety of personal computing operating systems in 
both the retail and educational channels, including those made by 
Microsoft (MS-DOS, Windows 3.11/95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP), Amiga, 
Commodore, IBM, Unix, BeOS, Novell and Apple.
    My opinion is that a variety of operating systems other than 
Microsoft`s provide superior features and performance at each stage 
of development of the personal computing platform. Yet Microsoft 
achieved a monopoly in excess of 70% of the personal computer 
market. Microsoft`s illegal behavior in maintaining and expanding 
that monopoly to in excess of 90 per cent of the market effectively 
destroyed all existing competitive personal computing operating 
systems in the process, save one, and perhaps prevented others from 
being developed. There have been numerous ways that this has been 
documented, including the PBS television special `Triumph of 
the Nerds', which covers every aspect from Microsoft`s own 
Bill Gates taking advantage of the original author of the PC Dos 
operating system to stealing the look and feel of Apple Computer`s 
operating system used in the Macintosh and Lisa personal computer 
systems.
    I am quite opposed to the settlement for several reasons. The 
one I most strongly object to is the fact that is provides Microsoft 
with an unfair advantage through an increased market share. By the 
fact they are to provide a majority of their settlement award with 
their own hardware/software in lieu of cash only strengthens the 
foothold of Microsoft in the educational environment. Many school 
districts, including the one I work for, utilize multiple computing 
platforms from Unix, Macintosh as well as Microsoft.
    Receiving product from Microsoft not only hinders progress 
within districts like ours, but provides further deterioration of 
the other platforms utilized_regardless of the merits of these 
other platforms. I would recommend that Microsoft be required to pay 
a mostly cash settlement instead of providing them with an avenue 
for furthering their stronghold.
    Microsoft was also convicted of illegally integrating its 
products and/or its key technologies to its monopoly operating 
system but that conviction was previously overturned. In my 
experience it is indeed Microsoft`s tying key technologies to its 
monopoly operating system that has been the most damaging to open 
competition in the personal computing market. Microsoft was 
initially found guilty of this act and this should be remedied. The 
settlement formally forecloses any future opportunity to do so * 
this simply can`t be allowed.
    There doesn`t appear to be any further action to prevent them 
from furthering their monopoly. The nerve of CEO Steve Ballmer 
stating publicly that he does not even know what a monopoly is after 
Microsoft was convicted of being one. This should show that the 
Microsoft mentality is they believe we are all drones and will be 
bamboozled anything they say as gospel! How can the American public 
believe that Microsoft will change their ways and become law 
abiding? There is no apparent incentive to keep Microsoft`s 
compliance. There must be safeguards provided in the settlement to 
insure compliance as well as monitoring them to prevent deviation 
from those guidelines set forth for a settlement.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Bill DeFelice, Sr. Technician
    Norwalk Connecticut Public Schools
    Bill DeFelice

[[Page 24593]]

    Sr. Computer_A/V Technician
    Norwalk Public Schools
    Instructional Technology Center
    125 East Avenue
    Norwalk, CT 06852
    Tel: 203-854-4104



MTC-00004768

From: Eleanor J Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settment
    I think it is time the Government put this subject to rest. I 
feel other company`s feel they aren`t getting as much money and are 
poor losers. Bill Gate`s has done so much for others and people are 
taking advantage of him. Hope something is done soon to get this 
behind him.



MTC-00004769

From: Wendell Galbraith
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/19/01 9:36am
    Please do not let Microsoft get away again without stiff 
penalties. They use the words `innovate' and 
`consumer' over and over to bamboozle the public and 
lawmakers and force us to use their software. It got no publicity 
but research the case of `Blue Mountain Arts vs. 
Microsoft' and you will get a crystal clear understanding of 
what they do.
    Wendell Galbraith
    Research Director
    WJMK Television
    Boca Raton, Fl.



MTC-00004770

From: Rebecca Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 10:37am
Subject: How do you apply for a grant?
    Please let me know how you apply for a Microsoft grant.
    RM



MTC-00004771

From: Steven Randolph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft in the anti-trust case. I heartily concur 
with the finding of the courts that Microsoft is an abusive 
monopolist that has acted illegally to limit competition. But the 
proposed settlement will not sufficiently restore competition. 
Microsoft should be divided into two independent companies as per 
the plan described by the original trial judge. Furthermore, strong 
measures should be taken to ensure that Microsoft does not 
`bundle' applications into its operating systems so as 
to prevent or discourage consumers from consideration of competing 
applications from non-Microsoft sources.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Randolph
    6710 Taylor Road
    Lakeland, FL 33811
    863-255-8954
    [email protected]



MTC-00004772

From: Bernard P Ducamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 11:13am
Subject: Monopoly Maintenance
    Please refer to the we site: http://www.byte.com/documents/
s=1115/byt20010824s0001/. The article about the demise of BeOS 
points out the following: The reality is that Be`s failure has made 
a point to the world, to whit: `Don`t bother trying to create 
a better commercial desktop OS_it doesn`t matter how hard you 
try, how many engineers you throw at the problem, how much money you 
spend, how many years you put into it, or how wonderful the product 
is. Microsoft owns that (monopoly) space, and will VIGOROUSLY defend 
it.'



MTC-00004773

From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 11:17am
Subject: Comment about Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Having worked in the computer industry for more than 20 years I 
have seen the bennefit TRUE competition as done for our industry. 
The current Microsoft settlement does nothing to promote competition 
and in fact further promotes Microsoft`s monopoly into the education 
market. In the future, the underfunded schools will be forced to pay 
for upgrading Microsoft software. This is an expense our schools 
can`t afford.
    Additionally the true cost of the software Microsoft plans to 
donate is significantly less than the list price. A better solution 
would be to have Microsoft pay cash to the schools and allow the 
schools to spend to money on what ever they wish or non-Microsoft 
platforms. Redhat has offered to donate Linux for free. Let 
Microsoft buy the hardware. Or let the schools buy Apple computers.
    I would prefer to see Microsoft broken up in to an operating 
system company and an application company.
    Sincerly,
    Mark Wisner
    101 Farrell Ct.
    Morrisville, NC 27560



MTC-00004774

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here`s a snippet from an e-mail making the rounds today, 19 Dec 
01_This is the sort of compliance you can expect from 
Microsoft:
    `I understand that some people using Netscape`s browsers 
had trouble reading my recent IETF trip report. Unfortunately, I had 
forgotten that Microsoft had changed their HTML conversion utility 
for Word2000 such that it creates great content for their IE browser 
but horrid content for Netscape browsers.
    Because I used Word2000 to create this report, I have been 
getting emails reporting great frustration trying to read/access my 
report.
    Fortunately,  used a utility to strip out 
the Word2000-isms from an older version of my trip report. 
. . .'
    The only innovative work we`ve ever seen from Microsoft has 
addressed avoiding standards and undermining competitors. The people 
impressed with Microsoft products are the turn-key users and those 
who benefit directly from the largesse. Everyone I know who works in 
information technology admires Microsoft`s business strategy_a 
monopoly in an area the government doesn`t understand. However, in 
these technical circles, I never hear Microsoft praised for its 
technical innovations or for its quality; quite the opposite.
    (Technically, what has Microsoft *ever* innovated? A dancing 
paper clip? Seriously review this question of innovation with 
someone knowledgable in the history of information 
technology_every major Microsoft product is the result of 
purchase or imitation.)
    Those in the industry know that antitrust action against 
Microsoft should have started in the late 1980s. The government has 
clearly been slow to understand the information technology sector of 
business. But finally the suit came, too late for Lotus and Caldera, 
but Microsoft`s fundamental business practices had not changed. I 
can`t believe that after winning the case, the U.S. Government is 
now going to capitulate.
    Fred.
    Fred B. Holt Phone: (425)865-4148
    Math and Eng. Analysis FAX: (425)865-2966
    The Boeing Company e-mail: [email protected]
    The Boeing Company takes no responsibility for the content of 
this message.
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gen.



MTC-00004775

From: Richard D. Copeland, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 2:18pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
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:
    * Both the Windows API and Microsoft document formats (MS Word, 
MS Excel, etc) must be made freely available to anyone who wants 
them.
    * Microsoft 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.
    * Microsoft products should be provided only as extra-cost 
options on personal

[[Page 24594]]

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 `bunding' an entire kitchen sink of applications 
with Windows, increasing the price of Windows (either directly or 
indirectly), and preventing competition.
    Sincerely,
    Richard D. Copeland, Jr.
    concerned, informed Citizen



MTC-00004777

From: Brian Uecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 4:16pm
Subject: My support
    I totally endorse the DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft! Don`t let 
those liberal, know-nothing states screw this up!!!
    Brian Uecker



MTC-00004778

From: Russell Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern, I am Russell Parker and have been a 
Systems and Network engineer for over 17 years. And as a 
professional in this field I would like to say that I think that the 
US Gov. is doing a gross case of Injustice in regards to the 
harassment of Microsoft. Why is it that the US Gov thinks it has to 
punish a company once they are at a certain size? As for as the 
claims that Microsoft does not play fair. That is just the cry of 
companies that do not have a product that is as good as what Ms has 
and they are using this to get an unfair advantage over Ms. If the 
consumer does not like what any company does they have the 
`right' not to buy from a company that does not do 
bossiness in the manor that they like. That is what happened to 
WordPerfect, and for the government to tell a company what they can 
and can not do is not only bring us closer to socialism in the US.
    Russell Parker CNE, MCSE
    4400 S. Bell Apt 102C
    Amarillo TX 79109



MTC-00004779

From: Wally Flint
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 5:02pm
Subject: antitrust issues
    THE IDEA PROPOSED HEREIN IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARD SET OF 
OPERATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS. The specification of these components 
is not a specification for how the components should work. Instead, 
it is only a specification for the nature and scope of components 
(what module does what), together with the interfaces for the 
components (how to `connect to' a component, or how to 
access the functionality of each component). I call this operating 
system the `Standard Operating System' (SOP).
    METHODOLOGIES
    Many well-known software companies (BEA, IBM, Sun, ...) compete 
on a level playing field to produce J2EE application servers. This 
`fair and competitive market' did not emerge from the 
mist of random free market chaotic activity. Instead, it developed 
on the basis of the following methodologies:
    1) Modularization of Software
    Dell manufactures computers from video cards, mother boards, and 
other electronic modules and components. Contrast this with the old 
way of carrying out circuit design_wiring together a bunch of 
resistors and transistors. With the old methodology, every 
electronic product was essentially `custom built'. Then, 
electronic hardware became modularized. The integrated circuit (IC) 
offered complex functionality (such as an amplifier) as a modular 
unit. Circuit boards (like a PC`s mother board or video card) 
offered even more complex functionality as a modular unit. If a 
circuit board goes bad, just replace it with a new one (as opposed 
to replacing the entire computer). If a cheaper video card appears 
on the market, companies like Dell can lower costs by changing to 
the new cheaper video card.
    This modularization could not have developed without standards. 
For example, circuit boards have standard connectors that plug into 
standard sockets in the PC. If every video card had its own custom 
connector, then each PC design could use one and only one type of 
video card.
    Just as electronic products are built from standard modules, 
large complex software programs may be built from standard software 
modules. For this to happen, the interface for accessing the 
functionality of that component must be defined. Standardizing a 
software module interface is analogous to standardizing circuit 
board connectors. For example, if a software module draws lines on 
the screen, then the line drawing functionality may possibly be 
accessed by calling a `drawLine' function, a 
`paintLine' function, a `renderLine' 
function, and so on. A standard is developed by choosing one of 
these names, and asking all component developers to use the same 
name. This allows software modules to be mixed and matched for a 
variety of purposes (optimization of cost, speed, quality, ...), 
just as hardware components are mixed and matched in the design of a 
PC.
    2) Community Process Sun has developed a community process, 
called the `Java Community Process', for allowing 
interested parties to influence the development of a standard. 
(www.jcp.org)
    3) Proving Compliance with a Standard To prove compliance with a 
standard, a compatibility test suite is developed. A compatibility 
test suite is a software application that exercises the various 
functionalities of a software module, and verifies that the behavior 
that results is the same behavior as that required by the standard. 
The same compatibility test suite is used for all software module 
developers, producing a `level playing field' for 
competition in meeting the standard.
    (http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/
JCPtools/)
    IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE METHODOLOGIES DESCRIBED ABOVE
    A) These methodologies allow code to remain proprietary (unless 
a company elects to open source its code), yet still facilitate 
competition for all operating system components. They also 
facilitate mixing and matching components. You could run a Microsoft 
kernel with a windowing system from company XYZ, or visa versa. 
Allowing code to remain proprietary stimulates competition and 
investment, promotes quality, and is fair to investors.
    B) Part of the difficulty in solving the anti-trust problem lies 
in defining where the operating system ends and software 
applications begin. Should an instant messenger be classified as an 
operating system component, or is it a software application? This 
issue is highly significant when trying to determine whether 
Microsoft is bundling its applications with its operating system, 
and thereby forcing consumers to purchase the applications in order 
to get the operating system. I call this bundling phenomenon 
`operating system creep'. Operating system creep is the 
process of expanding the definition of word `operating 
system' for the purpose of legitimizing the practice of 
bundling applications with the operating system.
    The above methodologies indirectly provide a solution to the 
problem of operating system creep. Assume the standard operating 
system is developed as a bunch of components, instead of as one 
giant blob. In this case, the standard for a given component may 
change frequently while the standard is maturing. However, the 
standard for that component will eventually stabilize, and 
thereafter the standard will probably not change very often. After a 
component standard has stabilized, companies that develop that 
component are not affected by operating system creep. That is, if 
company XYZ markets a component for rendering the desktop on the 
screen, then that component cannot be adversely affected if 
Microsoft bundles an instant messenger component with its version of 
SOP. Under the current situation (no standardized modularization), 
the entire operating system is pushed onto the consumer as a single 
giant `blob' (a single giant component), and in this 
case, no other company can compete to provide this giant component, 
because the component changes with each iteration. (For example, the 
giant component may include an instant messenger in one iteration, 
where it did not include an instant messenger in the previous 
iteration.) But with standardized componentization, the standard for 
a given operating system module eventually stabilizes, and all 
companies can then easily compete to implement that standard. The 
point is that the standard for a stabilized component cannot be 
affected by changing the scope of what is considered the 
`operating system'.
    C) In order to end up with a quality design, an industry 
consortium should develop the standardized interfaces, as well as 
the scope of those interfaces (should it be one big interface, or a 
component for screen rendering, a component for I/O, and so on? 
should screen rendering be one big component, or should it be broken 
into several sub-components?). The industry consortium could 
standardize components using a process similar to the java community 
process described above.
    ONE ASPECT OF THE REMEDY
    Suppose the Windows operating system is required to implement 
the SOP interfaces. In

[[Page 24595]]

this case, if Microsoft applications (such as Microsoft Word) 
communicate with Windows using proprietary (non-standard) 
interfaces, then this effectively creates an artificial shortage of 
applications for competing operating systems. Looked at another way, 
it forces competing operating systems to implement the proprietary 
interfaces to become `Microsoft Word compatible', and 
thereby destroys the standard. Perhaps one aspect of a remedy could 
be requiring Microsoft applications to use ONLY the standardized 
interfaces.



MTC-00004780

From: Tom Harwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Is An Unrepentant Criminal And Must Be Treated As 
Such: On November 29, we first noted that the 60-day comment period 
on the Microsoft antitrust settlement with the Justice Department 
and nine states had begun. Today, we filed our comments on the 
settlement. It is incredulous to us that anyone could think that the 
settlement is reasonable and effective. Here is the text of our 
submission to the Justice Department: `I would like to express 
my opposition to the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I 
am not a lawyer but a user of personal computers, a tool essential 
to my livelihood for approximately 20 years. I have used many 
personal computing operating systems over the years, including those 
made by Microsoft (MSDOS, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, 
Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows XP Pro), Amiga, Commodore, 
IBM, Texas Instruments and Apple Computer. My opinion is that 
operating systems other than Microsoft`s have been superior in 
features and performance at each stage of development of the 
personal computing platform. Yet Microsoft achieved a monopoly, i.e. 
in excess of 70 percent of the personal computer market. Microsoft`s 
illegal behavior in maintaining and expanding that monopoly to in 
excess of 90 per cent of the market effectively destroyed all 
existing competitive personal computing operating systems in the 
process, save one, and perhaps prevented others from being 
developed.
    `I am firmly opposed to the settlement for three principal 
reasons. First, the settlement does not in anyway compensate for the 
effects of Microsoft`s illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Second, it 
forecloses further pursuit of illegal tying. Third, its attempt to 
prevent future illegal monopolistic behavior is inadequate. 
`Microsoft stands convicted after appeal of conducting illegal 
acts to maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating 
systems. Microsoft`s illegal acts certainly have cost consumers 
billions of dollars directly and possibly much more by preventing 
the development of alternatives. We will never know what we`ve lost 
as a result of illegally stifled competition. Yet the settlement 
does not provide even a minuscule penalty for the deleterious 
results of Microsoft`s egregiously illegal behavior. It simply 
dismisses this and proceeds with a lame attempt to prevent a 
continuation of such illegal behavior. No corrective action of any 
type that simply attempts to put Microsoft on a legal course can be 
reasonably construed to be a penalty of any sort. A penalty is 
required and none is provided by the settlement.
    `Microsoft was also convicted of illegally tying its 
products to its monopoly operating system but that conviction was 
overturned on appeal based on the standard used by the District 
Court judge to convict Microsoft. The issue was remanded to the 
District Court for further consideration. A decision to not pursue 
the illegal tying issue is formalized in the settlement even though 
the Justice Department announced that it would not pursue it before 
entering into the settlement. In my experience it is indeed 
Microsoft`s tying of its products to its monopoly operating system 
that has been the most damaging to competition in the personal 
computing market. Microsoft was initially found guilty of illegal 
tying and the remanded issue should be pursued. The settlement 
formally forecloses the opportunity to do so.
    `Finally, the settlement is inadequate to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing its practices of illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. Clearly, Microsoft is an unrepentant criminal. As an 
example, its CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as stating that he does 
not even know what a monopoly is after Microsoft was convicted of 
being one. It is totally incredulous to believe that Microsoft will 
simply go forth and be a good corporate citizen. While the 
settlement contains provisions to enforce its restrictions through 
oversight, the burden is on the government to catch Microsoft in the 
act and, if so, then Microsoft is simply returned once again to 
proceedings such as these. Where is the incentive for Microsoft to 
comply? My mind boggles in that this is the second time that a 
settlement of this nature has been reached with the same convict. 
The second is no more satisfactory than the first. Any resolution of 
this case against Microsoft must provide appropriate incentives for 
the unrepentant criminal to comply with the law.'



MTC-00004781

From: Jen Huebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my support for Steve Satchell to be a 
nominee for the three-member committee stationed at Microsoft for 
the Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance Committee. I believe Mr. 
Satchell is well qualified for this postion, and would be a fair and 
knowledgeable member of the committee.
    I would like to comment on the case for public record according 
to my rights under the Tunney Act:
    One of Microsoft`s chief claims during this trial was that times 
and the nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust 
enforcement ought to be different today than it was when the laws 
were first passed over a century ago. Microsoft now appears to be 
leaning on this to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft`s 
actions.
    Here`s the explanation:
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors.
    Microsoft`s greatest single threat on the operating system front 
comes from Linux_a non-commercial product_and it faces a 
growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and 
freeware applications. The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet 
Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache 
Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache practically rules the Net, 
along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-
profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all 
under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don`t even 
exist. Section III(J)(2) is a prime example, and Section III(D) is 
another. Under this deal, the government is shut out, too.
    This is all cause of great concern, and should be to us all.
    Regards,
    Jen Huebert
    [email protected]



MTC-00004782

From: frank xu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 6:43pm
Subject: the settle is fair and benefical to consumers
    TO who it may concern,
    I think the settle fair and benefical to consumers. Any 
opposition to this settle has seen to be only benefical Microsoft`s 
competitors such as SUN and Oracle. The products from these MS 
competitor have much higher price, in the order of magnitude.
    Tax payer`s money should be used to help companies to make good 
and more products, not to put any limit on all the good stuff MS 
created and consumers have long been enjoying. MS competitors should 
spend more time on improving products intead of firing laws suits 
which are waste of Tax payer`s money.
    Thanks for asking public opinion.
    Frank Xu



MTC-00004783

From: James Dixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 9:35pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed settlement.
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft antitrust trial. I have no legal training and am 
writing solely as an informed layman. I do have experience with 
computers, as I have worked as a computer technician for the past 6 
years, and have been using computers since 1976.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of establishing and maintaining 
a monopoly in the field of computer operating systems. It is my 
opinion that the proposed settlement does nothing to penalize them 
for past illegal actions taken in this regard, and does little

[[Page 24596]]

to prevent such actions in the future. Quite frankly, in both this 
trial and the previous one, Microsoft has shown a complete and total 
disregard for the law and legal agreements. Any penalty must take 
this into account, and be crafted accordingly. I believe there are 
three simple components to such an effective penalty.
    First, Microsoft should pay a large fine for its past 
actions_large not just in layman`s terms, but in relationship 
to the size of the company and it`s current cash reserves. This 
money should be used by the court to compensate those injured by 
Microsoft`s illegal activities. How best to do so is a matter best 
left to the judgement of the court. This serves two purposes. 
Hopefully it reminds Microsoft that there is a penalty to pay for 
breaking the law, and thereby dissuades them from doing so in the 
future. More importantly, it reinforces the standard (and reminds 
the public and other corporations) that the rule of law is absolute, 
and disregard of it will not be tolerated. Secondly, since Microsoft 
is an acting monoply, it should be regulated as one. Microsoft 
should no longer be allowed to negotiate individual license fees for 
Windows and Office. Instead, as with other regulated monoplies, they 
should publish a public tarriff which lists the quantities and 
prices at which their products may be purchased. This would prevent 
Microsoft from providing reduced prices in exchange for exclusive 
contracts, a popular tactic of Microsoft`s in the past. This tarriff 
would be the only way in which Microsoft would be allowed to sell 
their products. Since this is a fairly harsh penalty, it should 
probably be subject to periodic review to determine if it is still 
required. Every 3-5 years would seem to be appropriate.
    Thirdly, all API`s to Microsoft`s products should be made 
public. This should be enforced by a panel of outside experts with 
full access to Microsoft`s source code, and their decisions should 
be binding. No API`s, security or otherwise, should be excluded, and 
the disclosure should be fully public, not limited in any way. This 
will prevent another of Microsoft`s popular tactics, reserving 
hidden API`s and only partially documenting others.
    Taken together, these three components will act as a significant 
check on future illegal activities on Microsoft`s part, and will 
allow competing firms and Open Source developers to offer products 
which both compete and interoperate with Microsoft`s. They do not, 
of course, address the full range of Microsoft`s illegal and anti-
comptetitive actions, but doing so is outside of my capabilites or 
time. These are the points on which I feel qualified to speak, and I 
believe my recommendations are both simple and relatively easy to 
implement, especially in comparison to the currently proposed 
settlement. I would like them to be considered in lieu of or in 
addition to the proposed settlement.
    Finally, if Microsoft cannot agree to these types of 
regulations, or breaks the agreement in any way, final drastic 
action is required. Just as a convicted criminal can no longer be 
allowed to possess weapons, if Microsoft cannot act within the law 
their weapons should be taken from them. In this case, those weapons 
are Windows and Office. If Microsoft will not agree to these terms, 
or live by them, the copyright to Windows and Office should be 
removed from them and placed in the public domain. I realize this is 
an extreme and drastic action, but given Microsoft`s well 
demonstrated and total disregard for the law and lawfully negotiated 
settlements, I can think of no other final penalty which meets the 
needs of the public.
    Thank you for your time and patience.
    Respectfully,
    James E. Dixon
    Route 3, Box 85-B
    Mannington, WV 26582
    [email protected]



MTC-00004784

From: Mark Sealey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/19/01 11:54pm
Subject: Comment against the recent MicroSoft judgement settlement, 
payment to schools
Mark Sealey
24668-A Brighton Drive
VALENCIA
CA 91355-4374
(+1 661) 255 7044
    As a long time educator and computer/IT specialist, i am 
extremely concerned at the recent settlement proposed for industry 
monopolist Microsoft.
    The proposal to `pay off` monies owed to the industry and 
public by making equipment and software available to educational 
establishments would, in fact, further that company`s monopoly.
    Such an arrangement would effectively tie in those schools and 
colleges unwise enough to receive such merchandise to depending on 
Microsoft products from the time they took delivery of the goods 
onwards. Microsoft has a proven record of releasing inferior 
software and operating systems necessitating that the buyer pay 
later on for upgrades and improvements.
    Schools participating in this deception would sooner or later 
find themselves under strong pressure to abandon superior products 
for Microsoft upgrades and later versions.
    This is not good for American school students, parents, tax 
payers or the spirit of competition which has put such otherwise 
excellent resources into our schools.
    Please inform me of the Department`s intention not to let this 
happen.
    Thank you!
    best
    Mark Sealey
    



MTC-00004785

From: RedGhost
To: NEWCASE ATR,Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft use of Federal Facilities for Advertising
    I am disturbed to find that Microsoft has been allowed to 
advertise in a Federal Facility. Today I was at the Main Post Office 
in Seattle and found that Microsoft has paid for placement in local 
Postal Facilities. This apalls me. I understood that the case 
Department of Justice had prosecuted ended up in a Conviction on the 
Charges. The appearance of the posters, CDs and other items 
promoting Microsoft, seems to imply that the Federal Goverment 
condones the actions, historical and future that this criminal 
endevour undertakes. Maybe I am mistaken in my understanding, but 
the left hand either does not know what the right does, or there is 
a new policy of selling access to government facilities to the 
highest bidder.
    This sets a precedent that leads down a slippery slope in 
allowing anybody with a wad of cash to buy a their way into 
government facilities. If this is going to be policy, what is to 
restrict any enterprise from dispensing items of a questionable 
nature other buildings where the public has access? The assault on 
postal facilities with bacterial agents, though tragic, is not as 
insidious as allowing this activity to continue.
    I have reviewed the contents of the `free' disk and 
have found that this item perpetuates the continued anticompetative 
activities the company was investigated for. This item forces the 
user to `upgrade' software on their computer, to the 
Proprietary microsoft item, instead of allowing the interested party 
to view this with a competitors browser or multimedia program. It 
also promotes gambling with a `Contest' for prizes, 
which forces the user to `register' with the microsoft 
Passport software, to allow the company to monitor the users online 
activities, and track actions.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter
    Clay Monroe
    5702 43rd ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98105-2225



MTC-00004786

From: Aaron Peluso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 3:24am
Subject: Microsoft Feedback
    Lets get this thing settled and get on with our lives. The DOJ 
settlement is more than fair.
    Aaron Peluso



MTC-00004787

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 8:11am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I`m 27yrs old, and need some explantion. How is it any different 
when companies like `AOL' & `Time 
Warner' merg, and take a commanding lead in their fields. Then 
now AT&T plan a merger & now are going to take control of 
the market more then what their competitors had. HOW is it then 
different then how `MicroSoft' conducts itself? I have 
no business/law degree, but to me....it just seems unfair. Punish 
`MicroSoft' for `bullying', but then when 
other huge companies are doing the same....say&do nothing to 
them? If your going to make this `fair', make it fair 
down both sides of the street. I work hard for a living, manage to 
stay afloat, I could care less what one company does to another.... 
my point is: Make it legally fair to everyone. Personally, the whole 
thing against `Microsoft', to me, just makes no sence at 
all. Why anger the richest man in the world? He now is reaching out 
into different

[[Page 24597]]

markets, soon his `XBOX' will eliminate competitors, are 
you then going to go after him for that? Then after that, then what? 
From a plain guy in WI., I say leave it be already.
    Jeremy Duane
    www.geocities.com/soul_seeking



MTC-00004788

From: mmcweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 8:19am
Subject: Comments on Antitrust for Federal Register
    Dear Sir/Madam
    I wish to voice my concerns at the haste at which the Antitrust 
case against Microsoft is being reached. I believe there are 
superior alternatives to Microsoft products available, but believe 
the penalties proposed will not allow the companies and individuals 
who comprise the computer community to benefit from these.
    Specifically, I have found it close to impossible to purchase a 
desktop or laptop computer for my own personal use, without having 
Microsoft Windows included in the price. In other words as a 
consumer, I was forced to buy a product I neither required nor 
wanted. This is an unacceptable situation. Those engaging in this 
practice include virtually all the major computer manufacturers, and 
almost all retail outlets. On enquiring why this is the case, most 
informed me that they were prevented from shipping the computer 
alone (without bundled Microsoft software) because of agreements 
with Microsoft. As such, these same companies would not quote me for 
a software-free machine.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to yield profits from those who 
want to use their products. By imposing penalties which prevent 
these agreements, the Department of Justice has the opportunity to:
    1:Prevent Microsoft from dubbing closed proprietary file formats 
and other technologies as `Industry standards', thereby 
improving interoperability.
    2:Allow true competition which will benefit the entire computer 
community in terms of software quality and security.
    3:Facilitate the public by allowing them to choose software on 
merit.
    4:Eliminate the scourge of viruses which are almost non-existant 
outside the realms of Microsoft, but as Code Red and Nimda showed, 
could potentially grind the internet to a halt for everybody. It`s 
everybody`s internet.
    Please protect it.
    I sincerely hope that the Dept. of Justice will be mindful of 
this and impose meaningful penalties which will undo past damage, 
and improve future competition.
    Yours faithfully
    Mel McWeeney
    Mr. Mel McWeeney,
    I.T. Consultant,
    136 Teffia Park,
    Longford,
    Rep. of Ireland.



MTC-00004790

From: Stacey Tarbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
December 20, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
By Email
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    The Department of Justice Antitrust Division is accepting public 
comment in the settlement between the United States government and 
the Microsoft Corporation until the end of January 2002. I write to 
offer my support of the settlement.
    Although I do not work in the high technology industry, I can 
see the benefits it has had in our country, specifically those of 
Microsoft. In the span of a few short years, this company has 
totally transformed how Americans communicate in business and in 
their private lives. Microsoft has brought worker efficiency to a 
level that was never dreamed of when we were all using typewriters 
and calculators.
    If any of Microsofts competitors could even come close to a 
product that could rival Excel, Word or PowerPoint, consumers would 
have a real choice. Since no other company can even come close, 
consumers chose Microsoft. As a result, its competitors have chosen 
to try and defeat them in the courtroom, rather than the 
marketplace. They are co-opting the governments resources because 
they really have no alternative to compete with other than their 
inferior products.
    It is a shame that the government has fallen prey to the special 
interests of Microsofts competitors. Through this settlement, we 
have the opportunity to finally put an end to what has already been 
a case that has gone on too long. I urge you to settle this case 
once and for all. Consumers, families and the marketplace deserve 
nothing less.
    Sincerely,
    Stacey Tarbell
    121 Pinewood Drive
    Contoocook, New Hampshire 03229



MTC-00004791

From: Joseph J Wolff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    The Microsoft proposed settlement will only serve to make 
Microsoft a stronger monopolist.
    1) `Giving' software away to underprivileged schools 
benefits Microsoft far more than it benefits the schools_and 
in fact giving software away to schools is a proven marketing 
tacting used by Apple computer 20 years ago to put its business on 
the map_it is akin to `planting the seeds' in 
young users of your operating system or platform_grabbing 
mindshare at the earliest point, and while the minds are still open 
and gullible, without the ability to filter propaganda and spin. It 
also plants the seeds for upgrades_sources put the IT budget 
of Microsoft-based schools at 30-40% of the total IT 
budget_hardly something that the underprivileged schools will 
be able to afford after their first five years of free ride is 
ended, with the next release after that of MSWindows or MSOffice 
being (intentionally) `incompatible' with the previous 
release_a proven tactic to force upgrades.
    A better solution is proposed by RedHat Software, here: http://
www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html 
This would preserve the future of the software for the schools, and 
would quintuple the number of systems and schools receiving a 
benefit.
    2) An even more disturbing manipulation contained in the 
settlement is described here: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html So once again, Microsoft is using the settlement 
to actually lock in its future_rather than actually be 
constrained by it.
    These clauses will give Microsoft the leverage it needs to 
prevent distribution of it`s API documentation to whomever it 
doesn`t want to see them, perpetuating the problem, in precisely the 
same way it has done in the past_only this time with the force 
of law!
    The clauses also attack the only real competition Microsoft now 
has_the open-source community, where the products are 
available for nothing_the only way it has proven possible to 
compete with Microsoft given its monopolistic practices.
    In conclusion, I urge the DOJ to rethink the proposed 
settlement_I also respectfully submit that the selttlement, 
and the comments from the knowledgeable members of the media and 
industry experts, indicate clearly that there is a fundamental lack 
of understanding by the DOJ of the software business and the way 
Microsoft has competed unfairly and used monoipolistic practices to 
squash competition_and in fact the DOJ in the current 
settlement is simply another pawn being played by Microsoft to 
further its own interests.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph J Wolff
    Founder and CEO,
    eRacks Thin Systems
    www.eracks.com
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004792

From: Michael W. Shelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 12:07pm
Subject: Let Justice Prevail
    As a long-time network administrator, I have long suffered from 
the abuses perpetrated by Microsoft`s hegemony in the sphere of 
small-computer operating systems. Whereas my suffering is not 
sufficient for the law to require relief, Microsoft`s actions have 
been determined to violate the law, and in this penalty phase of the 
case, penalties should be meted out appropriately. It is beginning 
to look like that may not happen, and that computer consumers and 
users will continue to suffer. Thus, I`m offering my opinion.
    *ï¿½1AUsers should not be forced to buy Microsoft products as 
part of the purchase of

[[Page 24598]]

a new computer. The cost of those products should be added on, and 
their inclusion made optional. Thus, a computer without software 
could be configured with software products of the buyer`s choice at 
prices that reflect true competition between those products, rather 
than settling for Microsoft`s products because they are 
`included' or add `only a few dollars' to 
the price.
    *ï¿½1AMicrosoft`s file formats should be made public, so that 
other vendors` programs can read them, even on other operating 
systems. Also, the Windows application programming interface should 
be opened to allow other vendors to write programs for the Window 
operating system with the same advantages that Microsoft`s internal 
programmers have.
    *ï¿½1AIf Microsoft insists on developing its own networking 
protocols, those protocols should be made public, so that the 
company cannot leverage its hegemony into control over even more of 
the internet.
    Whereas I am, like most Americans, appalled by the events of 
September 11, there is no excuse for sacrificing that which makes 
America great in a headlong rush to concentrate on the solution of a 
single problem at the expense of all others. This is not a time for 
us to be sacrificing civil rights or to knuckle under to corporate 
greed, however it may be clothed. Microsoft has been found, 
appropriately and finally, to be in violation of the law, and an 
appropriate remedy should be levied. We will all (including 
Microsoft, if you believe in that most capitalistic of values: free 
and open competition) benefit from a leveling of the field and from 
the business-as-usual continuity of the proper application of the 
rule of law.
    Thank you for the opportunity to make my voice heard.
    Sincerely,
    Michael W. Shelton
    If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
    Derek Bok
    Michael W. Shelton
    1537 North Lakeside Ridge Drive
    Sand Springs, OK 74063
    phone 918/245-0510
    [email protected]



MTC-00004793

From: Sylvia Rapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 12:19pm
Subject: objection
    Dear Sir:
    I want to voice my objection to the settlement our Government is 
plannig to give Microsoft. I feel it is unfair to consumers and will 
crush all competition in the market place. It is not in our best 
interest to live in a world dominated by Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Sylvia Rapp



MTC-00004794

From: Chet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please review carefully the proposed settlement in this case.
    I, like millions of other tax paying citizens of this country 
feel that Microsoft is not being punished, but rewarded with this 
proposed settlement. Where is the justice for the thousands of 
businesses and individuals who have been hurt by Microsoft. They are 
not in the underprivileged schools of America. I agree that a 
settlement going to the schools would be wonderful. But not in the 
form of more Microsoft software and training. That would only 
diminish Apple`s stronghold in the Educational Sector and further 
promote Microsoft`s monopoly.
    And where do all those who have been negatively effected by 
Microsoft`s monopoly get there justice? Certainly not in this 
proposed settlement.
    Please, let`s get a grip on this situation and muster up the 
intestinal fortitude to devise an appropriate settlement that 
actually punishes Microsoft and rewards those who have been harmed 
by their monopolistic practices!
    Regards,
    Chet Poulton
    Creative Director
    ICS Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00004795

From: E Floyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 12:44pm
Subject: Comment on MS/DOJ Settlement
    I can`t beleave they were let off that easy. This is not more 
then a slap on the hand for a company like that. Not to mention they 
are still useing the same tactic as we speak. In my opinion, this 
does nothing but set up the world for a `Microsoft Tax' 
In this case, I don`t think my tax dollars were put to good use. It 
seems as if it was a waste of time and money.



MTC-00004797

From: Chuck Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 1:29pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    I have been using Microsoft Windows software for well over 20 
years now for both business and personal use. I can not begin to 
fathom how it is that the government would say that improving your 
product is a detrimental to consumers. In order to improve your 
product you have to stay competitive. Microsoft did just that. If 
you look at the root cause of everything that has been laid at the 
feet of Microsoft I think you will find that personal greed and ego 
were as much to blame for what happened as anything Microsoft did in 
terms of business deals. If you really look at this objectively you 
will see that Microsoft is the leader of the this industry and 
certainly is not the detractor it is made out to be.
    I am sure that their competitors would love to hamstring 
Microsoft so they can force you to pay bloated prices for their 
software which they do not test very thoroughly and the support for 
which is poor if it exists at all. I recently shifted to Windows 
2000 at work and Windows XP at home. The quality is remarkable and 
if recent experience holds true the return on investment period will 
happen much earlier in the lifecycle than I ever imagined possible.
    And lets talk about Netscape. I began using it when it first hit 
the market and used Navigator quite a while after MS Internet 
Explorer came out. I never cared what was pre-installed on the PC I 
went with the software that was best suited for my needs. What 
influenced me to change was to IE was when the level of quality and 
performance in IE surpassed Netscape. Netscape got sloppy and IE 
became a superior product which was incrementally improved and for 
which quality and stability and security were more important than 
ego, flashiness, and advertising opportunities. Netscape did 
themselves in, Microsoft`s only real hand in this was building a 
better product and marketing properly.
    And as a consumer of quit a large library of non-MS software 
that runs on Windows I would also like to make a point that 
Microsoft has enabled a huge and extremely productive industry 
around the world. Because of this the price of software for personal 
and business use is affordable by a great many people. If 
Microsoft`s competitors were to have their way they would control 
the price and access. And limit it to running only on their 
hardware. The key point here is that Microsoft was successful in 
building a operating system that runs on wide range of hardware from 
many manufacturers at a price that is affordable to nearly every 
one. This sounds to me like something that is good for consumers and 
business.
    So the agreement more than exceeds the necessary level of 
`protection' we need from this industry leader. Accept 
it as is and get on with more important things. Get more from the 
Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00004798

From: Bill Parish
To: [email protected]@inetgw,steveb 
@microsoft.com@i. . .
Date: 12/20/01 2:35pm
Subject: 5 Brief Story Ideas_Request for SEC Action
    CC: John Chambers,Larry 
Carter,[email protected]@inetgw,r. . .
    Hell Steve, Here a few thoughts you might consider. I am 
confident that sooner or later you will see the significance of 
supporting these efforts and iron out a compromise. Also copied are 
john chambers and Larry Carter given the enron like public relations 
techniques they have used to suppress my research. Can you imagine, 
dedicating their entire monthly corporate pr plan (keep in mind the 
size of their staff) to discrediting my efforts toward working 
toward reform and clarifying unusual financial transactions at 
cisco? Most surprising was that this was not even news to leading 
publications, especially after they said I could not talk about the 
plan because it constituted a `trade secret.' To those 
leading reporters out there unable to report on Microsoft, Cisco or 
AOL, please do consider giving O`Reilly, Oprah and a few of the 
other talk show hosts a call on my behalf. Maybe we could arrange a 
show featuring `little bill' and `big bill' 
best regards,
    Bill
    cc: SEC Chief of Staff, Federal Reserve, FTC, John Chambers, 
Larry Carter
    bcc: leading business reporters, regulators, legal experts, 
academics, federal reserve

[[Page 24599]]

    1) Enron/Microsoft_CEO Key Lay`s previous Quote to 
employees at Memorial Coliseum in Portland, Oregon.
    `We`d like to look at ourselves as the Microsoft of the 
energy world.' Lay saw that Microsoft was able to make massive 
off balance sheet speculations using derivaties on its own stock, 
manipulate earnings and use employee options to completely eliminate 
their corporate income tax. Like Enron, Microsoft also has a 
staggering mix of what could be direct conflicts of interest among 
insiders that make Enron`s offenses look minor. Corruption that was 
tolerated at Enron was enabled by the Microsoft Corporation and 
their orchestration of a complete breakdown in corporate accounting 
practices.
    This included Microsoft firing its own internal auditor who told 
them what they were doing constituted securities fraud, as 
documented on my website and reported by ABC News. It is also 
noteworthy that two previous CFO`s at Microsoft boasted over their 
ability to impact accounting standards. One of these individuals was 
also Chairman of the Board of the Nasdaq stock exchange while CFO at 
Microsoft and also aggressively setting new accounting standards. 
The other CFO was so brazen as to do an op-ed piece in the NY Times 
after the Times did a key feature story titled Financial Engineering 
1.0. The Op Ed piece is a shining example of misrepresenting the 
significance of financial activity at Microsoft and it is startling 
that he was not sanctioned by the SEC. Financial integrity was a 
joke to this CFO who is also on record as boasting of 10 reasons why 
Microsoft should have a market value of $1 trillion. Even more 
startling is how Microsoft is now triggering the collapse of the 
Internet itself as documented in the http://www.billparish.com/
20011128msftupdate.html. Although poorly written, this report 
contains numerous excellent well documented story ideas and can be 
directly quoted.
    2) Impact of Comcast/Microsoft purchase of AT&T Broadband. 
AOL now has more than $100 billion of what a prudent person might 
consider `fake' assets or inflated goodwill on its 
balance sheet.
    Why hasn`t AOL written this down similar to what JDS/Uniphase 
did. Parish & Company hereby specifically asks the SEC to 
conduct a review here given the significant impairment of these 
assets in many other companies.
    Microsoft has almost no `fake' assets and more than 
$35 billion in cash. In addition, AOL also has bank debt of more 
than $20 billion and back taxes to the IRS resulting from the Time 
Warner merger of more than $13 billion. Most disturbing however is 
their championing of `pro forma' earnings and 
eliminating the cash expenses of interest and taxes from these pro 
forma earnings. In the summer of 1999 at an investor town forum I 
asked a question of Arthur Levitt that was reported in the 
Oregonian. The question was, when will the SEC go after the big 
offendors who are breaking down the rules rather than simply 
focusing on smaller cases. Please allow me to repeat that request 
today and suggest that the SEC focus on AOL and Microsoft. This 
seems especially prudent given Gerald Levin`s announced departure 
next Spring. Clearly, Ted Turner is being set up as the fall guy.
    In April of 2000 I issued a public warning on AOL`s bonds and 
specifically asked both Moody`s and Standard and Poors why their 
debt was not downgraded. The SEC could also look at the business 
relationships between S&P and Moody`s and AOL to see if more 
disclosure of potential conflicts of interest should be required. 
Two useful reports regarding the impact of the Comcast/Microsoft 
purchase of AT&T broadband are:
    http://www.billparish.com/20010430aolpart2.html This is more 
pure background on unique situations at AOL. http://
www.billparish.com/20011128msftupdate.html Addressed AT&T more 
directly.
    3) Citigroup and Spinoff of Asbestos Liability. Completely 
unreported regarding the spinoff of Traveller`s Property Casualty 
unit is what could be the real reason for the spin-off, as noted in 
note 77 in the following report on Citigroup. This report also 
contains my letter to FTC trying to block Assoc First Capital merger 
that occurred last fall. Note 77 details Citigroup`s asbestos 
exposure from purchasing Aetna`s Property Casualty Business for $4 
billion. This is a shining example of an activity banks should not 
be allowed to enter, that is, property casualty insurance. This was 
also one of the rationale presented to the Federal Reserve Board of 
why they should have denied the Associated First Capital merger, 
known in the industry as the icon of predatory lending. http://
www.billparish.com/citigrouppyramid.html
    4) Microsoft Hoodwinks Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist, along 
with Howard Jarvis, was responsible for the legendary property tax 
limitation #13 that was passed in CA in 1978. I heard Grover 
speak recently in Portland and, knowing that Microsoft is one of his 
biggest funders, as dicated on his website, I asked him afterward 
how he felt about Msft paying zero federal income tax. His reponse 
was `how do they do that.' Think about the implications, 
simply remarkable. Tax policy is important and clearly what drives 
many organizations to fail, most notably Enron, due to an attempt to 
justify economic illusions from a manipulation of the tax code. For 
example, you can be certain that 90 percent of Key Lay`s wealth 
resulted from stock option wages were taken as a tax deduction by 
Enron but never charged to earnings. This greatly inflated their 
true earnings. Other financial engineering similarly modeled other 
techniques used at Microsoft, for example those used at Expedia.
    5) Microsoft Speculations on Own Stock. Miraculously, 
Microsoft`s SEC 10K for the year ending June 30, 2001 indicated that 
this obligation had been settled. Given that this loss was more than 
$8 billion a few months earlier, the question becomes, was the 
disclosure adequate. More important, were any of these options held 
by company insiders including Paul Allen. Parish & Company 
hereby formally requests that the SEC, given the recent collapse of 
Enron, make an inquiry to determine if any of these options were 
held by Paul Allen or any other significant Microsoft insiders. 
Although not a board member, given overlapping business dealings 
Allen is still an insider. This is critical to restore integrity to 
the market. 6) Overcoming Ruthless Legal and PR Intimidation: For 
example, as many of you know, Cisco Systems had an orchestrated 
company wide effort to try and discredit my efforts to disclose what 
was clearly unusual financial activity at Cisco. This campaign, 
which was a monumental failure, occurred in October 2000 just before 
Cisco`s stock began a steep decline from $82 to $20 per share. When 
I was later anonymously sent a copy of this confidential plan, I 
would guess from some employee trying to clear their conscience, I 
was told that it represented a `trade secret' that could 
not be discussed. Sure sounds like Enron like PR to me?
    Summary Comment: Any opportunity to be quoted regarding helping 
generate a dialogue on these issues is always most appreciated. I 
can understand that many of you have considered me somewhat 
opinionated on these matters. Let`s not worry about that but rather 
how to get the economy back on track. The validity of my claims 
should only be magnified by the situation at Enron. Enron was able 
to climb to slot number 7 in Microsoft`s pyramid scheme, 7th in the 
S&P 500, but they did not see how they were structured to fail, 
nor does AOL now. As an aside, it is amazing how the Janus family of 
funds seems to be insulated. They own almost $10 billion of AOL and 
you have to wonder who is doing the research.
    I was able to help a lot of people locally avoid large losses on 
Enron but it is up to you to help maintain the integrity of the 
system.
    I`ll keep putting out hard hitting studies designed to help fix 
the system but I can`t have much impact without you. You might scan 
my archive at www.billparish.com for various other ideas pertaining 
to these topics, all designed to help restore integrity to the 
financial reporting process. Again, if you are a reporter and can`t 
do the story, please do try and contact another media outlet that 
might. I do produce quite a lot of most interesting research not put 
on the web site that might allow you to greatly advance your career. 
People tell me that I am much better via radio or television, in 
terms of media experiences. Probably because they are more 
interactive and allow for questions. My strategy is all about win/
win and maybe one of these days I`ll even convince Bill Gates of its 
merits.
    Please do lend a hand.
    Most sincerely, Bill Parish
    Bill Parish
    Parish & Company
    10260 SW Greenburg Rd., Suite 400
    Portland, Oregon 97223
    Tel: 503-643-6999
    Website: www.billparish.com
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00004799

From: Ole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 3:59pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement.
    Dear USJ Folks,
    One citizen`s view: The Microsoft offer to settle the class 
action anti-trust suit should be accepted only with the modification

[[Page 24600]]

suggested by Red Hat. Otherwise, in it`s original form, Microsoft 
offers nothing_except a further extention of it`s (illegal) 
monopoly.
    We are rather disappointed with the proposed settlement of the 
original case against Microsoft, considering the resolution 
something just short of a sellout. But DoJ has an opportunity for at 
least partial redemption by obtaining a resolution of the instant 
case in some fashion closer to the Red Hat proposal. And the schools 
of America would be the beneficiaries.
    With sincere wishes for a more free and open market,
    Duane L. Olson
    (Retired system design engineer, with no current industry 
affiliation of any kind)



MTC-00004800

From: William Douglass
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/20/01 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: The U.S. Department of Justice
    This letter is written by officers of both Incremax Technologies 
Corporation of New York City, and the International Association of 
Microsoft Certified Partners (IAMCP), a group of independent 
organizations selling solutions based primarily upon Microsoft 
software.
    We wish to express full agreement with the settlement that has 
been arrived at between Microsoft and the federal government and 
nine states. It is in the best interests of the consuming public, 
the industry, and the economy, which has been negatively affected by 
the uncertainty this lengthy litigation has generated.
    Any future litigation against Microsoft will re-introduce 
uncertainty to the marketplace while threatening over-regulation of 
an industry that already functions quite well to the marketplace 
(and to the arm of the law) on its own.
    We urge that the settlement be finally approved because it has 
harnessed Microsoft for over-stepping its bounds. It is now time for 
consumers to benefit from the unfettered workings of a free 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Kerry P. Gerontianos
    President, Incremax Technologies
    Incremax Technologies
    President, IAMCP
    William H. Douglass
    Director of Communications,
    Board Member, IAMCP
    CC:Kerry P. Gerontianos



MTC-00004802

From: West, Dennis
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/20/01 4:29pm
Subject: DOJ Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust (Monopoly) Settlement
    DOJ Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust (Monopoly) Settlement The US 
judicial system found Microsoft was a monopoly but the DOJ and some 
states have proposed a settlement that doesn`t fully solve the 
Microsoft anti-trust/monopoly issue and prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to expand the company`s present monopoly.
    Asking Microsoft to not do it again will not work.
    In the 1990s, I personnel watched Cecil Dobbs from Microsoft in 
Foster City California give hundreds of copies of free software 
packages to Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale California that resulted in 
Lockheed Martins standardizing on Microsoft software and other 
software venders that sold Word processor, Spreadsheet, 
Presentation, Project Management, Calendar/Scheduling and E-mail 
fade away since they depended on the sale of their software to 
survive.
    What I saw was Microsoft using the sale of the Windows Operation 
System software to finance free gifts to a major company to 
standardize on other Microsoft software.
    Without separating the Window Operating System cash cow from 
other types of software, competition will die and Microsoft end up 
being the consumers only choice.
    Windows XP Operating System is a good example of Microsoft`s 
effort to eliminate competition from 5 other software packages by 
bundling other Microsoft software with the Windows XP Operation 
System for consumers and companies.
    Without software choices, Microsoft will be free to set software 
prices and their will be little or no motivation to improve 
software. Some REAL legal remedies are needed at the present time to 
reduce the existing Microsoft software monopoly that the courts 
agreed presently exist. Please stand firm that a lot more is needed 
than the present DOJ settlement proposes.
    Personally, I would like to see some kind of a barrier between 
the Windows Operating Systems and general user Microsoft software 
that would foster competition.
    Dennis L. West
    10670 Cordova Road
    Cupertino, CA 95014-3912
    (408) 255-2077



MTC-00004803

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having been an unwilling Microsoft user for some time, I have 
quite a few comments in regards to how Microsoft should be dealt 
with. Microsoft should be required to port Win32 Emulators and 
Direct X to Linux and Macintosh computers. Microsoft has had a 
stranglehold on the gaming industry; requiring that they expand 
their proprietary software to other platforms will aide in giving 
gaming companies choice, and providing for consumer freedom.
    Microsoft should also be required to release full source code 
within a two to three year period. This permits watchdog groups to 
analyze Microsoft`s work in WindowsXP (and later OS`), so that it 
can be assured that Microsoft is, (a) not purposely placing barriers 
in its software, against competition; and (b) security flaws can be 
identified, when they arise, and independent groups have the ability 
to react.
    Microsoft .NET should receive heavy government attention, and be 
both open source and restriction free, for other companies to 
improve upon Microsoft`s foundation.



MTC-00004804

From: Robert Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
    Here is the good news if the Microsoft settlement is approved: 
Although the company may face litigation from competitors, a few 
consumers, the European Union, and recalcitrant state attorneys 
general, at least the federal antitrust lawsuit won`t be around to 
drain Microsoft`s energies and undermine economic growth so 
essential to the post-September 11 recovery.
    From a longer-term perspective, the Microsoft antitrust dispute, 
which has been festering in one form or another since the Federal 
Trade Commission opened its investigation in 1991, produced nothing 
but losers. There are no long-term winners. To settle the case, 
Microsoft will be making more concessions than is justified by the 
DC Circuit`s opinion. In the meantime, consumers had to pick up the 
tab while high-tech executives wasted resources on politicking 
instead of developing the kinds of integrated products that 
customers demand. The settlement addresses and corrects, with minor 
exceptions, each objection raised by the DC Circuit in affirming 
Judge Jackson`s holding of monopoly maintenance. Microsoft may not 
retaliate against other companies for supporting competing software; 
or enter into exclusive agreements with software developers, 
Internet content providers, or Internet access providers. Nor may 
Microsoft prevent PC makers and consumers from installing a rival 
operating system, or removing Microsoft`s ?middleware? products and 
installing rival middleware. Further, Microsoft must disclose and 
license its applications programming interfaces (APIs) to software 
developers; and charge uniform, published prices (except for volume 
discounts) to its 20 top PC-maker clients.
    The principal Microsoft ?transgression? not addressed in the 
settlement is the commingling of operating system and browser code. 
Of course, that problem is trivial as long as the consumer and PC 
maker are not forced to use, and can actually uninstall, Microsoft`s 
browser. In two critical respects, the settlement goes beyond what 
the appellate court directed. First, the court found that Microsoft 
had suppressed competition in the middleware market as a means of 
maintaining its Windows monopoly. Middleware, according to the 
court, consists of products that expose APIs and thereby compete 
against traditional operating systems. But the settlement agreement 
defines middleware more broadly, to include not only browsers but 
also products like email, instant messaging, and media players. 
Those products do not expose
    APIs; they do not compete against Windows; yet Microsoft will be 
compelled to treat rival ?middleware? products as if the court had 
found ? which it did not ? that bundling those products somehow 
constituted an illegal tying arrangement.
    Second, the settlement dictates that Microsoft will have to 
disclose its server protocols so that non-Microsoft servers (like 
those produced by IBM, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and Novell) will be 
able to interoperate with Windows. The allegation,

[[Page 24601]]

first leveled by Sun in a complaint filed with the European Union 
two years ago, is that Microsoft is attempting to extend its PC 
monopoly to the server market by making newer versions of Windows 
incompatible with servers other than Microsoft`s. But the newest 
version of Windows (XP), just released on October 25, has a 
miniscule share of the operating system market. Quite simply, there 
is no monopoly to leverage. Older versions (Windows 95 and 98) are 
perfectly compatible with non-Microsoft servers, which by the way 
supply about 60 percent of the server market. Most important, the 
server issue was never part of the Justice Department`s case. On 
that issue, there was no complaint, no trial, no evidence, and no 
verdict ? just a restriction on Microsoft`s behavior.
    There`s a lesson in all of this. Two years ago, an attempted 
settlement mediated by appellate judge Richard Posner came to 
nothing, reportedly because of several intractable attorneys 
general. Judge Posner had little to say about his efforts until 
September 2000 when, in a speech, he lambasted the states? role in 
antitrust litigation, accused them of being captured by competitor 
interests, and suggested that they should limit themselves to price 
fixing cases involving goods sold to the state.
    That`s good advice. Ten years have lapsed since the Microsoft 
case first unfolded. Silicon Valley, supposed bastion of 
entrepreneurship, has become part of the problem. Multiple 
governmental entities, responsive to the parochial interests of 
rival businesses, initially combined to challenge Microsoft. Now, 
with that challenge resolved to the satisfaction of almost everyone, 
nine states might dawdle just long enough to foul the country`s 
near-term economic recovery. It`s time to shut down this lawsuit and 
let the software industry get back to serving customers.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert A. Levy
    Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
    Cato Institute
    1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20001
    Phone: 202-789-5253
    These comments are extracted from a longer article by Robert A. 
Levy entitled ?Soft Settlement,? Los Angeles Daily Journal, Nov. 26, 
2001.



MTC-00004805

From: Haven, Richard
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/20/01 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please add my objection to the proposed settlement, specifically 
regarding the definition of the beneficiaries of the remedies. Not-
for-profit and governmental organization are part of this market and 
deserve the compensation and protection of any agreement.
    Allowing the subject of penalties any discretion in who is to 
benefit does not remedy the market as a whole, or benefit those 
potential beneficiaries who Microsoft might try to exclude for the 
same reasons they were convicted in the first place.
    Thank you for your attention
    Richard C Haven



MTC-00004806

From: Jim Saxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 8:47pm
Subject: Appropriate settlement
    Microsoft has gained and maintained its monopoly in the PC 
desktop Operating System market by enforcing an anti-competitive 
boot loader license with its OEM customers. As you know, this 
license prohibited Microsoft OEM customers from installing non 
Microsoft Operating Systems on the same computer that includes 
Windows. This license leveraged the Microsoft Windows market share 
to prevent the computer manufacturers from differentiating their 
computers by including non-Microsoft products. This license 
effectively killed such products as BeOS and OS2.
    The appropriate remedy is to modify this license to require 
Microsoft OEM customers to include a non Microsoft Operating system. 
This would put microsoft in a position of actively repairing the 
damage it has caused to the Computer Operating system market. 
Microsoft may indeed have to resurrect a competing OS to allow its 
customers to bundle Windows with their computers.
    The personal computer industry would benefit by allowing the 
manufacturers to once again differentiate their products. This would 
benefit the consumer by allowing them to buy a computer with an 
alternate Operating System to Windows. This would also make the 
Internet more resilient as there would be a more diverse environment 
and consumers would be less vulnerable to virus attack.
    Black Belt Jimmy



MTC-00004807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am simply a homemaker/family business person and I don`t 
understand why big Government can`t leave something alone that isn`t 
broken_Just look at the mess the phone industry is 
in_this is your fault!
    I like going to the store and buying a computer with all the 
programs I need already loaded and ready for my use. I don`t know 
enough to want to pick and choose between various hardware and 
software programs.
    Seems to me these states that won`t settle are very jealous of 
all Microsoft has accomplished and the revenue that OUR state makes 
from their success. Bill Gates and Microsoft are very philantropic 
and give many things back to our state, schools, universities, as 
well as other charities. They even spread this largesse to other 
charities and other educational programs thru-out the US.
    Seems to me that these other states should be embarrassed by 
their greed and have their hands slapped.
    Thanks for listening to me.
    Jean Shoemaker



MTC-00004808

From: Jud Meaders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/20/01 11:12pm
Subject: XP security hole
    Still think MSFT can be trusted with mission-critical work? Want 
to let the security of the country depend on MSFT? Want to hire MSFT 
`security experts' to advise the federal government?
    I am still outraged at your complicity in letting MSFT get off 
the legal, political and economic hook totally. I will do my 
everything I can to vote you guys out of office.
    Here`s the link: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/15458.html



MTC-00004809

From: Mal Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 12:18am
Subject: My lack of choice
    I am tired of being shoved around by Microsoft. I have purchased 
software from many companies such as Digital Research, Novell, 
Corel, and many others only to have Microsoft use its muscle and 
money to push them aside with inferior products and operating 
systems. Microsoft was found guilty of monopoly in federal court but 
was not punished for it and it is obvious from what is going on now 
that it is doing things even worse than it did before the federal 
law suit. Microsoft should be broken up into a company that 
manufactures the operating system and all other software it produces 
should be under another entity. That is the only way to bring them 
back to the level of competition with the remainder of the software 
companies. Microsoft did not grow to its present size with superior 
products; it did it with money and market control, with inferior 
products. I am a retired writer now writing books. I want to use 
better products to produce my books but am forced to use Microsoft 
products because that is what the market dictates. I want choice.
    Mal Elliott,
    Wichita, Kansas.



MTC-00004810

From: Robert Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Plaintiff-Microsoft Revise Propose Final Judgment should be 
reject because the proposal is too HARSH on Microsoft. There is 
consumer harm if Microsoft agrees to abide by the terms of the 
agreements.
    Microsoft is to provide information on server products, but 
server products is an area where there is healthy competition and 
which Microsoft does not have a monopoly. The server platforms were 
never mentioned in any of the Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Law 
or the Full Court of Appeals ruling. By providing such information, 
competitors can damage the Server platform products if that is there 
intent and this agreement will allow it to occur.
    Microsoft agrees to provide technical information to all 
competitor`s of middleware, it does not rule on inferior middle ware 
created by competitors in order to sabotage the Windows platform. 
Java is one form of middle ware, but the Finding of

[[Page 24602]]

Facts indicates that Java is not mature and was slower than native 
Windows applications.
    The terms on the Technical Committee and three appointed members 
represent endless investigation which are a waste of Microsoft time 
and money. There is no lines of division on the technical committee 
between investigating Windows platform and X-Boxes. They have access 
to all Microsoft source code, contracts and internal documents. Will 
an investigation of X-Box be warrant if someone like Sony complains 
that X-Box is too rough on the game station market? With three 
technical members, each one of them can conduct the same 
investigation and come up with a different conclusion. There is 
nothing in the agreement which allows one investigation per 
committee member. Endless competitors can flood complains for each 
of the three technical committee members.
    Please revise this proposal to eliminate the abuse by Microsoft 
competitors who have no interest in consumer interest before 
approving. This settlement is too HARSH on Microsoft.
    Robert Wong
    e-mail: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004811

From: Lionel Berthomier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 1:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft v. french justice
    interesting links :
    http://www.01net.com/rdn?oid=168836&rub=2796
    http://www.vnunet.fr/mac/kios/sommaire.htm?revue=90
    http://www.weblmi.com/daily/2001/1129/condamnation.htm
    http://www.thestandard.ru/cw/1996/36/2.htm
    http://www2.computerwoche.de/index.cfm?pageid=254 
&artid=30183&type=detail&category=84



MTC-00004812

From: larry a price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement too weak.
    There are several issues that the proposed settlement needs to 
address, in order that Microsoft not walk away unpunished for their 
CRIMINAL behaviour.
    1. Protecting Open Source. The proposed final settlement offer 
contains language intended to let Microsoft itself determine who is 
qualified to have access to the technical information intended to 
allow other operating systems to interoperate with Microsoft 
software. In point of fact, the language specifically claims their 
right to require that those party to interoperability information be 
businesses. This is clearly intended to to discriminate against the 
MANY software projects that are run entirely as volunteer efforts. 
The court should require that any technical information that 
Microsoft is required to disclose must be available to the public, 
so that the public itself might act in redressing the harm created 
by Microsoft`s illegal tactics.
    2. Closed File Formats Are A tool of Monopoly. One of the most 
insidious tactics used by Microsoft in the construction of their 
monopoly in business productivity and personal computing software is 
the creation of incompatible, undocumented file formats.
    In addition the tactic of making new versions of their software 
produce files that were incompatible with their old software led to 
their being in effect able to require users of their software to 
upgrade their systems on their schedule.
    The fact that Microsoft`s file formats were undocumented has 
meant that competitors were effectively locked out of providing 
equivalent services to consumers who had unwisely chosen to use 
Microsoft products and that those consumers were themselves harmed 
in that their property was held hostage to Microsoft`s software and 
would need to be either abandoned or (at great expense) converted to 
some other format.
    3. Security Needs Of Consumers and Appropriate Liability. A 
further issue that could be addressed by the court is Microsoft`s 
liability for the millions of person-hours of time wasted in dealing 
with the inadequacies of their operating system and of their email 
products. A clear statement by the court that consumers had at a 
minimum an implied warranty of functionality, including an 
expectation of data privacy in the form of mechanisms to prevent 
both Microsoft itself and others from altering, destroying or 
illicitly copying data without it`s owners permission; would set a 
clear precedent that software is the same as any other class of 
product and should not be allowed to exempt itself from product 
liability through specious End User License Agreements. In that a 
product sold in exchange for value should meet a reasonable buyers 
expectations for functionality and safety.
    http://www.efn.org/laprice ( Community, Cooperation, Consensus
    http://www.opn.org ( Openness to serendipity, make mistakes
    http://www.efn.org/laprice/poems ( but learn from them.(carpe 
fructus ludi)
    http://allie.office.efn.org/phpwiki/
index.php?OregonPublicNetworking



MTC-00004813

From: steven st catherine
To: Criminal Division,Microsoft ATR,Barrie.Thurlow@hom...
Date: 12/21/01 6:52am
Subject: Industrial Espionage is a serious crime
New Age Informations
    Dear Barrie Thurlow
    The list of crimes are as incomplete and as the following 
criminal investigation in part details, I was at a Ms Christine 
Hodder flat 29 Campden House, Harben Road NW3 where I was allowed to 
work and stay for over a year at her home, and where I am an 
intellectual property designer of a sort. On an argument over her 
involvement into the theft of my intellectual property and or 
thinking process methodology, and or any material gain via dishonest 
contact which she admitted at one point only to retracted it later. 
On leaving she insisted that I take the computer where I had found a 
memohasp-??device on the table when she was dismantling the computer 
to give to me. Which I now believe is a bug of some sort, as I had 
checked out the product on the internet and found out it was a 
multi-purpose electronic transmitting device. Returning three day 
later to a website which detailed the memohsap-1 differently from 
what I had first read its product details to be. On investigation I 
found that the company Aladdin was the said sole distributors of 
Hasp products and the only entry found on their website search 
facility for this product was solid.asp. Solid.asp is a webpage 
relating to Solidworks Corporation who when questioned via their 
public information access [email protected] about there 
involvement in this product deceptive uses they refused to answer a 
product company relationship claimed by Aladdin to exist. Returning 
to Aladdin and using the website search facility the only entry for 
memohasp-1 was removed and marked 0. On further investigation many 
webpages at Aladdin Hasp were false and some completely blank and 
their relation to other companies they claim are also false. On 
contacting Progress Soft Corporation a claimed distributor by 
Aladdin for Hasp products in Jordan and other Arab countries does 
not have a word of the Arabic Language on their website 
www.progressoft.com, as fact. On writing an email to Progressoft 
their reply was towards that of denial and claimed that IS is the 
sole distributor for Aladdin Hasp products where Aladdin and other 
sources claim that they are. However IS does not yet exist to my 
knowledge and is a mystical company name given out of share panic. 
The electronic device is a form of bugging device which is given to 
their company related clients and or individual to use which their 
company product, and or claimed uses. And as Solidworks Corporation 
is in 3D design technology of a kind their clients may of been 
bugged by them so they refuse to answer any question relating to 
this product. On contacting a UK distributor and questioning them 
about the product they stated that they only put the device on the 
back of machines without knowing there internal description 
workings. However, this device was claimed to be a Cara Professional 
protection device by Ms Christine Hodder and this can be confirmed 
by the two officers who attended its return to her and which was 
refused by her but confirmed by her as a Cara Professional 
protection device. Webpages have been changed at the US patent 
office, and or distorted by electronic manipulation as else where 
also and where I am still trying to complete the formal addressing 
procedural action to be address to the US patent office. On 
contacting Aladdin Hasp claiming I was given the memohasp-1 by Ms 
Christine Hodder as is the case to have the device reinstalled lead 
me to the FTP.exe file. It is already on the computer she had given 
me and where I was instructed by Aladdin to download a ftp:/ 
extension file Hinstall.zip.
    Ftp stands for File Transfer Program and the extension ftp is 
used in connection to the internet. This is in part the crime and if 
the British government now want to state that crimes involving 
intellectual property is not criminal and is civil I disagree 
completely.

[[Page 24603]]

As any act to obtain information and or property of any kind via 
dishonest means is a criminal offence. And as yourselves may be 
involved in this crime and or involved by way of none action I can 
now see why you try and play this issue down and alike matters. This 
is a clear claim by the British government to be involved in 
maintaining criminal activity for their own benefit. The computer 
was also witnessed by two officers to be communicating with an 
external source without a phone line being connected. My phone line 
was then connected days later as the cover-up continues where I had 
made phone call on a phone line which did not exist by my request. 
This is a worldwide espionage network and it uses Microsoft 
Corporation operating system the FTP.EXE file and or files similarly 
alike to communicate undetected and gain access control of 
computers, and or complete control undetected. Aladdin also claimed 
it had a concise National Software Testing Lab (NSTL) report and on 
contacting NSTL they reply that they have a report that is three 
year old or older. On requesting this report via paying for it from 
NSTL they have not replied because they may also possibly be a bogus 
website for selling illegal bugging devices. Microsoft are the 
claimed owner of NSTL logo and if this is correct and they own the 
logo of NSTL they then possibly own the company who is a advisor to 
US governmental institution. Industrial Espionage is a serious crime 
sir please take note.
    Yours sincerely and respectfully
    Steven St Catherine
    Director
From: Thurlow Barrie
To: 
```[email protected]''' CC: 
 ``Public Enquiries (CD)''
Subject: Serious criminal activities
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:58:16 -0000
    Dear Mr St Catherine,
    Thank you for your message to report serious criminal 
activities. As you did not mention what these activities were I 
regret that the Home Office is unable to help.
    Please report criminal activity to your local police, and please 
consult your legal adviser or Citizen`s Advice Bureau in the first 
instance regarding any dispute over intellectual property.
    Yours sincerely,
    Barrie Thurlow
    Home Office
    Direct Communication Unit



MTC-00004814

From: Tanya L. Durni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 7:45am
Subject: microsoft case
    The sanctions ordered in the Microsoft case are not tough 
enough. Microsoft has a history of bending and breaking the laws to 
suit them, at the expense of their partners and competitors. The 
case has at least exposed some of these practices.
    I think Microsoft`s worse enemy in the long run is itself, 
however, in the meantime, the companies with new innovative ideas 
are at risk. I don`t understand why our government, when it finally 
determines there is a problem, waits sooooo long to deliver the 
appropriate discipline. Unfortunately, by waiting they are rewarding 
the lawbreakers and penalizing the honest hard working American. By 
not doing enough to control the source of the problem early on, we 
only allow things to get way out of hand.



MTC-00004815

From: James Wall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 7:48 am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Please settle the case as is. Microsoft has done more for 
average users than any other company. One could have always bought 
Apple or IBM. Apple made biggest mistake in US business history in 
not unbundlely their OS. never understood the PC business. Microsoft 
was just more aggressive and smarter than others. The states case is 
stupid. Most of those opposed to settlement are angry billionaires 
who were out smarted by MS.
    jjwall



MTC-00004816

From: Leon Schafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 8:08am
Subject: Proposed settlement
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing this letter to express my dissatisfaction with the 
proposed settlement against the Microsoft monopoly. I have worked in 
the software industry for 27 years now. Great strides have been 
taken in that time and Microsoft has made many contributions; 
however, they have used their power and control in the market to 
limit consumer choice.
    They have taken advantage of their operating system monopoly to 
take over every area of application software seen as profitable. 
They do this by providing their own internal developers with the 
Applications Programming Interface (API) for the Windows operating 
system well before the public has access to it. Some parts of the 
API are never published at all.
    Microsoft has also used bundling to great advantage. The anti-
trust action started as a result of their unfair competitive 
practices used against Netscape and the results can already be seen. 
Microsoft has used it`s monopoly in web browsers to begin modifying 
existing web standards into proprietary, undocumented extensions 
that render some web pages unviewable in Netscape. Many content 
creators using Microsoft tools are not even aware that are using 
these extensions resulting in numerous pages on the web that simply 
don`t work with anything but Microsoft tools.
    Microsoft enjoys unrivaled market power and uses its wealth to 
maintain this dominance. Licensing agreements with computer vendors 
ensure that the discount for ordering a machine with Windows 
installed is almost nothing while the retail purchase price of the 
operating system is large. As a consumer, I have also seen companies 
producing software for both operating systems get purchased by 
Microsoft and forsake their non-Windows products within months 
afterwards.
    Despite their numerous abuses, the current proposed settlement 
does nothing to improve the comptetive situation. In fact, donations 
to schools will only cement Microsoft`s position by training a new 
generation of computer users in a Microsoft only environment. The 
remedies against the monopoly must include the following:
    Microsoft products must be listed 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.
    Applications in markets where Microsoft enjoys a monopoly due to 
past anti-competitive behavior must be made available on non-Windows 
operating systems. For example, Internet Explorer should be ported 
to Linux/Unix along with the Microsoft Office Suite. Selling these 
products on other operating systems would generate revenue for the 
company yet they refuse to do it because it weakens their 
stranglehold on the market.
    All 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 they are 
trying to do right now by subverting Java and introducing extensions 
in their web server which are undocumented and work only with 
Internet Explorer.
    Microsoft must make available for sale a `bare-
bones' version of its operating system to prevent bundling. 
Although great arguments have gone on about what constitutes a 
`bare-bones' operating system, there are examples to 
work from. Linux, for example, still fits entirely on a single 1.4MB 
floppy disk.
    Microsoft must be prevented from entering the hardware market. 
The introduction of the XBox clearly paves the way for a future for 
where Microsoft software will be the only choice and it will only 
work well on their own hardware.
    Without these remedies there will be no other operating systems, 
web browsers, or office productivity suites. The United States is a 
world leader in technology for the digital age. It is time for 
Microsoft`s control over the future of the entire industry to be 
broken so

[[Page 24604]]

that other innovators may have their chance to shape the future.
    Sincerely,
    Leon Schafer
    2116 Mark
    Lansing, MI 48912



MTC-00004817

From: Johnny Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 8:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I honestly hope the Justice Department sees through the facade 
MS is proposing. The deal offers very little value (pennies on the 
dollar) and gives MS an inroad to market they have been historically 
the underdog. This is just another market to conquer and the 
settlement is a great vehicle to begin the process.
    Better to force them to give the actual dollars to the schools 
and inform the schools the funds are earmarked for computer 
education.
    Johnny C. Barrett
    CST-Supporting NMD XBR (256) 313-9879 FAX 319-757
    [email protected]



MTC-00004818

From: finortis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 8:18am
Subject: A few things about Microsoft, I do not like and think needs 
addressing
    CC: finortis
    These are newer issues then was brought up in the US vs. 
Microsoft trial .... but one`s that absolutely show Microsoft`s 
monopolist behaviour .... and too much control they have gained over 
the consumer. Certain things that should be addressed, and also show 
that Microsoft has not `learned their lesson', but 
remains bad as ever, and perhaps worse/more bold then in the past:
    1. Windows Product Activation: This has been bundled into 
Windows XP (the successor to Windows 2000, and their current lattest 
operating system). With this system in place, the OS keeps track of 
peices of info about the hardware in the computer. Some of the 
things, an upgrade becomes necessary largely due to the bloat 
provided in software ..... of which Microsoft is a main culprit 
through the inclusion of useless features such as `Mr. 
Clippy' in Microsoft Office. Things such as RAM .... people 
need more RAM because the software comes to utilize more RAM, as 
each generation progresses. Disk space, need we look at the disk 
space requirements of win3.1 and Dos 6.22 vs win95, win95 vs. win98, 
winNT 4.0 vs win2k, etc? CPU, same thing .... it wasn`t that long 
ago that a 400 MHz CPU was plenty fast .... not with many software 
products on the market .... that same CPU, the performance would 
tank.
    Microsoft, with ever increasing amounts of bloatware has 
contributed to the need of consumers to upgrade their hardware, and 
despite this, they now restrict the users right to upgrade their own 
computers as they see fit. Under Windows Product Activation (or 
WPA), one is allowed to have 4 of those identifiers changed (a CPU 
upgrade changes too of them). After that, the operating system will 
cease to function, requiring reactivation. One is then at the mercy 
of Microsoft to allow them to reactivate, or have to re-purchase an 
operating system, they already payed for a liscence to use.
    They will site software piracy as a reason for this .... but 
they won`t mention the flip side. How many times has a user, 
upgrading their computer from an OEM, been required to buy a bundled 
copy of Windows (many times the SAME EXACT VERSION the customer is 
liscenced too), due to Microsoft`s OEM contracts? Ask many a Linux 
user how feasable it is to buy a `naked PC' (one without 
an operating system) and see what they say? They`re refered to it as 
the Windows tax. One should not have to get a new liscence when one 
is replacing a PC, and not adding to it. The liscence in the past 
has stated that the user has a right to do a clean transfer of their 
Microsoft software from one computer to another. However, OEM 
contracts that Microsoft holds, has effectively prevented the user 
the right to do this. This WPA could further force the user to have 
to purchase an OEM copy of winXP, even if they own the upgrade, 
simply because they bought a new PC .... even if they migrate their 
hard drive from the old to the new. This is bunk, Windows Product 
Activation has got to go.
    2. I am extremely opposed to the `Secure PC 
anitiative'. Gettng in bed with the RIAA, that has lobbied the 
DMCA through Congress, in which other elements of society were 
unwisely not listened too ..... fair use rights which have been 
enjoyed by US citizens for decades are rashly being discarded. There 
is no balance sought here anymore .... and take this entire mess, 
and throw in some people`s ideas of brain fingerprinting, the cost 
to civilization could be quite negative ..... and the consequences 
to future generations quite bad. Brain fingerprinting, another one 
of these perposterious ideas that (in that case cropped up after 
Sept 11, supposedly to keep us safe, by allowing them to monitor 
brain responces, to figure out the inner workings of people`s minds, 
and profile people`s thoughts or what is in their brain) .... is 
nothing short of an Orwellian nightmere. The possible applications 
of this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22020.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22123.html
    But in the case of the RIAA, which MS is getting in bed with, 
the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), unwisely legislated 
under pressure from lobbyiest, without balancing this against other 
elements and interests of society, other then the recording 
industry, has even been used in case to stiffle scientific progress. 
And what is this about scientific confrences migrating accross seas 
out of fear to publish work that is against the interests of a given 
corporation?
    http://www.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect14.37.html#I
    `'This judge apparently believes that the fact that 
hundreds of scientists are currently afraid to publish their work 
and that scientific conferences are relocating overseas isn`t a 
problem,' noted Robin Gross, EFF Intellectual Property 
Attorney.'
    Allowing copyright law (the DMCA specifically, which seems at 
the urging of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) 
and others, to have largely thrown out fair use rights of previously 
legislated copyright law, to stiffle scientific progress is most 
unwise, and could serve to hinder innovation, more then help it. So 
much of the technological progress we have seen in recent times, so 
many innovations, owe their existence to scientific discoveries 
which have been made over the last couple hundred years. Without the 
contributions science has offered to society, we might still be 
farming the backlands, and going to the bathroom in out houses. 
Without the discoveries of modern medicine, cures to many formerly 
dreaded diseases and ailments would not have been found. Without the 
discoveries of scientists, much of the technology now being 
discussed would not have even existed.
    A hinderance of science, and the ability of scientists to 
publish their discoveries .... because it is not in favor with a 
given corporation, could do more to hinder the progress of 
civilization, then any good that could ever come from it. Instead of 
welcoming discoveries of a flawed system, and learning from it, and 
learning how to make better systems (assuming the system imposed on 
customers is even a good idea, and that is quite an assumption), 
they have instead chosen to threaten legal action against 
researchers, if they should publish their work, which the motion 
picture industry does not like. Under conditions such as this, the 
objectivity in both findings and in the publication and sharing of 
findings, which the scientific method is very much dependent upon, 
is largely compromised. It little matters if it is corporate 
interest, or religious doctrine and persecution (Galileo anyone?) 
that stands as a hinderence to such objectivity being allowed in 
said findings and reporting of them.
    This should come as no surprise in a court room type environment 
.... where the search for the truth in any given case, should be of 
utmost importance. When the objectivity in fact finding is 
compromised, because it might be in disfavor of a given corporation 
(as much as a given religious authority of old) .... the ability to 
arrive at the truth, and using such knowledge arive at a wise 
decision is itself compromised.
    Taking all of this, the Secure PC Anitiative that Microsoft is 
behind, essentially amounts to nothing less then a decleration of 
war against the consumer ...... and in the name of preserving the 
power of the recording industry (which society is largely 
progressing to the point of their obsollesence) is further erroding 
the freedoms that US citizens have enjoyed under law for decades. 
For information on the Secure PC Initiative, one can begin looking 
here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23387.html
    This, and other initiatives such as CPRM, their `Digital 
Rights Manageament' and other such proposals, are totally 
unacceptable. Further the DMCA, and certain applications of it, such 
as in the case above, should be up for Constitutional Review, and 
put to the test against both prior articles of legislation and the 
US Constitution. Making such a law, without considering and

[[Page 24605]]

 balancing all the interists and parties of society is both unwise, 
and unwarrented. If endeavors such as this, and Micosoft`s 
contribution to this aren`t checked ..... the cost to civillization 
and the impact on society it makes, in years to come could be 
extremely negative.
    3. Microsot`s .NET proposals should be reviewed. Much of what I 
have read, and it all being under Microsoft`s control, leaves me 
extremely concerned. I would tend to be extremely cautious before 
rushing right into acceptence of .NET.
    4. MSN (the Microsoft Network) could very well be an anti-trust 
violation waiting to happen. I just recently recieved an email from 
Qwest.net (my current provider) concerning a merger Qwest made with 
MSN. We are being encouraged to migrate to `MSN service 
powered by Qwest'. Some of this information can be viewed on 
the qwest.net Internet site until January 3rd, when the site will be 
updated, per their announcement
http://www.qwest.net/nav4/public/bus/crossroads.html
    Specific info on this merger is here:
http://www.qwest.net/nav4/msn/faq.html
    Browsing around, I got info that states only Windows is 
supported. Umm.... I dual boot between Linux and Windows .... and as 
far as I`m concerned that is my right. When I signed up with 
qwest.net, I never agreed to run in a Windows only environment, and 
should not have to do so now. Such a provision is absolutely 
unacceptable, and I will not tollerate or agree too. I do not plan 
on migrating, but am looking into alternative services now .... 
since having further looked into MSN and gathered more information 
about this service from DSL Reports. I then got indication that not 
only is Linux not totally supported, but that MSN prohibits one from 
using non-Microsoft email software. It is none of their business, 
and they have no right to tell me what software I can and can not 
use ..... and to prohibit me from using an email program from a 
competitor to Microsoft. The suggested transition ..... I come to 
like even less. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark, 
1775836root=msnetworkmode=flat
    `In addition, Microsoft also prohibits MSN users from 
using any third-party e-mail programs. Good Luck on Microsoft EVER 
supporting Sendmail :-D'
    Further searching .... I find even less to like about the ISP 
Qwest wants to switch us all over too .... since certain corporate 
alliances were made between Qwest the phone company, and Microsoft 
(MSN specifically):
http://www.dslreports.com/comments/1646
    In fact, I have yet to find one positive feedback from any of 
MSN`s customers. All indication is that they`re holding people 
against their will ..... by holding them to the service and making 
it very difficult ot leave once transitioned. Doing a futher search 
around
http://www.dslreports.com
    for info on MSN or this merger will find much of the same, from 
very disatisfied customers. This whole MSN proposal has the ear 
marks of possible anti-trust viloation associated with MSN (or anti-
trust violations in the possible making) .... In any case, as for 
me, I have NO intention of transitioning .... but plan on changing 
my service before the current one runs out. The more I read about 
MSN ..... the less I like the service, and do NOT want to get 
ensnared in this ISP from the get go. That they are taking over from 
my current ISP .... I do NOT like, and very much loathe the 
prospects. I will even have my Qwest DSL service cancelled, and sign 
up with another provider such as Covad ..... before I will switch to 
them, given all I have read about their service, on top of my 
initial hesitation, which has only been confirmed and expanded upon, 
the more research I do on them. I just hope that neither MSN or AOL 
expands into the customer base of any new ISP I go with, through 
such mergers.



MTC-00004820

From: Lyon, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/21/01 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the revised proposed Final Judgment 
to resolve the United States` civil antitrust case against 
Microsoft. I am a professional programmer certified with both Sun 
Microsystems and Microsoft. As a United States citizen I believe 
that my tax dollars have been wasted on this case against Microsoft 
and I am glad to see it is finally being settled. I believe that 
this case was not brought against Microsoft to protect the interests 
of the United States citizens, but to protect the interests of 
government lawyers who need to justify their jobs and in the 
interest of various competitors of Microsoft. I believe that 
Microsoft`s competitors are large enough and powerful enough to 
compete effectively with Microsoft without the help of the United 
States government. I also believe that the lawyers and judges 
involved in this case do not have an understanding of the 
technologies and products involved, and have made decisions based on 
assumptions many of which are aided by the Marketing teams from 
competing companies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
    David Lyon
    Senior Programmer Analyst



MTC-00004821

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 1:02pm
Subject: (no subject)
Jef Raskin
8 Gypsy Hill
Pacifica CA 94044
650-359-8588 www.jefraskin.com
[email protected]
MICROSOFT`S REAL SINS
    The courts have determined that Microsoft has used its economic 
clout and technological hegemony to maintain and extend its market 
dominance unfairly. But this insult to the body corporate and 
intrusion into the body politic does not compare in severity to the 
injury Microsoft has done to our bodies, minds, and wallets as 
individual and corporate users of its products.
    The problem I speak of is not one of market dominance, but of an 
inhumane disregard for our physical frailties and mental 
limitations.
    The human-machine interface of Microsoft products is badly 
designed, as if interface designers did not know how to do better. 
The effects of this willful ignorance are manifold. One, for 
example, is to force us to make many more keystrokes and mouse 
motions than is necessary for a task. This excess can be 
total_ as when there is no action you may take but must either 
use the mouse to point to and click on a certain on-screen button or 
tap the Return key before you are allowed to proceed. I estimate 
that overall, compared to good interface design practice, over 25% 
of the keyclicks and 50% of the mouse moves are unnecessary. Where 
is the reckoning for the human pain and loss of productivity from 
repetitive stress injuries? Who will dun the Redmond Monolith for 
the large negative impact on productivity that the wasted motions 
themselves have caused?
    More subtle is the unnecessary taxation Microsoft software 
interfaces impose in terms of frustration and annoyance. Due to 
designs that ignore what is presently known about human 
cognition_the software often causes us to make errors, errors 
that would not have occurred had decent cognetic engineering been 
applied. In another time, riled revolutionaries might have tossed 
the software into Boston harbor (nowadays they`d be fined for 
polluting the harbor).
    When I give talks on usability, I never find one computer user 
who is not fed up with the petty impediments we face. I ask, 
`Who here has accidentally struck some key combination when 
using Microsoft Word and then spent minutes figuring how to turn off 
the undesired feature that resulted?'
    Almost every person raises a hand. I can bring down the house by 
saying, `It looks like you`re writing a letter. You are an 
idiot. You need help?' It is not that the problems of 
Microsoft`s works are unrecognized, it is that they seem to be 
accepted as an inevitable part of using computers. Apple`s Macintosh 
interface, our only almost-big-time alternative, suffers from the 
similar interface problems: it is only a little better. Besides, 
most of us are forced to use Microsoft products on it anyway. 
Outside of Gates`s Domain, we note that the Internet and the World 
Wide Web could be made far easier to understand and use.
    Most of the people who design the systems and the software, 
those who we think of as leaders and visionaries, are woefully 
behind the times when it comes to interfaces. They have not 
progressed much beyond where we were 20 years ago.
    To compound these sins, Microsoft`s products demand far more 
computer resources than necessary. For example, in one editor I use, 
a 22-word memo, with 118 characters, is stored in 456 bytes of 
memory. In Word, it takes up 19,742 bytes. A business plan that 
requires 98,482 bytes in the first editor is bloated into 225,280 
bytes by Word. Depending on the average size of your documents, Word 
wastes from half to over 90 percent of your memory. That`s memory 
you or your company pays for. Now add in the hundreds of megabytes 
of memory and gigabytes of hard drive space their latest operating 
system demands. With competent design, it could run a lot faster and 
fit in a lot less memory then it now does. Besides

[[Page 24606]]

 stealing resources, large programs are harder to learn and 
understand, and are more prone to bugs than are smaller programs. 
They eat into your time and pocketbook relentlessly. Nobody is 
taking Microsoft to court over these brazen acts of theft.
    Some defend Microsoft on the grounds that it has brought a 
measure of uniformity and standardization to the industry. They 
point out that because of Microsoft, skills are transferable from 
one machine to another. Even if true, and it is possible to argue 
that standards arise in ways other than by domination, that is no 
excuse for the awful quality of the products. Others believe that 
there is no other possible approach than Microsoft`s, but this 
opinion comes purely from parochialism. Microsoft (and, to a lesser 
extent_only because they sell fewer units_other software 
makers) is injuring us physically by making us do unnecessary labor; 
waste our time and that of our enterprises; cause us avoidable 
mental stress, anxiety, frustration, and annoyance; and force us to 
buy more far more hardware than is necessary to do the job. Even if 
the department of Justice had applied the severest remedies open to 
it, these crimes would not have been touched.
    Computer and software designs are not like the weather. We can 
do something about them. The technology is available. If the courts 
cannot, it is time that users, management, and shareholders demand 
better.
    Jef Raskin, an independent interface designer and writer who 
lives in Pacifica, California, created Apple`s Macintosh series of 
computers and is the author of the recent book `The Humane 
Interface' (Addison Wesley, 2000).



MTC-00004822

From: Brett Markham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 1:08 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a computer industry professional, well versed in both 
Microsoft products, and those of competitors.
    I am not a pinko commie that wants Microsoft punished for being 
successful. I would describe myself as a distinctly pro-business 
guy. However, Microsoft has engaged in such rampant abuse of free 
enterprise that I believe the settlement is too light.
    Microsoft makes everything in its operating systems dependent 
upon installation of their browser, rather than competing products. 
In fact, one of the steps needed to make NT Y2K compliant was 
downloading IE4. I recently needed to install an antivirus package 
on an NT server, and was forced to download their IE5 as a 
prerequisite of upgrading the OS, not as a prerequisite of the Virus 
package.
    That is insane. Nobody can convince me this is necessary, since 
no other OS in existence has that dependency.
    But why their insistence on IE? BEcause of Internet Information 
Server, and front page. You see, using those products, it is 
possible to create web sites that only work with their browser. In 
other words, Microsoft is creating a world where no competing 
clients OR servers can exist. On an ongoing basis, Microsoft 
deliberately introduces changes in its products that make it stop 
functioning with other companies` products. An example is Samba, an 
SMB server that operates on Unix platforms to make files on Unix 
servers available to Windows clients. Microsoft deliberately broke 
compatibility in SP3, and then again with the Win2K release.
    Why? Because they are trying to force everybody in the world to 
abandon every other product, and install MS products instead.
    And I`m sure you are aware of what goes on with laptop computers 
and most others. MS enters into agreements with manufacturers that 
essentially make MS the only choice. In and of itself, having an 
agreement between companies is not a problem. But margins are so 
narrow in the computer hardware market that the difference between a 
manufacturer paying $189 and $25 for a Windows license is the 
diference between a profitable company, and bankruptcy. By making 
these deals with manufacturers, it isn`t long before others are 
forced to comply or go under. At best, that is an illegal contract 
of adhesion.
    So what happens to the consumer is he ends up buying a computer, 
and having to pay for MS products, even if he intends to load 
another OS! This automatically makes competing products more 
expensive for the end user. And guess what? The agreements between 
MS and manufacturers often deprive the manufacturer of the ability 
to even sell computers with competing products!
    I could go on and on; and doubtless many have. Microsoft`s 
treatment of Blue Mountain greetings after a failed buyout bid are 
legendary and were the source of an injunction.
    Microsoft lies, steals, enters into contracts which are 
adhesive, forces reliance on its browser, breaks competing software, 
etc. etc. etc.
    Anything short of separating its OS company and its application 
company will not work for protecting the American public.
    Very truly,
    Brett Markham



MTC-00004823

From: Dorothy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    When will you wake up. Microsoft stiffles all competition. If 
some one has a better product, they either steal it or buy it and 
effectively puts the little guy out of business. Reliance on one 
leaky, leaky system is foolhardy!!
    Dorothy Sucre (I use both Apple and Microsoft, but Apple doesn`t 
leak like Windows does!!)



MTC-00004824

From: Glenn Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 1:40pm
Subject: Comment on proposed Microsoft settlement
Glenn Murray
Research Asst. Professor
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401
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 object to the proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft antitrust case. As an educator and researcher in technical 
fields it has been my experience that Microsoft`s dominance and way 
of doing business has hampered innovation and the free exchange of 
information. In particular I am concerned about the following 
points:
    (1) Microsoft`s attempt to control the internet via proprietary 
protocols. I believe these protocols should be open standards and 
that Microsoft should have to compete on a level playing field.
    (2) Microsoft`s proprietary document formats (e.g., for Word, 
Excel, and Power Point) and their acceptance as a closed standard 
strongly discourage any competition. It has come to the point that 
to communicate with others it is necessary to buy expensive 
Microsoft products_-there are no compatible competing 
products, expensive or otherwise. Having open formats could not but 
help this situation and, again, provide a level playing field for 
competitors.
    It seems we have antitrust laws for a reason, but the proposed 
settlement does not address the harm Microsoft has done, continues 
to do, and evidently intends to do. I found it particulary ironic 
that the settlement encourages Microsoft to extend its dominance 
into the educational sector. In education we are continually 
introducing students to new technology. I think that marketplace 
competition is the best way to keep prices reasonable and introduce 
innovation for people trying to learn these technolgies. I would 
like to see an antitrust settlement which has a chance of achieving 
this.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Murray
    www.mines.edu/gmurray/public_html/Welcome.html



MTC-00004825

From: Stephanie (038) Ted Coopman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 2:03pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am extremely concerned about the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case. I feel the settlement is wholly 
inadequate to curb Microsoft`s illegal behavior and fails to 
adequately address several key issues that are critical to not only 
the future of computer and internet based business, but has broader 
societal implications. I discuss my specific concerns below:

Microsoft Is a Remorseless Repeat Offender

    Microsoft has shown no willingness to accept responsibility for 
its actions. In fact, it still adheres to the concept that it is 
innocent of any wrongdoing. Earlier conditions placed on Microsoft 
for its anti-competitive behavior were completely ignored. To think 
that this company will simply be polite and follow the tepid

[[Page 24607]]

suggestions of the Department of Justice(DOJ) is sheer folly. If 
Microsoft believes it is doing no wrong and they have not be 
censured for their activity, it will, as it has in the past, 
continue to behave in the manner that has brought it so much wealth 
and power. Microsoft is the same as the repeat offender thief who 
feels that they are somehow above the rules and laws that apply to 
everyone else. Microsoft has violated its parole (so to speak) and 
should be hit with the maximum penalty.

Settlement Sets a Bad Example

    This settlement will have so little impact on the computer and 
internet related markets and conditions as well as the ability of 
Microsoft to operate in preferred anti-competitive mode, that other 
companies will not see anti-competitive monopolistic behavior as 
anything other than a successful business model. If we, as a 
society, believe that harsh sentences are required to deter illegal 
behavior by others, how can we give Microsoft a pass in this case? 
Rather than an example of the harsh fate awaiting those who defraud 
the public, this settlement would be an example that the DOJ is a 
paper tiger who will not hold companies responsible for their 
actions.
    Any Settlement Without Requirements for Interoperability is 
Useless What makes Microsoft so dangerous is not that its size, but 
its actions. Microsoft intentionally makes its software so it will 
not run well with other competing products or even industry standard 
code. This combined with their dominance in the market makes any 
real competition impossible. For example, Microsoft Internet 
Explorer will not accurately read standard HTML, the foundation of 
the internet. Nor will it read HTML generated by most other HTML 
composing software. It is designed to only accurately read code 
produced by another Microsoft product, Frontpage. As with Microsoft 
Java, this code has no real deviation or innovation related to the 
original code, other than elements designed to foil competing 
software or coding formats. This makes extra work for those trying 
to make alternative formats function with the ubiquitous MS 
operating systems and integrated applications.
    Interoperability is a critical element for the development of 
the internet. To purposely sacrifice this on the alter of monopoly 
control and corporate greed is unacceptable. This intentional 
interference with attempts for consistent interoperability must be 
stopped.
    The Microsoft Monopoly is a Threat to National Security With the 
focus on `cybersecurity' by the current administration, 
it is amazing that this issue has not come up in conjunction wit 
this case. Time after time, worms, virus`s and other cyber-assaults 
have wreaked havoc on computer systems world wide costing billions 
of dollars. The main form for entering all these systems has been 
Microsoft Internet Explorer and the Outlook Email system. Weaknesses 
in this program are so easy to exploit and the connections between 
the program and the MS OS are so numerous that anyone with a few 
classes in programming can crash millions of computers. This is the 
computer equivalent of planting a forest with the same type of tree. 
One bug can wipe out the whole lot. Microsoft`s monopolistic 
attitude of `ship it now and fix it later' leaves our 
computer networks open to attack. The resent glaring security fault 
in Windows XP is just the latest example. This is a clear example of 
how Microsoft`s actions are a threat to the general public. The US 
Government has a specific interest in making sure that there is a 
diverse mixture of internet software to blunt the threat of attack. 
Microsoft`s intentional interoperability thwarts many attempts to 
harden systems by using alternative software.

This Settlement Will Not Eliminate or Redress Harm Done to Businesses 
and Consumers

    I have personally been harmed by Microsoft`s actions. I have 
wasted hours of programming time trying to make code function on 
Microsoft Internet Explorer. Code that is technically correct and 
runs on every other interface. Because of the market dominance of 
Microsoft, I must make this code work. This is not caused by some 
superior aspect of this program, but by intentional meddling that 
ensures only code written in Microsoft Internet Explorer, Frontpage, 
or MS Office versions will look correct. This is to crush any 
competitors product. This Microsoft software is not superior in 
functionality or operation. In fact, it generates useless extraneous 
code that doubles or triples the size of coded pages which consumes 
more hard-drive space and makes website run slower. This also slows 
down the internet. Because Microsoft controls such a large market 
share, I am forced to use Microsoft software in order to move data 
other computers. I have little or no choices for programs because I 
would have to convert them to a MS program first or alter the files 
name so Microsoft products can read them. There is NO technical need 
for this. I own Apple computers and the Apple OS will read ANY 
document no matter what the title. If Microsoft decides it doesn`t 
want to write compatable programs for another OS, that OS is doomed.
    In conclusion, I urge the DOJ to reconsider this settlement. 
Microsoft will not comply with any remedy as long as they fail to 
admit wrong doing. Steps must be taken to ensure all software has 
the ability to operate with Microsoft`s products. Microsoft must be 
forced to adhere to industry standards for HTML, Java and other code 
that allow functionality and interoperability. They must be severely 
punished and forced to adhere to all remedies by a oversight body 
that has the power to force compliance. Microsoft must be forced to 
support alternative OS such Linux and Apple. The penalties for 
Microsoft`s actions must serve as a dire warning to any other 
company who dares to defraud the public and abuse United States Law.
    Sincerely,
    Ted M. Coopman
    Rogue Commuication
    2501 Friesland Court
    Santa Cruz, CA 95062
    831-477-7780



MTC-00004826

From: Chris Hedberg
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'`
Date: 12/21/01 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just wanted to send a quick comment regarding the recent 
Microsoft settlement. I think that the mechanism described whereby 
Judgement Compliance Officers on the Technical Committee help to 
resolve issues between Microsoft and customers or competitors is a 
very good one, assuming that you find the right people for the 
Compliance Officer positions and that the committee is free to act 
and backed up by the power to be heard. It`s a much better idea that 
Judge Jackson`s initial ruling, which I definitely feel could have 
led to a lot of confusion in the PC market and not much real 
advantage to consumers.
    I would not have minded provisions requiring Microsoft to 
publish their APIs more completely and to release specifications for 
their internal formats to allow other companies easier access to the 
features internal MS developers take for granted in many cases, but 
this solution seems very flexible and powerful, both of which I 
think are required elements when dealing with a market that changes 
rapidly and a creative, strong-willed, dominant company. I am a 
former full-time employee of Microsoft, and while I feel that its 
employees and many of its products are among the best in the world, 
I have long disagreed with the company`s aggressive and often short-
sightedly self-serving approach to standards and competition. 
Microsoft is at its best when it`s forced to compete against strong 
products. It products tend to weaken and fail when there`s no clear 
competitor meeting an unmet need.
    Thank you for reading my comments.
    Chris Hedberg



MTC-00004828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 5:00pm
Subject: AtATgram: One For The Record Books (12/20/01)
    Brian  is sending you a scene 
from _As_the_Apple_Turns!_
    Scene 3467 follows:
    One For The Record Books (12/20/01)
    Hey, guess what? Something amazing happened today. Ready for 
this? They found a MICROSOFT SECURITY HOLE. Wait, don`t leave! Yes, 
we know that Microsoft security flaws are about as rare as pennies 
with Lincoln`s picture on them, but this one is different: it`s bad. 
Really bad. So bad it makes most Microsoft security holes look like 
terrific new features they should be advertising in boldface caps on 
the box with lots of exclamation points. Yea verily, this is the 
great-granddaddy of all Windows vulnerabilities. (This is the part 
where you`re supposed to gasp audibly and one or two of you actually 
faint for effect.)
    Actually, technically the bug was discovered several weeks ago, 
but it was apparently kept pretty hush-hush until now. Faithful 
viewer DAVID MCCONNELL tipped us off to an Associated Press article 
which leads off with one of the greatest introductions we`ve ever 
seen: `Microsoft`s newest version of Windows, billed as the

[[Page 24608]]

most secure ever, contains several serious flaws that allow hackers 
to steal or destroy a victim`s data files across the Internet or 
implant rogue computer software. _The company released a free 
fix Thursday._' Gosh, all they did is put the personal 
data of millions of customers at terrifying risk, and the fix is 
_free?_ The newfound benevolence of Redmond never ceases 
to amaze us. Clearly that whole Justice Department brouhaha did some 
good after all.
    And the amazement just keeps on coming, because Microsoft 
actually seems to be admitting the gravity of the situation, calling 
it a `very serious vulnerability' and acknowledging that 
`the risk to consumers was unprecedented because the glitches 
allow hackers to seize control of all Windows XP operating system 
software without requiring a computer user to do anything except 
connect to the Internet.' We are stunned_ 
_stunned_, we tell you_ that Microsoft hasn`t 
therefore simply blamed the Internet for the problem. What`s this 
world coming to?
    By the way, no, there`s no word on whether this was one of those 
`trojans, trapdoors, and bugs' that a captured terrorist 
insists Al Qaeda managed to stick into Windows XP, but feel free to 
incorporate that possibility into your own twisted world view sans 
evidence if you like. Meanwhile, word has it that Microsoft has 
`forcefully urged' all users to install the patch right 
away, although we noticed a distinct lack of any mention of the 
problem whatsoever when we visited the company`s home page. Maybe 
things haven`t changed that much after all. Those of you running 
Windows XP should probably hunt down and install that patch ASAP; 
those of you who are just itching to exploit that vulnerability can 
rest easy in the knowledge that even if Microsoft calls every single 
registered user of XP, there`s still going to be a fair percentage 
of people who won`t bother to apply the patch. So take your time.
    In closing, Microsoft is clearly the company with whom you want 
to trust your sensitive personal and financial information. Oooooh 
yeah, .NET and Passport just sound better and better all the time 
...
    To see this scene as it was meant to be seen, complete with 
links to articles and formatted as originally broadcast, visit: 

    To see the complete, unadulterated episode in which this scene 
was originally broadcast, visit: 
    As the Apple Turns: 
    This Scene: 
    This Episode: 
    Copyright (c)1997-2001 J. Miller; please don`t forward 
without this attribution and the URLs above. Other reproduction 
requires J. Miller`s explicit consent; please contact him at the 
site. Thanks.



MTC-00004829

From: Shneiderman, Ben
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/21/01 5:51pm
Subject: comment on behalf of consumers
    Much of the discussion of settlement terms focuses on strategies 
that promote competition. This is fine, but some method of 
assessment of the benefit to consumers and computer users might be 
an appropriate addition.
    The current level of user frustration is high_one survey 
of 6000 users reports that an average of 6.1 hours a week are 
wasted. This drain on productivity could amount to $100B annually in 
the US alone. Although there are few reliable statistics about the 
top ten sources of trouble and frustration, a good start has been 
made in collecting data about the most serious annoyance_a 
system crash. The web site www.bugtoaster.com presents data from its 
clever technology to capture data on crashes (I have no relationship 
with this company).
    Other sources of frustration include:
_difficulties with installation and configuration
_inability to open email attachments
_incompatible file formats
_inability to complete e-commerce transactions
_incomprehensible instructions or dialog boxes
_insufficient information to isolate problems
_lack of feedback about system state
_hostile or incomprehensible error messages
    I propose that Microsoft (or an outside independent agency, 
possibly NIST), be required to establish metrics for frequency and 
severity of user problems and report on these publicly on a monthly 
basis. This parallels what airlines do with respect to lost baggage 
and flight delay frequencies. Then as Microsoft and other software 
developers improve their software quality, measurable gains could be 
shown.
    A basic approach would be to develop a frustration reporting 
mechanism that would automatically or by email enable users to 
register the problems they have. Such a database would help identify 
problem frequency and measure their severity.
    I hope that this proposal generates competitive activity that 
benefits consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Shneiderman
    Dept of Computer Science
    University of Maryland
    College Park, MD 20742
    www.cs.umd.edu/ben
    301-405-2680
    301-405-6707 fax
    www.cs.umd.edu/hcil
    Founding Director (1983-2000), Human-Computer Interaction 
Lab
    Professor, Computer Science
    Member, Institute for Systems Research & Institute for 
Advanced Computer Studies
    CC:Shneiderman Ben



MTC-00004831

From: Phillip C. Wolf
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov,senator (a)graham.senate....
Date: 12/21/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft comment period
    Sirs:
    I am an avid computer user since learning about them in my high 
school in 1972.
    I am also a member of the Armed Services of the United States of 
America, and have witnessed firsthand the tears of frustration at 
using an incompetent software suite foisted upon the country by 
Microsoft.
    This is NOT a benevolent monopoly as ATT was. This is an evil, 
greedy, incompetent corporation which stops at NOTHING to extend and 
prevail it`s dominance.
    Witness: Bill Gates, Microsoft, et alia working dilgently behind 
the scenes to control and steer the COMCAST/ATT broadband merger, so 
as to completely stiffle any potential competition from AOL Time 
Warner.
    My industry-standard, world-standard computer software is today 
increasing finding internet sites which do not function properly due 
to Microsoft`s blatant highjacking of such standards with 
proprietory `flavors' which are known only by Microsoft, 
and which overtake the world internet by their monopoly 
stranglehold. (Java, C++, VisualBasic, FTP, html, and TCP/IP)
    The self-imposed, self-proposed `penalty' offer 
(truly, THIS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO MAKE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THE 
JUDICIAL SYSTEM) to pay off foul deeds against the comsumers of 
America and the world, by `donating' used systems 
containing Microsoft products EXCLUSIVELY to public schools. Is 
there no one in government today who can see that this is a thinly 
disguised attempt to POISON the minds of schoolchildren and pull 
them into the Hell that is Windows(tm)?????? Unix, OS/2 (killed by 
Microsoft) even Linux, are far, far, far better operating systems 
than Microsoft Windows. ANYONE who uses a computer extensively and 
dares to compare will see this in a micro-second.
    To close, I add the thoughts of a commentator I read at 
Linuxplanet.com, with which I am in COMPLETE agreement:
    * 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.

[[Page 24609]]

    PLEASE: Stop this monster run amok. PLEASE: protect Americans 
and others from this criminal hegemony. PLEASE: decide in favor of 
the American Way of Life which has worked so well for hundreds of 
years_a fair, open, and LEVEL playing field for business. Do 
the right thing.
    Please.
    sincerely,
    Phillip C. Wolf
    Master Chief Petty Officer (USCG)
    Consumer Patriot



MTC-00004832

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wish to register my disagreement with the Stipulation and 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment in re: United States of America v. 
Microsoft Corporation. I understand that under the Tunney Act, I as 
an American Citizen have the ability to comment and wish to do so.
    I`ve been in the information technology field since the late 
1970`s... I had just started my career when Microsoft was founded 
and therefore have seen the world both pre-Microsoft and post-
Microsoft. My main issues with the proposed settlement are:
    1. Does not address non-commercial or open source usage of 
Microsoft technologies. Specifically it excludes anything that is 
does not have a viable `commercial' entity. How does one 
measure this? Who is to say what is or isn`t viable? Under the 
proposed settlement, Microsoft would have the ability to exclude 
much of the development efforts at Universities, non-profit 
organizations, and small businesses simply by saying that these are 
not legitament or viable. At that point, these Universities or non-
profit entities would need to file a complaint with the oversight 
group which would undoubtedly take considerable resources and 
efforts. Many of these organizations could not afford to undertake 
such efforts.
     To limit the access to Microsoft`s APIs, etc. in such a manner 
creates a divide that many would not or could not cross.
     I urge you to eliminate this loophole that would allow 
Microsoft to exclude a significant portion of the information 
technology community.
     Equal access needs to be assured, regardless of whether it`s an 
individual person, a non-profit organization, a University or a for-
profit organization.
    2. Does not address harm caused by Microsoft`s past abuse of 
monopolistic practices.
    Their ability to fund economically unfeasible products or 
investments_some software related, others not related at all 
to software, is tremendous.
    A prime example is their investment in the new gaming system X-
Box... depending upon which analyst you read, estimation is that 
this product will not even begin to make money until late-2004, 
perhaps 2005. This is a loss-leader designed to further their 
business goals in a new market but utilizing capital obtained via 
monopoly power in other market segments.
     Another example is their investment / `partnership' 
with customers with the ultimate outcome of locking in their 
products / technology use with these customers. This has been 
accomplished in several ways including the investment in target 
organization, outright purchase of target organization or 
significant product discounts beyond normal levels to similarly 
sized organizations. The only way that Microsoft has been able to do 
this is by using money (capital) obtained via their monopolist 
practices.
    The proposed settlement continues to allow Microsoft to enjoy 
the fruits of their criminal activities, so far as to even allow 
Microsoft to be insulated against market forces due to their 
diversification. Had Microsoft not invested in nor used money 
obtained via monopolistic practices, their ability to maintain a 
monopoly may have been address by the market itself.
    I urge you to either require Microsoft to divest holdings in 
customers, business partners, etc. or place them into a separately 
managed holding company that is the equivalent of a blind-trust. The 
ability of Microsoft to continue to utilize these tainted assets is 
great.
    I further urge you to seek punitive damages by way of 
divestiture to address the harm caused my Microsoft`s abuse of 
monopoly powers.
    3. The duration of the settlement is too short a period of time. 
Based upon my reading of the documents, the settlement could expire 
in as little as 5 years, and at most 8 years.
    My concern is that Microsoft will wait things out, then return 
to their usual tactics once oversight has been eliminated. The other 
part of my concern is that Microsoft reduces their aggressiveness to 
a point, and then frustrates the oversight group for 8 years, 
effectively distracting and tying up the oversight group with 
argument upon argument, issue upon issue_ effectively 
outlasting them via appeals, taking things back to court, etc.
    4. No specific penalties for non-performance or violation. Most 
contracts I read tend to have some form of penalties for non-
performance or breach written into them. I don`t see any of that in 
the proposed settlement. Based upon this, Microsoft could easily 
continue to violate the settlement and fight any attempts at 
punishment for many years to come.
    I think certain minimum penalties need to be spelled out should 
Microsoft even appear (`appearance of impropriety') to 
violate the settlement terms, not obey the oversight group, and any 
other US laws for that matter. These penalties could be as simple as 
the term of the settlement / oversight is extended to 10 years 
beyond the date of the infraction. It might also include monetary or 
other penalties such as breaking Microsoft into 3 or 4 separate 
companies is avoided initially but should Microsoft violate the 
terms of the settlement, then they consent to being broken apart 
into separate companies.
    Without penalties, I am concerned that Microsoft will continue 
abuses, simply writing off the oversight and annoyances because 
there is no incentive to do otherwise.
    Respectfully submitted,
    David B. Pickens
    Dave Pickens Sun
    SunONE Enterprise Architect
    Academic and Research Computing
    Microsystems, Inc.
    8900 Keystone Crossing
    Suite 700
    Indianapolis, IN 46240
    ph: 317-574-5729
    em: [email protected]



MTC-00004833

From: Nick Bogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 7:34pm
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Settlement
    Since before the original trial and consent decree, continuing 
through the U.S. vs Microsoft trial preceded over by Judge Jackson, 
to the present, Microsoft has had as its sole goal the elimination 
of consumer choice in the computing environment. Time and again, 
they have used all means both legal and illegal, indifferent to 
either the interest of consumers and the public at large or the law, 
to ensure that no other company or influence could tamper with their 
total control of the PC market. Whether it was crushing Netscape by 
means of illegal deals with OEMs, or in more recent times working to 
ensure that only Microsoft browsers on Microsoft OSes can use the 
Internet (witness their recent trial closure of msn.com to all 
browsers but IE and old, non-Web-standards-compliant versions of 
Netscape, shutting out newer, more-compliant-than-IE third-party 
browsers allegedly in the interest of Web standards compliance; I 
won`t even speak of what Microsoft would like to do to the Internet 
with .NET), the company has made it clear that it will never change 
its ways unless the law is enforced.
    If Microsoft is not stopped, computer users will continue to be 
forced to either use their products (Office and IE, and hence 
Windows) to permit compatibility with other computer users, or use 
third-party solutions that attempt to provide compatibility with 
undocumented Microsoft APIs and file formats (for example, the 
Office file formats) but are burdened with needing to reverse-
engineer them. With the planned changes to Microsoft`s software 
licensing, future purchasers of their software may simply be 
required to upgrade when Microsoft sees fit. As it is, installing 
Windows XP requires contacting Microsoft (this must be repeated if 
the computer`s hardware is changed at any time) and is accompanied 
by several requests for the installer to sign up for Microsoft`s 
Passport service.
    The evidence that Microsoft has used its monopoly power 
illegally to protect and even to further its monopolies is 
indisputable; it is simply a given that the company is a monopolist 
and has been for years. What is not given is the response of the DOJ 
to this preponderance of evidence. As a computer user who currently 
enjoys the opportunity to choose third-party software such as Linux 
and Mozilla, I hope that a forceful settlement is enacted that 
prevents Microsoft from continuing to try to force such products out 
of the computing world. Such a settlement

[[Page 24610]]

should, at least, include a provision requiring Microsoft to provide 
accurate and freely available documentation of its APIs and file 
formats at the time of launch of any new product, whether it is free 
or charged for, that modifies these formats. If they do not do so, 
or release inaccurate or restricted documentation, they would not be 
allowed to ship (or continue to ship) the product.
    I do not support any proposal that mandates Microsoft to produce 
versions of its software for other computing platforms. By providing 
free and accurate information about its currently proprietary APIs 
and file formats, it would be possible, albeit with much work, for 
Microsoft`s competitors and other agents such as writers of Free 
Software to produce genuine alternatives to Microsoft software. The 
notion that the only hope for alternative computing platforms is for 
Microsoft Office or IE to be ported to them speaks volumes about the 
unhealthy and damaging control that Microsoft has obtained and 
retains, in large part through illegal actions.
    In addition, while the option for OEMs to bundle third-party 
software and operating systems under the currently proposed 
settlement is a good start, it should be extended to prohibit the 
imposition of any future `Windows taxes' that use 
Microsoft`s monopoly position to effectively force OEMs to preload 
Windows. If I don`t want to buy Windows when buying a computer, I 
shouldn`t have to, and I should save at least as much as the per-
unit license cost to the OEM by excluding it.
    I appreciate the efforts of those who are reviewing these 
comments. I hope that my voice, along with those of many others, 
will help strengthen the settlement, making it into an effective 
tool that will restrain Microsoft from illegal actions and help 
bring an end to its hurtfully excessive domination of the computing 
industry.



MTC-00004834

From: RobAnn Mateja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer and citizen of the United States, I strongly urge 
the DOJ to accept the settlement offer. Like many American citizens, 
I feel this case was always more about protecting the interests of 
Microsoft`s competitors than the interests of the American public. 
Let`s let the marketplace, not the competitors or the government, 
decide who shall prevail in the software computer industry. The 
settlement terms will put constraints upon Microsoft to mitigate any 
real, imagined, or trumped up anti competitive behavior by 
Microsoft.
    On a tangential note, I would love to see the DOJ shift its 
attention from attacking successful American enterprises, such as 
Microsoft, and focus instead upon protecting this country from the 
very real threat of anti-American extremists. As sad as it is to 
say, perhaps if the priorities had been set correctly in the first 
place, we would not have had to bear the horrible tragedy of Sept. 
11. Perhaps that sounds like a cheap shot, but that thought is 
certainly in my heart and in the hearts of many other American 
citizens.



MTC-00004835

From: Jack Belland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to get off Microsoft`s back. Companies that compete 
with MS would dearly love to have the government diminish MS`s 
ability to compete in future software & tech markets in order to 
improve their chances of making billionaires for themselves. This 
country needs mega successful businesses & the people with the 
talent to run and nurture these wealth creating entities which 
produce the muscle the USA must have to prosper in this world.
    Jack in Tucson, AZ



MTC-00004836

From: Amit Jain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly. They 
should be broken up. Anything less is unacceptable.
    Peace,
    Amit Jain
    1 Castle Pt. on the Hudson S-724
    Hoboken, NJ 07030



MTC-00004837

From: Ryan Boder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/21/01 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is an Adobe Acrobat file that includes my comments on 
the settlement. If you cannot view an Acrobat file please inform me 
and I will send you another format.
    Thank You.
    Ryan Boder
    6635 Olivetree Court
    Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To the United States Department of Justice:
    I am writing in response to the proposed settlement which is 
currently under the 60 day public comment period. I consider myself 
to be a person whom the outcome of this case will have a very 
significant effect. Currently, as a senior at Carnegie Mellon 
University, majoring in Computer Engineering and minoring in 
Computer Science, I am naturally looking for a place in the computer 
industry in the very near future. As I compare companies and go from 
interview to interview I am realizing a very hard to face reality. 
There are almost no jobs available in my field that really interest 
me. My main interest is in operating system development and I would 
like to work on a desktop OS. I am a proponent of open source 
software and some day I hope to either work for or have started an 
open source software company. But the reason I am writing you today 
is because I don`t understand why it is so difficult to find a job 
doing what I want do. I believe the answer to that question is the 
lack of an actual competitive operating systems market. Sure I could 
go to work for Microsoft, but then I don`t like Redmond and more 
importantly, I don`t like the company who illegally injured the 
industry I want to work in.
    Then I begin to think to myself, what about my colleagues? What 
about my friends in the Computer Science department who aren`t 
really interested in working on an operating system but would love 
to find a good job developing cutting edge office software or get a 
job developing some kind of networking application that people would 
actually use. What should they do? Should they go to work for 
Microsoft also?
    The fact is that now, Microsoft has a monopoly on not only 
operating systems, but also to a lesser degree, office software and 
web browsers. They have blatantly and obviously abused this monopoly 
in many cases over the years and it has to stop. The DOJ has made 
that very clear. I have carefully read the `Complaint', 
`Stipulated and Revised Proposed Final Judgment' and the 
`Competitive Impact Statement' files from the case web 
site and while they do cover many of the needed changes that need to 
be made, I do not feel they properly punish the Microsoft 
Corporation for hurting such a large number of people and an entire 
industry as they have done. In fact, I do not feel they punish the 
Microsoft Corporation at all. They do a very good job at setting 
rules so that it will be more difficult for Microsoft to abuse it`s 
monopoly in the future. This in itself is a good thing but the 
damage has already been done. While Microsoft was using it`s 
operating system monopoly to keep competitors from competing, it was 
also illegally building an empire that it does not through legal 
business practices deserve to have. And who pays the price for their 
actions? I do. My friends do. Every other company in the the world 
who is completely and utterly dependent on Microsoft products does.
    The DOJ claims that while we all realize that Microsoft is an 
illegal company, it would be in the best interest of the general 
public to settle now because it provides `effective and 
certain relief'. I admit that it provides a certain action to 
be taken place, but I disagree that it provides certain relief. 
Let`s say two warriors start out as equal competitive fighters. Then 
one, through an illegal means, grows 100 times as large as the 
other. Finally the king steps in and says to the the criminal 
warrior, `Now you have to abide by the rules, but you will not 
be punished for you actions'. Is it going to be a fair fight 
now? You are effectively pitting David against Goliath except this 
is no religious fairy tail, this is the computer industry in the 21 
st century.
    My opinion of software
    I have learned software is unlike any product that we have ever 
seen in history.
    1. It takes a long time and a lot of work by smart people to 
make good software.
    2. It can be developed at very little actual cost besides time.
    3. Once a usable version is released, it can be 
`manufactured' at practically zero cost.
    4. It is never actually done. There are always bugs and defects 
that can be improved. So from the inherent properties of

[[Page 24611]]

software, it seems as though this would be one of the easiest 
industries to get into. But for some reason even huge organizations 
like Netscape, Sun, Compaq and many other are struggling or have 
failed because they were unable to compete. Not to mention the many 
small software companies that have fallen before they even left a 
mark. The reason for this is that standards are not open to the 
public.
    What constitutes a standard
    A standard is a specification that a group of people have agreed 
upon so that they can work with each other and not against each 
other. A communications protocol that everyone on the internet uses 
is a standard. A programming API that programmers around the world 
have agreed upon is a standard. A file format that everyone in the 
business world uses every day to communicate is also a standard. In 
fact, it might even be considered a communications protocol since it 
is a method for the person who creates the file to communicate with 
those who read the file. Standards are a great idea but what happens 
if a single person or company owns a standard?
    Why standards should be public domain
    When a standard is public domain everyone can use it. When a 
standard is proprietary then only the people who satisfy a condition 
set by the owner can use it. The example I would like to mention 
here is the Microsoft Office binary file format. This is a perfect 
example of what happens when a standard is owned. Microsoft and only 
Microsoft has the ability to truly read and write to Office 
documents. Others can try and come very close to succeeding, but 
unless the standard is completely opened one cannot truly be 
compatible with it. The Office software that I am using to write 
this paper claims to be Microsoft Office 2000/XP compatible, and for 
all intents and purposes it is. I have been able to read and write 
every Microsoft Office file that has come my way with the 
OpenOffice.org software. Basically what has happened is a group of 
very talented programmers from Sun Microsystems and the general 
public have put a lot of time and effort into reverse engineering 
the Microsoft Office binary file format. The reason for this effort 
is so that when a person uses their product he or she is not 
constrained by the twenty Microsoft Office files sent to them every 
day that they are expected to open and read. Most of the people who 
send these files have never heard of and can`t even fathom the idea 
of using something other than Microsoft Office to do daily office 
work. So if the OpenOffice.org people could do it, then there is 
nothing to worry about, right? Wrong. They were placed at an extreme 
disadvantage from the start and have still managed to develop a 
product that I guarantee you can compete with Microsoft Office from 
a technical standpoint. However, those hours spent tirelessly 
reverse engineering a binary format could have and should have been 
spent doing something else. They could have been working on other 
parts of the program to give it even more useful features than it 
already has. The Microsoft programmers did not have to worry about 
this dilemma because they exclusively had the standard. There is no 
intellectual property in the Microsoft Office file format. In fact 
it is agreed upon by most people in the software industry that a 
text based format (such as XML which is what OpenOffice.org uses for 
their native file format) works better for these types of files. So 
why does Microsoft continue to use a binary format and not share the 
specification? Because they know that if they did either of these 
things they would suddenly have to compete with other software 
developers and might lose the stranglehold they now have on office 
software and thus, on every business in America.
    Let`s assume I convince a non-computer person to try the 
OpenOffice.org software or Sun Star Office and one day they get a 
Microsoft Office file that doesn`t look right when they open it. I 
guarantee you the first thing they will think is that their program 
is bad and Microsoft Office is better because Microsoft Office could 
open that file while OpenOffice.org could not. (I have never 
actually seen that happen because those OpenOffice developers did 
such a good job, but this is a hypothetical situation) Is it because 
the OpenOffice.org developers are not as good as the Microsoft 
developers? That question can`t really be answered, but as a 
software expert I seriously doubt it. When a company owns a standard 
protocol it is inherently anticompetitive and everyone (except 
Microsoft) loses.
    What must be done
    These standards all need to be completely and absolutely open to 
the general public and anyone who wishes to compete. The settlement 
has the right idea in disclosing most communications protocols and 
API`s but that doesn`t cover it. All communications protocols, all 
API`s and all standard file formats need to be opened up to the 
general public. There is no way to have a competitive market 
otherwise. I place a big emphasis on file formats because the DOJ 
has not mentioned them at all in the stipulations of the Final 
Judgment proposal. They are just as important as communications 
protocols and in my opinion should be treated exactly as 
communications protocols for the duration of this case.
    The only argument the DOJ has given against opening all 
protocols is that the ones that are security related should be kept 
secret. I realize that in the `Competitive Impact 
Statement' it was explained that this exception was only for 
authorization tokens or keys, but it seems to me that the wording 
for the actual stipulation is weak and that it will allow Microsoft 
the ability to still close access to certain functionality under the 
`It`s for security purposes' umbrella. What must happen 
is that all protocols, all API`s and all file formats be completely 
opened to the general public.
    Why the general public
    The parties mentioned in the stipulations who are protected from 
anti-competitive acts are ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. These 
people deserve to be protected, but what about open source software 
developers? Why are they excluded from this list? Do they not have 
as much a fight to this information as the independent software 
vendors? Where do you draw the line? Redhat is an independent 
software vendor, but they produce open source code, so how can they 
sign the non-disclosure agreement when they always 
`disclose' their software? What about the many other 
software companies who produce open source products? Are they not 
independent software vendors? Bill Gates argues that they are not 
and that they ruin the country because they don`t pay taxes, but 
something tells me that if Redhat didn`t pay their taxes they would 
be punished. Would opening these three standards: protocols, API`s 
and file formats to the general public cause any harm? No way. If 
you are going to open them to competitors, open them to all 
competitors, not just the competitors Microsoft has beaten before 
(in many cases illegally) and already have a huge advantage over. 
Open them to the open source software developers who not only are 
some of the most eager people to see them, but also the last group 
in the world that Microsoft wants to compete with. This is the group 
that has Microsoft worried sick because they actually might be able 
to legitimately compete.
    How it should be done
    I do not want to see the DOJ settle on this case and believe me, 
I will be lobbying my home state to jump back in this fight. On the 
other hand, if it the DOJ is going to settle now I hope that they do 
it the right way. Yes, the Technical Committee is a good idea and I 
hope the people who get hired to do the job never let one mistake 
slip by. The TC has the fight to hire as many as it deems necessary 
to help carry out its task and I hope they do so without holding 
back. The TC should hire a team of as many programmers and technical 
writers as it needs and have them prepare and maintain the 
documentation that will be provided to competitors, Do not let 
Microsoft be responsible for this task. Let people who actually care 
about the cause and are passionate about getting these standards out 
there and helping their colleagues compete fairly handle this 
important job. Don`t leave it up to Microsoft who has only to lose 
from this stipulation and has for so long kept it secret.
    As I have stated before, I do not think that this final judgment 
will induce a competitive industry as it is supposed to. I believe 
that while on the fight track, this proposal has some weaknesses and 
some stipulations that are likely to not be enforced at all. Also it 
does not in any way punish Microsoft for the crimes they have been 
committing for the past decade. Here are the stipulations that I 
question, denoted by letter and number from section HI of the 
proposal, `Prohibited Conduct'.
    Section III: Prohibited Conduct
    C)
    1. The part about allowing them to restrict OEM`s from 
installing software that provides a particular type of functionality 
as long as the restrictions are non-discriminatory between non MS 
products and MS products. Microsoft will be able to take advantage 
of that by claiming that a product that competes with their own 
product has a prohibited type of functionality. It is easy to take 
two programs that provide a similar function but in all other 
aspects provide different functions, and say they are two different 
types of products prohibiting the competitive product.

[[Page 24612]]

    3. The restriction that non-MS middleware must either not 
display a user interface or should display a user interface similar 
to the corresponding MS product. This forces competing software 
vendors to follow Microsoft`s lead in these type of products. Then 
to the user it seems that Microsoft is the only innovator and the 
other vendors are merely copying. I believe there should be no 
restrictions whatsoever on competing middleware products. With this 
exception, Microsoft is allowed to define the configuration of the 
desktop. That should be the job of the OEM.
    D)
    This is one of the most important rules to stop Microsoft from 
illegally abusing it`s monopoly as it has done consistently and 
effectively in the past. The settlement is right on the concept here 
but you are leaving out the single most important group that wishes 
to have access to this API: the public. The general public includes 
people like myself and other software developers who use and 
maintain software products that compete with Microsoft products. 
Open source software developers and the general public want access 
to those API`s just as badly as the commercial organizations 
mentioned. And we deserve access just as they do. Microsoft API`s 
are not and cannot be considered intellectual property because of 
Microsoft`s monopoly on the entire software industry. Those API`s 
are a de facto standard and must be treated as such. My personal 
opinion as well as many other software experts like myself believe 
that no API should ever be closed to anyone for any reason. However, 
I am willing to not argue that debate in this paper because that is 
not what this settlement is about. I do believe that Microsoft will 
continue to abuse its monopoly if these API`s are not released to 
the general public with all documentation. The reason is that I 
believe competitors to Microsoft are growing out of the hard work 
and effort of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU organization, 
the Linux Kernel, distribution providers such as RedHat, 
MandrakeSoft, Suse, 3T Solutions and many other equally important 
open source software developers. The open source movement has 
utilized a method of creating better software, that even a closed 
source giant like Microsoft itself will have to work very hard to 
keep up with. Unless these de facto standard API`s are released to 
them and the public, there will not be competition in the software 
industry. As for the other closed source software vendors, they most 
likely will not be able to compete with Microsoft even with the 
API`s simply because Microsoft will bury them in marketing and other 
tactics such as the infamous `Embrace and Extend' 
strategy that was used to retard the popularity of excellent ideas 
such as Java, Javascript and ANSI C++. Please do not allow Microsoft 
to harm the industry and the public more than it already has by 
allowing them to define the playing field even more. In conclusion 
to this section, the DOJ must force Microsoft to release any and all 
programming API`s and communications protocols to the general 
public, so that competing open source software developers can make 
their products compatible with the de facto standard products of the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    E)
    This is a very good and necessary stipulation, but it does have 
a weakness. I tend to learn from experience and it has shown that 
the Microsoft Corporation will do anything and everything it can, 
stopping at nothing to not just help it`s own products, but to also 
injure and even paralyze the products of all of it`s competitors. We 
have seen Microsoft make illogical technical decisions for the sole 
purpose of killing excellent products like Netscape Communicator and 
Sun Java technologies. Therefore, I do not trust Microsoft to handle 
such an important task as making all communications protocols 
absolutely and completely open to all people. For example, 
Microsoft`s biggest fear right now is the GNU/Linux Operating System 
becoming as easy for a computer user weaned on Windows as 
Microsoft`s own OS. They have good reason to be afraid, since these 
systems have a history of being more stable and secure than Windows. 
However since Microsoft owns the vast majority of the desktop 
Operating Systems being used today, it is imperative for every 
single Microsoft communications protocol to be open and available 
for any (competing) open source developer. Otherwise an ignorant 
user will make the assumption that the competing system is broken, 
because it does not easily communicate with all the Windows systems 
they already have. I have suggested a possible solution to this 
problem above in the `How should it be done' section.
    G)
    1. This stipulation is contradictory. It claims that Microsoft 
may not enter into a contract that will force the other party to 
exclusively or favorably deal with Microsoft products as opposed to 
competing products. Then it says that they actually can do this as 
long as they can provide numbers that show it is reasonable to favor 
the Microsoft product. (In good faith? Who are we talking about 
here?) Since Microsoft has such a large percentage of the market 
they will always be able to produce numbers that show this. Besides, 
if you want to see how the Microsoft Corporation likes to fudge 
numbers, ask them how exactly they came up with the availability 
rate for their web servers. They are a monopoly and achieved that 
through marketing and questionable business practices. That is not 
what got them their enormous market percentage, rather it was 
abusing that monopoly that made it difficult and sometimes even 
impossible for their competitors to sell enough product to stay in 
business. (Even in the cases where the competing product was 
technically superior) The DOJ must never let them enter into an 
agreement that removes the other parties right to use a competing 
product.
    H)
    3. Along with this stipulation, there should be a message 
defined by the DOJ that is used every time windows tries to 
automatically change settings. Also, there should always be an 
option that the user can choose that will permanently disable each 
automatic configuration change. This must be clearly explained when 
asking for user confirmation so that, for example, my grandmother 
can read and understand exactly what choices she has. The reason for 
this is simple. Microsoft, if given the opportunity, will ask if the 
user wishes to change settings on a regular basis so that the user 
will become extremely annoyed. Then they will use phrases like 
`Internet Explorer is currently not your default web browser. 
Would you like to make it your default? (Click yes to make this 
message stop appearing)'. There should always be an option 
such as `No, keep SomeBrowserName as my default web browser 
and don`t ask me again'. Also, the DOJ should define these 
messages to keep Microsoft from wording it like this, `Keep 
SomeBrowserName as my default web browser (Some functionality may be 
lost)'. If I am the kind of person who gets nervous about 
things like using a different program than Word to write a paper, 
then that statement will be enough to scare me into using IE. 
Microsoft`s Operating System monopoly gives them the power to make 
any program they want look bad. A perfect example of this is the 
Caldera vs. Microsoft case where Windows was generating false error 
messages when run on DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS. They have 
abused this power many times with their FUD attacks and messages 
like the one shown above. This must be stopped and only the DOJ has 
the power to stop it. In the freeway of the software industry, 
Microsoft has built the roads that most people drive on and history 
has shown us that only Microsoft brand cars are allowed a smooth 
drive. This must be changed.
    H_Exceptions:
    1. Assuming that all communications protocols and programming 
API`s are open to the public, this should never be an issue because 
any decent non-Microsoft program will be able to handle the users 
requests.
    2. If the user has installed a program that is unable to handle 
that request, then the user most likely had a very good reason for 
it and probably doesn`t want Windows stepping in and changing that 
for them. Also, this stipulation gives Microsoft programs an 
inherent competitive advantage over other programs. When Windows 
decides a program failed (which will be up to Windows` own 
discretion?), it steps in and uses a Microsoft program to handle it. 
But when a Microsoft program fails to handle a request, will Windows 
step in and use a non-Microsoft product to handle it? No way. On top 
of all this, it gives Microsoft the ability to leverage the content 
of their web sites in the same manner that they leveraged the 
Windows OS to stamp out competitors. I know plenty of people who 
would not even consider using a non-IE web browser at all if they 
couldn`t access the web sites maintained by Microsoft with it. I 
remind you of the day, a couple months ago, when they tried to block 
all non-IE web browsers from viewing msn.com. This attempt was met 
by an uproar from non-IE users and they removed the block in fear of 
looking bad in public. With Microsoft extending it`s presence into 
basically all other industries that deal with information 
distribution and digital media (as they have been doing at a steady 
rate), this will only get worse. The DOJ must force Microsoft to not 
switch to a Microsoft program when accessing Microsoft`s servers. 
They must let

[[Page 24613]]

any program access it and the communications protocol must be 
completely available so that all other developers can make their 
client software also work with Microsoft`s servers. If the competing 
middleware doesn`t work then let the user choose to stop using it.
    J)
    1. Why not? As has been shown in the past time and time again, 
reverse engineering or even random hacking can and will find those 
API`s and find the security holes in them. Also it has been shown by 
software packages such as OpenSSH, a program is more secure when it 
is open for not just the hackers that sit around all day and reverse 
engineer hidden protocols to find exploits, but also to users who 
may find the exploits first and then tell the developer to fix them. 
I don`t want to hear that my own government, the people who are 
supposed to protect me, are relying on a protocol or API hidden in 
Windows for security. No one is asking for authorization keys or 
tokens that are hidden in windows. Those should stay hidden and with 
good reason, but the protocol or API should be open and available. 
There is no way for a non-Microsoft product to compete with a 
Microsoft product when Microsoft can access parts of the OS that 
competing products can`t with hidden protocols or API`s.
    2. This section specifically allows Microsoft the ability not to 
describe to or license their `secure' API`s and 
protocols to their number one competitor, open source software. Do 
you think that they will disclose these protocols to open source 
programmers when they have the power to discriminate against a 
business that does not `meet reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business' when Microsoft publicly describes 
the GPL as a cancer? This stipulation is anti-competitive by nature 
and does not belong in this proposal. As noted by Robert X. 
Cringely, Microsoft can and will take advantage of this power. The 
people who have a desire to crack those protocols can and will crack 
them whether the DOJ and Microsoft wants them to or not. How long 
did it take before the eBook anti-piracy code was cracked? Or how 
about the DVD decryption algorithm? I can`t think of any reason to 
allow them to keep hidden any communication protocol other then to 
allow them to use Windows as leverage to keep customers away from 
competing products. The first thing my operating systems professor 
said in his security lecture was, `If the security of your 
system relies on others not knowing how it works, then you`re in a 
lot of trouble'. The reason Microsoft wants it this way is to 
keep open source software projects from competing. The DOJ cannot 
allow this.
    Conclusion
    To conclude this paper I will reemphasize the most important 
points:
    1. Microsoft monopolized, and through illegal abuse of that 
monopoly, retarded the growth of the entire software industry. These 
illegal actions have injured myself as a software developer along 
with my colleagues. They have also injured Microsoft`s own customers 
through high prices, lack of choice in purchasing a product and lack 
of innovation. There is no reason to innovate when you aren`t 
competing against anyone at all.
    2. The most important change that must be made to stop this 
illegal abuse of power is to open all standards up to the public. 
The keys standards I mention in this paper are communications 
protocols, programming interfaces and file formats. The most 
important being file formats because the DOJ did not even mention 
them in its Final Judgment.
    3. The Final Judgment only includes opening these standards to 
independent software developers with a non-disclosure agreement. The 
standard must be opened to the general public so that all can 
compete fairly, including Microsoft`s most fierce competitor to 
date: open source software.
    4. Even if all the changes I mentioned are made, Microsoft will 
still be the undisputed leader in the software industry and will 
remain that way for a long time unless they are actually punished 
for their crimes. This final judgment is what I consider a slap on 
the wrist, considering the amount of people they have harmed and the 
software industry that they have corrupted. I ask the DOJ to 
reconsider it`s decision to settle and put Microsoft on trial. They 
are guilty and they will be found guilty if tried. If the trial 
takes two years, so be it. At least then they will be convicted and 
they will be punished. The Final Judgment does not offer any kind of 
certain results and it might not change anything. Microsoft has been 
building up an empire while they illegally shut down all competition 
and that empire will still be strong even if they do have to compete 
fairly from this point on. I urge the DOJ to put Microsoft on trial, 
and if (when) they are found guilty, punish them as they deserve to 
be punished.
    If the DOJ decides to continue with the settlement, I urge that 
they strengthen some of the stipulations, add the general public to 
the list of those protected and completely open the three key 
standards mentioned in this paper. For all those who have been 
injured by the illegal activities of the Microsoft Corporation, they 
have my sympathy and hopefully the sympathy and support of the 
government of the United States of America.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Boder
    [email protected]



MTC-00004838

From: Alan Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 12:21am
Subject: Justice isn`t doing the US justice
    Regarding the Microsoft anti-trust case:
    I worked for Novell in Asia from 1992-1993. All the PC 
manufacturers were afraid of Microsoft because of the licensing 
agreements they were forced to sign. No PC could ship without 
Windows installed.
    They continue such practices today. It is a shame that you have 
let them continue to proceed in this fashion. Soon, they will try to 
corner the home game market. Just wait.
    Alan Mark
    Chief Security Strategist
    Novell, Inc.



MTC-00004839

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 12:28am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Suit Settlement
    I wish to protest in the strongest terms possible your proposed 
settlement of the antitrust suit against Microsoft. The proposals as 
reported in the newspapers and other media I read on a regular basis 
are wholly inadequate to correct the egregious violations of the 
antitrust laws by Microsoft over the years but rather give Microsoft 
license to keep on bullying its way through the computer software 
markets without fear of any consequences or effective control by the 
government.
    I think that the only way to level the playing field in computer 
software is to force Gates and Co. to establish open Operating 
System interface standards so that anyone with a better piece of 
software can competitively interface with the Windows OS and compete 
with Microsoft produced appplication SW of all types (Productivity, 
internet browsers, et. al.). Additionally, Microsoft applications of 
all types should not be given unfair advantages. The best way to do 
this is to sever and establish a fireway between the OS and 
Application SW divisions of Microsoft. In addition, there should be 
a special master appointed by the court of jurisdiction to monitor 
and bring to the courts` attention any further efforts on 
Microsoft`s part to subvert these approachs to free and open 
competition.
    For years, consumers have paid outrageous sums for half baked 
upgrades of MS software and thereby lined Microsofts corporate 
treasury and Bill Gates` pockets. With the findings of their guilt 
alread in the bag, it is time for DOJ to step up to the plate and 
follow through with real remedies rather than the proposed puny 
`settlement solutions' that will solve nothing. Please 
don`t let the country down. Please restore competition to the PC 
software market.
    Sincerely,
    Irving W Halland
    Saratoga CA



MTC-00004840

From: Jerome Krough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 12:29am
Subject: ms_v_U.S. Settlement
    The current settlement between the DOJ and microsoft is 
unsatisfactory in it`s present state. I fail to see anywhere 
in the settlement where microsoft is being punished for their 
activities, in fact microsoft is being rewarded for conducting 
business that is at the very least detrimental to consumers and the 
tech industry as a whole. In short, I decide how I use MY computer 
and neither bill gates nor microsoft will dictate to me what 
software or hardware I use.



MTC-00004841

From: Mike Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 12:30am
Subject: a global tragedy
    I wish someone in a position of power would stand up to 
Microsoft `quit being such

[[Page 24614]]

winnies'! I am a computer engineer with over 15 years 
experience; I make a living fixing the so called innovative software 
that microsoft hacks together; I would much rather be out installing 
new systems and networks that all ways fixing billy's trash. I 
use Linux on all of our servers because it is better; I don`t have 
to call anyone if it were ever to break I can just look completely 
under the hood and fix it; but Linux rarely brakes; I have servers 
that have been running non-stop for 3 years never a problem and 
never need to be shut down.
    here are some facts that I have not heard brought up in the case 
against microsoft.
    microsoft is to big even for you politicians; and he is just 
getting bigger! you better stop him now or it will be to late!
    Microsoft needs to be split up in to 3 separate companies just 
like the just said; this would spur an enormous amount of new 
startup companies to produce better programs for Windows and Linux 
because for once in 10 years it would be an even playing field and 
millions of new faces would be in the race to compete in software 
development.
    I have more I will send later gota run; so I can pay my taxes! 
LOL :)



MTC-00004842

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 12:43am
Subject: About the proposal
    To the US Department of Justice,
    In regards to the settlement by Microsoft, it would be a great 
idea to transfer the `money` as was said into something tangible and 
of worth to the school`s of the United States.
    An example comes to mind in regards to Red Hat`s proposal 
(http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html) but I think it 
would be much more sensible to give the money to the nations #1 
provider of eductation hardware and software, Apple Computers. The 
solution is simple, buy the required number of computers from Apple 
to reach that figure of money and then distribute them all. There 
are many good reasons to do this:
-Apple provide the best user experience
-Apple have been a leader in education for basically its known 
existance
-Apple provide a quality solution to any problem with OS and app`s 
built in
-Office for Mac can be distributed at no real charge to the buyers 
of the new Mac`s
-Microsoft does not solidify its position in anything but the office 
suite market
    This is a truly reasonable response to the dilema and would be 
appreciated by all.
    Regards,
    Mat



MTC-00004843

From: Olie Echevarria
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 3:51am
Subject: Against DOJ-Microsoft agreement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an American, I am now executing my right to free speech and 
opinion. This opinion is in regards to agreement between Microsoft 
Corporation, the DOJ and 9 of the 18 states that are suing 
Microsoft. I regret to inform you that the current agreement that 
was reached does not go far enough in stopping Microsoft`s current 
behavior. Me, myself, a web developer, and internet user can tell 
you that there are serious flaws that DOES allow Microsoft to keep 
its current behavior. Microsoft`s proposal is by passing the whole 
issue why there was a litigation in the first place. They are 
proposing $1 Billion dollar donation to schools.
    My second issue is, why hasn`t Bill Gates and any of his 
associates who testified, under oath been charged with perjury and 
contempt of court and falsifying evidence(ie, Professor Felton`s 
computer program that seperates the browser from the Operating 
System)? I urge the courts to please address these issues. Microsoft 
because of it`s financial and corporate status in the United States 
of America should have no bearing or influence whatsoever!
    For example, the agreement fails to address fully the browser 
issue, the whole reason why the case started. Users will still not 
be able to have a choice on what browser they will want to use. As a 
former PC user, I can tell you that there is no choice on what I can 
use for a browser, except ONE, Internet Explorer, of which I 
consider a inferior product compared to Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, 
etc. Try going to Circuit City or CompUSA and ask for a PC with 
Netscape or Opera preloaded, I can attest to you that you will not 
find ANY, only Internet Explorer! Yet Microsoft will tell you they 
are all for competition and choice, but only their choice and terms 
not yours, the consumer. If they are for choice and competition, 
then I urge you to force them to allow OEMs to include rival 
software that will compete based on technical merits and not 
marketing merits.
    Secondly, my second argument comes from their behavior in the 
market place in terms of their End User License Agreement. According 
to their `EULA,' their software is deemed: `As 
is' meaning if their software blows up your machine, they are 
not liable to damages. I urge the courts to have Microsoft modify 
their EULA so that if a consumer who buys a PC and DOES NOT want or 
to use the Microsoft OS, that they be allowed to return the software 
to Microsoft and as a result, the consumer be allowed to obtain a 
full refund based on the full market retail price of the Microsoft 
software bundled/included.
    Third, I would have them open up their source code to Internet 
Explorer, force Microsoft to license their Office suite to 5 
platforms and not two(Windows and Macintosh). Lastly, have them 
modify the EULA so that includes a clause that holds Microsoft 
liable for ANY security related defects in their software that they 
tout as `the most secure' ever. As of right, their 
software is labled as, `As is.' Microsoft has a history 
of telling the public their software is secure and robust and when 
it comes to enterprise level computing, they fail in that arena.
    I urge you, the courts to review their proposal and I urge the 
courts to find another solution since the current proposal does not 
go far enough to even come close to finding the correct remedy to 
impose on Microsoft. With the opinions states above, I urge the 
courts to look my remedy objectively and I hope that my proposal is 
good.
    Thank you,
    Your fellow countrymen,
    Orlando Echevarria



MTC-00004844

From: Betty Whitaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 8:25am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement 
from my perspective as a U.S. citizen and a consumer. I am not a 
lawyer, so I have difficulty reading the legalese you asked that I 
read before submitting my comments, however I do know justice when I 
see it; and I do not see it in the proposed settlement. I do, 
however, know what I have seen happen over the last few years; and 
it is from this knowledge that I make my comments.
    First, as a law abiding citizen I am outraged that although our 
court system has judged Microsoft to be a monoply, the Department of 
Justice is effectively negating that judgement by not requiring 
Microsoft to quit the behavior for which I understand it was judged 
to be a monopoly. I don`t know who is in whose pocket; but our 
courts are being made a mockery of by this proposed settlement. 
There is a clear distinction between an operating system and the 
programs that run on it. By bundling programs with their operating 
system, Microsoft is gaining a clear advantage over competitors to 
their programs just by having Microsoft`s programs already installed 
on consumers computers. Many people will look no farther for 
programs just because they already have one installed. This gives 
Microsoft a clear advantage over companies with competing browsers, 
music players, office suites, etc. This is monopolistic behavior; 
and must be stopped to be an effective remedy. The only possible 
just remedy is to split Microsoft into two companies, the operating 
system and the programs that run on the operating system, both of 
which must compete for market share. Second, as a consumer I am 
incensed that I will continue to be forced to pay for programs that 
I do not use just to purchase an operating system. Microsoft is not 
providing me with anything I want with their bundled programs. All 
they are doing is taking up space on my hard drive. I want to be 
able to determine for myself which programs I want to use for what; 
and I want to be sure that I get the best program for my money. That 
is becoming increasingly difficult for me to do. Remember the old 
adage `Jack of all trades, master of none.'? That is 
what is happening to Microsoft today. Even their operating system is 
getting worse instead of better in some ways, bloated and a resource 
hog, with worse and worse security holes. Nobody can be all things 
to all people. I want the best buy for my money; and Microsoft`s 
bundled programs are not the best that I can get. However, they will 
soon become all that I can get if Microsoft is not forced to compete 
for market share fairly. All I want from Microsoft is an operating 
system. Then if they make a better program to run on it I will buy 
their program, otherwise I will use a competitor`s program. That is 
what I have been doing from the day I bought my

[[Page 24615]]

first computer; and that is what I want to continue to be allowed to 
do.
    Thank you for reading my opinions on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Betty Whitaker
    [email protected]



MTC-00004845

From: Ramsey G. Brenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 10:18am
Subject: Recent security flaw (Public Comment)
    The recent Windows XP security flaw demonstrates how destructive 
Microsft is to consumers. They knowingly witheld important 
information about a very destructive vunerability for 5 weeks while 
at the same time telling consumers that Windows XP was secure. They 
knew it was a lie but did not tell anyone because they did not want 
to negatively affect their sales. Additionally, MS has added new 
`features' that force consumers to upgrade their product 
every 3 years (or after every 3 installs (which ever is shorter)) 
after they have already paid MS hundreds of dollars to use their 
product. MS has also started to make all their older products 
unsupported, thereby forcing consumers to upgrade to Windows XP even 
if they have no need to.
    Microsft has shown they do not care about the law; taking the 
attitude that it applies to everyone but them. They have shown that 
they do not care about thier customers. The only thing that it 
appears they care about is taking our money.
    When a company cares more about money than the quality of their 
product and their customers, they deserve to be punished. Don`t let 
Microsoft off the hook again; they will never learn.



MTC-00004846

From: Brad Schmitcke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    As a comsumer, a citizen, and a registered voter, I am appalled 
at the settlement that has been proposed for Microsoft`s anti-trust 
case. Bill Gates should spend time in prison like anyone else who 
would submit false evidence to a federal court. There are so many 
specific points that I cannot go into all of them here.
    However, it is clear that MS is not getting the punishment is 
deserves. They are a law breaking monopoly. Their CEO is a cheater. 
Allowing MS to merely donate one billion dollars in software that it 
develops and valuates is like telling a thief he can pay one victim 
with the money he has raised from stealing from others. Actually, it 
would be more like telling a thief that he can pay on victim with 
the profits he has made on the sale of property he has stolen from 
other victims.
    Microsoft would not have reached it`s current financial level if 
it hadn`t done some very illegal and unscrupulous things. Microsoft 
has been found guilty in a Federal Court. How much is Bill Gates 
worth now? How much was he worth before he broke the law. He should 
be reduced to his former shadow and even be taken down a notch from 
there. If I did some of the things that Bill Gates and MS had done, 
and if I were prosecuted and convicted, I would have nothing and I 
would be in prison. What is the difference between Bill Gates and me 
in this land of equality? Does the amount of money a person has 
determine their level of equality before the law? In theory, no. In 
practice, it seems to be YES!!
    Well, just as a murderer cannot collect life insurance on 
someone he has killed, MS should not be allowed to keep money that 
was obtained through illegal practices. Furthermore, they should not 
be rewarded by being allowed to penetrate the educational market as 
a `punishment'. Give Bill Gates what he deserves. He 
deserves to be punished, not rewarded with another avenue in which 
to unfairly dominate a market.
    Regards,
    Bradley D. Schmitcke
    Bellingham, WA 98226



MTC-00004847

From: kevin lyda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 10:06am
Subject: public comment...
    The anti-trust settlement as currently described will do nothing 
to curb Microsofts monopolistic behaviour. Even today i read about 
the Microsoft UPNP security flaw, I also note that UPNP itself is a 
tool Microsoft is using to extend its monopoly. Even correctly 
implemented, the design of UPNP looks suspect from a security 
viewpoint, but as time goes on firewalls and NAT routers are going 
to need to run UPNP in order to use certain Microsoft services.
    In other words UPNP is being used to extend Microsoft`s 
dominance on the desktop to the firewall arena.
    The fact is that if the current situation continues, the hitech 
field will be held back and even Microsoft will eventually be hurt 
by its monopoly position. This settlement must do more to push 
Microsoft away from this path.
    Microsoft should be forced to openly describe file formats and 
network protocols that it uses. It should also be forced to port its 
most popular desktop applications to other platforms (linux and 
solaris). In addition as part of its cash settlement to schools, 
it`s offering software. This is cynical to the extreme. The offer 
made by RedHat to give away its software to schools and have 
Microsoft just donate computers would do much more for schools, and 
better address Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Thanks,
    Kevin Lyda
    US citizen
    Ballinvoher
    Caherlistrane
    Co. Galway
    Ireland
    [email protected] gpg or pgp encrypted mail is preferred. 
my
    fork()`ed on 37058400 public key is available at:
    meatspace place: orbit http://suberic.net/kevin/
gpg.roo.public.txt
    http://suberic.net/kevin



MTC-00004848

From: Ian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Proceedings
    I am writing this to show my disheartenment at the United States 
Government over the `slap on the wrist` that they gave the Microsoft 
Corporation in the latest anti-trust lawsuit. It is utterly 
fascinating that the you are looking into these flaws for the 
difficulty exploits could cause people, after basically letting M$ 
off the hook in the monopoly punishment phase. This is another 
reason why monopoly for a universally adopted and used O/S is bad. I 
use Microsoft`s Products at home, work, and at school; however, I 
also use a free operating system, `linux` at home, work, and 
school_I like knowing that my operating system is safe...I can 
look at the source code, and say, `Hey, wait, that`s not 
supposed to be in there,' take it out, and then make another 
operating system. I feel that Microsoft should be punished as 
follows:
_They make the source code available (after an NDA) to any 
interested parties
_They drop the copyright on all older versions of their 
software (Software that hasn`t been made in 5 years should be 
released under the public domain without support)
_They disallow the .NET fiasco that is currently going on now.
    Thank you for your time, and for letting my participate in a 
part of these proceedings.
    Ian Wilson
    P.O. Box 304
    Ada, Ohio 45810-0304
    -From RFC 1925: `(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just 
fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be 
sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting 
under them as they fly overhead.'



MTC-00004849

From: Mike Haji-Sheikh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would like to encourage you to rethink the settlement with MS. 
One disturbing section would allow Microsoft to withhold code to 
non-profit orginizations such as SAMBA.org. This would effectively 
allow MS to monopolize the business server business. as quoted from 
Kringly;
    `Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it 
need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies 
that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    This is a ludicrous section_effectively using the DoJ to 
firm up it`s monopoly since

[[Page 24616]]

Microsofts biggest competitor depends on non profits. This 
competitor is another non-profit called LINUX which has become very 
important in the world of advanced science and engineering. The 
LINUX operating system has given the scientific world a low cost way 
of building supercomputers using clustering. It is imperative that 
the LINUX operating system is not impacted negatively by the DoJ. 
The development of new medicines, semiconductors, aircraft and 
transportation will depend more and more on LINUX based systems. 
This effective gutting will make it difficult for the LINUX 
operating system to thrive in a Microsoft world.
    Please include my comments as a non-computer professional and 
scientist
    Dr. Michael James Haji-Sheikh, PhD
    Sr. Principle Development Engineer, Honeywell`s Embedded Systems



MTC-00004850

From: Paul Venezia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft = bad for the world
    To put it simply, this trial and `settlement' is a 
farce. Microsoft is trying to do to the federal government what it`s 
done to countless competitors over the years. This company is 
ruthless, powerful, wealthy and without conscience. You cannot let 
this continue, period. A world with a tame Microsoft would be the 
only way to ensure the growth, stability and security of the 
Internet, commerce, the economy, and the country. My terms are 
strong and true.
    Do not let them get away with corporate rape and murder any 
longer. Do not let them run roughshod over hapless consumers. DO NOT 
LET THEM WIN.
    Paul Venezia
    US Citizen



MTC-00004851

From: Jezmo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a little ashamed of the proposal set out for Microsoft. I 
don`t care if I have to go back to living in the stone ages, a 
convicted entity CAN NOT be let off just because it will upset the 
economy. One analogy would be to say if I punish a killerm it will 
hurt that individual`s loved ones. Justice MUST BE SERVED regardless 
of the consequences of those actions. Please rethink your your 
remedies! A very concerned CITIZEN.
    P.S. I am a Microsoft user and certainly do not want see them 
put out of business, however there is better answer than the one 
proposed!



MTC-00004852

From: Ronald Large
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am a Microsoft product user, a user of Quicken (Intuit), and 
use software by many other developers. I started using home 
computers in 1981 (that is eighty-one, 20 years ago).
    Microsoft has not harmed the consumer. On the contrary, 
Microsoft has immeasurably helped the consumer. We now have an 
unlimited choice of software. And Microsoft isn`t really a monopoly: 
if I wanted to run Mac OS10 I could buy a Mac and do so. Or if I 
want to use Linus I can get it free and run it on any of my 
computers! Actually I really don`t care which operating system I use 
as long as it will run my current software and future software will 
be developed for it.
    I once paid $4,000 for a DEC computer using a DEC operating 
system. In all of Southern California there were only 2 stores 
selling software for that operating system, and there was only 1 
wordprocessor for it! At that time Egghead Computer and numerous 
other stores were selling software written for IBM/MS DOS. DOS 
eventually dominated the market and became the operating system of 
choice for software developers (larger market for their product). 
This simplified things and expanded our choices of software.
    As a California resident I am troubled by our Attorney General`s 
stance on this issue. I assure that if Microsoft were located in 
Silicon Valley instead of Washington he would not be pursuing this 
suit.
    California`s interest in this case is simply to help Sun 
Microsystems, Oracle and other California firms do what they cannot 
do themselves: outsell Microsoft in the marketplace.
    Please settle the suit as agreed to by microsoft and most of the 
states.
    Ronald J Large
    400 Susana Avenue
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277
    310.316.2075



MTC-00004854

From: Ronny Ong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree that the proposed settlement is an acceptable way to 
resolve the antitrust action against Microsoft Corporation. The 
settlement obtains timely and adequate protection for consumers, but 
does not grant unjustified advantage to Microsoft competitors. I 
believe that the existing antitrust laws are fully applicable in 
today`s technological world. At the same time, the monopoly 
perceived to be held by Microsoft is clearly different than 
traditional abusive monopolies.
    In a monopoly held by a utility, consumers are forced to 
purchase the product from the utility on an ongoing basis, month 
after month. The only choice is to do without the product. In the 
case of consumers who purchased Windows 95, they remain free to use 
that product today without ever having paid additional money to 
Microsoft. Even if we assume that the direct competition to Windows 
(e.g. BeOS, OS/2, Linux, Solaris, Unix, etc.) are irrelevant, 
consumers are not forced in any way to upgrade to newer versions of 
Windows unless they desire the additional benefits of the newer 
versions. To prevent Microsoft from being able to add features to 
its operating system in order to compete for those upgrades would be 
a misuse of regulatory and judicial power.
    If we survey all manner of industries and product categories 
outside personal computer software, there are many manufacturers 
permitted to favor their own add-ons over those provided by 
aftermarket suppliers, even when those manufacturers have an 
overwhelming share of the market. Microsoft makes a tremendous 
amount of technical information available to Independent Software 
Vendors (ISVs) on a very timely basis, and the size of the Windows 
marketplace (which has been used to illustrate Microsoft`s monopoly 
position) is truly a result of how open a platform Windows has been.
    This nation is obligated to protect equal opportunity but not to 
impose equality where not deserved. An extraordinary volume of 
dissention is being generated by those who have failed to compete 
successfully with Microsoft in the free market, as well as a 
relatively small number of disgruntled and greedy consumers. 
Rational consideration, however, cannot conclude that ongoing 
litigation serves any purpose besides boosting the self-importance 
of a few parties and their attorneys. Prompt settlement with 
Microsoft is in the public good.
    Regards,
    Ronny Ong
    5801 Hilton Head Dr
    Garland, TX 75044-4964
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00004855

From: Greg Mumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I write this email to express my displeasure over the absence of 
any meaningful punishment against Microsoft.
    The recent ruling is a symbolic slap on the wrist that will harm 
competition and further degrade the economy.
    As a software engineer I have had the advantage of observing the 
last decade and half with a depth and breadth of understanding most 
do not experience.
    Two misconceptions exist about Microsoft. First is that they are 
innovative and second that they compete fairly. Microsoft is not 
innovative and never has been. Four examples follow.
    First, since the 1970`s UNIX-based computers have allowed file 
names of virtually any size. While other operating systems like 
Novell allowed long file names, Microsoft operating systems didn`t 
until late in 1995. Even though Microsoft operating systems 
contained this glaring handicap, consumers continued to purchase 
them in favor of those systems with superior features.
    Secondly, while many operating systems used more powerful 32-bit 
instructions in the 1980s and early 1990s, Microsoft continued to 
use the less powerful 16 and 8 bit instructions. Use of this less 
powerful instruction set wasn`t completely abandoned until Windows 
NT was shipped, 6 to 8 years after other operating system began 
using them_an eternity in the high technology industry. If the 
market place was competitive, wouldn`t customers consider purchasing 
the more powerful of two operating systems? They generally didn`t. 
Sales of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 soared.
    Third, in the 1980s operating systems frequently included 
graphical interfaces. This

[[Page 24617]]

user-friendly feature was included with the operating systems in the 
Apple Macintosh, UNIX and the Commodore Amiga. Yet consumers waited 
many years until Microsoft released Windows rather than purchasing a 
competitor`s operating system containing this desirable feature.
    Fourth, an example about Microsoft inferior compiler products. 
Compiler technology is important because these utilities allow 
programmers to write applications for a particular operating system. 
During the late 1980`s and early to mid 90`s there were many 
different compilers available from several vendors. In particular, 
the company Borland produced a tool that was smaller, faster and 
more robust than Microsoft`s tool. Once again consumers choose the 
Microsoft product overwhelmingly over the competitors product. A few 
programmers even created a compiler that was given away for free 
that couldn`t compete with the Microsoft compiler. Why would 
consumers pick the Microsoft product over a more innovative product?
    Finally, there is the issue of quality. While Linux and other 
UNIX systems frequently run for months or years without problems, 
it`s often difficult to get a Microsoft operating system to run all 
day without crashing. Still, the consumers overwhelmingly choose 
Microsoft as the operating system of choice, despite it`s legendary 
unreliability. In these cases, and others, the products offered by 
Microsoft are less innovative, less powerful, harder to use and more 
unreliable than the products offered by it`s competitors.
    Microsoft has been very abusive in it`s desire to make money as 
the following four examples illustrate.
    First, it`s a matter of fact that Microsoft applications like 
Word and Excel used undocumented features of the Microsoft operating 
systems they ran under. It wasn`t until this practice was widely 
publicized that Microsoft produced documentation for it`s 
competitors to use. The operating system is like a socket, and 
applications like Access and Word are the technical equivalent of 
the light bulb. Microsoft owns both.
    The second example concerns malicious code created by Microsoft. 
The code was placed into Microsoft programs and would display 
strange messages when running on a non-Microsoft operating system. 
The phony messages weren`t a side-effect, they were the entire 
purpose of the code modules. In this example, Microsoft`s competitor 
is now out of business.
    Third, Microsoft tried to stop the acceptance of Java. Java is 
an OS-independent language created by Microsoft`s rival, Sun 
Microsystems. Microsoft did not adopt the language and in fact 
developed a similar one which only runs on Microsoft operating 
systems. In fact upgrading your Microsoft browser will cause all 
traces of the Java language to disappear silently from your 
computer.
    Finally, upgrading browser versions causes other problems. 
Updating a Microsoft browser disables the Netscape plug-in feature. 
This open-ended feature has been around as long as the Web, but a 
recent installation quietly removes it in place of a Microsoft-only 
solution. In conclusion, Microsoft is not, nor has ever been, 
innovative. What they have been is an overly aggressive monopoly. 
Monopolies are bad for everyone because they take a bigger piece of 
the economic pie than they are entitled to. It is a travesty of 
justice to let Microsoft`s abusive, monopolistic behavior continue 
unabated for this long. The current ruling does nothing to solve the 
problem.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Mumm



MTC-00004856

From: Michael Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since the U.S. government owns so many computers, it should be 
required to have a computer of another operating system for every 
computer it owns with the Microsoft operating system. So for each 
Microsoft type computer the government should be required to use one 
linux computer, one apple computer, one atari computer, one BeOs 
computer, one unix computer, etc. This way the government won`t be 
contributing to and exacerbating Microsoft`s dominance in the 
computer industry.
    Michael Ferguson
    Pelican, Alaska



MTC-00004857

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Terms
    Dear DOJ Pussycats:
    The settlement with Microsoft for it`s proven monopolistic 
practices is a sham. For several years after Microsoft gave me a 
free copy of one of their programs I was under the Microsoft spell. 
Then I began to wake up to the fact that some other very good 
software was beginning to dissapear from the market and that whether 
I liked the newer Microsoft offerings or not, which I often did not, 
I no longer had a choice. So, I was delighted when the DOJ took 
Microsoft to task for the way they were using their monopoly status 
to gobble up or destroy competitive internet access tools. I also 
hoped they would get whacked for the tactics they had used to wipe 
out other graphic user interfaces (including the software that ran 
on them) in order to establish the Windows monopoly.
    I can tell you it was heartning when the court ruled against 
Microsoft...but, I can`t tell you how sick it made me when you guys 
caved when it came time to access penalties and establish some rules 
with teeth to prevent more of the same from happening in the future. 
Why waste the taxpayers money on a fight, win it and then roll over 
an play dead? I am almost seventy and I don`t have much to show for 
my working life but I still have my self respect for not caving in 
when the political winds called for something other than marshmallow 
gonads.
    How about a second issue? For a few years there was hope for 
competitive, alternative software after Corel bought the Word 
Perfect and Quatro Pro products which Microsoft had almost killed. I 
was delighted because Corel had long been beating Microsoft`s butt 
in the graphics area and I felt that this might provide some welcome 
competition. I began to use the Corel alternatives and was pleased 
with the results. Corel even began to make a position in Linux the 
alternative, open source operating system that dared to challenge 
Gates and company.
    Then right in the midst of the antitrust proceedings guess who 
bought Corel? Now Microsoft has taken over the number one graphics 
product they could never come close to let alone equal and almost 
the last if not the last of the surviving office suites, not to 
mention the possibility of getting a foot in the door to muddy up 
the Unix/Linux products that Corel was into. Not a whimper from any 
DOJ pussycats? Talk about a slap in the face of justice and fair 
play.
    Now about the settlement itself. What kind of a deal is it to 
punish someone by giving them the biggest marketing opportunity of 
the ages. Let them give free software to thousands of future buyers 
who know little or nothing about the software marketplace and who 
may never have a chance to see, use and compare a competive product? 
All it does is serve to create a bigger more dominating monopoly. 
Doesn`t anyone at DOJ have the integrity and guts to stand up to the 
politicians who have inspired this sham? Probably not!
    Well, at best I can hope that someone read enough of this to 
classify it as an uniquivocal and utterly damming condemnation of 
the settlement and those who have allowed it to happen after plainly 
whomping the crap out of Microsoft in court. You deserve more and 
we, the American public deserve more.
    B.W.



MTC-00004858

From: Peter Leckie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/22/01 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the poing microsoft would have more competition if other 
operating systems were able to execute there cope The program 
`Wine' for linux is such a program But is only is alpha 
stage and needs a lote of work But mainly it needs help from 
Microsoft, documentation on all the api`s so they can be reproduced 
to allow wine to run windows programs as well as windows does. But 
will Microsoft allow this there is plenty of documentation on how to 
use there api`s so software developers can produce microsoft code so 
shouldn`t microsoft release details on how to reproduce there api`s.
    If Wine could run 100% of windows programs it would give people 
the choice of either Windows or Linux, giving people a choice of 
what they use, which we don`t have at the moment.
    this is a very bad situation we are in now and someone should 
put a stop to it.
    Yours truly Peter Leckie



MTC-00004859

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 6:25am
Subject: this is the lightest `punishment` I have ever seen
    I can honestly understand how the DoJ would allow Microsoft to 
remain a single

[[Page 24618]]

company. What I can`t understand is why anyone would believe that 
this is going far enough. I think that Microsoft should be required 
to release all of it`s proprietary file formats to competitors, so 
there is a real competitor to Microsoft Office. Currently no one 
without MS Office can create a MS-Office Document. Since businesses 
all use MS Office, everyone had to use MS Office to create 
compatibility. That is wrong, and should be put to a stop 
immediately.



MTC-00004860

From: Jerry Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I have been in the Computer Industry for over 27 years. And I 
would like to say a few words about the Microsoft/DOJ Settlement. I 
believe that the Settlement does very little to curb Microsoft`s 
maintenance of their illegal monopoly. Microsoft will basically be 
doing business as usual, and even though the DOJ did a reasonably 
good job of amassing the evidence leading up to the monopolist being 
found guilty. It just appears that during the penalty phase (this IS 
the penalty phase is it not?), everyone lost sight of the fact that 
Microsoft is guilty. Everyone apparently wants to get it over with 
rather than really restore competition to the software industry.
    I urge you to go on to incorporate the other nine states 
proposal. It goes a lot further in trying to restore competition.
    Jerry F. Davis
    Sr. Computer Programmer.
    Try Linux, the Operating System which values your freedom. Not 
the Outlaw Microsoft, which values their bottom line.



MTC-00004861

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 9:30am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    What a cop out.
    Of my computers, I have one which runs Microsoft 98SE as its 
operating system. Yet I had to indirectly pay for Microsoft 
operating system licenses when I bought the others. That has been 
going on for years.
    The courts found them to be a monoply. As punishment, you are 
giving them direct access to one of the few markets they don`t 
dominate_schools. What a crock.
    My biggest fear as a software developer is that they will decide 
to put their foot in the door of the market I sell products in. They 
are trying already, but the experience most of our customers have 
with their bug ridden security hole dominated O/Ss that you have to 
reboot every week has kept them from wanting to put Microsoft O/Ss 
in the remote computer end of it (although it is just about 
impossible to sell our host products anymore).
    Whining that we can`t compete? Partially. But our company 
doesn`t have this lucrative arrangement with most of the free 
world`s computer producers that if the free world buys a product 
from those companies (that we have nothing to do with producing 
ourselves), the free world has to give us money indirectly 
anyway_just on the chance that they might use our product 
someday. What a sweet deal! Now the DOJ is going to roll over and 
reward that! Any market that Microsoft wants to go after they can 
stomp on. Their first entry into the market may be crap, but since 
they have this unending stream of money coming in_completely 
unrelated to the product they are going after, they can throw tons 
of money at any problem, hire or buy up as many companies they 
need_and eventually after 5 years or so, have some product 
that isn`t completely unreliable. Their programmers have better 
access to the O/S than any outsider ever will have (which you`re 
also rolling over on) both to suggest features beneficial to their 
product and to get help in coding for the O/S.
    Since they can bundle their crappy products with their buggy O/S 
products right from the version 1.0 level, it is an extreme 
disincentive for people to even try out anyone else`s products. They 
spend enough time learning and trying to get the 1.0 level product 
working that they have a time and frequently a data investment in 
the product that comes essentially free with the O/S. By that time, 
they figure that version 2.0 will be available soon, so even if they 
aren`t happy with the product, they aren`t going to spend their own 
money to try out something else. So even if there is a better 
product out there, it doesn`t get a chance 80% of the time (or 
higher). By bundling this information into suites (or bundling IE 
with the O/S as another example) it makes it harder for standalone 
products to compete.
    From the programming standpoint_you have reasonably small 
companies trying to innovate even on Microsoft O/Ss, that can`t keep 
up with their rapid progression of operating systems with multiple 
interfaces. To stay approved as being Microsoft logo careers, you 
have to stay associated with the latest O/S. Otherwise you can`t 
play. Yet as a small company, you don`t have the resources to learn 
everything that is on the DVD-ROM of new Microsoft avalanches 
every few months. So, that`s another way they win. 3.1, 95, 98, 
98SE, NT, ME, 2000, XP, ...._we`re a big company with a lot of 
people working for us_let`s change things every 
year_make sure we only sell the latest O/S on the new 
computers (pre-installed so people don`t have much of a choice), 
change things enough every couple of years that older products don`t 
work quite right on the new stuff_and make sure that our 
unending flow of money gets our suites updated to work with the 
latest so we always have a nice integrated moving target for 
everyone else to hit. Wherever possible, get our products to pop up 
first on the list of options_if possible, keep the competitors 
products from even coming up as an option, and if we get extremely 
lucky (which seems to happen a lot more often than it should) figure 
out how the competitors products are working and find out how to 
disable them (or worse_just make a part of them not work right 
which leads people to think that the other product is faulty) when 
we install our own products. Well, I`ve ranted enough. But letting 
Microsoft off is just plain wrong in the first place, and letting 
them into the schools (rewarding them for their monopolistic 
behaviour of the last decades) really stinks.
    William Haller Webservant awmach.org alpha-omega mach



MTC-00004862

From: Don Jerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for your consideration of these comments on the 
proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft.
    I am a database administrator with more than 12 years in 
professional service to the State of North Carolina. I have worked 
in many capacities within our IT organization and I have worked with 
Microsoft operating system products for the majority of my career. I 
find that the settlement is probably too lenient to be in the public 
interest, but with a little strengthening in specific areas, it may 
serve. Here are the points of weakness that I would like to see 
addressed, if this settlement is to be entered.
    In abstract, the main problem is that the settlement does not 
protect the consumer, but protects only businesses that consume 
Microsoft products. Particularly, that an assumption is made that 
only viable businesses which publish software have a valid interest 
in API`s and communication protocols.
    While I recognize that the settlement is the product of a 
negotiation, it should be noted that Microsoft has been found guilty 
of violations of the law, and that any settlement must adequately 
limit their ability to continue to restrain their competitors in an 
unfair manner. I submit, further, that constraining the ability of 
private citizens to become competitors falls into this category. 
Below, I comment on individual sections and paragraphs, preceeding 
the comments with the reference to the relevant section and 
paragraph of the Proposed Final Judgment. I refer you especially to 
the comments regarding III,J, as in my opinion they form a critical 
weakness in the document, apparently founded on an incorrect 
appreciation of the nature of computer security. Here are my 
comments by section and paragraph:
    III,A
    Although the settlement requires two warnings before termination 
of an agreement, and allows instant termination of the agreement 
upon the third, it does not require that the three warnings be given 
in good faith, nor does it provide a mechanism for timely review of 
the claims, merely a 30-day period for remedy by the OEM. Microsoft 
can use this to stop any agreement it pleases simply by making 
spurious claims.
    III,B,3
    The limits on size and appearance of a middleware user interface 
are not consistent with III,B,1 and III,B,2, and do not serve an 
obvious purpose other than to allow Microsoft to limit the options 
of its competitors. The limitations permit Microsoft to minimize 
their competitors` ability to innovate in this area without regard 
to the functionality their competitors may be attempting to provide. 
These limits should be struck from the settlement, and replaced with 
language similar to III,B,2, which says that differences shall not 
impact the usability of the operating system.

[[Page 24619]]

    III,I
    For the purpose of licensing or publishing API`s and 
Communications Protocols, `Third Parties' described in 
III,E and III,I should be construed to be anyone permitted by 
III,J,2(a), that is, anyone who `has no history of software 
counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual 
property rights' Businesses are not the only providers of 
software and services, and with respect to these products, failure 
to license is failure to permit competition. This is one of the core 
weaknesses of this document, in my opinion, because as a State 
agency my organization is none of the entities named, yet we have 
used Microsoft APIs and communications protocols to build our 
software.
    III,J,1
    This is one of the main weaknesses in the document. III,J,1(a) 
should be limited to `keys, authorization tokens and 
enforcement criteria' only, but the API`s and Communications 
Protocols should not be withholdable. Here is my analysis: Observe 
that `secret' bugs, APIs and protocols have been 
compromised regularly by virus-writers in recent years.
    For instance Thai hackers have hacked the anti-piracy features 
of Windows XP, presumably without API documents:
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/O,4586,5099511,00.html
    There is no reasonable expectation that failure to provide 
documentation will prevent insecure use of these APIs by those who 
want to abuse them. If the code is published in machine-readable 
form (as it must be, to be used), then those who do not follow rules 
will be able to read it and use it, whether a formal API is 
published or not. Anything readable by a machine is readable by some 
people, and those people can write their findings in documented form 
for less-skilled people to use.
    Keys, tokens and enforcement criteria are legitimate secrets 
that must be kept secret to be effective. However, documentation of 
methods, APIs and communications protocols are useful to those who 
wish to interact with the system. They are not required to abuse the 
system, as reverse-engineering will yeild the needed information. 
But they are required to make legitimate use of the system, as 
reverse engineering of these methods, APIs and protocols is 
prohibited by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, since they may 
be used to secure access to copyrighted materials. Since the abuse 
of these systems is likely to be an offense anyway, it its not 
necessary to restrict the information required for legitimate use.
    Allowing Microsoft to keep these items a secret permits them to 
have an advantage over their legitimate competitors, without 
significantly retarding the development of attacks against Microsoft 
systems.
    I refer the reader to these excellent discussion of whether 
secrecy about methods and flaws is desirable or not:
    http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/
0%2c4125%2cNAV47_STO65969%2c00.html
    http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0111.html
    Essentially, they take the position that the vulnerabilities in 
a system exist whether or not the documentation is published, and 
will be discovered and exploited whether or not documentation is 
forthcoming.
    My conclusion is, therefore, that non-publication merely 
prevents competition, not abuse. Furthermore that publication can 
lead to informed decisions, error detection, and intelligent 
application of precautionary measures, rather than discovery-by-
abuse as we`ve seen before. III,J,2
    This is another of the main weaknesses of the document 
III,J,2(a) is perfectly reasonable, and should be left alone. 
III,J,2(b) prohibits entities from reviewing the documentation to 
discover if they have a need for it. As such, and given the 
arguments under III,J,1 above, III,J,2(b) should be struck from the 
document. Furthermore, the word Business offers a 
`handle' for III,J,2(c), to which I object below. The 
word should be struck if this paragraph is allowed to stand.
    III,J,2(c) allows Microsoft to prohibit anyone who is not a 
Business, by whatever criteria they decide, from accessing these 
API`s. I have argued under III,J,1 above that such prohibition is 
not requried, and I now argue that it is harmful to the consumer. If 
these API`s and protocols are required to interact with Microsoft 
servers, then preventing the private consumer from doing so prevents 
their contribution to non-commercial entities, and their full use of 
the product. There is no justification offered why only businesses, 
and only viable businesses, should have this access. In any case, 
permitting Microsoft (and not, say, the TC or USDOJ) to provide the 
criteria at their sole discretion is absolutely ludicrous!
    If anything, the settlement should be forcing more disclosure, 
and should include all end-users of Microsoft platforms as potential 
licensees. Furthermore for documentation licenses, the standard for 
reasonable charges should be related closely to the cost of any 
required redaction and distribution, as presumably Microsoft needs 
to produce the documentation for its own use. III,J,2(d) permits 
Microsoft to charge any price from anyone using one of these API`s, 
for and unspecified testing procedure. Again, this permits Microsoft 
to restrain private citizens, nonprofits and businesses with 
relatively little capital from producing products that might compete 
with Microsoft products. In my analysis:
    1. If the API or protocol is secure, then no product could 
possibly corrupt or violate the server systems by using it (after 
all it`s perfectly reasonable for the server to refuse any request 
that would violate security).
    2. This test permits Microsoft to analyze competing products 
prior to release_a directly anticompetetive act! It offers 
prior knowledge and time to act to Microsoft whenever a competitor 
wishes to release an innovative product.
    3. Reliability and security testing now resides with the end-
user. End users such as my employer have frequently found that 
Microsoft`s testing of its own products leaves much to be desired. 
What assurance does Microsoft offer that their testing of these 
third party products will be more useful? This test will not reduce 
the burden on the end-user, but may reduce their perception of the 
potential risk (without really reducing the risk), resulting in a 
less secure world.
    4. If, through some extraordinarily poor judgement on the part 
of the plaintiffs, this paragraph is allowed to stand, then 
Microsoft should be held liable for subsequent failures of security 
for any products surviving this test, and furthermore, the TC should 
be available for appeal should Microsoft fail to approve any 
competitor`s product. Absence of that language makes this paragraph 
an invitation to restrain competition! In short, if Microsoft is to 
become a mandatory testing body, they should be unable to disclaim 
liability for damages caused by failure of their product and the 
products they test.
    5. If the tests are to be performed, a third party should 
perform the tests, and all relevant Microsoft products should 
similarly endure the tests and be approved or rejected based on the 
same criteria that are applied to their competitors. Finally, the 
competitors must be able to appeal to the TC any discrepancies 
between the provided documentation and the test results. I strongly 
recommend that III,J,2(b,c,d) be struck entirely, or radically 
altered to provide a real opportunity to all consumers (including 
non-commercial consumers) to license these materials without 
providing anticompetetive advantages to Microsoft.
    IV
    With regard to section IV, my only comment is that the 
proceedings of the TC should be in the public record, including all 
documentation and communication between Microsoft, the Plaintiffs 
and the TC, except where the TC or the Court determines that 
specific data regarding authentication keys and tokens, trade 
secrets or future business plans should be redacted or released on a 
delayed schedule, to protect the viability of Microsoft`s business 
and their business dealings. In such cases they should be redacted 
in a manner consistent with existing practise in disclosure of 
public records, so that the public can know the existence and extent 
of the redacted material, but not its content. It is my hope that 
these changes, or changes in this spirit, will be introduced to the 
Final Judgment. Thank you for your consideration.



MTC-00004863

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    I feel that the offer that Microsoft has made is a good one and 
that it should be excepted by all partys concerned.
    Thank you; Robert Hodgson;



MTC-00004864

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Reject Microsoft Settlement
    Please include in the record of US v Microsoft
    DATE: December 21, 2001
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to ask that you do not accept the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement. It does nothing to remedy Microsoft`s illegal 
behavior, and moreover appears to be completely written by Microsoft 
lawyers.

[[Page 24620]]

Charles James would have us believe that this is a good agreement 
for the United States of America. I disagree. It is worse than no 
agreement at all. Microsoft has adopted a corporate culture which 
has no respect for the law or the free society in which we live. 
Microsoft is unrepentant and believes itself above the law and 
beyond the reach of the court system. Now is the time to prove them 
wrong.
    `AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgement does not constitute any 
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law.'
    I`m not a lawyer, but this says to me that Microsoft does not, 
in the proposed settlement, admit any wrongdoing or illegal 
behavior. This seems unacceptable given that they have already been 
found to have a pattern of illegal behavior by both a Federal Judge 
and a Federal Court of Appeals. What possible justification can 
there be for such weak terms at this point? This is a remand only 
for remedy not, points of law or fact and yet Microsoft appears to 
be able to maintain it`s legal position that it did no wrong in the 
Proposed Judgement. This is unacceptable. The only thing the public 
can surmise from these terms is that The United Sates of America is 
afraid of Microsoft. The United States of America is afraid to face 
the world`s largest software maker in court, in a case they have 
already won, not once but twice. The United States has won both in 
Federal Court and on appeal by an overwhelming margin. What possible 
scenario of negotiations would lead to wording which allows 
Microsoft not only to go free without sanctions, but free without 
admission of an already proven pattern of illegal behavior? On it`s 
face it appears ludicrous.
    I have always had a great deal of faith in our system of 
government, particularly the judicial branch. This branch has not 
offered us perfect justice of course, it is merely one which 
attempts to rectify something which has gone wrong or at least to 
steer society in the right direction. At it`s best that is all we 
can ask of our judicial branch.
    Steer us in the right direction.
    Prove to us and to Microsoft that we are equal under the law. 
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement is flawed. It is full of 
loopholes such as describing a `Windows Operating System 
Product' as `The software code that comprises a Windows 
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in it`s 
sole discretion.' Clearly, as much of this case has revolved 
around whether or not browsers, media players and other similar 
software or middleware can be considered part of the Operating 
System. The few restrictions only apply to APIs, middleware and 
software that `Microsoft in it`s sole discretion' 
doesn`t consider a part of the `Windows Operating System 
Product'. As they tried to prove in court that they could not 
separate their browser from the Windows Operating System Product, we 
know what Microsoft`s view is on the subject even while we also know 
from court records that it is untrue. Given that Microsoft in this 
Revised Proposed Final Judgement need not heed previous court 
findings of fact or law they will most assuredly continue in their 
legal position that it is the nature of their `Windows 
Operating System Product' to add functionality ad infinitum, 
which expands and extends Microsoft`s Windows Monopoly into any and 
all new markets as it pleases.
    Or in section J.2.
    `No provision of this Final Judgement shall: 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 reasonable business need for 
the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned 
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 API, Documentation or Communications 
Protocols to third party verification, approved by Microsoft, to 
test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft 
specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications 
shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems 
and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.'
    Microsoft, here is being given `carte blanche' to 
restrict access to protocols ostensibly being offered in other parts 
of the agreement. Specifically, `reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft', allows Microsoft, 
essentially in it`s sole discretion the ability to be the gatekeeper 
of the APIs and protocols. This Judgement is worse than no Judgement 
at all because it is actually the building of Microsoft`s next case, 
with the clear expectation that there will be a next case. We 
already know from past behavior, that Microsoft will push this 
language beyond the limits of crediblity in order to extend their 
monopoly.
    In particular the wording of J.2. (c) seems directed at open-
source software, the only credible long term competition to 
Microsoft in the Server market. If disallowed access to APIs and 
communications protocols used by Microsoft in PCs, Microsoft will be 
able to embrace and extend into the Server market. They will of 
course suggest that open-source is not a viable business model, in 
spite of the fact it is being sold by many of the largest server 
vendors, such as IBM, Dell, SGI and others.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgement does nothing to remedy or 
sanction Microsoft for past illegal behavior. Further, this 
agreement in effect leaves no recourse but further litigation to 
remedy any transgressions in the future of the few weak sanctions it 
contains. Microsoft is moving rapidly into financial services and 
banking with Passport, their hope at the least is to capture a 
transaction fee for every online transaction. It does not seem at 
all unlikely that `Passport' once established would then 
be made of plastic to replace VISA, MasterCard, Discover and 
American Express. What if any restrictions would the Proposed Final 
Judgement place on these types of behavior? None, in my estimation.
    Microsoft has developed a copy protection scheme and is already 
deep in the process of entering the field of entertainment, media 
and access via MSN/ MSNBC. None of these endeavors are even 
approached by the wording of the Final Judgement. Microsoft clearly 
expects to extend it`s Operating System Monopoly into media access 
and entertainment monopolies. XBox, for example, is tied to the MSN 
service. There is nothing to keep Microsoft from having the MSN 
service inextricably tied to Windows in future versions.
    Given the nature of their Windows monopoly, Microsoft can easily 
integrate these services into the `Windows Operating System 
Product' and raise the price of that product even more 
dramatically than they already have, as well as charging businesses 
for access to customers. These practices will not only crush other 
software vendors they will rapidly crush vendors in all manner of 
digital commerce.
    Microsoft has made no real concessions, nor have they admitted 
the flaws of their past behavior. They have not promised to improve 
their behavior in the future. If the Proposed Final Judgement 
stands, Microsoft will not be a better Corporate citizen. They will 
be worse.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Mirande
    PO Box 441
    Dufur OR 97021



MTC-00004865

From: Joel Landry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Speaking as a Canadian who has very little knowledge in 
interpreting law, I like what I am reading. This is the first step 
in breaking Microsoft`s strangle hold on the computer industry. In 
the past, everywhere I turned, Microsoft was the 
`required' normal environment for computers. Now maybe 
other companies can start giving Microsoft some real competition 
and/or other software will hopefully work better in Windows. 
Although this settlement sounds nice, there is a side of this 
argument I have not seen though.... When you submit 
`incidents' to Microsoft for technical help for either 
MS Windows or Internet Explorer, they are attributed to the same 
Product Identifier. Now this creates a problem.... Are these 2 
software programs not separate? If they are separate, why do they 
have the same Product Identifier when other Microsoft products are 
different? Internet Explorer 6 which was just released, still uses 
the same Product Identifier scheme.
    When you purchase Windows, you get a specific number (2 or 3 I 
think) of `FREE' tech help incidents, which can be used 
up very easily and quickly. If you used these incident for Windows 
and then run into problems with Internet explorer, then you are out 
of luck because the PID is the same. The process to get help is a 
little irritating and complicated. There are only 4 ways I have 
found to get immediate help:
    1- PAY for it. After the `FREE' incidents, you are 
supposed to pay. YA right. Pay for

[[Page 24621]]

Internet Explorer when it`s supposed to be free.
    2- Find what you are looking for in the Knowledge Base. If you 
are lucky, when you consider most people are not very computer tech 
literate.
    3- Pray for one of those (Usually) irritating POPUP Window 
Surveys. Maybe they will reply.
    4- There is an e-mail link at the bottom of the WEBRESPONSE area 
on the Microsoft web site. This link is `hidden' at the 
bottom of the page and is not evident. It doesn`t even look like an 
e-mail link. All that being said.... I have been managing to get 
tech support from Microsoft for Internet Explorer without paying for 
it. The question now remains.....
    Why do 2 apparently separate software packages have the same 
Product ID? Is this some way for Microsoft to keep everything 
together even when they say they are not?



MTC-00004866

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is an emailed version of a letter also sent by the US Postal 
Service.
Robert G. Ristroph
11612 Hidden Quail
Austin, TX 78758
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 with regard to the Justice Department`s proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I believe that this settlement should be 
scrapped and completely rewritten. Most of the 
`restrictions' placed on Microsoft are already illegal; 
what few restrictions are left are impossible to enforce and seem 
designed to produce more legal disputes rather than resolve them; 
and the proposed enforcement mechanism is a ludicrous embarrassment. 
In addition to scrapping this proposed settlement, any payment or 
further employment of the authors should be re-evaluated in light of 
this idiocy.
    I have read the original complaint of United States and the 
several States at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm, the 
proposed settlement at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/
9495.htm, the Competitive Impact Statement at http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, as well as numerous other sources 
including the findings of fact and other documents.
    My own injury by Microsoft`s illegal actions comes from 
Microsoft`s agreements with OEM`s which forced my employer to pay 
for Windows when buying a new computer from Dell, which we had no 
plans to use Windows, intending it for Linux. This was supposedly 
addressed in a prior case to the present one, and yet to this day 
the same hardware without a Microsoft license has the same cost.
    I wish to examine the elements of the proposed agreement item by 
item, and then propose an outline of an alternative settlement.
    A. That Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs for 
distributing non-Microsoft software. This is already prohibited by 
law, given Microsoft`s monopoly. The proposed settlement can not 
consist of Microsoft agreeing to follow the law in the future; like 
other companies in the United States, it has to follow the law 
regardless of this settlement.
    B. That Microsoft make public it`s licensing agreements and 
offer the same terms to everyone. This is the only part of the 
proposed settlement makes sense, however, OEMs have shown in the 
past they were willing to collaborate in Microsoft`s illegal 
activities. Should Microsoft offer an OEM a secrete payback or 
special deal, the cooperation of the OEM will make this section 
difficult to enforce.
    C. That Microsoft cannot restrict certain OEM software through 
agreements. This is already illegal, like A.
    D. Some meaningless nonsense not worthy of comment or the paper 
it is printed on.
    E. That communications protocols in Microsoft software be 
publicly available. In light of Microsoft`s previous behavior in 
exploiting secrete calls in it`s software, all of it`s source code 
should be available for public examination. The suggestion that only 
`communications protocols' be public is problematic 
because it leaves open to dispute what consists of a communications 
protocol. This is foolish given Microsoft`s previous self-serving 
interpretations of court orders.
    F. That Microsoft will not retaliate against software vendors 
for competing against them. This is already against the law given 
that Microsoft is a monopoly.
    G. That fixed percentage distribution agreements be banned. This 
is already against the law. The exceptions listed in this paragraph 
are also against the law, creating the suggestion that the United 
States will enter into an agreement with Microsoft to allow it to 
break the law in some cases.
    H. That OEMs and users are allowed to configure the Microsoft 
software they buy. This is vague and confusing because it is 
difficult to precisely describe what consists of configuring 
software, and thus impossible to reliably enforce. In a competitive 
market it would be the natural case, and the proposed settlement 
should focus on restoring competition.
    I. That Microsoft offer licenses to `intellectual 
property' necessary to allow others to exercise 
`alternatives provided under this final judgment.' The 
reference to alternatives provided to others contradicts the final 
section of the proposed settlement, which explicitly denies that the 
final settlement gives any rights to third parties. Even aside from 
that, this section probably denies behavior already illegal, is 
riddled with exceptions, vague, and seems designed to produce legal 
action rather than remedy.
    J. A section devoted wholly to exceptions for Microsoft, as if 
there where not enough already.
    The Enforcement Authority:
    A. Access to source code is probably one of the best remedies. 
The exceptions and limitation of this access to a committee are 
silly.
    B. The Technical Committee. It has too few members, it should be 
composed of Officers of a United States Federal Court in order to 
make it`s requests immediately enforceable through Contempt 
hearings, and the gag on public statements renders the whole 
committee useless. The further restriction that the testimony of 
this muzzled and hobbled committee not be admissible in court is a 
bit like shooting the deer after it`s tied down with it`s throat 
cut.
    C. The Microsoft Compliance Officer. This section is nonsense. 
Other companies manage to obey the law without the use of a special 
office. If Microsoft needs one they can implement it without a 
judgment.
    D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution. This section seems dedicated to 
stipulating that various parties send each other letters before 
seeking court hearings, common practice. 4(d) guts all enforcement 
power from the proposed judgment, and suggests that the Attorneys 
for the Justice Department don`t believe in their own system of 
courts.
    Third Party Rights:
    This section is in contradiction with other references to the 
submission of complaints to the Technical Committee and the 
requirement that Microsoft offer `intellectual property' 
licenses to the third parties so that they can pursue the 
alternatives guaranteed them in this proposed final judgment.
    In summary, this proposed final judgment is a poor sham for a 
capitulation by the Plaintiffs. It`s not even a good surrender, 
because it`s vagueness and self-contradictions guarantee more legal 
action; if we must capitulate, at least we should save on legal 
costs. It also completely fails to disguise the capitulation in any 
way. This is why whoever wrote it should be fired, even if the 
Justice Department unwisely chooses to fail to enforce the law as 
applies to Microsoft. A real final judgment, which might have the 
chance of remedying the situation, would have to be in some way 
`self enforcing.' By `self enforcing' I mean 
that the remedy by it`s nature should preclude further legal 
wrangling and evasion efforts by Microsoft. Stipulations on 
Microsoft`s future behavior inherently have to be enforced, and thus 
are not well suited to this case. Furthermore, when the proposed 
judgment stipulates that behavior already illegal be banned and then 
suggests exceptions, the Plaintiffs are acquiescing in further law 
breaking by Microsoft. An example of a `self enforcing' 
remedy would be denying Microsoft copyright protection. No Technical 
Committee is required; all that is needed is to reject out of hand 
cases of copyright enforcement that Microsoft brings. Thus, revoking 
copyright privileges for some portion of the works that Microsoft 
used to violate the law might be an appropriate remedy. Or perhaps 
Microsoft could post substantial bonds against it`s future behavior.
    Many of the major flaws in this proposed final settlement result 
from the needless use of vague and disputable terms, when simple and 
undisputable ones would do.
    Replace all references to `Microsoft Middleware' 
`Windows Operating System Product' and such with the 
simple phrases `products of Microsoft' and 
`products of third parties.' Avoid even the use the term 
`software products,' as Microsoft would produce hardware 
required to run their

[[Page 24622]]

 products and then violate the agreement. Be sure the phrase 
`products' is defined to mean anything Microsoft does, 
including services.
    Replace all references to `ISVs, IHVs, ICDs, OEMs' 
and such with the phrase `any third party.' Quibbling 
over which member of the alphabet soup a particular entity fell 
under is thus eliminated. The final judgment should require no 
differentiation between the various consumers and companies 
interacting with Microsoft. This also remedies the fault that the 
current proposed judgment allows Microsoft to exempt any third party 
from the benefits of what legal behavior is required by claiming 
they do not have a viable business plan.
    I hope you find these suggestions helpful in writing a real 
judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Robert G. Ristroph
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00004867

From: Al Koscielny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the proposed settlement will alleviate the lack 
of competition in the software industry. In the monopoly days of 
IBM, a single company controlled the hardware and all the software 
than ran on it. Many years of investigation by the DOJ forced 
production of enough documentation that other vendors could compete. 
In the current monpoly days of Microsoft, a single company controls 
the operating system and all the software that runs on it. The 
vertical stack of tied products has simply moved up the complexity 
chain.
    I should have a choice between at least 2 operating systems, 
which would preclude the barriers to entry described in the findings 
in this case. The proposed settlement would only prevent the abuses 
that Microsoft used in the past to keep its monopoly position. But 
those previous abuses are no longer important to preserving 
Microsoft`s monopoly position. Currently it`s claimed that there is 
not enough demand to preinstall any operating system other than 
Windows on a PC, although some vendors have offered Linux, mostly on 
servers. So Microsoft`s hold on the desktop, 92% by some accounts, 
is not going to change without intervention. How will this 
settlement remedy Microsoft`s ownership of the desktop market?
    Recent years have seen a vast shift from single machine 
computing to a focus on inter-networked computers. The proposed 
settlement offers no mechanisms for keeping Microsoft in check that 
adapt to the rapid changes in technology. Over the past few years, 
I`ve come across a few sites that only work with Internet Explorer. 
If Microsoft can popularize IIS sufficiently, they can extend the 
vertical stack to include the server side of the Internet as well. 
Will Passport be popular enough that other vendors can be excluded 
from competition? Will Windows XP put RealPlayer out of business? 
Will false promises of interoperablity help .net triumph over Java? 
Where are these areas of potential abuse addressed in the proposed 
settlement?
    Thanks for taking the time to listen to my concerns.
    Al Koscielny
    [email protected]



MTC-00004868

From: Fisk, Kevin
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/23/01 6:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    This is NOT in the public interest. I am a registered 
republican, but will NOT vote for any politician who supports this 
settlement. It is a joke.
    Kevin Fisk
    CC:`attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us'



MTC-00004869

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/23/01 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft wherein 
they offer to provide a billion dollars worth of computers to 
schools. That is not a penalty at all. It is simply good advertising 
omn their part. It results in unfair competition against much 
smaller Apple Computer (a California Business) which has been able 
to compete well in the education market. A substantial increase in 
the Microsoft presence in schools will seriously impact Apple`s 
position. Please find a way of punishing Microsoft instead of giving 
them an other opportunity to help drive a competitor out of 
business.
    Thank you,
    Harry M. Bowers



MTC-00004870

From: Jerry Clabaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 1:17am
Subject: Public comment on US v. Microsoft
    `None of the people who run divisions are going to change 
what they do or think or forecast. Nothing.'
    -Bill Gates, interview in The Washington Post on the 1995 
consent decree, August 1995 `The practices Microsoft agreed to 
forgo had already served their purpose. Gates was right when he 
summed up the effect of the [1995] consent decree in one word: 
`Nothing.'' -James Gleick, `Making Microsoft 
Safe for Capitalism' The present Consent Decree has many 
shortcomings which render it ineffective in `unfettering the 
market from Microsoft`s anticompetive conduct'. In particular, 
the Technical Committee, which has been characterized as a major 
concession by Microsoft, gives the proposed Decree the appearance of 
meaningful enforcement while moving the reality of enforcement 
beyond reach. These are some of the difficulties with the Technical 
Committee:
    (1) The Committee has wide powers to look at documents and 
interview individuals, but has no power to cause Microsoft to behave 
differently.
    (2) The information gathered by the Committee will be 
confidential, unlike information gathered in the past by the Justice 
Department, further complicating enforcement (B9).
    (3) Since Microsoft appoints one of the first two members, and 
the third member will be appointed by the first two, Microsoft is 
permitted to establish a committee with a majority of members who 
have no interest in enforcing the consent decree, even if thay had 
the power to do so.
    (4) The members are supposed to be individuals who are experts 
in software design and programming (B2), while they will also 
require expertise in antitrust law and history.
    Even though the terms of the proposed Decree are very relaxed, 
Microsoft, if it remains under the same management and philosophy of 
the 1990`s, will pay no heed to the proposed Decree. If the Decree 
is accepted, we will be in the same position as in 1996, with a 
decree in place, but no enforcement options beyond bringing yet 
another antitrust action.
    It is my belief that breaking up Microsoft would be a bitter 
experience, full of dislocations for all those with an equity in 
Microsoft; managers, employees, stockholders, and customers. Yet 
when the antitrust action is brought yet again, the only reasonable 
remedy then will be a breakup. The only measure we can take now to 
prevent this outcome is to provide meaningful, effective enforcement 
in the current case.
    The Committee only impedes the job of enforcement. The 
dissenting States` proposal does include real enforcement terms, and 
is a preferable alternative to the proposed Consent Decree.
    I have focussed on the Technical Committee, but the present 
Decree gives Microsoft the imprimatur of the Department of Justice 
to pursue many anticompetitive strategies. Reading the proposed 
Decree without context gives one the impression that it was the 
government that was found guilty of interfering with Microsoft`s 
right to abuse its monopoly. If I have read the news accounts 
correctly, then it is instead the case that every federal judge who 
has had to evaluate the Microsoft`s behavior (nine, to date) has 
found Microsoft guilty of abusing its monopoly. Why then, are there 
so many limitations and exceptions? Is Microsoft in such danger of 
being unfairly treated by law enforcement, when that enforcement has 
been vindicated again and again by the courts?
    The proposed Decree unfairly limits the ability of the public to 
seek enforcement of antitrust law against Microsoft, and should 
therefore be discarded. Even a simple fine would motivate management 
at Microsoft to learn about the meaning of antitrust law, without 
limiting the rights of the public.
    In addition, the proposed Decree does nothing to `deny 
Microsoft the fruits of its violations of the Sherman Act', as 
instructed by the Appeals Court.
    The importance of implementing an effective remedy looms larger 
than ever before, since computer security is now an issue that needs 
very serious attention in the United States:
    `In a report released this month titled `Cyber 
Threats and Information Security: Meeting the 21st Century 
Challenge,' the Center for Strategic and International Studies

[[Page 24623]]

(CSIS) concluded that the government and the private sector should 
be concerned about the `trustworthiness' of future 
Microsoft products' -cnn.com, December 29, 2000 `Gartner 
recommends that enterprises hit by both Code Red and Nimda 
immediately investigate alternatives to IIS, including moving Web 
applications to Web server software from other vendors, such as 
iPlanet and Apache. Although these Web servers have required some 
security patches, they have much better security records than 
[Microsoft`s web server software] IIS'
    -Gartner Group, September 19, 2001
    The fact that Microsoft`s attitude toward security remains so 
casual, despite many high-profile security failures is an indication 
of the unhealthy effect of their monopoly power. In a competitive 
market, competitive pressure should have caused Microsoft to 
`clean up its act' with respect to security. Today, the 
United States cannot afford an unrestrained predatory monopoly in 
computer software.
    Besides security, the other important reason to reject to 
proposed Decree and instead insist on real enforcement is economic: 
Microsoft`s policy of extinguishing innovation that it cannot co-opt 
certainly has benefitted Microsoft and its investors, but threatens 
the larger United States economy.
    The Microsoft monopoly and the consumer software market emerged 
simultaneously, so no one can say what the economic benefits of 
antitrust enforcement would be. I can only hope that the Court will 
give prosperity a chance.
    I am in no way a competitor of Microsoft. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be heard,
    Jerry Clabaugh
    20 Magoun Street
    Cambridge, MA 02140



MTC-00004871

From: Curtis Michelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I want to just say as a consumer, and as an independent software 
developer myself, I strongly support the nine states who are looking 
for tougher remedies against Microsoft. The proposed settlement 
doesn`t go nearly far enough.
    Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer made a good point recently 
that requiring Microsoft to offer software to needy schools is not 
punishment. It further extends their presence in a market they are 
looking to further dominate.
    It`s a gift, and not a sanction. Microsoft was found GUILTY of 
monopolistic practices and needs to be punished. One billion dollars 
is a fraction (1/30th more or less) of Microsoft`s on hand cash 
assets.
    Finally, I want to draw your attention to some important points 
made by Robert Cringely, noted computer columnist. http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html His concerns about 
the settlement allowing Microsoft to not publish its API`s to 
businesses it deems `non-commercial' like Open Source 
projects needs to be heard. We have to make sure that any third 
party software developers (like myself), whether working for profit 
or nonprofit institutions, have the same access to Windows API`s as 
Microsoft`s own engineers do.
    Thanks for listening.
    Sincerely,
    Curtis Michelson
    Small Company (www.smallco.net)
    Orlando, FL



MTC-00004872

From: Michael K McCarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 2:19am
Subject: Comments about Microsoft Monopoly trial
    Hello,
    I feel that Microsoft should have no say in what it`s penalty 
should be. If we provided the same oppertunity to criminials we`d 
have empty prisons and a whole lot of community service for crimes 
they committed. It simply doesn`t make any sense.
    What Microsoft has chosen is to do it to seed schools with 
Microsoft software and make sure a new generation is locked into a 
Microsoft upgrade path which will provide them continued market 
share in the future. How does this help?
    Please split Microsoft into separate entities. (1) Operating 
Systems & Develppment tools, (2) Business applications, (3) 
Online services & communications, and (4) Entertainment.
    Michael McCarty
    Michael K McCarty :: K6MMC
    PGP Key @ http://www.thehunted.net/keys



MTC-00004873

From: Tom Caloz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 9:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    The proposed settlement does not take into account that the only 
real competition to Microsoft, in the x86 space, is from non profit 
agencies. Apache, Sendmail, Samba, Linux are all non commercial 
entities, and would be unable to have access to the APIs and other 
technical information needed for interaction.
    Please reconsider the settlement, and provide some form of 
relief for the groups that have been adversely affected by 
Microsoft.
    Thank You,
    Tom Caloz



MTC-00004874

From: Steve (038) Kerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Sett;ement
    I along with many other members of the public have been harmed 
by the ever increasing number of software enabled services being 
bundled with the Windows desk-top operating system that has monoply 
status. Having abused that power, why not strip them of much of it 
by forcing MSFT to offer a bare bones Windows OS to which the 
consumer can add service enabling software selected from a 
competitive marketplace. Given current arrangements if consumers 
wish to participate in an expanding array of software enabled 
services into the future, they will be given the choice of MSFT 
services unfairly advantaged by the wide distribution and the 
guaranteed interoperability association with the monoply confers. 
The consuming public, given a ubiquitous bare bones OS could vote 
with its pocketbook on the value of additive software upgrades. 
Current monopolistic advantage unfairly limits the economic vitality 
of competing software enabled services. Innovation is hampered. 
Innovative services from MSFT bundled with, Windows 95,98,2000, XP 
while possibly desireable, derive support from and unfairly extend a 
monoply into new areas. MSFT is able to roll out successive versions 
of its OS and find a market largely because of bundling new software 
enabled services. I and peers would be better served by a 
marketplace in which new software enabled services could be selected 
from vendors based on value rather than upon advantages derived from 
membership in a monopoly. To do otherwise merely repeats the browser 
transgression.
    Steve Krogh



MTC-00004875

From: Thomas King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must say I am very disappointed with the settlement that the 
United States government has reached with Microsoft. You went 
through all the work and won the case to give them a slap on the 
wrist and tell them not to do it again. What is this? Fines and 
threats will not work with Microsoft. They can afford to pay any 
fines levied against them, ten time over. And as far as threats are 
concerned they have seen what the Department of Justice can do and I 
must they are probably laughing right now thinking that they got 
away with it. The only way you can break the Microsoft monopoly is 
to open up the code for the operating systems so clones of windows 
can be made. Until this is done Microsoft has nothing to worry 
about.
    Thomas King



MTC-00004876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement appears to be no more than a slap on the 
wrist. It does nothing to punish Microsoft for past transgressions, 
and does not stop them from such transgressions in the future. The 
proposed oversight committee does not have sufficient power ro 
enforce corrective actions, nor is it free of Microsoft patronage. 
The oversight committee should not be funded by Microsoft, but 
rather from government sources. The members should be appointed by 
an independent body.
    In addition to those concerrns, there is real concern about the 
effect of this settlement on the so-called `Open Source` software 
development, such as Linux. Microsoft is not prevented from 
circumventing the development of this major alternative to Microsoft 
products. The Linux development poses a real threat to Microsoft, 
and Microsoft should not be able to adversely affect such 
development.

[[Page 24624]]

    Respectfully,
    Howard O. Norland
    6212 Buchanan St.,
    Fort Collins, CO 80525



MTC-00004877

From: John Hamlet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    they are your enemy and we know it. make them revail the source 
for windows 95/98/NT



MTC-00004878

From: Doug Armstrong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional software developer with over 17 years of 
experience in the field I feel compelled to express my opinion on 
the proposed settlement to the Microsoft anti-trust ruling. My 
livelihood, indeed the future of the entire software and high 
technology industry, has been and may continue to be directly 
affected by the behavior of Microsoft should this settlement be 
approved.
    While reading the proposed settlement I was struck by how 
generous it was to a party which has been found guilty of stifling a 
very important industry for such a long time. I was also appalled 
that the victors in this case would agree to terms which encouraged 
a ruthless monopolist to further its attempts to control each aspect 
of the software industry, not to mention the Internet.
    The company I work for uses Microsoft`s office productivity 
products, despite the well-known security flaws and a history of 
unreliable operation, simply because the alternatives have been 
deemed `too risky` by the corporate IT (Information Technology) 
department. In explaining what `too risky` meant, we were told that 
the IT department was worried that upgrades and support for 
alternative products might not be available in the future if 
Microsoft decided to crush the already struggling competition in 
this arena of software products.
    The company I work for also uses Microsoft`s software 
development tools, although not exclusively, and certainly not to 
develop our own main product. Instead we use their tools to develop 
test suites to execute within a Windows environment. We have 
discovered numerous flaws in the tools themselves, and in the 
compiled code they produce. When we attempted to report this issues 
to Microsoft`s technical support group, we were told that we would 
have to pay Microsoft for the privilege of helping them find bugs in 
their own products. No other company in the industry that I am aware 
of has such an egregiously arrogant attitude toward its customers 
and developers.
    In short, I must convey my strong opposition to the proposed 
settlement and urge you to continue to work toward achieving a fair 
and just punishment of Microsoft.
    Doug Armstrong
    [email protected]



MTC-00004879

From: Alfonso Baqueiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 3:32pm
Subject: Anti Microsoft
    Of course Microsoft use monopolic tactics, they want to invade 
all aspects of computer technology, with their close source 
technology, and `use our software or use our software', 
they generate incompatibilities and don`t listen to the world wide 
standards, they build the software on their own and define their own 
standards making hard to provide universal solutions in the world.
    One example, that everybody knows is what they do with Internet 
Explorer againts, defining things that only work on Internet 
Explorer and aren`t part of the w3c consortium standards.
    Other example is how they want everybody use Visual Basic, 
without consider well security issues, so they included VB scripting 
capabilities in Excel, Word, etc, and for that now exists a lot of 
macro viruses, but the most irresponsible is they include VB 
scripting in Outlook Express, providing a way to VB Scripting Macro 
Viruses to spread automatically across the web. Remember that 
viruses only affect Windows with Outlook, other mail clients are not 
affeted, why could be the reason?
    Well, we can make the world a better place, with freedom (means 
freedom, not price) using free software and contributing to open 
source develpment.
    THE INFORMATION IS POWER.
    BYE.
    [email protected]



MTC-00004880

From: John Losse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/24/01 5:47pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement is not strict enough and does not 
limit Microsoft business practices. I believe that they should be 
split up and the soft ware and operating programs should be separate 
companies.
    John Losse
    668 Wakefield Rd.
    Goleta, CA 93117



MTC-00004881

From: Bob Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/25/01 3:12am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Never have i heard of a more serious case handled so lightly. 
Fine them(microsoft), break them into at least three pieces, and 
fine them mightily for what they illegally did to their worthy 
competition.



MTC-00004882

From: Charles Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/25/01 8:45am
Subject: microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I am but consumer I am not however a lawyer, a rabid Anti-
Microsoft person nor a employee of any company working against or 
for microsoft.
    In my opinion the current settlement does not go far enough 
which is sad to say as I us and prefer microsoft operating systems 
right now I am using windows 2000.
    I would like to suggest you consider an alternative to the issue 
with Microsoft as follows though. Instead of totally breaking 
Microsoft up instead could you consider the following suggestions so 
please put up with me a little bit as I know I am not as smart as 
the people that work at the DoJ that practice law First the MSN 
division and all the divisions directly under the MSN division 
should be separated from Microsoft forming a new entity Next the 
Internet Explorer browser should be separated into a totally 
separate entity that is builds a browser sort of like what is being 
done with Netscape except where MS has no say so in how it is run.
    Now we come to the heart of the matter the windows 9x code that 
is the heart of the kernel of the windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME 
operations systems should be released under General Public License 
so other parties could use it. after all they have claimed they have 
abandoned the 9x kernel for the NT kernel.
    This would sort of be similar to what is done regarding the 
Linux operating system and I think this would foster more 
competition in the market place.
    Let Microsoft keep the NT kernel which is the heart of the 
windows 2000 and Windows XP and let them keep the Microsoft Office 
and other programs. In this way I think it would solve the worst 
problems Microsoft causes yet still leave a viable company.
    Sincerely,
    Charles D. Stanley



MTC-00004883

From: Harvey Clowers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/25/01 11:22am
Subject: United State v. Microsoft
    An article appearing on www.defendersproprights.org has 
suggested that Jusge Kolleen Kollar-Kotelly should accept the DOJ`s 
proposed settlement with the Microsoft Corporation on the grounds 
that doing so will insure protection of Microsoft`s intellectual 
property rights, while not doing so will constitute judicially 
sanctioned violation of those rights.
    While the constitutional protection of property rights must be 
had, that protection does not authorize the property right holder to 
violate anti-trust law or committ other illegal business practices.
    Thus, the just course of action for the judiciary to take is the 
punishment and penalization of the Microsoft Corporation for its 
violation of law. It is, after all, an illegally maintained monopoly 
!!!



MTC-00004884

From: Steve Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 1:55am
Subject: Microsoft Law Suit.
    I would just like the Justice Department to know that as a 
consumer, any Microsoft`s products that I have purchased, have only 
saved me time and money. For the US Justice Department to attack 
this company is waste of the energy and assets of our Government. 
This suit to our country as an auto immune disease to a person. It 
hurts our stock market, undermines our economy and destroys our 
capitalistic system. We have some serious problems, security, 
defense, missing nuclear suitcase bombs, terrorist cells in our 
country,

[[Page 24625]]

if we don`t focus our energy in the right area we will cease to 
exist. Settle the suit and get on to important things.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Fisher



MTC-00004885

From: Quincin Gonjon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 8:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally believe that Microsoft deserves stronger 
punishments for destroying thousands of potential computer 
businesses. They have killed the spirit of entrepreneurship in the 
software arena and no one will never know if such competition will 
have been better for this nation. I also strongly believe that 
Microsoft is alienating the poor underclass people of this nation 
through pricing. Windows is the standard Operating System around the 
world and every computer must at least have an Operating System to 
function. Why not have this OS free for all? I believe that software 
applications should be the point were purchasing should start.
    The Linux community is right about providing this world with a 
free Operating System that will allow everyone to compete on an 
equal footing. The OpenOffice organization, SUN microsystem and 
Ximian Inc are demonstrating the potential benefits of open source 
and proprietary licensing. This appears to be a win-win situation 
for both the underclass society and entrepreneurship. Microsoft will 
never allow this to flourish because it could spell the end to 
Microsoft`s empire. That is why this government should force 
Microsoft to release the needed documentations to allow OpenOffice 
and SUN to develop products that have the ability to read and write 
in standard Microsoft formats.
    May your conscious guide you.



MTC-00004886

From: Miller, Michael S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Anything less than breaking up Microsoft into two companies 
(operating system and applications) will allow them to continue 
their anticompetitive practices exactly as they have been doing for 
the last twenty-plus years_to the detriment of the development 
community and the consumers.
    Regards,
    Mike Miller
    Michael S. Miller, Ph.D.
    Director, eLearning Solutions Group
    Information Resources Management College
    National Defense University
    Fort McNair, DC 20319
    voice: 202.685.4882
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00004887

From: Weiqiang Fang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 2:55pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Many of us don`t think the settlement will control Microsoft 
from destroying competitors. Many of the Microsoft competitors have 
very good products we like. We are so sad to see these technologies 
(e.g. Unix, Linux, Java, etc) killed by Microsoft. Wayne Fang on 
behalf of some developers.



MTC-00004888

From: Randall Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I would like to go formally on the record as opposing the 
proposed Microsoft settlement currently in debate in the Department 
of Justice. To me, a casual internet user and once-Microsoft 
customer, the proposed settlement is anything but just. Allowing 
Microsoft to inundate the education sector with its software 
products will have exactly the opposite effect required of an anti-
monopoly ruling: it will allow Microsoft to further entrench its 
monopoly in one of the few markets it has yet to dominate. I am an 
American consumer and I find the idea appalling. I urge you to 
reconsider alternative settlements in order to find some way to 
punish a known offender without actually allowing it to benefit. For 
starters, any software provided to schools ought to be non-
Microsoft. I hope you will seriously consider the very well thought 
out opinions expressed by staff of Apple Computer and RedHat Linux 
Inc. Regards,
    Randall S. Wood
    P.O.Box 817
    Westhampton, NY, 11977
    [email protected]



MTC-00004889

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 12/26/01 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I`m writing to ask you to consider removing all preload contract 
terms that require only Microsoft operating systems as well as 
requiring Microsoft to release all information regarding their 
proprietary file formats and APIs to be as part of any real 
settlement of their predatory monopoly finding. As it stands now the 
proposed settlement is worthless and a complete sellout by the USDOJ 
and does absolutely nothing other then validate their monopoly 
status and treat it as if it is a natural outcome. Microsoft has 
developed and expanded their monopoly by forcing hardware 
manufacturers to only pre-install Microsoft operating systems on 
personal computers for years. It is a disgrace that IBM will not 
pre-load its own superior computer operating system (OS/2) on its 
own personal computers. Last year during the trial, several major 
manufacturers had declared they would offer the Linux operating 
system as a pre-load option. Then it was only to be available on a 
few models, then only on one or two models, now, after the farce of 
a settlement outcome of the trial, try and find more then a handful 
if any among all the major manufacturers. Microsoft can only 
continue its monopoly by coersion, requiring only its own software 
on every PC and charging a Microsoft tax on those of us who purchase 
these systems, but don`t want and will not use their products. The 
only real solution is to make the operating system an option and all 
systems must be allowed to be sold without an operating system, or 
with a choice including but not necessarily limited to, OS/2, 
eComStation Linux, FreeBSD, and Microsoft`s current version of 
WIndows.
    Currently on my chosen platform, IBM`s OS/2 and Serenity 
System`s eComStation (an OEM version of OS/2), I can get some 
interchange of documents with Microsoft Word and Excel using Lotus 
SmartSuite or Star Office, but other formats like PowerPoint and 
Microsoft Media Player are completely inaccessible. Open formats and 
APIs can be ported over to non-Microsoft platforms and break 
Microsoft`s stranglehold on the world`s information. Making all 
their proprietary formats and APIs open and freely available will 
allow those of us who don`t use Microsoft products to not be locked 
out of electronic discourse and electronic media features.
    Please stand firm and refuse to give in to the monopolist 
Microsoft organization.
    Mark Dodel
    From the OS/2 Desktop of: Mark Dodel `The liberty of a 
democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private 
power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic 
State itself. That in it`s essence, is Fascism_ ownership of 
government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling 
private power.' Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing 
the Monopoly Investigation, 1938 For a choice in the future JOIN 
VOICE NOW check out http://www.os2voice.org/index.html



MTC-00004890

From: shaun arral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 3:49pm
Subject: Need another copy of the Finding of Facts.
    I have one for you. Don`t forget what it says, please. If 
Microsoft likes the settlement, it`s not good. If Bill and Steve are 
smiling, you`re not doing your job. Bill and Steve should only be 
smiling AFTER THE HEARING IS OVER and when their business is not a 
mopolistic parasite on the nation and it`s economy. Relieve this M$ 
pressure that`s holding down the computer industry in the US. The 
internet is an open platform, don`t give them the power to control 
that too....
    If Microsoft OS`s are so user friendly why can`t I see Apples 
and Linux clients and Shared directories? While with my Linux 
computers I can read microsoft, apple and many, many other types of 
client manchines (shared folders). This is what openness and no 
secrets on things that aren`t meant to be secrets.
    Engineering has standards, protocols (I`ll make white wire 
`hot')
    Telecomm has standards, protocols (i`ll transmit on frequency: 
90Khz)
    Government has standards, protocols (we`ll just buy it, it looks 
good to me)
    Computers have them too....
    Happy New Year.
    Shaun Arral

[[Page 24626]]

    PS. I`m not yelling with the caps above.
    `My mind is a mind that I have come to know', Blind 
Melon



MTC-00004891

From: Joshua A Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 3:51pm
Subject: Urging a stricter Microsoft Anti-Trust remedy
    I write to voice my support of a stricter remedy in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case than has been proposed. Microsoft is more 
of a threat to the health of the American economy than any monopoly 
prior to it (Standard Oil for example). This is because what is at 
stake in this situation is information, and our rights to have and 
utilize it.
    Microsoft should be required to disclose its file format and 
network protocol specifications to any organization, commercial or 
not-for-profit, without non-disclosure agreements. This would 
facilitate interoperability between Microsoft`s products and those 
products which hope to compete with Microsoft. It must be seen that 
Microsoft has no remorse over its unfair practices in the past, and 
so it will continue to repeat similar practices to maintain and 
solidify its monopoly for years to come. Only government 
intervention can alter this. Specifically, Microsoft is preparing to 
unleash its proprietary .NET `application framework' on 
the world. Much like Microsoft has done before, it will flood the 
marketplace with .NET-based Operating Systems and web servers until 
everything depends on their framework. Then, they will begin 
`extending' the .NET framework so no other Operating 
Systems will be able to interoperate with it. Through a cycle of 
forced license-updates, Microsoft will `lock in' most 
computer users in a way that strips the market of competitive forces 
and heaves Microsoft products only upon anybody who wishes to do 
anything on the Internet.
    These ideas may sound radical and too conspiratorial in tone. 
Were they not backed by precedent this would be the case. However, 
the past repeats itself, so I feel justified in saying that just as 
Microsoft has dominated the Operating Systems, servers, Web 
Browsers, and Office Applications markets it will attempt to 
dominate the Web Services market (.NET), the Instant Messaging 
market (MSN Messenger), the video game console market (XBOX), the 
streaming audio and video and digital audio market (Windows Media 
Player), the Handheld Computers market (PocketPC 2002), and the 
embedded devices market (Windows XP embedded). Such a wide-based 
attempt at monopoly solidification and expansion is simply not 
healthy in a market economy such as ours.
    As a computer science student, I hope that through wise 
government intervention and promotion of competition, the workplace 
I enter in a few years will not be further enslaved to the Microsoft 
monopoly. My future will be a much happier one if I can choose 
software products based on quality, not based on whether or not it 
will read Microsoft file formats. It is a well-known saying in the 
computer world that once Microsoft enters a market, all hope is lost 
for incumbents who try to compete with their products. Is this due 
to superior products on Microsoft`s part? Sometimes, but usually 
not. It is really due to tricky marketing and product lock-in 
schemes. This is not right. A market economy will only thrive when 
exchanges are made willingly, not through product lock-in. A market 
economy will only thrive when competition forces higher product 
quality, not when monopoly causes sloth in product development on 
the part of the monopolist. For the sake of America`s economy and 
the freedom of choice of America`s consumers, I urge the Department 
of Justice and the judge in the Microsoft anti-trust case to impose 
stricter remedies on Microsoft.
    Hoping for a just outcome in this case,
    Josh Hansen
    Student, US Citizen, Registered Voter



MTC-00004892

From: christopher Dehaan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    It is my greatest disappointment to see the judgment that was 
rendered regarding the Microsoft case. It is sad but true that might 
is right, and the people that have the power to make policy and to 
right wrongs are avoiding their responsibility. Based on the years 
of unfair business practices, illegal activity and the fact that 
Microsoft has repeatedly used its monopoly power to influence and 
control the software and OS market, anything less than a fine of a 
few tens of billions of dollars is unacceptable.
    The leadership of Microsoft should also be barred from the 
software or technology industries, the company should be forced to 
reveal the file formats for its office products. Anything less than 
this says to people that would break the law both in its letter and 
spirit, that it is ok to do so, provided that you are big enough. 
This company has no respect for the rule of law, has been guilty of 
attempting to lie and mislead the court during part of the video 
deposition, which was videotaped. The fine leveled against Microsoft 
should be severe. I would suggest a minimum of about 30 billion 
dollars, believe me after this judgment, those companies that were 
thinking of breaking the law will think twice.
    If evil is allow to triumph in a democracy, then democracy 
cannot long last. This has always been true and will always be true. 
While it may appear that my suggestion is severe, please note that 
suggestion comes after this company has been tried before and has 
broken the law before and still continues to break the law. And 
continues to fight and refuses to yield. The Government should 
continue to litigate until Microsoft gives in to the demands of the 
Government and of the people. Then they should be forced to pay the 
court costs of the Government, this will set a very good example for 
this country and the world, failing this we would be sending a 
signal that breaking the law is ok if you big enough.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Dehaan



MTC-00004893

From: Brent R Brian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 4:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    To put Microsoft on competative ground. Windows should only be 
an operating system.
    a. no media players
    b. no web browsers
    c. no office tools, databases, or such
    d. no bundling rules put on OEM`s
    e. no `built in ad`s' for Microsoft products
    f. no `ET phone home' gimmicks for upgrades
    g. no system management tools
    h. no fax capability out of the box
    If consumers want these other tools, let them get them on their 
own.
    So long as Microsoft gives away free-bies, they control file 
format standards, and they control the industry.
    There should be no `accountability' of OEM`s to 
Microsoft. If an OEM chooses to install Windows, fine, but Microsoft 
should be kept in the dark about the installation of other OS`s.
    Brent R Brian
    95 Smith`s Creek Dr
    Clayton, NC 27520



MTC-00004894

From: Charles H. Courtney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 5:09pm
Subject: Comments Microsoft Settlement
    I am dismayed at the proposed settlement as it, in fact, does 
little to break Microsoft`s de facto monopoly in the personal 
computer industry. To accomplish this, the Department of Justice 
should require as part of the settlement that:
    1. All of Microsoft`s data file specifications be made 
completely public for all to see without any restrictions or 
preconditions whatsoever. This will in no way compromise Microsoft`s 
true intellectual property_the source code of their operating 
systems and applications programs. However, it will give users of 
Microsoft products the freedom to use alternative applications 
programs, networking protocols and operating systems without having 
their, or their business partners`, data held hostage within an 
unconvertable proprietary Microsoft file format. Doing this will 
give Microsoft`s competition a much needed `foot in the 
door' that will allow them a fair shot at competing for market 
share.
    2. All of Microsoft`s networking protocols must be made 
completely public for all to see without any restrictions or 
preconditions whatsoever. This will prevent Microsoft from locking 
out competing vendors by making the latter`s networking protocols 
unable to interoperate with Microsoft`s, which, if not prevented in 
this manner, in effect limits users to only Microsoft networking 
products. Again, this does not give away Microsoft`s intellectual 
property, but it does give potential competitors a fair chance at 
market share.
    Sincerely yours,
    Charles H. Courtney, DVM, PhD
    Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies

[[Page 24627]]

    College of Veterinary Medicine
    Box 100125
    University of Florida
    Gainesville FL 32610-0125
    tel: 352-392-4700x5111
    fax: 352-392-8351
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00004895

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 4:17pm
Subject: proposed settlement of microsoft antitrust case
    As a long time computer user, I would like to respectfully 
register my dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement of the 
antitrust case brought against the Microsoft Corporation. It is my 
understanding that the Court has determined that Microsoft has 
indeed illegaly maintained a monopoly. It is my belief that any 
settlement that has the public interest at heart will require 
Microsoft to open its networking and file format protocols. At this 
stage in the development of our country, it would be retrograde to 
allow one corporation to dictate the manner in which ideas are to be 
exchanged. Moreover, to allow the continuance of a one company 
monopoly in such a crucial field as information exchange and 
technology would be detrimental to the economic well being of the 
country because it would allow Microsoft to continue to impose its 
inefficiencies on the public as a whole. Opening the market to 
choice in this regard would be of significant benefit to our 
economy.
    Finally, Microsoft has repeatedly exhibited a totally 
irresponsible disregard for security in its software products, most 
recently by releasing on an unsuspecting public, even while its 
harmful practices are scrutiny by the Court, a seriously flawed 
operating system: Windows XP. The wide publicity that has attended 
this arrogant and irresponsible act (including an FBI warning 
regarding XP`s serious security flaws) speaks volumes regarding 
Microsoft corporate philosophy. At a time when the US is 
increasingly under threat of terrorist act, we can no longer afford 
to allow Microsoft to operate an illegal monopoly that exposes our 
whole information infrastructure to devestating attacks. The only 
solution is to require Microsoft to open its proprietary formats and 
protocols to allow creative Americans to forge solutions that will 
be conducive to the free and secure exchange of ideas and 
information.
    For these reasons, I respectfully request that you carefully 
rethink the proposed settlement in order to provide a more 
constructive and secure basis for the future of information 
technology in America.
    Thank you,
    Mark Wauck



MTC-00004896

From: Jonathan Spearman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 5:27pm
Subject: Antitrust Lawsuit
    Mr/Mrs Renata Hesse,
    I would like to voice my opposition to the microsoft settlement. 
I feel that if the courts have found microsoft to be in violation of 
the antitrust laws, then they should pay a stiff penalty for 
breaking that law. I also feel that any resolution that does not 
allow for stiff penalty will show americans that if you break the 
law, the only punishment you will get is a penalty, that will allow 
you to continue your monopoly. When AT&T and IBM were found to 
be monopolies, they were broken up and had to pay a stiff penalty 
for breaking this law. Microsoft is a monopoly that has hurt 
competition in many areas. If they have a product that can withstand 
the pressures of competition, then they will show this by the sales 
of their products. I a consumer, do not like the fact that if I buy 
a system and don`t want microsoft on it, I still have to pay the 
price as if it was present on the system. Resellers, manufacturers, 
still have to pay microsoft and that cost is push on to customers 
like myself.
    Also according to reports that microsoft may have to put 
system`s into poorer schools would further it`s monopoly, this is a 
very bad decision and I for one, would not be happy about it. Also I 
feel that microsoft should as part of their punishment, have to 
purchase systems with other OS`s and put them for free into the 
poorer school districts. This would be a fair solution. And have to 
pay the government back all that it spent to prosecute them for 
their crime, and break up the company Did you know that if microsoft 
continues it`s monopoly, that it will control most of the data on 
every server, and that microsoft can at it`s decretion, do whatever 
it feels necessary with that data. Would you be confortable in 
knowing that all your personal data belongs to microsoft and that 
you may have to pay large amounts to retrieve this data, and also 
that the servers it sits on, because of the Microsoft OS is not 
secure allowing terrorist and any hacker to obtain this information. 
Would the Government like to know that it`s top secret information 
is controlled by microsoft and that anyone may have access to that 
information. If you feel comfortable with knowing that a corporate 
company has control over all data on the internet and private 
networks, and can do with it what it wants, then you are sadly 
mistaken. What are we showing our children about the law, when a 
company that has committed a crime, is let off with a slap on the 
wrist and has successfully controlled the U.S. Government and let 
them know that they cannot do anything with microsoft because it 
rules this country and not our Government.
    Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to read 
this, I hope that by voicing my opinion it will not fall on deaf 
ears.
    Jonathan Spearman
    3535 14th St #2804
    Plano,Texas 75074
    May GOD Bless america!.
    May GOD bless you richly
    Jonathan Spearman
    [email protected]_email
    (972) 354-2521 x6161_voicemail/fax



MTC-00004897

From: Chris Woodard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am not a reflexive Microsoft hater. I have friends who work 
there and have worked there, and I know that they have produced some 
really good software. Having said that, I believe that the 
`settlement' worked out by Charles James and Microsoft 
is woefully inadequate.
    Microsoft is a company that seems incapable of changing its 
corporate culture, and that culture is cut-throat and win-at-all-
costs. The history of the digital revolution is littered with the 
corpses of companies who brought out a product, built a business, 
and provided jobs only to have Microsoft offer a slightly lower-
quality (or in some cases much lower-quality) product for free 
`because it`s part of the OS'. Bye bye, market. Bye bye, 
company. Bye bye, jobs.
    Microsoft has already ignored one consent decree, and another 
one with a laughable penalty of `if they break this agreement, 
it`ll be extended for another two years' is the briar patch 
that the Department of Justice is throwing Br`er Rabbit into. 
There`s no reason whatsoever to think that Microsoft won`t just 
ignore this settlement too, since they`re still convinced that they 
didn`t do anything wrong.
    The dangers of having an essentially unfettered monopolist 
provide the software infrastructure for an entire digital economy, 
which is in their plans, can be illustrated nicely in two words: 
Windows XP. Or, if you prefer, three words: Internet Information 
Server. The dangers of having an unscrupulous monopolist in a 
position of power should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells 
connected by a synapse.
    The states` counter-offer is the least that Microsoft should 
suffer for flouting the lawful judgements of a duly appointed court. 
Money alone shouldn`t carry the day, unless that`s the message you 
want to send your children. If you won`t think of anything else, 
think of them and think of what it would tell them about breaking 
the law and getting away with it if you let Microsoft off with the 
faintest slap on the wrist.
    Chris Woodard



MTC-00004899

From: John Saxby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 5:59pm
Subject: Monopoly
    Clear DayDOJ,
    At one time the computer industry was ramping up to the PC 
revolution, as it was called. SOL,Ohio Scientific, Apple !!, Alltar, 
Osborne and others were designing and creating personal productivity 
tools. CPM was a simple operating system followed by DR DOS, PC Dos, 
IBM DOS.
    IBM made the mistake of hiring a small but almost legal 
organization to assist it with creating a multi-programming system 
for their recently released PC. This venture was to give them the 
chance to create OS/2 which would grow into a decent PC operating 
system allowing you to run multiple programs concurrently. The 
partnership gave this fledging computer company the cash to hire 
competent staff and move the visual interface to their own 
proprietary operating system based on OS/2 and what was gleaned from 
another early innovator in the industry(XEROX).

[[Page 24628]]

    From what was learned from IBM and their methods of controlling 
the industry this model was then used to control the PC industry. 
Make sure that the OEM`s cannot ship computers with OS/2 or UNIX or 
Solarius or Linux operating systems. Force the consumer whether it 
is an individual or corporation to buy and undesireable operating 
system and refuse to return their money if they return the product!
    When the DOJ was convinced this was a monopolistic practice, 
allow them to continue, and further their control by infecting all 
educational systems with this operating system. Making sure they are 
able to convince students that this is the operating system of 
choice.
    I have been in the computer industry since 1969 after serving 13 
years as a marine and a defender of our system of justice. Having 
seen what has occurred with this mockery of justice, I find it hard 
to even verbally defend our justice system. As has been stated many 
times this is the best judicial system money can buy, one does begin 
to beleive this may in fact be true.
    Respectfully,
    John R. Saxby



MTC-00004900

From: John Daly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has demonstrated flagrant and repeated disregard for 
the rights of other companies in the software business. They have 
used the legal system to keep competition at bay while eroding the 
solvency of competitors. Now they are proposing a settlement which 
is more to their benefit than their detriment. The so-called 
punishment for their monopolistic actions would further leverage 
them into markets not entirely strangled by their previous actions. 
A more fitting settlement would be to treat them as they have 
treated with their competition by vacating all patents, trademarks 
and copyrights held by Microsoft Corporation or its members held 
individually or aggregately.



MTC-00004901

From: Maurice Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 7:22pm
Subject: Public comment_US v Microsoft
    December 26, 2001
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I write to comment on the proposed Micrsoft settlement. I am a 
software developer and user. I use Linux and various open source 
software packages for most of my day to day activities because they 
are technically superior to and much more stable than Microsoft 
products (as an example, I last rebooted this computer 141 days ago 
when I upgraded the Linux operating system on it_and this 
despite the fact that I run web sites and mail services for 20 
different small companies and groups on it in addition to a full 
graphical windowing interface).
    While I love the software I use, I find that I can not avoid the 
need to maintain at least one computer with Microsoft software 
loaded on it. This is because of their file format lock-in. I need 
their software only to read their file formats. So, I beg of you, 
require Microsoft to openly publish their past, present and future 
file format specifications. In doing so you will also be doing a 
great service to the country. How many documents being written today 
will be totally useless 10 years from now simply because they are 
stored in a .doc file format that has long since been outdated by 
later Microsoft treadmill upgrades? Must we really maintain old 
Microsoft applications just to access the information locked away in 
their proprietary file formats? Here I stress the `openly 
publish' part of my request. It is essential that open source 
programmers have unmediated access to this information as we 
currently represent the only real competition to Microsoft. I don`t 
ask for access to their code, who would want it anyway, just the 
file format specs so that I can get at users` data. Remember that 
the data does belong to the user after all.
    I also have a second request. Require operating system software 
and bundled application software to be priced and sold separately 
from the underlying hardware. It is in large part because of 
Microsoft`s past exclusive tie-ins with PC vendors that they were 
able to establish their monopoly to begin with. How else do you 
explain the low penetration rate of IBM`s superior OS/2 operating 
system. If you wanted OS/2, you had to first buy a PC with Windows 
preloaded, then spend for OS/2. As recently as two weeks ago, I was 
in MicroCenter, a large computer store in Tustin, California. I 
asked if I could buy a PC without Windows preloaded and was told I 
could not. Of course, I am sophisticated enough to seek out one of 
the few vendors who would do this or to piece together my own 
machine, but what real choice does the average consumer have?
    Incredibly, many believe that Windows comes free with the 
computer. Separating the hardware and software purchase will reveal 
the true cost of competing options and make it more likely that 
consumers will inquire about alternatives when it is no longer 
implicit that buying a PC means buying Window as well.
    Put yourself in the place of the average computer buyer and 
imagine the affect of just these two changes. Now, you walk into a 
store looking for a computer. There are many brands to choose from. 
Choices of processor, disk drives, CD-ROM drives and burners, 
etc. can be weighed on a cost benefit basis but, no matter your 
selection, you always get Windows because it comes with the computer 
and, even if you know enough to ask, you`re told that it`s the only 
option. Oh, and by the way, you better get that with Microsoft Works 
or Office or else no one will be able to read your files and data 
you bring home from work will be totally unusable. Contrast that 
with a scene in which the buyer learns that Windows will cost an 
extra $50 or $100, or whatever it costs, on top of the price of the 
computer. You mean, I could get something other than Windows? Sure, 
there`s OS/2 or BSD or Linux, and BSD or Linux cost much less and 
are better systems in addition to being easy to use. OK, but what 
about file compatibility_will I be able to read and write .doc 
files I get from work and friends? Sure, there are many fine word 
processing and spread sheet programs which will read those files and 
better yet you can store your information in universally readable 
XML format so that they never go out of date. I think that we would 
then have a choice again and Microsoft would be forced to really 
compete on price and quality again. As things stand now, they`re 
always a step ahead in the lock-in game.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice Davis
    25 Morning Dove
    Irvine, CA 92604
    714-549-9745
    [email protected]



MTC-00004902

From: Charles D Hixson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 8:14pm
Subject: Certain comments on some proposed Microsoft remedies
    The proposed solution to the monopoly that MS holds in the 
software industry, i.e., to allow them to engage in advertising 
(distributing their products in the schools) as a remedy is ... at 
best unjust. This is rewarding them with the opportunity to practice 
further predatory mechandizing. The proposed oversight committee is 
heavily stacked in favor of Microsoft, and really only has the power 
to require that it be allowed to look at Microsoft longer than it 
otherwise would if it finds that they haven`t changed their business 
practices. Either or both of these, if adopted as legal remedies, 
would ... the legal system of the United States has been 
increasingly regarded as ineffectual against large organizations 
with a lot of money. If these decisions are adopted, then the matter 
would be settled beyond any reasonable doubt. I know that legally 
this shouldn`t matter, but if I felt that the matter was being 
handled in accordance with justice then I wouldn`t feel that I 
needed to write.
    Note: I feel considerably more strongly about this than this 
letter may indicate, but a desire to be inoffensive has caused me to 
censor much of the content. I wish that I were more eloquent about 
this case, but rage tends to cause one to be incoherrent.
    Charles Hixson



MTC-00004903

From: rich mycroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 8:23pm
Subject: Re: MS Settlement
    255 Summerfield Drive
    Alpharetta, GA 30022
    Dec 12th, 2001
    As someone who has spent the last 16 years in the software 
industry, who has worked on everything from tiny embedded systems to 
mainframes, I find the proposed `settlement' to be 
ludicrous. The idea that an organization that is a convicted, law-
breaking monopolist should get such a light set of restrictions is 
almost beyond belief. Microsoft has done almost nothing in the way 
of innovation, but they are extremely good at tying everything under 
the sun into Windows and the proposed settlement does nothing to 
alter or restrict that behavior. I have worked on Microsoft systems 
as well as many other

[[Page 24629]]

systems and as a technologist I can plainly state that their success 
has nothing to do with the technical capabilities of their products 
but a great deal with their ability to use their financial and 
marketing muscle to restrict and destroy alternative technologies 
they feel might encroach upon their monoploy_and this was 
clearly stated in the decisions from the two courts. There was a 
time when I championed the Microsoft products as they seemed 
designed to give the average user more ability to do useful things 
with their personal computer systems, but over the last decade or so 
it has become apparent that they are now simply trying to find new 
ways to milk yet more money out of the consumers of the world while 
delivering products that are so shoddy that even the FBI has to call 
them up to inquire about the latest security holes.
    That the current administration via John Ashcroft can seriously 
submit this so called settlement is almost beyond comprehension. I 
hope the court will see past Mr. Ashcroft`s lack of desire to 
enforce a section of the law he evidently does not find appealing 
and in so doing create the real opportunity for technologists in 
this country and around the world to truly push for innovations. The 
alternative is to merely protect
    Mr. Gates and his monopoly.
    Richard Mycroft



MTC-00004904

From: mike woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Domination
    I live in the United States and I still have somewhat of a 
freedom of choice in my life up to this point in time, but if the 
DOJ doesn`t stop Microsoft at this time with something more than a 
slap on the hand we will be long down the road toward their Monopoly 
that they have well underway. I want to have the choice of software, 
operating systems & etc. that I want to use every day without 
Microsoft dictating to me what I haveto use or run to be compatible 
with what they want. I have used their product most of the time 
since Windows 3.0 and they have yet to produce a secure or stable 
product. Even their products like Word, Excel, etc are some of the 
most buggy products out there. The only reason most people use them 
is because they don`t know of the other products that are available 
and Microsoft has people conviced that they have to use their 
products or nothing will work and because people don`t understand 
computers they think they have to trust Microsoft. Why else would 
anyone pay for something that crashes several times every day and we 
have been told or led to believe that that`s normal and a good 
thing. Most people would gladly use something else if they knew 
about it just to end the aggrivation. Not only Americans need to 
have the choice of products to use and have available everything out 
there but so does everyone else in the world that will be affected 
by this decision of the DOJ. Let`s just hope the light will be seen 
and they will do the right thing for everyone and not something that 
will benefit Redmond.



MTC-00004905

From: Dave Terret
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 9:57pm
Subject: Re: Red Hat`s settlement counterproposal of Nov. 27, 2001
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    As a computer professional having no connection to either 
Microsoft or Red Hat other than using their software, I would like 
to register my support for Red Hat`s counterproposal. I felt that 
Microsoft`s settlement proposal had been insufficiently punative. 
Also, there is no reason to give a monopolist an opportunity to 
extend its monopoly. While one could say that, by the same token, 
there`s no reason that Red Hat should be allowed the opportunity to 
benefit from that monopolist`s penalty more than other injured 
parties, their proposal is still vastly more just than Microsoft`s.
    David Terret
    Indiana University



MTC-00004907

From: glenn green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 11:03pm
Subject: Public Comment
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a computer professional, working in what is by necessity an 
almost pure Microsoft environment. This is not by choice, but 
necessity. Not because it is the best product for the job 
necessararily but because Microsoft has so entrenched their 
monopolistic, blackmail upgrade practices to the point that it is in 
effect the only viable solution pretty much regardless of the cost 
at this point in time. Happily, I don`t have to make that decision 
in the work environment, much less justify the expense.
    In the performance of my duties I have had forced Internet 
Explorer upgrades rammed down my throat many more times than I care 
for, sometimes they cause compatability problems with other 
microsoft products, creating a domino effect. Sometimes this results 
in hours of down time, not just for a workstation. The effect as 
applied to a server can affect an entire organisation. This merly 
scratches the surface, Internet Explorer upgrades have been 
`required'` for as innocous things as printer drivers, 
this is rediculous no, criminal!! I feel that some of the comments I 
have read on linuxplanet.com have stated this in an unarguable and 
perfectly clear fashon that I have no chance of equaling. Rather 
than plagerise the material I am including links. I implore, no beg 
of the doj to read very closly these linked comments. The current 
remedies are virtually benign to microsoft, it will be business as 
usual, nothing really changes. http://www.linuxplanet.com/
linuxplanet/reviews/3973/2/ and http://www.linuxplanet.com/
linuxplanet/reviews/3973/3/
    To sum up a few key points. The proposed settlement mentions 
disclosing api`s and other intellectual property, presumable file 
formats. Are these being disclosed to Microsoft`s only real 
competitor?? The open source software comunity? I fear this 
disclosure will be made only to Microsoft`s chosen vendors or 
develepors under the restriction of non-disclosure. Even were this 
to be disclosed to the open source community. Microsoft 
intentionally creates a moving target, by updating and forcing 
updates of key elements of this material. Not correcting known 
problems in existing version, but creating enhancements to new 
versions. We don`t need html enabled email, active scripting in 
email and word documents, we`ve all seen what this enables. Yet this 
practice further entrenches the strangle hold on not only US 
consumers and businesses, but the entire world. Remember the 
Haloween Documents.
    The proposed penalty as it stands does virtually nothing to 
change this.
    A personal experience with my home PCs. My newest one came with 
Microsoft`s Windows ME, which at first glance seemed as if it may be 
an acceptable solution to maintain compatability with other (Windows 
95) systems on my small lan.
    Not so!! After downloading the supposedly free DirectX Ver 8 
from work, which was necessary because I refused to sign up for 
passport on my home system when I had another avenue. I then copied 
it to the home PC over a dialup connection into work, planning to 
simply copy if over my lan to the broken PC to repair DirectX which 
was broken by installing a game. Ah, a third party game?? No!! A 
MicroSoft game, but I digress. I was unable to connect to the 
Windows 95 machine, unless I installed an ME networking upgrade on 
the Windows 95 machine. I refused to be strong armed into an upgrade 
of even a small component of the existing system.
    At this point I had a simple solution, reboot the machine to 
Linux, copy the DirectX ver 8 download to a cd-rw, carry it into the 
other room and repair the broken PC. Upon returning to my main PC, I 
promptly deleted the Windows ME partition. Problem solved, I refuse 
to be blackmailed into any more upgrades on my personal computers.
    Enough is enough. It`s not as simple, it`s not as compatible, 
it`s not as elegant, but I control the upgrades, and I know at least 
in general terms why they are required. Microsoft will not blackmail 
me into any more upgrades, I`m done, furthermore I will not rent 
software for a year or two (XP) or whatever Microsoft`s current half 
baked scheme is.
    Again I implore the doj to consider the only real competitor, of 
which I believe Microsoft is terrified and will eliminate by any 
underhanded means at it`s disposal, legality be damned. The open 
source community, by introducing competition if given half a chance 
will force Microsoft to consider something other than what is best 
for Microsoft. Both quality and security will have to improve 
significantly if Microsoft is unable to eliminate this newest 
competitor, or Microsoft is going to be in trouble. Thank you for 
taking the time to read this, and please consider the open source 
community in the penalty of the Goliath Microsoft has become.
    Glenn Green
    1582 Railroad Drive
    Carson City, Nevada 89701



MTC-00004908

From: Randy Wieck

[[Page 24630]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/26/01 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    I do not believe that the settlement between Microsoft and the 
DOJ is in the best interest of consumers. It allows Microsoft to 
basicly continue doing what is has in the past with only a small 
slap on the hand and also assures them of a gaureented monopoly into 
the educational market. If you`re not going to discipline them, at 
least DON`T give them a lock on yet another market sector!
    Thank you
    Randy Wieck
    CC:[email protected]@ine
tgw



MTC-00004909

From: Robert Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft
    In the first trial that Microsoft was convicted of abusing it`s 
monopoly power, the judge rejected the DOJ`s proposed 
`punishment' (which was essentially_stop doing the 
bad things you`ve been doing) since it was not punishment. At that 
point, the DOJ joined Microsoft in arguing that it was. They 
succeeded in getting a new judge to accept their non-punishment. Now 
a second trial has convicted Microsoft of abusing it`s monopoly 
power. Again the DOJ has chosen to not punish Microsoft. And this 
despite Microsoft executives continuously lying or conveniently not 
understanding their own damning written communications. Despite 
Microsoft being caught giving deceitful demos, but for which they 
went unchastised during the trial. Compaq decided they wanted to 
include Netscape`s browser on their computer. Microsoft immediately 
decided Compaq would not be able to buy Windows. Compaq was forced 
to longer use Netscape as they couldn`t sell computers without 
Windows. Prodigy Internet wanted to be one of the Internet Service 
providers preinstalled in Windows. Microsoft said, sure, as long as 
you switch from Netscape to Internet Explorer. Intel wanted to 
develop some Java apps. Microsoft said if you do, we will make 
Windows work better with AMD products. And more abuses, including 
the current Microsoft license that says no second operating system 
may be added by the computer manufacturer to any machine which has 
Windows on it. An item which the DOJ CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE IN IT`S 
CASE!!!! Incredibly the first trial finally forced Microsoft to stop 
using a software license that forced payment to them for each 
machine sold, not just those that had Windows installed; and yet the 
second trial decided not to pursue their equally abusive current 
license.
    I would be reluctantly expecting a third trial, except for the 
fact that Microsoft`s monopoly is now complete. There is no company 
to worry about them damaging. OS/2 is gone. Corel is only in 
business because Microsoft gave them some money. Netscape is no 
longer a company, and it`s new owner, AOL only uses Internet 
Explorer with their service. Only consumers can force a trial now, 
and unfortunately, the excessive price Microsoft charges for their 
products_giving them a huge monopoly sized profit margin and 
profits_has never been an issue. And a recent class action 
lawsuit was settled at Microsoft`s suggestion with a settlement that 
just shows Microsoft has the government in their pocket_ the 
`penalty' was again a non-punishment_Microsoft 
gets to give their software (along with machines to run them) to 
poor secondary schools. Secondary schools, one of the last places 
where Microsoft had some competition_from Apple. Amazing.
    Thanks for making a mockery of justice and right and wrong, 
DONJ.
    Robert Smith



MTC-00004910

From: Brent Farwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 12:30am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madames,
    I am a bit unnerved that such a toothless compromise has been 
arrived at as a remedy to Microsoft`s misbehaviour. It is certainly 
no secret to those of you in the Justice Department that Microsoft 
has not lived up to the requirements of the last consent decree. 
Please show us that you can be trusted to act in the interest of all 
parties, not just the richest entity.
    Brent Farwick
    Southern California



MTC-00004911

From: Zach Anthony
To: Microsoft ATR,dennispowell @earthlink.net@inetgw
Date: 12/27/01 1:12am
Subject: A threat to our national defense.
    Hello,
    I work for a government contractor in the development of 
information systems. The project I am currently working on is an 
important intelligence application that has been in use by the 
Department of Defense since the 70`s.
    I am writing because I am particularly concerned about the 
negative impact that non-standard, closed software may have on our 
project and our national defense.
    Development of new functionality of our application relies 
heavily upon open source software and open standards. Software 
currently being utilized in our system includes: Java, Apache HTTPD, 
Apache Tomcat, Apache SOAP, Ghostscript, and various GNU utilities; 
gzip, gcc, gdb, and the list goes on.
    My point is this, open source and open standards provide the 
public and the government with quality software components that are 
being used **right now** to reduce costs and increase flexibility. 
Only by using standards based, open software can the government or 
any corporation ensure that they are free from control of a single 
entity.
    The Internet evolved from the work of the U.S. government to 
create an indestructible infrastructure that no one could stop. Why 
on earth would we want to hand this over to Microsoft?
    It has been said in several other articles and correspondence 
that Microsoft`s control over the Internet is dangerous. Their 
ability to monopolize technologies through marketing and 
distribution of incompatible software is widely known.
    To me, America is about freedom. We must encourage the freedom 
of the government, corporations, and all individuals by insuring the 
free exchange of information.
    Microsoft seeks to `loan' their computer 
applications, and store information saved with those applications in 
a closed or encrypted format which only Microsoft applications can 
unlock. What this amounts to is data hi-jacking * * * you 
can get to **your** data only if you are willing to pay the price 
Microsoft asks.
    Please, protect your country; every citizen, every corporation, 
every government agency. Do not let Microsoft continue to release 
non-standard, closed technology that benefits only themselves.
    Sincerely,
    Zach Anthony



MTC-00004912

From: Jud Meaders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 1:39am
Subject: TMF: Are you XPerienced? / Apple (AAPL) http://
boards.fool.com/
    Message.asp?mid=16344903 thought maybe you guys and gals might 
like to see some of what is being said about your favorite monopoly; 
one that you seemingly refuse to punish and/or hold accountable. 
Thanks



MTC-00004913

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 2:07am
Subject: RE: Judgement of Microsoft
    As a private citizen of the United States and a computer user, 
both at home and at work, I was very disappointed to see that the 
DOJ appears to have been bought and paid for by Microsoft (Bill 
Gates). There is nothing in the document that protects my rights as 
a citizen. According to this proposed document I would have to use 
Microsoft products. When I purchase a new machine, I would have to 
purchase it with Microsoft on it.
    What happened to my freedom of choice. I use three forms of 
Microsoft products at work. I am a 911 call taker and dispatcher. 
Our radio system is based on Windows NT. The machines freeze 
approximately once a month. This means we are not able to talk to 
the units we have dispatched in the field until we reboot the 
machine (providing it only has to done once). This could cost lives 
of the very people who protect and serve the public. Our 911 phone 
system is based on Windows 2000. Of the six machines we use, at 
least two of them freeze in the middle of 911 calls once a week. 
These people call us for help. They have a prowler, maybe a house 
fire, or a domestic. When these calls get cut off we don`t even know 
where they go. All we can do is try to call the number back (after 
we reboot the machine, which takes about 3 minutes), or pray they 
call us back. Our CAD, Computer Aided Dispatch, machines are based 
on Windows 98SE. These are the machines we use to record the call 
and the response of the units. It also holds all the

[[Page 24631]]

information regarding the call. They freeze at least twice a month. 
This is not too much of a problem providing all three machines don`t 
freeze at the same time. All our machines are networked. All of been 
installed by Microsoft certified people. They cannot stop these 
machines from freezing.
    The above happens because Microsoft is the defacto OS. We have 
three different versions of Microsoft software. All three fail us. 
There have been no improvements in there software since 3.0 came 
out. The loss of information has cost companies millions of dollars. 
The down time of employees increases this amount. The loss of life 
due to software failure should not be permitted. At home I choose to 
use Linux. I paid for the boxed version because I believe in 
supporting companies that supply to the consumer a decent product. 
It doesn`t crash, freeze, or change any of my input information. 
When I retrieve a file, it is exactly what I had saved. I don`t have 
to reboot. In fact I haven`t rebooted my machine in months. I have a 
multitude of choices in software. I also did not have to pay an 
enormous fee for the software included with the OS I choose.
    Should you continue with the proposed judgement I would not be 
able to surf the internet as in the past. Microsoft would, with its 
propreitary software, not allow me to connect to any MNS sites. I 
would be unduly restricted from many websites including the 
Goverment ones that I use frequently.
    Please reconsider your judgement. Do not allow Microsoft to keep 
their monopoly in the software market. Protect us, the public, who 
use software. Allow us, the public, to have the freedom of choice.
    Maureen L. Thomas
    8234 Autumn Oak Ave.
    Port Richey, FL 34668



MTC-00004914

From: Oliver Bausinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 5:35am
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft settlement
    First of all, I have to say that I`m not a US citizen (I`m 
German), so my voice may not be heard in this phase of public 
comment. But nevertheless:
    Microsoft`s use of its monopoly in the Operating System, Office 
and Internet Browser market is a high danger for its competitors. 
With its proprietary closed protocols and formats (MS Office 
Formats, Kerberos, etc.), it`s limiting its competitors abilities.
    Therefore I urge the US Government not to let the get away the 
easy way: Microsoft should be forced to open up their technical 
specifications for their file formats and protocols so that 
competiting products can provide interaction.
    Obviously, protocols that are used by 90% and more of the users 
should not be controlled by one company (but by some kind of non-
commercial independent organization).
    As non-US citizen, I urge you to apply the appropriate measures 
to this case.
    Yours sincerely,
    Oliver Bausinger



MTC-00004916

From: David Kubalak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 8:39am
Subject: Not happy about settlement
    I don`t know that much about the settlement, but what I have 
heard of it shocks and puzzles me. What I have heard doesn`t seem to 
me to solve anything_it doesn`t actually provide any real 
punishment for breaking the law, it doesn`t even seem to assure that 
Microsoft obeys the law in the future. I have heard many good 
arguments for better remedies_opening up file protocols, 
making licensing agreements public, publishing the cost of Microsoft 
products bundled with computer sales.
    I have seen copies of letters sent to you, and I couldn`t tell 
you anything new, but I do want my voice to count as another heavy 
computer user and programmer who is not happy with the settlement. 
Please listen to the suggestions that other have sent to you, and 
provide a more useful solution.
    Thanks,
    dave
    David Kubalak
    These opinions are my own and not my employers. I don`t know 
what their opinions are in this situation.



MTC-00004917

From: Jeff Muse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 9:55am
Subject: proposed Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I would like to spend a few moments discussing the proposed 
anti-trust settlement with Microsoft. One of the ways I make a 
living is by migrating individuals and business from Microsoft 
products to those produced by the open-source community, so I am in 
a good position to assess the impact of Microsoft`s actions on the 
market. For a long time, it has been painfully clear to me that 
there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in order for 
the playing field in the computer and software markets to be level. 
In no particular order, they are:
    1) Eliminate the bundling of Microsoft operating systems with 
hardware. Currently, it is difficult, indeed nearly impossible, to 
buy a PC without a Microsoft operating system pre-installed. This 
has the effect of making consumers pay for an operating system 
whether they want it or not. Worse yet, this situation increases the 
proliferation of Microsoft based viruses and worms by shipping 
Outlook and Outlook Express as mail clients. These mail programs are 
far and away the most common vector for the spread of malicious code 
throughout the Internet. In the current state of concern for 
national security_which was one of the concerns cited by Judge 
Kollar-Kotelly in urging a swift settlement_it is 
incomprehensible that this situation would not be addressed. As 
matters stand now, the current Microsoft monopoly has no reason to 
improve the security of its systems.
    2) Require that any Microsoft file formats have published 
standards. One of the most vexing issues in transitioning away from 
Microsoft is that many clients feel tied to Microsoft and its office 
suite because they are concerned that they will not be able to read 
documents sent to them by others. This is problematic for two 
reasons. First, rather than choose the best software available based 
on price and features, consumers choose Microsoft products because 
that`s what everyone else uses. Second, the closed file formats used 
by Microsoft software allow Microsoft to force consumers to upgrade 
not only programs but hardware as well, consequently forcing the 
purchase of more powerful machines which just coincidentally come 
pre-installed with a Microsoft operating system. This is 
accomplished by changing the closed file formats every so often.
    A case in point is my mother, who had a perfectly functional 
older PC with Windows 95 and Office 95. She could not read documents 
sent to her that were written in Office 2000. As her machine was not 
powerful enough to handle the newer versions of Windows, she was 
forced to buy new hardware in order to run software that would read 
her email attachments.
    3) Publish all Microsoft interoperability specifications.
    Microsoft is notorious for an `embrace and extend' 
policy with regards to industry standards. A case in point in 
Kerberos, the authentication policy that runs with Windows 2000. For 
years, this was an open standard used by the Unix community. After 
Microsoft`s embrace and extension, Kerberos on Microsoft failed to 
work with Kerberos on Unix. Had the specifications for the Microsoft 
extensions of Kerberos been published, this attempted lock-in to 
Microsoft products would have failed.
    Another example is Samba, a program used to emulate a Windows 
server on various flavors of Unix. Samba developers have been forced 
to spend quite a bit of time reverse-engineering rather then 
developing software. Were it not for them, Microsoft would have a 
much larger chunk of the server market than they do currently. 
Having monopolized the desktop, as illustrated above, they then 
attempted to make sure that only Windows servers would work with the 
ubiquitous desktop machines.
    Opening Microsoft`s standards will expose their products to a 
higher level of scrutiny than previously possible. There is a saying 
in the open source community: `With enough eyes, all bugs are 
shallow.' These additional eyes can only improve the 
performance and security of Microsoft products. Consequently, the 
standards to be opened must be available to all, and at the time of 
product release. Restricting access to a privileged few will dilute 
the efficacy of the solutions to Microsoft`s monopoly. It is also 
necessary to realize that the rest of the world, with a few notable 
exceptions, is moving towards open standards in computing. As 
globalization and international trade increase, we may find that 
continued endorsement of Microsoft`s practices will have an 
isolating effect.
    In short, the existing Microsoft monopoly is harmful to 
consumers, to our national security, and to our nation`s commercial 
interests. A strong and vigorously enforced anti-trust settlement, 
such as outlined above, will rectify these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Muse

[[Page 24632]]

    3895 Connecticut
    St. Louis, MO 63116
    [email protected]



MTC-00004918

From: Bergmeister, Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 10:17am
Subject: name=`winmail.dat'
    To whom it may concern,
    I just wanted to voice my opinion on why the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft is a bad thing. My state unfortunately has already 
conceded (we are a Microsoft state here in Maryland) and signed off 
on the settlement. Believe it or not, students at the University of 
Maryland have to pay a fee each year for using Microsoft products 
... whether they use them or not!! It`s not a lot of money each 
year, but when you have 20,000 students, it really adds up. Also: 
Because the most successful competitors in recent years in product 
markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly (eg. 
personal computer operating systems, Internet browsers, and office 
productivity software) have arisen from the open source software 
community, I believe it is of extreme importance that any settlement 
protect and enhance this community`s ability to produce products 
that provide end-users with viable choices.
    In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection is not 
provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow 
Microsoft to continue to hinder the open source software community`s 
efforts. The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and 
licensing of intellectual property. I fear that any information 
disclosed by Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or 
developers under conditions of a non-disclosure agreement, thus 
preventing the implementation of such protocols in an open source 
project or product.
    This settlement, if implemented as proposed, will serve to 
entrench Microsoft`s monopolies further, by allowing it to exclude 
the open source software community from any future technologies and 
APIs it develops. As this community is currently one of Microsoft`s 
most serious competitors, it seems unbelievable that the proposed 
settlement will aid Microsoft in eliminating this 
`threat' to their monopolies. It will give them gain a 
monopoly in the last place that they do not have one * * public 
education.
    I hope that the decision is changed and that some thought is 
used to come up with a better solution!!
    Frank Bergmeister



MTC-00004919

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 10:26am
Subject: Proposed Final Judgment
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    As a consumer who uses Microsoft products on a daily basis I 
feel severely let down by the remedies as contained in the Proposed 
Final Judgment in the case United States of America vs Microsoft 
Corporation. While publication of the windows API`s may be a good 
idea in principle it is not sufficient on its own and it should be 
expanded to include publication of file formats. Let me give my 
situation as an example of why this should be so. In my case I use 
Microsoft Word on a daily basis even though it is not my word 
processor of choice. However I am forced to use it both at home and 
at work in order to be sure that colleagues and friends will be able 
to read and update documents that I produce and vice versa. 
Alternative word processors that I have used have been unable to 
import and export Microsoft Word.doc files to a sufficient standard 
for me to be able to use them. This is the only reason I do not use 
an alternative word processor to MS Word.
    The difficulties and frustration at having to use a product that 
I find poorly designed and counter intuitive cause a considerable 
loss of productivity in my daily work. While I hope that this loss 
of productivity is not replicated by millions of other consumers 
across the US I would not be surprised to find out that it was. To 
remedy this the judge should mandate the setting up an independent 
commission that would have the following powers and duties:
    1) It would publish all current and past Microsoft file formats, 
protocols and windows API`s.
    2) It would require Microsoft to explain and justify any changes 
to its current file formats, protocols and windows API`s. Any 
changes would have to be justified on the basis of improved consumer 
utility.
    3) It would have the power and the duty to prevent Microsoft 
releasing products using new file formats, protocols and windows 
API`s in any cases where it was not convinced that the benefits to 
consumers outweighed the disadvantages of the new file formats, 
protocols and windows API`s.
    4) In cases where it was satisfied of the benefits to consumers 
it would publish any new Microsoft file formats, protocols and 
windows API`s at least 6 months in advance of any Microsoft product 
using them. This gives other producers the opportunity to update 
their products in time for a new Microsoft release. Consumers using 
these non-MS products would not then experience periods during which 
their product of choice was unable to use the latest Microsoft file 
format. Items 2 and 3 would benefit all consumers even if they only 
ever used Microsoft products. Items 1 and 4 are essential to the 
protection of any consumers who wish to have a choice between 
Microsoft products and those produced elsewhere.
    There are some very important requirements for the operation and 
makeup of this commission:
    The commission should do as much of its work as possible in 
public. It would be required to consider submissions from consumers 
before making important decisions. It would need a strong and 
technically capable staff. Although the commission and its staff 
would need to be in constant communication with Microsoft none of 
the commission members would be Microsoft employees or have been 
proposed by Microsoft. This is in order to insure the commission`s 
independence. Finally the commission must have the power to enforce 
its decisions at the time that they are made. Any Microsoft appeals 
should be considered only after the decisions have been enforced.
    To Conclude: The remedies as agreed by the government and 
Microsoft will make almost no difference to me as a consumer. In 
order to make any improvement to my day to day experience as a 
consumer of Microsoft Operating Systems and Microsoft applications, 
most if not all, of the suggestions above would need to be 
implemented.
    Yours sincerely
    John Andrews



MTC-00004920

From: Quincin Gonjon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft`s Monopoly
    This country has been blessed with freedom and the strength to 
empower its people with it. Freedom is independence, liberty and the 
exemption from the power and control of another. Microsoft takes 
away freedom from this country as well as from the entire world. By 
allowing Microsoft to complete its stated goals to provide the only 
de facto Operating System, Office suite, and internet tools for the 
entire world we are giving away our rights as free people. Todays 
way of living has changed dramatically and more people depend on 
computers to communicate, buy, find jobs, plan daily activities, 
organize, travel and search for information like a library. A great 
deal of control will be placed on one company (Microsoft) to secure 
our very freedom without selfishly using this to empower themselves 
into the biggest entity that the world has ever known. I personally 
don`t believe that such power should be given to Microsoft and that 
the best way is for this government to stop all monopolistic goals 
and activities generated by Microsoft.
    Microsoft products are by nature insecure and they are in 
constant threat of being hacked or cracked. Their product is not 
secure because they implement insecure features like portal, 
hailstorm,IIS, Outlook, vb scripting, remote appliance control 
through the web, MS Java machine and the macro features in their 
Office Suite. Microsoft`s goal is not to secure its Operating System 
but to make sure its users find it easier to use. This by nature 
makes the Operating System even more hacker and cracker friendly. 
Our nation and other countries will need to have choices. Our 
citizens should also be aware and have the freedom to choose from 
different applications without the propriety licenses of file format 
to hinder one application from communicating to another. I strongly 
believe that if Microsoft would be permitted to continue its journey 
of monopolizing the software industry, the entire world would loose 
its freedom. The only recourse as a free nation is to make sure that 
the proprietary formats and protocols of Microsoft is made public 
and can be used by new and older companies to build competing 
products.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004921

From: David McKellar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:32am
Subject: Open is the solution

[[Page 24633]]

    I am sure many other people will be making suggestions like 
this... The answer for the Microsoft problem is to force them to 
release all details on all their file formats and protocols. In the 
future they should be barred from using proprietary format/
protocols_strictly ISO/ANSI/W3C standards. This would mean 
other companies (and non-profit groups) can fairly complete with the 
800 pound gorilla Microsoft has become.



MTC-00004922

From: Sherman, Robert (Orlando)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/27/01 11:34am
Subject: Nader & Love said it best!
    Linux is not a Cancer attacking innovation...It represents the 
innovation of every college, gifted user/programmer and even some 
highly innovative companies. Microsoft is actively trying to squash 
this movement...look closely at the changes at Corel, a company 
which once offered a vibrant Linux distribution which had a focus on 
creating a viable Linux Desktop OS. They experienced some financial 
trouble, which is in and of itself an odd situation, and when 
Microsoft bailed them out...they decided to end Linux OS 
developement.
    Mr.(s) Nader and Love Stated ... What is surprising is that the 
US Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to place so many 
provisions in the agreement that can be used to undermine the free 
software movement. Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the 
proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information 
from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify 
the `authenticity and viability of its business,' while 
at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as 
a `cancer' that threatens the demise of both the 
intellectual property rights system and the future of research and 
development. The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of 
strategies to undermine the development of free software, which 
depends upon the free sharing of technical information with the 
general public, taking advantage of the collective intelligence of 
users of software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If 
Microsoft can tightly control access to technical information under 
a court approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power 
over the client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it 
will harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less 
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its 
prices for its monopoly products.
    This open Source movement is important, innovative and should be 
protected.



MTC-00004923

From: Harka Steinhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:45am
Subject: Comment on MS case
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the recently 
proposed remedies in the case against Microsoft.
    It is with great regret, that I have found those remedies to be 
not of such nature at all. They, in their current form, will not in 
any way change the sad state of affairs in the computer software 
industry and by extension not enhance and empower the end users of 
software products.
    The proposed settlement in the case will, however, be of great 
damage to the Government of the United States and the Department of 
Justice in particular. Essentially people see this case and it`s 
recent development as a sign, that Microsoft`s devious 
`business' practices will again go unpunished and 
nothing will change whatsoever. In fact, now it seems even more 
legitimized because everything is `settled' and 
`remedied'. This dramatically undermines peoples faith 
in the Justice system. I cannot stress enough the importance of 
this! I work in the IT profession and come in contact with many 
different people. Even those, who are generally big proponents of 
Microsoft (products), see this case as `MS having bought out 
the DoJ' and in return having gotten the most benevolent 
treatment that could possibly have been hoped for in Redmond.
    Having mentioned this, I would like to take the opportunity to 
suggest a couple possibilities, that would really make a difference 
to the industry and consumers alike. Let me also preface this with 
the fact, that these following options do not in any way intend to 
`damage Microsoft as much as possible' out of spiteful 
reasons, but are a real attempt at restoring a healthy and 
beneficial market atmosphere of competition, where the best product 
advances on it`s own merit, as opposed to a product that is quite 
literally forced upon users against their will.
    1. Decouple hardware from software. The proposed `non-
exlusive contracts' between hardware vendors and Microsoft do 
not accomplish this.
    Hardware needs to be sold as that...hardware. The Operating 
System and any applications must be an additional option (if desired 
at all) based on the buyer`s/user`s true choice.
    Currently it is just about impossible without extensive research 
to find vendors where one`s hard-earned money does not go by default 
to a significant extent to Microsoft. Even people, who later on 
exercise their choice in software, tend to have to buy a computer 
with a Microsoft OS and applications preinstalled, thereby rendering 
their later choice impactless in the market because Microsoft has 
already gotten paid, even though their products, including the MS-
Windows OS itself, weren`t used (which is also why the proposed 
changes in regards to `middleware' are not enough, 
because they assume the MS-Windows Operating System as being the one 
used, thus yet again cementing the monopoly of Microsoft!)
    This situation is contrary to the *foundation of this country*, 
which is a free and competitive market, where money votes for which 
product will survive. The freedom of choice is currently quasi non-
existent.
    An even more unfortunate extension of this problem of hardware 
being tied to a particular Operating System and/or applications from 
a specific company is, that in recent years even the usually generic 
hardware has become OS specific. An example of that are the infamous 
`WinModems'...modem`s, which will only work with a 
Windows-driver and thus precluding any other OS. So yes, 
theoretically the user could install another OS but won`t be able to 
go online, effectively preventing even the possibility of such a 
choice of OS. I have seen similar examples with graphics cards and 
other components. The only true remedy for this is to make the 
Operating System and applications an *option* upon buying!
    Further, Microsoft needs to be prevented from leveraging their 
financial standing by offering substantial and competitor-hostile 
discounts on their software, even if it is preinstalled with the 
users approval. I.e. a copy of the MS-Windows OS should be the same 
price whether it is purchased seperatly or preinstalled. This also 
means, that if no Microsoft OS and/or applications were desired by 
the user, Microsoft should not get a single penny (as opposed to 
`per-processor' contracts, where MS got paid regardless, 
even if nothing at all was installed). This not only would restore a 
market balance and give users an extremely important choice over 
their computing environment, but also lower costs by not having to 
pay for undesired products.
    2. Force Microsoft to open their formats. The proposed opening 
of the Windows API to `commercial' ventures is not only 
to restrictive in it`s scope since it excludes not-for-profit 
development efforts, but also not effective in eliminating the 
illegal monopoly Microsoft is holding over the market place. Far 
more important than the API are the formats used for wordprocessed 
files (*.doc), spreadsheets (*.xls), networking protocols and the 
handling of formats such as XML. Microsoft keeps these formats not 
only a secret, but tends to deliberately change them every so often, 
not only making it almost impossible for competitors to, well, 
compete but also forcing even users of it`s own products into a 
viscious and expensive `upgrade' cycle if they want to 
be able to read documents being sent to them by someone with a newer 
version of the program.
    The development of alternatives in the Office-Suite area, for 
example, are dramatically hindered by the obscurity of the formats 
used by Microsoft. The situation is so dire, that people don`t ask 
how well an alternative might work as a word processor in itself, 
for example, but `how well does it handle Microsoft Word(TM) 
documents'. Generally it can`t possibly handle it well because 
the developers do not have access to the *.doc format, thus forcing 
users to use Microsoft`s own Word-processor as opposed to a perhaps 
technically superior alternative just because they have to remain 
`compatible' in the document format.
    This is so important an issue, that not only the choice of 
Office-Suite is currently inhibited, but users are not able to adopt 
an alternative Operating System such as Linux, simply because it 
doesn`t have Microsoft Office ported to it (although there are 
several very good Office-Suites available for Linux). The opening of 
the various formats and protocols, however, would among other

[[Page 24634]]

things allow the developer`s of alternatives to correctly import and 
handle MS-Word *.doc-uments and thus give the users the tools they 
want and can most effectively use. A word processor would be a word 
processor again and not a `Microsoft Word(TM) Document 
Processor'. This step in itself would dramatically alter the 
unhealthy landscape currently present to a more productive and 
balanced (not monopolized) market place. Ladies and Gentlemen, these 
two points outlined above would be far more reaching towards the 
underlying goal to `unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive 
conduct,' to `terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to 
the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that 
there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future', than the current proposals. The current terms of the 
proposed settlement do not accomplish that and are therefore 
UNACCEPTABLE! It is therefore my hope and and wish to see revised 
terms including the points made above, that would indeed unburden 
the market and users from the heavy weight of a monopolist such as 
Microsoft Corporation.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Harka Steinhart



MTC-00004924

From: boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:48am
Subject: DOJ proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Reading the proposed settlement, and the arguments put forward 
by the DOJ in support of it, I find myself wondering how the DOJ 
could craft a solution that not only does not solve the problems it 
addresses, but exacerbates them.
    As a Computer Scientist who teaches about Operating Systems and 
Networks, I am very familiar with the problems that have arisen as a 
result of Microsoft`s monopoly on the desktop OS market. These 
problems have cost the United States billions of dollar in lost time 
and productivity. These problems threaten our domestic security and 
make us easy to attack from abroad. Simply put, any monopolist in 
this area makes us easier to attack, and Microsoft, with their very 
poor security record, make us a sitting duck for any 13 year old kid 
with a virus kit. We talk of bioterrorism, but I think there is a 
much greater danger of real economic loss from computer terrorism.
    There aren`t any easy solutions to this problem, but the need 
for remedies is real and the ones put forth by the DOJ are not 
useful remedies. If you adopt them, Microsoft will have been given 
your permission to continue and even increase its monopolist 
behavior and our country will be damaged by a lack of innovation in 
computer software and by a lack of security. Please give serious 
consideration to the alternative proposals put forth by the states 
that have, wisely, refused to accept the DOJ settlement proposal and 
to the suggestion you receive during this comment period.
    Sincerely,
    Mark J Boyd, PhD.
    Assoc Prof of Computer Science
    University of North Carolina



MTC-00004925

From: mark dufour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 12:11pm
    how simple can it be? microsoft should not purposefully make 
their software incompatible with software by others! require of them 
to thoroughly document public formats such as Word so there can be 
honest competition. unless you are being bribed, or your whole 
government is owned by microsoft, you will agree with me that this 
can only benefit the consumer. mark dufour, student of computer 
science, the netherlands.



MTC-00004926

From: Sharon A. Fordham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ:
    Folks, I urge you to reject the proposed Microsoft settlement 
which would allow Microsoft to donate old Windows equipment and 
software to schools, probably at cost, as a way of compensating the 
``class`` of consumers who believe they were ripped off by Microsoft 
due to uncompetitive pricing of their Windows products.
    First, let me say that I am a sizeable stockholder in Microsoft 
and I use their software everyday. It1s good and I1m pleased to have 
it. That said, I think the proposed Microsoft settlement in patently 
wrong at many levels and needs to be completely rethought.
    First and foremost, the settlement is completely unresponsive to 
the court case, which defined a class of oppressed consumers who 
were forced to purchase Windows at a higher premium than they deemed 
appropriate. How is a proposal to contribute old hardware and 
software to schools in poor urban districts responsive to a class 
action lawsuit for unfair, anti-competitive practices? Shouldn1t 
those in the class be compensated, accepting that a donation to a 
school is perhaps more noble?
    Second, and far more troubling to me, is that the proposed 
Microsoft settlement is clearly a Trojan horse strategy for 
Microsoft to begin to dominate one of the few industries where they 
are not nearly as competitive. In fact, Apple has almost a 50% share 
in schools, and is the current category leader. This is a very 
clever way for Microsoft to begin to take control of the school 
channel as well. Hummm, let1s see...they gave away Internet Explorer 
and took away a 70% share of the market from Netscape; they1re 
giving away a free media player to unseat RealPlayer as the leader. 
Doesn1t a free ``giveaway`` to indigent school systems sound like 
it1s yet another leg of the very uncompetitive trade practices for 
which it was found guilty in the first place?
    I urge you to reject the Microsoft proposal for the reasons 
above.
    Many thanks for your time...
    Sharon A. Fordham
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004927

From: Nugent, Michael P (SAIC)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/27/01 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    In the settlement of the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, 
the DOJ states that imposed restrictions will stop Microsoft`s 
unlawful conduct. My warranted distrust of Microsoft aside, even 
were Microsoft to adhere to the restrictions set forth by the 
settlement, Microsoft could and would still continue to wield 
monopoly clout.
    The most profound loophole is evident in Section II 
`Overview of Relief', bullet point 6. While the 
settlement requires that Microsoft publish its APIs, the settlement 
does not deal at all with file formats or network protocols.
    Without forcing Microsoft to provide information about these, 
Microsoft would continue to prevent serious competition to its 
office productivity software monopoly, and hinder interoperability 
with other networked OSs. Competing products do not have any way to 
interpret Microsoft`s proprietary file formats or network protocols 
without reverse engineering, which puts competitors at a severe 
disadvantage. It may also prove legally impossible to develop a 
competing product, depending on licensing agreements, some of which 
explicitly restrict reverse engineering.
    The most egregious loophole allows Microsoft to continue to 
extract a price from each new PC sold which is bundled with their 
Microsoft OS, regardless of whether the PC will ever run that 
Microsoft OS.
    The settlement contains provisions in Section II, bullet points 
1, 2, 3 and 5, that allow PCs to feature alternative middleware 
products, but not provisions to allow PC manufacturers to feature an 
alternative to the Microsoft OS, pre-installed on nearly all new 
PCs. That is to say, PC manufacturers must pay for a pre-installed 
Microsoft OS, even if they de-install the OS before the OS is used, 
and replace it with another, non-Microsoft OS. The Microsoft OS cost 
is then passed down to the customer.
    A recent and personal case in point: I intend to purchase a 
notebook from Sony, and though I will never boot to Windows, I 
incurred the cost of the pre-installed OS. Predictably, Sony does 
not sell any computers without a Microsoft OS. And, though I do not 
ever agree to the licensing agreement, nor do I open the shrink-
wrapped software accompanying it, I cannot get a refund.
    While a recent ruling in another court does permit me to sell 
the licensed software, I will not likely get the full value. Nor 
would I like my incidental purchase of a Microsoft product to add to 
their revenue or bolster their market penetration statistics.
    (To read the ruling mentioned above, see http://
www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/
bb61c530eab0911c882567cf00 5ac6f9/574aa79ff518021188256aed006ea2dc/
$FILE/CV00-04161DDP.pdf)



MTC-00004928

From: Steven W. Orr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 12:55pm
Subject: Please break Microsoft up.
    They need to be broken up for all of the following reasons:

[[Page 24635]]

    1. They insist on using proprietary file formats. Things like 
Word and Excel are just the tip of the iceberg.
    2. Proprietary network protocols. Separate from proprietary file 
formats is the format of data used to communicate between different 
processes which might be on different computers. Microsoft is famous 
for trying to subvert well established protocols and changing them 
so that already running software will not work with their systems. 
At first blush, you might think they were just plain stupid, but in 
reality they are trying to prevent anyone from running any software 
at all unless it was purchased from them.
    3. Bad security implementations. They insist on implementiung 
their security protocols in a proprietary fasion. The end result is 
that it`s impossible to evaluate how secure their systems really are 
unless someone figures out how to crack them. In fact, time and time 
again, their systems always turn out to be trivially crackable. And 
when it happens, they do not act in a timely fasion to fix the 
problem. All of the good security protocols are developed out in the 
open so people can see how they work.
    4. They prevent people from being able to buy computers without 
their OS. I happen to run Unix systems. I would never be happy being 
forced to pay the extra Microsoft tax for software I don`t want and 
would never use.
    5. They engage in unfair business tactics. They are famous for 
their deceptive business practices. Little guys are routinely 
stepped upon and squashed.
    And finally, their bad practices are impacting my personal 
ability to enjoy the services provided to me by others. One recent 
story I have for you concerns the cable modem I have at home to host 
my own personal domain. About 5 months ago when the Code Red virus 
struck, my ISP, RCN, as well as other major ISPs (like MediaOne) 
simply shut off port 80. They were well within their rights to do 
this for a number of reasons; the main one being that People are not 
allowed to run servers on a cable modem. The driving force here is 
that the Microsoft OS implementation is susceptible to virus in an 
era when all other OS`s are not. The latest episode is that RCN has 
just shut off all access to all computers within their own router 
groups, just for the purpose of squashing yet another virus that 
affects the Microsoft OS.
    Please help. This is what government is for. _
    -Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger 
things have_ -happened but none stranger than this. Does your 
driver`s license say Organ -Donor? Black holes are where God divided 
by zero. Listen to me! We are all- -individuals! What if this 
weren`t a hypothetical question?
    [email protected]



MTC-00004929

From: Chris Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 1:10pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft suit
    Microsoft has, as we all know, gained its market position via 
illegal business practices.
    Severe penalties should be levied for their misdeeds, including 
substantial payments to injured parties and substantial changes in 
the company`s future business opportunities.
    The proposed settlement is far too lenient in regard to 
Microsoft.
    Chris Barr
    21 Riverview Avenue
    Wayland, MA 01778



MTC-00004930

From: Bill Rausch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft judgement
    I am a concerned user and programmer. I use Microsoft products 
as well as Apple products. I also use quite a few different UNIX 
systems as well as Linux. In fact, my use of Linux and related open 
source products such as Apache has been growing. I`m concerned that 
the not-for-profit organizations appear to have been left out of the 
settlement. It appears to me that Microsoft`s current competition is 
these very organizations and that they must be specifically included 
in the settlement.
    I`m also concerned about the make-up of the three person panel. 
That seems to me to be too small a number of persons to properly 
assess the vast number of software technologies involved. I`ve spent 
my professional career in software development and am familiar with 
more many operating systems and platforms and more programming 
languages, yet certainly wouldn`t feel qualified to sit on such a 
small panel wielding such large influence. I don`t think any group 
of three persons could do a satisfactory job. I`d be more inclined 
to support a group of seven or more persons, along with some support 
staff.
    Bill Rausch Software developer for Numerical Applications, Inc. 
in Richland, WA Adjunct computer science faculty for Washington 
State University From comments by Robert X. Cringely:
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement.
    It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t 
run Windows. _
    Bill Rausch, Software Development, Unix, Mac, Windows Numerical 
Applications, Inc. 509-943-0861 
[email protected]



MTC-00004931

From: Robert Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general 
@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 12/27/01 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust remedies
    To whom it may concern;
    I would like to present the viewpoint of a volume consumer of 
Microsoft products as you consider possible remedies to the judged 
illegal actions of Microsoft.
    1)Integration of products does not benefit consumers. Trust me. 
We are a $400,000,000.00 + company employing about 700 people. A 
browser used to cost about $25.00 per copy under the various volume 
purchase agreements between Microsoft & Netscape. I spend many, 
many times that fixing bugs, and fending off the latest virus 
because Microsoft integrates application function in the operating 
system or vice-versa. It isn`t an advantage.
    2)My Microsoft licensing costs QUADRUPLED this year because 
Microsoft is leveraging the fact that there is no competitive 
operating system or office productivity suite. I can no longer 
purchase and deploy upgrades as I need them in a cost effective way, 
I have to buy maintenance on a 3 yr contract, for products that come 
out every two years or so (that are usually VERY buggy, see the 
recent XP news) that would take a year to deploy. Do the math, this 
improves their cash flow tremendously while giving our company 
nothing. It is cheaper to buy new PC`s and depreciate them. In a

[[Page 24636]]

down year like this, we can`t do that and survive.
    3)Microsoft would like to think they are an innovator. Xerox 
invented the GUI interface, most everything else is the result of 
acquisition (or theft). XP is experiencing the same problems as 
Windows 95, Windows NT, or Windows 2000. Where`s the innovation? 
Innovation is usually the result of competitive pressure. They have 
no competition, they are not innovating. I don`t know that this will 
change anything but I hope that it becomes another piece in the 
puzzle. PLEASE, do not let Microsoft off the hook. The industry need 
competition and innovation to survive, and that isn`t the way.
    Robert Fischer
    Director-Information Technology
    Communications Supply Corp.
    630-221-6620
    *`Privileged/Confidential Information of Communications 
Supply Corp. may be contained in this message. If you are not the 
addressee of this message, you may not copy, use or deliver this 
message to anyone. In such event, you should destroy the message and 
kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. It is understood that 
opinions or conclusions that do not relate to the official business 
of Communications Supply Corp. are neither given nor endorsed by 
Communications Supply Corp.'



MTC-00004932

From: Thomas R. Bank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 3:38pm
Subject: Proposed DOJ / Microsoft settlement
    I have been familiar with computing and the computer industry 
for nearly twenty years now. I have long seen the adverse effects of 
Microsoft`s monopolies in these areas and 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. However, I cannot understand how the 
settlement contains no penalties and actually advances Microsoft`s 
operating system monopoly.
    As an example of the current `problem` of Microsoft`s 
monopoly in the OS and office productivity software markets, I point 
to the ubiquitous `.doc` file. This one proprietary file 
format I believe is one of the cornerstones of Microsoft`s OS/
productivity suite monopoly. Many people I know in the business 
community regularly purchase updated versions of Microsoft Windows 
and Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their correspondents 
send them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The options for 
importing these files into third party applications are many; 
however, having personally tried a large number of such programs, 
both free and commercial, I can safely say that many work well some 
of the time, none work well all of the time. The continuing cycle of 
forced upgrades to maintain compatibility with correspondents lies 
at the heart of Microsoft`s monopoly.
    As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that Microsoft 
should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the file 
formats used by its products to anyone who sends or receives files 
in such formats and requests the information.
    Left unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe in the 
future. It has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is 
considering moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and 
Office software. In this case, files created with licensed software 
and saved in proprietary formats may be permanently unavailable to 
the creator or owner of the data in the file if a user or company 
chooses to terminate its license. I may own the copyright of the 
work I create, but that is of little value if the only copy of the 
work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do not have 
access. I will be required to maintain my yearly license merely to 
access my past body of work.
    Of course the .doc file format is not the only proprietary file 
format Microsoft products use, and the arguments above apply equally 
well to other products and file formats. The .doc format is likely 
the most important however, because text-based documents appear to 
be the most commonly shared and transmitted.
    I am also urging to court to act on future technologies as well. 
Microsoft is now planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to it`s 
web of interdependencies. With it`s initiative .Net, whole portions 
of the web would be cut off from non-Microsoft technologies. We have 
seen a glimpse of the monopolist`s vision of the future with the UK 
and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and accessible only with 
Microsoft technology.
    Thomas R. Bank, II
    281 Walton Street
    Lemoyne, PA 17043-2025



MTC-00004933

From: Marc Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 4:31pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement Problems
    Hello,
    I am an adminstrator of several commercial websites which will 
remain unamed since I send this email on my own behalf and not 
neccesarily on the behalf of my company. I am no legal expert, so I 
will keep my comments brief and simply try to convey the following 
points; I believe I have been hurt by the microsoft monopoly. I do 
not believe that the current penalties go far enough to restrict the 
microsoft monopoly. And lastly, I believe that if the proposed 
settlement is accepted, little, if any, changes will likely actually 
occur.
    On our web servers, we use the linux operating system. Up until 
recently I ran linux on my workstation as well for it is far easier 
to adminstrate a linux web server with a linux workstation. I have 
recently had to document many of the procedures using Microsoft 
Word, and this has caused me to install Windows on my workstation. 
This is due to the fact that there are no good alternatives that can 
read and write the Word .doc files. This is because it is kept 
secret from the general population. I would like to see this, as 
well as all their other file formats and network protocols 
documented fully for anyone to use. Currently, under the current 
proposal, only for-profit organizations would have access to this 
information. This seems irrelevant since the greatest threat to 
Microsoft is open source, not for-profit organizations.
    Thank You for your time,
    Marc Hughes
    8 Lowell St
    Worcester MA 01603



MTC-00004934

From: Rudy Socha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to publicly state my disagreement with the 
Microsoft settlement. I do not see anything in the settlement to 
deter future monopolistic behavior. I also fail to see any immediate 
remedies for corrective action that can be taken by the oversight 
commission.
    Sincerely,
    Rudy Socha
    President
    WildlifeGifts.Com
    P.O. Box 410
    Lorain, OH 44052
    P-440-288-5400
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00004935

From: Art Mellor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 4:56pm
Subject: comments on MS proposed settlement
    While I have many complaints with this whole situation 
(beginning with MS being declared a target of anit-trust violations 
in the first place), I feel compelled to comment on the proposed 
settlement. If you are to accept that MS is guilty of anti-trust 
violations involving anti-competitive practices surrounding their 
Operating System and other software, it is (in my opinion) ludicrous 
to allow their punishment to include the further distribution of 
their software_especially to schools! This seems like the 
tobacco companies being allowed to settle a suit by handing out free 
cigarettes. Also, the dollar value of `software' can not 
be set at retail prices when deeming the value of the *punishment*. 
The value must be set by the real cost to MS in dollars_the 
manufacturing and packaging cost of the software plus the lost sales 
for the schools who would have bought some software anyway (which is 
not very many, otherwise the punishment is even more ludicrous).
    Make them give cash, or other related products that create no 
future revenue stream for MS. Make them buy their competitor`s 
products for the schools if the damage they have done is 
monopolistic in nature. But do NOT allow them to seed our children 
with their poison.
    Art Mellor : HTTP> http://www.scumpa.com/art/ : 
Cool,Humor,Gross Lists at [email protected] : Cell> 617/
899-2360: www.scumpa.com/lists.html
    Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.



MTC-00004936

From: steadyed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 5:00pm

[[Page 24637]]

Subject: Microsoft Reaches Private Antitrust Settlement
    Microsoft Reaches Private Antitrust Settlement
    I am the computer specialist at the company I work at. We are a 
Microsoft based company, not out of choice but because we have no 
choice. The company is the most powerful monopoly the world has 
known and now is the time to make real changes so that other 
companies and software manufactures can provide their skills and 
products without fear of Microsoft stealing, destroying, or braking 
interoperability.
    This settlement as it stands now is a charade. It makes no 
sense, looks like a Microsoft pay off and it is horrible for 
competition and consumer choice as well as the rule of law.
    It`s like punishing a cigarette company by making it supply 
schools with free Cigarettes for a few years. I`m sure Apple 
Computer and network hardware and software companies for example, 
will find the settlement unsettling, to say the least. How can 
others compete any longer in their main markets when a competing 
company is given the key to the facility and a green light to wire 
and network the district with their proprietary equipment and 
software?
    It`s a hard place to be in for the schools who see Microsoft 
waving one billion dollars (the cost of what Microsoft would charge, 
not the actual cost to the company), in front of their face. It`s 
blinding. Who can argue the benefits of technology to our youth and 
at first glance, a cost reduction to our schools.
    However, I estimate this one billion investment will pay off 
handsomely and be a windfall for Microsoft and its products 
entrenchment in those very same schools within the near future. The 
schools will end up being dependent on one source, which will be of 
no benefit to anyone but Microsoft.
    This is not a remedy, it is a strangle hold on those very 
schools which will now be completely dependent on Microsoft. The 
Ironic thing is that if Microsoft was to offer a billion dollars to 
set up schools with their equipment in a different environment, it 
would most likely not be allowed to because it would be anti-
competitive since it would block out all other companies that cant 
compete cost wise. This act by Microsoft is of course not 
altruistic. It is just the first step in solidifying it`s future for 
the billions of dollars schools will spend in the upcoming decades. 
It also makes a future anti-trust case more likely and more 
unsettling. You can not punish a company that has over 30 billion 
plus in cash in the bank (not including non cash assets), by giving 
them whole markets (and for pennies on the dollar), and call it a 
Monopoly remedy. That`s just a joke.
    One billion dollars is the same amount of money that Microsoft 
is spending on Advertisement alone for Windows XP. Microsoft plows 
over multi-billion dollar companies like Sony, as if they are ants.
    The company plans on loosing roughly a billion dollars on the 
Xbox this year alone in-order to solidify a market presence 
dominated by Nintendo and Sony. The company has factored in a loss 
of over one-hundred dollars per Xbox it sells just to gain market 
share. How can a start-up or even a thriving company compete with 
Microsoft when it can sell it`s products at margins of a one-hundred 
dollar loss per unit. Microsoft can lose a billion dollars a year 
and survive with no problem for over 30 years.
    The rest of the Tech industry lives from quarter to quarter and 
has to compete (or in most every case chooses not to) with 
Microsoft, who has grown from a darling to a cancer. This One 
billion to the schools, like the XP marketing blitz and Xbox 
expenditures, solidifies a presence in yet another market for 
Microsoft, one of few markets that it doesn`t yet have a Monopoly 
in. You got to love the Genius behind Microsoft though. They pulled 
another fast one on US, the public. Microsoft out spends the US 
government until the United States can`t stand up against it. It 
just going to get worse.
    I don`t pretend to know what the remedy should be, but it needs 
to be strong, effective and no-nonsense. Even if there is a strong, 
effective and no nonsense remedy Microsoft will still be unstoppable 
in my opinion.
    Hopefully, the settlement will prevent a third anti-trust case 
at my(the consumer/tax payers) expense and allow other companies at 
least a slight chance to compete in an open market, which at this 
point is almost exclusively a closed Microsoft market.
    Joshua Orzech
    California, USA



MTC-00004937

From: Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 5:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let the schools decide what computers & software they want 
to buy for there own and don`t put the decision in MS hand. that 
only empowers them even further than they already are.
    thank you for your time



MTC-00004938

From: Rick Wintheiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 5:26pm
Subject: My `Bilingual' Opinion
    ON the issue of the Microsoft case, it is very clear to me what 
is the true way to go, and the Microsoft, good company that it is, 
is really a Monopoly or at least leading an Oligopoly. I must state 
that I buy, sell and develop for Microsoft Windows platform 
products. I feel and see the results of Microsoft everyday. It is my 
business. On the other hand I choose to us Macintosh for my personal 
needs. I `self support' my machine at the office and in 
the home. So I feel I can make a fairly unbiased opinion. Microsoft 
carries a huge stick. They do what the want, when they want ( you 
only need to look into their relations with IBM and the development 
of OS/2 or the recent Xbox launch). They have the money and the 
marketshare to hold out or buy out. This is not the behaviour of 
fighting small company. GM cannot work like this, Nestle, Citibank, 
either. I think for me it is common sense that Microsoft is pushed 
or broken up. They cannot have unfair advantage based on market 
share and size. It kills innovation and stifles creativity. Feel 
free to contact me at any time.
    Rick D. Wintheiser
    Methodus Consulting you`re going too slow.
    351 21 422 8870 (voice)_Mario Andretti
    351 21 441 3099(fax)
    www.methodus.com



MTC-00004939

From: Valient Gough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 5:40pm
Subject: comments on proposed settlement
    To whom it may concern, I am a software developer for a large 
internet retailer based in Seattle. Having followed the case against 
Microsoft over the years, I am dissapointed with the results. In our 
company, all our developers (on the order of 1000) work on Linux 
systems. Also our hundreds of web servers and various online systems 
are running either Linux or another type of Unix.
    But even though Linux is where all of our real work gets done, 
every developer also has another computer under their desks which 
runs Windows. That is because we sometimes have to open Excel 
spreadsheets or Word .doc files, which are notoriously difficult to 
decode. The greatest potential for a truely competitive marketplace 
comes from open source projects, not other companies. Microsoft 
knows how to deal with for-profit organizations_they can make 
vapor ware announcements, sabotage competing programs, buy out 
competitors, basically use their enormous bank account against a 
poorly funded rival until the rival is dead. But this doesn`t work 
against open source projects, which I believe is why they have 
succeeded against this gorrila where commercial enterprises have 
failed.
    What bothers me about this proposed settlement is that it is not 
forward looking. It does not look to prevent Microsoft`s illegal 
actions against what it percieves as the current threat (and our 
great hope)_ open source software. Part of the proposed 
settlement stated that Microsoft could decide who gets information 
based on wether or not they were a viable buisness. This seems 
clearly an attempt to exclude open source software.
    In order to really allow competition to bloom, here`s what you 
need to address. Microsoft uses sleazy buisness tactics to destroy 
for-profit competitors. One solution would be to try and reign in 
their tactics. This is frought with danger and likely doomed to 
failure because as long as they have the money and desire, they will 
find new and inventive ways of being sleazy. A slightly better 
solution would be to try and reduce their ability to act_by 
monitary fines, breaking up the company, etc. The problem is this 
doesn`t separate the wheat from the chalf (the sleaze from the 
innovative technology), so you end up reducing both in proportion 
but you reduce the good just as much as the bad. If there is no way 
to make Microsoft compete fairly with other companies, then that 
just shows that the battle field to concentrate on is not the 
graveyard of its former competitors but the blooming competition 
from open source.
    It is here that you can make a real difference. The reason is 
that most of the sleazy tactics do not apply against grassroots

[[Page 24638]]

open source projects. Instead of using sleazy tactics, Microsoft is 
forced to rely on tactics based in technology. Their primary 
technology-based tactic so far has to been to create interoperable 
and propietary formats and use their monopoly power to push those 
formats across the board in an attempt to cut out competition. The 
reason I think this is where you have a chance at doing good is 
because this is where the future competition actually lies, and 
because technology can be easier to control then tactics_as 
technology leaves a physical existance (source code, run-time 
behavior) which can be witnessed and serves as a record.
    The first step is to open up Microsoft`s proprietary 
formats_to everyone under public domain. I think other people 
can speak better to other parts of a remedy, so I will limit myself 
to saying that from my experience, Microsoft`s use of proprietary 
formats is the greatest technological stranglehold on their 
monopoly. They may have maintained their monopoly for years based on 
shutting out small competitors, but the real competition today is 
from open source. That is where you should be focusing remedies. It 
would take much greater effort to try and revive commercial 
competition from the dead_you should act on preserving an 
already existing and viable competition.
    Additionally, there are many crossovers of hybrid open source 
and commercial enterprise entities. This is where open source 
projects become the basis for a small corporation providing either 
support or services. By providing the atmosphere for open source 
projects to interoperate with the widely installed base of Microsoft 
products, you can turn the fact that they are a monopoly into an 
advantage by providing an ample audience for new projects, which in 
turn will provide many opportunities for new companies to provide 
support and services, all of which are an advantage to the consumer.
    regards,
    Valient Gough
    Senior Software Development Engineer



MTC-00004940

From: David W. Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Penalty
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I was astounded to see the proposed penalties to Microsoft 
Corp., which has been found guilty of maintaining an illegal 
monopoly, which amount to no penalty at all, or a slap on the wrist. 
To allow Microsoft to flood the education market, one of the few 
markets in which they do not hold monopoly position, with their 
software is not a penalty but a boon.
    If I am convicted of speeding, I must pay the full fine in cash. 
I am not permitted to pay to a third party in the form of a product 
which will be considered at full retail cost, despite the fact that 
it costs me but a few percent of that figure to produce. Nor am I 
permitted to pay my penalty in such a way that it enhances and 
increases my business, as that would turn my penalty into a simple 
business investment.
    A penalty for a crime must punish past behavior, and prevent 
such behavior in the future. The proposed penaltied do neither. 
Microsoft has been so conteptuous of the power of the Justice 
Department to control it that, far from treading lightly during the 
protracted proceedings, it has continued to act to extend its 
monopoly. In the internet arena, which seems to be the next target, 
Microsoft has repeatedly modified open access tools, such as Java, 
for no other purpose except to prevent access, except through use of 
the Microsoft tool. One encounters more and more sites which can be 
accessed only with Microsoft software, for example.
    The Republican party, of which I am a member, has stood accused 
of being owned by various large industries. It is time to put that 
lie to rest, if lie it is, and to consider this case on its 
demonstrated facts.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Murray
    15 Moorage Ave.
    Bayville, NJ 08721
    732-269-5752



MTC-00004941

From: Jose Castejon-Amenedo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 6:30pm
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
    Dear Madam/Sir:
    The settlement proposed to bring the US vs. Microsoft legal 
proceedings falls short from accomplishing any useful social goals 
in at least two respects: (1) Microsoft has been found guilty of 
illegally abusing its monopoly position on a regular basis for a 
number of years now. That is, this company has shown a consistent 
and olympic disrespect for the law for years, and for that it 
deserves just punishment.
    The proposed settlement does nothing much to administer any 
significant punishment to Microsoft for its past misconduct. The 
message that this sends to individual citizens is that the 
consequences associated with breaking the law can be rendered 
irrelevant when a sufficiently large amount of money and/or 
influence are available. By allowing Microsoft the privilege to come 
out unscathed, the DOJ is actually mocking the foundations of the 
law.
    (2) The proposed remedies do nothing much to prevent Microsoft 
from carrying on along its past lines of conduct. Worse, in 
instances they actually provide Microsoft with a leverage to expand 
its monopoly to other areas where it has not achieved hegemony yet. 
An expanded monopoly can only result in further limitations of 
freedoms of choice, with the consequent social damage.
    In order to provide effective means to curb Microsoft`s 
monopolist ambitions, and to promote competition, the remedies 
should include the following:
    (a) Force Microsoft to publish detailed descriptions of its 
proprietary protocols, file formats, and application programmer 
interfaces (APIs). Microsoft ought to be also forced to publish the 
details of any modifications that it sees fit to carry out on those 
items before it releases an actual software implementation thereof. 
Finally, Microsoft ought to be forced to adhere to such published 
descriptions.
    Notice that forcing Microsoft to make public the source code of 
its operating systems is neither necessary nor convenient. Microsoft 
should be allowed to keep such implementation details secret, as 
long as it complies with the specifications above.
    (b) Microsoft ought to be prevented from buying out any 
competing companies for a number of years. It should always be free 
to innovate, but by its own means and resources, not by 
extinguishing potential competition.
    (c) Microsoft ought to be prevented from striking secret 
exclusive deals with any other company. In particular, any deals 
that Microsoft has with vendors, such that the latter are prevented 
from preinstalling competing operating systems, ought to be declared 
illegal.
    Sincerely,
    JCA
    Jose Castejon-Amenedo
    1401 Red Hawk Cir.
    #N312
    Fremont, CA 94538
    USA
    Phone #: 510-739-3852



MTC-00004942

From: Stephen Besedick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 6:55pm
Subject: Antitrust Case
    Dear Sirs,
    Microsoft has been determined guilty of violating anti-trust 
laws but has not been `punished' accordingly! No 
reasonable person would ask that the federal government impose 
`corrections' that cripple Microsoft, but it must find 
ways of leveling the playing field. With the encroachment of 
technology into almost every facet of our daily lives, it is 
imperative that no ONE company be in control. It has become quite 
obvious over the years that an overwhelming majority of American 
consumers do NOT really care what computer operating system they use 
. . . they just want it to WORK. Furthermore, given the 
inherent communicative nature of computer technologies, the American 
consumer wants to be able to `talk' and/or 
`share' information with others; and have this whole 
process WORK transparently behind the scenes no matter what make or 
model of computing device a person uses.This model of compatibility 
is just the thing that makes the internet such a successful vehicle 
for communication. When standards are invoked, all manufacturers 
must meet the criteria or face exclusion from the market. It`s sort 
of like UL approved appliances . . . where standards of 
safety are set, and all manufacturers build accordingly. If, on the 
other hand, we let a manufacturer establish the standard(s), the 
consumer is subjected to the levels of safety this manufacturer 
deems appropriate. It is quite clear that this latter model most 
closely resembles the state of technology is our country. In this 
writer`s opinion, Microsoft has been allowed to climb its way (on 
the backs of unwary consumers) to the position where it alone 
defines the viability of technology solutions, It answers to no one, 
and crushes any who may oppose it. Its not

[[Page 24639]]

that Microsoft is inherently bad, but that it needs to be put in its 
place. The federal government is at a crossroads wherein it can help 
shape the technological future of our country. If it allows 
Microsoft to continue in its ways, everyone will be tied to its 
whims and fancy. On the other hand, if it forces Microsoft to become 
simply a tech company (not the standard), it will truly level the 
playing field for all who choose to compete. The success or failure 
of a company will again rest on its ability to meet consumer needs.
    Stephen Besedick
    Tech Coordinator



MTC-00004943

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 6:55pm
Subject: Monopoly comment
    I would like to comment on this topic.
    I`m sure that everyone is aware of the fact of Microsoft`s 
monopoly, including Microsoft themselves, yet many reject to 
acknowledge reality and put a spin on the truth (aka lie!) In fact, 
I remember Microsoft`s vision in the early 1990`s: `Windows 
everywhere' is what they called it_in computers, cable 
boxes, refrigerators_pretty much anywhere they could get it 
into. That is what they would like to see. Along the way they have 
demolished many companies to further their cause and gain an unfair 
advantage.
    Toward the mid-1990`s they stated that they would port their 
Office suite to OS/2 when OS/2 reached critical mass_2 million 
users, according to them. What happened? OS/2 reached critical mass 
and Microsoft never delivered on their promise. Why? Because OS/2 
was superior to Windows and would directly compete with them.
    In an effort to fool everyone, Microsoft invested in Apple and 
updated their Office suite for the Macintosh. They did this because 
they needed a `competitor' that could take some of their 
market share. Microsoft was merely trying to convince naive 
individuals that there was a viable alternative to Windows, namely 
the Macintosh, that could compete with them. I have heard too many 
reasons as to why the Mac is not as successful as hoped (and you 
will see the relevance of this) but nobody has stated the correct 
reason. The correct reason that the Mac has failed is because of 
their closed hardware architecture and exorbitant prices. Can you 
buy a Mac-compatible device from another vendor? No. Can you buy a 
non-Apple computer that runs the MacOS (or OS X)? No. How is this 
important? The only two operating systems (for desktops, not 
servers) that Microsoft has attacked are OS/2 and Linux. Why? 
Because you can use the same computer that runs Windows to run OS/2 
or Linux. OS/2 and Linux have had a serious following. Sure there 
have been other desktop operating systems for the PC like BeOS, but 
they never received serious support. Microsoft has spread vicious 
lies about Linux to any non-technical manager that will lend an ear 
just because those are the ignorant type of managers that make 
technical decisions.
    OS/2 created a version named `OS/2 for Windows' (aka 
Ferengi). With this, the cost of OS/2 would be lower because it 
didn`t include Windows 3.1 which was an additional license charge. 
You could use your exisiting Windows and OS/2 would incorporate it. 
Microsoft`s response? They released a modified version of Windows 
which became incompatible with OS/2 for Windows. How`s that for 
uncompetitive?
    I heard Microsoft`s arguments about how they felt the Netscape 
browser was a threat to Windows, which prompted them to take the 
actions they did. However, everyone seemed to overlook the fact that 
you need an operating system to run a browser. A browser is capable 
of rudimentary operations. Even with Java applets, they do not have 
the flexibility of Java applications. However, you still need a JRE 
(Java Runtime Environment) to be able to run applets, and where does 
the JRE reside? In the operating system! I don`t know how Microsoft 
was able to argue that Netscape`s browser was a threat to their 
operating system. It is just not possible. Microsoft must be forced 
to publish API`s for all of their products and port their products 
to competing operating systems. Compilers and window toolkits (like 
Qt) that grew up on Unix were made to run on Windows_now it`s 
time for them to do the same.
    Microsoft has a history of introducting incompatibilities with 
accepted standards to further their cause. J++ had Windows-specific 
hooks. Their Kerberos implementation is incompatible (to an extent) 
with the Unix standard. Their motto is `embrace and 
extend'. This is completely uncompetitive. Something must be 
done about it. Having them donate resources to schools (a proposed 
remedy) is just a way for them to further increase their penetration 
into the market. We are in a county that opposes taxation without 
representation. Now it`s time to represent the taxpayers voicing 
their opinions. Let`s see if the U.S. Government`s judiciary system 
actually works they way they teach us it does.



MTC-00004944

From: Brian Pankuch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 7:08pm
Subject: microsoft
    Gentlemen:
    I`m not a lawyer, but I am a heavy user of software and a 
Professor of Chemistry. Since Microsoft has been found guilty in 
several high courts and found to be an illegal monopoly, it is 
beyond belief that we can even consider making them more of a 
monopoly than they already are as part of the settlement. The 
proposed settlement costs Microsoft very little and does great harm 
to other competitors in education.
    Can I respectfully suggest if you want to help poor school 
systems then money for anything but Microsoft products should be 
considered. Supplying only their own software helps Microsoft and 
hurts their competitors, how can this possibly be a punishment??
    I do think Microsoft has some good products, but they are also a 
very dangerous monopoly, please help while we still can still have 
some competition. Thanks for listening.
    Brian J Pankuch Ph.D.



MTC-00004945

From: Pierre F. Fogal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 7:10pm
Subject: Comments of US v. Microsoft
    To Whom it may Concern,
    I am a scientist, and while not a computer professional per se, 
I have programmed everything from microprocessors to supercomputers. 
Thus far, I have always felt that I have had the ability to choose 
how I will approach the programming task at hand. However, it is 
clear that the choice has been dwindling in direct proportion to the 
rise of the Microsoft (MS) empire. Now, don`t get me wrong, I have 
used many MS products over the past 2+ decades, and early on was 
quite happy with the results. Why and when did that change? Well, to 
begin with, it changed with the MS mentality that MS should provide 
the software solution en toto, usually in monolithic applications 
that lead to the term `bloatware'. As the complexity of 
these applications increased, there has been a comcomitant decrease 
in robustness. So, we arrived at a point where we had the 
opportunity to do many things (a large percentage of which any one 
user won`t do), but in reality not the ability. Also, as MS further 
developed their technology, they often managed to break mine. 
Computers that were perfectly capable in January, became nearly 
obsolete in June. Why ? They didn`t have the capacity to run the 
latest versions. So . . . don`t, we say. However, others 
did, and eventually, the hardware really did need replacement. Now 
there exists a hodge podge of things that almost work. Is this a 
situation restricted to MS products? No, but it occurs on a far 
shorter time scale when MS products are concerned. I raise these 
points at various times with various people and a typical response 
is `Well, what OTHER CHOICE is there?' And that`s what 
its all about. Choice. The ability to choose not to upgrade. The 
ability to choose the functionality we want. The ability to choose 
the software that will deliver that functionality. The ability to 
choose INTEROPERABILITY BEYOND and OUTSIDE the MS family of 
products. To this end, I propose that MS be required to deliver 
something like the following. . . .
    (1) That they be required to support their own earlier file 
formats as completely as possible. This would ease the requirement 
for rapid upgrades on the part of users.
    (2) That they correctly export documents into other formats, so 
long as those other formats are capable. This allows us more freedom 
to choose software.
    (3) That if Microsoft writes files in a format that is a 
`standard' and/or largely in the public domain such as 
html, xml, postscript, pdf, that they be barred from 
`enhancing' those formats and that any functionality 
they wish to add be submitted to what ever de facto administrative 
body oversees the various formats, for inclusion. In the past their 
enhancements have broken other software, limiting our choices.
    (4) As for 3, but dealing with communications protocols 
including but not limited to hardware, software, and the internet.
    (5) That they make public in a complete manner, the complete 
specifications for

[[Page 24640]]

operating system API`s, where those APIs will allow a 3rd party to 
provide software capability on par with MS products. This goes 
directly to the issue of choice.
    (6) That .Net not be permitted to evolve into something that can 
only be effectively used via MS products. Should it do so, the 
potential for misuse and abuse is staggering!
    (7) On a different note, MS should be mandated to keep out of 
the information gathering and management business. It is utterly 
frightening that the people who write the software that run our 
computers on one hand, are potentially also the people gathering 
information for the use, or by the request of, entities such as 
insurance companies, financial institutions, potential employers, 
marketers, special interests, and so on. . . .
    (8) MS has also taken to releasing public statements regarding 
how open source software is not trustworthy, going so far as to say 
that the open source model is Un-American. These diatribes are 
rarely factual and MS should be restricted in much the same manner 
IBM was restricted in the 1980`s and 90`s from making pronouncements 
regarding software. It is wrong for them to use their pre-eminent 
position to distribute fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) regarding 
potential competing products.
    To summarize, MS limits our ability to choose how we want to 
work today. Please ensure that they are limited in their ability to 
do so.
    Thank-you for your time,
    Pierre Fogal, Ph.D.
    Pierre F. Fogal, Ph.D.
    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
    University of Denver
    2112 E. Wesley Ave.
    Denver, CO, USA 80208
    voice: 303-871-3523
    fax: 303-778-0406



MTC-00004946

From: Greg Cunneen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 7:52pm
Subject: Reward or punishment
    There are extremely large numbers of computers in the world, all 
of which become obsolete within 2 to 3 years. Many are recycled into 
other products, many are dumped, yet many get donated to 
institutions (like schools). The advantage of getting school kids 
`hooked' on a particular system are obvious; they 
continue to use what is familiar to them in later school years and 
adult years.
    `Punishing' Microsoft by allowing it to hijack the 
sole remaining competitive market seems very strange to me. Not only 
does it kill off the other legitimate businesses (the ones that did 
not break the law), it will naturally lead to increased sales for 
Microsoft in the future for the reason stated above in paragraph 1. 
As a rule, I do not use Microsoft products unless absolutely 
necessary. I admit my bias. Unfortunately, their products are now so 
dominant that it is impossible for me not to use them (because 
everyone else uses them too). I don`t know the technical definition 
of a monopoly, but I cannot think of any other industry that is so 
completely dominated by one company.
    And I cannot help but think that if Microsoft were not an 
American company, say Taiwanese or Japanese, everyone in US 
political circles would be bending over backward to nobble the 
foreign entity to ensure valid competition. Instead, Microsoft ends 
up being rewarded.
    Where is the justice in that?
    Greg Cunneen



MTC-00004947

From: Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 8:13pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    To Whom it may Concern:
    I`ve been working with computers for the last six years, and I 
have seen the growth of microsoft in the marketplace. It has reached 
a point that a majority of computers sold today are sold with 
microsoft products, while it is quite difficult to find an 
alternative offered.
    My concern with microsoft`s monopoly lies with the internet, a 
computer network originally payed for by the taxpayers of the U.S., 
and now is slowly being monopolized by microsoft`s attempts at 
creating `closed` protocols with their .NET initiative. The 
internet should be free, the public payed for it, and it should not 
be dominated by one company for it`s sole profit. The internet best 
represents our right to free speech, and no company should dictate 
what that speech should be. My ability to `surf' the 
internet is hindered by the fact that microsoft powered sites cater 
only to microsoft browsers, and that is just the beginning, soon, 
with the .NET initiative, more of the world wide web will be 
inaccessible. This is not just a problem in the U.S. it is a problem 
that spans the globe. The internet is such that the people of the 
planet have the ability to communicate, and the microsoft monopoly 
will insure that the entire planet is running microsoft products. 
The punishment of microsoft must ensure that the internet remains 
free and that all people enjoy the freedom of choice of software 
products worldwide.
    Carl Miles
    [email protected]
    `One is often kept in the right road by a rut.'
    Gustave Droz



MTC-00004948

From: Lupe Anguiano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse: I am a Latina small technology consultant. I 
believe Settlement of the Microsoft Antirust Case is critical to the 
health of our US technology economy. The interest of consumers and 
affordable user friendly software applications should be the 
overriding factor in this decision to settle this case once and for 
all. It is obvious that companies and States (California Attorney 
General hired a Washington DC lawyer to advice him) against 
Microsoft have various personal financial gains at heart. Tax payer 
monies should not be used to support company and personal gains.
    Lupe Anguiano
    Technology and Fundraising Consultant
    14420 Kittridge St. #220
    Van Nuys, CA 91405
    818-787-8807
    [email protected]



MTC-00004950

From: Darren Varner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft case.
    They were found guilty of being a monopoly. They are a monopoly. 
Due to this they charge ridiculous prices for their software. They 
have put people out of business for years even though their own 
software is of lesser quality. They got caught cold threatening 
Apple to kill Quicktime, the superior streaming media, or else they 
would stop development of Office for Macintosh. They trashed Java 
and when they got called to mat on this what do they do? They remove 
it entirely from their latest version of Internet Explorer!
    It is even more unbelievable to me that they have had a hand in 
determining their own punishment. And how do they do this? By 
helping their chances greatly in the education market! (This same 
strategy for punishment never used to work when we were youngsters 
either . . . don`t you remember that?) They have shown how 
unsecure their software is and recently, while they claim that XP is 
their most secure work to date, we find that the biggest security 
risk ever to their software has now got them scrambling again. 
Diversity in operating systems is a good thing in todays environment 
of hackers. Please do the right thing. Punish them as the 
monopolists they have been found to be!
    Darren Varner
    315 E. 68th Terrace
    Kansas City, Missouri 64113
    [email protected]



MTC-00004951

From: James Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 9:13pm
Subject: Apparent misperceptions about security
    One of the sections from the Final Judgment, III.J.1, has 
already been noted controversial because it is a possible loophole. 
However, aside from that problem, it also appears to rest on a false 
understanding of how to make secure software. From III.J.1: 
`No provision of this Final Judgment shall . . . 
[r]equire Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of a particular installation or group of installations 
of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or 
(b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft 
product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency 
of competent jurisdiction.'
    The above appears to be built on the idea of `security by 
obscurity,' where security is

[[Page 24641]]

dependent upon hiding the implementation used to secure something. 
In the physical world, this would be analogous to making the 
mechanisms of a lock or safe a trade secret. In the computer realm, 
this would mean keeping secret the mathematics or algorithms, source 
code, protocols, etc. of cryptographic software. While this appears 
to make sense on its face, it has long been discredited by those who 
deal with computer security, such as Bruce Schneier, author of 
`Applied Cryptography' and `Secrets and 
Lies,' a book about dealing with real-world security problems. 
(His business`s website, by the way, is http://www.counterpane.com.) 
In particular, the core problem with `security by 
obscurity' is that it is fragile, that is, the security 
implementation is not necessarily obscure to the ones who may 
attempt to break it. Industrial spies or hackers/crackers have the 
tools and expertise to discover the source code or algorithms of a 
piece of security software. Even those who are not `black 
hats' may break proprietary, secret algorithms with relative 
ease. (See http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-
9902.html#snakeoil) Much of strong cryptographic and security 
software, rather than relying on the secrecy of the algorithm or 
implementation, relies on public algorithms and often public 
implementations. What is kept secret is a long number, a key, used 
in combination with the algorithm, and knowledge of the algorithm is 
useless without the key. Examples of public cryptographic algorithms 
are the government standards DES (recently `retired') 
and AES (DES`s replacement), and RSA, the algorithm behind SSL, the 
protocol used for secure Internet transactions. Examples of secure 
software with public implementations are OpenBSD, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, 
and PGP.
    The point of this discussion of `security by 
obscurity' is that Microsoft (MS) should have no need to hide 
the protocols and APIs used for security. Unless their software has 
a fragile security implementation, disclosing the protocols and APIs 
should do no damage or compromise security. The only possible 
exception to the above points is digital rights management (DRM), 
which is inherently fragile. (See http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-
gram-0105.html#3) However, DRM is more designed to deter would-
be casual copyright infringers, who lack technical knowledge, rather 
than mass-scale pirating operations of the kind one sees in Asia. 
The documentation of DRM APIs and protocols would be of little use 
to those whom DRM is designed to thwart.
    In general, there is no good technical reason to allow Microsoft 
to have any private APIs.
    I am a fool for Christ. Mostly I am a fool.



MTC-00004952

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to submit my comments concerning the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    Allowing this company to continue the abusive and damaging 
monopolistic practices that have destroyed many innovative small 
businesses, and has thwarted competition and fee enterprise, would 
be damaging to our inventive and superior technology industry the in 
the United States. Microsoft has used it`s monopolistic position to 
destroy the very competition that has lead to our superior lead in 
the field of computer technology, and without competition, 
innovation is stifled. They must be stopped for the sake of our 
country, economy and free enterprise system that has served us so 
well. Allowing them to buy their way out of the suit by supplying 
software and outdated near worthless hardware would be a flagrant 
disregard for the spirit of our antitrust laws that are in place to 
protect private enterprise and consumers from anti competitive 
practices of abusive monopolies. The incremental cost of producing a 
billion dollars worth of software is pennies on the dollar, and 
would let Microsoft get away with murder. Our justice system would 
become a laughing stock, and it would send the message that it is 
all right for monopolies to pursue abusive practices without 
consequences. Not only that, the plan to supply schools with this 
software is almost comical since it would extend their monopoly to 
one of the last areas they do not dominate. Microsoft has shown 
total disregard for our antitrust laws in the past, and without an 
appropriate penalty, and corrective measures, they will continue to 
do so in the future.
    William D. Bird



MTC-00004953

From: Mark Kaiman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 10:49pm
Subject: the proposed settlement
    I believe that Apple Computer is correct when it opposes 
Microsoft`s proposed settlement with the United States government. 
To allow Microsoft to give free copies of its software to schools 
will only further entrench its position as an abusive monopolist. 
How can Apple, Sun, or other competitors hope to compete when 
Microsoft is giving its software away for `free' in the 
name of justice? A far better solution would be to force MS to pay 
cash (many billions) to schools, which the schools would use as they 
see fit. If they dont want to buy Microsoft products, then so be it. 
That is the free market that Microsoft appears to loathe.
    Microsoft is a predatory monopoly that is anti-competitive and 
stifles innovation and technological development. To allow them to 
get away with a mere slap on the wrist would be a travesty.
    Mark Kaiman
    Friday Harbor, WA



MTC-00004954

From: Quincin Gonjon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft the Monopolist
    This country has been blessed with freedom and the strength to 
empower its people with it. Freedom is independence, liberty and the 
exemption from the power and control of another. Microsoft is slowly 
taking away our freedom of choice by taking full control of our 
computer and the internet. They are doing it without having any 
responsibility over such consequences as security of personal data.
    Microsoft products are by nature insecure and they are in 
constant threat of being hacked or cracked. The thousands of viruses 
and worms that are propagated each year is proof of Microsoft`s lack 
of security. The fact is that any 10 year old child can become 
proficient enough in word or excel to create a macro virus 
sophisticated enough to delete files and email itself to others. It 
is no wonder that a full range of Microsoft products are by nature 
insecure and are promoted as secure, for example, Microsoft Portal 
and Hailstorm, Windows XP, IIS web server, Microsoft Exchange, 
Microsoft Outlook, and Internet Explorer. These products are 
dangerous to the public at large. They are the most attacked 
products on the internet and they are the gateways for hackers to 
get into servers that contain personal public information. Today 
companies can`t compete with Microsoft products because they used 
their Operating System and proprietary file formats and protocols to 
Monopolize 90% of the software industry.
    Everyone knows that Microsoft killed its competition by not 
releasing vital information about its operating system on time. In 
fact, Microsoft may have provided out dated information about its 
operating system just to make sure other applications crashed. This 
type of competition is illegal but Microsoft was allowed to play 
dirty in the early days of Windows 3.X and 95. Now that they have 
made their products the standard in the industry through illegal 
practices, why should they keep the proprietary licenses for their 
file format and protocols? I think that a case can be made against 
Microsoft`s patent for these licenses. This government should not 
allowed such dirty underhanded and illegal practices to continue 
unpunished. The law should be firm and strict with Microsoft. The 
first penalty I would act on is to force Microsoft to make all of 
their formats and protocols freely available to the public so that 
compatible products that read, write and understand Microsoft 
protocols and file formats can be produce.
    I strongly believe that Microsoft is a threat to our nations 
security and to fair competition in the software business industry. 
The punishment that has been applied to the company is far to 
lenient. The only recourse as a free nation is to make sure that 
Microsoft is crippled from performing such actions today and in the 
future. To make the company give up its competitive edge by 
releasing its file formats and protocols so that new software 
companies can rise and compete. This should stimulate growth and 
allow citizens to choose the best product for their needs.



MTC-00004955

From: Edwin Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:22pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft proposal
    Please allow for a comment from overseas:
    The settlement must make sure that documents created using 
Microsoft products

[[Page 24642]]

are usable 5 years after Microsoft ceases to exist or chooses to no 
longer support the given software or document format.
    This implies:
_It must be possible to still use the software
_Microsoft must publish the document structure
    There is high hope for this trial to provide some of the data 
security needs that are sorely missing now.
    With kind regards
    Edwin Schwab



MTC-00004956

From: Louise Tremblay Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/27/01 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    Your Honor:
    The proposed `reparation' will allow Microsoft to 
expand its monopoly while shifting the burden of disposing of 
obsolete equipment to impoverished school systems. This is no 
penalty.
    Louise Cole



MTC-00004957

From: marcsten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:00am
Subject: No Subject
    Dear Sirs:
    I wish to comment on the proopsed litigationj involving 
microsoft and the DOJ. AS I read it, in spite of microsoft having 
been found in violation of the law, they are under the settlement 
being encouraged to continue to do so. In short, there is no justice 
in any resolution of this case unless it contains the following:
    *ï¿½1AAny 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.
    *ï¿½1AThe 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¿½1AAny 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 trust that you will take these suggestions to heart when 
attempting to resolve this litigation. War or no war, we do not wish 
to have an automobile industry where there is only one car company 
allowed to do business_particularly if that company is YUGO; 
similarly, the public is done a great diservice if the only 
available operating system and software is from microsoft, the 
`virtual Yugo.'
    Thank you for your attention.
    Marc Stenchever



MTC-00004958

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern_
    You have probably received similar statements already. As an 
`average,' slightly technically inclined computer user; 
I would like to see the following happen to prevent one company from 
`owning' standards and file formats:
    1.) All networking protocols remain open and compatible no 
matter what operating system or device. In other words, NO 
proprietary extensions for anyone_with incompatibility 
designed into them.
    2.) All file formats for Office (specifically the Microsoft 
family of Office suites) must be opened up to ensure compatibility 
with competitors programs.
    3.) All graphics files must remain open standards.
    4.) Media file formats must remain open to allow for true 
competition.
    This would include not only Microsoft media formats, but also 
formats from Real Networks, Apple Computer (specifically in this 
case the Sorenson Vision QuickTime codec), etc.
    Most importantly, as the Internet was built on Open Standards 
and Protocols to allow machines to `communicate' over 
networks, regardless of the operating system or architecture; it`s 
important the Internet and it`s connectivity remain Open and that 
CANNOT be proprietarized and monopolized by one company or group.
    In order to ensure compliance:
    1.) Set up a `watchdog' group of various 
disinterested 3rd parties and groups, as well as competitors of 
Microsoft. This includes vendors who write software for the 
Microsoft family of operating systems. Stiff penalties for 
violations must be incorporated as well as effectively and swiftly 
enforced, and continued until the violation(s) are corrected.
    2.) As part of the penalty phase, ALL APIs (Application 
Programming Interfaces) should be made available to anyone after a 
reasonable fee is paid. This ensures that companies that write 
software competing with any past, present or future software 
offerings from Microsoft can engage in FAIR competition, and that 
Microsoft software won`t automatically run `faster' or 
`better' than anything the competition may offer; 
thereby including such software commingled with the Windows 
operating system kernel_such as Explorer, Outlook, Windows 
Media Player, and Outlook.
    Competitors should be allowed access to the code that will allow 
their software to run on equal footing with Microsoft software.
    3.) No OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) deals that includes 
threats (implied or real), bribes, exclusionary contracts or any 
other illegal means that violate the Sherman Act shall be allowed. 
Any OEM who wants to install other (competing) operating system 
software, dual boot operating systems (ie; Windows and Linux), and/
or software that competes with offerings from Microsoft that run on 
their family of Windows operating systems; shall be allowed to do so 
without impediment. This would include BIOS boot code.
    4.) Lastly, I suggest that the true cost of Windows on a new PC 
computer system be put into the price listing of a PC. This would 
apply to all other operating systems as well. If the cost is $75 to 
an OEM, that should be listed. Likewise, the cost of an 
`alternative' operating system (ie; Linux Mandrake, Red 
Hat Linux or BeOS) should be listed on the invoice or advertisement. 
This would ensure true, fair price comparisons of the various 
operating systems out there.
    5.) Given Microsoft`s horrible security record in the PC and 
Server computing industries, `Lemon Laws' need to be 
enforced on the software industry as well. Any 
`reasonable' amount of time must be considered to allow 
for a fixes. However, bugs and security holes that are not patched 
and/or fixed in a reasonable amount of time must subject Microsoft, 
as well as other software companies; to lawsuits, claims for damages 
caused by defective software as well as demands for consumer 
refunds; provided the media is returned and it can be proven the 
offending software product(s) from the machine. Given the sheer 
number of known as well as unknown back doors, security holes and 
other ills that affect the dominant Windows family of operating 
systems, it is also advised that:
    6.) The government, on all levels; encourage the use of *only* 
software that`s based on Open Standards and Protocols. This includes 
software released under various Open Source Licenses, especially 
Free Software written under the GNU General Public License (GPL). 
This would encourage the distribution and reusing of software code 
not only in government and business, but also educational 
institutions as well. It is time to put a stop to all the hand 
wringing, delaying, stall tactics and legal maneuvering being 
practiced by Microsoft at this time. The penalties must be sure, 
swift, and final to allow true COMPETITION to return to the PC 
market, prevent monopolizing of future industries and allow CHOICE 
for the consumer mass market. Only then can the consumer have a TRUE 
choice.
    Regards,
    Joseph Nicholson



MTC-00004959

From: Charles F. Waltrip
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:58am
Subject: Objections to the Microsoft Settlement
    Objection 1. Free Software to Schools
    I agree with Apple, Red Hat, et al. that the proposed remedy 
furthers Microsoft`s anti-competitive position. I`m sure Bill Gates 
is saying: `Puh-leeeze B`rer Fox, don`t throw me in that thar 
Briar Patch.'
    Objection 2. Failure to Break Up the Company
    The combination of selling both the OS and the Software 
Applications was anti-

[[Page 24643]]

competitive for IBM and is more so for Microsoft. Microsoft has 
unpublished Application Programming Interfaces in their OSs which 
they are free to use in their Software Applications and change at 
will. These APIs often confer performance and feature advantages 
over Microsoft`s unwitting competitors.
    Microsoft is also able to plan both their OS changes and their 
Software Application product changes together. Again, they are able 
to gain a time advantage over their competitors.
    I can say from personal involvement in purchase decisions that 
these advantages are often the overriding factor in choosing a 
Software Application supplier. The clear remedy for this is to break 
up Microsoft into two companies: one company that develops Operating 
System software only and a second company that develops Software 
Applications such as Microsoft Office.
    Objection 3. Other Factors
    It is clear that Microsoft`s monopoly position has damaged 
consumers. While Moore`s Law has so far governed the cost of 
computer hardware causing constantly improving hardware to cost 
constantly decreasing amounts, we see no such decrease in the cost 
of Microsoft software (though the decrease appears elsewhere with 
software developed for the Java environment being a good 
example_much of it being freeware). The free Java Software 
Development Kits provide an environment richer than the standard 
Microsoft OSs that runs in Java Virtual Machines that can, in turn, 
run on any OS including the free Linux OS. Much valuable freeware is 
available written in Java. And much valuable freeware is available 
for Linux and other UNIX systems. Yet the high cost of Microsoft 
software continues to eat up the resources of Information Technology 
departments that might otherwise be spent on the tasks of training 
and converting to less expensive and, often, better and more 
productive free or inexpensive software.
    And all consumers (individuals; businesses; government) are 
damaged by the lack of security features in Microsoft products. All 
of the competitive OSs (UNIX, Mac OS X; and Linux) have better 
security features. Huge losses are attributable to just one of the 
Microsoft products: Microsoft Outlook. In aggregate, the losses 
attributable to security defects in all Microsoft products add 
greatly to the cost of these products and exacerbate the difference 
in the cost trends between computer hardware (way down) and computer 
software (way up). And new capabilities in Microsoft XP`s TCP/IP 
make it possible for hackers or terrorists to disrupt and even bring 
down the Internet.
    While the lawsuit has been in process, Microsoft has gained 
almost total control of the Web browser software arena and has led 
the market away from standards such as Java and has introduced non-
standard features into XSL. They implement the features they want in 
the way they want and there is virtually no competition to challenge 
them by fully implementing and encouraging the use of standards.
    Finally, Microsoft`s contempt for these anti-trust proceedings 
is manifest in their recent push into the area of personal portals 
in which America On-line is the current major player. It is as 
though they were punishing them for starting this whole business in 
the first place.
    In all of these ways and many more, Microsoft has damaged the 
market, the economy and the users. Please provide a truly effective 
remedy.
    Your consideration of these remarks is greatly appreciated.
    Charles F. Waltrip
    5063 Columbia Road
    Columbia, MD 21044
    (410) 992-1858
    [email protected]
    Opinions expressed in this document are my own.



MTC-00004962

From: Greg Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 2:38am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam_
    I am writing to express my discontent regarding the anti-trust 
settlement with Microsoft. The proposal to donate computer hardware 
and software to schools would only increase the public`s exposure to 
Microsoft products, and therefore, because Microsoft has retained 
its monopoly, would increase the number of Microsoft customers. 
Microsoft has already proven itself untrustworthy of managing the 
power of a monopoly without abusing it, and the school donations 
would certainly further its ability to abuse that power.
    The most effective suggestion I have heard requires that 
Microsoft make public all of their present and future file formats, 
networking protocols, and application programming interfaces:
_Files created in Microsoft applications could be read and 
correctly modified by third-party programs, on the Windows operating 
system (OS) as well as other operating systems (such as Apple`s 
Macintosh OS and the Linux OS).
_Other operating systems would be able to implement 
Microsoft`s networking protocols, and thus easily interact with 
Microsoft-based computers on the internet and on local networks.
_As I understand, opening the Windows application programming 
interfaces is already part of the proposed agreement.
    Without requiring these or similar measures, Microsoft would be 
able to continue many of its abusive practices, in the same or 
similar forms which caused this trial in the first place. Opening up 
Microsoft`s protocols would require the company to compete on the 
merits of the design and functionality of their software, and not 
because they retain full and exclusive control and understanding of 
those protocols.
    Any attempt to curb Microsoft`s abusive practices must be made 
with a broad brush_making demands regarding a specific version 
of its operating system, or one of its programs in particular, will 
not end such abuse. Only changes which affect any software Microsoft 
could potentially create will have a lasting and meaningful effect.
    Thank you for your time, and for considering my sentiments.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Walker



MTC-00004963

From: P=??B?5f==?=1 Hvistendal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 3:46am
Subject: Opera Software`s reaction to proposed settlement DOJ-
Microsoft Corp.
    This memorandum outlines Opera Software ASA`s view on the 
proposed settlement on the case US Department of Justice 
(hereinafter `DOJ')vs. Microsoft Corp.
    1. INTRODUCTION The Norwegian company Opera Software ASA has on 
an equal footing with Netscape been systematically targeted by 
Microsoft Corp. by way of illegal business practices in order to 
monopolize the browser market. Although Opera Software has created 
critically acclaimed browser technology, the Company is completely 
dependent on an open market where free and fair competition sets the 
criteria needed for success. Opera Software ASA`s sole product is 
browsers, and the Company does not have the financial muscles of a 
large parent company behind it, such as Netscape has in AOL. To 
secure a competitive marketplace, Opera Software ASA offers to 
provide the DOJ with its view on the proposed settlement. In this 
short memo we wish to draw the attention of the DOJ to issues which 
we find are especially troubling seen both from Opera Software`s 
stance as a browser provider, and seen from the software industry as 
a whole. It must, moreover, be emphasized that the topics discussed 
herein does not represent an exhaustive list related to Microsoft`s 
abuse of a dominant position in the browser market.
    2. COMPANY PRESENTATION
    2.1 Opera Software ASA
    Opera Software ASA (hereinafter `Opera') is an 
industry leader in the development of Web browsers for both the 
desktop and the embedded Internet markets and ranks number three 
among the most widely used Internet desktop browsers in the world. 
Opera is a world leader in the embedded space.
    What started in 1994 as a research project at Norway`s largest 
telecom company Telenor ASA, led to the founding of the independent 
development company Opera Software ASA. The Opera browser has 
received international acclaim for its small size, speed and 
stability. Opera has not only survived in a tough market; it has 
become a rival to the two major browser-makers AOL/Netscape and 
Microsoft`s Internet Explorer.
    Opera has grown strongly since its founding. As of November 1, 
2001 Opera Software had 100 employees.
    2.2 Commercial breakthrough
    Opera has had a commercial breakthrough in the years 2000 and 
2001. Opera version 5 for Windows, the first version of Opera to be 
offered as a no-cost ad-sponsored browser, was launched in December 
2000, and more than 6 million users from all over the world 
downloaded and installed Opera by November 1, 2001. During this 
period Opera also closed several important strategic agreements in 
the embedded space with some of the world`s leading Internet 
companies. In addition to several still

[[Page 24644]]

confidential deals, agreements with companies like IBM, Advanced 
Micro Devices (AMD), Sharp, Symbian, Canal+ Technologies, and 
Ericsson, have made Opera a well-recognized world leader on browsers 
for non-Microsoft systems.
    2.3 Market and future potential
    The Internet had a breakthrough in the 1990s, with millions of 
people all over the world becoming accustomed to using this new 
communication medium. Still, Opera Software believes that the 
Internet is only in its infancy. Currently, approximately 8 percent 
of the world`s population has access to the Internet, and millions 
more new users will log on within the next few years.
    Not only will the sheer number of Internet users increase; the 
way the users access the Internet is also most likely to change. 
Until now, most users have connected through a PC/desktop from home 
or work, running Microsoft`s Windows Operating System. In the near 
future, the Internet will move out of the confines of the 
traditional desktop computer and into many new environments, such as 
that of handheld devices and WebPads. Such devices will be designed 
to perform specific tasks, whether it is completing work-related 
tasks in the workplace, or entertainment functions at home.
    From being 100 percent focused on the Windows operating system, 
Opera Software turned its focus in 1998 focus towards this new 
emerging market of embedded Internet products. In most cases, 
embedded Internet products are memory-constrained, and the platforms 
and applications that run on them have to be scaled to fit the 
device. Opera has turned out to be the ideal Web browser choice for 
this platform environment since it`s compact and efficient coding 
has produced a small, fast, and configurable browser. The success of 
this strategy shift is reflected in the many strategic agreements 
that Opera Software has entered into in the course of the last 
couple of years, with the market leaders of producers of embedded 
Internet products. Opera Software`s development aim is to maximize 
the commercial results by creating a multi-platform, high quality 
product. One central aspect of the development strategy is the 
platform-independent kernel (core), to which thin platform-specific 
layers are added. This enables the browser to easily be ported to 
other emerging platforms and simplifies overall maintenance. Opera 
has been released for several platforms. Currently the Opera family 
of browsers consists of releases on Windows, Linux/ Solaris, Mac OS, 
Symbian OS (EPOC), QNX, BeOS/BeIA, OS/2, with other potential ports 
under continuous commercial review.
    3. OPERA AND MICROSOFT
    3.1 Introduction
    Opera Software has on an equal footing with Netscape been 
systematically targeted by Microsoft by way of illegal business 
practices in order to monopolize the browser market, in conflict 
with US antitrust legislation, cfr. Judge Jackson`s findings in the 
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice of the United 
States(1 U.S. Department of Justice, Complaint in Civil Action No. 
98_ 1232, May 18, 1998, at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ cases/
f1700/1763.htm.),
    Despite the findings of Judge Jackson, Microsoft`s campaign to 
gain a monopoly over the browser market continues.
    Relative to Microsoft, Opera Software is a small company both in 
terms of finances and staff. In this short memo we wish to draw the 
attention of the DOJ to issues which we find are especially 
troubling seen both from Opera Software`s stance as a browser 
provider, and seen from the software industry as a whole.
    3.2 Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
    3.2.1 Accessibility and unreadability
    It is a recognized principle that Internet tools and 
applications shall respect the standards established by the World 
Wide Web Consortium (W3C), see below. Such standards are necessary 
to upkeep in order to maintain the Internet principle that Internet 
technologies shall be interoperable and accessible to all.
    Microsoft claims that it does its utmost in order to comply with 
the W3C issued standards, while it in reality pursues a conscious 
policy of embracing only parts of the standards, and thereafter 
pursuing a strategy of extending the standard, i.e. developing a 
standard only present in its own browser client Internet Explorer. 
Thus Web page authors that create web pages to fit Internet 
Explorer`s Internet standards may find that their web pages are not 
accessible to other browsers and that they in many cases only work 
on the Windows operating system. Since testing Web pages with 
several browsers running on several platforms is time consuming and 
expensive, many Web developers stick to testing and developing only 
with the current market leader Internet Explorer. In this way 
Microsoft has gained control over standards which were meant to be 
open and accessible to all.
    Microsoft`s purpose with making Internet sites unreadable to 
browsers that do not have access to the developments added by 
Microsoft is to motivate or force the users that do not use Internet 
Explorer and Windows to convert.
    Gaining control over the browser market again provides for 
possibilities to direct users to Microsoft`s own Web properties, 
such as the MSN portal. In this way Microsoft will gain control over 
much of the Internet traffic, and thereby making the situation of 
its Internet competitors, such as Opera Software, increasingly more 
difficult.
    3.2.2 The World Wide Web Consortium
    It is in the interest of Internet users that the Internet shall 
be accessible to all no matter the software used to access the net. 
In order to keep up the speed of the development of universal, 
converging infrastructure on the Internet, consensus is needed among 
developers on what languages may be used and the sets of rules 
needed for communication computer-to-computer. The World Wide Web 
Consortium [W3C.org] (hereinafter `W3C') is the Web`s 
international standardization body created to ensure a convergent 
development of the technical aspects of the Web. The W3C develops 
and coordinates common languages and rules for the Web, to ensure 
the W3C`s long term goals:
    Universal Access
    To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that 
take into account the vast differences in culture, education, 
ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on 
all continents.
    Semantic Web TO develop a software environment that permits each 
user to make the best use of the resources available on the Web.
    Web of Trust To guide the Web`s development with careful 
consideration for the novel legal, commercial, and social issues 
raised by this technology.
    Opera Software is an active participant in developing the Web to 
its full potential through the active participation of its Chief 
Technology officer, H+kon Wium Lie, a member of the W3C`s Advisory 
Board.
    3.2.3 Opera`s compliance with the W3C standards
    No browser is a 100 percent in conformity with the W3C 
standards. There is an industry tolerance for slight divergences. 
These must however not represent a conscious act to further develop 
the standards, and thereby making the developments inaccessible for 
other standard compliant products. Opera Software respects the open 
standard policy, and is today to a great extent fully compliant with 
the standards set by the W3C.
    3.3 Control of browser_control of Internet traffic
    Recently, Microsoft introduced an update to its portal MSN.com. 
A portal is an electronic gateway to the Internet. The portal is 
really an extension of the search engine idea, but instead of 
providing lists of sites matching someone`s search criteria it 
relies on a selection process to choose starter sites that new users 
might be interested in visiting.
    Portals try to create stickiness (making surfers visit and then 
getting them to return again), and do so by providing a range of 
information on services and entertainment that will encourage 
visitors to return. The information provided might include a 
directory of other sites, a search facility, a weather service, chat 
rooms, free e-mail and a selection of sports, cinema and other 
entertainment sites.
    The MSN.com portal and the Microsoft.com Web sites are some of 
the most visited Web properties on the Internet. It is therefore of 
vital importance that all browsers are given full access to the site 
on equal terms. This is further underlined by Microsoft`s resent 
linking between its operating system and the MSN: Microsoft has an 
almost perfect monopoly in the market for operating systems, and 
uses this position to increase the traffic on the MSN.com portal. 
The new Windows XP is thus full of hooks, which directs traffic to 
MSN.com.
    Opera Software was earlier this year alerted by users that the 
newly released version of MSN denied access to Opera both from the 
main page itself, as well as to links leading to subsections of the 
portal. The MSN server was thus checking which browser was being 
used, and programmed so as not to give Opera users full access. In 
effect the Opera browser and its millions of Internet users were 
blacklisted. Microsoft admitted that it was watching out for so-
called Opera strings (the identification of the browser sent from 
the browser to the server), but stated that it did so to encourage 
people to use a standard-

[[Page 24645]]

compliant browsers. Microsoft claimed for example that Opera did not 
follow the XHTML standard. This is incorrect, as Opera in fact has 
excellent support for XHTML. It is in general incorrect that Opera 
is not standard compliant as the Opera browser is well known in the 
market for its adherence to standards set by the W3C. The misplaced 
criticism raised by Microsoft against the Opera browser is in fact 
applicable to the MSN site itself, as it is far from following the 
W3C standards of web development. The standards are broken 
consistently on every page, and the blocking out of Opera users must 
therefore be seen as a conscious policy to manipulate the users to 
leave the Opera browser and swap to Internet Explorer. After a media 
uproar, Microsoft promised to fix the problem of non-accessibility 
for the Opera browser. Some items have been fixed (the one`s 
mentioned in Opera`s press release on the issue) but Microsoft has 
now again reverted to the same tactics, but in a less obvious 
manner, by hiding their targeting of Opera in subcategories, or by 
giving Opera users identifying as an Opera browser user a slightly 
distorted version of the web page presented to Internet Explorer 
user. Opera Software worries that if the current pressure towards 
Microsoft to end its anticompetitive behavior ends without a serious 
legal reaction, no public uproar will manage to make Microsoft 
backtrack in its determination to get control of the browser market.
    3.4 Predatory pricing
    Microsoft has an almost perfect monopoly on operative systems 
for PCs. Judge Jackson found that from 1998-99, Windows has 
held a market share of at least 95%. There is reason to believe that 
market share has increased since. Against the background of a high 
percentage of the market, Microsoft`s pricing behavior, the fact 
that there are no viable alternatives to Windows, as well as 
Microsoft`s behavior towards other firms, Judge Jackson concluded 
that Microsoft had monopoly power.
    Microsoft is known to use its monopoly power to maximize its 
profits where it holds a factual monopoly, while it sells products 
at a loss in markets where it is not in a monopoly position, the 
purpose of such pricing policy being to gain market share and market 
power in markets where it does not hold a monopoly. Opera alleges 
that this practice amounts to predatory pricing. The fact that 
Internet Explorer was included in Windows for free, had the result 
that Microsoft managed to take 40-45 % of the browser market 
from the end of 1996 to late 1998, while Netscape`s market share 
dropped from around 80 % to about 55 % in the same period. Today, 
three years later, Internet Explorer has a market share close to 90 
% of the market and Netscape barely 10 %. The consequences of this 
price policy have thus been dramatic. Microsoft is now pursuing the 
same policy with respect to its operating system for embedded 
products, the so-called Windows CE / Pocket PC. The price for the 
new Windows XP for the desktop market has recently dramatically 
increased, while the price for Windows CE on the other hand is much 
lower.
    There is no objective reason for this dramatic difference in 
price. Windows CE builds on the same platform as Windows XP, but is 
designed to take up less storage space in order to be more adapt to 
the limited storage capacity of embedded products. There is thus 
reason to believe that there is no correlation between the cost of 
developing Windows CE and the price currently being charged. Opera 
Software is of the opinion that the price charged for Windows CE is 
probably below the average variable cost, and may pursuant to the 
Areeda-Turner Test be classified as predatory pricing.
    3.5 Tying
    The allegation of predatory pricing is closely linked to 
Microsoft`s practice of tying products. Opera Software alleges that 
operative systems and browsers are separate products, without any 
natural or necessary link. Microsoft`s inclusion of Internet 
Explorer in its operative system Windows thus amounts to an illegal 
tying of products.
    Microsoft`s practice in the desktop market is well known to the 
States, as Judge Jackson`s findings in the case against Microsoft in 
the United States discusses this issue in depth. The company`s 
practice has, over a period of five years, increased the market 
share in the browser market from close to zero to almost 90 percent.
    Microsoft is still practicing the tying of Internet Explorer to 
the operating system Windows: The newly released Windows XP contains 
the latest version of Internet Explorer.
    3.6 The server market
    Apart from controlling the market for operating systems, 
browsers and some of the world`s largest Web properties, Microsoft 
is also a dominant and aggressive player in the server market. This 
position has been used to harm Opera Software, and with Microsoft`s 
growing dominance in this market, the future provides for even 
greater opportunities for misuse of market power. A dominant 
position in the server market gives Microsoft the possibility to 
abuse its position in the following manner: It is technically 
speaking an easy operation to program the server`s software to only 
give users of the Internet Explorer browser access to web sites. 
Microsoft has done this in the past, and only relented after Opera 
Software raised this issue with Microsoft directly. The problem is 
however yet not fully solved, as users of Opera have to mask their 
browser as Internet Explorer in order to get full access. Opera 
Software worries that if the public pressure of antitrust fades away 
without a serious legal reaction, nothing will stop Microsoft from 
effectively closing Opera browser users out from millions of Web 
sites around the world.
    3.7 Consequences of Microsoft`s business practices
    The business effect of Microsoft`s business practices with 
regard to the points discussed in the above have been severe. Many 
of Opera Software`s potential partners have chosen not to enter into 
cooperation with Opera Software due to an expressed fear about 
becoming subject to a campaign by Microsoft by themselves being 
`blacklisted'.
    Due to the confidential nature of these negotiations Opera 
Software is, as yet, not able to provide examples hereof.
    4 REMEDY
    4.1 Proposed remedy in settlement
    Opera Software alleges that its market share would have been 
considerably higher in the present situation, had not Microsoft 
continuously practiced a policy of predatory pricing, illegal tying 
of products, extension of open standards and manipulation of the 
server market. Opera Software further alleges that its present 
market position will be severely damaged if the present illegal 
business practices by Microsoft are not curbed.
    In the view of Opera Software the proposed settlement will not 
stop Microsoft from continuing its abusive tactics for dominace and 
monopoly power, to the detriment to all Internet innovators. In 
addition, the settlement is not a punishment for Microsoft`s 
predatory behaviour.
    4.2 Opera`s suggestions for remedies
    In the view of Opera Software, a series of actions need to be 
taken towards Microsoft, to reflect the damage they pose to the 
entire computer industry.
    4.2.1 Standards compliance
    Microsoft must be forced to follow the international, open 
standards set by organizations like the W3C. Microsoft would have to 
follow these standards to the letter, not partially or by 
introducing proprietary standards under the guise of 
`innovation.' Only with that measure in place can 
Microsoft`s practice of `embrace, extend, extinguish' be 
put to a halt. To ensure compliance, an independent body should be 
able to check all Microsoft products before their public release.
    4.2.2 Competing browsers
    To ensure a competitive browser market, Microsoft should bundle 
Netscape and Opera in all their Operating Systems.
    4.2.3 Stripped Windows at lower price
    Microsoft should be required to offer only an unbundled version 
of their Operating Systems, meaning that browser, mail client, 
streaming media, etc. would be excluded. The extra Microsoft 
applications can then be offered in a separate packages, but no 
tying of the application packets and Operating System should be 
allowed.
    4.2.4 No blacklisting on servers
    Also, because of Microsoft`s position also in the server market, 
the Company must be held to promise that it will stop identifying 
what browser is used to access its servers, to avoid blacklisting 
competitors.
    4.4.5 Pricing
    The price of Windows CE and Windows should be the same, or 
Windows CE should cost more as it includes more applications.
    The proposed solutions should all be simple for Microsoft to 
introduce, while at the same time opening the marketplace to true 
competition, restoring a balance to the marketplace for the benefit 
of the whole computer industry as well as all computer users.



MTC-00004965

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 7:18am
Subject: Microsoft case
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to comment on microsoft case/settlement. By my 
reading of the settlement,

[[Page 24646]]

msft seems to be more rewarded for their monopolistic practices than 
punished. The biggest reason why msft ran afoul of the law in the 
first place was the fact that they bundled and integrated all their 
extras in with the operating system, essentially making their 
standard the defacto standard. If you read msft`s own press over the 
past years prior to the introduction of the new xp operating system, 
they have gone even further doing this with this new system and 
nothing in the remedy prevents them from doing this again and again. 
Msft has also in the past built things into the operating system to 
make competing programs work less well than their own products. This 
gives msft an unfair advantage that is not addressed in the 
settlement. Msft continues to try to run afoul of accepted standards 
in order to allow their own brand of product to prevail.
    Also as part of the settlement, Msft offered to give a billion 
in used hardware and software to schools. By structuring the 
settlement in this way, it essentially furthers msft`s monopolistic 
practices by shutting out other potential solutions to the school 
market, a market that msft has not been able to totally dominate 
yet. A more proper penalty and solution would be to have msft make a 
cash donation to the schools to help with purchasing the technology 
they feel they need, not the technology that msft wants to give them 
to further their dependance on msft products in the future. In 
addition, msft software donations would be valued at full retail 
value but actually cost msft pennies on the dollar. This would 
hardly penalize msft at all.
    Lastly, competing products must be given a fair chance to 
compete. Msft needs to adhere to standards chosen by the computer 
industry, not try to force their solution to the defacto choice 
simply because they control the majority of the computer desktops.
    Sincerely,
    Neal



MTC-00004966

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 7:25am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement has done little to protect consumers. One of the 
original issues was the bundling of MS Internet Explorer into the 
OS. A browser is not required to control the disk, memory and 
peripherals of a computer, which is the job of the OS. Fast forward 
to November 01. MS in attempt to thwart soon-to-be-announced DOJ 
penalties, releases the latest OS (XP), weeks ahead of schedule 
through OEM sales, such that it could not easily be recalled. This 
OS has numerous additional software features built into the OS such 
as multi-media players, CD burners, etc. These latest inclusions 
reflect MS blatant attempt to monopolize the PC market and put other 
software companies out of business. In fact, the settlement offers 
more PCs and MS software to educational facilities. This will only 
help MS crack the educational market, one of the last segments that 
had yet to dominate. The actual cost to MS is virtually nil, the CDs 
are pressed for mere pennies, yet they can write each off for 
several hundred dollars. What a joke, again MS is laughing all the 
way to the bank and the DOJ looks like a weak idiot. MS needs to be 
broken into a Commercial Software Company and Commercial OS Company. 
Obviously, MS is resistant to this as the Software Company would 
have to compete against the OS company which they know is a losing 
battle. However, the Software Company should win out in the end: if 
MS Office was released in a Linux form, it would continue to be a 
best seller. However, it would lose many of its OS customers, which 
is why MS is the only major computer company that has failed to jump 
on the Linux bandwagon (even staunchy IBM has thrown serious muscle 
into the effort). Do your job and protect the consumers from an 
acknowledged monopoly. The current settlement is weak, pro MS and 
fails to protect the consumer. God knows XP protects nobody, after 
being proclaimed the most secure OS ever from MS, the FBI had to 
issue an alert to warn all citizens of serious security breaches. 
Bravo



MTC-00004967

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 8:54am
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    After years of waiting and hoping, I cannot find many in the 
corporate IT world that is satisfied, or even a bit happy, with the 
currently proposed settlement with Microsoft. For a company that has 
scoffed at Justice for many years, I find it hard to believe that 
those involved in the case would let them proceed as they have.
    For those that are unaware of just how much we have all suffered 
as a result of this monopoly, I offer just some of the hardships. 
Microsoft took over the browser market by incorporating Internet 
Explorer (IE) into Windows. Outlook and Outlook Express, Microsoft`s 
e-mail software, virtually eliminated all development from other 
competitors. Outlook Express comes with virtually all Windows 
computers for no additional price. I might add that Outlook has been 
the prime delivery mechanism for hackers looking to spread dreaded 
viruses. As the Justice Department looks for a speedy end to this 
case, Microsoft has made it very difficult for new browsers and 
other software to work with their latest buggy system called Windows 
XP. RealPlayer and various other small competitive products have 
been locked out from the system at various points, as have any non 
Windows computers into the MSN networks.
    For those that are not tech-savvy, I must do my best to dissuade 
you from believing that Microsoft`s monopoly position has not 
stifled creativity or slowed down technology. Many `new' 
features in the current release of XP have been standard fare on 
Apple computers for over 3 years. As one who both owns and supports 
both platforms, I can attest to the decreased stress level and 
increased productivity on the Apple platform. Many Apple standards 
are simply adopted by Microsoft at later dates and used to further 
entrench their monopoly. Apple stands today only as a result of the 
infamous 1997 deal with Microsoft in which Apple dropped all pending 
lawsuits against them in return for 5 years of continued development 
of the popular Microsoft Office Suite. I might also add that 
Microsoft Word and Excel were originally developed for the Macintosh 
platform, not Windows.
    If Justice or the Court needs any impetus to look for a stronger 
settlement against Microsoft they need look no further that the 
current Windows XP or the .NET strategy and corresponding products. 
I suspect that Justice will have to revisit this issue 4 years or so 
down the road. Unfortunately, it might be too late for the many 
companies and products that have been destroyed by current 
monopolistic activities. I am always saddened to see Windows 
machines in the classroom, an area that has long been the strength 
of Apple. Down the road, school districts will have to grapple with 
the issues of Microsoft`s licensing practices, not to mention the 
tremendous support budget increases required to keep the systems up 
and running. This is fact, not merely statements. There are far more 
issues to contend with than those brought up in the original 
antitrust case. In fact, I believe if Justice had the foresight, 
they would be preparing a new case based on the events that have 
transpired between 1998 and the present. At any rate, I would advise 
anyone looking into a reasonable settlement to discuss the current 
situations in the PC world with the users, and the executives of 
companies that sell the hardware and software.
    Steve Hinchey



MTC-00004968

From: Curtis Garrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 9:12am
Subject: Facts to keep in mind
    Microsoft owes everyone, not just the schools, for their abuse 
of maintaining a monopoly. Here are a couple of examples in which I 
was personally impacted:
_Several times up until a couple years ago, I wanted to 
purchase a Dell, Compaq or Micron computer primarily to use as Linux 
servers if not for other reasons that put me in the position of NOT 
wanting a Microsoft related license. I had no choice but to continue 
to buy the computers with MS Windows of some sort since it was a 
violation for the vendors to sell me a customized or 
`blank' computer. The only other choice I had was to 
build my own computer out of parts which was not what I wanted to do 
considering the reliability I needed from a vendor and my experience 
and abilities to do this.
_During the browser wars of Netscape and Internet Explorer, 
there were many web sites (StarTrek.com for example) that wold only 
allow you access if you used Internet Explorer. This cost me time to 
download and install this software when I was perfectly fine with 
Netscape. This was imposed on me and also further cost me in hard 
disk space usage at a time when it was not as cheap as it is today.
_In the mid 90`s I was on a committee at Nortel and we 
evaluated Novell and Windows NT as possible Network Operating System 
Solutions. Microsoft held stiff penalties over our heads

[[Page 24647]]

regarding licenses overall such as on the 60,000 Microsoft Office 
licenses we had to have. If we did not make the choice to go to 
their platform, we would not be looked at favorably when it came to 
further license arrangements for Office, etc.. . . They 
also emphasized to us that Novell was on their way out as their 
technology was destined to be outdated and limited. This cost 
several people training options and career directions that they were 
in the middle of pursuing and stagnated developments in that 
industry unless it was Microsoft related. These are just a few 
examples of how I am many many people were personally effected with 
Microsoft`s continued abuse of their monopoly. If this is not 
resolved in a manner that is legit and more beneficial to the 
public, I am sure that there are very many people like myself that 
would be disappointed and not satisfied. I already have feelings 
that someone is being bought out or influenced in an unethical way 
simply in light of these Microsoft proposals even being considered. 
I implore you to make sure the right thing is done to help correct 
things by taking some action that will help realign the balance in 
the industry some what accordingly and/or compensate the public for 
Microsoft`s actions.
    Imagine the growth in the technical sector if all of a sudden 
tens of thousands of small developers and related businesses could 
get funding and support if they didn`t have to worry about the 
hopeless idea of trying to compete against Microsoft.
    Thank you
    Curtis Garrison
    InteractiveSociety.com
    `Join Our Click'
    http://www.InteractiveSociety.com
    P.O. Box 801548; Dallas, TX 75380
    214-808-2878



MTC-00004969

From: Fred Butzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The following gives my comment on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft corporation. My comment is based on my 20 years` 
experience as a computer programmer and technical writer. Among my 
published works are `The Linux Network' (MIS Press, 
1998), `The Linux Database' (MIS Press, 1997), 
`ANSI C: A Lexical Guide' (Prentice Hall, 1988), and 
`The SuSE Linux Network' (M&T Books, 2000).
    _Criteria for a Settlement_
    The settlement with Microsoft must fulfill the following 
criteria:
    1. It must, as much as possible, preserve Microsoft as a 
corporate entity and engine of commerce.
    2. It must alleviate Microsoft`s illegal monopolistic influence 
on the market in computer software.
    3. It must be clear, verifiable, and enforceable.
    The first point is obvious: while Microsoft has behaved 
illegally, it is still a vital entity in the marketplace. It needs 
to be tamed, not destroyed. The second point is also clear: the 
point of the settlement is not to punish Microsoft, but to preserve 
the integrity of the market from Microsoft`s illegal monopoly. That 
is the goal: to preserve the market. The third point is often 
overlooked: unless Microsoft`s behavior can be verified objectively, 
the result of any settlement will simply be another round of 
lawsuits_an outcome that no sane person could wish.
    _The Proposed Settlement Fails These Criteria_
    The proposed settlement fails on all three criteria.
    1. The proposed board of oversight will interfere with 
Microsoft`s internal operations, slowing its ability to work and 
complicating the already complex task of writing software.
    2. The proposed settlement addresses some contractual issues, 
but does not address Microsoft`s warping of the marketplace in 
technology_which is by far Microsoft`s most damaging behavior.
    3. The proposed settlement`s oversight provisions are vague, and 
are subject to interpretation and dispute.
    With all due respect, the proposed settlement is something only 
a lawyer could love_and litigious lawyer at that. It is 
possible to write a settlement that will be fair to Microsoft yet 
preserve the marketplace from its predations_but only if one 
understands the techical core of Microsoft`s threat to the 
marketplace.
    _Technical Basis for Preserving the Market_
    Much of the government`s case against Microsoft depended upon 
the internals of Microsoft`s software_particularly the Windows 
operating system. However, this is misleading: the most important 
feature of a software program is not how it behaves internally, but 
how it interacts with other programs. Computer programs exchange 
information through the use of *protocols*. A protocol is simply a 
set of rules that define how data is interchanged. A protocol can 
govern how data are written into a file, so the data can be 
retrieved and processed again; or it can govern how two programs 
`converse' with each other over a network.
    This point is vital: **ï¿½1AA monopolist can extend its 
influence from one software arena into another arena if and only if 
it controls the protocols with which the programs in the one arena 
communicate with the programs in the other arena. **ï¿½1AThe vast 
computer network that we call the Internet is governed by a set of 
protocols that have been written by the software community at large. 
A mechanism called a `request for comment' allows an 
individual or group to propose a protocol; others comment, 
amendations are made, and votes taken before the protocol is 
adopted. This openness permits a free market in software and 
services: all software that adheres to the protocol can participate 
in the marketplace, and exchange data with other programs by other 
vendors that also adhere to the protocol.
    **ï¿½1AThe key to Microsoft`s distortion of the marketplace is 
that it unilaterally rewrites protocols.**
    Sometimes the rewriting consists of changing a protocol`s rules. 
More often, it involves adding extensions to the protocol. These 
features are not documented, and often are patented or copyrighted. 
They are offered as improvements or enhancements to the protocol; 
but whilethese changes may or may not improve the protocol, but they 
*always* have the effect of blocking other software vendors from 
participating in the software arena.
    The rewriting of protocols is allowing Microsoft to extend its 
monopoly in desktop operating systems and applications into the 
server market: its ability to unilaterally rewrite how client and 
server communicate means that commercial users will have to use 
Microsoft servers in order to receive business from Microsoft 
clients.
    This extension of influence from one arena into another is 
precisely the abuse that antitrust law was meant to stop_and 
it is precisely the abuse that the proposed settlement does *not* 
address.
    _A Settlement That Works_
    Fortunately, the technical nature of the abuse also makes 
possible a technical settlement_one that fulfills all three 
criteria that I outlined above. My proposed settlement has the 
following points:
    1. Microsoft software will use *only* commonly accepted 
protocols for communication between clients and servers. No 
additions or modifications will be allowed, except where approved by 
the software community at large through the normal request-for-
comment process.
    2. Microsoft will document and submit to the request-for-comment 
process all of the file formats used by its applications, in 
particular, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Access, and Microsoft Excel. 
Once the submission is made, Microsoft must adhere to the file 
formats so documented, and can change formats only by submitting 
revisions to the software community at large through the normal 
request-for-comment process.
    3. A set of computer programs will be written by a court-
appointed third party. These programs will test whether Microsoft 
software adheres to protocols as openly documented.
    4. Should the test program show that Microsoft has violated a 
protocol, and should the violation be verified by a third party, the 
court will order adherence, and prescribe appropriate penalties.
    This settlement will let Microsoft carry on its work unimpeded 
by supervisors or court-imposed bureaucracy. It will stop Microsoft 
from extending its illegal monopoly into other arenas, and it will 
let new companies compete in the Microsoft arena. Most importantly, 
it is clear and objectively verifiable.
    _Conclusion_
    Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. I hope that my 
comments will help the court to arrive at a settlement that is truly 
fair and truly effective. Most importantly, I hope the court will 
take to heart the need for any settlement to address Microsoft`s 
abuse of protocols. This is the heart of the problem, and any 
settlement that does not address it will be a failure.
    Fred [email protected] [home]
    4320 N. Claremont [email protected] [work]
    Chicago, IL 60618-1612 USA(888) 599-8854

[[Page 24648]]

    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,jith 
@stanfordalumni.org@in. . .



MTC-00004970

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft_Problems
    Dear Sir;
    I do have problems with Microsoft and there size as a computer 
company. I believe that Microsoft is out to control the software 
industry on both the Windows and Macintosh operating systems. I am a 
long time Apple Macintosh user, and Microsoft has cause me to 
purchase upgrade of their software for Operating system changes. Now 
I know that some times this is a necessity, but the last time I had 
to upgrade was not. This is why I believe that they are out to get 
the consumer.
    Example of this case: I have an Apple Macintosh G3, that was 
running system 8.6. I then purchased the next version, 9.0.4. All 
the software that I had moved to the new operating system except for 
Microsoft products (Word, Excel, PowerPoint). I needed to upgrade 
from my pervious version. Now since all the other software worked, 
even a shareware game that I have for years, and several operating 
systems. Why does Microsoft write their software not to function on 
new operating systems.
    This upgrade cost me the cost of the operating system and the 
249.00 for the upgrade to the Microsoft software. Another items is 
the number of choices that I have word processors, and spread 
sheets. It has dewinelled to one and that is Microsoft.
    They have become the standard in the software business for 
desktop computers, and in some case this is good, because the data 
that is created for any desktop computer and be shared with another, 
not worry about the maker of the computer, even Macintoshes can read 
data from intel base desktop computers. The items that Microsoft 
needs to share with the rest of the computer world is the standards. 
The data formats are now default standards, which should be 
disturbuted freely to all that want to communicate with a piece of 
software (Word processor documents). Then a standards committy can 
then determine the changes to the standard and distibute to all that 
would want them. Microsoft is a strange computer company because 
they are the only company that creates an operating system for a 
computer that they do not build. All the other companies build a 
computer and write the operating system for it. This one of the 
reason I use an Apple Macintosh, it just seems to work better.
    Thank you
    Mark Laursen



MTC-00004971

From: Monty Nicol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 11:25am
Subject: Settlement Comments
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am not a Microsoft-hater or one who loves any particular brand 
or type of software more than any other. I believe, however, that 
the current proposed Microsoft settlement is extremely detrimental 
to today`s software customers and to the competitive market at 
large. The current proposed deal seems extremely weak to me in light 
of Microsoft`s past infractions. I urge you to re-evaluate this 
settlement and choose impose not just government oversight and 
enforcement, but also organizational and structural changes to 
Microsoft itself in order to better facilitate competition in the 
marketplace.
    Thank you,
    Monty Nicol
    Internet Developer
    Brooklyn, NY 11238
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
    http://greetings.yahoo.com



MTC-00004972

From: Joe Morse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it amy concern:
    I`m writing to express my extreme dismay and sense of betrayal 
at the DOJ`s proposed settlement of the United States v. Microsoft 
civil antitrust case. I am a software engineer with 7 years of 
experience in the computing field. I also have a bachelors degree in 
Economics from the University of California at Berkeley, where I 
focused my studies on antitrust issues relating to technology 
industries.
    For years Microsoft has been able to get away with using 
anticompetitive practices to anihilate any company that seeks to 
enter the markets it dominates (OS, Office Suite, Etc). The absence 
of competition has resulted not only in higher prices, but also in 
software of dubious quality. Every major worm and virus on the 
internet in the last 5 years has targeted blatant vulnerabilities in 
Microsoft software. These vulnerabilities exist because Microsoft 
has quashed (or acquired) competing products whose presence in the 
marketplace would have induced Microsoft to produce better and more 
secure software. Consumers (especially business consumers) lose 
because they get a shabby product at a higher price. Security and 
other defects also increase the cost of computing. On two occasions 
in the past year I have seen my company`s network shut down for days 
at a time because of security holes in Microsoft`s operating system. 
This resulted in several thousand lost man-hours and millions of 
dollars of financial loss for the company.
    The proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to continue its 
predatory business practices unabated. Antitrust violations are 
often a cultural phenomenon at a corporation like Microsoft. 
Procedural and behavioral remedies fail to address Microsoft`s 
conduct in markets it may seek to dominate in the future. There`s an 
atmosphere of lawlessness in Redmond that only a structural remedy 
will cure.
    Markets are created by society to fulfill its needs and desires. 
When a business enterprise becomes destructive of those needs and 
desires the government has a moral and legal obligation to step in 
and take strong corrective measures under the Sherman Act. The DOJ`s 
proposed settlement falls well short of that obligation and betrays 
the public trust. I strongly urge the DOJ to abandon the proposed 
settlement in favor of an effective structural remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Morse
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
    http://greetings.yahoo.com



MTC-00004973

From: Jon `maddog' Hall, Executive Director, Linux 
International
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 12:47pm
Subject: Additional comment and proposals for Microsoft/Open Source 
solution
    80 Amherst St.
    Amherst, NH 03031-3032 USA
    Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    Your Honor,
    I am writing in support of the change to Microsoft`s penalties 
as proposed by Mr. Matthew Suzlik, CEO of Red Hat Software, Inc. As 
a former programmer and educator with over thirty years of 
experience in the computer industry, I feel that Mr. Suzlik`s 
proposal of replacing the over-priced, closed-source Microsoft 
software with Open Source GPL`ed software has real merit. However, I 
have some additional comments and suggestions to further increase 
the benefit/function of his proposal.
    Mr. Suzlik correctly points out that his proposal would increase 
the number of systems from 200000 to over 1 million. From my 
understanding of the original proposal, the total amount of the 
punitive measure was about two billion dollars. I also understand 
that a lot of the computer equipment was to be 
`refurbished' equipment, which would do little or 
nothing to strengthen the economy. At today`s equipment prices, I 
would encourage this course of action:
    Generate a Request for Quote for a hardware vendor to produce 
one or two fixed models which would give basic multimedia desktop or 
server capabilities to the school systems, almost at manufacturer`s 
cost. The schools would then be free to order these machines from 
this list of systems. If the manufacturer did not have to pay the 
Microsoft licensing fees, I believe that the cost of these computers 
would be able to deliver basic multimedia functionality to close to 
2 million computers, not the one million that Mr. Suzlik estimates, 
and at a cost less than it would be to collect, recondition and 
redistribute refurbished models.
    These units would then have a consistent set of hardware that 
would make it easier for both Red Hat Software to support the 
operating system, and easier for the school districts to support the 
hardware in the long run. The use of new hardware will also 
typically generate a longer warranty from the manufacturer then the 
use of refurbished hardware also. I am sure that the hardware 
companies will work very hard to generate the best possible bid on 
this contract, both for the amount of systems it represents, and for 
the publicity that they will get in being part of this solution.
    The building of these new machines, rather than the refurbishing 
of the older machines,

[[Page 24649]]

would help to create jobs needed at this time in the economy. While 
refurbishing machines also generates jobs, it is not guaranteed that 
the number of refurbished machines would allow a consistent set of 
hardware across the entire program, nor with a consistent warranty 
and replacement program.
    A second comment that I have on Mr. Suzlik`s proposal is that 
the Open Source software that he is suggesting be used has a benefit 
to the students in the school system that Microsoft`s code does not 
provide. While both sets of software allow the students to browse 
the web, write papers, use spreadsheets, and do other tasks a 
student has to do in education, only the Open Source code allows the 
student to see HOW these tasks are done. As a former college 
professor, I would have given my eye teeth to have an operating 
system like Linux to teach operating system design, or compiler 
suites like GNU (which come with all Linux distributions) to show 
students how compilers are actually written. I would have been 
overwhelmed with joy to have a database system like MySQL or 
Postgres to show my students now only how to use and manage a 
sophisticated database, but how they worked inside. This can be done 
with Open Source software, but can not be done with closed source, 
proprietary software like Microsoft`s.
    But today Open Source software goes beyond just operating 
systems, compilers and database engines, and if you go out to the 
place on the net called `SourceForge' 
(www.sourceforge.net) you will find over 30,000 projects with over 
300,000 people working on them. These projects cover almost every 
area of academic pursuit, and the use and encouragement of Open 
Source software would allow these students in the `fourteen 
poorest school districts in the United States' to work along 
side other students from all over the world. Perhaps some of these 
students from these poorer school districts would get their work 
recognized and publicized, increasing their self-confidence, not 
only in the areas of computer science, but biology, mathematics, 
physics and other areas where the United States is beginning to lag 
other countries.
    Finally, I would like to point out that in a lot of these poorer 
school districts there exist already some local Linux user groups 
nearby that might be willing to act as `sponsors' and 
`angels' for this program, to provide support and help 
for these districts, in addition to what Red Hat would provide. If 
you need any additional information in considering this proposal, 
please feel free to contact me at the address given above, or the 
telephone numbers give below.
    Warmest regards,
    Jon A. Hall
    Executive Director
    Jon `maddog' Hall
    Executive Director
    email: [email protected]
    Voice: +1.603.672.4557
    WWW: http://www.li.org
    Linux International(SM)
    80 Amherst St.
    Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
    Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux 
is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. 
(SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, 
Inc.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004974

From: James Lancaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:16pm
Subject: Harsher consequences!
    My tax dollars are going to this lawsuit so I want to pay for 
something that accomplishes the task it was set up to perform. 
Giving Microsoft a slap on the wrist will not prevent them from 
engaging in further gouging of the market. I propose that all 
Microsoft OSes be removed from all government computer systems. Why 
would the government want to trust the code of a proprietary 
Operating System that has more security issues than any other 
operating system in existence? Would not an open source solution 
allow for greater security among government-owned systems? Anyway, 
my 2 cents have just been added.
    Sincerely,
    James Lancaster
    27157 Shadowcrest Ln.
    Cathedral City, CA
    92234



MTC-00004975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:23pm
Subject: Comment re Proposed Settlement
    Microsoft`s proposed settlement is a travesty which makes 
mockery of the findings and further, serves as a marketing plan to 
extend its monopoly into the education market, and it clears the way 
for Microsoft to continue it monopolistic practices for years to 
come. The `$1 Billion donation' consists primarily of 
seeding-enveloping less prosperous schools and children with lesser-
quality/refurbished computers and Microsoft software which costs 
pennies per copy to provide. It is not a penalty, but a marketing 
reward, harmful to some of the same competitors Microsoft has 
already been found to have harmed. Cash with no Microsoft strings 
attached is the only proper remedy for this aspect of the 
settlement. Schools and all markets deserve the freedom to choose 
the products they want. The provisions relating to supposed 
assurance of monitoring-preventing future anti-competitive practices 
by Microsoft are woefully inadequate in the face of a company 
culture that historically ignores and obfuscates the law and any 
rulings and findings.
    Justice is not at all served by this settlement, nor are 
consumers and competitors. Continued delays have and continue to 
play a major role in promulgating Microsoft`s anti-competive 
practices and strategies. There is great risk that an inadequate 
settlement and loose behavioral restrictions will result in 
Microsoft soon controlling the internet and ultimately the bulk of 
all electronic devices and systems in the all-connected-wired 
future. The court needs to impose a true and just settlement, 
quickly.
    Jeff B.
    Columbus, Ohio



MTC-00004976

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Must Be Stopped
    MICROSOFT IS A THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
Microsoft was found guilty in that it ILLEGALLY Maintained an 
operating system monopoly. As Microsoft did not in any way and at 
any time willingly cooperate with the investigation (and in fact 
continued to lie, mislead and use undue financial resources to shape 
p[ubhlic opinion, IT THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO PLEA 
BARGAIN AT THIS TIME OR TO SELECT ITS OWN DESIRED PENALTY. This case 
is a travesty!
    Microsoft`s business tactics are ruthless. Based on the 
company`s anti social and arrogant behavior The company is 
determined to exercise total control of all companies that it enters 
into business agreements into and to enslave all who utlize it`s 
operating systems. The company regularly applies extorsion to its 
business clients in forcing them to pay ever higher maintenance 
fees, and its sole interest is to extract money from every available 
resource.
    I FEEL VERY THREATENED BY MICROSOFT`S POWER AND INTIMIDATION. It 
seems that every time the justice department hones in on Microsoft, 
there suddenly appears a crisis that totally diverts attention away 
from itself. Examine the history of its bad luck with the courts and 
crisis like anthrax appear out of nowhere, alowing microsoft to hide 
away from national attention. Is Microsoft behind these attacks?
    WHEN I READ ABOUT MICROSOFT`S PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH THE 
STATES, I really lost faith in our government and the leadership 
serving our nation, because apprantly Microsoft is somehow 
controlling or blackmailing them. I COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY 
WOULD DONATE ABOUT 100 MILLION CASH, WITH THE REST OF THE DONATION 
DEAD INVENTORY OF OBSOLETE PRODUCTS THAT MICROSOFT KNOWS WOULD NOT 
REALLY HELP ANYONE.... AND IN RETURN THEY WOULD GEET A $550 MILLION 
TAX DEDUCTION!!!! Have we lost all of our better senses? The $550 
MILLION Tax DEDUCTION WOULD GIVE MICROSOFT $275 MILLION OF CASH. IN 
OTHER WORDS, THEY WOULD EARN A PROFIT OF $175 MILLION paid for by us 
dumb tax payers. IN ADDITOIN MICROSOFT SHOULD BE FORCED TO SEPERATE 
ITS OPERATING EARNINGS FROM ITS TOTAL EARNINGS, a practive it 
refuses to do. In other words, there is no way of knowing whether 
microsoft made a profit from operating the company or from its 
investments. FINALLY, I sincerely hope that Microsoft is severly 
PUNISHED for being the criminal organization that it is, and that 
the company should be made to pay a penalty of one half of all its 
assets to be held by the US Treasury. The funds should be returned 
to the public at large via tax refunds and tax credits. In addition 
a percentage of these

[[Page 24650]]

funds should be used to expand competing operating system 
technologies, such as MacIntosh,
    Linux, etc.
    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.



MTC-00004977

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft must be punished.
    Greetings,
    I am a real person. I am NOT employed by Microsoft to write 
letters of support. Concerning the Microsoft Monopoly, I think 
Microsoft has acted unfairly in the past. This hurt consumers and 
continues to harm consumers. Microsoft should be punished severely.
    1. To limit Microsoft`s use of muscle to control hardware 
vendors, prices should be published for the operating system for all 
vendors, not just the top 20 OEMs. Loopholes should be avoided, such 
as `dealer incentives'. People should be able to decide 
what operating system to run. A PC should be available without an 
operating system.
    2. File formats should be specified. These should be released 6 
months prior to a software release. If the software does not conform 
to the file specifications, Microsoft should be punished by stiff 
fines or refunds to customers. I am sure there are many other items 
that should be considered. Others with better knowledge of the 
situation may have more useful insight.
    Thank you for your time.
    Ed Gatzke
    Assistant Professor, Dept. Chem. Eng.
    Univ. of South Carolina
    Swearingen Engineering Center,
    Chem. Eng. 2C32,
    Columbia, SC 29208
    (803)777-1159 wk,(617)461-3634 
cell,(803)419-9655 hm,(803)777-8265 fax



MTC-00004978

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,webmaster 
@ago.state.ma.us@inetgw,att...
Date: 12/28/01 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States and the State of 
Massachusetts, I am dissatisfied with the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft Antitrust settlement, announced on or about Nov. 20, 2001.
    The proposed settlement, to compell Microsoft to donate $1B in 
SW, HW, and services to K-12 schools, will further entrench 
Microsoft`s image as the only OS option in the minds of children. 
What about the competitors. Thats what this is all about. The 
settlement is effectively a windfall for Microsoft. Microsoft`s 
marketing division probably views this settlement as $1B windfall 
How will we have Microsoft account forthe `cost' of $1 
Billion in exquipment, software, and services? I am sure Microsoft 
will argue for `full cost', while their true cost is 
nil. Consider the economics of the software industry. Software 
creation is 90% of a product`s cost, reproduction is 2%.
    The toothless settlement proposed will only further encourage 
Microsoft, and corporate America at large, to flaunt the DOJ as 
merely a nuisance to business as usual, not a formidable market 
police body to be respected. I suggest restrictions of Microsoft`s 
market access. It is clear Microsoft is moving on other facets of 
the IT industry such as online services, entertainment, and 
telephony. Perhaps a settlement that freezes them out of several of 
these industries to prevent them from further controlling the 
technology infrastructure of this country.
    Similar to the AT&T settlement of the early 80s Another 
option is to limit Microsoft`s access to Federl and State contract 
awards for a period of several years, limiting them to XX% of all 
awarded contract $$s These types of punishments show teeth to the 
DOJ`s and State AG`s actions.
    William J. Fox
    Director of Systems Architecture
    400 West Cummings Park
    Suite 2350
    Woburn, MA 01801
    781-938-7283 x272
    781-389-3110 (mobile)



MTC-00004979

From: Robert Poreda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Antritrust Case
From: Robert Poreda
31 East 25th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
December 28, 2001
    The proposed settlement allowing MS to give a large sum of 
money, product and services to the educational market will only 
serve to strengthen the Microsoft monopoly. This proposal tells 
independent software developers that here is another market segment 
we will lose, courtesy of the Department of Justice. I`m trying to 
start an internet hosting company. At the outset, I`m running into 
sites that either strongly recommend the use of the MS internet 
browser or fail to show properly when accessed by Netscape 6. Some 
sites developed by MS products are completely inaccessable by other 
browser versions such as Netscape 4.x or Opera. Now, MS introduces 
their .Net program, which I understand will exacerbate the problem 
by creating more sites unusable by anything other than MS Explorer. 
I was raised to keep my options open, to not put all my eggs into 
one basket. The United States has done just that with office 
services software and now appears to be doing the same with the 
internet. This aspect alone creates substantial vulnerability to our 
economy and technology, let alone the problems related to you 
regarding competitive markets and creativity. Microsoft needs to be 
divided into at least two companies, and perhaps as much as four.



MTC-00004980

From: Mark Bej
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Public Comment
    Sirs and Madames:
    In my view, nothing short of breakup would be an appropriate 
resolution to the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft. It would be 
one thing if there were a situation analogous to the car, oil 
refining, or breakfast cereal industries. Each of these has several 
major players with fluctuating market share, but in no case does one 
company have 90+% market share. So, to bring the analogy back to the 
computer market, if 30-50% of computers were Windows+MS 
Office, and there were sizeable proportions of OS/2+SmartSuite, Mac 
OS+Claris Works, and Corel Linux+Corel Office, I would not be 
writing you. But all of you know that this is not the situation at 
all. Breakup would be the best remedy. If DoJ persists in not 
pursuing this policy, only the most detailed, long-term, and 
invasive scrutiny of Microsoft would, in my opinion, be an 
appropriate response. This would have to include review of Windows 
source code to confirm that Microsoft is not leaving itself back 
doors, undocumented procedures, and `time bombs' for 
other vendors` software. To date, only one company has been able to 
thumb its nose at Microsoft and get away with it_Intuit. It 
behooves DoJ to know exactly why.
    Many thanks for the opportunity to respond.
    Mark D. Bej, M.D.
    [email protected]
    Section of Epilepsy & Sleep Disorders
    Section of Neurological Computing
    Department of Neurology Cleveland Clinic Foundation S-51 9500 
Euclid Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44195 U.S.A. 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
 Phone (216) 445-2565 Operator (216) 444-2200 bpr 24095 
Fax (216) 445-6617 (public) Voice mail (216) 444-0119 
(nonclinical only)



MTC-00004981

From: Timothy Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People,
    When people look back a 100 years from now Microsoft will be 
listed as one of the all time great robber barons of our history. 
Who knows where are computer industry would be now without their 
predatory tactics. Please do not let them off the hook.
    Tim Clark



MTC-00004982

From: Robert Cheetham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Antitrust Division,
    I am writing to submit comments during the Tunney Act public 
comment period regarding the Department of Justice`s settlement 
proposal of the antitrust case with Microsoft Corporation. My 
company is a Microsoft customer. We are software developers that 
rely on the Microsoft platforms and developer tools to make our 
business work and to help our clients do the same. However, over the 
past seven years we have repeatedly witnessed the bullying of 
competitors, stifling of innovation, obfuscation of security flaws 
in the software, increased prices for operating systems and office 
automation software and a dramatic decline in the choices we have 
available to us as consumers of computer software.

[[Page 24651]]

Observing these events, we believe the case brought against 
Microsoft over the past several years was fully justified. Moreover, 
the behavior of Microsoft`s representatives during the trial was 
appallingly dishonest and disingenuous at best. In light of this, we 
submit the following points:
    * While we do not support the originally proposed breakup of the 
company, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Microsoft is a 
monopoly and that it has illegally abused that monopoly.
    * The OEM terms requirements in the settlement are positive 
moves and will be helpful.
    * The settlement requires licensing of operating system APIs, 
but it allows so many exclusions for security, anti-piracy, 
authentication, etc., that there will be an enormous amount of the 
operating system that will remain closed. Moreover, whether an API 
is subject to exclusion or not will be subject to interpretation, 
turning compliance into an argument over terms.
    * The means by which the compliance will be monitored includes a 
3 person technical committee, with one member chosen by the 
plaintiff, one by Microsoft and the third agreed upon by the first 
two. We do not believe that Microsoft should have a voice in forming 
the committee that will monitor its own behavior.
    * While the OEM terms are positive, we do not believe that the 
settlement arrived at by the DOJ and the States is going to be an 
effective remedy to Microsoft`s past behavior. It is therefore not 
in the public interest. We encourage the Court and the plaintiffs to 
reject the proposed settlement and consider other more effective, 
remedies including requiring Microsoft to release into the public 
domain or to open source both the APIs and source code for its 
Office, Windows operating system, and Internet Explorer browser. 
These are the products with which Microsoft both has a monopoly and 
has abused that monopoly. If the source code for these products were 
available to the public for re-use, we believe the result will be a 
more competitive market, more secure operating systems, and greater 
innovation.
    This still leaves an enormous range of competitive products 
(such as Visual Studio, SQL Server, MapPoint, etc.) upon which 
Microsoft can innovate and make money. Moreover, with Windows, 
Office and IE as either open source software or in the public 
domain, a common platform for future software development will be 
maintained for the benefit of the consumer. Such a remedy would 
cause short-term damage to Microsoft`s revenues, but in the long 
run, the result will be a healthier Microsoft, a more robust 
software industry and a more secure information infrastructure. 
Despite the events of September 11, we are confident that the 
American economy is fundamentally healthy. The settlement that was 
agreed upon in October and November 2001 is, quite frankly, 
toothless and nothing more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. 
It rewards the company for its past illegal behavior and will do 
more to stifle the American economy than it will to encourage it. 
Microsoft`s monopolistic behavior has stifled far more innovation 
than it has encouraged, and the US economy is increasingly based 
upon such innovation. Microsoft`s monopoly abuse should be prevented 
in the future, and we encourage the Department of Justice and the 
State Attorneys General to consider remedies that will do so. We 
believe the current proposed settlement does not. We want to see 
Microsoft be a successful company, but we also want to see that 
happen on a level playing field in which smaller companies, like 
ours, have a chance to both compete fairly and to purchase 
innovative, competitively-priced software products. Please consider 
withdrawal of the proposed settlement and negotiation of a 
settlement that is in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M Cheetham
    President
    Avencia, Incorporated
    Philadelphia, PA
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00004983

From: Randy Nye
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov', 
`attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 12/28/01 2:38pm
Regarding: Microsoft Corporation Antitrust Litigation Settlement 
Agreement,
MDL Docket No. 1332
    I have serious concerns, questions, and problems with the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. The reasons why I feel that the 
settlement is unfair and does not properly compensate the plaintiffs 
for the charges they have filed against Microsoft in their civil 
suits are the following.
    *The final outcome of the settlement will be a very large 
program aimed at training our students attending the underprivileged 
K-12 schools and their teachers on how to use Microsoft software.
    *This program is designed to guide the teachers on how to use 
Microsoft software in their education curriculum.
    *The computers purchased through this program will be limited to 
those which are certified by Microsoft. This means that these 
computers will be configured to run Microsoft software.
    *The settlement excludes completely the ability for rival 
software companies from providing software and services to these 
underprivileged K-12 schools, which compete directly with 
Microsoft`s own software products in the PC software market place. 
This provision astounds me. It would be more appropriate in an 
agreement where the Justice Department were the offending party 
making amends to Microsoft.
    *The fact is there is a budding new software industry based on 
free software otherwise known as GNU or Open Source software. The 
term free applies to both free in cost and free as in freedom. This 
new software industry is based on software written by many 
programmers working together through loosely tied collaboration 
using the communication tools provided by the Internet. (e-mail, 
file transfers, web browsing).
    *These same tools of communication and methods of collaboration 
which the Internet provides, are the ones which we wish for the 
students of the underprivileged K-12 schools to take advantage. This 
is due to the fact that this is the same modality by which our 
scientists use to achieve the latest advances in science and 
technology.
    *I am aware that Microsoft is working to try and stop this new 
software industry based on GNU/Open Source software. This GNU/Open 
Source software industry is one of Microsoft`s biggest concerns 
since it threatens its dominance in the personal computer software 
market. The current settlement is structured to directly shut out 
this segment of the software industry.
    I do not understand why you entered into this settlement 
agreement with Microsoft which is so clearly beneficial to 
Microsoft. I would have expected the agreement to pursue corrections 
on inappropriate conduct, not rewards. What I am interested in 
seeing is;
    *Ensure that the plaintiffs understand our concerns regarding 
their settlement with Microsoft.
    *Ensure that you, as attorneys representing the plaintiffs in 
this civil class action suit, inform your clients that there are no 
provisions in their settlement to allow free and open competition 
for the needed software products used to upgrade the computers, 
networks and computer based teaching aids for the underprivileged K-
12 schools the settlement funds will be targeting.
    *Find ways to actually halt actions found to be illegal and not 
be used to support and dictate further market penetration. I would 
further request you to change the terms of the settlement such that 
Microsoft have no say what so ever in how the money of the 
settlement be spent. This should be accomplished by having Microsoft 
donate cash grants to the underprivileged K-12 schools which were 
targeted in the original settlement. The size of the individual 
grants should be in proportion to the number of students enrolled in 
the school. The schools should then be directed to spend the money 
on computer hardware, software, networking infrastructure and 
Internet connection bandwidth for systems used by the teachers and 
students, as they best see fit for themselves. We emphasize that 
these funds be restricted to upgrading the IT infrastructure just 
mentioned, used directly in the classroom environment. These would 
be upgrades to system used in general class rooms, libraries, 
science labs, computer clubs or which ever other teaching forum the 
school has developed for the teaching of their students. The role of 
the Foundation, as created in the settlement agreement, should 
expend its efforts to ensure this funding policy be enforced.
    Furthermore, in order to ensure that Microsoft has no part in 
directing how the settlement funds be spent, the Foundation created 
to manage the settlement funds should be made up of people from our 
leading science and education institutions. Examples of the people 
who should be sought to sit on the blue ribbon board of this 
foundation would be the head of the National Science Foundation, the 
head of the National Academy of Sciences, the Presidential Science 
Adviser, directors of our national laboratories, presidents of our 
renown

[[Page 24652]]

universities, heads of teachers unions, the Secretary of Education, 
the Secretary of Commerce or other people who have great knowledge 
of both education, its advancement and the free and open market 
system upon which the strength of this country is founded. The task 
of forming a search committee for these board members should be 
given to Honorable Judge Motz or someone to which he delegates this 
task.
    Thank you for your time and your assistance in this matter.
    Randy Nye
    IS Director
    Northland Services, Inc.
    [email protected] 




MTC-00004984

From: Eric Pickup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement just postpones the problem until tomorrow. In 
five years, you`ll be back in court for some other violation. 
Settling for a slap on the wrist for the sake of a tiny boost to the 
economy is bad judgement. If this was decided politically you have 
little choice but at least put some teeth in to it. Right now you 
have behavioral remedies that can be easily worked around that in 
the end will have little effect on Microsoft`s business and a 
laughable enforcement mechanism which invites them to ignore the 
settlement. You are doing a disservice to the industry and the 
country. If you want to revitalise the industry you need to allow 
the small and mid-size businesses to survive the displeasure of the 
reigning monopoly_afterall it`s those small businesses that 
are being truly innovative. Microsoft just takes other`s ideas, 
slaps them into a bundle and calls that innovation. If Microsoft 
repeatedly crushes smaller companies, in the end there will be fewer 
and fewer innovators and with no one else to copy Microsoft will 
just stop bundling and then where will we be?
    Eric Pickup



MTC-00004985

From: Ben Rady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I work in the Software industry as a 
developer, and I work with Microsoft products every day. Due to the 
extensive experience I have developed over the years it is my 
opinion that Microsoft would have to do (at least) the following in 
order to be considered non-monopolistic:
    1) Publish all the internal API`s and specifications of their 
products, before or at the time of the release of those products. 
Anything less than full and complete documentation of these 
specifications should result in the loss of any income due to the 
related product.
    2) Terminate and abstain from any licensing agreements that 
prevent or discourage computer manufacturers or re-sellers from 
installing competing products on the systems they sell. Furthermore, 
all licensing agreements with said computer manufacturers/re-sellers 
should be made public. There are many more areas in which I believe 
Microsoft could and should make their business more competitive, but 
these two are the most glaring and any settlement that even pretends 
to look out for the consumer`s interests should include them.
    Thank You,
    Ben Rady
    Houston, TX
    Ben Rady
    [email protected]
    PGP Key available at keyserver.pgp.com



MTC-00004986

From: Steve Stites
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 3:02pm
Subject: Dear Sir,
    Dear Sir,
    There are three remedies that I would like to see included among 
those imposed upon Microsoft. These are:
    1. Permanently allow the hardware vendors offer any operating 
system they chose, or none if they so chose without any coercion 
from Microsoft to use Microsoft`s operating system. During 
Microsoft`s probation period any computer sold with a Microsoft 
operating system must also have a second, non-Microsoft operating 
system installed at Microsoft`s expense. The hardware vendor can 
choose which alternative operating system to install at Microsoft`s 
expense.
    2. Permanently dissallow Microsoft from dictating to a hardware 
vendor what application software will be installed on new computers. 
During the probation period Microsoft must make the source code, 
file formats, etc. for all Microsoft applications available to 
anyone who wants them.
    3. During the probation period Microsoft must adher to all 
Internet standards. Miscrosoft cannot create product differentiation 
on Internet protocols and software. None of the various Microsoft 
Internet applications can be set up to where they will not work with 
rival products as long as the rival products are adhering to the 
standard Internet protocols.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Stites
    GO.com Mail



MTC-00004987

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I am definitely opposed to the current settlements with 
Microsoft neither do I see how the proposed remedy of breaking up 
Microsoft would resolve the issue or help level the playing field. 
What I think should be done is to force Microsoft to separate the 
Windows user interface and the Windows operating system. I know that 
Microsoft claims this is not possible but if they truly can not then 
they have used a very poor program development methodology. Once 
they separate the user interface, they should make the Windows user 
interface available for sale on their major competitor`s operating 
systems and they should allow their competitors to market competing 
user interfaces on the Windows operating system. This would increase 
the competition in both operating systems and user interfaces and 
many third party software vendors would have a better environment in 
which to support their products across multiple operating systems.
    This is a personal opinion and not the official policy of 
Buffalo Rock Company.
    Thanks,
    Jack Rigsby
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00004988

From: Adrian Byng-Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 3:19pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I am a computer programmer and web designer at the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. I should make it clear that the views that 
are presented hear are strictly my own and necessary those of MIT. I 
believe that Microsoft should be more severely sanctioned for its 
anti-competitive behavior. It is important at this time to make sure 
that this behavior does not continue. Perhaps the most effective way 
is to have Microsoft release the source code for its Operating 
Systems (or at least the main core of them). Microsoft has imposed 
itself on 95% of the desktop systems. However it has done so through 
an unfair advantage: its monopolistic network. Releasing operating 
system will help to restore the competitive balance to the market. 
Releasing the source code to the public will open the market in a 
couple of ways. First off, it will ensure that software 
manufacturers are on equal footing with Microsoft. Because 3rd party 
software manufacturers aren`t privy to the inner workings of the MS 
operating systems, they are less able to compete with the Microsoft 
programmers.
    This should not be allowed to continue. Opening the Operating 
System Source will nullify Microsoft`s advantage for developing 
software to run on its own operating system. Microsoft`s software 
will have to compete based on its functionality and performance, not 
on the fact that its programmers get insider information. Releasing 
the source code to the public (vs. just to computer manufacturers) 
will also help to restore competition to the operating system 
market. At this point it is very difficult for an emerging operating 
system to be successful due to Microsoft`s strangle hold on the OS 
market. This is because most software is built around Microsoft 
Windows. Operating systems can only be as popular as the software 
that they support. If one releases a great operating system- it 
might just disappear because there is no word processor or 
spreadsheet for it.
    However, with the Windows source code open, operating systems 
will be better able to emulate Windows and thus run windows 
software. To continue to succeed (or dominate), Microsoft will have 
to prove itself by the quality of its products and service; not just 
its universality. Operating system competition can only benefit 
consumers with better products at more competitive prices.
    Microsoft should also be prohibited from leveraging hardware 
manufacturers and

[[Page 24653]]

computer retailers for a certain amount of time (5 years at least). 
As a preventative measure, I believe that Microsoft should be 
prohibited from penalizing companies that don`t bundle their 
computers with Microsoft software, particularly Windows. This should 
further open up competition in the OS/PC market. A final note should 
be made regarding Microsoft Office. I believe that this is an 
excellent product that has universal appeal.
    However Microsoft has historically used this product to 
unnaturally control the market. Word and Outlook use formats that 
are inherently proprietary so as to prevent users from migrating or 
using other products. Microsoft has consciously stayed away from 
proven, open and universal standards that foster the easy transfer 
of information. Instead they have relied on proprietary/closed 
formats to maintain their dominance. Because Office is so 
universally used in business, this makes it particular difficult for 
a user to use another program. I submit that Microsoft has 
intentionally made it difficult for other programs to open word 
documents or for people to transfer other document formats (such as 
Star Office). This kind of sabotage, known as 
`Breakware', should be illegal. Information should be 
kept in open formats to foster knowledge transfer. Program choice 
should be left up to the user. Right now, If I wrote a program to 
open up a outlook email message file, it would be impossible without 
violating several patents and lice.



MTC-00004989

From: Neufeld, Jonathan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/28/01 3:35pm
Subject: RE: Appropriate Penalties for Microsoft`s Antitrust Law 
Violatio ns
RE: Appropriate Penalties for Microsoft`s Antitrust Law Violations
    The following are the flaws that I see in the `penalties` that 
essentially seem to leave Microsoft better off than they were before 
the trial. I do not see that Microsoft is penalized in any way in 
that there is no separation of integrated software that harms and 
stifles competition to the Microsoft operating system. Further I see 
no provisions for computer manufacturers to be able to offer other 
and more viable operating systems in a fair and price competitive 
atmosphere_essentially nothing has changed. I do not see that 
the proprietary protocols for the operating system, networking and 
other elements are to be made public in order that others may have 
equal opportunity to develop applications in a spirit of healthy 
competition and to encourage innovation. Microsoft appears to be 
allowed to maintain the closed, proprietary and monopolistic systems 
that started this process. Again it appears that nothing has changed 
and it will be business as usual for Microsoft.
    I am perplexed at the current `penalties` being `imposed` on 
Microsoft. They seem to be more of an encouragement for Microsoft to 
continue in the same ways it has been and those are the very same 
ones that brought this issue to the DOJ in the first place. If these 
are implemented as currently stated then fair business practices, 
innovation and competition are DEAD in the computer field.
    If Microsoft`s agreements with computer vendors forced the 
vendor to disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the 
Microsoft products included, it would help consumers choose products 
and vendors that were appropriate to their needs. Microsoft has 
stated concerns that selling computers without operating systems 
equates to software piracy. This assertion is absurd, and has become 
irrelevant with Microsoft`s newest release of Windows XP, which 
requires license activation. Having consumers and end-users with 
more information is clearly in the public interest. All of what is 
suggested here concerns supplying information that enables computer 
users to make informed decisions, and to access their own work on 
their own computer.
    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 to `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 be 
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 domain.
    In order that Microsoft be brought into line and with any hope 
of curbing their horrid business practices, it will take REAL 
penalties and serious oversight. With the obscene amounts of money 
that Microsoft has managed to accumulate through its less than fair 
business practices (to be kind) there is some doubt as to whether 
that can actually be accomplished. It has become quite obvious to 
anyone working in the field that there is no honor or integrity in 
Microsoft, only the search for more money in complete disregard for 
the good of the industry, the users and at this point in time it 
becomes rather blatantly obvious that national security is at risk 
due to the poor quality and serious lack of attention to security 
that is epidemic in their products. That alternatives are few is a 
direct result of the issues that DOJ is supposed to be addressing in 
this matter.
    Microsoft products, by virtue of being a monopoly, have been 
designed without concern for security or reliability. I can prove 
that the design of Microsoft products leads to the spread of 
countless virii in the computer industry. They (Microsoft products) 
are the perfect products to use to send damaging virus from many 
groups like the terrorists from Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, 
Egypt.... And do not imagine that these places have not already done 
damage.
    And it is not only because Microsoft products are in such wide 
use, but the real problem is that the products have been very poorly 
designed. It seems Microsoft has enough money to do the job right, 
so the remaining reasons why the products are so poorly written is 
that there is currently no need to be `best of breed' 
when you are the only option.
    This comments have been quoted from other contributors, and I 
reproduce them here as an indication of my full agreement.
    Jonathan D. Neufeld, Ph.D.
    Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
    UC Davis Department of Psychiatry
    (916) 876-5149 voicemail
    [email protected]



MTC-00004991

From: Jon `maddog` Hall, Executive Director, Linux International
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Data Formats, Open Source Developers 
and
Global Economy
80 Amherst St.
Amherst, NH 03031-3032 USA
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    Your Honor,
    I have been trying valiantly to keep up with the proposals for 
settlement back and forth between Microsoft, the different state 
attorneys and yourself, and I can not find three points that I hope 
have been covered.
    1) In several of the documents I have seen people refer to 
`interfaces' (used in programming and running 
applications) and `protocols' (used in transmitting data 
across networks), but little if anything in the area of `data 
formats', used in the exchange of documents (e.g. the 
`.doc' format used by Microsoft Word). As a barrier to 
entry into a marketplace, the inability of a word processor to read 
documents created by 90% of the marketplaces` word processing people 
(i.e. users of Microsoft Office or other Microsoft products) is very 
detrimental. While products like Corel`s Word Perfect, Applixware 
and Star Office all attempt to read and display Microsoft Office`s 
data formats, often they are not able to decipher the data format, 
and therefore the document interchange is incomplete or wrong. The 
same is true for spreadsheets (Excel) and presentation packages 
(PowerPoint). This tends to be a stopping point for people 
purchasing alternative products. In the past there have been several 
successful products that have created data interchange standards 
that were uniform across vendors because the designer of the 
interchange language documented it and pushed it as a standard. The 
level of documentation that Microsoft has created for their data 
formats does not allow complete transference of all the information 
needed to create, read or write a document with a simular product 
from another vendor. Microsoft should either be forced to document 
the data exchange formats more fully, or make as their product`s 
default data formats one of the standard data exchange formats for 
documentation.
    2) Specification of who has access to Microsoft`s specifications 
and standards In a lot of the documentation around the trial, 
Microsoft is expected to make information available to `ISVs, 
OEMs, ISPs, etc., etc.' However a lot of Open Source 
developers are not part of any of these organizations. For most of 
them, signing a non-disclosure or other type of license is not an 
option, either because of the time consuming aspect of the act, or 
the fact that they would usually want legal advice in signing such a 
non-disclosure, and this is expensive for a person who

[[Page 24654]]

normally receives no financial compensation for their work. I feel 
that any of these interfaces which are available to all of these 
aforementioned groups should be PUBLIC knowledge, openly available 
to ANYONE without license of ANY kind. After all, Microsoft should 
WANT people to use these interfaces, protocols and data exchange 
formats and make them as easy to understand and use as possible. If 
Microsoft complains about the cost of documenting these interfaces, 
protocols and data exchange formats to the extent needed, they 
should be reminded that when a company reaches the size of a 
monopoly these are the natural costs of doing business.
    3) Microsoft is a world-wide company in a global economy. This 
last issue may be harder (or impossible) to impose, but I would like 
to make the problem known. I have traveled to Taiwan, and spoken to 
various members of the educational sector in that country. They have 
told me that Microsoft has been approaching Taiwanese magazine 
owners and threatening to remove all Microsoft and Microsoft-
assisted joint advertising in PC magazines that print articles on 
Linux and Open Source software or run advertising for Linux or Open 
Source products. Since in some magazines Microsoft sponsored 
advertisements cover over 70% of their advertising revenue, these 
magazines are hesitant to have Linux articles or advertisement.
    Similarly, I have been told by Taiwanese motherboard 
manufacturers that Microsoft has been threatening them with raised 
royalty fees on any Microsoft products unless they bundle in 
Microsoft licenses to all of their motherboards, Since a large 
quantity of systems built in the United States have Taiwanese 
motherboards, this means that (in effect) all systems have Microsoft 
operating systems `built in' before they even start to 
enter US jurisdiction. These licenses (and therefore these costs) 
are then passed on to the US companies making end-user products out 
of these motherboards. While I could not verify any of these rumors 
with actual Taiwanese companies, I did hear it from several reliable 
sources. I have also heard of similar instances of intimidation by 
Microsoft from companies in Brazil and Argentina.
    As the strongest economic power in a global economy, the United 
States has a moral obligation to protect companies in other 
countries as we would protect our own, particularly when these 
companies are part of the total manufacturing chain for US-bound 
products. Microsoft should not be allowed to by-pass the judgment 
against them just by moving the affected business outside the United 
States, yet still expect to sell the final product to US citizens.
    Please make sure that these three items are covered in any final 
draft of the agreement. Again, if you have any issue or need any 
clarification in the above areas, please feel free to email or call 
me at (603) 943-6666.
    Warmest regards,
    Jon A. Hall
    Jon `maddog' Hall
    Executive Director
    email: [email protected]
    Voice: +1.603.672.4557
    WWW: http://www.li.org
    Linux International(SM)
    80 Amherst St.
    Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
    Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association
    (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several 
countries.
    (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux 
International, Inc.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00004992

From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 5:09pm
Subject: The DOJ apparently considers this monopoly to be a positive 
outcome.
    CC: [email protected]
    @inetgw
    To whom it may concern, Though I could find no reference to this 
provision in the judgement, information has been widely circulated 
of a gift of software to underprivileged schools. It should be 
obvious to the government that the provision of software to the 
underprivileged by Microsoft, might have been done even without the 
court decision, in the interest of discouraging piracy and the use 
of alternatives, and that the cost of this remedy is insignificant 
to Microsoft. This `remedy' could just as easily be 
written off as a small part of the marketing cost for Windows XP, as 
it in no way penalizes the company. The prohibition against 
retaliation against OEMS for shipping dual-boot systems is very 
weak., as are the provisions concerning `middleware.' In 
any event, The concern with middleware is a red-herring. Why has the 
entire Microsoft Office suite been excluded from the middleware 
definitions?
    That product is the single biggest application platform for 
Microsoft, and one of the chief tools for broadening the monopoly, 
yet it is not touched by the judgment. The limited disclosure 
provisions for source code and file formats does nothing to 
encourage competition from the biggest group that has the potential 
to compete with Microsoft: the free software community. That 
community cannot participate in `limited disclosure' 
schemes, nor distribute the results of work based on those 
agreements.
    The blanket permission to keep security and rights management 
API`s essentially secret, (J. 1.) lays the groundwork for making it 
illegal to produce competitive software. The Department of Justice 
should know that all electronic commerce is predicated on the use of 
such systems, and that this exception amounts to a gift of 
additional market share to the company in markets where they do not 
already dominate, by raising the barrier to entry for competitive 
companies still higher.
    While it is certainly legitimate to keep keys or tokens secret, 
the provision covering authentication mechanisms allows Microsoft to 
divulge essentially nothing about key technologies such as Passport. 
It further will reduce the security of desktops wordwide, by 
allowing Microsoft to rely on `security by obscurity.' 
which is widely discredited in technical circles. As a counter 
example, one need only look to the NSA`s own release of a secured 
operating system (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/). Mechanisms and API`s 
need to be public, in order for them to undergo sufficient scrutiny, 
and provide a level playing field for competitive implementations.
    As for the technical committee, it is inconceivable that 
Microsoft should have any say whatever in who oversees their 
compliance. This makes as much sense as giving a prisoner his choice 
of jailer.
    Taken together, it would appear that the government has decided 
that, in this particular case, a monopoly is good. In order to make 
the monopoly as complete as possible, The government`s remedy 
ensures that no viable alternatives can be legally produced. This is 
a misguided conclusion in countless ways. It takes for granted that 
the current monopoly will continue for the foreseeable future, so 
there is no point in encouraging any competition. It assumes that 
there is no cost to the US economy for the continuation of this 
monopoly, when in reality there is an incalculable cost in lost 
innovation. There is a tacit approval of what will essentially 
become a tax on all citizens, payable to Microsoft, in order to 
function in the digital environment. In fact, every effort must be 
made, not only to forestall the encroachment of monopolists into new 
markets, but to roll them back in markets which they already control 
through the past and current use of illegal tactics.
    Leaving the weakness of the proposed remedy to one side, one has 
to consider what an adequate remedy for this monopolist is. The 
clear answer is to encourage competition to arise, and for the 
monopolist, as a form of reparation, fund the leveling of the 
playing field. There is only one direction to look in to find a 
potential competitor for Microsoft: Free Software. There is a reason 
why Microsoft characterizes free software as cancer. (Steve Ballmer 
http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html) (see 
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/articles/issue12/LU12-ebenmoglen.html, an 
article by Columbia University legal history professor Eben Moglen, 
for a fuller discussion.) Free Software has the potential to compete 
and beat Microsoft, and encourage a more vibrant software and 
hardware industry.
    Current examples of such products are the apache web server, 
which has a larger market share than Microsoft`s own IIS, and is 
immune to the many infections which plagued the Microsoft driven 
portion of the internet this past summer, in spite of the secrecy of 
their current security provisions. All key technologies of the 
internet are public, and allow for different companies to produce 
competitive implementations. Why should the Microsoft Word file 
format (for example) be any different?
    Free Software means simply allowing programmers in thousands of 
companies to co-operate to produce ever better software in a much 
more competitive environment, where the best implementation wins, 
and the others wither and disappear. It is, in no way, an impediment 
to free enterprise or for profit software development. It has 
nothing to do with altruism, but is instead a method of harnessing 
the self interest of vast numbers of technical people, trying to 
help their

[[Page 24655]]

 respective companies innovate. Free Software is about leveling the 
playing field to allow innovation to arise from anywhere. All major 
computer systems vendors, (such as: ibm, sun, dell, hp, compaq, 
intel) both support and benefit from Linux development, for example. 
Innovation can come from any direction, when the environment is open 
to it. It can come from a company that wants to sell cheaper network 
file servers (www.raidzone.com), cheaper internet routers 
(www.snapgear.com) to any hardware device that requires an operating 
system, which can include anything from cellular phones to 
dishwashers.
    All of the products mentioned above can be produced today, based 
on free software technology. If free software withers because of an 
inability to legally produce competitive products, the US economy 
will suffer. A big part of the problem with the Microsoft monopoly 
is the immense chill it puts on any software development project. 
The first barrier is that information required is not available. 
There is invariably a cost associated with obtaining information, if 
it is available at all. The second barrier is finding the 
information (reverse engineering is complicated, costly, and 
includes legal complications beyond the means of small start up 
companies.) The third barrier is the natural cap on the market. 
Since any successful software company, once they achieve a certain 
market presence, will either need to compete with Microsoft in the 
current, steeply tilted environment or be swallowed outright by 
them.
    Currently, products based on Free Software can survive because 
they use IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) standardized 
interactions with other devices, and can leverage their efforts off 
those done in the mainstream desktop free operating system realm. If 
Microsoft is the only source of devices to interact with, and 
knowledge of the protocols is only available at high cost to select 
individuals within large corporations, the pace of innovation will 
be severely constrained, the number of people literate about 
computing devices will be severely limited by the lack of an ability 
to reference others` work in practicing their art. In short, the 
software industry, outside of Microsoft, will be largely limited to 
point-and-click installation of Microsoft applications. It is 
fundamental to realize that the Microsoft monopoly is hurting 
innovation, and sooner or later, that will hurt US competitiveness. 
Combating the harmful effects on the US software (and hardware) 
industry should be the chief object of the remedies.
    Any remedies should take into account the needs of Free Software 
to remain viable. First, there should be full disclosure to the 
public domain of all file formats and networking protocols, as well 
as validation suites, to allow quick and complete implementation of 
competitive products. For example, there should be a collection of 
reference word documents, which, taken together, exercise all of the 
features of the format, such that an implementer can have 
confidence, that should Microsoft Word work differently with a given 
file than a competitive suite which successfully interacts with the 
reference documents, then it is a bug, and must be remedied in a 
timely manner (IE. either Word must be changed to conform, or the 
reference documents improved to include the missing functionality.) 
While the cost of maintaining that information should be borne by 
Microsoft in perpetuity, given the inherent conflict of interest, it 
would be best if it were maintained by a third party.
    Second, there should be a ban on the bundling of an operating 
system with the sale of a desktop computer. Buyers should have to 
make the choice to explicitly purchase software (which could be 
packaged on a CDROM `recovery disk', such that the 
installation only requires a few clicks.) The cost of software needs 
to be indicated separately from the hardware. Buyers will then know 
what the software costs, and have the choice of purchasing or using 
alternatives. Third, the remedies should not do anything to further 
extend Microsoft`s monopoly, but should instead encourage 
competition. In that direction, Microsoft should provide funding for 
other parties to provide Free Software alternatives, including 
technical consulting and ongoing support for five years) to the 
under privileged, so that the institutions have a chance of being 
free of Microsoft software by the end of that period.
    In summary, the remedy proposed is a counter-productive 
encouragement to Microsoft to not only continue their unbridled 
monopolistic practices but expand it into other markets, and 
constitutes a government stamp of approval on those practices. 
Proper remedies should aim at reducing the harmful effects of the 
Microsoft monopoly, and encouraging competitors to arise. I hope the 
Department will take these concerns, spoken by a neighbor who knows 
the impact of this case will be worldwide, to heart. Thank you.
    Peter Silva,
    (a concerned Canadian)



MTC-00004993

From: Christian BAYER
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general 
@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 12/28/01 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Hello,
    In my opinion the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust 
case is absolutely absurd. The Microsoft Corporation has abused it`s 
monopolistic position in a severe manner. The actions of the company 
have greatly harmed consumers and businesses by suppressing 
competitive and innovative products, many of superior quality to 
Microsoft`s offerings. The proposed settlement does nothing to 
curtail the illegal practices of the Microsoft Corporation, nor is 
it a punishment fitting with the crime. The donation of Microsoft 
Software to schools is a twisted and downright sick idea. I suggest 
the settlement be changed to a simple fine for about 20 billion 
dollars. Some of the funds should be used to finance a new lawsuit 
against Microsoft for it`s Windows XP product. It is my sincere wish 
that the judicial system perform it`s function of enforcing 
legislation and providing suitable punishment for crimes. If the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft case prevails, it will 
effectively place the corporation above the law.
    Thank you,
    Christian Bayer



MTC-00004996

From: Ann Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/28/01 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    I am a home user of Microsoft Windows operating systems. Working 
with these systems can be a nightmare, even for those of us who have 
been using computers for about 25 years. We recently purchased a new 
piece of hardware for our home network. We got an antenna that hooks 
us to an ethernet card for high speed wireless internet access. 
Living in a rural area, our choices broadband choices were limited. 
The hardware installation went without a hitch, but the installation 
and configuration of the drivers and software have been a week long 
nightmare.
    We were using one of Microsoft`s `home' versions of 
operating systems. It baffles me why Microsoft seems to think that a 
home user would some how need less of an operating system than a 
business would, especially since businesses have support people 
available to help when problems arise. The Windows ME we have been 
using for about a year and a half of frustration and dreaded blue 
screens, hung up and destabilized during the installation of the 
network software. During the time we have used this system software, 
it has been a struggle to install even the simplest program on the 
computer and get it working- much less keep it working. This time, 
not only was the system unable to install the new software, but it 
became unable to manage normal operation. (This same software later 
installed without any problems on the professional Windows 2000 
system)
    The system became so corrupted that we were completely unable to 
restore it from the original, licensed installation disk. I went to 
the OfficeMax to purchase a better operating system, Windows 2000. 
The young man at the store insisted that even though the box clearly 
stated that the version I was buying would upgrade from Windows 98, 
it would not do so, but would only upgrade from Windows NT. I 
pointed out to him that if necessary I could format my hard drive 
and reinstall Windows 98, if it wouldn`t work with Windows ME. He 
insisted that I should continue to use the Windows ME, until the 
hardware drivers I required became available for Windows XP home 
version. That was out of the question, since it was non-functional, 
and couldn`t be repaired by its original disk.
    He insisted that I had no business purchasing the Windows 2000 
software, because it was designed for business, not home use. 
Apparently he had been trained to believe that home users are not 
entitled to stable and secure operating systems. He made his 
judgment of what I needed for my computer not by asking me how I use 
my computer, but by looking at me and determining that I am a middle 
aged woman.
    When I mentioned that I might format the hard drive, he began a 
speech about how that would be horribly expensive and require the

[[Page 24656]]

installation of a new motherboard. Clearly this was a misconception 
(big fat lie) on his part, which I pointed out to him. Reformatting 
and rebuilding a computer from scratch is tedious, but does not 
require a new motherboard. After all, my husband had found it 
necessary to do this procedure three times since we 
`upgraded' from Windows 98 to the software that 
Microsoft felt would be `good enough' for home users. 
Formatting erases all information on the hard drive, including 
system, programs and files. We have lost our work, many hours of our 
time required to reinstall and configure every program we have, and 
have also lost program upgrades that proved to be no longer 
available at the time we had to format, requiring the purchase of 
new software to replace a perfectly good program. I have used 
Macintosh computers and system software for 15 years without going 
through all this even once.
    I feel that my family has been harmed by the monopolistic hold 
that Microsoft has on the computer industry because for all 
practical purposes, our choice of operating systems has been limited 
to one company`s product, which has proven, at least in the 
`home' versions, to have been a shoddy piece of work 
engendering anger and frustration whenever we try to use it. Many 
software functions, especially in regard to internet and networking 
use, are only available for Windows computers_the programmers 
simply don`t write versions for other operating systems.
    We have been victimized by this company which has made its own 
decisions about our needs without consulting us, and then has 
trained technicians all over the country to force these inferior and 
non-functional products upon us, and to `baffle us with you-
know-what' in the process. I am a very experienced user, and 
was able to stand my ground with the young technician, though I had 
to become loud and obnoxious before he was willing to  
me to purchase the Windows 2000 product, which I did as he grumbled 
away. I was not interested in any more inferior `home' 
versions of this software, and I was very much aware of when he 
crossed over the line of giving an honest opinion. Another person, 
less experienced than I, could easily have fallen for this 
Microsoft-trained jerk`s confabulations, and could have ended up 
forking over a large sum of money to fix a problem that was entirely 
caused by the slap dash quality of the system software that 
Microsoft has determined was ready for release to the 
`home' user.
    Not only has Microsoft put a strangle hold on the software 
industry itself, but it is also well on its way to putting that same 
vise like grip over everyone who uses their product by means of its 
proprietary training programs, which include, in my experience, 
training in the same patronizing and demeaning attitude that this 
young man displayed. Just because a person is able to pass a test 
based on rote memorization does not mean that they have any 
particular ability to make computers function properly, and from 
what I have experienced, they are quite likely to inflate their 
income by fixing things that are not broken, or by randomly 
installing parts until they accidentally replace what was 
broken_while not really ever understanding what went wrong. In 
addition to that, there were no clear instructions anywhere on the 
Microsoft website, nor in the help files about how to configure the 
Windows software to work with this network arrangement- which was 
not a particularly complicated one. I was finally able to find 
instructions at a website called http://
www.annoyances.org_which is a revealing choice of titles, I 
think.
    I would point out that if I had suffered this much trouble with 
a brand of car_I would buy a different brand, wouldn`t I? I 
would have that choice, wouldn`t I? If a car manufacturer trained 
its service people to be universally rude and demeaning, one would 
simply deal with a different manufacturer, right?
    Apple Computer, as a sharp contrast, has only one set of system 
software_both for home and for business use. The newest 
system, OS X, only costs $120 for the full professional version. 
Windows 2000 cost me $199 for the upgrade version. The full version 
was $269. There is no possible way that Windows 2000 is worth almost 
three times as much as an operating system than OS X.
    Only in an atmosphere of monopoly could this company inflate its 
prices to three times that of its competitors, sell a crushingly 
inferior product, and not be beat to the ground by the normal forces 
of fair competition.
    I hope that the Department of Justice will examine the business 
tactics of Microsoft very closely_not only as they take 
advantage of their competitors, but also in how they use their 
monopolistic position to take advantage of their customer base as 
well. In a fair, competitive market, I should have had the choice to 
use someone else`s product if I was unhappy with Microsoft`s work, 
shouldn`t I? In reality, there is no choice.
    Sincerely,
    Ann Evans
    Citizen and Voter



MTC-00004998

From: Scott Sayre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 4:51am
Subject: U.S. vs. Microsoft
    As a period for public comments in the above case has been 
allotted, the following are my views: Microsoft Is a Monopolist. 
Once the Windows operating system (OS) became the dominant platform 
for computing, Microsoft clearly used its position to bully IBM, to 
coerce PC clone manufacturers, to dictate to Apple, to stifle 
Netscape, etc., subsidizing it`s efforts with the windfall profits 
from it`s OS. This is clear to the most casual observer, as it was 
to Judge Jackson, and the Court of Appeals. On-Going Monopolist 
Behavior.
    In the absence of a swift penalty, Microsoft continues to flout 
its monopoly position. It`s most recent OS, Windows XP, has 
integrated even more software, including an internet browser, 
messenging, e-mail, photo, and video functions, all offered for 
free, virtually eliminating the possibility for real competition in 
these areas. Windows continues to be plagued almost daily with 
security flaws, viruses, and other bugs, yet the structural barriers 
to competition insulate Microsoft from acting seriously on these 
critical issues. Apple Computer and the Linux distributors, for 
example, cannot move against the enormous inertia of the Wintel 
marketplace. In order to win in such an environment, competing 
products must be not just good, but massively superior, a nearly 
impossible task for small companies to accomplish at the OS level.
    The Public Interest Has Been Damaged Microsoft has argued that 
it is the dominant software purveyor simply because the public 
prefers it`s work. Yet courtroom testimony has demonstrated a 
persistent pattern over the past ten years of using threats and 
intimidation to secure a position for Microsoft products, by 
bundling additional software, usually for free, with Windows, rather 
than through open and free competition. The demise of Netscape`s 
browser and Corel`s WordPerfect are the two most obvious examples. 
Microsoft is pursuing a similar strategy against Real, Intuit, and 
numerous others at this moment. Clearly, the public would be better 
served by real choice. An Appropriate Punishment.
    The change of administration has apparently caused the Justice 
Deparment and a number of States to shrink from seeking a 
substantial penalty, something more firm than the toothless consent 
decree issued in a previous judgment several years ago. However, the 
remaining nine states are exactly right to pursue severe sanctions, 
preferably ones that do not need on-going supervision to succeed. 
Here are some suggestions:
    1) The PC manufacturing community must be freed from some of the 
most onerous provisions of their agreements with Microsoft to use 
Windows, such as paying a license fee even for computers sold 
without any OS, or some other OS, pre-installed.
    2) Windows must be compartmentalized, so that the PC 
manufacturers, and the general public, have the ability to freely 
chose which browser, messenger, e-mail, etc., software they want to 
install. Microsoft has fretted publicly that these items are merely 
`features' of their OS, and are not separable, but this 
is clearly a dodge, a device to avoid putting their software up for 
competition on an equal footing. Dividing Microsoft into pieces is 
the only certain way to accomplish this. Supervision by any select 
group will most likely be evaded, as has happened before.
    3) The API`s, or hooks by which third party software companies 
link their work to Windows, must be made entirely public. It is 
common knowledge that Microsoft creates hidden API`s, known only to 
its employees, for use with it`s other software products, giving 
it`s own work tremendous advantages over that of competing firms.
    4) Some punitive monetary damages should be assessed, to strip 
the company of some of the huge economic power it wields to absorb 
emerging technologies and subvert industry standards. This could be 
given to the U.S. government as a fine, or as rebates to purchasers 
of Windows, or both.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Scott G. Sayre
    Arcadia, California

[[Page 24657]]



MTC-00004999

From: Sean S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I just wanted to offer my opinion regarding the proposed 
settlements of the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I think the DOJ offer is in no way satisfactory. It does little 
to punish Microsoft for past illegal activity. The dollar value of 
the proposed contribution to schools is a paltry sum for Microsoft, 
it won`t actually cost them anywhere near the claimed value, and it 
could entrench Microsoft in one of the few markets (education) where 
other computing options (Apple, Linux) still have a chance of 
competing. The DOJ settlement offer also does nothing to prohibit 
Microsoft from continuing their past behaviors_no penalties 
for further illegal behavior are outlined.
    The proposal from the six states who rejected the DOJ proposal 
is much better. This proposal requires Microsoft to release source 
code for some of their applications, which will open up competition 
and remove some of the competitive edge Microsoft enjoys from owning 
the operating system. It requires Microsoft to sell a version of 
Windows that does not have bundled applications. It prohibits 
Microsoft from retaliating against vendors or developers for 
providing non-Microsoft software with systems or developing for non-
Microsoft platforms. The proposal also has teeth_there are 
very specific penalties outlined for breaches of the agreement.
    I strongly urge the DOJ to abandon its proposed settlement, and 
adopt the settlement offer of the six states.
    Sean Sawtell



MTC-00005000

From: RNG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 11:17am
Subject: Comment on proposed Microsoft settlement
    Let me first clearly state that I am not a US citizen. While 
this may disqualify me from truly participating in the public 
comment period, I wish to voice my opionons on this matter for 
simple reason that in our globalized economy any action taken by the 
US government will have profound implications on the state of the IT 
industry world-wide. To put my comments into perspective: I am a 
computer/programming professional with a degree from a respected US 
university and 10+ years of industry .experience. I have worked for 
(major) US software firms in development, support and various 
consulting roles.
    First of all, it is beyond my understanding why the US 
government would want to accept the proposed settlement after having 
succeeded in getting the court system to declare Microsoft a 
monopoly which has (in the past) abused it`s market position to 
further it`s own ends. The current settlement does very little to 
`fix` the issue which caused the current situation in the first 
place.
    In my opinion, any settlement should include the following:
    1) Microsoft should be prevented from using Windows licencing as 
a means of coercing hardware vendors from not offering to pre-
install alternative operating systems. The ability of a vendor to 
obtain a windows licence from Microsoft must be unencumbered: the 
same contract terms should be granted all Windows licencees, 
regardless of their size and any other discretionary factors.
    2) Microsoft should be forced to document all file formats used 
by it`s applications (such as the MSOffice suite) to allow 3rd 
parties to develop document reading/authoring capabilities with 
regards to Microsoft application file formats. This documentation 
should be available to all interested parties for free (which 
includes the open source community).
    3) Microsoft should be forced to document all network protocols 
in order to allow 3rd parties to develop dependable 
interoperability. This documentation should be available to all 
interested parties for free (which includes the open source 
community).
    4) Microsoft must be prevented from further integrating external 
components into the operating system. There are no fundamental 
technical reasons for doing this; it only serves to cement the 
stranglehold they currently have over the industry. There is nothing 
wrong with integrating more components into and operating system, 
but when a monopoly with limitless funds does so (and gives the 
products away as part of the Operating System), the consequences are 
far more damaging and far-reaching than when a `normal` company does 
so. In fact, it could be said that Microsoft destroyed the market 
for web browsers: since Internet Exploer is (in essence) free, there 
is no incetive for other companies to continue development and 
marketing of another browser; most people will not buy it since 
Internet Exploere is available for free.
    Lastly, I believe that Microsoft has shown that it is willing to 
undermine past consent decrees by carefully exploiting ambiguities. 
Any settlement put forth should be devoid of such ambiguities and 
amount to more than a `slap on the wrist`; any remedies should be 
clear, strict and painful. Microsoft has never entertained the 
notion of competing on equal ground and will not do so until the US 
government forces it to do just this. They are an entrenched 
monopoly fighting to keep their grip on the IT sector. What is at 
stake is nothing less than the openness of the IT industry, the long 
term competitiveness of the US software industry and competition in 
the operating systems and applications markets.
    Respectfully
    Robert Gasch
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005001

From: Ron Nath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 11:37am
Subject: Concerns regarding the US DOJ settlement with Microsoft 
Corp
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to submit my concerns and thoughts regarding the 
recent settlement with MS corp. I do not believe that the settlement 
as it stands is in the publics best interest.
    MS has been found to be a monopoly in the operating systems 
arena. To restore balance in this area, the government needs to take 
much more aggressive steps. I would go so far as to suggest that the 
company should have been broken up not in two, but into 5 parts 
(Commercial/business OS, Home OS, Commercial apps, Home apps, and 
internet services). However, as this will not happen we need to do 
the next best things:
    1. Require that the OS be `unbundled' from hardware 
such that users can see the cost of proprietary operating systems 
vs. open/free software alternatives.
    2. Require MS to open source its OS code to all those who 
purchase it.
    3. Require MS to port ALL its apps to alternative operating 
systems (Linux, the BSDs, Mac OS X, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX) to 
`level the playing field'
    4. Require MS to license its OS code to others who could sell 
various `versions' of the OS, ie having different apps 
added on by default (AOL/Netscape Windows, IBM Windows, Oracle 
Windows, Red Hat Windows containing open source apps running on top 
of core windos os, etc.)
    5. Require MS to sell a lower cost version of its OS that is 
devoid of all `bundled' apps, ie Internet Explorer, 
Windows Media Player, IIS, instant messenger, Passport, Outlook 
Express, etc. Beyond that, the government needs to take its own 
steps to encourage adoption of open source systems and apps (Linux, 
BSDs, MySQL/PostgreSQL, OpenOffice, etc.) as an alternative to 
current costly commercial/proprietary systems. This should be at all 
levels of government_Federal, state, local, all public 
schools, etc.
    By requiring that all purchases of commercial software must be 
justified when an equivalent open source solution exists (much like 
generic drug substitution for brand name drugs) we could save tax 
payers an enourmous amount of money. More tax breaks would make the 
current government look even better in the eyes of the voters.
    I hope you will consider these suggestions in light of the 
remaining 9 states who have not `caved in' to the might 
of Microsoft who is basically holding the government hostage. Its 
frightening to think that one corporation wields this much influence 
and power over what is considered the most powerful country in the 
free world. We must take the above steps to change this horrid 
situation.
    Thank you for your time and interest in my thoughts.
    Ron Nath
    Wolcott, CT.



MTC-00005002

From: Hubert Daugherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good day,
    Please modify the language of Section III(J)(2) to insure that 
Microsoft must share protocols used over the Internet with ALL 
organized programing communities. The substitution of the 
description `organized programing communities' instead 
of just commercial entities would allow both for-profit commercial 
and non-profit open source projects to compete for the 
interconnected

[[Page 24658]]

future of our society. The changes in descriptive terms should apply 
to Section III(D) as well. Competition is a good thing, but it 
should include all of the innovative elements in our society, not 
just Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time and consideration,
    Hubert Daugherty
    Hubert Daugherty Rice University/Rice Multimedia and Edupop 
Project
    [email protected] (713) 348-4035 Fax (713) 348-6099
    insight + planning + funding + participation + documentation = 
creation
    CC:Hubert Daugherty



MTC-00005003

From: Russ Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 12:03pm
Subject: My thougts on the US vs. Microsoft Case
    I am a developer who for the past ten years has benefited 
financially from developing applications using Microsoft products. 
My income came mostly from developing software solutions using 
Microsoft development tools. I have however experienced many 
frustrations when attempting to give my customers what I consider 
the best solution and not just the Microsoft solution. I would 
dearly love to be able to suggest to my customers solutions that 
fulfill the users needs from Open Source or Microsoft. However, the 
largest obstacle preventing me from doing so is kept secret by 
Microsoft. Many of the projects I worked on, experienced limitations 
when we were unable to `look under the hood' and 
understand how a particular protocol or file format was created. To 
be more precise, network protocols, and the layout of Microsoft`s 
Office files are a secret. If these protocols and file formats were 
published, then I would be able to suggest the best solution, 
whether it was Microsoft or another company`s product. I ask that 
Microsoft be forced to publish these protocols with all detail.
    I also see that the new .Net technology touted by Microsoft has 
the potential to monopolize large portions of the web. Users who do 
not want or have Microsoft products will be cut off from using 
portions of the web built on .Net technology. I ask the court to 
prevent this extension of the Microsoft monopoly by forcing 
microsoft to disclose and publish all protocols and formats to be 
used with this technology so that the monopoly will not extend 
further into the web.
    On a separate note, I understand that Microsoft may be forced to 
give hardware and software for use in underprivileged inner city 
schools. I believe that this would only benefit Microsoft and enable 
the extension of their monopoly. It will benefit Microsoft of 
another generation of students grow up to think that the only 
solution is Microsoft. I suggest instead that a trust be set up from 
the fines that Microsoft must pay and that the monies be used to 
purchase the best solution for the need. Again, the point being to 
meet the needs of the consumer and not limit their choices.
    Regards
    Russell Wright



MTC-00005004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 12:02pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Corp. Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
    This is not a legal memorandum. As an elder member of the 
computing community, I bring to this commentary 45 years of 
experience.
    My education and practical experience with computers and their 
software began in 1956. My age (70) and health have slowed me down a 
bit, but I am still a licensed electrical engineer and CPA. I, and 
the companies I work for, are users of Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle 
products. In the past, Sun Microsystems has been a source of 
hardware and software. My experience with IBM dates back to 1956.
    During that 45-year period, I have seen many companies enter and 
leave the computer industry. Ultimately, the companies that remain 
do so because users perceive VALUE in their products. I see little 
practical difference in the business practices of Microsoft, IBM, 
Oracle and Sun. If anything, Microsoft and IBM do a better job of 
supplying the needs of the small businesses that I am associated 
with. Two examples follow: First, I regularly receive notices of 
free and low-cost education from Microsoft. Second, IBM (through 
American Express) offers quality hardware at very attractive prices. 
In contrast: Although I have been an Oracle customer for years, I 
rarely hear anything from them_and special offers of products 
and education are rarely included. Sun Microsystems treats us like 
we don`t exist!
    Why do I mention IBM, Oracle and Sun in this commentary? After 
all, Microsoft is on trial here. I do mention these companies 
because they, directly and indirectly, have financed the anti-
settlement campaign in at least a dozen States of the Union. I don`t 
think that the DOJ Antitrust Division should become further involved 
in what is really bitter personal rivalries between top executives 
of the above four companies. That is not in the public interest.
    In conclusion, I support the proposed Settlement. It is time to 
move on to other issues.
    Robert John Lambird, PE, CPA



MTC-00005005

From: Tedd Potts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 12:51pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    The proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is flawed 
because it does not recognize Microsoft`s property rights. In fact 
it presupposes that society has the right to the property of 
Microsoft and it is simply a matter of compromise to determine how 
much of its property Microsoft should retain. Microsoft is 
`guilty' simply because it has too many customers. If 
customers had chosen either IBM`s of Apple`s operating system then 
Microsoft would be `innocent'. Microsoft negotiated with 
the DOJ under the threat of physical force, so the proposed 
settlement should be scrapped and Microsoft should be compensated by 
the Federal government for its legal costs.
    Tedd Potts
    President
    Heartland Chevrolet, Inc.
    Liberty, MO



MTC-00005008

From: Chuck Weitzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft`s monopoly on Operating Systems
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing this as a concerned citizen, one who is forced to 
use the Windows Operating System of the Microsoft Corporation. There 
is no real competition for this system due to the influence of 
Microsoft. I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed to 
remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been found 
guilty. The company has been found in violation, and this is 
supposed to be the penalty phase of the case. It appears to me that 
the settlement contains no penalties and in fact seems to actually 
advances Microsoft`s operating system monopoly.
    I would suggest that it would be a step in the right direction 
in preventing a continuation of Microsoft`s monopoly that Microsoft 
products should be an extra-cost option in the purchase of new 
computers. This would permit the user who does not wish to purchase 
Ms (Microsoft) products to have a choice and not be forced to 
purchase MS operating systems. This would mean that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, would clearly be a choice the customer could make. That 
would truly be market place competition in a meaningful way.
    Also, 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 which at this time it nearly has done. This case is of 
paramount interest to the United States as a nation as well as us 
individual consumers as the Judge in this case has suggested. 
Microsoft needs to be reigned in and others permitted fair 
competition in the pursuit of continued advancement in the computer 
world.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Charles H. Weitzel



MTC-00005009

From: Leon Mintz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 4:51pm
Subject: Comments on proposed settlement
    I`ve been programming since the early days of personal computers 
and I have watched Microsoft` tactics since the beginning of Dos. 
They have always used the revenues from their operating system 
monopoly to put their competitors out of business by either buying 
them under threat to put them out of business by selling a competing 
product at

[[Page 24659]]

artificially low prices or by gradually copying the best features of 
competitor`s programs. In my opinion they have always been more 
interested in eliminating competition than in producing reliable 
programs. Their programs are always the `buggiest', 
especially their operating systems.
    In the early days, when IBM was paying them to participate in a 
joint program to develop the OS2 operating system, Microsoft 
secretly stopped signiificant work on OS2 and started to work on 
Windows. OS2 is a superior and much more reliable system than 
Windows, but even IBM could not overcame MS`s monopoly.
    All of these comments are my own opinions as an observer of the 
personal computer history and I cannot supply any information useful 
in court. It is also my opinion that laywers and judges, with rare 
exceptions, do not have the necessary knowledge to understand how MS 
undermines and eliminates competition. I have no doubt that they 
will quickly emasculate the proposed settlement. They should be 
broken into at least three companies to have a chance of bringing 
competion back into the industry.
    Thank you for your attention.



MTC-00005010

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Serious Problems with the PFJ
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally;
    I am neither an employee or major shareholder of Microsoft, Sun, 
AOL, Oracle or any of the other major participants in the long-
running Microsoft antitrust battle. But I am a software executive 
that over the past 10 years has run and sat on the Boards of a 
variety of small and medium sized companies that have partnered with 
all of the above.
    Over the past 6-12 months many of my fellow CEO`s are 
laboring under the triple whammy of a terrible tech economy, the 
necessity of overseeing layoffs in their own companies and the 
virtual shutting down of capital markets. As a result, many of us, 
including myself, have taken little or no time to study the PFJ. 
Then of course there are many of us who have been beaten by 
Microsoft before_and are now afraid to be yet again 
`Redmond Roadkill` '_and so are willing to accept 
whatever decision our government comes to.
    However, over the holidays I decided to take the time to 
actually review the PFJ and study its probable implications for our 
industry. And that is why I am now writing. I am shocked at the fact 
that our DoJ has apparently decided to give Microsoft not only a 
free pass on its long-standing monopolistic practices (the Appellate 
court`s finding certainly came as no surprise to anyone here in 
Silicon Valley)_but also that the basic go-forward agreement 
is almost completely lacking in any real restraints.
    I`m sure I don`t have to go into detail for you on the numerous 
loopholes and almost complete failure of the PFJ to actually ensure 
anything like a level playing field for current or future Microsoft 
competitors. Leaving it up to Microsoft to determine which company, 
if any, is `viable'_or to allow them to 
`bolt' important new software to their OS_are just 
two examples of the ridiculous nature of much of what the PFJ holds 
out as `remedies'. The PFJ truly leaves the proverbial 
fox to guard the ever shrinking henhouse.
    The PFJ is not just a potential disaster for all non-Microsoft 
supporters_ it is a potential death knell for one of our 
country`s most dynamic and powerful job creators and export 
industries. It is clearly a long-term blow to all software consumers 
and users. And it is a travesty for all who believe in the free 
market and the power of competition to drive simultaneous product 
innovation, job-creation and cost-reduction. . .the true 
brilliance of the American economy. Finally, it sends the wrong 
signal to every company that may be able to establish a defacto 
monopoly in any field_that illegal activities will not be 
pursued diligently and penalized.
    Judge Kollar-Kotally: please use you power under the Tunney Act 
to send this back-room deal back to the DoJ for a complete overhaul. 
Or at least remedy those portions of it (and it appears to me as a 
layman that there are many) that are completely ineffectual if not 
downright harmful to our industry and our country.
    Out of respect for your greater knowledge in this general area I 
have endeavored to keep this note short. But please feel free to 
contact me directly if you have any questions on any of these 
points. . .or any others. I am sure that I speak for 
hundreds_if not thousands_of my fellow independant 
software executives in voicing my deep concern with the PFJ as it 
now stands.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Gregory Slayton
    Palo Alto, CA
    cell: 650-906-0155
    CC:[email protected]@inetg
w



MTC-00005011

From: Thomas L. Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 4:58pm
Subject: Penality Phase
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Microsoft was found to have violated US law. The remedies that 
have been shared with the public fall short of what is needed to 
correct the situation and redress the damage done by Microsoft`s 
unlawful activities. Indeed, the penalties seem to have been 
designed by Microsoft`s own brilliant marketing department. If the 
these one-sided `remedies' stand, it will undermine the 
government as a force for fairness and justice. With what is going 
on in the world today, this is not the time for the Department of 
Justice to undermine the perception of the United States as a fair 
and just country.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas L. Wood



MTC-00005012

From: Randall Edick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 5:07pm
Subject: In the interest of small commercial software developers
    Having a standard platform worldwide is beneficial to small 
commercial developers everywhere. This standard allows one to write, 
test and distribute worldwide ones work. It is ESSENTIAL to small 
software developers everywhere to keep this standard alive.
    Do what you will to stop illegal practices but DON`T damage the 
infrastructure.
    Randall Edick
    Thin-Walled Structures Software
    [email protected]



MTC-00005013

From: David Thompson (LC-DS)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 5:22pm
Subject: MS Antitrust Suit Settlement is fair
    Judge Jackson erred grievously in the early going when he 
defined the entire market for operating systems as Intel_based 
systems only. By his logic, Apple has a predatory monopoly on 
Motorola based systems; Sun has a predatory monopoly on Sparc based 
systems, etc.
    The settlement as proposed is fair, and on a par with the actual 
wrongdoing MS has been found guilty of. The alternative settlement 
proposals go far, far, beyond the revised findings of the appellate 
court. Some of these alternate proposals would force the company to 
create software for other, non Intel platforms against its will. 
This is completely against the foundations of our capitalist 
society.
    David Thompson
    Microsoft Platform Support
    LC Professional Directory Services Team



MTC-00005014

From: a brody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 5:31pm
Subject: My feelings on the Microsoft Monopoly
    Your honor,
    I agree with the judges before who have claimed that Microsoft 
has maintained a monopoly. By maintaining a monopoly they violate 
the Sherman Act, and current remedies do nothing to solve the 
monopoly. Any remedy that lets Microsoft get away with less than 
losing half their value for practicing this monopoly, and doesn`t 
let other operating systems to prosper in the face of Microsoft does 
not do justice for America. Microsoft has gained a 95% market share 
on all computers today, and even on the 5% is allowed to produce the 
only Office software package for business, namely their Microsoft 
Office. Their Internet Explorer Browser even on the Macintosh 
platform is the default browser because they bullied web developers 
into supporting standards that Netscape and other browser developers 
can`t develop for because of plugins and standards specific to 
Internet Explorer, Microsoft`s web browser. Microsoft has corrupted 
a standard developed by Netscape by not supporting some of the 
Netscape standards, and introducing some of their own, by making 
Javascript into their own JScript standard. A look 
at_Javascript the Definitive Guide_ by David Flannagan 
(ISBN 1-56592-392-8, O`Reilly Publishing, 1998) 
page 4 will reveal that there are 2 Javascript 1.2 standards, one 
for Netscape, and one for Internet Explorer. Pages 417-749 
will show just how divergent these standards can get in Javascript 
1.2.

[[Page 24660]]

    They have gone as far as to remove Java from their latest 
operating system, Windows XP. Java was the last hope to make an 
independent system for internet browsing that doesn`t depend on 
platform. Now with Microsoft no longer installing Java, the home 
user will have to download it for themselves if they want to. Most 
do not know how to do this. They must continue to install Java by 
default. They also should conform to the same Java standards Sun 
Microsystems has created by making their Java standard. In numerous 
cases they don`t and when they don`t it makes internet developers 
write Java code that doesn`t work on all browsers. If you were to 
join http://chat.yahoo.com/ on Apple Computer`s Mac OS X with 
Internet Explorer you get a Java error. Yet on Internet Explorer on 
a Windows system it works just fine. Internet Explorer for Mac OS 9 
is able to join that chatroom without a problem. Why does this 
happen? Consistant standards even on the standard creating platform 
haven`t been set by a variety of Javas on the market. Microsoft made 
their own Java Virtual Machine (or engine) for their own Windows 
browsers that accepts its own code in conjunction with ActiveX. 
ActiveX is a Microsoft standard which has not been ported over 
completely to other platforms. This is a monopolistic practice since 
it forces people to use their operating system if they want to be 
compatible with the web.
    To make matters worse, Microsoft`s monopolistic practices have 
exposed businesses to numerous computer viruses by their being such 
a big target, and having closed source code. Holes in their database 
engine have been reported exposing numerous internet databases to 
potential viruses have been reported on:
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/12/27/sql.holes.idg/
index.html
    And their Windows XP operating system which was billed their 
most secure system ever, now is found to have a serious hole letting 
any hacker take control of their system by the FBI on:
    http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=621579
    That`s two serious security holes in one week exposing 95% of 
the internet population to potential data damage because Microsoft 
has not opened their source code to developers to find the holes 
before the operating system hits the streets. If the had done that, 
most likely these holes would have been found and plugged before the 
public had to worry about them. And how many of those members of the 
public will read those two news stories and know how to plug the 
holes themselves. Microsoft should offer free CDs to update the 
operating system with security patches. By making themselves 95% of 
the market, more hackers have found the holes in their operating 
system and exploited them as opposed to other operating systems by a 
ratio of 50,000 to one. The bigger you are, the harder you fall. 
You`ve probably heard of Code Red, Melissa, and NIMDA viruses. They 
have cost industry billions. Yet Microsoft does not pay?
    Each of those viruses did not affect Apple Macintosh or Linux 
systems, but did affect Microsoft based systems exclusively. All we 
ask is you make remedies that make Microsoft no more than 50% of the 
market in operating systems, office applications, and web browsers.
    Microsoft should pay developers to make competing software in 
each of these fields, and not get money back for those payments. 
That`s the only way to balance the computer market. Making Microsoft 
pay schools $1 billion is a drop in the bucket, especially when it 
will be Microsoft`s software the current agreement is calling for 
schools to buy. In fact that $1 billion should not be forwarded to 
any Microsoft software. It should only be used to rebuild schools 
and the rebuilding should go to hiring new teachers, and buying 
books for schools that need them. And it really should be more like 
$50 billion. If you are going to make a monetary punishment, make it 
cash with the allowance it will not be payed on computing. Unless 
the computing it is used to pay for is a non-Microsoft system. Apple 
Macintosh has been the system of choice for schools, and is cross 
platform, and now is more compatible to other computers than even 
Microsoft thanks to http://www.connectix.com/ VirtualPC software. An 
Apple Macintosh can run 12 operating systems simultaneously thanks 
to this. A website called http://www.macwindows.com/ devotes its 
efforts to finding additional crossplatform solutions. To help in 
the migration of people away from Microsoft these solutions should 
be considered to ease the migration so it is less painful.
    Additional reasons to not let Microsoft be the soll provider of 
operating systems is that it costs more to maintain than any other. 
A very good report here explains the cost benefits of not using 
Microsoft based software exclusively:
    http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html
    As you can see if people saw Apple Macintosh as an alternative, 
which it really is to running Microsoft based software applications 
and operating systems, then Microsoft`s monopoly would weaken to the 
point that it wouldn`t hurt the market anymore. It wouldn`t cause 
the lack of software development to proceed. It is time to encourage 
a crossplatform world. It is time make Microsoft no longer the rule 
in software.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Abraham Brody



MTC-00005015

From: John C. Glasgow II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I object to the Microsoft settlement. Microsoft, agreeing to 
distribute their operating system free of charge to underprivileged 
schools, costs them little, and amounts to a government sanctioned 
promotion of Microsoft`s operating system in one of the very few 
sectors in which Microsoft does not enjoy an operating system 
monopoly. That will create future victims of Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices and do nothing to help their current victims. 
It is not a remedy, and is in fact, a reward for Microsoft.
    John C. Glasgow II
    33 Mooney Rd.
    Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, 32547
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005016

From: Michael Getter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 8:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am protesting the terms of the proposed settlement offered to 
and accepted by Microsoft. I am a Macintosh user and have 
appreciated some Microsoft products for years. Excel, for example, 
is a terrific spreadsheet_the best that there is, in fact. 
However, I use far more non-Microsoft products because they are 
better at doing the job for which they were designed. In most cases, 
Microsoft offers similar, though inferior, products. In the future I 
hope I will be able to continue to choose better products from 
competing software publishers just as I can today.
    However, the illegal behavior practiced by Microsoft in the past 
will not be significantly abated in the future under the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft will continue to be able to offer inferior 
applications similar to superior products on the market, wrapping 
them up in the latest Windows operating system that now controls 
over 90% of the market. This practice alone will make it 
increasingly difficult for small companies, let alone larger ones, 
to stay in business even though in many instances they offer better 
solutions to user needs. This is unfair, and I would think, illegal. 
I ask that the remedy be altered to reflect this inequity. Today, it 
does not. I do not wish to become a part of the Microsoft .Net 
strategy, I do not wish to use Windows in any flavor. I do not wish 
to be `tracked' by Microsoft software. I do not wish to 
be forced to purchase software, and hardware, upgrades in order to 
feed Microsoft`s profits. Rather, I prefer to make independent 
choices for better software based upon my knowledge that I am free 
to make those choices and not be precluded from doing so due to 
Microsoft`s insatiable drive to eliminate all competition.
    Please consider the following:
    1 Allow computer buyers to choose the operating system they 
prefer. Make the operating system an separate, extra cost option at 
the time of the hardware purchase. This will give buyers a true 
choice when purchasing the computer and the operating system. It 
will also compel Microsoft to sell the operating system CDs at the 
time of purchase as other companies do.
    2 Microsoft must be made to reveal its document formats and 
operating system requirements so that competing products may 
interact with them. This will enable all software publishers to 
compete in a meaningful way.
    3 Disallow Microsoft from embeding any software in its operating 
system or offering it for free to drive out competition. Demand that 
all Microsoft products be sold at a true and reasonable cost. This 
will open the door to software competitors_a door that is 
being closed more tightly as time goes on. If Microsoft offers 
superior products in the

[[Page 24661]]

future, it will continue to thrive. By the same token, other vendors 
will be given an above board opportunity to compete in the software 
and operating system market. They, too, will have a full and fair 
chance to succeed. Please review the proposed settlement and make 
the changes required to allow the software industry to regain its 
competitive balance and prosper.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Getter
    20206 Waterside Dr
    Germantwon, MD 20874



MTC-00005017

From: Jack Fenchel
To: Microsoft Monopoly
Date: 12/29/01 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    Microsoft Monopoly,
    American system of justice is indeed horribly wrong in this 
Monopoly Case. The Justice Department, ` Alone ` is the 
only qualified body by law to try this antitrust case against 
Microsoft. If not, then from now on All, S.A.G`s will take a part in 
all upcoming Monopoly Cases. Hal Stratton, a former Attorney Gereral 
of New Mexico, says States should think carefully before they branch 
out beyond their traditional fuctions. The State Attorney General`s 
paraded across the stage, hit all the night shows. They committed 
one of the worst sins in judicial history. ( A public Show Trial ) 
South Carolina, State Attorney General, pulled out ` No 
Monopoly ` The United States Government, issued Microsoft the 
License for Windows. The S.A.G`s are in over their head, by law. As 
Tom Miller, paraded across the stage Charaacter Assassination, Bill 
Gates was an Icon. At this point in time, this tanked the Market 
& 401K`s. Investors lost 80B in one day by the S.A.G`s actions. 
Bill Clinton, committed one of the worst Justice Sin, by inviting 
Bill Gates, to a Sat. TV. Lunch, for Political Reasons. ( $$$ Gore )
    When this monoply case started, there were at least two cases of 
purjury by the prosecution`s witnesses. There were people who got up 
on the stand raised their hand and did not tell the truth. The DOJ, 
hid letters till after the testimony. Congress got wind of this and 
questioned Joel Klein, on the validity of the findings of the facts. 
Shortly after Joel Klein, resigns. At that point in time the S.A.G`s 
changed Wall Street to Short Street and they pickpocketed, investors 
and 401K`s to death. The terrorist attack on Microsoft, by our 
Government, destroyed many 401K`s and retire funds like mine at the 
age of 72. I lost $1,500 this past month from my retiremet. I do not 
own any Microsoft stock. I would like to see the DOJ, close this 
Monopoly Case, and not do any more damage to All America.
    Thank you, God Bless America,
    Jack Fenchel, 185 Friendship Rd. Beaver Falls Pa. 15010 
(724-843-4276)



MTC-00005018

From: Andrew S Van Heden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please breakup the Microsoft monopoly by:
    1. Breaking up the company
    2. Forcing them to release their source code.
    Thankyou,
    Andrew VanHeden
    Engineering Student and Systems Administrator



MTC-00005019

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/29/01 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft decision
    Microsoft is an 800 pound gorilla. You finally have it afraid of 
you. To my way of thinking, you may never be able to wrestle this 
800 pound gorilla to the floor again, so you had best do the job 
right this time.
    I urge you to make the settlement harshly punitive. If you don`t 
pen the gorilla now, it`s unlikely you ever will. Write a 
`plain English' settlement. You should be able to wrap 
the whole thing up in a single brief paragraph. The more you write, 
the more ammunition you are giving Microsoft.
    Do not allow Microsoft to dictate any of the terms. Microsoft is 
NOT repentant and will NOT encourage language that allows a 
`level playing field'. It is clear that they well know 
how to craft a settlement that looks good but is totally without 
teeth. Take away their paper and don`t let them write on yours. They 
MUST repudiate all current license agreements which require that 
their operating system be installed on new computers. They MUST 
repudiate any license agreements which forbid `dual-
boot' with their operating system and another (without 
restriction). They MUST repudiate any license agreements which 
forbid revelation of actual price paid for their operating system as 
reflected in the retail price of a hardware device.
    They MUST agree to submit to the decisions of internet standards 
bodies. ANY network protocol that they implement MUST adhere to 
those published standards and NOT extend them in any fashion. 
Moreover, they MUST consent to roll back modifications already made 
to the kerberos standard as presently utilized in their operating 
systems to those in agreed upon by the accepted standards bodies. 
The change is simple to make. They should be given no more than 90 
days to comply.
    They MUST accept that failure to abide by the terms of the 
settlement ... to the letter ... will result in immediate seizure of 
all their financial assets without further recourse. The law, 
particularly at this stage of the game, is generous in the latitude 
given prosecution. Go for the throat now or C.Y.A forever.
    Sincerely,
    W Canaday
    Detroit, MI



MTC-00005020

From: Doug Munsinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 9:37am
Subject: comment on Dept. of Justice settlement with Microsoft
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I am a Systems and Network Architect with a hardware company in 
Marlboro, Massachusetts. I can implement as part of my company`s 
network and communications infrastructure any technology I wish. Or 
I could if it were not for the presence of Microsoft on the scene. I 
would choose, and do where it is possible to do so, to implement 
Open Source software such as Apache webserver, RedHat Linux 
operating systems, and many others. In some cases this has proved 
impossible because of Microsoft`s sheer overwhelming presence and 
effect on the marketplace.
    I recently purchased a Network Appliance File Server, a 
specialized server for holding and providing large quantities of 
data to users. After several months of attempting to make this 
product function without resorting to a Microsoft Windows NT server 
for authentication, I was finally forced to turn to this for two 
specific reasons. The first is that Microsoft, to extend their 
control and reach, perverts and changes and adds to existing 
interoperabe open sourced and publicly defined protocols, making 
them no longer work except with Microsoft products.
    In this case the Samba program, an open source alternative to an 
NT server, communicates in this case differently than an NT server 
in an obscure manner. Forcing Microsoft to cease to alter defined 
protocols or to publish their specifications for any network 
communications would allow competition that is not possible at 
present. Second, Microsoft`s threatening position in the marketplace 
causes companies such as Network Appliance to heed what works with a 
Microsoft solution and effectively ignore interoperability which 
signifigantly cripples software development by fragmenting programs 
into those that adhere to the Microsoft line and those who do not do 
so. While Network Appliance pays lip service to interoperability, 
the actual performance is not present. This wastes an amount of 
effort truly unimaginable. Microsoft can and does incorporate new 
`features' all the time into its `operating 
system'. Many of these new features, beyond the browsers, 
represent formerly independent companies who were forced to make a 
deal with Microsoft to license or sell their technology, or are 
forced out of business as Windows now contains that feature.
    Much more importantly, having a single corporation guide all 
commercial software development direction forces a single viewpoint 
on how humans should interact with computers. This is flat wrong. 
The windows interface (it is truly NOT an operating system as such, 
merely a way to interact with hardware) is only one logic for 
dealing with data and a very limited one. As these machines become 
more interleaved into our culture, such a mono-theism is s serious 
mistake. Despite Microsoft`s claims to innovation, they on the 
contrary stifle and prevent an extraordinary amount of development 
by their currentl monopoly. The remedy proposed by the Department of 
Justice is very weak and not really effective in curbing Microsoft 
in the market. This solution is inadequate and should be rethought 
before this moves forward.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Munsinger
    egenera, Inc.
    [email protected]
    508-858-2612 Cell: 508-326-0872

[[Page 24662]]

    165 Forest Street, Marlboro, MA 01752
    Sarah: And finally, does your computer ever crash?
    Bill: Oh definitely, believe me I get to the bottom of it every 
time and that`s part of the passion that I and a lot of Microsoft 
people have is we want to make a tool that we want to use ourselves 
and we know from our own use we can make it a lot better and a lot 
more reliable.
_Interview 6 December 2001 with Bill Gates by BBC Children`s 
TV
    PING!
    ICMP: the protocol that goes ...



MTC-00005021

From: rpjday
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 11:38am
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft settlement
Dec 30, 2001
Robert P. J. Day
President,
Eno River Technologies
Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    Sir/Madam:
    I`m writing to express my opinion on the proposed settlement 
regarding Microsoft`s illegal monopolistic behavior. While there are 
numerous issues that could be addressed, I`m assuming others will 
cover those issues and I`m going to confine myself to discussing 
just one topic which I would dearly like to see addressed in any 
settlement proposal_this involves Microsoft`s forced bundling 
of their operating systems with almost every OEM`s personal 
computer.
    As everyone knows, it is virtually impossible to buy a PC from 
any major vendor (Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) that does not come 
pre-loaded with some version of a Microsoft operating system. The 
consumer is, in all of these cases, never given a choice of a non-
Microsoft operating system or, for that matter, the choice of no OS 
at all. For years, the situation has been: if you buy a new PC, you 
got a Microsoft operating system whether you wanted it or not.
    And let`s be clear: you paid for this software, whether you ever 
used it or not. While vendors would (disingenuously) claim that the 
software was tossed in for free, it`s clear that the actual cost was 
simply tacked on to the final price of the PC. But it gets better.
    Once you got the PC home and got a chance to read Microsoft`s 
end user license agreement (EULA), you were told quite directly 
that, if you did not agree to the terms of the EULA, you had the 
right to return the software for a refund. However, if you tried to 
return it to the vendor, their response was that you had to contact 
Microsoft. Microsoft, of course, pointed the consumer back at the 
vendor, with the result that no one was prepared to refund the price 
of the software back to the consumer. In short, the consumer, in 
purchasing a PC, was forced to accept and pay for software he did 
not want, and was not given the opportunity to return it for a 
refund, despite the guarantees of the EULA. (By the way, this 
additional forced cost to the consumer is jokingly referred to in 
the industry as the `Microsoft tax,' for obvious 
reasons.)
    If anyone needs evidence of Microsoft`s monopolistic power, it`s 
hard to imagine a better example than a company which has the clout 
to force a consumer to purchase and accept, with no opportunity for 
refund, a product that the consumer explicitly says he or she does 
not want. What more proof does anyone need of Microsoft`s abusive 
behavior?
    There are many changes I`d like to see in the current proposed 
settlement, but at an absolute minimum, Microsoft should be enjoined 
from forcing OEMs to bundle their operating system if the consumer 
does not want it and, furthermore, consumers who choose to forego a 
Microsoft product should have their purchase price adjusted (by a 
realistic amount) to reflect this.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Robert P. J. Day
    Chapel Hill, NC



MTC-00005022

From: tim stoughton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 12:12pm
Subject: microsoft
    microsoft has done nothing illegal. get off their backs tim 
stought



MTC-00005023

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 2:09pm
Subject: please reject proposed settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, 
will in my view do practically nothing to rememdy the behaviors for 
which Microsoft was brought to justice in the first place. I urge 
you to withdraw the proposed settlement and implement the penalties 
that were imposed upon Microsoft by Judge Jackson in the first 
place.
    Before I comment any further about the actual settlement 
proposal, I should start by saying that I am totally baffeled as to 
how a convicted illegal monopolist found to violate the Sherman 
AntiTrust laws in at least three or four instances is in a position 
to negotiate with the United States government. I have never heard 
of any other criminal who has been found guilty negotiating their 
own punishment. Furthermore, what kind of punishment is it when the 
convicted party gets to select two of those who are tasked with 
overseeing its compliance with its punishment? This seems to me to 
be a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. As well, the proposed 
punishment appears to be that if Microsoft is found to be in 
violation again then they will be in the position of being watched 
for an additional period of time. This is no punishment at all.
    As far as Microsoft opening their protocols, etc., entirely too 
much leeway is given to Microsoft in how, where, when, and to whom 
it will document said protocols. If they are allowed to determine 
the criteria then they will do what serves their own interest which 
has proven in court to be illegal.
    If breaking Microsoft up is no longer a consideration, although 
I feel it would be an equitable remedy, then they should be forced 
to document all networking and application protocols and file 
formats so that people can create alternatives and thereby introduce 
competition into the Information Technology realm.
    Thank you.
    Don Bivens
    1059 Croyden Court
    Fort Mill, SC 29715



MTC-00005025

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 3:43pm
Subject: Settlement?
    In my opinion the following article should be required reading 
by everyone in the Justice Department, Congress, and the White 
House: The Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2001 Microsoft Has Good 
Year,At Expense of Customers By WALTER S. MOSSBERG IT HAS BEEN a 
terrific year for Microsoft, but average consumers of its products 
haven`t fared so well.
    Microsoft made major progress in its goal of using its Windows 
operating system to push its other products and services at the 
expense of its competitors. Consumers are the losers.
    When 2001 started, the software giant was under the threat of a 
court-ordered breakup, having been found guilty by a federal 
district judge of violating antitrust laws in multiple ways.
    In June, an appeals court threw out the breakup order and 
harshly criticized the lower-court judge, although it upheld the 
legal core of his findings. The seven appeals judges ruled 
unanimously that Microsoft was a monopoly that had violated the 
antitrust laws by integrating its Web browser into its Windows 
operating system in an effort to freeze out other browsers.
    Expressed in plain English, the court said Microsoft shouldn`t 
be allowed to design Windows in a way that limits consumer 
choice_the ability of users to discover and easily use other 
companies` products and services. The court said it was OK to add 
features to Windows, as long as they weren`t added mainly to 
maintain Microsoft`s monopoly.
    DESPITE THIS DECISION, the company went on to launch a new 
version of Windows_Windows XP_that continued to 
integrate tightly into the operating system new features that are 
crucial to extending Microsoft`s monopoly onto the next 
battleground: Internet-based services. And it added these features 
in a way that hinders consumer choice.
    For instance, Windows XP allows users to easily perform instant 
messaging, to authenticate their identities across the Web and to 
order prints of photos on their hard disks. But these features work 
only with Microsoft`s own proprietary Internet services, or services 
owned by companies that pay Microsoft for inclusion in Windows XP. 
Competing services, including those better-established or more 
popular than Microsoft`s, aren`t integrated into Windows XP in the 
same smooth way, so users are less likely to turn to them. Microsoft 
attempted an even more breathtaking attack on consumer choice and 
online competition. It tried to integrate into Windows XP a feature 
whereby the built-in Web browser would automatically add links to 
millions of sites across the Web, without the permission of the 
owners. These Microsoft-imposed links, called browser

[[Page 24663]]

Smart Tags, would have led users to Microsoft`s sites and those of 
its partners. The company dropped the feature only after it was 
discussed in this column (`New Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit 
Others` Sites') and sparked a massive outcry. But it reserved 
the right to try again.
    Given this unrepentant behavior, you`d expect the Justice 
Department to react adversely. Instead, it has proposed to settle 
the antitrust case in a way that would leave this sort of conduct 
unfettered.
    The settlement reached in October, now pending before yet 
another federal judge, does bar some offensive Microsoft behavior. 
But much of it pertains to the company`s relations with the hapless 
makers of PCs, which aren`t in any position to defy Microsoft. It 
isn`t about consumer choice, except indirectly; it`s more about 
placating Microsoft`s competitors or partners. And it`s all about 
the past, not the future battle in Internet services. It doesn`t 
touch the company`s ability to use Windows XP to extend its monopoly 
to these new areas.
    WHAT`S WRONG with Microsoft building new features or gateways to 
services into Windows? Nothing, per se. I have never agreed with 
critics who assert that Windows shouldn`t contain any feature that 
other companies want to sell separately. A more useful Windows is 
good for consumers. The problem is the way these features are 
designed.
    It`s great, for example, that Windows XP contains a built-in 
interface for doing instant messaging. But that interface should be 
neutral about which service a consumer wants. If I prefer to use the 
America Online instant-messaging service with the built-in Windows 
interface, I should be able to do so, just as I can use the built-in 
browser and e-mail program with non-Microsoft services. Instead, 
Microsoft has wired the interface to its own service.
    So what, some might ask? Isn`t it common in a free market for 
companies to use one of their products to cross-promote another? 
Doesn`t AOL use its online service to boost the movies made by its 
Warner Brothers studios? Doesn`t The Wall Street Journal run ads and 
plugs for its sister publications and Web sites?
    The difference is that these other companies aren`t court-
certified monopolies, and when you`re a monopoly, you have to follow 
different rules, as the appeals court said.
    So, in my view, the proposed Justice Department settlement with 
Microsoft is bad for consumers. It isn`t about preserving or 
enhancing consumer choice. It seems to be about getting the 
nettlesome case out of the government`s hair.
    Our government and courts shouldn`t try to destroy, or run, 
Microsoft. But they should require the software monopoly to expand 
consumer choice in its dominant operating system. Unfortunately, in 
2001, that`s not what happened 1Howardo



MTC-00005026

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 5:29 pm
Subject: Monopoly.... ;-(
    I think that the recent Dept. of Justice decision is a step in 
the right direction, but sadly, does not go far enough. Firm, 
corrective enforcement must be applied to Microsofts monopolistic 
ways. Imagine that David walked up to Goliath and slapped him on the 
wrist. Do you honestly think that he would have stopped slaying the 
Israelites? No, of course not. In the very same context, Microsoft 
will not stop dominating (I really should use 
`domineering' there!) any and all competition by 
whatever means it feels it can get away with. I`m also very 
disappointed with the thought that Microsoft will open its API`s/
standards to any `business' that meets its 
qualifications. Hello? Just how many competitors do you think will 
qualify for that? Linux (the only real threat to Windows) will 
certainly fall under Microsofts list of `not really a 
business' so we won`t help you candidates...
    Let me try one more analogy with you...imagine you get up this 
morning and your car won`t start. Its an older model with lots of 
problems so you decide to just trade it in on a new one. You go down 
to your car dealer, and say, `I`d like to buy a GM to replace 
my old jalopy'. The dealer looks at you funny and says, 
`sorry buddy, we only sell Fords here'. No problem, you 
just decide to go to another dealer...except that every dealer tells 
you the same thing, that only Fords are sold. You -can`t- buy 
anything else. No problem, you think. I`ll just repair my old car. 
Except that you can`t even buy parts for your old car, because all 
the `standards' only work with the Fords being sold. 
Your right to a choice has been taken away. This is what its like in 
the world of computers now... I don`t want my children and 
grandchildren to grow up in a world where there is no choice...
    I don`t think the founding fathers of our great nation would 
have wanted this either...
    I`m not looking for the complete and total destruction of 
Microsoft, just a little fairness please...some equalisation...like:
    Ford
    GM
    Chrysler
    let there be:
    Linux
    Apple Macintosh
    Microsoft
    Please -think- about this...its probably one of the most 
important decisions you`ll ever make.
    Thank you...
    Dark>



MTC-00005035

From: Ike Bock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:44 am
Subject: Settlement
    Its time to settle this case once and for all. Punishing a 
company for developing a great product to me seems wrong. If there 
is a better product around, put it out there, custumers will buy it. 
Let companies compete in the market place, not in the courtroom.
    Walter Bock



MTC-00005036

From: David Roth
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 10:50 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
December 31, 2001
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been convinced for some time now that this lawsuit 
against Microsoft was ill advised at best, and represented one of 
our government`s lowest points with respect to supporting American 
business interests at worst. Now that this settlement has been 
reached, I am hoping that it will be supported through the public 
comment process and implemented as soon as possible.
    Not only are there far more important issues facing our nation 
today needing our undivided attention, but this would be a good time 
to renew the American consumer`s opinion that our government exists 
to promote our corporate and economic interests, rather than to 
hinder them with this senseless bickering heard by all through the 
halls of Congress, or, worse, through the courts. Now is the time to 
renew our national spirit of economic health and prosperity, rather 
than to hold ourselves up for scorn and ridicule because we seem 
intent on devouring ourselves in front of the entire world.
    Sincerely,
    David Roth
    President
    908.790.9400 ext. 11
    Stratis Group, Inc.
    76 Floral Avenue
    Murray Hill NJ 07974
    908.790.9200 Main
    908.790.9543 Fax
    http://www.stratisgroup.com 



MTC-00005037

From: Michael Scottaline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:47am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    I`m taking this opportunity to express my dissatisfaction with 
at least portions of the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation in the US v. Microsoft case.I do not use Microsoft 
products for the most part (I use Linux), but I do not consider 
myself one of the `enemies' of the their software. While 
I believe some of their OS`s are rather unstable, and some of their 
software is `buggy' and problematic, I actually do 
believe that some of their software has been resposnible for the 
incredible increase in the usage and usability of personal 
computers.My personal view is not that Microsoft must be *punished* 
beyond the scope of the proposed settlement. I have no personal 
interest in punishment, per se. I am interested in the settlement 
enhancing competition in the computer software market.I will stress 
only two areas of concern at this time. As an educator for the past 
28 years, I am naturally delighted that part of the agreement has 
Microsoft providing computers to underfinanced school districts. It 
is unthinkable that students might graduate from High School, 
unexposed to even the most basic computer skills. However, I don`t 
think that providing what are sometimes called *Wintel* machines 
enhances competitiveness. Microsoft simply gets another opportunity 
to teach young people that Windows is what an Operating System is! 
Many students where I work, even those that are reasonably computer 
literate believe that x86 computers MUST run on Windows. This 
portion of the settlement would simply provide Microsoft with an 
opportunity to extend that type of growing dominance in the 
education market (likely at the expense of Apple Corproation). 
Perhaps Microsoft should be forced to provide the hardware running 
an alternative OS along side the ubiquitous Windows in a dual boot 
fashion (this would have to be monitored; IBM might be willing to 
provide some expertise in this area).I`m also concerned that little 
is done to insure that Microsoft not take advantage of their near 
monopoly in OS to cripple competitors in other software areas. 
Perhaps Microsoft should be required to make the filters of their 
productivity software (Office suites, databases, etc.) OpenSource. 
For example, competing Office Suites should have acces to Microsoft 
code to make their own Office Suites capable of importing and 
exporting Microsoft Office files. I fear the propsed UCITA will 
provide Microsoft with an opportunity to make changes to their 
proprietary extensions (.doc, .xls, etc) while it will be illegal 
for anyone else to reverse engineer that file format to create new 
import and export filters.Again, my concern is not necessarily 
punishment, but enhanced competitiveness. I`m not certain the 
proposed settlement/compromise goes far enough in this direction. 
Thank You for the opportunity to express an opinion in this matter,
    Michael Scottaline

[[Page 24666]]

    85 Edgewater Ave.
    Bayport, NY 11705
    (Home) 631-472-4866
    (Office) 631-321-3360
    [email protected]



MTC-00005038

From: Tony Lyall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft case
    Hasn`t this continued long enough. A great company is being 
riddled with legal costs and shareholder value is declining so a few 
attorneys can line their pockets in hopes of keeping legal process 
alive. Enough is enough-time itself has allowed Mircosoft`s 
competitors sufficient time to get their act together and be 
competitive. It`s a free market-time to set Microsoft free!



MTC-00005039

From: Richard C. Haight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft has NOT reformed!
    A friend has reported to me thet Windows XP will not read data 
CD disks that are recorded in ISO (International Standards 
Organization) 9660 format. The same CDs that failed with XP work 
fine on a Windows 98 system. This is just another case of Microsoft 
subverting standards to exclude other operating system software. 
Richard Haight



MTC-00005040

From: Arlin Sorensen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
December 31, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is no particular secret that Microsoft had always maintained 
an aggressive competitive posture. I am not sure, however, that this 
posture should have earned them a lawsuit by our own government. 
That having been said, I am gratified to see that the government has 
chosen to settle this suit, rather than pursuing it through the 
courts. We have all seen the impact that this suit has, in part, 
wrought upon our economy. While there are a great many factors that 
have contributed to our economic slowdown, I am convinced that this 
suit has played more than a minor role.
    I am writing to voice my support of this settlement, as well as 
my hope that this sort of legal action against any American company 
can be avoided in the future. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Arlin Sorensen
    President
    SCCI
    653 Oak Road
    Harlan, Ia 51537



MTC-00005041

From: Shepherd, Darren
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I think the point has been made clear to Microsoft and it is 
time to let them do what they do best, software and make money. Both 
of which are good for the economy and time for other companies to 
stop crying and start competing. Most of the requests made by the 
states would be asking smaller companies to fold.
    I have worked in Technology for 17 years and I have seen 
Microsoft grow from being ridiculed for releasing a network OS when 
everyone knew that NetWare was the big Cahuna, to developing 
solutions, to the Bill & Melinda Gates Charity Foundation.
    From someone who has seen all sides of technology, believe me 
when I say that to be fair, we need to quit looking towards 
Microsoft by smaller companies who can`t compete. They need to have 
the technology as well as the media. I have seen both sides, but 
seldom done as well as Microsoft. That is the key to their success.
    Sincerely,
    Darren Shepherd
    CNA, MCP+Internet, MCSE, CCNA, CCDA



MTC-00005042

From: Michael Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    My name is Michael Jordan. First, I would like state for the 
record that I am presently working for a company that advocates the 
use of an alternative operating system known popularly throughout 
the world as Linux. I previously used the Microsoft operating 
systems known as MS-DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Shortly 
after purchasing Windows 95, it became apparent to me that the goal 
of the Microsoft Corporation was not primarily to sell me products 
to help me develop computer software and to use computers more 
efficiently, but to put me on a `treadmill', so to 
speak, of never ending costly software updates and of buying new 
computer hardware on which could only adequately work using 
Microsoft products. I was trapped inside the Microsoft way of doing 
things and I wanted the freedom to develop on my own terms. Linux 
afforded me that freedom.
    My purpose for writing is to argue that the settlement that the 
Department of Justice has reached with Microsoft is far too lenient 
for the egregious violations of both US law and common ethics that 
the Microsoft Corporation is guilty of. I would like to point out 
briefly two things which have happened to me, and I can safely 
assume this has happened to others, regarding Microsoft and software 
and computer purchases.
    In 1995, after having bought Microsoft Windows 95. I attempted 
to open files created with software that I had purchased from 
Microsoft to run under Microsoft Windows 3.1. I was informed by way 
of a dialog box that I could not open these files. That is to say, I 
could not open files made by an earlier version of a Microsoft 
product with an updated version of the same Microsoft product. This 
proves that at Microsoft along with usability, obsolescence in just 
as important a design issue. The do this in an attempt to put users 
on the `update treadmill' that I mentioned earlier. If 
these frequent upgrades were justifiable on the grounds that newer 
versions Microsoft`s product would enhance computer performance, I 
wouldn`t be writing this letter. It it usually the quest for mere 
profit and continued dominance in the software industry that 
Microsoft releases frequent upgrades. Moreover, it has been observed 
that Microsoft either holds back or releases upgrades of their and 
other companies` software only for considerations of market share, 
never taking into account the importance that certain software 
innovations could have in bettering the industry as a whole. That is 
to say, if Microsoft is behind on innovation, they either pressure 
strategic partners to not release their software on schedule or they 
hastily releaseill designed and poorly tested software. This is done 
in order to give the appearance that they were the 
`first' with that particular innovation, thus getting a 
jump on other firms, who are, though technologically superior, 
unable to compete with Microsoft purely for reasons of name 
recognition and capitalization. Due to this, innovative companies 
with highly competent staff often are forced out of the market and 
the world is deprived of new and important developments in software.
    A year after being introduced to the Linux operating system, I 
decided to buy a newer computer. Due to the aggressive and, as has 
been proven in court, illegal attempt by Microsoft to pressure 
computer dealers to pre-install only Microsoft`s operating systems, 
it was by all intents and purposes impossible to get a 
`plain' computer without Microsoft Windows pre-
installed. I should add that due to Microsoft`s illegal dominance in 
the operating system market, anyone who goes to a computer dealer 
today is almost, de-facto, pushed unwittingly into buying a 
Microsoft operating system along with her computer. This takes on an 
especially alarming significance since the attacks of September 11, 
2001.
    It is clear and has been proven by countless computer security 
experts that Microsoft operating systems are by far the most 
vulnerable to those computer attacks popularly known as 
`hacking'.
    In the interest of brevity, I will leave these two examples to 
speak for themselves. As I mentioned, my motivation for writing is 
to argue, from an informed perspective, that the settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case proposed in early November 2001 is far too 
lenient. The basic flaw that can be seen in the settlement is that 
it does not attempt to effectively remedy the two most dangerous 
consequences of Microsoft`s monopoly and of which I have given two 
personal examples here: stifling of innovation and stifling of 
competition.
    In order to set things right in the computer world, the 
settlement should oblige Microsoft to do two basic things:
    1) Open up all source code for all software products released on 
the open market. This will give all developers the opportunity to 
produce file formats which are compatible with Microsoft`s software. 
If we have proven in a court of law the Microsoft has maintained a 
monopoly, what better remedy

[[Page 24667]]

than to give software companies the opportunity to compete on an 
equal footing with them. This is particularly important as well, in 
light of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Microsoft`s code is 
flawed from a security point of view. What better way to audit and 
repair these flaws than countless numbers of experts being able to 
look at the give their opinion of their development practices.
    2) Prohibit Microsoft from operating directly with computer 
dealers. The settlement should expressly prohibit Microsoft from 
getting their operating system installed on a computer before the 
consumer purchases it. Just as a person buying a new car is not 
obligated to forever use the same brand of gasoline, a person should 
not be obligated to use an operating system on a computer. This is 
why a computer dealer should have the freedom to buy various kinds 
of operating systems to have in stock and then inform the consumer 
that they have a choice. The computer dealer should be the one to 
initiate any purchase orders with Microsoft. Microsoft should in no 
way initiate a contact or attempt to influence or consult in any way 
about how a computer should be sold.
    This of course means that Microsoft can and has the right under 
our free system of government and our system of free enterprise, to 
manufacture their own hardware and market it with their own 
operating system as is done by Apple Computer. But independently 
manufactured and assembled computer systems should not contain an 
operating system until the consumer either installs it herself or 
makes arrangements with the computer dealer to purchase a system 
from a company that she deems fit.
    I believe that these two simple measures would provide the best 
remedy to the situation of Microsoft`s illegal monopoly. It would 
also create a climate where computing is enjoyable for all, where 
innovation is freely pursued and security for individuals, 
governments and businesses is assured.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Michael J. Jordan
    Website developer
    Computer Assisted Language Learning software developer
    US Citizen
    160 Western Ave.
    Essex, MA 01929
    Michael J. Jordan_Director, Academia Boston
    www.englishbos.com / www.spanishbos.com
    e-mail: [email protected] s



MTC-00005043

From: Michael Daconta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft for its antitrust violations. As an IT director and 
developer, I was dissapointed to see that the settlement does not 
address Microsoft`s illegal hindrance of the Java platform. Nor, 
does the settlement prevent future hindrance via its C# language 
and .NET platform. Furthermore, it did not require Microsoft to 
support a JVM in its Internet Explorer Browser, whose now dominant 
market share was gained illegally.
    Microsoft`s illegal use of its OS monopoly to thwart the Java 
platform continues to hurt consumers by increasing the barrier to 
entry for Java applications on Windows. As Java is a current 
defacto, internet standard for running applets (java programs that 
run inside the browser), Microsoft must be required to ship a 
compliant JVM in its browser to redress its past violations and 
level the playing field. Additionally, to level the playing for 
standalone applications, Microsoft should be required to incorporate 
a compliant JVM into its operating system (the browser could be 
designed to use the same JVM).
    Additionally, the proposed settlement in no way guarantees that 
Microsoft`s abuse of Operating System APIs (using hidden APIs, or 
adding code in an API to thwart a competitor`s product) will not 
occur in the future. Thus through delay in providing API 
documentation, or more importantly via API thrashing (changing 
frequently) Microsoft can continue its dominance due to its close 
coordination between its Operating System group and its application 
group. The settlement makes no effort at creating a `chinese 
wall' between these parts of Microsoft.
    The only guaranteed way to do this would be a structural remedy. 
I would prefer a structural remedy be again considered.
    I hope the settlement can be modified to address these 
shortcomings.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
    Mike Daconta
    Michael C. Daconta
    Director, Web & Technology Services
    www.mcbrad.com



MTC-00005044

From: Zakariya, Shamyl
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 11:54am
    Mrs. Hesse,
    I`m writing with regard to the inadequate proposed settlement 
for the Microsoft antitrust case. As a graphics artist & 
hobbyist programmer I work with computers, frankly quite constantly; 
as such I have been made painfully aware again and again of 
Microsoft`s astonishingly monopolistic practices. But the fact that 
Microsoft is a monopoly isn`t in question. The trouble, as I (and I 
think *many*) of my peers see it, is that the proposed remedy will 
do nothing to aid in the situation.
    Let me describe a common situation. A year or so ago I bought a 
new laptop computer. The operating system I installed was one called 
BeOS (the CEO of the company which made BeOS, Jean Louis Gassee, 
testified in the trial). BeOS was exactly what I wanted from an 
operating system (reliable, easy to use, fast, modern, with concise 
developer documentation and well documented programming APIs) and as 
such I had no use or desire for windows. But, I had no choice, and 
had to pay at least 100 dollars (I can`t recall how much now) for a 
Windows 2000 install cdrom which I didn`t want, didn`t use, and was 
forbidden from selling or using on another computer. It lies 
untouched in my closet.
    Now, if you look at any (x86) computer manufacturer`s product 
listing, all their computers come with windows. This is 
understandable, as most people prefer windows [this is a bit 
chicken-and-egg, as most people haven`t had the opportunity to see 
what other operating systems are out there]. But we aren`t given the 
option of buying the machine at reduced price without windows.
    Our hands are tied here. Frankly, I have several windows install 
cdroms from various computers I`ve purchased over the years, none of 
which have ever been used_as I installed my preferred OS`s 
myself (Linux & BeOS). Specifically, I have a windows 3.11 
install diskette package, a windows 95 cdrom, a windows 98 second 
edition cdrom and a windows 2000 cdrom. None of which have ever been 
wanted, asked for, or used; all of which I paid for. It seems 
reasonable to assume I`ve spent about 1000 dollars over the years 
for these disks.
    [For reference, the BeOS operating system is no longer in 
existence, as no computer manufacturers were even *allowed* to 
preinstall it on their own hardware due to binding licensing 
agreements with Microsoft] My next concern is the preponderance of 
closed protocols and proprietary behavior Microsoft is famous for. 
As we all know, most office work is done via the Microsoft Office 
suite of tools. The tools aren`t bad, but as most people will agree, 
there *were* better suites out there, but all computers now come 
with MS Office... regardless, we are dependant upon this suite, 
which puts MS in the position of no longer needing to provide high 
quality office/business products.
    Just a few weeks ago, the email servers here at my office were 
brought down for several days fighting off the GONER email worm. As 
they were with the previous worm, and the previous worm before that 
one, and so on. This is a trait unique to Microsoft tools, in that 
MS apparently has zero interest in fixing the problem.
    [For reference, again, when a bug is found in an open source 
product, like OpenSSH or Apache for example, it is fixed 
immediately. This is the nature and benefit of open protocols and 
peer review, something Microsoft labels as 
`anticompetitive'.]
    _But why should Microsoft fix any problems? They already 
have our money, after all. Billions of dollars have been lost due to 
these virus outbreaks, and what is Microsoft`s response? Apparently, 
instead of fixing bugs in their shoddy protocols, their response now 
is to threaten legal action on parties who *find* and make public 
weaknesses in their protocols. Microsoft`s argument is that if these 
parties didn`t make the bugs public, people wouldn`t know or thereby 
take advantage of them. Is this the behavior we want from the de-
facto king of modern computing? I think it stands to reason that 
were Microsoft actually in competition with other companies, their 
behavior would be different_e.g. they would quickly fix bugs 
and not attack legally those who find them.
    As a staunch capitalist, I don`t think America has any business 
breaking up

[[Page 24668]]

 Microsoft, and I`m glad that option was thrown out (as most folks 
agree, it would have probably actually been *good* for MS). What 
needs to be done is some action which doesn`t unfairly hurt 
Microsoft, but *does* open the market up to fair competition.
    Many wonderful companies with good ideas and great talent have 
been broken by the rich behemoth MS_this can`t go on. 
Microsoft can`t be allowed to strong arm computer manufacturers. 
Microsoft can`t be allowed to continue to develop closed internet 
protocols and document formats.
    Thank you for your time,
    Shamyl Zakariya
    APCO Worldwide
    1615 L. St NW
    Washington DC, 20036
    202.778.1031
    shamyl zakariya
    202.778.1031



MTC-00005045

From: S. Vetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I thank you for allowing me at add my comments to the Microsoft 
Settlement proposal. Hopefully it is not too late to do so. I would 
also like to congratulate those states for wishing a more harsher 
settlement as they are proper in doing so.
    For many years Microsoft has grown to proportions that this 
country has rarely seen and they continue to grow. This company has 
also expanded into other areas such as: The Internet which they have 
stated they would not do, but they did, they have gone into the game 
station arena, they are going into TV / news stations (MSNBC and 
MSFN), and a few others.
    Microsoft has also bought out other companies and continue to do 
so and with no end in sight. If they cannot purchase the product 
they may either produce a similar one or force that company out of 
business. Another Microsoft tactic is to bad mouth the company 
unjustly as you may recall the words about Linux. Another favorite 
tactic of Microsoft is to take them to court. Recently you may have 
heard about a company making a product called Lindows. This product 
runs the Linux operating system but is trying to allow Microsoft`s 
products to run on it. Microsoft is claiming it will cause confusion 
to the consumer. So, in order to prevent this Microsoft is claiming 
the Lindows is too similar to Windows and will take them to court 
about it. If Microsoft wins, the company making Lindows will 
probably go out of business (one less competitor of the few 
remaining). You may recall the Netscape browser and the operating 
system called OS/2. Eventually Microsoft will be the only choice.
    Lets also see another way Microsoft dominates the market place. 
They woo developers into making software that only works on their 
operating systems. Other platforms are left with little or nothing 
since most have gone to the Microsoft way of doing things and on 
their platforms.
    For those of you that have not seen this at work, I invite you 
to look in the archives. Microsoft buys a company or a product from 
a company. In doing so they tell the consumer you must switch to 
their product or be left without support. And to do so you must pay 
a slightly more amount than what you purchased the original product 
for. Now all Microsoft has done is changed the packaging and the 
product to include Microsoft`s name, and perhaps a new feature or 
two. Six months later, or maybe a little more time goes by, and they 
release a newer version with again a new feature or two more. And 
once again for a little more money. If the consumer does not buy 
this new version, then support will be dropped. And it continues on 
and on.
    They have applied pressure to companies to market ONLY THEIR 
products of face repercussions. Such as Intel, Creative Labs, and 
Compaq. If an individual or company wanted to buy a computer system 
with another OS, where would they turn? I encourage you to try! Ever 
try to buy a scanner or printer that works with some other operating 
system? And have you walked into a computer store to buy a software 
package for something other than Windows?
    As for Microsoft`s claim about innovation. This I would like to 
see myself! DOS started out as someone else`s product. Windows is 
the same. Viso and Microsoft Office, yes someone else developed 
these as well. The list goes on...
    For the remedy the ones that have been proposed are too light 
and can be expressed best by calling them a slap on the wrist. Also 
they have no real consequences should Microsoft violate them. The 
idea of splitting the company in two, while a good thought at the 
time, has a flaw. You end up with two Microsofts. There was no real 
split and prevention of people having control of both.
    Some ideas on how I would propose a settlement:
    Microsoft cannot purchase other software companies. Or hardware 
companys.
    They must publish all of their interfaces_with 
documentation.
    They must also open up the way files are stored.
    Security must be added to their products.
    Open up the source code.
    Java / Javascript must be included in any more of their 
operating system releases.
    They must not be able to branch out in other areas such as game 
machines, TV / news networks, or cable companies. (Just to name a 
few)
    The browser must be independent of the operating system. Also 
any browser must allowed to be used on the operating system.
    Microsoft`s must be freed from controlling computer part 
manufacturers, software and hardware developers.
    Computer vendors must be freed to market any hardware or 
software as they please.
    To allow other vendors to get a foot hold in the market place no 
new releases or variations there of must halt for at least two 
years.
    Ever wondered why Microsoft agreed to the latest proposal? 
Because it had little impact on them. They would loose virtually 
nothing.
    Any action on Microsoft has to be harsh, with no loopholes, and 
is monitored and enforced. It must also give competitors some real 
hope of succeeding with their products.
    I thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions.
    Respectfully,
    Scott Vetter
    45118 Geddes Road
    Canton, Michigan 48188



MTC-00005046

From: Trace Windham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 12:18pm
Subject: Open Comment
    I am writing this out of concern and fear. I don`t want to lose 
the internet to MS.
    I don`t want to be forced to have MS products to obtain 
information. I don`t want a `passport'. I don`t want my 
services to be forced to use the .Net framework.
    I don`t have to have a particular phone company to make or 
recieve certain types of phone calls. When I buy a car, I don`t have 
to agree to use a certain brand of gasoline to make it run to 
certain locations.
    I am free to speak on the phone, and my government protects that 
freedom for me. I am free to travel across the country in my car, 
and my government protects that freedom for me.
    I am free to access information on the internet with my computer 
that I built, with the operating system that I chose. Will my 
government protect that for me too? I hope so.
    Trace Windham
    Centralized Systems Development
    PDX Inc.
    101 Jim Wright Freeway
    Suite 200
    Fort Worth, Texas 76108
    817-246-6760 ext 4415



MTC-00005047

From: Ken Otwell
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/31/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement position
    Gentlepersons of the court;
    As a 20-year computer programmer and small business owner, I 
have used virtually all Microsoft products since DOS 4.0. Due to 
high cost, constant crashes when used as intended, inability to be 
integrated with products from other vendors, and radically 
increasing hardware resource requirements, I now find myself 
constantly looking for realistic alternatives to Microsoft products, 
and usually coming up short.
    My opinion on the findings of fact in the Microsoft case is that 
it is a reasonable compromise based on available and provable 
evidence. I strongly suspect that the actual case would be much 
worse for Microsoft if more evidence were available, but given what 
is known, the ruling seems quite fair. My opinion on the proposed 
settlement, however, is not nearly as sanguine. The settlement does 
virtually nothing to grant relief to those harmed or to prevent 
future abuses, and does a fair amount to increase Microsoft`s 
monopoly and even extend it in new directions, like educational 
software.
    The minimal changes to the proposed settlement that I feel are 
necessary is to simply:

[[Page 24669]]

    (1) Require every distinct functionality in a Microsoft 
operating system to be separately accessible by a complete API that 
Microsoft must publish at least six months prior to each version 
release of said functionality. (If Microsoft cannot provide an API 
at six months prior to release, then their software development 
practices are simply not acceptable in a world where financial and 
economic security depends on correctly functioning software.)
    (2) Require that every protocol and data format used in the 
saving of application data or in transmitting data from one 
Microsoft application to another must be published six months prior 
to each version release of said protocol or data format. This 
requirement holds for all data transmitted via the internet or 
stored on any medium.
    (3) Require that where internationally recognized standards 
committees have established standards for such APIs, protocols, or 
data formats, that Microsoft systems must be configured, by default, 
to fully and completely adhere to those standards. For example, 
Microsoft`s implementation of XML, while `technically' 
standard, is embedded in other protocols in such a way as to defeat 
the clear intent of the standard in that competing products cannot 
make use of the Microsoft XML documents.
    A typical Microsoft operating system will include an internet 
browser, image browser and/or image editor, music player, video 
player, file editor, file browser, internet connection subsystem, 
network configuration subsystem, and many more proprietary products 
from Microsoft. Each of these are nominally distinct products that 
continue to benefit from the network effects from Microsoft`s 
operating system monopoly. The only way to provide meaningful remedy 
is to allow the competitors to have reasonable access to the 
technologies necessary for integrating their competing products into 
each Microsoft operating system, and to enable competing 
applications to process documents or other data streams that are 
generated by Microsoft software.
    Furthermore, since the fastest-growing competition to Microsoft 
now comes from the non-profit, open source community, these APIs, 
protocols, and data formats must be published not just to proven 
business competitors, but must be freely available to anyone in any 
location around the world. I cannot emphasize this latter point too 
much: the strongest competitor to Microsoft`s OS is Linux, and if 
the Linux development community is barred from relief under the 
settlement, then Microsoft will have clearly `won.'
    Without this minimal relief, Microsoft will continue to benefit 
from the network effects caused by their monopoly and they will 
continue to extend their monopoly deep into uncharted waters of 
internet business, and even further into our collective wallets.
    I thank you for the opportunity to speak out on this grave 
issue. I wish you the best of luck in your deliberations.
    Sincerely yours,
    Kenneth H. Otwell
    CTO, Calidris Ltd.
    http://www.calidris.com/



MTC-00005048

From: Bruce Lill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:01pm
Subject: letting them off easy is wrong
    The least microsoft should get is that we shouldn`t be required 
to purchase their products. If I purchase a computer and it comes 
with Microsofts products I should be able to sell them to someone 
else if I`m not going to use them. This would require microsoft to 
recognize the resale. I also should not have to give them any 
information if I want to use their product. Now I have to sign up to 
use XP. With passport there isn`t a way to get your information 
deleted.
    The consumers have been hurt by lack of quality software and the 
cost of the current software. They have made it hard for novice 
users to purchase computers that are configured for them or 
technical users to not have the restrictive software.
    Bruce Lill



MTC-00005049

From: Mike Pestronk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 12:57pm
Subject: Ms settlement
    I just wanted to voice my opinion on the settlement. Microsoft 
needs to be broken up, into at least two separate entities, but 
three would be better. One needs to be the OS part, one the office/
productivity part, and a third part encompassing Internet Explorer 
and it`s new .Net software. Microsoft has continued its monopolistic 
practices with its new .Net initiative, as it will not cooperate 
with the rest of the industry`s liberty alliance and j2ee systems. 
They continue to use the os to leverage this new technology, as they 
were doing when with IE when the complaint was first filed. I am 
very dissapointed the justice department decided to drop the case, 
even though it might show a sign of cooperation between MS and the 
government over security issues. Microsoft is continuing their 
monopolistic practices worse than when the case started and will 
need to be broken up eventually. I hope the nine remaining states or 
the EU can have some effect.



MTC-00005050

From: Larry D. Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since we are inside of the 60 public comment period I thought I 
ought to put my two cents worth in. The more and more I think about 
it the more I like the Red Hat proposal for a solution. Microsoft 
has offered to give away $X of hardware and software to needy 
schools. Let them give it all in hardware and take up Red Hat`s 
offer of them providing the software. This way, no one is tied down 
to a platform controlled by any one company and it will go an awful 
long way in reversing the damage done by Microsofts monopolistic 
practices.
    Regards,
    Larry
    mailto:[email protected]
    (423) 875-8034
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00005051

From: David Parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The major difference between the Microsoft trial and the 
`OJ' trial is that maybe OJ wasn`t guilty; Microsoft 
actually managed to have the case decided on the emotional value of 
various libertarian slogans like `we`re being punished for our 
success' rather than the actual facts of the case.
    Microsoft`s monopoly makes Standard Oil`s look trivial. 
Microsoft won, big time, and it`s stranglehold over the field of 
Information Technology remains intact and will continue to tighten 
in the years ahead.
    The DoJ, or rather the politicos who so arrogantly place their 
uninformed opinions of what they think `should be` above the facts, 
should be ashamed. And now the States are letting Microsoft pay off 
their `penalty' by giving CDs of their software (costing 
$1.00 or less to produce) to schools and claiming $400.00 retail 
price, all the while increasing their monopoly into yet another 
area.
    I for one am ashamed
    David Parsons
    Regional Technical Officer
    US DHHS_OIG Region II
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00005052

From: Debbie Andree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I do not agree with the terms of the Microsoft settlement. It is 
not in the best interests of our schools, our children or represent 
fair and open market competition.
    Sincerely,
    Debbie Andree
    eVision-Ventures AG
    [email protected]



MTC-00005053

From: Diana Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:29pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft
    I am writing because I am a 66 year old woman who, thinks the 
whole antitrust is all wrong. It was only brought my Microsoft`s 
competitors who are not as resourceful as Microsoft.
    I like what Microsoft has done, because I am not that great in 
figuring out how every thing works, but I like all the programs 
together. It is much easier for me. My granddaughters figure things 
on the computer much faster than . I love the BUNDLING, it helps me. 
I really like the way Office is put together, it has all the 
programs I need. I will only use MSN, because I believe that AOL is 
one of the Competitors that is trying to stop Microsoft growth. My 
not stop AOL`s growth.
    The only program I use that I like better than a Microsoft is 
Quicken. It has some great reports, that Microsoft doesn`t have. 
Microsoft has agree a to fair settlement. Don`t let the State 
Attorney General`s have their way. They just want to make a name for

[[Page 24670]]

themselves or run for Governor of their States.
    Does anybody remember when the Stock Market went down? It was 
the day that the other Judge ruled against Microsoft. The People of 
the United States don`t want any more penalties, they want a 
settlement now.
    Diana Mayhew Rogers
    23221 -60th Court So
    Kent,WA 98032
    253-373-1569



MTC-00005054

From: Shlomi Harif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:34pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    To Whom It May Concern and Attorney General, State of 
Connecticut: Pursuant to the Tunney Act of 1974 I am commenting on 
the proposed settlement between the government and Microsoft. I feel 
I am particularly capable of providing professional input, as the 
father of three children in school, and the Chief Technology Officer 
for a finance-related software firm, Austin Logistics, here in 
Austin, Texas.
    I would love to be able to say where my traffic fines are spent: 
my sidewalk could use a little fixing up. Oh, and I`m real 
particular as to the kind of cement, and who does it. Did I mention 
that I`m in the concrete business? I`ll Just make the check out to 
myself, and I`ll take care of the whole thing, okay?
    I`m not sure if the cynicism was obvious enough, but punishments 
should never enhance the crime for which a defendant is being 
punished. Giving Microsoft additional revenue and a tightened lock-
hold on the educational system is monopolistic in and of itself.
    This action, if executed, will set a precedent for any future 
anti-trust cases, and impinges on the ability of the public, through 
the offices of the government, to get pure legal redress for actions 
impacting citizens. An independent, court-appointed monitor should 
disburse the funds in a manner that benefits the schools, not the 
criminal.
    Sincerely,
    Shlomi Harif
    13303 Ivywood Cove
    Austin, Texas 78729
    [email protected]
    (512) 249-8888
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00005055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AtFreeWeb.com, Inc.
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 settlement between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. I believe that this settlement will be beneficial to 
both the IT industry and the consumer, but continuing on with more 
court nuisance is a fleecing of the American taxpaying citizen. To 
prevent this from continuing any further, the D.O.J. should finalize 
the settlement as soon as the Tunney Act comment period is over.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable. If anything,
    Microsoft was treated a little spitefully. A few terms of the 
agreement follow, which should underscore the severity of this 
settlement: the DOJ will establish an independent technical 
committee, monitoring Microsoft`s compliance with the settlement; 
Microsoft also cannot retaliate against computer makers that may 
ship software that would compete with the Windows operating system; 
and Microsoft will open up their vault of secrets concerning system 
interoperability to competition.
    Even though the settlement prevents laissez-faire economics, the 
right thing to do is to settle the suit now and work to ensure that 
the industry and the economy can move forward again. Microsoft must 
be allowed to return to innovation, rather than litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Alex H. Qu
    President



MTC-00005056

From: Mike Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 2:11pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft `settlement'
    I`m completely appalled by the so-called settlement that the 
government has reached with Microsoft. When will you people learn 
that the only thing that will stop MS from doing what it does is to 
go ahead and break it up. Microsoft only understands the raw use of 
power. The only entity that has the power to keep Microsoft from 
doing what it does best (gobbling up all its competitors because it 
has a monopoly) is to break it up into pieces so that others have 
the possibility of keeping the Internet and the computing world 
diverse.
    The recent revelations of serious security holes in Microsoft`s 
latest operating system and the hideous security implications of the 
new .Net Passport technology should only serve to reinforce this 
sort of strategy. Minimizing Microsoft`s power to keep engaging in 
anti-competitive behavior is in the best interest of the whole 
world.
    Thanks.
    Mike Friedman
    2310 Alemany Blvd.
    San Francisco, CA 94112
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00005057

From: Jim Acker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 2:36pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am writing this email to express my concern over the proposed 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft Corporation. It seems to me 
that the settlement does not directly address the points on which 
Microsoft was found guilty. Any settlement should address these 
points in a manner that at a minimum prevents the behavior from 
continuing, and where possible, provides payment to parties damaged 
by the past behavior.
    At the heart of Microsoft`s business model is the extension of 
the Windows domination on the PC platform. They accomplish this in 
two ways; they strong-arm hardware vendors and they bundle 
applications into their Windows installation media to eliminate 
competition. On both these fronts, Microsoft was found guilty of 
monopolistic behavior. On the first issue, it appears that an 
effective settlement has been reached.
    On the `bundling' front, the settlement is tough 
enough. For example, they are currently bundling the Microsoft Media 
Player with every copy of Windows. It is not an innovation, as it 
offers nothing that can`t already be found in competing products in 
the market, e.g. Real Player and QuickTime. It has no valid 
operating system function. It is purely an application which gets 
enormous market share simply because it is included with Windows. It 
gains that market share w/o having to compete on it`s own merits in 
the market. This was done with their browser, their media player and 
will be continued with future products under the guise of 
`innovation'. It is very hard to regulate the software 
business, but some remedy should be proposed that determines if a 
product is truly performing an operating system function or is an 
application. Where it is an application, why must it be 
`bundled' with the Windows operating system? Are there 
strong competing products already in the market? With such simple 
scrutiny, Microsoft would not have been allowed to bundle their 
browser or their media player into Windows.
    Finally, on the subject of restitution for damages resulting 
from the behavior Microsoft was found guilty of, this seems to be 
miss the point. Giving lots of Microsoft products to schools around 
the country is from one perspective nothing more than an expensive 
marketing campaign for Microsoft. Hook the kids while they`re young. 
A better solution would be to require hard cash payment in the form 
of grants to the various school districts to be used for the same 
purpose, with one important difference. The grants would have no 
strings attached regarding what type of hardware/software was 
purchased. If a school wanted to purchase all Apple products, then 
they would be allowed to do so.
    Thank you for your consideration of my views.
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00005058

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I would still like to see the separation of Microsoft into an 
operating system division and an other software division, with 
strong legal definitions of what an operating system is. Not 
something very costly to the tax payer

[[Page 24671]]

or to Microsoft (possible loss of revenue is not a cost or a loss no 
matter how the large corporations may try to make it seem as such.) 
The Operating system is a moot point, but the other software bundled 
with it is cutting into ability of anyone to have a chance.
    Ryan Morillo
    _The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect 
those of Convergys Corporation_



MTC-00005059

From: Jackson, David (Engineering)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs
    This is my opinion of the proposed settlement of your case 
against Microsoft. Needless to say I find it less than satisfactory. 
I am surprised at the ease at which the DOJ can be disregarded by a 
corporation operating in this country. Microsoft does clearly use 
it`s monopoly to the disservice of the people of this country and 
shows no signs in being interested at all in voluntarily changing 
it`s ways. The settlement you propose is either naive or motivated 
by something other than the best interest of the people you purport 
to represent. At best it`s nothing more than a slap on the wrist and 
a promise from the company to not do this sort of thing in the 
future. This company has made promises like this in the past. The 
fact that they have ended up back in the sights of the DOJ should 
tell you what you need to know about how that went last time.
     As a user of Microsoft products (by necessity), Apple products 
(by preference), and Linux/GNU products (for stability) I have 
watched as my options have grown increasingly smaller over the 
years. This is become unbearable for me from an economic standpoint. 
An example for this can be given. I recently needed to buy a better 
video card for my Apple Macintosh G3 computer which I use for the 
majority of my computing at home. I find the system to be more 
stable than Microsoft Windows (any version) and more pleasing to 
work on from an aesthetic and ergonomic point of view. The video 
card in my Macintosh was simply not up to the task and so I went to 
my Local electronics store to find another, better, and faster card. 
That`s when I saw the end result of what you are so ready to settle 
over.
    There is only one current video card available for Apple 
Macintosh computers through retailers. It`s an ATI Radeon card with 
32MB of RAM and has very good performance. For Windows this card 
retails for $69 after rebate and is one of well over a hundred 
options I might have. Windows video cards vary in price from under 
$20 to well over $400 (excluding the grossly expensive video cards 
used by graphics professionals, these can run in the thousands of 
dollars) giving Windows users a card for every need or budget. For 
the Macintosh this card is priced at $229. It`s the same card. It 
has the same graphics chip on it and it has the same amount of 
memory. The Microsoft monopoly has effectively destroyed any choice 
I have in upgrading one of their competitors machines by it`s sheer 
size and weight. The cost of making this card with an Apple 
Macintosh ROM on it simply doesn`t justify it being priced in the 
same range as the version for Windows.
    In Linux you have a similar situation. Here you can certainly 
buy any of the countless PC video cards but you cannot find any 
companies willing to create the driver software to make these video 
cards perform to their abilities. The Windows versions of these 
drivers get updates and rewritten multiple times per year but the 
same companies will not expend the time or effort to create equal 
quality drivers (or most often `any' drivers) for Linux. 
Again my choice is limited and again Microsoft and it`s standard way 
of doing business are at the root of the problem.
    My own personal solution to this has been to not spend money on 
anything that will make Microsoft richer. It`s a uniquely American 
idea that the market is free and that it will all come out in the 
wash. By my estimation I have not given Microsoft a penny since 1994 
and I will continue to do that even though it means my stepson might 
just be the only kid on his street to not get an X-Box, ever. 
Proceed with your settlement and see how many kids own Nintendo 
Gamecubes or Sony Playstation`s in five years by the way. Whenever I 
can at work I push for the non-Microsoft alternative and I even win 
some from time to time. Realistically though I know this isn`t 
making any difference. I`m watching the products and companies I do 
support slowly vanish from the computing landscape. Individual 
consumers cannot reign this company in and it`s a matter of time 
before we are all connecting to the internet, playing games, getting 
work done, or doing any of a hundred thousand other things that will 
help our lives by nothing more than the grace of Microsoft.
    Honestly when one looks at what this company has done, is doing, 
and will be capable of doing if they remain unfettered by the laws 
of the country they do business in it is frightening. At the same 
time if the settlement is approved and those other states which have 
turned away from it are stopped from doing what is right I have to 
think that my views on the Right and Wrong of my government will 
have changed for good. It`s been my idea for most of my life that 
this country was usually (if not always) `right' and 
those who stood against it were usually (if not always) 
`wrong'. How can that be the case if the DOJ is 
interested in selling my best interests out because the 
administration of the moment wants Microsoft to keep fueling their 
economy?
    There is a right and a wrong and it`s not difficult to tell the 
difference between the two. I urge you to not pursue this settlement 
and instead actually make Microsoft do business on an equal footing 
with their peers.
    David Jackson
    Systems Support Technician
    713.755.1147



MTC-00005060

From: Kevin Buterbaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Greetings,
    As a concerned citizen of the United States, I would like to 
register my opposition to the proposed settlement between the DOJ 
and Microsoft. This settlement amounts to nothing more than a slap 
on the wrist. Even worse, it contains so many loopholes at to be 
totally useless. Of course, since Microsoft is the defendant, if a 
meaningful settlement were enacted, it would have to be vigorously 
enforced. Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it will do whatever it 
can get away with.
    Microsoft has been convicted of breaking the law. An appeals 
court unanamously upheld that conviction. Why in the world is the 
DOJ letting them walk away scott-free??? About the only good thing 
that can be said about this settlement is that, unlike the proposed 
settlement in the K-12 Education suit, at least the DOJ is not 
proposing to reward Microsoft for breaking the law.
    It is extremely obvious that those who have made this decision 
are totally ignorant of the ultimate consequences of their actions. 
Consider this: Microsoft now has a 90%+ monopoly in the desktop 
operating systems market. Let`s just say this farce of a settlement 
is allowed to stand ... Microsoft will then continue to extend their 
monopoly ... they will inevitably someday achieve a 100% monopoly, 
not just in desktops, but servers as well ... when that day arrives, 
when 100% of the computers used by the United States government run 
a Microsoft operating system, who then really runs the United 
States, George W. Bush or Bill Gates? I would not be surprised to 
find that those who support this settlement are so ignorant about 
what they`ve done that they cannot even see that the answer to that 
question is the latter.
    It is my sincere hope that those who support this settlement 
will realize their ignorance to this point and choose to pursue a 
meaningful settlement, before irrepairable harm is done not only to 
the consumer (it`s probably too late for that), but to our very 
government and way of life.
    Literally nothing short of the freedoms we hold dear is at 
stake.
    Kevin Buterbaugh
    1500 Deal Road
    Burns, TN 37029
    CC:[email protected]@in
etgw



MTC-00005061

From: Michael Haag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust file...
    The corporate version of O. J. Simpson style 
justice_bought and paid for.



MTC-00005062

From: Matias Moyano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 3:12pm
Subject: About the settlement
    hi, like an user of Microsoft Products, i have to say that the 
settlement reached by microsoft and the DOJ with the 9 of 18 states 
is a joke, MICROSOFT is not only allowed to keep doing their ANTI 
COMPETITIVE activities, this will not help the consumers at all, how 
can someone say that if microsoft is break in 2 parts is going to 
hurt the economy? what kind of joke is that??? MICROSOFT is

[[Page 24672]]

destroying the economy by just being there and doing what they do 
all the time! the economy grows if there is a way to compete 
arround!, the economy grows when someone decides to create a product 
and start selling and doing some competition, but with microsoft 
arround like that.... no one will have the chance to even take a 
product to the market because microsoft will buy them or..... wors 
and the most common strategy by microsoft that 
is.......`adding a new feature to the OS' and that 
feature is the one that is created by this new company, so, with 
this kind of market, go will want to compete if they know that they 
will be doom anyway or another? they can loose because microsoft 
haves the money to make you loose, or they can loose because 
microsoft haves the most selled OS arround, they just have to bundle 
a new feature and the company is dead, So now tell me, how this deal 
will benefit the consumers? if i will still not have the right to 
choice what ever i want? when i use winamp i know that some day it 
will not be manufactured because loose of money, and what i have? 
windows media, and so on so on so on, whats next?
    how much time we have to wait until someone realises that 
MICROSOFT IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE ECONOMI? i hope for the good of 
every consumer out there, that this deal between the DOJ, 9 states 
and the HUGE MONOPOLY OF MICROSOFT is cleared, and a new one.... the 
one that is proposed by `rebel' 9 states is taken as the 
remedi, please, hear what the people haves to say, not what some 
idiots that dont know what is to use a computer... whe dont need to 
benefit microsoft, whe need to benefit the consumers, and with the 
settlement that the DOJ accepted, the consumers are not happy at 
all.
    that is all i have to say.
    Matias Moyano.



MTC-00005063

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general 
@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 12/31/01 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have never written a letter of my own initiative to any 
government body until now. I have been in the computer industry 
since graduating from college so I have been observing Microsoft`s 
behavior for about twelve years. I cannot in good conscience allow 
the proposed `settlement' to pass without at least 
voicing my opinion.
    I recall a time when there was competition in the PC operating 
systems and application software markets. You could use DOS, 
DR-DOS, OS/2 and possibly others as your operating system. You 
could also choose between WordStar, WordPerfect, and Microsoft Word 
for your word processor. You could choose between Lotus 
1-2-3, Excel, or Quattro for your spreadsheet. There was 
competition. Microsoft has completely annihilated all competition in 
those and other markets. I remember Stacker and the Borland 
development tools. Unless something is done competition will never 
be restored to those markets.
    I do not see how the proposed settlement benefits the plaintiffs 
one iota. I doubt most of the schools have or can afford the 
resources to keep a handful of networked PC`s running. I doubt that 
it will really cost Microsoft one billion dollars in hard cash to 
dump a bunch of outdated PC`s and copies of software onto 
underprivileged schools. A columnist in InfoWorld suggested 
something that I believe would truly restore competition in the PC 
marketplace. In a nutshell, make the Windows operating system and 
the Office platform a public standard or API which other companies 
can write operating systems and applications for. Make it illegal 
for Microsoft to extend or go beyond the API without first extending 
the public definitions as they have done in the past with the 
Windows API. This would instantly create two huge markets that would 
create jobs, stimulate the economy, and benefit consumers globally. 
Of course Microsoft would vehemently object but somehow I think they 
will be able to manage. Furthermore if Microsoft`s software is so 
good they should be able to compete and win on a level playing 
field.
    Thanks for your time.
    John Curren
    System Administrator



MTC-00005064

From: sssfjet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 3:58pm
Subject: ms
    Microsoft has been a bad, bad boy. You should do what the last 
remaining states (and the citizens of America) want and wack the 
hell outta Microsoft`s pee pee. It`s time for the big bully 
Microsoft to get a taste of their own medicine. There is no need to 
keep this in the courtroom for another 10 or 15 years.
    The court system has already found them guilty. But what good is 
that if the court system does nothing about it. Pass sentence and 
kick their ass in the process!
    sfjet



MTC-00005066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Court Decision
    I, as a citizen of the United States of America, longtime 
computer user, and former manager of Information Technology 
acquisitions for the US Department of Agriculture, make a public 
record on my great concern over and disapproval of the proposed 
settlement made between the Federal Government and Microsoft in this 
case.
    The strictures themselves and the results stemming from 
implementation of them cannot and will not solve the basic problem 
of Microsoft`s illegal monopolistic activities. They can and will 
embolden the firm to continue its illegal practices and will 
adversely affect individuals, corporations, and governments around 
the world.
    Please revise the settlement such that the current and future 
actions of Microsoft will be modified commensurate with the actual 
legal findings of monopolistic practices by the company.
    T Q Stevenson
    [email protected]



MTC-00005067

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 4:21pm
Subject: Antitrust?
    After spending my hard earned tax money talking with Microsoft 
all these months, you have lost the wet noodle for the wrist slap, 
and are providing a craven settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case on weaker terms than negotiated before you won the appeals 
case. I realize the slogan `Go Nuke???em' was taken by 
the other side before you started but given the egregious Microsoft 
conduct this settlement is ridiculous. Their cries of preserving 
`innovation' are smoke. Were the gross incompatibilities 
of Wind ows Millennium innovation, or the big security holes in 
Outlook and Windows XP? I read in the Washington Post for Dec 22, 
2001 that the FBI is now giving advice to XP users on measures to 
block hackers. There has been little innovation except on how to 
block credible competition. Adding insult to injury is the proposal 
to provide school donations of software as a follow-up aimed at 
knocking out the meager competition remaining. I cannot say I am 
proud of the DOJ in this one. The hold-out states have my 
appreciation and may they prevail. May a better operating never 
appear and your Windoze eternally be hacked and crash. The only 
thing worse than this settlement was the one proposed by the FCC for 
the Nextwave wireless license fiasco.



MTC-00005068

From: Dramen Mendra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    I would hope that the continued monopolization of the software 
and internet markets by Microsoft will be stopped. Microsoft has 
been determined guilty of violating anti-trust laws, that`s good. 
But the present solution is hardly worth the effort that brings us 
to this point. I can only hope that the DOJ take another careful 
look at their present plans because those plans do nothing more than 
improve Microsoft`s` position to further control the software and 
internet markets. Please protect the American consumer, business and 
ultimately the citizens of this country by re-evaluating your 
proposed `penalty' for violating anti-trust laws. How 
many more enterprising software developers must bite the dust. How 
much more can consumers be forced to swallow whatever Microsoft 
dishes out? Will it have to get so bad that we will be forced to go 
down this road again, and will we have the dubious luxury at that 
point?
    A concerned consumer and citizen.



MTC-00005069

From: tsungshiang sun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    As a pride American citizen, I definately support Microsoft. It 
will be great to settle this anti-trust case as soon as possibe for 
the benefit of consumers and our economic.

[[Page 24673]]

    Fred Sun



MTC-00005071

From: Graham Grist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:25pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am amazed at the leniency of the settlement proposed. It is 
evident that Microsoft have flagrantly disregarded the law in 
building a dominant monopoly position.
    It is also clear that the settlement in no way adequately 
prevents the company from using its monopoly power again, and it is 
doing so as much as it can.
    The key architect Bill Gates should be banned from any executive 
involvement. The company should be split up. Just because the 
original judge was foolish enough to breach protocol does not mean 
his remedies were wrong and that the American people and the world 
should suffer the predatory pricing and other actions that this 
company has at the root of its culture.
    Graham Grist MA (Oxon) FCT



MTC-00005072

From: John Peters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is beyond me why my tax dollars are even being used to 
investigate the so called monopolistic acts of Microsoft.
    I realize that this whole thing is the fact that Internet 
Explorer is considered a part of Windows. But I as a consumer have 
the ability to go on the web, download, and install any browser I 
feel. I do not feel forced to use Internet explorer. Also as a 
consumer I can purchase and install any operating system I chose 
again I do not feel tied to Windows.
    I feel that the worse thing that Microsoft has done is find out 
what the consumer wants and put into an operating system. I think we 
need to get rid of all these anti-Microsoft special interest groups 
and let them find something else to complain about. Perhaps they 
could complain about the lack of affordable health care instead of 
complaining about Microsoft.
    What effect does a finding against Microsoft have on the big 
picture.
    Again please don`t waste my tax dollars on investigating this or 
on any further court cases against Microsoft.
    I Love Microsoft!!
    Also, if the DOJ replies to these messages please feel free to 
send it through the mail. I am proud Postal Worker.
    John Peters
    730 Armistice Blvd.
    Pawtucket, RI. 02861-2749



MTC-00005073

From: Tjack1931
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:25pm
Subject: Settlement
    I Would like to voice my Opinion on the Microsoft settlement.. I 
think it is in our Interest for you the Justice dept. to settle this 
ongoing witch hunt against Microsoft, I think that there is more of 
a monopoly going on with AOL and Time Warner than any other outfit 
out there.. why are you not faulting them that brought the suit in 
the first place.. For Gods sake settle and move on to more pressing 
problems that we have in this country then picking a Company such as 
Microsoft apart that has done so much for us computer users,
    Sincerely
    Helga Jackson
    4318 So 325th St.
    Auburn, WA 98001
    [email protected]



MTC-00005074

From: Jerald Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should not be penalized for its business practices. I 
use Microsoft products as well a many of their competitors and I 
believe these companies should be let alone to compete. We consumers 
can decide what products we want to buy. Please end this case and 
let everyone get back to developng products.
    Jerald Hill
    8020 Thunder River Way
    Cumming, GA 30040



MTC-00005075

From: William R (Bill) Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    While I feel strongly that the entire case against Microsoft has 
been an abuse of power by the Justice Department pushed by companies 
who could not compete and for various self-interest groups, it 
probably is best to put this matter behind us and get on with 
business. I do not feel that the restrictions and sanctions being 
placed on Microsoft will significantly impact its ability to provide 
quality products and enhance the overall computer user community 
whether it be business or personal. It may impact those companies 
who sought to rely on government and judicial powers to be able to 
compete. Maybe now they will attempt to be more competitive on a 
product basis.
    William R. Moore
    1300 Pebble Drive
    Greensboro, NC 27410
    William R. (Bill) Moore
    www.big-m.com
    [email protected]
    Where there`s a Will, there`s a way but only the saavy survive! 
It`s lonely up here on Olympus.



MTC-00005076

From: Lee Pollard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    There are many more important issues for this country than DOJ 
meddling in the free enterprise market. It is ironic to me that AOL 
/ Netscape can essential do the same thing as Microsoft has been 
charged with, although not nearly as well, and those companies are 
not under any type of wasteful investigation.
    Microsoft provides a solid platform for the majority of computer 
users worldwide to be able to communicate and work together.
    Take whatever they have decided to give you and leave them 
alone.
    Lee Pollard
    USMA `86
    Owner_Computer Therapy



MTC-00005077

From: Rollie Hallen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Th Whom it may concern;
    I feel that the US government was completely taken by microsoft 
in this ordeal. Big business won, the government and people from all 
over the world lost. But what would you expect, doesn`t business run 
the US government?
    Roland W. Hallen
    3310 9th St.
    Lewiston, ID 83501



MTC-00005078

From: Gene Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to stop this nonsense and quit wasting my 
taxpayer dollars on this case. Microsoft has literally created the 
computer industry. The interchangeability of applications on 
different brand PC`s is a tribute to the Microsoft operating 
systems. Who cares if it comes bundled with MS products. Their 
products are good_and they work! That`s what consumers really 
need. The vast majority of PC users want something easy to 
use_ that`s MS products. They`ve made a lot of money_so 
what? They deserve it. They earned it.
    Let`s settle this case and be done with it. The Federal 
Government should devote its efforts to tracking down criminals and 
terrorists_not good businessmen!
    Gene Owens
    Shrewsbury, PA



MTC-00005079

From: Dick Foreman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:31pm
Subject: Re: judgement
    This is a farce, you have given in to Microsoft and their 
monopolistic practices. They will continue to screw the public 
knowing the government will do nothing to stop them or punish them 
for their transgressions. The golden rule is alive and well in the 
USA, `he who has the gold, rules.'
    Dick Foreman, [email protected]
    Foreman Art, Research & Technology
    1002-1 Pacific Grove Lane
    Pacific Grove, CA 93950
    Phone: 831.657.9493
    http://www.foremanart.net



MTC-00005080

From: Hannum Dion G.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally think this settlement is just. In my opinion it 
would be a waste of taxpayers money to prolong this case.
    Dion G. Hannum

[[Page 24674]]



MTC-00005081

From: Jim Davlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:32pm
Subject: Please read
    There was once a time in this country when a man could invent a 
better mousetrap. He could benefit from it and live the good life. 
Microsoft is such a company. Don`t punish them because other big 
businesses can`t figure out how to beat them. To bad you did not 
watch Enron closer.
    Jim Davlin
    8833 Jaylee Drive
    San Gabriel, ca\\CA
    91775
    626-309-0429
    CC:RFC-822=0_23163_79E0AE9D-3CC5-D211-86EF-
0008C7DAAE...



MTC-00005082

From: Jim Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    Please stop wasting our money going after the American dream. 
This type of company growth is what our country was built upon.
    If government keeps stepping and trying to make all types of 
companies the same then why not have one company run everything i.e. 
`The Government Company' that provides software, 
support, etc.
    I for one am very tired about the wasted time and money being 
spent on trying to kill Microsoft for the hurt feelings of the few. 
If these companies products were better then they would have been 
brought! I had various M/S software clones and they just don`t do 
the job!
    I bet you are looking at this e-mail on some M/S software 
product.
    Regards
    Jim Marsh
    Public Citizen



MTC-00005083

From: Jim Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Please initiate the settlement with Microsoft and get on with 
other more pressing businness fo the Department. This has gone on 
long enough.
    I have used Microsoft products for years, I understand the 
breadth of their market share and don`t blame their competitors for 
being worried, they provide a good product at a reasonable price, 
and that is why they have the market they do.
    Let Microsoft get on with developing new products and helping 
the computer industry reach its potential That after all is why they 
call it `FREE' Enterprise.
    James E. Miller, Alameda, Ca
    A concerned consumer.



MTC-00005084

From: Ralph Heymann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft`s competitors have caused enough damage and should be 
restrained from causing more havoc
    As a satisifed user of Microsoft`s products I believe that the 
proposed settlement is good for all concerned, the consumer, 
Microsoft`s competitors and, most of all, our economy.
    There is a need that these proceedings come to a close and the 
DOJ settlement be accepted as a good and fair one.
    Ralph Heymann
    Chapel Hill NC



MTC-00005085

From: Killraven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m posting this in response to a Microsoft FINFlash e-mail 
asking people to give their opinions to the DOJ in regards to the 
proposed Antitrust settlement.
    My opinion is that the current proposed settlement would make 
the money spent on the investigation a bigger waste than that spent 
on the Whitewater investigation.
    For a token penalty (less than 10% of MS`s petty cash!) 
Microsoft would be handed a huge victory in being able to strengthen 
their Operating System monopoly in the one area that they have 
largely been kept out of, the Public Education System.
    Years back, prior to Windows 95, the PC public had a choice of 
at least three different Operating Systems (MS-DOS, PC DOS, and 
Novell DOS (aka, DR DOS)), all of which would adequately run the 
Windows 3x environment. Now we are restricted to Microsoft only. 
This has certainly stifled innovation in the technical arena, as 
history shows that Microsoft has almost always been a copier or 
purchaser of innovation. The existence of alternative OS`s (Linux, 
Be and various Mac flavors) is simply not adequate as the majority 
of the worlds computer programs are designed for the various flavors 
of Windows, from business applications to entertainment.
    In my opinion, the nine states that did not readily accept 
Microsoft`s tainted bait have an acceptable solution in forcing 
Microsoft to offer a stripped down version of Windows that will 
allow users to build their OS with only the tools they desire or 
require.
    Also, in my opinion, the best overall solution would be to 
require Microsoft to license the portions of Windows code that would 
allow competitors to build their own Operating Systems that would be 
completely Windows-x compatible so that consumers would once again 
truly have freedom of choice. Competition is the true mother of 
innovation, and innovation helps everyone.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Paul A. Hoerner
    Bismarck, ND
    USA



MTC-00005086

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please wrap this thing up and move forward! Examine every 
dissenting state AG and you will see MS competitors among their 
constituents and/or politically ambitious grandstanders who are 
attempting to keep the pot boiling on this issue to put their names 
and faces in the newspapers. I have been using computers for years 
and can assure you that these machines were merely word processors 
before Windows came along. If we want the new industry leaders to be 
based offshore then keep on harassing our innovators.
    Sincerely,
    James Brumwell (MS stockholder, I`ll buy Sun & Oracle too 
when they put their primary emphasis on improving their products 
rather than placing it on trying to pull down the industry leader by 
court action!)



MTC-00005087

From: Robert Keating
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft is the market leader in 
software because they make the best products. The market has voted 
with their dollars, and Microsoft has won the election.
    Microsoft`s competitors could not compete in the marketplace and 
are trying to use the government to help their cause. They should 
compete with their products instead.
    Targeting Microsoft in the first place was a bad idea. This DOJ 
suite has contributed to the downturn of the economy. Encourage the 
companies of the nation rather try to throttle them.
    Robert Keating
    Oklahoma City, OK



MTC-00005088

From: Frank Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of the 
economy and US consumers that the government settle the DOJ case 
against Microsoft. I find it extremely difficult to understand why 
the government (both federal and state) continues to pursue 
litigation against a company that has created thousands of much 
needed jobs and provided so much benefit for the consumer. 
Continuing this litigation will only worsen an already sluggish 
economy with no additional value to the consumer.
    Sincerely
    Frank Rice



MTC-00005089

From: Wright, Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave American Business alone!!! All things being equal.it could 
never become as corrupt as a government.



MTC-00005090

From: shannon Gamba-Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 24675]]

    D.O.J.-
    This needs to be done with. The government should seriously have 
more important things to do than interfering with private 
enterprise. Get off their backs for the sake of the public, and stop 
spending tax dollars to support vindictiveness on the part of MSFT`s 
rivals. They have done nothing but help our economy and our daily 
lives. Microsoft touches all our lives every day. This is America, 
remember? `Land of the free'. Thank-you
    Shannon Lewis
    7230 Harbor Light Way
    Sacramento, CA 95831
    916-255-4676



MTC-00005091

From: Keith R. White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:47 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the litigations to end, even though I do not 
believe Microsoft did anything wrong or improper, the settlement is 
as close to fair as we are going to see.
    Keith R. White
    Comp TIA A+ Certified
    [email protected]



MTC-00005092

From: Glenn Fincher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:09 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This email is to lodge my concerns regarding the settlement 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. PLEASE cease and desist from wasting 
ANY more of MY money on pursuing this frivolous suit! Microsoft is 
being pursued not by Justice, but by jealous competitors who are 
unable to bring to market satisfactory products able to compete with 
Microsoft in the free market. Thus, they, NOT JUSTICE has pursued 
this ongoing and costly suit to the detriment of free enterprise, 
the consumer, and untold employees in the IT industry.
    It is my opinion that Microsoft has been driven unfairly to make 
concessions that bode well only for those faithless companies that 
have pursued them in the courts, not the consumer. End this charade, 
and allow this final settlement to put at rest the pursuit of a 
company that has built an industry. AOL, Sun, Netscape, Oracle and 
the others wish only to supplant Microsoft as the single most 
successful company in American history; NOT to provide any real 
alternative nor innovation of their own.
    Glenn Fincher
    Microsoft Certified System Engineer
    Windows 2000 & XP MCP
    InToto Technologies, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00005093

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:47 pm
Subject: Microsoft/Government Settlement
    Sirs,
    Please by all means end this situation. Microsoft is on our 
country`s plus ledger with respect to our balance of payments; as is 
the Boeing Airplane Company and other very large companies.
    From my read the settlement appears OK and it should get 
implemented.
    This opinion from a World War 2 vet who can remember the 
Depression Era and can still think about assets in our national 
intrest.
    Yours truly,
    Martin Schames



MTC-00005094

From: Kevin Tracy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:58 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As long as I can remember I have always been a user of microsoft 
products, and now, as a business owner, their products make up the 
backbone of my company. Recently, it has come to my attention that 
they had reached a settlement which can still be contested. While 
not clear what the opposition wants as an end result to the 
settlement, it is clear what harm could be caused to microsoft, and 
indirectly to my company. The longer Microsoft is busy dealing with 
legal issues and spending more money on them, the longer it may take 
for them to release an innovative new product. It may also cause a 
layoff of a worker.
    This worker may be the one who could have saved a contract for 
my company through excellent and fast technical support. While this 
is a improbable example, the longer and more expensive the legal 
battle is for Microsoft, as well as perhaps any increased damages 
resulting from it, the more this concept becomes a reality. And this 
is not just my reality, there are millions of people just like me 
who rely on Microsoft for products and as a company. That is why I 
ask that you as a group to finish this as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Tracy



MTC-00005095

From: Larry Babcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:49 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please do what ever it takes to settle this, it has gone on long 
enough. The longer this litigation takes the more obvious it is 
about money, not fairness to the consumer. We need to move on.



MTC-00005096

From: Stu Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:49 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the US government_you need to do whatever it takes to 
keep Microsoft in this country. They could do like American Express 
has done, or like Pinnacle West has done and move the operations to 
India. This takes you out of the picture. They could just move north 
less than 200 miles and you are out of the picture and what would 
you do for software to run your computers? What would I do? What 
would the people who haven`t used their brains that are pushing for 
this do for software? Lets realize that many people would not be 
employed today if it were not for what Microsoft has done. While I 
realize that your efforts protect me and others in the industry, 
please consider that the money Microsoft has spent on this means 
that I pay more for their products and I pay more taxes. Any company 
must make a profit and if you cost them money, they must pass it on 
to the consumer. My taxes pay your salary! So lets work out a 
compromise that keeps Microsoft in the country.
    If you want to prosecute someone or a company look to companies 
that hire consultants from India or Pakistan or the Philippines or 
Australia. They say its because of a lack of qualified applicants. 
That is a lie. Why can I say that? I work for a company that hires 
consultants from India and the last two openings that were posted 
had over 87 qualified applicants after very careful screening. There 
are literally over a thousand computer programmers in the Phoenix 
area alone looking for work and you and I mean you allow companies 
to hire consultants from another country and the money flows back to 
that country. It doesn`t help the US or the local economy. This 
slowly erodes our society_it is done slow_it is done 
subtle_you are fooled_the communities are ruined 
forever. Why are the communities ruined? People go 
bankrupt_they are ruined over greed. And who cares about a few 
people? Well let this continue and it may be you. Think of the 
teachers from India teaching your school children! What American 
history, or perspective can they give your school child?
    This goes on_do you have the integrity to do something 
about it?



MTC-00005097

From: Greg Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:50 pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    DOJ
    As a consumer, I would like to comment on the `Public 
interest' of the Microsoft litigation case. It is my opinion 
that further litigation would only cause harm to consumers. Given 
the events of the last few months, it is more important than ever to 
move forward in a positive manner and allow consumers and the 
markets work...the way this country designed them to work. The 
penalties put in place should allow all companies to prosper in the 
highly competitive, and ever changing, technology marketplace, with 
the end result being better products for consumers. Further 
litigation would only harm consumers. Close the case...move on...and 
let everyone get back to business.
    Thank you for your time,
    Gregory J. Manning



MTC-00005098

From: Mark Eden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:50 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to add my voice to the `settle already' 
column. The settlement is fair and just. Please allow the software 
business to get back to business. This on-going litigation only 
helps a few large companies and does nothing to help consumers or 
other competitors.
    If the lingering states` litigation was actually based on 
protecting me I might feel

[[Page 24676]]

differently. It is about greed and anti-competitiveness. Using the 
government to try to help sales of their products is abhorrent. They 
should be making better products.
    Thank you,
    Mark Eden



MTC-00005099

From: Sharyn Verdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:50 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this lawsuit. Enough time and money has been 
spent. Let`s get on to something more pressing...like responsible 
immigration policies and tracking.
    Sharyn K. Verdon



MTC-00005100

From: randaus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:49 pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    YOU THE DEPT OF JUSTICE ARE TRYING YOUR TO MAKE US A THIRD RATE 
COUNTRY.
    YOU MAKE THE RUSSIANS PALE IN COMPARISON TO YOU.



MTC-00005101

From: Vitula Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:51 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very pleased that the DOJ and various states have come to 
common ground in the suit against Microsoft. I have always felt it 
was terribly wrong to blame a company for being successful. I 
understand the final settlement has not yet been reached and I hope 
for a prompt and complete closure in the near future. May all the 
companies in the United States be as successful as Microsoft!
    Ida Vitula Green
    22506 SE Highland Circle
    Issaquah, WA 98029-5207
    12-31-2001



MTC-00005102

From: Jason D. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:52 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to voice my opinion that it is in the public`s 
best interest to allow the Microsoft settlement to go through.
    Thanks,
    Jason D. Miller



MTC-00005103

From: Shelley Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:52 pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am not a computer whiz and I could only parrot statements and 
articles others have written about the Microsoft case. The best that 
I can do is tell you how scared I am about the things I read about 
what Microsoft could do if not held back_the control over ME 
they could eventually have_and all the other little guys in 
the USA. My understanding is that they are hoping to crush the 
Internet freedoms provided by other browsers and have total control.
    No one or no company should have total or nearly total control 
over anything in our country. Isn`t that what outlawing monopolies 
is all about? What has happened in our country that we no longer 
protect and encourage the little guy? Why does Microsoft need so 
much control and/or so much money?
    `Settling' the problem with `free' 
computers to schools sounds noble, but to me it`s just another way 
to capture another segment of the computer world. It`s interesting 
that Microsoft`s recent attempts at operating systems (the ones with 
`Window' in their name) are also attempts to be as much 
like another operating system as they can possibly be.
    Why would we want to reward a system that has 
`allowed' the hacking, worms and viruses that have 
crippled the whole world of computing at times? I`ve even read that 
they leave loopholes on purpose so they can heroically 
`fix' them later.
    Please, please consider very carefully what the outcome will be 
in this case. Microsoft has, after all, been found guilty of 
violating monopoly laws. Shouldn`t the penalties be in line with 
those of other monopoly abusers?
    Shelley Anderson



MTC-00005104

From: JOHN J JOHNSTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:53 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    GENTLEMEN,
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
The Federal Govt. should close this case and tell the States to fall 
in line with the Fed Govt. settlement.



MTC-00005105

From: Stephen Cracknell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:54 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I just wanted to make certain that the DOJ decision makers were 
aware that there is a great deal of support for Microsoft around the 
country. It seems apparent that most of the commotion about 
monopolies and unfair practices is being generated by Microsoft`s 
faltering competition and not by the end users. These end users are 
currently experiencing hyper-innovation to a point where they are 
beginning to complain about the pace of change in the industry. 
Please focus your energies on industries that are clearly being 
driven by unhealthy monopoly practices like the airline industry`s 
International Airline and Transportation Association (IATA) who`s 
primary role is to fix prices. Also please crack down on the major 
airlines` oligopoly practices used to squeeze startup airlines out 
of business.
    Stephen



MTC-00005106

From: Larry Davenport
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 5:58 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much NOT in favor of the settlement you have 
negotiated with Microsoft. It appears that once again, Microsoft has 
outwitted the DOJ. It seems that the DOJ is more interested in a 
quick settlement than a just one. For those of us who must do 
business with Microsoft, and we must since that have a monopoly 
position, we know that it is their actions and not their innovations 
that are a corner stone of their marketing practices. Just look at 
their latest policies for upgrades.
    You must reverse your settlement and do something to eliminate 
the monopolistic position that Microsoft exploits.
    Lawrence G. Davenport
    Executive Vice President & CIO
    Foamex International Inc.
    (610) 859-3618
    (610) 859-3613 Fax



MTC-00005107

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:54 pm
Subject: Microsoft:
    Microsoft:
    Cannot believe that the DOJ spent such little time and money on 
the terrorists and so much on Microsoft. ( Of course before 911
    Carl K. Kapikian



MTC-00005108

From: William and Gwen Fisk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 5:57 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We think The Tunney Act should be accepted. This case should be 
settled. It`s now four years old. Our economy does not need more 
litigation. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good 
for us, the industry and the American economy.
    Thank you,
    William & Gwen Fisk



MTC-00005109

From: Ben Vega
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:00 pm
Subject: My Public opinion
    End all litigation against Microsoft.
    all litigation against Microsoft is against the public interest 
and the capitalist system.
    Benedict J. Vega



MTC-00005110

From: Joe Ciconte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:00 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in full support of Microsoft. I belive that an American Tax 
Paying company has a right to make money. Being a computer 
professional I know that consumers have the right to choose their 
software (bundled or not), there are other companies that offer 
Microsoft Microsoft makes top of the line software and with Windows 
a lot of people would not have the ability to run a computer. 
Microsoft should not be punished for being a successful corporation.
    Joe Ciconte



MTC-00005111

From: (123)USER(u)FIRSTNAME(125) (123)USER(u)LASTNAME(125)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:01 pm
Subject: Microsoft settllement

[[Page 24677]]

    I am of the belief that the Microsoft suit brought by the 
various State attorneys General should be dismissed in the interest 
of justice and that no further prosecution of Microsoft should 
occur.
    Ronald
    Matthews, San Diego, Ca.



MTC-00005112

From: JPW Consulting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:02 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi,
    I do not agree with the terms of the Microsoft anti-trust case 
settlement. As a member of the software development community I am 
more than aware, and have suffered under Microsoft`s licencing 
policies for several years. I especially find the 
`donation' to schools of Microsoft software to be cruel 
and unusual punishment. This money should be up to the schools to 
spend and not to force additional Microsoft products down the 
school`s throat. Head back to the table and come up with something 
more than the current slap on the wrist! 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005113

From: Ben Vega
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:02 pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Setlement
    End all action against Microsoft. It is NOT in the interest of 
the American public or Capitalism
    Benedict J Vega



MTC-00005114

From: john keener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:04 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs, To make this as simple as possible, I am asking you 
to allow companies in an extremely competitive and changing 
marketplace to do business. We don`t need to have all of the 
restrictive practices of past decades.
    Thank you for you consideration.
    Regards,
    John Keener
    6500 Edgewood Court
    Granbury, TX 76049-4318



MTC-00005115

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:03 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have comments about the Microsoft Settlement. This entire 
matter has been out of control since the beginning. There are many 
companies that do business a certain way, and the customers either 
buy or patron the manufacturer or supplier or they do not. All of 
Microsoft`s competition has had the same opportunity to manufacture 
products that the consumers will buy, but the customers do decide 
what they want. If Microsoft supplies a product the consumers want, 
they will continue to purchase it, if they fail the public, 
likewise, the public will let them know. This settlement is more 
than fair for Microsoft. To me, I feel it is totally unfair to 
penalize a company for going after the American dream, and providing 
the world with products that have excelled, and advanced the world.
    The jealousy of others to go after Microsoft, cost many in the 
business world their businesses, and jobs. My opinion, it created 
most of what we deem `the recession' due to job losses.
    I suggest, what would be a more meaningful avenue to pursue is 
all of the fees and surcharges American`s are paying in their 
telephone bills, and cable bills under the FCC fee`s, Universal 
Fee`s which amount in excess of $300 annually per account. These 
funds were not appropriated by Congress to be taken from the 
consumers. These are taken from as I said Telephones, Cable, Cell 
Phone bills, and these are uncalled for, and robbery from all 
Americans. These collections are just the same as before when 
Americans were paying for the Spanish American War still from Phone 
bills recently, those funds were not repaid to Telephone subscribers 
either. This is something that does need investigation and cleaning 
up.
    Please end the unjust Microsoft ordeal, it is a total waste of 
the taxpayers money, and has cost America dearly in jobs and 
businesses. Again, I feel strongly, the consumer will purchase what 
they wish, leave the manufactures to make the best they can offer, 
and allow the public to choose. The ones that are sore at free 
enterprise, need to come up with ideas and products that drive the 
consumers to buy their products, they just need to be better, 
instead of fight this way. Please end the ordeal, the settlement is 
past being fair to those who have suffered nothing, but are jealous 
of `Free Enterprise of the American dream.' Thanks for 
your time. God Bless America! May 2002 bring us a very good year and 
blessings to all.
    Sincerely,
    Gerry J Slobe
    CEO/President GETAM Enterprises
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,Hannity 
@foxnews.com@inetgw,Ru...



MTC-00005116

From: Sherry Berghefer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the matter of the Microsoft antitrust settlement, I have to 
say I disagree with the judgement. For years, I have watched the DOJ 
and several states (unfortunately, mine is included) waste time and 
money on a pointless case. Because of Microsoft`s success, they are 
now to be penalized and I question the logic in this endeavor.
    I was raised to believe that I lived in a free enterprise system 
and that regardless of what I did, I should do my best at it. What 
this case has shown us is that the free enterprise system works as 
long as everyone agrees to be mediocre. Success is punished, while 
mediocrity is lauded. What a puzzling concept.
    For a time, Netscape was the predominant browser available on 
the market. Why? Because it was free and, for a while, more robust 
and user-friendly than Internet Explorer. Along comes a significant 
improvement in Microsoft`s technology and, hold the phone, Netscape 
gets scared. It realizes that it can`t keep up with Microsoft 
anymore, that it`s product is nowhere near as desirable as 
Microsoft`s. Now, instead of demanding more innovation from its 
programmers, Netscape ran crying to the federal government that it 
wasn`t fair. Other companies decided to join them on the anti-
Microsoft bandwagon. After all, if someone is making you look bad, 
it`s easier to push them out of the picture than it is to change 
yourself.
    What I wonder is whether anyone has thought about how Microsoft 
came to be so dominant? The answer is simple: consumers.
    Consumers want something that works the way they want it to at a 
reasonable price. Microsoft now offers that. I didn`t used to like 
Microsoft`s products. They were cumbersome, bloated and were not 
designed with the user in mind. They learned from their mistakes, 
though, and have created very robust and easy-to-use programs. I`ve 
tried many of the other options out there, and have to say, that I`m 
very unimpressed. All these other companies have apparently devoted 
too much of their R&D money to pursuing the big, bad giant. 
Meanwhile, consumers have been moving away from the so-so software 
and going to something they know works. Microsoft has implemented a 
consumer wish list for their products. Other companies just sit back 
and whine.
    I would suggest that perhaps the government should take the time 
to see how many consumers are really feeling put-out by Microsoft`s 
success. I would wager that the vast majority of consumers feel that 
this entire pursuit is unwarranted.
    Sincerely,
    Sherry Berghefer
    Nevada, Iowa
    [email protected]



MTC-00005117

From: Andy Baldwin
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    As an IT professional I would like to cast my $.02 worth on the 
Microsoft Anti-trust settlement.
    First and foremost I have always been of the opinion that the 
lawsuit should never have been brought in the first place. The 
reasons are numerous but the best way I have been able to voice my 
view is by means of an analogy. If I were a headlight manufacture 
and I as a businessman signed a contract with my clients to provide 
an alternate headlight to the standard headlight deployed on a 
Chevrolet car and I was making money doing so I would be set for a 
long time financially. Then one year Chevrolet changes their body 
style (without consulting me first of course) and my headlights no 
longer work without the clients doing some modifications to their 
cars then what is my course of action?
    In the case of Netscape they sued to make Microsoft change their 
product to more easily accept Netscape software. This is much like 
me in the above analogy suing Chevrolet to change their new car 
model to accept my old headlights. What should happen is that I as

[[Page 24678]]

a business man should adapt my product to work with the new model OR 
start manufacturing a car of my own that comes with my headlights 
standard. Netscape could do the same.......
    If your product is harder to install or does not function 
properly with the new versions of Windows then create an OS of your 
own and try to buy into the market, not use taxpayer money to have 
the government order a private business to change and accept a 
product that was created and modified and relies on certain things 
in Windows to work. Netscape has modified their software to run 
under Linux, Unix, Mac OS and you do not hear them gripe when Mac 
changes their OS and software needs updating.
    I would love to see yet another OS on the market that can 
perform and is supported like Windows. Personally we have tried to 
use things like Linux but found that the OS is harder to use for end 
users and much more difficult to maintain. We have elected not to 
use it for these reasons. The point here is that we made a financial 
decision to not use an ALMOST free OS because it does not perform at 
the same level as Windows.
    You always hear about the patches and fixes being release for MS 
software. MMMMM .....Readhat has release at least 3 version this 
last year and a multitude of security and bug fixes along side these 
versions.
    If you want to write software that relies on a 3rd party OS or 
3rd party software and that manufacture changes something that 
disables your tool then you have a choice. Change your product to 
work or STOP RELYING ON THE 3RD PARTY ALL TOGETHER!
    Why is Microsoft at the top of the food chain? In my opinion it 
is because the founders had a dream, a goal, and did what it took to 
accomplish that goal. Mind you this was done in a time when your 
average Joe Person had no idea what a computer was. When this turned 
into a windfall of financial rewards, those who did not latch on to 
the possibilities cry foul and ask the government to step in and 
give them a piece of the pie that they were not fore-thoughtful 
enough to cut into in the beginning.
    If this lawsuit goes on then I plan on asking the government to 
step in on my behalf. A decade ago a company called Wal-Mart went 
public. I did not think it would amount to much so I did not buy 
stock in the company. Now I think I am entitled to the profits that 
I COULD have reaped had I invested. Is the government going to use 
taxpayer money to help me recover my `LOSS'? I don`t 
think so. Neither should the government be stepping in to help 
companies that did not perform when they should have been to recover 
their so called `LOSSES'.
    To sum up the reason for this email I would like to encourage 
DOJ to accept the courts rulings, and most of all put this lawsuit 
to rest for good. In other words ACCEPT IT and MOVE ON. This goes 
for the 9 greedy states that are standouts from accepting the offer 
for whatever reason they stated. Think of the possibilities that all 
the funds (taxpayer money) used in the frivolous pursuit of 
Microsoft could have been used for. All the real DOJ interest such 
as home law enforcement, national safety, public safety, and other 
endeavors. For instance think about how quickly things like the Ford 
/ Firestone problem could have been identified if DOJ had gone after 
them instead of private individuals who finally got the 
Transportation Safety Administration involved.
    Think about the possibility of a much lower crime rate if that 
money had been used by state and local law enforcement. Think about 
the backlog of cases that could have been prosecuted in the last 
4-5 years. After all this I would once again as a voter and a 
taxpayer HIGHLY ENCOURAGE you to accept the Court findings 
(including the 9 stand out states) and move on to more important 
endeavors.
    Andrew Baldwin
    Programmer/Analyst
    Anatel Corporation
    [email protected] 
 303.417.8149



MTC-00005118

From: Edward Kalabus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:08pm
Subject: M/S Settelment
    Dear US Government:
    The Microsoft penalty should be far more harsh and should be 
cold hard cash, a penalty they would understand. The current XP 
operating system shows there is no contrition what so ever by this 
certified monopoly.
    Ed Kalabus
    607 Thunderbird Dr.
    Prescott, Az 86303



MTC-00005119

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    New Year`s Eve, 2001.
    Your Honour(s), Ladies and Gentlemen of the District Court, and 
anyone else relevant:
    Re: The Microsoft situation
    First, for the record, I am not a Microsoft shareholder, 
employee, or otherwise have any interest in the Company, except that 
occasionally I purchase (and duly license) its products for my small 
business purposes. Second, please let me be transparent and state 
that I believe that Microsoft has been dealt with harshly. There is 
ample evidence that the Company`s competitors have been, and 
continue during this comment period, to be instigators.
    Third, the Company`s products are a tremendous facilitator of 
the small business owner, including all the interchangeability and 
cross-referencing between programs that can be accomplished. Lastly, 
my view is that the time has come to cease all the litigation. If 
there is an end to this matter, after the Appeals Court ruling, then 
fine, regardless if one thinks it too harsh.
    This country is in danger from terrorists and other economic 
constraints. We need all our economic, legal, and judicial power to 
be constructive and progressive in times like this. So let us have 
the settlement finalised at the end of this commentary period, let 
us get on with the pursuit of our true enemies, and let us rebuild 
from the damage of 2001. These goals will be greatly aided by 
getting our economy going again.
    Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may 
have with regard to verifying this public comment. My office 
(Pacific time) is (760) 930-0500 -0520(fax).
    Yours very truly
    Anthony W Fox
    President
    EBD Group
    6120 Paseo del Norte, J2
    Carlsbad CA
    92009



MTC-00005120

From: Rob Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The whole Microsoft issue has been carried on for far too long 
at your countries tax payers? expense, it is time to come to a 
settlement whereby the public are the winners. I believe the 
settlement outlined appears to be acceptable to all parties and 
should be adopted as early as possible. I have not always agreed 
with Microsoft`s policies but they have been handled completely 
unfairly during this ongoing farce ? it is time to put an end to it
    Best Regards
    Rob Foster
    Foster Information Services
    web: www.fis-uk.comHYPERLINK `http://www.fis-uk.com/
'
    email: [email protected]
    tele: +44(0)7710 255561
    fax: +44(0)1784 488142



MTC-00005121

From: michael govern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:12pm
Subject: Den of Thieves
    What share of market do the pirates have? In China, it is some 
where around 90%_almost the same for Latin America. The Court, 
Media, & Microsoft Haters never address this issue. If Penfield 
Jackson says that MSFT has a 90% share, it must be true. If Judge 
Edwards says MSFT has a 90% share, it must be true. If Clinton said 
he did not sleep with that woman, it must be true.



MTC-00005122

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please!! Enough is enough. If you`re interested in ability of 
the consumer to receive the best at the least cost, continuing this 
lawsuit is not the way to do it. Allowing certain companies with 
agendas of their own to push for the continuation is not fair to the 
public, who are the only ones (besides Microsoft) who will suffer. 
Please end this thing.
    Thank you,
    Adrienne Brauer



MTC-00005123

From: Walter Ullengren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:18pm
Subject: Freedom
    To whom it may concern,

[[Page 24679]]

    Listen folks you still have the best product out there and that 
should what it`s all about! If you our blocking somebody`s else`s 
dream well then that`s another story!
    E.O.M



MTC-00005124

From: Timothy Gorski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    While I am generally sympathetic with businesses that choose to 
make their own decisions in the marketplace, I am very concerned 
that the DOJ is setting Microsoft free to engage in new and greater 
abuses of its monopoly power. In particular, I see now that 
Microsoft`s new XP operating system *forces* users to upgrade, is 
configured to interfere with the users` ability to upgrade their 
hardware components, and that these features appear to be primarily 
designed to wring cash out of users of the Microsoft XP products. 
Microsoft has said right along that it`s Windows operating system 
should be thought of just like an automobile_their favorite 
comparison.
    But what automobile forces its users to purchase additional 
modifications from the manufacturer? What automobile quits working 
when the owner puts in new upholstery or makes other changes to the 
vehicle? I urge you to reopen the Microsoft case and consider these 
continued and, from the looks of it, planned bigger abuses of 
Microsoft`s monopoly power with respect to PC operating systems.
    Respectfully,
    Tim Gorski MD



MTC-00005126

From: CHARLES CLAYWELL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the Department of Justice or government and a 
group of people including the judge that first tried the case, and 
the state attorney generals that joined the case and the news media 
with their lip service in general, all were banded together because 
they could not compete. Microsoft was treating the public fairly 
plus doing a better job of developing new software at a better price 
then their competition. I think it is time for everyone to tiptoe 
away and let Microsoft do an even better job than they have before.
    Thank you,
    Charles F. Claywell



MTC-00005127

From: Charles Romanus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please bring this case to a final conclusion. it ahs gone on 
long enough and we need to concentrate our national efforts and 
resources in other areas. I highly recommend that the DOJ and all of 
the States involved in the Microsoft case mutually agree with the 
settlement that has been accepted by the DOJ.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter and Happy New 
Year,
    Charles F. Romanus
    595 Eat Gate Drive
    Thomasville, GA 31757



MTC-00005128

From: Richard F Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement in fair to all concerned and this 
should be settled without further litigation. We need Microsoft back 
doing what they do best and not spend any more time in the courts. 
They have enough good computers to keep progress on a path forward 
to keep the US computer industry up to or ahead of the rest of the 
world.
    R.F. Schneider



MTC-00005129

From: ragweed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user. I hope the Microsoft case can be finally 
settled. The uncertainty has hurt the market place and the consumer. 
I am a Microsoft supporter; I am also a Sun, HP, Motorola, and Apple 
stock holder and just updated my Real Networks Real One software. I 
use a lot of Microsoft software but I use Quicken, Corel Draw and 
other none Microsoft software. I use Windows XP, I have been a beta 
tester for Microsoft and I have been impressed by the work done to 
obtain compatibility with software from various sources. I have both 
the Microsoft and the Netscape browsers on my computer. I choose 
which software I use. I welcome Microsoft adding perks to its 
software, but if other companies make better products, I use them. I 
hope the computer industry can concentrate in building better 
solutions for the consumer instead of legal arguments.
    David Shulan
    [email protected]



MTC-00005130

From: Greg Post
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am firmly in favor of the proposed settle of the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust case. As a small business computer consultant, I rely on 
Microsoft to provide operating systems and applications that work 
well together. The only thing that I saw Microsoft do wrong was in 
their dealings with OEMs. OEMs should be free to install whatever 
operating system they want without fear of any reprisal from 
Microsoft. The settlement agreement adequately addresses this issue.
    There is nothing wrong with any of the Microsoft products in how 
they present them in an integrated fashion. Yes, they should be 
complete in the their disclosures of how the operating system works, 
eg. a complete API disclosure, but the settlement agreement 
adequately addresses this issue. In my business I work with a lot of 
regular users, people who aren`t heavy duty technical types but just 
people who want to get something accomplished with their computer. 
All of the improvements that I`ve seen Microsoft make in Windows 
have been toward the end of making the computer easier to use. The 
same cannot be said of all other software/hardware vendors although 
there are exceptions. The chaos in the computer industry that would 
have resulted without Microsoft`s leadership and standard setting 
(even defacto standards) have been largely mitigated by Microsoft`s 
ability to freely innovate and produce good products. A simple 
example is CD-RW technology. Before Windows XP, there was no good 
user interface standard for how to create CD-RW disks. With Windows 
XP handling the disk creation, all the different user interfaces are 
gone and users can now easily, intuitively create CD-RW. AND they 
can help other Windows XP users do the same.
    Thank you,
    Gregory Post
    Cedarose Consulting



MTC-00005131

From: Neale, Miles
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/31/01 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft products for over 16 years, a developer 
of software, and a native born American I would like to see the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case settled. The action of the Government on 
behalf of the people was warranted and the settlement that is 
currently in place should be finalized. As a long standing 
application developer and data manager, I feel that leaving 
Microsoft in tact is the prudent and necessary action. Making two or 
three companies out of the one company would be an unnatural and 
abhorrent decision. Let the company over time grapple with this 
issue, we might find in the future a division that would be natural 
and logical. Historically we have noted that when an external 
mediator or arbitrator, who is not intimately involved with software 
development, gets into the process and initiates decisions, the lack 
of in-depth experience and knowledge will most often cause damage to 
all sides represented in the decision. In short, a person or 
organization who has limited knowledge or a vested interest to 
divide or not to divide, then the people get shorted. We should 
eliminate this shorting of the American public and let this thing 
play out. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this.
    Miles Neale
    Data Administrator
    Wash State Dept of Ecology
    360-407-6592_Voice
    360-407-6493_Fax
    `If there is a way in, there is a way out.'



MTC-00005132

From: Jim Paxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement, I believe it is fair-minded, tough and 
well within reason. Any further delays, or negative actions could 
cause additional harm to the US economy.
    I sincerely believe that is in the US consumer`s best interest 
to put this issue behind us.
    Thank You
    James Paxton
    1351 Rosenkranz Rd

[[Page 24680]]

    Tieton, WA 98947



MTC-00005133

From: Richard Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Section E of the agreement only covers communication between two 
products on a Microsoft platform. The definition should be expanded 
so APIs can be extended across operating system platforms.



MTC-00005134

From: Bruce Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Have we come to the point that we must punish those that excel? 
I hope not. The previous DOJ cost all of us a ton of money only 
because they hated success and had a twisted understanding of the 
computer business. If it was not for what Bill Gates has 
accomplished we`d still all be stuck with operating systems such as 
CPM and computers would only be for the Geeks.
    Bruce Hagen



MTC-00005135

From: Michael Jacquet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Enough is Enough, you have wasted MILLIONS of U.S. Citizens tax 
payer dollars litigating an absolute obserd law suite against 
Microsoft Coporation over the last four years. As a U.S. taxpayer, 
and a Microsoft share holder I strongly urge you to accept the 
settlement terms both parties agreed to earlier this year and fight 
FOR the fair and equatable settlement both parties reached in future 
court hearing. I cannot believe that a few special interest groups 
and some lazy competitors are trying to derail this long sought 
after settlement.
    Enough is Enough, quit wasting my TAX Dollars !!!!
    Regards
    Mike Jacquet
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00005136

From: Tom Shipley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a user of personal computers_since 1977. Before 
Microsoft got involved. I used WordPerfect until Microsoft Word 
overtook it. I used Lotus until Microsoft Excel outperformed it.Buy 
all of the old files have always been accessible with Microsoft`s 
products. I think that we should continue to have the advances that 
Microsoft has been continually introducing. I speak purely from the 
standpoint of a user and I don`t think you are getting enough input 
from users. We are too busy_and that`s too bad.
    Tom Shipley
    [email protected]



MTC-00005137

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom it May concern,
    I am a Microsoft OS user, not because it was on my computer when 
I bought it, because I found it was the only system offered that is 
user friendly. All the other system I have experience with are very 
hard to work with and not very friendly when you make mistakes. I 
have had the opportunity to change my OS and browser to Linex and 
Netscape, Unix and Oricle, and several others, but I didn`t because 
I use these system at work and find they do not handle user mistakes 
very well.
    In my opinion, and I know my opinion and 75 cents might get you 
a cup of coffee in the cafeteria, Microsoft has brought the computer 
industry forward by leaps and bounds. It has come along way in the 
past 20 years. I remember when the home computer was just a dream, 
now just about every husehold can afford one. I have five and all of 
them have Microsoft systems installed. My original Apple II, is of 
no comparison to what these computers can do today.
    I think the settlement with Microsoft is fair and just.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin F. Christian
    P.O. Box 669
    Scottsville, TX 75688-0669
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Phone: 903-934-8226
    Fax: 903-934-8607



MTC-00005138

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am one who wishes to voice my opinion about the `Tunney 
Act.' The Tunney Act, provides for a fair and just settlement 
for those involved in the lawsuit. Please see your way clear to move 
ahead with the settlement as outlined in the Tunney Act and give 
Microsoft back their right to pursue commerce in the competitive 
business they have chosen to engage. Any further delay will add to 
the already bogged down economic crisis we are experiencing.
    Let Microsoft do what they do best, innovate and invigorate the 
computer industry.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Chalupnik
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00005139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir;
    Please LEAVE Microsoft along! They are the best thing we have to 
keep the PC industry going.
    Thank You!
    Robert Osterhout



MTC-00005140

From: Richard Dauphine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not think Microsoft has done anything wrong and that the 
U.S. Department of Justice should settle the case and move on to 
matters of national importance, not repressing innovation.
    Richard Dauphine



MTC-00005141

From: MORRIS KAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:53pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It appears to me that this litigation has been going long 
enough. The settlement agreement, in my opinion, is fair to all 
parties involved. Let`s bring this action to a conclusion NOW....
    Morris Kay



MTC-00005142

From: Paul van Ast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:53pm
Subject: microsoft setlement
    Please approve settlement



MTC-00005143

From: jimlab2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    To Whom It May Concern:
    We are sick of the `grandstanding' of a few 
businesses and the government officials that support them and cater 
to them because of political contributions. The Microsoft 
prosecution caused the current recession (commonly known as the 
Clinton/Reno economy) and the quick settlement of this case is a 
must to get our economy back on track. It is way beyond time to move 
on and there are only a few people in the country that feel that 
Microsoft has hurt anyone. The real reason for the suit was they 
were not contributing to the Democrat Party. Plain and simple. 
Settle it now!
    R. James Labyak
    Irene L. Labyak
    6142 NE 154th St
    Kenmore, WA 98028-4333
    CC:Congressman Jay Inslee,President George W Bush, Sen...



MTC-00005144

From: Marlin Ritchie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ;
    I think Microsoft has been punished enough with the settlement 
that they have offered to agree to. I think that this trial has been 
driven by disgruntled competitors and the by the states where they 
are located. I further think that AOL-Time Warner and Comcast are 
just as guilty in not sharing their cable control thus preventing 
competition in the cable communication field.
    Settle for what Microsoft has offered to do in response to the 
law suit and give them the room to continue to innovate in the area 
of software development in a way that will not stifle the 
development of software that the consumers need in a reasonable time 
frame. Do not load them down with legal

[[Page 24681]]

bureaucratic oversight that is not required for their competitors 
and that adds cost to the consumer. A concerned US citizen,
    Marlin Ritchie



MTC-00005145

From: Robert B. Yonaitis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I have followed the Microsoft Case for Some time. I believe in 
the beginning there was no harm to the consumers and no harm to the 
competitive environment that helps the consumer. I wanted to take 
this moment to state that I think that the settlement reached was 
extremely fair and that Microsoft and the DOJ did excellent work in 
reaching the settlement. I believe it is excellent for the consumer 
and the collaborative and competitive environment that innovation 
requires.
    Best Regards,
    Rob Yonaitis
    CEO
    HiSoftware Inc.
    www.hisoftware.com



MTC-00005146

From: Alex Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:16pm
Subject: My comments on MSFT
    I firmly believe that the issue that our country should have 
with monopolies is monopolistic power that can be used to raise 
prices while subsequently lowering standards. This kind of abuse is 
simply not happening with Microsoft. They are constantly on the ball 
and coming out with better and better software. Granted, it is 
extremely difficult to beat the Microsoft empire, but the empire is 
not yet an evil one by any account. From the consumer standpoint, 
Microsoft has been a beneficiary for small and large corporations 
alike. My father could not have started his own business without the 
excellent tools provided by Microsoft. I really don`t care if MSFT 
took Netscape`s market share away, if you had ever used Netscape 
you`d know it was a crummy browser compared to IE. It is not 
Microsoft that has engaged in anti-competitive practices, but rather 
our government has done so by bringing this lawsuit against the 
company. Competition breeds excellence. Why would MSFT not want to 
use every means possible to squash its competitors? That is just 
what competition is all about. Gates realized that the OS battle 
would be a winner-take-all one. He won. He receives the spoils of 
war. Now he has stayed on top of his game yet again by identifying 
the internet as a potential threat and directing the machinery of 
Microsoft to fully take advantage of the opportunities it provides. 
The Internet battle is slowly being won by MSFT as well, and why 
shouldn`t they? To the victor go the spoils. Please settle the suit 
against MSFT quickly, because Bill Gates has done nothing but see to 
it that the industry gets better and better.
    Alex Kaufman



MTC-00005147

From: DanSorkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    As a citizen of the USA I implore you to release the Microsoft 
Corporation from the tyranny of the past Administration`s war on 
Capitalism. Microsoft should be able to move freely to compete in 
the open marketplace. May the BEST product win.
    The settlement in this case should be a blanket dismissal of all 
charges.
    This paragon of American Free Enterprise should be held up as a 
model for all to emulate. It should not be emasculated in any way. 
To do so would be to say to the world WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE 
AMERICAN DREAM.
    Thank you!
    Dan Sorkin
    President & CEO
    GFFC, Inc.
    2109 Skycrest Drive
    Suite one
    Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1828
    (925) 952-4408



MTC-00005148

From: Dwight Bale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To: DOJ
    Don`t you people have anything better to do than to do as much 
as you can to make some other lawyers richer...
    Please start working on monopolies such as gas and electric 
companies like PSE in Seattle area, who have no competition 
whatsoever.
    Please start doing something for the `public' and 
let big business fight for themselves. They got the money, let them 
spend it on themselves. But you should be helping us...



MTC-00005149

From: John Reese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an end user I feel the settlement is fair for Microsoft. I 
don`t even think there was a case against them from the start.
    As a Customer I`ve always been treated fair and am very happy 
with their products and support.
    Thanks for reading this,
    John Reese
    Sacramento, CA USA



MTC-00005150

From: jerrystuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    As a user of Microsoft products for years, I am quite satisfied 
with the terms of the DOJ`s proposed settlement with MS and would 
like to see all further effort to litigate stopped. Please let us 
all get back to our work and lives and move ahead.
    Jerry Bonow
    Pompano Beach, Florida



MTC-00005151

From: Paul Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:35pm
Subject: Settlement Agreement
    I support Microsoft`s position in the settlement.
    I am not an employee of Microsoft nor compensated in ANY fashion 
by Microsoft. I have been in the computer industry over 25 years and 
have seen a lot things come and go. The worst of which is when I 
have worked hard for a company only to see them close their doors 
for any of a variety of reasons. Starting the job search and 
starting at the bottom again and again gets old. I have seen the 
industry ignore a lot of activities FAR WORSE than Microsoft`s 
behavior, which I will not list here, but I could.
    My position is, our US Justice Dept. should go in the direction 
of what the majority of the industry and litigants WANT and AGREE 
to. Special interests risk softening an industry and economy that 
needs STABILITY. If you have chanced jobs a bunch of times like I 
have, not by choice but because you were laid-off, you will know 
what I am talking about.
    I feel we should clarify and re-clarify and re-clarify computer 
laws so that they are FAIR and apply them EQUALLY in the industry. 
Keep POLITICS out of the computer industry. I support Microsoft`s 
position and whatever they agree to.
    Thank you and God Bless America.
    Paul A Wheeler,
    MCSE NT 4.0, A+, MOUS certifications. (currently studying for 
Cisco`s CCNA)
    [email protected]



MTC-00005152

From: JACK FORD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion that the current settlement arrangements are as 
fair and just as possible. There is nothing to be gained and much to 
be lost in prolonging this matter further.
    Jack Ford
    14690 Fame Ave.
    Colfax, IA 50054



MTC-00005153

From: PAUL NOLL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:45pm
Subject: Settlement
    Microsoft has helped Americans like myself, but if you no 
settlement favors Microsoft,then only wealthy other Ceo`s and their 
companies will enrich themselves at the sacrifice of our economy. As 
an average (or below average) American, Microsoft has made my life 
better, so please give them the proper settlement.
    Thank you,
    Paul E. Noll



MTC-00005154

From: Ron Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir(s)

[[Page 24682]]

    I work in the Computer Industry and after many months of 
watching and listening to the DOJ vs Microsoft, enough is enough. 
Did Microsoft participate in illegal practices, I feel we can safely 
say yes.
    Did they hurt other inferior products, I doubt it it. Should 
this mess be settled and go away and stop spending my money on the 
company that helps feed my family as it is the premier player in my 
industry, ABSOLUTELY! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
    If the DOJ spent as much time and effort prosecuting real 
criminals who seem to always get off on technicalities this would be 
a much safer place to live. Instead we have several individuals who 
wanted dot make a name for themselves, and did. So they have 
accomplished their objective. Let`s move on.
    Ron Jenkins
    Knoxville, TN



MTC-00005155

FROM: Ray Parsons
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 12/31/01 8:01pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
    We, [the voting public] think this has gone far enough. It is a 
very waste of money to let this gone any longer. Get this done, now.
    A voter,
    Ray Parsons



MTC-00005156

From: Ganesh and Sashikala Prasad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 6:11pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed antitrust settlement 01 January 
2002
    Dear Sirs,
    I wish to submit my comments (attached) to the database of 
public feedback on the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft, which must reach you before the 27th of 
January.
    I am submitting them in both plaintext and HTML formats for your 
convenience.
    Regards,
    Ganesh Prasad
    Sydney 1 January 2002
    Dear Sirs,
    I am an Australian citizen with about 15 years in the computer 
industry. What happens in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust case 
affects me professionally as well as personally, since I am a fairly 
heavy user of computer software and technology. I would like to 
comment on the settlement jointly proposed by the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. To be blunt, I believe the proposal is a 
dishonest one that sells out the public interest. I will explain 
why, and offer some guidelines for a fairer remedy.
    1. Microsoft`s main crime (not bundling, but the prevention of 
bundling) has had lasting anti-competitive effects that the 
settlement should address but doesn`t The argument that has most 
often been used against Microsoft is the `bundling' one, 
the allegation that Microsoft bundled its browser (and now its media 
player and instant messaging software) with its operating system. By 
doing so, it leveraged its monopoly in operating systems to enter 
other markets. Though this is a classic antitrust argument, people 
who believe in a free market are not convinced because the remedy 
does not sound right from the standpoint of the consumer interest. 
Consumers enjoy greater convenience, not less, when extra software 
is bundled with the operating system they buy. That is why the 
harsher remedy proposed by some of the states is also wrong. Forcing 
Microsoft to unbundle such software needlessly inconveniences the 
consumer. It also takes away from Microsoft`s legitimate right to 
decide what goes into its products and puts the courts in the 
avoidable position of having to define the scope of technologies 
such as operating systems when they are not technically qualified to 
do so. The only parties that are benefitted by such a remedy are 
competitors. Doesn`t this add credibility to Microsoft`s claim that 
its competitors are inefficient and require government intervention 
to survive?
    However, the prosecution has failed from the start to argue this 
point with the right emphasis. What Microsoft did that seriously 
disadvantaged the consumer was not so much bundling its own browser 
with its operating system, but preventing computer resellers (OEMs) 
from offering consumers a choice by bundling competing browsers such 
as Netscape Navigator. Microsoft threatened OEMs such as Compaq with 
the withdrawal of their Windows 95 license if they dared to bundle 
Netscape Navigator with the PCs they sold. Given the overwhelming 
dominance of Windows 95 in the operating system market at that time, 
a withdrawal of that license could have bankrupted even an OEM as 
large as Compaq. The threat was credible and secured the compliance 
of all OEMs. So certainly, Microsoft did leverage its monopoly in 
operating systems to gain entry into the browser market, and it did 
so both through the relatively benign means of bundling its own 
browser, and by the decidedly illegal means of preventing consumers 
from sampling the wares of its competitors. Any free market advocate 
can readily see the consumer harm in this latter action of 
Microsoft`s, but the prosecution has damaged its own case by not 
emphasising this enough.
    Microsoft has also had secret agreements with OEMs that prevent 
them from offering consumers the choice of which operating system to 
boot when they start up their computers. This is often known as the 
`bootloader clause'. Microsoft abused its monopoly in 
operating systems by threatening OEMs and blocking, at the source, 
the entry of other operating systems into the market. Consumers have 
had no opportunity to know about or sample competing operating 
systems. In other words, Microsoft abused its operating system 
monopoly to maintain that monopoly, which is another violation of 
antitrust law. The fact that no OEM except IBM dared to testify 
against Microsoft during the trial is itself proof of Microsoft`s 
terror tactics. Their silence speaks louder than any testimony.
     Microsoft`s history is full of such anti-competition and anti-
consumer actions. Bristol Technology won a case against Microsoft 
(over Microsoft`s sudden withdrawal of support for their Unix 
interoperation software Wind/U) but was awarded a laughably poor 
compensation of one dollar. Caldera had a strong case against 
Microsoft (over the illegal way in which Microsoft used Windows 3.1 
to force consumers to buy MS-DOS rather than Caldera`s DR-DOS) but 
its silence was bought through an out-of-court settlement. The 
consumer has been the ultimate loser in all these cases because 
Microsoft`s actions removed competitive choice and interoperation 
options.
    The DoJ`s proposed settlement shows an awareness of these abuses 
and aims to prevent their recurrence, but it needs to be far 
stronger and bolder. The damage to the industry has been done 
systematically, over more than a decade, and significant network 
externalities have been created that work to perpetuate the 
Microsoft monopoly. How can this damage be reversed by a mere 
forward-looking arrangement? Consumers and Microsoft`s competitors 
now face nearly insurmountable market hurdles to creating a viable 
alternative computing environment, even though technically good 
alternatives are available. Even if Microsoft`s abuses are halted, 
the structural and systemic forces they have created over the past 
decade will continue to work in their favour. At a time when 
consumers look to the government to right these historical wrongs, 
the settlement that the government proposes is inexplicably 
defeatist. It resigns consumers to the status quo! One would imagine 
that a prosecution that has had its argument upheld by two courts 
would have the momentum, confidence and real power to broker a deal 
that restores genuine choice to the consumer, not step lightly 
around an entrenched monopoly that was the problem to start with.
    2. A criminal should not be allowed to keep his ill-gotten gains 
Microsoft`s monopoly profits are the direct result of these and 
other illegally anti-competitive tactics.
    The antitrust case established that the absence of competition 
emboldened Microsoft into charging $89 for Windows instead of $49. 
In other words, consumers paid extra merely because of a monopoly 
that was being illegally maintained. Four eminent economists filed 
an amicus curiae brief during the remedies phase of the trial in 
which they showed that Microsoft`s rate of return on invested 
capital was 88%, while the average in other industries was about 
13%! [See www.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus/homepage/
Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf] Microsoft could never have made such 
huge profits without its illegal maintenance and extension of its 
monopoly, and therefore a major part of its current wealth is 
illegally earned.
    There is absolutely nothing in the proposed settlement that 
addresses the issue of these ill-gotten gains, or how these will be 
reimbursed to the public from whose pockets they came. This simple 
omission easily amounts to billions of dollars, and by itself makes 
the settlement a sellout of the public interest, even without an 
assessment of its other shortcomings.
    3. Ill-gotten gains should not be allowed to influence the 
outcome of this case It is disturbing to read that many states are 
settling because they are running out of funds to pursue the case 
further as they would like to. Meanwhile, Microsoft, with its multi-
billion dollar war chest, has no such

[[Page 24683]]

constraints. They can outlast all their opponents. The world is 
learning the cynical lesson that the American justice system is a 
mere extension of the free market_you get as much justice as 
you can afford to pay for.
    What happened to the principle (so successfully applied in the 
A1 Capone case) that criminals should not be able to use their ill-
gotten gains to pay for their legal defence? Wouldn`t a scrupulous 
application of that principle prevent the distortion we see here? If 
a convicted abusive monopolist has more funds than its prosecutors, 
and that fact is forcing them to settle, can`t the monopolist`s 
funds be frozen, or can it not be made to pay the legal costs of its 
prosecutors? A simple ruling along those lines might see Microsoft 
scrambling to agree to a fairer settlement, one that will better 
safeguard the freedom of the consumer.
    4. There is no attempt at punishment for wrongdoing Though it 
has been established that Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law, 
the settlement only defines mechanisms to prevent future wrongdoing. 
What about punishment for past wrongdoing? Are murderers let off 
scot free with mere provisions to prevent future murders? What kind 
of example does this set? And what confidence does this inspire in 
the American justice system? Any remedy must include appropriate 
punishment.
    5. The economy is being used as a bogeyman to prevent punishment 
It is being argued that in the current difficult economic climate, 
Microsoft should not be broken up or otherwise punished, because 
that will in turn affect the rest of the economy (through a fall in 
the stockmarket index, a delay in the recovery of hardware sales, 
more unemployment and hardship, etc.). On the contrary, the lessons 
of Economics are that monopolies are always bad.
    They reduce efficiency, innovation and economic activity. In 
other words, Microsoft`s monopoly has already affected the economy 
adversely. An end to the Microsoft monopoly may result in some 
churn, but that churn will be the ferment of genuine innovation from 
the rest of the industry. The impact on the stockmarket from a fall 
in Microsoft`s share price will be more than offset by the rising 
stocks of independent software companies that can operate without 
fear of a monopolist`s wrath. A decisive curbing of Microsoft`s 
stifling influence will create more confidence in the rule of law, 
generate more jobs and help the economy.
    Therefore, it is dishonest and self-serving on the part of the 
DoJ to suggest that this settlement proposal is the best one from 
the viewpoint of the economy. Moreover, the state of the economy 
should not determine whether or not a crime should be punished. It 
takes a statesmanlike judge to see beyond the petty posturing and to 
do the right and wise thing.
    Guidelines for a fair remedy:
    Any remedy in a case that has been so clear-cut in its findings 
must be more assertive in its defence of consumer interests. 
Regardless of specifics, such a remedy must address the following:
    1. Recurrence: Microsoft must not be able to continue to abuse 
its monopoly the way it has in the past.
    2. Reimbursement: Microsoft has no right to retain the excess 
profits it has earned as a result of its illegal actions. This money 
should be repaid to the consumer.
    3. Reparations: As Microsoft is responsible for the current 
uncompetitive market in operating systems and related applications, 
it must underwrite efforts to restore competition and consumer 
choice. The rest of the market should not have to pay to recover 
from Microsoft`s abuses.
    4. Reference: Microsoft must pay punitive damages over and above 
its reimbursement and reparations obligations, to serve as a warning 
to deter future monopolists. The remedy must in no case send out a 
signal that a large enough violator can get off lightly. Future tax 
dollars can be saved by discouraging abuses instead of having to 
prosecute them. The DoJ is supposed to be acting on behalf of the 
consumer, and they must pursue a remedy that addresses all the above 
issues.
    For example, a remedy that required Microsoft, among other 
things, to only sell through channels that offer at least one other 
operating system, could address the reparations issue and break the 
structural forces perpetuating their monopoly (If an OEM requires 
training to support another operating system, Microsoft may be 
forced to subsidise such training).
    The proposed settlement goes partway towards addressing the 
issue of recurrence, but does so only half-heartedly because it 
creates significant exceptions and loopholes for Microsoft to take 
advantage of. It completely ignores the other three issues. An 
impression is created that the DoJ is more sensitive to Microsoft`s 
interests than to the interests of consumers who have been 
systematically robbed of both their choices and their money.
    Therefore this proposed settlement must be rejected as not being 
in the public interest. History will be the judge
    After the immediate tumult over this case dies down, there will 
be a dispassionate analysis of all aspects of the Microsoft 
phenomenon in the computer industry, and the roles of all players 
will be dissected. It seems fairly certain that the Department of 
Justice will be likened to a champion boxer who was paid to throw 
his fight. Judge Jackson will probably be faulted for his many 
indiscretions, but it may be remembered that his analysis was on the 
mark, and his verdict fearless. The appeals court will probably be 
remembered as being fair though it started with a reputation for 
being consistently lenient towards Microsoft.
    What will Judge Kollar-Kotelly be remembered for? Will she be 
known as the one who meekly accepted an agreement that sold out the 
public interest, because it was politically expedient to do so? Or 
will she be remembered as the person who braved the prevailing 
political winds to do the right thing and restore balance to a 
corrupted system?
    The world is watching to see what she will do.
    Regards,
    Ganesh Prasad Software developer and web architect
    3/1 Doomben Avenue
    Eastwood, New
    South Wales 2122
    Australia
    Tel: +61-403-902-483 e-mail: 
[email protected]



MTC-00005157

From: Tony Safina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comments
    I have been using Microsoft products since the 1980`s. I do not 
think Microsoft should be broken up. I do not think they should be 
punished for being successful. What ever happened to the American 
way? Would Horatio Alger today be considered a criminal for wanting 
to better his lot in life? Why does government in America encourage 
people to make an honest buck but once someone has earned a billion 
honest bucks or fifty billion honest bucks it is immediately assumed 
they are doing something dishonest.
    I think a lot of the Microsoft brouhaha was started by cry 
babies at Netscape. They want the DOJ to think they invented the web 
browser. I am here to tell you Netscape did not invent the web 
browser. They improved the web browser just as every company before 
them improved the web browser. I know because I switch web browsers 
every time a better web browser becomes available.
    In 1989 I did not use a web browser because the web had not been 
invented yet.
    In 1990 the web was invented and people surfed the few web sites 
available using the text browser Lynx. It was free. The authors gave 
it away. I guess they wanted to be nice. Nobody sues people who want 
to be nice. By late 1991 the first browser for Windows was invented. 
It had a graphical user interface (GUI) and it was a lot better than 
Lynx. This program was called Cello. It was free. The authors gave 
it away. I guess they wanted to be nice. Nobody sues people who want 
to be nice. I don`t think the authors of the Lynx program tried to 
coerce the DOJ into suing the authors of the Cello program. I guess 
that is because the authors of the Cello program were not 
billionaires. If they had been billionaires you would have called 
them evil and said lets sue their sorry crass butts. I`m glad that 
didn`t happen because change is good, especially so when a new 
program is a vast improvement over an earlier program. I switched to 
Cello the instant I saw it.
    By 1992 another browser for Windows became available. It too had 
a graphical user interface (GUI) and it was better than Cello. This 
program was called Winweb. It had a cooler slicker look than Cello. 
I don`t know that it was any better than Cello, it just looked 
sharper. It was free. The authors gave it away. I guess they wanted 
to be nice. Nobody sues people who want to be nice. I don`t think 
the authors of the Cello program tried to coerce the DOJ into suing 
the authors of the Winweb program. I guess that is because the 
authors of the Winweb program were not billionaires. If they had 
been billionaires you would have called them evil and said lets sue 
their sorry crass butts. I`m glad that didn`t happen because change 
is good, especially so when a new program is a vast improvement over 
an earlier program. I switched to Winweb the instant I saw it.

[[Page 24684]]

    By late 1992 or early 1993 another browser for Windows became 
available. It too had a graphical user interface (GUI) and it was 
better than Winweb. This program was called Mosaic. It had a cooler 
slicker look than Winweb. I don`t know that it was any better than 
Winweb, it just looked sharper; I think it could handle a wider 
variety of HTML tags than any web browser before it. That made 
better looking web pages possible, pages you could surf faster too. 
It was free. The authors gave it away. I guess they wanted to be 
nice. Nobody sues people who want to be nice. I don`t think the 
authors of the Winweb program tried to coerce the DOJ into suing the 
authors of the Mosaic program. I guess that is because the authors 
of the Mosaic program were not billionaires. If they had been 
billionaires you would have called them evil and said lets sue their 
sorry crass butts. I`m glad that didn`t happen because change is 
good, especially so when a new program is a vast improvement over an 
earlier program. I switched to Mosaic the instant I saw it. By mid 
1993 or late 1993 another browser for Windows became available. It 
too had a graphical user interface (GUI) and it was better than 
Mosaic. This program was called Netscape. It had a cooler slicker 
look than Mosaic. I don`t know that it was any better than Mosaic, 
it just looked sharper; I think it could also handle a wider variety 
of HTML tags than any web browser before it. That made better 
looking web pages possible, pages you could surf faster too. It was 
free (at least initially, probably right up til Netscape`s IPO it 
was free). The authors gave it away. I guess they wanted to be nice. 
Nobody sues people who want to be nice.
    I don`t think the authors of the Mosaic program tried to coerce 
the DOJ into suing the authors of the Netscape program. I guess that 
is because the authors of the Netscape program were not 
billionaires, at least not initially. If they had been billionaires 
you would have called them evil and said lets sue their sorry crass 
butts. I`m glad that didn`t happen because change is good, 
especially so when a new program is a vast improvement over an 
earlier program. I switched to Netscape the instant I saw it.
    By mid 1994 or late 1994 another browser for Windows became 
available. It too had a graphical user interface (GUI) and it was 
not better than Netscape. This program was called Microsoft`s 
Internet Explorer. It did not have a cooler slicker look than 
Netscape. I didn`t like it at all and did not switch. I continued to 
use Netscape. As I hope to make clear I do not switch web browsers 
the instant a new one becomes available, I only switch when a better 
one becomes available. In 1994 Netscape had the best web browser 
available, bar none. They program was so awful they couldn`t give it 
away, at least not to a seasoned web surfer like myself. They 
couldn`t have paid me to use it. Well, perhaps if we were talking 
billions, okay millions, well I guess for just a hundred or so I 
would have given it a try.
    By 1967 a new improved browser for Windows became available. It 
too had a graphical user interface (GUI) and it was better than 
Netscape. This program was called Microsoft`s Internet Explorer IV. 
It had a much slicker look than Netscape and it improved the 
functionality of Windows as well. It was definitely better than 
Netscape. It didn`t just look sharper, it was more functional 
because it worked better in Windows. Maybe it could also handle a 
wider variety of HTML tags. This time the authors of the previous 
best browser which was Netscape did try to coerce the DOJ into suing 
the authors of the Internet Explorer IV program. I guess that is 
because the authors of the Microsoft program were billionaires and 
they now had a great product. Netscape didn`t care to sue when 
Microsoft had an inferior web browser which they had with Internet 
Explorer I, II, and III, but as soon as they had improved their 
product to a point where they were now better than Netscape Holy 
Hevell broke out. They called Microsoft evil and they whined to 
their Uncle Sam and said lets sue their sorry crass butts, I`m sorry 
that happened because change is good, especially so when a new 
program is a vast improvement over an earlier program. I switched to 
Microsoft Internet Explorer IV the instant I saw it. I switched just 
as I had always switched when a better web browser became available. 
It`s being a Microsoft product meant nothing to me. What mattered 
was it was a better browser and I always switch when a better 
browser becomes available.
    In Microsoft`s case it was a big deal that it was free. The 
authors gave it away. I guess they wanted to be nice. Nobody sues 
people who want to be nice unless it`s Microsoft that is being nice. 
Then suddenly it is no longer a question of nice. Now they call it 
criminal if your only fault is having a few billion dollars more 
than the next guy (or gal). This is why I decided to submit my 
comments today. Microsoft has done nothing but excel at what they do 
best, making and marketing good software products. So what if they 
want to give it away for free. Being a 1980`s software junkie I have 
never paid for a web browser to this very day. I used Netscape for 
four years and never paid a penny for it. If you run beta versions 
and use ftp to download them you can use Netscape for four years and 
never spend a penny. Same for the Microsoft browser. I fail to see 
what the big deal is all about.
    I think you should tell Netscape to go scratch and then drop the 
case against Microsoft. It should not be a punishable offense to 
excel at your job and that is the only thing Microsoft has done 
wrong. They are guilty of being too good, and that in my opinion is 
not a punishable offense.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony X. Safina, Jr.
    425 S Hubbards Ln, Apt 431
    Louisville, KY 40207-4097
    502-899-3723
    [email protected]



MTC-00005158

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Microsoft broke the law punish them but don`t reorganize them 
or tell them how to design their products. Ernest Ruterman, 
[email protected]



MTC-00005159

From: Doyle E. Whitten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:08pm
Subject: Comment
    I just want to say that Microsoft sometimes drives me crazy with 
the way they do things but they do not deserve what the previous 
justice department did to them. It is important that the market 
place be the place where the decisions are made. There are 
advantages to having one company for many different software 
programs. Let`s get off their back and let the customers decide 
which company to support.



MTC-00005160

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sirs,
    I have believed in Microsoft all along. I still believe they are 
innocent of any charges. However the fact that a settlement has been 
reached is wonderful it is about time. Lets do it drop it and move 
on. The economy is weak enough without penalizing one of the major 
contributors to this economy. It is a crime for this to proceed any 
further and will serve no justice.
    Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion thank God we 
live in the United States and thank God for innovation keep on 
keeping on Microsoft I am behind you 100%.
    David Hamm
    MCSE, MCDBA, MCP and A+
    [email protected]
    Microsoft XP rules



MTC-00005161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I would like to urge the decision makers to settle the Microsoft 
issue in a quick manner to remove any cloud hanging over that 
company and their employees, who after all are consumers in this 
country, and consumer is the backbone of the economy.
    Andy Nimri



MTC-00005162

From: Lexx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have been advised that the Tunney Act requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the `public 
interest.'
    Unfortunately, I am aware that a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing our American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
I, for one, a Microsoft stockholder and a committed user of its 
products, wish that this would all be over and let`s get things back 
to normal because to settle these matters is in the public interest, 
in my humble opinion. If you build

[[Page 24685]]

a better mousetrap, everyone else will copy it very quickly and if 
the competitors of Microsoft cannot compete fairly, why should the 
Government help them with special legislation and by burying 
Microsoft with lawsuits. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please 
settle the cases as soon as possible.
    Virginia M. Norris
    10712 Highland Park Court
    Las Vegas, NV 89144-4119



MTC-00005163

From: Gil Milbauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment in support of the REVISED PROPOSED FINAL 
JUDGMENT settlement agreement among Microsoft Corp., the Department 
of Justice, and the various states who have agreed to it.
    It seems to me to be more than adequate penalty Microsoft`s 
activities. Drawing this out further would not be in the interests 
of justice, the economy, or consumers. I think it would be a mistake 
to allow the Department of Justice to become a weapon that 
competitors can use against successful companies.
    Thank You,
    Gil Milbauer
    6308 154th ST SE
    Snohomish, WA 98296
    [email protected]



MTC-00005164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:14pm
Subject: Comment regarding 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. 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 mightily 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.
    Sarah W. Andrews
    1864 Castle Oaks Court
    Walnut Creek, CA 94595



MTC-00005165

From: Ed Sackley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Public Comments
    Dear Federal Official:
    My first experience with a computer was as a high school student 
in 1969 . . . working at a hospital that used punch cards as input 
to a primitive `computerized' accounting system. In the 
years that followed, I was always around computers . . . even 
serving as an operator for a University of Illinois mainframe 
operated in support of Department of Defense research in the early 
to mid-70s. I`ve had a PC on my desk since 1982.
    Why the history? It wasn`t until Microsoft INSPIRED and ENABLED 
the necessary economy of scale in the personal computer business 
that computer applications and hardware became possible for every 
American. In the 80s, we all struggled with applications that didn`t 
work together and companies that were unwilling or unable to stand 
behind their products. Our nation, our economy and all of our 
citizens have benefited from Microsoft`s innovation and leadership. 
By most accounts, the company did abuse some of its power and market 
position and for that they have paid a price. It is now time to 
close this chapter and move ahead.
    I urge you to support the Tunney Act and turn aside those 
remaining special interest groups who would have you derail the 
settlement. Microsoft will be under more scrutiny in the future than 
they have ever experienced in the past. They are a fine company that 
has played a significant role in America`s technological dominance 
for over 20 years. Please allow them to devote all of their 
resources to improving our lives and our world.
    Thank you for your consideration and understanding.
    Ed Sackley
    10314 Archwood Drive
    Portage, MI 49002-7101 USA
    Voice: 616.323.8119 Fax: 616.323.0470



MTC-00005166

From: JOSEPH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft sentiment.
    Hi,
    I would like to let you know my thoughts on the microsoft 
question. I do not agree with the settlement. However, if it is the 
only way to get this behind microsoft. It has always struck me as 
odd the way the government tries to help the consumer. In this case, 
it would seem it seeks to help us by making us purchase what we 
clearly don`t want. We know of the other browsers. We know of the 
other operating systems. We like Windows. You treat Microsoft as if 
making a good product that people want is evil.
    You definately, seem to believe that it is somehow illegal. As 
if it is Microsoft`s job to make us like their competitors? Are you 
kidding? Tell them that if we wanted a Yugo we would give them a 
call ( the competitors). We want the Rolls Royce (Microsoft). You 
can`t make us drive the Yugo. It`s not what we want. We will buy 
Windows. We will use as many or as few browsers as we want. If they 
can`t compete maybe they should try a different line of work. Stop 
punishing success. Unless of course, failure is what you`re after.
    Joseph morris



MTC-00005167

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/31/01 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DoJ settlement with Microsoft is fair. Don`t let the 
renegade states that are representing competitors interest drag this 
case on. This negativity is detrimental to economic recovery and 
productivity improvements. Close this case now by accepting 
Microsoft`s fair settlement offer.
    Thank you for hearing our opinion.
    William and Stephanie Necoechea
    6509 Caminito Catalan
    La Jolla, CA 92037



MTC-00005168

From: B. Mitchell Loebel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello:
    Please pass my comments to the DOJ.
    I believe that the so called anti-trust suit which was levied 
against Microsoft was a travesty of justice! It`s promoters were 
disgruntled Microsoft competitors, i.e. Sun Microsystems, Apple 
Computer, Oracle, Netscape, Novell, and perhaps a few others. It`s 
no coincidence that members of the hate Microsoft crowd are often 
affiliated with the hate America crowd ... in both cases, theirs is 
a hate of our Capitalist system. They are the ones to be stopped ... 
now! I don`t always agree with Microsoft`s strategies and tactics, 
e.g. I`m not happy about the highly restrictive licensing rules that 
the company is applying to WinXP. However, and this is important ... 
we consumers and stockholders (I am both) can care for ourselves 
through the free market! We don`t need and don`t want (usually 
incompetent) government intrusion.
    B. Mitchell Loebel
    Executive Director
    The Tech Startup Connection 408 264-2068
    (formerly The PARALLEL Processing Connection)
    CEO and Chief Technical Officer
    Multinode Microsystems Corporation 408 264-2068
    CEO and Chief Technical Officer

[[Page 24686]]

    Minute-Tape International Corporation 408 264-2068



MTC-00005169

From: Anarg Frangos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Please settle the Microsoft case without further litigation in 
the best interests of our country.
    Anarg Z. Frangos



MTC-00005170

From: Evan Heckel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    As provided for under the Tunney Act, I would like to express my 
strong support for the current terms and conditions of the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice, the various States, 
and the Microsoft Corporation. I believe the terms of this proposed 
settlement, as well as other aspects of this litigation, strike a 
proper balance between enforcing the Law and maintaining the 
viability of the United States interest`s in a strong technology 
sector.
    I realize that there are those who would prefer stronger 
punishments, but I think such expansion is primarily at the behest 
of the competitors of Microsoft and simply is not appropriate or in 
the best interests of this process.
    I think the proposed settlement sends the right messages about 
abuse of marketing position, while at the same time recognizing that 
dealing with evolving technology is different than dealing with 
simple market dominance. I think you have struck the right balance 
in this case and that further constraints and/or penalties are not 
appropriate.
    Thank you for considering my thoughts on this very important 
matter.
    Evan Heckel
    1619 Corral Drive
    Houston, TX 77090



MTC-00005171

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to ask you to put a postive end to this horrible 
persecution that has been going on over the last few years of 
Microsoft and Bill Gates. I`m sure you do not consider it to be 
persecution, yet I`m sure that many man-hours of productive time and 
many thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars have been spent during 
this procedure which has seemed, too much of the time, like a witch 
hunt. Microsoft is competitive...otherwise they would not have 
survived this long. Microsoft is innovative and creative in their 
improvement of technology, and this has made them the giant that 
they are today. They are open to new ideas, to creativeness from 
their employees, to listening to the needs of consumers. These 
qualities have allowed them to thrive. They have single-handedly 
done more for today`s computer users than any other company, bar 
none. Other companies are jealous of their achievements and because 
they are jealous, they seek to force Microsoft to stop being so 
successful in hopes that they may be able to gain more customers. 
This is what has caused all this problem with the law-suits. A 
company can not give away their ideas, can not give away their 
technology and expect to survive. To expect Microsoft, or any other 
company to do that, is to ask them to commit suicide and is 
unreasonable.
    We`ve heard a lot about America recently, because of the 
horrible tragedy in NYC in September. We`re all proud to be 
Americans, and to have the freedoms that we do. On the other hand, 
one of the freedoms that we cherish here is the freedom to be what 
we can be, to develop our potential, to become successful without 
unreasonable restrictions holding us back. Why is it then, that 
Microsoft which is obviously very talented and very good at what 
they do, should be so threatened, so persecuted and so prevented 
from being a success? We have an open market. We have the freedom to 
buy Microsoft, Netscape, Symantecs, McAfee, or any other type of 
software that we feel will enable us to use our computers in the way 
we need to work. No one is forced to buy Microsoft products. I buy 
them because they are easy to use, and because they are compatible 
with other software and hardware. I want them to CONTINUE to be easy 
to use, and to be compatible with my software and hardware. I do not 
want the company split up, the software dis-assembled, or to have to 
go through a bunch of hoops to get it to work just because another 
company is jealous. Please...Please, allow Microsoft to get back to 
work without worrying about all this lawsuit stuff. America needs 
them, we have important work to do!
    Thank you,
    Connie Williams
    (teacher)
    P.O. Box 4515
    Davis, Ca 95617
    [email protected]



MTC-00005172

From: JeremyC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a member of the public I am obliged to voice my opinion re: 
the above mentioned settlement.
    For many years I did not respect Microsoft and their software. 
Things have changed a great deal in the eleven years I have used a 
PC for my work, I do now think that the company produce a good 
product, (so do most consumers judging by the number of copies of 
Microsoft software legitimately used daily.)
    The bitter competitors of Microsoft are still willing to try and 
block any settlement. But if their products are so much better and 
their business practices are In the interest of the majority of 
people, why are their sales so poor in comparison with Microsoft? 
Why do they not unveil a superior product for the benefit of all?
    I am fed up with the wasting of time and the potential damage to 
the international progress in the world of IT.
    Please approve this settlement and make it clear to Microsofts 
`competition' that to compete, they need to put their 
resources into innovation and skill instead of negative destruction.
    May I wish all of you in the US a good 2002, you all deserve to 
have one, God bless.
    Sincerely
    Jeremy Carr



MTC-00005173

From: Mary Euyang Shen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do settle and help the economy trend upwards.
    Mary Shen



MTC-00005174

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In the strongest words possible, I write in support of 
Microsoft. Though I could go on in support of Microsoft for quite 
some length, I will keep my comments relatively brief. Microsoft is 
the standard, the underpinning of our economy. To attack it or break 
it up would be like attacking the Interstate Highway system (cars 
and trucks need the same highways in New Hampshire, Indiana, or 
Wyoming), the Air Traffic Control System (airplanes landing in 
Chicago, New York, or Atlanta need the same kind of controls), or 
money (our European friends will soon learn the benefits of one 
currency).
    If the Department of Justice wants to help users like me, they 
should join with Microsoft to educate the Microsoft-hating press and 
the Microsoft hating public to stop attacking Microsoft. My 
relatively new and wonderful broadband Internet connection is in a 
shambles because of the nearly constant attacks I have suffered. The 
recent Windows security problem that was in the news counts me as 
one of its victims. On my other computer, I cannot connect to the 
Internet now. I compose this e-mail on another computer using a 56k 
dial up connection, cowering behind a software firewall, hoping not 
to be attacked Microsoft has caused no victims. Microsoft-haters 
have.....me.
    Warmest regards,
    Jeff Rouse



MTC-00005175

From: Carl Forester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am 100 percent in favor of the settlement unless the 
government decides to withdraw completely and admit its part in 
terrorism against an American company.
    Carl Forester_
    Advisory IT Specialist_
    IBM Global Services_
    [email protected]_
    Office/Fax (904) 928-4595_



MTC-00005176

From: P. Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:09pm

[[Page 24687]]

Subject: Settlement
    This `settlement' is unfair and premature. MSFT is 
guilty as sin and trying to monopolize the Internet by putting other 
companies out of business. That is unAmerican. How can the DOJ let 
this go on?



MTC-00005177

From: Bill Lemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you shoul leave the settlement as is so we can all get 
on to more important matters.
    Bill Lemon
    Woodridge, Il.



MTC-00005178

From: Mark Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked in the software industry for over 20 years and 
have been a Microsoft employee for a little over seven years. My 
personal experiences at Microsoft have led me to believe that this 
company has provided consumers with reasonable quality products at 
relatively low prices. It is mainly for this reason that Microsoft 
has succeeded and grown, consumers have had many choices and they 
chose Microsoft. I believe that the current settlement terms are 
appropriate to remedy the problems found by the courts with 
Microsoft`s behavior in the past and I believe that the leadership 
of Microsoft has the integrity and has made the commitment to follow 
the letter and spirit of the agreement, an agreement under which 
consumers will continue to benefit from Microsoft`s development of 
new software and other technologies. While many of Microsoft`s 
competitors and politicians would like to handicap the company with 
additional constraints for their own economic and political 
benefits, the average citizen will most benefit from the fair open 
competition that the current settlement provides for.
    Mark Grossman
    6435 132nd Avenue NE #201
    Kirkland, WA 98033



MTC-00005179

From: Betty Trembley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft case has dragged on entirely too long. In this 
period of major lay offs and many people becoming termed the 
`poor'` please see to it that the lawyers get no more 
and that money spent on this litigation will be freed up to be in 
circulation and to help those who need it. I think Microsoft has 
done a superior job to bring the computer into almost every home and 
has made it ffordable. Why should they be penalized for doing eactly 
what we have encouraged people to do. `Build a better 
mousetrap, Etc.'
    Betty Trembley
    1314 23rd Avenue
    Longview, WA. 98632



MTC-00005180

From: Richard Postrozny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Whom It May Concern .....
    Let`s put this case to rest once and for all. America is 
supposed to be the land of opportunity ... and that includes the 
freedom to innovate. I`m an engineer and my main responsibility is 
to come up with new product and process ideas at the lowest costs 
that will benefit both the producer and the consumer. I`m not only 
speaking for myself, but for other technical people as well. How can 
we be creative if we fear that the fruits of our labor will result 
in lawsuits on top of lawsuits ... ad infinitum???!!! It`s the 
freedom to create and invent that made our country what it is. 
PLEASE don`t destroy that freedom, especially now in these difficult 
economic times.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Postrozny
    21 N. Quincy St.
    Hinsdale, IL 60521



MTC-00005181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:30pm
Subject: Independent Institute in Oakland
    Attached is a piece that I recently received from the 
Independent Institute in Oakland. They make some good points that 
you should consider in your settlement with Microsoft.
    Attachment: STATES` PERSECUTION OF MICROSOFT: Throwing Bad Money 
after Good Because government bureaucrats don`t bear the costs of 
their actions directly, governments are especially bad at not 
knowing when to stop throwing bad money after good. The Microsoft 
antitrust case clearly illustrates this truism of government 
pathology. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals discarded the guts of 
the government`s antitrust suit against Microsoft last June, nine 
states _ led by California and New York_have chosen to 
keep fighting Microsoft. And although the federal antitrust trial 
uncovered no proof that consumer welfare was harmed by Microsoft`s 
fiercely competitive behavior, the nine states perpetuate the 
pretense that they are pursuing Microsoft for the sake of consumers 
rather than Microsoft`s rivals.
    As Dominick Armentano put it in a recent op-ed: `The first 
trial produced not one shred of evidence Microsoft`s software 
licensing or browser integration resulted in any consumer injury; 
the new trial will be similarly cursed. Instead, the testimony will 
confirm Microsoft plays competitive hardball (who doesn`t?) and 
intends to take market share from competitors with new innovation, 
savvy marketing and low prices.' `But that kind of 
behavior (engaged in by all free market firms) is the very nature of 
the competitive process and should be applauded, not condemned. Yet 
the holdout states and their politically ambitious attorneys general 
falsely believe antitrust laws exist to preserve specific 
competitors or specific products and that government must constantly 
level the playing field or micro-manage inter-firm business dealings 
with antitrust litigation. So the states will put the competitors on 
the stand and let them whine.
    `Consumers (and businesses) in all states require 
government protection from force and fraud but they don`t require 
decade-long antitrust assaults on firms that innovate and lower 
prices to consumers. Such assaults are economically inefficient, 
create incentives for additional litigation, perpetuate business 
uncertainty and harm society`s long-term welfare. Enough 
already.' The British legal system requires that the loser pay 
all court costs; this helps discourage frivolous lawsuits. If 
American antitrust law imposed a similar penalty, perhaps business 
rivals would spend more time competing and less time in antitrust 
litigation. And perhaps government antitrust bureaucrats would also 
curb their costly excesses.
    See `It`s Time to Quit,' by Dominick Armentano 
(NATIONAL POST, 12/21/01), at http://www.independent.org/tii/news/
011221Armentano.html By the way, I think the right long term job for 
Attorney General Lockyer of California is City Attorney of Berkeley. 
He would be great for that City.
    Bob Andrews
    1864 Castle Oaks Court
    Walnut Creek, CA 94595-2358
    925-933-6569
    925-933-8991 (Fax)



MTC-00005182

From: Dragster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, Please dont stop short of breaking up the Microsoft 
monoply. Windows is the most troublesome backward system there is. 
Why the world should have to bow to this giant is beyond me. I run 
windows xp because my new computer came with it and Ive had to bing 
the thing back to the shop 3 times in 30 days! It wont work with all 
my OLD software. Im going to run Linux from now on as I cant afford 
to keep fixing this `more stable system' !!! Thank you 
and I pray you wont bow to the giant just to end this. Sincerely, 
Phil Winter pob 104 Dewitt, Ia. 52742



MTC-00005183

From: Bruce G Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Our family would like to see the Microsoft Settlement move 
ahead, beyond the 9 States who have already agreed. We are long-term 
residents of California and believe that California should agree to 
this same settlement so that Microsoft can focus on innovation and 
job creation, as opposed to the litigation of the past several years 
that primarily benefits attorneys.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Murray



MTC-00005184

From: cvinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a user of Microsoft Win `95 and Win `98 SE software on my 
personal home computer, having purchased these items from Gateway 
and the local Comp USA stores. I

[[Page 24688]]

have used Microsoft software for the past 7 years as a professional 
engineer in the employ of Rockwell International. This software has 
made my job much easier, work output greater and significantly 
increased my ability to generate professional thesis, proposals and 
written communications. Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a 
few of Microsoft`s competitors, the federal government and nine 
states finally reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to 
address the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. 
In my opinion, this settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved. I further think the settlement is good for the 
consumer, the software industry and Windows XP may boost the 
American economy as it recovers from recession.
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few of Micrsosfts wealthy competitors, stifles 
innovation and lines the pockets of the legal profession.
    The federal government has spent far too much money in pursuing 
this case already.
    Clay Vinson
    P.E. Retired



MTC-00005185

From: James Meehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please, you people who haven`t the brains to compete, get off 
Microsoft`s back. James Meehan



MTC-00005186

From: Roy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:57pm
Subject: Monopoly Suit
    My opinion of this suit all along has been that Microsoft 
produces the best operating system in the world for home PC`s. To 
break it up would be just like the phone service. You go from the 
best, most reliable in the world to the piecemeal crap we have now.



MTC-00005187

From: Timothy Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and as a computer hobbyist I believe 
the settlement is a fair and reasonable agreement. This settlement 
will allow the end user more options to customize their system and 
will encourage competing products that will benefit the computer 
using public.
    Timothy A. Bell
    Ypsilanti, MI



MTC-00005188

From: Jeff (038) Gerrit Huston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Now is the time to think about the larger impact that Microsoft 
has on not just the technical sector of the computer world, but also 
the large impact this great company has on the economy. We have seen 
the burden this continual trail has on the country. It is time to 
put it to rest and to move on to much more important issues.
    It is doing very little to continue to pursuit issues that have 
already fallen to the past. Technology has and will continue to 
change. We need to allow companies to meet the wants of the people. 
What we want now is to settle and to move on. Let the government 
stay out of the fundamental freedom of capitalism.
    Thank you for your time,
    Gerrit Christine Huston



MTC-00005189

From: Bobby Cammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a very small user of Microsoft products. Being retired I 
only use the Microsoft products for personal work.
    Problems I see with Microsoft having complete control over the 
world`s and my operating system.
    1. I cannot sell their product (Windows 95 or Windows 98)to 
someone else without including at least one part of hardware. This 
is just intimidation by Microsoft. What if Ford motors restricted 
the sale of a part from their vehicles without sending the motor?
    2. My operating system Windows 98 is loaded with Microsoft stuff 
that I either have to accept or find out how to delete or over ride 
it. Tell Microsoft to keep their extras and sell the on the open 
competitive market. If I want their stuff I`ll buy it.
    3. There is no competition in the operating systems market that 
an old amateur like me can buy or even compare costs. With this 
monopoly Microsoft can and does sell the product at an inflated 
price. They will only sell at their controlled market price. You 
can`t go to a discount store and buy the product at a volume price.
    4. Windows 98 frequently goes belly up and stops in mid 
function. There is no customer complaint department that really 
listens. They state that they have most of the problems taken care 
of. Where I come from that`s called horse dung.
    5. When I was working in the manufacturing sector if you had a 
product that garnered at least 80 percent of the market you had to 
routinely justify the selling price. How in heavens name can 
Microsoft justify the current cost of Windows 98?
    6. If you buy one of the popular PC`s it will come with the 
Windows operating system bundled on a single CD with the other 
software. If you dump, trash or upgrade (build your own)your PC you 
cannot take the software to the new PC. It`s like Microsoft put a 
soul in the machine and only Microsoft, decay or God can remove it. 
The CD now is only usable as a Frisbee! Who do you think forces the 
PC builder to bundle their stuff?
    7. Try selling your old copy of Windows 95 on eBay. Now that you 
have one of the later versions you no longer need it. Microsoft 
controls the sale by eBay and their sellers. You can`t sell it 
without complying with Microsoft`s rules. Microsoft has a large paid 
legal staff to monitor and protect against violations of their 
monopolistic rules.
    I hope my name is kept in confidence. I don`t need either the 
FBI or Microsoft legal eagles checking me.
    Regards



MTC-00005190

From: Joe Swafford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all concerned:
    Microsoft is a great and innovative company which has 
contributed immensely to the American economy. They are a symbol of 
the American dream. They have fore-sight, ingenuity, and 
determination. They innovate to make the best possible software 
solutions which have made our lives easier, simpler, and more 
enjoyable. They are aggressive and pervasive. I admire this company; 
a company which is truly an American business icon. I cannot say 
enough good things about Microsoft because they have truly helped 
shape the future of our country and the future of our planet.
    That being said, I must admit that I do not agree with some of 
the business practices in which Microsoft has chosen to pursue. I 
would never want Microsoft to stop innovating or developing top-
notch products. I would never want them to cease as the business 
entity they are today. But I cannot, with a clear conscience, admit 
that they have participated in practices which have not stifled 
competition. I am just an average consumer. I could say nothing and 
be perfectly happy with using my Microsoft products and nothing 
else. However, I think our country is the greatest country on this 
planet for a reason. I believe that reason is opportunity; the 
opportunity of success without unfair interference.
    I feel there has been a major swing in respect to the legal 
aspect of this antitrust case. It seems the tone of this case has 
changed. It seems the seriousness of this case has changed. It seems 
the outcome of this case has changed. It seems the judicial process 
has changed. In effect, it seems the whole development of this case 
has been tainted due to a change in political power or a change in 
the agenda of the government because of the current economic 
environment.
    It disturbs me to think that our judicial process is influenced 
to such an extreme by the other powers of our government. Whether it 
is from the legislative or executive branch; this doesn`t matter. 
What matters to me is that the principles of our founding fathers 
are preserved and that we always do the `right thing'.
    Again, I think Microsoft is one of the most extraordinary 
companies in history. Microsoft is a company which will be in 
textbooks and will remain a strong contributor to our economy 
regardless of this legal matter. I still cannot understand how a 
court can overlook the code mixing of Internet Explorer and the 
Windows operating system. This is an obvious example of 
`bundling' which is never mentioned in the final 
judgment of the antitrust case.
    As a native born American consumer who appreciates Microsoft and 
its software, I am not disappointed in Microsoft. I am disappointed 
in our judicial process for allowing the letter of the law to be 
misconstrued and distorted in order to serve

[[Page 24689]]

the interests of the lobbyers, the politicians, the big money making 
machines, and the special interest groups. I think in the end, the 
consumer has lost and this is very sad. Because, when it comes right 
down to it, the individual consumer is the one who makes our economy 
work.
    Thanks for your time,
    A Microsoft fan who disagrees with a few things



MTC-00005191

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    As a concerned Citizen I urge you to ensure that the proposed 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft does not get derailed by 
wealthy competitors or special interest groups. The American economy 
NEEDS this settlement.
    Thank you, Mark G, Costa, San Diego CA



MTC-00005192

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:55pm
Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE
    GENTLEMEN:
    I REMAIN AMAZED AT THE TIME AND RESOURCES MY GOVERNMENTS (BOTH 
NATIONAL AND STATE) CONTINUE TO WASTE PM THIS CASE. MICROSOFT HAS 
DONE MORE THAN MOST COMPANIES IN AMERICA TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY, 
CREATE WEALTH AND GENERALLY IMPROVE AMERICA`S QUALITY OF LIFE.
    THIS CASE SEEMS TO BE DRIVEN BY SEVERAL LARGE COMPETITORS 
MOTIVATED BY THEIR OWN GREED AND JEALOUSY, BY GREEDY STATE 
GOVERNMENTS LOOKING FOR ANOTHER DEEP POCKET (LIKE THEY FOUND IN BIG 
TOBACCO) AND BY THE PREVIOUSLY DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOMINATED FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT JUST SEEKING A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS TO ATTACK.
    IT IS TIME TO CALL IT A DAY AND LET MICROSOFT AND ITS 
COMPETITORS GET BACK TO COMPETING.
    CHARLES H. PETERSON
    3724 N. HULLEN STREET
    METAIRIE, LOUISIANA 70002
    [email protected]



MTC-00005193

From: David Oakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft law suite
    Dear Government and States,
    Please leave Microsoft alone. They have done nothing but create 
jobs for Americans and help lead the USA in the technology world. 
They also have helped make the computer more user friendly 
throughout the world. The politics of these lawsuits stinks.
    David Oakes
    [email protected]



MTC-00005194

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge you to quickly approve the Microsoft settlement. We do 
not need further litigation of this matter. As a consumer, I have 
not been harmed by Microsoft`s actions. Computing 
costs_hardware and software_are extremely low. I 
appreciate the standards that Microsoft has set.
    Sincerely,
    Carla Klein
    Sunnyvale, CA
    [email protected]



MTC-00005195

From: basil johnson jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft ; us government
    Microsoft`s team, keep up the good work! Lazy assholes ( US 
government) and other companies that are too lazy or to damn stupid 
to be integrative! MSN tries to keep up support and free up dates 
for their products but interference has damn near stopped MSN. 
Assholes heed to get off their lazy ass and build their own 
products! I spent 30 years of my life outside rain, sleet, snow, 
heat for 12 hours a day to as many as 57 hours straight building and 
repairing railroad tracks. My choruses . $1.00 a day for meals and 
lease money an hour than a Food Lion bag boy would make! This was 
because of the US governments lick common sense. Which they still 
have a lack of! We would go as long as 8 years with out a contract 
be cause congress would average wages using all railroad workers 
together. Upper officials $5,000,000 to over $36,000,000 a year to 
our $18,000 per year. The railroad like the US government , may be 
corrupted , but not stupid. So their cut the real work force 80%! 
Damn R.R. workers per employ makes a hell of a lot of money! Same 
shit the governments are trying to do to MSN ! You have the money 
and power ` FIGHT' for all of our rights !
    [email protected]



MTC-00005196

From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:21pm
Subject: to the DOJ...were I stand with microsoft
    This case is nothing but a bunch of crybabies that don`t like 
Microsoft success. I support Microsoft in this fight.
    Rich Tackett
    19811 Portal Plaza
    Cupertino, Calif. 95014
    408 253-7810



MTC-00005197

From: sheris Swain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would really like to see this case settled once and for all. I 
am not only a stockholder of Microsoft, but I have 2 relatives that 
work for Microsoft (one retired, one currently employed) I lived in 
Bellevue just across the road from Microsoft for over 10 years. I 
enjoy all of their products and I commend them for originally having 
a concept when on no else did and capitalizing on it. I believe Bill 
Gates dream of everyone having a computer and I don`t think it is 
Microsoft`s intent is to be dominate, just to be a pioneer and keep 
forging new paths that others dare not attempt, but want to reap the 
benefits.
    I think it is time to settle in the favor of Microsoft. It would 
do other companies a lot of good to look at Microsoft, their 
culture, their healthplans the employee moral etc. They not only 
make great products but they are progressive in their employee 
relations.



MTC-00005198

From: Mike McAtee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:34pm
Subject: Please drop charges against msft, time to move on.
    Please drop charges against msft, time to move on.



MTC-00005199

From: Ron Nath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have reviewed to proposed settlement and would like to submit 
additional, revised comments from my previous ones. Overall, I 
believe the requirements are inconsequential and ineffective in 
stopping this convicted monopolist. The best course of action would 
have been to break-up the company as originally suggested by Judge 
Thomas Penfield Jackson (or even more so). However, as that is 
almost certainly not going to happen, alternatives need to be found.
    The current list of remedies (besides being ineffective) 
requires oversight and will undoubtedly allow Microsoft to find 
loopholes. Moreover, the duration of the requirements are only in 
effect for five years. I would suggest a much simpler, but more 
stringent set of remedies that would require no oversight. In 
addition, they would be in effect as long as Microsoft maintains a 
dominance (largest share) or monopoly (>50%) in ANY market- 
operating systems, office applications, internet browsers, etc.
    These would include:
    1. Microsoft must license its operating system to hardware 
vendors who can customize it any way they choose. In addition, the 
operating system cost must be separated out from the hardware cost 
so that consumers will have the option to install a free operating 
system.
    2. Microsoft or the hardware vendors who licensed and installed 
the operating system must provide a 90-day money back guarantee 
should a consumer wish to return the operating system (after having 
it deinstalled on their machine by the original seller of the 
system).
    3. Microsoft must provide source code (for an additional but 
reasonable fee) upon request to those who purchase a copy of any of 
their software (though it will remain copyrighted and can not be 
duplicated, etc.)
    4. Older, unsupported versions of their software (e.g. windows 
95, office 95, etc.) will enter the public domain and be completely 
open source and free for any use.
    5. `Core' applications (Office, internet explorer, 
SQL server, etc.) must be made available for all major operating 
systems (Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, Solaris, etc.) while all

[[Page 24690]]

their other applications should be eventually ported to these other 
OS`s.
    6. Their client and server operating systems must interface 
equally well with alternative platforms (ie, win9x or win2k clients 
will provide native support to connect a unix server via an X-server 
GUI or a win2k server will allow unix clients to connect via a 
provided terminal server client) Though these requirements are not 
as drastic as the original break-up, it goes much further than the 
current, almost worthless stipulations.
    S. Nath
    Wolcott, CT.



MTC-00005200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This suit was ill advised from the start. Settle NOW!
    Don Page
    Dragoon, AZ



MTC-00005201

From: Don Stults
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the litigation against Microsoft should cease. I 
have a difficult time understanding why the case was litigated. 
There seems to be a `punish the proficient' attitude in 
this case. Microsoft has invested a lot of money to develop products 
CONSUMERS WANT and they have accepted ALL the market risks (sales, 
worldwide copyright infringement, and yes, competition).
    Let Microsoft get on with their business (which they do 
well). . .the continuing litigation expenses will NOT be 
paid by Microsoft, it will be paid by consumers of their products.
    Don Stults
    [email protected]



MTC-00005202

From: Bob Levittan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it NOW!!!!! Don`t let this travesty continue. From the 
very beginning, this whole thing has been about Sun, Netscape, AOL 
et al, using litigation as a means to compete. END IT NOW! STOP 
WASTING MY MONEY! SPEND MORE TIME TRYING TO MAKE OUR LIVES SAFER. 
STOP WASTING TIME AND MANPOWER!
    END IT NOW!
    Bob Levittan
    50 Cliftwood Drive
    Huntington, NY 11743



MTC-00005203

From: Donald Hetrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please record my support to finally settle the endless 
litigation against Microsoft. I find the current settlement harsh, 
but feel its fine if it can finally be concluded so our country can 
move on.
    Thank You,
    Donald J. Hetrick



MTC-00005204

From: tobeyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I`ve been working as a software developer since 1964.
    In my opinion, Microsoft has attained their current position is 
because_
    1) They listen to the requests of Computer Users.
    2) They develop quality solutions based on Users requests.
    3) They provide an integrated platform for Independent and 
Corporate Developers to provide effective solutions for their 
clients.
    Imagination and Innovation are the keys.
    Thanks,
    David Drake



MTC-00005206

From: Rick Weyenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle now!



MTC-00005207

From: Miriam A. Detert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft
    This entire case is the most unjust case your so called Justice 
Department has ever taken . You are prosecuting an innocent man and 
company. They have done more for this country than anyone in many, 
many years.
    Miriam A. Detert



MTC-00005208

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is harsh, and more than enough penalty 
for Microsoft. Prolonging this only benefits a few special 
interests, for their own greed. AOL is prime for a monopoly 
investigation, and is campaigning for more against Microsoft to 
benefit their own interests. The few states protesting were only 
being more greedy than the rest, looking for a free ride on someone 
else`s money. No one is forced to buy Microsoft or use IE, but do 
because it is a better product. Leave them alone. Jan Roberts



MTC-00005209

From: DigitalBurn2k1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear to whom this may concern,
    I am an upcoming programmer at a major university. And, this 
court case has caught my attention. I would like to tell you that I 
do not agree with the government completely in the solutions to this 
problem. Microsoft has been in violation of some monopoly laws, I 
agree. However, I feel that to impede on the authoring writes of a 
company is not legitimate. Something would have to be changed, 
granted, but I do not agree that Microsoft Middleware such as 
Internet Explorer should be changed.
    A major step that Microsoft made in the 1995 windows was the 
integration of internet explorer. I understood this major step, as 
it makes the operating system more closely tied to the internet. 
This is a convenience to the user. Sure, it may impede on Netscape; 
however, I believe that this is a must have feature with today`s 
internet fueled economy/society. This technology has led to other 
web integrated technologies that Microsoft has developed and have 
greatly impacted the world, making our computer lives easier.
    I feel that if the government impedes on Microsoft`s freedom to 
produce technology, then they are stopping progress. If you would 
have told Microsoft that they could not have integrated net features 
with the OS years ago, then
    1) this ordeal would not be in court
    2) Microsoft would have surely lost consumers as someone else 
would have moved on the idea The government I understand is trying 
to keep competition in the marketplace. However, I would like to see 
progress thrive. Competition will always survive as it drives 
software makers to produce better software. Netscape is not better 
software, that is half the reason they have fallen in sales, just a 
personal user opinion. How can the government say what the best road 
is for technology? What if they are taking a wrong turn by 
penalizing Microsoft, which will in turn cause technology to slow 
progression? That is neither healthy for our citizens or our 
economy.
    I think that if the government is going to penalize Microsoft, 
they should do it in a way that is not hurting their creative 
rights, rights that have made the US dominant in the computing 
field. Lets face it, it is Microsoft that has given us an edge in 
the technology industry for the past 20 years. Do not ruin that 
because of some useless company like Netscape.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Davis



MTC-00005210

From: Daniel Telford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe that the settlement reached between the DOJ and 
Microsoft is more than fair since Microsoft in my opinion has never 
violated any anti-trust law. Take what you have and go.
    Daniel Telford
    Kearney NE



MTC-00005211

From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Given the number of years that have passed since the trial began 
Microsoft have very much responded to criticism and in my view have 
made all efforts to remedy the situation.
    Given that free operating systems are around (how competitive is 
that!_what if the situation existed with free cars!) and 
piracy

[[Page 24691]]

is rife_if microsoft was ever judged a monopoly it was on its 
merits.
    The level of piracy, the level of competition, all work to 
undermine microsofts efforts to conduct fair and legal trade. The 
settlement is fair and just in my opinion, if anything its too 
harsh. We all know how big business works, with coca cola signing 
exclusive deals with suppliers, sports stars signing contracts that 
mean they can only advertise with nike etc, so why microsoft should 
be held aloft on a pedestal for its alleged actions is beyond me.
    If anything would be ultimately in the publics interest it would 
have been a long time ago that the whole matter was dropped. Right 
now, barring that, the best thing is for all parties to accept the 
settlement and for those competitors of microsoft to stop trying to 
use the courts for financial gain when instead they should employ 
smarter people, up the R & D, and increase the quality of their 
products.
    Jason



MTC-00005213

From: lynn orser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that it is time to finalize this ridiculous fiasco and 
get on with the work of the people. Please move forward with the 
proposed settlement and put this case behind the American people. I 
believe there are more important issue that the government should be 
dealing with.
    Sincerely,
    Lynn Wm. Orser
    11288 James Court
    Genoa, IL. 60135



MTC-00005214

From: Robin Datta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Justices:
    I have used Microsoft products from MS-DOS 3.0 onwards through 
6.0+; Win 2.0 (yes, 2.0, when the IBM OS2 was priced at $400+ but 
the MS product was quite reasonable to dabble with) and on through 
3.0, 3.11, Win 95 (briefly), WinNT3.5, 4.0 through SP6 and on to 
Win2kProf and WinXPPro. Other OSs have attempted to take the place 
of Windows but have not offered the options and versatility that we 
have now.
    Microsoft was under no obligation to offer automatic updates to 
its OS but has done so. It is a wonderful feature. And Windows will 
be the OS to be proficient in, in much of the foreseeable future. To 
say that MS will have an unfair advantage in providing its software 
to the educational system is to neglect the unfair disadvantage that 
the students now have when screwing around with the Apple/MacIntosh 
system. While MS does make its Office Suite available for the Apple/
MacIntosh system (which refutes the argument that the Office Suite 
holds the user hostage to Windows), there are so many other features 
of the Windows and so many other applications and devices that run 
under windows, that it is almost cruel to deprive the student 
generation of proficiency in these.
    It is time for the pirhanas to get off Microsoft. If they cannot 
compete in the market, it is not right that they try to make good in 
the courts. We have already seen a candidate who could not win in 
the election installed by the courts as the President-pretender of 
this country. I do not believe that the court system should replace 
the people`s choice whether in the software market or at the ballot 
box.
    Sincerely,
    Robin Datta
    [email protected]
    9228 N Stoneridge Ln
    Fresno CA 93720-1210
    (559) 434-0370



MTC-00005215

From: zach cross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:00am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    to whom it may concern,
    The One and Only, Zachary B Cross



MTC-00005216

From: Michael Knight
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/1/02 8:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    back off you idiots and get blumenthal to do so also.   
    Michael J. Knight, CPA, CVA, CFE
    Licensed Life, Accident and Health Agent
    Michael J. Knight & Company, CPAs
    Licensed Mortgage Brokers, Consultants
    116 Sherman Street
    Fairfield, Connecticut 06430
    Tel: (203) 259-2727
    Fax: (203) 256-2727
    Website: http://www.mjkcpa.com



MTC-00005217

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a 64 year old sole practicing attorney in Marietta, GA who 
has been sufficiently computer literate and fortunate to be able to 
practice by myself (no secretary, paralegal, etc.) for the past 
several years due, in no small part, I truly believe, to Microsoft`s 
providing a simple yet comprehensive `workplace' for me.
    Many will say others could do as well or better...I do not 
believe others would make my PC platform as simple, user friendly 
and idiot proof as Microsoft has.
    Leave them alone and able to continue to provide as they have, 
please.



MTC-00005218

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:00am
    This is not a settlement but a travesty. There is no meaningful 
change to the status quo which means Microsoft continues to benefit 
from its past monopolistic practices and, indeed, benefits from this 
action by expanding its influence though our school systems. Where 
is the corrective action that our laws are supposed to provide?
    Thank you,
    Larry Heath
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005219

From: Gregg Christman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:08am
Subject: Nine State Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am very dissappointed with our government over this entire 
court case against Microsoft.
    First and foremost Microsoft has created an industry that has 
made our country number one again in the world and has created jobs, 
increased productivity, and more importantly for the Federal 
Government Billions of Dollars of Tax Revenue!
    The idea that they are a monoply is absolutely absurd they have 
to compete against thousands of competitors daily to win and earn 
their revenues. They spend Billions on Research and Development to 
provide better software.
    The notion that they are controlling the software industry is 
ridiculous. Every consumer in the marketplace has a choice whether 
or not they want to own Microsoft Software no one is putting a gun 
to there head and forcing the consumer to purchase Microsoft. This 
lawsuit which was initiated by President Bill Clinton and
    The Clinton Administration is an absolute conspiracy to 
undermine the American Way,to create, build, and sell products to be 
successful.
    This lawsuit has been counterproductive from its` inception and 
has cost our economy Billions in lost revenue, and Billions in 
investors portfolio`s value.
    I believe the settlement reached by the Nine States and 
Microsoft is extremely generous a Billion Dollars worth of Software 
and other computer related items for the low income schools. I think 
this is a fair and reasonable settlement.
    I believe the US Government needs to rapidly agree with this 
proposed settlement by Microsoft and conclude this total unfounded, 
ridiculous, lawsuit and let`s get on with what is important getting 
our Technology Economy rolling again. Microsoft is the engine that 
is pulling the Technology Sector forward. I hope our government can 
see this however; sometimes I think our leaders are in a closet.
    Concerned Citizen,
    Gregg Christman
    [email protected]



MTC-00005220

From: jack3108
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s get this case over. Even the few states that are still 
objecting are purchasing Microsoft products_The attorney 
generals don`t seem to know what most of their dept. purchasing 
agents are buying.



MTC-00005221

From: Joseph W. Guillory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24692]]

    I believe that the only thing that needs to be changed in this 
settlement is that Microsoft should give cash instead of software 
and computers. This way the receiving schools or benifactors can 
choose how best to use these funds.
    Thank You
    Joseph



MTC-00005222

From: Sun-Tzu1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A recently purchased computerized billing and scheduling system 
running Windows XP has made a tremendous difference for my business. 
The efficiency of this new system is significantly greater than the 
older non Windows based system and yet was extremely affordable. As 
a consumer of computer and compter related goods I have been greatly 
satisified with the reliability, performance, variety, innovation 
and affordability of Microsoft products. In today`s current 
environment the citizens of this country have fears that extend well 
beyond Microsoft. The threat of terrorism, nuclear weapons, 
unemployment, the decline of America`s auto manufacturing, and the 
rising costs of health care have become the issues that require 
attention. As a country we should be comforted by the existance of 
strong global companies, such as Microsoft, which through their 
existance provide fuel to America`s economy and ultimately enhance 
the power of our nations leaders. We must remember that the blanket 
of freedom that covers our nation is the direct result of the 
economic strength we possess. It seems ironical that a country that 
relies so heavily on its financial strength to resolve world crises 
would spend so much energy to disrupt the very source of its 
strength. Any other country in the world would welcome Microsoft 
with open arms because with its ecomomic might comes bargaining 
power. In summary, be thankful that Microsoft exists and let us, as 
a nation, encourage other American companies to become as 
successful. Let us begin to concentrate our efforts on the issues 
that require immediate attention and will have the most impact for 
the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Watson



MTC-00005223

From: BryantKing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please continue with the settlement as agreed to and put this 
behind us. We need less government and permit the American 
entrepreneur to flourish. Businesses have to compete to stay in 
business and it requires long hours and hard work.
    Sincerely,
    Bryant A King



MTC-00005224

From: Jack Stoutenger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:20am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i do not think microsoft has done anything wrong other than make 
some awesome software that makes it very easy for anyone to use



MTC-00005225

From: Robert Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    I believe that the proposed settlement should be accepted for 
the common good of USA & the world in general. The continued 
uncertainties around Windows creates a depressed marketplace, full 
of apprehension, tightened purse-strings. Additionally it makes the 
US look foolish when the Appleals court overturned a decision, which 
granted Microsoft the right to integrate the Web Browser into the 
Operating System.
    What the SUN Microsystems, AOL/Netscape & affiliated 
companies complain most about is that Microsoft has produced 
products that integrate well together. SUN has its StarOffice, but 
no one seriously accepts it, as it offers little to build a business 
system from. There is scant integration between StarOffice and other 
software applications produced by independant software vendors.
    Continued poor integration of open-source software will damage 
consumer confidence by offering too many options, that most people 
do not understand the reasons why they should choose one over the 
other. This is why the Open Source community would welcome Microsoft 
Office to the Linux operating systems. From what I understand the 
latest version of MS OFFICE for
    MacOS10, would take little to port to the Linux operating 
systems. It should be pointed out that other computer related 
companies have violated fair trading practices in a much greater 
way, for example:
    1) SUN also offered its Solaris operating system for free, but 
after signing up for it, I then found I was to be charged $75 (US) 
for media. What a blatent misrepresentation!
    2) Apple allowed, and openly greeted other companies who were to 
produce clones of their Mac`s. But when it was evident that Apples 
share of the overall computer market was not increasing, they then 
witheld their operating system from the clone builders.
    3) When the Mac OS was witheld, the clone builders started 
offering G4 upgrades for G3 machines, but then Apple changed the 
BIOS routine so that these upgrade cards would not function.
    In closing, I hope you agree that in the interests of the world 
economy, particularily after September 11, that this proposal must 
be accepted.
    Sincerely Yours
    Robert G Gardner
    Port Macquarie NSW
    Australia



MTC-00005226

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom this may concern,
    I spent 2 years in the computer industry in the US. I have had 
no problems with Microsoft except they beat their competition. Is 
this the US or not? Does free enterprise exist or is the concept for 
fairly tales and uncensored history books? I do not understand a 
`free society` the penalizes a company that delvers services to a 
majority of the market, out distances their competitors then is 
criticized for being successful.
    Settle the dispute as quickly as possible and allow the business 
of business to get on...
    Sincerely,
    Cindy Morse
    149 Wallinwood NE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49503



MTC-00005227

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I`m writing in support of the settlement negotiated by the DOJ 
and Microsoft.
    I am both a user of Microsoft software and an owner of Microsoft 
shares.
    I have worked in the information technology arena since entering 
the workforce in 1962. I have known what it is to develop systems 
for computers with only 4096 bytes of memory (that is not a typo). 
For computers for which punched cards were the only storage medium. 
For computers that were anything but personal.
    In my career the focus of my development efforts changed from 
developing systems for mainframe computers to developing systems for 
personal computers in early 1988. At that time the operating systems 
`war' was being fought among IBM, Microsoft, and Apple. 
I can personally attest that there has been an `order of 
magnitude' improvement in the Windows operating system since 
that time. That improvement was primarily attributable to the 
`invisible hand' of competition among that group of 
competitors.
    As a user of application software, I can personally attest to 
the value that Microsoft has brought to that field. The organization 
I was a partner of (Andersen) had adopted Lotus 1-2-3 as 
its standard spreadsheet software. The improvements that Microsoft 
made to Excel that even the most diehard supporter of 
1-2-3 had to acknowledge that Excel was the better 
product and ultimately we changed to Excel as our standard 
spreadsheet.
    I`m also aware of the improvements that Microsoft has made to 
programming languages and the other software that facilitates 
development in those languages.
    In short, Microsoft has done a great deal to foster improvements 
in information technology and that has rippled throughout our entire 
economy. If Microsoft has broken the law, it should be punished in 
accordance with that law. If current laws are not adequate for the 
world we now live in, new laws should be written and adopted in the 
cold light of day. We should not, however, develop new laws through 
the judicial process. And, we should not develop new laws through 
the judicial process at the urging of organizations who have not 
enjoyed the success they believe that they deserve in the 
competitive arena.
    Yes, you need to consider the source and I acknowledged I was 
and am a Microsoft

[[Page 24693]]

shareholder. I`m a shareholder because I recognized the value 
Microsoft was bringing value to the field of information technology. 
And, I continue to believe that Microsoft will continue to bring 
value to that field as long as the competition with other 
information technology providers is fair. As I understand the terms 
of the settlement agreement, I believe that the proposed post-
settlement environment will be fair to all concerned.
    Thank you for considering the voice of one consumer and one 
owner of a part of the American economy.
    David Brunn
    Professor of Business Administration
    Carthage College



MTC-00005229

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Mr. Attorney General,
    How much longer will we let a select group of people continue to 
perpetuate an issue such as the unsettled Microsoft litigation to 
cause so much uncertainty in our economy. It seems often that 
powerful and self serving people, directly or through organizations 
they influence, are able to manipulate government actions that works 
contra to the needs of the greater good. Certainly, that seems to be 
the case with this new scheme to delay this settlement.
    Everyone now knows this settlement is the right thing to do, 
because it is right in its own merits, and because the economy was 
hurt by the original suit and needs to be made right. A lot of other 
companies and market segments were hurt by the original action. And 
not just the capital of those companies, but more importantly 
employees and their pension plans, their livelihood and the very 
fabric of their family and sense of security. So now these self 
interest are making one last attempt. Is it because they are being 
influenced by short sellers who are trying to make yet one more 
killing in the market_if they can cause confusion on the 
stocks of the high tech sector, see these stocks crash and burn 
again, so they could buy back low. Is this what the DOJ and the Bush 
Administration have in store for the country in 2002_to let 
this happen. If so, its so Clinton like.
    My family, neighbors and friends are watching this closely, and 
I can assure you, a lot of others are too. We don`t see how fixing 
this economy is possible without sticking to the existing agreement 
and closing this issue immediately. It`s time to take leadership and 
complete the job you people were put in office to address in 2000.
    Thank you,
    C. Figueroa
    New Jersey
    CC:RFC-822=3_23163_987C91CF-ED8E-
D211-9F48-00C04FB98E...



MTC-00005230

From: Barbara Sanborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get it done so business can move on. Settle this so competition 
in business and the right to innovate can continue. If Microsoft has 
done things wrong...I am sure they are not alone..but they have 
certainly demonstrated what this country is all about..the right to 
succeed in business and to be rewarded for that success.



MTC-00005231

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:05am
Subject: I FEEL THE STATES SHOULD TAKE THE OFFER FROM MICROSOFT
    i am writing because i feel since the D.O.J started legal action 
against microsoft in 6-2000 to present that it has caused a 
mess within all the technology area microsoft is the heart and 
engine of the tech and they like the 3 auto makers feed alot of 
vendors we in short as investors not only tech but the whole market 
suffered the worse loss of 5 trillion .
    not all of it was caused by the legal matter against microsoft 
by also greenspan 6 rate hikes the same time the legal matter 
against microsoft we are in one of the worst recession since 
73-74 and it is global i feel this matter has gone long enough 
and i have followed this case and understand some of problems but 
they were in the past and now alot of the problems are gone 
microsoft admited to some wrong dueing and is will to pay damages 
the justice department agreeded to some kind of settlement but 9 
states want to drag this and really what would they gain i doubt 
that they could win if they are going out to split microsoft first 
it has been stated by appeal court that braking up microsoft was off 
the table and settlement was only thing on the table finally i feel 
alot of tax payers money has been wasted and will be wasted more for 
i truly believe that these 9 state attorneys have political movities 
and not really interested in settling i urge the D.O.J to wrap this 
matter and let microsoft pay for damages to which they already have 
agreeded to then they will then spend money on r/d instead of 
attorney fees then with the 11 rate cuts and energy saving and 
restruturing we will more r/d and hiring layoff people plus those 
who lost alot will start getting some of it back so i urge you not 
on my behalf but the whole economy to end this bleeding and urge to 
wrap this matter up so microsoft can spend the money back into r/d 
we have had a massive layoff mainly coming from technology all good 
strong companies all have laid off 10% some even higher i feel once 
this matter is wrapped up thinks will improve with economy and then 
alot of these companies like 
cisco,oracle,sunmicosystems,cien,junper,all networking, and 
semi-conductors will get fed by microsoft and they will feed the 
smaller it is like a domino it just travels i urge you the end this 
as fast as can be for people are still fearful that we may continue 
another year like 2001 that is why 3 trillion dollars in low 1% 
money markets because with technology there is no economy no growth 
and no stock market
    it is like the engine to the car for it will not run it also 
effected the global markets for like i said once you cut the leggs 
off then the rest falls like a domino
    finally i urge you to tell these hold outs that it would be in 
the best interest
    to all that they settle for they would loose if they wanted to 
continue miscrosoft just is to big and with over 30 billion in cash 
it would take these 9 states 20 to 30 years to get an answer and it 
would be no they can not beat a giant like microsoft and neither 
will anyone i was against this whole matter for what did any citizen 
or investor get out this whole matter
    nothing and in fact paid a hell of a price because all you got 
was what
    microsoft offered from the begining
    thank you
    george g. dingoian
    [email protected]



MTC-00005232

From: James Button
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I believe that any settlement addressing a companies 
monopolistic and/or anti-competitive actions should fulfil at least 
1, and preferably all of the following::
    1) Financial restitution to the actual, and prospective 
`competing' organisations for the damage already 
inflicted.
    2) Financial restitution to the actual, and prospective 
`competing' organisations for the loss of future 
profitability.
    3) Financial restitution to the actual, and prospective 
`customers' for the probable inflated costs due to lack 
of availability of products from alternative sources.
    4) Enforcement of `proper` business practices in the future.
    5) Require the offender to ensue that the products they are 
currently supplying are brought up to the standard that would have 
been required to achieve their current dominant status if they had 
been competing in a `fair' marketplace In the case of 
Microsoft, I as a user suffer because Microsoft OS and Office 
products have become the `defacto' standard in industry.
    My organisation also has to ( at our expense) have somebody 
regularly monitor the internet and PC systems for 
`security' gaps, and ensure that the holes found are 
addressed In order to interact with business peers, and maintain the 
business`s employability the organisation is forced to purchase the 
new releases of Microsoft products ( with the required hardware 
upgrades). This being essential due to the Microsoft policy of 
discontinuing support for old versions. (To date about $1000 per PC 
system directly attributable to business compatibility upgrades). 
While I accept that providing substantial assistance to educational 
establishments may form part of a `penalty'` that does 
nothing to provide restitution to the prior purchasers of their 
products, nor does it actually impose a real penalty on the 
organisation unless that organisation is inhibited from adjusting 
their prices and marketing to recover that cost from their 
customers. If they are allowed to include their own products in 
costs of their penalty, they can simply ship 10,000 CD`sets at a 
quoted $500 each ($5,000,000 billed for $2,500 worth of media) and 
site licences of 20 accompanying each CD set (accounted for @ 
say $5 per user = $10,000,000).

[[Page 24694]]

    Not only does such an approach increase their dominance in the 
market, as businesses will have a greater incentive to use their 
products because their new employees will have already, at an 
education cost billed to the public purse/wallet, gained experience 
in the offenders products, but also opens an opportunity to charge 
for increases in the licensing ( to say 100 users per CD set 
@ say $4 per user ) giving profits of $4 x 80 x 10,000 = 
$3,200,000_ Booked cost of the action = $15,000,000, at a net 
cost of $2,500 minus $3,200.000 = ?? Considering the above:
    I feel that any settlement allowing the offender`s products to 
be promoted is greatly flawed. I also believe that the proposed 
settlement will actually increase Microsoft`s dominance, at the 
expense of the US taxpayer, businesses, but also to the detriment of 
PC users throughout the world.
    J.B.C.S. Limited. ( a UK company )



MTC-00005233

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been following the Microsoft Anti-trust case now for 
quite some time, and feel the need to offer some input on the 
subject. My hope is that you will give due consideration to input 
that I and others from the public community offer, as the decisions 
made by the judicial system will have a significant impact on the 
consumers` ability to choose products that meet our needs at 
reasonable prices.
    Civil Action No. 98-1232, (Antitrust), COMPLAINT devotes a 
significant amount of text to the subject of the 
`bundling' of Microsoft products in its operating 
system. The main argument seems to be that, by including products 
such as Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer on PC`s using the 
Windows Operating System, consumers are prevented from using other 
products. This is absurd. I am writing this e-mail from a computer 
running Windows 98 Second Edition, which came `bundled' 
with IE, but I am writing this e-mail from a Netscape 6.2 browser 
window. I normally use IE, not Netscape. However, after reading the 
text of the Complaint, I decided to see just how hard it is to get 
Netscape onto my machine and use it. I found Netscape to be free, 
with the task of downloading and installing to be quite simple. 
Further, I was able to eliminate IE from my machine using the 
Windows Add/Remove function in its control panel. (I have since 
subsequently downloaded and insatalled IE back to my machine for 
free, with equal simplicity). I found it interesting that Netscape 
came with AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) `bundled' with it! 
Frankly, I believe the charges against Microsoft are being generated 
by individuals that do not have the first idea of how to use 
computers and the internet. If they did, they would know how 
ridiculous these charges are.
    `Bundling' is a common practice in one of the 
largest industries in the US and the world_the automobile 
industry. Imagine going to a dealer and trying to buy an automobile 
with a Cadillac body, Ferrari interior, Porsche engine, and a Ford 
transmission. Not possible. We can`t pick which brand fuel injectors 
we want, which brand audio system we want, which brand tires we 
want, which brand paint we want, or which brand suspension 
components we want. We choose a package. If we don`t like a 
particular package, we go to another dealer and choose a different 
one. The freedom to choose which package we want is the freedom that 
needs to be protected. Years ago, when the Chrysler Motor 
Corporation was on the verge of failing, we protected this freedom 
bailing them out. We did NOT try to protect this freedom by forcing 
GM and Ford to be broken into smaller groups, nor by forcing GM and 
Ford to stop `bundling' so as to allow consumers to ask 
for Chrysler components to be included on their GM or Ford products. 
Why, then, are we trying to take these actions against Microsoft? 
The fact that no other product is being offered that competes with 
Microsoft is, perhaps, reason to provide some sort of initiative to 
potential competitors, but certainly not to order the breakup of 
Microsoft or to force them to stop `bundling'. Browsers 
and media players are as much an integral part of a computer as 
engines and transmissions are for automobiles. Microsoft should be 
able to provide the packages that they choose to offer, as they are 
doing now, based on the wants and needs of the users.
    I urge you to consider carefully the comments I have provided, 
and all others offered by the public through this and other avenues. 
I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you. I 
look forward to you decisions on these matters.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Quigley
    606 Ashford Place
    Newport News, VA 23602
    Phone: 757-890-0017
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00005234

From: Mr Bleakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft settelment
    Sirs:
    I ask the D. O. J. discontinue ANY further action that is 
detrimental to Microsoft and the business community. I suggest a 
full settlement of the charges against Microsoft as outlined by the 
court. In my opinion, the governments should all be ashamed of 
themselves for persecuting a company that has done as much for an 
industry as has Microsoft. Mr. Bleakley



MTC-00005235

From: Milton Karafilis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please approve the settlement of the Microsoft case. This is not 
the time to be undoing a settlement to the harm of a US Company like 
Microsoft. The problem seems to be with the States that have 
Microsoft competitors, let them find their profits in the 
marketplace like the rest of us. Thank You for your consideration...
    Milton Karafilis,
    Sole Proprietor & Microsoft User



MTC-00005236

From: Bob Little
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement of the DOJ vs. Microsoft case should NOT include 
free Microsoft software for schools. That would only further 
Microsoft`s Monopoly. Microsoft should put up cash and let the 
schools decide how to spend it. In fact, rules should be put in 
place so that the money must be spent at companies other than 
Microsoft. That would be a proper punishment for Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices.



MTC-00005237

From: Suji Singh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    USDOJ _-
    In my opinion Microsoft Settlement is fair and equitable. Enough 
is enough! No company should be punished for its success.
    Sincerely, Suji Singh, Professor of Mathematics, SW Texas State 
University, San Marcos, TX 78666.



MTC-00005238

From: Charles Stark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose all attempts to institute government control of 
Microsoft. Leave them alone! Let free enterprise solve the problems 
of free enterprise.
    Charles R. Stark



MTC-00005239

From: Mike Ezekiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have no great love for the way Microsoft does business. They 
essentially did the same thing Apple and other computer companies 
have done through the 80`s_they stole their ideas from others. 
The result is, that they have been highly successful and a dominant 
force in the industry. But, that`s not what I`m writing about.
    Fairness! It is unfair to go after Microsoft when you have the 
bloodsuckers at AOL doing whatever they please. I would like to know 
what happened with that 18 Billion dollar lawsuit against them. 
Swept under the rug? I have not heard anything about it. Lots of 
states also had lawsuits against them. And believe me, those were 
valid lawsuits. I owned my own computer company in 1999_2000, 
and we had nothing but problems with AOL software. Causing hardware 
problems and essentially taking over the computer and not allowing 
other dial-up software to work properly.
    So, unless your going to be fair across the board! Leave 
Microsoft alone!!! Settle, and let Microsoft innovate!
    Mike Ezekiel
    Concerned IT specialist



MTC-00005240

From: Peter Shikli
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24695]]

Date: 1/1/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ,
    Microsoft is asking those of us they feel are partial to them to 
send you our requests to be lenient with them. Please have the 
resolve to finish what you started in a way that protects us from 
monopolies. There can be no doubt that Microsoft has stifled the 
competition on our desktop. You will never again have this chance to 
restore a level playing field.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Shikli
    CEO, BusinessWare
    2738 Camino Capistrano,
    San Clemente, CA 92672
    949-369-1638 x77_
    [email protected]
    www.bizware.com
    Automating Online B2B Communities Reply-To: 
<3_23163_02E08142-9573-4226-979F-
[email protected]> From: 
`Microsoft' 
<0_23163_02E08142-9573-4226-979F-
[email protected]>
    To: 
    Subject: DOJ Wants to Hear From YOU!
    Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:15:49 -0800
    For nearly four years, your voice has been instrumental in the 
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned 
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether 
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite 
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft`s competitors, 
the federal government and nine states finally reached a 
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy.
    However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is 
more important than ever.
    The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the `public 
interest.' Unfortunately, a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Between now and January 28th, it is critical that the Department 
of Justice hears from you about the Microsoft settlement. The 
Department of Justice will then take all public comments and 
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District 
Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the 
Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th. 
Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the 
government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today 
to ensure your voice is heard.
    Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of 
the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment 
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
    Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.



MTC-00005241

From: Freund, Robert W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    It is time to move on and make this settlement final.
    Our interests as a country will best be served by completing the 
settlement in the form contained in the Tunney Act.
    I can`t imagine a more productive end to this farce. thanks
    -bob



MTC-00005242

From: Ken Partridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:36am
Subject: State opposition to settlement
    Consumers voted with their dollars on who would be the leader in 
operating systems. We should be thanking Microsoft for standardizing 
an industry. These states are looking for a free ride in revenue. 
Why would the US Justice Department support ambulance chasers? 
Settle this now and let Microsoft get back to innovation.
    Ken Partridge
    Chandler, AZ



MTC-00005243

From: Baraneetharan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Respected Sir,
    Microsoft case should be settled , there is no need to drag it 
further. The current settlement is tough , but it is reasonable. I 
feel the settlement is good foe everybody.
    Thanks
    Baraneetharan



MTC-00005244

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumers Perspective
    Microsoft has good, products and low prices. In now way do I 
believe Microsoft is trying to take advantage of the consumer. Their 
actions are precisely what capitalism is all about. Perhaps they are 
more aggressive than other companies, so what, that is why they are 
number one in the world. Having everything nicely integrated makes 
my life much easier. Punishing Microsoft because their competitors 
whine is placing the government in a role of subverting capitalism. 
There are much better uses for our national energies than beating up 
on successful companies.
    David McKercher
    Farmington Hills, Michigan



MTC-00005245

From: Dolores Freund
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/1/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I wish to voice my support of Microsoft`s position in the 
current lawsuit. Microsoft has fueled the growth of our economy with 
its superior innovations. It is the quality and quantity of these 
innovations which has made Microsoft software the standard for 
excellence that consumers have come to rely on. Microsoft has shown 
an AMAZING ability to innovate and continue to innovate. This 
continuous innovation has made it very hard for competitors to keep 
up. Excellence should be applauded and encouraged, not discouraged 
because it makes it so hard for competitors to keep up. Microsoft 
should NOT BE CRIPPLED. It should not be PUNISHED for its successes. 
Microsoft innovations FUEL the growth of our economy by fueling 
PRODUCTIVITY for ALL AMERICANS.
    VERY Sincerely,
    Dolores Freund



MTC-00005246

From: john makara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the Governments case against Microsoft and 
I believe the settlement should be enacted by both parties in the 
interest of our national economy. The tactics and market conditions 
that Microsoft acted on and what fostered the governments claims 
have clearly changed so much that any anti-trust remedy aimed at 
changing Microsoft`s business practices will be inapplicable and 
ineffective now. Microsoft is clearly a player in a global 
competitive economy and should be allowed to exercise business 
practices in a effort to promote its products. As a consumer I have 
reaped the benefits of Microsoft success by purchasing amazingly 
productive software from Microsoft in the last 10 years at prices 
that have remained stable even though inflation has reduced the 
actual cost to me. Even had prices been high due to `monopoly` power 
I still would have a choice of when and how much software to buy.
    The governments case against Microsoft however has cost 
taxpayers millions of dollars and is an example of a cost I am 
FORCED to bear. It is not my choice to spend my money this way but 
the choice of a few wealthy government officials and lawyers.



MTC-00005247

From: Edwin Mizrahi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I think the settlement is a step in the right direction. But, I 
think companies should not be forced to prove if they are in the 
public interest or anti-competitive. Companies should be allowed to 
profit from their work just like individuals. If the contracts are 
voluntary, and don`t violate the other parties rights, then their 
practices should be allowed

[[Page 24696]]

 to continue. My existence and Microsoft`s should not be based on 
permission. This is not Soviet Russia, or Communist China. America 
is for the rights of individuals. Which includes having the 
government protecting peoples right to their property. This to me 
means being able to create property, ( Windows 2000) and being able 
to dispose of that property as they sees fit. ( Selling it bundled 
or under certain conditions with other software). I think Justice 
means people get what they have earned. Microsoft has not used force 
or fraud to sell its products. It has earned everything morally. 
Therefore, if Netscape or Sun or whomever doesn`t like it, they 
should just accept it or get out of the business.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin Mizrahi
    NYC
    Be Seeing You..................
    Edwin
    personal e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00005248

From: Mauro Gandini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with Microsoft
    Mauro Gandini
    The Outsourcing Company
    Milano Italy



MTC-00005250

From: Tom Pate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please include my comments in the public record for the District 
Court to consider for the Microsoft Settlement.
    I support the settlement as is. I oppose government/judicial 
action that interferes with free-market trade. Those businesses 
suing Microsoft are taking advantage of the political system to 
compensate for their failure to perform in the free market system.
    I am not an employee of Microsoft. I own no Microsoft stock 
directly (but probably some through Mutual Fund investments).



MTC-00005251

From: clayton sherwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:27am
Subject: End
    Microsoft settlement. C Sherwood



MTC-00005252

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please continue with the settlement. No further litigation is 
necessary.
    Lynne Nelson



MTC-00005253

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Justices,
    I have been a professional software developer for fifteen years 
and have been using tools developed by Microsoft and other vendors 
throughout my career. I believe, that although Microsoft has engaged 
in some questionable business practices, they have greatly benefited 
the software and computer industry as a whole. Prior to the 
Microsoft standards, software development was chaotic due to the 
many incompatible platforms that prevailed. Microsoft solved this 
very burdensome situation by introducing DOS and later Windows. 
Their development and promotion of COM was a major achievement in 
software development which allowed components developed in different 
programming languages and using both Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
compilers to communicate with one another.
    I believe that Microsoft should adhere to your recent decision 
and not be further penalized for the good of everyone.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Albert
    Director, Application Services Development
    Claritas Inc
    53 Brown Rd
    Ithaca, NY 14850



MTC-00005254

From: Joseph (038) Taylor Hilden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:34am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough . Four years of this unnecessary waste of 
taxpayers money instigated by a few competitors is enough. Let the 
competitors compete in the marketplace and save litagation for the 
proper cases. The anti-trust laws are suppose to protect the 
consumers but this travesty of an investigation has been unneeded. 
The public has never been reequesting this witch hunt. Please let 
this case die soon. Thank You in Advance Joseph and Carol Hilden



MTC-00005255

From: THOMAS J CLINTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want to express my opinion that to continue this litigation 
any further will hurt our economy and free enterprise.



MTC-00005256

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I heartily approve of the DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft and 
wish that it would take place promptly. Too much time and federal 
dollars have been spent trying to beat down a company that has 
contributed a great deal to the development of technology and wealth 
in the U.S. The DOJ`s and competitors` concern for the lowly 
consumer is a farce. No consumer that I am aware of ever complained 
about Microsoft`s behavior. It`s the company`s competitors who used 
the consumer argument to challenge Microsoft because of Microsoft`s 
dominant leadership. Your settlement and supervision of future 
developments will keep the company in check without destroying its 
initiative.
    H.F. Marx, 380 Prospect Ave., Hackensack, NJ 07601



MTC-00005257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    When is this tragedy going to end? When Microsofts competition 
learn its easier to innovate and not litigate. Its amazing how the 
same states and senators as there competition are the ones who dont 
want to settle. This case has never been about the publics best 
interest but that of other companies such as sun micro, orcle, aol, 
csco, and the list goes on. The public was never really harmed by 
Microsoft and alot of other software companies and tech firms who 
associated anything with windows became great succsesses. I dont 
think we need ten different operating systems or ten different 
internet exploreres. Linux is free and I would never use it. This 
company`s litigation has single handedly destroyed the whole tech 
sector. Thanks for 3 years of zero growth and a devastated Nasdaq. 
I`m sure all these Goverment Officials should be proud of what they 
accomplished in the name of competition and innovation. Maybe they 
should look at how much money Microsoft spends on research and 
developement. When Phillip Morris diversified noone worried about 
there other bussinesses, but sun micro started all this litigation 
in this country and abroad when Microsoft when into the server 
market. What kind of company trys to hurt another American company 
abroad. Especially when our technology is one of our greatest 
assets. At this rate we will fall behind the rest of the world in 
technology innovation and then it will devastate our economy for 
years to come.
    Please stop the madness..
    Steven Woolverton
    Staten Island, Nerw York



MTC-00005258

From: Geb Blum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to show my support for the DOJ-Microsoft settlement. 
We`re not going to get anywhere getting the country moving again by 
using our resources to bash and try to destroy honest and successful 
US companies like Microsoft.
    Geb Blum
    Tulsa, OK



MTC-00005259

From: Sean Parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I would like to express my disappointment in the settlement 
against Microsoft. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly`s 
demand for expediency was at the cost of accomplishing true justice.
    The settlement codifies the legality of Microsoft`s predatory 
practices. While it forces Microsoft to share its APIs with the 
competition, it also forces those who use the APIs to share their 
finished code with Microsoft. The result is that Microsoft would

[[Page 24697]]

see all of its competition`s trade secrets and easily replicate 
them. Or, though the ruling ensures that Microsoft competitors be 
allowed to get their icons on PC desktops, the clause only applies 
to companies who have sold more than a million copies of their 
software in the United States. The very companies who need a 
competitive advantage in this case can`t get it.
    As if the antitrust settlement wasn`t determined in poor enough 
judgement, the civil settlement is worse. After documented proof and 
testimony from various respected professionals about how Microsoft 
has gouged consumers by charging over four times as much as what a 
competitive-market would allow for similar software (generating 
billions of extra dollars due to its OS monopoly) all they have to 
do in return is donate old Microsoft computers and software to poor 
schools, something it needs to do periodically anyway to keep its 
staff in the latest tools. This also creates some inroads into 
schools, the one market it has had some trouble in (it only controls 
about 50% of that market).
    I sincerely hope that upon further reviews of the DOJ`s 
decisions that someone will attempt to correct this terrible 
injustice.
    Sean E. Parsons
    [email protected]



MTC-00005260

From: george h byrkit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Opinion of George Byrkit, 4755 Dexter Pinckney Road, Dexter, MI 
48130 USA: I find that this suit was brought by a consortium (cabal) 
of Microsoft`s competitors. Most of these competitors made poor 
business decisions on their own, without Microsoft`s involvement. 
Then these competitors got an overly-friendly justice department to 
prosecute a very thin case, which only had merit in a very thin 
area.
    It is more than likely that Microsoft will NOT be a going 
concern in 20 years, based on my experience in the IT industry. To 
punish them too harshly will only hasten the end of Microsoft, but 
to no advantage to the customer or to Microsoft`s competitors, as 
the users will NOT necessarily adopt their inferior product to 
replace that offered by Microsoft. Judge Jackson erred in evaluating 
the magnitude of the challenge offered by Linux and other Open 
Source initiatives. As such, his remedies were excessive and over-
zealous, not to mention recommended by a Macintosh fanatic/fancier.
    Do NOT allow the few states that are hold-outs to keep this 
otherwise meritorious settlement from proceeding. They are mostly 
home states to Microsoft`s competitors, so are less than impartial 
in this matter. Most of those objecting to the proposed settlement 
object on the grounds that `they` don`t get a piece of the action. 
Too bad!
    Regards,
    George Byrkit



MTC-00005261

From: Tom Hallis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    You and Microsoft have finally reached an agreement the seems to 
be acceptable by all except those few competitors who have not been 
able to compete due to their own inabilities to satisfy the 
customer, and those District Attorneys who just can not let go of an 
issue that the majority of us believe should be over.
    I used to use all of the Competitors of Microsoft in my business 
because they were better. They did not keep up with my needs so I 
switched to Microsoft because they listened. For Microsoft to be 
penalized for doing a better job for the consumer is a blow to the 
consumer and any company who succeeds as a result of aggressive 
marketing and product development. Please do not go backwards and 
get caught up in the unpopular minority consensus put forward by 
Microsoft`s competitors or those few states` Attorneys that can not 
let go for there own personal reasons.
    Best regards,
    Tom Hallis, Realtor(R)
    GRI, CIPS, CRLS, CLHS, CCRS
    `Serving the Tampa Bay Area'
    `If it matters to you, it matters to Tom'
    Mail to: [email protected]
    Web Page: http://www.tomhallis.com
    Office Phone: 727-367-2793 Ext 128
    Office Fax: 727-367-8733
    Mobile Phone: 727-215-3156



MTC-00005262

From: John Verger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have been following the DOJ case concerning Microsoft for the 
past couple of years. During that time I have never written you but 
I feel that the time has come to voice my opinion. I have, in the 
past five years, spent approximately $2000 buying various MS 
products ranging from operating systems (98SE, 2000 Pro, XP Pro) to 
Flight Simulators (2000, 2002, and multiple Air Combat) to Office 
(97 and 2000). My point is that I have continued to buy their 
products because of the value, and enjoyment, I get from them. When 
I go to a store I have the money to buy any compaies product but I 
normally buy MS. Not because of advertising or magazine articles but 
because of my own experience with various products. MS has what I 
consider to be the best track record of any software company in the 
world today. And I spend my money where I know it gets its best 
value. For example, I build my own computers because I like working 
with the various components and setting it up exactly the way I want 
it. When I buy the Central Processing Unit (CPU) I buy AMD instead 
of Intel because I consider them to be the best even though they are 
the smaller and less known. I would do the same with software if 
anyone out there is better than MS I will buy them! Please settle 
this case so that Microsoft can put this behind them and do what 
they do best-write the best software programs known to man.
    Thank You,
    John D. Verger
    9500 Springdale Rd.
    Austin, Texas 78754-9639



MTC-00005263

From: Jerome D. Bashinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I am a consumer and have been a computer user and small system 
designer since the early days of PCs. One of the greatest things 
that happened in our world was when Microsoft software was selected 
through choice by users as the dominant operating system and as the 
final choice for office applications such as Word, Excel, Power 
Point, etc. Before that occurred, it was nearly impossible for inter 
agency and cross agency information sharing and for connection of 
various system. The same thing is true with browsers. I am tired of 
seeing the United States Government in the form of the Department of 
Justice taking sides between Microsoft and its competitors in the 
software market place. I have bought and will continue to purchase 
very good Microsoft software as excellent values for their cost in 
place of software produced by other publishers. For years because 
Microsoft has given and continues to give the best value for the 
dollar spent. And, I am one hell of a lot better judge of that than 
is the US Department of Justice, the State of California, or 
Microsoft`s competitors.
    The action taken by DOJ against Microsoft isn`t just unfair, it 
distorted the entire idea of a monopoly. It is literally unAmerican 
to use the Government Monopoly in a such a fashion. From my point of 
view the agreement which has been accepted by Microsoft is unfair to 
Microsoft. I believe, the agreement, do to the idiocy of the 
Department of Justice, the Courts, and other branches of government 
will result in higher prices, and the sniveling of competitors will 
result in shoddier and higher priced products for consumers. 
However, an agreement has been forged and accepted by Microsoft.
    So, Get on with the agreement as it has been made and stop 
listening to whining and complaining of Microsoft competitors and 
other government units, such as the State of California, that are 
trying to get additional money for for their own political purposes. 
They surely don`t care about me or the other consumers who already 
chose Microsoft in a free market place. They are concerned only 
about themselves.
    Jerome D. Bashinski
    3114 Brackenwood Pl.
    El Dorado Hills, Ca.
    95762



MTC-00005264

From: Terry Myerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:10pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
    It is wonderful to see that a rational discussion of the issues 
has finally taken place between the government and Microsoft. It 
would be wonderful to see the settlement approved, and watch our 
capitalist system grow on.
    Terry Myerson

[[Page 24698]]

    4114 187th Ave SE
    Issaquah, WA 98027



MTC-00005265

From: George Flake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I think that the harrassment of Microsoft Corporation via the 
antitrust court case should be terminated promptly. I am an owner of 
Microsoft stock and feel that he government has unfairly cost me 
money because of this lawsuit. Please bring this case to closure.
    George H. Flake
    17867 Amberwood Lane
    South Bend, IN 46635



MTC-00005266

From: GARY STOGSDILL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is reasonable and fair, how much longer must 
this go on. Let`s get this economy rolling we don`t need this to 
further delay our wishes.



MTC-00005267

From: Dick Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    The time has come to put and end to continuing legal action 
against the Microsoft Inc. and complete the proposed U.S. Microsoft 
Settlement. The Department of Justice (i.e injustice) together with 
the Federal Reserve started in the year 2000 the Tanking of the US 
economy buy spooking the investment community. Now that you both 
have succeeded and cost me the majority of my life savings I wish 
you would get your heads out of your butts and allow me to live out 
the few years I have left with a return of the investment community 
to investing in their beliefs and not being dictated to by US 
Government agencies who think playing with the laws is a game. All 
of you are hired to serve all of America not just a few special 
interest groups trying to force their products on people by using US 
Government actions. In this country, the better product and better 
service is what gains product acceptance and the consumer should not 
be jerked around by US Government agencies serving a few special 
interest groups. Now go and do the right thing and serve all of 
America`s consumers and investors instead of serving just a few 
special interest groups.
    Richard Schwab
    38 Howard Street
    West Haven, CT 06516
    [email protected]



MTC-00005268

From: hal gronewold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I`m relieved the Department of Justice has finally settled its 
antitrust case against Microsoft. I hope the other states will soon 
see the light and sign on to this agreement.
    We in Iowa believe we have benefited from Microsoft products. 
Had it not been for Microsoft`s policies the average American would 
not be able to afford a PC. I hope Microsoft will be able to get 
back to the business of providing innovative software and other 
products for consumers without this distraction. Our economy depends 
on high technology to keep moving it forward and Microsoft is one of 
the prime stimulants.
    Thank you for supporting this settlement. I trust you will 
continue to make the decisions needed for the stability and security 
of our American way of life. Thank you for your attention.
    Harlan L. Gronewold
    PO Box 524
    Atlantic, IA 50022
    712-243-2083
    E-Mail [email protected]
    FAX 712-243-5812



MTC-00005269

From: Joseph Duffey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:50pm
Subject: the proposed mircrsoft settlement
    Blank I am really flabbergasted at the lack of concern for 
consumers displayed in the proposed settlements in the matter of 
Microsoft
    Joseph Duffey
    2801 New Mexico Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20007
    [email protected]



MTC-00005270

From: Nancy Swaim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Where do states rights end and state Attorney Generals (who 
wannabe governors, at the very least) end?
    Let`s see if you can get politics out of this case and end it 
fairly. How much `tax payer`s money' has already been 
spent on this case? Outrageous!
    Thanks you.
    Nancy Swaim
    1/1/02



MTC-00005271

From: wolfgang manowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
Lets settle the Microsoft Settlement now; nothing could be more 
`in the publics interest'.
    Regards,
    Wolfgang Manowski
    25 Southridge Way
    Daly City, CA 94014
    4153335610 [email protected]
    Regards, Wolf.



MTC-00005272

From: Dave Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsofot Settlement
    I believe that the current agreement is in the best interest of 
all those concerned, Thanks Dave Moore.



MTC-00005273

From: Hank Sauls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:10pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Wait a minute_aren`t you supposed to represent the public? 
Then why did you put out such a STUPID agreement? Is this the best 
you can do? Next time I suggest you use lawyers that have a legit 
law degree and not the ones that learned law in jail! Nincompoops! 
You make a mockery of justice! The ordor from this stinky agreement 
will NOT go away. Am extrememly disappointed with your actions. No 
wonder the Senate is investigating. Thanks for selling us all out. 
No wonder people loathe lawyers. You are now part of the problem and 
NOT part of the solution.
    Assholes.
    Sincerely, WHS



MTC-00005274

From: Claudio Vacalebre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Stop the litigation ang give Microsoft the opportunity to 
continue improving its products! We leverage, as IT Providers, the 
Microsoft Platfom, considered by us the best IT platform the market 
can offer.
    Dr.claudio
    CEO & CIO dotMMS srl
    Messenger: [email protected]
    Sito Istituzionale: www.dotmms.it
    Portale dimostrativo: http://dotmms.tv
    Sito Personale: http://claudio.tv



MTC-00005275

From: Helchie Charles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that the nine states who want to create even more trouble 
for Microsoft are told to go on their way. Four years is enough time 
having disruptions occur to a great American company such as 
Microsoft.
    Our country is at war and all these states can think of is their 
own agendas. Well, our economy is trying to rebound after the worst 
attacks on American soil ever. Hearing the Attorney General of 
Connecticut whine about the terms of this settlement is sad and he 
is humiliating his state. They were very close to Ground Zero and 
this is what he focused on? Time to get this settled and give 
Microsoft a chance to continue to raise the level of perfection in 
the field of software. If this company wants time to adjust to the 
settlement then I think they should get it. After the blistering 
they received at the hands of Judge Jackson they deserve some break 
in this whole mess. Now at a time when we are all asked to 
`keep the economy moving' who

[[Page 24699]]

are these nine states to show us they are not willing to do the 
same?
    Thank you for your time.
    Helen Charles



MTC-00005276

From: Flash Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Re: DOJ Wants to Hear From YOU!
    On Monday, December 31, 2001, at 02:17 PM, Microsoft wrote: 
Email: [email protected]. In the Subject line of the e-
mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    Please don`t believe Microsoft`s orchestrated pseudo-grass-roots 
campaign. They`re an illegal monopoly and should be treated as such. 
CC:Flash Sheridan



MTC-00005277

From: Elizabeth Lester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a citizen of California, and am in STRONG FAVOR OF 
proceeding with the Microsoft SETTLEMENT in lieu of further 
litigation. Far too much effort has been spent to demonize a company 
which helped spark the pc revolution. Many technology companies have 
benefitted from the success of Microsoft, and it is undeniable that 
Microsoft has created countless American jobs. Microsoft`s 
philanthropic efforts have been earnest and most generous. Great 
philanthropy does not justify wrongdoing. But what is so wrong about 
revolutionizing the way we live and work and making a profit in the 
process? I can think of many other `villains' to attack: 
Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John Walker. Did they put personal 
computers in schools or money in workers` pockets? I don`t think so. 
Let`s start attacking our real enemies, and stop biting the hands 
that feed us.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth H. Lester
    Fremont, California
    CC:Larry Hollis,Tim Lester



MTC-00005278

From: Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am for proceeding with the current settlement.
    From everything I`ve read, I believe the settlement reached 
between the DOJ, Microsoft, and 9 states is fair, reasonable, and 
healthy for the software industry and consumers. Further punishment 
or shackles on Microsoft would only serve to weaken American 
strength in the global technology industry.
    Dr. Larry Novak
    1751 Oakmount Rd.
    South Euclid, Ohio 44121-4007



MTC-00005279

From: Stephen Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view is that Microsoft has acted in the publics interest to 
come to settlement terms with the DOJ and nine states, even though 
they could prolong litigation to receive a more favorable outcome. I 
think the terms should be accepted, and the resourses of the 
government put to better use elsewhere.
    Thank you
    Stephen Myers



MTC-00005281

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The people and the business world has had enough. A settlement 
was reached and it`s time to get on with life. Do not allow others 
to derail what has taken a very long time to settle.



MTC-00005282

From: Jim Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to urge the government to settle this case quickly. 
Our economy is in dire need for this case to be resolved as quickly 
as possible. Microsoft is one of the gems of our global economy. Our 
entire world`s economy is in bad shape directly as a result of the 
actions of a few misguided individuals in the previous 
administration.
    The Bush administration, the justice department and the judges 
involved in this case owes it to the public to resolve this case 
quickly and get our economy back on track.
    It is no secret and historical market data/charts can prove that 
the stock market meltdown started immediately after this case was 
ruled upon by Judge Jackson. As Microsoft`s stock started falling 
the rest of the tech sector started falling thereby causing a market 
meltdown. Ironically many flourishing new competitors with low cash 
and high market cap were able to compete with Microsoft with their 
stock capital. Now those companies are gone also because of these 
state attorney generals and the previous administration.
    It is ironic that the competitors of Microsoft got hurt by this 
case more as well as the entire dotcom economy crased after this 
case was decided upon in the lower courts.
    The government and Microsoft`s Competitors must learn and 
realize from this mistake that our software industry and the entire 
IT industry is linked by a common fabric of stability, leadership 
and innovation led by Microsoft, the independent software and 
hardware vendors and partners that build high technology solutions 
around this fabric.
    Every day as more PCs are sold with the standardized Windows 
platform, there is secondary (trickle down) demand created for:
    1. Semiconductor components that make up a PC_Memory, 
processors etc.,
    2. Peripherals that are attached to the PC such as disk drives, 
video cards, modems, network interfaces, etc.,
    3. Software from 3rd party developers that build solution around 
Windows all over the world including bridging competitive platforms 
around Windows
    4. IT consulting by_EDS, Price Waterhouse, D&T, and 
many many small consulting firms all over the world
    5. Servers_IBM, SUN Microsystems, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, 
Sony, Fujitsu, Unisys, Hitachi, etc., to serve web pages to the 
masses that will go online after their PC purchases
    6. Advanced backoffice software to provide infrastructure to 
millions of PC users (eCommerce, B2B, B2C, etc.,)_SAP, People 
Soft, Oracle, IBM, and other similar products by many smaller 
companies Microsoft`s competitors had gained just as much benefits 
by Microsoft`s success as a result of this secondary and trickle 
down demand until the stock market meltdown.
    Lets not forget that the Internet economy was created by the 
masses that logged on to the information highway and started the 
eCommerce craze. These same masses use Windows based PCs to 
participate in eCommerce thereby generating demand for Servers; yes 
the very same servers that Microsoft`s competitors make such as Sun, 
IBM, Oracle etc.,
    It was extremely shortsighted and misguided for these attorney 
generals to be waging this war against Microsoft in the name of 
consumers. In fact ironically, more consumers and general public 
have been economically hurt by the careless actions of these 
attorney generals.
    As a direct result of this DOJ case against Microsoft, many 401k 
and retirement funds have been wiped out both in the private as well 
as the Goverment sector and not to mention the millions of dollars 
that has been wasted on this case to please a few wealthy, envious 
and greedy executives of the tech industry.
    Lets resolve this problem right away by accepting the settlement 
between Microsoft and the goverment. Furthermore, the state attorney 
generals should be scolded by the judge for trying to derail this 
important settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Tax Payer.



MTC-00005283

From: Robert G. Parsons
To Microsoft ATR,john.hostettler@ 
mail.house.gov@inetg...
Date: 1/1/02 1:55pm
Subject: Letter regarding Microsoft AntiTrust Suit
    Gentlemen,
    Attached please find a letter regarding the Microsoft AntiTrust 
Settlement.
    Thank you for listening.
    Bob Parsons
    Robert G. Parsons
    President
    AUTOMATED OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2100 N. Cullen Ave.
    Evansville, IN 47715
    812-471-5005 Phone
    812-471-5858 Fax [email protected] www.aos-
evv.com
    December 31, 2001
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Dept. of Justice: 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

[[Page 24700]]

    Over the years I have encountered several instances where I 
believe that Microsoft had crossed the line of overly aggressive 
sales and service techniques_particularly with respect to its 
technology partners. I have never been convinced, however, that this 
business-savvy attitude warranted something as severe as this 
antitrust lawsuit instituted against them by our own government. 
More likely than not, should Microsoft`s aggressive attitude have 
continued, market pressure would have brought them back into a more 
cooperative spirit anyway. Certainly, our government`s threats to 
break the company up were a bit over the top.
    Now that the lawsuit has been settled, however, I am sure that 
Microsoft will be more likely to treat its technology partners with 
a greater degree of cooperation, helpfulness and respect. I am 
therefore hopeful that the settlement will be affirmed through this 
period of public comment, and that no further federal action will be 
required.
    This letter is a measure of that hope. We cannot allow the 
government to spend any more of its valuable resources and time on 
this. There are obviously so many other more important matters with 
which to deal. The Justice Department itself is especially busy 
lately, perhaps more so than any other agency. Our government can do 
great things for America in areas such security and the national 
economy now, and it should focus instead on that.
    I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion in such a 
meaningful way. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert G. Parsons, President
    AUTOMATED OFFICE SOLUTIONS
    2100 N. Cullen Ave.
    Evansville, IN 47715
    [email protected] 812-471-5005
    cc: Representative John Hostettler



MTC-00005284

From: Tom Conrad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Resolution
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to express my opposition to the Microsoft Anti-
Trust `settlement'. The settlement is clearly 
insufficient punishment for a corporation that controls in excess of 
90% of the personal computing market and attempts to dominate every 
aspect of the consumer electronics marketplace.
    As a senior software engineer for a major defense contractor, I 
indirectly depend upon Microsoft for my paycheck; however, I see 
Microsoft abuse its monopoly power on an almost daily basis. 
Numerous small companies that provided excellent customer service 
and superior products (Visio Inc., AutoMap Inc., and many others 
. . .) were purchased by Microsoft in the name of 
`progress' and `innovation'. The technology 
developed by these companies was dissolved into the `MS 
Monopoly' (a phrase that is probably trademarked by Microsoft 
by now), with Microsoft claiming credit for the 
`innovation' of the original products. As part of the 
`Microsoft overhaul', the products from these former 
companies were usually packed with useless features (such as 
promotions for other Microsoft products) and sold at higher prices 
(ironically, because of the new `features').
    As a software developer, I`m forced to decipher Microsoft`s 
pathetic documentation in an attempt to create products that compete 
with their own applications. I`ve tried using Microsoft`s so-called 
`technical support' to try to determine how to implement 
new software, only to be told I `couldn`t' or 
`shouldn`t' do what I`m attempting. After failing to 
receive answers from their technical support staff after literally 
weeks of waiting, I would resort to using `undocumented' 
techniques to determine how to make my software work with their 
operating systems. Naturally, Microsoft detests those who would dare 
use `undocumented' features, although a quick analysis 
of their software indicates their internal developers use the same 
functions I use. I simply can`t imagine Microsoft`s `Office 
200(whatever)' development team having to wait for weeks to 
get answers to their questions!
    In summary, in order to restore competition into the computing 
marketplace, Microsoft must be broken into at least two divisions 
(operating systems and software applications). This would allow 
smaller companies to compete with Microsoft and would give consumers 
limited relief from `MS Monopoly 2002'. More 
importantly, such an action would force Microsoft`s application 
developers to live in the same environment as the `rest of 
us'. If you really want to see `innovation', not 
merely `MS Innovation 2002', break them up! Contrary to 
Microsoft`s statements, the computing world is very unlikely to 
abruptly end!
    _Tom Conrad
    Senior Software Engineer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005285

From: Kenth Astrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    It is my firm oppinion that DOJ should dismiss the case against 
Microsoft entierly.
    The charge was not just in the first case and was politically 
motivated. Microsoft has done more for this country and this economy 
than any other large corporation in history, with products which 
makes life easier and are enjoyed all over the world.
    Please take the only plausible action and dismiss this case when 
the ruling takes place this month.
    Freedom to invent must endure, especially in this downturn in 
economy!
    Yours Sincerely
    Kenth Astrom
    Northford, CT



MTC-00005286

From: Stanley Holman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those of you that are concerned. Please lay off Microsoft, 
they have done more to offer help to potential competitors than any 
other company I can think of.
    As a simple computer user, (As the vast majority of us are), It 
is EXTREMELY important that all of the programs within the computer 
do not conflict with each other. No other entity that I know of is 
nearly as concerned with this aspect of the business as Microsoft.
    Bill Gates, In my opinion, did nothing wrong except to look out 
for those of us that are not computer programmers by incorporating a 
working browser for free. Additionally, he has not sent us looking 
for drivers or asked us to go into our systems and fiddle with 
programs, system ini files, etc.
    Bill Gates is a true American hero and a perfect example of how 
to become a Millionaire. The exact opposite of (AOL `Arabs on 
line' and Time Warner) who have many Anti American policies 
and employees.
    Sincerely;
    Stanley L. Holman



MTC-00005287

From: dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust non-settlement
    The proposed settlement of the antitrust action against 
Microsoft is unacceptable. This settlement could be compared to 
citing Hitler for not having his apparatus for killing people up to 
the current safety code_no safety valves for the pilots on the 
oven burners.
    David Freeman



MTC-00005289

From: kathie grimsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
    In my opinion . . . the message to Microsoft AND it`s 
competitors should be that innovative ideas are needed to keep us 
moving towards the future and ensure the best products are 
available. However, designing operating systems or software 
applications that are not openly compatible stiffles innovations and 
limits the consumers ability to use whatever OS and applications 
best meets their needs.
    In spite of already losing in the courts, Microsoft continues to 
use every means possible to stifle any competition that could 
provide alternative products. `Open' competition would 
force ALL hardware and software manufacturers to provide products 
that are cross-compatible AND user friendly. Their software 
continues to demand more memory, faster processing, upgraded 
programs, etc. Technical support for older (last version) hardware 
and software products is non-existant. You can no longer buy any 
hardware or software that you can expect to use for more than 6 
months to a year. What kind of resources (plastics, metals, haz-mat 
substances) are being wasted by making these products 
`disposable'? How much money must the consumers be 
expected to spend just to keep a system that is useable AND 
supported?
    Microsoft`s latest release (Microsoft XP)now threatens to 
infringe upon privacy issues. They are not threatened by the 
monetary fines assessed by the courts so far. They have consumers by 
the short hairs and

[[Page 24701]]

will just continue their practices which will continue to make them 
more money than is imaginable.
    Microsoft has the advantage of being able to set the 
`standard'. Everyone else (consumers & competitors) 
are force-fed the Mircosoft standard because there isn`t anything 
else acceptable. The Microsoft systems continue to be unreliable. 
Systems crash, vital information and productivity is lost. How is 
this acceptable? The old DOS systems were VERY reliable and cross-
compatible. Never any crashes, no lost information, etc.
    Part of the blame also rests with consumers for not demanding 
alternative products. Alot of consumers (individuals and 
businesses)jumped on the Microsoft bandwagon before it`s systems 
were time-tested. Most are unwilling at this point to make critical 
changes because of the expense that would be involved.
    Microsoft continues to operate in a manner that is not conducive 
to a competitive environment and will ultimately do more harm to the 
consumers and the industry if left unchecked.
    Now that this has been brought to the fore-front, we have the 
ability to force change for the betterment of the industry and the 
consumer. The message to Microsoft must be strong `CEASE and 
DESIST the unfair practices' they continue to use. Their 
products should be openly compatible so the consumer can decide what 
they want to use. If Microsoft is truly the superior product, they 
will have lost nothing and gained the respect of the industry and 
the consumer. If they are not the superior product, the industry and 
the consumer wins the chance to find or create something better.
    Thank you.



MTC-00005290

From: Mike KAZEEF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a user of Microsoft products and would like to support the 
current terms of the settlement.
    I am urging DOJ to place a great dal of weight on the value of 
innovation.Economic growth and technological leadership do not 
happen by themselves. They are triggered or supported by advances in 
thinking and improving the execution of business strategies in all 
walks of life.
    Thank you for considering the long term well being of the US 
economy.
    Regards
    Mike Kazeef
    2000 Santiago Drive
    Newport Beach, CA 92660



MTC-00005291

From: TheRHogue Hogue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the `public 
interest.'
    During this public comment period, I would like to state that 
the settlement is fair for all parties and for the American people.
    The current settlement is in the best interest of our country. 
Given the current recession and the terrorist assault on our 
country, I ask the court to end this litigation by accepting the 
settlement. 2002 is an election year. I ask the court not to allow 
this matter to, once again, cause political mischief.
    It is true that a few of Microsoft`s rivals wish to continue 
litigation, and it is their right to do so. But, the settlement 
isn`t designed to help these rivals. The settlement is for the 
benefit of the American people. I ask the court to help the American 
people do what they desire most...to move on in troubled times.
    Sincerely
    Robert Hogue



MTC-00005292

From: Joan Ruffing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs:
    Please settle this conflict immediately.
    Our economy is in enough difficulty at this time. Steel mills 
are closing. Many industries are fleeing to the low employment costs 
of other countries. When an American industry is thriving, why do we 
spend all these tax dollars trying to destroy it?
    Leave Microsoft alone and spend your time and MY DOLLARS trying 
to fix our struggling economy.
    Sincerely,
    Joan Ruffing, LMS



MTC-00005293

From: Mark Genung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been involved in the computer industry since 1978. It is 
my humble opinion that we would not be were we are today without 
industry leaders like Microsoft. Microsoft has almost single 
handedly paved the road to get technology on the desktop, where it 
is today.
    I have never really understood the government trying to protect 
me, the consumer, from a good company like Microsoft. An American 
company that started out with nothing, was in the right place and 
the right time, made good decisions and through the same basic 
business philosophy that we preach to our children, become one of 
the most successful companies of all time. Now my government says 
they have gotten to big and successful, that that cheap operating 
system or browser they provide for free can`t be good.
    I know this, if it were not for Microsoft we would still be in 
the dark ages with computers, and to purchase the software that 
Microsoft almost gives away it would cost 10-20 times what 
Microsoft charges for it.
    I`m a small business man, I understand competition, if I do my 
job better than my competitor, I will survive , If I don`t, I won`t.
    What message should record in history? Be successful, but don`t 
be too successful? This Microsoft story is as American as apple pie. 
Don`t mess with my apple pie. Let this story play out. Just as 
Microsoft got on top, they could be just as easily tumbled by some 
other innovative concepts we have not considered. The government is 
trying to handle this; time will take care of any antitrust problem 
on its own.
    Settle with Microsoft and let`s get on to the things in this 
country that are important.
    Sincerely,
    Mark A. Genung
    8247 Indy Court
    Indianapolis, IN 46214
    317-271-1000



MTC-00005294

From: leo coro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    The proposal that Microsoft has put forward is just more of the 
same thing that they have been doing. Their offer of `used 
computer equipment' and software is ridicules. The cost of the 
software should be counted value wise, at the cost of the materials 
only, so its value is about $0.02 per copy not street cost. The 
value of `used computer equipment' is again nothing for 
a Corp. of their size the upgrading of equipment is constant, and 
makes a good tax rite off so we the ones they have been robing with 
their `we will do as we please ` and no one can stop us 
must end or the total industry will collapse.
    Leo S. Coro
    Richmond VA.



MTC-00005295

From: Jim Botts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am 100% in favor of this settlement. It should not of been 
filled in the first place.
    James W. Botts
    [email protected]



MTC-00005296

From: Mark Josephs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 3:50pm
Subject: Comments
    Dear Sir:
    I have worked with computer software for over 18 years. During 
this time I have seem the growth and death of many software 
companies. However, the Microsoft monopoly has grown using illegal 
practices. I have been damaged by these illegal practices when I 
purchased WordPerfect for Windows and it did not work. I was forced 
to buy Microsoft Word as a word processing tool.
    The proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft for its 
illegal behavior nor does it provide any means of assuring that 
Microsoft will not continue to use its vast economic, political and 
technical power to continue to extend its monopoly in the computer 
hardware and software business.
    Please do not accept this settlement offer. Please impose 
measures that will allow competition to again flourish and protect 
consumers in the software markets.
    Thanks for your time,

[[Page 24702]]

    Joseph J. Simpson
    6400 32nd Ave. NW #9
    Seattle WA. 98107



MTC-00005297

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen I have watched the Microsoft case and 
think it`s time to settle the case once and for all.
    Please settle this case so everyone can move on.



MTC-00005298

From: Jesika
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to voice my displeasure over the settlement made in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. While it does address some important 
points, the most egregious of Microsoft`s actions go unmentioned. I 
was pleased to see that it prohibited Microsoft from asking OEM`s to 
discontinue their current practices of pre-installing competing 
software and OS`s, but this is simply not enough. The simple fact is 
that consumers are being forced to pay a Microsoft `tax' 
on every complete system purchased. It is impossible to purchase a 
complete system without Microsoft pre-installed, even if you have no 
intention of using the product.
    What I`d really like to see is a true offer of competition. I 
would like to see Microsoft prohibited from requiring OEM`s to offer 
their OS exclusively, or in combination with another OS. Until I can 
walk into a store and purchase a pre-built x86 PC without a Windows 
operating system on it, Microsoft is still monopolizing my options. 
I will not be satisfied with the rulings against them if I am not 
given an option to either purchase a computer with out Windows, or a 
method of receiving a refund for Windows if I remove it from the 
system.
    Thank you for considering my opinions. I appreciate the work you 
have done so far on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Jesika Hurdelbrink
    San Antonio, TX



MTC-00005299

From: Alex Lima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe that the reached settlement is fair enough to all. In 
this time of economic uncertainty the Government should be doing 
everything within their power to restore confidence to the American 
people. Microsoft is a great company to this country and to the 
entire world. Lets get back on track and show the world that the 
U.S. Gov. And private industry can work together for the better of 
all.



MTC-00005300

From: A&L Solutions
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s settle this and move on. Tax payers have more to worry 
about than ever and every minute this thing goes longer we (tax 
payers) pay, pay, pay. There are more immediate concerns to invest 
tax dollars in with our economy in the trash can and terrorists 
crossing our boarders freely. Settle now and allow our country`s 
industry to progress.
    I use Microsoft products and although they are not perfect, I 
find them to be the best available and will continue to use them 
regardless of what other programs are available. Microsoft stands by 
their technology and personally I feel this whole long drawn out 
litigation is ridiculous.
    I am a consumer of computer products and do not feel that 
Microsoft has infringed on my freedom to purchase any brand by any 
company. Personally, I feel that Microsoft is just another victim of 
attorney greed. I`d like to see the figures on how much of the 
`settlement' winds up in attorney hands. I`m betting I`m 
correct in saying that it would be shocking.
    Further litigation serves no one. Enough is enough. Settle this 
now.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
    Linda Wood



MTC-00005301

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Government to settle this suit as soon as possible. 
The agreement that was worked out by the Government and Microsoft 
seems to bring a reasonable conclusion to this case. It is 
unfortunate that some others want to continue to litigate this 
effort for an extended period of time for an unknown benefit. I 
believe that very little good can come of a continued debate over 
the completeness of the settlement. This whole argument about 
Windows and its associated software will be old news in another year 
or two as the progress made in the operating system software is 
expanding extremely fast.
    Microsoft did accomplish some major benefits for the consumer. 
The primary benefit is that it made the computer usable to a myriad 
of people who have little on no technical background. Prior to 
Windows and its integration, we all struggled with a DOS based 
system that provided most users with high levels of frustration. 
Today, we now have 90+ year old grandmothers and grandfathers using 
the Internet to say hello to their grandchildren and great-
grandchildren. It has also given them a feeling that life has not 
passed them by. Hurray!
    Lets us get on with the settlement. It is not perfect and it 
never will be. It seems to be reasonably fair and that is all we can 
ask. We do not need more punishment.
    Jim Stehlik



MTC-00005302

From: Xactman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jan 1, 2002
    I am taking the time from my New Year`s Holiday to write you 
concerning the Microsoft settlement.
    I am now a database applications developer making a very good 
salary. I am self trained, having taken advantage of numerous free 
training opportunities provided by Microsoft and gaining free access 
to their technologies through their websites and publications. 
Microsoft has been the only company that has provided me this 
opportunity.
    From my point of view, if it hadn`t been for this accessible 
training availability, I would not be in the position I am today. I 
have never found Microsoft to be anything but helpful in providing 
opportunities and assistance along the way in my career development.
    Gene Stebley
    1310 Santa Rita #26
    Chula Vista, CA 91913



MTC-00005303

From: Michael King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Virtually every industry in the United States, and hence our 
national economy, has benefited from the breakthrough performance 
opportunities the technology sector has enabled. This scenario has 
promptly made the technology sector a fiercely competitive industry 
itself. It unnerves me that in order to compete with Microsoft, its 
competitors seek political intervention as the ?killer play? that 
enables one of them to leapfrog Microsoft to victory, or at least to 
get a bigger slice of the pie. These tactics undermine the principle 
of hard work, and hail government intervention as a business 
management option.
    Settle this case fairly, and let Microsoft do what it has proven 
it does so well ? make business, and the economy, better. And not 
just the national economy; the global economy benefits substantially 
from the technology sector which Microsoft should be allowed to 
participate in vigorously, aggressively, intelligently, and 
passionately. Anything else is a failure of our government to 
recognize the same spirit that wins wars wins success.



MTC-00005304

From: Bruce Gladstone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:47pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am thoroughly in agreement with the settlement reached by 
Microsoft and the Justice Department. I believe the continuing 
objections by the State`s Attorneys General are politically 
motivated and are not designed to benefit consumers in the 
slightest. This is especially true of Atty. Gen Lockyear in my home 
state. It is no coincidence that both Sun and Oracle are California 
Corporations, both would much rather not compete with Microsoft 
based server applications and database software and both were 
significant contributors to Atty. General Lockyear.
    Bruce
    Bruce Gladstone email: [email protected]

[[Page 24703]]

    3937 Sumac Dr. tel: (818) 986-2950
    Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 fax: (818) 981-5922
    CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,Cringely@bd...



MTC-00005305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my honest opinion that spending more taxpayers dollars in 
continuing the anti trust action against Microsoft is totally 
uncalled for. Without Microsoft,our country would not be a leader of 
the technology is this field.
    There are certainly many other places our tax dollars could be 
spent to make a positive impact on our whole way of life.
    Lewis Dahl,
    Retired taxpaying veteran of WW2



MTC-00005306

From: Butch Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the Microsoft settlement is in my best interest and that 
of other consumers.
    I feel opposition to the settlement is based on self serving 
attitudes of some companies, and is not in the best interest of 
consumers. I do not own stock in microsoft or any technology 
company.
    Sincerely,
    Clark H. Fuller, Jr.
    4926 York St.
    Metairie, LA 70001
    ph: 504-456-2946



MTC-00005307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    When `Human Intelligence' (HUMINT) is collected by 
our military and other government sources; perhaps the most 
important aspect if the information lies in `Who`s 
Talking'. In this case, I am a Retired, US Navy Captain; 
having served as a jet fighter pilot and `Administrator' 
for 30 years. I have commanded the TOPGUN squadron, (Navy Fighter 
Weapons School), an F-14 Squadron as well as an overseas Shore 
Station. My wife of 39+ years and I continue to vote and pay our 
taxes. We are PROUD Americans who are grateful to live in this 
magnificent country.
    Having said all that, we appreciate that our 
`Opinion' is no more significant than any other family`s 
opinion, but we welcome this opportunity to have our opinion 
considered.
    We are very well informed on the merits and basis of the case 
against Microsoft, and of the proposed settlement(s). We believe 
it`s time to `Git on with Bidness!' If `Both 
Sides' can accept the existing elements of the proposed 
`Settlement', then we propose DOJ MAKE IT SO! We have 
been worn to a frazzle by this overly-long and drawn out process 
seeking some sort of `Justice' at taxpayers expense. 
This has been particularly adverse for all Americans as there can be 
little doubt this litigation exacerbated the economic downturn and 
possibly fueled the subsequent Recession our economy has experienced 
to date.
    DOJ should answer the question; . . . `What 
possible GOOD can be served FOR ALL AMERICA by refusing to settle 
and continuing an extended court case against Microsoft?' The 
`Answer' should be couched in terms that the 
`Average American' can both understand, and, perhaps 
more importantly, AGREE WITH on a `Cost vs Gain' basis. 
Is there no other way in which our tax dollars could be spent more 
productively? Only DOJ can answer that.
    We appreciate the complexities involved, but strongly recommend 
that DOJ accept the settlement as written and move smartly into the 
future beginning early in 2002.
    . GOD Bless YOU in your decision process, and GOD Bless AMERICA! 
With Sincere Best Wishes for the BEST OUTCOME;
    John Monroe Smith
    Virginia H. Smith



MTC-00005308

From: RR-
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to ask the DOJ to please settle the lawsuit with 
Microsoft. Since the inception of this lawsuit it has been about 
other corporations and the governments fight against Microsoft for 
the benefit of these other corporations. Myself and millions of 
other people believe that Microsoft has helped the consumer 
immensely. We were given Internet Explorer free of charge as well as 
other software programs.
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation.
    I own 2 small business in Salem, Oregon and we depend upon the 
innovation of the Microsoft products as well as the support they 
give the consumer. Please settle this litigation, and let us and 
everyone else get on with their life!
    Sincerely,
    Ray Reid



MTC-00005309

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft ;
    In my opinion Microsoft Corp..is no different than some one`s 
musical scores_They should have the right to protect their 
inventions in the electronics field just the same_and not be 
infringed upon_just because they were smarter and first on the 
market with certain features that were appealing to 
competitors_
    If this right were to be extinguished _you would totally 
allow theft of other persons hard work and realization of fruits of 
their labors.
    The one thing I have noticed in my 75 years on this 
earth_Greed seems to take total control__`He`s got 
it_I want some too` attitude prevails...Rather than taking the 
bull by the horns_inventing something that will do the job 
just as well_but in a different manner..
    I fixed TV`s for a living as part of my training to become an 
Empirical Eng.. (Electronic)_I couldn`t afford 
college_with sick parents etc..I had to work-improve myself as 
I went_and wound up Chief Eng.in three organizations_23 
of those years of my last employment _Manufacturer of Nuclear 
Measuring Equipment. as Final QC. Eng-and Field Service Eng.
    I take it personally that a person starts a 
company_perhaps at the `right time' in their life 
and time for that their products are needed by the general 
public_and they work hard-fast-efficient and do a good 
job_THEN have someone else say `I want that Too' 
but the original owners of the system they invented naturally don`t 
think it right to be forced to give up their control of their 
products..that they invented....
    Thank you for taking the time to read this one small 
voice_against oppression of the country`s people`s right to 
innovate and follow-up with improvements of THEIR OWN 
INVENTIONS__
    James A.Eastham
    Indianapolis, Ind.



MTC-00005310

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the Microsoft settlement stand. Marlene Tonkin 
Chernev, Fair Oaks, [email protected]



MTC-00005311

From: Robert V Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring an end to the suit against Microsoft. Some of their 
competitors are jealous of their success and are try to go to all 
lengths to hurt the company and their shareholders. If it were not 
for Microsoft, we would not have all of the ability and knowledge 
that we have to conduct business in today`s world.
    It is not right to penalize a company for their ability to 
provide superior products as that is what is needed for us to 
provide for the future.
    Thank you for your consideration..
    Robert V. Robertson
    5731 Emmaus Church Road
    Providence Forge, Virginia 23140



MTC-00005312

From: Andrew Suchy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Department of Justice Staff,
    I have read the posted court documents related to US vs. 
Microsoft, and would like an opportunity to comment. While I do not 
have training in law, I am an active software developer, and have 
seen the industry evolve for the past 12 years. With all due respect 
to the legal minds that have worked to find remedies for Microsoft`s 
antitrust violations and anti competitive conduct, I deem the 
measures grossly insufficient.
    I do not wish to reiterate any points already covered in the 
document, it is sufficient to say that I have seen first hand some 
of the complaints raised by the plaintiff, and seen the devastating 
effect on

[[Page 24704]]

 competition and innovation. Instead, I would like to point out why 
some of the remedies will not work, and bring to your attention how 
Microsoft continues anti competitive behavior even today. First the 
remedies:
    a. The requirement that Non-Microsoft Middleware have at least 
one million copies distributed before it is considered 
`competition' is ridiculous. In the software business, 
one needs to have access to the API`s in order to deliver a 
competitive product. This is a chicken and egg problem: one can`t 
get to one million copies without having technical details (such as 
Section III.D) and the ability to replace Microsoft Middleware free 
of restrictions.
    b. Regarding Microsoft`s restrictions on subsection III.C.3 
which require that Non-Microsoft Middleware activated during the 
boot sequence look and behave the same way as Microsoft Middleware, 
this clearly favors Microsoft. If a competitor cannot distinguish 
itself by the way its software appears on the screen, or behaves 
during operation, than it is doomed. Why would anyone load (or buy) 
software that looks just like Microsoft`s, when Microsoft`s version 
is already included in the OS? This restriction must have been 
dreamed up by Microsoft`s marketing department.
    c. The remedies regarding Middleware can easily be avoided by 
Microsoft, by simply moving functionality into the greater 
`OS'. Any feature can be hidden from competitors by 
putting the functionality into proprietary operating system 
components (otherwise known as libraries). The remedies are so full 
of holes, no software developer can take them seriously. There are 
other concerns not already addressed by the court papers, as well:
    a. There is no remedy for the hundreds or thousands of 
businesses already killed by predatory behavior,
    b. There is no remedy for standards subversion. In the computer 
industry, standards for communication protocols, application 
protocols, and internet protocols (just to name a few) are made up 
by representatives of the industry in committees. Undue influence 
from a giant like Microsoft is unavoidable. The attempted subversion 
of Java is one example, the introduction of the C# (pronounced C 
sharp) programming language is another (because software development 
tools are also monopolized by Microsoft_not a well publicized 
fact). There are also internet protocols at stake, where 
interoperability of software is prevented by diverging from 
established standards (or evolving standards). Doing this guarantees 
Microsoft that competing products will not work, and lets Microsoft 
dictate the protocol.
    c. There is no remedy for other software getting 
`tied' to the operating system. A good example is the 
dispute between Microsoft and Kodak over digital photography 
software included in Windows XP. CD writing (CD-R) software is 
another recent addition. In fact, Microsoft continues to kill 
competition by including software that has nothing to do with the 
operating system. As an analogy, would any of us feel comfortable if 
the power company started to include all the electric appliances we 
needed, along with the electricity it sells us? Soon, GE, Maytag, 
etc. would all be out of business, and we would have nowhere else to 
go get a refrigerator but the power company. It doesn`t sound like 
the world I want to live in.
    None of the remedies in the settlement deal with this problem.
    I hope my comments are constructive and help bring about a 
settlement more effective than the current one.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew P. Suchy
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005313

From: philip solar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:36pm
Subject: One person`s comments
    I and my wife for one, Praise Microsoft for their inovativtive 
policies. We would not be able to conduct our business and be 
productive if it were not for Microsoft and their products. I for 
one have always felt that there policy and pricing has been fair.
    There is no question in my mind that without this company our 
balance of payments would be considerable more than it is.
    Philip Solar
    [email protected]



MTC-00005314

From: John G. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Hi,
    I would like to encourage the Government to stop hassling 
Microsoft, They are a prime example of capitalism at it best. You 
are discouraging people from building a large compaies, why not 
spend your time and our Money tracing down Bin Laden or Omar. Do you 
know how much money Microsoft and Bill Gates donates to charity? Get 
off it and do something useful.
    John G. Jones



MTC-00005315

From: William Spurr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop punishing success. Equating bigness with 
badness has been the hallmark of anti-trust legislation from the 
time of J. D. Rockefeller. This case, like most of the others, has 
not been about the consumers, who are supposedly protected by anti-
trust laws. It is about competitors who can`t compete and about 
political favoritism. If you have tried to use even the latest 
version of Netscape (6.2) with many of the websites that use Java (a 
Sun product_not a Microsoft product), the pages don`t load 
properly, even though they work fine in Internet Explorer 5.5 and 
above. If this doesn`t show that Netscape is uncompetitive, and that 
it is not the choice of consumers, what does?
    Sincerely,
    William A. Spurr
    [email protected]



MTC-00005316

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:05pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETLEMENT
    Dear Mr. John Ashcroft:
    I am Rafael Beltran III a hard working Hispanic who pays taxes 
as most Americans do.
    I am writing to you today to request that the case against 
Microsoft be settled:
    a. As soon as possible before the new elections
    b. To ensure our economy gets back on track as soon as possible 
The only thing Microsoft has done wrong is to once again put the USA 
ahead of other countries in the world with the very best technology 
that can be created.
    We can no longer be protective of companies that change 
technology every three months and we get stuck with the bill. When 
is this going to end? Please accept Microsoft and The Justice 
Department terms so we can move forward and bring our economy where 
it supposed to be. Stop those states that continue to delay the 
settlement and have no common sense and no vision of the future. 
These states are nothing but protectionist states for political 
reasons that have nothing to do with technology.
    Thank God for Microsoft I can put food on my family`s table. 
Microsoft`s technology does not discriminate. Microsoft is good for 
America. Please stop those protectionist states that are trying to 
torpedo the settlement that has been agreed upon.
    If those companies that say they are being left out continue to 
be protected because they are not able to compete squarely and 
fairly then they should shut down and move on to something they are 
good at. Technology will embrace what makes sense and what is 
efficient, if those companies` products were not efficient and did 
not make sense then the American public did not support them and 
therefore we do not need them.
    I am most confident that Microsoft will comply all the way and 
at the same time stimulate our economy and yes bring a better life 
to little people like me.
    Microsoft products do not discriminate and do not see colors and 
origin and they way you sound and the way you look.
    Please stop harassing Microsoft.
    Very Respectfully,
    RAFAEL BELTRAN III
    1898 Ascot Drive
    Moraga, CA 94556
    925-247-0777
    US NAVY Reservist



MTC-00005317

From: Kirk Shaeffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete the settlement process as soon as possible. The 
country is in a recession and it is not productive to continue this 
Microsoft case any longer.
    By prolonging this process the advancement of technology will be 
slowed. In addition, the nine individual states are wrong not to 
settle this case as they appear to be in on a MONEY GRAB of the 
profits of one of America`s most successful companies.

[[Page 24705]]

    The saddest part of the Microsoft case was that it`s competitors 
had complained to the Clinton Administration until they finally 
pressed the case against Microsoft. I certainly would not act in 
this manner to any of my successful business competitors!
    Thank you for time in reading this email. A response is not 
necessary.
    Kirk Shaeffer Real Estate Analysis Northwest



MTC-00005318

From: William Noble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Settlement
    End this nonsense once and for all. Microsoft has done nothing 
that Netscape, Yahoo, Sun, Novell, Orcale and others have not done. 
If the DOJ wants to stick up for the `consumer' take a 
long hard look at the banking industry, insurance idustry (They make 
the Mafia look legit) or maybe cable tv markets. Great job they did 
going after the cable company`s, last time. So pretty soon we`ll 
have comcast and comcast to choose from. The lawsuit agaist 
microsoft is wrong and bad for consumers. The last administration is 
gone, let their wrongful, anti-consumer lawsuits go with them...
    William Scott Noble
    Nashua, NH



MTC-00005319

From: Richard H Rosenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as proposed sounds reasonable for all parties. In 
these uncertain economic times it would be best to concentrate on 
the challenging future, not the past misdeeds of Microsoft. I think 
Microsoft has learned it must deal more fairly with competitors. 
Continued attention by DOJ to Microsoft`s compliance with the 
settlement`s terms is merited.
    Sincerely,
    Richard H. Rosenberg
    2568 Indian Ridge Drive
    Glenview, IL 60025-1049



MTC-00005320

From: DONALD SCHUMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice Member
    From: Donald L. Schuman
    I thought we had finally settled the case against Microsoft but 
I now hear that 9 states have decided to go against the settlement 
and continue the case. How absurd? Let`s put this action to bed. 
Enough is enough. We have far more serious problems to worry about 
than a bogus lawsuit.
    Without Microsoft`s initiative in producing quality software 
this country would not have produced the gains in productivity that 
helped this country over the last 7 to 10 years. Now these states 
want to `penalize' the company further because they have 
created something that their competitors could not have. Where is 
the sense and reason for this action. This country was built on 
innovation, hard work and creativity!!! Now we are letting those who 
feel, since they didn`t invent it, its something bad and injurious 
to their company. That`s just plain b.s. Microsoft products have 
always been open and competitive. Let`s let them continue to 
innovate and help us to move forward. For those companies that are 
not that creative, well maybe they should `fall by the 
wayside.' Let us not punish the good for those who are not as 
smart. I am a taxpayer and a consumer that feels strongly that you 
must not stifle creativity for the benefit of those that are just 
not that bright and creative. Go Microsoft!
    Donald L. Schuman [email protected]



MTC-00005321

From: AWzr1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a Consumer I strongly believe that the settlement between the 
DOJ and Microsoft is a good deal for us and the American economy.
    In the `public interest' lets end this mess and 
avoid any prolonged litigation. That`s as brief and to the point as 
I can be.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Wieleba
    [email protected]



MTC-00005322

From: Stanislav Fritz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to briefly comment on the potential settlement on 
the Microsoft Anti-trust case. At a time when the nation, and the 
state of Washington in particular, is in economic dire straits and 
struggling with change, it would seem like this settlement is 
something that should go forward as quickly as possible.
    The landscape of high tech continues to change and if the U.S. 
has any chance of remaining a leader in portions of this, such as 
software, biotech, and aerospace, we need to have strong innovative 
companies.
    If Microsoft is continually shackled by the DOJ, private 
lawsuits, and uncertainty, it will indeed falter and no other 
punishment will be needed. This can do nothing but hurt the economy 
and high technology.
    2002 is a crucial year for all. I urge speedy action.
    I have been an executive at three software companies. My 
personal experience tells me that Microsoft is indeed an innovative 
company and it acts aggressively, but not unreasonably. I am not a 
Microsoft employee.
    Sincerely,
    Stanislav Fritz
    6717 46th Avenue SW
    Seattle, WA 98136



MTC-00005323

From: Ron Burk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ron Burk, Founding Member
[email protected] HighTechInfo.com
P.O. Box 3082
Redmond, WA 98052
(425) 869-0233
    This is a comment on the proposed government settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust action. We believe the proposed settlement does 
not fall within the range of acceptability, and is not within the 
reaches of public interest.
    This comment on the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft 
argues two things:
    * That the government attorneys negotiating the settlement were 
unable to judge the boundaries of their own competence on technical 
matters, leading them to assumptions that were starkly incorrect.
    * That the settlement is detrimental to national security. That 
is due to the fact that, contrary to the government`s uninformed 
assumption, security software that is centralized and kept secret is 
much more vulnerable to attack than security that is open, public 
and decentralized. Courts versus Technology
    Two effects must be taken into account when assessing the 
technical competence with which this settlement was arrived at and 
accepted by the participants: the accelerating complexity of 
technology, and accelerating permeation of technology in society. On 
the one hand, the technological acceleration of the last few decades 
guarantees that the courts must deal with highly technical issues 
where government officials have no hope of holding personal 
competence. On the other hand, the permeation of technology into 
society gives its non-technical members the illusion that they 
understand the technology well enough to judge when they are, or are 
not, competent to act with common sense.
    For example, when powered flight first emerged, few members of 
the public would have ventured any opinion about how airplanes work 
or are piloted. By the time passenger flight was cheap and common, 
however, most people formed at least some very rudimentary level of 
understanding about airplanes and flight. Thus, most people would 
apply common sense to their own limited experience of airplanes to 
assess that flying closer to the ground is safer than flying high, 
and that flying slower is safer than flying fast. Unfortunately, 
both of these `common-sense' reactions are exactly 
wrong, as all student pilots must be taught.
    A more compelling example of technological surprise comes when 
an airplane stalls, which causes the nose of the craft to pitch 
downward. It is only the most obvious form of common sense that the 
nose of the aircraft must then be immediately pulled back up, to 
keep the aircraft from diving into the ground. Unfortunately, this 
`common-sense' response is also exactly wrong. The 
correct response, which must be repeatedly drilled into new pilots 
so that they can overcome their `common sense,' is to 
push the nose even further down and apply more power. So powerful is 
this incorrect feeling of `common sense,' that there 
have been recorded accidents caused by passengers in small aircraft 
seizing the controls and preventing the pilot from recovering from a 
life-threatening stall.

[[Page 24706]]

    Thus, we see that well-intentioned people with a passing 
familiarity with some form of technology may be incapable of judging 
the boundaries of their own competence. Moreover, technology 
provides many situations where the layperson`s common-sense 
assessment of the correct course of action is incorrect, or even 
disastrous. We believe that this settlement provides an example of 
such a disastrous application of `common sense' being 
applied outside a party`s areas of expertise.
    In the area of computers, most everyone in government has some 
experience using computers. While most non-technical computer users 
hardly believe themselves to be experts, most have enough basic 
experience to feel that they at least know what the limits of their 
competence is. As with airplanes, this assumption is generally 
false, and when that incorrect assumption affects court proceedings, 
the results can be as disastrous as an airplane crash.
    Secrecy versus Security
    One of the areas where the government`s team clearly was 
incorrect in assessing the boundaries of their own technical 
competence was the controversial blanket exemption for disclosing 
any information that `would compromise the security of 
antipiracy, antivirus, software licensing, digital-rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems.' The 
November 9, 2001 issue of The Wall Street Journal quotes the 
government`s Mr. James as saying that this grant was `one of 
those `duh' issues', continuing `Microsoft 
has security protocols. Are we going to tell everyone how they work? 
Do you want people to get access to your credit-card information 
when you shop on line?'
    Mr. James` common-sense response to this issue is entirely 
logical to the layperson_and stupendously incorrect. Mr. James 
is presumably not aware that the security protocol used to protect 
almost every Internet-based credit-card transaction is public 
knowledge, has been so for years, and has been studied extensively 
by large numbers of programmers, including those who would like 
nothing better than to be able to steal credit card information.
    Non-technical computer users often have some personal experience 
with `passwords,' which tends to instill a belief that 
secrecy and security are identical. Although it contradicts the 
average computer user`s `common sense,' security experts 
know that the only proven way to create security protocols that can 
withstand attack for any length of time is to make them public. Time 
and time again, the history of computer security has taught 
programmers that security measures that rely on secrecy (e.g., I bet 
no one will discover where my software stores this password) have 
quickly fallen to attackers. Even the security protocols 
historically put forward by the government itself were first exposed 
in detail, so that they could be studied and their weaknesses 
assessed before critical systems were made to rely on them.
    Furthermore, Mr. James would presumably be astounded to learn 
that the main competitor (called Apache) to Microsoft`s web server 
product, not only uses publicly documented protocols for security, 
but also provides the entire source code for the server itself. 
That`s right, any attackers who would like to steal credit card 
information can freely study absolutely every bit of source code 
that goes into the most popular web server in use on the Internet 
today. Once again, the layperson`s `common sense' is 
confounded, since the number of security vulnerabilities discovered 
in the completely exposed Apache web server has dwindled to a 
trickle, while a steady stream of security flaws continues to be 
exposed in Microsoft`s proprietary and secretive web server. Indeed, 
the most virulent attacks to date on the government`s own computers 
were implemented by exploiting security flaws in Microsoft`s IIS web 
server (ironically, some of the computers involved in the attack 
belonged to Microsoft_they had neglected to install their own 
innumerable security patches on some of their own computers).
    Even Microsoft is quite aware that secrecy is not a sound basis 
for security, and (eventually) learned to rely on robust, publicly 
examined security protocols. However, they still do use secrecy 
extensively in order to prevent (via legal attacks, if necessary) 
competitors from creating software that is compatible with their 
own. Thus, when Stac sued Microsoft for violating their patents, 
Microsoft countersued_essentially claiming that no one could 
make the product in question compatible with Microsoft software 
unless they had reverse-engineered the necessary information, which 
Microsoft indeed deliberately kept secret (said secrecy offering no 
security, only a way to prevent competition).
    Thus, although Microsoft incorporated a well-known public 
security protocol (called Kerberos) into Windows 2000, they 
`extended' it in order to deliberately render it 
incompatible with third-party software. Again, the goal was to 
prevent competition, not to benefit customers. This is precisely the 
sort of thing that any remedy should eliminate, and precisely the 
sort of thing that the government`s settlement would nanvely accept 
as necessary. Microsoft was no doubt happy to accept the 
government`s ignorance about computer security and, with it, the 
blanket exemption that will allow them to continue to hold the power 
of life or death over companies that need to make their products 
compatible with Microsoft`s monopoly products to survive.
    The Interests of National Security
    The same Wall Street Journal article implies that thoughts of 
war and terrorism influenced the settlement negotiations. Here, too, 
it`s likely that the government was unable to assess the bounds of 
their grasp of the big (technical) picture.
    Microsoft Passport (a so-called `single logon' 
service) is cited as an example where Microsoft must keep 
information secret. Not only is it false that Passport`s security 
relies on keeping interoperability information secret, but Passport 
is ironically promising to be one of the biggest threats to national 
cybersecurity the United States has ever seen. Because Microsoft 
wants Passport to be centralized and under their control, they 
essentially hope to put all of the nation`s passwords, credit card 
numbers, phone numbers, and other personal information in a single 
location. As it is now, a foreign hacker who wants to steal credit 
card numbers (or blackmail a company whose customer data he stole), 
must do so one company at a time. With Passport, there will be a 
single place where a hacker can affect all customers (if Microsoft 
is successful at signing everyone up, which their new Windows XP 
tries very hard to do). Thus, part of the system that the government 
hopes to prop up with their settlement is a system that could become 
the juiciest target for cyber-terrorists of all time.
    Customers have generally failed to voluntarily select 
Microsoft`s Passport product (despite it being free), so Microsoft 
has resorted again to using its monopoly powers to force a product 
on the marketplace. They first made using Passport a requirement for 
certain products, though that still failed to force a large enough 
number of customers to participate. Most recently, windows XP is 
designed to nag, cajole, and otherwise convince nanve users that 
they are required to use Passport. The government`s settlement, with 
its misguided blanket exemption for security, allows Microsoft to 
use their monopoly power to tie this non-competitive product to 
their operating system, and thereby force it on the marketplace. The 
result is to make the nation more vulnerable to cyber attack.
    An example of why a centralized and non-open design like 
Passport is so vulnerable was provided on November 2, 2001, when a 
programmer openly demonstrated a technique for stealing any Passport 
user`s complete information (including credit cards) simply by 
getting the victim to open an email message. Microsoft had to shut 
the Passport service down for an extended period to effect repairs. 
Customers relying on Passport were simply out of luck for the 
duration of the repairs. Imagine if everyone in the U.S. used a 
single service for their passwords, and therefore most Internet work 
came to a halt every time Microsoft needed to fix a security bug. 
The Internet depends on decentralization for its robustness (it has 
withstood power outages, cable cuts, and even terrorist attack). 
Microsoft hopes to force consumers to use a service that will make 
much Internet use highly vulnerable to all the problems the Internet 
itself has survived.
    Unfortunately, discovering a security bug is not necessary to 
shut down Passport. Because the Passport design is centralized 
rather than distributed, it can easily be shut down by any denial of 
service (DOS) attack. It is currently virtually impossible to 
prevent DOS attacks on the Internet (experts estimate that several 
DOS attacks are in progress at almost any given moment on the 
Internet). A DOS attack may temporarily render one, or even several 
web sites unusable simply by `clogging the pipes' near 
those sites, so that all other traffic is stopped or slowed to a 
devastating degree. There is virtually nothing that can be done to 
prevent DOS attacks in the current design of the Internet (more to 
the point, it is a community problem, and not something that 
Microsoft can affect in any way by changing their software).

[[Page 24707]]

    The centralized design of Passport (Microsoft needs it 
centralized so that they can control consumers` data rather than 
allowing competing companies to do so) assures that it is completely 
vulnerable to DOS attacks. Thus, the government`s settlement is 
helping to prop up an anti-competitive single logon system that can 
be shut down at any time by a disgruntled teenager (often found to 
be the source of such attacks) with moderately high technical 
skills. Various arms of the government claim to be highly concerned 
about the threat of cyber-terrorism, yet the government proposes to 
accept a settlement that will prop up a monopoly`s plan to build the 
most enticing and vulnerable cyber-terrorism target in U.S. history.
    It is our belief that Passport is one of a great many areas of 
Microsoft anti-competitive activity that this settlement will have 
no effect on.
    Samba: Canary in a Coal Mine
    Non-technical observers typically deem the impact of any 
antitrust action against Microsoft likely to be difficult to measure 
or prove. Technical observers, however, can point to any number of 
concrete situations that are entirely dictated by whether or not 
Microsoft can continue to abuse its monopoly power.
    Samba provides a good case in point. Microsoft sells server 
software that provides file sharing, and security management (among 
other things). Microsoft has, of course, tried to make their 
networking software largely proprietary, so that they can control 
who is, or is not, allowed to create compatible software. Samba is 
the name of a product that tries to allow users of non-Microsoft 
operating systems to expose services (such as file sharing) 
compatibly with Microsoft networks. Thus, a company that has both 
Unix and Windows computers can run Samba on their Unix computers to 
allow Windows users to easily access Unix files.
    The problem with Samba is quite simply Microsoft`s refusal to 
document their protocols. Thus, with each new release of Windows, 
Microsoft changes their protocols, and the Samba team has to 
tediously reverse engineer all the changes (just one example of the 
huge amount of American productivity that is wasted nationwide on 
reverse-engineering interfaces that Microsoft refuses to document). 
Microsoft knows full well that Samba will be able to eventually make 
their software compatible (secrecy and security being two separate 
things, as described earlier), but by constantly making changes and 
keeping Samba one step behind, they can convince companies that 
Samba is an inferior choice for any company that has workers using 
Windows.
    Any antitrust settlement that allows this situation, in which 
Microsoft can use its standard anti-competitive techniques to keep 
Samba from ever catching up to `complete' compatibility 
with Windows, is a failure. Some believe that Microsoft will also 
patent their incompatibilities and then use legal means to prevent 
Samba from fully interoperating with Microsoft products. All of 
which may be perfectly acceptable in a competitive marketplace, but 
not in a marketplace dominated by a single monopoly.
    We believe that this is just one example of the many important 
areas that the government-accepted settlement will allow Microsoft 
to practice business as usual. An integral part of what Samba does 
is password management. Microsoft should be able to claim to any 
government overseer that their network services manage passwords, 
and therefore they must (as they do now) refuse to document their 
network protocols (despite knowing full well that said protocols 
will eventually be reverse-engineered, and that that results in no 
compromise of security).
    Astoundingly, the proposed settlement lets the convicted company 
help choose the members of its own somewhat toothless overseeing 
`technical committee.' That fact, combined with 
Microsoft`s prodigious ability to delay and dissemble, and the 
settlement`s incomprehensible restriction of terms to the oddly 
defined `middleware' should allow Microsoft to continue 
to press their anti-competitive tactics on products such as Samba.
    It is our belief that Samba is another one of the great many 
areas of Microsoft anti-competitive activity that this settlement 
will have no effect on.
    Summary
    We believe the government likely also exceeded the bounds of 
their competence in the area of economics. Another subtext of the 
negotiations (and one Microsoft pressed relentlessly in public), was 
that Microsoft`s success is crucial to the economy. In fact, 
Microsoft`s monopoly has consistently wiped out small businesses and 
innovation of all sorts for years, decimating what was once a 
thriving sector of the economy. Another recent Wall Street Journal 
article predicted that the current lack of innovation in technology 
would help prevent any economic turnaround in that sector. We 
believe that a settlement that vigorously curtailed Microsoft`s 
ability to exploit its monopoly (which is obviously not what this 
proposed settlement does) would greatly stimulate the technology 
sector of the economy. We have not pressed that particular issue 
here because our credentials are in technology, not economics.
    While Microsoft`s lawyers had to get their negotiating 
agreements approved by a qualified technical overseer (Bill Gates), 
the government`s attorneys had no such technical authority over 
them. As we have shown, that clearly led government negotiators to 
make incorrect decisions in areas where they mistakenly believed 
their own common sense was sufficient.
    This antitrust action was an opportunity for the government to 
force Microsoft to take responsibility for their past flouting of 
the law, and to rejuvenate an industry whose main enemy is not the 
current economic downturn, but the illegal actions of a single 
monopoly. Unfortunately, the settlement appears to be ineffectual at 
both penalizing past law-breaking and preventing any future law-
breaking. The settlement appears to be good deal for Microsoft and a 
few large companies. It appears to be a very bad deal for the 
nation`s security and economy.
    Ron Burk
    HighTechInfo.com,
     www.hightechinfo.com



MTC-00005324

From: wencheng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I believe the proposed settlement is reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved.
    Sincerely,
    Wen-Ching Cheng
    301-330-8512



MTC-00005325

From: Tom Hemmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:54pm
Subject: settlement?
    I want to register my dismay at the lack of backbone that the 
justice department is showing (again) in this case. I am a computer 
professional that remembers the last antitrust settlement (or should 
i say lack of settlement) the previous time the justice department 
to microsoft to task. My, my, how that really helped stem the 
microsoft criminals!
    Now once again, the justice department is going to roll over. Is 
it because the party was found innocent? no, it is because of 
politics (Ashcroft is a lackey for big business). Using the state of 
the economy as a reason to give microsoft a slap on the wrist is 
wrong, wrong, wrong. this is really short term thinking. Think in 
the long term! But hey, a shot in the arm for the economy would 
bolster Mr Bush, Mr. Ashcroft and the republican party.
    What should be Microsoft`s punishment? why let`s subsidize their 
push into one of the markets they do not dominate! As for the people 
who came up with that solution, well, Idiot school never graduated a 
better class!
    So much for my government working for me.
    A Vietnam war era veteran (from a family of veterans) who 
supports his country when right and will not hesitate to change it 
when it is wrong.



MTC-00005326

From: OrcaUSA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 7:57pm
Subject: Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Sir I believe it is in the public`s interest that the Microsoft 
case be settled without further litigation.
    Respectfully,
    Donald W Seymour, MD



MTC-00005327

From: John Myles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft and Bill Gates used the system 
to its most true purpose_to make money.
    Sure, some of the things that they did may have been immoral, 
but to enter the business arena and then cry foul when you get 
knocked down is just plain stupid. Expecting to be treated fairly is 
unrealistic when many people are competing for the same dollar. 
Microsoft will have its day and so will the

[[Page 24708]]

next multinational business behemoth that comes along.



MTC-00005328

From: Anthony Shipman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:29pm
Subject: comment on the U.S. v. Microsoft case
    A penalty is not a penalty unless it stings. The current 
proposed `penalty' does not sting Microsoft. The simple 
fact that they are saying positive things about it, calling it 
`fair', shows that.
    A real penalty that would be of great benefit to the computer-
using public would be to require that control over the Microsoft 
Office file formats be transfered to a public standards body such as 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This would 
include, at least, the formats for Microsoft Word documents, Excel 
spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations.
    This would make it possible for a variety of software companies 
to develop office software that interoperated with Microsoft 
products. The goal is that an ANSI-conforming document produced by 
vendor X software would be guaranteed to be readable by vendor Y`s 
software. Since it is a common practice to e-mail documents, spread-
sheets etc. from person to person and business to business one would 
expect that the formats should be standardised and that the 
standardisation process be impartial. As well as revitalising the 
software industry this remedy would also go a long way to solving 
the problem of archived documents. It is well recognised by 
historians and librarians that much of the documentary material in 
an electronic format produced by today`s society is ephemeral and 
will not be available to historians of the future. This is not only 
because physical formats such as magnetic tape become obsolete but 
also because the file formats become obsolete. Even now, if you have 
a Word document from 10 years ago you will have great difficulty in 
reading it as current versions of Word do not recognise formats that 
old.
    You will have to hunt around for a software product that can 
convert it to a newer format. This problem will continue to get 
worse in the future. In short, since office file formats have become 
an integral part of the information infrastructure that the public 
depends on in this day and age it is important that they be under 
impartial, public control rather than be subject to the whim of 
Microsoft`s marketing department.
    I believe that this would be the biggest step that could be 
taken to level the playing field for business software.
    Anthony Shipman
    Elektrichore_The muse of high technology.
    [email protected]



MTC-00005329

From: Kevin S. Cavanaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:46pm
Subject: Micsosoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ: I am writing to urge to complete the settlement with 
Microsoft as soon as possible. I also urge you to influence those 
states now unwilling to settle with Microsoft to `get over 
it' and agree with the usdoj settlement terms.
    I have been a Microsoft customer for nearly 20 years and I do 
not see Microsoft as the evil that it is portrayed. Over the years 
other companies had many opportunities to compete effectively and to 
overshadow Microsoft but did not; mostly due to their own stupidity, 
not overreaching by Microsoft.
    Your continued pursuit of Microsoft is now far more harmful to 
consumers than any perceived anti-competitive behavior on the part 
of Microsoft. Let`s settle this dispute and move on.
    Thank you for listening,
    Kevin S. Cavanaugh
    [email protected]



MTC-00005330

From: Pratik Chipdey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to see this case settled as early as possible. For 
one, I can`t even imagine why an icon of American economy, like 
Microsoft, has been put thru such tough lawsuit by of all the 
parties the US Government.
    Microsoft has done nothing but good to the world of computers 
and the economy in general. Remember the days when companies like 
IBM controlled the market? If it were up to them, computers would 
still have been an esoteric tool, limited to the rich and the 
powerful.
    I do not believe that Microsoft has ever stifled competition. 
They have consistently come out with the very best products. 
Netscape died a natural death I don`t know of a single person who 
would like to use Netscape after having used Microsoft`s Internet 
Explorer. If you notice, the only companies concerned about 
Microsoft are the ones that have been sitting pretty so far due to 
lack of competition. This includes companies like Oracle, Sun and 
AOL (and IBM to some extent). All of a sudden, they have to improve 
their products so that they are not killed by better products from 
Microsoft.
    There is nothing wrong with the survival of the fittest. Isn`t 
this what capitalism is all about?
    Myself, and millions like me, who have benefited directly or 
indirectly from Microsoft, would like to request you in the public 
interest to drop this lawsuit altogether. If not that, please at 
least settle it so that consumers are not harmed. We are all 
comfortable with someone like Microsoft play the leader. Hate to see 
it go folks like Oracle, Sun and AOL?
    Regards,
    Pratik Chipdey
    Little Ferry, NJ



MTC-00005331

From: hcmcdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a 73 year old man, and my wife and I depend upon my 
computer to connect with the world_the whole world. I am in 
touch with my old workmates, my children and my grandchildren. Also, 
I can find out everything I want to know through MSN.com. I know 
there are lots of smart people that can do everything with 
computers, but if it weren`t for Microsoft and Windows, I would just 
be lost and not in touch with anyone or anything. I feel empowered 
by my computer, and I don`t feel that I paid too much for anything. 
I love the simple world of Microsoft. Everything works, and I don`t 
have to experience the stress of installing a new program. If 
something would not work on install, I don`t know what I would do, 
as I can`t understand complicated instructions. I have many friends 
that feel the same way, although some of my friends have kids that 
can do everything on computers, but they are the luck ones.
    Please, don`t put Microsoft out of business, because some of the 
other companies are mad at them.
    Regards, Henry



MTC-00005332

From: Robert Lippert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 8:55pm
Subject: The Waste of Money
    How can the Federal Government and some states, continue to 
waste tax payers money? What was at stake some years ago, is now a 
moot point. At what expense are you willing to continue this joke? 
Have the states disclosed the total legal expenses to their 
taxpayers? I bet not or at least not the correct amounts. Microsoft 
will continue to exits, its competition will continue to exist and 
our tax money will continue to be wasted!!



MTC-00005333

From: Higgs Glenda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:34pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think this case should be settled. Microsoft has done so much 
to help older people like me be able to use the computer. There 
should never have been a suit period. enough time and money wasted. 
* * *



MTC-00005334

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT SUPPORTING THE 10,000 POOREST SCHOOLS
    Hi_
    I am looking for information on Microsoft`s settlement 
supporting the 10,000 poorest schools. I would be interested if the 
court would consider our school for this settlement. If you could e-
mail me with some information, I would greatly appreciate it.
    Thank you_
    Kristie Hess
    Children`s House of Bucks County



MTC-00005335

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 24709]]

    As a consumer and an end user of Microsoft products, I would 
like to be on record as saying that I think the court case was a 
waste of time, and my tax payer money to begin with, so now that 
there is a settlement I am all for that. I want this case to be over 
as soon as possible. I am 100% in favor of this settlement and do 
not wish to see the case go to court again. I don`t feel that 
Microsoft has taken advantage of me or overcharged me for any of its 
products. I feel that Microsoft has gotten to where it is from a lot 
of hard work and some creativity, and now that they are where they 
are some jealous folks want to try and take that all away from them. 
I feel that the settlement is good for me, the industry, and the 
American economy in general.
    Folks over at the DOJ, there are much more important things to 
worry about now.



MTC-00005336

From: JoAnn-Souvenir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:46pm
    Microsoft is and always has been a benefit to me. I am so very 
against in further action against Microsoft and or Bill Gates. I`ve 
been a computer user and programmer for 22 years and I would hate to 
think of a computer world without Microsoft and Bill Gates! Please 
do not prolong this litigation.
    Jo Ann White
    `God Bless America'



MTC-00005337

From: Phyllis Onofrietti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to encourage the settlement worked out with the USDOJ 
and Micrsoft to stand as agreed. The objections of the nine states 
is a shakedown inspired by the competitors of Microsoft and the 
states themselves in order to enrich their own pockets just as they 
did in the tobacco settlements. Enough is enough, dismiss the nine 
states objections now.



MTC-00005338

From: Stringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:01pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
    As both a shareholder in Microsoft and a computer professional I 
am opposed to the current settlement proposal.
    The traditional remedy for an abusive monopoly is to split up 
the company, and this has usually been a win-win situation which 
benefits both the shareholders of the company and the general 
public. The only losers are the egos of the small group of people 
who run the monopoly.
    The original judge`s proposed remedy was primarily correct and 
only in error in splitting the company into too few parts.
    His remedy was an obvious solution.
    For the DOJ to wimp out in the face of Microsoft`s lobbying 
efforts undermines the rule of law in the USA.
    Roger Stringer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005340

From: ancient7qwest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:22pm
Subject: Missing the boat
    To Whom it may concern,
    I am a computer professional and have been in the field since 
the early 80`s. I am president of a small company that does computer 
manufacture and repair in Tucson AZ.
    1. I do not understand why the scope of the suit against 
Microsoft is so limited. They are still embedding their browser in 
their OS`s, not offering `Radio Button' choices during 
install as is offered for other components. Please hear this next 
concept, if you own an MS OS and want to see what security patches, 
updates, or upgrades are available on the OS upgrade site, you are 
told to come back when you are running Internet Explorer. It 
pointedly denies critical patches and updates to users of other 
browsers, i.e. Netscape or Opera. Is this not an embodiment of anti 
competitive practice?
    2. The Microsoft corporation has been using the FBI as an 
enforcement arm to exempt itself the effects of supply and demand. 
They have re-defined the concept of software piracy. It is not just 
making illegal copies and selling them. MS considers original, 
authentic software with the hologram, etc. to be counterfeit if they 
are purchased from anyone but an authorized distributor.
    Example 1: The Compaq/HP merger goes through and the new entity 
has 20 thousand copies of Windows ME with an HP logo on it. They 
prefer not to distribute it with their product and resell it to a 
broker who sells it to small system builders at a substantial cost 
savings. When the builder installs the os on a system, Microsoft 
considers that piracy and declares those once authentic, legal 
copies to be counterfeit. This used to be called gray marketing, now 
it is criminal.
    Example 2: Small company goes out of business and an auction is 
held. Someone buys all the software the company had, including 
Microsoft products. If he distributes these legally purchased 
products to dealers or end users, yup piracy and counterfeiting.
    Buying an OS should be like buying a car, replacement parts 
should be available for 10 years. Another parallel to the automotive 
world that is missing is that manufactured products that are 
marketed with known defects, that cause damage to people and things 
of value should be liable to remediation of damages. Personal and 
Corporate data and production impacted by flaws in operating systems 
have value based on cost of input, availability of replacement, and 
the guilty manufacturer should be subject to punitive damages.
    I have other gripes about MicroSoft`s business practices and 
products and again state that the severe limit of scope of the work 
done by the DOJ almost smacks of collusion, hopefully ignorance, but 
I can not understand what kind of investigation could miss such 
basic problems in a system. To Date, every major release of an 
operationg system by Microsoft has been followed by patches, updates 
and indicat premature release to meet or attempt to meet target 
dates. Available for additional discussion,
    Cliff Levy
    President Hi-Tech Computers
    520-918-8911



MTC-00005341

From: Jere Stahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:23pm
Subject: Settlement
    Hi,
    Having been a microcomputer owner since 1979 and reading many 
many computer publications over the ensuing 22 years I find it 
incredible that you folks cannot see what Bill Gates is doing to the 
DOJ and american public. He has done nothing to reduce his efforts 
to control the computer world. In fact, with their latest offering 
of XP they have claimed even more control.
    In the meantime Microsoft`s offer to give computers to schools 
in reality is sowing the same seeds that Apple did many years ago, 
in that they gave schools a super deal, knowing the kids would go 
home and bug unknowing parents into buying similar systems.
    If you want to punish Microsoft and Gates and company for 
thumbing their noses at you since day 1, then I suggest you force 
Gates and Balmer to retire from the company, and never have any more 
contact with it. Otherwise the control issues will become greater 
and greater. If you look at many of Microsoft`s new pricing policies 
you`ll see where they are punishing their customers for the hassle 
and costs you folks have put them through.



MTC-00005342

From: Matt Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement`s inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to:
    1) Middleware
    Section H.3 states `Microsoft Middleware Product would be 
invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server maintained by 
Microsoft (outside the context of general Web browsing)' This 
does nothing to limit the company`s ability to tie customers and 
restrict competition in non Web-based networked services under .NET, 
as they fall `outside the context of general Web 
browsing'. Microsoft has already begun abusing its desktop 
monopoly to tie customers into .NET revenue streams and set up a new 
monopoly over the network.
    Part 2 of the same section states `that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement . . .' essentially gives 
Microsoft a veto over any competitor`s product. They can simply 
claim it doesn`t meet their `technical requirements.'

[[Page 24710]]

    2) Interoperability
    Under the definition of terms, `B. `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.' 
This definition explicitly excludes the SMB/CIFS (Samba) protocol 
and all of the Microsoft Remote Procedure Calls needed by any SMB/
CIFS server to adequately interoperate with Windows 2000. Microsoft 
could claim these protocols are used by Windows 2000 server for 
remote administration and as such would not be required to be 
disclosed. The Samba team have written this up explicitly here: 
http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-2
0-OP-MS
    3) General veto on interoperability
    In section J., the document specifically protects Microsoft from 
having to `document, disclose or license to third parties:
    (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of 
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including 
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria' Since the .NET architecture being bundled into 
Windows essentially builds `anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, and authentication 
systems' into all levels of the operating system, ANY API, 
documentation, or communication layer can fall into this category. 
This means that Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming 
it`s part of a security or authorization system, giving them a 
complete veto over ALL disclosure.
    4) Veto against Open Source
    Substantial amounts of the software that runs the Internet is 
`Open Source', which means it`s developed on a non-
commercial basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers. Examples 
include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc.
    Under section J.2.c., Microsoft does not need to make ANY API 
available to groups that fail to meet `reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business.' This explicitly gives them a 
veto over sharing any information with open source development 
projects as they are usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis 
(and therefore would not be considered authentic, or viable 
businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    1) Middleware:
    Extend middleware interoperability with a Microsoft server to 
ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing as well as other 
networked services such as are those being included under .NET).
    2) Interoperability:
    Require full disclosure of ALL protocols between client and 
Microsoft server (including remote administration calls)
    3) General veto on interoperability:
    Require Microsoft to disclose APIs relating to `anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption, or authentication systems' to all.
    4) Veto against Open Source:
    Forbid Microsoft from discriminating between for-profit and 
nonprofit groups in API disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Johnson
    32753 Mono Lake lane
    Fremont, CA. 94555
    MattJ



MTC-00005343

From: Walt Zwierzycki
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. 
state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/1/02 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I oppose the settlement agreed to by the DOJ and some of the 
states. It does nothing to stop Microsoft`s anti-competitive 
behavior and even provides legal protection to perpetuate some of 
it. I support the recommendations of the nine other states.



MTC-00005344

From: Daniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Antithrust Case
Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney,
Suite 1200,
Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
Daniel Wells,
1936 Pawnee Drive
Yukon Ok, 73099
    This letter is for your consideration as part of the public 
comment ordered by the court concerning the penalty phase of the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    It is not necessary for me to express why Microsoft is guilty of 
`maintaining' a monopoly, the court has already found 
this as fact. My concern is, in light of recent world events and an 
economic slowdown, that our judicial system is in fact turning from 
its role of justice to one of politics. Justice demands that 
Microsoft give up its monopoly of the Windows operating systems, 
including:
    Microsoft Windows 95,
    Microsoft Windows 98,
    Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition,
    Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition, and
    Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition.
    Microsoft has sufficient operating system competition in the 
business market to compete for its versions of Microsoft NT, 2000, 
and XP Pro, to remain a viable and competitive company. But, unless 
the plug is pulled on the Home Operation System market while the 
opportunity exist, irreparable damage will result in our nations 
ability to continue being a leader in the microcomputer mass 
marketing arena.
    Each industry goes through a period of time where a basic 
infrastructure has to grow. At some point, basic services, become so 
common place, that it remains inconsumable to imagine them being 
solely owned by one company. When that happens, entrepreneurship and 
competition stagnates. This is the case today with the consumer 
computer industry. Microsoft now controls what, how, when, and by 
whom, all new computer data communications technologies, peripheral 
hardware and software products will become marketable.
    Microsoft once was a great company for America, but now has 
become her enemy, becoming more and more aggressively forced onto 
everything we do on computers today. If you must play politics, then 
demand justice first and foremost.
    The court should order the public release of 100% of the 
proprietary information, compilation tools, and development 
software, concerning the above listed operating systems. In 
addition, the court should revoke the licenses of the OS and turn it 
over to the public domain, thus allowing competition to proceed now, 
and not wait for the endless appeals processes that Microsoft 
lawyers will undoubtedly use otherwise. Additionally, order 
Microsoft to place all of this data on high speed servers so that is 
readily available over the internet with a bandwidth that is at 
least equivalent to its current online support sites.
    Lastly, demand that this be done immediately without delay, and 
appoint court officials to oversee the process, imposing extremely 
heavy fines for non compliance and order a freeze of assets if 
Microsoft does not comply. Order future monitoring of Microsoft 
activities, and impose heavy fines if it regresses into future 
attempts to monopolize.
    Now surely, companies will spring up selling exact copies of the 
current MS products, but that market will not last, it will be those 
companies that bring new innovations, tools, and improved security 
to the foreground that will get America back on track as the 
industry leader. Certainly, Microsoft will remain in the best 
position to compete in an open market. This action will give America 
the shot in the arm that it needs, whereas the current proposed 
penalties will result in further economic slowdown and create the 
unprecedented litigation that our economic future is to be driven by 
the whims of Mr. Bill Gates.
    Thank you for requesting public opinion.
    Daniel Wells



MTC-00005345

From: Doug Campbell
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/1/02 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If the previous administration spent as much energy chasing Bin 
Laden as it did chasing Bill Gates we might not be in the mess we 
are in now. The proposed settlement is probably to harsh and 
unnecessary, but lets implement it and move on. Get the 
`outlaw' states on board, close this issue and let the 
economy recover. Bill Gates and the other creative minds of the 
computer age have truly revolutionized the world (for the better) 
created millions of jobs, huge efficiencies in the way the world 
works and communicates_he is a hero not a villan. In

[[Page 24711]]

my own smalll business automation has enabled us to cut costs in 
half while growing sales 20% Implement the proposed settlement, 
strongarm the remaining states to go along and move on to more 
important things.
    Sincerely,
    Doug
    Douglas A. Campbell, CIC
    President & CEO
    CRES Insurance Services, LLC
    (800) 880-2747



MTC-00005346

From: Ann Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the US Government has done more than enough to wreck a 
thriving company. It has been four years of harrassment. Please 
proceed with the settlement and do what ever possible to stop the 
continuous litigation so Microsoft can go back to innovating for the 
rest of the world.
    John Randall
    161 Ashton Drive
    Burr Ridge, IL 60527



MTC-00005347

From: EDWARD LANGON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:12pm
Subject: msft settlement
    to: renata b hesse,anti trust division.
    i am not a attorney or a computer engineer but i am a msft 
customer. i have become disappointed again. during the past months 
the state attorney general in california has made inflammatory 
statements regarding this judgment. it appears some states want it 
to never end. the proposed final judgment with strong compliance and 
enforcement procedures provide a certain remedy for the msft 
violations. thank you
    elangon5@hotmail



MTC-00005348

From: XaNeX
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As the Network Administrator . . . it is my responsibility 
oversee the deployment of new technologies to our company. My 
position gives me ample freedom to implement whatever software or 
hardware I see necessary to keep the company network running 
smoothly and to satisfy user requests. Unfortunately, though my 
position may give me that freedom, the current software economy 
cannot.
    `I would dearly love to replace all Microsoft technology 
in my office with Open Source software, and if the software economy 
can give me as much freedom as my job did, I would do just that. 
However, the most defeating problem is what Microsoft chooses to 
keep secret_it`s network protocols, the layout of it`s Office 
files, and the precise technology needed to migrate from their email 
server. . . . I am asking the court to force Microsoft to publish 
these protocols in detail. I am also urging to court to act on 
future technologies as well. Microsoft is now planning to add vast 
pieces of the Internet to it`s web of interdependencies. With it`s 
initiative .Net, whole portions of the web would be cut off from 
non-Microsoft technologies. We have seen a glimpse of the 
monopolist`s vision of the future with the UK and MSN portal, 
designed by Microsoft and accessible only with Microsoft technology.
    Ryan Stagman



MTC-00005349

From: dino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 11:34pm
Subject: Why are you being so nice to Microsoft
    Dear Sir (or Madam),
    This Linux user (look at the headers on this e-mail) feels the 
DOJ is being far to nice to Microsoft. The plan to donate computer 
goodies to poor schools sounds nice, but it is bogus_it`s just 
a way to drive out the competition.
    Why don`t they offer to give software from Mac or Linux OS to 
the schools? This is merely `business as usual,' (nod-
nod, wink-wink) under a different guise. Or just give the bully what 
he deserves? But the bully doesn`t seem to realize that this is the 
age of the Internet_dirty games like that become known fast, 
and `nod-nod, wink-wink'_and the 
payoff_become known in a hurry.
    Sincerly,
    Dean Moore
    2435 7th Street
    Boulder, CO 80304



MTC-00005350

From: Quent Cordair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I`m an artist in Burlingame, CA, where I also run a small two-
person art gallery. I am in no way associated with Microsoft, nor do 
I own any Microsoft stock. But over the years, my art and my small 
business have much benefited from the use of Microsoft`s Windows 
products. Please leave Microsoft alone. They`ve done no wrong to the 
consumer; they`ve done nothing but help us greatly. They`re guilty 
of nothing more than continually making their products better and 
cheaper for us, year after year. To punish Microsoft is to reward 
the mediocrity of their competitors, and by extension, to do harm to 
me, the consumer. Morality and plain common sense would dictate that 
the Justice Department spend its time, focus and efforts, and our 
hard-earned money, in defending us against real criminals, rather 
than shackling the best and most innovative, those who add the most 
value to our lives. How on earth has it come to this, that are you 
choosing to hurt us, rather than help us? Let`s see if anyone in the 
Justice Department has the courage and integrity to stand up and do 
the right thing at this point. It would take a true hero.
    Regards,
    Quent Cordair
    Quent Cordair Fine Art
    346 Lorton Avenue
    Burlingame, CA 94010
    (650) 344-1134
    [email protected]



MTC-00005351

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the DOJ has been fiddling around and avoiding definite 
action vis-a-viz the Microsoft case. How can it be `in the 
public interest' to continue to delay this case? In the 
unlikely event that you come up with a solution to give Microsoft`s 
assets to johnny-come-lately competitors who would like to cripple 
Microsoft for little reason other than to abscond with Microsoft`s 
wealth, would the world be better off without Microsoft? You can bet 
your boots that the world and the US economy will both suffer.
    Sincerely,
    F. Samuel Ostertag, Mesa, Arizona



MTC-00005352

From: Ellison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft:
    We wish to see the Microsoft mess ended. The Department of 
Justice settlement agreement was both fair and reasonable and it has 
gone far enough.
    Russ & Doris Ellison
    N8579 Hay Creek Road
    Willard, WI 54494
    Phone or Fax: 715 267-7284
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00005353

From: Neal Shafto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the companies that have charged Microsoft and its 
officers with the complaints and have cost the American Tax system 
Millions on $`s on litigation should cease and desist. The judges 
have dealt with the cases before it and have reached an agreement. 
Since this has been accepted by both parties involved, I believe the 
case to be completed and no further action is required. If the 
system continues to do harm to the free enterprise system that is in 
place in the global economy, it will cause irreparable damage and 
further the decline of the economy. Stocks are affected by this 
child-like actions of a few who are jealous of the power and 
business skills of Microsoft. Please do not allow this to continue 
to erode the financial system, which is in place in this 
international economy. We have been `raped' by a few for 
too long and deserve better.
    I remain concerned and committed, to free enterprise of equality 
for all, not for a few who `can not' continue to evolve 
in the system with the generation of new and better ideals for the 
consumers.
    Neal T. Shafto
    Simcoe, Ontario
    Canada



MTC-00005354

From: philip solar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement

[[Page 24712]]

    As a consumer of Microsoft products, this should go away. The 
American problem would not be the same regarding productivity y if 
it weren`t for Mr. Gates and company. They had made me far more 
productive and without there feedback. This is one terrific company. 
As consumers we do that tike all the prods. `Do n to profit



MTC-00005355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to speak out (albeit from Australia) against the 
settlement proposed in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    As has been pointed out by Robert X. Cringely ( http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html), the details of the 
proposal will potentially put Microsoft in a position to target 
open-source software, which is in fact the only true competition 
which Microsoft faces today. It will thus end up increasing, rather 
than diminishing (as is the case`s intent) Microsoft`s market power. 
In addition, organisations such as our own require the flexibility 
to be able to choose open-source software, which we know is secure 
and not subject to `back-door' snooping by Redmond, or 
anyone else whom they are `in bed with'. A percieved 
`cosy deal' between the US Govt and Microsoft will drive 
foreign governments and organisations away from US software and 
towards software they can trust.
    In short the deal is not in the best interests of Microsoft, the 
US, or foreign software users. It will not address the problems 
raised in the anti-trust case.
    Regards,
    Graham Daniell
    Helpdesk Administrator,
    Department of Treasury and Finance
    Western Australia



MTC-00005356

From: Chris Striker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Chris Striker, and I am a consumer interested in the 
case concerning Microsoft. I want to register my disapproval with 
the case, and consider it imperative that nothing whatsoever be done 
to Microsoft. Nothing less than a quick dismissal of the entire case 
will be satisfactory. America cannot afford to spend time or money 
crippling companies, and I certainly don`t want such actions 
performed by the government in my name with my money. Lay off. Let 
the competitors compete.



MTC-00005357

From: Robert Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm
Subject: Feedback on Settlement Issue
    Hi DOJ,
    I just thought I`d offer my thoughts as I was invited to by an 
email from www.redhat.com I`ve got to say this MS witch hunt is 
absolutely appalling from my point of view.
    As the centre of entrepreneurial achievement, I would have 
thought Microsoft would be something to be proud of. Why start a 
company if you are not in it to become the biggest company in the 
world, even if it means other companies will suffer from your 
success?
    Sure, fine MS for their monopolistic practices. I think almost 
everyone would agree with this on principle. But using the anti-
monopoly laws to protect other competitors from the success of 
another company reeks of `tall poppy syndrome' and 
`sour grapes'.
    Honestly, telling a company they cannot incorporate THEIR OWN 
product into THEIR OWN operating system is an absolute farce. Worse 
still, now I hear others calling for MS to make a scaled-down 
version of THEIR OWN product so others can use it to promote their 
own products?!? You MUST be joking!!
    The lesson I have learnt is `don`t become too successful 
or even the DOJ will attack you'. Not really what you should 
be about, don`t you think??
    Just my two cents...
    Cheers,
    Robert Warren



MTC-00005358

From: Robin Schroeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:07am
Subject: DOJ Input
    I feel that the current settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft, the federal government, and nine states involved in 
litigation is fair to all and not stifiling to innovation. My 
position still remains that companies producing inferior products 
are attempting to gain via Microsoft`s loss. If their products were 
superior, they would not need to resort to such tactics. Judges in 
our country have allowed attorneys to run rampant finding loop holes 
in the law and hence allowed these same individuals to become 
wealthy via lawsuits. Prolonging this litigation is, in essence, 
punishing a company for being successful and innovative, and this 
approach does not support the American Dream. Where would we all be 
without
    Windows?



MTC-00005359

From: Marc Jullien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:42am
Subject: Support from France !!!
    As Great Things must go on, Microsoft has still to run the show 
accordingly to world interest !!!



MTC-00005360

From: joanpeterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this matter so that our economy can begin to 
improve. All this fighting with Microsoft has placed a heavy burden 
on our economy.



MTC-00005361

From: Don Clear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:42am
Subject: Dept. of Justice/Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the pending settlement without further 
litigation. The agreement reached between both parties is fair and 
will benefit consumers.
    PLEASE SETTLE NOW!
    Respectfully,
    Don Clear



MTC-00005362

From: Elvin Kever
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/2/02 10:28am
Subject: Why MicroSoft?
    I for the life of me can not understand why Microsoft gets off 
so easily. Think of what it would be like if we had only one auto 
manufacturer, or one kind of restaurant. If only you would have the 
courage to stand up to the crap that the lawyers from Microsoft are 
dealing you. When you hear crap about how the economy would be 
affected by the disassembly of Microsoft, well Ma Bell was broken up 
and look at that market. If the software industry was given a level 
playing field and hardware manufactures where aloud to choose open 
source you would see a economic boom like no other.
    Regards
    Kevin Power



MTC-00005363

From: Keith Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    Please accept the following as public comments relating to the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the current antitrust trial against 
Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Keith Godfrey
    1) The 5 years allocated to the agreement is a very short time. 
Assuming this were the perfect agreement to `level the playing 
field' and provide competitors the chance to fairly compete, 
Microsoft will be allowed to resume business as usual in a very 
short time. At a minimum, such an agreement should be readdressed by 
the court every 5 years until it is deemed to be no longer needed.
    Additionally, the agreement appears to be less than perfect if 
for no other reason than it lacks any method for redress of 
grievances from past monopolistic abuses, providing those 
competitors of Microsoft (those that remain in business, which 
notably does not include Netscape or Be, Inc.) with no advantage to 
regain market share lost to demonstrated illegal Microsoft business 
practices.
    2) Protocols and middleware interfaces, even if released, 
provide Microsoft with an inherent competitive advantage over 
competitors. Not only is there the time advantage, where Microsoft 
product development based upon these protocols or interfaces will 
likely be going on for weeks or months before public release of the 
interface, the interfaces are developed and tailored specifically 
for Microsoft product needs.
    3) Incorporation of low cost or free middleware with the 
operating system yields a large competitive advantage to Microsoft 
because many consumers are not inclined to actively download or 
purchase alternative products without a clear advantage to doing

[[Page 24713]]

so. Additionally, users without a technical background 
(specifically, for example, my parents and grandparents) may have no 
knowledge about alternative products, have little incentive to find 
them, and even if they do, lack the confidence and minimal ability 
required to download and install them
    4) The agreement seems very weak given the dominant Microsoft 
market position_this agreement may have been appropriate 
several years ago but now is likely to be largely ineffective
    5) The settlement seems to address only the issues outlined in 
the narrow scope of the trial, and fails to consider additional 
monopolistic abuses against competitors who were too timid to 
testify, those that lacked the financial resources to testify, and 
those that fell outside of the prosecutions list of top 20 
witnesses. The demonstrated pattern of abuses clearly implies the 
existence of similar behavior that the penalty should address and 
seek amends for.
    6) The settlement does not appear to address favorable treatment 
by Microsoft to OEMs who produce operating specific hardware. Most 
OEMs now include `WinModems' (modems operable only 
through Windows) with nearly every new computer in place of what 
used to be fully functioning modems operable under all operating 
systems. Microsoft mandating the inclusion of such hardware for 
favorable pricing effectively raises the barrier to entry for 
operating system competitors, as the end users are forced to buy 
additional hardware (a second modem) to use the computer in an 
increasingly online world. This same argument can be made for 
network interface cards.
    7) There seems to be no allowance for an OEM to manufacture 
computers without installing Windows and not incur penalties by 
Microsoft. The proposed final judgment section III, A.2 and C.4 
specify that computers can be manufactured with an additional 
operating systems installed, but do not mention manufacturing 
computers using only alternative operating systems. This can allow 
continuation of the `Microsoft tax' to end users when 
purchasing a computer when they do not want, and will never use, the 
Microsoft products installed on it.
    8) Section J.1.a_there appears to be a potentially large 
loophole prohibiting the final judgment from forcing disclosure of 
APIs, Documentation or (importantly) communication protocols that 
compromise the security of `a particular installation' 
of a series of products, including encryption, authentication tokens 
and authentication systems, when the announced direction of the 
company is towards a distributed network strategy which heavily 
relies on these elements. It is technically very easy to create a 
specific implementation that disclosure of protocols or APIs might 
threaten the security of and hence allow the locking up of all these 
disclosures.
    9) While possibly beyond consideration of the court, an 
effectively homogenous network of computers using software and 
operating systems from a single manufacturer makes for an ideal 
`breeding ground' for computer viruses and worms. This 
should be considered a strong threat to national and economic 
security. Structural remedies to break up the monopoly held by 
Microsoft seem to be the only method to resolve this issue.



MTC-00005364

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney. [email protected]. 
ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/2/02 7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m yet another information technology person that can not 
understand why Microsoft is not being broken up. Their monopoly 
status in not in dispute. The fact that Microsoft used this status 
to exend its Monopoly to other markets is not in dispute. The 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act has been broken and the only effective, long-
term solution is to separate the application software (Word, Excel) 
development company from the operating system (Windows) company.
    Needless to say, I oppose the current settlement proposal. Is is 
not in the best interest of the public.
    Brian Blevins
    [email protected]
    http://www.AptHand.com/
    Mobile Consumer Intelligence: Home Buying for Digerati



MTC-00005365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:56am
Subject: (no subject)
    my opinion on the microsoft case is bill gates should be 
incarcerated.



MTC-00005366

From: Cheyenne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Reader,
    Please Do Not stop good companies from making great products! 
Let`s get this case behind us and move on. This settlement is in the 
best interest of the US and world economy and everyone that uses 
Microsoft`s products.
    A very satisfied customer.



MTC-00005367

From: Cessna, Joel R (Wooster XJP 60C)
To: `MICROSOFT.ATR(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 8:03am
Subject: Microsft Case
    Please settle this case ASAP! Americans and the economy have 
suffered long enough. Lets don`t forget all the positve things that 
Micosoft has done for all of us including you and everyone else on 
the planet!



MTC-00005368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:05am
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement, Public Comment
    It is my opinion that the US govt. should tread lightly and 
issue leniant sanctions against Microsoft. This company may have 
violated the letter of some law but it (in large measure) also 
brought to our world a wave of usability and productivity the likes 
of which have never been seen. I know that it`s become popular these 
days to denigrate the giant software maker, but in the interests of 
fairness, I ask that you please be gentle.
    Regards,
    Ed Smallwood
    Matthews, NC



MTC-00005369

From: Rivera William
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Ruling
    Dear sirs,
    I am writing to inform you that I do not agree with the 
settlement ruling in the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I do not think 
that the settlement is in my interest, as Microsoft is still able to 
bundle software which I do not use or need nor WANT. I respectfully 
request that a different ruling be looked at and chosen which would 
require Microsoft to separate the non-necessary and unwanted 
components from the operating systems which it sells. Further, I 
request that this ruling take into account software that Microsoft 
is presently selling which was not being sold when the Antitrust 
Case was begun, as this software also includes unwanted software in 
the programming code.
    Sincerely,
    William E. Rivera
    [email protected]
    Unit 28043 Box #18
    APO AE 09112
    CC:`attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us'



MTC-00005370

From: Ferraro, James A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the litigation favors Microsoft`s competitors and not 
the general public.
    James A. Ferraro
    Lockheed Martin Missile & Space
    Air Force Reentry Systems Programs
    230 Mall Boulevard, King of Prussia, PA 19406
    Phone: 610-354-2932
    Fax: 610-354-5225



MTC-00005371

From: Jeff Seiler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hey Folks,
    Please get this over with. Let the settlement stand as is. I was 
not forced to use Microsoft products. They are just the best for 
what I do. This has gone on too long and as both a user and a 
stockholder, I`m sick of it. Let the settlement 
stand. . . move on to something more important like 
predatory lending.
    Jeff Seiler
    President
    S&S Benefits Consulting
    219 Darien
    Dundee, IL 60118
    P:847-428-5353
    F:847-428-9876
    [email protected]



MTC-00005372

From: Boyer, Jonathan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 8:29am

[[Page 24714]]

Subject: Comment on proposed settlement
    I am a United States citizen exercising my rights under the law 
to comment on this case. I believe that accepting the proposed 
settlement as it stands is will be a huge mistake on the part of the 
US Department of Justice and the 9 states who have also agreed to it 
in principle. In essence, far from damaging Microsoft (MS), this 
settlement will actually aid them in extending their current 
monopoly of the operating system market into a segment of the market 
where there is traditionally far more competition than in the 
general business and home markets.
    As it stands, the market for academic computing at all levels is 
far more likely to support alternative operating systems, such as 
Apple Computers` Mac OS or the open-source Linux operating system. 
The proposed settlement can only serve to erode that competition 
through a means that is essentially unfair in the sense that schools 
cannot afford to turn away donated materials, and those donated 
materials will be all MS. A far more judicious version of the same 
settlement would be to force MS to pay the full dollar value of the 
settlement in cash to the proposed foundation, rather than allowing 
refurbished PC`s and MS software to make up any portion of the 
value. This would give the benefit of a much stronger financial base 
for the foundation along with providing for free choice in a 
critical market. Even then, the remedy is on the light side, 
considering the size of MS cash reserves, which it has in large part 
amassed through monopolistic practices that have often seemed 
lacking in ethics.
    Jonathan R. Boyer
    Tek Systems / Eaton Corp.
    Eastlake, OH USA
    Desk: 440.954.5719
    Cell: 440.725.9117



MTC-00005373

From: Lyn Norstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the time has come to put this behind us, and allow the 
industry to go about it`s business. As a computer user since the 
late 1970s, I am convinced that this whole `ill-advised' 
action was one of the principal causes of the economic recession we 
all now face. It was . . . and still is . . . 
shameful behavior on the part of a few self-serving entities who 
instigated it.
    Lyn Norstad
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00005374

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You need to revise the settlement, as it is not in the best 
interests of the people who use computers. First, it needs to punish 
the perpetrators, which it currently does not, second, it needs to 
set an example that will stop companies from behaving in a similar 
way in the future and finally, it needs to restore confidence that 
the government is for the people and not owned by the company with 
the most money, which is what people think.
    Steve Schwartz



MTC-00005375

From: jshansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft Anti-trust 
settlement situation. My honest opinion is that this trial has 
proven the lack of integrity now in our court system. Their should 
simply be a rule of law which decides right and wrong and let 
justice be served. Opinions are expressed constitutionally through 
the voting processes. Specifically, the laws which were passed in 
this case are out-dated and have no bearing upon private 
intellectual property. In other words, this case should have never 
been before a court.
    As for the public interest, is it ever in the public`s interest 
for a corporation to be forced to spend it`s money on lawsuits and 
settlements? Certainly not and even more so when the country has 
fallen into recession and a large corporation such as Microsoft is 
forced to take its finances out from the private sector and place it 
into the hands of the government where it will not be used properly. 
Case in point, the Tobacco settlement. Large sums of money went to 
multiple different states, many of them claiming that it was money 
ear-marked for their Education programs in an attempt to persuade 
the `public`s interest'.
    Now that they have the money, it has been spent on a multitude 
of wasteful programs and in only a few cases has there been 
distributions to the educational programs.
    Please let the Free Market decide what companies should be 
punished for hurting the public. It is very clear that consumer 
spending can make a difference.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Hansen
    Lancaster, OH
    (740) 654-0682
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005376

From: Borkholm, Clay
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This e-mail concerns the Microsoft antitrust settlement. In my 
estimation, it is time to put the enormous cost and effort behind us 
and look forward to the future. Microsoft has been a phenomenal 
innovator in the industry and deserves to continue to compete 
effectively. In that Microsoft has, by finding of fact, engaged in 
unfair business practices, it seem appropriate to censure, fine and 
monitor Microsoft against anti-competitive practices. However, 
additional penalties and litigation seems wholly unjustified. It 
seems that Microsoft, by their very success, has created industry 
standards in an industry lacking in such sorely needed guidance. 
This is due to extraordinary growth in the discipline, I`m sure. 
Because of the lure of wealth, other companies seek any legal means 
to replace the defacto standards with their own. Litigation is one 
means to this end, and has become widely accepted as an appropriate 
business practice. I urge you to see through this attempt and 
respond with even-handed justice. Turn away those who would tie up 
the courts in an attempt to weaken the competition.
    Thanks for your consideration,
    Clay Borkholm
    Chief Technology Officer
    BST Consultants, Inc



MTC-00005377

From: Forrest Hawkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Clear DayFolks,
    Put me down as one who strongly believes the Microsoft 
settlement should be settled.
    I am not a Microsoft fan. I don`t like their software and I 
don`t own their stock.
    However this case should never have been brought. It is 
obviously sour grapes by competitors.
    Please stop the attacks on perhaps the most innovative company 
in American history.
    At the same time their competitors had a hard time, thousands, 
if not millions of others have made fortunes from the development 
environment provided by Microsoft`s Windows.
    Forrest Hawkins



MTC-00005378

From: John A MacNeal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of your efforts to settle the Microsoft litigation. 
Please get the matter resolved and let the competitors go compete. 
The Courts and the lawyers need to get out of the way.



MTC-00005379

From: shawnlab(a)microsoft.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My opinion:
    Punishing Microsoft now, for activities stopped years ago, could 
only benefit a few large, powerful competitors and hurt the economy 
as a whole.
    Microsoft produces great software that we all use. Crippling 
them will only serve the lawyers and some politicians needing a 
`David and Goliath' slant on their next election 
campaign.



MTC-00005380

From: Dave McClintock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft`s anti-competitive behavior
    I work for a public school district in Delaware. Recently, the 
high school librarian sent me an e-mail asking me why she could no 
longer access Microsoft`s Web site for Encarta (encarta.msn.com), an 
online information resource similar to an encyclopedia. When I 
checked this out, I found that I could use Internet Explorer to 
bring up the Web site just fine. But when I

[[Page 24715]]

used Netscape Navigator, I received the following error message: 
Microsoft VBScript runtime error `800a000d' Type 
mismatch: `[string: `''']' /
intl/bver.inc, line 8 Microsoft has `fixed' this Web 
site to make it appear that Netscape does not have the capability 
needed for displaying this Web page. This Web page has a Visual 
Basic script embedded. Internet Explorer `understands' 
Visual Basic, but Netscape does not, hence the error. Visual Basic 
is a proprietary Microsoft technology, not an Internet standard. 
Microsoft could have just as easily used a Java script (which is an 
open Internet standard), but chose not to do so in order to make 
non-Microsoft browsers inoperable on this site.
    The Web is a wonderful educational resource for our public 
school students. These resources should be constructed so that a 
variety of technologies will work properly. Our public libraries 
used to work on this principle_one didn`t need special 
glasses, or technology, to read World Book Encyclopedia as opposed 
to other encylopedias. A student who opened World Book could just as 
easily (and in a very similar manner) get information from any 
encyclopedia written by different publishers.
    Microsoft`s use of Visual Basic scripts on their Web sites is 
just another example of their monopolistic behavior. Quality of 
content in Encarta should be the benchmark for how they compete with 
other resource sites, not proprietary technology (especially when 
open technology standards already exist). If Encarta has better 
content, then people will use it instead of other online resources 
which have less quality of content. But the only way they can use it 
now is to access it via Internet Explorer.
    Dave McClintock
    Supervisor of Technology
    Lake Forest School District
    Felton, DE
    302-284-3020 ext 113



MTC-00005381

From: Mark Korolevich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I will make this short and to the point. Microsoft makes great 
products that are of great value to their consumers. Do not hinder 
their ability to continue to produce these great products. The 
government has already spent too much money in litigation with 
Microsoft.
    Leave Microsoft alone.
    Mark Korolevich
    Sr. Programmer
    Arrow-Magnolia



MTC-00005382

From: Guy, Brendan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov',` 
attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 1/2/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft `Settlement'
    This is a disgrace.
    The proposed administrative remedies are so light-handed and 
irrelevant as to be laughable if the subject weren`t so serious. 
Letting MS off the hook for their anti-competitive practices by 
allowing them to further their monopoly is some of the most 
byzantine logic yet applied, and allowing 
them_retail_value_in the fine structure is an 
insult to every intelligent person involved.
    Microsoft is in this mess because of their flagrant violation of 
the last round of administrative remedies. They have proven time and 
time again that they hold no respect for the rules that govern 
corporate behaviour in this country.
    Cut them up and break them down, do what`s needed 
to_change_the entrenched culture of intimidation and 
bullying that has gotten them to where they are. Administrative 
remedies that `level the playing field' are useless in 
an industry where the playing field changes every six months unless 
you change the underlying culture that created the violations in the 
first place.
    Brendan Guy
    Brooklyn, New York



MTC-00005383

From: Edward Chan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Competition and choices are critical to a capitalistic society 
like ours. I have the choice of using and choosing Apple Computers, 
Wintel platform, Linux, SUN and even IBM. To say that Microsoft is a 
monopoly or customers have little or no choice is ludicrous. Why 
spent so much of our tax dollars trying to destroy such a great U.S. 
company is truly unwise and definitely unpatriotic. Let`s face it, 
there are a lot of smart people in India, China, etc. but they don`t 
have Microsoft! If we choose to destroy our great companies, impose 
unreasonable fines and restrictions. . . . U.S.A will 
be the loser down the road.



MTC-00005384

From: Ken Mays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:02am
Subject: Comment
    Please consider the long-term negative impact on innovation and 
creativity in the educational environment if Microsoft is allowed to 
negotiate a settlement that puts their product in the nation`s 
school systems. The net effect will likely be to increase their 
market share and result in yet a new monopoly in just a few years. I 
add my voice to those against this settlement. Thank you.
    Ken Mays



MTC-00005385

From: Devon Bingham
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I felt I should comment on the settlement since it directly 
effects me. Personally I feel that the whole lawsuit should not have 
been filed in the first place, but that is another matter. I feel 
that the settlement that was reached recently is more the enough to 
`punish' Microsoft. I do like the inclusion of money/
software to the public schools. I think this whole thing should be 
finished as soon as possible, its been dragged on long enough by the 
lawyers and politicians who are looking to make a name for 
themselves.
    Devon Bingham
    IS Analyst
    USD School of Medicine / University Physicians
    http://med.usd.edu 
    http://www.upclinics.org 



MTC-00005386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Technology winners and losers should be determined in the 
marketplace, not the courts. It`s time to settle the Microsoft case. 
Let the public decide if it wants new features bundled into their 
software or if they`d rather pay several manufactures for a more 
expensive and difficult to manage solution. Who is the government 
protecting? Microsoft offers outstanding products at a fair value. 
Their only crime has been their success.



MTC-00005387

From: Pursley, Hank G.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this!
    Best Regards
    Hank Pursley
    Site Support Consultant
    Marconi Managed Services
    Office (714) 986-8464
    Pager (888) 650-7957
    [email protected]



MTC-00005388

From: Lilli Sassenhagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It seems to me that those entities (states and companies) trying 
to derail the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ are 
interested in protecting their states or companies from competition 
rather than protecting the consumer. Microsoft`s innovations have 
made my life a lot easier.
    If the DOJ is interested in saving the consumer money let them 
stop these unwarranted delays of a settlement. Because the longer 
the delays the higher the legal fees for Microsoft and the 
government, which in the end would be passed on to the consumer by 
higher prices and higher taxes.
    Sincerely,
    Lilli Sassenhagen



MTC-00005389

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,RFC-822=attorney.general%po.state.ct...
Date: 1/2/02 10:38am Subject` Proposed Microsoft settlement 
harms children and continues Microsoft`s Monopoly
    Proposed Microsoft settlement harms children and continues 
Microsoft`s Monopoly I agree with the spirit of the following and 
would refuse to accept the settlement if I were a plaintiff. As a 
professional computer user and United States citizen, I urge you to 
do what you can to

[[Page 24716]]

make sure that the settlement is not made in its current form. Thank 
you.
    Open K-12 Petition Letter
To: Plaintiffs in the Nationwide Settlement Class Action Suit 
filling against Microsoft`s Anti-trust practices, MDL Docket No. 
1332
From: The 1245 Petition Signers of the Open K-12 Petition Drive 
project
    Dear Plaintiff,
    We, the 1245 signers of this letter are petitioning you to 
reconsider your decision, made on behalf of your attorneys 
representing you in your class action antitrust suit against 
Microsoft, to settle your suit with Microsoft. The reason being is 
that we feel the current conditions of the settlement to be unjust, 
not only to you, but to the software industry which provides 
software products and services to the K-12 school system.
    The reason why you have joined this class action suit filed 
against Microsoft is because of Microsoft`s antitrust behavior which 
has caused you damages you are seeking to remediate in court. The 
settlement you are about to enter into with Microsoft will in effect 
shutdown competition in the software industry which serves the K-12 
school program. This outcome, that of cutting of avenues of 
competition, is precisely what you are fighting against in your suit 
against Microsoft.
    By entering into this current settlement with Microsoft, the 
following actions will occur. You will dismiss all your charges 
against Microsoft, and agree never to pursue them again. In return, 
Microsoft will spend up wards of $500 million dollars in cash to 
promote Microsoft software products and services, and training on 
how to use these Microsoft products and services, in the nations 
`underprivileged' K-12 (kindergarten through high 
school) schools over a period of 5 years. $100 million of this is a 
1 for 2 matching fund raising program. (i.e. for every $2 dollars 
raised through fund raising efforts, Microsoft will donate $1 
dollar, up to $100 million dollars.) If no further funds are raised 
through private means, then the sum total would be $400 million 
dollars over 5 years.
    Microsoft will subsidize the purchase of up to 200,000 
refurbished personal computers, by paying for 1/3 of the cost for 
desktop systems, and 1/2 the cost of laptops. These PCs must be 
purchased through Microsoft certified refurbished PC dealers. 
Microsoft will provide software for these systems in the form of 
several hundred thousand licenses for various different Microsoft 
software products. These will range from operating system software, 
to office productivity software, to compilers. Microsoft is given 
the right to deny any wrong doing or admission of any guilt in your 
case you filed against Microsoft.
    The fact that Microsoft is spending money in this educational 
program for the underprivileged K-12 schools in return for you 
dropping your charges will not be considered an admission of guilt 
or any wrong doing which you state in your case. All material which 
you brought forward as evidence in your civil suit against Microsoft 
will either be destroyed or placed in custody of the attorneys 
representing you and/or Microsoft and labeled as confidential. This 
evidence which you brought against Microsoft will never be used in 
court in any other cases brought against Microsoft.
    Copies of any legal material written by your attorneys in 
regards to this case will be kept by them under confidentiality and 
thus will never be used in future cases against Microsoft. We, the 
1245 signers of this petition, would like to inform you that we feel 
this settlement to be unfair in that the final outcome of the 
settlement will be a major promotion of the use of Microsoft 
software in the nations underprivileged K-12 schools. This will be 
done in the following way.
    A `Foundation' will be established which will 
receive the funds of the settlement. This foundation will be 
governed by a board, made up of 5 members. Two of these members will 
be appointed by Microsoft, two will be appointed by the attorneys 
representing you, and one will be appointed by a unanimous vote of 
the first 4 board members. The `Foundation' will create 
an `Education Council' which will take charge of helping 
the board spend its funds. The members of the `Education 
Council' will be appointed by the board members of the 
`Foundation'.
    Among other responsibilities, the `Education 
Council', will be to educate the K-12 schools on how to spend 
the money they receive from the settlement. Included in this 
education program will be training material, curriculum materials, 
and training on curriculum integration, provided to the teachers of 
these K-12 schools. Section IV.d(d) of the settlement stipulates 
that the `Education Council' must consult with Microsoft 
on which training and curriculum material will be used as well as 
how to integrate this training material with the curriculum. 
Furthermore Microsoft will create a Microsoft certified refurbished 
PC seller, and funds from this settlement can only be spent on 
computers bought from these Microsoft certified refurbished PC 
sellers.
    In other words, Microsoft will setup a legal structure, though 
its `Foundation' and `Education Council' to 
ensure the funds are spent on promoting the use of Microsoft 
software in these underprivileged K-12 schools. Microsoft is also 
setting up a training and education program to train the teachers 
how to use Microsoft`s software product under the control and 
guidance of Microsoft. Finally, Microsoft is making sure the schools 
spend the settlement funds on purchasing used personal computers 
which are configured to run Microsoft software. There are other 
details in the settlement which further promote the use of Microsoft 
software products, but what`s listed above makes up the foundation 
of Microsoft`s K-12 education program.
    From these facts, we, the 1245 signers of this petition, 
recognize Microsoft`s efforts to use this settlement to train 
teachers and students on how to use Microsoft software. We also 
recognize that the ultimate goal of this settlement is to further 
expand Microsoft`s customer base through this aggressive training 
program aimed at the children of our underprivileged K-12 schools. 
We find this kind of targeted training program to be ill suited to 
be used as a settlement agreement for charges of antitrust behavior 
brought against Microsoft.
    We, the 1245 signers of this petition, would like for you to 
take one of two actions.
    1. Contact your attorney, and ask him to change the conditions 
of the settlement. The settlement we propose is to have Microsoft 
donate cash grants to the underprivileged K-12 schools which were 
targeted in the original settlement. The size of the individual 
grants should be in proportion to the number of students enrolled in 
the school. The schools should then be directed to spend the money 
on computer hardware, software, networking infrastructure and 
Internet connection bandwidth for systems used by the teachers and 
students, as they best see fit for themselves. We emphasize that 
these funds be restricted to upgrading the IT infrastructure just 
mentioned, used directly in the classroom environment. These would 
be upgrades to system used in general class rooms, libraries, 
science labs, computer clubs or which ever other teaching forum the 
school has developed for the teaching of their students. The role of 
the Foundation, as created in the settlement agreement, should 
expend its efforts to ensure this funding policy be enforced. 
Furthermore, in order to ensure that Microsoft has no part in 
directing how the settlement funds be spent, the Foundation created 
to manage the settlement funds should be made up of people from our 
leading science and education institutions. Examples of the people 
who should be sought to sit on the blue ribbon board of this 
foundation would be the head of the National Science Foundation, the 
head of the National Academy of Sciences, the Presidential Science 
Adviser, directors of our national laboratories, presidents of our 
renown universities, heads of teachers unions, the Secretary of 
Education, the Secretary of Commerce or other people who have great 
knowledge of both education, its advancement and the free and open 
market system upon which the strength of this country is founded. 
The task of forming a search committee for these board members 
should be given to the Honorable Judge Motz or someone to which he 
delegates this task.
    2. Or opt out of the settlement. Section 5 of the settlement 
states that you have a right to opt out of the settlement and 
preserve your right to pursue your claim against Microsoft. To do 
this, you need to send a letter to `The Settlement Notice 
Administrator', indicating your wish to do so. You have 150 
days to exercise your `opt-out' options after entry of 
the Court`s order for preliminary approval of the settlement.
    We thank you for reading our petition and listening to our 
concerns regarding the settlement you are about to enter with 
Microsoft. We, the 1245 signers of this petition, are very 
encouraged that Microsoft is willing to fund so handsomely a 
computer education program for our underprivileged schools. But we 
also want to make sure that it is done in a fair manner that 
promotes an open market place for software products and that this 
settlement not be used to exclude other software vendors from 
participating in

[[Page 24717]]

this education program. We also recognize that in order for our 
country to keep its role as a global leader, we need to ensure our 
children are properly educated using the latest technology tools. We 
must also ensure that the tools which they use are ones which they 
have chosen freely.



MTC-00005390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals 
ruling is both fair and just. I also believe that rapid settlement 
of the suit against Microsoft will be in the best interest of our 
country, and our economy.
    Thank you
    Richard Weis
    74 Farragut Rd.
    Cincinnati, Oh. 45218
    [email protected]



MTC-00005391

From: KWMEAD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs-Dept.of Justice
    I believe strongly that the current settlement agreed with DOJ 
and nine states is very fair to all parties, especially 
CONSUMERS.The freedom to innovate should be protected for the 
continued benefit of consumers and a competitive economy.The pending 
objection by the nine states and their efforts to stop the 
settlement is just a ploy by less competent competitors via their 
lobbyists to restrict Microsoft and add to the costs paid by 
consumers for inferior products.Consumers have not been properly 
heard in this case;they would have thrown it out long ago;it has 
been a waste of taxpayers money to proceed against Microsoft without 
any significant complaint of MICROSOFT USERS and that they were 
harmed in a material way !
    Kenneth W. Mead
    5357 Newport St.
    Lisle,IL. 60532



MTC-00005392

From: Forest Majors
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is more than fair. I say this as a 
consumer and as a software professional that served the industry for 
thirty years before retirement. Continued litigation would not serve 
the software industry or the consumer well. It is time to settle and 
bring this litigation to term.
    Forest Majors
    PO Box 459
    47 Clark Hill Road
    Hadlyme, Connecticut 06439
    (860) 526-5964



MTC-00005393

From: Ronald Kegge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern at the U.S. Department of Justice, Please 
end this ridiculous court case now. It is a complete waste of 
taxpayer money. If anything, the current settlement is unfair to 
Microsoft and only serves to benefit it`s competitors. Allowing this 
case to continue will only waste money, give Microsoft competitors 
unfair advantage, and bolster the ego`s of the state AG`s who filed 
the case against Microsoft. Please stop wasting my money!
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Kegge



MTC-00005394

From: Laura Riera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case_further litigation is 
only in the attorneys` interest and NOT in the public`s interest.
    Laura Riera
    PO Box 12479
    San Francisco, CA
    415-333-8063
    __-Original Message__-
From: Microsoft [mailto:0_23163_A43FE97C-035E-
[email protected] 
osoft.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 2:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: DOJ Wants to Hear From YOU!
    A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
    To cancel your subscription to this newsletter or stop all 
newsletters from microsoft.com, read the directions at the bottom of 
this message. For nearly four years, your voice has been 
instrumental in the debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of 
thousands of concerned citizens have communicated to their public 
officials about whether the Microsoft case should be settled or 
further litigated. Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few 
of Microsoft`s competitors, the federal government and nine states 
finally reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address 
the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This 
settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for 
them, the industry and the American economy.
    However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is 
more important than ever.
    The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the `public 
interest.' Unfortunately, a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Between now and January 28th, it is critical that the Department 
of Justice hears from you about the Microsoft settlement. The 
Department of Justice will then take all public comments and 
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District 
Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the 
Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th. 
Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the 
government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today 
to ensure your voice is heard.
    Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of 
the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment 
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at:
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
    Thanks for taking the time to make a difference. 



MTC-00005395

From: Tom Gottshalk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a computer user and as a citizen interested in good 
government which includes equal justice under the law. I have 
written to the DOJ and my elected officials several times on the 
subject of our government`s anti-trust suit against Microsoft 
several times. On each of those occasions I stressed my conviction 
that the search for justice has been completely distorted by all 
parties involved. I am convinced to this day that justice has not 
been severed most particularly for the party stated by the DOJ as 
the injured party, namely the consumer. Everyone involved in the 
case has benefited except for the computer buying public and the 
taxpayer of this country. Lawyers have gained fees, politicians have 
gained in reputation, The DOJ has gained by saying they are 
protecting the public, Microsoft stock holders have gained despite 
the efforts of the US Government, and most especially Microsoft`s 
competitors gained by having their arch rival entangled in a legal 
briar patch. I`m not saying I think Microsoft is innocent of the 
allegations, clearly they are not. I am saying in this case a 
monopoly producing a personal computer operating system was and 
still is a good thing. I am also convinced that the only process 
remedy that makes any sense for the public and for Microsoft 
especially for their competitors is the process of the open market 
undistorted by any hand of the government even in the slightest way.
    For proof of the truth of the above statement just look at the 
recent introduction of Microsoft`s newest version of the Windows 
Operating System, Windows XP. In their attempt to make pirating 
impossible ( the real problem in the software industry) they have 
made the multiple computer home user buy separate copied for each 
computer. This is as much a marketing ploy as it is a copyright 
issue. As a marketing gimmick it will backfire and cost Microsoft 
tens of thousands of sales. I predict Microsoft will be forced to 
relax this requirement to gain additional sales. And Microsoft has 
already had a serious security issues with XP which will

[[Page 24718]]

cost them more sales a situation that will require MS to re-write 
portions of XP. In the end the dominance of MS Windows will falter 
because users will find better ways of doing the same kinds of 
things they now do on PCs. The government is on the verge of 
institutionalizing the MS Windows operating system in the interest 
of justice for the consumer by strict so called process regulations 
and rules. Such a mission by the DOJ is bound to fail because 
regulated products survive only because their regulation survives.
    Please consider the only possible justice for the consumer is 
open markets that reward producers of good products with sales at 
fair prices and punish producers of inferior products with no sales 
regardless of their price. The DOJ should keep in mind the consumer 
as an equal to the law and that in the end exercises more power than 
the law.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Gottshalk
    344 Remington Dr.
    Oviedo, FL 32765



MTC-00005396

From: mt mdt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow the tentitive agreements that Microsoft has made to 
be implemented and do not levy anymore penalties against Microsoft. 
I have been against this litigation from the start and it should be 
dropped.
    Milton Till
    Milton D. Till
    love ya babe



MTC-00005397

From: Jerry Bordic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to conclude the Microsoft Settlement and end more 
litigation.



MTC-00005398

From: John Zubac
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not feel that you have not served the public interest 
litigating Microsoft. I feel that Microsoft should not get away with 
their sneaky and devious past practices. They continue with their 
same practices today. They offered a free Microsoft Certified 
Professional exam for upgrading from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000 
(Microsoft Windows 2000 Accelerated Exam for MCP`s Certified on 
Windows NT 4, Exam #070-240) but do not give you final 
marks to measure your skills in the new operating system. Is this 
because they want to waste your time and money by failing everyone 
on this exam, so that they are required to take four exams which 
cost $600 US. This exam is also four hours long. These are the first 
things I thought because I don`t trust anyone and NOTHING is free in 
this world. I also wanted to know my weaknesses in order to get my 
employer to upgrade my education. They need the proof. You should 
make Microsoft pay to the full extent of the law. They should 
finally pay for everything they have done to ruin small businesses, 
control education, and control this industry.
    John Zubac, MCSE, MCP+I, MCP
    CPSO
    80 College Street
    Toronto, Ontario
    M5G2E2



MTC-00005399

From: A. Bairamian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The following is my input regarding the DOJ settlement proposal 
for the Microsoft lawsuit.
    I have been in the software industry for about 20 years. I use 
Microsoft products both at my work and personally.
    Microsoft is one of the greatest companies ever created in the 
world. Their dominance_achieved by hard work, innovation, and 
marketing skill_is a great boon to the PC and software 
industries: a common OS, and applications that work seamlessly is 
very, very important to have.
    If Microsoft does no innovate and produce quality products, it 
will become irrelevant and disappear, like so many other software 
and hardware manufacturers.
    We the people buy Microsoft products because we want to: unlike 
the government, Microsoft cannot compel us to hand over our money to 
them on pain of jail.
    DOJ must not hamper Microsoft`s ability to innovate.
    DOJ must stop wasting our tax money on a frivolous lawsuit 
brought on by petty and jealous Microsoft competitors, and presided 
over by a biased judge.
    DOJ`s lawsuit against Microsoft triggered the slide in the tech 
market which eventually turned into a crash: average Americans lost 
$billions in equity, because of DOJ misadventures.
    It is well past time to stop harassing Microsoft, a great 
American asset, and settle the suit ASAP.
    A. Bairamian
    Glendale, CA.



MTC-00005400

From: Karuna Karan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Hello
    I understand this is the US government site that accepts 
comments from world citizens on the Microsoft case.
    Let me first give you a background of myself. I am an engineer 
and I run a small electronic business in Hong Kong. I was retrenched 
from my job six months ago and so started this business. I am at 
present working hard to meet my needs.
    When I started this business six months ago, I bought a brand 
new laptop which was bundled with Windows ME operating system. Now, 
everyday, my computer system crashes on an average three times. The 
hard disk had also crashed once in the last 6 months time.
    This sad situation is that I have no other alternates to help 
me. Microsoft has effectively killed the growth of any good software 
that answers to consumers needs pro-actively.
    I am sure millions of computers users around the world are 
facing the similar problem to mine. Microsoft has effectively 
reduced productivity and efficiency all around the world. If someone 
was to calculate the amount of time and data lost due to mal-
functioning of Microsoft products, I am sure it will run into 
Trillions of USDollars.
    Microsoft has to be stopped immediately ! They should also be 
made to return their ill-gotten wealth to the world citizens. PLEASE 
DO IT NOW ! best wishes Karunakaran



MTC-00005401

From: Sally Sargent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice_
    I would like to urge you to discontinue any further litigation 
in the Microsoft case. I believe that the actions taken against 
Microsoft 2+ years ago spurred the most devastating recession in 
this nation`s history and it is time for the Government to do the 
right thing and stop this direction. One could argue the direct 
correlation to the economic downturn, but I challenge you to look at 
the statistical data about tech performance and economic performance 
since the DOJ first took action against Microsoft, if you are so 
inclined to `argue.'
    It is beyond time for this country to heal, from Sept. 11 and 
from the downturn in our economy. In order to do this, the 
strongest, most talented, most productive company in the United 
States should be allowed to perform without intervention of the 
government. Microsoft`s business practices that were once challenged 
no longer exist and, in fact, the market is different and there are 
many other companies who have technology that could essentially, 
lock out competition. However, I am not advocating that the DOJ even 
attempt to identify these companies. I am advocating that for profit 
companies who may compete in these areas, including Microsoft, 
should be smart enough and tough enough to ensure they can compete. 
Clearly, the government can only dilute excellent performance in an 
industry it knows little about. Actions against private industries 
are detrimental to our country`s economic health. Please, I urge you 
to end the Microsoft case now.
    If there is something you want to look at closer, in the 
interest of football fans across America, check out and do something 
about the collusion that exists between network TV, NFL football 
team owners, when they black out games in the local viewing areas 
that are not sold out. Who benefits? NFL team owners. Who`s getting 
paid off? ??? It is very difficult to build a local fan base if fans 
cannot attend a game via TV. Who is hurt? Local fans, local sports 
bars and restaurants, local advertisers, local tv stations, local 
players, local coaches. I urge you to take this on instead. I highly 
doubt this would cause a 2-year downturn in our economy but would 
greatly benefit millions of Americans while taking to task the 
otherwise undetected NFL powerbase.

[[Page 24719]]

    Thanks for your time,
    Sally Sargent
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00005402

From: Frankhouser, Douglas_HFD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all concerned:
    I would like to express my support of the Microsoft Settlement. 
I believe that it will benefit all parties concerned, especially 
consumers.
    Regards,
    Doug Frankhouser
    Conroe, Texas
    [email protected] 



MTC-00005403

From: Mauvais Genie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:00pm
    Subject: Little red Linux-hood and the big bad Mcrosoft For 
years now people have been railing against Microsoft for various 
reasons. Personally, my dislike began with Windows 3.11 over nothing 
important. See, I just found it to be a little patronizing. I wanted 
some little digital Toto to pull the curtain back and show me the 
truth. I could not understand why Microsoft was so insistent that 
they not tell me how it works. Here it is a decade or so later and 
its only gotten worse. Enough of the Adjectives, here`s the point. 
Microsoft, to their credit, managed to create an operating system 
that an intoxicated monkey could use. At the same time, an office 
suite and later a web browser, and all too soon...`.net` which from 
my perspective kinda like steering into the skid.
    As for me, there isn`t anything I can do about it. If you create 
something geared for the dumbest person you know, before you know it 
everybody`s using it. Everything is based on the lowest common 
denominator, and in this case its real low. Some one with absolutely 
no computer knowledge can use Windows and their expectations will be 
met because they don`t have any. The demands they place on the 
operating systems and tasks running with in it are insignificant. 
And there are all too many people out there that don`t even 
understand that there is a difference between the computer itself, 
the operating system, and the Internet. This speaks volumes about 
the way Microsoft blinds consumers and encourages ignorant users.
    As I said, for years now people have been railing against 
Microsoft. I had my reasons and other people had reasons I couldn`t 
understand. For some it was that Microsoft got too big too fast. 
Others had conspiracy theories that I found to be absurd. But 
through it all, there were those of us out there, forced to use it 
at jobs, forced to tolerate friends and family using Windows and 
having to deal with them. Deal with them in the non-descript phone 
calls of `something` being wrong and being sent files that need to 
be opened with Microsoft programs or just deleted for lack of 
interest. For the most part, the fight against Microsoft`s 
`attitude` (I guess that`s the best word) has been something akin to 
poking a polar bear with a really short stick. There have been small 
gains in the Open Source community, And keep in mind that any gain 
in any technology that competes with Microsoft to date is an 
impressive one which I support completely. But these gains I believe 
are exaggerated and have little impact on the market. I don`t 
believe, given the current climate, that Mr. Gates is loosing any 
sleep over the Open Source community.
    That said, the Open Source community needed a bigger stick. One 
I had hoped they`d found in the DoJ. I thought it was clear, that 
Microsoft had gone too far in too many ways. I mean really, even the 
stupidest monkey will only go so far out on the limb. And I`m not 
even really talking about from the standpoint of legality or 
technology which are not as readily visible. I`m talking about 
`corporate arrogance'. Its a kind of arrogance that 
comes from a company that knows they have you. Like Ma Bell before 
the breakup: `what are you going to do, go with another phone 
company??' Funny now isn`t it. But think about what long 
distance prices would be at now. Think about the state cell phone 
technology would be at. Think about the fact that there would be no 
DSL or DHL connections. These advances seem largely the result of 
competition. As it stands now, I can get an Internet connection 
through a satellite dish and a cellphone from any number of 
companies willing to give me a phone just for signing up. I don`t 
even need a home phone and the phone company knows it.
    The phone company analogy serves no more than pointing out an 
example of the good fight gone right. Where very innovative people, 
given more opportunity explode onto the scene, pushing technology 
forward in some small part to fly in the face of their oppressors. I 
think the fight against Microsoft`s `policies` is a good 
fight. It warrants consideration. I also believe that the pending 
outcome seems to be more of a nod to Microsoft than any sort of 
penalty. All this talk of freedom is fine and has merit, but it 
really isn`t my point. My point lies in the idea of doing what is 
fundamentally right in the ethical arena, to ensure that technology 
has the ability to move forward in the most efficient, beneficial 
way it can. If there is a matter of National Security here, it is in 
the idea of protecting the advancement of technology, not in 
protecting the advancement of Microsoft.
    At this point, I would predict that a post-trial celebration 
party will be thrown by Microsoft`s new spokesman....O.J. Simpson. 
History will frown on this case`s outcome as short-sighted.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Ware
    P.S. This was typed on a Compaq Deskpro EN computer with a 
sticker on it that says `Designed For Microsoft' in 
Microsoft Word running on Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6, 
where it was routed through a Microsoft Exchange Server on the way 
out of the LAN via a Microsoft Hotmail being fed into Outlook. I`m 
at work.
    Permission to reprint in part or whole, granted to Dennis Powell 
and his ilk as he feels is appropriate. Its the least I can do.



MTC-00005404

From: chuck(u)mathis Mathis
To: Microsoft ATR,chgojoe44,Fussebd,Cliff Knudson,Rick...
Date: 1/2/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With regards to the Tunney Act;
    Dear DOJ Participants in The Microsoft Settlement, I know you 
feel you have the welfare of the common man at heart with your 
decision making, regarding the Microsoft Suit, and I say, `God 
bless you for your concern.' But, correct me if I am wrong, 
did not all tech stocks in general take a fall upon the outset of 
the MS suit? And has it not continued to plunge even further 
discounting 9-11-01?
    Now I am by no means a rocket scientist, an economist or, 
`thank God', a lawyer but I am able to see that this 
absurd suit against innovative free enterprise has had a decidedly 
adverse affect on my world. I repeat, MY WORLD!!!
    Now, more than ever, my beloved USA needs strong economic 
factors to bolster it as we teeter on the edge of untold disaster. 
In God`s name, why would any entity tamper with the economics of the 
company that started it all as well as continues it? Look around 
you. You may not personally be affected but if you take the power 
hungry glare from your stare you will see countless others who are 
drastically affected by the MS Suit and our common state of the day. 
Could you sleep at night knowing that you drove the final nail into 
the coffin? I think not.
    Leave Microsoft intact where it can continue to be the Flagship 
of our great nations technical infrastructure. If we are to overcome 
the current economic crises we must continue to lead the way in 
information and technology. If a fourth of a company is good in your 
thinking then a whole company is fortuitous beyond belief for this 
country.
    I thank you for taking the time to read this and I apologize if 
I have offended you in any manner, but in my defense, the actions 
against Microsoft that are being bandied by the Department of 
Justice are an offense to me, my country and the capitalist spirit 
which has made the United States the greatest nation in the 
universe.
    Use your powers to be wise not vindictive.
    Best regards,
    Charles R. Mathis Jr.
    1642 Country Lakes Dr., #A
    Naperville, IL 60563
    [email protected]
    It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become 
a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given 
liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, 
servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment 
of his guilt.
    John Philpot Curran: `Speech upon the Right of 
Election', 1790.



MTC-00005405

From: Bill Liedtke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:18pm

[[Page 24720]]

Subject: Microsoft/ Tunney Act Comment
To: Department of Justice
From: William P. Liedtke, Attorney 27443 Linwood Circle, North 
Olmsted, OH 44070 440-777-0478
    Dear Sirs,
    Regarding the Microsoft Settlement/Tunney Act Comment Period, it 
is the personal opinion of this writer that the Government (State 
and Federal) has gone well beyond what was necessary in the above 
case. The conclusion of the Federal case should have concluded all 
litigation (including state Anti-Trust litigation). Microsoft is the 
only true success story of a large U.S. business recently, in what 
has been termed a `down economy'. Must this nation 
attack each success story (when we have so few recently). Any rule 
or regulation agreed to by settlement with Microsoft must be made 
mandatory upon each of its competitors, so that none may take 
advantage of a company hamstrung by Anti-Trust litigation. .
    Cordially,
    William P. Liedtke, Attorney at Law
    [email protected]
    1/2/02



MTC-00005406

From: Wu, David
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm
Subject: Settlement
    As a software developer, I support the settlement between DOJ 
and MS.
    David Wu



MTC-00005407

From: Lee Behel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    For God`s sake, settle the damn thing! It has gone on way too 
far already. Microsoft should never have been put through this.
    Lee Behel



MTC-00005408

From: William Pennington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm
Subject: Settle.
    The case against Micrsoft is a joke. Whatever settlement they 
are willing to offer, take it.
    William Pennington
    President
    Pacific West Builders, Inc.
    7025 Longley Lane, Suite 60
    Reno, NV 89511
    775-852-8453 x17
    775-852-1042 fax



MTC-00005409

From: Brad Nickel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:25pm
Subject: Time to move on.
    Enough wasting our time and tax dollars pursuing Microsoft 
because they are successful. The whining losers that started this 
process at Netscape and others, just could not figure out how to 
compete effectively, because they were morons. Microsoft should be 
held up by our government as a model of what competitive capitalism 
should be.
    Thanks,
    Brad Nickel
    717 Laurel Way
    Casselberry, FL 32707
    407-388-9975



MTC-00005410

From: Terry Voss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People,
    As a software developer age 52 I have seen the state of 
competition before and after Microsoft was formed as a company. 
Competition is still healthy and very important there is much more 
importance attached to created standards that help businesses 
communicate with each other.
    I was ill-concerned when Microsoft was charged by our 
government, but now feel that the settlement has been somewhat fair.
    Thank you for allowing my opinion to be heard.
    Terry Voss
    Developer/Owner
    Computer Consulting
    Microsoft Certified Partner
    http://www.computer-consulting.com 
    [email protected]
    2403 North Nettleton Street
    Spokane WA 99205
    Tel: 509-327-7202
    Fax: 509-327-2303
    http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com 



MTC-00005411

From: Small, Vincent
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop dragging this thing out.
    There is plenty of competition in the Software and Online 
Services Space. For the most part, the states that are dissenting 
are backed by companies that do not want to compete with Microsoft. 
They are the real nemesis of innovation and change.
    Vincent Small
    Vice President
    Financial Software Systems Inc.



MTC-00005412

From: George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm
Subject: Allow Microsoft to Innovate
    Allow Microsoft to continue focusing on product innovations 
rather than defending itself in the courts. I strongly suggest that 
the government drops all charges against Microsoft.
    George Polychroniou



MTC-00005413

From: Clay M. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I strongly support the Microsoft settlement in its current form. 
Please bring this case to a prompt conclusion. Clay M. Smith



MTC-00005414

From: Jiang, Peng
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe the current agreement between Microsoft and the 
federal government and the nine states represents the best interests 
of consumers and the American economy.
    Thanks for your time.
    Peng Jiang, Ph.D.
    Member of Technical Staff
    SonoSite, Inc.
    21919 30th Dr. SE
    Bothell, WA 98021-3904
    Tel. (425) 951-1337
    Fax (425) 951-1201
    Email [email protected]
    Web www.sonosite.com
    SonoSite*
    Imagine What You Can Do



MTC-00005415

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm
Subject: Re: microsoft settlement
    Time to settle for a small amount and everyone get back to 
business.



MTC-00005416

From: Smith, Georgia
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion with regard to 
the Microsoft Settlement. I support the courts ruling and ask that 
you continue to uphold the decision. Our economy has faced enough 
uncertaincy in recent times and it is important that we move forward 
and do everything possible to strengthen our position. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Georgia B. Smith
    Vice President,Federation Services
    Newspaper Association of America
    1921 Gallows Road, Suite 600
    Vienna, VA 22182
    (703) 902-1784
    (703) 902-1773 fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00005417

From: Wayne Newcomb
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I really believe the current settlement is harsh enough on 
Microsoft. I believe the states who are still against the settlement 
are looking to gain an unfair advantage, (take advantage) of the 
situation and I believe if you allow this our economy will be 
further damaged by vultures who occupy places of authority!
    Wayne Newcomb
    Dean of Students
    Word to the World College

[[Page 24721]]



MTC-00005418

From: Stephen Land
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept this communication as my support for the 
negotiated settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I hope you will 
not be distracted by the politics that underlies the position of the 
dissenting states and certain members of Congress.
    Stephen Land
    (770) 698-9500
    http://www.divorceland.com 



MTC-00005419

From: Frank Johnson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to move on with this case, this settlement is 
reasonable. there will always be those who have an agenda that will 
be disgruntled, do not allow them to hold our economy hostage to 
their own interests.
    Frank Johnson



MTC-00005420

From: Robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Having read the proposed settlement in detail, I believe that it 
is clearly in the best interest of the government, the US consumer, 
and the world economy to conclude this matter as soon as possible by 
implementing the settlement as published.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Robert F. Hausman, Jr.
    President
    Rockridge Information Systems, Inc.
    1214 Camino Carlos Rey Suite 2
    Santa Fe, NM 87505
    (505) 474-7404



MTC-00005421

From: Jack Warring
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft settlement that has already been agreed 
to by 9 states and Microsoft. Let`s put the Microsoft case to bed 
and stop wasting a lot of money on legal fees.
    Thanks,
    Jack



MTC-00005422

From: Mark Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TWIMC,
    I am not a Microsoft employee, however I am completely on 
Microsoft`s side of this case. They have helped greatly helped our 
country and should not be punished for the success they have earned. 
I believe it should not be the Governments job to play referee 
between competing companies_especially in the highly 
competitive Hi Tech Computer industry. Sun Microsystems, IBM, Oracle 
and the like should desist in wanting government intervention. If 
they were in Microsoft`s position_they would behave the same 
way.
    Thank you for your time,
    Mark Reed
    Mark M. Reed
    Senior Systems Engineer
    (972) 728-8161
    [email protected]



MTC-00005423

From: Dave Howland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm
Subject: Gov. Meddling
    Why don`t you investigate Tyson Foods and leave Microsoft alone. 
You are only hurting the stock market and the economy.
    David J. Howland



MTC-00005424

From: Paul Jasper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To the District Court:
    It is important that this case be settled now. Microsoft is an 
innovative company, without whom the Internet would not be as good 
as it is. This case needs to be settled now without further cost to 
the taxpayer.
    Sincerely, Paul T. Jasper
    Paul Jasper
    [email protected]



MTC-00005425

From: Mike Stolper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: settlement
    The government should look at areas that stifle innovation 
rather than encourage it. Stay away from technology. Leave Microsoft 
alone.
    Michael Stolper
    1606 Clemson Circle
    La Jolla, Ca. 92037



MTC-00005426

From: Dan Messersmith
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:04pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my desire for you to accept the current 
proposed settlement and stop the litigation associated with 
Microsoft. Our business has been and will continue to be a Microsoft 
customer. Their innovation is second to none and we want that to 
continue.
    Thanks,
    Dan E. Messersmith, CPA
    Duncan, Newman, Messersmith & McCormick, Ltd.
    Certified Public Accountants & Consultants
    1700 Malvern Road
    Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901
    Phone: 501-624-7400
    Fax: 501-623-6451
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00005427

From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: DOJ: I think the time has come to settle the case against 
Microsoft.
    The DOJ:
    I think the time has come to settle the case against Microsoft. 
The proposed settement is fair for both Microsoft and consumers and 
in the interest of the country I propose that the DOJ accept the 
settlement.
    Jeff Graber



MTC-00005428

From: Jones, Michael L
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to show my support for the settlement currently in 
place. While I think the case against Microsoft was wrong in the 
first place, at least we can put this behind us now. As a economist 
I am particularly concerned about our economy. I am especially 
concerned about businesses using the anti-trust laws as a tool to 
harm another company in order to gain competitive advantage. The 
case brought against Microsoft had more to do with hurting the 
competition than with helping the consumer.
    Please settle without further delay. If you change anything, 
reduce the impact on Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Michael L. Jones
    Albuquerque



MTC-00005429

From: Judy Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Time has come to put this ugliness behind us and move forward. 
Although harsh, I believe the settlement terms are fair and 
acceptable to the American public.
    Let`s be done with this witch hunt and move on.
    Thank you,
    Judy Morris
    Spokane Washington



MTC-00005430

From: Michael A. Strasser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe it necessary to settle the case against Microsoft and 
convey to you my desire that the Department of Justice accept and 
implement the proposed agreement as it stands now.
    There are many reasons to do this at this time, one being that 
it will help add a stabilizing effect on the business community and 
help bolster our national economy.
    Additionally, while I don`t always agree with how Microsoft 
conducts it`s business, I felt that this was a waste of taxpayer 
money and was a major part of damaging our national economy. Sun, 
Oracle and Netscape were upset because they couldn`t compete (mainly 
because they were too busy fighting with other companies and not 
paying attention to their own products) and duped the government 
into being their champion. We all lost on that one!
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael A. Strasser



MTC-00005431

From: Prince, Lee

[[Page 24722]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would urge the government and the USDOJ to retain the 
settlement reached. The sentiments of the other nine states to 
continue the warfare is not helpful to the future of my industry.
    I work in the software industry, in no way related to Microsoft. 
But the uncertainty introduced by the litigation has harmed the 
industry as a whole. It needs to be stopped for the future of our 
industry and ultimately for the future of the consumer of software.
    It is time for the litigation to stop and the right to innovate 
be validated.
    Please affirm the settlement and reject the demands of the 
greedy nine state attorneys-general.
    Lee Prince
    5632 Mavis Place
    Hansville, WA 98340
    Lead Technical Support Analyst
    ERP Backup & Recovery
    (360) 638-0116 (direct)
    (360) 908-1214 (cell)
    [email protected]



MTC-00005432

From: Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I want to express my support as a consumer for the settlement.
    Ken Weissblum



MTC-00005433

From: Philip Royalty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept my opinion that I believe the Microsoft Settlement 
must be settled at once. The consumer and the American economy is 
not being helped by prolonging this. Let`s get it behind us and go 
on to bigger and better things. Philip Royalty



MTC-00005434

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please stop the letigation the settlement is more than fair 
since Microsoft was never guilty in the first place.
    The fultons
    [email protected]



MTC-00005435

From: Jeff Aaron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
    Thank you for all that you have done on behalf of the public but 
I believe the agreed upon settlement is adequate and fair to all 
parties involved. Please do not bring this back for further 
litigation...it will only benefit a few parties and stifle further 
innovation from Microsoft. As history has shown, innovation not 
litigation is beneficial to the consumer. We as consumers are what 
matter not the lawyers. Thanks again!!
    Happy New Year!!



MTC-00005436

From: Shahbaz, Ali
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am happy to see Microsoft has not been broken in to two. 
However, I think Microsoft must support Java, and open system. Open 
system is the key. The new Microsoft XP has many problems with other 
programs. Microsoft should not dictate its terms to the industry.
    Regards,
    Ali Shahbaz, B.A.Sc.
    Tel: 604-643-7372



MTC-00005437

From: Herb Biddle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    It is critical in my view that the litigation regarding 
Microsoft that has consumed the public record be settled as agreed. 
To do so will only benefit the country.
    H. D. Biddle



MTC-00005438

From: Buss, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a taxpaying citizen, it appears the settlement is fair and 
reasonable. Thus, it would seem in the best interest of all 
concerned to minimize additional expenses by ending the time period 
for additional litigation.
    Thank you!
    Bob Buss
    Senior Manager
    Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson LLP
    469 Security Blvd.
    P.O. Box 12237
    Green Bay, WI 54307-2237
    (920) 662-2851(Telephone)
    (920) 662-0024(Fax)
    [email protected]
    www.wipfli.com



MTC-00005439

From: David Chester Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear US Dept of Justice:
    I am firmly of the opinion that the whole lawsuit against 
Microsoft was a huge waste of taxpayers` money. I find the 
settlement overall to be oppressive to Microsoft, but I would be 
satisfied to accept it to end the controversy. I am a user of 
Microsoft products, and greatly appreciate the order and consistency 
that Microsoft has brought to the computer world in general. Their 
leadership has always kept the consumer in mind.
    David Chester Smith
    Metairie, LA
    [email protected]



MTC-00005440

From: Greg Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was totally opposed in the beginning to this lawsuit as I view 
it as a very biased action to afford competitors of Microsoft a 
competitive advantage. This is totally contrary to a free market 
society. All of the other states that haven`t signed on to this 
settlement should be forced to sign on. I think that this lawsuit 
serves to stifle and restrict innovation and private investment.
    Gregory A. Taylor



MTC-00005441

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think the DOJ/Gov have better things to do ,, What a joke ,, 
If it was not for Microsoft we would be 10 years behind. When you 
buy a new PC, windows /XP are the cheapest thing on the PC, I do not 
use all of Microsoft`s soft ware i use what i like ,, DOJ should be 
looking at ENRON,,,,,,
    Howard & Elaine Freeman



MTC-00005443

From: PAUL M. MCKINLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We urge you to settle the Microsoft case; no more litigation in 
the matter.
    Paul & Layne McKinley



MTC-00005444

From: Tucker Cheadle
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    The Microsoft case has gone on long enough. By way of background 
the Wall Street Journal reported that this case was instigated by 
Sun Microsystems and Oracle who were worried that Microsoft would 
develop products in their areas. They spent $3,000,000 on a mock 
trial for Joel Klein`s benefit, made all of their lawyers and 
engineers available to the government and then Joel Klein agreed to 
pursue the case.
    The original allegations have long been dismissed, ie., the 
browser, or lost and the government is left with a monopoly finding 
and no ability to break up the company.
    Yet, Sun and Oracle go on and on and on. In an unrelated civil 
case Sun and Oracle are opposing a settlement with over 100 
plaintiffs and Microsoft...and neither Sun nor Oracle are or ever 
have been parties in the case. And, they prevailed on Governor Davis 
to join them on behalf of California. Most interestingly, among the 
chief complaints of Sun and Oracle were the Windows desk top system. 
Although Windows has been out for some 9 years, neither Sun nor 
Oracle have ever created their own desk top system. They could have 
done it years ago, or even now, but they do not do so. Rather, they 
have embraced the Windows platform and have extended it in their own 
ways.
    It is long time to move on. The settlement is reasonable and 
should be approved.



MTC-00005445

From: Willner, David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm

[[Page 24723]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a long-time PC user, I ask that the settlement agreed to by 
the DOJ and Microsoft be accepted and that the objections raised by 
the dissenting States be rejected.
    The integration of services Microsoft provides (operating 
system, productivity applications and internet browser) continue to 
be of highest importance to me. Requiring Microsoft to disable such 
integration and manage these services through separate companies 
would be a major technological step backward, offering consumers 
only a false sense of product choice while adding significantly to 
the complexity of PC setup.
    Thank you for your attention to this comment.
    David Willner
    This message and attachments, if any, contain information that 
may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or 
authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or 
disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
message or its attachments. If you have received the message in 
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to 
 
[email protected] and delete the message. Thank you very 
much.
    CC:David Willner ([email protected])



MTC-00005446

From: Jim McChesney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    010202 1127
    I support settlement of this spurious and frivolous lawsuit 
under the terms of the Tunney Act. Let us put a stop to this 
egregious nonsense and allow Microsoft to get on with its innovative 
and profitable business.
    Sincerely,
    JPM
    James P. McChesney
    Parker College of Chiropractic
    2500 Walnut Hill Lane
    Dallas, Texas 75229
    Attn.: C.I.R.A. Ste. 238 South
    EMail: [email protected]
    VOICE: 1.800.438.6932 Ext. 7130
    972.438.6932 Ext. 7130
    FAX: 214.902.2446
    WHB



MTC-00005447

From: Kathleen Jane Dunlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department,
    I strongly urge settlement of the Justice Deparment`s case 
against Microsoft. This case should be closed and no continuance or 
extensions of the case by individual states should be considered or 
allowed.
    Kathleen J. Dunlap
    General Manager
    Dunlap Consulting Int`l
    Dunlap Consulting International, LLC
    Niue Tourism Office
    959 Thornhill Road
    Lexington, Va 24450
    540-463-7092
    540-463-7182-fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00005448

From: Marwan Shouery
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is totally wrong to punish Microsoft for being the 
most successful company ever. Microsoft should be the one who 
decides what to put in its software packages and no one else.
    M Shouery



MTC-00005449

From: Kaplansky, Lazar (ECCS)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I strongly believe that the settlement is reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved. The settlement is good for the consumers and 
American economy and should be approved. The nine states that do not 
want to settle are not looking after `public interest'; 
all they want is to confiscate as much money as they can from the 
Microsoft. That should not be allowed to happen.
    Thank you and Best Regards,
    Lazar Kaplansky
    22 Garwood rd.
    Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
    email: [email protected]
    



MTC-00005450

From: Dr. J. Rumpakis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You have reached a settlement, now stick to it! The nine states 
that are holdouts are acting like children who didn`t get their way 
on the playground. Let`s all get back to business, Lord knows the 
country sure needs it. Thank you for your time in this matter.
    Regards,
    John
    John M. B. Rumpakis, O.D., F.A.A.O
    Chairman & CEO
    Practice Resource Management, Inc.
    www.PracticeResourceMgmt.com



MTC-00005452

From: Paul N. Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:32pm
Subject: Re: Settlemnt Issue
    It is my opinion that the issue has been fairly judged and the 
settlement does allow Microsoft to continue in their intention to 
provide great software. It also does allow for a choice and it 
forces their products to succeed only if they are reliable and more 
beneficial to those of their competitors.
    Paul N. Norton 1/2/2002



MTC-00005453

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern
    I am in favor of the settlement of the lawsuit. It is time to 
get back to the business of innovation.
    Thank you for your time.
    Pray for America
    Peace,
    Deborah Stachowiak



MTC-00005454

From: Steve Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I think the DOJ has invested way to much time and tax dollars 
trying to destroy a successful technology contributor. Microsoft has 
lead the US, in many ways others haven`t, couldn`t or wouldn`t.
    Leave Microsoft alone.
    Steve Ross
    President



MTC-00005455

From: Evelyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please proceed with settlement. It is in the best interests of 
customer to settle now without further litigation.
    Gordon R. Phillips @ [email protected]



MTC-00005456

From: Ray (038) Debbie Reaume
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    We live in a capitalist society. Those who make great products 
will drive up demand. Those who don`t create great products fall by 
the wayside. Please settle this Microsoft lawsuit now.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond and Deborah Reaume



MTC-00005457

From: Timothy N. Tangredi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    I wanted to share with you my two cents about the pending 
Microsoft settlement. Microsoft needs some oversight as you have 
proposed to limit any strong-arm sales tactics. Technology is moving 
rapidly and the operating system will be radically different in just 
a few short years. Further restrictions on Microsoft will only 
serve, in my opinion, to move this industry into a fragmented state 
with foreign firms taking the lead given strong government support. 
I liken the situation to that of Boeing and Airbus. The US needs to 
maintain its superiority in the high technology arena.
    The nine States protesting the settlement are needlessly wasting 
taxpayer dollars as the ends suggested do not justify the purported 
crime.
    Please accept the settlement and let Microsoft get back to what 
it does best_making great software at great prices.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Tangredi
    Dais-Analytic Corporation

[[Page 24724]]

    11552 Prosperous Drive
    Odessa, FL 33556
    727.375.8484 Ext 305
    707.924.2352 FAX
    http://www.daisanalytic.com
    Privileged/Confidential Information is contained in this 
message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or 
responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not 
copy or deliver this message to anyone.
    In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify 
the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your 
employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. 
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do 
not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood 
as neither given nor endorsed by it.



MTC-00005458

From: Kecia Bruce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is in the public interest. Our economy 
does NOT need more litigation that benefits a few special interests, 
and harms consumers.



MTC-00005459

From: Mike Gallop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To Whom it may concern,
    As an investor and U.S. citizen, I think it`s high time that the 
U.S. Gov. stopped spending our tax money on the pursuit of one of 
the most successful companies in the U.S. at the behest of a small 
group of well funded special interests. Former and current U.S. 
officials have been paid to lobby against the settlement, these are 
the only voices of dissention, most people, myself included, only to 
want this witch hunt to end. Let the market sort it out, not results 
purchased by special interests. Our enemies are outside our borders, 
we don`t need to be torn apart from within.



MTC-00005460

From: George J. Popovich, Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    All things considered, it would be in the best interest of all 
consumers to settle the Microsoft case per the agreement already 
reached between Microsoft and the DOJ.



MTC-00005461

From: Ken Shelton
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel that as long as I have the option to use any software 
with the windows platform that Microsoft can add all of their 
software to the platform for all I care.
    Example. I use CompuServe as my internet provider and not msn. I 
use the office program which is an add-on simply because it is more 
universal. But I use Quicken and Quick Books instead of Money for my 
financial program and I use TD Waterhouse for use as a financial 
tool. Anyone has the ability to use a software program from any 
other source.
    If they decide that there is a better program out their. Just as 
I feel that Quicken is a better program than money and is a more 
universal program. Unix is a platform that is winning a lot of 
support and so is the Macintosh platform and they seem to thrive.
    I am a business man and I guarantee you that in a competitive 
market we stay on our toes to keep our position and improve our 
position. Many companies have set up easier access to the product I 
sell but it is my responsibility to viably compete against them not 
the court system.
    Ken Shelton
    Ken Shelton Agency



MTC-00005462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: I like MS products and pricing
    Mark Colbert, President
    Medical Factoring Concepts, Inc.
    2848 East Bell Rd #200
    Phoenix AZ 85032



MTC-00005463

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Fair settlement.
    The Microsoft settelment is more then fair,and should be 
accepted.
    Bernard Anker



MTC-00005464

From: Bobby (038) Nancy Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I strongly object to any further prosecution of Microsoft. You 
are destroying our economy. If you remember, when Janet Reno and 
Company brought charges against Microsoft, our economy went down 
hill and continues to decline. Of course, I`m sure all personnel in 
the Justice Department will deny this.
    Why not do a little research and determine how many school 
retirement systems have went broke because of the legal actions 
against Microsoft?
    I`m just wondering what kind of operating systems that the 
billions of computers will use, if you are successful and bankrupt 
Microsoft. I know that is what is going on. Companies like Sun and 
Oracle have been instrumental in getting you to press more and more 
charges against Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Bobby J. Johnson
    210 La Luz Ln
    Ruidoso, NM 88345-7809
    505-258-1159



MTC-00005465

From: bob dollar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off Microsoft`s back.
    Settle this thing, for the sake of the consumers and the US 
ecomomy. What would we have if we didn`t have Microsoft.
    Bob Dollar



MTC-00005466

From: Rob Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am happy with the Microsoft settlement as proposed by the 
federal government. I am very, very unhappy with the continued 
persistence of the states that have not joined. Please work to 
accept the federal governments proposal.
    Thanks,
    Rob Green



MTC-00005467

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen
    Settle this matter NOW so we can all work toward moving our 
nation and the economy forward. I feel this case has reached the 
point that any presumed gains does not justify the effort and 
expense.
    James H Carr



MTC-00005468

From: Calvin Guthridge
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies & Gentlemen:
    I think it is ridicules dragging out the Microsoft anti trust 
case. Microsoft should be praised instead of hounded by a bunch of 
poor losers. I think Enron should be more worthy of attention than 
Microsoft.
    Calvin Guthridge
    6543 West Cameron
    Tulsa, OK 74127



MTC-00005469

From: Mr. G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Civil Action No. 98-1232
    My name is Gerard Gambino 3812 Quentin Ave Boynton Beach Florida 
33436 phone 561-742-0978
    I feel the settlement agreed upon by the parties is more then 
fair to both sides and this matter should be put to rest for the 
good of the economy, tax payers and computer enthusiasts.
    Thank you



MTC-00005470

From: Papaioannou, Michael G.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I think that the settlement is reasonable and fair. This issue 
has to be put to rest.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Papaioannou



MTC-00005471

From: Anthony York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:36am

[[Page 24725]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please! Now is the time to get this matter behind us once and 
for all. For many of us who are not legal scholars_and for 
many who are_this whole lawsuit never made much sense to begin 
with. Whatever the merits of the case, those who want to punish 
Microsoft have never made a case that is convincing to the public at 
large. Now that we have finally have some progress, for God`s sake 
don`t go backwards and start this thing all over again.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony D. York
    Professor Emeritus of Englishand Comparative Literature
    Univ. of Cincinnati



MTC-00005472

From: D. Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: microsoft case
    I think the USDOJ should get out of the way of business, 
microsoft does not have monopoly (Linux, Apple, Sun etc). You`re 
only hurting millions of taxpayers and their investments.
    Doug R. Alexander
    www.douglasalexander.com



MTC-00005473

From: Kecia Bruce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is in the public interest, PLEASE 
settle it. Our economy does NOT need more litigation that benefits a 
few special interests, and harms consumers. I want Microsoft to keep 
developing innovative products!



MTC-00005474

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement that Microsoft has proposed is 
adequate and fair.
    I have always believed that Microsoft has done more for the 
computer industry and the consumer than any other computer vendor in 
the world. This has never been an issue with the consumer. This 
battle has been about what the DOJ thinks is good for the consumer 
without polling the consumer. Anti-trust law suits should be brought 
about because of what has happened to the consumer. Not what 
happened to Microsoft`s competition.
    Joe Fain SR
    [email protected] 
    337-266-2113



MTC-00005475

From: Graham Flood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Please see these comments from a consumer perspective rather 
than an employee.
    `I have used MS software for many years (before I was a MS 
employee). I am very open to new technologies and software but the 
reality is that if you want to get your job done quickly an easily 
then MS software usually provides the answer. I use an Apple Mac (as 
I work on the Macintosh team) much more than a Windows PC and I 
think MS have done a great job with Mac software and have really 
spurred on Mac sales. I use many other types of software other than 
MS software only if it is any good. If I buy a PC or MAC that has 
pre-installed software and it doesn`t do what I want I don`t use it 
or remove it, I then go and get better stuff if its there.
    Anyway I think for the economy sake and for thousands that work 
in the industry you should put a lid on this ASAP so we can all get 
on with much more important things. Why should a company be punished 
just because they are successful, in this business you don`t get 
anywhere by lying down.'
    thanks
    Graham



MTC-00005476

From: Steven Lombard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the government should accept the settlement and forego 
further litigation, which, I believe, is not in the public interest. 
Please, do NOT pursue the litigation further.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Lombard
    P.O. Box 356
    Laie, HI 96762



MTC-00005477

From: Lorraine Storeno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is appalling to see how Micrrosoft has been singled out with 
all the anti-trusts suits when that company has done so much for the 
computer industry.
    I have been using a computer since 1987 and can remember how 
difficut it was to use a computer and download every morning the DOS 
and etc. After Microsoft came along with Windows, I was so relieved 
and enjoyed computer use. It was so useful.
    Our American has always recognized the leaders of our industry 
in whatever catagory they excelled. Please don`t criple this 
nation`s innovative technology and make them humbled to the weakest 
link in the chain. We need leaders, not sniviling whiners who want 
the government to protect them from advancement of the technology.
    Let up on Microsoft. It has been a shame how ignorance has 
prevailed.
    L. Storeno



MTC-00005478

From: Michael Gambro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this litigation has gone on long enough. I strongly 
support the proposed settlement. I think the 9 dissenting states are 
not at all interested in protecting consumers but rather are 
interested in protecting businesses in their states who compete with 
Microsoft. Meanwhile, technology and business applications are 
continuously evolving and changing, such that this litigation is 
even less relevant now than it was when it was first brought. Enough 
is enough. I do not want my tax dollars spent on this anymore. Very 
few consumers believe they have been harmed by Microsoft. Rather, 
they believe that Microsoft has created tremendous efficiencies for 
consumers and businesses. I strongly believe this, based on my 
experience working at home and at work.
    Let`s focus on maintaining our competitive edge in the rapidly 
changing, global technological and business landscape. This can be 
done by settling the litigation now, and let the businesses work on 
developing better products as opposed to more creative litigation 
strategies.
    Michael S. Gambro
    Partner
    Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
    100 Maiden Lane
    New York NY 10038
    (212) 504-6825
    Fax:(212) 993-2666
    Fax:(212) 504-6666
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00005479

From: Gregory Guzman-Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Government should get off Microsoft`s back. This settlement is 
about Netscape`s inability to compete in the marketplace. Stop 
punishing successful entrepeneurs and corporations.
    Greg Moss



MTC-00005480

From: wyatt to
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I feel that the Microsoft case should be quickly settled. Why 
are we trying to hamstring one of the country`s most productive 
corporate citizens? Because of Microsoft, our country is the leader 
in the computer software industry. It is in America`s best interest 
to get this corporate witch hunt out of the way and concentrate on 
rebuilding our country and our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Wyatt To



MTC-00005481

From: Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ:
    Please end the Microsoft litigation as quickly as possible, 
minimizing fines and damages against Microsoft.
    If you hurt Microsoft, you hurt the US economy, and all of us 
voters and taxpayers.
    Dr. Daniel T. Sullivan
    Mrs. Susan M. Sullivan
    61 Frontenac Dr.
    St. LOuis, MO 63131



MTC-00005482

From: WALKER, CHARLES B (HP-USA, ex1)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: This settlement is tough, but

[[Page 24726]]

reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
    This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. It is doing what is best for the consumer.
    Charles Walker



MTC-00005483

From: MARVIN KALLSEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope this settlement can be finalized quickly so our economic 
system can function as it should without undue government influence. 
I`m not a lawyer, but I don`t understand how the objecting states 
have any `basis' or `standing' in this issue 
anyway.
    Marvin Kallsen



MTC-00005484

From: metamorphous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already.
    Microsoft has done everything you asked. Microsoft is still 
innovating. Do you want to stifle innovation and creativity? I am an 
inventor in a non tech industry. I am a senior citizen spending much 
of my cash reserves to develop a better process and product. This 
process will eventually revolutionize an entire industry. Will you 
make me pay a penalty too. Finish this and stop spending more 
taxpayer money. You will never satisfy everybody so do the right 
thing.
    Alfred Niederman



MTC-00005485

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the Microsoft suit should be settled in an 
expeditious manner.
    This has taken much too long and has cost the taxpayers 
excessively. It has also taken many dollars from the pockets of the 
senior citizens of this country who are the major stockholders. As a 
widow on a fixed income, I can tell you it has been costly for me 
and the suit has caused the tech stocks to all suffer.
    Sincerely,
    Lois L. McMillan



MTC-00005486

From: Jon Missert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this email to urge you to settle the Microsoft 
anti-trust suit. I would also ask you to urge the states not 
currently supporting the settlement to join those who have to 
resolve this as soon as possible. There are many investors, mostly 
individuals, that would benefit tremendously from a resolution to 
this matter. The suit has accomplished its goal, prices continue to 
drop, and products continue to improve. The computing public is now 
safe and it is time to move on and let Microsoft get back to doing 
what it does best_making good products and increasing its 
share price.
    Jon Missert



MTC-00005487

From: William R. Michelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:34pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am writing to express my support for the pending Microsoft 
settlement. In my opinion, the lawsuit against Microsoft was ill 
conceived and, without coincidence, it coincides with the start of 
the downturn in our economy. Without Microsoft we would all be in a 
computer age Tower of Babel, because Microsoft brought a stable 
format to the computer industry that allowed it to develop to the 
point it is at today, and to where it will be tomorrow. I am still 
waiting for the testimony of a single consumer who can show he or 
she had to pay a higher price for a computer or for software as a 
result of anything that Microsoft did. If it was not for politically 
connected whiners like Sun Microsystems and other companies trying 
to take market share from Microsoft, there would not have been such 
a misplaced use of the antitrust statute. I support this settlement, 
not because I think that Microsoft actually harmed consumers, but 
because anything that gets the case over with without doing 
unnecessary harm to Microsoft is a good idea. In my opinion, the 
states that are refusing to go along with the settlement are just 
like gold diggers.
    They need money and they see the lawsuit as a means to that end.
    WR Michelman
    Tacoma, WA



MTC-00005488

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    This email is to support the Microsoft Settlement.
    1. It is fair. If any of the competitor`s of MS really want to 
do a service to the country all they need to do is develop an OS 
that is better and/or cheaper than Windows Systems.
    2. Stop this endless expensive litigation now.
    John T. Frankfurth



MTC-00005489

From: Grahame
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.



MTC-00005490

From: Lenny Woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Feedback
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wanted to send a short note of feedback regarding the 
Microsoft decision. I believe the decision that stands should be 
accepted by all states and I`m happy to see that Microsoft will have 
sanctions against them without destroying their ability to produce 
innovative and exciting technology.
    Regards,
    Leonard M. Woods



MTC-00005491

From: Doug Klappenbach
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement between DOJ and Microsoft 
is fair. I feel that the 9 States that refused to join the 
Settlement Agreement are driven by special interests of companies 
competitive to Microsoft and are both i.) delaying the completion of 
the case and ii.) tiring to impose remedies that benefit companies 
in business competing with Microsoft. This will not result in 
benefit to the consumer.
    Doug Klappenbach



MTC-00005492

From: Matthew Foldenauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should stay out of Microsoft`s business. 
Evidently, only a certain amount of success is tolerated in this 
country. When a government attempts to create an artificially level 
playing field, they inevitably do more harm than good. Keep 
government out of the way of free enterprise.
    Matthew Foldenauer,
    [email protected]



MTC-00005493

From: Potter, Bob Ext.1411
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: Please, I`m begging you_Get Off MS`s back_for 
the good of the economy!!!
    Regards_Bob
    Bob Potter
    Information Technology Department
    [email protected]
    (831) 796-1411



MTC-00005494

From: Dan Plastina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Shutdown the Microsoft competitors from further harming a 
great american company Microsoft is a good company. Microsoft does 
good things for people. Software and PCs have never (ever!) so 
affordable and great.
    This case is now so obviously about Microsoft competitors 
wanting to slow Microsoft down.
    I do not believe that the US Court system should kill one 
company for the sake of the other STRIVING and BILLION DOLLAR 
competitors. Let them spend R&D money instead of lawyer fees 
(and corporate espionage). Yes, Microsoft is big. Past contractual 
behaviors may not have been fair, but the proposed consent decree 
does address those issues and will do what it is supposed to 
do_Reinstate a competitive environment by cleaning up the 
playing field, not by knowing out of the ring one of our great 
companies.

[[Page 24727]]



MTC-00005495

From: Bruschi, Gene
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Comments on the Mircosoft Antitrust Case
    My name is Gene Bruschi ([email protected]) and I 
appreciate the opportunity to express my views on the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair 
to all parties. Please do not allow the interest of a few special 
groups to delay the settlement of this case.



MTC-00005496

From: Howard (038) Connie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: Settlement
    Let us not use this phase of the settlement process for the 9 
states to try to gain more concessions from Microsoft. The DOJ 
settlement is fair,lets get on with better things.
    Howard Simpson
    380 Dolphin Ave NE
    Ocean Shores, Wa 98569
    360 289 3635



MTC-00005497

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It has been judicated, let`s move on. States which did not 
accept the settlement offer are nothing more than opportunists and 
have only self interest objectives.



MTC-00005498

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My wife and I fully support the final settlement of this case 
without any further litigation or legislation.
    D.K. & B.E. Bullard
    1116 Woodstock Lane
    West Chester, PA 19382



MTC-00005499

From: Al Kulp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement
    Please get this over with. Microsoft`s monopoly power is limited 
to their ability to produce better software than competitors, 
including open-source. The software industry can and will change 
quickly based on the product`s merits. Microsoft has developed good 
software that consumers and businesses want. Alternatives are 
available. Let the market decide.
    Al Kulp
    Anaheim Union High School District



MTC-00005500

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: Please know that I oppose any future 
litigation against Microsoft. I thought the government settled the 
case against Microsoft, but apparently The Tunney act says the 
states can sue also if they disagree with the govt. decision. I urge 
everyone contemplating suit to forget that. We need to end this and 
soon. We need to get our economy growing again, that`s earnings, 
profits on production, not law suits. Thankyou.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Jackson
    Chicago



MTC-00005501

From: Josh R. Mitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear the DOJ,
    I just wanted to say that I am in full support of the settlement 
and hope things proceed. Thank you!
    Sincerely,
    Josh R. Mitts
    [email protected]



MTC-00005502

From: George Gowland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Justice Department Anti Trust Division
    The U.S. Department has a chance to make amends for the Clinton-
Reno version of a Justice Department in the case of the Microsoft 
settlement. There was so much wrong in the handling and subsequent 
trial that it would take more than this letter to detail the unfair 
practices by the government. It is time to move on. Microsoft is one 
of the World`s premier companies representing all that is best about 
the United States and entrepreneurship. Bill Gates and his wife have 
through their charitable foundations shown what separates them from 
the moronic politicians who have pressed this witch hunt.
    The present attorney general of California, the State I reside 
in has chosen to lead the other State malcontents in continuing this 
vendetta. He did not have the courtesy to reply to my written 
objections. Settle the case and lets get back to work increasing the 
country`s technological lead.
    George and Patricia Gowland



MTC-00005503

From: Miguel F. Sarria
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: FINAL JUDGMENT
    I believe that to maintain justice, all parts of the FINAL 
JUDGMENT should be applicable to all players in the technology 
industry. But this should not hinder the R&D of the technology 
industry. If we see that such rules become RED TAPE and slow the 
progress of R&D of Operating systems, software in general and 
hardware, the courts should allow for deregulation
    Miguel F. Sarria
    Miguel F. Sarria, IS Manager
    Alliance for Transportation Research Institute / University of 
New Mexico 1001 University Blvd SE, Suite 103, Albuquerque, NM 
87106-4342, USA Phone (505) 246-6442 Fax (505) 
246-6001_Email: [email protected], Web Sites: 
www.unm.edu/atr and www.trex-center.org
    NOTICE_This communication may contain confidential and 
privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended 
recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on 
this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you 
have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by 
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.



MTC-00005504

From: Hugh Solaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let this prosecution of one of our great American 
companies end. Our economy and stock market has been hurt by this 
insane prosecution. It is very much `in the public 
interest' to let this settlement stand and to move on.
    Thank you for the consideration,
    Hugh Solaas
    Hansville, WA



MTC-00005505

From: Bremner PA (Phillip) at Aera
To: '[email protected]'
Date: 1/2/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a programmer with 10 years experience. Currently I am 
working as a SAP ABAP programmer for Aera Energy in Bakersfield, CA. 
The government`s case against Microsoft has been driven from the 
wrong position. This case has done nothing except strength 
Microsoft`s competitors at the expense of the consumer and the 
software development industry. This is and has been a farce.
    Please stop the insanity... let the world continue in a path 
that lets technology grow. Get out of the way!
    Thank You.
    Philip Bremner_ABAP Programming Analyst
    Aera Energy LLC_SAP Support
    Location: 1B06 Voice: 661-665-5589 Pager: 
661-337-1963 Schedule: B
    Email: [email protected] 

    [email protected]



MTC-00005506

From: Gil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    Stop the persecution of Microsoft. Bill Gates gave the world 
what they wanted when nobody else cared to, and is reaping the 
rewards of those efforts. As for all those whiners_let them 
eat their sour grapes!



MTC-00005507

From: Luby, Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all due respect leave Microsoft alone. Drop all charges and 
back out quietly. Anti-trust cases are supposed to be about 
consumers that are harmed. I have seen no evidence about any 
consumers being harmed.

[[Page 24728]]

 Only competitors being pissed off because Microsoft is good at what 
they do. Please don`t punish success.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas F. Luby
    [email protected]
    678-560-1180_Home
    404-579-6170_Cell



MTC-00005508

From: Jef Gazley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: Dear Sir;
    Dear Sir;
    I really feel that Microsoft has done nothing criminal and that 
the government should get their hands out of it- both state and 
federal.Jef We believe better health begins with better Mental 
Health.
    Jef Gazley M.S.
    http://www.asktheinternettherapist.com



MTC-00005509

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: settlement
    Settlement would be good for consumers and stock holders.



MTC-00005510

From: Fullilove, Doug
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I think the settlement offer by Microsoft is more than fair. 
Everyone should accept this generous offer and let Microsoft get on 
with creating jobs. In my opinion the suit was ridiculous, and never 
should have been brought. I am better off because of Microsoft 
Products. Microsoft has never hurt me in any way.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas
    Fullilove



MTC-00005511

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE SETTLE THE MS CASE ASAP, DO NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ASCTION 
AGAINS MS.
    SINCERELY; GREGORY t. KERN



MTC-00005512

From: grossklas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:37pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the settlement is not only unfair to Microsoft but 
that the whole proceedings against Microsoft are illegal. Given the 
understanding of the Founders of our country, and, as laid out in 
the Federalist Papers and the documents of the Federal Convention of 
1787, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the 
Federal Government any authority whatsoever to take any action 
against this company.
    However, if Microsoft is willing to settle for this restriction 
on its rights then this agreement should be allowed to proceed.
    William P. Grossklas
    PERSONAL INFO:
    William P. Grossklas, Sr.
    609 Spring Road
    Elmhurst, IL 60126
    Phone: 630 530 2973
    Fax: 630 530 2976



MTC-00005513

From: Paul Kay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe the settlement is fair to all concerned and I 
would like the settlement to proceed. I do not understand why the 9 
states are allowed to pursue their case separately. The suits 
against Microsoft by the states are ridiculous. The US Government 
found a way to settle the case and the states should agree to the 
same terms.
    Thank you.
    Paul Kay



MTC-00005514

From: Kevin White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: enough already
    The amount of time and money spent on trying to dismantle 
Microsoft should be an embarrassment to the DOJ. It is obvious that 
the states that either have prominent Microsoft competitors, or are 
just trying to put themselves in the news, are continuing the witch 
hunt to further their own agenda. I am in the medical industry and 
see the tremendous abuses of power by J&J and Tyco, yet never a 
sign of the DOJ. Too busy chasing its tail. Enough is enough. Let 
Microsoft continue to produce products that benefit consumers. Look 
at other industries with the same scrutiny.
    K. White
    Oregon



MTC-00005515

From: John Crean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it`s time to put all of this baloney behind us.
    The only thing Microsoft is guilty of is putting great products 
on the market at fair prices.
    John Crean
    Oneonta NY



MTC-00005516

From: Bud Aaron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern_please get this behind us. We 
really need to get on with business as a small developer and we need 
stability more than any other single thing in my view.
    Bud
    Bud Aaron
    http://www.checkmaster.com
    760-757-6635



MTC-00005517

From: Jim S. Craft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Case should be Settled
    I think that the Microsoft case should be settled as decided. I 
think that the case was weak, since Microsoft is not a monopoly 
(look at the palm pilot, Epoc, Apple, etc.). This case was never in 
the interest of the people, as Microsoft has become the largest 
software manufacturer by selling their product for less than the 
competition with more features. The monopoly laws were meant to keep 
companies from charging more for inferior products, and that is not 
what Microsoft has done.
    I say that the government should stay out of free enterprise and 
allow for companies to compete. If Microsoft were making a bad 
product and making huge profits, it would be a different ball game. 
Until then we should be happy with the way things are now.
    Jim Craft
    Battle Creek, MI



MTC-00005518

From: dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is in the best public 
interest as it now stands, and object to any changes.
    dennis g bouscal
    209 e sierra ave
    spokane, wa 99208
    509.468.0177
    [email protected]



MTC-00005519

From: Benjamin Strong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Justice Dept. is seriously deficient and will not protect the rights 
of the American people, computer users all over the world and 
Microsoft competitors. I believe the position of the nine dissenting 
states is reasonable and well founded. One of my prime objections to 
the proposed settlement is there is far too much reliance on Mr. 
Gates and his company to be `good citizens'. His past 
record rebuts this. Mr. Gates has always taken the position that 
`What is good for Microsoft is good for the industry and the 
Country'. He has given ample proof that he is not to be 
trusted.
    I hope and wish that the DOJ will reconsider its position and 
give serious consideration to adopting the position of the 
dissenting States. Thank you.
    Benjamin R. Strong
    6550 Chardonnay
    Pensacola, FL 32504
    [email protected]
    Phone: 850-494-9857
    Fax: 850-477-3133



MTC-00005520

From: James Mosimann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm

[[Page 24729]]

Subject: settlement
    Thanks for the just settlement, and the DOJ`s moving on this. 
The economy needs entrepreneurs at this time of slowdown.
    James Mosimann
    5 Balmoral Court
    Rockville, MD 20850



MTC-00005521

From: Nicholas Cloyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 2, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    On November 6, 2001, the United States and Microsoft tentatively 
agreed to the entry of a revised proposed Final Judgment  to resolve the United 
States` civil antitrust case against Microsoft. Please settle this 
case as currently proposed, Tunney Act (Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. ? 16).
    This settlement is in the best interest of our nation, free 
enterprise and the American people.
    Business and People, (time, intellect, money and testimony) have 
all had due process. Thankyou for providing such and now please 
settle this case.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Nicholas K Cloyd
    [email protected]



MTC-00005522

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to please settle the Microsoft case and not allow 
further litigation.
    Thanks
    Caroline



MTC-00005523

From: M.G. (q)Ravi(q) Ravichandran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have been following this case since it started. As a consumer, 
I believe this case had more to do with competitors complaints 
rather than consumer interest. Regardless of that, I am happy to see 
that DOJ and Microsoft reached a settlement. In spite of the fact 
that this settlement is harsh on Microsoft, I believe it is time to 
close the case and move on.
    Thanks
    M.G. Ravichandran
    Northville, MI



MTC-00005524

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern!
    As a user of Microsoft products, I feel there is a fine line 
between being an aggressive marketer of your products and breaking 
anti-trust laws. Seems to me both the U.S. Government and 
competitors yell foul when a company like Microsoft grows and 
becomes successful in marketing great products that fill the need of 
many consumers worldwide. How is Microsoft any different than Wal-
Mart in marketing and pricing practices? When Wal-Mart comes into a 
new market their buying clout puts many grocery stores, filling 
stations, tire dealers, clothing stores, lawn & garden stores, 
and other stores out of business. If a law was definitely broken by 
Microsoft, fine them appropriately, make them dedicate free 
resources to what the U.S. Government is currently paying to have 
done, and let`s get on to better things that strengthen our Country. 
. . .
    Have a Sterling Day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Tom Smarsh
    Office Phone = 316-291-2936
    Cell Phone = 316-393-3808
    Office E-Mail= Smarsh,Tom J./wich
    Internet E-Mail= [email protected]



MTC-00005525

From: John Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that the Microsoft suits should be settled as it 
determined by the courts. Hurting Microsoft more now will hurt the 
overall economy.
    John L. Wagner
    780 Norfolk Drive
    Carson City, NV 89703



MTC-00005526

From: Jack McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don`t drag out this settlement any longer. The settlement 
reached is fair and equitable. Our economy needs stabilizing, not 
more conflict brought on by competitors interests.
    Jack McDaniel
    POB 1409
    4705 240th St SE
    Bothell WA 98041-1409
    (425) 486-9205



MTC-00005527

From: Regan, Kevin
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please understand that anymore time and money spent on the MS 
case is counterproductive and futile. The freedom to innovate is 
what made this country strong, the freedom to sue is what has 
reduced this country to a bunch of babies. Get off MS back. Spend 
the money on real enemies. Tell Oracle to go and make a product sell 
it and quit whining.
    Kevin P. Regan
    Kinko`s_National Business Development Manager
    IKON_The Way Business Gets Communicated
    Toll Free: 800-804-0315
    Direct-In-Dial: 425-803-5206
    Personal Fax: 425-803-5237
    Business Cell: 206-799-3788 U.S.A.



MTC-00005528

From: Nikisher, Michael
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is time to settle this case and move on.
    Michael Nikisher
    Round Rock, TX



MTC-00005529

From: James Bratsanos
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please allow the agreed upon settlement to stand. This issue has 
taken far to long to resolve and I for one thing the settlement is 
fair. Let`s start spending our taxpayer money on other more pressing 
matters!
    Thanks
    James Bratsanos



MTC-00005530

From: John Victor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    I strongly urge the DoJ to settle with Microsoft. It is in the 
best interest of consumers and our economy to end this lengthy 
lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    John Victor



MTC-00005531

From: Charles Jaffe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    DROP THE LAWSUIT.
    Charles Jaffe, CPA



MTC-00005532

From: Loy, Betty D.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    II very much support the DOJ setlement. As a consumer I don`t 
believe it is in the best interest of consumers and taxpayers to 
continue to harass Microsoft. In my opinion they are doing what an 
innovative provider should be doing and I don`t think they should be 
penalized for that. I thought the decision not to break up Microsoft 
was a wise one and I urge you to not overturn this decision. Our 
economy is too fragile at this point to continue litigation against 
a company that is doing so much for the USA and its people.



MTC-00005533

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let`s stop beating the dead horse. Microsoft is one company 
America should be proud of. Stop the persecution and get on with 
life. Why punish a company that has brought us so much good? I would 
question the motives of their competitors agenda. Let`s use the 
gov`t to get rid of all of my competition. Microsoft`s good works 
and good products

[[Page 24730]]

speak volumes for their case. Get it over with now!



MTC-00005534

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    To whom is concerned:
    I believe that NOTHING should be done to Microsoft. When you can 
find a company that does as much as Microsoft does for our CHILDREN, 
whom I believe is OUR FUTURE, that we should be saying THANK YOU. 
This country is based on the right to enjoy FREEDOM. It seems to me 
that the companies that oppose what Microsoft did by not including 
their product, need to quit the whining and get busy developing a 
better product and put it in their own software. By finding 
Microsoft guilty of not allowing other companies in the Microsoft 
products is ludicrous. Make GM put a Chrysler body on their frame 
and have it powered by Ford. I know, Toyota would file a lawsuit 
against you! LET MICROSOFT do what they do best, and leave them 
alone! I will bet that you are reading this thru Microsoft products 
and therefore are guilty as Microsoft for not giving the other 
companies the opportunity. I WANT MY MICROSOFT.
    Thank YOU . . . Bill Roland



MTC-00005535

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIR,
    AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND USER OF MICROSOFT PRODUCTS I FEEL IT 
IS TIME TO `LAY OFF' MICROSOFT AND FOCUS ON IMPORTANT 
ISSUES. MY FEELING IS THERE A LOT OF STATE ATTY. GENERALS THAT WANT 
TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES AND SOME WINDFALL MONEY FOR THEIR 
STATES. THIS IS NOT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST.
    ALSO MICROSOFT HAS COMPETITORS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE MICROSOFT 
LOOSE SOME COMPLETIVE EDGE THROUGH GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT. THIS IS 
NOT GOVERNMENTS JOB IN MY OPINION. MY VOTE GOES FOR DROPPING ANY 
PENDING ISSUES AGAINST MICROSOFT AND MOVE ON. ALSO I HAVE NO 
SIGNIFICANT DIRECT INVESTMENT IN MICROSOFT THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY 
THE GOVERNMENT DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
    HAPPY NEW YEAR AND BEST REGARDS,
    WILLIAM R. TINNELL
    ORANGE, CA 92869



MTC-00005536

From: Allen Benas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day:
    It seems to me your efforts can be much better applied to our 
current national problems with terrorists instead of further 
attacking a company who`s products have revolutionized the nation 
and the world, employs thousands of highly paid employees including 
every minority there is and donates tens of millions of dollars to 
numerous charities, in an effort to enhance the life styles of the 
disadvantaged. All this, while companies like AOL/Time Warner are 
allowed to create the largest communications monopoly in the history 
of the world, right under your noses. Isn`t it about time we realize 
that enough is enough, and look upon Microsoft as an overall fine 
and upstanding national citizen, facing with stiff competition, that 
is simply trying to remain successful?
    Yours truly,
    Allen Benas
    P.O. Box 69
    Clayton, NY 13624



MTC-00005537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this now as worked out in the courts.



MTC-00005538

From: Uskup, Ergin
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen and also as the Chief Information Officer of a $ 
Billion company would like for you to know that I support strongly 
the DOJ settlement terms of Microsoft conflict. I think Microsoft 
has been attacked by their competitors who Seem to be unable to 
compete fairly in the open technology market place. Microsoft 
products are essential to corporation ( to ours ) and to consumer. 
The integration they provide between their products improves our 
productivity & saves us time & money. Both the corporate 
Information Technology world and consumer will be worse off if this 
conflict does not get settled ASAP and along the lines of DOJ 
agreement.
    It is hard enough to cover all aspects of technology in the 
corporate or consumer world (security, inter operability etc) within 
the current environment where Microsoft provides integrated 
products. The competitors of Microsoft should spend their money on R 
& D instead of in legal fees and work hard. It is not that hard 
to hire lawyers or get in front of senate committees and complain. 
Let them roll their sleeves & get to work. In the mean time let 
us go forward without unnecessarily further complicating the 
technology environment.
    I would be happy to provide additional views if you wish. Thanks



MTC-00005539

From: Betty Seymour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This country is based on feedom. Let`s settle this so we don`t 
waste any more paper, money and breath on it, and can go back to 
accomplishing the inovation that Microsoft was born to carry on. 
What a waste of steam.



MTC-00005540

From: Rahl, Francis R.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Public Comment
    I believe the proposed settlement to be sufficient and am 
hopeful the matter can be put to rest.
    Francis R. Rahl, Jr.
    27 S. Stricker St.
    Baltimore, MD 21223
    410-765-7828



MTC-00005541

From: Faye, Judy
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is in the best interest 
of all concerned and should stand as is.
    Judith R. Faye
    Senior Application Consultant II
    USinternetworking, Inc.
    612 Wheelers Farm Road
    Milford, CT 06468
    Telephone: 203-701-3838
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00005542

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jan. 2, 2002
    As a Microsoft stockholder I firmly urge you to settle as soon 
as possible.
    Best Regards, Beth Scott
    http://
www.campnapa.com/



MTC-00005543

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are aware that DOJ lawyers deliberately prolong law suits to 
help their brothers in the civilian community line their pockets. 
Settlement of this matter has been delayed long enough.



MTC-00005544

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time to bring this whole affair to a close based on the 
previously agreed settlement. As a professional, my work has become 
so much more efficient than in years past because of the advances in 
computer science_much of it developed by microsoft. It`s time 
to get the rest of the states on board and everyone back to 
productive work
    C. J. Lehane



MTC-00005545

From: Anthony D`Attomo-Home Office
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIR:
    I am the Chief Financial Officer for a national company. I have 
worked with computer people my entire career, and in fact, I now 
have over 20 IT professionals reporting to me. If you have not 
realized it already, they can be a most unusual breed of people. In 
the case of Microsoft, the feelings

[[Page 24731]]

become intense and personal. For those that do not like Bill Gates, 
it is as if he ran over the family dog. The only analogy I can make 
is if you had some deep hatred for the President of Ford, and 
therefore refused to buy a Ford automobile for that reason alone The 
PC came about when I first started my career in 1979. I have 
operated the original type that wrote files to a tape player, all 
the way up to the amazingly powerful clusters that exist today. I 
can tell you that clearly computing owes Microsoft everything. What 
I can do in this companies network could not be accomplished without 
what Microsoft did with its software. No matter how a person feels 
about Mr. Gates, we cannot overlook this simple fact.
    The rocks being thrown by other software makes is nothing but 
sour grapes. They got beat, and they do not like it. I can tell you 
for example in the Apple vision for the world 20 years ago, it was 
use Apple software and hardware, or you use nothing at all. Thank 
god we were not being led by that group.
    The bottom line is that Microsoft made computing what it is 
today, and they continue to provide the best product. I can tell you 
that XP is beautiful as are all of the Microsoft products. If 
someone makes something better, we will buy it, and run it under XP. 
As far as operating systems like XP, 2000, 98 and 95, they fact that 
they provide a standard for us to run our desktops and networking is 
imperative to keeping this process on track. Imagine that if every 
time you bought an appliance for your home each device required its 
own particular power source. You would have a mess on your hands. In 
computing the desktop operating system is like the electricity in 
your home, a standard is imperative.
    As far as my two cents, I am glad that you are near settlement. 
I would rather see my tax dollars spent chasing a real problem, and 
not one generated by software vendors who failed to deliver a good 
product and now stand behind the government to get them back into 
the game. The protraction of this debate is also upsetting the stock 
market and the financial stability of the nation. Dragging this out 
hurts everyone, and helps no one. By the way, if you want to 
understand a true monopolistically aggressive company, check out 
AOL. They better fit the pattern that you are looking for
    Anthony D`Attomo CPA



MTC-00005546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement agreement is fair and is in the public 
interest. It was negotiated by experts over an extended period of 
time and should be acceptable to all parties.
    Regards,
    Jim Flynn
    Senior Hydrogeologist
    [email protected]
    URS Corporation
    1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1400
    Seattle, Washington 98101
    206-438-2700 (Reception)
    206-438-2113 (My direct line)
    206-438-2699 (FAX)



MTC-00005547

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this suit quickly. It was an unjust litigation at the 
beginning, brought by competitors to bring down a successful 
company. We must reinforce the business climate in this period of 
economic uncertainty. Ardis Ostrom



MTC-00005548

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I feel that enough is enough. Let`s get this hole thing over 
with. Microsoft and the government have come to a settlement, let`s 
get on with business. Let the other states cry all they want. They 
just want there own company`s in there state to profit like 
Microsoft has. They don`t want to have put out the money nor the 
time they just want it given to them. Sorry but I disagree. I hope 
they lose big time.
    Bob Kassner JR.



MTC-00005549

From: B.J. Fornadley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why doesn`t the Fed. press the States to accept the settlement 
that was fair to all.
    It`s is only politics by those senate and house members who are 
`friends of SUN and Oracle CEO`s etc' that are keeping 
this thing going!
    Quit wasting the tax payers money!



MTC-00005550

From: Annabel Wayne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:40pm
Subject: Lawsuit against Microsoft
    I am very concerned that the suit that you have against 
Microsoft, stops the innovations that one company single handedly 
has given to the world. Because of Microsoft, I have become a better 
teacher, using their software which came on my computer to enhance 
my lessons. If I had had to purchase another program, I would not 
have known what to do, let alone where to get another program in a 
small town. When my programs came on my computer, I did not feel 
that Microsoft was pushed down my throat. I am sure that milliions 
like myself were very glad to have their programs already installed 
on our computers.
    Annabel Wayne



MTC-00005551

From: Prakash Puram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Federal Govt`s settlement of the Microsoft case is a fair 
and just one. Microsoft`s competitors are attempting to unduly 
influence the settlement to gain an unfair competitive advantage for 
personal benefit. In a market economy, demand and supply forces 
should be allowed to work over a period of time. I am a small 
software company that works with Microsoft and find them to be 
incredibly cooperative and encouraging of my company`s product 
development work. They have rightfully earned their place in US 
Businesses as a crown jewel and the U.S. Govt. should not pay any 
heed to the 9 States attempting to derail the settlement on the 
table.
    The U.S. Economy as a whole will benefit dramatically from the 
innovation and increased productivity to be release by Microsoft if 
it is rightfully allowed to continue operating its business with all 
due freedom accorded by the U.S. commercial and trade laws. The 
stock market will surge higher, the recession will end, businesses 
will return to a growth mode, and many unrealized benefits will come 
to fruition the moment the DOJ and the United States close this case 
without much further legal proceedings. Competitors are trying to 
leverage their government elected officials unfairly to benefit 
their personal agendas and I am not willing to put up with this.
    I spent most of my working career with IBM and saw how the DOJ 
shackled IBM`s innovation when it too was dubbed a monopoly. After a 
decade of dragging IBM thru relentless battering, the United States 
Govt. unwittingly was the main factor in destroying that company`s 
competitive advantage in the marketplace and they passed on the 
power not to other American firms, but sadly to Fujitsu, Hitachi, 
NEC, and other Japanese firms. The very basis for assaulting IBM 
became moot since with or without the DOJ`s help, Microsoft rose to 
leadership thus clearly verifying the fact that innovation and 
market forces are ultimately the most invincible arbiters of winners 
and losers. If Microsoft doesn`t continue to innovate or provide 
value for money, within days or weeks corporate America and the 
individual consumers will cast away Microsoft for better products 
and services from other companies.
    Please end the legal wrangling now and take conscientious 
decisions to return America, Microsoft and the entire software 
industry to focusing on their work_not on legal proceedings. 
To not close this case immediately bodes bad tidings for the US 
Economy in 2002 and beyond and we just cannot afford that. Sun, 
WordPerfect, Palm Novell, AOL, Netscape are all losers because they 
have bad unproven products. The brand name and the market share of 
Microsoft is hard-earned and should be preserved not destroyed.
    Please end the litigation now and ratify the Microsoft_DOJ 
Settlement without further delay.
    Prakash Puram, CEO, iXmatch Inc.
    612-840-6979
    http://www.ixmatch.com
    iXmatch_For Mission-Critical Matching



MTC-00005552

From: Emilie Hernandez
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:36pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please allow Microsoft to settle this case as soon as possible. 
The proposal is very fair and benefits many individuals. The economy

[[Page 24732]]

is so uncertain at this time, the government could better use the 
money it is wasting on this suit.
    Emilie Hernandez
    [email protected] 

    503.226.1444



MTC-00005553

From: Mister Thorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please advise as to when the 60-day period for comment on the 
proposed settlement expires.
    Thank you
    Mister Thorne



MTC-00005554

From: Chris Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Here`s what I think:
    Enough already! Settle. It really IS for the benefit of 
consumers and other companies. Sure Microsoft competes hard with 
companies like Oracle, AOL, etc. but what many people don`t 
understand fully is how many THOUSANDS of small companies out there 
THRIVE off of Microsoft`s innovations and technology. The companies 
who continue to complain about Microsoft like Oracle, AOL, SUN, etc. 
would only LOVE to be in Microsoft`s situation and are simply using 
the government to attempt to get ahead because they cannot compete 
on there own merits.
    Thanks you for the opportunity to write,
    Chris Holt
    Salinas, CA 93907



MTC-00005555

From: Bob McConnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: I think the Microsoft settlement should go through, dont 
delay it
    I think the Microsoft settlement should go through, dont delay 
it
    Bob McConnell



MTC-00005556

From: Murray Oldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement between Microsoft, the Federal 
Government and nine States should be adopted with no further 
modifications.
    Cordially,
    M. M. Oldman
    [email protected]



MTC-00005557

From: John/Sharon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We (a family of three, voting age consumers_owners of four 
active computers at the moment) definitely feel that the settlement 
of the Microsoft case is in the best interest of the consumer. Each 
of our computers uses a Microsoft operating system. Two use Windows 
98 and two use Microsoft 2000. In addition to the operating system 
we also use the Microsoft Office 2000 Professional in our computers. 
At one time we had a computer with a different operating system. It 
was a nightmare, the support for the consumer was poor, and 
ultimately it was removed from the computer and replaced with a 
Microsoft product.
    We each believe that this whole Microsoft suit was ridiculous. 
Microsoft has hired the employees who develop their software. Their 
employees seem to be well treated and content to remain with 
Microsoft...and to try to hurt this company for their 
foresightedness is ridiculous. When it comes to customer support, 
Microsoft is the best. They stand far above many other companies in 
this aspect.
    What I see happening if this suit is not settled is: continued 
uncertainty for Microsoft, which if I were running the company would 
definitely result in a delay in further development (not good for 
the consumer); increased costs to Microsoft which would be passed 
along to the consumer (again not good for the consumer); possibly 
some gain for CEO`s of other software companies in terms of 
financial gain. This would not benefit the consumer either. We have 
always been very pleased with Microsoft and will continue to remain 
loyal to them.
    The other `cry baby' companies who are unable, or 
unwilling, to compete in the marketplace will never gain our support 
in terms of buying their products or any other means. What they have 
attempted to do through a legal suit does not have our support. The 
states that are holding out and the companies who desire to continue 
this suit are definitely NOT putting the best interest of the 
consumer at the front of their decision.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon, John & Greg Nawalanic



MTC-00005558

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I SUPPORT THE SETTLEMENT. I CONSIDER INNOVATION TO BE A KEY 
ELEMENT TO THE
    PROSPERITY OF OUR NATION.
    GEOFFREY KOHN



MTC-00005559

From: Paul A. Kittle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    010202 @ 12:30 PM EST_
    Dear DOJ_
    I am an active computer user as well as an active supporter/user 
of Microsoft`s software. Even though I do not agree with the origins 
of the suit against Microsoft, I am certainly willing to support 
that the DOJ + 9 state settlement is suitable since Microsoft itself 
acknowledges it is suitable. The idea that this whole event would 
continue for another year, maybe longer, just so several state AG`s 
can keep their name in the paper seems to me to be nonsense.
    Many of the complaints about the software produced by Microsoft 
are completely unreasonable, in that anyone who can read can alter 
the Desktop, change browsers, add software, and/or choose to use or 
not to use items included with any given version of Windows. For 
instance, I use many of the included features, but I do not use 
their included diagnostics, I use Norton as an alternative. I do not 
use Microsoft Visio, I use Smart Draw, etc. Microsoft does not 
require you to use each subsection, they provide it just as my car 
provides a radio with a tape drive, even though I only use CDs. The 
list goes on and on.
    Please settle this completely and finally and get on to doing 
something worthwhile_go find Osama, for instance. Microsoft is 
NOT a national or international threat.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    Paul A. Kittle
    [email protected]
    http://www.aquafoam.com
    Phone_610-804-0100
    Fax_909-257-8266 (NEW)



MTC-00005560

From: Tony Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ;
    We are now entering a new year and one would hope with the most 
recent disasters in New York and the deficit spending that is 
occurring in rebuilding New York and the National economy related to 
the after effects of 9/11 that someone would be wise enough to 
finally settle the Microsoft anti trust litigation. It seems that 
everyone is interested in penalizing one of the greatest companies 
in the world, a company that has single handedly had the greatest 
impact on businesses becoming more efficient which has lead to the 
USA once again be seen as the ultimate world leader in some many 
industries where we have halted the advances that other non USA 
countries were making at the USA cost.
    I urge you to settle this case so this great Nation can turn 
it`s attention to more important issues!
    Regards,
    Anthony J Kennedy
    Vice President Finance & Administration_North America



MTC-00005561

From: Murray Powell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been opposed to this litigation from the beginning. Now 
that a settlement has been reached it is time to close this affair. 
To delay this settlement only benefits the few special interests 
along with the government bureaucrats and attorneys who are feeding 
off of this legalized boondoggle.



MTC-00005562

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 24733]]

    Does not seem to be significant enough to disrupt the 
monopoly...



MTC-00005563

From: Annabel Wayne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned that the suit that you have against 
Microsoft, stops the innovations that one company single handedly 
has given to the world. Because of Microsoft, I have become a better 
teacher, using their software which came on my computer to enhance 
my lessons. If I had had to purchase another program, I would not 
have known what to do, let alone where to get another program in a 
small town. When my programs came on my computer, I did not feel 
that Microsoft was pushed down my throat. I am sure that milliions 
like myself were very glad to have their programs already installed 
on our computers.
    Annabel Wayne



MTC-00005564

From: Bill Beyer
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case. Over the past several years the Microsoft Antitrust 
Case has been litigated on both the State and Federal level. 
Recently the Federal government and 9 states have reached an 
agreement with Microsoft.
    I believe coming to settlement with Microsoft is good for 
consumers, the industry and most importantly the American economy. 
Now is NOT the time to continue litigation on this case. Doing so 
only benefits the lawyers and a handful of wealthy competitors. More 
importantly prolonged litigation on this case negatively affects 
consumers, the industry and the American economy.
    Please settle this case now as I believe it is in the people`s 
best interests.
    Bill Beyer,
    707 West 4th St. #25,
    Long Beach, CA 90802



MTC-00005565

From: lawrence price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Mricrosoft Settlement
    I am pleased that a settlement has been reached and approve of 
the tentative settlement. Any further litigation would be against 
the best interests of the American consumer.



MTC-00005566

From: John.Walentia
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is time for this to end. We need to move on. Accept the 
settlement...review Microsoft`s actions over the next few years. If 
they step out of line by exceeding the terms of the settlement then 
they should be punished, but whatever the government does it is time 
to move on.
    Thank You.
    John R. Walentia



MTC-00005567

From: Warren Dunlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement as currently agreed upon. I 
think it is fair to both parties and is in line with the antitrust 
laws of the United States. Trying to read more into the laws than is 
there runs the risk of dampening the incentive to innovate, a 
building block which has led this country to its leadership position 
in new technology.



MTC-00005568

From: Leslie, Jon
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    It is my opinion that no action should be taken against 
Microsoft. No action should`ve ever been taken against Microsoft. 
They are being punished for being good at what they do. Giving away 
the MS Internet Explorer software was questionable, but they still 
do not charge for it. Plus, LINUX is an entirely free OS and no one 
is up in arms about that. Microsoft deserves no punishment. They 
have already been punished enough. Please do not interfere with the 
Free Market System.
    Best Regards,
    Jon Leslie
    Jon Leslie
    Sr. Project Manager
    Tibersoft Corporation
    One Research Drive
    Suite 300A
    Westborough, MA 01581
    main # (888) 888-1969
    direct # (508) 621-2320
    fax # (508) 898-1820
    < http://www.tibersoft.com  
>



MTC-00005569

From: The Computer Help Desk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Settle This Issue A.S.A.P.
    Thank-you,
    Ronald D Whobrey
    528 North Ingram Street
    Henderson, Kentucky 42420
    270-827-0784



MTC-00005570

From: Anderson, Mark (MLIG)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I think it is time for the suit against Microsoft to be dropped. 
It is a waste of taxpayer money, government resources, and time. The 
general public doesn`t want it anyway. Most people want Microsoft to 
continue to operate as is, since a healthy Microsoft is able to 
develop and market new and better products that enhance our 
productivity and happiness.
    In business, the strongest, most aggressive, and savvy are the 
survivors. If I want to buy a luxury car, it is going to be a 
Lincoln or a Cadillac and not a Dussenberg or a Cord. The only 
Packards around are Hewlett-Packards. Yes, it is a shame to see 
companies fold or sell out, but it is survival of the fittest and it 
is ridiculous to punish Microsoft for being the most fit. If they 
pressured hardware manufacturers to bundle their products that`s OK 
with me. The computer makers didn`t have to go along because there 
are other operating systems out there. If they want to include 
WIndows with their PCs, then the price to pay is including Explorer. 
They can choose not to, but they are smart enough not to do so.
    Accept the settlement and close the book on this case.
    Mark Anderson
    (609) 627-3823
    [email protected]



MTC-00005571

From: Jerry Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
    Justice Department,
    Please accept the Agreed Settlement with Microsoft ASAP!!
    Tks, Jerry D. Robinson
    665 Wren Drive
    Casselberry, Fl 32707



MTC-00005572

From: B Duensing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please pass the tunney act and close the microsoft issue once 
and for all. Your efforts will be much better spent elsewhere than 
involving yourselves in to private business issues.



MTC-00005573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
    Jan.2nd 2001
    Mr. Gates & Associates have performed superbly for the whole 
world, in the use of their products and only envy and jealousy 
collectively from other manufacturers has caused the Government to 
take an unnecessary action against them, to the detriment of world 
wide users. So what if individuals of Microsoft benefitted 
financially; their earned money will come around again and so 
benefit the Country. Why can`t Government leave them alone and let 
them progress unhindered, producing products for the benefit of 
mankind.
    Drop the case against Microsoft.
    A.E. [email protected]



MTC-00005574

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    settle it now and let he company continue to make money for 
itself and shareholders as well as be the leader in software. less 
intrusion in the marketplace please

[[Page 24734]]



MTC-00005575

From: Tony Meier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Let`s be done with this!



MTC-00005576

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Leave Microsoft alone! Why penalize a company for developing a 
great product.You`re undermining the very thing that has made this 
country great.
    [email protected]



MTC-00005577

From: Laura Hemler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement_yes!
    Please approve the Microsoft settlement. This is costing the 
gov`t too much money and punishing a great company. The competitors 
are just sore losers and the states are just trying to extort money 
from Microsoft.



MTC-00005578

From: David Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am a consumer of the computer hardware and software, the 
recently agreement of the government and Microsoft was in process, 
the settlement will be good for the general users, companies and for 
the economy, especially after the 911 events, we need reboot the 
economy to all the states, the settlement is one of the best things 
we are doing right now. It will help the users, companies even 
government of the states back to our economy and inspire the 
confidence of the consumers.
    I would like to see the settlement to be proceed successfully 
and hope everybody have a good starting for business. Good keep 
bless America!
    A consumer_David Chen



MTC-00005579

From: Patrick Clemins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a consumer, I am happy to see an end to the Microsoft/DOJ 
legal battle. Microsoft, I believe has done their best to make 
quality products over the years and listen to the consumer so as to 
include features that the consumers want. The end of the legal 
battle is welcomed as now, Microsoft can now dedicate their efforts 
to producing software, instead of using resources to fight, what has 
been in my opinion, a ridiculous lawsuit. Microsoft is NOT the 
industry leader because of anti-competitive measures, but because 
they put out better software. I used to use the competitions 
products, but as I and other consumers discovered, as the years went 
by, Microsoft`s product got better, and the competition`s didn`t, so 
we switched. Microsoft should be allowed to market the best they 
have to offer and the government should let the consumer decide what 
to buy.
    Respectfully,
    Patrick John Clemins



MTC-00005580

From: Peter Cline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am requesting that you approve the most recent settlement 
decision offered by the Justice Department and not further litigate 
this matter. It has gone on long enough and I believe the proposed 
settlement does enough to more than protect the consumer. Further 
litigation would only damage the consumer and the economy which is 
completely unnecessary.
    Sincerely,
    Peter W. Cline, CFP



MTC-00005581

From: HYLER, BUCK
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in total agreement with the proposal settlement.
    I hope the Judge will not be inclined to give any consideration 
to the special interest groups that are trying to derail this for 
their own benefit.
    BV Hyler



MTC-00005582

From: Nick A. Corcodilos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For years we have watched this ludicrous attack on 
Microsoft_and we heard the complainants demand justice from 
the courts and the government. Now, the government has worked out a 
reasonable settlement with Microsoft, and some of the complainants 
once again reveal their intent_not to resolve anything, but to 
turn this into a permanent battle, wasting taxpayer`s and 
Microsoft`s time and money. The courts are not the place for 
competitors of Microsoft to make their case_they need to make 
it to the consumer and the market. Please don`t encourage them to 
continue this unproductive legal battle.
    As a consumer, I consider the settlement fair and, more 
important, necessary to all parties involved. I urge the District 
Court to approve it. For what it`s worth, I never saw any benefit to 
the consumer (including businesses that use Microsoft products) 
behind this attack. Competition in our free market is complex. Few 
survive. And that`s as it should be. The states and companies that 
have agreed to the settlement are to be commended. The rest should 
go back to the drawing board and develop better products. Let`s get 
this over with, finally. Perhaps those hold-outs ought to be charged 
the `consumer' costs of this protracted 
litigation_as a consumer I believe Microsoft has been hampered 
from innovating while it has dealt with this battle.
    Respectfully,
    Nick Corcodilos
    ASK THE HEADHUNTER
    web: http://www.asktheheadhunter.com
    tel: (908) 236-8440 (NJ)
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00005583

From: Craig Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I urge you to accept the current settlement. Justice has been 
done. All parties have been duly served.
    Microsoft along with its many competitors, must be able to serve 
the consuming public. It serves no useful purpose to continue to 
pursue Microsoft. Only the attorneys stand to benefit, not the 
consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Craig W. Stewart
    206-729-0807



MTC-00005584

From: DeBona, Dave
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The events of the past few years have brought to light many 
things, few of which have been earth shattering, enlightening or 
consumer friendly. So it was with great pleasure that I heard of the 
settlement. As a professional who deals with not only Microsoft but 
other industry players and as a `home user' I was 
thrilled to hear this action was coming to an end. I was also happy 
to hear that Microsoft as a company would not be 
`dismembered' as so many of Microsoft`s competitors had 
hoped for.
    I think this decision by the DOJ shows a committed and honest 
concern and fairness for both the consumers, Microsoft, and their 
competitors. The cost of this trial and the resultant ebb and flow 
in the economy has put more strain on the industry than those 
practices Microsoft had been accused of. The sad fact of the matter 
is that Microsoft dominates because there are few alternatives worth 
chasing. I liken this to grocery stores. There are often times 1, 2 
or even 3 within a few miles of a home. However, usually only 1 
place gets shopped consistently. The only time a change occurs is 
when one store has `better' products or better pricing, 
i.e. something compelling to make me change. Of course this is 
simplified, but to the average consumer, simple is understandable 
and desired.
    It`s sad to see companies such as Oracle, Sun, and especially 
AOL screaming about the practices and policies of Microsoft. Oracle 
has dominated the database world for a long time, their product has 
been somewhat slow to adopt new standards and upgrade performance. 
They consistently lose ground to Microsoft and IBM in this area. Sun 
has always dominated the Web server market, again, being somewhat 
slow to react and upgrade. They too face increased competition from 
many hardware vendors, due largely in part to Microsoft`s NT 
operating systems and the performance/value proposition they 
provide. And AOL, I can`t say much good about AOL, so I won`t. 
Suffice it to say, they are certainly in the pot calling the kettle 
back category. So as you can see, I`m very happy

[[Page 24735]]

that this case if finally coming to an end and I thank the DOJ and 
the new administration for putting emphasis where it belongs. I 
would also urge the DOJ to do whatever it can to put an end to the 
other 9 states who possibly feel the need to file their own cases in 
light of not accepting this settlement. Those 9 states attorney 
general`s should be ashamed of themselves. They play politics while 
spending their states money, not too mention pressuring Microsoft to 
continue spending legal dollars on this. Of course this will 
eventually translate into passed on cost to the consumer. But of 
course, the 9 states AG`s don`t seem to care about anything other 
than their own political interests.
    I would very much appreciate information on where I can write 
these 9 states AG`s.
    Thank you for your Time.
    David DeBona
    Technical Consultant, eCommerce
    Victoria`s Secret Direct-The Limited, Inc. eMail
    Work: 
    Home: [email protected] 

    Phone
    Work: 614-337-5258
    Home: 614-478-9177
    Cell: 614-582-6072
    [email protected] 

    Pager: 614-520-4005



MTC-00005585

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a Microsoft user and share holder, I felt the lawsuit at the 
time was a bogus political ploy on the part of the Clinton 
Administration to punish Microsoft for not putting enough of my 
retirement money into the coffers of the Democratic Machinery. I 
also feel anything the new DOJ can do to make this thing go away is 
a good thing. The settlement is adequate. The DOJ needs to keep its 
focus on kicking people out of this country who come over here with 
the sole intent on killing Americans.
    Mike Madden
    Gulfport, MS



MTC-00005586

From: Houlihan, Kelly P.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Can this be over? We all know the computer industry is so fast 
paced that Microsoft could be gone by next year if you try holding 
them down.
    Kelly Houlihan
    Construction Supt.
    Oakland
    510-773-6353
    510-835-2492 fax



MTC-00005587

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    As a consumer in the software market place I want to express my 
opinion regarding the Tunney Act. I believe it is fair, reasonable, 
in the publics best interest and should not be further litigated.
    Lary Simpson



MTC-00005588

From: Ron Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen_
    I wish to express my approval of the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation. I believe this is a fair and reasonable 
settlement and is in the best interest of the consumers of Microsoft 
products and the technology industry in general.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald R. Black
    PO Box 682
    Peru, NY 12972



MTC-00005589

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Settlement
    I feel that the DOJ settlement is sufficient and should be 
final. It is my belief that Microsoft should be allowed to innovate 
without government interference.
    John Peoples



MTC-00005590

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
    For the sake of the Nation lets end this lawyers fee management 
effort to delay progress.
    Richard McGregor



MTC-00005591

From: Edwin McClannan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this suit now. Microsoft should not used as a test bed 
for social law engineering. Investor confidence and world-wide 
investors have had their confidence shaken by the manner in which 
the Clinton Justice Department handled and choose American 
Corporations for litagition. It is apparent that campain 
contributions could have prevented this injustice against Microsoft 
in the first place. This corporation has paid their taxes and has 
provided untold wealth of many Americans, either in the form of jobs 
in manufacture, development or on computers. Microsoft has managed 
to make our lives a little better. No Democrat Social Agenda should 
ever be allowed to wrangle cash from corporations for spending of 
people by intimidation or changing the law as we go to secure funds 
for frivilious social spending.
    Edwin L. McClannan
    [email protected]



MTC-00005592

From: Joseph Sabrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is important that our government spend time and money on 
creating jobs rather than going after a company that has created 
over 1 Million new jobs in the USA.
    Regards,
    Joe Sabrin
    eHire
    40 Fulton St._19th Floor
    New York, New York 10038
    212-513-7160
    [email protected]
    www.ehire.com



MTC-00005593

From: Gary Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has continued to provide the products I need to deal 
with my responsibilities and get my work done faster. In an effort 
to create a better product they have bundled other products into the 
code of their operating systems. I love this! For me, the consumer, 
I can choose to pay the price Microsoft wants me to pay and get a 
FULL featured operating system_that continues to have more 
features (programs) added to it in each release_or I can 
choose Linux for free and find pretty much everything I need for 
free. It`s ALL about my choice. Microsoft is out to get their 
operating system to as many people as they can. So how would you do 
it? GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT...A GOOD PRODUCT (which means 
integrated the different programs into the operating system...it`s 
convenient for me).
    Thanks for listening,
    Gary



MTC-00005594

From: Cheryl Schuh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    If the voice of the people still has any meaning in this 
country, then please hear mine.
    Stop further litigation against Microsoft. The settlement is 
fair and just so let it be. Given the current state of our economy 
further litigation seems rather senseless and destructive. Even 
though I do not reside in Washington state, I can see how the hit 
that the airlines industry has taken since 9/11hurt the state 
through the Boeing company. Microsoft is a major industry in that 
state, let`s let them get on with business under the the current 
settlement and help to bring strength back to our economy.
    `Justice for all' should include the big and the 
small companies, the rich and the poor, give the American Dream back 
to Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl Schuh



MTC-00005595

From: Count Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Stop the nonsense
    It is time to drop the case.
    1.Many of the attackers of Microsoft appear to be motivated only 
by their own self-interest. Most of the state Attorneys General have 
reportedly received support, monetary

[[Page 24736]]

and otherwise, from various competitors of Microsoft. From the 
numerous press conferences it seems that the AGs are in this for 
their own self-interest_headlines and hob-knobbing with the 
rich and famous.
    2.The competitors appear to be sore-losers. From a consumer 
point-of-view they are guilty of far worse than they charge 
Microsoft with. An example is Netscape. Once I installed their 
product only to find that it had insinuated itself as the default 
system and made the original browsers unusable. It took me several 
days to repair the damage caused by Netscape.
    3.The president of Sun makes pronouncements that seem libelous. 
As a user of a personal computer I do not want to be forced to waste 
time and money to obtain features that should be part of the 
operating system. If the silly proposals by the states AGs were 
implemented, I would have to spend a lot more money and time buying, 
installing, and resolving inconsistencies.
    Why don`t you charge the states Attorneys General and their 
corporate accomplices with racketeering? It certainly looks to me 
like that is what they are doing. They are not helping the consumer 
only themselves.
    Sincerely,
    E. C. Curtis



MTC-00005596

From: kenboyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to drop a note to say that I support the proposed 
settlement between the federal government, the nine states, and 
microsoft. I feel that the current enviroment is competitive, and 
that any more draconian steps against microsoft would serve only to 
help their competitors and not help the consumer.
    ken boyer



MTC-00005597

From: Deborah Mangiamele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Like millions of Americans, the computer has become part of my 
everyday life. Thanks to innovations from Microsoft, my skills 
continue to improve and I continue to learn_right at home. 
With continual online updates, tech support and user-friendly style 
of troubleshooting, I`ve been encouraged me to expand my computer 
horizons. Microsoft must continue to develop technology that 
compliments our world without sanctions or restrictions. I believe 
the settlement is a fair answer at this point.
    My wishes for a healthy, peaceful and prosperous 2002!
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Mangiamele
    Rochester, New York



MTC-00005598

From: Phillip Wertheimer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a Microsoft customer for 15 years. In my opinion, it 
is in the best interest on the consumer public and the tax payers of 
America that we settle this now and move one. Back in the old days 
of operating systems we had many choices. But when someone wanted to 
write a software application that had to decide what operating 
system they would write the program for. Now they have only two 
choices Mac or Windows operating system. We are seeing more products 
come to market now.
    Phillip Wertheimer
    Intersea Fisheries West
    Tel: 206-285-5630
    Fax: 206-283-7627



MTC-00005599

From: Brian Frink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Fair
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am writing to express my total support for the settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust matter. As a consumer and taxpayer, I view 
this settlement as fair and logical.
    Brian Frink
    16 Premier Ct.
    Chico, CA 95928



MTC-00005600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please
    no more delays. i agree with the present settlement as is 
between the usdoj and microsoft. we as a nation have to get on in 
life after 9/11/01. microsoft as a major company can only help the 
united states. please let microsoft do there work and research to 
better help our society
    sincerely yours
    jeffrey a. chance



MTC-00005601

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To add to the views of others about the proposed settlement, I 
will just say that I think that in the fast moving world of 
computers and the internet, Microsoft hasn`t long to 
`live' anyway, and you had better settle this case 
before there is not a significant company left to deal with. I also 
think that Microsoft`s competitors are ridiculous to have pushed 
this suit in the first place, expecially given how the landscape is 
and also has been shifting so quickly.



MTC-00005602

From: Michael C. Moll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am for this settlement. Please consider this during this final 
process.
    Mike Moll



MTC-00005603

From: Elena Luisa Garella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: TUNNEY ACT PUBLIC COMMENT_ MS SETTLEMENT
    It is ESSENTIAL to the development of the American computer 
industry and to the rule of law that the Windows monopoly be 
dismantled and more importantly that Microsoft_and all who 
admire it_ learn that laws are there to be obeyed, and the 
judicial system is the final word. The district court and the Court 
of Appeals found egregious and repeated violations of the law. This 
settlement appears to reward Microsoft for its intransigence and 
fails_ in my opinion_ to do anything to repair the 
damage done to the consumers.
    HAVE YOU USED A WINDOWS PRODUCT LATELY? Windows OS and many MS 
products are unwieldy, subject to crashes, and generally inferior to 
Macintosh and other non-MS products such as real networks, true 
JAVA, etc.. . AND YET MS HAS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MARKET due to 
their predatory practices. The settlement will not revive the 
competition and will simply ensure the continued dominance of second 
rate products and the insufferable Microsoft arrogance.
    PLEASE STOP THIS SETTLEMENT AND PURSUE LEGAL REMEDIES IN 
DISTRICT COURT! Why is MS pushing this settlement so hard? Because 
they know that it is vastly favorable to them than the result that 
would be obtained in Court_ and you can`t tell me that the 
result in Court would not be more favorable to consumers in the long 
run.
    Elena Garella,
    Seattle, Washington



MTC-00005604

From: Enrique C. Perez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft` settlement
    I want to show my support to the Court settlement and for that 
reason I`m sending this e-mail.
    Have a nice day!



MTC-00005605

From: Hoffman, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the settlement agreement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is both fair and reasonable. 
In my opinion, the agreement more than adequately addresses all 
issues raised during the trial. Furthermore, I feel that a quick 
resolution to these proceedings would be beneficial to consumers and 
taxpayers alike. During this long process, it has seemed to me, that 
the concern has been for the interests of a select few corporate 
entities, and that very little attention has been paid to the harm, 
or lack thereof, to consumers and taxpayers caused by Microsoft`s 
practices. This action against Microsoft, the long proceeding 
associated with it, and the deplorable behavior of Judge Jackson 
have caused more harm to consumers and taxpayers than Microsoft ever 
has.
    Robert Hoffman
    Flushing, New York
    [email protected]

[[Page 24737]]



MTC-00005606

From: Don Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: For Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing to let my voice be heard that the settlement with 
Microsoft should be done. The cost and disruption of business 
spurred by the interests of a few greedy competitors and their state 
attorney generals is disgusting. Please stop this insanity and get 
on with life. Microsoft is a great company with fantastic products. 
I use their products as well as other software companies and find 
theirs is the best and most reliable at a reasonable price. Thanks 
for taking the time to read this and please lets get this over now.
    Sincerely, Don Carlson



MTC-00005607

From: Russ East
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please accept the settlement as it is. Microsoft has done so 
much for the economy and for humanity! Before home computers I would 
have had to work outside my home in a hospital or doctor`s office. 
Because of Microsoft I now work at home where I am available to my 
children at any time. We have products other than Microsoft on our 
computer and certainly don`t feel forced to only use Microsoft 
products. America was built on ingenuity and it should not be 
squelched. thank you. criss east



MTC-00005608

From: Mark Gabrielle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Settle and get on_this is nuts to begin with
    Microsoft offers a superior product and should not be penalized 
for it, its one of the few global business that a US company is 
dominant (other countries encourage and even support, sometimes US 
does the opposite and pushes to break them up- sometimes this is 
right and sometimes it is not, in this case I support Microsoft). 
Yes, Mr Gates is a character, probably not a good public defender of 
Microsoft, but he has made his company into something that many 
other companies wish they could.



MTC-00005609

From: Robert Beene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Department of Justice,
    First, let me thank you for your efforts with the case regarding 
Microsoft. As an employee of Microsoft, I have watched the case with 
great interest and I firmly believe both Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice want the same thing_Happy Consumers who 
are not being taken advantage of and a company that competes fairly.
    I wanted to take this moment to voice my opinion in that the 
settlement proposed to bring the case to settlement is a very just 
and reasonable proposal. I believe the proposed changes will 
positively impact consumers and make positive changes in the way 
that Microsoft does business that will not hamper Microsoft`s 
ability to innovate and will also allow competitors to continue to 
compete with Microsoft and vice versa.
    Thank you again for the time you have spent working on this 
issue and for the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Beene, MCSD



MTC-00005610

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is good for consumers, the 
industry, and the economy. It is time to move on.
    Clayton K. Thompson
    2420 Winnetka Dr.
    Rockford, IL 61108



MTC-00005611

From: JKIRKPATRICK@PILLSBURY. COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We have had enough litigation on this matter. It is time for the 
settlement to be consumated.
    James S. Kirkpatrick
    P. O. Box 1715
    Dension, TX 75021-1715
    The information contained in this message is private and 
confidential information which may also be subject to the attorney-
client privilege and work product doctrine. This information is 
intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this 
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all 
copies of the message. Thank you.



MTC-00005612

From: Jim Jones
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The existing settlement is in the public`s best interest and 
should be enacted to finally resolve this dispute. The state 
attorney`s general who do not believe in this settlement are not 
acting in the publics best interest.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Jones



MTC-00005613

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please tell the DOJ to move on to important subjects like 
terrorism, etc., and leave Microsoft alone.



MTC-00005614

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Comments
    It is my considered opinion that the proposed settlement IS in 
the public interest as well as in the interest of the market and all 
investors in the market and NOT just the Microsoft investors or 
Microsoft itself. The settlement has been too long in coming and the 
conclusion has been delayed for one inane reason after another. If 
`interest groups' would stop debating what `their 
interests' dictate we might be able to put this one behind us 
and get on with our struggles in this unusual economy where all 
software companies proceed to gain market share by virtue of their 
`products' and not try and stifle the progress of 
superior products in the marketplace.
    We are where we are in the overall world economy because of our 
free market/free enterprise system. That system should not be 
thwarted for `special interest' reasons advanced by the 
so called special interest groups. Let`s get on with it and get it 
DONE, once and for all.
    Thank you.
    George C. Montgomery



MTC-00005615

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Further pursuit of the Microsoft case makes absolutely no sense. 
Accept the settlement and get along with the nation`s business. With 
the political and economic issues at stake in the world today it is 
absurd to divert our energies from what is really important.
    Paul F. Teryl
    7450 NW 4th Street
    Apt 206
    Plantation, Florida 33317



MTC-00005616

From: Rich Hoffman
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ:
    I believe the settlement is fair and reasonable. It is time for 
the parties to move on.
    Rich Hoffman
    Vice President_Taxes
    Outsourcing Solutions Inc.
    390 South Woods Mill Rd., Suite 350
    Chesterfield, MO 63017
    T: 314-514-2607
    F: 314-576-7949
    E: [email protected] 

    Outsourcing services are primarily performed by OSI Outsourcing 
Services, Inc.; collection services are primarily performed by OSI 
Collection Services, Inc.; letter series collection services are 
primarily performed by North Shore Agency, Inc. and Transworld 
Systems Inc.; portfolio services are performed by OSI Portfolio 
Services, Inc.
    This message (including any attachments) contains confidential 
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is 
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should 
delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any 
action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

[[Page 24738]]



MTC-00005617

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:39pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Judgement_comments
    Hi,
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case doesn`t 
solve the underlying issue_Microsoft`s ability to, and intent 
to control its market place. It also fails to provide any remedy to 
the rest of the industry for the years that Microsoft abused its 
position.
    Most of the people I talk to are not seeking punishment for 
Microsoft, but rather a balancing of the playing field. A change in 
the rules which promotes competition and allows other vendors (the 
existing vendors, and new startups) to compete in an open and fair 
way with Microsoft. Then let the consumer choose which product(s) 
they want. The issue that exists is that with its current position, 
Microsoft can smother any sector of the industry by `integrating` 
that sectors technologies it`s operating systems
    In the early nineties, there were loads of independent vendors 
of TCP/IP software for windows (Microsoft didn`t include it with 
Windows_and you had to pay extra for it). Loads of companies 
made money by adding value to Windows, by solving problems for 
users.. Microsoft eliminated that entire market by bundling TCP/IP 
with windows.
    The same has happened with the office productivity suites_ 
Lotus/Corel have all faded into insignificance because they cannot 
compete in a market where Microsoft not only owns the operating 
system_but through that forces people to use it`s propietary 
file formats..
    The same happened again with the WWW browser 
market_Netscape has died a horrible death because of 
Microsoft`s abuse of it`s position.
    Microsoft are currently attempting to eliminate their 
competitors in the WWW server market space by bundling IIS as part 
of NT_and they have clearly set their sights on controlling 
the internet with their promises for .NET technology. When does 
enough become enough ? Will we all have to wait for total global 
meltdown_when there is only Microsoft left ? Or will we go on 
forever_promising ourselves that it`s really isn`t that bad, 
and it`s a sign of a healty industry ? The playing field needs to be 
level, and kept that way. To fix the problems of old, Microsoft 
needs to make full details of it`s file-formats public. It also 
needs to make full details of it`s network protocols public.
    No-one is suggesting that any intellectual property that 
microsoft owns should be given away_but how a sequence of bits 
can translate into intellectual property is beyond me.
    Microsoft keeps it`s implementations that it uses in it`s 
operating systems_but in the case of new technologies_it 
should release the source code for a reference 
implementation_one that fully adheres to the standards.
    It`s up to other people to innovate, but the underlying data 
format should be available to all. Why is my data stored in a format 
to which only Microsoft own the key? Is that protecting the consumer 
or Microsoft..
    If you doubt that statement_try (using any non-microsoft 
software) to extract your email in a usable format from a Microsoft 
outlook .pst file... If you succeed_please let me know as I 
have 19Mb of email I can no-longer get access to because I haven`t 
paid for my software license to microsoft for the exchange server. 
People worry about not being able to get access to information in 
the future_there are loads of us being denied access to our 
own information *now*.
    Based on the current proposed settlement, Microsoft seems to be 
exempted from publishing authentication system information. What is 
there to prevent Microsoft from adding a password field to the start 
of every file format_and claim that the format is now an 
integral part of the authentication system? Alas, the settlement 
needs to be clear, concise and needs to define the environment for 
all technology companies to operate without the monopolistic 
approach of Microsoft.
    Many thanks for your time and efforts reading this far,
    Rgds,
    Chris
    CC:Chris Higgins



MTC-00005618

From: Gary Gromet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: approval needed
    Acceptance of the settlement is in the best interest of the 
consumers. Obviously, the competition does not like it because it 
will allow Microsoft to continue to cut into their profits by 
forcing them to lower prices. No where in the entire litigation 
morass has anyone shown how the consumer has suffered. All that is 
repeatedly shown is the suffering of Microsoft`s competition in that 
their profits are down. The anti-trust efforts against Microsoft are 
analogous to the fairy tale of the emperor without any clothes.
    The competition that Microsoft faces cannot compete 
successfully, so they say it is Microsoft`s fault when in reality it 
is there own inability to do their own job correctly that prevents 
their own success. Like many Americans, they won?t accept 
responsibility for their own mistakes.
    All the government anti-trust attorneys could then concentrate 
their efforts on ending the petroleum monopoly which is the cause of 
artificially inflated prices for energy. The price of petroleum does 
not take into account the cost of production only the stranglehold 
of production exercised by petroleum exporting countries.
    Discount Health Foods
    www.DiscountHealthFoods.net
    858 N.Krome Ave.
    Homestead, FL 33030, USA
    Tel: 305-247-8487
    Fax: 708-575-6632
    I use Hotmail because all incoming and outgoing e-mail is 
screened for viruses by Symantec (Norton Anti-Virus)



MTC-00005619

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: (no subject)
    A company must have the freedom to innovate. I want to see this 
case settled ASAP. I am in favor of Microsoft`s position.
    G. Lee



MTC-00005620

From: Joe935
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time this case was settled. The government should not be 
penalizing Businesses that do well. They do well because the people 
buy their products and that means the people want them.
    The government would better spend their time going after the 
real menace in this country, DRUGS.
    Joe Calderone



MTC-00005621

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: MY REPLY RE. MICROSOFT ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT FIASCO
    AS A GOP CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR / US SENATE FROM MICHIGAN IN 
2002, I HAVE ALWAYS OPPOSED STRONGLY THE DOJ AS WELL AS MY OWN 
STATE`S ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE ILL ADVISED STUPID LAWSUIT AGAIINST 
A LEADING AMERICAN JOB PROVIDER SUCH AS THE MICROSOFT CORP. WHEN 
ELECTED AS THE NEXT GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN I WILL CUT THE BUDGET OF 
THE STATE A.G. OFFICE AND GET RID OFF THE SOCIALIST LAWYERS IN THAT 
DEPARTMENT.
    SINCERELY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR,
    ED H-A-M-I-L-T-O-N
    REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR `02
    [email protected]
    (248) 643-0403 OR (248) 701_3670_CELL PHONE



MTC-00005622

From: L. Scott Masi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it May Concern:
    I am writing today as a taxpayer and as a computer professional. 
I must say that I am appalled at the waste of time and money by the 
US government regarding their continued pursuit of Microsoft.
    I think that we all should look at the overall benefits from 
Microsoft products. The computer industry has benefited greatly over 
the past number of years due to the fact that Microsoft has taken a 
leadership role in the development and deployment of useful tools 
for each and every consumer. Without the leadership that Microsoft 
provides, there would be far too many standards and applications 
that probably could not and would not interact with one another in 
an appreciable way.
    Please lets just accept the agreement on the table and allow 
Microsoft to continue to innovate and produce the high-quality 
software that every computer user has become accustomed to using. 
The proposed remedy, to which Microsoft has agreed, should allow 
many more companies to have

[[Page 24739]]

access to the parts of the Windows operating environment so that 
they, too, may be able to develop robust, useful applications. Why 
continue to try to destroy one of the best examples of corporate 
success in America`s history.
    I applaud the management team at Microsoft for helping virtually 
every computer user in the world today. OK, there may be a few apple 
hold-outs, but whose programs are used by the overwhelming majority 
of personal computer users in the world? Microsoft! Whose programs 
are the glue that holds together countless production applications 
and environments? Microsoft! Let the nay-sayers try to imagine for 
just one moment how difficult their jobs would be without the 
standards and programs provided by Microsoft.
    So, as far as I am concerned, I think that the government 
(courts) should approve the agreement, and let Microsoft continue to 
provide me, and all of the other computer users in the world, with 
the fine software products that we have come to expect from them.
    Sincerely,
    L. Scott Masi
    Senior Analyst
    215-345-0997



MTC-00005623

From: Arthur Tuber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: Anti Trust Suit
    This lawsuit has infuriated me from day one. It strikes me that 
the government is against ingenuity and success. It also appears 
Clinton was angry about not receiving a contribution for his 1996 
re-election campaign, eventually leading to this unnecessary law 
suit.
    Enough is enough. All phony charges should be dropped, allowing 
Microsoft to continue improving their software for the benefit of 
ALL our people.
    Sincerely,
    Art Tuber



MTC-00005624

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I have been a long time supporter of Microsoft and I am against 
any further action against the company. I believe it has been 
wrongly prosecuted and that the company and country have suffered on 
account of this action. I am a strong advocate for competition in 
the marketplace. However, I disagree that the government should try 
to `level the playing field' in favor of those companies 
that are unable to compete without the government intervention.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Ringering



MTC-00005625

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft suit is hurting our country. A few competitors 
should not be able to destroy the greatest company in the history of 
technology. Settling the suit will help us get out of a recession. 
There are more important things going on now. Get this suit settled 
now! It should NEVER have been filed against Microsoft.



MTC-00005626

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to urge the Department of Justice to proceed as 
quickly as possible with the positive settlement of this case. I 
feel this whole litigation was politically motivated and that 
Microsoft, the corporation, has taken the brunt because they were 
innovators and leader in a new economic field which did not contain 
all the restraints and laws normally in place in a more established 
field. Our economy suffered because of this litigation. Consumers 
have expressed many times their disagreement with the government 
that they have suffered damage. Microsoft has supplied a whole new 
way to communicate and consumers have agreed. With the election of a 
new President and the events of September 11, it is time to let this 
go and work on positive ways to support the people of the United 
States.
    Judith R. Petersen,
    Public Citizen and Voter in the State of Washington



MTC-00005627

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please do not impose any more harm upon Microsoft than was 
placed upon its customers. That is to say, if you can quantify how 
much less the consumers should have paid for their Windows software, 
that should be the damages.
    I, for one, would gladly pay again for the use of this software. 
As the browser was free, as are many updates from Msft, there would 
be no harm there. I have both Netscape and IE on my computer and I 
never use Netscape unless I have to.
    Microsoft`s rivals should not control our courts in their 
deliberations or punishments meted out. The proposed settlement is 
fair to all sides, and the States should follow the lead of the 
Federal Government.
    Mike Stoddard
    Tampa, Florida



MTC-00005628

From: Robert Andersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a consumer and tax payer I urge you not to mess up, keep 
Microsoft whole. We have something that works lets keep it that way. 
If other suppliers are better let them come forward without 
government (state or federal) intervention. In a free nation the 
best will win.
    R. B. Andersen
    Oceanside, CA



MTC-00005629

From: Krupoff, Marty
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlemet
    I think you should settle with Microsoft based on the latest 
agreement sannounced in the newspaper.



MTC-00005630

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern:
    My wife and I believe that the Microsoft settlement is a good 
one.We hope that the nine states opposing the settlement be 
convinced of that as well. It truly is a wonderful company and I 
believe they really have the best interest of the consumers of their 
products. If it were not for this company and what products they 
have created in the last 18 years we would not be where we are 
today!!!
    Please settle this case as soon as possible!! Please convince 
the nine states that it is best to settle. I believe that the 
Microsoft company has been humbled to some extent by this case will 
be more attentive to the needs of the consumer, business piers and 
all the users of their products globally!
    Theodore & Shelley Gruber
    18132 Meandering Way
    Dallas,TX
    75252



MTC-00005631

From: Bud (038) Nell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case reminds me of the time that our goverment was looking 
out for the consumer and broke up the Bell Telephone system. HA!! 
What a laugh!! Talk about killing innovation as this country went 
from the best and cheapest telephone system in the world to one of 
the most expensive and shoody. Butt out!!!
    LAD in Texas



MTC-00005632

From: Dickon Smart-Gill
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir / Madam,
    I would like to voice my opinion on the United States vs 
Microsoft case number 98-1233
    After reviewing the documents, in particular http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm I am in support of the 
current settlement agreement. I believe that the action taken by the 
United States is fair to both Microsoft and the consumer.
    Dickon Smart-Gill



MTC-00005633

From: Deptula,Elaine(NXI)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The settlement is fair to all so let`s be done with it. It is 
about time that we get on with America`s business and settle this 
lawsuit. It seems like there are certain groups that want to keep 
this going just for the joy of it... it

[[Page 24740]]

is important to our economy that we get this behind us. We have a 
lot to do and are wasting time with this effort.
    Elaine Deptula
    Director, External Contracts
    PH: 312-822-1284
    Fax: 312-817-2272
    [email protected]



MTC-00005634

From: Jeffrey A. Schmatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: A Small Business Owners Perspective
    I challenge anyone from the DOJ to come to my office, sit across 
from my desk and tell me how Microsoft has hurt my business. I have 
a choice everytime I go to the store.....if they have the best 
product I buy it....if they don`t I buy another. That is called the 
American way. This action was a huge waste of the taxpayer`s money 
and as a taxpayer I am pissed off. Why don`t you go after some real 
criminals?
    Jeffrey Schmatz
    JS Media LLC
    112 West Hawk Avenue
    McAllen, Texas 78504-1802
    956-682-2766
    956-682-9472 (fax)
    work [email protected]
    home [email protected]



MTC-00005635

From: Kirk Conklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
This sums up what I as a consumer think about this attack on free 
enterprise. Put the Clinton era of political attacks and payoffs 
behind us and let innovation thrive.
    Kirk Conklin



MTC-00005636

From: Penny Woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
    Go along with government settlement and don`t prolong agony any 
further. Took years to resolve this far and country needs to move 
on.



MTC-00005637

From: joseph harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my view the Microsoft Settlement known as the Tunney Act is 
fair and reasonable. I believe after four years of litigation it is 
time to move on and stop wasting the tax payers money on a case that 
should have been settled years ago. The nine states that don`t want 
to settle are not thinking about consumers. They are only concerned 
with the competitors of Microsoft. The Anti-Trust law was not 
established to even the playing field between competitors, it`s 
purpose was to keep prices competitive. I think Microsoft has kept 
the prices of it`s products competitive. The competitors of 
Microsoft should stop whining. If they came up with a better product 
for a lower price, people would buy that product regardless of 
whether Microsoft Windows was loaded into the computer at the 
factory or not.
    Joe Harrison
    7320 E. Patricia
    Port Orchard, WA 98366



MTC-00005638

From: Viken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Support Microsoft. Thank you.



MTC-00005639

From: Richard Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Please accept this mailing as a request that The Department 
encourage a hasty settlement in this captioned case involving 
Microsoft`s anti-trust violations. M/S has already lost a bundle and 
the consumer is the big loser so far.
    Let these folks out in Washington state get on with what they do 
best,,,,help business and individuals save money and time. While I 
personally think Microsoft should fight to win, if they think this 
is a fair settlement, so be it; let it be done.
    Thanks for your consideration of my plea.
    Sincerely,
    Richard W. Jackson
    3425 Crosswinds
    Alexander City, AL 35010



MTC-00005640

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is our opinion that the recent settlement reached in the 
Microsoft case should be allowed to stand, so that this litigation 
can be brought to an end.
    Thank you.
    Henry and Dian Ash
    3766 E. Lake Drive
    Land O Lakes, FL 34639



MTC-00005641

From: Jim Rubino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement should proceed without 
further delay.
    Jim Rubino
    2521 W. Marion Ave. #311
    Punta Gorda, FL. 33950
    941-575-1340
    [email protected]
    and during trial phase
    [email protected]



MTC-00005642

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This trial has wasted enough time and money for both this 
country and Microsoft. Please see that it is brought to a speedy 
close. I feel the settlement agreed upon is fair for all concerned. 
thank you,
    Thomas D. Kohl



MTC-00005643

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:47pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear sirs
    With the economy as it is and the harrasement of those that 
would like to see the eventual demise of Microsoft, i think that a 
quick and fair settlement of this case. Microsoft is not doing 
anything that any other big business is doing or has done.
    Thank you
    Dean King



MTC-00005644

From: Sam George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to please consider settling the Microsoft case as it 
stands. I believe (as a consumer) that this is the best course of 
action.



MTC-00005645

From: Jim Hurst
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/2/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed settlement, lets get on with business and 
stop waisting taxpayer money. Thank you.
    James R.Hurst



MTC-00005646

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Dear Sirs,
    In my humble opinion, Microsoft`s Bill Gates has been truthful 
and forthcoming, and a champion of leadership in spite of the 
intolerable scrutiny his business has undergone these past four 
years. Mr. Gates has singularly propelled the information age, and I 
daresay that his attackers are not only motivated by petty jealousy 
and greed, but were it not for Mr. Gates and Microsoft, his 
detractors and defamers, some of them, would still be in the 
technological dark ages. Mr. Gates has behaved in an exemplary 
fashion with the Department of Justice, and were it you or I or most 
anyone, can you not imagine feeling the most callous disregard for 
this nation, can you not imagine just walking away from it all? Mr. 
Gates continues, however to show us the spirit that built Microsoft, 
and appears, unimaginably, undaunted.
    For God`s sake, please don`t break Bill Gate`s spirit.
    Tim Rummell



MTC-00005647

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ

[[Page 24741]]

    Please leave Microsoft alone and alow them to continue to 
developing sepurior Window and business applications. If the 
competition can not keep up that is their fault. Microsoft should 
not be punished for be able develop great products.
    Richard Power
    DB Design Consultants



MTC-00005648

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemnt
    This DOJ should settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible. 
There is a hatred of successful business people in this country as 
reflected by the consistent anti-trust cases against successful 
businesses.
    This form of bigotry must stop.
    Sincerely,
    Edward L. Engler
    857 Berick Dr.
    St. Louis, MO 63132



MTC-00005649

From: Giacomo Zardetto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The settlement with Microsoft must stand, let`s get this over 
and done with. Litigation of our government and a industry leader 
can only give America a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION. Lets move forward and 
support the innovators, the leaders of our private enterprise, 
providers of jobs, providers of taxes, they are the whole purpose of 
our Capitalist Society. Without capital creators there are no taxes, 
without taxes there is no government.
    World affairs, current national circumstances show us that the 
time for bickering amongst ourselves is BAD POLICY. UNITED WE STAND, 
DIVIDED WE FALL. Team players is what we should be, private 
enterprise and government. Do you think that if Microsoft would be a 
company from any other country in the world, that `said' 
country would be trying to weaken or destroy it as it is, as it 
stands today?
    Please conclude the settlement and lets move our country 
forward, we`ve got bigger problems to deal with than to harm a 
company for being good at what they do.
    Giacomo Zardetto
    Orcas Island, WA
    [email protected]



MTC-00005650

From: Ervin, Craig (INV-EDH)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is fair.. No more litigation so be 
sought!
    Craig Ervin



MTC-00005651

From: Laurence Lewitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It`s time to stop the harassing. Settle and be done with it.



MTC-00005652

From: Ronald Merrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe very strongly that the remaining states should be 
required to accept the settlement agreed to by the Justice 
Department. In my judgement, the Justice Department`s initial 
handling of the case was overly influenced by Microsoft competitors 
and was a major factor in bringing about the current recession. It 
is important to the economy that the Justice Department insist on 
the current proposal agreed to by the Justice Department and 
Microsoft.
    Ronald D. Merrell
    Ph.D. Business Administration
    Ronald D. Merrell, Ph.D.
    Dean of the Graduate School



MTC-00005653

From: CHARLES SPENCE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAYCONCERN, REFERENCE THE MICROSOFT JUSTICE DEPT. 
SETTLEMENT.
    THIS SETTLEMENT IS MORE THAN FAIR ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SUIT 
SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT. THIS SUIT WAS A CLINTON JUSTICE 
DEPT. PAY OFF TO SOME OF MICROSOFT COMPETITORS FOR THEIR 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLINTONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. 
IF IT IS A CRIME TO DEVELOP A BETTER PRODUCT AND BRING IT TO THE 
CONSUMER AT A LOWER COST THEN WE BETTER RETHINK OUR WAY OF LIFE. 
THIS CONCEPT IS WHAT HAS GIVEN AMERICANS THE BEST WAY OF LIFE ON 
THIS EARTH.
    CHARLES E. SPENCE
    2500 EVANS DR.
    PLANO, TX 75075



MTC-00005654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen
    I believe that the setllement is a good thing for the country. 
Approve it. Certainly the antitrust laws mean well and are needed 
but this settlement goes far enough.
    Thanks for your diligence but lets move on.
    Sincerely,
    Robert W. Stevenson



MTC-00005655

From: Ted Ahre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please add my name to the list of citizens who believe that the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft is more than fair to the nation. 
This obvious effort to stifle a successful corporation`s success 
should end here.
    Theodore R. Ahre, CPA
    Oregon



MTC-00005656

From: Debbie McMillen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This case should be settled and closure obtained ASAP. The 
settlement is reasonable and fair. It`s good and is needed for 
consumers, the industry, and our economy. This case should not be 
allowed to go through more litigation that benefits only a few 
wealthy competitors, stifles innovation, and only hurts the American 
economy even further.
    Deb McMillen
    Microsoft Consulting Services
    469-222-1961
    [email protected]



MTC-00005657

From: King Tam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled now. The settlement is good 
for consumers, the industry and the American economy.



MTC-00005658

From: Joel Klopfenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally believe that Microsoft did make some bad decisions 
in the past, and they are no doubt a Monopoly, but in some respects 
the consumer did come out ahead as far as a multipurpose mainstream 
Operating System that could do everything you needed it too. But the 
price could (and should) be a lot cheaper for mainstream use, I 
think it should cost as much as any other software package (around 
30-50$). The settlement that Microsoft will not effect the 
average consumer, and home schools are not allowed in the settlement 
as well. I think the consumer was hurt in the pocket book, and 
therefore the prices should be mandated cheaper, or even have a 
version that is less scaled down just the O.S. nothing more, no 
fluff, for a reasonable price 29.99.
    Joel Klopfenstein



MTC-00005659

From: WUTS, PETER G (091)SUP/0200(093)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    First of all I would like to say that the government should not 
have been involved in suing Microsoft in the first place. This is a 
country that supports free enterprise and innovation_-no 
government intervention should be involved. The settlement that is 
proposed should go through so that the company can get back to the 
work that has helped propel the tech revolution of the 90`s.
    Peter Wuts



MTC-00005660

From: Marie Robinette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please note that taking all things into consideration, what in 
the competitive field has remained the same since this antitrust 
suit was first brough to bear? VERY VERY

[[Page 24742]]

LITTLE!... Note also that those companies that sought relief are 
engaged in their own interests_ creating monopolies in their 
own arenas_meanwhile, Microsoft continues to innovate and 
through immeasurable community service in all locations around the 
world still strives to make lives of others improved through 
technology_see the entire package that is Microsoft_not 
just what the competition is whining about!
    Have a happy and prosperous New Year!!!
    Marie Robinette, MCSE
    Back Office Support
    EMail: [email protected]
    Hours: 9:00 am_6:00 pm (Mon_Fri)
    <>
    Work Hard_Do your best_Keep your word_
    Never get too big for your britches_Trust in God_
    Have no fear_and Never forget a friend. _-Harry S. 
Truman



MTC-00005661

From: shabels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please honor the integrity and intelligence of our best 
businessperson in the US and get off Bill Gates back. Let him go to 
work for us as he always has.
    Best,
    Sharron Belson



MTC-00005662

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s my opinion that the Microsoft settlement benefits both me 
and the public interest. I strongly support the settlement and 
request that DOJ take action to end this controversy and allow all 
parties to get on with business.
    James E. Shrader
    401 South Miller
    Wenatchee, WA
    98801



MTC-00005663

From: Tim L Norris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to express my desire that the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) conclude the Microsoft case as agreed to in the recent 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I am increasingly 
concerned that certain companies are using the legal system as a 
vehicle to reduce the competitiveness of Microsoft in order to 
improve their own position in the marketplace . Under the guise of 
increasing competition, these companies are attempting to thwart 
their competition, in this case, Microsoft. It is shameful conduct 
and the DOJ should publically denounce these attempts to abuse our 
legal system for parochial ends. Let these companies compete in the 
free and open marketplace that characterizes our American system of 
capitalism and end this abuse of our judicial system.
    Sincerely,
    Tim L Norris 310-647-0803
    [email protected]
    Raytheon Systems Company, Airborne EO
    Bldg E1, MS E123
    2000 E. El Segundo Blvd
    El Segundo, CA 90245



MTC-00005664

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: (no subject)
    if msft has the best product on the market ...let the other 
companies compete....don`t have a bully fight for those who can`t 
compete... i thought that america was free rnterprise
    george saunders



MTC-00005665

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a consumer, I am in support of concluding the governments 
case against Microsoft and allowing Microsoft to stay intact as one 
corporation, who have in the past served their customers with 
efficient, cost effective software products, making our business and 
personal lives easier and more productive. To shun a company for 
innovation is not only counter productive, it is harmful to the 
consumer sector and the economy as a whole. The time is ripe for the 
government to settle with Microsoft and end litigation. Thank you 
for your time and effort to this matter.
    Yazen Alhassan
    Alexandria, VA



MTC-00005666

From: andrew minkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The next generation of all technology adoption by the masses 
depends on the end of this case.
    Microsoft can narrow the digital divide. The settlement offering 
to help schools is the best way to do this. I do not think that 
consumers have been hurt, but if there is any group that needs to 
benefit from a paying of Microsoft`s debt to society, it is the 
underprivileged. Do not make any settlement a victory for another 
company or law firm, but a victory for the betterment of the people 
who need it the most.



MTC-00005667

From: Kelly Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the settlement. And I beleive the settlement 
would definitely help to stimulate the slow economy.
    Regards
    Lai Yuen Leung
    Ming Chu Chen



MTC-00005668

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: (no subject)
    The Country needs to put this behind them and get on with more 
pressing matters. Windows XP is a marvelous piece of technology for 
$99. Maybe someday we can deal with why you can buy an inkjet 
printer for $99 that takes $85 worth of ink cartridges to keep it 
working. Roy Magnuson



MTC-00005669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this over with and let the public carry on with their 
daily activities. The settlement is just and should be implemented 
immediately. With AOL and Time Warner merging, one can hardly say 
that Microsoft is a monopoly. I use AOL, when I purchased my 
computer, there were several software options to choose from, 
including MSN. Our economy is suffering enough, let`s get this 
settled and start anew. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my 
opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Dion



MTC-00005670

From: Jim Earley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please terminate this exercise in futility. To prolong this any 
longer will only further unsettle a recessive economy. We consumers 
will be just fine without additional `protection'.
    Jim Earley
    Premier Magnetics
    20381 Barents Sea Circle
    Lake Forest, CA 92630
    [email protected]
    www.premiermag.com



MTC-00005671

From: Mark G Filler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough, already! Wrap this up now!
    Mark G. Filler
    [email protected]



MTC-00005672

From: Donald J. Helsel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement seems fair to all parties 
concerned. This cases should be settled now as further legal efforts 
offer no real benefit to the everyday citizen and would be a further 
waste of tax payer money.
    Don Helsel
    [email protected]



MTC-00005673

From: Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Mlicrosoft Settlement
    I have been a user of Microsoft Products for over 10 years. I 
see no reason why there should be any delay in settlement.
    The law suits brought against Microsoft are instigated by 
competitors that have been

[[Page 24743]]

unable to keep up with Microsoft Research and Development and are 
turning to the law instead of the open market. Microsoft has been 
the reason for the widespread use of the computer by 
millions_their approach to marketing as compared to Apple is 
the reason for their success. There is no reason for Microsoft to be 
punished further. Settle the case and let the free market survive.
    John K. Jouett
    2134 N. Stoney Beach Lane
    Oak Harbor, WA 98277



MTC-00005674

From: Walt Sweyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Get off their backs!!!!



MTC-00005675

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am urging you to consider the proposed Microsoft Settlement to 
truly be in the best interests of the general public. Our current 
economic situation in the U.S.A. should lead the Court to take the 
steps necessary to resolve this matter, to avoid protracted 
litigation, and to allow the economy to move forward.
    Thank you! ISABEL FLEISHER New London, NH



MTC-00005676

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough. How many times must one party defend itself 
against the same charge?? If the states not accepting the settlement 
were party to the suit in the first place, then they should not have 
the option to continue for another ruling that suits their 
interests. Does`nt this border into double jeopardy 
territory?? The states not accepting the negotiated ruling should be 
dropped from all compensatory releif. This is the case in other 
types of litigation.



MTC-00005677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm very much concerned with waste of taxpayers money in 
the Government continuing to pursue the Microsoft antitrust suit. I 
believe that it`s time to get on with more important things, such as 
taking care of our more serious problems, such as the New York 
terrorism situation, and the pursuit of those responsible. Microsoft 
has continued to lead the world in innovations in various software 
fields, and we certainly wouldn`t be where we`re at today without 
Microsoft`s many, many contributions. Plus the contributions 
Microsoft has made to our learning institutions. Let the other cry 
baby companies do their own research, there is nothing to stop them. 
So, enough already, let Microsoft get on with their business.
    Ron McAmis
    1835 Truckee Way
    Salinas, CA 93906-2125



MTC-00005679

From: McGregor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m writing to urge you to accept the settlement proposed by the 
government in it`s litigation against Microsoft Corporation. Further 
litigation by the states is an egregious ploy designed to wring 
competative advantage for corporations residing in those states as 
well as to line the state`s public coffers. As the owner of a 
business with over 30 branch locations and 400 employees, I can 
assure you that we could not do our job half as well today if not 
for Microsoft products and services. They`re reasonably priced, they 
work and they work well together. I`m an agnostic when it comes to 
which operating system, word processor or accounting package we use. 
Unix, IBM, MAC, we`ve tried them all. We use Microsoft products 
because they deliver, period.
    Continuing litigation to prop up dying companies like Novell, or 
companies like Sun that are trapped between open standards and 
cheaper Wintel systems serves no one except the corporate interests 
of those companies.
    End the litigation. Kick out the states. Settle with Microsoft.
    David McGregor
    I didn`t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a 
vegetarian.
    Phone: (801) 944-6333 Cell: (801) 502-7544



MTC-00005680

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir: I am grad the settlement had been reached between 
microsoft and your department. I think this settlement is fair and 
good for the comsumers and our country.
    Thank you!



MTC-00005681

From: bob(u)patti1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    What company in the history of the United States has given back 
more to world communities? Mr. Gates has and is continuing to return 
Millions of dollars to benefit people all over the world. Most of 
his resources go to benefit people who have a real need. I believe 
the recent settlement agreements are fair and provide a real benefit 
to young Americans.
    Don`t let the overzealous competitors and their over paid 
lobbyist and government friends stand in the way of a TRUE AMERICAN 
FRIEND in helping to provide the world with improved technology. Mr. 
Gates is a businessman who has compassion for his industry and the 
people it serves.
    Settle this and let Microsoft get back to what it does 
best.....develop products that help improve the quality of life for 
Americans and the rest of the World.
    Thank You,
    Bob and Patti Turner



MTC-00005682

From: The Third Millennium
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the judge in the case should accept the settlement 
worked out with DOJ and MSFT. This is obvious to any clear and open 
minded public citizen!!
    Clearly special interests with political motivations in 9 states 
(Just look which 9 states are dragging their feet!) are objecting to 
final settlement disregarding the interests of the public and tech 
industry as a whole.
    Let`s get on with it_the longer things are dragged out the 
worse it is for the economy and a recovery!!!
    Accept the DOJ and MSFT settlement they negotiated!!
    Bill Breseman_a concerned citizen



MTC-00005683

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    If Microsoft had not progressed the way it did, we would still 
be limited to 640K memory on our computers and, heaven forbid, the 
OS2 operating system. Their innovation is what paved the way for 
increased capacity on the PC platform, for both disk and for memory. 
Without it, the Internet would be used only by the government, E-
business would be nonexistent, and AOL wouldn`t exist to pressure 
the suit.
    AOL does not allow access of their system by other Internet 
providers (buddy chats, etc.) Shouldn`t this be viewed as unfair 
practices?? Thanks for listening to the electronic side of my 
reasons to back Microsoft. Economically, their suit caused the 
bubble burst in the NASDAQ. How many billions did that cost 
consumers??
    Thanks,
    Amy Cottrell
    MIS Director, Retired



MTC-00005684

From: Howard Todd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing to register my support for the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Government. It is time to put this case 
behind us, for the benefit of consumers and the US economy. Please 
do not let a few states acting on behalf of Microsoft`s competitors 
delay or derail the fair resolution of this case.
    Thanks you,
    Howard Todd
    21464 President Point Rd.
    Kingston, WA 98346
    [email protected]



MTC-00005686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24744]]

    Dear People,
    As a long-time customer of Microsoft products I have followed 
the progress of the DOJ legal actions against the company. Having 
read the current proposed settlement I believe that it correctly 
limits the company`s ability to engage in anticompatitive marketing 
practices while allowing Microsoft to continue to develop 
innovatively integrated products. Please register my support for the 
settlement in the public record.
    Thank you,
    Gene Wedge
    Oak Park, CA



MTC-00005687

From: Holly Simmenroth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settllement
    I hereby take this opportunity to thank the Federal Government 
and States for negotiating a tough but reasonable settlement in the 
Microsoft case. I know this is in the best interests of the 
consumer, the industry and the American Economy in general. I trust 
the Department of Justice will forward my position, as a consumer, 
to the District Court as encouragement to conclude these proceedings 
as quickly as possible.
    Truly Yours,
    Henrietta Simmenroth e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00005688

From: Jeff Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End this process. The proposed settlement is in the best 
interests of all of us.
    Jeff Smith 513 791 5074



MTC-00005689

From: James Muir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am so glad the trail period is over and even though I feel the 
whole mess was a political interference with Business. Spurred by 
competitors who found it easier to compete through their State 
representives and the political arena than the market place the 
situation of Microsofts monopoly has gone on far to long. I feel in 
no way damaged by Microsofts efforts in Technology neither 
financially nor by lack of innovation in the market place. They 
deliver superior products for very reasonable prices and they 
provide great jobs and support their community and the rest of the 
U.S. charity needs. BOTTOM LINE: I think the Government and 
Microsoft resolutions are tough, adequate, and sufficient. Lets get 
on to the next big problem. Thank you. Jim Muir
    James Muir
    [email protected]



MTC-00005690

From: Phillip Kirby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern;
    I feel that Microsoft has proven there commitment to innovate 
many times, and continues their innovations today. They are a 
revolutionary company, who has not only made great software but made 
the world the technologically advanced society that it is now in 
2002! Without there groundbreaking software, I truly believe 
computers would not be used nearly as much as they are today! I feel 
that the settlement if very fair for both Microsoft, consumers, and 
our American Economy!
    Phillip Kirby:
    [email protected]



MTC-00005691

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO THE DOJ,
    It is my opinion that this case against Microsoft should be 
settled as quickly as possible and that Microsoft should be allowed 
to get back to doing what it does best_creating and exploring 
new technologies to benefit our civilization now and in the future.
    Rhoda Fiala



MTC-00005692

From: Patty MacDuffie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proposed settlement is terrific! Go for it!
    Patty MacDuffie



MTC-00005693

From: Robert Van Winkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let this chapter close without additional litigation. The 
economy has suffered enough already and will only continue to suffer 
as this continues to go on.
    This whole process has been a senseless act driven for the 
benefit of the few such as Sun, AOL and Oracle and not the people. I 
have yet to see any evidence in this whole process that people were 
harmed in any way.
    Robert Van Winkle



MTC-00005694

From: Janell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop all further action against Microsoft_the 
current settlement is fair.
    Phil Stover



MTC-00005695

From: Jay Cull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this settlement is fair and should be approved



MTC-00005696

From: Lepianka, Tamara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe we have wasted enough time and money on this case. A 
settlement is in the best interest of all involved and the current 
agreement seems reasonable. I am disappointed that not all states 
accepted the settlement and continue to drag out an issue that will 
only continue to cost their states money. Especially at a time when 
funds would be better spent bolstering the economy, assisting 
families and reducing debt instead of throwing their state funds at 
an issue that has ceased to interest even the Information Technology 
industry, much less the general population. The case needs to be put 
to rest on ALL sides. I only hope that our judicial system exerts as 
much effort prosecuting foreign terrorists as it does in protecting? 
us from American companies.
    Tamara W. Lepianka
    Elizabethtown, KY
    [email protected]
    `MMS ' made the following 
annotations on 01/02/02 12:53:22



MTC-00005697

From: Chuck Newton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to put the Microsoft issue behind us, and the actions 
of various State Attorneys General fail to support the public 
interest in this matter. Suitable penalties have been adjudged on 
Microsoft, and further action at the state level on a matter which 
is predominately a matter of federal jurisdiction will do nothing to 
further the cause of consumers or government. By delay, it has just 
the opposite effect. My suspicion is that, like the tobacco 
settlement, the interest of the states is more for financial benefit 
than for consumer protection. These actions should be repudiated by 
the Justice Department, and a final settlement pursued with all due 
haste.
    Charles G. Newton, Jr.
    30 Bunker Hill Lane
    East Greenwich RI 02818



MTC-00005698

From: scott cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The USDOJ needs to end/settle this situation asap.
    I believe the USDOJ has been manipulated by competing businesses 
that could not win in the marketplace.
    The consumer has a much easier and less expensive time with 
their computing needs today; then ever in history, thanks to 
Microsoft products. The purpose of anti-trust law is to protect the 
consumer who has not been harmed. Please pressure the 13 states 
attorneys general to stop their farce, their motivation is to 
benefit their own political careers, not aid the unharmed consumer.
    Thank you,
    Scott Cuddihy



MTC-00005699

From: Dennis Hardman
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is fair. Further litigation is NOT in 
the public interest.
    Dennis Hardman
    6210 88th Ave West

[[Page 24745]]

    University Place, WA 98467



MTC-00005700

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Industry and Government
    A Great Nation-built upon Industry doing its thang, and 
Government doing it`s. It is only when one or the other tries to 
interfere in the others` areas of expertise that the trouble begins. 
keep it a great nation. Back off this stupid Microsoft Vendetta. Go 
find Osama Bin Laden.
    D.Fitzpatrick
    627 NW 47 Avenue
    Deerfield Beach, FL
    33442



MTC-00005701

From: Jane Larkin
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Do you think it`s a coincidence that it was when the DOJ first 
started persecuting Microsoft that the stock market started to 
crater? Please recognize that it is the health of companies like 
Microsoft that drive a prosperous economy. Let entrepreneurs be 
entrepreneurs_and for all our sakes stay out of the way.



MTC-00005702

From: stu96
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: lawsuit
    its time to end this charade called a monopoly and get on with 
business the law suit was filed because of companies that couldnt 
compete if they had been given the keys to the barn.



MTC-00005703

From: Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should end its case against Microsoft 
Corporation. I am a re-entry student in my 40s and having Microsoft 
products has increase my chances to be re-employed.
    Thank you
    Ryan F Peters
    351 Lone Tree Road
    Oroville, California 95965



MTC-00005704

From: Steve n` Gwen Secor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: MicroSoft settlement
    My concern is . . . Will the further action against 
Microsoft help `fix' the problem or just creat more 
caos?
    Steve Secor



MTC-00005705

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: I would like to show my support for a 
settlement of the Microsoft case without further litigation. Nine 
states have already approved the offer which I believe is in the 
best interests of consumers.
    Let the free enterprise system work. William Marvin, Hooksett, 
NH



MTC-00005706

From: Chuck Schulien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    This case reminds me of the injustice the government did to the 
tobacco industry. For years our government has been making money off 
of tobacco with all the taxing, then you turnaround and sue them for 
billions! Now it seems that the States that missed out on the 
Tobacco settlement are jumping to get a piece of the Microsoft pie.
    I never smoked a cigarette in my life. I would be glad to give 
the $300.00 back that the State of Illinois gave me, if the 
government would back off and stick to the business providing a safe 
place to live. People have a choice, they do not have to buy 
computers or cigarettes! We do however need a safe place to raise 
our families.
    Chuck Schulien
    8421 Parkdale Drive
    North Richland Hills, TX 76180
    817-514-1936



MTC-00005707

From: Roy Carlton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft
    What the DOJ and the states have done to Microsoft borders on 
criminal acts. Microsoft has made my life as an accountant so much 
more easy. In addition, Microsoft has created more millionaire 
business owners who have spun off new products based on the 
Microsoft line of products. It`s disgusting what the Federal and 
State Governments have done to a highly successful corporation. It`s 
too bad we cannot sue former AG Janet Reno and President Bill 
Clinton for the damage this anti-trust action has done to the stock 
market.
    Roy E. Carlton
    6524 Gray Fox Curve
    Chanhassen, MN 55317



MTC-00005708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get the Microsoft settlement settled. This has dragged on 
for long enough without any benefit whatsoever for the consumer. The 
consumer has any number of choices. . . . Microsoft has 
done more for the economy than many government programs.
    James W. Toole
    1114 Baltimore Dr
    Orlando FL 32810



MTC-00005709

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:54pm
Subject: Freedom to Innovate.
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Please end all the litigation in reference to Microsoft. In the 
interest of the American economy and the right of Microsoft to 
continue on without further litigation is in every ones best 
interest. As a stockholder of Microsoft it truly aggravates me that 
all those states have entered into the litigation against Microsoft. 
I think they are trying to get a monetary settlement from the 
company without ever investing a penny in the company. If you can 
explain to me the damage that Microsoft has done to those individual 
states perhaps it would be easier to understand. I think we would be 
technologically behind if not for innovative companies like 
Microsoft. Stop paying all the lawyers and allow the company pay a 
dividend to the people that have invested in the company. Thanks for 
hearing me.
    Mary Harmening



MTC-00005710

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: Approval
    Approve this settlement and let`s get this thing behind us!
    Luana Miller,
    San Rafael, CA



MTC-00005711

From: TJ Robinson, CPA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop this insane slide into a total depression by keeping 
one of the countries best companies doing what it does best. I have 
met no one that has been harmed by anything Microsoft has done if 
you exclude the competition. Things are cheaper, faster, and better.



MTC-00005712

From: PAUL G. BRUNNER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I THINK IT IS TIME FOR GREEDY MONEY HUNGARY STATES TO ALLOW THE 
AMERICAN SYSTEM OF FREE ENTERPRISE WORK, THANK GOD FOR MICROSOFT, WE 
NEED MORE INOVATIVE BUSINESS INSTEAD OF USING THE COURT SYSTEM TO 
SLOW DOWN PROGRESS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH , I AM FED UPWITH THE COSTLY LAW 
SUITS THAT ACCOMPLISH VERY LITTLE EXCEPT SLOW DOWN THE COMPETITIVE 
SPIRIT, THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO USE OUR COURT SYSTEM. I WOULD NOT 
BE ABLE TO AFFORD MY COMPUTOR IF IT WEREN`T FOR MICROSOFT
    SINCERELY
    PAUL G. BRUNNER



MTC-00005713

From: Charles Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the honorable members of the court:
    The revised proposed Final Judgement against Microsoft seems to 
me to be too harsh on Microsoft, however Microsoft has agreed to it 
and says they think it is fair. Therefore I urge you to impose the 
revised proposed Final Judgement and close the proceedings

[[Page 24746]]

for good. I am a computer user and have been for more than nineteen 
years. Microsoft products have been very good for me.
    Charles E Roberts
    628 N. Glenn Ave.
    Springfield, MO 65801



MTC-00005714

From: Andy Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    It is important to America for the DOJ to settle the Microsoft 
litigation NOW. Thank you.
    Andy Smith
    Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.
    312-499-5910 Direct Phone
    312-499-5901 Fax
    www.houlihansmith.com



MTC-00005715

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Justice Department should leave Microsoft alone. The case 
against Microsoft is a pathetic embarrassment. We should be praising 
people like Bill Gates/Microsoft not suing him. Every time a company 
gets too successful, the government cracks down. I don`t think 
Microsoft is a monopoly, and think that the only `true 
monopoly' is a government generated one. Obviously, Microsoft 
does not fall into this category. We are lucky to have entrepreneurs 
such as Bill Gates who create so much good for our society in the 
form technological advancement, jobs, and charitable organizations.
    Sabine
    Sabine McManus and Associates
    Healthcare Search Consultants
    433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600
    Beverly Hills, CA 90210
    Tel: 310-205-2006
    [email protected]



MTC-00005716

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: Seattle area guy
    I have resented seeing our court system miss used. Sure it is 
legal but is it right? I don`t think it is.
    This is no different from some business person using their 
influence to get a piece of real estate down zoned in order to drive 
out his competition. I feel the high tech industry should be allowed 
to innovate and grow and let the public decided what is best by what 
they choose to purchase. Any regulation the courts will establish 
today will likely be irrelevant in a year or more just because their 
is no way any group of legislators or judges can KNOW the future. If 
they could they would be in a different business. The public is 
watching and has a keen sense of FAIR and knows why the remanning 
states are holding out. Just like the guy who holds out selling his 
property to a developer who is assembling real estate for a project. 
He does it because he wants to gamble the developer will pay him the 
highest price for his property. Have you ever noticed when you see a 
large new project with one remaining old structure niche into the 
site? That is how those nine states holding out should find 
themselves. Maybe those states should be allowed to increase their 
state sales tax on any Microsoft products. . . . The buyer 
could buy mail order and skip them. These states will not join the 
others and settle until they feel they would get less. Right now 
their bottom side is covered and they only stand to appear as heroes 
if they get more for their state. That is a miss use of the courts.
    Ron



MTC-00005717

From: Binney, Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attn US Dept of Justice,
    Please accept this note from a constituent as a vote in favor of 
expeditious settlement of the Microsoft Anti-trust litigation. I 
think the settlement is more than fair to me (as a consumer of 
software products, I don`t think I was harmed to begin with) and we 
need to put this behind us.
    Thanks
    Pete Binney
    508-339-9213
    Mansfield, MA 02048



MTC-00005718

From: Scott, Vivian
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: settlement
    It is my feeling that this law suit has gone on long enough, 
cost the tax payers plenty of money and, in fact, probably shouldn`t 
have happened at all.
    Settle it and be done with it.
    I would also like to know why the Mac has not been brought in to 
this mix. At least on the PC you have a choice for start up programs 
(and have always had a choice once they were written) whereas on the 
Mac it is limited to their operating system only. Doesn`t that 
effectively cut the competitors out of the picture entirely. Isn`t 
that what this is all about, the competition feeling they aren`t 
able to compete?
    Last I don`t think the states should get anything. Talk about 
jumping on the band wagon. What consumers are they talking about 
getting taken advantage of. When I bought my computer I inquired 
about the cost when buying an operating system separately it was 
noticeably more then to buy as a package. I believe this is a fairly 
common practice in many venues. Again, settle and be done with it.



MTC-00005719

From: Deborah Merklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    U.S. Dept. of Justice
    Washington, DC
    I vote that the U.S. Department of Justice do all that it can to 
expedite the Settlement as outlined in the Tunney Act.
    Deborah Budz-Merklin
    [email protected]
    Fax_(815) 550-5169



MTC-00005720

From: H S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough foot dragging. Let`s put an end to this settlement, and 
the sooner the better.
    I think that DOJ should have other more revelant issues to 
pursue. Yes, Microsoft is powerful, but let consumers vote on that 
with their dollars. If they don`t want to use Microsoft, that is 
their choice. Computers have always been about choice. If I don`t 
like Microsoft, there is always an alternative.



MTC-00005721

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much in support of the freedom to innovate, as a basic 
American freedom. Now that the court of appeals has rendered a 
decision, I feel it should be upheld and this issue brought to an 
end, so that the consumer, the people, can get on with their lives. 
In most fields, automobiles, appliances, etc. the parts of the 
different manufacturers are not interchangeable, why should they be 
in computers. This is what drives innovation and invention, so to 
the better innovator goes the spoils.
    Sincerely,
    I.C.McLendon M.D.



MTC-00005722

From: Ueli Jucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:55pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IT IS PAST THE TIME TO FINISH THIS SETTLEMENT FOR THE HOLE 
COUNTRY.
    UELI JUCKER



MTC-00005723

From: Matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don`t want my hard earned tax money wasted any more! Settle 
this. Microsoft has done more our economy and has virtually created 
the software industry. We should end this and end it now!
    Matt Fangman



MTC-00005724

From: Peter Kraushar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsot Settlement
    To DOJ,
    I would like to see this Microsoft litigation settled once and 
for all. I`m in favor of the recent settlement and want no further 
litigation. Further litigation benifits only a few wealthy people 
and hurts the US economy. Thank You,
    Mike Kraushar (503) 469-0270
    Northwest Scape Website Design Inc.
    NetBizDomains Inc.
    12614 NW Barnes Rd. #4
    Portland, OR 97229



MTC-00005725

From: Bill (038) Robin

[[Page 24747]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement with Microsoft is more 
than fair and adequate. Microsoft has done nothing to harm me in 
anyway, and I have never requested any assistance from my elected 
officials in protecting me from something that I simply do not need 
protection from. This whole mess is nothing more than a trumped up 
case by some of Microsoft`s competitors because they would rather 
spend their time and resources fighting Microsoft rather than 
developing a better `mouse'! The actions by the states 
to tag along is simply a carry over from the tobacco cases in hopes 
of adding a lot of cash to their coffers. I wonder if all this would 
be taking place if Microsoft were located in Utah? I truly do not 
understand the concern about integrated software applications. As a 
software user, I demand integrated applications that are designed to 
work together which is exactly what Microsoft has produced. Let`s 
get on with the many more important things that our country needs to 
be worrying about and stop this senseless flow of money to a bunch 
of high paid lawyers and politicians..it has really been and 
continues to be stupid!!!!
    Thank you,
    Bill Johnson



MTC-00005726

From: John Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm
Subject: settlement
    Tell Bill to keep fighting and keep a stiff upper lip!
    I`m on his side as a small stock holder! John R. Hall



MTC-00005727

From: Ron Huxtable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. They`ve done more for the U.S. 
economy that all of their competitors put together, through jobs 
creation, charitable gifts, formation of new companies `living` off 
of the success of Microsoft products due to worldwide consumer 
acceptance, and on and on. The consumer will only be adversely 
affected by further government intervention_innovation and 
prices will go up.
    Thank you for your consideration_
    Ron Huxtable



MTC-00005728

From: Fritz Turton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Prosecute the guilty, not the successful. The government has 
extracted its pound of flesh, Clinton is a bad memory, go chase the 
Arabs!!! Fred Turton



MTC-00005729

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    If you are asking for opinions, mine is quite simple. Drop the 
suit and allow the free enterprise system that founded this country 
to take care of this situation.
    Regards,
    Eric Koach
    Global Enterprise Account Manager
    Dell Computer Corporation
    Office 281.361.7384
    Mobile 281.352.5121
    Mail to [email protected]
    www.dell.com



MTC-00005730

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like my opinion counted. I think the settlement should 
go through, as it is currently proposed, and not delayed any longer. 
The only parties benefiting from this continued arguing are the 
competitors, not the consumers. The consumers are already benefiting 
from the innovation of Microsoft and don`t need any further 
benefits. The consumers have choices, and Microsoft is not causing 
the consumers harm by innovating in the industry. We appear to be an 
ungrateful nation and we appear to try to kill the goose that laid 
the golden egg. Stop this nonsense and let Microsoft continue to 
innovate, and settle this lawsuit against them. Settle the suit as 
the settlement negotiations now stand, and put this behind us. It 
will be best for the nation and the economy.
    H. William Hall
    1125 N. 26th St.
    Tacoma, WA., 98403



MTC-00005731

From: Barton L. Hinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge acceptance of the Microsoft Settlement as it has 
been developed, provisions of which have been accepted as fair and 
reasonable by the Justice Department and which have been agreed to 
by Microsoft. In my opinion, further haggling about specific items 
is not in the best interests of consumers.



MTC-00005732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: waste of money
    Your tackling of the microsoft issue is a total waste of money 
and is tacitly unfair . to tear down the most influential company in 
the world and the one that has made the united states a poweful 
country is absurd. spend your time and money doing something 
constructive instead of destroying the bastion of capitalism.
    Khush Bodhan CPA



MTC-00005733

From: Ellen ching
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the reviced proposed Final Judgment is tough but fair. 
I will definitely like to see this case closed for good. Prolonging 
this case creates more harm than good; it is a drain to tax payer 
and the economy.



MTC-00005734

From: ROBERT K RODEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Representative of the Dept of Justice,
    Perhaps Microsoft does have a dominant position in the computer 
software market place. That is precisely why I invested in that 
company. The technology and ease of use offered by microsoft and my 
computer maker is what this market place is looking for.
    Microsoft is not a monopoly in the market place. They have 
competition. (Unlike my local telephone company, cable company, etc. 
etc.) Computer users and consumers are smart enough to find 
alternate browser software. I get several discs in the mail 
(unsolicited as well) from different ISPs that use Netscape, 
Microsoft, etc. You plug it in and it does the work. Or, the keyword 
system allows users to find free downloads of about any type that 
works within my microsoft system and they are not microsoft product.
    Now that my government has dragged Microsoft through the mud and 
they have offered a settlement, I think you should take it and stop 
wasting the resources of a company that brings more efficiency of 
technology to the U.S than any other company in the world.
    Sincerely,
    Robert K. Roden
    4281 Heritage Drive
    Hudsonville, MI 49426



MTC-00005735

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don`t delay the settlement any longer. Microsoft has been 
a good company; they provide quality support and have the customer`s 
best interest in mind. Any good businessperson knows the most 
important rules of how to increase sales. Number one is to have a 
quality product that you believe in and number two is keep the 
customer satisfied. Microsoft does both very well.



MTC-00005736

From: Brian L. Dontje
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this case now. You were wrong to have filed it or pursued 
it.
    Brian L. Dontje
    President
    UDS Green Industry Software, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00005737

From: Sherri Starr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, please settle this...your attack on Microsoft was unfair 
and unnecessary to the company and the public. The settlement 
reached is more than fair and this matter should be put to an end. 
It is amazing that

[[Page 24748]]

you could spend more trying to kill Microsoft than you could spend 
in getting Bin Laden and his groups. I had hoped that a more 
reasonable and honest voice had taken over the DOJ.
    Sherri Starr
    Gleneden Beach, Oregon



MTC-00005738

From: Craig Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi DOJ,
    I am an employee of Microsoft Corporation in Charlotte, North 
Carolina.
    Although I believe the lawsuit is based on assertions that were 
trumped up by our competitors and are baseless, I am in favor of 
this settlement. This will hopefully get the government monkey off 
our backs so we can continue to be the best U.S. company ever and 
the best worldwide!
    Sincerely,
    Craig J. Fischer



MTC-00005739

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    USDOJ, microsoft has violated no law`s_I as a consumer am 
glad to see this all come to a final resolution. Scott J. Fillmore



MTC-00005740

From: Mike Holmes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen of the DOJ:
    As a citizen, taxpayer and voter as well as a small business 
owner, I am voicing my opinion regarding the Microsoft Case and the 
Proposed Settlements, etc.
    I am a staunch supporter of free enterprise and sound business 
practices. Moreover, I am also a believer in providing products that 
are of value to consumers and making an honest profit from such 
enterprise.
    In my opinion, and I consider it an `informed' 
opinion, Microsoft has been wrongly harassed in this entire issue. 
In addition to developing a business profile that makes a profit by 
serving the consumer needs as well as investing in providers and 
competitors, the key executives at Microsoft have followed the 
American Business Profile in an admirable fashion.
    While some in Federal and State Government feel that business 
should be not-for-profit and service the common good without regard 
to profitability, I live in the real world. Microsoft has continued 
to create systems that make it easier for me to work as well as 
providing a common platform for non-Microsoft programs to run on my 
computer.
    My desire is that the DOJ and various state governments spend 
time and money pursuing the drug dealers and the child pornographers 
that are dramatically damaging our country`s most valuable 
resources, our youth. Leave Microsoft alone. Cheer Bill Gates and 
his execs for generating taxable revenues, providing jobs, giving to 
charity and helping to make the world of computers easier for us 50 
year-old dinosaurs to use in everyday business applications.
    If you notice, this e-mail is sent from a non-Microsoft 
connections, using Netscape as my browser. I use WIndows XP and 
Office 2000 in my everyday work!
    Sincerely,
    Michael P. Holmes
    12671 West 116th St.
    Overland Park, KS 66210
    913-498-2626



MTC-00005741

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: settlement
    Settlement is best for the economy. The downtern started with 
gonernment action against Microsoft. Experience has shown that 
breaking up companies is not for the best. Telephone was broken up 
and then the parts started merging. Competition must not be stifled 
but creativity should not be punished.



MTC-00005742

From: optimal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do believe that the settlement entered on Nov 6, 2001 is fair 
and is in the public interest.
    Thanks,
    Mike Sarieh



MTC-00005743

From: Dr. James F. Gaines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Ma`am: Drop the case against microsoft. As a comsumer 
I`m confident that after comparison shopping in the computer stores 
Microsoft has excellent products at fair prices. Give it up and use 
my tax dollars for something constructive. The consumers have been 
trteated fairly by Microsoft.
    James F. Gaines, DVM, MS



MTC-00005744

From: belize bound
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm
    All govt, states, officials leave microsoft alone!!! govern and 
leave microsoft alone. thank you,



MTC-00005745

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time that the DOJ accepts a just settelment with Microsoft 
and concentrates on other more urgent matters affecting our country; 
ie. war and terrorism.
    Microsoft is being used by the AJ`s of the nine states to 
further their private political ambitions_with DOJ`s 
blessings, it seems. `Cease and desist' are terms DOJ 
should be familiar with even when they are addressed to the DOJ 
itself.
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005746

From: Frank Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am happy to hear there is resolution of this matter at hand. 
It has been, and is, my belief that Microsoft competitors have used 
the Federal and State Attorneys General as a tool to attempt to whip 
up on Microsoft. There are certainly more important matters for the 
Attorneys General, both state and federal to deal with than this 
matter. Thank you for bringing this matter to an end.
    Frank Griffin



MTC-00005747

From: Robert Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am greatly concerned that the lawsuit against Microsoft was 
brought in the first place. Microsoft has brought this nation some 
of the finest software that can be found resulting in a more 
efficient, economical use of the computer. This has had a tremendous 
positive impact on the economy of this country. I agree that 
Microsoft is a tenacious competitor but strongly disagree that it 
represents any type of monopoly. Any and all software manufacturers 
have the right and the opportunity to create software and market it 
to the public in any manner they desire. To even suggest that 
Microsoft has PROHIBITED them from doing so is ludicrous.
    I believe the terms of the settlement are excessive and should 
have never reached this state, but in the interests of trying to 
prevent the continued harrassment by those with less tenacity and to 
get this economy back on track, the settlement should be accepted 
and this entire socialistic venture should be closed with 
embarrassment to all who participated in promoting this 
undemocratic, unjustified action.
    Robert E. Cunningham, Sr.
    321 Cypress Street
    Destin, FL 32541
    [email protected]



MTC-00005748

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I have had the opportunity to review the settlement reached with 
Microsoft and the department of Justice. There is no question in my 
mind that this agreement is in the best interest of the consumer and 
meets the needs of creating a level field of competition. It is 
apparent that the competition will never be satisfied and will lobby 
until they simply can no longer succeed. Lets get on with business, 
Microsoft is being penalized enough as well as the consumer. Jim 
Smallman



MTC-00005749

From: Jimmy Boyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I think it is time to end this ordeal. It has been clear tome 
that this suit by the Justice department was a political move 
prompted

[[Page 24749]]

by the competition of Microsoft. The settlement assures the 
completion that they will have a chance to compete with Microsoft. 
If their products succeed then that will be fine. But if their 
products do not succeed you will hear from them again saying 
Microsoft has done some naughty and they want protection and maybe 
even some money to support their egos.
    Sincerely,
    Jimmy Boyle



MTC-00005750

From: Linda Simoneau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to support a settlement of Microsoft. It seems 
ludicrous at this point in time that we would consider further 
litigating this matter. I feel that Microsoft should have the 
authority to innovate their products without fear of litigation. It 
seems that there are many more important issues in the United States 
that need legal attention and this is certainly not one of them.
    I would urge the legislature to work towards a swift settlement 
of this matter.
    Very Truly Yours,
    Linda Simoneau



MTC-00005751

From: W R Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    Gentlemen_
    I am in favor of settling this matter as soon as possible.
    W.R. Hutchison



MTC-00005752

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Innovation has made the US the greatest country in the history 
of the world.The action in the Microsoft case should be summarily 
dropped.
    [email protected].



MTC-00005753

From: Lien Louis-rp2957
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    I have been working in the computer related field for twenty 
years. The competition in this high tech area is very high. Only 
good quality products with good service can survive in such highly 
competitive business. Microsoft gained its market share by providing 
good products to the public. Without good product, Microsoft will 
not survive. I always believe free innovation and competition is the 
best way to ensure that consumers will get the benefit of good 
products and service. There is no need from government to continue 
wasting tax payers` money in arguing what majority of the people 
have agreed.
    Government should spend its energy in creating better job 
environment for American people. I believe the Microsoft settlement 
is good for the consumers, the industry and the American economy. 
Let`s focus on improving our current economy environment that 
everyone will benefit from it. I support the settlement between 
Microsoft and federal government and nine states.
    Sincerely,
    Louis Lien



MTC-00005754

From: Cipolla Art-XTSS05
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find it annoying that that a few Microsoft competitors are 
trying to hold up the settlement. These companies such as Sun are 
thinking about nothing other than themselves. Microsoft and Dell are 
two of the only companies that want to commoditize the market 
segments that they serve. They are willing to operate off small 
margins and make the software or hardware widely available. Most of 
their competitors talk the standards game but implement nothing but 
proprietary software and hardware.
    The current settlement is more than fair for the competitors. 
Don`t further disrupt the market by considering additional measures 
driven by Microsoft competitors.
    Regards,
    Arthur F Cipolla



MTC-00005755

From: James Reilly
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sirs:
    I have been very interested and am very pleased with the Federal 
Government`s Decision to an agreement and settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation. The interest of our country and our economy are best 
served by this settlement, and affording both parties to move 
forward without additional legal hassels.
    The importance of integrated software and the attractiveness of 
packaging this into products that enhance the user`s familiarity and 
productivity is most important. I think these aims are well served 
by the settlement, also.
    James S. Reilly MD
    Chairman, Department of Surgery
    DuPont Hospital for Children
    Nemours Children`s Clinic
    Willmington, Delaware



MTC-00005756

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement is it is WAY TOO WEAK. 
Microsoft is a total monopoly and has all the parallels of companies 
of the robber baron days. They choose companies they feel threaten 
their monopoly and crush them with `free' software 
giveaways and upgrades. They insert pieces of code to make 
competitor`s software run unpredictably, and do not release API`s to 
competitors in a fair fashion. They set all their own 
`standards' and ignore the rest of the industry. I think 
a good start would have been splitting Microsoft into at least two 
parts and imposing some REAL restrictions, not the current 
restrictions that will do nothing to stop Microsoft`s anti-
competitive ways. I could go on and on but suffice to say the 
settlement is far from what is actually needed to preserve free 
enterprise in the USA. Microsoft`s `Freedom to Innovate' 
defense is a farce.
    Thank you,
    Andrew Fox



MTC-00005757

From: Colin Samuelson II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft Case. The settlement is good 
the American economy, and the indusry in general. Cease the 
litigation and let`s move on.



MTC-00005758

From: Jay Atherton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/1/02 9:04pm
Subject: settlement
    I see no harm about Microsoft and it`s performance in the 
marketplace. Without them, this industry would have been 10 years 
behind everyone else. I support them completely.
    Jay Atherton



MTC-00005759

From: Schott, Jim
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wholeheartedly support the settlement agreement reached 
between the DOJ, the nine states and Microsoft. The time has come to 
bring resolution to this drawn-out affair and stop the squandering 
of taxpayer dollars. It is blatantly obvious that Microsoft`s 
competitors are pressing a handful of states for continued 
litigation, not `injured' consumers. The reality is that 
consumers have benefited greatly from Microsoft`s innovation and the 
industry`s standardization on Windows as the preferred operating 
system. The speed and ease of use of personal computers have 
increased exponentially while the cost to consumers has plummeted. 
THIS IS A GOOD THING! The remedies proposed in the DOJ settlement 
are tough but fair to all parties. Please do not allow a few of 
Microsoft`s competitors to misuse the legal system to compensate for 
what they could not achieve in the free marketplace.
    Thank you!
    Jim Schott
    14921 SE 65th Street
    Bellevue, WA 98006



MTC-00005760

From: Fred Infortunio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this and let Microsoft Get Back to Work.
    This is a fast moving industry and a quick completion of this 
matter will serve all.
    The restrictions put in place along with the oversight seem to 
be fair. the continuing

[[Page 24750]]

oversight will provide the direction for future fairness. How far do 
we have to go to hobble one of the greater engines of our society?
    Fred Infortunio, MBA, PE
    LCMS
    Phone: 856-810-9074
    Fax: 856-810-9073
    E-Mail Address: [email protected]
    God Bless America



MTC-00005761

From: Raj Jhanwar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is good for customers and should be a 
good foundation for long term.
    Raj



MTC-00005762

From: Howard Chu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: The Microsoft case should be settled_the earlier the 
better
    DOJ has / had spent enough. These $$$$$ / time they spent can be 
used to do something better.
    Let MS spend her $$$$$ / time to bring us software. Why on Earth 
DOJ forces MS to spend her $$$$$ / time just playing around with 
DOJ?
    Let`s STOP all these.
    Thank you.
    B. Rgds.
    Howard Chu
    -/hc



MTC-00005763

From: Phillip Rubin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has gone on way too long.
    As a consumer and small business owner, Microsoft has made a lot 
of very good things possible. They take care of their customers 
better than nearlly every other technology company, and certainly 
better than the telecommunications companies. The settlement offer 
is reasonable and the states should not impede it further.
    Please get this resolved once and for all.



MTC-00005764

From: Art and terry jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice:
    I strongly support your settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case. This settlement is good for the country`s economy and also 
provides sufficient control of Microsoft`s corporate behavior. Any 
further attempt by the 9 remaining states to extend the penalties in 
this case is not in the best interests of the nation. Instead, these 
attempts seem to originate with Microsoft`s competitors rather than 
with consumers. I thank you for your hard work in trying to provide 
a final settlement so we can get on with business as usual. I trust 
this settlement will allow the U.S. high-tech industry to continue 
to prosper in the global market.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Jones



MTC-00005765

From: Charles Mc Grath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Justice
    To the D.O.J.
    Please give microsoft a chance to survive in such a gloomy 
economy ,and the stock holders a chance to make a profit.
    Thank You
    Charles Mc Grath



MTC-00005766

From: Robert Alberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement agreement is more than fair for both the States 
and the consumers.
    Bob Alberts



MTC-00005767

From: Patrick Settle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Trial
    Greetings,
    I have attached my Comments on the Microsoft Anti-trust Trial, 
to this email in Rich Text Format (RTF). I have also included the 
text of the document in this email below.
    If additional information in is needed please let me know.
    Patrick Settle
    IT Manager
    5221 42nd Street NW Apt. B
    Washington, DC 20015
    202-321-7370
    [email protected] (personal email)
    [email protected] (work email)
    Comments:
    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:
    *ï¿½1AAny 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.
    *ï¿½1AThe 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¿½1AAny 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, 
and in fact increase, 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 you time.
    Patrick Settle
    5221 42nd Street NW Apt.B
    Washington, DC 20015
    202-321-7370
    [email protected]



MTC-00005768

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft`s 
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached 
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I agree that 
settlement is good for the industry and the American economy. The 
last thing the American economy needs is more litigation that 
benefits only a few wealthy Microsoft competitors and stifles 
innovation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest. 
Enough is enough!
    s/Jerry S. Strunk

[[Page 24751]]

    649 Rainbow Blvd.
    Lady Lake, FL 32159



MTC-00005769

From: Jeff Albers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I understand that the DOJ is required to offer a period of 
public comment regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement, prior to 
the final determination of whether or not the settlement is in the 
`public interest'. As a U.S. citizen, a consumer, a 
financial professional, and as a private investor, I wholeheartedly 
support the proposed settlement of this case. Although I have no 
affiliation or financial dependence on Microsoft, I believe that 
this case has been a drag on our U.S. economy and as such has done 
nothing but exacerbate recessionary pressures. I believe that the 
people of the United States are anxious to recover and move on from 
the current economic recession and the events of this past year. The 
Microsoft settlement would aid in this recovery with the removal of 
the `black cloud' hanging over the technology side of 
our economy.
    I believe that Microsoft has gotten the message regarding their 
competitive business conduct, and have already paid a very high 
price. The only benefactors of a continuation of the suit are a few 
competitors of Microsoft.... Certainly not the general public or the 
U.S. economy. I hope that the DOJ and the handful of states will not 
be influenced by a few self serving special interest groups and will 
finalize this settlement, as it is in the best `public 
interest'.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jeff C. Albers, CFP, CLU, ChFC
    ALBERS & COMPANY, INC.
    950 Pacific Ave., Suite 620
    Tacoma, WA 98402
    Phone: 253-596-0601
    Fax: 253-572-1499
    www.alberscompany.com



MTC-00005770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement terms as described by Microsoft and the 
US government and the 9 states in accord is the right choice for the 
consumer and business interests.
    Microsoft continues to innovate, commoditize services and 
support and partners with thousands of software developers, 
resellers and other small, medium and large businesses which ensures 
fair competition and enhances each of those businesses bottom line. 
Microsoft is the best business partner I`ve ever had.....and as a 
consumer I am thankful there is a prevalent way to communicate with 
any person I want via the internet and office applications that 
Microsoft has built in the last 25 years!
    Carol Luber
    215-640-0960
    1835 Arch Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103



MTC-00005771

From: Daniel L Christie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: micorsoft settlement
    We feel it is vital to thee economy and to the stockholders that 
the settlement already made be finalized. Micorsoft is an important 
part of our life savings, we are 88, and 92 years old and have 
already lost over 20%of our retirement money. We do not wish to lose 
any more. Further micorsoft is the key leader to rebuilding the 
economy of not only the U.S. but the entire globle welbeing.
    Lets get it over.
    Dan Christie & Betty Christie



MTC-00005772

From: LAST
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. lets drop the litigation and let microsoft get 
back to what it does best.......innovative products and an industry 
standard.
    Dr. Richard Laban
    Harrisburg PA



MTC-00005773

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe Microsoft has suffered enought at the expense of the 
government and its competitors. I believe the US government and 
State`s government should back off and give Microsoft a fair 
settlement and allow them to go back to providing the public with 
the good software and services they are known for. In my opinion the 
government`s interferance has already cost us, the general public, a 
great deal in lost services of Microsoft. Microsoft should be 
rewarded, not penalized, for the great work and services they have 
provided us in the past at a very reasonable price
    Sincerely yours
    George Ellis
    Civil Engineer



MTC-00005774

From: Ron B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed settlement in the Microsoft action is 
appropriate as is and should be finalized. I have never felt 
financially harmed by any of the marketing statagies of Microsoft in 
the past. It`s time to move on and let free enterprise work for our 
betterment.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Berich



MTC-00005775

From: Donald Baudrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the Microsoft litigation closely. It is time for 
me to express my opinion: Microsoft has contributed greatly to the 
technology that makes computers useful, and even essential. I 
compare their contribution to that of Henry Ford`s development of 
the production line that lead to automation, making the US an 
international power economically. Microsoft has done as much or 
more. The people who consider Microsoft a monopoly are primarily its 
competitors, of which there are many. I have studied constitutional 
law, history, and present related laws. I believe Microsoft has done 
little, if anything, wrong, legally or morally. It would be a blow 
to the advance of technology to find Microsoft guilty of any wrong 
doing.
    Donald W. Baudrand
    Consultant



MTC-00005776

From: Ed Largaespada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think is time to settle this case as proposed by Microsoft to 
DOJ (and a few States). Microsoft brought to the market an 
innovative product. It should not be penalized for the economic 
success and the market dominance that, once again, only reflect the 
good products introduced to the American and World Market.
    Thanks for your attention to this matter and please feel free to 
contact me:
    Ed Largaespada
    8261 SW 128 Street, #109
    Miami, FL 33156
    (305) 259-9345



MTC-00005777

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Public comment
    I am a professional user of computers with little personal 
interest in the settlement of the Microsoft case. I am not an expert 
on law or on this case. I do believe that Microsoft is effectively a 
monopoly and is not serving the general public well. Also, they seem 
to have not changed their ways since the suit was first brought.
    I don`t think that the proposed settlement sufficiently 
addresses the problems that make it difficult for competitors to 
offer users a choice. As I see it the issues are It should be easier 
for other companies to integrate their products into the OS. It 
should be easier to get bugs acknowledged and fixed. Security should 
be a higher priority and better.
    It would be a great help if the application part of Microsoft 
were split off from the OS part. The application part would be on 
equal footing with other application companies to get information 
and bug fixes from the OS part of Microsoft. The companies could 
negotiate with eachother about what SW parts would be better off in 
the OS and pay royalties or whether it would be better to just 
provide the hooks for whatever SW would be inserted. The government 
might have to help set up a standards committee for this.
    The alternative would be for Microsoft to make its code 
available and to give appropriately timed warnings when it would 
change. I think that this would be harder to control and slow 
innovation down.

[[Page 24752]]

    These comments are mine, personally, and don`t represent the 
views of my employer.
    Mark S. Hoffman
    Burlington MA



MTC-00005778

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please do not impose any more harm upon Microsoft than was 
placed upon its customers. That is to say, if you can quantify how 
much less the consumers should have paid for their Windows software, 
that should be the damages.
    I, for one, would gladly pay again for the use of this software. 
As the browser was free, as are many updates from Msft, there would 
be no harm there. I have both Netscape and IE on my computer and I 
never use Netscape unless I have to.
    Mike Stoddard
    Tampa, Florida



MTC-00005779

From: Pedro Ferreira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider the settlement correct and fair.
    Pedro Chaves Ferreira



MTC-00005780

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that the government has forgotten that in these 
United States one is supposed to be able to attain their highest 
goals. It seems to me that those who have complained about Microsoft 
are nothing more than entities that envy their position. Its too bad 
they didn`t have the brain power to come up with the innovations 
that Microsoft has.
    I feel that any settlement should never have been. Microsoft has 
made it possible for the average person to have massive computing 
power. However, if Microsoft is willing to settle something that 
should never have been, then I have no problem. From what I can see 
the settlement is fair to all but Microsoft.
    R.E. Lee



MTC-00005781

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please settle this conflict with Microsoft as quickly as 
possible. Microsoft has built a much needed base for all computing 
where many products can work together, in no way has it hurt 
consumers.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Barbara V. Rebard,
    Redding Calif.



MTC-00005782

From: Josh Moultray
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A quick response to the Microsoft settlement:
    It should finally be over, whatever the resolution. Since the 
DOJ and Microsoft have agreed I think it is in the best interests of 
all consumers that the case be finished and that Microsoft again 
focus its energy on innovation rather than litigation.
    If this were a vote, I would cast a Yes, agree to the 
settlement.
    Thanks,
    Josh Moultray
    Site Technology Coordinator
    The Jewish Day School of Metropolitan Seattle
    [email protected] 
    425-460-0235



MTC-00005783

From: Philip Szanto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is vital to our countrys economic well being that a Microsoft 
Settlement allowing the company the freedom to continue to prosper 
is concluded. Microsoft is an American success story producing a 
product consumed by the world. It would be a terrible tragedy if a 
shortsided decision hurt the company so that leadership in computer 
software went overseas!!



MTC-00005784

From: Jeff Welbourne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
    Settle, and let this company continue to provide the technology 
that has done so much for our country, the world and their industry.



MTC-00005785

From: Tiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: David Beers
    9220 Clarewood No. 1004
    Houston, Tx 77036
    As regards the Microsoft Settlement, It is in my opinion fair 
and equitable to all parties.



MTC-00005786

From: janell peyton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the case needs to be settled and has been going on for 
too long.
    Janell Peyton



MTC-00005787

From: Sarah Del Degan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to bring closure to this nonsense. Too many tax payer 
dollars have already been spent to support the outcrys of a few 
competitors that see their future threatened by a more innovative 
company in Microsoft.
    The state of the economy and confidence of the people are in no 
position to receive more negative news about a company that has 
literally created the software industry, which has provided tens of 
thousands of jobs in this country. It`s time to move on.
    The Del Degans



MTC-00005788

From: Werner Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:13pm
Subject: Settlement
    Keep the ability to innovate alive in America. Settle with MS so 
they can get on with developing better software.
    Werner Glass



MTC-00005789

From: Funair, Joe
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    This is to notify you that I am concerned over the potential of 
the case against Microsoft dragging out and severely retarding the 
economic recovery underway. Microsoft has become a major constituent 
part of our economy and directly impacts the economies of many 
nations throughout the world. The economic problems that were 
brought about by this unfair and punishing case against Microsoft 
has done much damage to the world economy. It must be brought to a 
swift and fair conclusion so we all can move on in a predictable and 
orderly progression.
    Please do not punish Microsoft for being successful_It is 
Un-American and UnFair!
    Joseph D. Funair
    Titan Systems Corporation
    Systems and Imagery Division
    Director, Business Development
    321-727-0660 x2244
    [email protected]



MTC-00005790

From: Steve GOODRICH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I urge you to approve and conclude the pending settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. The perceived antitrust problems have been 
addressed, to the extent possible considering the nature of the 
technology industry, by the settlement agreement. I do not believe 
that any benefit to consumers (as opposed to lawyers, judges, and 
Microsoft competitors) will be realized from continuing this case.
    Thank you for your time and cooperation.
    Steven C. Goodrich
    5535 E. Elmwood
    Mesa AZ 85205
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00005791

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please add my name to the list of those who support the proposed 
settlement and wish to see an end to the litigation which, I 
believe, has been instrumental in the general business recession 
that had its beginning in April of 2000. As Microsoft goes so does 
not go the business of the United

[[Page 24753]]

States, but Microsoft is a giant, no worse and perhaps not much 
better than its critics. Microsoft is big enough to count as a Dow-
Jones index component, and bad business in general is made worse 
when Microsoft flounders. I believe that time is now of the essence 
whereby the company can begin to concentrate on its business at hand 
and perhaps lead us to a recovery.
    Very truly yours,
    /s/James S Munro, Jr.
    84 Summer Street
    Nahant, MA 01908



MTC-00005792

From: Billy Hurt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:14pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that further litigation by those refusing to 
accept the DOJ agreement with Microsoft is in the best interests of 
the public, the American economy or the investor`s in MSFT. We saw 
state`s greed dominate the `settlement' of the case 
against the tobacco companies. Much of the money that went to the 
states will never see it`s way into those avenues that serve the 
general public`s interest. Will we see a similar thing with the 
states that are now pursuing further punitive measures against 
Microsoft?
    Please accept and enforce the settlement arrived at between the 
DOJ and Microsoft.
    Billy G. Hurt
    [email protected]



MTC-00005793

From: chuck soyars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. We (the consumer) benefit by microsoft`s 
position. If a company ever gets to the point antitrust laws are 
designed to prevent, in a free market economy, competitors would pop 
up to challenge their position making antitrust laws unneccessary. I 
also believe them to be unconstitutional, but thats another 
argument.
    A small business owner
    Chuck Soyars



MTC-00005794

From: Martell Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    HOW CAN ANY ONE CONTEND THAT THE CONSUMER WAS OVER CHARGED. GOOD 
GRIEF_JUST LOOK AT THE PRICING. I CONSIDER THE MICROSOFT 
OPERATING SYSTEM ONE OF THE BEST VALUES I HAVE EVER RECEIVED!
    Martell Lindsay
    101 Leaview Lane
    Chagrin Falls, OH 44022



MTC-00005795

From: Gary Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    This matter needs to be settled. No one but the Attornies are 
gaining a thing from this suit. Microsoft has done a world of good 
in creating these operating systems and has done no more wrong than 
the others would have done to Microsoft if they would have been the 
leaders. The only thing this is doing for the American people is to 
make software & hardware prices skyrocket for us consumers. Just 
as it has done for the price of cigarettes. Put a stop to it.
    Thank You.
    Gary F. Allen
    30741
    [email protected]



MTC-00005796

From: Maryln Pedgrift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Gentlemen:
    Gentlemen:
    My wish for Microsoft is no more litigation. I believe they have 
concluded it fairly already.
    Best wishes for a better year.
    [email protected]



MTC-00005797

From: Darrell C. Brett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let`s get this settled and get the tech economy moving 
again_What Microsft has agreed to is more than enough and the 
justice dept needs to expedite closure to this matter. Darrell
    Brett Portland OR



MTC-00005798

From: Cam Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
Subject: MS settlement
    Please end this litigation promptly. No further litigation is 
needed! The settlement reached between the Federal Government and 
the nine states and Microsoft is tough, reasonable, and fair to all 
parties involved. It seems most consumers agree the settlement is 
good for the computer/software industry, the American Economy, and 
us! So, please end this litigation promptly!
    Thank you,
    Cam Taylor,
    [email protected]



MTC-00005799

From: Ruud de Jonge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: Please sign the settlement
    It`s crucial fot the future of competition and the IT industry 
that this settlement is confirmed.
    Regards,
    Ruud de Jonge
    IT Professional
    The Netherlands
    MSN Foto`s is de eenvoudigste manier om je foto`s te delen en af 
te drukken: http://photos.msn.nl/Support/WorldWide.aspx



MTC-00005800

From: Ben Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using Microsoft products for the past 15 years. I 
continue to believe that the value, support, and productivity gains 
represent a tremendous value proposition to me as a consumer.
    My own view is that much of the furor over Microsoft has been 
generated by their competitors, who having failed to win in the 
competitive market, look to the judicial system to provide relief. 
Let the market and the consumers decide on value and when you 
do_Microsoft wins_hands down. Ben Goodwin



MTC-00005801

From: Barry Woodard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
    The government should settle this case against Microsoft. Enough 
money has been spent, and I think the settlement will allow all 
parties to `get back to business'.
    Barry Woodard
    San Francisco



MTC-00005802

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want DOJ to know that the whole attempt by the antitrust Judge 
to attack Microsoft from the bench the way he did when he did not 
even understand computers and what makes them effecient was a gross 
miscarriage of justice for a judge to act as that one did.
    However, it is time to settle but I do not agree with the few 
states who want to drag the settlement out. The case needs to be 
settled now! To drag it out reeks of the same miscarriage of justice 
that that judge committed and it is certainly not in the best 
interests of the American public.
    Jim Tinsley



MTC-00005803

From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern
    I think the Microsoft case should be setteled immediately. The 
settelement agreed to by the states and the DOJ is reasonable. Any 
further litigation or other government involvement will simply 
result in unwise use of both Microsoft and Government resources and 
contribute to further delay in enabling software to contribute to 
productivity improvements for the US economy.
    Richard Bjorklund



MTC-00005804

From: David Griffith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software engineer and have operated in many facets of the 
software and networking world for the past 5 years. Somewhat new to 
the industry, I came into this with a non-bias opinion and have been 
able to formulate one based on experience.
    I don`t see Microsoft as a monopoly. Contrary, I think that most 
software vendors lack the inoventention of Microsoft due to the lack 
of vision. Many software vendors are more concerned about producing 
mass software in a cookie cutter fashion and treat

[[Page 24754]]

the software industry like a manufacturing one. The downside, is we 
are not an assembly line and software produced like it is comes out 
looking like it.
    I respect Microsoft ability to adjust to growing market trends, 
changes, and expansion. Most companies lack the ability to do that 
as well. Cisco, Macintosh, producers of Linux and Unix are all 
guilty of producing products that constantly look and operate the 
same as their predicessors. I used to own a Mac and I don`t see much 
that has changed over the years, other than the fact that they have 
tried to simulate what Microsoft has done in order to stay 
competitive. Linux vendors are just as guilty of copy-catting. On 
the topic of government involvement, is one issue I have strong 
oppinions. The consumer is currently getting a better deal with more 
feature rich applications from every software vender including 
Microsoft, than ever before. Government intervention on this matter 
only slows that process and hurts the consumer. Any action 
government takes to change the way software is delivered will only 
mean dollars costs to the consumer.
    Microsoft does not use competitors technology advancements to 
advance their own or use their dollars in a way that constitutes 
unfair competition. They just deliver quality and quantitative 
software. I hope that my opinion matters and that government will 
realize the impact of their involvement and resolve this matter 
completely.
    Thanks,
    David Griffith



MTC-00005806

From: Roland Pohlman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm
Subject: Leave Micorsoft Alone
    Please let micorsoft to inovate and dream. They have helped the 
world with all of there inovations. Do not punish them because they 
have helped everyone in so my ways. What would our world be without 
micorsoft?
    Please let micorsoft to inovate and dream. They have helped the 
world with all of there inovations. Do not punish them because they 
have helped everyone in so my ways. What would our world be without 
micorsoft?



MTC-00005807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Gentlemen:
    The fact that our country is the beneficiary of a Company like 
Microsoft who researched, invested to be a leader in the software 
industry, makes me wonder what interest those belligerent states are 
pursuing. I have an idea, but I am not certain. I, as an old 
computer software user hope some reasonable people will do something 
with those out of touch states.
    Thank you.
    Mihail



MTC-00005808

From: John Reilly
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    I would like to endorse the Microsoft Settlement as a fair 
compromise. Microsoft is in the position that it is because it 
provides the products that customers want. While I believe that they 
did do some inappropriate things, a larger remedy would not be 
beneficial to anyone. The software/hardware market changes so 
quickly that companies need to be innovative and fast. Microsoft`s 
competitors only have themselves to blame for the failure of their 
expensive, proprietary solutions.
    Thank you for your consideration of this email.
    Regards,
    John P. Reilly
    President
    Dynamic Applications, Inc.



MTC-00005809

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading the documents and having read and followed the 
lawsuit and judgements thus far we think it is time to finally 
settel this mess. To take this case further is not productive to 
Microsoft, the government, the competitors, and especially to the 
consumers. In this economic climate we need to encourage business 
and compitition not stiffle it with further law suits and pettiness.
    Sincerely,
    Bob and Rosalie Jeffress
    [email protected]



MTC-00005810

From: CHARLANNE DIVITO
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm
Subject: settlement
    Please put me down as in favor of the settlement presently on 
the table for this mess.
    Charlanne Divito Valley Village, CA



MTC-00005811

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that Microsoft has done a great deal for the American 
people as well as for the entire world. They are not perfect, and 
they have been censored for any infractions they might have 
committed. However, we like their products_plain and simple. 
They have spent millions of dollars to make their products conform 
to our needs_and for the most part they do. Their products 
have allowed us to have an industry standard that has made all our 
lives much easier. It`s time to stop punishing the company that has 
made all this possible. They have been given guidelines to follow 
and are living up to those guidelines, from what I can tell.
    If we weaken Microsoft because we are vindictive or greedy, we 
have weakened our own economy. It`s time to wrap this phase of our 
history up and let Microsoft move on. Secretaries, office managers, 
and many others will thank you.
    Judith King
    South Carolina



MTC-00005812

From: Ramerth, Douglas L.
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/2/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I want Microsoft to organize and conduct business that benefits 
America`s technological growth. Do not impair Microsoft`s ability to 
develop and market any product, including operating systems, 
internet software, professional and enterprise development software.
    I write software using Microsoft products in the course of my 
work. I think Microsoft products are far easier to use and far 
better integrated than any other programming software. As a result, 
it is much easier to create better software at far less cost. Other 
companies that utilize the Microsoft development environment, such 
as Compaq Visual Fortran, enable programmers to quickly expand 
skills to other programming languages.
    I`m a self taught Visual Basic and Visual Fortran programmer. 
I`m developing a Windows application with Office integration for 
cooling flow analysis of gas turbine engines. It consists of a 
customized database, viewers for drawings, drawing annotation of 
flow circuits, test data reduction, plotting test data and engine 
performance analysis.
    I`ve developed prototype software and demonstrated a 300 percent 
productivity improvement over existing software processes. In some 
instances the productivity improvement approaches 1000 percent. 
Moreover, I`m writting the sofware in a fraction of the time it 
would take to create similar engineering software for a Unix 
workstation.
    I`m recommending to my management that Honeywell develop more 
engineering software using Microsoft development tools. Furthermore, 
I`m recommending Windows operating system upgrades. I`m an engineer 
at Honeywell Engines & Systems, a manufacturer of gas turbine 
engines. Our industry is highly competitive with product development 
cycles four years long and very costly. We must have higher 
productivity to stay in business. I solely credit Microsoft for 
enabling me to achieve high levels of engineering design and 
analysis productivity.
    Thank you for soliciting my opinion,
    Doug Ramerth, Dept 93-320, M/S 503-249
    Senior Aerospace Engineer
    Honeywell Engines and Systems
    111 South 34th Street
    Phoenix, Arizona 85034
    (602)-231-2057



MTC-00005813

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time to wind it up and let them get on with their business.
    Ken Stutzman



MTC-00005814

From: Patel, Thakor G., MD
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm

[[Page 24755]]

Subject: Microsoft
    I believe it is time to stop this charade and let Microsoft be 
what they are. It is one thing to say that they violated some 
regulation and another thing to stop the innovation and stifle the 
progress. I have not heard form the DOJ or others as to what 
Microsoft has done for the world in terms of simplyfying the life of 
average, non sophisticated computer users. The competitors and 
complainers had a chance, but they could not integrate all the 
software that is there and want to ride the train at Microsoft`s 
expense. It is time to dispense of the case and as far as the States 
are concerned they are looking for free money on behalf of their 
states.
    Microsoft has been able to simplify the use of computers and add 
the ability to track appointments, calenders, addresses, Excel, 
Word, Power Point such that even the secretaries are not needed. If 
you look at the benefits to the world and Americans in particular, 
life is simpler because of Microsoft and no other company. Please 
dispense this case in favor of the people of the United States and 
do not misrepresent them.
    T.G.Patel, MD



MTC-00005815

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: justis dept
    I think the settlement is just. Please don`t kill the horse 
because the rider can`t ride. Breaking up Ma Bell did not benefit 
the consumer and more sever punishment of Microsoft will not benefit 
the consumer.



MTC-00005816

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: Settlement
    I, strongly support the Microsoft position and fear if this 
continued action prevails we will be seeing another AT&T debacle 
that has created weakness and a large group of floundering 
companies. I, also believe this just another carryover action of the 
Clinton Administration that to this date does not understand 
business, and the benefits resulting for both employees, and 
supporting Companies.
    B.J.O`Bryan



MTC-00005817

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    enuf already give microsoft a break and let`s move on they`re 
innovative and creative don`t cramp their style we need their 
contribution now



MTC-00005818

From: Daniel Ness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To continue using the gun of government to attack a business 
(Microsoft) that has changed the world and added billions to the 
economy_at the behest, and benefit, of it`s competitors (Sun, 
Oracle, et al) violates every tenet of our nation. Although the 
`settlement' reached between the government and 
Microsoft offends my Constitutional senses, it is far better than 
continuing the unconstitutional abuse of government power that 
preceded it. Consumers (you know, those folks that anti-trust laws 
were created to protect) aren`t harmed by better and cheaper 
products, but ARE harmed by competitors that use the courts instead 
of innovation to defeat their rivals. Cease acting as agents for the 
competition and start acting as agents for the consumer by ending 
this attack on Microsoft.
    Daniel A. Ness
    mailto:[email protected]
    Monticello Systems
    `Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Improvement'
    www.monticellosys.com



MTC-00005819

From: Mike LaCon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel the settlement to not break up Microsoft is not only 
fair, it is the only reasonable settlement that is beneficial to the 
consumer. Any breakup would cause more harm to the consumer through 
higher costs and less innovation. Please do not breakup MSFT as this 
would also be very harmful to the economy and it would send a very 
anti-capitalism message by communicating to the world that success 
in this country is will not be rewarded.
    Sincerely,
    Michael LaCon, R.Ph.
    [email protected]



MTC-00005820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    NINE STATES SETTLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOJ DECISION....THE 
REMAINDER OF THE STATES ARE HOLDING OUT AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS 
NOW A MONEY ISSUE! THIS ACTION WAS REALLY BROUGHT ON BY MICROSOFTS` 
COMPETITORS, RATHER THAN THE CONSUMER. I STILL WOULD LIKE TO KNOW 
HOW ANY OF US WERE HARMED, SINCE WINDOWS USUALLY IS INSTALLED IN THE 
COMPUTER WHEN PURCHASED. GREED AND ENVY CERTAINLY PLAY A PART OF 
THIS SETTLEMENT....THE JUDGE SHOULD RULE THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR 
AND EQUITABLE AND THAT THE STATES SHOULD NOT BAND TOGETHER 
(COLLUSION) AGAINST MICROSOFT FOR PERSONAL GAIN.... WHY SHOULD 9 
STATES BENEFIT FROM SOMETHING THAT THE OTHER 41 DO NOT?????
    IT APPEARS THAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WAS LISTENING TO THE 
WRONG PEOPLE ........THE CONSUMER WAS NOT HARMED!!!! THANK YOU FOR 
READING MY THOUGHTS
    STAN PRAGER
    4860 MT. ROSE WAY
    ROSEVILLE, CA. 95747
    ([email protected])



MTC-00005821

From: Mike Rausch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s put this behind us and get on with business. Please settle 
this.
    Mike



MTC-00005822

From: Rhonda Hostetler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am sending this email to voice my support for the Microsoft 
settlement and to express my desire for the government to end its 
intervention into Microsoft`s business practices as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Rhonda Hostetler
    12216 201st Court NE
    Woodinville, WA 98072



MTC-00005823

From: tom stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s get this settlement under way NOW! The states that do not 
agree should be forced out of their suits by court actions because 
all they have in mind is cashing in at taxpayer`s ultimate expense. 
You are urged to force these settlements because of an age old 
truism_Corporations can not pay taxes! They simply pass them 
along to the consumers in higher prices for the products they sell!
    TOM STEPHENSON



MTC-00005824

From: Kenneth Nicholson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are totally opposed to any further litigation against 
Microsoft. We believe that the current offer by Microsoft is more 
than fair and equitable, should be accepted and the case closed. 
This case has gone on long enough causing undue hardship on many by 
a group of selfish litigants spurred on their own selfish interests! 
We urgently request that all further litigation be immediately 
discontinued.
    Kenneth B. & Isolde
    S. Nicholson
    11315 Cloverdale Court, S.W.,
    Lakewood, WA 98499-1233



MTC-00005825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider the settlement approved by the DOJ and nine states 
eminently fair, especially to the consumer.
    I`m a user of Microsoft software and over the years found 
Microsoft`s product and service to be excellent and of very 
reasonable cost.. I could easily switch to a competitor

[[Page 24756]]

(like Apple Computer), but my choice is Microsoft.
    I think that the charges like `bundling' are 
ridiculous. I have yet to be charged for any of the 
`bundled' products I don`t want. Lots of companies, like 
automobile companies `bundle' and the consumer generally 
benefits. High time we (the US Government and certain state 
prosecutors) quit harassing innovating companies like Microsoft, who 
through their inventiveness have done so much for our economy. In 
the end. I, the consumer, have to pay for all the Government 
plaintives, court costs, lawyers and the expenses Microsoft has to 
incur. .
    Jake Hammerslag
    27011 Calle Esperanza
    San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00005826

From: Marv W. Mortenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: UnJust Settlement!
    The Government should not force any business that is more 
successful than others and force them to do less than there 
competitors_i.e.: Coca Cola puts one bottle of Pepsi in each 
of there six packs_I`m not interested in what is fair but am 
interested in equitable treatment for all_Bill Gates built an 
intelligent Corporation with hired Brains that went out and did what 
most Americans are attempting to do is build a better mouse 
trap_and you the Government and our Tax Dollars are penalizing 
success_Microsoft is not America`s Enemy_Bill Gates is 
not a Criminal_Admit you the Government made a mistake and 
stop this non-sense.
    Regards,
    Marvin W Mortenson,
    Citizen



MTC-00005827

From: CLEEF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IT IS TIME FOR THIS MIS-GUIDED EFFORT TO BE BROUGHT TO A CLOSE 
AT BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. HAS THE DOJ LEARNED NOTHING 
FROM THEIR EFFORTS TO EXTORT MONEY FROM LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES AND 
THE RESULTANT FAILURE OF ANY REAL EFFORT TO REDRESS THE SUPPOSEDLY 
INJURED PARTIES. DO NOT LET THE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION CONTINUE 
TO LINE THEIR POCKETS AT THE TAXPAYER`S EXPENSE.



MTC-00005828

From: stan guilkey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: DOJ
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Get the bureaucrats off of Microsoft`s back. They have provided 
a good product at a lower cost over the years. Settle the case and 
accept what they are offering for the schools in the form of 
computers.
    Sincerely,
    Stan Guilkey
    765 644-4469



MTC-00005829

From: Paul Larmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    DOJ,
    I am against any additional legal action with Microsoft. You 
should settle this case right now.
    Paul Larmon



MTC-00005830

From: Ike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    Settlement is fair and equitable_let`s move on!!



MTC-00005831

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: settle the case now
    the best, like cream, will rise to the top. if msft windows was 
no good the public would have opted for apples system. but for some 
reason windows was better or at least the marketing was so most of 
the new pc`s have windows. save a percentage of their gross income 
to support the other systems, give money to the wtc relief fund and 
settle the case.



MTC-00005832

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I hope the US Justice deptmartment will bring the Microsoft 
ordeal to a speedy end. It seems we have a number of people only 
interested in lawsuits as opposed to getting rid of barriers to 
business in our country. Microsoft is providing leadership, 
employment, innovation, and most of all a committment to America 
through grant programs. I just had dinner with an incredible young 
woman who has gone through college and post graduate degrees all 
with the help of the Gates foundation. Lets not penalize success. It 
is the American dream.
    Mark Rourke
    U.S. Citizen



MTC-00005833

From: Gerald Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For goodness sake, settle up. There is more than enough anguish 
in the World without prolonging this fiasco. Surely the Country`s 
patience is at an end, don`t you think?
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Meyer



MTC-00005834

From: Ganesh, C P
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I as a shareholder of Microsoft and as a general public feel 
strongly that the settlement arrived at should be confirmed by the 
Department of Justice to allow the company to regain its lost glory 
and to contribute effectively to the economic development specially 
after the post September 11, 2001 era. I am sure Bill Gates will 
achieve this given the right support!
    Chatapuram P. Ganesh.



MTC-00005835

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    This is to express my concern about the continuing resistance to 
settlement of the Microsoft case. This has gone on long enough and 
we need to let Microsoft get back to their business. As a computer 
user and as a financial investor I believe the Government is correct 
in its settlement proposal.
    Gordon Pennington



MTC-00005836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    A settlement in this case should force Microsoft to desist in 
its practices which eliminate the competitive nature of our free 
market system. Instead, the settlement is actually a $1 billion 
dollar promotion of Microsoft software products targeted at the K-12 
education system. Microsoft has been found to engage in monopolistic 
practices with respect to hardware vendors, discouraging them from 
allowing the installation of competitive products in systems 
preloaded with a Microsoft operating system. Microsoft has provided 
a mediocre product, restricted consumer choice, overcharged for 
unneed features, and prevented consumers from removing the unwanted 
portions of the system. I oppose the settlement because it is 
completely biased toward the introduction of Microsoft software 
products to our underprivileged K-12 schools, and because it 
provides for basically no other alternatives than the use of 
Microsoft software products. This is basically a $400 promotion of 
Microsoft products. Further analysis of the settlement shows the 
mismatch between complaint and settlement. Class plaintiffs claimed 
(among other issues) that consumers had been overcharged for 
Windows, yet the settlement proposal returns nothing to those 
consumers and merely entrenches the Microsoft monopoly further.
    While we support Microsoft`s stated goal of helping 
underprivileged schools, that goal is best accomplished by giving 
schools unrestricted grants for use as they need, not 
`donations' biased toward the use of Microsoft products.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Barbara J. Davis
    6575 Sunburst Drive
    Portage MI 49024
    616-327-5894
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00005837

From: Bob(u)Dawna Robinson

[[Page 24757]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I and the majority of the people in the world, would like for 
this case to end asap. This has drug out far too long as it is. Send 
a message to the businesses of the world that the government is not 
going to punish a company that has produced a better product just so 
their competition can catch up with them. With the way other 
countries dominate so many other markets, America should be proud of 
the success story of Microsoft. But instead we punish MS and do 
everything in the goverment`s power to put road blocks in their way. 
By interfering with future development of MS products our goverment 
opens the door for foreign countries to take over this market also. 
How would the US goverment like it if a Japanese company held the 
influence MS has on the industry?
    The government should get out of this and let the strongest 
company determine who is successful.
    Bob Robinson



MTC-00005838

From: George Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    DOJ:
    Please settle the case NOW! Special interests such as AOL are 
using this for their own special interest purposes. I think that as 
Microsoft goes the rest of the economy will follow. Lets get the 
economy back where it belongs.
    Thank you
    George A Thomas
    512 14th st
    Bellingham WA



MTC-00005839

From: Ruben Odom jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have my opinion short and sweet: I believe that the view that 
Microsoft has engaged in anti competitive activity is true only 
because the computer industry has failed to show any motivation what 
so ever to compete with Microsoft in any form what so ever. I don`t 
think anything out side of what the has already been ruled on by the 
supreme court is necessary. But in a desire to see that the playing 
field be leveled for companies desiring to enter into the OS 
competition is necessary. I think the current revision allows entry 
of a company that already has an established reputation_like 
Sun Micro Systems or AOL-Time Warner. These companies with the 
improved marketing ability of an operating system can and will pose 
a significant threat to Microsoft. I sincerely know that it is wrong 
and in turn illegal to cause MS to be forced to turn over any source 
code or be forced to develop any software for any platform that 
already has plenty of proprietary software ported to it (ie. Linux 
and Corel). I also know that it is illegal to force MS to support 
any Middleware company that has enough internet presence and 
advertising ability to market it`s own product instead of being 
carried by MS to undermine its future operations.
    In short, I feel that the 9 rouge states are acting in the 
interest of lazy free software proponents that want to undermine the 
software industry, its tough quality standards, and ability to reach 
the masses with innovative technology to fuel an economy. Their 
communist view of free software equaling greater understanding is 
equal to communism: a very nice dream. It is a common fact that 
programmers and end user`s prefer to use someone else`s hard work 
instead of being concerned with the details. Another parallel 
between communism and the free software movement is the fact that 
they have a demonstrated tendency to keep potential threats of any 
magnitude from the masses in order to save face and govern over 
people. This communist open source threat needs to continue to be 
checked by our present justice system by allowing the current 
revision, as of the date of this email, to stand and reject the 
request of the 9 rouge states.
    Thanks for hearing me out
    Ruben A. Odom Jr.
    [email protected]
    614-239-8561
    2034 Prince George Drive
    Apt. G
    Columbus, OH 43209



MTC-00005840

From: Doris Justice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the best interest of consumers like me, the general public, 
the American economy, and american business ability to innovate, it 
is my opinion that the Microsoft Settlement should be approved. This 
case should have never brought originally. Good ole american free 
enterprise should have prevailed.
    Doris H. Justice



MTC-00005841

From: Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in the best interest of the American people that Microsoft 
case be settled. DOJ has dragged it on too long to the detriment of 
costing the American taxpayer millions of dollars and also the 
millions depleted from the Microsoft Co. THIS IS A FREE ENTERPRISE 
COUNTRY, I PRAY.
    Chuck Peterson,
    350 Climbing Way,
    Wimberley, TX 78676



MTC-00005842

From: Lloyd Smiley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Settlement Now with Microsoft
    Monday, July 02, 2001
    Very Much Needed Resolution with Microsoft
    The Federal Appeals Court decided against the breakup of 
Microsoft Corporation into two companies. A breakup would have 
destroyed the vital and highly valuable synergistic and innovative 
abilities of Microsoft. I firmly believe that prosecution of 
Microsoft by the U.S. Department of Justice has caused tremendous 
damage to our economy and may be ascribed in large measure to our 
current financial struggle, started in March 2000.
    As an independent consultant my work has been involved in 
computers from the punch card era in the 1950`s until now; have been 
involved with Microsoft software from 1982. My experience with 
computers includes writing and many presentations, order processing, 
optimization in logistical systems and operation of distribution 
centers and levels of employment in manufacturing, rail car and OTR 
truck fleet management, investments with screens and transactions, 
operations and financial analyses and controls, engineering, 
budgets. IBM, Intel and Microsoft have been the most important 
developers of useful hardware and software in the accelerated 
progress experienced in this country over the past 20 years.
    Antitrust Prosecutor Joel Klein, Attorney David Boies, U.S. 
Attorney General Janet Reno, Attorney Generals from 18 states and 
executives from competing firms of Sun, IBM, AOL/Netscape, Apple and 
Oracle have through their use of biased Judge Penfield Jackson 
significantly caused the slowdown of this country???s economy, 
started in March 2000. We trust the Department of Justice Assistant 
Attorney General Charles James and new judge will continue to use 
good judgment and common sense in the final phase in fairly and 
promptly resolving the antitrust problems related to Microsoft.
    Microsoft`s practices in the market have been aggressive but 
cannot to my knowledge be described as unfair to customers in 
developing the Windows operating system and in combination with the 
Internet Explorer. The development of the software was done in the 
open in competition with Lotus, Netscape, IBM, AT&T Unix, Sun, 
Apple and Oracle. These alternative software operating systems and 
applications have been run by me in parallel on the same computers 
and have through critical comparisons decided in favor of Microsoft 
(Unix v. DOS/Windows, Lotus Office Suite v. MS Office, Netscape/
Communicator v. Internet Explorer). Price was not an important 
factor. Obviously, Microsoft has temporarily won the competition in 
Windows operating systems but has lost the browser competition to 
the 33 million AOL/Netscape subscribers. Linux and Unix have made 
recent strides forward with IBM and Sun in competing with Microsoft 
in operating systems. The latest IBM servers are now delivered with 
the Linus Operating System and not Microsoft NT or Windows 
Professional. Why should the Department of Justice and District 
Court aid and abet Microsoft competitors that do not need help?
    I encourage that Microsoft be allowed to continue to compete and 
innovate, to keep our economy moving forward without oppressive 
state and federal restrictions and regulations, without further 
excessive fines and harassment from the attorneys general and eager 
attorneys looking for ways to perpetuate this litigation. I favor an 
early settlement to allow Microsoft and this economy to move 
forward. The settlement

[[Page 24758]]

with the federal government needs to include a finality and closure 
with states attorney generals and all attorneys related to this 
litigation. This avoidable costly matter should be settled at the 
earliest possible date.
    Sincerely,
    Lloyd Smiley, Management Consultant, MIT 1951
    Retired Professional Engineer (10 states)
    Retired Certified Statewide General Contractor
    4830 East Coventry Drive
    Vero Beach, Florida 32967-7301
    Telephone 561-564-9825
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00005843

From: Fran Combar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement should be approved as is, let`s get 
this problem resolved so the country can move on! Thanks
    George Carlin_Imponderable:
    Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
    Fran Combar
    Bridgewater, NY



MTC-00005844

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i overwhelmingly support any reasonable end to the litigation 
against microsoft. the litigation was an embarrassment when 
initiated, and it will continue to be an embarrassment until it is 
terminated. this notwithstanding the findings of the trial court. 
this is a new age, and a new industry. crybabies and losers do not 
deserve the support of the federal government in their tantrums. if 
i had to, i could probably count in months the productivity i have 
saved by having microsoft as `the choice' of operating 
system. rather than having to study, compare, assess, and choose 
from many, then hope that my choice was competitive if not the best.
    jack nissen



MTC-00005845

From: Mary Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsrt Settlement
    It is about time to put this behind us as a country. As a 
consumer, I find this has hurt me more by tecnology waiting in the 
wings for a settlement to happen. That is not in the best interest 
of our country. That is the bottom line. This lawsuit has done more 
to hurt me as a consumer both financially with the tech stocks in 
such a decline, and with freedom to innitiate and innovate. Finding 
a way to finish it fast is in my best interest and that of our 
country. I have personally never been `hurt` by microsft 
anyway, but this court case has hurt me finacially and that is very 
personal. Do Something soon! We need to support our comapnies that 
can foster in some new growth and jobs not discourage companies so 
that they do not srive to become larger and world class leading 
companies.
    Thank you,
    Mary Anderson
    Gig Harbor, Wa 98332



MTC-00005846

From: Thomas Nugent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
    For my two cents, I recommend that the current settlement with 
Microsoft be implemented without further inhibitions placed on a 
company that has added enormous value to the U.S. economy. Why on 
earth we would penalize a company that gives things away while 
turning a blind eye to the monopolistic OPEC cartel is beyond me but 
I think there must be some semblance of reason regarding the 
Microsoft case. Let`s get this darn thing behind America and move on 
to more important matters.
    Tom Nugent



MTC-00005847

From: Wes Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to make my viewpoint known concerning the microsoft 
case. I would like to see this case settled as soon as possible. I 
do not think ongoing litigation in this case is good for our 
country. It is only good for the attorneys. Please do not let the 
special interest groups opposed to a final settlement derail the 
process. The DOJ and Microsoft have both spent enough time and 
resources on this issue and it needed to be settled now.
    Thank you.
    Wes Harris
    1014 Bayou Vista Dr
    Deer Park, Texas 77536
    832-309-8059



MTC-00005848

From: Sam Biggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that the Microsoft Settlement as currently 
proposed and agreed upon between Microsoft, the U.S. Government and 
various consenting states should ratified by the courts without 
change and finalized. Perpetuating this litigation is a waste of 
taxpayer dollars and government resources. Additionally, the 
millions of dollars spent litigating this issue by Microsoft and 
other parties has benefited (and will benefit) no one other than 
attorneys.
    Those opposed to the Microsoft Settlement include principally 
Microsoft competitors and a few states, led by California, who 
apparently are looking for their own personal benefit rather than 
for the good of the taxpayers and consumers. Opposition by Microsoft 
competitors should be read for what it is, a strategy to use the 
courts to gain a competitive advantage which should be restricted to 
the marketplace. As for California, this state believes it is its 
own imperial nation and should have everything its own way. I know. 
I live in this state. California believes, as do many of its 
residents, that they can sue anybody for anything regardless of the 
merits and the impact. The governor of this state unilaterally spent 
the entire state surplus of over $6 billion on purchasing 
electricity to give away to its residents. This money was spent 
without approval of the legislature or the voters of the state. Now 
we are facing a state deficit and tax increases. California should 
drop this litigation and the additional waste of taxpayer dollars, 
just as did New York, and get on to better things. I strongly urege 
the courts to uphold the current settlement and put this matter to 
bed.



MTC-00005849

From: Fred
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    From what I have read I don?t see that Microsoft has committed 
any crime with its business practices.
    Our country was founded on free enterprise and competition. Just 
because they are the largest and best operating system on the net, I 
don`t feel they should be chastised for protecting their products.
    Sincerely
    Fred Eastland
    1219 Pawnee Trail
    Carrollton, Texas 75007



MTC-00005850

From: Gerald Gaumer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen, I was very much upset with the manner in 
which Microsoft was `dragged' down by the prosecutions 
of the Clinton Administration and his appointed members of the 
Justice Department.
    If one reviews the history of our financial markets, there is a 
direct correlation between the Federal findings of March, 2000 and 
the subsequent declines of our publicly held corporations, with 
special attention to those in the high tech sector. Microsoft, 
though some of its actions may be interpreted as unfair, also must 
be viewed as a true innovator, willing and able to make the 
tremendous investment necessary to radically economize the manners 
in which we transact business or communicate with each other. Sunn, 
Oracle and others may cry `wolf, wolf, wolf ...,' but 
there is no small amount of envy mixed in with such cries, as they 
vie for position in a competitive marketplace. So enough_let`s 
put this matter behind us, let`s get on with rebuilding our economy, 
get on with innovation and move forward in the grandest way 
possible. If some states wish not to be a part of the proposed 
settlement, then let that be their fate, stewing about old business 
as the rest of us venture forth.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald W. Gaumer
    [email protected]
    Marietta, GA



MTC-00005851

From: pkedoman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please, guys. The ability to compete and win is what makes the 
ease with which I sent this e-mail possible. Let`s not hamper that

[[Page 24759]]

ability in such a way that there is no incentive to do research and 
development or create new products. Let`s end this thing and get on 
with what`s important.
    Patrick L. Doman



MTC-00005852

From: Mike McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear to me that Microsoft is being damaged by the 
government and we the taxpayers and consumers of this great nation 
are basically being damaged by both. Microsoft must pass the costs 
of litigation on to the consumers, and the government must collect 
sufficient taxes to pay for the expensive litigation. In the end, it 
is the general public that is the most damaged. Microsoft has 
basically helped the world in many ways and for that I`m grateful. 
Just because they are on top, there are many that wish to tear them 
down.
    This is wrong.



MTC-00005853

From: rbroberg@[158.188.130.124]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Publish MS File Formats and Network Specifications
    I am writing to you on behalf of computer programmers who write 
and support software for computer operating systems such as Linux, 
BSD, Solaris, and other Unix OSes. The difficulty with the MS 
monopoly is not that they control 95% of the desktop market, but 
that it is increasingly difficult to develop systems that 
interoperate with the MS networks. It is this `lock in' 
that perpetuates the MS market share and decreases the ability for 
third parties to challenge MS in a particular software domain.
    I believe that the most effective remedy is not one that 
addresses past wrong-doings_from a market perspective that 
damage is done. The most effective remedy is one that increases 
competition in the future. Microsoft should be required to publish 
the file formats of its application software and the protocols of 
its network services. Microsoft has claimed that (due to market 
share) its software create the `de facto' standards. It 
should now make those standards available to all programmers. This 
single requirement would greatly increase the ability of software 
companies to create products that would interoperate and compete 
with current and future Microsoft offerings.
    Thank You
    Ronald Broberg
    Software Engineer
    Lockheed Martin Mission Systems
    719-277-4124
    [email protected]



MTC-00005854

From: Dan Vaughan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am an average small business owner. Please allow Microsoft the 
opportunity to continue to innovate and build new products for the 
software industry. I could go on and on with details for this note 
but I am sure you have many to read.
    Thank you.
    Dan Vaughan
    Knight Products Company, Inc.
    www.kpcsupplies.com
    (800)262-4116



MTC-00005855

From: michael c putnam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I believe that the Microsoft anti trust settlement should be 
concluded with the current agreement that is now proposed between 
the US Government and the majority of States. Microsoft has been 
bullied enough for political and competitors gain and pleasure. I 
think that Microsoft is a vital and important US Corporation that 
should be supported by the US people and US Government and not 
disassembled or destroyed for self serving gain of a few. Bill Gates 
is an American Hero and Microsoft Corporation has helped many people 
and the US economy enormously. No thanks to the US Government is 
required. Microsoft has done this on there own just like any other 
Corporation could have or could do it. Unless the Government takes 
away the incentive or freedom to innovate, which would be a shame! 
The idea that Microsoft should be ordered to sell or offer a striped 
version of the Windows Operating System is ridiculous and absurd.
    Michael Putnam



MTC-00005856

From: Romano, Joe
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No further litigation. The company (any company) should have the 
right to further enhance their product to keep it as competitive as 
is practical in the free market. One can find many examples of true 
competition without legislation (rental car companies, retailers in 
any niche, etc.) The savvy shopper will let competition thrive.



MTC-00005857

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:00pm
Subject: let`s move on
    a settlement has been reached. . .let it take effect 
and let the companies compete in an open market.



MTC-00005858

From: Jeff Waranch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLENMENT
    I WANT TO STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT THE STATES SETTLE WITH 
MICROSOFT. SINCE COMPETITION CAN`T COMPETE WITH MICROSOFT THEY ARE 
FORCED TO TRY TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPETE FOR THEM. MICROSOFT 
IS GREAT AND CONTINUALLY STRIVES TO GIVE THE PUBLIC 
`MORE' AT A FAIR PRICE. WHY SHOULD MICROSOFT BE REQUIRED 
TO HELP THEIR COMPETITION. IF THE PUBLIC DOESN`T LIKE PART OF 
MICROSOFT`S PROGRAM, THEY DON`T HAVE TO BUY IT.



MTC-00005859

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: (no subject)
    As a senior citizen, former Fortune 500 employee, and Microsoft 
shareholder I support the recent rulings and believe the future 
potential litigation should be stopped.



MTC-00005860

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do everything within your power to insure that the US 
government`s antitrust case against Microsoft is settled under the 
legislation currently proposed. The terms of the proposed settlement 
appear fair. It is in both Microsoft`s customers` and shareholders` 
best interest to move on at this point. Millions have already been 
wasted on showy court proceedings. Microsoft`s monopoly will be 
restricted by effective innovations on the part of its competitors. 
I increasingly have the feeling that Microsoft`s competitors are 
leaning on the government to level what appears to them to be an 
uneven playing field. This is not the case. Microsoft`s products are 
simply better and very affordable. Microsoft`s strongest competitor 
is currently itself. When this ceases to be true, the apparent 
monopoly will begin to dissipate. I do not think our capitalistic 
system has ever seen this phenomena fail. Who would have expected 
Microsoft to win out over mighty IBM in the operating systems arena 
20 years ago?
    As a result of the tragic events of September 11, the United 
States and the Department of Justice have many new opportunities for 
both its attention and its financial resources. The pursuit of 
Microsoft is one area in which we need to call a halt. We should 
divert those funds to help insure the safety of US citizens.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Grow
    Keswick, VA



MTC-00005861

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Department of Justice
    Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    I do believe that this settlement is tough, but reasonable and 
fair to all parties involved. I also, agree that this settlement is 
good for the consumers, the industry and the American economy. I 
really think it`s a shame that a few aggressive lobbying groups, 
plus a few politician has caused such turmoil in the economy over 
the past few years. I also believe because of this law suit it has 
hurt the aggresses of Microsoft as far as new product, that would 
have help the economy of this Country plus the World economy. This 
settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 24760]]

    Bruce P. Day
    11709 Redwood Dr. E.
    Brandywine, MD 20613
    Bruce



MTC-00005862

From: Thompson, Margie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:56pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe the settlement will provide a fair and equitable 
decision and benefit the consumer. This has gone on long enough.
    Sincerely,
    Margie Thompson
    e-mail address mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00005863

From: Sean Cope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to voice my opinion that the Microsoft anti-trust 
case should not proceed with further litigation. As a consumer and 
an IT professional, I think that this case should be settled in a 
swift, decisive manner and should not be prolonged for any reason.
    Thank you for taking the times to read my words,
    Sean Cope



MTC-00005864

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    dear sirs:
    please complete the microsoft settlement as soon as possible and 
get on with more important doj business.
    sincerely,
    jack kueneman



MTC-00005865

From: Bob Luhrs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opinion that the settlement seems fair to 
me, and long overdue. The issues are or have been mainly corrected, 
serious, major market share competitors have emerged in both 
operating system and office software. The company is in a far 
different position today with Linux and many other options available 
to consumers. At this point the choice really is theirs, even free 
in the case of Linux.
    Abuses which have existed have been corrected, and I feel it`s 
time to move on. There are lots of competitors not offering anything 
better but paying for legal action versus doing their own hard work 
to create better software. I work here, I know. Most of the 
resulting software is a labor of love, people even die or have to 
take early retirement due to burnout. The effort is quite a hard one 
to get what looks like simple software. Let the others do this and 
see what they come up with, that would give us real competition.
    Thanks,
    Bob Luhrs



MTC-00005866

From: Willie Wiginton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    The recent agreement to settle between the Federal Government 
and nine states is a fair and equitable settlement to all parties 
involved. It is time to get this issue resolved and for all of us to 
move on to running our business. I urge you to accept this agreement 
and let`s get on with the critical issues currently at hand and 
facing this country.
    HD Wiginton



MTC-00005867

From: G G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Settle the case with Microsoft. Let`s move on with this and not 
waste another penny of my tax dollars deliberating it. Microsoft 
makes good software, and I`m intelligent enought to decide on my own 
what software I do or do not want to buy, regardless if there is an 
icon on the screen or not.



MTC-00005868

From: Kim Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I may not agree that the Tunney Act, should move 
forward, I would agree that this case needs to be resolved. Since 
Microsoft has shown a willingness to accept this agreement, I would 
do the same and hope the DOJ does likewise.
    Please pass the Tunney Act.
    Kim Alexander



MTC-00005869

From: Steve Stephens
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    It is in the public interest to let the Tunney Act pass as is.
    Regards,
    Steve Stephens



MTC-00005870

From: Alex Milman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I demand to stop harassment of the best American 
company_Microsoft_the pride of the whole world! How is 
it that the government of the USA is trying to destroy the best we 
have in this country? With Democrats in administration with their 
fantastic hatred towards business it was expected. They managed to 
drive country into recession even during technological revolution. 
Actually all the fruits of this revolution are gone. The hope is 
that new Republican administration will turn the country around, 
despite democratic majority in the Senate, where they are trying to 
make thing even worse than they are now.
    Hold on!!!



MTC-00005871

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s about time that this legal nightmare be put behind us and 
to allow Microsoft to go on with the business that it does best to 
create jobs in a time when the national economy is faltering and to 
generate additional income for its stockholders and for the economy 
in general.
    In my view a protracted litigationn benefits only the voracious 
legal profession involved in this sordid affair and the hungry for 
publicity attorneys general of the states that are still holding 
out.
    Charles Notara
    A Concerned Citizen



MTC-00005872

From: dl123
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    In the past I used IBM OS2, Mac and LINUX OS systems. None were 
as easy, cheap or stable as Microsoft. There was always one serious 
draw-back, whereas Microsoft is the most positive.
    The problem with Microsoft products is they are boring; they 
work almost all the time. That is why I play around with LINUX. but 
it requires technical expertise. Others must have felt the same or 
there would be a greater abundance of them.
    Dieter Louis
    [email protected]



MTC-00005873

From: Werner Grob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With respect to the settlement you have negotiated, it is my 
opinion that the settlement, as proposed, is in my best interest.
    Thank you
    Werner Grob
    Key Biscayne, FL



MTC-00005874

From: Anthony W Strano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and should be 
implemented. Microsoft has made the PC the effective consumer tool 
that it is today. The bundling of innovations into its windows 
operating system is a benefit to the consumer. The whole reason for 
the suit against Microsoft by other competitors is that they are not 
good enough to compete, so they enlisted the state and federal 
governing bodies to try and destroy Microsoft. Years ago, the then 
Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson, said what is good for General 
Motors is good for the country. I believe that is true today for 
Microsoft. Let`s let them get on with their great work in improving 
the life of consumers.
    Anthony Strano



MTC-00005875

From: Larry Enoksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm

[[Page 24761]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I use Microsoft Software. I think they have reduced havoc in the 
industry by standardization and this is a real plus.
    However, because they have won a victory over firms competing in 
the development of products, they now are threatening anyone using 
their software to be able to prove licensing requirements have been 
met. Frankly, I believe I am in compliance and I encourage others to 
be as well, but I am offended by the intimidating letters sent by 
Microsoft, probably the same tactics used against others.
    I believe this is the same tactic they have used on other firms 
to quash innovation, force competitors to litigate into financial 
ruin, and has allowed them to usurp technology developed by others.
    I can`t imagine how many firms will be forced into litigation 
over licensing issues. How many of those will Microsoft put out of 
business?
    I was previously in favor of the settlement, but now feel the 
public is having the opportunity to see Microsoft management for the 
`government outside of Government` that it has become.
    Microsoft should be reorganized to allow a competitive market at 
all levels including Operating Systems, Software design, and 
development of new technology.
    Have a Great Day!
    Larry C Enoksen, EA, Notary
    VP Operations, Tax Mam, Inc/Tax Services Group
    [email protected]
    http://www.taxmam.com
    http://www.cupertino-optimists.org



MTC-00005876

From: Keith(a)redplane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to let you know my thoughts on the Microsoft 
Settlement. I am strongly opposed to changing the settlement that 
has been worked out with the Federal Government and nine states. 
This is a more than fair settlement and will make a difference. The 
Microsoft competitors that have made so much noise about the 
settlement and the case should themselves be penalized. They are 
using this whole issue to make up for their inadequacies_the 
public doesn`t want their products, so they cry to the government 
about the industry leader`s supposed unfair practices.
    I am concerned that if the government messes with the proposed 
settlement, the end result may be that the public will get less. 
Microsoft has made every effort to work with the government and 
should not be required to start over just because competitors are 
not talented enough to come up with successful products that sell.
    Thank you.
    Keith A. Tobias
    P.O. Box 666
    La Ca?ada Flintridge, CA 91011
    email: [email protected]
    Tel: (818) 790-6040
    Fax: (818) 790-6002



MTC-00005877

From: jhuff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I just want to urge you to accept the Microsoft settlement. The 
public certainly hasn`t been hurt by Microsoft. Have been using 
computers since 1983 and have found them vastly improved due to 
Microsoft. I had such faith in Microsoft that I bought its stock. 
Sold some at a loss.
    Can`t understand that when a company does well and helps the 
public, the government wants to penalize that company. I also feel 
that the technology of computers and other communication devices is 
changing so rapidly that companies fortunates will ebe and tide with 
their ability to keep up with changes. These companies shouldn`t 
have to spend their time and treasure defending themselves against 
the government also. The competition is stiff without that.
    I do not work for Microsoft and have no connection with them 
other than I still own a small of amount of stock. (at a loss which 
I will sell when I have gains to offset it). I do, however, use 
their products and find them outstanding, especially Microsoft 
Publisher. I use it to do my church`s newsletter each month and for 
other purposes.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Joyce Lofmark
    38 Brookhouse Drive
    Marblehead, MA 01945



MTC-00005878

From: Paul Wuthrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US Government should leave Microsoft alone and focus on the 
issues that really affect Americans and our security_like 
foreign and domestic terrorists! Why does the govt. have to destroy 
a great US company? Janet Reno should have spent our tax money on 
something that benefited the public. Instead, they tried to 
dismantle a company that provides great products and improves 
business.
    Microsoft is a great company with a product that enhances 
business. If the competition had a comparable product, people would 
buy it! Instead they want the govt. to step in and help them try to 
compete with Microsoft. Sun Microsystems and the rest of the ilk 
should be ashamed.
    Paul Wuthrich



MTC-00005879

From: Bev and Scott Milne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: MicroSoft Anti-Trust Problem
    I thought that Anti-Trust suit is used when its believe the 
company is hurting the consumer. The Clinton administration (the 
worst in our history) hurt the consumer by charging Microsoft in the 
first place. The stock dropped so much that billons of dollars was 
lost in 401(k)`s, but we don`t hear much about that do we. And then 
that nut case Reno held a press conference stating that consumer 
will be protected now because of the action they (JD) took. And of 
course Orin Hatch jumped on the band wagon because Oracle is located 
in Utah. Along with Reno, Hatch wanted Microsoft to share industrial 
secrets with Oracle and other companies so that competition will be 
a on level playing field. That pure BS. If Oracle and others want to 
be better then MS, invent a better mouse trap. This whole lawsuit, 
including the states, is a typical democrat approach, in this case 
redistribute industrial secerts like they do with everyones money to 
those who don`t deserve it.
    Sincerely,
    A. Scott Milne
    1227 143 Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98007



MTC-00005880

From: Ray McCoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
believe that the Microsoft settlement is fair to consummers and the 
industry and that we need to move beyond this issue.
    It is obvious that Microsoft`s competitors are trying to use the 
Federal and State Attorney`s General to unfairly stiffle Microsoft. 
These companies should expend their efforts on developing software 
applications that compete with Microsoft rather than using their own 
and taxpayer dollars to attempt to hurt Microsoft. Let the 
marketplace decide who`s products are best.
    Sincerely,
    Ray McCoy
    Marketing Manager
    Infostat Systems, Inc.
    916 649 3244 Ext 203
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00005881

From: Ken Klinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Enough. Let the litigation end. Ken Klinger



MTC-00005882

From: Mark Hester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am in favor of the settlement as it stands for the DOJ V. 
Microsoft case.
    At this point it appears that the interests and states that are 
fighting the settlement are doing so in an attempt to gain an 
unmerited windfall for themselves and their business interests. 
MicroSoft has continued to place resources at risk inorder to create 
markets and expand their business; neither of which will happen if 
they do not have the interest of the consumer at heart. The recent 
XBOX launch is an excellent example. MS has introduced an innovative 
OPTION for the public. Has SUN had this opportunity? Yes. Has MS`s 
Windows Operating system limited SUN, or NetScape (AOL), in their 
creation of new products? No. But their focus on MS and this lawsuit 
has. MicroSoft`s dominance in the operating system market is 
overrated by the opponents of the settlement. The

[[Page 24762]]

opportunity to compete is available to all that want to spend their 
resources on creative solutions instead of wasting the people`s time 
and money trying to gain an unfair windfall.
    Let the settlement stand and let`s get on with business.
    Respectfully,
    John Mark Hester
    CEO RedRock Solutions, Inc.
    Madison, Alabama
    256.656.7879



MTC-00005883

From: Stan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should be settled immediately, as it has been going on 
too long, and the ultimate cost for it is bourn by the taxpayer. A 
company should have the right to put what it wants in its products 
and software.
    Why would anyone want to stifle innovation. That is what made 
this country great and should be allowed to continue. Thank you.
    Stanley R. Kneppar
    8109 Hibiscus Circle
    Tamarac, Florida 33321-2134
    (954) 720-0413
    [email protected]



MTC-00005884

From: Capt. Ronald L. Pouch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: ms antitrust
    This case has become a battle of who`s has the best lawyer. It 
is lawyer welfare. So I paid too much for MS software what else is 
new. I paid too much for my car , my groceries etc. My goodness 
settle this case!!! Leave MS alone. Did we sue GM when they started 
putting their own radios and AC`s in their cars instead of making us 
buy after market from motorola etc. Enough with this case and all 
the money being wasted by various governments and MS.



MTC-00005885

From: Chris Averkiou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 2, 2002
    Dear Sirs at the DOJ:
    The purpose of this email is to provide Tunney Act public 
comment on the Microsoft Settlement. The parties to the litigation 
have reached a settlement ending litigation. It is in the public 
interest to settle the lawsuit and allow the parties to return to 
work, directing resources on more important matters. Microsoft 
contributes valuable services to the United States economy as a 
whole, the public interest is best served by eliminating uncertainty 
to the software industry caused by pending antitrust litigation. The 
Court of Appeals has already ruled on the legal issues, settlement 
based on its decision is a simple matter.
    Please include my comments in the public record.
    Yours,
    Chris Averkiou
    7100 Louisiana NE, H204
    Albuquerque, NM 87109



MTC-00005886

From: Jeff Leite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a voting resident of Florida and a software developer I find 
that the Microsoft settlement has gone far beyond what is fair and 
reasonable. I think this case has been ridiculous from the start as 
it hinders my freedom to innovate and create quality applications. 
Because a couple companies who make unworthy products feel they 
can`t compete with quality Microsoft products we have had to endure 
this law suit. I personally have informed my Attorney General who is 
one of the non-technical bureaucrats who are still involving my 
state in this ridiculous law suit that my votes in the future will 
be sure to rely on the outcome of this law suit. I respectfully 
request that you accept Microsoft`s offer.
    Jeff Leite
    Jacksonville, FL



MTC-00005887

From: Andrew Dobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the Microsoft settlement (as currently proposed) 
as quickly as possible and stop pursuing this ill-advised 
prosecution. While Microsoft clearly has a monopoly on desktop 
operating systems, I believe such monopolies are both necessary and 
commonplace in information technologies; that such monopolies will 
be short-lived; and that the governments` position on this case is 
detremental to the interests both of consumers and of the country.
    Andrew Dobson
    Arlington VA



MTC-00005888

From: cm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Microsoft has improved Windows to a point 
where it is a better value than it ever was. They are not the best 
at everything. Other companies have been able to compete againt MS 
in their specific areas. Only then the companies sat on their 
laurels and got lazy was MS able to make a better product and 
outsell them.
    Isn`t that what America is about?
    Chris Medley
    5509G Langley Way
    Bolling AFB, DC 20336



MTC-

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement;
    I support the government`s case which settled the issue. I do 
not support further lifigastion, be it by other states or 
individuals.
    Otto Pribram



MTC-00005890

From: John P. Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For nearly four years Microsoft has been beaten up on. The 
Microsoft case should be settled without further litigation.
    The settlement reached is tough, but reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is 
good for them, the industry and the American economy.
    John P. Sullivan
    2809 Irwin Road
    Huntsville, AL 35801



MTC-00005891

From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case! It has been going on too long.
    Stephen Quinn
    US Taxpayer



MTC-00005892

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the settlement is fair and if all penalties in this 
country are turned into benefits for our school system, what better 
win/win situation can you ask for?
    LT



MTC-00005893

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
TO: Dept of Justice
    It is high time for the lawsuit again Microsoft to be settled, 
compensation paid by whatever means is agreed upon. The remaining 
few states that are disrupting this settlement simply have their own 
agenda to service, and has little to do with any original complaint, 
valid or not. Bill Gates and other Microsoft executives have done 
more for the entire `world' by producing the excellent 
computer systems over the years, and not one of the litigants would 
have even had a business if it weren`t for these wonderful products 
. . . especially NETSCAPE which most people refuse to use 
and whose software was probably produced using all the latest 
Microsoft software.
    Settle the damn lawsuit !! America needs to focus it`s Justice 
Department on the prosecution of the criminals being rounded up in 
our worldwide `War on Terror'.
    Sincerely,
    John Darr
    4451 Pinyon Tree Ln
    Irvine, CA 92612-2215



MTC-00005894

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: DOJ Settlement
    I am against the government in the Microsoft case.My support is 
behind Microsoft 100%. Julie Tappouni 1/2/02

[[Page 24763]]



MTC-00005895

From: Norm Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft is a fine company and has a very good 
product and is not in violation of any laws.
    I believe they should be able to improve on their product as 
they see fit, i use it all the time and look forward to improvments 
they make to the browser and email clients.
    Thank You
    Norman Johnson
    1001 Heather Lane
    Moore, OK 73160



MTC-00005896

From: George McLennon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Let`s get this thing settled once and for all. No matter what 
legal issues come along there is always some Attorney that will 
bend, twist and almost break the law just to make a buck. Why don`t 
we settle this as the Fed has already set forth.
    It`s time to get off Microsoft and get on the back of some of 
these so called special interest Attorneys whose only special 
interest is their own wallet.
    Respectfully,
    George McLennon



MTC-00005897

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sirs: I would hope that the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice and the 9 states that signed 
on will be approved. There was never any evidence of harm to 
consumers from Microsoft`s behavior. The litigation was funded and 
promoted by Microsoft`s competitors- Sun, Oracle, and AOL, among 
others. I hold stock in stock in several of these companies, as well 
as Microsoft, and have been upset that this is how these companies 
chose to compete with Microsoft- through the courts, rather than the 
marketplace. It is not the government`s role to reward whiny 
competitors. Microsoft is certainly an aggressive competitor, and 
the terms of the proposed settlement suggest that the company`s 
behavior needs to be monitored given its share of the operating 
system market. But expanding the capabilities of a software product 
is in consumers` interest. It is far easier , more efficient, and 
much cheaper for consumers to buy a broadened Windows, than many 
pieces of far more expensive software. Competition exists for 
Windows. Linux was not even a factor when this suit was framed, but 
now it is growing in importance. Sun`s Java also offers a way to 
bypass Windows, as do internet only computers. This is a rapidly 
changing dynamic market. It doesn`t need the heavy regulatory hand 
of government to reorder the pieces. Richard Baehr, Chicago, Il. .



MTC-00005898

From: Don Thompson (CDDG-TRAINING (038) CERTIFICATION)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I think regulation is a necessary tool to ensure fairness 
and equity in commerce as stated in the Constitution, I feel the 
governement has succumbed to the interests of several corporations 
attempting to gain competitive advantage through litigation. When I 
read the information leading up to the Anti-Trust laws, the 
predominant theme is `harm to the consumer'. Further, 
there is substance to expanding that to include damage to `the 
competive nature of business', however, I cannot see any merit 
to the claims that the corporations attempting to bring about this 
lawsuit have been damaged in that sense. Nor can I find `harm 
to the consumer' in any of may daily activities associating 
with the people the DOJ is attempting to `protect'.
    I urge you to cease the nonsensical litigation against Microsoft 
and any company for that matter, that would produce substantial harm 
to the economy. If you continue to pursue the litigation and bring 
about substantial repression of the companies productivity and 
innovation, I would then recommend a Anti-trust suit against those 
who cause the resulting harm to the consumer. . . .
    Thank you for your time.
    Don Thompson
    6703 50th Place NE
    Marysville WA 98270



MTC-00005899

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I hope you will go ahead with the settlement that has been 
offered to Microsoft. It appears to be practical and fair to all. We 
do not need more litigation on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Rosemary Watson



MTC-00005900

From: Kurt Buecheler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a world class company that competes vigorously, but 
no more vigorously than its competitors that are complaining about 
Microsoft. Microsoft has simply delivered a better consumer value 
proposition and customers have responded by adopting the product as 
the best way to enhance their abilities and lives.
    For consumers, the PC has delivered a huge platform upon which 
innovation occurs at a rapid pace and delivers new functions and 
vastly improve the way we live and work and play. The PC standard 
embodies AMERICAN VALUES of empowerment and access to information. 
The PC is a low cost solution that continues to be available to more 
and more people.
    In the process of consumer empowerment, the PC has created a 
huge market, many wonderful companies, increased productivity and a 
large tax base. If anything, the federal and state governments of 
the US should be considering how they can assist MSFT to continue to 
establish computing standards in the USA rather than somewhere else 
or under the heavy influence of other super powers such as the EU.
    The settlement will be tough on MSFT, but should be accepted by 
both sides and become a closed issue. The important issue to the 
American people is the quality of their lives. (strong economy, 
safety, employment) The PC industry advancing creates employment and 
a strong economy and may even help with advancing security as a 
smart device that can greatly enhance the capabilities of security 
workers.
    Please drop further litigation and focus on building the economy 
and security of the USA.
    Sincerely
    Kurt Buecheler
    Microsoft employee and proud American



MTC-00005901

From: Morris Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    While I have not always been pleased with Microsoft`s actions, I 
believe the government should not interfere with their Operating 
Systems. I have been working in this industry since 1980 and has 
seen the development of computers, first hand. I do not believe our 
computer capabilities would be as advanced as they are today, 
without Microsoft. If you look at what it cost consumers and 
Microsoft to advance to the computers Operating Systems of today, it 
is a fraction of what the Government spent with IBM, on their 
programs. In any case, Microsoft has the right to protect their 
investment. It shouldn`t matter that their product is made up of 
`0 and 1`s'.
    Respectfully,
    Morris Allen
    Vidcom Center/VidcomNet, Inc.



MTC-00005902

From: Patricia Swift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunney Act seems fair to me. The settlement is in the public 
interest. It would NOT be in the public interest to drag this out. 
Let`s get it settled, and then everybody can devote themselves to 
productive work instead of more litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Swift
    Creswell, Oregon



MTC-00005903

From: Mark Spain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    enough is enough. settle case as soon as possible. It`s in the 
best interest of the majority.



MTC-00005904

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ladies and

[[Page 24764]]

Gentlemen:
    I am one taxpayer who would appreciate the Federal District 
Court`s holding to the settlement agreement reached in late 2001 
with Microsoft.
    The longer this suit is prolonged, the more out-of-date and 
obsolete become the complaints against the software company.
    I`m sure that neither Microsoft nor their lawsuit-armed 
competitors are operating from selfless motives, but refereeing them 
at the taxpayers` expense is wasting my money. I also believe that, 
having redirected Microsoft`s behavior somewhat, the courts should 
leave the business organizations to fight it out in the marketplace.
    Marcia Andrews
    Pineland, FL



MTC-00005905

From: Joe E. Mayfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to go on record as one firmly opposed to the DOJ`s action 
against Microsoft in the first Place.
    I believe that it was , pure and simple a witch hunt by the 
Clinton Administration. I believe that this suit was a major factor 
in the loss value in the Technology stock market. I has cost 
thousands of average U.S. citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars 
much of which was in retirement programs.
    The Millions of dollars that it cost taxpayers to bring this 
suit was a total waste and could have been better spent tracking 
down and destroying the Terrorists which were attacking Americans 
and American interests all over the world.



MTC-00005906

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    This case has dragged on for three (3) plus years and the 
present settlement should be IT. We and the Justice Dept. have got 
way more important issues to work on than let special interest 
groups continue to WASTE taxpayer`s money on this beaten down 
hoss..Period. . .Period. . .Period. .
 .END OF REPORT
    Best of Health and regards,
    Phinn W. Townsend



MTC-00005907

From: Chris Worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Ma`am,
    I find the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement to be just 
short of an apology to Microsoft.
    It will do nothing to stop their anticompetitive behavior. It 
will do nothing to spur competition in the software industry. It 
gives Microsoft carte blanche to continue to run roughshod over 
consumers and competition.
    The media has well documented that every key provision in this 
settlement has an `opt out' for Microsoft.
    The one I`m most concerned with is the `security' 
`opt out' in the `open protocols' 
section. . .
    `Security' has become a buzzword associated with 
terrorist acts, allowing Microsoft to portray competing vendor`s 
software compatibility with authentication software as an act of 
treason. It`s just not so. `Security through obscurity' 
has never stopped hackers with ill intent, it only keeps those being 
attacked `in the dark'. It`s much like human viri: we 
want to know what can infect us, how to keep from getting infected, 
how to detect the infection, and how to stop the infection (even if 
it can`t be stopped). This information is key to our longevity. For 
example, the recent anthrax terrorist acts have shown that public 
information is critical to detection and cure, and the lack of 
information led to unnecessary infection (of postal workers) and 
panic among the uninfected, and did nothing to stop the perpetrator.
    Software viri/worms require the same publicity to protect and 
inform the population.
    I`m afraid Microsoft has negotiated this loophole in the 
settlement with ill-intent in mind: stopping compatible products 
from competing under the guise of stopping terrorism.
    For example, a software package called `Samba' 
competes with Microsoft NT file servers: file servers compatible 
with the protocols that provide you with your `network 
neighborhood'. If Microsoft can hide the authentication 
protocol, then the competing file server software can`t compete: if 
you have to have an NT server to authenticate users, then you might 
as well use that server to serve files and not use Samba at all. For 
Samba to compete, it must be able to perform all the necessary 
protocols for Microsoft`s network file services. This settlement is 
a ruse. It`s a trap. And, the DOJ seems overly willing to fall for 
it, to the detriment of competition and consumers.
    Chris Worley
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00005908

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    ladies/gentlemen: please accept this communication as my 
congratulations on settling the microsoft case. usually these case 
are instigated by competitors simply wanting a government given 
advantage. the settlement seems reasonable. please try to get the 
remaining state to endorse the settlement so everyone can get-on 
with business.
    very truly yours,
    jack durliat



MTC-00005909

From: Mike Denholtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    My opinion:
    If the DOJ can settle then it should all be settled. Enough is 
enough.
    Leave MS alone.
    Thanks,
    Mike



MTC-00005910

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: MIRCOSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Hi Sir,
    I feel it should be settled now because we have 50 states and 
only 9 states do not agree. I always believe in majority. Microsoft 
did great job for deaf while other companies did not recognize the 
deaf`s needs. Dont destroy it. I do not believe that Microsoft is 
monopoly because Microsoft did not make the customers suffer.
    Thank you
    Larry Schoenberg



MTC-00005911

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:06pm
Subject: (no subject)
    ..I BELIEVE THAT A COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT MUST REALIZE THEIR 
PROBLEMS (OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS IT IS) IT IS 
TIME FOR ALL THEIR FINANCIAL SETTLEMENTS TO BE ACCEPTED AND LET THEM 
GET ON WITH THER R&D FROM WHICH THEY BECAME SO SUCCESSFUL



MTC-00005912

From: Robert Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the owner of a small business that relies heavily, though 
certainly not exclusively, on Microsoft products, I want to express 
my displeasure with the continued harassment of Microsoft by the 
Justice Department and opportunistic Attorneys General from various 
states. I don`t believe the DOJ claims or the settlement extracted 
from Microsoft were fair, but the DOJ and the company did agree and 
I believe the matter should be closed and the blood sucking by the 
states should be stopped. Robert C. Wallace, Bellevue, WA.
    R.C. Wallace, CEO,
    Wallace Properties, Inc.,
    PO Box 4184,
    Bellevue, WA. 98009-4184;
    Phone (425) 455 9976; Fax (425) 646 3374;
    [email protected]



MTC-00005913

From: John Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing about the settlement that has been reached in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe that this settlement is fair to 
all parties involved and it is a good agreement for consumers. I 
urge that the settlement be executed by the DOJ.
    Sincerely,
    John Bradley



MTC-00005914

From: Joseph Chauvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: To Whom it may Concern,
    To Whom it may Concern,

[[Page 24765]]

    I strongly support the proposed settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft. The settlement more than addresses the 
concerns brought up at the trial without unduly harming a company 
that has perhaps done more for the US Economy than any other. This 
settlement will allow Microsoft to keep innovating, while being 
sensitive to the needs of competitors and computer makers.
    The dissenting nine states proposed alterations to the 
settlement are punitive in nature, and are primarily designed to 
help Microsoft competitors at the expense of Microsoft and Microsoft 
shareholders. They are designed to prevent Microsoft from 
innovating, and to make Microsoft hand over intellectual property to 
competitors. Microsoft has shown signs it is very determined to 
comply with the settlement, by internally appointing compliance 
officers. Therefore, I believe the states concerns are unfounded.
    It is my opinion that if the settlement is approved, and this 
case is finally closed, that it will help to eliminate uncertainty 
in the tech sector of the equity markets. This can also help to spur 
economic recovery. Therefore, I do not feel it is in the best 
interest of consumers or the country to drag this on further.
    Please accept the settlement of United States vs. Microsoft as 
submitted by the US Justice Department.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph W. Chauvin



MTC-00005915

From: Doc Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    D.O.J.
    This note is to let you know that as a consumer I support the 
current settlement being considered to end the litigation against 
Microsoft. I have watched as this litigation has unfolded and 
believe it is time to put a stop to it.
    The money and political influence that has been pouted into the 
issue has for the most part been wasted effort, and has done little 
or nothing to improve the consumer`s ability to access new 
technology and improvements to computer operating systems.
    Please end the litigation and the appeals process as soon as 
possible. Accept the settlement that is currently on the table.
    Sincerely, `Doc' Gibson
    `Doc' Gibson, CSAC, CPS, CCGC
    CEO/Program Director
    New Alternatives for Teens & Families
    P.O. Box # 2547, Prescott AZ 86302
    (888) 209-8573 Office
    (928) 445-4375 FAX
    [email protected]



MTC-00005916

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more good for the US economy and for keeping 
US technology in the forefront over the past twenty years than have 
all of Microsoft`s competitors combined.
    DOJ should be more concerned with determining how US satellite 
technology got into Chinese hands during the Clinton administration, 
and less concerned with determining how Microsoft became the 
foremost software company in the world. DOJ should use it`s 
resources to investigate Loral`s relationships with the
    Chinese government during the past ten years.
    In other words, DOJ should lay off Microsoft and investigate 
Loral instead.
    Donald Sass



MTC-00005917

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally have used Microsoft products since 3/98. I like 
Microsoft. Their service and support is terrific. I`ve never had any 
poor experiences, every question answered, everything to my 
satisfaction. I need Microsoft. I don`t want anything the DOJ may do 
to effect their business negatively. This country needs Microsoft 
and all the new good things in the pipeline now, and in the future. 
I`m of the opinion that the marketplace will decide whats good or 
bad for this country. We don`t need more government interference in 
our lives. Let`s get this settlement overwith and get on with 
things.
    Peter von Blanckensee
    2400 E. Baseline Ave. #143
    Apache Junction AZ 85219



MTC-00005918

From: ROGER MACON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: MicroSoft
    I think you need to leave them alone so they can continue doing 
exactly what they have been doing which has been a great advancement 
for the entire world, the techno industry and has forced cohesive 
integrated growth.
    Roger Macon



MTC-00005919

From: David Pharr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am a long time Microsoft supporter and would like to express 
my support for the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe this 
proposed settlement provides significant benefit to the general 
public and is in the best interest of the U.S. economy. This case 
has dragged on for too long as it currently stands and I would like 
to see the settlement accepted and the case concluded.



MTC-00005920

From: Bernard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is high time this was over!
    Me, a user of computers and much software has not suffered from 
anything Microsoft has done.
    Neither have any of my Companies.
    However, all of us have paid and have suffered, over these 
unnecessary lawsuits, instigated by a few so called competitors. If 
these so called competitors need our Government to survive in 
business, they should get out.
    Enough is enough.
    End it now, please.
    Bernard Hollin



MTC-00005921

From: The Campbells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to approve the Microsoft Settlement. I and all of my 
family and friends appreciate Microsoft`s contribution to the 
computer world, and can`t imagine a world without Windows operating 
system. And Internet Explorer is much better than Netscape.
    So please approve the Microsoft Settlement.
    Stephen Campbell
    79 Manilla Dr.
    Draper, UT 84020
    (801) 495-3032
    [email protected]



MTC-00005922

From: FRANKEROUSE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I am a Microsoft Windows user and have had no problems using 
other software. I was not in favor of the Microsoft litigation and 
now that there is an agreement with nine states and the Federal 
Govt. I can see no good reason to have other selfish interest groups 
drag this issue on into the future. Surely it won`t help the best 
interests of the American public to drag this on in these times of 
economic uncertainty, especially if it serves the interests of a few 
States wherein Microsoft`s competitors reside.
    Please take action to end this issue immediately.
    Frank Rouse
    Yakima, WA.



MTC-00005923

From: Schober, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is time to settle the Microsoft case and move on to more 
pressing problems. You are doing the consumer a disservice, and the 
nation as well, by pursuing this case. Please settle the case 
promptly.



MTC-00005924

From: Dick Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please confirm the proposed Microsoft Settlement. The stock 
market decline of 2000-2001 started with the Clinton 
administration attack on Microsoft. It contributed to the current 
economic recession. It is now long past due to allow the U.S. 
economy and financial markets to get back to normal. Any further 
litigation

[[Page 24766]]

intended to benefit competitors such as Sun Microsystems, Oracle, 
and Apple would be inappropriate and counterproductive.
    Regards,
    Richard A. Reed
    319 Robin Way
    Richardson, TX 75080
    972-231-6689



MTC-00005925

From: Ronald S. Frantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is fair to all parties. 
I also do not believe that the suit should have been brought by the 
Justice Department.
    Any further delay would be harmful to Microsoft and very unfair.
    Sincerely yours,
    Ronald S. Frantz
    East Aurora, New York



MTC-00005926

From: Joyce Harness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm
Subject: MSFT
    Please get this case settled. I believe the settlement that was 
reached was fair and equitable and the case should end with that.
    Thank you.
    Joyce Harness
    3015 NW 73rd
    Seattle, WA 98117
    206-784-9126



MTC-00005927

From: Don Harikian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept my comments on the Microsoft Settlement.
    I am a business user and consumer of Microsoft products so my 
comments are from that perspective and are my own opinion. I have 
been in the business world long enough to see the evolution of many 
computer software products.
    I have always gravitated to the products that provided the most 
efficiency and reduction in work as possible. I was delighted to 
install Framework on my computer because it itegrated features that 
I used most often. I must say that over those years Microsoft 
products ended up always providing the most efficiency for the price 
as any other product I have used on my desk top computer. For this 
reason I have always been confused by the theme of the antitrust 
case that Microsoft has harmed consumers. It seems that they have 
harmed competitors only because they provide, as I said, a better 
product for less cost. Microsoft is not the only software that our 
company uses, any software that adds value for a reasonable cost is 
on my desktop.
    This brings me to my second point of confusion about the case in 
that it implies that I do not have a choice, as a consumer/user, 
about what software I use on my desk top just because Microsoft has 
an icon on it. I have never had any problem loading other software 
that adds value to my computer.
    My third point is the question about proprietary software. I am 
not speaking as a lawyer but the company that has the ingenuity and 
know-how to bring unique products to the market should not be 
required to allow other companies to pirate and capitalize on that 
through access to their detailed programs. The DOJ should respect 
and honor this concept rather than allowing the `world' 
to have access to American ingenuity.
    Fourth, I have followed this case since its inception and talked 
to many others in the business world and also home use consumers and 
have yet to find one person that said they have been harmed or have 
paid to much for Microsoft products. All have said that the company 
provides the best value for the buck. Our data processing people 
were ecstatic with NT products when they came out. They provided a 
low cost alternative. I am still wondering who has been harmed. 
Perhaps competitors with an inferior product at a higher price? 
Please do not construe my comments as just loyalty to Microsoft 
because as I said I have many of Microsoft competitor`s products on 
my computer.
    In summary, even though I am confused about the basic elements 
of this case, the settlement should be completed as it stands to get 
this whole thing behind us. The U.S. economy has suffered because of 
it and we must get on with innovation. I agree with Microsofts 
position on their statement of `Freedom to Innovate'. I 
urge the dissenting states to end this as quickly as possible, it 
has already gone to far! I also encourage the DOJ to bring as much 
influence on those states to end this.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. That is why 
America is the greatest!
    Regards,
    Don Harikian



MTC-00005928

From: howard schiffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm
Subject: As a small business deeply involved on the Internet
    As a small business deeply involved on the Internet since 1996, 
we have been closely following the Microsoft case in the news 
reports. We feel confident the governments proposed settlement in 
this case is fair to all parties concerned. Today, more than ever, 
we are facing serious economic times. Let`s get on with business, 
and increase our profits and build a much stronger economy!
    Sincerely,
    Howard Schiffman
    Chief Operating Officer



MTC-00005929

From: Linda Heinkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    Please finalize this situation as soon as possible. It is not in 
the public`s best interest to allow lobbying special interest groups 
to delay this any longer.
    Linda Heinkel
    [email protected]



MTC-00005930

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: end the suit..
    The economy needs the case against Microsoft stopped! I am a 
consumer and a stock holder as are millions of other Americans. This 
case is continuing to undermine the entire high tech sector. 
Consumers have recouped their money by the low prices Microsoft 
charges for their software. States should be satisfied and end their 
suits.



MTC-00005931

From: Roy Leban
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work for Microsoft, so you might think I`m biased about the 
Microsoft suit. I`m not. I thought it was stupid long before I 
joined Microsoft. Why is it stupid? A few reasons . . .
    1. Microsoft has a monopoly on `Windows operating 
systems'. Well, of course it does! In fact, it has 100% of the 
market, by definition. General Motors has a monopoly on Chevrolets, 
but nobody`s complaining. Apple has 100% of the market for Macintosh 
operating system computers (both hardware and software!).
    2. Microsoft has `bundled' things into the operating 
system that were previously available as extra components. Well, of 
course it does! This is how operating systems and practically all 
products are developed. Let`s take web browsers: The Macintosh OS 
ships with a browser. Solaris ships with a browser. Linux has a 
browser. No operating system could ship today without a browser. 
What would you lose if you couldn`t add anything to the operating 
system that had been available separately? A short list in Windows 
includes the file manager, long filenames, file search, integrated 
printer drivers, even ethernet/internet drivers. All those things 
used to ship as separate products.
    If we applied the same rule to cars, your car wouldn`t come with 
a radio, seat belts, cruise control, fuel injection, a center rear 
brake light or even a roof. Given all the things that have been 
bundled into cars, it is impossible to start a new car company 
today_much harder than it is to start a new computer company. 
You could even say that the car companies have colluded with each 
other to add those features to block competition (with the help of 
their accomplices, the DOT and the USTA). Following this logic, we 
should force all the car companies to unbundle almost everything so 
that new car companies wouldn`t have such a high barrier to entry. 
Of course, the average car would cost $100,000 this way and 
consumers would have to basically assemble their own cars, but 
that`s the price you pay for better competition.
    3. Internet Explorer is much more than a browser_it`s an 
integration of the web into the OS. Any application can use this 
feature and many do. Rather than inhibiting competition, the 
integration of IE encourages it because companies can build web and/
or

[[Page 24767]]

browser functionality into their applications without having to 
write it themselves.
    4. This suit has never been about monopoly power or what`s good 
for consumers. It`s about some jealous competitors who missed the 
boat for various reasons. But, given that the suit wasn`t tossed out 
and that much of the judiciary and public don`t understand enough 
about the situation, I think the proposed settlement is reasonable. 
Although some of it will be burdensome for Microsoft, it doesn`t 
prevent Microsoft from doing what it does best_responding to 
customer needs and building better software.
    Thank you for listening.
    Roy Leban
    [email protected]
    DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own, not my employer`s



MTC-00005932

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm
Subject: Let`s move forward
    Please put an end to this litigation. As a concerned citizen and 
consumer, I would like to move forward in strengethening our economy 
in the face of global competition and global economic decline. Our 
country is stronger, smarter and better equipped to address the 
future because of innnovators like Microsoft. Please build a system 
where they are able to do what they do best . . . bring 
quality products to consumers. We the consumers have benefitted by 
the technology brought to us by Microsoft. Please allow them, and 
us, to get back to the business at hand: building a stronger 
America, made up of strong companies and empowered citizens.
    Thank you,
    Louis deVita,
    Sammamish, Washington



MTC-00005933

From: pstaley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please add my name to those who think the Microsoft Settlement 
is fair.
    Perry L.Staley
    411 Orchard Street
    Ironton, Ohio
    45638-1166



MTC-00005934

From: bob fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I WISH TO PROTEST THE DOJ`S HANDLING OF THE ABOVE SUBJECT. YOU 
HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER FUNDS CHASING AFTER A 
COMPANY THAT HAS DONE NOTHING MORE THAN TO GIVE ITS CUSTOMERS THE 
BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT AND SERVICE! YOU HAVE WASTED ENOUGH OF OUR 
MONEY,CLOSE THIS CASE!
    ROBERT FLEMING



MTC-00005935

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot understant why the settlement with Microsoft cannot be 
finalized. Let`s settle with Microsoft and get on with our lives. In 
difficult times like this we do not need to waste more time and 
money fighting a company that has done so much for all of us.
    If you must fight someone, then go after the 9 states who are 
unwilling to settle. We all know why they want Microsoft punished 
and broken up. Put an end to this entire fiasco.
    Carl Hanson
    3703 Mc Cormick St. S.E.
    Olympia, WA 98501



MTC-00005936

From: RANDMOREILLY@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Case Settlement
    I add my voice to the many who believe the settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case is fair to all. It is time to close this 
chapter and move on! In these unsettled times the country can ill 
afford such continuing litigation. The Microsoft competition should 
be satisfied at the outcome agreed to by the DOJ and the majority of 
the states. The opposing states` arguments against approval of this 
agreement are not persuasive. I earnestly request the settlement 
approved earlier be upheld. Let us all return to more productive 
activity.
    Sincerely submitted.
    Robert W. O`Reilly



MTC-00005937

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give you my input on the Microsoft situation. 
This case should never have happened in the first place. It has 
taken months to try to settle and cost millions of dollars and an 
enormous amount of time that could have been used better elsewhere. 
It is time for this to be over. My vote is to settle this case and 
to do it as quickly as possible. Microsoft has been the leader in 
software ever since it started and has given the public many 
different ways to learn, communicate, entertain themselves, and make 
life easier and more interesting.
    Doris Wolfe



MTC-00005938

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am responding to the email that Microsoft sent advising me to 
let the DOJ know my opinion regarding the settlement. I think the 
settlement stinks to high heaven. In the past, I have been pro-
Microsoft (years ago as an IT professional, I choose MS Windows 3.0 
over the Mac, OS2, and UNIX clients_I took a professional blow 
for being so controversial). Presently, in my opinion, Microsoft is 
not serving the best needs of the public nor the stockholders.
    As I understand the settlement, Microsoft is proposing to push 
its IT solution upon the upcoming generations through education. 
This is not a fine but an investment. More stringent punitive 
judgments need to be assessed. I suggest the following:
_billions should be awarded to alternative operating systems 
and office suites that promote a more open system_pre Windows 
XP version source code (client only), should be made 
available_to the public_Microsoft should lose its 
Windows trademark, any interested party should be able to license 
their own version of Windows.
    The fact that Microsoft is behaving in a monopolistic manor 
during this controversial time, is a further indication of the 
company`s contempt for the judicial proceedings and the public`s 
welfare at-large. I urge the DOJ to continue negotiations with the 
public`s interest as its guiding light.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Garner
    IT Professional



MTC-00005939

From: Xue-Ling Han
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s fair and enough. Please have everyone go back to work.



MTC-00005940

From: Trey Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that any legislation that breaks a company, Microsoft or 
any other, is going beyond the place of government. Please let the 
agreed settlement continue.
    Glynn (Trey) Bailey
    Programming Department Manager
    Wellsco Inc.
    (870) 236-1080
    This holiday season, as we laugh and eat and shop and enjoy 
friends and family, our soldiers are in Afghanistan risking 
everything for us. Some of them won`t come back. The rest will never 
be the same. Every one of them volunteered. They think we`re worth 
it. Let`s prove them right.
    Scot Adams (Creator of Dilbert)



MTC-00005941

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 1:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I hope this is worth sending. I do not have much faith that it 
will be read or added to your files. Our government is not known for 
getting things right except when we go to war.
    THE SETTLEMENT IS TOTALLY FAIR AND PROPER AND SHOULD BE APPROVED 
A.S.A.P.
    James R. Schoettler



MTC-00005942

From: Steve Paylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sir/Madam,

[[Page 24768]]

    This is to state my opinion concerning the DOJ/Microsoft 
settlement. First, I believe that the attack on Microsoft by the DOJ 
was very much politically motivated. I believe that the DOJ, under 
Janet Reno, was a political tool used by the Clinton administration 
to `pay back' those who did not adequately give support 
to the DNC or Clinton. Second, I believe that in this case, the DOJ 
took sides in an ideological struggle between left wing socialists 
and free market capitalists.
    Third, I believe that the case unfairly sided with Microsoft`s 
competitors who are jealous of Microsoft`s success. Microsoft should 
be completely free to include or exclude any and all features in 
their software products. If that makes it difficult for competitors 
to compete, that is tough. This is part of the free market system 
and it is the competitor`s problem to solve not the DOJ`s.
    Finally, I believe that Microsoft did employ some anti-
competitive business practices. I believe that the settlement 
adequately punishes them for that misbehavior and it also provides 
much social good.
    Steve Paylor
    San Diego, California



MTC-00005943

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ, I think you should settle the Microsoft Case as 
agreed. States should follow your lead. Lets but this to bed now. 
Our country needs it`s attention on building a strong American 
Economy. Microsoft is a great company and has made other company 
great as well because of their standards of competition.
    Thank you. James H. Kober 70 E 10th St. New York, New York.



MTC-00005944

From: David Gam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Isn`t it time to put an end to the persecution of Microsoft 
because of their success? Is this what we do to successful American 
enterprise? Does the economy have to be burdened by the whining of 
losers? The industry, the country and the world owes a debt to 
Microsoft for the contributions it has made that is unparalled. It 
in fact, virtually created the new industry that has brought 
prosperity beyond imagining. For this, do we penalize American 
enterprise? Because Microsoft accomplished what none of the whiners 
could, should we then listen to cries of `foul'? Let`s 
put an end to this travesty.
    Sincerely,
    David B. Gam



MTC-00005945

From: Bob Pap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft Settlement needs to be done as 
proposed. I believe that it would be in the people of the United 
States interest that Microsoft put 10% of its R&D into 
developing a special version of Windows that is bullet proof and not 
released to anyone but government agencies and contractors. This is 
vital to the security of our national infrastructure. The people at 
Sun and Oracle now need to be investigated for their anti-trust 
activities in the same way as Microsoft. Note: their product is much 
more expensive and they refuse to license any patents to government 
contractors for enhanced development. Also, require any files and 
view of any Americans computer that Microsoft has on file to be 
deleted from their file if Americans opt out.
    I believe that any state that does not want the settlement 
should be required to have a vote of confidence or no confidence in 
the law enforcement and prosecuters over the Web by people in the 
state. This should be published in a web listing. I bet Microsoft 
would cut costs and save us more money if DOJ had a running talley.
    Bob Pap
    Accurate Automation
    7001 Shallowford Road
    Chattanooga, TN 37421
    423-894-4646 [email protected]



MTC-00005946

From: Les Herrman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    After extensively reading over the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case, I feel that the proposal is more than sufficient 
remedy in the case. Having been a computer user for over 10 years, I 
feel that no company has done more for the home personal computer 
industry than Microsoft. The inovations and ease of use of their 
operating system has made it very easy for new computer users to 
accomplish complicated tasks using their computers. Also the 
standardization of Operating System to Windows has helped to make it 
much easier for companies etc. to train employees to use the 
computers at their businesses.
    I totally abhor the few companies that scream running to the DOJ 
to fight for them because they can not compete on their own merits. 
IE Sun, Netscape, AOL, and others mentioned in the Microsoft suit. 
Just because they can not come up with a compteing product that is 
as easy to use as Microsoft they go screaming foul and anti-trust 
and monopoly to the government.
    I therefore urge you to settle this case with the current 
propsed settlement. The continuation of litigation in this case 
agains Microsoft will do nothing more than hurt the consumer and 
waste tax dollars that could be better spent somewhere else.
    Les Herrman
    19008 East 37th Terrace
    Independence, Missouri 64057



MTC-00005947

From: Brian K. Rineberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the year`s past you have shown no genuine concern for the 
`CONSUMER'. This latest settlement further amplifies the 
general consensus within the DOJ and individual states Attorney 
General. That is to stifle the consumers actual wants and needs. 
This latest settlement does nothing to `HELP' the 
consumer, it just gives OEM manufacturers the opportunity to provide 
an onslaught of advertising to unsuspecting consumers.
    I am often called in to `clean up' a messy OEM 
installation of an operating system containing links, icons and 
registry settings the consumer had no idea was to be included on 
their new computer. These advertisements are an intrusion and should 
be disallowed in all cases. If an OEM manufacturer develops a 
contract with an ISP for example, the ISP can simply provide 
software in the form distributable media such as a compact disc. 
This will save the consumer both time and money by allowing them to 
simply discard the unwanted inclusions. There is just one question 
needed to be answered. What gives `ANY' solution 
provider the `RIGHT' to include anything a consumer does 
not specifically ask for? The answer is quite simple. They have no 
right, no matter what licensing agreement they have with the 
manufacturer of the in question operating system.
    I am insulted by the inclusion of the word 
`consumer' interjected into this battle between 
competitor`s. Lawyers and State Attorneys General have no idea what 
is best for the consumer. They have only the best interest of the 
competitor or campaign supporter providing the question. When I 
purchase a corkscrew, I get a corkscrew, nothing more.
    Brian Rineberg
    San Marcos, CA



MTC-00005948

From: JR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Thank you for accepting feedback on the Microsoft case. I am a 
software developer with 13 years of experience. The most important 
thing to me is to be able to deliver quality software solutions to 
my customers in a timely manner. This has been getting easier and 
easier to do as Microsoft has continued to improve their products. 
Any effort to inhibit Microsoft will hurt my business, the business 
of my customers and ultimately it will impact our economy.
    Product by product, I know first hand that one guy with one 
computer can compete with Microsoft. This makes the monopoly charge 
against them seem silly. Microsoft has been able to aggressively 
produce great products that people want. I do wish they would price 
and sell all their products separately. This would disarm those 
claiming there is a monopoly. However, even under that scenario, 
Microsoft would still sell more product than anyone else because as 
a rule their products are easier to use and are more robust than 
their competition.
    I believe the persecution on Microsoft is primarily instigated 
by those who wish to have the `monopoly' for themselves. 
I have used all the products from those competitors and I can say 
without hesitation that their products are harder to use and are 
significantly more costly. Until they improve

[[Page 24769]]

their products they do not deserve the market share that Microsoft 
has. Please let our industry compete. There are thousands of 
businesses spending millions of dollars in this industry and I can 
assure you that they are very careful before committing real money 
on products. The best products have always floated to the top. 
Please do not try to manage that process.
    Thanks_JR
    John Richardson



MTC-00005949

From: Gayle Rivera
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    We believe that the Microsoft case should be settled and not 
continued to drag on.
    Sincerely,
    Ben & Gayle Rivera
    1925 Willow Avenue
    West Sacramento, CA 95691



MTC-00005950

From: Loyce Reid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    I believe the settlement to be fair and we should get this 
settled and move on. I am a consumer and have no special interests.
    Loyce Reid
    [email protected]



MTC-00005951

From: David Hogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    It is time that the Government stop spending our tax dollars for 
such a frivolous case against Microsoft. Please settle this case now 
and move on to problems that are real problems. This case is not one 
that the American people want to continue with.
    Regards:
    David Hogan



MTC-00005952

From: bryce holmes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time to settle the Microsoft case. The settlement that has 
been worked out between the federal government and Microsoft is 
fair. Consumers should be the focus of antitrust cases, rather than 
competitors. Microsoft has been hobbled long enough.
    Bryce Holmes



MTC-00005953

From: Ed Seits
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is way past time to end this litigation. You should not cave 
to a few wealthy competitors who are trying to stifle innovation by 
attacking the company that has done more for advancing the use of 
computer technology by the average consumer than any other 
enterprise in modern history. Microsoft should be lauded for its 
contributions to improving our quality of life_rather than 
being crucified for being successful! You should respond to your 
responsibility to serve the interests of America`s citizens by 
settling this case NOW!
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Ed Seits
    Carmichael, CA



MTC-00005954

From: Knobler Al M NSSC
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of this e-mail is to express my desire to settle the 
microsoft restraint of trade issue under the federal government`s 
comprehensive agreement. There are significantly more pressing 
matters that require the focus of the federal government than 
Microsoft`s past practices. A recent example would be prosecution of 
terrorists. Enough already with Microsoft.
    Alan Knobler



MTC-00005955

From: Jeff Kehl
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department,
    I am writing to express my support of the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. I feel that it is in the best interest of all 
parties, Microsoft, federal and state governments and individuals. I 
believe that weakening a corporation such as Microsoft would be a 
big mistake. It is one of the leading companies in the world and the 
US Government, and to a slightly lesser extent, the state 
governments shouldn`t attempt to harm this company. The economy 
needs to have strong companies such as Microsoft to lead the way to 
a more connected and compatible computing environment.
    I would appreciate your doing everything to bring this 
settlement to fruition and allow Microsoft to be able to concentrate 
100% of its energies on producing products and operating systems 
that increase productivity and benefit all end users.
    Cordially,
    Jeffrey T. Kehl



MTC-00005956

From: Allen Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ: As a user of Microsoft products for the past eight to 
ten years I could never really understand the concern for the 
customer about Microsoft products, their instalation, costs, etc. 
that have been the emphasis of all the suits against the company. I 
have found their pricing satisfactory and their service excellent. 
Obviously the remaining states in the legal proceedings against have 
a axe to grind in that the companies in their states did not measure 
up to the expertise of Microsoft and they hope to damage Microsoft 
by their actions. I am not an attorney but rather a retired banker 
and can only hope that the Department of Justice will give both 
sides an equal opportunity to prove their case.
    Sincerely,
    Allen D. Anderson



MTC-00005957

From: Sam Steinhauser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been using Microsoft products for 12 years now in my home 
and business. The waste of tax dollars to continue pursuing this 
countries own software company which has set the standard in 
technology for the world is beyond belief. I`m sure Microsoft`s 
practices may have been questionable, but what major corporation in 
this country when put under the magnifying glass would be sparkling 
clean? None!
    I started out in 1988 with my first PC made by Apple. I was 
completely racked over the coals by Apple and their lack of support. 
Since 1988 I have lost thousands in products I purchased only to be 
replaced in a few months with newer technology. The technology 
business is dog eat dog. I paid $80 for a speech recognition program 
only to find it would not work with a newer computer and operating 
system in less than a year. Then I realized Microsoft had the same 
program. Microsoft`s program was free and worked with most all 
systems. Most software companies will not give you phone support 
anymore. I have spent hours with Microsoft`s Technical 
Representatives for free on numerous occasions.
    I wanted to move from a text based internet connection to the 
current more graphical used interface. I had several choices, 
Netscape, Eudora, ect. For free I could use Microsoft`s Internet 
Explorer and that`s what I choose. Therein lies the problem. 
Microsoft put a hurt on Netscape, Netscape cried to the government 
and this mess started. What a waste of tax dollar resources! Why 
can`t we be proud of having the biggest and most innovative software 
corporation in this country instead of spending millions to stifle 
them? Would it be better for the US economy to have Microsoft in 
France or Japan? How many of these people caring the sword for 
Microsoft spend 150+ hours in front of a PC every month? How many 
work for a competitor of Microsoft. How many have used Microsoft 
products for more than a decade. It is an embarrassment for this 
country to spend this kind of money and time trying to crush one of 
it`s very own companies that sets a world wide standard for 
technology and offers unparalleled support for it`s own products and 
then drive down a street in one of the Great United State`s cities 
to see homeless people pushing shopping carts and rummaging through 
garbage cans. Please stop this action against Microsoft now.
    Sam Steinhauser
    [email protected]



MTC-00005958

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: DOJ settlement
    It is high time that we put this case behind us. Clearly the DOJ 
has better things to do post 9/11 than pursue this politically

[[Page 24770]]

motivated witchunt of a great and valuable Amercan co. I think the 
proposed settlement is very much in the national interest.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie D. Grosinger MD



MTC-00005959

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me to be a just settlement.Lets not have a small 
number of states hold this settlement up. Lets put this behind us 
and get back to much more important things.Such as airport 
securety,war on terrorism and doing away with UBL.



MTC-00005961

From: Charles Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support it



MTC-00005963

From: Gates, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I my humble opinion, Microsoft action should be dismissed. As a 
consumer who has had a computer since 1983, I have benefited from 
constantly decreasing prices and increased functionality. I owe a 
lot of those positive trends to Microsoft. Further, I think you 
should give the company some kind of AWARD for good corporate 
citizenship instead of what you are currently trying to do.
    Thank you.
    Tom Gates
    Any message forwarded from a source outside Dain, Goldman or 
First Boston is the opinion of that source and cannot be guaranteed 
to be accurate.
    Tom Gates
    First Vice President
    RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc
    509-574-5542 or 800-323-8870
    409 N 2nd St
    PO Box 485 Yakima, WA 98907 [email protected]
    Fax 509-454-0933



MTC-00005964

From: Larry Glaser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ
    Please settle thjs suit ASAP. The current findings are fair.
    L. Glaser



MTC-00005965

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Re:MS settlement
    I am against the government pursuing this any further and I feel 
all action should stop at once. Why can`t the government stay out of 
business and let free enterprise survive by it`s self? My tax 
dollars are being ill spent and I would like to see a stop to it.



MTC-00005966

From: Mehta, Prakash
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    My name is Prakash Mehta, I am CFO for Information Management 
Company located in Fairfax VA, our company has 250 employees and 
revenue of $ 19.0 million
    I am in favor of DOJ & Microsoft settlement, we have to move 
forward in this economy time instead of fighting, settlement reach 
by DOJ & other state is fair and its best interest of small 
company specific to those employed in Information Management 
industry. Changing new rules hurts Software developer preparing 
product on based of Microsoft Operating system
    Please considered our inputs
    Prakash Mehta 703-352-8340



MTC-00005967

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The settlement is good for the country. Let progress happen!
    John Mesirow



MTC-00005968

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: object
    Dear Sir:
    I object that United States antitrust cases against Microsoft. I 
support Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Simone Bacino



MTC-00005969

From: Gareth Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    In response to the Government`s position with regard to the 
Tunney Act I would like to add my comments concerning Microsoft. I 
am appalled at the action taken by the Government with regards to 
Microsoft.
    I have used their products since the time of Windows 3.1. I do 
not know who has been harmed by Microsoft`s practices and actions. I 
purchase and use a great deal of their software both in my home and 
in my business. I cannot recall one instance when they have failed 
to provide excellent product support when I have needed it, almost 
all of it free of charge. I certainly have never been harmed! I feel 
that their prices have been extremely fair. Why is the Government 
trying to destroy one of the most innovative companies in the world?
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to conclude this 
matter and reach final settlement without further delay.
    Respectfully,
    Gareth L. Larsen
    Senlar Resources
    [email protected]



MTC-00005970

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    While I am not an employee of Microsoft nor a friend of Mr. 
Gates, I must sincerely urge you to complete the settlement of the 
Microsoft case as quickly as possible. It appears to me that the 
current settlement is both fair and just and it is long past time 
for this issue to be put to bed. Microsoft has certainly given more 
than it has gotten over its corporate history, and, after all, this 
country IS all about success. Microsoft is successful, and because 
they are, we are ALL successful. Please use the resources that you 
have been using to pursue Microsoft to pursue anyone and everything 
involved with bin Laden/Al Qaeda /Sept 11, et. al. And put the 
Microsoft issue to rest!!!
    Respectully,
    James K. Dahl
    3815 South Kalispell Street
    Aurora, CO 80013-2703
    voice: 303.693.9869
    fax: 303.617.0308
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00005971

From: Chris McQueeny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this email to convey waht I hope will be the 
opinion of the public on the Microsoft Settlement. While this 
aggrement is a tough one, it is in the best interest of not only the 
economy, but the consumer base that it be passed. I feel that 
protracted litigation will only further hinder the progress 
Microsoft is making in the modern world. I hope my opinion has 
helped the Department of Justice settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Chris McQueeny



MTC-00005972

From: Lenora Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm
Subject: Dear DOJ,
    Dear DOJ,
    Enough is enough_Leave Microsoft alone. One of the best 
run and most sucessful companies in the US and THE GOVERNMENT wants 
to destroy the company. The United States of America should 
incourage free interprise not distroy it. A concerned citizen.
    Yours,
    Lenora Lawrence
    [email protected]



MTC-00005973

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am urging a final settlement on the issues. Litigation is 
timely and costly and quite frankly a waste of good taxpayers 
monies. This case has gone on far too long. I urge a final 
settlement!
    Jeanne Sims
    GS Consulting Services, Inc.
    Phone: 817.430.9520
    Fax: 817.430.9507

[[Page 24771]]

    Cell: 817.999.9887



MTC-00005974

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen (and Ladies):
    I wish to comment on the settlement. It is in the best interest 
of the country, the government and in particular small business 
people such as me, to stop this exercise. There will always be the 
`have`s and the have not and there will always be some one who 
feels that they have been wronged. If you, in your infinite wisdom, 
tell me that I can not innovate because it may offend my neighbor, I 
will stop, and America will stop.
    It is reasonable to rectify a problem once identified but not to 
make it retroactive to when the problem did not exist. As new things 
emerge, new problems will be the result. I, personally, did not 
fully understand the problem. I understand the concern of the 
competition and the urge to `protect' their turf, but a 
law suit when the only crime was to be smarter than those before us?
    Playing this game only hurts the people who work for, invest in, 
and use Microsoft products. I find they are a very responsible 
provider of free support and very competitive in their pricing. I 
recently purchased a Quicken 2002 program. It would not load 
properly in my machine and the literature said `there may be a 
charge of 95 cents a minute for technical advice. I sent the program 
back. If it were Microsoft, there would be `fixes' on 
the Internet. When you are good there are many who will be jealous 
but allowing them the use of the `law' to satisfy their 
hurt feelings is dangerous for our country.
    I am 66 years old and have worked for private industry and the 
government (NASA) for most of those years. I am presently retired 
and find a lot of enjoyment using my computer(s). I use a multitude 
of programs and usually rate them by the amount of support they 
offer. Some are good and the rest go by the way side. Please 
consider all the implications in your decision.
    Thank you
    Fred Budukiewicz
    325 Inlet Ave.
    Merritt Island, FL 32953



MTC-00005975

From: Ginny Caughey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a software developer and partner in a small software 
company located in North Carolina that develops software for 
municipalities and business all over the US and Canada. I am also a 
Compuserve subscriber as well as a AOL-Time Warner RoadRunner 
subscriber for Internet access. As you may imagine, the current 
legal proceedings against Microsoft interest me professionally as 
well as personally very much.
    I am very satisfied with the terms of the Microsoft settlement, 
as is my state`s attorney general. I do not use some of Microsoft`s 
competitors` products because I find them INFERIOR, not merely 
because Microsoft provides competing products. I do use some 
products that compete directly with Microsoft`s because I find them 
better suited for my purposes. And I purchase Microsoft products 
instead of using free products from other sources when that is the 
best business choice for my clients. I do not believe that it is in 
my best interests as a consumer or as a software developer for a 
minority of state attorneys general to pursue this matter further in 
hopes of providing an unfair competitive advantage to some of their 
constituents. If they truly want to help AOL or Sun Microsystems, 
for example, they could advise them to provide better products and 
services! Competition is the engine that results in the best 
products and services for me and my clients, and the current terms 
of the settltement ensure that competition for all parties is 
possible. I hope that the Court will agree with me that this matter 
should be ended with the current settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ginny Caughey
    Vice President
    Carolina Software, Inc.
    Wilmington NC



MTC-00005976

From: Arthur Whitson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    The Microsoft Settlement is fair and just. There is no reason 
for delaying any longer. Free enterprises must continue to be free 
to compete. If a company wins in the marketplace by consumers buying 
it`s products: The people have the right to choose!!!
    I am a resident of Manatee County Florida.
    Art Whitson



MTC-00005977

From: Wes Green
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Litigation is the cancer of America that robs from the economy 
and lines the pockets of opportunists. Microsoft has offered a fair 
structured settlement to benefit the people and silence its critics. 
However, a number of states refuse to approve the settlement due to 
their inability to make a stand in the face of the lobbyists of the 
self serving technological companies within their own borders. I 
implore the government to approve the agreement for what it is; a 
mutual compromise for all involved.
    Move forward on stopping the corporate takeovers that have 
robbed competition from America. Attack the AOL`s and Oracle`s that 
use their power and political clout to destroy the American dream. 
Until the US Government acts equally against all many of the people 
will just agree that the government is nothing more than a puppet 
for the lobbyists lining the politicians pockets.



MTC-00005978

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Mr. Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please get this case settled and get rid of the 9 renegade 
states who are prolonging the agony for some political purpose.
    Rick Trenkmann
    Chicago



MTC-00005979

From: Tony Tidball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: I feel the settlement re Microsoft is a fair settlement.
    I feel the settlement re Microsoft is a fair settlement.



MTC-00005980

From: Sheila Milligan
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello!
    I`m a consumer of Microsoft products/technology. I have to tell 
you how disappointed I am at the personal vendetta that the DOJ is 
carrying out against Microsoft for a few insiders in the technology 
industry.
    Seems that the DOJ has nothing better to do with my money as a 
taxpayer. But they have all the money in the world to spend on a 
useless lawsuit. Why don`t you invest this money in something we can 
use_like upgrading our education system, rehabilitating real 
criminals or public education of self responsibility?
    You have Chevron and Texaco merging to create yet another 
monopoly. Of course you wouldn`t even consider thinking that 
taxpayers paying smokers to live like millionaires because of their 
bad habits are bad. Good to know that our States Attorney Generals 
prefer smokers to great products in winning state money from you. 
How blind the DOJ is to real consumer issues and how blind the DOJ 
is to technology. What a great laugh you provided the entire 
technology industry with the technology trial by lawyers that know 
nothing about technology. But now the lawyers know how to turn on a 
computer_that makes for smart business. Good to know.
    Thanks for the vent_I`m so disappointed in the system and 
yes I only see it from my side_I`m a very happy consumer of 
Microsoft products. Go Bill_Keep up these great products, 
programs and support. At least someone thinks about the consumers.
    Sheila K. Milligan-Trounson
    Owner
    Milligan Events
    733 North 14th Street
    Boise, ID 83702



MTC-00005981

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement as set forth by the government should be 
approved. It is time to stop the legal proceedings and let the 
companies help the public through their innovative developments.

[[Page 24772]]

    The appeals by other companies who want to be able give the 
public inferior products at the same or greater cost should be 
denied.
    A. Hilgendorf
    Bloomfield, MI



MTC-00005982

From: Marcella Fenske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: innovate now, get this over with, please.



MTC-00005983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please abide by the court decision and DO NOT allow continued 
law suites to re try this issue with Microsoft. Microsoft has helped 
the world in general and our economy does not need to have the same 
anti trust issues re visited. I believe in the anti-trust laws but 
this Microsoft issue was decided and should be put to rest.
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn Urban
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00005984

From: Ingham, Richard
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern at the Justice Dept.:
    Please support this settlement and bring an end to this case. 
Continued litigation benefits only competitors, who should not be 
able to win in the courtroom what they cannot win in the 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Ingham
    CIS Development
    Mailcode: N03-2A
    Phone: 508-549-6357
    Fax: 508-549-6698
    mail to: [email protected]



MTC-00005985

From: Dusza, Michael E
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear USDOJ:
    I am pleased with the settlement in the Microsoft case and do 
not want to see it go any further.
    I am also a very modest Microsoft shareholder (100 shares).
    I can see no further benefit to the consumers of the world by 
dragging this case.
    Please concentrate your efforts to locate and punish those who 
would destroy the fabric and being of our wonderful country... 
including the United States Department of Justice.
    Thank you.
    Michael W Dusza, Technical Consultant
    Mellon Investor Services LLC
    105 Challenger Road
    Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
    (201) 373-7302
    [email protected]



MTC-00005986

From: Ted Rickel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
    I believe that it has been and still is wrong for the U. S. 
Dept. of Justice to have any court cases against Microsoft. 
Microsoft has done nothing wrong. And the U. S. Dept. of Justice 
should never have brought a suit against Microsoft in the first 
place. All of this litigation is a waste of my tax dollars. The U. 
S. Dept. of Justice should use those dollars to fight terrorists and 
illegal immigration. Thank you.
    Ted
    01-02-02



MTC-00005988

From: Frank Fujioka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have used Microsoft products for the past 9 years. I consider 
them to be an important part of my computer work. Considering the 
time, money and personnel required to produce the software, I 
believe that the prices of their products are extremely reasonable.
    I have used other competitive products and find them to be 
inferior and I do not consider Microsoft to be a monopoly. It is 
simply the best product on the market.
    Frank Fujioka
    4636 S Rhodie Ln
    Freeland, WA 98249



MTC-00005989

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    I wanted to voice my opinion of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that it is in my best interest, as a consumer, to 
allow the current settlement to be approved. Professionally, as an 
IT support representative for a multinational corporation (Hercules, 
Inc.), the commonality of Microsoft software has allowed me to 
provide better support in a more timely fashion to my customers. If 
the proposed remedies are extended, that will have a severe negative 
impact on both my professional and personal life.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. McCombie



MTC-00005990

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    After so many years of litigation, I feel the settlement finally 
negotiated with Microsoft, the government and several States is, in 
fact, in the best interests of all concerned parties, as well as the 
technology industry and the general public who are theoretically the 
purported beneficiaries of this litigation and settlement.
    I feel the Settlement as negotiated, should be approved and the 
litigation ended. The marketplace, as usual, will then sort out the 
surviving competitors based upon their products and prices.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marvin Srulowitz, Esq.



MTC-00005991

From: gordon hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a spouse, parent, business person and American citizen I am 
concerned about the fairness with which we are treated. From what I 
see, I believe the Microsoft settlement is going more in favor of 
the rich and powerful than toward an equitable resolution. Microsoft 
has used their position to directly influence this outcome, which is 
their responsibility to employees, customers and shareholders ( I am 
the latter two); however, I am convinced they also abuse their 
position through intimidation both direct and indirect.
    Their direct bullying can be seen in the restrictive practices 
they have used in forcing their distributors to favor their 
products. Their indirect (covert) actions are evidenced by their 
avoiding adherence to standards they supposedly support by adding 
features which make the use thereof non compliant with the standard; 
e.g., their JAVA `extras'. This is not a plea to punish 
them, rather one to encourage the Department of Justice to be 
enthusiastic in encouraging fair play.
    Thank you,
    Gordon Hill, Explainer
    creative explaining services
    8620-15th Lane N.,
    St. Petersburg, FL 33702
    http://www.explainer.com
    727.576.4028



MTC-00005992

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft Settlement has wasted millions of 
taxpayer dollars as well as millions in funds from Microsoft as 
well. While all this was going on, untold illegal copies were made 
and sold, further undermining the economy of the US and the 
technological leadership of American high-tech companies. This has 
only served to increase the cost of software development and 
protection. This whole process should have been expedited in order 
to permit Microsoft to get back to `normal business 
operations' years earlier.
    Microsoft is the leader in software technology and should not be 
punished because they are good at what they do. The built their 
market share based on the ability to deliver solid and reliable 
technology. In reality, Microsoft is the injured party and should be 
reimbursed for the legal costs required to defend their position.



MTC-00005993

From: Sam DeNardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hi,
    It is plain to see that Microsoft`s Windows operating system has 
won the race in getting people to use to use it. I know this fact 
has

[[Page 24773]]

not been lost to anyone with common sense. Imagine the mess the DOJ 
would be in today without a `universal computer 
language'. The Judges on the bench use Windows ??? The United 
States is currently facing a crisis of epic proportions. It would be 
insane for the DOJ and all other US law enforcement agencies to try 
and communicate effectively without a `universal computer 
language'. Let`s face it you would not want our leaders at the 
DOJ, the Senate, and the Congress speaking in French, German, 
Spanish, Italian, and Greek on a daily basis to conduct business. 
Let`s slap Microsoft on the wrist for anything they did wrong in 
getting where they are, but let us get on with declaring an Official 
`universal computer language' like we did with the 
English Language.
    Thank you
    Sam



MTC-00005994

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: Settlement
    DOJ,
    I think it is time to settle this costly law suit with Microsoft 
and let every one get on with life. DOJ has made it`s point and can 
still keep a check on Microsoft. We have more important things to 
get done in America. Settle now and get it over with.
    Lee Wallace



MTC-00005995

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please stop wasting government money and finalize the 
settlement. There are better things to do to protect consumers and 
to make life better for our citizens than to continue litigation 
that nobody but special interests seem to desire.
    Irene Dowdy



MTC-00005996

From: manuel reyes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:30pm
Subject: DOJ get off Microsofts` Back
    To the demos in the Doj, get off the Microsolts` back. Clinton 
and his lap dogs have blackmail the people of this country.
    Manuel D. Reyes
    2892 Rockford Falls Drive North
    Jacksonville, Florida 32224-4878



MTC-00005997

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Why doesn`t the DOJ quit tormenting Microsoft and move on. The 
states are claiming that the consumer was `short-changed` by 
Microsoft. It seems to me that if the consumer didn`t like the 
Windows OS, they could vote with their feet. You can`t make somone 
buy what they don`t want to buy. This is all triggered by whining 
competitors who can`t make the grade on their two feet.
    I should think the fact that Microsoft is maintaining its 
workforce when layoffs in all sectors are a problem would be reason 
enough to support their success rather than try to stifle it.
    Shame on the whiners!! Please stand up for one of our great 
American Companies_MICROSOFT!!
    Christine M. Kellstrom
    1 Cromwell Drive
    Morristown, NJ 07960
    973-898-6751
    [email protected]



MTC-00005998

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear sir or Madam: there are other companies that truly have 
monopolies and provide the worst service to consumers and yet DOJ 
does not go after them; for intance telephone companies, like 
sprint. Hence compare to telephone companies microsoft should be let 
go fordward. As to true monopolies go after them instead.
    Thanks.



MTC-00005999

From: Marcella Fenske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm
    let microsoft act like a businness with no further delay, 
government, take a hike.......



MTC-00006000

From: Maines, Roy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I would like to share my opinion regarding the settlement of the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. I would like to applaude the efforts of 
the Justice Department under the Bush Administration. The settlement 
that has been proposed is reasonable and fair to all parties. It is 
time to put this case behind us and move on. I believe that it is 
crucial to the US economy, to settle this case and move on with the 
business at hand. The never ending stream of lawsuits filed against 
Microsoft by it`s competitors is designed to derail one of our 
Nations most successful companies. Microsoft is clearly a key player 
in the US Technology industry as a leader in a number of key areas 
and as a partner to thousands of smaller companies who depend on 
Microsoft innovations as the basis of their business.
    If your taking count, I am all for the settlement. It`s time we 
move on!
    Kind Regards,
    Roy Maines
    Senior Systems Analyst
    Perot Systems Corp.



MTC-00006001

From: Larry Shirley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It is time to put the Microsoft issue to bed. If the DOJ had 
spent as much time, money and energy following up on terrorist leads 
(i.e. the Minnesota debacle; tips from foreign intelligence 
agencies, etc., etc.) in this country as they have trying to punish 
an outstanding, innovative company like Microsoft, the national 
tragedy that occurred on 9-11-01 could have been 
avoided.
    The DOJ and FBI must share a great deal of blame for the failure 
to detect the long-range planning required to pull off a terrorist 
attack like this on our country. Shame on those who did not act on 
information they had months or even years before the attack. Instead 
of following up on obvious leads/indications, you were out to 
destroy one of the most beneficial American companies of the last 
half of the 20th Century.
    Sincerely,
    Larry D. Shirley
    Mountain Home, AR 72653
    P.S. Question: What are you going to do about the ENRON 
debacle?? Where were you when the top brass of this corporation were 
running it into the ground?? You need to get your priorities 
straight.



MTC-00006002

From: David Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I want to express my concern about the settlement with 
Microsoft. I don`t believe that this settlement does anything to fix 
the problem of the anti-trust practices of Microsoft. It leaves the 
door wide open for them to continue the same practices and actually 
makes them legal with a court ruling. It also does nothing to help 
those companies that have been damaged by Microsoft, nor does it 
help the consumers that have been overcharged by Microsoft.
    Please take another look at what Microsoft has done and at what 
this settlement will do to fix the problem. I don`t think that 
breaking up the company is the answer (one big Microsoft, or two 
small Microsofts, it`s still the same), but this settlement does not 
bring justice.
    Thank you for your time.
    David Hodgson
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006003

From: Edward Gioffre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    My opinion on this matter is that we shoud move on. Lets end 
this useless Antitrust litigation, and focus on our economy. This 
has been a waiste of my tax dollars from the very begining. Those 
competitors are just jelouse of Microsoft`s success, they should try 
to innovate instead of litigate.
    Microsoft Corp., one of the most powerfull software technology 
companies in the world, and its an American corporation! Lets keep 
leadership companies here in the states, not overseas.
    Ed Gioffre



MTC-00006004

From: Fern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24774]]

    I believe it is in the best interest of consumers for the DOJ to 
act quickly and go ahead with the terms of the comprehensive 
settlement reached by the federal government and nine states.
    Additional litigation is a total waste of the taxpayers` money.
    A concerned citizen,
    Fern Price
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006005

From: hwfascher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    It seems that Microsoft is willing to accept the offered 
settlement, so lets get this behind us so everyone can get on with 
what they do best. Develop new and better software.
    Sincerely,
    Harvey



MTC-00006006

From: dale nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
    Dear Attorney-General,
    I am writing about the Microsoft anti-trust case and the refusal 
of some nine states to accept the settlement already accepted by the 
other states involved.
    I was totally shocked by the gloating Ms Reno when she announced 
that a blow for the consumer had been struck against this evil 
giant. This blow costs those she was protecting literally millions 
of dollars in the various retirement funds throughout the country as 
well as millions to all investors. There is a direct relation 
between this lawsuit and the tumble of the stock market that 
followed. I and many others believed that this attack on Microsoft 
was politically motivated by the Clinton administration and hoped 
that justice would prevail once a new administration took office. We 
need to put an end to this economic persecution by what appears to 
be self-serving interests of the competitors of Microsoft. After the 
many hours the government and the taxpayer money that has been spent 
on this politically motivated attack on one of America`s most 
consumer friendly companies. (Microsoft has kept the costs of 
software at an affordable level.)
    And after a hard won settlement has been reached that both sides 
have agreed to WHY? are a few states trying to continue this attack? 
It is my opinion that the state of California for one has rejected 
this settlement because of the pressure the political leaders of 
that state are feeling from the competitors of Microsoft that are 
resident in that state. Sort of a warning to outside companies don`t 
be too successful or else.
    Giving competitors a foot up by punishing an aggressive hard 
working company only warns other companies that success doesn`t have 
to come through hard work and new ideas, if you are losing a race 
blame the winner...its their fault for your lack of progress in the 
market place. Please set a tone that says we are not fooled by these 
pretenses that Microsoft is successful because of hard work and that 
we respect that. Stop the on-going persecution and make the agreed 
upon settlement the final chapter. Lets all get back to work for a 
better climate for business in America.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Nichols



MTC-00006007

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This entire proceeding has been nothing more than a 
`witchhunt' conducted by our government on behalf of PR-
powerful corporations. It has done nothing to protect the consumer, 
nor to advance technology and has only managed to dwindle the hard-
earned investments of people like myself who trust the innovations 
developed at Microsoft. It`s time we settle and get it over 
with_and it is time the DOJ reign in the renegade states who 
still want to operate in the dark ages.
    Rose M. Hern?ndez



MTC-00006008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:33pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I find the amount of time and money my government (my elected 
officials) have spent litigating this issue to be totally 
irresponsible. Accept the settlement and stop any further 
litigation. Can you imagine a world that did not have Bill Gates and 
Microsoft??



MTC-00006009

From: Tony P. Krvaric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Give it a rest already! As an american and a Microsoft 
shareholder I`d like to see this witch-hunt end once and for all. It 
saddens me to see that there`s actually a limit to how successful a 
company can become before all the lawyers and politicians start to 
go after it. Microsoft needs to be able to compete and increase the 
functionality of their products and services. In my opinion, the 
company is more vulnerable today than at any other point in time, 
due to the rapid adoption of the Internet.
    New operating systems and software can be spread very quickly 
and reach mass adoptation if it`s the right product. My Microsoft 
products have been increasing in functionality while prices have 
stayed the same or decreased. I`d say that`s a benefit to all 
consumers.
    In addition, there are enormous cost savings when many 
individuals and corporations use the same software_imagine if 
we had 8 operating systems and 16 word processing or spreadsheet 
programs on the market. It`d be chaos.
    In addition, Microsoft`s products continually will awards for 
being great software. That does not mean they`re prefect, only that 
they`re the best out there. If someone offers me a better product at 
the same or lower price, I`d naturally consider it. I am sick and 
tired of listening to whining babies like Larry Ellison of Oracle 
and Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems. They should spend less time 
on the legal circuit whining and more time hunkering down and coming 
out with superior products.
    As a republican I`m particularly disgusted with Sen. Orrin 
Hatch`s stand on the issue when it`s so obvious he`s not reflecting 
the US as a whole, but instead looking to protect Novell from 
competition_it`s unamerican! Thanks for considering my 
opinion. Warm Regards,
    Tony P. Krvaric
    San Diego, Calif.



MTC-00006010

From: Perry Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear DOJ:
    It fascinates me that while corporations like AOL/Time Warner 
use their economic might to control the Internet Provider Service 
market and while other media giants continue to increase their 
monopolistic control over the airwaves/cable/satellite, a handful of 
state`s attorney generals have decided to tirelessly pursue the 
Microsoft issue. They continue to rally on behalf of Netscape 
(which, despite its vociferous opposition to huge monopolies, sold 
out to a huge monopoly) and the billionaires who control Sun and 
Oracle. In the meantime, middle class share holders like me continue 
to suffer economic harm. I guess state governments feel it`s their 
duty to continue fighting for a handful of Silicon Valley 
billionaires.
    I want this anti-trust matter resolved now. My retirement 
depends on it.
    Thank you,
    Perry Herman



MTC-00006012

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 2, 2002
    This case has gone on long enough. It is time to settle the 
Microsoft case for the good of the public and the economy.
    Marlene Pavlow



MTC-00006013

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement as earlier proposed 
between the company and the Dept. of Justice. Continued litigation 
is not in the best interest of the consumer, competition, or free 
trade. Such action is only in the interest of those companies that 
are competitors of Microsoft and are not able to compete on a level 
playing field. They desire the courts to offer them an unfair 
advantage in the marketplace.
    In the best interests of the country, and the consumers in 
general, settle the case and let`s move on. The questions addressed 
in the original case have long been overcome by events.
    John J Higgins
    Boise, ID

[[Page 24775]]



MTC-00006014

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has had to endure the wrath of a government lawsuit 
waged on behalf of its competitors and I call on the Justice 
Department to put a quick end to this unnecessary and harmful court 
action. Microsoft has made significant contributions to our nation`s 
economy, to technological innovation and_most 
importantly_to the quality of life for American consumers. For 
the past twenty-five years, no company has done more for consumers 
and our national economy than Microsoft. Microsoft is one of our 
most globally competitive companies and we should be bolstering its 
competitive position not poisoning its roots.
    The Justice Department has spent millions of dollars on this 
case and never produced a single consumer who`d been harmed by 
Microsoft. The Government failed to prove that consumers have been 
adversely affected by Microsoft`s business practices. On the other 
hand, what we have seen is that the economy and technological 
innovation have been adversely affected by the government`s business 
practices. It`s time for the Bush Administration to move to settle 
this case and to lift the burden the Department of Justice has 
placed on the high technology industry.
    Look, the antitrust laws were written to deal with industries 
with high market entry barriers and long-lasting market 
dominance_i.e. that would use their power to harm consumers. 
The government and the court have been unable to find a harmed 
consumer. Besides, in the high tech industry, innovation and its 
resulting constantly changing marketplace renders any possible 
market power obsolete.
    Can`t you seed that this case is one of the most significant 
factors that will influence the future health of our economy? I am 
convinced that it is in the best interest of consumers and the U.S. 
economy for this case to be resolved as quickly as possible. The 
U.S. economy needs a boost, not continued litigation... and we need 
the creative team at Microsoft to keep doing their great work.
    Jay Bonzi



MTC-00006015

From: Barry Behrman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Nobody has done it better than Microsoft for the individual 
consumer! `User Friendly' Those are the words that 
matter most and the other jealous nerds are not at all concerned 
with this. Bill Gates built the better mouse trap and it is entirely 
up to them to come up with a competitive operating system. It is 
quite obvious that they can not and that their answer is to screw it 
up for the rest of us so they can sell inferior products that do not 
work well with other systems and force us to hire technicians to 
keep the systems running.
    Thank you!
    Q-Master Billiards



MTC-00006016

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would recommend settling the case, and get back to business!!



MTC-00006017

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: end the embarrassment of DOJ, quit while you`re behind
    I`d like to thank the ruling political class for making a 
mockery of the Constitution, and dragging the DoJ through the mud. 
So called anti-trust legislation is impossibly broad and famous for 
the political process used to select victims. Microsoft is only the 
latest example of what is wrong with the DoJ, DC, and the anti-trust 
laws that cripple the economy.
    Microsoft now pays millions annually in homage to its (now 
acknowledged) master in DC. The trolls have their pound of flesh, 
they will crawl beneath their bridges and wait for the next kill. 
Perhaps it will not be so large or so arrogant as Microsoft. But 
there are no lack of companies who fail to see the `success 
trap' embedded in our legal system. It doesn`t pay to succeed 
too well in America. And it`s particularly poor practice to not even 
pay lip service, much less direct graft, to the DC mob. Microsoft 
made all these mistakes.
    The ultimate irony of the `settlement' is that 
Microsoft has secured a monopoly on public school children. 
Institutionalizing a monopoly is a comic and fitting end to the 
litigation. I suggest that the DoJ quit now, lest the settlement be 
expanded to `force' Microsoft to supply software to all 
government organizations (possibly to be later expanded to include 
all government suppliers and contractors) throughout the US.
    Tom Luther
    411 Cutler Street
    Raleigh, NC 27603-1921
    919.821.5521
    [email protected]



MTC-00006018

From: Ted Rickel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm
    I believe that it has been and still is wrong for the U.S. Dept. 
of Justice to have any court cases against Microsoft, Microsoft has 
done nothing wrong. And the U.S. Dept. of Justice should never have 
brought a suit against Microsoft in the first place. All of this 
litigation is a waste of my tax dollars. The U.S. Dept. of Justice 
should use those dollars to fight terrorists and illegal 
immigration.
    Thank you
    Ted
    01-02-02



MTC-00006019

From: Randy (038) Marinelle Szenasy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the Microsoft Settlement go through immediately in 
its original, without any further disruption from special interest 
groups individual state governments, who are trying to make money 
from it.
    Consumers across this nation want the settlement to go through 
as is, and also want this constant attempts to derail it stopped 
once and for all. Please do this immediately!!!
    Thank you,
    Marinelle K. Szenasy
    Hobbs, New Mexico



MTC-00006020

From: Laura Dodds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How can world computer services progress if the MAJOR innovator 
in the world is continually restricted from giving complete services 
to the world. I URGE that Microsoft be allowed to continue their 
outstanding record of innovation without any further legal 
constraint. Let`s make the new century the best in communications 
with MIcrosoft leading the way for everyone!!!



MTC-00006021

From: Scott McNairy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is important to realize that the remaining 9 states in the 
DOJ case that are seeking very radical resolutions that lie outside 
of the scope of what Microsoft has been found guilty of are all 
homes to competing firms products, ironic isn`t it_given that 
Monopolies don`t have competitors. The court should stick to the 
already harsh resolution that the DOJ has ratified.
    Scott McNairy



MTC-00006022

From: Vic and Gigi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    It is my sincere desire the the `United States Department 
of Justice', and/or, the States that have not yet agreed to 
settle this Microsoft debacle, do so now, without anymore delay and 
in my opinion, unjustified litigation! Any more delay in an attempt 
to punish, an already punished Microsoft, would only serve to 
further weaken an already weakened economy.
    Sincerely,
    Victor Scaturo



MTC-00006023

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the District Court to accept the above subject...it`s 
fair!
    Richard Lyon
    600 South The Strand
    Oceanside, CA 92054



MTC-00006024

From: Richardson, David M
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24776]]

    It is time to settle and end the persecution of Microsoft and 
the free enterprise system.
    Thank you,
    David Richardson
    [email protected]



MTC-00006025

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Government Officials
    You have wasted enough of puplic monies pursuing this antitrust 
action. You only hurt our American economy by prolonging this 
action. You are wrong, get over it , and get going to building our 
economy!
    John Bates,
    New York



MTC-00006026

From: Tom Byrne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I would like to see the Microsoft suit go the US 
Supreme Court where I am confident that the District Court`s verdict 
would be vacated, the Federal government and Microsoft have finally 
reached agreement on settling the matter. Therefore, this settlement 
should be accepted by the court. From its very beginnings this suit 
was ill conceived, politically motivated, and underwritten by 
Microsoft competitors. While certain Microsoft contracting practices 
deserved judicial scrutiny, the essence of the suit missed the 
underlying technical issue by a country mile. The battle is really 
about something called a Virtual Machine (VM), an internal part of 
the operating system that the Internet browser relies on and that an 
end user never really sees.
    The VM is the software component in the browser that allows 
`Java' to work. Java is the much-ballyhooed technology 
that Sun Microsystems touts as the lingua franca of the Internet 
that will eliminate the need for robust operating systems. 
Obviously, the Sun and Netscape folks support this approach and 
Microsoft does not. Microsoft perceives Java as merely another 
programming language, albeit well suited to the Internet, and has 
already `enhanced and embraced' it by creating J++ (now 
C#). Of course, it should also be noted that the entire stable 
of Microsoft languages are being upgraded to exploit the Internet.
    The Microsoft .Net based languages leverage the Windows 
operating systems (95, 98, NT, 2000, XP) thereby creating 
performance and functionality advantages that a stand-alone language 
could never achieve. Herein lies what the battle is really all 
about. Should Microsoft`s be allowed to exploit the operating system 
advantages that it has spend billions of dollars to develop in order 
to make the best VM that it can, or should the government create a 
separate Internet/Java industry by edict? Further, should Microsoft 
be constrained from further enhancing operating systems 
functionality? It should be noted that significant technical 
arguments about specific functionalities being stand-alone, 
incorporated into an operating system, or leveraged have gone on for 
decades with each approach having its ebb and flow as technology 
advances. Java, the mantra from the `open standards 
folks' (i.e., Microsoft competitors), is pursuing the very 
desirable goal of creating an environment that would allow any 
program to run on any computer without any modification. This 
pursuit is not new.
    Over the past three decades there have been several attempts to 
achieve this goal. In fact, about a dozen years ago, some of the 
folks who are now working on Java also worked on another attempt 
named `X Windows'. X Windows attempted to compete with 
Microsoft Windows and Macintosh Windows, but it failed to gain 
market share because Microsoft and Apple continually improved their 
product faster than X Windows could catch up with the functionality 
of the previous version. This time out, the Federal 
government_perhaps as an unwitting ally_tried to stop, 
or at least slow down, Microsoft`s progress so that the Java 
technology could catch up; a very bad move and one which probably 
contributed to the technology meltdown.
    The Federal government`s rationale for initiating the suit was 
its interest in `leveling the playing field'. However, 
Sun Microsystems is a major league player in its own right ($18 
billion in 2001 revenues). In fact, when one considers the financial 
and marketing muscle of its partners, and the AOL/Time Warner 
consortium, these forces actually dwarf Microsoft. The government 
took sides in a technology battle best left to our free market 
economy. Now that agreement has been reached, it is time to end this 
charade.



MTC-00006027

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I throughly support the Microsoft Settlement. The Justice Dept. 
should have never brought this suit in the first place. The only 
thing that has been accomplished by this suit is to slow down the 
technolgical revolution and advancement in this country. You ought 
to be ashamed.
    Charles Klein
    719 Broad Bay Cove
    Newport News, Va 23602
    757-877-4771



MTC-00006028

From: Jeff Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m writing to express my support for the currently proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. As the case progressed, 
it has been my feeling that many of the central issues that caused 
this case are not supported by facts.
    I purchased my first PC in 1990. At the time, it was a middle of 
the road system, and cost about $2,500. It did not include any 
application programs that I needed. I had to purchase Lotus 
1-2-3 or Microsoft Excel separately, and the cost for 
either program was around $600. The PC itself was powered by a 286 
CPU, had 1 megabyte of RAM, and a 20 megabyte hard drive.
    Today, I can purchase a PC with a Pentium III or 4 CPU, 256 
megabytes of RAM, a 20 gigabyte hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive that 
comes with an application suite like Microsoft Office for less than 
$1,000. Such a PC would simply dwarf my original PC in terms of 
computing power and functionality.
    This has occurred because Microsoft has led the way in creating 
an operating system that is the standard for personal computing. The 
marketplace has chosen Windows because it has drastically lowered 
all costs associated with PC`s. Microsoft has been knocked for 
bundling functionality into Windows. Doing so has continued the 
trend of lowering PC costs. And while there is no doubt that such 
bundling has adversely affected some competitors, in my mind there 
is no doubt that it has greatly benefited consumers who can now 
afford computers that were out of reach ten years ago.
    In summary, while I think prosecution of this case was 
unwarranted and any solution is unnecessary, given the current 
status of this case, the proposed settlement seems the best 
resolution possible.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Miller
    Redmond, WA
    (not employed by Microsoft or connected with Microsoft in any 
way)



MTC-00006029

From: Bob O`Rear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed by Microsoft is more than fair; it is 
generous, and should be accepted as proposed. Those opposed to this 
settlement are primarily competitors wishing to use the government 
rather than their own resources to compete with Microsoft.
    I am a former employee of Microsoft (I left 8 years ago) but I 
still know that Microsoft`s intentions are honorable. They achieved 
their greatness through intelligence and extremely hard work, not 
unfair competition. They provide great products to end users at fair 
prices. This settlement is in the best interests of end users 
everywhere.
    Thank You,
    Robert O`Rear
    9001 NE 26th St.
    Clyde Hill, WA 98004



MTC-00006030

From: Prather, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE DROP THIS CASE. THERE IS NO PURPOSE SERVED TO CONTINUE 
DRAGGING THIS OUT. I`M SURE MICROSOFT KNOWS THEY WILL BE WATCHED 
CLOSELY ON FUTURE BUSINESS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY DID ANYTHING WRONG 
ORIGINALLY. I BELIEVE THE BULLY ADMINISTRATION IN OFFICE AT THE TIME 
THIS STARTED WAS SCARED BY ONE PERSON DEVELOPING AS MUCH POWER AND 
WEALTH AS HAS OCCURRED, AND WANTED TO WRANGLE CONTROL OF WHAT EVER 
PART OF IT THEY COULD. I CERTAINLY BELIEVE AND HOPE THAT THE CURRENT

[[Page 24777]]

ADMINISTRATION IS OF MUCH WISER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT OUR FREEDOMS AND 
BUSINESS, AND WOULD ENDORSE DROPPING THIS ALSO.
    REGARDS,
    DAVID C. PRATHER
    706-849-6811



MTC-00006031

From: charles eisner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is fair and prolonging the litigation 
will benefit no one with the exception of some attorneys. Special 
interest groups have had more than sufficient time to be heard.
    Charles Eisner
    34 Currier Way
    Cheshire, CT 06410



MTC-00006032

From: castlepk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen
    It is time for both the government & other businesses to get 
on with life. There is no better way to settle the problem that we 
as consumers may have with Microsoft than to let us deal with them 
one on one in the marketplace. There is no amount of laws & 
legislation that any of you can pass that will do the job that we 
can do with our checkbooks. IF the other businesses truly have a 
product that is better than what Microsoft has given us than they 
should provide it to us. If not they should get out of the way & 
let the business that does have the product supply it to us.
    Rick Blackford
    Castle Park Mortgage



MTC-00006033

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I support Microsoft and their methods of doing business in the 
marketplace. I see no advantage to continue this witch-hunt by the 
DOJ on a solid American company that has shown it can supply the 
necessary software and competitive prices to the entire world to 
make it easier for us to communicate. Finalize the settlement and 
stop wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits by Microsoft`s 
competitors.
    James E. Gwiazdowski
    611 Golfview Drive
    Ballwin, MO 63011



MTC-00006034

From: Christophe Poncy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bonjour,
    I`m a french developer and i am very happy to give you my 
opinion; i can speak english very well, but i prefer to continue 
with my native language to insist on the importance of Microsoft 
.NET technologies for the future in all over the world; and 
consequently very good for me, for french economy, and for the 
world`s economic growth... Well, faut il soutenir Microsoft?
    Oui, car dans l`utilisation du Framework .NET, donc dans la 
plateforme de diveloppement de Microsoft, les gains en terme de 
temps de diveloppement et performance sont inormes!! Oui, car le 
Framework nous permet de divelopper et de concevoir des applications 
non pas limities ? seulement Windows pour PC, mais igalement pour le 
web, le Wap, les PocketPC... Oui, car nous allons pouvoir divelopper 
des Services Web XML, et relier ainsi les applications, les services 
et des piriphiriques de fa?on trAs simple, quels que soient les 
languages de diveloppements utilisis, quels que soit la plate-forme 
ciblie. Il me semble qu`il n`y pas de limites ? l`innovation gr?ace 
? cette technologie.
    Enfin oui, car cette technologie donne un nouveau sens ? ma vie 
professionnelle. Je suis vraiment enthousiaste! J`ai 30 ans, mais 
j`ai l`impression de revivre mes 15 ans! Oui, igalement pour la 
richesse que va provoquer l`arrivie de cette technologie, et pas 
seulement pour les usa. Je suis sYr que la France, et le este du 
monde profiteront de cette avancie technologique pour crier de la 
richesse, et poursuivre leur diveloppement...et par voie de 
consiquence, maintenir la croissance mondiale!
    Regards,
    Christophe Poncy, from France.
    My adress: 57 rue de la marine, 47520, LE PASSAGE, France.



MTC-00006035

From: Mike Jonson
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement should be adopted. The complaints of 
Microsoft`s competitors should not drive the governments policies. 
Anti-trust policy should be based on what is good for the country, 
not the protection of competitors from competition. I own Microsoft 
stock, but that does not change my view of the above. It is very 
destructive to allow businesses such as Sun Microsystems and Oracle 
use the government to protect their market shares.



MTC-00006036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am from Iowa, one of the States that has been causing many of 
the problems. I believe that if the public didn`t want to purchase 
Microsoft`s products they wouldn`t. Microsoft was more inventive 
than all of their competators, now they want to punish them. I don`t 
understand. They belt a better mouse trap. Somebody will come up 
with something new, lets not punish people for being innovative.
    Sincerely,
    David Day
    805 Jerome St.
    Marshalltown, Ia 50158



MTC-00006037

From: angela Viesse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom this may concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, I realize that a few special 
interests are attempting to use the current review period to derail 
the settlement and prolong this litigation even in the midst of 
uncertain economic times. The last thing the American and the global 
economies need is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy 
competitors and stifles innovation. Please don?t let these special 
interests defeat the public interest, and promptly resolve the 
settlement.
    Regards,
    Angela Viesse



MTC-00006038

From: BRIAN RAWSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm
Subject: I believe it is imperative that we honor the existing 
settlement.
    As an IT professional and consumer, I believe it is imperative 
that we honor the existing settlement. It is fair to all parties and 
good for the US economy.
    Brian Rawson



MTC-00006039

From: Alice Rhea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and in the best 
interest of all concerned. I have used Microsoft products for many 
years and feel that my life has been enriched by their innovation. 
The economy of our region has benefited tremendously from having 
Microsoft located here. I hope the matter can be concluded swiftly, 
and the US Justice Department resources can be directed at other 
issues. Neither I nor any member of my family has ever been 
affiliated with Microsoft.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Alice Rhea
    PO Box 1798
    Snoqualmie WA 98065
    425-831-6103
    [email protected]



MTC-00006040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Dear DOJ,
    I am not a Microsoft shareholder. I am a Microsoft customer. I 
believe it is time to get the Microsoft lawsuit behind us and take 
no further action to reduce the incentive to be creative in the 
development of new tools. Innovation should be rewarded and not 
penalized.
    Thanks.
    J. C. Powell



MTC-00006041

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 24778]]

    it`s time to settle....dragging this on any longer is 
detrimental to the investing public and to the users of microsoft 
software and other internet software users....common sense and 
economic sense virtually screams, settle....it`s time.



MTC-00006042

From: Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is in the best interest of the United States to 
settle the Microsoft case immediately. I feel this case has hurt the 
economy and the millions of retirement accounts that hold Microsoft 
stock. The country has more important issues then to let this case 
drag on. In my opinion this legal case and a judge who has little 
knowledge of the hi tech industry should have been settled months 
ago. I do find it interesting that the settlement requires Microsoft 
to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of there products. 
Isn`t this why Microsoft was sued in the first place.
    Robert Leiser
    2212 Sullivan Trail
    Easton Pa
    18040-7901



MTC-00006043

From: Fred.A.Underwood@ bankofamerica.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice wants to hear from the Consummer on 
this ongoing issue. In my view, the world is a much better place 
because of the advances Microsoft has made over the past few years. 
Do they profit handsomely from it? Of course, but as critics ignore, 
these profits are plowed back into research and development for even 
better progress and products for the future. In fact over the past 
12 month period between September 30, 2001 and September 30, 2000, 
over $4.4 billion was expended on R&D by Microsoft, to make 
better products to make my life easier. If you want a compare and 
contrast, how about Drug Companies that have a similar Research 
& Development and profitability models. Lets take a look at 
Merck whom has plowed $2.4 billion into R&D over the same 12 
month period. Yet for a 1 month supply of 40 mg Zocor (30 tablets), 
its about the same price as a copy of Windows XP. So Why aren`t you 
going after all the Drug companies that are apparently 
`Gouging' consumers at this rate on a monthly basis? You 
think there aren`t sales reps out there that are pushing Zocor on 
Doctors becasue of Merck/Medco`s clout?
    In regards to the proposed settlement to fund R&D for 
underpriveleged Schools. If the DOJ and states can make this go away 
with such a common sense solution, than by all means do it! I could 
care less If I get my $10.00 check in the mail at some undetermined 
point in the future to repay me for the `Harm' and 
`Unjust Pricing' that I have incurred. If you keep 
listenining to all of Microsoft`s competitors that are dragging you 
down their arcane path, then you are all fools. They have no 
interest in the consumer, they only have an interest (as would any 
management team or executive) in their business and to building 
Shareholder Value. If they can do that with the governments help, 
than they would be fools for not taking the handout!



MTC-00006044

From: Roy E. Williams, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    SETTLE THE CASE! Let Microsoft and the Government get on with 
their business (Microsoft: developing more products and Government: 
protecting us from maniacs like UBL, not people like Bill Gates). 
Further litigation will only hurt American business, especially 
entrepreneurs, who are hesitant about getting into a business where 
the potential for liability lawsuits is SO great (and now, even from 
our own Government). Government regulation is already bad enough 
with respect to businesses without us having to worry about 
additional potential lawsuits.
    Sincerely,
    Roy E. Williams, Ph.D.
    901-53-244



MTC-00006045

From: William R. Cwynar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    January 2, 2002
    To Whom it May Concern; It is in the best interest of the 
economy to settle this case promptly. The economy started to recede 
about the same time this case was brought forth. Companies need to 
be free to innovate or our system can`t survive. Let us get on with 
it, and get the greedy government out of Microsoft`s pocket.
    Thank you,
    Ann cwynar



MTC-00006046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is about time to bring the microsoft case to a conclusion in 
line with the settlement already agreed to by the presiding judge 
and Microsoft. This case has cost the government as well as 
Microsoft millions of dollars to no good purpose. If it were not for 
Microsoft this country would probably not be the technological 
leader of the world as we are now. Why try to murder a highly 
successful American company which has benefited this country so 
much, in order to please some disgruntled competitors and feed some 
greedy state Attorneys General who hope to make a pile of money for 
their state treasuries and a name for themselves personally. Please 
stick to the agreement that has already been reached and conclude 
this matter as early as possible.
    Thanks.
    James A. and Leona C. Hazen
    1192 Montevideo Road
    Jacksonville, Florida 32216



MTC-00006047

From: davidhenryart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: microsoft statement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am in favor of a speedy settlement with Microsoft.



MTC-00006048

From: Mark Cody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Good morning, Please don`t penalize Microsoft for giving the 
people the product they want. I have been a computer user since the 
early 80`s with the Commodore VIC20. As technology advanced and new 
computers entered the market, compatibility became an issue. UNIX, 
Commodore, Apple, and DOS didn`t talk to each other and their files 
were not compatible. As time moved forward UNIX and DOS were the 
only operating systems that remained backwards compatible with their 
own OS. This was great advantage for business and personal 
computing.
    When you decided you needed to buy a more powerful computer to 
run your new software, you could still use the old computer for more 
mundane chores. Now you have 2 computers that can operate together. 
Commodor and Apple oh the other hand were not backwards compatible, 
so you had to throw the old one out along with all of the software, 
or at least have 2 computers independent of each other, unable to 
share files or printers. Over the years Microsoft has kept it`s 
platform backwards compatible and has allowed users to upgrade 
software and hardware as they see fit.
    This is a significant difference between Apple and Sun. I 
believe the PEOPLE have selected Microsoft as their Operating System 
of choice because Microsoft provided the user the features they 
wanted most, low cost and backwards compatibility. Microsoft has 
always operated from an open platform, allowing anyone to create 
hardware to run on their OS, while Sun requires only Sun certified 
hardware be used in their systems.
    Why is Microsoft so popular? Why did the others fail? IBM, 
Initial deployment of DOS, high cost of hardware. Microsoft, 
secondary deployment of DOS on low cost IBM clones. Apple, High 
cost, not backwards compatible. Commodor, not backwards compatible, 
few business applications. Sun, high cost of hardware, no GUI. IBM, 
initial deployment of Windows NT as OS2, created a roadblock for 
second party software development. Sun, Solaris running X-windows 
and Microsoft office, High cost. Microsoft has consistently given 
the user the features they wanted at a price they could afford, 
isn`t that what makes America great?
    Thank you,
    Mark Cody
    [email protected]
    503-649-9532



MTC-00006049

From: Wyskiel, Matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ: Stop picking on Microsoft. They make a bunch of great 
products that work

[[Page 24779]]

together well, and they charge a reasonable price for those 
products. This whole case against them has been an unnecessary waste 
of time and money. End it ASAP. Signed very satisfied Microsoft 
consumer.
    Matt Wyskiel



MTC-00006050

From: Paul A. Kempf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a US citizen and stockholder of Microsoft I would like to 
express my support for the comprehensive agreement reached by the 
federal government and nine states with Microsoft, which addresses 
the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. Although 
tough, this settlement seems reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. As both a consumer and stockholder I feel the agree that 
the proposed settlement is good for consumers, the industry and the 
American economy.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opinion and concern of 
this matter.



MTC-00006051

From: Kenn D. Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like for `my' Federal Gov`t to approve the 
Tunney Act and stop harassing Microsoft. Microsoft competition 
started all of this because they were unable to compete in a free 
market place. Accept the settlement and keep our government out of 
the business sector as much as possible.
    Thank you,
    Kenneth D. Young



MTC-00006052

From: Smith, Stephen R.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that Microsoft not be further hampered in 
settling the antitrust case, by competitors who have an interest in 
dragging out the proceedings through legal maneuvering. Let`s get 
this case settled and go on with some remedies that will allow 
innovation and completition to rule the market and not bickering 
over whodunit.
    Stephen R. Smith, M.S. Senior Chemist
    TVA Power Service Center G2 Coal Lab
    North Side Chickamauga Res
    Chattanooga, TN 37415
    Phone: (423) 697-4061 Fax: (423) 697-4059
    CC:`wsmith(a)microsoft.com`



MTC-00006053

From: Latus, Vincent
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am in favor of the settlement. Let`s finish this and move on.
    Thank you,
    H. Vincent Latus
    Network Administrator
    Nothnagle Realtors
    585-442-1800



MTC-00006054

From: Bill Thacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing you today to voice my strong support for the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
(including the nine consenting States). Needless, ongoing litigation 
is being proposed by the remaining nine dissenting States and the 
District of Columbia. Such action would be pointless and would 
benefit no one with the exception of a few Microsoft competitors, 
which have been lobbying hard for such action over the last few 
years. In addition to promoting competition, the proposed settlement 
is in the best interest of consumers and the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Thacker



MTC-00006055

From: VanderPyle, Nicholas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has my support!!
    Without their certifications, support systems, developer kits, 
extensive FREE add-ins to windows, beta testing, free email and 
messaging systems, and MUCH more.. I`d be lost.
    There`s no way Apple or Linux could ever provide such wide, 
useful, directed services. I, and thousands of other people would be 
out of a job if Microsoft is severely punished. Let them settle with 
GIVING money, products, support, and training to the educational 
facilities. I bet you`re reading this email through Exchange, 
Outlook, or Internet Explorer.
    Nicholas VanderPyle
    Systems Analyst
    home: (850) 862-7365
    work: (850) 302-4553
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00006056

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: Settlement
    The 9 remaining states need to listen to the consuming public 
not Microsofts`whining rivialing competitors.Settle this nonsense 
now.



MTC-00006057

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:41pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    This Microsoft suit has been a distraction and an inconvenience 
for me for more than three years. Enough is enough. The court has 
proposed a settlement which allows the DOJ to save face while 
punishing Microsoft. Let`s get on with it and then maybe we can 
return to some semblance of normalcy.
    James R. Larrimore
    205 Vernon Avenue
    Glen Burnie MD 21061
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006058

From: thebirdsalls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wrap up this miserable attack on genius and innovation.
    Richard Birdsall
    1896 Peachtree Ave.
    The Villages, FL 32162-7557
    352 259 9870
    Cheers, richard



MTC-00006059

From: Roy E. Truman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement.
    It is time to get this behind us. finalize the settlement and 
get on to more important things throughout the United States. Please 
don`t waste any more time on this, and add my comments to the other 
ones on the way to you. Thanks.
    Yours Truly,
    Roy E. Truman. PO. Box 70.
    Indore, WV 25111



MTC-00006060

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is James G. Nussbaum, a retired CPA residing at 23537 East 
Otero Drive, Aurora, CO 80016 with the e-mail address of 
[email protected] I strongly urge you to proceed with 
settlement of the Microsoft case for the good of the nations 
economy, as I believe the matter has dragged on for far too long. We 
need to get on with the welfare of our nations people and not be 
hung up on the demands of a few outspoken competitors and state 
attorney generals seeking more than they deserve. Let competition 
prevail unless there is a clear case of harm to the consumer. I 
haven`t seen one bit of proof that I or my family have been harmed. 
To the contrary, I believe we have benefited from Microsoft`s 
contribution to the marketplace and the competition that does exist.
    Thank you
    James G. Nussbaum



MTC-00006061

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Leave them alone and quit your efforts to weaken them.
    G Bauer



MTC-00006062

From: Howard Woodruff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It`s time to stop these nonsense actions against Microsoft and 
get on with important issues. Free enterprise is alive and well, 
leave it that way.



MTC-00006063

From: Keith Shepard
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24780]]

Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    As for me (note I do not now nor have I ever worked for or 
contracted to Microsoft or it`s subsidiaries) I think that this 
whole lawsuit is frivolous and specifically targeted by greed and 
jealousy types. Finally, can`t we all agree to find a more common 
enemy rather than defeat each others dreams and aspirations for the 
future? SO...... lets just settle and get on with life.



MTC-00006064

From: Teisan, George
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I cannot tell you how irritating it is to me that we continue to 
waste time and money in the relentless pursuit of Microsoft. When 
will the madness end? Microsoft has done this country a great 
service by making the personal computer easy to use and, along with 
AOL, brought the internet into millions of homes.
    Unfortunately, a few insidious special interests are attempting 
to use this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. The 
settlement that federal government and nine states finally reached 
with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in the Court 
of Appeals ruling is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved.
    I overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the 
industry and the American economy.
    Thank You,
    George Teisan
    Scottsdale, Arizona USA



MTC-00006065

From: Alan Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Finish this case and let a great software company and a great 
American company get back to business!



MTC-00006066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Court of Appeals:
    Go with the agreement which is fair and end the litigation!!!!!
    Sincrely,
    William A. Hardwicke



MTC-00006067

From: Kathryn Ischinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
    Please leave Microsoft alone. It`s a great company that is great 
for the information age and the economy.



MTC-00006068

From: Donald V Atkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:42pm
    To whom it might concern:
    We want to voice our support for Microsoft in the impending 
decision. This has dragged on long enough. Let`s get it over with 
and let`s get on with business.
    Don Atkinson



MTC-00006069

From: Nancy W Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of the settlement!
    Nancy Alexander, Administrative Assistant
    Presbyterian Campus Ministry at Virginia Tech
    305 Washington St., SW
    Blacksburg, VA 24060-4745
    540/552-2473; 540/552-0119 (fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00006070

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm
Subject: Settlement
    I feel a settlement should be reached immediately- or the 
charges against MSFT dropped. It is my opinion the case was a mean-
spirited liberal attempt for Bill Clinton and Janet Reno to get at 
Bill Gates for being such a strong contributor to the Republican 
Party. I think it was unnecessary and unfounded. I am a public 
educator by profession. I also hold Msft. stock and I think the case 
cost me money- in the downfall of said stock as well as the entire 
market.
    Lyle F. Hoover
    246 Montclair
    Tulsa, Ok. 74104



MTC-00006071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    The Justice Department settlement is as far as this case should 
go. The States are merely being pawns of other High Tech companies 
and the State Attorney Generals are playing politics for personal 
gain.
    Tom Huff



MTC-00006072

From: Springer, Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, enough with the lawyers. In my opinion Microsoft did 
nothing wrong to begin with. The federal and state governments need 
to direct their efforts in an area that would benefit the people, 
not shake down one of the few honest employers in this country. If 
you want to do something of value get into health care or frozen 
retirement plans.
    Martin Springer J. D.
    Manager, Export Sales
    PMI Nutrition International, Inc.
    Mulberry, FL 33860
    Phone: 1-863-425-5544
    Fax: 1-863-425-8959
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00006073

From: Robert Sobon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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.
    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-00006074

From: Robert Dikman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough! Microsoft should not have been nor certainly 
should now be continued to be punished for bringing a better product 
to market. This case needs to be settled now.



MTC-00006075

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is about time we allowed Microsoft to get on with the 
business they know best. How many hours of time have been wasted by 
people at Microsoft, defending their position, when they could have 
been working on ways to make life easier for us in the coming years. 
It is obvious now that the government, in it`s infinite wisdom, 
knows it should have left AT&T to do it`s business. Now after 
the breakup, we are seeing `Baby' bells wanting to merge 
in order to survive. Is that what the government is looking for 
here?
    Neil Bersin



MTC-00006076

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft is fair and should not be changed.
    Do not punish this company which has brought so much to us that 
use computers.
    Edward A. Nalebuff, M.D.
    Newton, MA

[[Page 24781]]



MTC-00006077

From: lloyd olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: Fair agreement
    Dear sirs,
    I think the agreement is fair
    Lloyd Olson



MTC-00006078

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle this case and allow the computer industry to move 
on. The action against microsoft has stalled progress for all of us 
that depend on technology. Wherever I go in the world, I know that I 
can find some standard software that works with other software by 
finding Microsoft products. Otherwise nothing works with anything 
else. The fact that Microsoft was allowed to put programs together 
with operating systems is the reason why we consumers were able to 
use computers as the industry developed, rather than needing 
programmers to operate unrelated programs.
    eric meng



MTC-00006079

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm
Subject: Enough is Enough!
    Let`s stop all this and get on with our lives. Microsoft did all 
of us a service. Let it be.
    Walter Glenn



MTC-00006080

From: David Fladebo
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Even though this case has been going on for years, I still find 
it hard to believe that the US Govt. insists on this competitor 
inspired and left-wing driven vendetta against Microsoft. 
Supposedly, this action was taken against MS to protect consumers, 
but I to this day have not been able to figure out how the consumer 
experienced any net harm. In fact, I believe inovation and 
competition driven by MS has offered the consumer an overwhelmingly 
positive benefit. Also, many economists feel that much of the poor 
performance of the economy in 2001 was caused by the litigation and 
earlier findings of this action against MS, further harming the 
consumers that this action was purported to `protect'. 
Stop the litigation against Microsoft now!
    Further, I would like to also suggest that the court make this 
settlement binding for all 50 States, in order to free MS (and our 
economy) from this harmful legal action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Fladebo
    Clear Lake, MN



MTC-00006081

From: Earl Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the settlement documents posted on the internet. 
Assuming the documentation of the API functions and the 
communication protocols is sufficiently complete, accurate, and 
inclusive I find the settlement to be satisfactory.
    However, the most common form of communication between computer 
users is by file exchange. Although the settlement requires the 
disclosure of all communication protocols, I did not see any mention 
of disclosure of file format definitions or specifications. The data 
contained in a document produced in Microsoft Word or Excel should 
be accessible to programs produced by other software vendors.
    As for API documentation, my experience has shown that Microsoft 
documentation of their system API call and the interface with many 
of their programming languages is incomplete. Omission of critical 
details from their documentation often has required many days of 
research to determine the precise operating characteristics of a 
command needed to achieve proper system operation. These omissions 
may be simple oversight on the part of Microsoft, but they have 
occurred more frequently than in my past experience with systems 
from IBM, DEC, and others.
    Earl T. Hackett, Jr.
    Research Associate
    Tyvek(R) for Medical Packaging
    Phone: 302 999-5031
    FAX: 302 999-3788
    Mobile: 302 540-9321



MTC-00006082

From: Sachtjen, Robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop wasting our tax dollars and settle the Microsoft 
case. I have used Microsoft products since the inception of the 
company and never did I feel that I was gouged on the price of any 
of their products nor do I think that they took undo advantage of 
what was clearly a leading edge advantage in the software industry. 
Shouldn`t the Federal Government of the United States be trying to 
strengthen our companies to compete in a GLOBAL economy instead of 
hamstring them?
    Enough is enough. Aren`t there any terrorists for the justice 
department to go after and prosecute? The justice department did 
such a great job in the breakup of AT&T, I cry every time I get 
my phone bills, one from my local carrier, one from my long distance 
provider, one from my Internet provider. Nice job! Now it only costs 
me about 10 time for phone service compared to the pre AT&T 
breakup days. Somebody in the justice department should be doing 
jail time for that monumental screw up.
    You guys should ask for public comments more often, but I 
suppose your afraid of what you will get back.
    Robert A. Sachtjen
    Director New Business Development
    SunGard Investor Accounting Systems
    595 East Swedesford Road_Suite 3000
    Wayne, PA 19087
    Phone 610-975-3031
    Fax 610-975-3231
    US Cell Phone 610-804-3479
    UK Cell Phone 07946-601372
    From the US dial 011-44-7946-601372



MTC-00006083

From: BRUCEGRACE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:45pm
Subject: Settlement
    The Microsoft case has been run through and over just about 
every meaningful scenario possible. In the past five years I am sure 
that every person or organization has been heard on the subject of 
Microsoft`s business practices. So lets just settle this case by 
accepting the settlement that has been agreed to by both parties. 
Waiting any longer just makes the Lawyers on both sides richer and 
accomplishes nothing when it comes to protecting the consumer. The 
nine States that have decided to continue this case are only being 
prodded on by special interest groups and companies within their 
borders that have lost to a superior marketing organization, and 
their Attorneys Generals are after votes more than anything. Just 
for the record I still believe Microsoft has been more of a positive 
for the new `E-Commerce' than a negative, and the fact 
that they have been as successful has they have been is a testament 
to our free market system. So please, let our free market system 
work and settle this now.
    Regards
    Bruce Jackson



MTC-00006084

From: Aerocenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the case as follows: As a consumer, I 
have not been hurt by Microsoft practices. The standards they have 
established enable someone who is not an expert to learn procedures 
quickly and accurately. As a small business owner, I am able to buy 
affordable programs which allow my business to compete with much 
larger entities on a level field. We cannot afford secretarial and 
graphics staff, yet we can appear large and efficient to our 
customers because we have excellent, affordable software. I acutely 
remember before Microsoft became central to computing. The programs 
were not compatable with each other. Printers may or may not work. 
Nothing was standard.
    It is my impression that those companies which did not have the 
foresight or technical ability to expand are now trying to bring 
down the major company that did. MS did replace many competitors. 
That is our free market system. Netscape browser was free the first 
time I learned about it. Then they got the idea for an IPO. I 
wondered how a company which gave away their program could justify 
an IPO. I was told they had some server software and government 
contracts. Soon they were charging for Netscape Browser. After the 
IPO was successful, the stock price blossomed, for a time. Then the 
market discovered they did not have unique technology. The market 
reacted. Stock price plummeted. Now Netscape wants to lay the blame. 
In any case, the consumer, represented by me, did not suffer harm. 
On the contrary, we have

[[Page 24782]]

benefited from the greatest technology advance in my lifetime (62 
years).
    I urge the court to reject the politics of this case, and look 
at the effect on the consumer. We have not overpaid, we have not 
been duped, we have been enabled, and Microsoft has done the best 
job of any company to make sure anyone who has the ambition can 
learn the programs.
    Karen R. Sandberg
    Owner
    AEROCENTER
    Aircraft Supply and Avionics
    Pierce County Airport
    16923B Meridian East
    Puyallup, WA 98375-6224
    1-800-331-4375
    On-Line Ordering at:
    http://www.aerocenter.com
    Or send us e-mail at: [email protected]



MTC-00006085

From: Terry Kahler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    In my opinion, the Microsoft case should be settled now, rather 
than pursue further litigation. Every time the government tries to 
help the consumer, they actually do the opposite. Breaking up Ma 
Bell wasn`t the best move in the world. Microsoft is a dominant 
software company, and they got that way by good business practices. 
They made a better product, and when a competitor would come up with 
an innovation, they would buy them out if they could. No one is 
forcing anyone to use Microsoft products, and if the competitors 
don`t want to be bought out, they shouldn`t sell.
    Dragging on the litigation process serves no one, except the 
attorneys. I would urge you to settle this immediately, and as a 
taxpayer, I would like to think that the government actually cares 
about my best interests....
    Thank you....
    Terry Kahler



MTC-00006086

From: Matthew Whitcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to complete the process and move forward. The 
dragging out of the process has hurt the economy and cost the 
taxpayers too much money, especially in the midst of an economic 
downturn.



MTC-00006087

From: Sheri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Isn`t it finally time to quit screwing around with the 
ridiculous intrusion of government into a innovative company????
    Please continue with this agreement to settle this litigation.



MTC-00006088

From: A (038) J STEWART
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: MISCROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIR/MADAM
    THE TIME IS LONG OVERDUE FOR FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO 
GET OFF OF MICROSOFT`S BACK. MICROSOFT HAS IMPROVED THE QUALITY OF 
LIFE OF ALMOST EVERYONNE ON THIS PLANET. LAWYERS AND BUREAUCRATS 
SHOULD SPEND THEIR TIME WORKING ON REAL ISSUES LIKE CRIME, DRUGS,AND 
GOVERNMENT WASTE
    THANKS YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION



MTC-00006089

From: John Shepherd (038) Joe West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft`s Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The power to innovate is upmost in our culture_Microsoft`s 
present settlement is fair to all concerned!
    John Shepherd
    Hobbs, New Mexico 88240



MTC-00006090

From: Allin DuBuc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    My opinion in the ongoing Microsoft Settlement
    I have strongly disagreed with the entire case the Department of 
Justice brought against Microsoft, from the very beginning. I am in 
favor of ending all litigation as soon as possible with minimal cost 
to Microsoft. Any continued attempts by the states or Microsoft`s 
competitors to harm Microsoft with penalties or fines is of no value 
to me.
    Please end this as soon as possible, let Microsoft get back to 
the business of software development, and leave me the power to buy 
Microsoft products or not, as I wish!
    Thank you for hearing my opinion.
    Allin DuBuc
    Allin DuBuc
    Quixotic Design
    4976 ROYAL AVE SPC 247
    Las Vegas, NV 89103-5008
    (702)876-4833
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00006091

From: David MacVean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US Citizen and a Microsoft shareholder. This entire 
prosecution has been a waste of time and money. As Microsoft has 
been prosecuted, American Online-Time Warner has certainly 
represented a more powerful `monopoly.'
    Please facilitate the accepted settlement, and let the market 
run the economy instead of attornies.
    Dave MacVean
    For Personal Use Only.The information and data in this report 
were obtained from sources considered reliable. Their accuracy or 
completeness is not guaranteed, and the giving of the same is not 
deemed an offer of solicitation on our part with respect to the sale 
or purchase of any securities or commodities.



MTC-00006092

From: Phil Kuyper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End this thing as agreed_-no more bullshit!
    Phil Kuyper
    [email protected]
    A.J. Hanson & Co.
    PH: 206-763-8550
    FX: 206-762-6246



MTC-00006093

From: M Kam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please end this legal disaster. Since April 1, 2000 when 
settlement talks failed, Microsoft and US economy went on a tail 
spin impacting the global economy as well. As a consumer, I believe 
that Microsoft products have had a huge impact on productivity and 
prosperity. I used to pay thousands for custom software that now 
Microsoft offers for that $100. It is silly to take a self made and 
one of the most successful companies in the world and try to break 
their back just because some incompetent competitors needs 
government protection. Need not to remind you that Microsoft itself 
was a small fish in a huge pond. They managed and succeeded. This is 
not China or Russia it is a free enterprise society. Enough 
senseless damage to our life savings, pension plans and the national 
and global economy.
    Thank you.



MTC-00006094

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of my email is to let you know that I think the 
settlement reached with Microsoft is fair to me the consumer and I 
would like to see it accepted. To prolong the process with further 
litigation and/or adding more remedies would not be good for me, the 
taxpayers, or business. I feel we should go with the settlemnt terms 
as negotiated between Microsoft and the Department of Justice and be 
done with it.
    Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
    Barbara Rice



MTC-00006095

From: Kay Barnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement/Tunney Act
    I understand the justice department is still reviewing the 
Microsoft settlement and wished to express my opinion. I think 
Microsoft probably did abuse their positioning in the software 
industry, but they also were the major contributor to the fact that 
a software industry even exists. The Tunney Act seems logical and 
appropriate, and I think it should stand as the final resolution to 
this entire situation. Our country is struggling to emerge from a 
recession and from the devastation of

[[Page 24783]]

September 11th. Let`s put our focus, our energies and our resources 
to work addressing these problems instead of the continuation of an 
issue that has already been resolved. Further litigation can only 
benefit a select few, and will cost extensive tax dollars that can 
certainly be better utilized to benefit the majority of our citizens 
and our country.
    Kay L. Barnett
    13704_117th Ave NE
    Kirkland WA 98034



MTC-00006096

From: James O`Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The continued opposition of nine States` attorneys general to 
the Microsoft settlement is irrational. The notion that companies 
such as IBM, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Computer Associates, 
Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Compaq, etc. cannot compete with Microsoft 
without further government protection is absurd. Microsoft makes 
great products that work well, and they are very affordable, 
especially for a small business such as my own. Frankly, I think the 
inflated egos of individuals such as the CEO`s of Oracle and Sun 
Microsystems are part of the problem. Microsoft is one of the bright 
spots in our sick economy, exactly because it is innovative and 
competitive, which always benefits consumers.
    Sincerely,
    James E. O`Brien
    770 Brookside Road
    Maitland, FL 32751
    January 2, 2002



MTC-00006097

From: Jeff Ronne/The Boaphile
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case would you?
    Thank you,
    Jeff
    Jeff Ronne
    The Boaphile
    PO Box 394
    Cannon Falls, MN 55009
    (507) 263-2621
    Email: [email protected]
    Web Sites!!!
    http://www.boaphileplastics.com
    http://www.theboaphile.com
    http://www.theratcafe.com
    http://www.bengalshak.com



MTC-00006098

From: Elmer Houghten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    My comment regarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
case is that it does appear to be a fair agreement based on the 
facts and considering the costs and time of further litigation. I 
therefor highly recommend the settlement be accepted.
    Elmer Houghten
    CPA 5962 E. Viewmont Circle,
    Mesa, AZ.



MTC-00006099

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    Gentlemen:
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement is reasonable and fair to all 
parties. This Settlement should not be allowed to become derailed. 
It is not in the best interests of all Americans to allow litigation 
to be prolonged, using more of the American public`s tax dollars. I 
want our national resources and energies to be better spent for 
current and future purposes than for continuance of litigation that 
has been reasonably settled.
    Yours truly,
    Janet K. Vincent
    1446 N. W. Springdale Pl.
    Shoreline, WA 98177



MTC-00006100

From: Karlyn Eckman
To: Microsoft ATR,RFC-822=www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-s...
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft products
    Re: Comments from a Consumer Concerning Microsoft Products I 
have just purchased my ninth computer, containing the Windows XP 
operating system. I did this reluctantly, because I dislike 
Microsoft products and resent the dominance that Microsoft commands 
on consumer and professional computing.
    I am an independent consultant, but am forced to purchase 
Microsoft systems because it is used within the United Nations 
system (my primary contractor). Microsoft software does not easily 
allow a user to utilise files or software written in Apple, Linux or 
other formats. Microsoft`s dominance means that I, as a professional 
and a home computer user, have very little choice in which operating 
sytem or software I can purchase. I personally find Microsoft to be 
manipulative, greedy and unresponsive to the wide-ranging needs of 
the average American and even international computer user. What 
arrogance for Microsoft to think that it can produce software for 
the masses, regardless of need, preference and priority!?!
    Dr. Karlyn Eckman
    Consultant in International Forestry.



MTC-00006101

From: CHARLES PEACOCK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: MICOROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS SETTLED IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT. 
I HAVE NEVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH MICROSOFT`S COMPETITOR`S PROGRAM 
SOFTWARE DUE TO THE MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM. IN FACT THIS OS 
ENHANCES PROGRAM SOFTWARE. I DON`T THINK IT REDUCES COMPETITION, 
JUST MAKES SOFTWARE COMPANIES BE SURE THAT THEIR SOFTWARE IS 
COMPATIBLE WITH MS OS. IT WOULD BE A REAL MESS IF EACH PROGRAM 
SOFTWARE PURCHASED NEEDED IT`S OWN OPERATING SYSTEM.
    CHARLES PEACOCK
    9817 BRINGIER CT.
    GRANBURY, TX 76049
     TEL 817-573-7029
    EMAIL [email protected]



MTC-00006102

From: downtown denise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Members of the Department of Justice:
    As a citizen of the United States, I request that you fully and 
comprehensively settle all antitrust actions against Microsoft 
Corporation as quickly as possible, and close this matter 
immediately. Continued litigation catering to a few special 
interests prolongs litigation and derails any general settlement 
agreement. This is not in the best interest of citizens of the 
United States.
    As a technical consumer, Microsoft has not damaged me in any 
manner. I was not `forced' to purchase any of their 
products. I gladly purchsed their products for superior 
performance_as is my right as a consumer_to stay on the 
leading edge technology wise. Please do not delay settling this 
matter. In light of today`s global situation, we must focus on 
coming together cohesively as a nation, even if it means overriding 
a few special interests. Catering to special interests plays 
directly in to Osama Bin Laden`s dictate to strike at America`s 
economic heart. We simply cannot let this happen, but more 
particularly, WE CANNOT DO THIS TO OURSELVES!!!
    We cannot afford to cater to the few at the expense of the many. 
The majority of Americans like Microsoft products and appreciate the 
fact that this company has rocketed us into the 21st century both 
hardware and software capability in caparison to any other nation at 
this time. Do an accounting of the nations that bootleg this US 
technology illegally! If it were not quality, they wouldn`t be 
stealing it!
    Please do not prohibit or limit companies that create benefit 
(jobs) for America. Please settle this litigation quickly, close the 
matter, so we may focus (and allow Microsoft to focus) on the 
important things affecting our consumers, and our nation.
    Best Regards,
    Denise Rickard
    Dallas, Texas, USA
    214-508-5004



MTC-00006103

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Justice Department Ruling
    The Justice Department has made a ruling, which in my opinion 
has been very fair to all parties concerned......The complaints by 
the remaining States are very bias. Competitors are the ones pushing 
for more punishment....not the consumers. I truly believe the 
competitors are trying to break Microsoft, so that their own 
Companies can become more successful!!!! Enough is enough, and I 
think that the Justice Department has made a fair ruling and so let 
it stand!!!

[[Page 24784]]



MTC-00006104

From: Glenn Leedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:18pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement Agreement
    Dear sirs:
    Please make your judgments are based on whether the customer is 
damaged and not the MicroSoft`s competition. There is no clear 
argument for such damages by MicroSoft. I bring over 30 years of 
experience in the computer industry and as the owner of much 
intellectual property I say without hesitation that MicroSoft has 
brought more benefits in terms of low cost widely available computer 
products than would remotely possible without them.
    MicroSoft has been attached by the SUNs of the industry simply 
because they have been very effective competitors, but MicroSoft has 
served the best interest of the consumer and industrial user. I know 
this to be true from personal experience. I encourage you to let the 
settlement stand. We need to clear the uncertainty from the air.
    Best regards,
    Glenn Leedy
    President
    Elm Technology Corporation



MTC-00006105

From: William E. Endelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice to implement the Microsoft 
settlement. The objections I believe comes from other special 
interests, and not as a result of the customer interests. As a user 
of Microsoft products, I receive high value from excellent products. 
There are choices available that are fully compatible, some of which 
I use for database work, photo editing and other things.
    I could provide a long list of other industries an companies 
that truly act as monopolies, ignoring customer service, 
competition, and fair pricing for their services/ products. 
Microsoft is not on my list! Please stop wasting my tax dollars and 
putting a cloud on the economy.
    Respectfully,
    William E. Endelman, AIA, Principal
    Endelman & Associates PLLC
    Accessibility Consulting / ADA_FHA Compliance
    901 E. Denny Way,
    Suite 201,
    Seattle, WA 98122
    mailto:[email protected]_http://www.endelman.com
    (206) 324-6462_Fax: (206 )324-6469



MTC-00006106

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please don`t get in the way of companies that try to foster 
innovation. Keep you hands off Microsoft. Without the standards they 
have introduced and maintained at a reasonable costs to consumers 
the computer market would be a fragmented mess.
    Also... When the government goes after companies that take risks 
to innovate it scares me. Why should I make investments in 
technologies and innovations in my company when there is a threat 
that the Government will just pull the rug out someday?
    Keep America a technology leader. Hopefully you can undo the 
damage you`ve already done.



MTC-00006107

From: Patty Mackne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the resolution of the Microsoft case the government 
has negiotiated with the them. There has been too much money and 
time spent on this situation to the detriment of our economy, when 
so many other important matters are present in our nation.
    Patricia Mackne
    8923 Turkey Hill Rd.
    La Plata, MD 20646



MTC-00006108

From: Robert B. Heenan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The settlement is fair to customers, competitors & 
Microsoft. Let`s get on with it & stop spending tax payers 
money.
    R.B.Heenan
    1111 Pine Lake Drive,
    Hartsville, SC 29550



MTC-00006109

From: Al Hillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement should end this business once and for all. It is 
a shame that a company is accused of being terrible in business just 
because they are successful. I purchase and use Microsoft products 
and am reasonably satisfied. If another vendor offers better 
products at lower cost I will not hesitate to try them.
    Today Microsoft is on top, however, they will remain there only 
if they invest in development for products that will be needed in 
the future. There is nothing from stopping any other company from 
building better products. I have always thought that this is the 
American way.
    Thank you,
    Al Hillman



MTC-00006110

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is incumbent upon you to finalize the Microsoft settlement as 
it now stands. It is time to let this matter alone so Microsoft can 
give full attention to doing the fine works it is noted for and help 
in getting the economy headed in the right directioin.
    I also believe the only reason these suits are continuing is for 
the sole reason of getting Microsoft to part with it reserve of 
assets and cash. Only the lawyers will benefit from further pursuit 
of litigation. Certainly not the American buying public.
    W.E. Sirvatka
    CC:RFC-
822=Finflash1-2-02.UM.A.1154.142@commpartners....



MTC-00006111

From: The Mikester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    If one looks closely at the complaints against Microsoft, one 
sees poor competition using the unfair influence of government to 
control the legitimate competition and allow them to market inferior 
products. Looking at the Senate, the government is an extremely poor 
judge of what fairness is. They are quite good at pointing out the 
actions of the Complaint Filers in the Government Lawsuit. I use 
mostly Microsoft Programs simply because they work the best. Where 
the Microsoft Programs do not perform the way I want, I use programs 
that do. So, not to date myself, but `where`s the beef'?
    Michael H. Ohl
    508 Hilldale Drive
    Bath, PA 18014
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006112

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a retired attorney and a former chief deputy state attorney 
general (with no connections to any party involved) I have followed 
this litigation closely. The settlement that has been reached is 
appropriate for all. The staste attorneys general never had any 
business becoming involved in this lititgation in the first place, 
and I have no doubt that for most of them, the motivation was solely 
political. From the outset the states were bit players, hanging on 
at the fringe, and for a few of them to now try to block this 
settlement is not in the public interest.
    Curtis D. Forslund



MTC-00006113

From: Daniel Wolbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sirs,
    I find that any continued government involvement with Microsoft 
will result in the consumer paying the price. The price will be a 
reduction of services available to the average consumer and also 
higher prices for services. It looks like the government would have 
learned its lesson from the tobacco settlements_not one penny, 
of the settlements, has come from any tobacco grower or cigarette 
manufacturer it is paid by the consumer and the same thing will 
happen if Microsoft is ordered to pay any settlement no matter what 
amount.
    The whole thing comes down to greed and jealousy. Microsoft is a 
pie everyone would like to have a piece of, so the government allows 
competing companies and states to sue to get a piece of it for 
nothing. There is absolutely no doubt that Microsoft has done more 
to further the availability of computers and software for the 
average consumer than all the others combined. I guess that is the 
core issue here, Microsoft has always provided a vastly superior 
product at a

[[Page 24785]]

completive price, and the competitors would rather cry foul than get 
to work and develop a suitable product themselves.
    As a long time computer user I salute Microsoft and their 
ability to provide software that works and actually anticipates my 
needs before I do. They also provide totally free support and 
updates for their products_all the others might or might not, 
usually not. I would purchase Microsoft products at any cost. 
Microsoft could charge more for their products, but they have always 
made their products available to the average consumer.
    The final point is that this country was built on innovation and 
hard work, and to penalize Microsoft for working harder and being 
better at their job than the others is ridiculous. Let the ones 
filing the law suits get to work and get out of the courtroom.
    Thank you.



MTC-00006114

From: Burden, Douglas
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Bottom line_enough already! While Microsoft wouldn`t be 
confused for a band of Franciscan monks, the current settlement 
seems a sufficient chastening. Let`s stop the whining and move 
forward.
    Doug Burden



MTC-00006115

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    During this period of public comment on the Microsoft 
Settlement, I would like to have my voice heard. It is absolutely 
ridiculous to continue to pursue this matter any further. The 
economy and the stock market are in enough trouble without any 
additional litigation on this matter. Microsoft has served the 
public extremely well with its technology and its products. The 
public should not have to suffer the expense and trouble of further 
litigation. The states who have not gotten onboard with this 
settlement should be ashamed of themselves. This includes my own 
state of California, who I am ashamed of for not joining the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    George Harris



MTC-00006116

From: Edward Enders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:50pm
Subject: microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I think that the government gets 
nervous when a company get`s as big as Microsoft. I also think you 
guy`s at DOJ have went about this all wrong. You should have worked 
with Microsoft and used there position to your advantage, not just 
go after them in court. Microsoft is a good company and has done 
alot of good with it`s wealth as opposed to many other companies 
similar in size. You guys should stop wasting the tax payers` money 
and get back to work on more important issues.



MTC-00006117

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This action should be concluded as is and let MS continue to 
innovate. MS is the best thing that has happened to the industry 
since its inception.
    Thank you
    John



MTC-00006118

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I would like to voice my displeasure with the way competitors of 
Microsoft are using US government to achieve their goal of 
destroying one of the most successful and enormously beneficial to 
consumer company. These competing companies over long years were not 
able to deliver better product, product which for me an average 
customer would provide compelling evidence to use it. Microsoft 
through its effort do deliver ready to use package of different 
application, provided me with an easy to use and cost effecting 
product. Through its relentless effort to provide product that 
customer can use easily, Microsoft became leading provider of 
operating system which become the standard. Having this standard 
provided enormous saving in software production and training for 
others companies which in turn provided customers with big savings. 
I consider effort of Federal and State officials to punish Microsoft 
as ill guided and should be stopped to prevent further waste of 
taxpayers money and to prevent some bureaucratic fixes that will 
cause software compatibility problems and eventually lead to more 
expensive products. Standard is critical and it can be established 
either by government (which will not happen in my lifetime) or 
strong leading company as Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Stanley Strzelec
    [email protected]



MTC-00006119

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:51pm
Subject: (no subject)
    DOJ
    Please leave Microsoft alone and don`t penalize their success; 
this is America. More than enough taxpayer money has been spent on 
this case. The high technology landscape will look completely 
different in the next 5 to 7 years.
    Sincerely,
    Regis L. Roderick



MTC-00006120

From: SUSAN.ROBERTS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do whatever it takes to get this issue settled ASAP. Why 
do you allow special interest groups to continue to hold up these 
efforts. Thank you for you impending actions.
    Susan Roberts
    Prudential Locations Projects Dept



MTC-00006121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm
Subject: (no subject)
    PLEASE DON`T MAKE ANOTHER MISTAKE WITH MICROSOFT LIKE YOU DID 
WITH AT&T.
    THANK YOU.
    R.C.NIPP



MTC-00006122

From: Kimberly Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please support passage of the Tunney Act. It`s time to settle 
this expensive investigation fairly, which I believe the Tunney Act 
will do. As a Microsoft shareholder and Washington State resident, I 
feel that prolonged persecution of Microsoft will hurt the economy 
of my state as well as my personal financial well-being and that of 
my community. Thank you.
    Kimberly Bowen
    Bowen Consulting
    [email protected]
    CC:Kimberly Bowen



MTC-00006123

From: Joyce Cuyar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    I think the Microsft settlement is fair and in the best interest 
of the consumer as well as our country. Too much time and money has 
been spent on this already by all sides involved. This time and 
money could be put to better use in reviving the economy and getting 
the USA back up on it`s feet. Enough is enough. Let`s get this issue 
behind us and move on.
     Joyce Cuyar . Owner
     Pro-Search Prof. Recruiting
     PO Box 372 . Jackson Center. PA . 16133
    Email: [email protected]
    http://www.pro-search.net



MTC-00006124

From: Paul Deignan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s put an end to this litagation now. This has dragged on 
long enough.



MTC-00006125

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft has been punished enough. They have seen the stock 
price slip nearly 50%, which in turn has punished the public that 
the Gov`t wants to protect. I believe that you can tie the fall in 
the Nasdaq to the fall in Microsofts price and the ruling by Judge 
Jackson. Neither the DOJ or the States are

[[Page 24786]]

doing the public any favors. Let the settlement happen and lets move 
on.



MTC-00006126

From: Grace D VerHoeven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:52pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I believe the settlement proposed in the above issue is fair and 
reasonable, and that further litigation in this matter should be 
stopped. Let`s stop the nitpicking because some firms are jealous of 
Microsoft`s ingenuity and success and concentrate our funds on 
issues more important to our nation`s security.



MTC-00006127

From: Bradford Augustine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle this case. I am tired of my taxpayer 
dollars spent on this matter. I believe that the settlement 
agreement while not perfect is sufficient to protect consumers as 
well as not stifle advances in technology. Please settle this matter 
now.
    Sincerely,
    Bradford G. Augustine
    MadronaReal Estate Services, LLC
    500 Union Street Suite 900
    Seattle, WA 98101-4052
    www.MadronaRealEstate.com



MTC-00006128

From: Kent Fiedor
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am For the settlement of the Microsoft Case. I never agreed 
that is should have happened in the first place. The government 
spent too much money trying to punish a successful company whose 
products have reinvented and improved the office.
    Kent Fiedor
    Business Analyst
    iCorp.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00006129

From: Burke, Mr. Brian (Computer Research Supp)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in support of the Microsoft/Justice Department Settlement. 
Please end this wasteful litigation and help the country`s recovery 
and move on.
    Thanks
    Brian Burke
    Purdue Pharma_444 Saw Mill River Rd, Ardsley, NY, 10502
    [email protected]



MTC-00006130

From: Doreen Power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the settlement of the anti-trust suite 
against Microsoft. It is way beyond time to settle this dispute and 
invest our taxpayer dollars in more worthy causes such as the 
sagging economy and anti-terrorism efforts.
    Thank you,
    Doreen Power
    Sammamish, WA



MTC-00006131

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are completely in favor of the settlement. This case should 
be ended.
    Sincerely,
    S. Bragin



MTC-00006132

From: James Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Dept of Justice,
    I personally know that I have never been overcharged or harmed 
by Microsoft. I have benefited immensely by their products because 
of there ease of use and the conformity all there products have with 
one another. This conformity has increased my ability to compete in 
the market place because I am able to learn different application 
programs more quickly than by using competing software. As a 
consumer, I have always had alternatives to using Microsoft 
products. I could have purchased an Apple computer or product using 
a Unix based system. There is competition out there. I chose 
Microsoft because it was the superior product. If that should change 
in the future, I will gravitate to the better product. I personally 
feel that Microsoft is being unjustly punished. The harm that is 
talked about is perceived harm, not actual harm. You are going to 
punish a company on my behalf for the harm they caused me? No harm 
has come to me, only benefit.
    Has anyone ever calculated the benefit to our economy that has 
been gained because Microsoft software is easy to learn and be 
productive with? I can easily train people at my company to use a 
PC, and access the internet, because of the user friendly features 
of Microsoft`s products. When I compare the time required to train 
employees on our old computer system, verses the time required to 
train someone on a Windows based PC, I find that I can train someone 
to use windows in about a quarter of the time. This time adds up to 
considerable savings to our company because employees become 
productive more quickly. This increase in production and savings in 
training is solely do to the Microsoft corporation. What other 
American corporation has had such a positively huge impact on our 
economy. Don`t punish a corporation for doing what we do best in 
this capitalist economy: being innovative, making money and 
positively benefiting our economy and standard of living.
    Thank you Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    James M. Robinson
    5153 W. Wikieup Ln.
    Glendale, AZ 85308



MTC-00006133

From: Bradford West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair. It recognizes that Microsoft was wrong 
and it requires Microsoft to pay damages. Microsoft`s ability to add 
features to its products should not be restricted, and Microsoft 
should not be broken up into multiple operating units, unless 
financial market forces (unrelated to government intervention) so 
dictate. The quality of the product and its ability to multitask and 
integrate with other products should be dictated by the consumer and 
not by any government. I require a fully-integrated product to run 
my business. I believe that Microsoft products have enabled me to be 
more productive year over year, and my productivity increases as the 
functionality and integration of features increases. A government 
break-up or restriction on Microsoft`s ability to provide better, 
more fully-integrated products would be harmful to me and to the 
productivity of the workforce in America and beyond.
    Microsoft`s products or marketing should not impede the ability 
of its competitors to innovate and provide consumers with quality 
choices. Additionally, Microsoft should provide enough information 
to competitors to allow competitors to make products that function 
within the Windows environment. To the extent Microsoft did not in 
the past comply with those requirements, the settlement fairly 
punishes Microsoft for its non-compliance. Microsoft competes fairly 
in the cases of which I am aware. I use several products that 
compete with Microsoft products, such as Quicken, which competes 
with Money, and I judge Microsoft against its competition in each 
purchase I make. The key is that I, not the government, chose the 
product I want to use. Any government restriction on my choice, or 
my ability to choose as a result of a break-up of Microsoft or 
restriction on innovation, is wrong. Such a restriction is anti-
capitalist, anti-free market, and anti-American.
    Bradford D. West, PLC
    731 Via Lombardy
    Winter Park, FL 32789
    [email protected]
    http://www.lawyers.com/westplc



MTC-00006134

From: Ollie Fick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to settle this case according to the terms already 
worked out with Microsoft. I and millions of other citizens are 
owners of Microsoft stock and are tired of the drag this case has 
put on the company`s stock. Any benefits that may have resulted from 
this case have already been written into the agreement. Further 
delay of the settlement cannot possibly result in significant 
additional benefits.
    Thank you.



MTC-00006135

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:

[[Page 24787]]

    I believe it is of extreme importance to dispense with any 
continuing litigation with regard to the alleged anti-trust 
practices being made against the Microsoft Corporation. In view of 
the fact that Microsoft has agreed to a settlement to end this case 
I strongly state that this settlement should be accepted and put 
into place. Our economy does not need any further negative events 
and the conclusion of this case will be viewed as a positive 
influence and will help the US and World economies to begin a 
rebound from current depressed levels. I believe that those not in 
support of this agreement use only self centered, selfish reasons 
and that their reasons are directly contrary to what is just and 
correct for the American economy. This is America which has been 
built upon free enterprise and we cannot allow continuing efforts to 
stifle the strengths we have in this country.
    Sincerely,
    Roger L. Nauta
    [email protected]



MTC-00006136

From: Bob Balke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a consumer, I appreciate the greater usability of Microsoft 
software. If I don`t want to use Explorer, I`ll get Netscape. But I 
appreciate the fact that I don`t have to get Netscape or Real 
Network in order to have a PC that performs the tasks that I want to 
accomplish. For some reason, Microsoft is being penalized for 
building a great product and then making the product better over the 
years. For my money, the consumer is the largest beneficiary of 
Microsoft`s upgrades. But if you have sufficient manpower, please 
focus on an industry that openly fixes prices, provides the worst 
customer service and blames all of its problems on others. Of course 
I`m referring to the airline industry.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Balke



MTC-00006137

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Personally, I think it ridiculous to keep this up with a company 
which has contributed so much. It reminds me of oil and the 
Rockefellers (I am 80 and a half) and what good did that do. Stop 
the action. It is costly and un-American. Like the Rockefellers, the 
Gates give back to their country.
    Sincerely,
    Caroline B. Taylor



MTC-00006138

From: Betty Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why are these `holdouts' holding out for more? The 
DOJ has spent more on going after this one man, who has done so much 
good for so many people, than they had spent, prior to Sept. 11, 
going after one man who has perpetrated so much evil in the world. 
Do these individual Atty Gen`ls of those holdout states set 
themselves up to know more than the U.S. DOJ? Get this thing settled 
and get on with other matters.
    Thank you.
    Betty Sherman retired RDH
    1932 Mahan Avenue
    Richland, WA 99352



MTC-00006139

From: JOE ROSENTHAL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement as offered by MIcrosoft is 
fair and should be accepted.
    Joe Rosenthal
    4712 Meadowview Blvd.
    Sarasota, FL 34233



MTC-00006140

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    This AntiTrust Action by the government has gone on too long 
already; let`s close this action and carry on with progress. I am 
disturbed that some litigants in this case want to prolong the legal 
process.
    Microsoft did indeed overstep the bounds of fair competition in 
some of their agreements with hardware suppliers, but the solution 
to that problem could have been resolved many years ago by 
addressing the unfair practices and stopping them. Instead the 
competitors enlisted the government to resolve their grievances at 
no cost to them. These competitors had legal recourse of their own 
in the court system if they wanted to pursue it.
    The complaint about bundling software was and remains specious 
and against the benefits to the consumer. For example, Netscape`s 
programs could run on Windows. How is that possible? It is because 
Microsoft gave them all the information needed to program their 
software to run on Windows. That is not the action of a company 
trying to deny use of their system. I have yet to hear anyone 
complain about the cost of Windows and other Microsoft products, so 
where has the consumer been hurt? The bundling of software is one of 
the profound advances in system operating systems. This is one of 
the profound improvements in computer software developments.
    I do not understand what the States (and their lawyers) have to 
gain by rejecting this settlement. Are they more interested in a 
large financial settlement or a resumption of the economic growth of 
the technical industry? I think it is the former!



MTC-00006141

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I favor the microsoft settlement to which the Justice Dept and 
MS have agreed.
    Robert Marrow
    56 Rye Rd.
    Rye NY 10580
    [email protected]



MTC-00006142

From: Hoffman, Matt
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please get it done already. more than enough money has been 
wasted on this suit that never should have been brought. Suits like 
this impair our freedom.



MTC-00006143

From: john zimmerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pls settle this issue asap according to the terms released 
several months ago. The lawsuit against Microsoft was ill-conceived 
from the very beginning. In any other country, Microsoft would be 
considered a national treasure and Bill Gates` birthday would be a 
holiday. As a serious computer user, I would like to see as much 
functionality as possible bundled into the Windows operating system. 
I do not enjoy spending serious money on poorly functioning 
ancillary software like firewalls, virus protection, cd burning, 
faxing, music, etc. Usually, the functions within windows are good 
enough for me; they work reliably; and they have no incremental 
cost. Those who want enhanced functions and complexity are always 
free to buy them. The universality of Windows is also a great asset. 
I can currently use almost any desktop computer in the world without 
spending a day or more learning a new software system. Again, please 
divert your resources from the irrelevant Microsoft case to issues 
that are much more important to America-security and terrorism.
    John E. Zimmerman
    6417 Deerings Lane
    Norcross, GA 30092



MTC-00006144

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I believe that the US government & Microsoft need to 
complete the settlement of this case without further litigation. The 
agreement reached by the parties is equitable to all involved. I 
cringe when I think what our computer and cyberspace landscape would 
look like if it wasn`t for Microsoft`s forward thinking and 
marketing strategies. The PC environment is quite manageable because 
of Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    John Day



MTC-00006145

From: Sasan Nikoomanesh
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    First of all, thank you for soliciting and taking into 
consideration public opinion regarding the above settlement. It 
makes me proud to live and be part of the best democracy in the 
world.
    To maintain a true democracy, government needs to act as an 
independent moderator

[[Page 24788]]

and enforce the law to protect its citizens. In my opinion, this 
case has been drag for so long that it has lost its purpose. 
Millions of dollars of taxes have been spent prosecuting a business, 
and millions more have been spent by Microsoft defending its 
business practices. This money on both sides can be put to better 
use.
    I believe that the current penalties levied by the court are 
fair and should be executed promptly. The sooner this case is 
settling, the sooner the consumer and the government can focus on 
more important matters.
    Respectfully,
    Sasan Nikoomanesh
    A concerned citizen 310-575-7046



MTC-00006146

From: Charles Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DOJ,
    You have your settlement now it`s time to get off their backs. I 
am sick and tired of hearing about people and companies being 
punished because they thought of something first. I don`t know Bill 
Gates or anyone else at Microsoft. It won`t matter a thing to me if 
they make another billion or lose all they have. They earned all 
they have by their brains and brawn. . . . Get off their 
backs. . . .
    Charles Fisher
    Tampa, Fl.



MTC-00006147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get off Microsoft`s back and let them get back to doing 
what they do best_making jobs for a lot of people and making 
life better for even more people.
    Gordon Lattey
    [email protected]



MTC-00006148

From: Jim Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:55pm
    To whom it may concern:
    Get off Microsofts` back. Now.
    Jim Holland



MTC-00006149

From: Erickson, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement, I believe it is 
fair. We are seeing a few state attorney general and lobbyists 
trying to make a name for themselves (or the companies they 
represent). The software environment has changed so dramatically 
since this case was brought to trial, that many of the issues are 
not relevant.
    Regards,
    John A. Erickson
    30601 Harristown Road
    Grand Rapids, MN. 55744



MTC-00006150

From: Gene Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case as proposed. I, as a consumer, have 
never felt harmed by Microsoft`s practices. In fact, I couldn`t even 
begin to run my business without Microsoft`s products. Thank you for 
consideration of these comments.
    Best regards,
    Guy E. Robinson,
    Lincoln, Nebraska



MTC-00006151

From: Geoffrey Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:56pm
Subject: I favor a settlement that is as favorable to Microsoft as 
possible.
    I am a professional software engineer who has never believed the 
Microsoft anti-trust prosecution should have even begun. I have 
followed this case, including its technical merits and I find it 
chilling that the government ever interfered.
    I believe that Microsoft`s competitors failed through their own 
incompetence. By this, I mean specific technical mistakes and 
product quality failures which lead me away from Microsofts` 
competitors in recommending products to my consulting clients. 
Microsofts` actions and behaviors have benefited me as a consumer of 
software and as someone who profits from enhancing and developing 
software. The action of the government has caused me harm by 
interfering with a process that was never illegal. The actions of 
Microsoft are no more anti-competitive than similar actions 
undertaken by Sun Micrososystems, Compaq, Apple, IBM, AOL and 
Netscape.
    I think the government should settle this case and do so in a 
way as favorable as possible to Microsoft. I think the government 
should avoid similar cases in the future and allow the marketplace 
to make these decisions in the future. Please do not interfere with 
the operations of Microsoft, you only interfere with legitimate 
commerce and my way of earning a living as a computer programming 
consultant. I have no direct interest in Microsoft. I am not an 
employee nor even a shareholder.
    Geoffrey Feldman
    [email protected]
    617-429-8966
    1541 Middlesex St. #8
    Lowell, MA 01851



MTC-00006152

From: David Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The action against Microsoft has in no way and will in no way 
benefit those persons who use the Microsoft products and any 
settlement the negatively impacts the company will only worsen the 
situation.
    I am a periodontist and have used computers in my office since 
1983. In the past I was forced to deal with those companies that are 
responsible for bringing this suite against Microsoft. The cost of 
using their software compared to Microsoft`s is easily three to four 
times greater. I don`t view Microsoft as some monopolistic giant, 
but more as a friend who has made in possible for to have the 
hardware and software for the systems we have today at an affordable 
price, whereas before I felt I was being robbed by the likes of 
Apple and Sun.
    In my view, there should have been no judgement against 
Microsoft and they should be left to do business as usual.
    Sincerely,
    David S. Williams DDS,MSD



MTC-00006153

From: Byron Stavrou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I thought this was pretty much settled! While I believe 
Microsoft could be faulted for some of its practices, the extent to 
which this is being prosecuted is unconscionable. The recalcitrant 
States and the vestiges of of vindictiveness within the DOJ, and 
more squarely in the Senate, are the height of malicious 
prosecution.
    You are allowing the above self-interested parties, (to some 
extent driven by the states which are competitors of Microsoft), to 
tamper with a company who is one of the main engines of this 
economy. We are in enough of an economic downturn right now. Let us 
not penalize a company that can help us out of our economic rut. 
Please stop the further pursuit of this case.
    Byron Stavrou
    Prudential, DeHOFF REALTORS
    821 South Main Street
    North Canton, OH 44720
    E-Mail  mailto:: 
[email protected]



MTC-00006154

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to lend my support to the Tunney act, for the final 
settlement of issues related to Microsoft. It is high time that the 
government stops harrassing Microsoft, a company responsible for 
thousands of jobs and technical inovation benefiting millions.`To 
delay further is a total waste of time.
    Herbert A. Brauner
    110 Sleepy Hollow Dr.
    San Anselmo, CA 94960



MTC-00006155

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long time user of Microsoft products and believe the 
settlement should be in favor of Microsoft. I am a retired Federal 
employee and currently have a home based business, using many of 
Microsoft products. I do not see a need for other companies of 
lesser quality products to have a say in what is good for me. I may 
be reached at this E-mail address of 
[email protected]@inetgw
    Creola Loyd

[[Page 24789]]



MTC-00006156

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: Some testimony
    I would like to see my government stop wasting taxpayer money 
going after Microsoft. Let free enterprise work. My new (then) 
computer came with the Microsoft search engine along with AOL. 
Netscape, Msn, Yahoo and several others all bundled on the machine. 
Hooray I had a choice. Quit persecuting MSFT and use the money to go 
after Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein.



MTC-00006157

From: Bernie Friedenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Congratulations on a prompt, fair and equitable settlement! The 
case has been a burden on the computer industry, the economy, and 
the whole country.
    Bernard Friedenson



MTC-00006158

From: nacpa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed settlement with Microsoft as it now 
stands. I am confident that the marketplace for innovation and 
competition is healthy and needs no further action by the government 
to protect the public`s interests.
    I believe those opposing the current settlement are doing so to 
try and effect changes that will serve their own, not the public`s, 
interests.
    Thank you,
    Cynthia Wallace Liss
    PO Box 753
    McLean, VA 22101
    [email protected]



MTC-00006159

From: Lou(038)Anne Salem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the agreement for the microsoft settlement is fair to 
all parties involved.
    Thank You
    L J Salem Jr.



MTC-00006160

From: James D. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Attorney General:
    As a consumer I find it difficult to understand why a few states 
and special interest groups can continue to keep this settlement 
agreement form completion. The Federal Government must put this to 
rest immediately. We`ve all suffered financially as the result of 
this competitor led suit and it`s time it stopped. This is a country 
where the majority rules and that`s exactly what needs to happen 
here. Tell those who want to continue this for their own selfish 
interests to get in line and stop holding this up and let`s get on 
with it.
    James D. Miller.



MTC-00006161

From: Warren Dewar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand, under the Tunney Act, there is a period of time 
within which the public is allowed to comment to the District Court 
regarding the proposed settlement of the antitrust case against 
Microsoft Corporation. I wish to express my strong support for the 
proposed settlement. In my opinion, this case was ill-advised from 
the start, and was an obvious attempt by Microsoft`s competitors to 
strengthen their position at the expense of the world`s most 
innovative company.
    Microsoft is clearly committed to a nonproprietary Internet, as 
opposed to the nation`s cable companies, which can design their 
broadband networks to control what kind of content and applications 
may be carried. There is little reason to vilify a company with a 
strong and powerful interest in a strategy that may well reinforce 
competition on the Internet, especially when few of Microsoft`s 
competitors have adopted such a similarly pro-Internet strategy. 
Thus, rather than adopting a remedy that is focused exclusively on 
the `last war,' a proper remedy to the current antitrust 
case should be sufficient to steer Microsoft towards its benign 
strategy, while assuring an adequate response if it fails to follow 
this pro-competitive lead.
    Sincerely,
    Warren L. Dewar II
    137 Buchanan Street, San Francisco, CA 94102



MTC-00006162

From: Brian Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:58pm
Subject: Hurt Microsoft, hurt the country.
    If you insist on a witch hunt why are you not going after Steve 
Case from AOL?
    AOL blocks photos coming from other E Mail sources. AOL stands 
in the way of Instent messages to all ESPs, MSFT does not.
    This is about money for other companies not the people of our 
Country. Apple price for price is a computer I, as a Computer 
teacher feels like running for the door when I see one.
    It has the worse mouse, lousy graphics, is difficult to 
navigate. I find it difficult to believe the people against MST have 
ever used a home computer.
    The Government must have determined that the American People are 
stupid, that they buy Windows because Bill Gates secret organization 
of Storm Troupers sneaks into homes and forces prospective buyers to 
purchase Windows.
    Forget the Hype that Apple Computers do not hang up. In 10 years 
of teaching computers, I have seen Jobs little miracle hang up three 
times to every once for Windows.
    I hate to think this, but is the case against Gates fueled by 
his lack of bribing legislators, or is it just that legislators and 
judges are a lot less inteligent then I ever thought they were.
    BRIAN
    PS Who designed the Graphics for Apple!



MTC-00006163

From: Frank Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the DOJ should proceed with its proposed setllement of 
the Microsoft case.
    Frank Scott
    Scott American Corporation
    Box 88
    West Redding CT 06896-0088 USA
    Phone and fax: 203 938 2955
    e-mail: [email protected]
    website: www.scottamerican.com



MTC-00006164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft case should be settled post haste. The 
economy is not good and another company going down the drain is not 
what we need. I also believe in the old American way that who ever 
builds the best mouse trap wins.
    D.R. Chick



MTC-00006165

From: Captain Brett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir:
    I think Microsoft Corp. has acted in good faith and given up 
many of its legal rights in order to bring to an end the anti-
innovation anti-trust suit brought by the Justice Department and 
some states on behalf of special corporate interests. The settlement 
reached by Microsoft and Justice appears to be in the second best 
interest of the public_the first would have been to leave 
Microsoft alone and allow them to continue to develop great software 
and give American consumers free computer tools_and as a 
computer user I hope the Justice Department will second this 
settlement in earnest.
    Happy New Year.
    Brett Jiu
    711 W 171st St Apt 8
    New York, NY 10032



MTC-00006166

From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With the terrible events of 9/11 still at the forefront of our 
collective minds, please do whatever is necessary to bring ALL 
parties on board for a comprehensive settlement of the microsoft 
case. It is terribly distracting to have a sterling domestic company 
dogged by years of litigation. The Federal government`s settlement 
is more than fair to all parties; please do something to bring the 
states who have opted to continue litigating into the fold. We need 
to put this behind us. America needs you to resolve this matter. We 
are all ready to move on, to get back to work, to keep America at 
the leading edge of technological supremacy.
    Richard Hetherington

[[Page 24790]]



MTC-00006167

From: C.M. HOOPER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has contributed greatly to information technology and 
our new economy. Microsoft has been and is endorsed each time an 
individual or organization purchases its products and services. 
These are voluntary transactions and, as an individual, I believe 
Microsoft has given me full value for the price of its products that 
I use. Microsoft`s competitors are cry babies and the state 
attorneys general who have sued Microsoft are no better than the 
worst of tort lawyers. It`s time to let Microsoft get back to 
developing new information technology. Although unfair to Microsoft, 
it`s time to settle the case now before the federal government.
    Clay Hooper
    HC 63 Box 19
    Hamilton TX 76531



MTC-00006168

From: Robert/Shirley Girard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We wish to be counted among those who vehemently are against 
further litigation, with regard to Microsoft, which is costly and 
time consuming and unnecessary. Please settle this issue as 
expeditiously as possible. There are many more crucial situations in 
our world today. We thank you!!!!!!!
    Shirley & Robert GIrard
    Kingston, WA



MTC-00006169

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Congratulations on the long-awaited settlement with Microsoft. 
It was long overdue. It is most unfortunate that nine states 
continue to waste far more time on this matter than can possibly be 
justified. With situations like the one at Enron commonplace they 
would be wise to spread their attention in places where millions of 
people are likely to benefit more from the outcome. Enough is 
enough. Please move forward with the settlement as agreed to by 
Microsoft.
    Although as a shareholder in Microsoft I think that even that 
settlement goes too far I am willing to lend my voice to the voices 
of compromise in order to move to far more important matters for our 
economy, our nation and the general welfare of the people of this 
country.
    Respectfully,
    Raymond Petrone, P.E.



MTC-00006170

From: Toney Herlevic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear DOJ,
    Please settle this case against Microsoft as soon as possible. 
This case should never have occurred. It should not be the purview 
of Government to protect stupid people. I am an average computer 
user and somehow have managed to put four browsers on my desktop 
with no help from the Government. The government should stay out of 
this marketplace and let the marketplace settle these disputes. 
Please accept the settlements as soon as possible and get off 
Microsoft`s back!
    Toney Herlevic
    El Cajon, CA



MTC-00006171

From: Funds, Karl_Karl
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any case against Microsoft has become way to muddied to make any 
clear sense of the issues involved. Fine them and let`s get this 
over with. Too many have a personal stake in the case for any real 
resolution, so just end it quickly.
    Karl Funds
    Funds Hays Graphic Design
    2901 W. Busch Blvd., Suite 406
    Tampa Florida 33618
    [email protected]
    www.fundshays.com



MTC-00006172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Department of Justice,
    The Microsoft Case must be settled! It is only correct that the 
case should be settled because it will improve the economy and as a 
user of Microsoft since 1976 in my work in the public schools of 
Milwaukee, I have found it the best of all worlds.
    Sincerely,
    Carol M. Schaeve; Retired Reading Specialist from Milw. Ghettos;
    I retired at 72\1/2\. Now I am 76 and still using Microsoft 2000 
in writing the genealogy of my four ancestors who came to America in 
1845 and 1854. Hurrah for this country; keep it sound and settle 
Microsoft.



MTC-00006173

From: Kar Ip
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For nearly four years, the public`s voice and interests have 
been instrumental in the debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens 
of thousands of concerned citizens have communicated to their public 
officials about whether the Microsoft case should be settled or 
further litigated. Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few 
of Microsoft`s competitors, the federal government and nine states 
finally reached an agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling.
    My opinion is that this agreement is comprehensive and tough, 
but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. As a consumer, I 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for the consumers, the 
industry and the American economy. Unfortunately, a few special 
interests are attempting to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. I will not 
let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Sincerely
    Kar W Ip
    Private Citizen
    80-55 Bell Blvd,
    Queens Village, NY 11427



MTC-00006174

From: Ellen Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you have the interest of the consumer, and not special 
interest groups, in mind, then you will settle the Microsoft issue 
now.
    It confounds me that the Department of Justice would practice 
Draconian justice with a company that has so improved the quality of 
life for Americans. Sure, it is big. Sure, it is successful. Do you 
want to discourage growth and innovation in the entrepreneurial 
sector? It also provides jobs for thousands, who in turn spend money 
and enhance the economy.
    I do part company with Bill Gates when he uses his influence to 
change immigration laws. We have home grown talent to fill the jobs 
made available by the hi-tech industry.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Ellen Page



MTC-00006175

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    Even though I feel that the Microsoft Corporation is being 
penalized more than I think is reasonable, I realize that it`s not 
going to get much better under current conditions. For this reason, 
I strongly recommend that the existing terms of the settlement be 
set up and enacted as a final solution.
    Jack Haug
    PO Box 1104
    Sanford, NC 27331



MTC-00006176

From: William P. Crumpacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Settlement
    Let us `move on' and judiciously allow the settlemet 
to proceed. If the opponents desire to harm Microsoft, let them 
attempt to do so in the marketplace, NOT the courts.
    Sincerely,
    William P. Crumpacker
    1654 Hanson St.
    Ft. Myers FL 33901



MTC-00006177

From: Mac Goelst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    L.S.,
    It is my opinion that it is in the best interest of all 
concerned if the lawsuit against Microsoft is settled ASAP, because:

[[Page 24791]]

_In spite of the anti competitive behaviors Microsoft engaged 
in according to the court rulings issued so far, we as a company 
feel that we have only benefited from Microsoft`s strength and 
dominant position by getting more software for ever lower prices. 
This in turn has benefited our customers (such as you, since we are 
a UNICOR partner), because it has allowed us to keep our pricing 
stable.
_Software innovation by Microsoft and others drives a lot of 
growth, and the sooner we get back and focus on that the better off 
we`ll all be.
_The remedies proposed are fair, and any further tinkering, 
especially in the direction of a breakup of Microsoft will be 
tremendously hurtful.
    Sincerely,
    Mac A. Goelst
    President/ CEO
    Goelst USA, LLC
    915 Bridge Street
    Winston-Salem, NC 27101
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00006178

From: Bernard Rohde
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is fair to all parties and the 
general public at large. Lets get the deal done and move on with re-
building our economy. Surely the Justice Department has better 
things to do with its time like chasing terrorists instead of 
hampering the free enterprise system.
    Bernard Rohde
    430 Martel Lane
    Coppell, TX 75019



MTC-00006179

From: Robert Gadd, III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In my judgment the whole market. particularly NASDAQ crashed 
after the Department of Justice and some states went after 
Microsoft. The domino effect took it from there.
    My request is for you all to back off and drop all proceedings.
    Robert F. Gadd, III



MTC-00006180

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Let`s get on with the business of business and that is to let 
the economy function as it always has, and not be heavy-handed in 
regulating, or micromanaging every situation. The government 
settled, the states should settle and get on with it. No one would 
want to think that with Europe united and creating a formidable 
economic threat to the rest of the world and with China getting its 
act together finally, that we need very strong companies to handle 
the world business climate. Microsoft is a leader.
    Sincerely yours,
    John Adams



MTC-00006181

From: michael bricker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm
Subject: I hope you will use some sense in the Microsoft case.
    I hope you will use some sense in the Microsoft case. They have 
invented a new language for all computer users to use. And have 
offered it to the public for a fair price. What if Japan or some one 
elle had invented this item. How maney dollars would we be exporting 
to them???



MTC-00006182

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The current Microsoft settle seems to be fair. Please don`t let 
the Microsoft competitiors do more unfair damage to a company that 
has been the industry leader for the last decade.
    Charles E. Wagner Jr.
    25 Newberry St.
    Bridgewater, NJ 08807



MTC-00006183

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, I believe that Microsoft settlement is good for the 
economy of USA
    Sincerely,
    Yat-sun Leung



MTC-00006184

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Dept. of Justice,
    As a very concerned citizen, kindly allow me to voice my opinion 
that is is time to settle fully with Microsoft and let this company 
and our great nation get on with fulfilling our needs for advanced 
technology, which Microsoft has shown, countless times, does so 
ably.
    Let`s get on with a bright future, shall we? Settle with 
Microsoft now.
    Thanks for your time.
    Flora Gabriel, BSL, JD
    [email protected]



MTC-00006185

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ:
    I think it is preposterous that the US Government has continued 
it`s attack against free enterprise and Microsoft. Didn`t the 
government learn anything from Ken Stars and that waste of our tax 
dollars? Call off the attack dogs and let capitalism live.
    Time to move on to more pressing issues facing us today and let 
the lawyers find other revenue streams.
    Mario Grande
    [email protected]



MTC-00006186

From: Simon Litvak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I would like to express my opinion on Microsoft case. Microsoft 
case should be settled without any further delays. Continuation of 
this case is harmful to industry, American economy and American 
consumers. Statements that Microsoft harmed consumers by building a 
lot of features inside Windows OS, not to mention overcharging them 
(we are really undercharged by Oracle and Sun, aren`t we?) are 
ridiculous. When I need small software utility to do my job, I have 
to pay 25%_100% of what MS Windows OS cost. What do you think 
consumers would say if they have to pay for browser, e-mail and a 
bunch of utilities and accessories which are provided as a part of 
MS Windows?
    As a USA Federal and CA state taxpayer I see my money used in 
this case against my will. Last statement is also correct for 
millions and millions Americans.
    Thanks,
    Simon Litvak
    Programmer/Analyst
    UC Berkeley



MTC-00006187

From: Robert A. Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the record, my wife and I are small stockholders in 
Microsoft, but we were not supportive of the government`s position 
from day one. Please accept Microsoft`s settlement offer, cut your 
losses, and go after real violators. =====
    Robert A. Hicks, Executive Director
    Tallahassee Comets, Inc.
    2001 TWO-TIME TEAM CAMP USA CHAMPIONS
    WWW.COMETSGET.NET



MTC-00006188

From: Dave Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled.
    Please end these court proceedings and let Microsoft get on with 
their business.
    Thank you,
    Dave GARVIE.



MTC-00006189

From: Everett Joline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir
    I would like to voice my support for the settlement that MS and 
the DOJ have agreed to. Naturally there are competitors that would 
like to shoot down this agreement to stifle MS competition in their 
product areas, however, it is definitely to the benefit of consumers 
to put this dispute behind us and get on with getting the economy 
back on track.
    Thanks for your attention,

[[Page 24792]]

    Everett S. Joline



MTC-00006190

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    I agree that the case against Microsoft is bogus, Microsoft is a 
giant because it`s serving its customer better than the others, 
other products that are better will eventually rise to the top, 
without the government`s involvment.
    Jerry Coussens
    4440 Cheyenne Ave
    Davenport, Iowa



MTC-00006191

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    My feeling is that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
problem, is more than fair, and Microsoft should not be penalized 
further. Though an octogenerian, having the whole computer 
revolution occur in my lifetime, and being no expert, I do feel that 
the Microsoft organization has been a large factor in my being able 
to use and enjoy my computer, and all the things I can do with it.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur W. Powell
    1304 Monarch Circle
    Naples, FL 34116



MTC-00006192

From: Wade Wilken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please record me as in favor of the proposed settlement for the 
Microsoft case.
    Thanks and regards,
    Wade Wilken Jr.



MTC-00006193

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    If the goverment and various states are so eager to be involved 
in private business may a suggest a better target than Microsoft? 
Try the baseball industry. The state of Minnesota should look for 
ways of keeping baseball rather than prolong litigation against 
Microsoft.
    The settlement as of this date is fair. The litigation has hurt 
more people than it has helped. Let the settlement stand and let`s 
move on.
    James L. Peterson
    Microsoft User and Stockholder



MTC-00006194

From: Masciovecchio, Philip (P.J.)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is truly a shame that our Government is still trying to 
penalize Microsoft. There are obviously other issues that I feel are 
more important than the one on hand. Mi
    crosoft is a company that started with virtually nothing and has 
reached (deserved) the opportunity to capitalize on its 
achievements. I wonder if all those other companies that are 
competitors of Microsoft`s were in the same position, would they 
feel like they were monopolizing the market. I doubt very much.
    Microsoft should use it resources on making this world a better 
place through its current business, instead of spending it trying to 
defend itself in court, due to a few competitors who cannot meet 
what Microsoft has achieved.
    I for one, would like to see this case put to rest once and for 
all. It is a shame our government is wasting so much time, 
resources, energy, and my taxes trying to penalize a company that 
should not even have to defend itself.
    Regards,
    Philip J. Masciovecchio
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00006195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please move ahead with the current settlement that has been 
reached. Let`s move on and let the company continue it`s innovation 
to the technology industry.
    David Rabinowitz



MTC-00006196

From: Betty Gotuaco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    I feel that the US Department of Justice has done enough to 
prosecute Microsoft about the anti-trust concerns of the government. 
Please leave them alone. Microsoft is doing this great country a 
service, not like the Department of Justice Anti-Trust Group.
    Thank You,
    Betty Liang Gotuaco



MTC-00006197

From: Becke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I support Microsoft and urge the DOJ to follow through on the 
settlement as reasonable and fair to all parties. The dissenting 
states have business` making their homes in those states that would 
be helped if you were to disallow this settlement to go through.
    I use a Windows product starting only 3 years ago... This system 
has allowed me to become computer efficient and I now use Microsoft 
Windows in my small business.
    I completely support Microsoft and wish the previous 
administration and justice department had spent as much time on 
terrorism as they did attacking Microsoft.
    B. Elliot
    Texas



MTC-00006198

From: Larry Seltzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have disapproved of the case against Microsoft from the 
beginning, and would prefer that it be dropped completely. But as 
the settlement agreement eliminates the most stupid provisions of 
the original judgment, I urge its adoption so that the industry and 
the nation can move on and put this episode behind us.
    Larry Seltzer
    127 Parker Ave
    Maplewood, NJ 07040
    [email protected]



MTC-00006199

From: Doug Brennan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle now. This has gone on to long and consumer`s 
freedoms or pocketbooks are not being effected.
    Thanks,
    Doug



MTC-00006200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We want the case settled as agreed and no further action taken.



MTC-00006201

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please try to get this settled and let the company move forward 
with innovation and improvements to their product. The additions 
they have made over the years to the various Windows operating 
systems have been phenomenal and have given us (the consumers and 
users) much greater value for our money along with greater ease of 
use. Most of the objections are from competitors who would have us 
all buying separate products by the dozens to do the things that 
Microsoft has included with each new upgrade of their software. 
Thank Goodness for Microsoft and the foresight and innovation they 
have had in the past.
    C. M. House, MD,
    Captain MC USN



MTC-00006202

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Settlement
    For justice`s sake: Settle this case. Stop the litigation. Way 
too much time and taxpayers` money has been spent on this.
    Lorette Schneider
    A concerned taxpayer



MTC-00006203

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is FAIR.
    Dear Sir:
    I strongly believe the Microsoft settlement is fair. Other 
wealthy competitors (i.e., Sun Microsystems) are trying to torpedo 
the settlement for their grudges and monetary gains. Please don`t 
let the settlement be

[[Page 24793]]

decided by big businesses (competitors) that have an 
`agenda.' As a consumer, I think Microsoft`s many 
contributions have been good for the general public.
    Warren D. Alcorn
    Sausalito, CA



MTC-00006204

From: Scott Harrison
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear elected officials and lawmakers,
    Please settle the Microsoft DOJ case, do not delay you are not 
acting on behalf of the consumer if you do not accept the settlement 
and move on. The proposed remedies are more than fair. The proposed 
DOJ settlement is the route that is most expedient and fair for all 
involved.
    Microsoft is not a bad company, they are being punished for 
being successful and giving us consumers what we ask for, much of 
this suit is being driven by their competition not consumers. 
Microsoft is one of the very few companies that actually listens to 
the average consumers feedback. They may not get it right the first 
time but they listen and keep on trying until it is what we ask them 
to create. What we have now with Windows is want consumers have 
asked them to produce. Software companies should be forced to 
compete on the technical merit of their products as voted on by 
consumer dollars not via the Justice system and litigation.
    The individual states should not be free to peruse additional 
remedies and measures, this seems wrong and also like double 
jeopardy. This is wrong that the individual states can choose to 
continue this matter on their own. If the case has been settled why 
does litigation continue, by any party?
    The consumer is paying for this litigation, even in the end if 
Microsoft were to pay all legal bills_Microsoft should not 
have to pay for the government legal bills_the states and 
federal govenrment has still wasted time and money on this rather 
than putting those same resources to better use. This entire matter 
is a huge waste and gross misallocation of resources.
    Please listen to consumers not competitors. I as a consumer want 
you to take the settlement, stop further persecution of Microsoft, 
restrict the states from being able to peruse this matter further, 
and stop wasting time and money on this.
    It is terrible that we have spent more money tracking down and 
persecuting Microsoft than we have tracking the worst United States 
public enemies. Respectfully submitted to 
[email protected] on 1/2/2002
    Scott Harrison
    410 Forest Place SW,
    Issaquah, WA. 98027



MTC-00006205

From: Herke, Mark
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is fair. If it fails 
and Microsoft is broken up, this would affect the quality of their 
products since there would be less integration between the operating 
system and office software. I believe Microsoft should have an equal 
right to create software that runs on their operating system. I use 
Microsoft products extensively in my job and would not like to see 
my job become more difficult with the break-up of Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Mark Herke



MTC-00006206

From: Thomas Branley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case. It would be good for the 
economy and the American people. Four years is long enough.



MTC-00006207

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion that the US governments settlement with 
Microsoft is a reasonable agreement. When each of the worlds 
infrastructures where began; such as the railroads, telephones, air 
transportation, etc., it was done with the gov. support, by just a 
few competitors. This makes the large capital outlay potentially 
profitable for the infant industry innovators and creates a standard 
that is easily understood and used by the public.
    The difference between an academian and a entrepreneur is: The 
academian basks in his understanding of ideas and ideals. The 
entrepreneur takes his understanding and creates a product that the 
public will use.
    US citizen and entrepreneur for 35 years,
    GERALD VEENKER



MTC-00006208

From: Andersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a part time administrator of computer systems for the past 20 
years in a small Construction company (2001 sales of $80 million) I 
am appalled by the suit against Microsoft. I say part time because 
we do not have a full time IT staff and computers are a small part 
of my involvement here. Nobody seems to remember what data 
processing was like in the pre-PC days but I can assure you that our 
business has benefitted greatly from companies like Microsoft and 
the open architecture of the PC. We could not maintain our systems 
no a part time basis without Microsoft.
    We spent many dollars during the days of mainframes and minis 
for systems that didn`t work well, required a lot of maintenance and 
left us vulnerable to gouging on both the hardware and software 
sides of computing. Microsoft has delivered a more stable platform 
for a fraction of what our previous systems cost.
    It wasn`t that many years ago that the cost of word processing 
software was offered to my company for $50,000. (single user, 1982), 
adding a dumb terminal (workstation) cost $20,000 and adding 28megs 
to my hard drive cost $25,000 (this was a terrible scam because the 
space actually existed on the drive that I owned but it had to be 
software enabled).
    In the early days of PCs, we spent countless thousands on 
software that didn`t work well from Microsoft`s competitors and 
eventually migrated to Microsoft`s Office products because they were 
feature rich and did work better than their competition`s.
    We do not exclusively use Microsoft products_our network 
product is provided by Novell as is our e-mail. Our accounting 
software is from Timberline and the interface issues between these 
products and MS has been minimal.
    Do not hold to the belief that you are championing my cause by 
pursuing an action against Microsoft but rather please understand 
that you are probably going to negatively impact my business by your 
ignorance of reality. If the DOJ wants to go after somebody, they 
should look at companies like Apple who, to their own peril, has 
kept their architecture closed or for the countless failed software 
companies that never delivered on their promises.
    This is not to say that we never have issues with Microsoft 
software but rather to say that they are manageable without 
Government intervention. A good analogy would be the United States 
Government. It is not without issues but considering the 
competition, where else would you go.
    Tom Andersen
    [email protected]



MTC-00006209

From: Terry Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the Microsoft settlement! It is time to move 
forward and not add additional burden to our National economy. Any 
additional action negating this settlement would only serve special 
interests (wealthy special interests) and not be of any benefit to 
the general public. Why do we attempt to tear apart the very 
structure of our economy when it is the very worst time to do so? As 
a member of the `very common general public' I gain 
nothing from this fiasco. I don`t see where any of this lawsuit 
benefits me as the public.
    I don`t view Microsoft as any different then any other 
`large corporate giant' such as General Electric 
monopoly or any of the telephone monopolies. Just look what happened 
when the telephone companies were broken up. Not only did the cost 
of service escalate, but new long distance services were created 
adding to the cost, and now where are they headed? Why, they are 
being reacquired by the very companies the government broke up, 
recreating the very same so called `monopoly' situation 
as before the breakups. The caveat, however, is that the `very 
common general public' is now paying significantly more for 
telephone service. Who benefited? Why BIG BUSINESS of course; with 
the governments assistance!
    Let`s get on with what life`s problems we`re suffering through 
right now. Examine the events of 9/11, the economy in the pits, 
costs escalating everywhere, unemployment, and so much more. Settle 
this thing with Microsoft and move forward with handling

[[Page 24794]]

the `real problems' in this Country_Employment 
& Economy!!!



MTC-00006210

From: Tom Field
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; GET IT OVER WITH. NO MORE LITIGATION. The 
settlement is fair for all parties. Tom Field,
    Marlboro, NJ



MTC-00006211

From: Bill Rigby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
DOJ is appropriate and is in the public`s interest.The changes 
proposed by the disagreeing states are Draconian and are being 
offered at the urging of Microsoft`s competitors who are trying to 
do through the legal system what the they cannot do through 
competitive action.
    Bill Rigby
    [email protected]



MTC-00006212

From: John Vittone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: Gentlemen,
    Gentlemen, Enough is enough!!! I vehemently oppose any further 
litigation in this matter. Please settle the case as approved by the 
court. I want this matter settled now without further litigation.
    John F. Vittone
    1503 Seagate Ln
    Houston, TX 77062



MTC-00006213

From: Michael Banyacki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement / 1-02-02 / 
10:58AM_PST
    Dear Sir and or Madam:
    I feel Microsoft has been raked over the coals by companies that 
just were not smart enough to see the big picture. Myself and 
thousands of other Consumers did not see the wrong that MicroSoft 
was accused of, yet they were gracious enough to try and be amicable 
for the failures of others.
    I say, Enough is Enough and should stand for settlement, but 
there are those greedy, inconsiderate States, like California that 
just don`t care about the Consumer, but cater to the interest of 
political donors!
    What Microsoft had done was to be smarter in their approach than 
other companies and gave the Consumer the best of all the world 
software by integrating their software. Microsoft and its leader 
Bill Gates, is a prince among consumers because he and they try to 
give the public what it really wants in terms of coordinated 
software, making it easier for the consumer to understand the 
software and easing business and personal functions that are 
conducive to a working environment.
    My VOTE is for MICROSOFT 100% percent and for staying on track 
with the settlement that other states have already accepted.....
    CW4 Michael E. Banyacki (Ret.)
    24992 Spadra Lane
    Mission Viejo, CA 92691
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00006214

From: Kelly, Michael (Alexandria DJ 705)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov`
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it is clearly in the interest of the people of the U.S. to block 
further litigation against microsoft. Microsoft, our most impotant 
innovator of technology has been in the penalty box too long. If 
this persists we will forfeit our most important lead in what will 
surely be a technical world. Without microsoft leading the way, we 
will slip further into a mediocre-albeit politically correct-future.



MTC-00006215

From: Bill Stortz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s fair, so settle the action!!



MTC-00006216

From: GfWeis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First let me say that I don`t really believe that Microsoft has 
a monopoly_anyone (including Sun or Oracle) is free to build a 
competing product_if it`s better, people will use it_if 
it isn`t, they wont. A perfect example is Netscape_while it 
was better, I used it_when it became inferior, I switched.
    Maybe the DOJ should spend a little more time going after the 
real criminals_just look at the millions that MS has added to 
the US Treasury in terms of taxes_not only in what it pays, 
but also in terms of what their employees (and no I`m not a MS 
employee) pay.
    Just my thoughts...
    Gordon F. Weis
    http://yyyZ.Net
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00006217

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemenrt
    It`s a good finish to what should not have happened. Just a 
bunch of states turning into ambulance chasers. It does show the 
power that (thank goodness he is gone) Mr. Clinton had.
    HLW



MTC-00006218

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Will you please move on with this_Microsoft has done more 
good than harm. I am tired of you wasting tax money for the other 
whiny companies that won`t use their money to take Microsoft to 
court.
    Finish this already and let Microsoft provide the public with 
the software they need!
    Sue Argumedo
    Tucson Arizona



MTC-00006219

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I`ve been following this case since it started several years 
ago. Now that it is nearing the end, I`m all in favor of settling 
the matter as presently proposed. It`s past time to move ahead 
instead of clogging up the progress of innovation and imagination in 
the arena of developing software. The few should abide by the wishes 
of the many!
    Most Sincerely,
    George B Moore
    3350 1st Ave No Ste 117
    St Petersburg FL 33713



MTC-00006220

From: virginia ladda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that everything that can be done to expediate the 
settlement with microsoft should be done. It is my belief and the 
belief of several friends that the problems with microsoft is doing 
nothing but hurting the technology sector and therefore the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Napier Ladda



MTC-00006221

From: Anderson, Ken
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My company is a long time software developer and user. We wrote 
and sold our first programs in 1981 under the company name of 
Tecnomics. Initially they were written in TRS-DOS for Radio 
Shack hardware. Later we spent many of thousands to rewrite it using 
Pascal which was supposed to have been a universal language. We 
finally wrote it for MS DOS which was a standard for a good long 
period and saved us from having to constantly rewrite our programs. 
I was delighted that this happened and have been very happy with 
Microsoft`s efforts to provide a standard by being the biggest and 
the best. I think having a standard develop in this way rather than 
by government decree is best.
    I would like for Microsoft to continue to be able to strive to 
be the biggest and the best. That is what all of us in business try 
to do. I do not think they should be punished for this. I understand 
the concern about monopoly but I don`t think the situation in the 
volatile software business is anything at all like the conditions 
that existing when the law was written.
    I think they are being punished for being successful and because 
some states see them as a big source of funds. I really don`t think 
anyone can show damages. In fact, I could personally show you some 
advantages that have accrued to my company from the

[[Page 24795]]

constant improvement in functionality that MS has brought about. We 
continually strive for improved efficiency and most MS programs have 
helped us do this. I would be glad to testify to this point.
    Ken Anderson, President
    Anderson & Associates, Inc.
    100 Ardmore St.
    Blacksburg, VA 24060
    [email protected]
    http://www.andassoc.com



MTC-00006222

From: Jerry Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please accept the current settlement and let everyone get on 
with their work. Microsoft should be left alone.
    Regards,
    Jerry D. Howard



MTC-00006223

From: Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft suit should be settled quickly and 
with terms favorable to Microsoft. With out the technology that they 
have provided the PC would not be where it is today. They did not, 
in my opinion, act as a monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Gilmore



MTC-00006224

From: Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time to settle in favor of Microsoft for all the wonderful 
and innovative techniques developed that have moved our nation and 
the world forward. They (Microsoft) deserves our thanks and 
appreciation for their contribution towards the advancement of 
mankind. One of their competitors (Netscape) has openly criticized 
Microsoft while they themselves were guilty of infringing on 
Microsoft`s browser. Please allow Microsoft to proceed with their 
innovation in our free and competitive market.



MTC-00006225

From: Don Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a word to weigh in with my view of the MS settlement. I am 
surprised that MS was willing to pay anything. I suggest USDOJ and 
the states take the offer and run. It is not good that we project 
the impression that we punish success in this country. We have the 
premier technology company in the world whose accomplishments and 
contributions to the tech leadership of the US is unquestioned, and 
what do we do. . . it would appear that we wanted to 
destroy it!!!!



MTC-00006226

From: J (038) S Pinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please settle the Microsoft harassment. I believe the whole 
thing came about because of some jealous competitors_let them 
go out & compete. Competition is the American way, it`s healthy. 
What a bunch of cry babies!
    Sincerely,
    Shelah Pinson
    [email protected]
    Anza, CA 92539



MTC-00006227

From: James Prevallet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties involved. 
As a consumer, I agree that settlement is good for me, the industry 
and the American economy. Please don`t lot special interest groups 
defeat the public interest.
    Best of,
    James Prevallet
    http://www.mp3.cm/JamesPrevallet



MTC-00006228

From: Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Lawsuit
    In my opinion this very costly litigation, for not only 
Microsoft, but for we the taxpayers of this country appears to be 
almost a vendetta. When one considers the huge impact Microsoft has 
made on the economic development of this country, the thousands and 
thousands of jobs (and most are high paying jobs) this company has 
created, it makes me wish there were more entrepreneurs like Mr. 
Gates to establish even larger and more successful enterprises in 
this country. It seems envy and jealousy over Mr. Gates` success is 
in large part responsible for the millions being spent on 
litigation. In my opinion, the Government should just plain 
`lay off'!!!!!!!



MTC-00006229

From: Tom Wolf (Adelphia)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ:
    You need to settle your differences with Microsoft, and the 
settlement, which we were led to believe was made, should be 
ratified. We users need to have Microsoft get on with giving us 
innovative new programs and services. There`s plenty of competition 
out there. I use Netscape as well as Explorer; I use Word Perfect 
even though I have Word. Your drawn-out litigation and your many 
delays have cost us taxpayers millions, Microsoft stockholders 
billions, and users inconvenience and delay in receiving new product 
from Microsoft. Get on with it!
    Thomas P. Wolf
    33 Spring Trail
    Fairfield, PA 17320



MTC-00006230

From: Scottie Gound
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Get off Microsoft`s back. We computer users want, need Microsoft 
and her products. We have a decent settlement now. Enough is enough. 
Drop this lawsuit and tell the states and the money hunting 
cooperations to leave it be.
    A Windows XP user
    Scottie Gound



MTC-00006231

From: Hi There
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:09pm
Subject: Settle!
    This matter should have been resolved a long time ago! Too much 
money has been wasted paying attorneys congress-folks, etc. to 
prolong this matter when in the long run I don`t see a more fair 
settlement to all parties!



MTC-00006232

From: Liz Gjersee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This lawsuit needs to end. I am not even a shareholder of this 
company but to continue to drag this thing out is ridiculous. The 
courts have ruled and the states should abide by the settlement. My 
guess the main reason for the nine states not to settle is to 
protect business interests in their own states.
    Thanks,
    Brian Gjersee,
    Arlington WA 98223



MTC-00006233

From: Madelyne Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm
    Settle the case. The economy was hurt when the government began 
to interfere with Microsoft.
    M. Duncan



MTC-00006234

From: Joyce Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Settlement agreed to by the Federal government is fair to 
all, including the public.
    Joyce Smith,
    Citizen



MTC-00006235

From: hugh gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We have followed this folly far too long, everyone in our 
retired group agrees.!!! Microsoft should be set free to innovate 
and bring new products to the market.!!! this country owes a great 
deal to mr. gates and microsoft for moving us from the stone 
age.. . .ï¿½1Athe small minded few, with a political 
agenda I suspect, are holding up progress, the cost to us, the 
american tax payer, is huge. the cost to our nation in tax revenue, 
both foreign and domestic is huge. I see others, like AOL-time 
warner, getting away with far worse, however they are politically 
correct and therefore above the law, apparently.

[[Page 24796]]

    thank-you,
    H. Gardner,
    4917 n. vista drive
    bonneylake, wa 98390
    [email protected]



MTC-00006236

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. I feel that the 
government was wrong in indicting Microsoft in the first place. It 
was just a vendetta against big business by the Clinton 
administration. Microsoft never hurt anyone. Most computer users 
want it on their computers. I know I do!! What hurt the public was 
the Justice Depts` indictment of Microsoft which caused the stock 
price to drop, costing the consumer BILLIONS of dollars. This also 
helped to start the stock market`s downfall, costing the consumer 
TRILLIONS of dollars.
    Now tell me, who hurt who!! Let`s get behind our great 
corporations, & support them, rather than trying to legislate 
their destruction. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
    Jack Hovis



MTC-00006237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This issue has gone on long enough. The settlement needs to be 
implemented with haste and get moving. Microsoft has not necessarily 
been perfect but this has gone on as a vendetta by Microsoft`s 
competitors as a way to bite the hand that has fed them. Microsoft 
has been instrumental in the development of the computer industry. 
Good for consumers and good for industry. In a free enterprise 
environment each company has the same opportunity to develop 
products. Obviously, the first to market have an edge over later 
entries. While Apple was squabbling amongst themselves Microsoft 
continued to produce a product which has become a standard.
    Over half of the original states have settled. The rest need to 
as well. What happens if all the remaining, except one, settle. Does 
this continue? Let`s move along.
    Sam Weirbach



MTC-00006238

From: Gil Roundy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:06pm
Subject: Settlement
    It is in the public interest to get this behind us pleawse 
approve the agreement and let us get going again
    Gil & Shurlene Roundy



MTC-00006239

From: doug bergenske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs,
    I think that this settlement should be adopted and be the last 
of the Gov. harassment of Microsoft!!
    Doug Bergenske



MTC-00006240

From: John Chamness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm
Subject: Settlement
    As consumers and user of various software products we fel the 
settlement offer between the U.S. Government and Microsoft is fair 
to all parties involved, especially the consumer. Please finalize 
the settlement.
    John and Dawn Chamness



MTC-00006241

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Dear USDOJ,
    It`s time to focus on matters of greater importance to all 
Americans. Settle the Microsoft matter, please, so we can all 
`get on with getting on'. The prosecution of Microsoft, 
in my opinion, was a politically motivated matter, and not one that 
benefited any one, including consumers. Say what you will, but 
Microsoft has done more to facilitate positive economic and 
communicative momentum in the world than any of it`s competitors. 
That Microsoft was able to be creative and build market share should 
be commended, not condemned.
    Settle the blasted suit!
    Donna Coen
    559 Old Squaw Pass Road
    Evergreen, CO 80439



MTC-00006242

From: Jon Honhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm
Subject: DO nothing
    Leave MS alone, they have done nothing wrong, should really look 
into AOL, Oracle, and Sun.
    Jon



MTC-00006243

From: Clayton Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Settlement should be affirmed. I think the 
litigation should be terminated. I think it is time for both DOJ and 
Microsoft to move on with their other respective business 
requirements.



MTC-00006244

From: James Rhoads
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my considered judgment that a very few individuals, 
companies and/or states, for personal gain, are trying to remove 
Microsoft from the software field by arguing against the settlement 
of the governments law suit. Because of this fact and others I 
strongly support the settlement of this matter without delay.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my opinion 
regarding this matter.
    Sincerely,
    James Rhoads
    Oldham County Road Y
    Box 42
    Channing, Texas 79018
    (806) 534-2398



MTC-00006245

From: Larry Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    The proposed settlement is more than fair to the plaintiffs. The 
settlement should stand as is. I am a user, reseller, and educator 
and can honestly state I have never seen any of the abuses cited by 
competitors. I do not feel their voice (despite many thousands in 
campaign cash) should have any stronger input than mine. I believe 
this settlement is fair to all parties involved, and needs to be 
finished. The sooner the better.
    Larry Thompson



MTC-00006246

From: Andy Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I just wanted to send a quick note to share my views on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I believe that the settlement is fair to the consumers. They 
will have more choice in how their operating systems are configured, 
and the OEMs will be on equal footing when it comes to getting the 
best prices on Windows licenses from Microsoft.
    It is my belief that the remaining states are simply opposing 
the deal because a) they want to drag this out and continue to try 
to put Microsoft in a bad light, and b) they want to help 
Microsoft`s competitors. As I understand them, the antitrust laws 
are not here to protect your competitors, they are here to protect 
the consumers. Most consumers do not care if Microsoft has 8 
different versions of Windows, they just want one, and they want it 
to have a lot of good features in it. The settlement will ensure 
that there will be more versions available for those who do care. It 
is time to end this case and let the high tech industry get back to 
business. I implore you to accept this settlement for the good of 
the consumers as well as the good of the high tech industry.
    Thank you,
    Andy Howe



MTC-00006247

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIRS/M`S:
    I URGE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED 
MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. THE SETTLEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF 
CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE SUCH AS ME. I RECENTLY PURCHASED A NEW 
DESKTOP COMPUTER AND IT CAME WITH MICROSOFT XP. MICROSOFT PRODUCTS 
ARE USER FRIENDLY AND ARE REASONABLY PRICED. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR 
TO BE ANY ADVANTAGE EXCEPT TO POSSIBLY MICROSOFTS COMPETITORS TO 
DERAIL THE

[[Page 24797]]

SETTLEMENT. HAVEN`T THE TRIAL LAWYERS MADE ENOUGH???
    VERY TRULY YOURS
    A. ANDREW TIGNANELLI
    ATTORNEY AT LAW
    131 SURREY LANE
    HARLEYSVILLE, PA 19438



MTC-00006248

From: Earl Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the battle against Microsoft has been carried much to 
far for too long. I think an immediate settlement is in the best 
interests of the country.
    Sincerely,
    Earl Johnston



MTC-00006249

From: Javier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:12pm
Subject: Free commerce
    My opinion about the Microsoft case:
    I believe that Microsoft should be left alone. Microsoft happens 
to be a Company with lots of ideas for the consumer to use, so what 
if they are bigger than others , let them do business other 
companies do their own little things to have a larger market share, 
so MS does to just in a larger scale they are committed to do better 
and better. Bottom line the consumer wins. So what if Bill Gates is 
the richest man, somebody is going to be and what the DOJ is going 
to sued him or her because is doing good? This is what USA is about, 
FREE ENTERPRISE.
    From a citizen of the USA
    Javier Arana.



MTC-00006250

From: Mark Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm
Subject: Settlement
    The microsoft settlement as currently defined is adequate. 
Please turn all efforts, energies and resources used in pursuing 
Microsoft to the War on Terrorism.



MTC-00006251

From: Alvina A. Ballinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I have from day one, believed that this is an unjust action by 
the Department of Justice in pursuing Microsoft. I believe Janet 
Reno did irreparable harm to the company and to the stock holders 
over a trumped up suit. I also believe if Bill Gates would have 
contributed heavily to the DNC it wouldn`t happened!
    I respectfully add my voices to those who have asked you to drop 
the government suit against Microsoft.
    You`re are doing a great job in your office, keep it up!
    Alvina A. Ballinger
    Bremerton, WA



MTC-00006252

From: Robert Einhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please drop any and all litigation against the Microsoft 
Corporation. It only serves to further drag the already slow economy 
and the charges are baseless to begin with. We live in a free 
economy and the government should not interfere in business unless a 
clear monopoly is apparent, which is not the case in this instance.
    Thank You,
    Robert Einhorn
    1546 Willow Lane
    Crete, IL 60417



MTC-00006253

From: Brad Rush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get it over with. Settle! The suit never should have been filed. 
Let it go. Get back to governing_let free enterprise get back 
to growing.
    Thanks.
    Brad Rush



MTC-00006254

From: Andrew Chadick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft and DOJ
    This is a post I placed on the MSNBC website and my feelings on 
the issue haven`t changed. Please read through the full post. Note, 
there are responses to my post included.
    Subject:From:Host:Date:
    Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)
    Andrew Chadick
    ip85.c207.blkl.bel.nwlink.com
    Wed Nov 10 13:32:28
    Microsoft entered the market place as a company with a desire to 
grow and be number one. This much has never been in question. 
Microsoft developed a piece of software that allows other programs 
to run with in the same program. This again has never been in 
question. Who owns the OS? The company that wrote it? The American 
People? Our Government? Who gets to say what is and can be run on an 
OS? The answer is simple. Microsoft created a program which has been 
purchased by millions of people. The program, whether flawed, 
perfect, or usable, is not even a question to be asked, the only 
thing in play here is ownership. Microsoft owns the rights to the OS 
they wrote. Period. What runs in the software is completely up to 
Microsoft, and if a person does not like that attitude, they should 
purchase something else. No one has forced the Microsoft product to 
become the standard by which all others are measured. And there are 
many options when choosing a platform to run software. Netscape 
created a program. Its compatibility with another program is not 
Microsoft`s concern. Netscape should create their own OS if they are 
not happy running as a parasite on Microsoft`s program. That is what 
`FREE? enterprise is all about! You create something, market 
it, and if it is purchased... GREAT, if not, go back to the drawing 
board and start over. The United States is great because of some 
rudimentary principals, and our justice department needs to revise 
the word `justice' in their title. People choose. That`s 
freedom. Microsoft is a vendor, if no one buys the product they will 
go under just like any other company, if you like the software, buy 
it, and support the company, if not, buy something else and support 
it, and if neither option is to your liking make something of your 
own. End of Story. Microsoft made it to where they are because of a 
simple transaction, people bought the program. Microsoft made the 
product great by making it expandable, making it allow other 
programs to run on it. Microsoft in this way is gracious to those of 
us who program and create programs, and in general, we are grateful 
to be supported by this company. If we don`t like it, we can go else 
where. I speak for myself when I say this, but I know there are many 
that believe as I do.
    Message thread: u Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_Andrew 
Chadick Wed Nov 10 13:32:28 u Amen. Count me in. Microsoft earned 
#1._Don`t like it? Build something better! Wed Nov 10 
13:55:41 u Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_MICORSOFT SUPORTER 
Wed Nov 10 14:04:13 u Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_Vinny 
Tafuro Wed Nov 10 17:07:37 subject:From:Host:Date: Amen. Count 
me in. Microsoft earned #1.Don`t like it? Build something 
better! proxy.uoeap.ucsb.eduWed Nov 10 13:55:41
    I too can`t believe the socialist (?) tendencies of the self-
appointed Injustice Department. They are complete airheads regarding 
technology and the American marketplace. The last thing I want to 
see is the federal government determining what kind of operating 
system I can buy. The fact is that all these whiners can strip their 
machines of everything with Microsoft on it, and replace it with 
their darling little `boutique geek' software (Linux, 
etc.). The reason most of us don`t is that we PREFER and WILL PAY 
FOR a well integrated OS/Office Suite/Browser package at the 
REASONABLE PRICES Microsoft charges. In case everyone has forgotten, 
we already had an era where there was an abundance of incompatible 
system software tools. The general public wasn`t buying then and 
they sure as hell wouldn`t buy it now! So lay off of Microsoft. I 
LOVE what they have done for the average Joe. On Wed Nov 10 
13:32:28, Andrew Chadick wrote:
    Microsoft entered the market place as a company with a desire to 
grow and be number one. This much has never been in question. 
Microsoft developed a piece of software that allows other programs 
to run with in the same program. This again has never been in 
question. Who owns the OS? The company that wrote it? The American 
People? Our Government? Who gets to say what is and can be run on an 
OS? The answer is simple. Microsoft created a program which has been 
purchased by millions of people. The program, whether flawed, 
perfect, or usable, is not even a question to be asked, the only 
thing in play here is ownership. Microsoft owns the rights to the OS 
they wrote. Period. What runs in the software is completely up to 
Microsoft, and if a person does not like that attitude, they should 
purchase something else. No one has forced

[[Page 24798]]

the Microsoft product to become the standard by which all others are 
measured. And there are many options when choosing a platform to run 
software. Netscape created a program. Its compatibility with another 
program is not Mic roSoft`s concern. Netscape should create their 
own OS if they are not happy running as a parasite on Microsoft`s 
program. That is what `FREE'enterprise is all about! You 
create something, market it, and if it is purchased... GREAT, if 
not, go back to the drawing board and start over. The United States 
is great because of some rudimentary principals, and our justice 
department needs to revise the word `justice' in their 
title. People choose. That`s freedom. Microsoft is a vendor, if no 
one buys the product they will go under just like any other company, 
if you like the software, buy it, and support the company, if not, 
buy something else and support it, and if neither option is to your 
liking make something of your own. End of Story. Microsoft made it 
to where they are because of a simple transaction, people bought the 
program. Microsoft made the product great by making expandable, 
making it allow other programs to run on it. Microsoft in this way 
is gracious to those of us who program and create programs, and in 
general, we are grateful to be supported by this company. If we 
don`t like it, we can go else where. I speak for myself when I say 
this, but I know there are many that believe as I do.
    Message thread: u Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_Andrew 
Chadick Wed Nov 10 13:32:28 u Amen. Count me in. Microsoft earned 
#1. Don`t like it? Build something better! Wed Nov 10 13:55:41 u 
Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_MICORSOFT SUPORTER Wed Nov 10 
14:04:13 u Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_Vinny Tafuro Wed Nov 
10 17:07:37 Subject:From:Host:Date: Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! 
(NOT)Vinny Tafuro 242836hfc121.tampabay.rr.comWed Nov 10 17:07:37
    Microsoft made the product great by making expandable, making it 
allow other programs to run on it. Microsoft in this way is gracious 
to those of us who program and create programs, and in general, we 
are grateful to be supported by this company. If we don`t like it, 
we can go else where. I speak for myself when I say this, but I know 
there are many that believe as I do. There are many others like you 
out there. I for one was an avid Netscape user until 1996. The year 
that Microsoft & Netscape released their newest and finest 
browsers. I remember this like it was yesterday and it is the 
biggest reason I am a Microsoft supporter. In a 2 day period (at 
that time I was still using a modem) I downloaded Netscape 
Communicator 4.0 and Internet explorer 4.0, in that order. The first 
night was Netscape (my favorite browser at the time). It was great 
(new features etc) . The next night I downloaded IE 4.0 and rebooted 
my PC .... I haven`t used Netscape for my own pleasure since! Now 
for those who think I haven`t looked back, you are wrong, I am a web 
developer and am constantly using Netscape to make sure my pages 
look right in both browsers. I even have the latest version, and the 
truth is that Netscape has not added anything new since 96, 
Microsoft is the company that has pushed with all their effort to 
better their browser not Netscape.Netscape has watched their market 
share drop from their own lack of a innovation, not because 
Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft has plenty to worry about when it 
comes to competition and have this lawsuit over them is detrimental 
to all of the other companies that think this will help them. 
Competition is very alive .... What if Adobe sat back and stopped 
innovating after creating PhotoShop 3.0? Microsoft today would be 
the leader there too (this is just an example). But Adobe hasn`t 
.... Microsoft and Adobe both have graphics suits yet everyone knows 
that Adobe`s is the preferred program (even myself). This is only 
because Adobe INNOVATES, they are adding features to keep ahead of 
the game just like Microsoft. A fundamental problem with the 
situation is the lack of innovation by both Netscape & its 
parent company AOL, now with AOL`s business concept behind Netscape 
we are now seeing problems. AOL I will agree is the absolute BEST 
way to get a beginner on the internet (and that is how they built 
their business), however they have a fundamental problem with their 
model... there is no room to grow! AOL is now paying the price for 
this by losing customers who have learned over time (imagine that) 
that the internet is much more than AOL. AOL`s problem comes from 
that fact that they themselves haven`t given their users a way to 
grow, AOL is AOL is AOL .... weather you are a beginner, novice or 
advanced user, and that is NOT how you keep customers. The other 
companies out there that are backing the Government in this case are 
doing so simply to avoid innovation.
    Message thread: u Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_Andrew 
Chadick Wed Nov 10 13:32:28 u Amen. Count me in. Microsoft earned 
#1._Don`t like it? Build something better! Wed Nov 10 
13:55:41 u Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_MICORSOFT SUPORTER 
Wed Nov 10 14:04:13 u Re: Microsoft Monopoly?! (NOT)_Vinny 
Tafuro Wed Nov 10 17:07:37 Subject:From:Host:Date: Very Good 
ReadingTed lcust5.tnt2.birmingham.al.da.uu.netWed Nov 10 17:34:50
    You should repost this at top every day. Imagine the progress 
that has been lost tring to settle this, and many other wastfull 
`Justice Probes'
    Subject:From:Host:Date: Re: Monopoly?!Meebert 
208.7.142.140Thu Nov 11 08:09:24
    Absolutely right.just because we don`t LIKE Bill Gates, or just 
because Hhis competitors have no chance is not enough reason to 
steal his life`s work out from under him and pass it around like 
yesterday`s bread. If this all happens, Americans are far more 
stupid than I had thought. Why not dig your own grave? You do it to 
MS, next it will happen to you. To you, the simple owner of the 
corner store. If it happens to me, I`m moving to another country 
where at least even though the truth sucks, it`s still the truth. 
Bert
    Subject:From:Host:Date: the whole thing is 
ridiculous.Meebert 208.7.142.140Thu Nov 11 08:04:45
    Take a large company, tear it down and cut it up and give it to 
the vultures of it`s competitors because it has the best product. 
Windows is not bug free, but last I`ve seen, neither is CDE or 
Linux, or Xwindows or Solaris. MS is on top because they made a 
product that was not only easy to use, but functional and backward 
compatible. This is a huge undertaking, and none of their 
competitors even remotely compared. Giving away windows source code 
is unbelieably stupid and unfair. MS spent billions in research, 
over 15 years of work, time and effort to create what we all use. 
and now, because they are a `huge' company, they are 
being punished, all their wok being taken away, by a government that 
just loves to push people around. This whole fight is about Sun and 
Netscape whining about MS putting out a superior product. Netscape 
Navigator was better. But MS has more coders, better coders, and in 
the end, they won. I`m a web developer, I used to love Netscape, 
until I noticed that Netscape could not do half of what IE can do. 
Now I use IE because Netscape cannot function as a viable web 
browser, not to mention it is far far more buggy. This is very 
typical of our current society. If we don`t like what we see, we 
cry, we sue, we whine, and kick our feet like children, and Big 
daddy government will come and save us from the evil money 
makers.This is incentive for anyone out here to know that you better 
not be successful, if you are successful too much, your success will 
be confiscated. Bert
    Subject:From:Host:Date: Is MS a Monopoly? Yes, but...Roy 
Wells pixsv159.isi.comThu Nov 11 08:48:28
    Microsoft holds monopoly power. However, how has the company 
used it? Because of DOS, then Windows, computers are cheaper, 
software is cheaper and alternatives in hardware and applications 
are all cheaper. So who has the Microsoft Monopoly hurt? Netscape? 
Last I checked, the reason Netscape is not doing so well is that MS 
had a superior product that was cheaper (free) so Netscape went to 
the courts.Who else? Novell? So Novell went to Sen. Hatch. SO, let`s 
break up Microsoft. Computers can then increase in price, the loss 
of a standard OS will mean fewer option available under applications 
(since not everyone will want to port their applications to all the 
different OS platforms) and hardware (same problem) and so. Breaking 
up the Monopoly will success_at a cost to the user.
    Message thread: u Is MS a Monopoly? Yes, but..._Roy Wells 
Thu Nov 11 08:48:28 Subject:From:Host:Date: True AmericanTed 
exch.paragon-eng.netThu Nov 11 09:05:13
    So many times when I here how the `Justice' dept. is 
mistreating a true American that climbed up from just a suitcase 
.... I would tell them were to get off, shut down and move out. The 
`Justice' dept. is killing the `American 
Spirit'
    Subject:
    From:Host:
    Date: Re: Monopoly?!User 12.24.246.81Thu Nov 11 09:05:39
    If this all happens, Americans are far more stupid than I had 
thought. Well, it`s not really Joe Q. Public that`s prosecuting 
Microsoft. It`s a combination or blood-thirsty lawyers and a 
government that decided it`s

[[Page 24799]]

time to push their weight around again. That`s not to say there 
aren`t a lot of people that are leeching onto the anti-MS bandwagon. 
These people are:1) Cronic whiners and complainersand/or2) Lemings
    Message thread: u Monopoly?!_Andrew Chadick Thu Nov 11 
08:04:28 Re: Monopoly?!_Meebert Thu Nov 11 08:09:24 u True 
American_Ted Thu Nov 11 09:05:13 u Re: Monopoly?!_User 
Thu Nov 11 09:05:39



MTC-00006255

From: Wachs, James S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I FULLY AND COMPLETELY SUPPORT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MICROSOFT. TOO PROLONG THIS CONTROVERSY MAY 
BENEFIT CERTAIN SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, BUT IT WILL NOT HELP A 
SAGGING ECONOMY, THE STOCK MARKET DOWNTURN, OR, THE PUBLIC IN 
GENERAL.
    JAMES S. WACHS, ESQ.
    NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail 
transmission is intended by Frost Brown Todd LLC for the use of the 
named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain 
information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not 
intended for transmission to, or receipt by, anyone other than the 
named addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named 
addressee). It should not be copied or forwarded to any unauthorized 
persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in 
error, please delete it from your system without copying or 
forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email or 
by calling Frost Brown Todd LLC at (513) 651-6800 (collect), 
so that our address record can be corrected.



MTC-00006256

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ back off. Technology is global, moves rapidly and chances of 
the DOJ ability to make a timely decision with full indication of 
future ramifications are as likely as catching sunlight in a bottle.
    1. Your IBM decision was ill-advised and unforseen results.
    2. Your ATT decision led to unforseen results. The global market 
will reward the quickest and the fastest. If Microsoft gets too rich 
or too monopolistic, it will not remain that way for long. The 
global technology market will crush a fat microsoft faster than the 
DOJ can.



MTC-00006257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I support the microsoft settlement. I feel it is reasonable and 
fair to all involved and also in the best interest of the public.
    Kathleen Huey
    Spring Mills, PA



MTC-00006258

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement.
    I agree that Microsoft`s terms of the settlement reached with 
certain states should be accepted by all the others as well. States 
that continue to hold out and want further litigation are holding 
back innovation and depriving the public of needed new products . 
Eventually the consumer pays for the protracted litigation.
    Microsoft has accepted a fair settlement that rectifies the 
alleged wrongs and should now be free to pursue innovative new 
product introductions.
    Hatim Carim



MTC-00006259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please exercise good judgement and release Microsoft from all 
pending law suits. Our country is stronger because of their 
innovative efforts. You should not have been involved. Please 
investigate the money trail of the politicians/lawyers who were 
advocates of the lawsuit to expose their true motives!
    Michael Jay Borza



MTC-00006260

From: AJ Chwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft`s Settlement
    As one who is involved in the computer industry, I feel that the 
Microsoft Proposed Settlement serves only Microsoft`s goals and 
gains. To have Microsoft give free software to schools, etc. 
entrenches their poorly designed software further into the fabric of 
our systems. Simply put, the proposed settlement fixes nothing and 
it gives Microsoft a better footing in the industry, while hurting 
all of their competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Chwick, CFO
    TCM Integrated Systems, Inc.
    365 S Bayview Avenue, Suite # 202
    Freeport, NY 11520-5316
    (516)-868-7820



MTC-00006261

From: Mark Orzech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft Corp
    Please continue forward with the current settlement that has 
been negotiated with the Microsoft Corporation! These proceedings 
have already wasted vast amounts of public funds and caused 
considerable damage to the nation`s economy, especially the 
technology sector, by excessively restricting a great company`s 
freedom to sell its own products. I urge you to stop catering to 
Microsoft`s weaker competitors, who have misused government power to 
drag down their stronger rival rather than improving the quality and 
marketing of their own products.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Mark Orzech
    739 Henson Court
    Marina, CA 93933



MTC-00006262

From: Alina G. Silvestre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    US DOJ,
    We support the proposed settlement to the above case and 
encourage the close of this case as quickly as you deem possible. 
Microsoft is good for us, the consumers, who want ease of use and 
access to tecknology to use in our every day lives. It is good for 
the USA and for jobs.
    Please do not delay and put an end to the embarassing government 
interference over the last few years.
    Thank you
    Alina & Raul Silvestre
    Wesrlake Village, Ca.



MTC-00006263

From: Stuart Brace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Justice Department
    The time to settle is now. When the Justice Department spent 
more to persecute Microsoft than it did to stop terrorism under 
eight years of Bill Clinton you can see what happened on 9/11/2001. 
The waste of tax payer money must come to an end. Supply our 
soldiers with money for better equipment not feed federal judges ego 
with more days in court. Settle now!
    Stuart Brace
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006264

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow the special interests of a few wealthy 
competitors derail the Microsoft settlement any longer. This is not 
in the best interest of the Public who owe a great deal to Microsoft 
and the many innovations it has brought to our society.



MTC-00006265

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    Please don`t let the special interests defeat the public 
interest in concluding the Microsoft case. The settlement is fair, 
just and equitable and will serve the United States in the very best 
way providing for the needs of both parties. I fully support the 
settlement and pray the Judge will proceed to finalize the case 
based on the settlement terms Microsoft and the Federal Government 
have agreed to. Any other finding may well jeopardize the stock 
market and cause further harm to the investing public for no added 
gain for anyone. It would seem that our Country has suffered enough 
without any further negative action against Microsoft.
    I again plead that the settlement be finalized as earlier agreed 
to by the Government and Microsoft.

[[Page 24800]]

    Thank you for considering my view and position on this critical 
matter.
    Very Sincerely,
    Paul F. Barth, PE
    2505 Townhill Dr.
    Troy, MI 48084
    248-644-1411
    [email protected]



MTC-00006266

From: John Nez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Case / Investigate the Macintosh consumer 
injustice
John Nez
5209 36th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105
[email protected]
re: Microsoft Case / Investigate Macintosh consumer injustice
    Dear Sirs,
    Concerning the ongoing Microsoft case... I1d like to add an 
insight of my own which I have yet to find voiced anywhere else in 
this long painful case.
    I am dependent on using a Macintosh computer system with a 
Macintosh OS for my work. I am more or less forced to use this 
platform by the fact that the majority of the graphic arts 
publishing profession uses the Macintosh platform, of which I am a 
member.
    Without getting too technical, I must point out to you that the 
Macintosh OS one has no included utilities to run disk defragging, 
disk cleaning, disk maintenance and disk reconfigurement.
    Please note that without these extra disk utilities, my 
Macintosh OS and computer would soon become INOPERABLE! I, as a 
consumer, am forced to spend another $90 to purchase the Norton Disk 
Utility... just to keep the Macintosh OS working. Otherwise it would 
be permanently inoperable!
    The Microsoft Windows operating systems all come with these 
crucial utilities included at NO EXTRA COST! In reality, the 
Macintosh OS in fact costs the consumer almost twice what the 
Microsoft OS costs! Also, the Macintosh computer itself is more than 
twice the cost of equivalent windows based hardware.
    So you tell me which company is harming the consumer! Why not 
launch an investigation into the true harm which I am forced to pay 
by using a Macintosh system!
    Microsoft should be thanked for inventing America1s computer 
revolution which has changed the world and given our economy a new 
vision for the next century.
    I suppose that the government feels compelled to reward 
companies that fail, like Chrysler with billions in bailouts... but 
punishes hard work, innovation and success in the case of Microsoft! 
Get real!
    Best,
    John Nez



MTC-00006267

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    This settlement is in the public interest. Pleas approve it! 
Don`t let a few special interests use this review period to derail 
the settlement and prolong this litigation even in the midst of 
uncertain economic times. The last thing the American economy needs 
is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and 
stifles innovation.
    Regards,
    Jeremiah B Spires
    1105 Voight St
    Houston, TX 77009



MTC-00006268

From: beverly wakeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Settlement:
    It is time the Government and the nine states stop the nonsense 
and settle. THIS COUNTRY HAS THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE Only 
competitors are delaying the settlement.



MTC-00006269

From: Robert B. Ardis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer who has used Microsoft software products for at 
least the last ten years, I have no problem with the anti-trust 
settlement. When I have used Microsoft products, I have used them 
because they served my needs better than anything offered by 
Microsoft competitors and I have never found Microsoft`s retail 
prices to be anything other than fair. What business state attorney 
generals have attempting to pursue this litigation further 
completely escapes me. Certainly they are not doing so in response 
to any demands received from members of the consuming public.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert B. Ardis
    25 Young Court
    Chester, NJ 07930
    [email protected]



MTC-00006270

From: michael govern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm
    Why did the States pay ( taxpayers money) a witness $500,000 to 
testify against Microsoft?



MTC-00006271

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an MS stockholder & user, must agree with the dissenting 
States that the penalties are inadequate in relationship to 
Microsoft`s past practices. Why the company was not split between 
Operating System (DOS/Windows) software & User Productivity 
(Word, Excel, etc. ) software is incomprehsible to me. In the 
absence of corrective action on that magnitude, suggest the penalty 
include:
    1) explicit ban on `exclusivity' as OpSys provided 
by hardware vendors
    2) release of new OpSys specs to outside/3rd-party software 
suppliers & `in-house'
    User Productivity @ the same time
    3) cash penalties (no `software/hardware donations') 
to be used by school districts to expand computer facilities MS 
tries to characterize its past practices as the natural cocomitant 
of `innovation'. Except for a few pioneers, all software 
developers have been innovative & derivative & MS is no 
exception. NOT all software developers went to restrictive MARKETING 
techniques to accomplish their goals. MS has been a major 
contributor to the realm of personal computing. Certainly no penalty 
should jeopardize the basic ability of MS to continue that 
contribution. Alternately, they should not be let off lightly for 
past transgressions, nor be allowed to finesse a penalty with their 
plan to `seed' computers to school districts.
    Thanks for allowing an opportunity to contribute on this issue.
    Carl E. Gallagher
    35 Galilee Lane #4
    San Francisco, CA 94115
    415/567-7978
    [email protected]



MTC-00006272

From: John Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Department of Justice: I favor the Microsoft settlement proposed 
by the DOJ. John L. Cook Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile 
device: Click Here



MTC-00006273

From: James E. Hinsch Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice Department has done a terrible thing in bringing 
suit against Microsoft. This never served the public interest 
(certainly not mine). The current settlement is unfair to Microsoft. 
They have already had to pay heavy legal fees. Let business conduct 
business and let consumers vote with their wallets.



MTC-00006274

From: Ziad Elias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough litigation. Support the proposed settlement. Microsoft 
competitors are trying to take unfair advantage.



MTC-00006275

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm
Subject: (no subject)
    As a US citizen I feel that the settlement with Microsoft I a 
good and honorable thing for all parties concerned. Its time that we 
put all this to rest and go on with our business. Those few that 
want to challenge the settlement are just looking for more ways to 
line their pockets and do not have the best interest of the citizens 
in mind. Lets get it done and put to rest, Microsolf has done alot 
for all of us and I think that they need to be recognized and given 
a chance to continue with their excellant work.
    John Shatto
    13526 68th Dr SE
    Snohomish, Wa. 98296

[[Page 24801]]



MTC-00006276

From: Scott Payne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I think this much publicized case has been an extreme waste of 
taxpayers` money and should end as soon as possible (years ago).
    Noone even remembers why Jim Barksdale felt compelled to drag 
the government into an attack on Microsoft`s ability to develop 
integrated products that consumers typically prefer.
    Most consumers never had (or will ever have) an interest in 
installing and connecting different pieces of software together onto 
their PCs. This is a ridiculous approach to ensuring products work 
seemlessly_relying on the consumer to become a software 
integration product specialist.
    People are not expected to buy cars with separate parts they can 
put together themselves to ensure they get the best price on every 
component. They simply buy a car with an engine, air conditioning, 
radio, computer(s), etc that all work together. In the event 
something breaks, they take the car to one location to have it 
repaired. The same holds true for PCs and software.
    Consumers like to know they can obtain support from a single 
source, versus having some `hobbiest' tell them they 
need to download a patch off the Internet to resolve a software 
compatibility problem or bug. Most PC users don`t know or care how 
to fix software problems_just make it work together!
    Bottom line... Let Microsoft integrate all my software needs 
into a single source solution. I can assure you there are millions 
of PC and Internet users out there who really have no desire to 
become Linux gurus or web developers... They simply want to e-mail 
friends and send videos of the kids to relatives...
    Regards,
    Scott Payne
    Germantown, TN



MTC-00006277

From: David Lake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should stand as negotiated, and Justice should do 
everything possible to force the other nine recalcitrant states to 
also accept it. The point has been made; Microsoft will make amends, 
and will not repeat the behavior that led to the lawsuit. Neither 
the public nor the whiney competitors have been harmed, other than 
by their own inability to innovate and prosper. Microsoft offers a 
good product at a reasonable price.
    David Lake



MTC-00006278

From: Dale Stoughton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm
    Settle the Microsoft problem and lets get along with business.
    Dale Stoughton
    Wake Forest, NC



MTC-00006279

From: Iris Berman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    I feel that this is a just settlement and would like to see it 
done.
    [email protected]



MTC-00006280

From: Marcus P. Hogue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    DOJ:
    As a citizen of many years now (76) including 4 of my youth 
growing up in battlefield conditions (17 to 21) as a sailor almost 
around the world twice, I thought this question had been recently 
resolved. As a tax payer, I see it as a battle to punish the winner 
by the unhappy losers with little benefit to the taxpayers.
    When we shot at the enemy with our best aim and 16' 
explosive projectiles and missed, it did not mean we had done 
enough. Let it go.
    M. P. Hogue



MTC-00006281

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is the time for the DOJ to implement the fair and just 
aggreement negotiated with the parties. Act now.
    Tim O`Connor



MTC-00006282

From: Bob Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I am completely in favor of the settlement reached with 
Microsoft. I believe that this Microsoft settlement is in the public 
interest. I do not support further litigation on the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. STOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Longariello
    Taxpayer and Citizen
    Laguna Niguel, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00006283

From: Bruce W Worthel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:23am
Subject: The Microsoft Monoply
    To Whom It May Concern
    I must protest your you action in regards to the 
`Guilty' verdict handed down to Microsoft.
    It seems that your view of guilty means that Microsoft gets 
government help to increase their monopoly, not losen it. What 
gives? Worse than doing nothing in regards of their business habits, 
you have actually gone out of your way to injure the same companies 
that Microsoft was trying to drive out of business.
    You need to adjust your view of right and wrong.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Worthel



MTC-00006284

From: Arthur Sorensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the settlement should focus on the new operating system. 
In particular, does that system effectively cut out competitors such 
as Real Networks. The new MS system includes a default audio and 
video capability that is functionally the same as Real Networks. 
Every time you turn on the computer you get the MS audio system, 
even if you had switched over to Real only yesterday. Enough people 
will take the default to eventually kill Real.
    I like competition, but that`s killer competition.
    Arthur Sorensen
    98 First Avenue
    Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716



MTC-00006285

From: Beverley Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement with Microsoft is as fair as can 
be reached under the circumstances. The competitors just need to 
understand totally what capitalism means. Microsoft should never 
have been in court in the first place. I am not a Microsoft stock 
holder, but I do believe that have helped our nation as much as any 
single corporation can. It`s time to get on with life and forget 
about the suing Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Beverley Nichols-Dawson
    Houston, Texas



MTC-00006286

From: DON SHERRILL
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm
Subject: consider this
    From 1990 to 2000, this country had what many consider it`s 
greatest decade of technological advance. As in my previous e-mail 
to House Rep. Sue Myrick of N.C., one should look at these gains in 
technology and productivity, and realize that Microsoft`s products 
had more to do with this than any other entity (except possibly the 
internet itself, which may or may not be an entity?).
    Please leave this company alone and let the free hand of 
economics take care of the issues of which you are concerned. Given 
time to work under the laws of free trade, Microsoft and Intel will 
eventually be replaced by other dominant companies, just as U.S. 
Steel and Bethlehem Steel, Ford and GM., Exxon and Mobil, IBM and 
Digital Equipment, etc. were replaced in dominance by others, and by 
the developing trends of our global economy.
    Besides, this country needs all the employment taxes, sales 
taxes, property taxes, and income taxes that Microsoft pays. There 
are too many other companies posting losses (no taxes) with poor 
products in bad markets.
    Don Sherrill
    Executive VP
    SteelFab Inc.

[[Page 24802]]



MTC-00006287

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial_Comment
    Microsoft has had a profound effect on our businesses and our 
lives. There are few people who don`t use Microsoft products, and 
for the most part those products are innovative and useful. The 
company is to be commended for the good it has done.
    One of the problems with the industry is that there are 
extremely severe barriers to entry in the largest segment of the 
computer industry, PC`s. Microsoft has taken effective steps toward 
keeping consumers faced with only one choice for PC operating 
system, Windows. One choice-robbing step Microsoft has taken is that 
PC`s are shipped with Windows pre-installed. The pre-installation of 
Windows, while a convenience to the purchaser, has the effect of 
eliminating choice when a consumer purchases a computer. Pre-
installation has also given Microsoft enormous power over the 
computer manufacturers to the effect that the manufacturers do 
almost anything Microsoft wants because if even a well known 
manufacurer, like IBM or Gateway were to ship machines without 
Windows they would be at a competitive disadvantage with consumers 
and distributors. In fact, in 1998 I was attempting to install a 
competitor to windows (OS/2) on a Gateway computer and the 
technicians at Gateway weren`t! even allowed to discuss it with me 
for fear of losing favor with Microsoft!
    Some of the manufacturers now ship server type computers with 
Linux when requested, but that doesn`t remove the barrier to entry 
that pre-installation has created.
    I`d like to see Microsoft required to terminate agreements that 
result in Windows Operating System pre-installed on computers and 
not allowed to enter into new pre-installation agreements. It seems 
to me that if we had to choose the operating system when we buy the 
machine the barrier that exists from pre-installation would go away. 
I suspect that most people would still choose Windows, but there 
would be knowledge of what it costs and alternative operating 
systems would then have a chance. Since it is now pre-installed and 
the price of the computer includes the price for Windows, the 
consumer has no way of knowing how much is being paid for Windows 
and how much for the computer.
    Chuck Landress
    2664 James Road
    Douglasville GA 30135



MTC-00006288

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I would like to have my voice and opinion heard in the Microsoft 
Settlement case.
    I think all that has been settled now is fair. We do not need 
any more litigation in this case, it needs to end now.
    Marleine Dunn.



MTC-00006289

From: Dana Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a web designer with a small business, I call myself part of 
the `public,' and I have only one request of the Justice 
Department: please leave Microsoft alone.
    I find it ironic that the justice Department is investigating 
Microsoft, since, in my opinion, theirs is one of the increasinlgy 
few companies that seems to give a hoot about producing quality 
products for the end user. They could, no doubt, put out sorry 
rotten software and still get it to sell, but they don`t; on the 
contrary, their products are always top notch. Let it be said that 
they do a great job of serving a population with a wide diversity of 
needs.
    I might also mention that Microsoft is the only company whose 
Tech Support has been able to answer any question I have posed in 
the over 30 years I have been in computing. I call that exceptional 
service in the `public interest.'
    Dana L. Beck
    www.becktechwebs.com



MTC-00006290

From: James McHale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I Think the settlement is just and this should end.
    James McHale
    208-05 39th Ave.
    Bayside, NY 1361



MTC-00006291

From: Doug Penny
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    dragging this ridiculous lawsuit on and on is bad for the 
economy and worse for your already tarnished badly tarnished image.
    Settle this mess!
    DC Penny
    Englewood, Ohio



MTC-00006292

From: Sharon Stokes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I personally do not approve of the government interferance with 
microsoft...in my opinion this company has done nothing but inprove 
the lives of consumers worldwide..we have the right to compete in 
this country and be inovative..but with the government stepping into 
the market place and destroying the competion between 
companies...how do we expect to remain world leaders in anything if 
we smother ourselves and don`t incourage companies to compete amoung 
themselves to provide better products how do we expect to remain on 
top and to encourage our gererations comming up to to have the 
desire to be winners....thank you sharon stokes



MTC-00006293

From: Kyle L. Patton
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in the anti-trust case against Microsoft 
should be accepted despite the fact that the lawsuit should have 
never been filed in the firstplace. It is time to move forward. 
Persecuting a business for developing better products than their 
competitors is not a practice the Government should engage in.
    Kyle L. Patton
    Monroe Shine
    502-423-0311
    502-339-7103 Fax



MTC-00006294

From: Stan Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do whatever you can to finalize the DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft. It seems very fair to all parties concerned and we need 
to get on with the business of the nation and drastically reduce the 
continual urge to litigate.
    Sincerely,
    Stanford Smith
    3204 W. Joliet Ct.
    Mequon, WI 53092



MTC-00006295

From: BECK, JOHN
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m writing for the first time to you on this. It is time to 
finalize the proposed settlement and let Microsoft get on with 
business. I remember when a word processing , graphics presentation, 
and spreadsheet software came from three different companies. You 
had to learn each with their own idiosyncrasies. Microsoft put 
everything into one suite and made software easy to use and cheaper 
for the layman.
    Additionally, I am embarrassed that my own government chose to 
penalize a company for being successful. Anti- trust laws are meant 
to protect the consumer, not competitors. What Microsoft gave the 
consumer was more workable and cheaper software than what was 
available. To say that giving a free browser hurt the consumer is 
quite a stretch.
    Settle!
    John F. Beck



MTC-00006296

From: Dorothy A Boothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Our thoughts are shared by EVERYONE we talk to about the 
Microsoft Lawsuit. . It is not right for the Federal Government to 
interfere in any private industry unless it is harmful to the 
consumers. Isn`t it interesting that the consumer is not suing 
Microsoft!! The companies that are suing Microsoft are trying to 
steal their business and the states that are suing Microsoft are 
trying to steal Microsoft`s money, thereby weakening their ability 
to operate. Let`s stop this persecution and let the brains at 
Microsoft get back on track and create new products for the 
consumers at a reasonable price. Quit fogging up their brains with 
lawsuits. All of this has cost them over

[[Page 24803]]

a billion dollars. Isn`t that more than enough??
    A lot of companies in this country are merging, creating 
monopolies: IE - the railroads and nobody seems to care, especially 
the Government! This is not being impartial. Judge Jackson who did 
represent the Government didn`t even have the decency to go through 
these proceedings without name calling.
    For the sake of our economy stop these proceedings now! This 
Microsoft lawsuit tipped the stock market into a recession. Check 
the stock market records. This hurt all of us!!
    RONALD & DOROTHY BOOTHE



MTC-00006297

From: steve(u)silesky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm
Subject: Msft
    This is a good settlement. Let us finish this thing and get the 
economy going again.
    Steve Silesky



MTC-00006298

From: George R Hardesty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow the existing proposed settlement be the final 
settlement. Our Country should be and should have been prosecuting 
real enemies instead of the corporation that has contributed so much 
to our greatness.
    George Hardesty



MTC-00006299

From: Joe (038) Micki Wilder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement is fair to all consumers. There are only a few 
special interest groups(the nine States) that are not looking out 
for all the people in the United States. These nine states have been 
against any proposed settlement only to drag down the economy and 
the good that this administration is trying to accomplish.The delays 
only hold the economy, business and the people down. It is time to 
let this great Microsoft Company lead this nation out of this 
recession and restore trust in our free enterprise system and our 
Justice Dept.
    Sincerely
    Mr. & Mrs. A.J. Wilder of Boca Raton, Florida



MTC-00006300

From: Wilma Edgin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I feel that this settlement should be taken and this put to 
rest. It has been a long drawn out affair trying to put down a 
company that has developed and distributed many helpful aspects of 
the internet world and they shoould be able to continue with this 
without further delays and penalties. Freedom inovate is the 
American way and should not be punished.
    Wilma Edgin



MTC-00006301

From: Gary A. Bartholomew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm
Subject: microsoft problem
    This article from Mr. Mossberg says everything.
    Consumers lose in proposed Justice Department settlement with 
Microsoft Posted on December 31, 2001
    By WALTER S. MOSSBERG
    It has been a terrific year for Microsoft, but average consumers 
of its products haven`t fared so well.
    Microsoft made major progress in its goal of using its Windows 
operating system to push its other products and services at the 
expense of its competitors. Consumers are the losers. software giant 
was under the breakup, having been found judge of violating 
antitrust threw out the breakup order lower-court judge, although 
his findings. The seven unanimously that Microsoft was the antitrust 
laws by into its Windows to freeze out other the court said 
Microsoft Windows in a way that ability of users to companies` 
products it was OK to add features weren`t added mainly to
    When 2001 started, the threat of a court-ordered guilty by a 
federal district laws in multiple ways. In June, an appeals court 
and harshly criticized the it upheld the legal core of appeals 
judges ruled a monopoly that had violated integrating its Web 
browser operating system in an effort browsers.
    Expressed in plain English, shouldn`t be allowed to design 
limits consumer choice_the discover and easily use other and 
services. The court said to Windows, as long as they maintain 
Microsoft`s monopoly.
    company went on to launch Windows XP_that into the 
operating crucial to extending next battleground: it added these 
features
    allows users to easily authenticate their to order prints of 
photos features work only with Internet services, or that pay 
Microsoft for Competing services, better-established or
    more popular integrated into Windows XP in are less likely to 
turn more breathtaking online competition. It Windows XP a feature 
whereby automatically add across the Web, without the These 
Microsoft-imposed Tags, would have led those of its partners. 
feature only after it was sparked a massive right to try again.
    behavior, you`d expect the adversely. Instead, it has antitrust 
case in a way that conduct unfettered.
    Despite this decision, the a new version of Windows continued to 
integrate tightly system new features that are Microsoft`s monopoly 
onto the Internet-based services. And in a way that hinders consumer 
choice. For instance, Windows XP perform instant messaging, to 
identities across the Web and on their hard disks. But these 
Microsoft`s own proprietary services owned by companies inclusion in 
Windows XP. including those than Microsoft`s, aren`t the same smooth 
way, so users to them.
    Microsoft attempted an even attack on consumer choice and tried 
to integrate into the built-in Web browser would links to millions 
of sites permission of the owners. links, called browser Smart users 
to Microsoft`s sites and
    The company dropped the discussed in this column and outcry. But 
it reserved the Given this unrepentant Justice Department to react 
proposed to settle the would leave this sort of October, now pending 
judge, does bar some But much of it pertains with the hapless makers 
of position to defy Microsoft. It except indirectly; it`s 
Microsoft`s competitors or the past, not the future
    It doesn`t touch the
    Windows XP to extend its
    building new features or Windows? Nothing, per se. I who assert 
that feature that other separately. A more useful The problem is the
    Windows XP contains a instant messaging. But that about which 
service a use the America Online the built-in Windows do so, just as 
I can use e-mail program with Instead, Microsoft has wired
    it common in a free one of their products to AOL use its online 
made by its Warner Wall Street Journal run publications and Web
    The settlement reached in before yet another federal offensive 
Microsoft behavior. to the company`s relations PCs, which aren`t in 
any isn`t about consumer choice, more about placating partners. And 
it`s all about battle in Internet services. company`s ability to use 
monopoly to these new areas. What`s wrong with Microsoft gateways to 
services into have never agreed with critics
    Windows shouldn`t contain any companies want to sell Windows is 
good for consumers. way these features are designed. It`s great, for 
example, that built-in interface for doing interface should be 
neutral consumer wants. If I prefer to instant-messaging service 
with interface, I should be able to the built-in browser and non-
Microsoft services. the interface to its own service. So what, some 
might ask? Isn`t market for companies to use cross-promote another? 
Doesn`t service to boost the movies Brothers studios? Doesn`t The 
ads and plugs for its sister
    other companies aren`t and when you`re a different rules, as the
    Justice Department bad for consumers. It isn`t consumer choice. 
It nettlesome case out of shouldn`t try to destroy or require the 
software choice in its dominant Unfortunately, in 2001, that`s not
    Gary A. Bartholomew
    Bartholomew Photography Inc.
    433 E. Golf Road.
    DesPlaines IL. 60016
    Voice 847 635 0799
    Fax 847 824 8473
    sites?
    The difference is that these court-certified monopolies, 
monopoly, you have to follow appeals court said.
    So, in my view, the proposed settlement with Microsoft is about 
preserving or enhancing seems to be about getting the the 
government`s hair.
    Our government and courts run Microsoft. But they should 
monopoly to expand consumer operating system. what happened.



MTC-00006302

From: lee sulander
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24804]]

Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The people have spoken. The nine states and the DOJ have agreed 
to a fair, responsible settlement. Do not let the dissenting states 
ruin a `good' responsible company like Microsoft. They 
are practicing class envy and are looking out for their own selfish 
interests and ignoring the good for everyone decision.
    Yours sincerely,
    L. Sulander



MTC-00006303

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:27pm
Subject: Settlement For Microsoft
    I have been watching the proceedings of continuous litigation 
involving the Microsoft case over the past several years and I now 
believe that settlement is in the best interests of the consumers, 
as well as, the country.
    Debra Masnik,
    Springfield, VA



MTC-00006304

From: Donald Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time that the government stop and settle this ill-
conceived law suit against microsoft. The beneficiaries of Microsoft 
are Microsoft but mostly the computer using public. If companies 
better financed etc, than Microsoft were unable to compete then that 
is their problem NOT Microsofts`.
    In my opinion this hi-tech lawsuit did much to lead to the 
collapse of the hi-tech industry. This effort was conceived on 
political grounds to protect other hi-tech operations from 
competition.
    STOP the lawsuits!!!!! This is only enriching trial attorneys.
    Donald Nelson



MTC-00006305

From: Don Sackman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Department Of Justice:
    It is in the interest of the economy and jobs that this issue be 
settled immediately. Dragging it out with further litigation serves 
only a select few. It is high time that the country and industry get 
back to furthering our future through Technological Development and 
Innovation.
    Don Sackman



MTC-00006306

From: Steve Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    While I am no particular fan of Microsoft and some of the 
techniques they have used, I do not believe that most of their 
actions are illegal. You have successfully focused on a few that are 
and I believe have come up with a fair compromise.
    In my job, that of an independent consultant, I work with 
technology and Microsoft products daily. Competition is good and it 
is there now. Let the market make the bigger adjustments. If 
Microsoft does not clean up their products, and improve their 
service and support, the public will start to move elsewhere. In 
fact, I believe this has already started. This is heart of the free 
market or free enterprise system. Once government gets too involved, 
the economy, the consumer, and everyone starts to pay big time! So 
push this agreement through! It is good and it is fair! And none of 
the rest of it should ever have been a consideration. Because it has 
been, our economy_particularly the technology industry, as 
reflected in the NASDAQ_has already paid enough!!!
    Thanks!
    Steve Parker
    [email protected]



MTC-00006307

From: Donnie Wilemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This entire thing has gotten totally out of control. Too many 
people are trying to make careers out of attacking this fine company 
at every turn. I am sickened by the number of people and competitors 
who choose to abuse the legal system rather than competing in the 
market place.
    Everyone has grown weary of this_no one cares anymore but 
Sun, Oracle, Apple and certain state`s Attorneys General who smell 
another tobacco settlement cash horde (regardless of the true facts 
of the case). Microsoft should not be forced to fund the state`s 
`general fund`, nor should, for instance, Apple`s poor marketing and 
product plans be paid-for with Microsoft`s hard-earned profits.
    Microsoft has made some concessions and very generous offers for 
settlement. Let`s be reasonable_tell the professional 
litigators and unethical competitors to find another company to 
abuse and move on with their lives.
    Enough damage has been done_accept the settlement now.
    Donnie Wilemon
    [email protected]



MTC-00006308

From: pig lut
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm
Subject: re: Microsoft
    i feel you should drop the case and focus on bigger issues: 
world terrorism and internal terrorism.
    many people are out for bill gates and this is a waste of your 
time as well as mine and taxpayer dollars. if gates` competitors 
have a problem with him, let them settle it between themselves, not 
the US settling it for them.
    thank you.
    happy holidays!
    noel



MTC-00006309

From: Howard Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just finish the case with the agreed settlement and let 
Microsoft get back to its prime focus on making great software at 
reasonable prices for the masses.
    As a consumer, I make choices with my wallet and I make them 
carefully. As a consultant in the technology industry I have 
exposure to many operating systems and software applications and 
therefore am very familiar with the offerings from Microsoft`s 
competitors. Using my knowledge and my wallet I chose to purchase 
Microsoft products for my own and my family`s use. I have never felt 
overcharged... on the contrary, I feel that the products offer far 
superior value compared with other offerings. For some reason my 
all-knowing government chooses to call this phenomenon a monopoly 
and has wasted years and countless taxpayer $ on pursuing that 
folly. Then Microsoft has the misfortune to have Judge Jackson head 
the proceedings_a man whom I`m sure is very intelligent on 
certain matters but who has absolutely no clue about the technology 
industry and what is or isn`t good for consumers. The entire process 
was a farce and an insult to the intelligence of the American 
people. For Microsoft to have to make any retribution for past 
business practices is nothing more than an extortion crime 
perpetrated by the US government and the attorneys general for the 
states that chose to be involved. Our government is supposed to 
protect and serve the American people. The lawsuit did neither 
although seemed to derive from the misguided impression that 
Americans needed to be protected from Microsoft. If Americans felt 
that way they would not have bought the products and would have 
accomplished what the DOJ had no business trying to do in the first 
place. Apparently the judicial branch of our government no longer 
believes in capitalism and feels that they need to interfere with an 
otherwise very efficient process. Leave the interfering for 
companies and industries that are price fixing and inflating prices 
and truly hurting consumers_the energy industry is a great 
example_as our nation was going into recession the energy 
producers were recording record profits and consumers were paying 
record prices at the pumps and to heat their homes. Now there is an 
industry that should be forced to pay something back. Leave 
Microsoft alone!
    Howard Jones
    Simsbury, CT



MTC-00006310

From: Vito Corcia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Please settle this matter now. There never has been any problem 
dealing with MicroSoft in the past.
    MicroSoft products function best in computers. Both of the 
terminals in this office contain fully licensed MicroSoft products 
and there has never been a crash in the last seven years.
    VEETZ...
    http://home.earthlink.net/veetz



MTC-00006311

From: Michael Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:27pm

[[Page 24805]]

Subject: MS SETTLEMENT Dear Sir:
    I do not believe that the resourcefulness, ingenuity, 
creativity, that Microsoft has brought to our world in the services 
and products they have provided should be rewarded by punishing 
them.
    Do you think this will encourage more inventions? Do you think 
they will care more about what the market wants?
    I think you should stop going after the people who are doing 
good for us.
    Michael Hale



MTC-00006312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Most Americans that use the Microsoft windows never agreed with 
the Government Lawsuit. It was only a long term Clinton, Gore and 
Reno diversion from other daily problems they caused. The lawsuit 
and settlement should have never taken place. Without Microsoft 
windows, America and the governments would still be in the dark ages 
on the Internet. The complete lawsuit should be dropped, but the 
settlement we Americans must agree to and accept for the sake of the 
Democrats.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    For being learned people, you don`t seem to be able to stop 
stumbling over your own words. Why don`t you just grow up and get 
this pain in the derriere done and over with?
    Thank you



MTC-00006314

From: Evelyn M Taris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Justice department should disregard the remaining 9 states 
that seek free settlement from microsoft. Our economy has hit bottom 
now. We need to rebuild our economy not keep taking away. I say let 
the settlement be final and if the additional 9 states including 
Florida, where I live, cannot settle then disregard them . They are 
just looking for additonal funds for themselves and hurting the 
economy, which has been hit very hard this past two years. We all 
need to start building our lives again not taking away, we had 
enough of taking for the past two years. Microsoft has been hit hard 
enough for the past four years, let there be peace so our economy 
can start to grow as it should
    Evelyn Taris



MTC-00006315

From: Bernard Segebade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think enough time has been spent on this case. with our 
country & our economy in the shape its in, its time to settle 
this issue & get on with our every day business of getting our 
country back on solid ground.



MTC-00006316

From: Ron arky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:32pm
Subject: Lawsuit
    AS FAR AS I`M CONCERNED THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD STAND, LETS GET 
THE NATION AND THE STOCK MARKET MOVING FORWARD AGAIN.
    Respectfully
    Ron Keller



MTC-00006317

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I AM WRITING YOU IN REGARDS TO THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. IN MY 
OPINION THEIR SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN A LAWSUIT TO BEGIN WITH. IT 
SEEMS THAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION [ JANET RENO ] WOULD DO ANY 
THING TO OBTAIN MONEY.
    THIS TO ME IS GOVERNMENT EXTORTION.
    WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF A RECESSION COMING ON, FURTHER 
LITIGATION AGAINST MICROSOFT IS THE LAST THING OUR ECONOMY NEEDS.
    IF IT CONTINUES , WHAT INDUSTRIES IS THE NEXT TARGET? IF YOU 
HAVE NONE MAY I SUGGEST THE THE LEGAL INGUSTRIES.
    REGARDS .
    RAYMOND A. CAREY



MTC-00006318

From: Donald A. Fife
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft statment
    I think the whole thing has been going on far to long. That it 
should be settled now. And in the manner the government and the nine 
states agreed on.
    Thank you
    Donald A. Fife



MTC-00006319

From: McKay and Linda Snow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I haven`t offered my comments on this settlement before but I 
want to go on record as stating that were it not for Microsoft and 
their innovative creations in Computers and the Internet, I dare to 
say that America and the world would not be using computers to the 
extent they are and I personally would not be able to understand and 
facilitate the abilities and usability of my computer if it did not 
have the integrated software that Microsoft has made and marketed. I 
am grateful for their advances in computer software. It has opened 
up the world. If I had to deal with many software protocols and 
programs that may or may not work together, I doubt I would use this 
instrument. Microsoft is to be commended, not punished for their 
critical progress in this field. It is plain to me that those that 
have continued to press for more monetary awards and punitive 
measures against Microsoft are doing so out of pure greed and 
jealousy. For them to say, `give us all your software programs 
because we deserve them and you don`t; and by the way, make sure 
that we are successful in using them and jeopardize and minimize 
your own business in the process` seems to fly directly in the face 
of American ingenuity and independent capitalism. I am extremely 
disgusted with this protracted DOJ punishment of a company that has 
built America in ways no one else could have done.
    Sincerely,
    Linda P. Snow
    Bellevue, Washington



MTC-00006320

From: John Peters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm



MTC-00006321

From: John Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am not a microsoft stock holder, but do use their product on 
my computer. I have no complaints with the way they market their 
programs. I have been using various spread sheets, word processing 
and other programs of both microsoft and others. I do not write 
computer programs, but certainly enjoy the user friendly programs 
that microsoft has provided.
    It would be better if the law suit were settled and allow 
microsoft to continue to improve the product that they make for the 
public.
    John Hughes
    3303 Nottingham St.
    Houston, Texas 77005
    Ph. 713-667-1666
    Mob. 713-248-9417
    e-mail [email protected]
    alt e [email protected]



MTC-00006322

From: Jim Logan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that any continuation of the lawsuits against 
Microsoft will have an adverse affect on our nation`s economic 
recovery. The settlement that has been reached is fair. It is time 
to accept the proposed settlement, move forward and resolve this 
issue without further litigation.
    Jim Logan
    Logan Productions, Inc.
    8035 N. Port Washington Road
    Fox Point, Wisconsin 53217
    Phone: 414-352-9691
    Facsimile: 414-352-4993
     
mailto:[email protected]
     http://
www.loganproductions.com/



MTC-00006323

From: Huey Guo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Madam,

[[Page 24806]]

    Please free the general public from Microsoft`s monopoly! 
Besides the government, there is no one to stop Microsoft from their 
immoral (though legally, only after their attorneys` twisting of law 
interpretations) manipulation of the computer world. Indeed, there 
may be competitors lobbying for a fairer market. Yet, there is 
simply no one powerful enough to stop Microsoft from their 
wrongdoings, except the Department of Justice, our only and last 
hope. This is an example of my freedom to choose being violated: I 
have been receiving propaganda e-mails from the so-called 
`Freedom to Innovate Network' 
([email protected]) for years (not by my own free will, 
though). Even though I tried many times to `unsubscribe' 
from their web site (at http://www.freetoinnovate.com/
_utilities/unsubscribe.asp), they never let me unsubscribe. 
Microsoft has organized an e-mail/fax compaign to influence what DOJ 
hears against those forceless individuals like me. I am not with any 
party in the letigation nor have any stake in the law suit. My only 
hope is for DOJ to hear my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Huey Guo
    PS. I am not an Apple user. I have been using PC`s for the last 
15+ years and have sufferred a lot from using Microsoft 
products, because I have no alternative.



MTC-00006324

From: Bob McDermott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please get the government off microsoft`s back!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00006325

From: Nick Dolyak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
    Let`s get this case behind us and move on to more important 
things. Enough is enough.
    NICHOLAS P DOLYAK
    [email protected]



MTC-00006326

From: Ron Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm
Subject: `Microsoft Setlement'
    Gentlemen,
    Please settle the Microsoft case. It has gone on too long and 
the current settlement is more than adequate. Prolonging it any 
longer is not good for the entire industry.
    Thank you.
    Ronald Beck
    [email protected]



MTC-00006327

From: Plefka, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 1:36pm
Subject: Mircrosoft Settlement
    It is my sincere hope that the settlement with Microsoft be 
moved forward quickly. As a consumer (both personal and business 
user) I feel that Microsoft has been acting appropriately and in the 
interest of the Consumer and Economy. I have not witnessed any 
concern of anti-trust or monopolistic behaviors and feel that I can 
choose other vendors than Microsoft for key applications should I 
choose.
    I support Microsoft`s settlement and hope the matters are 
resolved quickly to allow us all to get back to important work 
needing efforts.
    Robert R. Plefka
    1375 Jasper Drive
    Ambler, Pa 19002



MTC-00006328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    As a consumer, I would like to see more competition with other 
browsers and software choices. The grip Microsoft has is anti 
competitive as its software is frought with errors. Its philosophy 
is to `shove it out the door' and handle complaints 
afterwards. This is the result of a Monopoly and a manufacturers 
arrogance with consumers having no recourse, `Let them Eat 
Cake'. Nuff` said.
    M. Morrow



MTC-00006329

From: John Richeson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I am the owner of a business in Tampa, FL called Bay Area Window 
Cleaning, Inc. I started out by myself and today have over 45 
employees and clean some of the areas tallest buildings. As a user 
of Microsoft products for over 15 years, I can speak from experience 
as a day to day small business user as to the effect this company 
has had on our business. I can honestly say that our business has 
reached the success it has today because of the usage of some of the 
great products that Microsoft has implemented and continues to 
improve upon. This is not to mention the prosperity that we have 
gained due to ownership of Microsoft stock via mutual funds and 
other investments.
    The government needs to keep its hands out of this company as 
much as possible. Do not stifle this company`s progress. It has 
benefited not only America but the entire world. For example, think 
about where our military would be today if they did not have the 
benefit of Windows and all its associated products. I am continually 
amazed that Windows XP cost less that $200. It is an amazing product 
that I think is worth $2,000. and for which I would gladly pay that 
amount.
    Microsoft simply makes a great product. If they do not, then we 
use another competing product. For example, I use Intuit`s 
QuickBooks because Microsoft Money is just not as good yet. But 
Microsoft continues to improve Money. Soon I think it will be better 
than QuickBooks. Then I will immediately switch. I am looking 
forward to that day because Intuit does not seem to care about 
simple user issues they have had for years. Let me put it this 
way....Intuit is stifling our business because their QuickBooks 
products is weak in certain areas. Microsoft, on the other hand, has 
the resources and R & D to improve a product tremendously. We 
all need this.
    Please settle these frivolous and wasteful lawsuits and allow 
them to do what they do best. It is very beneficial to the end 
consumer. It will continue to help America remain the worlds leaders 
in technology and efficiency.
    John Richeson
    President



MTC-00006330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    I would expect that the Judicial Department will proceed with 
the current agreement on the Microsoft lawsuit and accept what has 
already been agreed upon.
    In addition, I would hope our legal system will maintain and be 
a major stimulus to support our free enterprise that exists in this 
nation. The government should support the free enterprise efforts 
that have been so important to make this a sound and prosperous 
nation on this issue.
    Where would we, consumers and our nation, be today without the 
Microsoft organization`s important products that we select to 
purchase and use?
    Thank you.
    Clifford E. Rowden
    Bay Village, OH 44140



MTC-00006331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would hope this case can be settled, it would be one step 
toward getting our economy back on track.
    Norm Thomassen



MTC-00006332

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm
Subject: Lay off.
    Don`t you think it`s about time you guys laid off of Microsoft? 
I think the Clinton DOJ with Janet Reno were part of a terrorist 
organization, and you are just carrying on where they left off.
    Why would a government attack one of its own most successful 
companies? Name another country that would do that. This is 
equivalent to using an American airline to attack the WTC. Why would 
`Justice` be so unjust? Is this the first salvo whereby the trial 
lawyers, like a sinister pack of roving hyenas will attempt to lay 
waste the great industries of the USA, for their own personal 
monetary gain? Is this not terrorism in one form? What is more un-
American than this?
    None of you seem to know what the hell you`re talking about 
since I`ve not found a clear and concise explanation for what 
Microsoft has done wrong. All that bundling gobbledygook on which 
you fervently frown is nothing but horseshit. Now really!... If I 
went to the local market and bought butter, and the management had 
agreed to give everyone who bought butter, a loaf of bread to go 
with the butter..............That would be

[[Page 24807]]

wrong?........ Where does this hurt the consumer?
    Call off your dogs. Do something constructive, rather than 
destructive like the OSBL Taliban.
    Sincerely,
    Earle J. Baird



MTC-00006333

From: Korry Pearl
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for 
them, the industry and the American economy. Settle Now. It time to 
move forward. Settle this now.
    Sincerely,
    Korry I. Pearl
    Senior Accountant
    SigmaTek Corporation



MTC-00006334

From: GERRY WEST
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept current proposed settlement. Over time, MicroSoft 
products, while a virtual monopoly, have provided standardized 
technology which is time-efficient for multiple users. And, at mass 
retailing, prices even for a monopoly, are more affordable.
    Regards,
    Gerry West
    [email protected]



MTC-00006335

From: Craig McClure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a member of the software development community, I have seen 
Microsoft emerge as a huge force in shaping the quality of software 
products produced over the last twenty years. To say that they 
engage in unfair competitive practices is to say that excellence is 
an unfair advantage. They have managed to capture the greatest 
market share in mature areas of the software industry: operating 
systems, networking, word processing and spreadsheets. These were 
markets dominated by other companies who seemed to have a 
stranglehold on their market segment, but in each case, Microsoft 
prevailed with a superior product.
    To punish this brilliance is to destroy the last vestige of free 
enterprise in our society.
    Craig McClure
    CreativeWare, Inc.



MTC-00006336

From: J C and Betty Choate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    According to the best that I can figure, the stock market 
started going down very shortly after the litigation was begun 
against Microsoft. I think the entire country has paid a huge price 
for this messy business.
    I well remember the frustration I used to experience, trying to 
learn new and different programs, and trying to get programs to work 
together, BEFORE WINDOWS WAS PUT ON THE MARKET. Microsoft has done a 
tremendous thing for the world by removing some of these major 
problems from the computer scene. I think the harrassment the 
company has undergone has been a poor way to express appreciation 
for all that has been done.
    Personally, I think the settlement that has been made should 
stand, and let Microsoft and the country go back to life before 
litigation. It was much more productive.
    Betty Choate
    708 Burton Drive
    Winona, MS 38967



MTC-00006337

From: Howard Haworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    Settle the Microsoft case. We have had enough foolishness 
already!



MTC-00006338

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe the microsoft settlement is fair & just & 
should be implemented.
    It is time to move on to other matters.
    Sincerely,
    Velora H. Upstone
    Rockford, Il 61114



MTC-00006339

From: Jim Hanke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    There are a few vocal anti-Microsoft groups that are the key 
players in the whole controversy.
    If we could turn back the hands of time. Back to before 
Microsoft, before IBM and a young kid named Bill Gates started 
talking in 1974, how would this world be? There are a hundred 
thousand companies of various sizes that would not even exist. Our 
world would be very different. We take things for granted that we 
have in our lives. Things we can`t live without now. All of these 
would either not exist or would be so large they would not be 
practical. The advent of the home PC drove the market to make faster 
CPU`s and faster RAM and smaller components. These components are 
used in everything in our lives today. Cell phones, microwaves, 
Digital TV, DVD players for our TV`s, all the nifty electronics in 
our cars; all of this because the personal computer was a technology 
so many people loved.
    Microsoft made the PC practical. We should thank Microsoft for 
helping make us all more productive and creating secondary and 
tertiary companies. Most all of these companies are happy to have 
Microsoft be the driving force behind the advances in the PC 
industry.
    Yes, there are a few folks out there that are anti-Microsoft. 
They are very vocal. The silent majority are going to be the ones 
that really end up paying the price.
    I feel Microsoft has learned a lesson about how it markets its 
products. Microsoft has spent a lot of money and time defending 
itself and I believe their marketing strategy has changed 
significantly. Make sure Microsoft keeps the market open as you have 
already. Stop spending billions of dollars to fight Microsoft. There 
are a lot of other places our tax dollars, yours and mine, can be 
better spent. Use the money to buy computers for schools. Teach them 
Unix if you like. Spend money on child welfare, better schools, 
anti-drug campaigns, stop smoking campaigns, fix our roads, improve 
airport security, the list is endless. With the money you could save 
by just accepting the proposal by Microsoft that is currently in 
process (I don`t know what it is, but I am sure it is reasonable at 
this point) you could give every person that died in the World Trade 
Center tragedy thousands and thousands of dollars.
    Find a better way to spend our tax dollars and your time than 
fighting an entrepreneur that has done more for this country than 
anyone since Henry Ford.
    Thank you for reading and taking time to take my letter to 
heart.
    James (Jim) Hanke
    11405_146th Ave SE
    Renton, WA 98059



MTC-00006340

From: William Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a teacher who uses a lot of software in teaching and 
research, I am satisfied that the settlement reached between the 
government and Microsoft is in my best interest as a consumer of 
software.
    William Allen
    [email protected]
    http://www.clt.astate.edu/wallen



MTC-00006341

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:35pm
Subject: Cosumer Comment
    Microsoft:
    Without Microsoft, computer operations would still be in the 
dark ages and millions of users would not be able to take advantage 
of this powerful tool.
    James R. Peterson



MTC-00006342

From: don blades
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This has been too long and drawn out and has cost us, (we the 
people) too many tax dollars chasing a dead horse. Settle the 
d_- thing.



MTC-00006343

From: JnJRanch
To: Microsoft Corpordation
Date: 1/2/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Micrsoft settlement NOW. The DOJ has 
interferred too long
    Jeanne Jacobs

[[Page 24808]]

    762 Sandstone Ln.
    Camano Is. WA 98282



MTC-00006344

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    My view is that the settlement of this case is in the public 
interest; Let us move on. If MSFT is a monopoly, so be it, just as 
so many other companies in the world of business.



MTC-00006345

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have over 30 years experience in the Information Technology 
industry and have been upset by the government`s actions against 
Microsoft since the beginning. If Microsoft had not brought some 
sanity to the entire personal computing industry, we would have had 
chaos. Their leadership has been a tremendous asset for our industry 
and our country.
    I would be most pleased if I never heard another word about the 
government trying to penalize or breakup Microsoft.
    R. L. Adams



MTC-00006346

From: Thomas J. Fabish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Sir,
    My opinion on the entire Microsoft prosecution is that no 
positive historical grounds exit supporting the antitrust action 
against Microsoft. My argument consists of the single observation 
that no previous antitrust action has benefited the public interest 
including Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T and most recently, Microsoft. 
That is, the price of the goods or services offered by the accused 
invariably increased following government antitrust action. 
Moreover, the continuing action by individual States against 
Microsoft following the high court`s decision to end prosecution 
seems based upon transparent motives of simple greed for settlement 
dollars, the acquisition of individual fame, or a crude attempt to 
aid local business that may compete with Microsoft in a product 
line.
    I conclude that prolonged litigation against Microsoft 
Corporation benefits only selected groups with goals not at all 
determined by perceived good for the general consumer. Hence, I hope 
to see the legal crusade ended and so enable the considerable 
ongoing expenditure of public and private funds to find more useful 
applications.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Dr. Thomas J. Fabish
    e-mail; [email protected] or 
[email protected]



MTC-00006347

From: Wayne/Eileen Grove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It is time to get this litigation behind us.
    Wayne & Eileen Grove



MTC-00006348

From: GMbah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ needs to settle this matter now. Slap Microsoft in the wrist 
if it must and let`s move on. Personally I think Microsoft has done 
a lot of good and in my view has not harmed the public.
    Thank you,
    Godfrey



MTC-00006349

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is important to settle this lawsuit in the best interests of 
all the parties involved. The Department of Justice has worked out a 
settlement with Microsoft and that should be the basis to decide the 
law suit and end the case.
    Marlene Quayle Duffin
    21241 Canyon View Dr.
    Saratoga, CA 95070



MTC-00006350

From: Thomas Garson
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov, attorney.general(a)po.st...
Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    Dear Representative of the Public Interest,
    I believe the settlement that the U.S. Justice Department and 
Microsoft have concocted is a travesty of justice. As an information 
technology professional for over 20 years, I am quite familiar with 
the monopolistic, and often illegal, machinations perpetrated by 
Microsoft in order to achieve their current position of ascendancy, 
often while offering an inferior product. I wholely support the 
findings of Judge Jackson as being more than reasonable. If anyone 
in the judicial system has gained a true insight into the modus 
operandi of Microsoft, it is Judge Jackson. In light of the contempt 
that Microsoft openly displayed of that court, Judge Jackson was 
remarkedly restrained.
    Any lesser penalties imposed on Microsoft, or any other company 
showing such contempt for the rule of law, must be considered a 
complete abdication by the government of its responsibility to 
enforce the right of the people of the United States to a fair and 
open marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Garson,
    Owner,
    Aural Technology, Ashland, Or.
    [email protected]



MTC-00006351

From: Richard Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: TUNNEY ACT
    Microsoft settlement: I doubt that any business (competitors or 
otherwise) could endure the kind of scrutiny that Microsoft has had 
to endure. In the big picture is this kind of stuff good for 
America? I do not believe it is! I for one want all this to be over 
and finished. As Americans we have much bigger problems and we need 
not only the Microsoft but all those that would be Microsofts.
    Please stop the bleeding and move on!
    One very disgruntled American.
    Remember 911!!!



MTC-00006352

From: E. STANFIELD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We all hope you all will use your heads and get this settlement 
approved and end the competetors` bickering and attempting to 
feather their own nests by keeping out competition so that they can 
make more money the easy way!



MTC-00006353

From: Buzz Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a constant user of computers and needed software I feel 
enough is enough. Microsoft has done nothing that successful 
business has not done during U.S. history and because they have done 
a better job it is not reasonable they should be punished at all, 
let alone still more.
    The goverment sometimes mixes in where they have no business. 
This is one of those times.
    Freeman A. Marsh



MTC-00006354

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to whom it may concern:
    please settle this case ASAP. there should be no split-up of 
Microsoft.
    david freed
    3055 washington street
    miami, fl 33133



MTC-00006355

From: Bradley Bobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: leave Microsoft alone already!
    Please stop harassing Microsoft finally and stop wasting 
taxpayers` money on this nonsense. Please go after some criminals, 
instead of companies running a perfectly legal business!
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Bradley Bobbs
    6862 Hayvenhurst Ave.
    van Nuys, CA 91406



MTC-00006356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has been going on for to long and FAR to much money spent 
on this. Many more companies have benefited from Microsoft then been 
hurt by them. The United States economy and business needs to be 
done with this case and move on!!
    I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS SPENT PROLONGING THIS CASE!

[[Page 24809]]



MTC-00006357

From: Sample, Michael
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Get on with it! I am sick of competitors using the DOJ to get a 
successful company that they themselves can`t defeat in the market 
place. Secondly, I am sick of publicity-seeking state AGs doing the 
same thing either on behalf of those competitors or simply for their 
own political enrichment. The settlement is reasonable and there is 
no reason to continue to drag out
    this process.
    Michael Sample
    Houston, Texas



MTC-00006358

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I commend the Department of Justice for their decision to settle 
with Microsoft. It makes sense, as the government should not be 
curtailing advancements in technology, nor disciplining a company 
who has found a better mouse trap. It would seem to me that these 
other companies who challenged Microsoft should try to make a better 
product, rather than ask that the proprietary knowledge be 
deseminated to them so that they can use it against Microsoft. I 
would hope that the DOJ would be able to settle down the states 
remaining who have decided not to accept the judge- ment between 
Microsoft and the DOJ.
    Donald L. Ensenbach
    10601 South 41st Place
    Phoenix, AZ. 85044-1331



MTC-00006359

From: NeilHaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:40pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    Microsoft has been damaged enough, let the present agreement be 
enough. The states need to get out of the business of killing off 
businesses.
    I`ve been in business over 38 yrs and don`t want the government 
causing me to lose just because Oracle and Netscape want to use the 
government for their own gain.
    Neil G. Haas



MTC-00006360

From: JnJRanch
To: Microsoft Corpordation
Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement reached btween the Federal 
government, nine states and Microsoft. Further arguing can only hurt 
the nation, and the economy as a whole.
    Jeanne Jacobs
    762 Sandstone Ln.
    Camano Is. WA 98282



MTC-00006361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should never have been filed. However at this juncture 
the proposed settlement is the best of a bad bargain and DOJ should 
wrap this up ASAP under the settlement proposed.
    M.L. McCarty
    1911 E. Pole Star Pl.
    Tucson, AZ 85737



MTC-00006362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:43pm
Subject: re: Settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    Please allow the MicroSoft Company the ability to conduct their 
business and their affairs by stimulating our economy. Allow them to 
be a competitor that will help stimulate other companies to grow and 
thrive. Allow the court settlement to be OVER, and allow MicroSoft 
to move forward. Enough is enough. Let 2002 be a new year for 
MicroSoft, for the American people, and for the business community.
    Sincerely yours,
    Elyse Reitzin
    [email protected]



MTC-00006363

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We wish to support the current settlement plans regarding the 
Microsoft case. Please give this your best attention.
    Raymond and Merle Painley



MTC-00006364

From: John Garrison, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Request further action in the subject case be discontinued. The 
last thing the economy needs is more failing competitors to use 
government to stifle a creative American corporation. A corporation 
that bet the farm to innovate while competitors tagged along until 
they found they were falling further and further behind. Then they 
turned to government to save them. Definitely not what made this 
country great.
    Respectfully:
    John Garrison, Sr.
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00006365

From: Ted Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It Concerns:
    I am 100% FOR the litigation against Microsoft to be finalized. 
In my opinion the suit should never have been brought in the first 
place. We as tax payers foot the bill for the litigation. We as 
consumers foot the bill when any settlement is imposed. Any thinking 
person knows that `the cost of doing business' is passed 
directly to the consumer, the investor or both. The worst case is 
that a company goes out of business because of Government tyranny.
    So, settle with Microsoft and let them get on with life, so we 
consumers and taxpayers can see an end to money being wasted (by 
Government) and so we can continue to get the fine flow of products 
we have become accustomed to. The fact that we are in a recession 
should mean that government gets off everyone`s back, not further 
complicate and harass business.
    Ted Pierce
    Folsom, CA 95630



MTC-00006366

From: James Hawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft litigation has taken a number of years and not it 
seems that there is a potential settlement. Derailing this 
settlement now would benefit no one except for attorney fee 
genereated. If that is the goal of the Justice Department then this 
case should by all means continue. I believe, however, that is not 
the Justice Department`s goal to increase revenue for attormey fees. 
The climate has changed considerably in the last few years and all 
the issues originally being contested are not even an issue any 
longer. The last thing this country needs at this time is to draw 
cases such as this one into more legal rambling to no one`s benefit. 
Penalizing one of the Major success stories of the 20th century for 
the benefit of a few should make no sense. I see this as a 
`revenue enhancement' program for the states and a few 
companys with no real issues left to resolve.
    We have much bigger and important issues that have a signifigant 
impact on the American Society. This case should have never even 
been brought to this point in the first place.
    Jim Hawley



MTC-00006367

From: Richard Stevenson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please settle this litigation now. What has been agreed to is 
fair for all parties.
    Sincerely
    Richard Stevenson



MTC-00006368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    Isn`t it high time we put this litigation to rest and move on. 
It would appear that a few of the more vocal die hard Microsoft 
competitors ( and their lobbyists) continue to beat this to death. 
Would be interesting to know if they would welcome equal scrutiny?
    Enough already!
    Russ Jones



MTC-00006369

From: Ray Garland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I am a Microsoft shareholder and a consumer who uses their 
products. I urge the

[[Page 24810]]

Federal government to resolve this case as promptly as possible by 
settling on the result already reached by the court. The nine states 
which are withholding approval of the settlement and who want to 
expand the reach of the case are wrong. So much of the reasons for 
the initial suit are so outmoded and irrelevant today that delaying 
a conclusion to this matter risks harming not only a good company 
but further damaging the US economy.
    Ray Garland



MTC-00006370

From: Bounderdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft is reasonable and fair. To pursue this 
witch hunt further will serve no useful purpose and will only 
contribute further to our weakened economy. Let`s get on with it and 
get this matter behind us.
    Donald R. Low
    216 Derecho Way
    Tracy, CA 95376



MTC-00006371

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough...I do not think for one minute our economy was 
ever hurt by any action Microsoft took. Their competitors are cry 
babies...they should have concentrated on making a better mouse trap 
than MS had. LET IT GO...In the best interest of all concerned. It`s 
just a bunch of sour grapes with states trying to add to their 
coffers in a very spurious way. A.A. Vespa



MTC-00006372

From: Michael Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:47pm
Subject: Case Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    This case has gone on long enough. Let`s settle this case NOW, 
for the good of the country!
    Michael J. Greene



MTC-00006373

From: Mike Doyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice Official,
    The Microsoft case has gone way too long and has not been 
positive for technology, innovation, our economy or consumers. I am 
a consumer and I have never been harmed by Microsoft in any way. 
Quite the contrary, Microsoft`s products allow me to do things never 
before possible. Please accept the settlement and end this process 
so American and global firms can compete based on technology and 
acceptance of their products in the marketplace. The government`s 
role in technology and innovation must never impact personal choice 
in any way. Hi Tech business moves too fast for government 
intervention. Let businesses compete without government involvement 
and we will all be better off. When Microsoft products stop being 
the best I can buy I will stop buying them and I don`t need you 
telling me when this dynamic occurs.
    Mike Doyle



MTC-00006374

From: D.J.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:47pm
Subject: settlement
    I would let competition take its own course. Microsoft should be 
completely freed from all recourse and certainly have no 
remediation. The Linus`s of the world will either win or loose. Sun 
Micro, should not cry over their spilt milk. Any Attys Gen should 
stick to investigating physical crimes against us, the general 
public and forget business. If they were shrewd in business, they 
would not be Attys Gen, but be Bill Gates



MTC-00006376

From: Arthur Laube
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that Bill Gates did us_i.e., those who use 
computers_a great service by encouraging or even demanding 
that several programs be packaged together with the MS Windows 
program.
    Most of us do not want to buy a computer and then have to 
install several programs inorder to get started. Anymore than we 
would want to buy an automobile and then have to but and install 
four tires. It is obvious that Bill Clinton/Janet Reno`s Department 
of Justice decided that Bill Gates was too big for his britches and 
needed to be taken down a peg or two. And since he had not paid his 
dues to them they attempted to make an example of him. Get off his 
back.
    Arthur H. Laube
    23 Clover Dr.
    Chapel Hill, NC 27517



MTC-00006377

From: Swank, Jeff
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, for one, am still attempting to understand the issues. The 
government should allow the marketplace decide the fate of MS or any 
other company. The software today is less expensive and provides 
more functionality then ever before. Please allow the free 
enterprise system to work. This is just the IBM case of old, by the 
time all of the appeals are processed, the case will not matter.
    Thanks
    Jeff Swank
    Vice President
    TMI Systems Design Corp
    50 South Third Ave West
    Dickinson ND 58601
    [email protected]



MTC-00006378

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:46pm
Subject: (no subject)
    The settlement reached by DOJ and 9 states is fair. Get off 
Microsoft`s back already.



MTC-00006379

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing this letter in hopes that my opinion regarding the 
lengthy prosecution/persecution of Microsoft be regarded and that it 
be ended as quickly as possible without further penalties and 
unreasonable costs to Microsoft. We are an entrepreneurial and 
competitive society and Microsoft, among others, has been persecuted 
for behaving in this spirit.
    Very truly yours,
    Virginia Koplowitz
    Atlanta, Georgia



MTC-00006380

From: Luther Moon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice,
    This letter is to talk to you about and to express my feelings 
of the Government`s involvement with, and the handling of, the 
Antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation.
    To begin with, I do not feel that this action is being levied 
against Microsoft on behalf of the American consumer. Fact is, it 
was then, and is now, the consumer that decided what or which 
product they wanted and liked best. It was this very freedom of 
choice by the consumer, and freedom of enterprise for American 
Businesses, which has made Microsoft? and America, the great company 
and the great country they are today.
    It has been the great innovators like the John Rockefellers, JP 
Morgans, Andrew Carnegies, Henry Fords, and the Bill Gates of our 
time that has made this Country the great success it enjoys today 
and, it was this freedom to innovate, that encouraged them to get up 
every morning and forge ahead with their ideas and ideals. What 
might happen to this nation, and its great Corporations, if this 
freedom to express and freedom to innovate continues to get trampled 
on?
    It appears to me that the consumer can only be hurt and made to 
suffer the consequence of higher prices and less quality of product 
should the Government begin the dictatorial regulation of and 
dictating to a company what it can or cannot supply to, or for the 
benefit of, the consumer. Is it possible that the American Consumer 
is smarter than he or she is being given credit for?
    It has been due to this freedom of innovation from Microsoft 
that every American consumer, can today, afford to have a computer 
in their home. It is also a computer in every home that has spurred 
an economic growth in this country unparalleled by any nation in the 
world, until the Government decided to intervene.
    It wasn`t until the dictatorial intervention of our Government 
into the innovative business of one of this Nations greatest 
Companies that this Country`s economy, overnight, started a 
downslide into economic collapse, unparalleled in the history of 
this great country. The economic destruction of resources that has 
ensued has been devastating to the American people. What,

[[Page 24811]]

with all this `Consumer protection' levied against the 
consumer in the guise of protecting the consumer, I`m just not sure 
I can afford, or surely don`t need, anymore of this kind of consumer 
protection. I feel that I have received far better value and 
protection from Microsoft than I have in the protectionist 
interference from our Government (I don`t know about you, but there 
is no longer any retirement left in my retirement funds).
    This should be the business of business and not the interference 
of Government to dictate to the consumer what he or she can or 
cannot have and at what price we must pay for it. As a consumer and 
a Citizen of this Great Land, I feel that I, and I alone, should 
decide what is served on my plate and how it is prepared.
    I have Windows on my computer, not because someone else decided 
for me what I should use and not because Microsoft decided for me 
what I should use. I decided which was best for me from the many 
choices that were, and still are, available on the market today. And 
yes, there are choices out there. I`m sorry, but I am being made to 
feel that because of the wishes of a mere handful, it is the masses 
that must pay? and this is just not right. It must not be right.
    In closing, I would like to say I am a small-business owner and 
I depend on Microsoft to keep things running for me, for which they 
obviously have done quite well. If the Federal government pursues 
three more years of litigation in this matter, it would not only 
hurt Microsoft, but millions of home computer users and businesses 
across the country. I urge you to please put these lawsuits to rest 
before our economy deteriorates any further. By intervening in 
business, you would only be discouraging competition by creating 
fear on the part of other companies wanting to enter the market. 
Bill Gates made some excellent business decisions, and he, along 
with the American Consumer, is now being punished for it. His 
company has done so much for the economy, and now the government is 
just wasting more of our money picking on this company.
    Respectfully,
    Luther Moon



MTC-00006381

From: Leonard BRADLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft is fair and adequate.!!!
    Sincerely,
    Leonard G Bradley
    60402 N 435 PR., N.E.
    Benton City, WA 99320



MTC-00006382

From: Bernard D. Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The suit against Microsoft was unfair as well as unjust. It was 
a prefabrication of the Clinton Administration. Microsoft should be 
absolved of all wrong doing and allowed to operate as before.
    What the suit has done is send a message to all forward looking 
companies that progress is frowned upon. Without the progress made 
in computer by Bill Gates and Microsoft home computers would be as 
yet unheard of and I would not be sitting here sending this E-mail 
Clinton and Reno should be put on trial for interfering with private 
enterprise and industrial initiative. This is just another example 
of the Clinton administration being vindictive because they did not 
get the support they wanted from Bill Gates and Microsoft.
    B. D. Dunn



MTC-00006383

From: Vogel, Alan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see the Microsoft case settled as soon as 
possible. The settlement should be consistent across all states and 
it should be based within the same rules applied to the nine states 
that have already signed off. The need to accomplish this is even 
more urgent during this time of worldwide economic and political 
turmoil. It has taken us nearly four years to get to this point and 
to drag it on further is unacceptable.
    Respectfully
    Alan J. Vogel



MTC-00006384

From: David W. Workman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The Microsoft antitrust case should never have been started. 
Please, please accept the current settlement offer and get this 
thing finished. You are just in the way. Market forces, in the case 
of software, are fully capable of ruining any company that gets too 
far from the user`s needs. Government may have a legitimate 
antitrust roll in some industries, but software is not one of them. 
We the users can put anyone, including Microsoft, out of business 
before a government agency can write all the reports defining what 
might be the problem. I am a long-time software developer and have 
seen the mighty come and go with no government intervention. 
Government only makes things worse. If we need you, we`ll call you. 
Stop listening to Microsoft`s competitors who spend their time 
whining to government agencies rather than building superior 
products. And, ignore those state government agencies that only see 
this as a possible revenue source. This isn`t tobacco. Stop 
government extortion.
    Thank you,
    David W. Workman
    Thomasville, NC
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006385

From: Jim Peebles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just adding my own thoughts, but isn`t enough enough yet? With 
the global economy in such precarious position, why are we wasting 
such time and resources on continuing this litigation? We ALL need 
to get back to work! Let`s just settle the thing, close the books on 
this entire thing, and get back to doing what America does best... 
innovating and creating jobs!!
    Thanks,
    Jim



MTC-00006386

From: Art Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to call a halt to the senseless litigation in the 
Microsoft case. The longer it goes on the more consumers lose. Let 
the hold-out states outlaw Microsoft products in their states if 
they want to and see how long their consumers will put up with them.
    Arthur Hicks
    Lancaster, Virginia



MTC-00006387

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please free Microsoft`s hands so that the incredible innovation 
they offer may proceed. To single out this one company for 
prosecution/persecution is ludicrous in light of what goes on on a 
daily basis with a great many powerful and well-entrenched American 
businesses. Especially in light of the new terrorist attacks which 
have been unleashed upon the world in recent months, it would seem 
sensible for America to support her technology companies in their 
endeavors now more than ever before.
    Sincerely,
    Lyn Gianni,
    Santa Barbara, California



MTC-00006388

From: Joan Amino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the government should let Microsoft get on with business 
and quit this litigation that is just making the public upset with 
the court system. I would not buy any other product BUT MICROSOFT no 
matter how cheap the competitor is just because of this litigation. 
LET MICROSOFT GET BACK TO BUSINESS!!!
    Joan Amino
    1642 Los Molinos Way
    Sacramento CA 95864
    [email protected]



MTC-00006389

From: Ted Palfini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Get on with it. The settlement should be completed as soon as 
possible. Although Microsoft is aggressive they do provide a quality 
product at a reasonable price to the consumer. The lawyers are the 
only ones winning in this if the case is not settled quickly. I am 
tired of the lawyers always winning. The resources of Microsoft and 
the competitors should be focused on better products and product 
development not

[[Page 24812]]

defense and attack in the courtroom/legal system.
    Ted Palfini



MTC-00006390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an individual American, I never totally understood why the 
government filed an action against Microsoft. I`m sure somewhere 
there is some small violation as there would be with any business if 
you also really pried into their business or had competitor`s cry 
foul because something made by Microsoft was better than what they 
had available.
    Technology and other business areas have changed rapidly over 
the past years. Everyone was able to grow and expand due to 
technological advances. Microsoft was one of them and was also the 
provider of software that made the changes happen.
    So as I see it, the creator of the Microsoft software made it 
better for everyone else and improved their produce at the same time 
to make it again better the everyone. This is how our society works, 
isn`t it? Did the government file an antitrust action against 
refrigerator makers when they `bundled' the freezer with 
their product? Can you now buy a refrigerator without a freezer? Or 
how about all the ADD-ONS with automobiles! Maybe I don`t want a 
battery, wanting to hand crank the car to start. I use Microsoft 
software! Do you? Did the government in any way use Microsoft 
software to prepare the action filed against them?
    Basically, I don`t think it is right to impede with Microsoft 
and their developments. Without their developments over the years, 
where would we be? Without their developments in the future, where 
will we be? Leave innovation alone and be thankful someone developed 
it and will continue to develop more in the future.
    Dan Pierron
    901 Howard Lane
    Vandalia, Ohio 45377



MTC-00006391

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe that the current settlement, signed by nine states, is 
fair and equitable to all parties concerned. More importantly, a 
continuation of litigation only lines the pockets of lawyers, and 
tends to reduce innovation and entrepreurship, which helps to drive 
our economy. Let`s settle it NOW!
    Sincerely,
    William N. Rowe



MTC-00006392

From: peter sabean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding the Microsoft 
settlement that is being reviewed. I strongly believe the recent 
settlement reached between Microsoft, the Justice Department and 
nine States is absolutely in the public interest. It is evident that 
the remaining states are motivated either by home-state 
relationships with Microsoft competitors or by an `attack the 
deep pockets' attitude.
    Peter Sabean
    Sabean Design



MTC-00006393

From: Roger Bultot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let the Microsoft settlement stay as is. Enough is enough.
    Roger A. Bultot
    440 Undercliff Ave.
    Edgewater, NJ 07020



MTC-00006394

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Settlement
    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-00006395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why is it the people who have been using Microsoft programs 
successfully for many years have to suffer because the DOJ and some 
Big-cash companies want to punish a creative and efficient 
organization?
    Certainly Clinton and his cronies seem to have benefited from 
this chaos in the form of surreptitious contributions. But the 
average guy wanting to use MS products in the future is going to pay 
more. Maybe only a few bucks, but more nevertheless. Microsoft`s 
Competition? They`re getting a free ride instead of making better 
products users would prefer.
    The Red Cross and the United Fund appear to have robbed money 
from contributors to the 911 disaster and are pocketing vast 
administrative fees from their gifts, but DOJ also appears to be on 
vacation in this regard.
    It would be nice if you were concerned about the People of 
America instead of all the special interests that slide gifts to 
everybody they can to help their clients.
    Don`t punish Microsoft!
    J. Ziemian



MTC-00006396

From: Gay Abarbanell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I applaud the settlement. Let Microsoft get back to doing what 
it does so well. As a long time computer user I think the 
compatibility that Microsoft has brought to the industry is a 
Godsend.
    Sincerely,
    Gay Abarbanell, CFP?
    National Planning Corp.
    5625 Green Valley Cir. #103,
    Culver City, CA 90230
    [email protected]



MTC-00006397

From: Ron Towers
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to make some comments regarding the harassment 
Microsoft has to endure due to the fact a few competitors have not 
been able to compete. Our country is great because of free 
enterprise and competition in the market place. Microsoft, in my 
opinion, has never hurt the consumer!!! only helped the industry as 
a whole. I cannot believe that because they (Microsoft) can produce 
better products than there competitors that this is against the law. 
Maybe if the others spent more time working hard in development and 
marketing instead of attacking their competitors they would far 
better in the marketplace. I too have many competitors to contend 
with. However I never take them to court about how they beat me out 
on this job or that. I just think that if our government condones 
these types of cases by awarding settlements, let alone letting 
these types of case even get this far is very sad. Too many 
attorneys needing work that is why everyone is suing everyone these 
days. So sad
    Respectfully,
    Ron Towers



MTC-00006398

From: Verlon Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to get off Microsoft`s back. The competitive 
enterprise system will sort out the market.
    I am a `consumer' user of many Microsoft products 
and do not feel that I have been overcharged or damaged in any way 
by Microsoft and their business practices. The notion that they 
should not have included the Explorer with Windows is stupid. I 
would not have wanted an `incomplete' operating system 
without and internet explorer. If Microsoft had not developed 
Windows and The Internet Explorer and made it available at a 
reasonable price, the internet would not have developed into the 
powerful tool it is today. If Netscape didn`t like the way they 
bundled it, they could invent their own operating system. Nobody was 
forced to buy Microsoft products. Give them freedom to innovate and 
allow them to profit from their hard work and ingenuity!
    Surely the Justice Department has better things to do than 
harass the Microsoft company. Talk about strong-arm tactics_ 
take a look at Jessie Jackson`s protection racket as he coerces 
companies to contribute to the Rainbow Push Coalition which should

[[Page 24813]]

not be tax exempt. By intimidating Toyota into a $250,000,000 
donation, the consumer will have to pay higher prices for autos. 
Just one of many examples of heavy handed dealing with an 
organization which is wrongfully afforded tax exempt 
status._Much greater wrong than anything Microsoft may have 
done!
    Stop listening to Microsoft`s competitors. Tell them to just go 
back to the shop and work harder. Tell the liberal leaning states to 
get on board and lets get back to letting the competitive enterprise 
system enable the USA to continue to lead the industrialized world!
    Thank You for Your Consideration,
    Henry V. Bradley
    Orange, TX 77630



MTC-00006399

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:52pm
Subject: Litigation Settlement
    As an interested citizen I believe it is time to end this 
continuing saga by finalizing the proposed settlement that is on the 
table. I cannot think either party can come up with a new issue to 
be considered. The continuing uncertainty is not in the best 
interest of a public who is trying very hard to support the recovery 
of the economy. Microsoft has been a key innovative player and 
driver of the economy in the past and it is almost certain they will 
continue to be so in the future. There are too many other serious 
concerns facing our society in the business arena as well as our 
private lives to continue to debate this issue.
    Thanks for the opportunity to comments.
    Best Regards,
    Jim Lindsey



MTC-00006400

From: Silvio Krvaric / CIR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This letter is to express my APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT with 
Microsoft. Though I am not an antitrust lawyer, I studied the 
subject extensively in law school and considered going into 
antitrust practice. From my reading of the law and Microsoft`s 
alleged violations, this settlement is already too harsh on 
Microsoft and too generous to the government. I suggest that DOJ and 
the court accept the settlement and allow Microsoft to continue the 
stellar innovation in the computer industry that it has exhibited 
over the last couple of decades. I have no concerns about its 
competitors, and would accept penalties on Microsoft only if there 
was some consumer harm alleged (which there was manifestly not).
    In sum, I approve of the settlement and urge the court to accept 
it.
    Sincerely,
    Silvio Krvaric
    Associate Counsel
    CIR
    1233 20th Street, NW, Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20036



MTC-00006401

From: Boomport Inc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    Microsoft has done all of us a great favor. I can write programs 
that run on 90% of all the desktops in the world. Microsoft doesn`t 
always have the best idea`s but they usually do it better then 
anyone else. I stopped using netscape when Microsoft released 
version 3. Microsofts was already better at all the things I wanted 
it to do. Stop trying to say they are hurting me! At least admit 
that you guys are sueing on behalf of Microsoft haters like Sun, 
Netscape, Novell. Anyone of those guys would do worse if they had 
the chance. I never saw a Novell server that made it easier to 
expand and modify it than NT does. Isn`t it true that the more 
software that can be developed on a platform the better it is for 
people? Thats why windows are on most of the desktops. I have used 
unix and is sucks. Why don`t a pay 3 times the price and run a Sun 
computer with hardly any software. I personally love it when they 
add things to the OS. I just can`t see how I am being hurt in any of 
this!!!!!! Since of course you are only filing this lawsuit to 
protect me the consumer RIGHT.
    Jerrald Nelson. Software developer for 10 years.



MTC-00006402

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We agree with the settlement offered Microsoft from the DOJ. 
Please settle this issue with Microsoft. We feel we as a people have 
benefited greatly from Microsoft and their innovations. We back 
Microsoft and hope they can get on with business soon. Thank you.
    C. M. Delmolino



MTC-00006403

From: Thom Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a member of the computer industry for 20 years, with 
experience in using both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products. 
Microsoft has done GOOD THINGS for the computer world, and because 
their products are good, they have won a large (but not 
monopolistic) share of design `wins'. With no difficulty 
at all, any of the competing operating systems can be installed on 
any PC. These competitors aren`t inconsequential: IBM and Sun (to 
name only the behemoths) aren`t small companies with limited 
resources.
    It is a pity that the DOJ saw fit to pursue this 
`witchhunt` in the first place. I doubt that other industries 
in the U.S. are subjected to such arbitrary harassment. It is time 
to end this horrific example of unwarranted government meddling 
(with no imperative from the people of the country).
    If special interests can cause the DOJ to prosecute a case, 
perhaps Microsoft could convince the DOJ to protect Microsoft`s 
copyrights from the millions and millions of software pirates both 
here and abroad that regularly disregard U.S. and international 
copyright laws by copying and reselling Microsoft products without 
permission or payment.
    Please serve the people.
    Thom Cook
    Buffalo Computer Graphics
    Buffalo, New York



MTC-00006404

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All,
    I think the settlement is more than fair, as many states have 
found. This matter should be put to rest quickly. Many people feel 
that Microsoft is being singled out and taken to task for what all 
its competitor`s do. This is hardly a position I can support, 
because of improvements in productivity that Microsoft has brought 
about and the countless jobs it has helped create. In another vain, 
if Colgate started packaging a promotional mouthwash along with its 
toothpaste, would that constitute unfair competition against Scope? 
I think not. So why single out packaging Microsoft Browser with 
Windows as unfair competition? Of course, the issue here is 
`settlement', which is different from finding who is at 
fault. If Microsoft is broken up into pieces as settlement, I doubt 
if that will help Sun or Oracle or AOL to flourish. All these 
companies are limited by their power of innovation.
    Sincerely
    Debes Ray



MTC-00006405

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to get on with business. Nine states plus the DOJ 
have come to an agreement, which will allow the American economy to 
move forward. Most consumers and businesses would benefit by looking 
ahead instead of back. Let`s not allow special interests to defeat 
the settlement. This has taken almost four years, clearly, enough is 
enough!



MTC-00006406

From: Jeff Paulin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    We are comfortable with the current settlement regarding 
Microsoft. We do not feel any further delays or litigation is in 
anyone`s best interest. Please do all you can to bring this case to 
a timely close.
    Thank you
    Jeff & Tracie Paulin
    Laguna Niguel, Ca.
    (949) 365-9092



MTC-00006407

From: Charlie Hyde
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It is about time! I`m pleased to hear that there is finally a 
settlement in sight!

[[Page 24814]]

    I never thought that Microsoft should be penalized for making a 
better product than its competitors nor for selling its superior 
products at a lower cost.
    Let`s get this over with so that we can all move forward!
    Charles Hyde
    3202 Armagosa Way
    Jamul, CA 91935



MTC-00006408

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Government:
    This is all much too much ado about nothing much. This is 
America where success is supposed to be rewarded, not throttled. Why 
don`t you concentrate on the real bad guys in our society rather 
than attempting to disrupt foundations of our capitalism. Microsoft 
is tough and likely deserves a strong slap or two, but get it 
settled without destroying them. Remember, there is little liberty 
and justice without a strong economic America. Our real secret to 
freedom is our great economic success; without successes our 
liberties are incredibly threatened.
    Success is often despised by those not as capable or fortunate 
enough to step up to the bar. There is not reason enough for 
government to impinge on Microsoft`s successes, other than where 
they have clearly exceeded legal, ethical and moral grounds.
    Sincerely,
    Gerry Weinberg
    Kennesaw, Georgia



MTC-00006409

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I support the settlement proposed by the Appeals Court. Let`s 
get on with things that are far more important. We should not be 
looking to punish successful companies who have moved our country 
ahead.
    A.L. Course
    119 Tuscany Way
    Danville CA 94506



MTC-00006410

From: Bryan Sapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement agreed to by Microsoft, the DOJ and 
some states is fair to both sides and in the best interest of the 
public. Please, don`t allow special interests to destroy what has 
been accomplished.
    Bryan Sapp



MTC-00006411

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest.



MTC-00006412

From: Carolyn Mustin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned taxpayer and American citizen, my husband and I 
strongly urge you to settle the Microsoft case. The settlement that 
has been proposed seems strong, but reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. In my opinion, putting this case behind us will be 
in the best interest of all Americans, and is vital to a healthy 
future for our economy.
    Thank you very much,
    Carolyn & Tom Mustin
    16 Fawnwood Court
    Greensboro, NC 27407
    (336) 852_4643
    [email protected]



MTC-00006413

From: Nadine Heppell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:54pm
Subject: Enough Already
    My concern as a taxpayer and consumer let things stand and go on 
to bigger and better fish such as terrorism abroad and at home`
    Reg & Nadine Heppell.



MTC-00006414

From: JERRY M MARTIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    this country of ours needs this case finished. ever since the 
money hungry states went after microsoft our country, our markets, 
and our economy has been going downhill. we have had enough. get 
your new found money somewhere else and let`s all tend to our own 
business. shall we next sue walmart, citibank, the new york yankees, 
etc. etc. etc. for being the dominant force in their fields? this 
case needs a settlement now.
    thank you.
    jerry martin
    21 edgewater alley
    isle of palms, s.c. 29451



MTC-00006415

From: Robert Gibson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The settlement has drawn on too long and is destabilizing to an 
industry that is already suffering economic hardship due in part to 
this intervention into the industry by the government. The arduous 
delays and inability to find a remedy makes it painfully clear that 
the government is way out of it`s depth and doesn`t really know what 
it is doing. Justice cannot possibly `be seen to be 
done' when the government resorts to asking for a remedy from 
direct competitors of Microsoft, where competitors indulge in 
spending Microsoft`s money only to expanding there own market space. 
Such a precedent would permit a judge to fine a Pastor for speeding 
by ordering him to by beer for all at the local saloon. If a crime 
has been committed against the state then the state should receive 
compensation and like everyone else Microsoft`s competitors must 
seek there own damages in a civil court themselves. Any attempt to 
do otherwise breaks the most fundamental tenants of the judicial 
system.
    But isn`t it true that one of Microsoft competitors, one 
instituted by the government, cannot seek such damages as they first 
set the precedent of giving software away for free to gain a clear 
monopoly 90% of the browser market and when Microsoft responded with 
similar tactics, the government then, declared these same tactics 
illegal.
    Robert John Gibson
    Senior Systems Eng, B Eng, NNCDE
    Network Engineering
    Ph 919 905 4915 ESN 355



MTC-00006416

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I feel the microsoft product has allowed me to stay competitive 
in business. I am glad someone initiated this software and continues 
to improve it. we have been in business for ourselves 47 years as a 
small family business. These innovations have allowed us to be 
competitive at reasonable prices. In addition as we get older the 
software allows us to produce with less effort. I have already 
written my states attorney asking him not to sue but I was ignored.
    Thank you for your consideration
    DON HOLMES
    Acme Signs Inc.
    728 Baltimore Pike unit 132
    Bel Air MD.



MTC-00006417

From: Richard Montgomery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The economy needs a settlement of this case. Work this out and 
get on to more important issues like getting people back to 
work!!!!!!!! The stock market is also suffering from your continued 
inability to settle this case. Get it done!!
    Tax payer



MTC-00006418

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This email is to endorse the DOJ`s proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe that it is in the public`s 
interest to see this case come to a quick and appropriate resolution 
as soon as possible. While Microsoft may have been exceedingly 
aggressive in its practices at times, they are a shining example of 
how an American company can position itself as a world leader. Let`s 
settle this case once and for all.
    Thank you,
    Alexander Young



MTC-00006419

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24815]]

    Dear US Government:
    Its about time to settle this microsoft case. It seems to me, 
after reviewing the settlement, that this is harsh enough. 
Competitors are just trying to do the same thing Microsoft is 
accused of doing. Let them meet in the marketplace and we all will 
be better off. That does sound like the American way. State 
government does not have a place in this dispute.
    Best Wishes for a speedy settlement
    Ronald O. Daly



MTC-00006420

From: rbwall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I truly believe that the suit against Microsoft should never 
have been filed! Just think where this world would be without the 
software from this great company. I am almost 67 years old and I 
think computers are wonderful as long as they have Microsoft Office 
in them. I have used Microsoft for years now and would not change. 
Microsoft is so user friendly and compatible for all my needs. I 
think consideration should be given to a company that has been 
foremost in bringing the computer to everyone.
    Please do not make more charges against them. Leave them free to 
develop more programs for us, the public. With out Microsoft we 
would still be in the dark ages!
    Betty W. Wall
    Educational Diagnostician



MTC-00006421

From: Vance Holloway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this in regards the Microsoft anti-trust suit and 
impending settlement.
    This case has never been about consumers. There probably has 
never been a company in the history of the United States that has 
done more for consumers than has Microsoft. Twenty years ago there 
were a few thousand people who had access to a computer and could 
use one. Today there are hundreds of millions of people with 
computers that can operate not only theirs, but 90% of the other 
computers they are exposed to. This came about due to the vision of 
Microsoft.
    Twenty five years ago the lowest cost computer cost tens of 
thousands of dollars, today the lowest cost computer cost less than 
$500. This came about due to the vision of Microsoft and Intel.
    No, this case is, and always has been about Microsofts 
competitors. They did not have the vision to do what Microsoft has 
done, even though they were on the same playing field as Microsoft. 
Now, since Microsoft was successful, these competitors want the 
government to step in and bring Microsoft down to their level. This 
would be very harmful to consumers.



MTC-00006422

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It`s time to settle this case on the terms agreed to by 
Microsoft and the US Gov`t.!!! Forget thr nine states.
    Joel Magyar
    2115 SW 53rd Ter
    Cape Coral, FL 33914



MTC-00006423

From: Gerald Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Accept The Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Enough is enough! Please accept the DOJ settlement in total so 
that the high tech portion of the economy can begin to rebound. Few 
if any are winning from this legal entanglement. Among those few 
with the loudest voices, the competitors and the attorneys seem to 
be the only parties who will gain from a prolonged argument. The 
losers, however, continue to be the American people and the 
continued loss of our hard-earned investments in the markets. 
Microsoft has been a standard bearer with its consistent growth in 
revenues and profits. Its stock has been the gold standard in the 
industry. Please simply cease the bickering and end this mess by 
accepting the settlement.
    God Bless America.



MTC-00006424

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached between the Justice Department, nine 
states and Microsoft should move forward. This is a fair settlement 
and further litigation will only prolong an already overdue 
agreement. I do NOT favor further action on the part of the Justice 
Department.
    Thank you,
    Richard G. Einig



MTC-00006425

From: Samuel Soh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: Regarding to Microsoft
    Dea Sirs,
    Thanks for Microsoft to bring the computer to user friendly 
atmosphere, without Microsoft Windows_Our hightech will not be 
here as of today! coparing the benefit that Windows brought to all 
of us at the cost less than a lousy movie (Annualize)!
    Only the jealous eye and stupidity of the greedy beings will 
ever think of panelize the giver of the modern high tech.
    God Bless America that we have Microsoft in this country, it 
make the comuter so easy to use! It transfer the computer power to 
all ordinary people, the benefit to the whole human beings and the 
society will be judged by the history.
    We really do not want to see, thirty years from now, the history 
state : ` Some people through their personal hate of success, 
some how use the name of `FOR THE PEOPLE' to manupilated 
American legal system and destroied one of the best company that 
attributes so much in the modernization to our current civilization 
achievement.'
    Why we want to kill the best running company in America or 
better in the whole World? Is this that we American suppose to do? I 
do not get it!
    Sam



MTC-00006426

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this long sad story of attract on one of the 
nations key firms.
    The United States and the world are better today, because of the 
innovations of Microsoft_people are enriched in both their 
knowledge base and in their bank accounts because of this company.
    In a world that moves fast, the rewards go to the most creative 
and fastest, Microsoft wins. Those people and companies who don`t 
like Microsoft or their products, there are other choices available.
    Let those who have a better ideal, come forth. It is not the 
business of the United States to hinder, stop or interfere with a 
productive, creative and great world class company that offers and 
continues to offer better, faster, and lower cost programing for 
consumers who want to purchase such items. Get this action in the 
past, close the book on this sorry effort to interfere with a good 
company doing their job_and in turn, improve the completeness 
of the nation.
    Legal statements aside, this is another example of the law going 
down a wrong way, and hurting the nation and people involved.
    Sincerely,
    John J. Overleese
    425 822 3643



MTC-00006427

From: Frank A. Nemia
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Micrsoft settlement
    Gentlemen/Madam....It is certainly in the `public 
interest' of all to end this unfortunate litigation in 
accordane with the settlement proposed...To continue this litigation 
during these uncertain times layers insecurity and negativeizes the 
marketplace to everyones` detriment...Frank Nemia
    Frank Nemia
    Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P.
    (607)723-9511



MTC-00006428

From: Chris Wilkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Continued pursuit of Microsoft and it`s business practicies 
hurts me as a network administrator and my career and a computer 
professional. They`ve made compromises while companies like Sun and 
AOL/Time continue similar practices without punishment. This is not 
a valuable use of my tax dollar and I would like you to stop. 
Microsoft is good for the world and especially this country. We 
should be thankful they are not based out of Moscow.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Wilkins



MTC-00006429

From: Clayton Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24816]]

Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Gentlemen:
    Gentlemen:
    I am opposed to the break up of Microsoft. They have introduced 
a number of very fine products for both consumer and business use. 
What was done to AT&T has hurt the communications field and this 
should not be allowed to happen to Microsoft. However, I do not feel 
that the proposed partnership with AOL is in our best interest. 
Having previously used the services of both groups, I have not been 
pleased with their services.
    Clayton Murphy



MTC-00006430

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this suit NOW Stop jerking MS around, drop it and leave 
them alone. What you are doing is not in my interest or in the 
interest of computer users, any where. This is a political mess 
instituted by the Clinton jerkoffs. DROP IT and Move On.....Go after 
Tyson Foods if you feel compelled to justify your existance.
    Robert L. Stockman
    75 Simpson Dr.
    Kennesaw GA 30144
    a long time computer user (1956) and an independent voter.....



MTC-00006431

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think it would be in the best interest of everyone that this 
item be settled. In an economic time as this No more `dragging 
your feet' on this issue. Would you feel that people who work 
hard give up their knowledge to those who want to ride the ` 
coattails' of others.
    NO MORE LAW SUITS! End this thing!
    Sincerely,
    LB Stuart & family



MTC-00006432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has been a significant contributor to the technology 
innovation that has propelled the American economy forward in recent 
years. Yes, Microsoft has been a very good competitor and has 
managed to outperform some of it`s competition. As a result 
Microsoft and it`s stockholders have been able to make a profit on 
their at risk investments. Isn`t that what a free market economy is 
all about? Why should Microsoft be punished so severely simply 
because it has been successful? Does the Department Of Justice want 
to handicap all successful Companies like a horse race so that their 
success is reduced to the lowest common denominator, i.e., the speed 
of the slowest horse in the race? What does this do for the US 
economy? Slow it down so that the US economy cannot even compete in 
the world economy? Doesn`t this undermine the basis of competition 
and free enterprise? Does this mean that the making of a profit is a 
dirty word?
    Microsoft may have abused it`s leadership at some levels, 
although I seriously doubt that its abusive conduct has been any 
greater than most of its competition. Nevertheless an agreement has 
been reached with Microsoft that significantly reduces and handicaps 
its competitive advantage. The agreement is more than 
fair_lets move and see what Microsoft`s competitors can do to 
improve their competitiveness now that the weight has been added to 
the leading horse.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick R. Mahan



MTC-00006433

From: Dick Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already! Stop the litigation. The companies run by Larry 
Ellison and Scott McNealy can`t compete with the quality of 
Microsoft`s products.
    The various states that still want to litigate don`t have a 
case. Does anyone think that any money they manage to squeeze out of 
Microsoft will make it into the pockets of the consumers they 
profess to represent?
    The U.S. economy needs all the help that it can get and so do I.



MTC-00006434

From: Mark Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a citizen and active taxpayer I would like to express my 
opinion regarding the antitrust settlement currently being 
considered. I am very glad that the DOJ has finally reached a 
settlement with Microsoft_I would have honestly preferred the 
case dropped altogether but since that does not appear to be an 
option I will take what I can get. Please do not let this settlement 
get derailed_it is critical in a country such as ours with the 
economy the way it is that successful companies be helped_not 
hindered by our government.
    Mark Miller



MTC-00006435

From: Bob Waggoner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:53pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
    To whom it may concern at the dept. of justice;
    Why in the hell don`t you leave microsoft alone and let them run 
their business the way they want to. This company has done nothing 
but GOOD for the computer industry. I think it all boils down to the 
fact that the companies that brought suit against microsoft can`t 
run their companies as effecient as microsoft can, so they concocted 
this bullshit case to try to take down microsoft. Just leave bill 
gates alone. I get tired of the govt always putting their nose where 
it doesn`t belong. Please consider this when making your decision, 
just leave the man alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
    Thank You,
    Robert Waggoner
    [email protected]
    GO GET THEM, BILL



MTC-00006436

From: randall wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: Dear Sirs:
    Dear Sirs:
    It seems there are a few people and companies that don`t like 
success. I believed from the beginning that the federal government 
had absolutely no buisiness in the lawsuit with Microsoft. The 
settlement has already gone too far in what it is asking from 
Microsoft and still other competitors and special interest groups 
won`t let go of the bone. Please let this end. I respect the Bush 
administration`s prompt action on this matter and I trust that 
Microsoft will now be allowed to carry out its generous penalty and 
get on with business. The company has had enough and so has our 
country.
    Thank you,
    Randall and Margueritte Wright
    1913 VanDyk Rd
    Everson, WA 98247



MTC-00006437

From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: Enough against Microsoft!
    The litigation against Microsoft has been promoted long enough 
by competitors of Microsoft who want an unfair crutch in selling 
their own products. Windows was the overwhelming choice of the 
people because it is an OPEN ARCHITECTURE SYSTEM (unlike MAC OS); 
and is no more of a monopoly than JVC is for having developed VHS. 
Please top interfering with free competition. To do so ALWAYS does 
more harm than good.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Olson
    [email protected]
    San Francisco



MTC-00006438

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    LET`S GET THIS OVER WITH.THERE ARE LOTS MORE CRITICAL ISSUES 
FACING OUR GOVERNMENT THAN THE MICROSOFT CASE. TIME AND TECHNOLOGY 
ADVANCES WILL RESOLVE ANY ALLEGED COMPETITVE DIFFERENCES
    EUGENE F.DUNN



MTC-00006439

From: Walter Stoewe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Microsoft is the most ingenious and generous business in the 
nation. We MS users are fed up with the continuing pursuit of this 
great company!
    If you were really serious about going after large monopolies 
you would have busted the DeBeers Diamond empire a long time ago.
    This is not about monopolies, this is about outright greed of 
the less successful

[[Page 24817]]

competitors and the trial lawyers smelling blood.
    Let the billion dollar Microsoft settlement stand, as it is the 
best deal for our kids` education !!!
    Walter Stoewe
    Powhatan, VA 23139



MTC-00006440

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Government should not have to bail out companies because they 
cannot make it. That is not what government is all about. If we 
continue this way, socialism is just around the corner.
    Companies like Microsoft that have a competetive edge, talent 
and technical expertise should not be held liable for being 
industrious, inventive and innovative.
    Companies that feel their business was hurt, should not have 
gone into the business in the 1st place if they could not keep up.



MTC-00006441

From: John Wagenseil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:00pm
Subject: Re: My opinion
    Dear Sirs,
    Leave Mr. Gates alone.
    It is all sour grapes. If I wanted to compete with Ford or 
Chevy, would I have a chance? No. Can I get another local phone 
company, or cable company? No. But I don`t hear a lot of people 
complaining about these `monopolies'. Bill`s on top and 
everybody is jealous.
    Not one of Mr. Gates distracters care about me, the buyer. They 
just want to beat Bill in some `I am as good as you are' 
frenzy, or the various States just want the business on there home 
turf.
    I have a friend who owns a Microbrew, and he has to use 
Distributors to get his beer to market. Now these guys have a 
monopoly. They sometimes just tell him flat they are not paying him. 
But I don`t see a lot of the States jumping on these guys, or the 
building permit business, and on and on. But boy, the old States 
jumped on old evil Bill. Get real. I don`t care which of these guys 
has more billions, I just want everything to be compatible. With the 
way things were, everything had to be compatible with one standard. 
I am afraid that soon you will have to be worrying about whether the 
Software you buy runs on your machine or not. I don`t care which 
system is the main one as a user, but they should be compatible. 
Gates wouldn`t be where he is if Apple had gone for compatibility. 
Gates say OK, you wouldn`t settle on a standard, then I will make a 
standard. It`s all sour grapes.
    The Netscape leader was on a PBS show one time where he avowed 
he wanted to bury Mr. Gates. Come on, the guy was worth some 20 
Billion at the time and he was mad at Gates, grow up. They all want 
to be Bill, to beat Bill, cause after all, they are better than 
Bill. Come on, grow up.
    J P Morgan couldn`t have gone down on the foundry floor and done 
anything in the Steel mill, but he sure knew how to tell the 
Bessemer process was a money maker (sounds like DOS to me), and that 
the guy he hired from Europe was the best in the business. They were 
mad at Morgan for his money and position too. It is all sour grapes.
    I am 59 years old, male, in the US Merchant Marine, and not a 
real good computer person.
    Leave Bill alone.
    Respectfully,
    Jww



MTC-00006442

From: Chuck Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has its market share because they offer the best 
product for a very fair price. If Microsoft had been prevented from 
competing with Novell when Microsoft integrated networking software 
into the operating system, we would still be paying Novell $2,000 
per computer for networking software. The high cost of the 
networking software would still be holding the market beck, not 
allowing the hardware prices to drop also. If Microsoft had been 
prevented from competing with Novell we would not have a public 
internet today because small companies and individuals could not 
afford local area networks. Yes, it is true Microsoft`s competition 
hurt Novell`s and other company`s profit margin. But it is not true 
that Microsoft`s competition has ever harmed consumers.
    Despite the fact that harm to the consumer was never adequately 
addressed in the lawsuit Microsoft is willing to make concessions. 
They can do this because they can compete on the value of their 
products.
    Microsoft was the driving force in the super charged economy of 
the 90?s. The inexpensive products, packed with new features, they 
brought to consumers and businesses allowed an explosion in 
productivity.
    For the sake of consumers worldwide and the U.S. economy, stop 
pandering to the existing monopolies and allow Microsoft to compete 
with them!
    Thank you for hearing my comments.
    Chuck Bell
    Duvall, Washington
    [email protected]



MTC-00006443

From: Rosalinda S. Castiglioni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:59pm
Subject: Mcirosoft Settlement
    I believe that it is in the public`s best interest to settle the 
case against Microsoft. The public is well aware of the fact that 
Microsoft has greatly contributed to the growth of our economy not 
only nationally but globally as well. To prolong the litigation 
process is only counterproductive. It is time Microsoft should be 
left to continue making innovations and move forward to achieve even 
greater heights and consequently contributing to our worldwide 
economy.
    Rosalinda S. Castilgioni, PhD



MTC-00006444

From: Walden A. Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm
Subject: End the Microsoft Investigations
    January 2, 2002
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The U.S. Government 
and the Justice Department have had ample time to take whatever 
actions it deemed necessary with regard to its lengthy investigation 
of Microsoft Corporation`s business practices. It is now time to end 
all ongoing procedures, declare all investigations closed and final, 
and let Microsoft lead the United States out of it`s two year 
economic slump. In my view the slump started with the initial 
Government lawsuit and it should now be ended. `Let`s 
Roll' with the economy and go find some other corporation to 
investigate. I strongly suggest ENRON CORPORATION!!! Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Walden A. Lange



MTC-00006445

From: John U. McDole, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The U.S. Department of Justice
    `Enough already' is my comment to the attempt to 
beat Microsoft into the dirt. I don`t care for Microsoft or Bill 
Gates but in this country every one has the right to make money. 
Perhaps the means were not totally honorable but what big 
corporation is? Trying to break up this company is nothing short of 
`sour grapes` by its competitors. Let this `witch hunt` die, here 
and now. Too much of the publics funds have been wasted in this 
attempt to stifle this successful enterprise. This is about as 
useful to our country as the Bill Clinton debacle that wasted more 
money than anyone will ever know. Spending public funds in futile 
attempts at grandstanding is just playing politics at its worst.
    John McDole
    Birmingham, Alabama



MTC-00006446

From: Jean Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    I think it is time to let this rest. Let the settlement stand as 
it is to everyone`s benefit that we have this thing settled 
now.Thankyou for listening to me.
    Sincerely
    Jean N. Smith



MTC-00006447

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I wanted express my opinon on the microsoft settlement. I use 
Microsoft products and do not feel cheated by the company. I do 
however feel cheated by me goverment. I am sick of the 
politics!!!!!!!!!Get it setted without putting Microsoft through 
more litigation.



MTC-00006448

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:02pm

[[Page 24818]]

Subject: Settlement Of Microsoft Lawsuit
    I am in agreement with the proposals in the current settlement 
to the Microsoft Lawsuit.
    Thomas H. Loney



MTC-00006449

From: David J. Gilman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case was ridiculous from the start. It was a move 
(brilliant one might say) by Microsoft competitors to leverage a 
Microsoft weakness (hubris) since they couldn`t compete with them in 
the marketplace. This case should be settled, sealed and put to rest 
quickly so that the hindsight of history can begin to show how 
ludicrous and ill-conceived the case always was. The DOJ, and 
associated states, have been victims of a massive confidence 
`game' perpetuated by Microsoft`s competitors. Consumers 
were never harmed. Corporate customers were never harmed. Egos were 
harmed.
    djg



MTC-00006450

From: Mark Consuegra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing you to encourage your department to settle the 
existing antitrust action with Microsoft. I believe the case was 
already politically and competitively driven, rather than by the 
best interests of business and consumer customers of Microsoft.
    As the CEO of an independent software ISV that needs to work 
with Microsoft, I hope my comments have particular relevance. I have 
worked with many large corporate partners and believe that Microsoft 
competes fairly and effectively.
    More importantly, I believe the emergence of a strong platform 
for the PC industry has created a tremendous amount of value, jobs 
and productivity for our country, and for me, over the past 15 
years. This has been engendered by Microsoft`s contributions to the 
industry.
    I hope your efforts and the court will consider a speedy 
resolution of this case, especially at a time where many of us would 
like to see growth and leadership in our industry_one we hope 
our country will remain the leader in.
    Respectfully,
    Mark Consuegra
    CEO, Wonderhorse Inc.
    551 N 34th Street
    Seattle, WA 98103



MTC-00006451

From: Tommy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is about time that this issue be settled once and for all. It 
is my opinion that the law suits to date have been frivolous and 
without true standing as far as I am concerned. Without Microsoft, 
I, and many many others, would have no idea how to use a computer 
with a degree of expertise. Their products are for the betterment of 
this nation, as well as others. The case needs to be settled now and 
to the benefit of Microsoft. Why are they being spotlighted any 
ways? Go away and fight for what is truly meaningful in this life we 
live.
    SETTLE!!! NOW!!! NO PENALTIES EITHER!!!!
    Thomas S. Czop



MTC-00006452

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time to end this Microsoft issue. At this point I think the 
issue has changed to who is going to win and how much. This is at 
great expense to tax payers and stockholders. Enough is enough let`s 
get on with American competition the way it was intended to be not 
with all this government intervention. If the corporations doing all 
the crying would apply those resources to product development and 
marketing they might be able to improve market share. They won`t do 
it in the courts they will only hurt taxpayers and stockholders.
    Where would the PC be today if not for Microsoft? One thing is 
for sure we can`t count on justice and fair play not after what we 
saw from the Supreme Court a year ago in the decision for Bush!
    Ernie Levy
    64209 E Greenbelt Lane
    Tucson AZ 85739
    520 825 9629



MTC-00006453

From: Richard Shouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I favor the current Microsoft Settlement. Please, leave 
Microsoft alone, and let us get on with the work.



MTC-00006454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this case should be settled as agreed between Microsoft 
and the DOJ. All the states should be required to accept said 
settlement and not be allowed to continue their suits.
    Sonny Craig



MTC-00006455

From: Goers, Ronald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Folks,
    I cannot believe that this silly case has gotten as far as it 
has. Janet Reno should be hog-tied and whipped with wet spaghetti 
for her part in the gross mishandling of this case. If the complaint 
had been brought on by consumers, I might think differently, but 
let`s face it; this case was concocted by Microsoft`s competitors. 
Unfortunately, the folks at SUN Microsystems, and the rest of those 
who complained are a whiney lot. Too bad they have inferior 
platforms and software that prevent them from effectively competing 
in a free marketplace. I wonder why they blame their inadequacies on 
Microsoft? Maybe instead of wasting money on slick lawyers, they 
could be spending their time and money inventing something people 
will want to buy and use. It strikes me as odd that on one hand 
Microsoft is said to be a monopoly, but on the other hand Time 
Warner isn`t... doesn`t that seem strange to you also??? (Think 
`having your cake, and eating it too') And, why isn`t 
Apple under fire? They have both a hardware and software monopoly 
going!
    This case reminds me of a recent Nature program I was watching. 
The setting was an Alaskan river, where there were several grizzly 
bears fishing for king salmon. There was one big old male bear who 
filled his belly by stealing fish from all the other bears. The 
narrator of the program noted that this particular bear had used 
this method of `fishing' for many years. Those who would 
have Microsoft punished for advancing technology in a way no other 
company has been able to do should be ashamed of themselves. I 
assure you had the shoe been on the other foot, those who brought 
this suit to the DOJ would have failed to see any wrongdoing in 
their own practices. And rightly so, since there is no law against 
creating technology (in this case, an OS) which drove our economy to 
levels of prosperity never before imagined. Take away Microsoft, and 
hundreds of thousands of jobs would not exist_and that just 
from those who write software and build hardware based on MS 
innovation. Add to that, those who rely on computers running a 
Microsoft OS to run a business... and to that those who actually 
work for Microsoft... and those who run MS computers at home... and 
Palm devices which rely on MS platforms for synchronizing... and 
it`s not hard to see the negative impact it would have on our 
economy. The Microsoft Operating Systems are one of the key reasons 
this country has seen such great prosperity in recent years.
    Lastly, lest anyone gets the idea I work for (or draw any sort 
of income) from Microsoft_I don`t. In fact, I don`t even like 
their browser! I regularly use_believe it or 
not_Netscape 4.7!!! Still, I can`t support throwing the baby 
out with the bath water. Even though I don`t particularly like the 
MS browser, nor the way it gets packaged with their OS_I 
accept it as part of the package. If I don`t want to use the 
browser, I simply don`t use it, and install another one in it`s 
place. Simple, isn`t it? No suit, no jumping up and down crying 
`monopoly', no sweat!
    In summary; My advise on this whole issue is to drop it 
completely and stop wasting taxpayer`s money. If that is not an 
option, then I would like to see Time Warner sued by the DOJ for 
refusing to run cable the extra 2 miles down my street to connect it 
to my house. Maybe they`re under the delusion that I would be using 
Microsoft`s browser on their Time Warner `RoadRunner' 
network...
    Warmest regards,
    ron
    Ronald L. Goers
    Associate Engineer
    SP/SIPT/ISET/IQ Engineering
    800 Phillips Road, MS: 0111-30N, Webster, NY 14580
    (585) 422-5331 (Intelnet: 8*222-5331)
    Http://photo.scan.mc.xerox.com/ (Xerox Internal Only)
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,Adam Stein

[[Page 24819]]



MTC-00006456

From: Jon Lane
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The goal to limit the monopolistic practices of Microsoft has 
been met with this settlement. Competitors now have the opportunity 
to compete and earn their share of the market by offering products 
that perform better or are priced better than Microsoft`s. To dilute 
the settlement, which seems to be the goal of Microsoft`s 
detractors, would provide market share welfare to their competitors 
where it is not warranted. The Justice Department has created an 
atmosphere that fosters competition, let`s retain that ruling.
    J. W. Lane



MTC-00006457

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to express my approval of the settlement which has 
been made with Microsoft. Please rule in favor of it as it will be 
in the best interests of the public, and this debate and hassle has 
gone on long enough. Microsoft has done so much for all of 
us_let them be done with all this confusion and get on with 
making computers and programs that will further benefit us!
    Sincerely,
    Phyllis Krehbiel
    2015 N. 71st
    K.C., KS 66109



MTC-00006458

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe it is time to settle the Microsoft case now. We have 
enough problems with the economy and others, we do not need to 
continue this case any longer.
    Thank you.
    Jacqueline H. Balthaser



MTC-00006459

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft /DOJ/ States disagreement has gone on long enough. 
The points that were part of the original issue are history and I 
thought were resolved in the trial and subsequent appeal ruling, it 
is time to move on. As a consumer of Microsoft products, I think the 
settlement agreement reached between the DOJ and Microsoft is fair. 
I want to see accessory products bundled. It is confusing for a 
layman to sort through various software products that are available. 
I like to have the starting software provided. Occasionally when I 
find a product that I like better than one supplied by Microsoft, I 
simply replace the Microsoft project.
    I would urge the DOJ and the court to let the settlement stand 
and move ahead.
    Thank you,
    James C. Coons



MTC-00006460

From: RAY NEUBAUER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I BELIEVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD DO ALL POSSIBLE TO 
CONCLUDE THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. AS A CONSUMER AND USER OF 
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE AND MSN I BELIEVE I AND ALL OTHERS LIKE ME WOULD 
BE BEST SERVED BY ENDING THIS SITUATION. I BELIEVE MICROSOFT HAS 
BEEN MORE THAN GENEROUS AND COMPLIANT IN ACCEPTING THE TERMS OF THE 
AGREEMENT.
    A.R. NEUBAUER JR.
    93 CARAVAN PLACE
    SAN RAMON CA 94583



MTC-00006461

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is more than fair, it is time to put this to bed 
and get it out of the courts. It should have never gotten to this 
point in the first place. You are stiffiling the very thing that has 
made this country great and a leader in technolgy.



MTC-00006462

From: Uebe, Joanne
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For nearly four years the Microsoft case has been going on and 
on and on, and despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of 
its competitors, the Federal Government and nine states finally 
reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the 
reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. I think this 
settlement is tough enough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
concerned. Please settle this case once and for all_ for the 
good of everyone_consumers and Country alike. I don`t think 
the nine states who are opposing this settlement should be given 
more consideration than those nine states who agree with the 
settlement.
    Again, nearly four years of these hearings is ENOUGH! Settlement 
is needed for the good of all of us!



MTC-00006463

From: BJA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel that the settlement that has been proposed for the 
Microsoft case is a fair one. To continue litigation in this matter 
would, I think, cause unnecessary and prolonged unrest in the 
technology industry, especially during these uncertain economic 
times. I hope the Justice Department can let this matter be settled 
and discontinue any further costly litigation.
    Thank You.
    Beverly Arnold
    St. Louis, MO 63042
    [email protected]



MTC-00006464

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the Tunney Act and the agreed upon settlement are 
in the public interest and that it is now time for this matter to 
pass into history.
    Thank you,
    George G. Edwards, MD



MTC-00006465

From: B(038)B Cody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:06pm
Subject: microsoft
    I don`t agree that Microsoft is a monoply. If you want to 
chastise monoply then I suggest you look to the biggest monoply of 
all_the Washington government. Why not break up that? All 
Microsoft is guilty of is being successful. Hurting them hurts the 
whole economy and we don`t need that now or anytime.
    Sincerely
    R Cody



MTC-00006466

From: stanley t leung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case would be good for the 
national economy, but also restore a sense of fairness to the 
American markets.
    Stanley T. Leung, JD, MBA
    Medical Scholars Program
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    506 South Mathews Avenue
    Urbana, Illinois 61801
    Email: [email protected]
    Ph#: (217) 352-1133 Pager#: 
800-702-3646



MTC-00006467

From: Ken Abeles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Sir,
    I believe that the settlement is fair to all parties and that it 
is not in the government`s interest to delay this decision. I use 
Microsoft products and will continue to use them. Let them innovate 
so as to best serve the public.
    Regards,
    Kenneth Abeles



MTC-00006468

From: William Franklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    According to our Constitution_Justice should be fair and 
prompt. Prolonging litigation would not apply to being prompt. As it 
appears our present Tax system needs to be fair and correction 
should be prompt. Abolish the I. R. S. and promptly give us a fair 
Tax.



MTC-00006469

From: Mokhtar Hamada
To: Microsoft ATR,lobna gaber
Date: 1/2/02 3:04pm

[[Page 24820]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I support Microsoft on the settlement with the U.S. DOJ as 
approved by federal court. Please stop certain state Attorneys 
General from making mockery of the federal court`s decision. 
Microsoft has been doing a good, honest business all along. As a 
consumer, I find Microsoft to be innovative and worthy of my 
support.
    Mokhtar Hamada, D.Sc.
    Retired Chem Engineer
    St. Louis County, MO 63011
    Keep Safe, be Cool, have Fun !



MTC-00006470

From: Edward Klements
To: Microsoft ATR,KlementsSr. ed
Date: 1/2/02 3:05pm
Subject: Justice
To: United States Dept. Of Justice,
    Please stop wasting the taxpayers money on this Microsoft suit. 
I have been buying their products since 1996 and have always 
obtained an excellent product at a fair price. In my opinion a 
company is not a threat or a monopoly when it behaves like 
Microsoft.
    If the DOJ wants to do some good for the american public, then 
take the drug companies to task. They affect me adversely to the 
tune of $350 a month, if you want to make an example of monopolistic 
abuse, you`ve got it with the `DRUGGIES'.
    Edward Klements
    Homosassa Fl.
    34446



MTC-00006471

From: Michelle Galaz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 2, 2002
    Your Honor:
    My hope is that the courts will settle this law suit between 
Microsoft the the Justice Department. Microsoft has been a leader in 
the software industry for years through hard work, dedicated 
employees, excellent marketing skills, brilliant leaders, and hugh 
risks. They were lucky that the risks paid off and rewarded.
    Please don`t punish Microsoft because they happen to be the 
first and best in this new age of technology. The recent rash of 
dot.com businesses showed that this entire field is still evolving. 
Unfortunately many dot.coms failed. These failed businesses did not 
make it for various reasons, inexperienced management, inability to 
turn a profit, obscure ideas, risky ventures, and many other 
reasons. Microsoft took many of these same risks in the beginning. 
They also could have failed but a little bit of luck along with 
briliance not a violation of the Sherman act made them suceed.
    As Darwin proved in his theories with nature only the strongest 
survive. Microsoft has become the strongest and they have survived 
not through illegal practices but through hard work and risk.
    I do not work for Microsoft nor do any of my immediate 
relatives. I do not say these things for an immediate financial 
payoff. I say these things because Microsoft is good for Washington 
State and good for the Nation. I believe that our Nations current 
financial crisis can be linked directly to the original court ruling 
Spring 1999.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions.
    Sincerely,
    Michelle Galaz
    9608 Dekoven Dr SW
    Lakewood Washington
    253-589-1580
    Michelle Galaz
    [email protected]



MTC-00006472

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is time to conclude the litigation in reference to
    E. Steinmeyer



MTC-00006473

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is our opinion that the government would do well to keep out 
of Microsoft`s affairs. In fact the government should keep out of 
business affairs as much as is possible. The government has better 
things to do than to persecute Microsoft which offers excellent 
products. I recall with chagrin the breakup of AT&T. Telephone 
service has not been the same since. Please add our voices to this 
protest. We want Microsoft left alone!!
    Sincerely,
    Helen and Ray Richard



MTC-00006474

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    It is my opinion that this case against Microsoft should be 
settled. The American economy is literaly under attack! We need to 
help American companies such as Microsoft_not hurt them 
because their competitors are sore loosers. Microsoft has an 
continues to offer consumers and business a great product at a fair 
market price. The American consumers do not need any action taken 
against them.
    Chris Jensen
    ePD Web Team
    General Motors



MTC-00006475

From: Spragens, Joy (WASHINGTON_WK OFFICE WK 749)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. In fact I believe the 
suit was ill-founded as no consumer has been hurt by Microsoft; to 
the contrary; Microsoft has helped the consumer both technologically 
and financially. Computers and peripherals are now compatible and 
speak to each other. I believe we owe much of the economic 
prosperity of the last decade to Microsoft and its innovations which 
have allowed for higher productivity and made computers easy for the 
layman to use (including my 72 year old mother). I want to see the 
US remain open to innovation and not stifle it. I do not want to see 
innovative people and companies move abroad seeking that freedom if 
it is threatened here. Our antitrust laws as I understand them were 
drawn to protect the consumer not the competitor. The laws in Europe 
are the other way around and we can easily see how much it has 
stifled innovation there.
    Sincerely,
    Joy Fowler Spragens



MTC-00006476

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Anti Trust Settlement
    PLEASE ACCEPT THE PENDING SETTLEMENT
    Marvin J. Tibbetts
    3900 Rosehill Ave.
    Apt. 402A
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00006477

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US economy has enjoyed the past ten years` successes mostly 
because Microsoft has bourght unprecedented economies to ALL 
Americans_private and public. The original lawsuit by the 
Government was obviously undertaken because Bill Gates refused to 
contribute heavily to Mr. Clinton.
    Enough of chasing successful people. Settle as it now is 
proposed.
    William L. Sickenberger
    Reston, VA



MTC-00006478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE GET THIS WITCH HUNT OVER. MICROSOFT HAS PROBABLY DONE 
MORE TOWARDS MAKING THE PC BOTH AFFORDABLE AND USABLE TO TO YOUR 
AVERAGE AMERICAN. THAN ANY OTHER ENTITY.
    IF YOU WANT TO HELP US CONSUMERS THEN GET AFTER THE OIL COS. THE 
UTILITIES AND ESPECIALLY THE NATURAL GAS COMPANIES. THEY RAPED ALL 
OF LAST WINTER AND CONSIDERING THE CURRENT COLD SNAP OVER THE SOUTH 
WE ARE PROBABLY IN FOR ANOTHER RAPE THIS WINTER.
    THANK YOU
    RICHARD I DENNEY
    881 DEBONAIR DR
    MOBILE AL 36695
    (251) 633-5088



MTC-00006479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let this just be SETTLED without further ado, thank you.
    Barbara Ann Wilcoxson, a shareholder.

[[Page 24821]]



MTC-00006480

From: Carolyn Braswell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please encourage the states to settle this ASAP. This has been 
one of the reasons for economic recession and we do not need any 
more of it!
    Eddie & Carolyn Braswell



MTC-00006481

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor I think the `settlement' reached by the 
various States involved is only a slap on the wrist. Bill Gates is 
very happy with it, because he knows Microsoft got off almost scott 
free. Microsoft is a bully and will continue to be unless the Court 
does something to stop it. Please put some teeth into this case and 
prevent Microsoft from running over the top of everyone.
    Kent G. Tyler



MTC-00006482

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case. No further litigation. We need this to 
end now! I have a cable company, telephone company and garbage 
company that are more of a monopoly than Microsoft.
    Rob Grant
    Mukiteo, WA



MTC-00006483

From: The Fennertys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please recommend approval of the Microsoft Settlement. I believe 
it to be in the best interests of the consumer as well as bsiness. 
We need to be actively developing new products in order to be 
competitive in this extraordinary global economy. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment.
    Francis E. Fennerty
    Tucson, Arizona
    fennerty@the river.com



MTC-00006484

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DO settlement is fair even if a bit severe. Please say NO to 
those states that are looking for more. Thanks
    Harry Bryant
    Riddle Village
    511 Arlington
    Media, PA 19063-6007
    Tel. 610-565-2057



MTC-00006485

From: Dorothy Lau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge that the Microsoft Settlement remain intact as 
agreed upon by the federal government and the nine states in the 
Court of Appeals ruling.
    The nation needs to attend to the fiscal problems that now exist 
with the economy. There is nothing to be gained by prolonging the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Dorothy D. Lau



MTC-00006486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I SUPPORT THE RECENT SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
AND MICROSOFT.
    I FEEL IT IS TIME THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKED INTO THE EFFECT 
THAT ITS ATTACK ON MICROSOFT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGING THE WHOLE 
HI-TECH INDUSTRY LEADING TO AN OVERALL DECLINE IN THE US ECONOMY. 
HAD MICROSOFT BEEN A JAPAN BASED ENTITY I BELIEVE THEY WOULD NOT 
HAVE BEEN SO TARGETED.
    RESPECTFULLY,
    GRAHAM RAEL-BROOK



MTC-00006487

From: Peter Ahking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:13pm
Subject: microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/Madame:
    I beleive the agreement is just and fair
    I strongly urge that the dept of Justice settle the anti-trust 
case with Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Peter Ahking



MTC-00006488

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Leave Microsoft alone. End the settlement now. Where would you 
be without Bill Gates anyway
    Bill and Fran Brandenburg



MTC-00006489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please recommend approval of the current settlement agreement 
with Microsoft. I think the proposed settlement is fair for me as a 
consumer and fair to the Government`s position.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely yours,
    John L. Farrell, Jr.
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    [email protected]



MTC-00006490

From: BILL DAVIDSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    If 9 states and the Appeals Court have approved Microsoft`s 
generous settlement offer, then I would urge the DOJ to persuade the 
dissenting states to drop their suits.
    Microsoft is the epitome of the `American Dream'. It 
appears that many of the objecting states are catering to local 
constituents that are either jealous of Microsoft`s accomplishments 
or do not have the ability to create a better operating system and 
package of products for consumers.
    Microsoft and the Gates Foundation are among industries most 
generous contributors to many humanitarian and educational causes.
    Please make every effort to stop these jealous attacks on one of 
America`s great companies. Their energies are better spent creating 
new and exciting products rather than defending frivolous lawsuits.
    Yours very truly,
    Jean and Bill Davidson



MTC-00006491

From: seung lyu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft anti-trust settlement is reasonable 
and fair to all parties involved.
    Sk



MTC-00006492

From: ronald t moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this witch hunt. Bill Gates has done more for this 
country in the form of charity than many who are in his position of 
power. If the money were spent to fight terrorism during the Clinton 
administration instead of trying to take it to Microsoft, September 
11th, might not have the significance that it does. Close the 
chapter on this disgraceful injustice and move on to important 
matters.
    Ronald Moore
    Indianola WA.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006493

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel strongly that the proposed settlement is in the best 
interest of consumers, the economy and the industry. Let`s get it 
settled and get on with our lives.
    Joan Zicht



MTC-00006494

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
    I believe it`s in the best interest of all parties to settle 
this issue as is.
    J.W. Sanderson



MTC-00006495

From: Bob Ulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!
    I am in total favor of the Microsoft Settlement! The Microsoft 
Corp. has been a good company for and to America! I ask where would 
America be today without Microsoft? The only reason the Department 
of Justice is in litigation now with Microsoft is greed and jealousy 
of other competitors! I

[[Page 24822]]

say the American way is to let the competitors build a better 
product if they want more market share! What happened to the free 
market place that is supposed to exist in America? What does 
Microsoft bring to the table for America? Jobs, High wages, 
Philanthropy, A quality product, High customer satisfaction, 
Innovation,It creates a large tax base for the government of 
America! Why cut off the nose of America to spite her face!
    MICROSOFT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!
    Bob Ulmer
    3959 Normandy Drive
    Owensboro, KY 42303



MTC-00006496

From: Richard Horlacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Keep the current settlement terms as they now are. Do not change 
them.
     Richard D. Horlacher



MTC-00006497

From: joseph davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00006498

From: Joe Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to the proposed settlement of the litigation by the 
Government vs. Microsoft_it is time (it has been for some time 
now ) to get on with the settlement without further delay! The 
compromises reached over the course of the year appear to be 
reasonable for all concerned, not least of whom are the U.S. 
citizens, who want to see fairness applied to the entrepreneurial 
spirit which drives our free economic society.
    Enough is enough! It`s time to get on with the further economic 
development of this great country, not take a giant step backward in 
our private enterprise system. Let`s continue to reward innovation, 
not stifle it!
    Allow the proposed settlement to happen, and quickly!
    Joe Weber
    [email protected]



MTC-00006499

From: B. Newman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I think it is about time that this is settled. Time to get off 
Microsoft`s back and let them do their job.
    You are playing with innocent people`s lives! After all isn`t 
the biggest monoply in the world the U.S. government??? What 
happened to free enterprise and the American dream?
    Brenda K. Newman
    Sequim, WA 98382



MTC-00006500

From: Robert Gibson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The best remedy would be to limit copyright on software to 5 
years and then enforce making that code public. Technology is 
changing at a far more rapid pace today than when copyright laws 
were first written but those laws have not been updated to reflect 
this. Today five years spans a software technologies life cycle 
providing sufficient time gain the vast majority of potential 
profit. Making code public at the end of 5 years would ensure that 
significant new development would have to be produced to maintain a 
competitive position. I would be surprised if Bill Gates would 
oppose such a move as he has always advocated a fast moving 
innovative industry, whereas his opponents have advocated open code 
which they would gain after 5 years. This remedy serves both 
interests without threatening either to the advantage of the public 
and the industry while aligning copyright laws with contemporary 
times.
    Thank you
    Robert John Gibson
    Senior Systems Eng, B Eng, NNCDE
    Network Engineering
    Ph 919 905 4915 ESN 355



MTC-00006501

From: jlcharlton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Both Jack and I were dismayed and infuriated at the amusement 
and smiles on their faces when we saw Janet Reno and the lead 
prosecutor in the antitrust case against Microsoft on television 
announcing that they had won a case that should never have been 
filed. It is a given that any one of us who has computing experience 
knew the moment the lawsuit was filed that the technology had moved 
far beyond what was the subject of the litigation. The DOJ needs to 
settle the case now and let this country move on and continue to be 
innovative and successful in business. The companies whining over a 
loss of business should get busy and work at winning as Microsoft 
did and continues to do.
    Thanks for letting our opinion be expressed.
    Linda and Jack Charlton



MTC-00006502

From: JOHN (038) Mary McLauchlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    The fight with Microsoft has been going on much too long. Let`s 
somehow get it settled and over with. In doing so, the one thing 
that should never happen is for Microsoft to be forced to reveal 
their secrets to anyone. As for Judge Jackson who ruled on his bias, 
I and many of my friends do not understand why he is still in 
office.
    John McLauchlin
    91 Apple Blossom Ln.
    Sequim, WA 98382



MTC-00006503

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I agree with the tentative settlement. As far as I am concerned 
the US Dept. of Justice got more of a settlement than the Government 
should have. Even government bureaucrats should be able to figure 
out that if you put Microsoft out of business, then Japanese 
computer companies will fill the void, and US companies will loose 
yet another industry. We once had a steel industry, didn`t we?



MTC-00006504

From: Carter Cherry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement between DOJ and Microsoft is a fair 
solution in the interest of all consumers. Prompt settlement with 
the proposed DOJ-Microsoft agreed upon terms should be sought by all 
parties.
    Cordially,
    Carter M. Cherry
    11665 Walnut Spring Court
    Cupertino, CA 95014



MTC-00006505

From: H. William Koster, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is fair as it now stands; any 
further action byu the DOJ or the States would be unjust.



MTC-00006506

From: frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Greetings: I wish to go on record as a user of Microsoft 
products and an independent Microsoft shareholder that ENOUGH IS 
ENOUGH !!! It is time to get this un-warranted and frivolous,stupid 
attack on America`s business ended. You all know the reasons behind 
this litigation so I need not rehash them here. It is in the best 
interests of the United States to end the un-warranted attack, so 
please do so immediately.
    Frank Wills
    8258 Level hill Rd.
    Junction, IL 62954
    P.S. Possible strongly letter to follow!!!



MTC-00006507

From: tanis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Here`s a profound question. Can you answer?
    Fw: Question from Philly radio call-in show.....
    Without Casting Stones, It is a legit. question.
    Two men, both billionaires.
    One develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds of 
millions of dollars to charity.
    The other sponsors terrorism.
    That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent 
more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than 
Osama bin Laden?

[[Page 24823]]



MTC-00006508

From: Jack Reece
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If there has ever been a time when the Department of Justice 
needed to make a judgment for the benefit of the the consumer, the 
technology industry, and the country as a whole, it is now. A 
judgment that is more than fair has been agreed to by Microsoft and 
most of the plaintiff states. And yet, there are specific states, 
companies and individuals who are seeking further action for selfish 
reasons.
    This country, more than ever, needs an immediate resolution to 
this problem. Let`s not be held hostage any longer by self-serving 
individuals.
    Jack D. Reece
    419 Chesterwoods Court
    High Point, NC 27262
    336-841-7810



MTC-00006509

From: Panchanadam Swaminathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    I am very anxious to see that the case against is settled as 
announced. It is time that we all get on with exciting and 
interesting new technology development which Microsoft has been 
doing during the past decade. It is highly detrimental to the 
progress of technology to stop Microsoft from developing new and 
exciting technology affordable to common people.
    I look forward to seeing the case settled as son as possible.
    P. swaminathan, Ph.D.
    Technical Manager



MTC-00006510

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 2, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a consumer and avid user of a PC. I feel that Microsoft 
over the years has provided me with valuable bundled tools to surf 
the Internet and do other tasks on the PC. I used the Internet 
before the Worldwide Web became popular. We would not have or 
continue to have the convenience of using the WWW with innovations 
that can be used by the average American if the American government 
continues its attack on Microsoft! Microsoft products have always 
been a bargain both in cost and utilitarian value! If litigation 
continues, the only winners will be LAWYERS AND PRIVATE INTERESTS. 
An example is the ludicrous tobacco settlement!!! It is a cash cow 
for lawyers and state treasuries. I feel that the current recession 
started with Clinton`s attack on Microsoft years ago! Remember that 
the CONSUMER COMES FIRST! THAT IS ME!!!! TOO MUCH OF OUR GROSS 
NATIONAL PRODUCT IS BEING WASTED ON LITIGATION...CLASS ACTION SUITS 
ONLY BENEFIT THE LAWYERS AND OTHER PRIVATE INTERESTS. MONETARY 
REWARDS ARE ONLY PEANUTS TO THE AVERAGE CONSUMER LIKE ME!
    (UNLESS YOU SPILL A CUP OF MCDONALDS COFFEE ON YOUR CROTCH!!! 
AND FIND A CROOKED LAWYER AND SYMPATHETIC JURY!) SETTLE WITH 
MICROSOFT NOW!!!!
    Let American business get back on track!
    LLOYD PORTER



MTC-00006511

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:18pm
Subject: Micrdsoft Settlement
    Rather than have this matter tied up in the courts and the 
resultant uncertainty, I believe that the settlement should be 
approved. Let`s get it settled_Move ON!
    John W. Whelan



MTC-00006512

From: christopher fish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer who has worked with microsoft products 
for the last 7 years. Either in supporting users or in creating 
software. I strongly support the break up of microsoft and wanted to 
go down on record as doing so.
    I also wanted to know if you have addressed these two issues 
yet.
    1) Microsoft`s design of the Visual C++ compiler and it`s 
wizards makes it very difficult to create C++ code that can be 
compiled to run on more then one operating system. This design flaw 
has the effect of eliminating competing operating systems, because 
if you want to get inter-operability under windows the best compiler 
to use ( and one of the only two ) is Microsoft`s visual C++. The 
problem is that the compilers wizards create projects that don`t 
even have the C++ standard `main' operator in them. This 
makes it impossible to change compilers and since Microsoft`s 
compiler does not readily support compilations for other operating 
systems it makes compiling your application for other operating 
systems extremely difficult, thus effectively punishing developers 
who what to try and write code that can run on more then one 
operating system.
    2) Microsoft`s implementation of unicode is off in some of it`s 
higher numbers so as to cause corruption in languages that use 
characters above and including Russian. This would seem to be 
something that was very intentionally done as it is the type of 
mistake that would be hard to make and not notice. It certainly has 
the effect of requiring anyone who does not use Internet explorer to 
have to download special components ( which of coarse had to be 
written at the coast of Microsoft`s competitors ) so that you can 
view web pages that were created with Microsoft outlook.



MTC-00006513

From: Brian Craze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To whom it may concern,
    Concerning the proposed settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft, I believe it is in the best interest to accept this 
settlement and move on. The settlement appears to be fair, 
reasonable and good for the consumer.
    Regards,
    Brian Craze
    Manager, Electronic Imaging Division (EID)
    A.G. Heinze, Inc.
    Voice: 480-813-7786 Fax: 480-813-7237
    E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.AGHeinze.com



MTC-00006514

From: Kevin Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:18pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft
    2 January 2002
    Leave Microsoft alone. This is a company that innovates and 
though they `dominate' their segment of the computer 
industry, they have helped all of the world progress to the point 
that computers are usable and affordable for all people.
    Kevin Williams



MTC-00006515

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Freedom
    I am concerned that hold out States are more interested in money 
than settlement. What would happen if Microsoft stated that no 
shipment or sale of Windows, etc., would be sold in these States 
until situation is cleared? Customers in these States would really 
put up quite a howl I am sure. They should remember, one doesn`t buy 
because they are forced to, they buy because of value they get for 
the money.
    My opinion only,
    Alan L. MacLachlan
    S.E.S.USA INC.
    6527NE 192nd PL
    Kenmore, WA 98028-3457
    Tel: (425) 485-3801
    FAX: (425) 486-1626
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00006516

From: Dr. Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge that the Settlement proposed be allowed to go 
forward. I believe it is in the best interest of all concerned and 
further litigation would be self-serving to the legal profession 
only. They (legal profession) have already had their `pound of 
flesh':
    Respectfully,
    GRT



MTC-00006517

From: Dave Foshee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This issue should be resolved now.
    If there is to be a settlement (and I feel that this case should 
never have been brought in the first place) let it happen now.
    Dave Foshee
    General Manager
    Adelphia_Carlsbad

[[Page 24824]]

    5720 El Camino Real
    Carlsbad, CA 92008
    760-438-7741 Ext 604
    760-438-8461 Fax
    619-890-4088 Mobile
    [email protected]



MTC-00006518

From: Barbara Kellogg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs
    Let`s settle this thing and quit wasting time and money dragging 
this thing out longer while the remaining states see if they can get 
just a little more.
    Sincerely
    Barbara J. Kellogg



MTC-00006519

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft software in business and at home, I have 
found there products, pricing and availability to be very 
satisfactory to me and I urge the doj to leave them alone and 
instead, concentrate on protecting our homeland against real 
dangers. Microsoft is not one of them. Thank you
    Donald F. Tomisak



MTC-00006520

From: Henry Spie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The time has come to finish this case. I personally thought that 
the suit filed by the government was wrong to start off with. I feel 
that the whole case was a waste of taxpayers(of which I am one), 
money.
    My first computer was a256 processor with 20 mgz speed Packard 
bell computer. It had about 60 megs of memory and 1 meg for the 
mother board for about 2400 dollars. Now I have a cpu which has 1gig 
for speed and 40 gigs for memory and it cost less than 1700 dollars. 
I basically went from a yugo type computer to a Cadillac type for 
less money. Monopolies work the opposite way. (Less for more).The 
case should be settled once and for all.
    Henry Spiechowicz
    Chesterfield Michigan
    [email protected]



MTC-00006521

From: Jerry Herr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that the revised final judgement should be accepted by 
all parties..and the states that are holding out should be stoped 
from any further action against Microsoft....
    Thanks for asking....
    Jerry Herr,
    Park Ridge, IL 60068 ...
    email [email protected]



MTC-00006522

From: JIM TIERNAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is way past time to settle something that should not have 
been investegated in the first place. Microsoft`s competiters are 
trying to get the gov. to do something they couldn`t do. Drive them 
out of business. We the consumer, are just fine with microsoft. If 
Microsoft wants to give me somthing for free in their softwar bundle 
then I am all for it.
    The settlement that was negotiated was MORE than fair. As a 
matter a fact it was to harsh and never should have been in the 
first place. The states are always crying that they don`t have 
enough money in their budgets, well try spending it for something 
worth while. They have spect along with the feduarl gov. more money 
than we spent getting Binladen. That is a shame. Bill gates is not 
the bad guy here. It is hard for me to express my anger with all 
governments on this subjetct in an e-mail. Feel free to call mae at 
1-870-258-3557.
    Jim Teiernan
    Owner
    Springhill Industries, Inc.



MTC-00006523

From: Steve Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Our company sells software and computer systems and networks to 
banks in 32 states. Our software will run on a variety of platforms. 
We use a combination of Windows and Unix. We can now add Linux to 
the mix_it is an OPEN market.
    The original intent behind the government watching out for 
monopolies has been turned into the current relentless persecution 
of Microsoft trying to retro ancient laws into a newer economy. We 
choose to use Microsoft operating systems because they have the best 
value and functionality. The bundling of products make life easier 
for every single user and systems administrator on the planet. As 
soon as a company can create a better operating system for under 
$200.00, we will buy it. Microsoft DOES NOT have a true monopoly.
    Microsoft software is DIRT CHEAP. Anyone who says differently 
has never created software themselves, or they are just jealous. 
STOP listening to these whining competitors of Microsoft. Let them 
INNOVATE. Microsoft has done nothing but create jobs and create new 
businesses and create excellent software for the money. Please admit 
when you are wrong and get onto a new project. You are causing the 
taxpayers millions of dollars for what? Did you ever try to make 
computer speakers and scanners work with Windows Version 3.1? If you 
did, then you would not try so hard to make Microsoft change their 
bundling of software. The real joke is when you tried to break them 
up. What a nightmare that would have been for every computer user in 
the country.
    PLEASE move on with your lives and let Microsoft do the same.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Anderson
    President & CEO
    SPARAK Financial Systems, LLC
    2701 12th Ave SW
    Fargo, ND 58104
    Sales: 800.659.9121
    Phone: 701.293.7198
    Fax: 701.293.9654
    www.sparak.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00006524

From: Catherine Sasso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe Microsoft`s proposed settlement is acceptable. I don`t 
want to see any more litigation by anyone because I believe it would 
only be beneficial to Microsoft`s competitors and that being an 
unfair way for the competitors to gain market share. I personally am 
delighted with Microsoft`s products; thought them fairly priced. 
Without the innovations produced by Microsoft, I`d still be 
struggling to learn how to use a computer. They certainly should be 
encouraged to invent more, so all our computing would be easier for 
all. [email protected]
    Very truly yours,
    Catherine Sasso



MTC-00006525

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:17pm
Subject: DOJ
    The attack on Microsoft was akin to the deregulation of the Bell 
System, that one took us back at least twenty years and I don`t 
believe we`ve caught up as of now. Without Microsoft I don`t believe 
I could have afforded to purchase the PC I did back in 1992, nor 
could I have up graded three times since then. Back in 92 I wanted 
to start writing about my WW II experiences with the 1st Marine 
Division and would not have started had I not been able to write my 
memories one at a time and then with the computer bring them all 
together into a comprehensive story.
    Thanks Microsoft keep up the good fight for affordable soft ware 
and PC`s
    Leo Garcia
    938 Lurline Drive
    Foster City, Ca. 94404
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00006526

From: bill lakenan jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please accept the settlement in place and move forward. i 
believe the setlement is fair. thanx for your time
    bill lakenan
    ARC, Incorporated
    PO Box 10161
    Knoxville, TN 37939
    office) 865.584.3044
    fax) 520.447.7873



MTC-00006527

From: Jim Turcott
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Settlement Review Board Members,

[[Page 24825]]

    This registered voter strongly opposes further litigation of the 
Microsoft company lawsuit. The MSFT organization has already been 
unjustly punished considering the enormous positive contributions 
they have provided to this country and the world at large. I can`t 
begin to imagine where our business would be today without their 
software tools .
    Most of my business friends and associates agree (with me) that 
anything less than a quick closure on the settlement would be a 
further travesty of justice, and a complete waste of taxpayers` 
dollars.
    We truly appreciate the opportunity to voice an opinion on this 
matter. It`s as American as the right for companies like Microsoft 
to develop and build upon their innovations without government 
intervention stifling their progress.
    Respectfully Yours,
    James L. Turcott
    Vice President Engineering
    PDS ENGINEERING
    Ph: (206) 767-2773
    Fax: (206) 763-4128
    E-m: [email protected]
    http://www.pdseng.com



MTC-00006528

From: Jeff Erwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:21pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Concerning the ongoing Microsoft anti-trust negotiations, I am 
finding it harder and harder to watch Microsoft competitors use nine 
State District Attorneys seeking publicity and glory to get the 
courts to beat Microsoft to death. It is appalling that our system 
can be used this way, and I hope the system can react to the obvious 
and reshape the anti-trust laws so they can`t be used as a 
competitive weapon in the future.
    The latest `negotiations` by the nine objecting States 
shows clearly that they have no interest in the case itself, they 
are only interested in appeasing the competition located in their 
states and continuing to keep themselves in the public spotlight. 
The fact that they are now demanding that the Microsoft Office suite 
of applications be ported to non-Windows operating systems shows 
that they have little understanding of the markets, and no concern 
for anti-trust laws. The application side of Microsoft`s business 
has never been an issue in this case, including it now as a part of 
the remedies shows their true colors. Their demand that Microsoft 
offer a stripped-down version of Windows shows that the nine States 
have no understanding of the market, the developer issues and the 
consumer. If there are several different versions of the same 
Windows release out in the market, the increased burden on companies 
supplying software to the Windows market is huge. The test issues 
become much larger, the development tradeoffs impact the levels of 
functionality the consumer ultimately gets, and all of this will 
result in higher product costs to the consumer to pay for the 
additional development and testing needed to make sure an 
application works on all the different stripped versions.
    Please stop this lunacy. Make decisions based on the consumer, 
not the competition. Do not let the court system be used and abused 
in this way. Do not let this country`s greatest business success 
story be torn apart by the greedy needs of a few. While Microsoft 
has been found guilty of monopolistic behavior, it does not deserve 
this treatment.
    Jeff Erwin



MTC-00006529

From: Carol Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement should go forward as quickly as possible. This 
country needs to be engaging in positive economic activities; 
prolonging this settlement is clearly a negative. Let`s get this 
behind us.
    Carol Stephenson
    Grosse Pointe, MI



MTC-00006530

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is now time to bring the Microsoft Settlement to closure. Do 
not, repeat, do not string this uncalled for suit out any longer.
    Judge, tell the lawyers to go home, and do some public service 
work and stop trying to ruin an outstanding company and the 
livelihood of those working for it.
    Ancil R Pressley
    523 Valhalla Dr
    Columbia, SC 29229-3320



MTC-00006531

From: Rick Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Your settlement with Microsoft is just. Thank you. It is now 
essential that you help Microsoft get back to work. The economy was 
hurt by this case. It is crucial that the computer industry stop 
laboring under a cloud of doubt. Planners need to know that the rug 
will not be pulled from under them as they begin major software 
projects. Since the DOJ case started, the industry has been damaged. 
I am very hopeful that this low productivity epoch is now over.
    Thank you. Again, please help with the healing.
    Richard N. Moe
    Software Developer
    3077 Lydia Court
    Roseville MN 55113



MTC-00006532

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    I urge you to close out once and for all the attack on 
Microsoft. I am an older consumer and I can tell you unequivocally 
that I have benefited enormously from the products put out by 
Microsoft. My first computer cost more that $4500 and was difficult 
to use. Although I would be considered `computer 
illiterate' I can tell you that there is a lot I can do on my 
PC thanks to Microsoft`s Windows and other innovations. 
Incidentally, my son uses an Apple at home and at his business so 
there is plenty of competition. There is also rival operating 
systems and software that is quite simple to download.
    Sincerely,
    Jim McGrath



MTC-00006533

From: Jean and Warren Doremus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs/madams:
    One of the better pieces of news of the year just past was the 
announcement that the US Department of Justice and nine states` 
attorneys-general had reached a settlement in the long, drawn out 
Microsoft case. The fact that other states which had been suing the 
software maker decided not to join in the settlement was both 
disappointing and deplorable.
    We believe millions of Americans join us in the belief that the 
agreement reached by the federal government and the nine states was 
fair, just, equitable, reasonable, sensible and in the best 
interests of all parties concerned. There comes a time when common 
sense should take precedence over endless and mindless miss-use of 
the legal system. The remaining plaintiffs in what is now clearly an 
unjustified battle against corporate preeminence appear to be more 
interested in demonstrating clout in the public arena than in 
serving the public interest.
    These opposing states have had their day in court, at the same 
time the other plaintiffs did. They are now becoming a renegade 
minority, clearly out of step with the vast majority of the American 
populace.
    Cannot some court step in here and put an end to this so that 
the nation`s economy has a chance to improve without this cloud 
hanging over it? We think so. We urge the U S Attorney-General`s 
office take whatever legal steps are necessary and to use its full 
powers of persuasion to make it happen.
    Sincerely,
    Warren & Jean Doremus



MTC-00006534

From: the ole trapper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have firmly believed all along, that these detractors of 
Microsoft in the settlement phase of this action, have no right to 
deny anyone of building a better mousetrap. Look as the past history 
of many of our industries, and you will find that someone was ahead 
of the competition all along. I say `Enough is enough' 
and let Microsoft continue with their innovations.
    Nelson Cross
    36 Key Lime Dr.
    Jensen Beach, FL 34957
    `the ole trapper' aka NELSON CROSS



MTC-00006535

From: Johanna Seth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the currently proposed settlement is a fair and 
just decision. I do not

[[Page 24826]]

want this settlement to go back to court for further argument. 
Microsoft`s penalties are fair and will benefit consumers. Further 
argument, prolonging the settlement, is a threat to our national 
economy and should not be undertaken.
    Johanna Seth
    14860-16 Summerlin Woods
    Fort Myers, FL 33919.



MTC-00006536

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been a powerful influence on American technology. 
As the CEO of a previous software company that failed due to too 
many operating systems to support I applaud MSFT`s continued support 
of the burgeoning industry. The justice department should spend our 
tax dollars chasing the Chinese and other pirating nations who steal 
our technology and our revenues rather than belittle a company who 
provides America with a tremendous technological advantage.
    Sincerely
    Bryan Foertsch



MTC-00006538

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    We are a user and developer of applications for the MS Windows 
Operation Systems (OS). We are concerned that our business may be 
damaged by a judgement that may restrict MS ability to develop state 
of the art applications and operation systems and to price their 
products competitively. Any judgement should not be centered around 
any damage settlement based on the consumer because the consumer has 
not be injured by MS. The states and the consumers should not be 
given any cash. MS has provided lower cost products that have saved 
us and the consumer money. This may not be appreciated by their 
competitors, but that is just tough (this is a free country).
    In our opinion, the judgement should centered around making the 
MS operating systems more open so that all developers and users have 
an equal opportunity to develop applications for the MS operation 
systems and use their existing applications. Not to restrict what 
features or applications MS can bundle with their operating systems.
    Also, the judgement should require MS to allow users to use and 
purchase the older MS operation systems for eternity or at least 10 
years. Upgrading to new MS operating systems should not be required 
when a new computer is purchased.
    Thank you,
    Mike Mayer, President
    Sima Engineering, Inc.



MTC-00006540

From: santilli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoftr settlement hearing 01-28-02
    I agree that Microsoft settlement is good for states, the 
industry and the American economy. Get this settlement done!!!
    R.E. Santillie
    736 Skyview Rd.
    Mount Shasta, CA 96067
    530-926-4328
    [email protected]



MTC-00006541

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm
Subject: It`s time to stop trying to destroy Microsoft Co.
    Please stop this abusive use of the judicial system to destroy a 
free enterprise company. The states that will not accept the 
settlement are not working in the public interest in my opinion. I 
ask you as a citizen and computer user to put an end to this costly 
and time consuming process and proceed to new areas of public 
monopoly. Thank you for listening to me on this subject.
    Albert S. Greenberg
    617 Cliff Drive
    Aptos CA. 95003
    831-684-2430 Ph.
    831-684-2436 Fax



MTC-00006542

From: Nancy Reid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I urge Congressional support of the Tunney Act.



MTC-00006543

From: Lowell Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:00pm
Subject: MSFT settlement.
    Dear Sirs;
    Thank you for taking the time to read my opinions and thoughts. 
Please settle this case and lets take all the time and the money 
that this case has taken from the United States, the people , the 
company and go on with our lives. The terms of the settlement are 
very just and fair and in the end there will be good taken out of 
this. Microsoft will be watched and will not be allowed to practice 
unfair business practices.
    Please do not allow nine states to cost our government, people 
and the future any more time and money. Living in the Northeast 
during these trying times there are more important things in life to 
worry about.
    Thank you,
    Kathleen Dunn.
    20 Henderson Court
    Pompton Lakes, New Jersey 07442



MTC-00006544

From: Robert Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!!
    As a long term citizen and one who is concerned about the future 
of my country, I would like to take this time to congratulate you in 
the DOJ for your decision to settle the subject case. However I 
would also like to inform you that based on the technical 
understanding of the `software' world, there should 
never have been a case in the first place. Only a Janet Reno under 
pressure from the Massachusetts political fascist from that state 
would yield to such idiocy. Let this be a lesson to the slope head 
people in Washington that there is nothing to be gained by picking 
sides in a technical economic fight, we are all losers when that 
occurs.
    Sincerely;
    Robert E. Smith
    1850 Hillyard Drive
    Clarkston, WA 99403-3034



MTC-00006545

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree that a settlement as soon as possible is in the best 
interest for the state`s economy and the public interest. As one of 
Washington State`s recently unemployed, I can see the economic 
uncertainty first hand. The number of jobs, particularly in the high 
tech area has shrunken considerably.
    I am concerned about my investments, as well.
    Leanne Gallison
    [email protected]



MTC-00006546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a business person and US citizen, I feel the whole idea of 
Microsoft charged in this matter is ABSURD_I think that Bill 
Gates should stop selling all Microsoft products in the USA for 
while and see what happens to business and industry_I`ll bet a 
settelement much better (for Microsoft) would be reached by the DOJ 
in a BIG HURRY! Settle this_it is a huge waste of taxpayers 
money and time!!!
    Onalee Israel
    226a Benes Road
    Brooksville, FL 34604
    [email protected]



MTC-00006547

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For years Microsoft has set the standard for the rest of the 
technology industry to follow. Their sustained excellence has 
created opportunities for consumers, of all economic strata, to 
access and leverage PC technology as well as the internet. As a 
result of this excellence, consumers and American business have 
embraced Microsoft products as the industry standard. It seems the 
only factions reluctant to do so are Microsoft`s direct competitors, 
as well as legislators beholden to these special interest groups.
    The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to a settlement, that, 
by all accounts, will further extend technological benefits to 
groups that were heretofore somewhat limited in their ability to 
access these benefits. It`s my understanding the settlement also 
requires Microsoft release `trade secrets' to its` 
competitors. Still, there are those who feel that the settlement is 
inequitable. My feeling is that those opposed will not be satisfied 
until the company is

[[Page 24827]]

broken up. Only under such conditions will these underperformers be 
able to compete in the marketplace and that, of course, is their 
ultimate goal, to turn a profit. Since they can`t do it under the 
American system of business, they will try to do so by crying 
`foul'.
    Make no mistake, those in support of extending this action have 
only their own self-interests at heart and they are asking taxpayers 
to foot the bill for their attempts to realize these interests. I 
for one am tired of it. This `suit' has gone on long 
enough. The cost to the parties involved far exceeds any benefit 
consumers will ever receive. I urge you to put an end to these 
proceedings as well as this pattern of catering to the lowest common 
denominator. Your failure to do so runs contra to everything our 
country was founded on.
    The above commentary is personal in nature and in no way 
represents the views of Nationwide Insurance or any of it`s 
affiliates.
    Sincerely,
    Scott J. McPherson



MTC-00006548

From: Tom Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment:
    While I do not consider myself any friend of Microsoft or their 
predatory business practices that have often run counter to consumer 
interests, I also do not consider myself an advocate of our 
increasingly litigious society. Particularly regarding the obscenely 
inflated legal fees that both sides charge. The consumer is 
invariably the loser and the lawyers the hands down winners.
    In regard to Microsoft, as this email alleges, this complex 
settlement is tough on the company, but acceptable, and favorable to 
Microsoft`s continuing service to their customers. This seems fair 
to all concerned. Especially if the Tunney Act will bring an end to 
expensive litigation. My question is will the settlement involve 
some sort of Consent Decree that will permit oversight of the 
companies operations over a period of time? Merely as a form of 
insurance for consumer interest. I recently came across a letter to 
the editor I wrote several years ago about Microsoft`s suing a small 
used bookstore in this area for selling unauthorized software. In 
that letter, I mentioned seeing originally packaged software for 
resale there, which was perfectly legal. I also mentioned how all 
previous versions of a Microsoft mysteriously disappeared 
simultaneously from all area stores. Manufacturer buy back was the 
only explanation, probably at a better retailer rate of return than 
previous versions would command. While there may not be anything 
technically illegal about such practices, they certainly favor 
Microsoft`s bottom line over public consumer interest. I would like 
to see such practices (among others) discouraged by the settlement 
with at least as much vehemence as the company would pursue it`s 
interests.
    Thank you,
    Thomas F. Dunn Jr.
    1993 S. Buena Vista Drive
    Apache Junction, Arizona 85220-7567
    email: [email protected]
    (480) 982-5640



MTC-00006549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am in agreement with Microsoft. It`s time to settle this 
lawsuit. It`s starting to look like the IBM suite that took over ten 
years.
    Michael J. Bonfield



MTC-00006550

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:27pm
Subject: MSN Settlement
    The technology area is changing so quickly that the original 
charges are not relevant today. Drop the case and stop spending our 
tax $$$. There is plenty of competition.
    Chuck



MTC-00006551

From: Bob (038) Lucy Andre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I have been a user of personal computers since they became 
popular in the 1980`s. During this time I have witnessed the 
progression of the software from my time in the Air Force and also 
from working in the U.S. Govt.
    I have followed the case against Microsoft since its beginning 
and feel that the current settlement is fair to me as a consumer of 
software products.
    Please settle this case as soon as possible in order that we can 
get this behind us for the consumers good, the good of the industry 
and for the good of the United States as a Country.
    Thank You,
    Robert B. Andre,
    2920 Cedarwood Lane,
    Dunkirk Md. 20754



MTC-00006552

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm
Subject: MicroSoft Comment
    To whom it may concern at the DOJ,
    We are small group of users of Microsoft products for more than 
15 years. We have been reading many recent newspaper accounts 
regarding the case against Microsoft. Although the competition is 
purple with rage because they can`t come up with better products, 
they are green with envy at the continued march forward into 
technology advancements that Microsoft has made for the world to 
use.
    Of course, factor of fairness is always important, but they were 
not fair when they hired government officials to pose the 
exaggerated charges to block their successes. While many of those 
very same companies benefit from the new markets and innovative 
ideas, they want to use the Microsoft ideas in their markets against 
them. When they fail, they cry.
    Microsoft has had products and software stolen, pirated and then 
slandered. Yes, I think Microsoft should be given a clean slate with 
the warnings regarding their marketing strategies. Monopoly? I would 
look closer at AOL.
    Thank You,
    Gregory Ruffa



MTC-00006553

From: Steven Groubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the interest of fair play, please allow the settlement to 
proceed as agreed.
    All the best,
    Steven Groubert



MTC-00006554

From: Paul McConnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I understand that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
litigation is now in a public comment period as required by the 
Tunney Act. As a taxpayer, I strongly urge you to settle this absurd 
lawsuit as soon as possible and quit wasting the public`s money. In 
my opinion, the suit was originally brought as a political payoff to 
Microsoft`s competitors. I use Microsoft products everyday and could 
not be near as productive as I am without them. As a consumer of 
their products, I certainly do not feel in any way abused by their 
alleged `predatory practices'.
    The courts should also shut down the grandstanding state 
attorney generals that had to stick their nose into something they 
had no business pursuing. Why don`t they just stick with tobacco 
litigation and other forms of legal extortion.
    Paul McConnell
    (407) 876-7249
    [email protected]



MTC-00006555

From: Manny Bellmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a resident of the State of Maryland and a US citizen. I 
depend on computers to earn a living and run a small business. I am 
an interested citizen with respect to the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and several of the 
states.
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement is in the best interest 
of myself and many other consumers. I am delighted that the State of 
Maryland (my home state) is one of the states that support the 
proposed settlement.
    Thank you for taking public comment into consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Mandell Bellmore
    3609 Woodvalley Drive
    Baltimore, MD 212081733
    Phone (410) 486-1092
    E-Mail [email protected]



MTC-00006556

From: Norman Pawlan
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24828]]

Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We are of the opinion that Microsoft has offered a satisfactory 
settlement.
    We expressed the same opinion by Email to the Calif. Attorney 
General, but he evidently felt that it was to his POLITICAL 
advantage to pursue Microsoft.
    We are non professional computer users. We have received several 
Microsoft items at no charge, or postage only, or full rebate. How 
bad is that? Monopoly?
    I am a volunteer reader/tutor at a poor school in a tough 
neighborhood of Los Angeles. Microsoft`s offer of computers and 
equipment to schools such as the one where I work would be a 
WONDERFUL tool in helping these deprived children to `catch 
up' with the rest of Los Angeles.
    Most of the classrooms have ONE old computer for 20 to 30 
students.
    Norman Pawlan
    June Pawlan
    2222 Avenue of Stars
    Los Angeles, CA. 90067-5655



MTC-00006557

From: Kit Welsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DOJ,
    PLEASE STOP PROSECUTING MICROSOFT AND START PROSECUTING THE REAL 
MONOPOLISTS, OPEC.
    WE SHOULD INITIATE THE FORMATION OF THE ORGANIZATION OF 
PETROLEUM IMPORTING STATES (OPIC) TO DENY GOODS TO OPEC COUNTRIES. 
THIS WOULD MAKE A BIGGER DIFFERENCE TO THE CONSUMER AND THE ECONOMY 
THAN PURSUING MICROSOFT.
    I CREDIT MICROSOFT FOR MUCH OF THE BOOM TIMES OF THE 90`S 
BECAUSE THEY, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, CAUSED AN OVERALL INCREASE IN 
PRODUCTIVITY. OIL PRICE DECLINES ALSO CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO THE LOW 
INFLATION.
    THE SAME COULD BE TRUE AGAIN IF WE COULD BUST UP OPEC, NOT 
MICROSOFT. LEAVE THEM ALONE AND THEY WILL DISCOVER NEW WAYS TO 
INCREASE OUR PRODUCTIVITY.
    I, FOR ONE, BUY MICROSOFT PRODUCTS BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WILL WORK 
TOGETHER.
    PLEASE DON`T BREAK THEM UP SO THEIR PRODUCTS WILL NO LONGER WORK 
TOGETHER.
    SINCERELY,
    HARRY W. WELSCH, JR.
    (KIT WELSCH)
    BOX 1820
    ANNA MARIA, FL 34216
    941-778-5230 VOICE
    941-778-7229 FAX



MTC-00006558

From: Bob Deneen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: Quit and Fair Settlement
To: US Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft
Date: 1/02/02 
    This entire case has been a sham and a black eye on American 
justice, let alone the concept of free enterprise. When the courts 
attempt to solve business issues between competitors_without 
consideration of consumers_our country is in serious trouble.
    I am a computer user since 1980_before Windows and PCs and 
before Microsoft solved the major obstacle to easier and user-
friendly operation of personal computers. IBM was smart to 
incorporate it as a universal operating system. Microsoft later 
enhanced the value and benefits to users with Windows_and with 
Internet Explorer to mimic Windows. Why would a user not want these 
systems to be compatible and user-friendly?
    If the Justice Department finds Microsoft guilty, will this mean 
that I can demand that Ford put a General Motors engine in my next 
car? Why can`t I demand different raisins in my cereal? Yet, with 
Microsoft, the user always has the option to remove or change or 
ignore features or additions? I don`t understand your reasoning?
    Please explain to the public exactly what Microsoft did wrong. 
Other than enrage its competitors with its arrogant attitude, 
consumers have not been harmed. If arrogance is a crime, when will 
law suits be brought against attorneys, judges, and politicians?
    No system has improved or challenged Windows or Internet 
Explorer as being better! Exactly how did Microsoft`s harm 
consumers? Answer: Not at all
    What prevented competitors from countering with better 
solutions? Answer: Nothing.
    How did this evolve? Answer: Political influence and money.
    Why are the state attorneys general making claims? Answer: Pure 
greed.
    Historians will link this case to the start of the current 
recession. The `terrorism' within our justice system is 
a greater than any threat from outside of our nation. The only 
settlement that will do our country and consumers good is to throw 
this case out of court.
    Sincerely,
    Robert N. Deneen
    Independent and private citizen, unaffiliated with any 
organization.
    (I hope it is not now a crime to speak freely?)



MTC-00006559

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I strongly support the proposed settlement as is. Enough is 
enough. Too much money and resources have already been wasted on 
this ilconceived effort to stifle true competition in the 
marketplace. Litigation aids only trial attournies and seldom if 
ever benefits the buying public.



MTC-00006560

From: Joe Cerrato
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Alright already! Settle this case regarding Microsoft. Your 
efforts to prosecute this company for trying to do what business 
does, to wit: make money is getting ridiculous. Furthermore it has 
put a damper on the stock market. As Microsoft goes, so goes the 
market.
    Joe Cerrato
    Texarkana, Texas



MTC-00006561

From: Lewis Stepp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm
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

[[Page 24829]]

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 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 U.S. Postal 
Service revenues are more than those of Microsoft, McDonald`s and 
Coca Cola combined. No one wants to dismantle the U.S. 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
    CC:senator_dewine_dewine.senate.gov@inetgw



MTC-00006562

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In my opinion de current basically agreed settlement is already 
more harsh than Microsoft deserves. As a long term Microsoft 
customer I think that the computer industry would have been in a 
poor shape without their standardizing and market domination effort. 
All de main Microsoft competitors that lobbyed for this lawsuit had 
or have in their marketing strategy as the main goal to dominate the 
market. All have failed because of poor products, greed and poor 
marketing. Only Microsoft has delivered a good product for a rather 
low price and that`s the main reason of their succes.
    I like to request you to get this bad (for the development of 
the IT market) and painful (the enormous amounts for this legal case 
and the waste of time of all involved) situation resolved and to 
accept Microsoft`s settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Gall
    900 Warrior Road
    Malvern, PA 19355
    tel. 610-889-0244



MTC-00006563

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To: Department of Justice
    Recommend that settlement be concluded with Microsoft Corp. in 
accordance with existing terms. This process has gone on long 
enough. Microsoft is one to the premier companies in the land and 
should be congratulated for their achievements rather that being 
condemned.It is in the public interest public interest to settle the 
litigation as soon as possible so that American can keep `on 
rolling'.



MTC-00006564

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: Settlemeant
    The settlement is fair and prolonging it only helps trial 
lawyers and not the American people or U.S.A.
    Sincerely,
    John E. Traber



MTC-00006565

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    As a retired teacher I`ve been very interested in the progress 
of the trial and I believe the settlement which has been reached 
will benefit all the children of the United States. I hope that you 
agree and bring this trial to a speedy and equitable solution.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Thiesen



MTC-00006566

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of computers and computer softwear, I wish to 
comment on the Microsoft issue. I have never had any problem 
obtaining the computer or softwear that I wished to purchase. 
Regardless of brand name, I have had no problem buying the products 
that best serve my purposes in the computer field.
    I suggest to anyone who does have difficulties in this area to 
shop around a bit and he/she will readily find the product needed to 
do the best job for them.
    I strongly believe that 99.99% of the alledged problems with 
Microsoft is politically and financially motivated rather than a 
problem with the marketing of a product itself. Therefore, in my 
opinion, settlement hearing is unnecessary and the whole case should 
be dismissed so that everyone can get back to the business of making 
better things for us consumers to buy.
    Stop wasting our money and enriching the lawyer hawks hovering 
about this issue.
    Ed Arnold
    2820 Boulder Ave.
    Billings Mt 59102



MTC-00006567

From: James Scheil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case as is and as soon as possible.
    Thank You,
    Ken & Charline Scheil



MTC-00006568

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I am in favor of Microsoft in the settlement. Why stand in the 
way of innovation and creativity. Other companies have the same 
opportunity as Microsoft_why should they be penalized?



MTC-00006569

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive the settlement currently on the table is fair and 
reasonable to all parties. While no one will walk away `pain 
free', the settlement should be accepted by the the invovled 
litigants.
    Richard Ketover
    Boca Raton, FL



MTC-00006570

From: Jim Rejzek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It is time to close this litigation against Microsoft. The 
settlement reached appears

[[Page 24830]]

fair, although I have concerns as to why the government would even 
take on Microsoft to begin with, but that is now another story. The 
events of 9 11 should put this case into perspective as to where our 
interests (the peoples) and efforts should lay. Thank you.
    J.G.Rejzek
    San Antonio



MTC-00006571

From: Bob Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time to stop this constant pounding of Microsoft. This is 
my first appeal to the government to conclude it`s participation in 
a troubling national debate about one of the most successful 
technologies we Americans lead the world with Microsoft, IBM and 
many other USA companies. I`m a Microsoft home user after retiring 
from forty years and many different companies in the computer 
industry. I never worked for Microsoft, but I`ve been a user of 
their software in business and at home for twenty years.
    Sure it`s been tough migrating Microsoft Operating Systems 
through the years, but it`s been tough with IBM also. I was with a 
computer company which was a direct competitor of IBM in the 1960`s. 
After all the complaining, litigations and negative national 
attention IBM came out on top. I never worked for IBM either, but 
they succeeded because they served their customers well with the 
best products and services money can buy and they are still the 
world leader. Good for us Americans. As far as us Microsoft`s 
customers like me who just bought a new Dell PC and laptop with 
Microsoft`s new XP Home OS preinstalled, we`re on a 
`roll' with Microsoft and many other company products 
which came with my new PC purchases. Good for us Americans again.
    Bob Ballard



MTC-00006572

From: Fred Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I wish to express my support for the proposed settlement 
agreement in the Microsoft case. Prompt resolution of this case is 
in the best interest of the consumers of Microsoft products.
    Fred Boyd



MTC-00006573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I think the Microsoft suit should be settled asap. It has gone 
on long enough. Fine the company for past actions and lets get this 
behind us. The current recession, war, and mass layoffs are clear 
indicators that the government needs to take every action possible 
to help get the economy moving again. A quick settlement would be 
good for the economy and the stock market.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006574

From: Mike Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Just who has Microsoft harmed? Certainly not the personal 
computer using public. Microsoft is the guiding software operating 
system that enabled the affordable personal computer worldwide to 
even exist. I believe the Anti-trust case that was brought by the 
Justice Depart- ment during the Clinton Administration that was 
influenced by Microsoft competitors close to Bill Clinton who was 
repaying campaign contributors. And at the same time `shaking 
down' Microsoft for donations.
    This should never happen in the United States.
    Regards,
    Mike Fisher
    P.O. Box 216395
    Sacramento, CA 95821



MTC-00006575

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm
Subject: Mirosoft Settlement
    I have been asked to voice my opinion on the above subject.....
    I guess I don`t understand why our government (the DOJ) wants to 
stick their nose into a company that is not only one of the most 
successful in the history of business but also a company whose 
products and services have changed the world_FOR THE BETTER!
    Why doesn`t the DOJ go out and locate all the drug dealers, 
murderers and other criminals in the US and stay out of the way of 
innovative companies like Mircosoft!



MTC-00006576

From: jim pauline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on, enough is enough. The states think they can get another 
win fall like they did with tabaco, but let`s face it, mMicrosoft 
has done more for the economy in the last 10 years than any other 
american company. Let`s get the settlement over.
    Thank You,
    jim pauline



MTC-00006577

From: joseph bria
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:34pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Enough is Enough. I dont believe the Market would have held up 
the way it did if it not were for Microsolf. This settlement is more 
then fair and should be settled as soon as possible.



MTC-00006578

From: Turnbull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case! Further legal battles are helping only 
the attorneys and doing nothing for the consumer and costing the 
taxpayers money. SETTLE!!!
    D. L. Turnbull



MTC-00006579

From: Don (038) Mary Felice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a recently retired Software Engineer who has been in the 
computer industry since 1960. I am amazed at the fact that the 
government has continued with this suit against Microsoft. MS has 
not harmed users. Competitors have a problem with MS because they 
have not built `a better mousetrap'. MS has introduced 
standards that make the user`s life so much easier. Does anyone 
remember how difficult it was to install a product pre MS? MS came 
from behind with a Word Processor and then made better innovations 
so that they outstripped WordPerfect just as WordPerfect had 
outstripped Word Star previously. This is the American way. MS did 
not have the first Internet Browser but they built a better product. 
Why are they being penalized for that? Can you even begin to 
calculate how the economy has advanced because of MS? Can you even 
begin to calculate how many new jobs there in the entire computer 
industry because of MS. Would there be such a proliferation of PCs 
in homes and offices if MS had not been in the game.
    The government`s job is to protect consumers not competitors. 
Let Sun, AOL and they rest of them make a better product. Then they 
will not have to worry about MS. It should not be the government`s 
job to help the competition.
    Mary Felice
    [email protected]



MTC-00006580

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my belief that the Justice Department should 
allow Microsoft to proceed with the settlement as currently 
arranged. Capitalism depends upon the government intervening as 
little as possible in the affairs of American business, it needs to 
protect workers, the environment and our nation. These are not the 
issues with the settlement. The settlement should proceed. American 
businesses should be encouraged to innovate.
    I have no affiliation to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Wendy Reilly
    [email protected]



MTC-00006581

From: Sean Butler-Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/madam,
    I`m contacting you to express my opinion on the proposed 
settlement relating to the ongoing antitrust case against Microsoft.
    I feel that the proposed settlement is both fair and just, and 
allows Microsoft to continue to drive the computing market forward 
into new technologies without

[[Page 24831]]

restricting OEM partners and suchlike to limiting and excessive 
licensing contracts. It also allows third-party developers the 
opportunity to create products with extensive interaction with the 
Windows operating system and the functionality of said, without 
having to work out for themselves the complex and confusing code 
structures of the protocols and standards employed by Windows. It 
also avoids forcing Microsoft into a situation where they are no 
longer able to develop products which integrate fully with Windows 
by giving the end user full control over what they install, together 
with allowing the end user to disable any functionality which they 
find unnecessary or excessive.
    In all, I feel this settlement is fair to both parties 
concerned.
    Yours faithfully,
    Sean Butler-Lee



MTC-00006582

From: Ed Hepner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft dragging on litigation
    Please wind up this misidrected anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. The consumer has benefitted from Microsoft Innovation 
through lower prices and greater choices. I am one of them.
    Ed Hepner,
    Newport Beach, California



MTC-00006583

From: CAROL J. TODD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Troubles
    Just get over it. Let Microsoft alone. The government has 
greater worries now.
    Carol Todd
    [email protected]



MTC-00006584

From: Michel Laureano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Yo he cre?do en la tecnolog?a de Microsoft, sus productos me han 
brindado trabajo, conocimientos, superaci?n profesional y personal; 
A mi familia y a mi sociedad le hacen falta compa??as como 
Microsoft, en todo el mundo es un ejemplo de alta calidad.
    A nuestras escuelas, estudiantes y empresas las ha apoyado.
    Es el momento de apoyar y ayudar para que Microsoft Corporation 
sea la Compa??a de todos en el mundo entero.
    Si otras compa??as siguen el ejemplo de mi familia y mi sociedad 
que son apoyados por las tecnolog?as de Microsoft Corporation, 
entonces tendremos un mundo diferente e inteligente.
    Gracias.
    Atentamente,
    Michel Hamlet Laureano Luna
    Ciudad de Mi1xico, Mi1xico.
    Tel. 52763819



MTC-00006585

From: Jack Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies of Congress.
    Enough is enough is enough.
    The settlement that has been rendered between all parties, 
except for a few states, is fair and reasonable.
    When the Justice Department got the Judicial System to impose 
penalties on Microsoft, it commenced the recession that the country 
is now experiencing. It provided and changed the `wheels of 
justice' to what has become a `vindictive wheel of 
destruction'. This event coupled with the simultaneous actions 
of Mr. Greenspan raising the economies interest rates at the same 
time to head off an `Imaginary Inflation Rate'. He said 
he was doing this so the country`s economy will come in for a 
`So Called Soft Landing', however created the 
`window of destruction' for the economy, jobs for 
people, and havoc among Americans whose life savings disappeared and 
industries laying off hundreds of thousands of people.
    What a Christmas present the American People got as the country 
moved into the CY2000, still continued into CY 2001, and it is still 
upon us in CY 2002. Partisan elected people of Congress are not 
affected but the lower and middle class of Americans are suffering 
while you are bickering. I recommend the punishment stop against 
Microsoft and be initiated against the oil companies who manage to 
control monopolize and control gas and diesel prices at the pumps 
every time a middle eastern country burps.
    Now that is Monopolistic. Settle this case and let us get the 
country back on the road of innovation Freedom without corruption. 
The American People can make their choice at the ballot box or at 
the Cash Registers. Get people back to work or the economy is going 
to `tank'.
    Jack Ray
    [email protected]
    Huntsville Alabama



MTC-00006586

From: Michael Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    When one hears politicians speak of `public interest` one 
wonders whether or not we are speaking of the same 
`public.' It seems that some regard the only public as 
those who reside in the government supplied housing within the 
beltways. Another view is that the `interest` means the money 
paid on principal...or in the case of many in Congress, the money 
paid for `principle.`
    Regardless, the continued barrage of litigation directed toward 
Microsoft is an affront to me and anyone who has really thought this 
issue through. Microsoft has done more to propel the economy of the 
USA than any company in history. The fact that Mr. Gate, et al, have 
built a better mousetrap and that the PEOPLE of the USA buy their 
product as opposed to other products, is part of what we like to 
think is the `Free Enterprise System.`
    Please stop spending our tax dollars on a process penalizing a 
company for excellence and achievement.
    By the way, I don`t own any stock in Microsoft, I am not 
employed by Microsoft, nor have I ever received any monetary benefit 
from Microsoft. But like millions of people Worldwide, I have 
benefited from their products immeasurably and I am grateful for 
their continued dedication on the cutting edge of our collective 
futures. Keep up the great work Microsoft.
    Respectfully
    Michael Shaw
    [email protected]



MTC-00006587

From: Sandi Boston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:37pm
Subject: Settle with Microsoft
    Please settle with Microsoft so we have no more litigation. I 
think the economy has been hurt enough by the DOJ`s suit against 
Microsoft. Enough is enough....
    Sandra M. Boston
    A registered voter from Ohio



MTC-00006588

From: Buecheler, Eric
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough....Get on with the settlement_the last 
thing we at this time in our country`s history is to prolong this 
case any longer. Get it over with and start focusing on all the 
other problems this country has since Sept 11.
    Thank you
    Eric Buecheler
    Navigation Technologies
    408-617-5059



MTC-00006589

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair and should be 
accepted. It is time for America and the software-tech industry to 
get back to business.
    Thank you.
    Jason Wong, CCIM
    Crestline Properties, L.C.
    3441 E. Speedway Blvd.
    Tucson, AZ 85716
    520-326-3151 Telephone
    520-795-3411 Fax



MTC-00006590

From: Cole Rowland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge you approve the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
case. I am an individual who uses Microsoft products and while they 
occasionally have a bug, I think that the company does a fine job. 
In this very uncertain economic time, it is very important to settle 
this case and allow one of the few strong companies in the computer 
industry to get on with its business.
    Cole Rowland
    711 Mariner
    Austin, TX 78734

[[Page 24832]]



MTC-00006591

From: Earl Faylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my very strong opinion that the Microsoft case has had 
very little to do with the consumer. The consumer has enjoyed the 
wonderful accomplishments and innovations from Microsoft, and the 
computing world owes this company a great deal of thanks and praise. 
I want this to be settled now; I want this to end now; I want 
Microsoft to be free to continue developing all of its products 
because it is a great benefit to me, the consumer. I have not been 
harmed; I have benefitted greatly. Microsoft`s competitors are the 
problem. They have cried and whined to every politician that would 
listen, and it is time for that to stop. Please leave this amazing 
company alone. Yes, place your curbs and restrictions on them, and 
then let them do what they do best. Get them out of court and back 
into the laboratory of research and development.
    Competitors may have been harmed because they lost the 
competition for certain products. That is the nature of competition. 
Some win and some lose. The consumer has not been hurt by Microsoft; 
the consumer has been hurt by the anti-trust proceedings. Stop, 
stop, stop. I want to think about computing and the next steps that 
Microsoft will lead us to take for the best interests of computing. 
I do not want to think about the next sour grapes complaint by the 
competition. The sour grapes is because Microsoft is better at 
competing and producing great products. This is not to be regulated 
by the government. This is regulated by me the consumer that buys 
the better products. This is the regulation that governs business, 
and it works if everyone simply continues competing. I have been 
buying the better products, and that is what I will keep doing. I am 
the consumer, and I have not been hurt. Let me repeat this one final 
time: I am the consumer and I have not been hurt.
    Yours truly,
    Earl Faylor
    4604 South 170th Street
    SeaTac, WA 98188
    206-248-8870



MTC-00006592

From: Paul Fieberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop wasting our money and your credibility by continuing 
to attack a profitable company that provides jobs, useful technology 
and makes a meaningful difference in the way we live. Haven`t you 
been listening to what the people want? Move on to the important 
things, please.
    Continued Success,
    Paul H. Fieberg



MTC-00006593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I want to say so much, perhaps too much! Instead I shall offer a 
number of sentences, keeping them as brief as possible:
    (1) As a consumer, I want all manufacturers of the products I 
purchase to enjoy the freedom to make those products better for me, 
without the jeopardy of Big Brother Interference!
    (2) As a reader of multiple articles on this endless government 
harassment of Microsoft, I have concluded simply that a number of 
companies [all of whom share some specific monopolistic piece of the 
pie] turned to Government Officials to hamper and hammer Microsoft 
when this cadre of companies decided they could not defeat Microsoft 
in a marketplace controlled by the long-standing principles of the 
American Economic System! Like a child who decides not to slug it 
out with his nasty classmate; but to go home to summon his 
`big' brother to do the fighting for him!
    (3) As a past student of some psychology courses, I think that 
Jealousy has had too much to do with this legal pursuit of a premier 
company. The multibillionaires in control of the `offended 
corporations' are envious of the astounding success of the 
richest! Even the Federal and State Governments fall prey to the 
venom of jealousy seeing what a well-organized and truly innovative 
Corporation can achieve; while these governmental entities prove 
largely feckless to their tasks and reckless with taxpayers` money 
in the process!
    (4) In view of Judge Jackson`s relentless pursuit of Microsoft 
and his self-declared antagonism for its officers, it bedazzles me 
that the Court of Appeals would uphold his Findings as unprejudiced 
and valid! The fact that he may have declared his belligerence 
toward Microsoft only subsequent to Court Proceedings cannot 
distract a thoughtful individual from the fact that those 
belligerent statements revealed his mindset and opinion throughout 
the entire course of this legal saga!
    (5) By upholding the Jackson Findings, the Court of Appeals 
covered the `behind' of the Judiciary System; but, in 
its attempt to protect the Honor of that System, it failed to do 
true Justice! Could the Judges not see -or did they see but pretend 
not to see- that hostile statements made by Judges against 
Principals in their Courts display for the world not a `new 
prejudice' against a defendant just now judged to be guilty? 
Simple chronology cannot be invoked to defend a long-standing, 
vindictive attitude and mindset that dishonor the very Judiciary 
System the Court of Appeals tried so hard to protect. Despite 
obvious partiality on the part of the Trial Judge -obvious at least 
to ordinary laypeople_virtually all his condemnatory Findings 
were upheld!
    (6) The slap on Judge Jackson`s hand did not achieve Justice! 
The Jackson Findings were mortally flawed through and through by the 
prejudices of a judge who is paid to be unprejudiced! The rejection 
of a split-up of Microsoft as a remedy was too obvious, really, even 
to have taken up the Appeal Court`s time! Judge Jackson had wrongly 
escalated his proceedings far beyond the scope of the suit itself. 
As a matter of fact, the essence of the case against Microsoft, ie. 
the bundling, was found by the Court of Appeals in Microsoft`s 
favor! How can a man accused of murder be declared guilty of murder 
if he is shown to be an adulterer? How can a company accused of 
illegal bundling -and the finding of illegal bundling is 
subsequently overruled- be required to pay damages because it had 
bad business manners?
    (7) We are faced now with a New World of Commerce! Competition 
is no longer valued as the arbiter of corporate success or failure. 
Now Government and the Judiciary are to be given carte-blanche to 
police and to punish those corporations that have the temerity to be 
TOO SUCCESSFUL FOR THEIR COMPETITORS` LIKING!
    Thank you.
    Nicholas S. Molinari
    31 Whitman Street
    Brick, NJ 08724-2448
    732-458-8485
    [email protected]



MTC-00006594

From: jpagency
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, accept the settlement and let us all get along 
with our jobs and businesses. Frankly, without Microsoft we could 
not run our business.
    Thank you.
    Joel Polin



MTC-00006595

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:40pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think that the settlement is more than enough, when really no 
harm was done to the consumers.
    Andy Lolos



MTC-00006596

From: Pat Huber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i believe we should resolve this debate by accepting this 
settlement and moving forward. too many people, including political 
leaders, are spending way too much time rehashing these issues. 
let`s mvoe forward, and start trying to resolve more important 
issues, such as tax reduction stimulus package, finding bin laden 
and friends, and reviving the economy.
    sincerely,
    pat huber



MTC-00006597

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle case now and stop the wasting of any more money....
    Gordon Stanley



MTC-00006598

From: TERRY READER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:43pm
Subject: Stop the Lawyer`s extortion Salary

[[Page 24833]]

    DOJ,
    It` time to put the Microsoft suit to bed. This is another one 
of the ` make Lawyers rich schemes' with no real 
justification for punishing a solid company that produces a product 
that people want and competitors are not able to compete with 
technically or in the open market. Call a halt to this stupid suit. 
Save me money, I`m tired of seeing my hard earned tax money going to 
some greedy lawyer.
    Charles T. Reader, Jr.
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    480-951-3267



MTC-00006599

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that it is vital that the Microsoft settlement is in the 
public interest and continued litigation is not only extravagant but 
only in the interest in some competitors. Microsoft has been 
instrumental in leading the world into the future. Let them continue 
to lead us there.
    Delores S. Kramer



MTC-00006600

From: melvin johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:43pm
Subject: settlement
    i think the settlement is fine. keep the gov. out of company 
affairs.
    thank you
    melvin



MTC-00006601

From: Mandy Aguilar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    I`m for the settlement.
    Thanks,
    Armando Aguilar



MTC-00006602

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:43pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
    let them alone. msft has done more to simplify doing business on 
the pc than any other tech co. could ever dream possible. A lot of 
sore losermen here just looking to gore people to perhaps make the 
cliton adm. look like they did something worthwhile. damn i think i 
mispelled clinton. o well



MTC-00006603

From: Jim (038) Diana Brager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    The time has come to end the case against Microsoft. I have been 
using Microsoft products for years now, and for the life of me, I 
can not see one single area where I, as a consumer, have been 
injured by the practices undertaken by Microsoft over the many 
years. Your suit leaders say I have been, but you are WRONG! 
Microsoft has met the needs I have had when it comes to all of their 
products. From games to business software products.
    Further more, it is so obvious that the national economy went 
into the tank at the exact time the DOJ undertook the case against 
Microsoft, on behalf of Microsoft`s competitors. This economy must 
be allowed to go forward, and DOJ`s repeated attempts to harm 
Microsoft must end.
    DOJ`s Clinton era antics of helping AOL, et al, should have 
ended when Clinton left office. Cease the case and let`s get back to 
allowing the American people get back to what`s important .... 
moving forward!
    James Brager
    6502 W Wahalla Ln
    Glendale, AZ 85308



MTC-00006604

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I would like you to settle this lawsuit now. NO MORE ONGOING 
LITIGATION. Lets move on.
    Gary S



MTC-00006605

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement reached between the Fed. Government and 
Microsoft. We should not be subject to a group of competitors who 
haven`t been able to come up with a better operating system, or we`d 
be using it. Tearing down the strong for improvement of the weak is 
not the right direction.
    At the same time I support the settlement, I don`t want to be 
denied the use of a superior software product to that of Microsoft. 
If that means a ruling, or law, requiring openness by Microsoft to 
their codes, so be it. If Microsoft, at some future date, has 
violated this openness, that is the time to put their feet to the 
fire, by order, after hearings and findings that don`t drag out 
forever. We need to have the greatest flexibility in using our 
computers to enhance communications and knowledge.
    Thomas R. Eggert



MTC-00006606

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Please settle the Microsoft case now as agreed to. Thanks for 
your attention to this.
    Jack Hill
    phone 262-827-0206.



MTC-00006607

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Dept.,
    This litigation with you and Microsoft has gone a way too long 
and it`s time to settle and move on as our country suffers 
economically. You cannot allow a few GREEDY companies and some 
states to drag this case only to benefit them. I believe the 
settlement for Microsoft to help with our kids education is the best 
option. Please settle this and move on. I am tired of hearing this 
case and paying my tax dollars for it. Our country needs to move on!
    Sincerely,
    Joy Ward



MTC-00006608

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    A final settlement and putting and end to the ongoing litigation 
should be done as soon as possible................
    Nathalie Treonis



MTC-00006609

From: bleak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Ok, enough is enough. I am retired off of MSFT stock not gvt. 
welfare. Lets get this state and federal suit over with. Look at 
what this has done to the economy.
    Robert L. Bleakley



MTC-00006610

From: FAN1957
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am sending this email to voice my opinion concerning the 
lawsuit against the Microsoft company. I think that is high time 
that this suit be settled in a fair way. Certainly our Justice Dept 
and all the states which are climbing aboard this frivols lawsuit 
have a better way of spending their time. This is costing our 
Country way too much of the taxpayers money and should have been 
settled many months ago. Stop wasting more and more of my tax 
dollars. There are certainly more deserving criminals out there 
where you should be spending more of your time.



MTC-00006611

From: Ed Lehan
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I feel that it is important to get the Microsoft litigation 
behind us here in the USA. I for one want the proposed settlement to 
be accepted so that progress will not be stymied any longer. It is 
in our best interest to begin focusing on growth and not on the 
interests of a small group in penalizing success.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Ed
    Edward A. Lehan, Jr., CLU, ChFC
    Executive Vice President and Profit Center Manager
    Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc.
    Tel. No. 860 665 8402
    Fax. No. 860 667 6560
    E-mail [email protected]

[[Page 24834]]



MTC-00006612

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in total agreement with the Microsoft Settlement I feel it 
is now time to accept things as they are and get down to business. 
Enough of the courts, lawyers and arguments.
    George Lehnhard
    [email protected]



MTC-00006613

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir`s;
    If it hadn`t been for microsoft I wouldn`t be a computer user.
    John C. Meskimen
    2221 University St.
    Gautier Miss 39 39553



MTC-00006614

From: Paul W. Ogle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I have been involved in computer technology all my adult life. I 
wrote my first computer program in 1963, and subsequently started 
two successful computer `OEM' companies. Now I am 
retired, but I still maintain daily interest in the industry.
    I believe strongly that the proposed settlement should be 
adopted by the court. It is a fair, balanced and forward-looking 
solution to the myriad of issues that have been explored by the 
lawsuits. Further, it seems clear to me that those who seek to 
obstruct this settlement have competitive or other special interests 
that drive their actions, and they do not, at all, seek the broad 
best interest.
    The parties have agreed. I urge the Court to accept their 
agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Ogle
    13445 South Baird Road,
    Conifer, CO 80433



MTC-00006615

From: Curtis E. Granberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle this dispute and quit feeding the trial 
attorneys. Accept this settlement and get on with more important 
business.



MTC-00006616

From: Shiaw Su
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer and citizen, I want to express my strongest 
displeasure and disappointment of State government effort in trying 
to destroy the MOST SUCCESSFUL company in the world. Microsoft is 
the envy of the high-tech industry, especially in the software area, 
worldwide. The existence of Microsoft in the last 26 years is the 
reason that USA is able to maintain its superior competitive age in 
the high-tech industry of world market.
    In any country, a company like Microsoft would be treated as 
national symbol that every citizen can be proud of. According to the 
public polls, majority of citizens like me, opposes the government 
action which is abusing the public trust and wasting the taxpayer 
money. I am very disturbed and puzzled by the actions taken by some 
State Attorney Generals. The only conclusion I can make is either 
those Attorney Generals are very naive and don`t understand the 
latest fast-moving new technology at all, or they are simply 
pursuing a political solution for special interest groups. However, 
they should be reminded that their actions may be AGAINST OUR 
NATIONAL INTERESTS and only benefiting the special interest groups.
    Please also pay a special attention to any potentially adverse 
impact to our overall national economy if their ill-advised plans 
are ever taken place. Thanks for your listening.
    Sincerely yours,
    Shiaw Y. Su



MTC-00006617

From: Mark Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Litigation
    To whom it may concern:
    Leave Microsoft intact. The present economic conditions do not 
merit discipline at this time.
    Warm Regards,
    Mark



MTC-00006618

From: Dave Conger
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my support for the decision to settle the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. To litigate the issue further, in my 
opinion, only benefits Microsoft`s competitors...not the public as a 
whole. Further litigation will only add to the economic uncertainty 
of the technology sector and please the leadership of the companies 
that are lobbying so aggressively against the Microsoft settlement.
    I have been amazed at the power that Microsoft`s competitors 
seem to have over the state Attorney`s General. I honestly believe 
this has been an abuse of our legal system by these companies that 
are simply trying to get a competitive edge over Microsoft. As a 
member of the information technology profession, I feel I have some 
credibility on the subject. While Microsoft certainly has some 
quirks and problems with some of their products, they have still 
done more for the growth of technology in our country than any other 
company, without question. The tools they provide to professionals 
like myself, for a fraction of the cost that is demanded by their 
competitors, help professionals to move their employers forward 
technologically. Microsoft provides many resources, tools, and 
libraries of technical information for free or at a minimal cost. 
For example, their database and email servers are priced lower than 
the competition, and under most circumstances outperform the 
competition`s products. Microsoft has succeeded because they provide 
good products at prices the public can afford.
    Please don`t listen to the relentless efforts of Microsoft`s 
competition to prolong litigation on the anti-trust case. They are 
simply out to destroy Microsoft to benefit themselves financially. 
If the DOJ wants to protect consumers, focus on correcting any 
wrongs Microsoft has made, and let the free market (not the court 
room) determine which company has the best products.
    Regards,
    Dave Conger
    13720 117th Ave NE
    Kirkland, WA 98034
    425-821-3250



MTC-00006619

From: George C. Tunis III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    This email is to communicate my opinion on the Microsoft case. I 
am a small business owner that, simply put, could not exist without 
the products Microsoft makes. I love the fact that the products are 
well integrated and all work together. I don`t have a systems 
department, so I rely on the seamless integration of the Microsoft 
products to get me through.
    I was appalled by the governments action to try to break up 
Microsoft. The products are great and getting better, and they work. 
For what you get, the idea that somehow you could get more for less 
is ridiculous. I buy plenty of non Microsoft software and what I 
have found is that the average price of a `function' is 
about $149. If you broke up Microsoft, and then made me buy all the 
functionality from other vendors....my cost would be like $2000 as 
compared to the low price for the integrated products from 
Microsoft. From my view point, all the government has done is to try 
to reduce what I get from Microsoft....which only hurts me.
    Please just leave well enough alone. Our nation needs to pull 
together, stop the stupid bickering and get on with business. Please 
settle the case ASAP and get to more important matters. From My 
perspective Microsoft is doing a great job at a fair 
price....believe me when I feel `harmed' I will let you 
know.
    George C. Tunis III
    Tunis Works, LLC
    5711 Waterside dr.
    Berlin, MD 21811
    voice (410) 641 1601
    fax (410) 641 1983
    [email protected]



MTC-00006620

From: BUZZ WHITTLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm
Subject: Leave this alone.
    Competition has removed the need for any more action against 
Microsoft. Everyone should get over it and move on. Any move at this 
time to `change the world' will only cause problems in 
the computer world. I

[[Page 24835]]

cannot imagine the world without a complete Microsoft



MTC-00006621

From: Lynn Lockler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed settlement. I also believe the 
remaining stated should accept the settlement agreed to by the US 
Department of Justice and the other states.
    L. S. Lockler
    4729 Redstart
    Houston, TX 77035



MTC-00006622

From: John Dominick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:48pm
Subject: settlement
    Settle this matter and let the economy start moving forward 
again.



MTC-00006623

From: Yosh Shimono
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern:
    This is stupid! At a time when the nation has suffered the worst 
homeland attack of its existence; when the economy has seen the 
largest monetary decline in history; and when ALL Americans, 
including corporate America, should be thinking of how they can 
contribute to the mediation of this crisis; we find only the 
individual `small citizen' actually doing something 
positive in that regard. Corporate America, local government, 
including those who run them, and those who owe their wealth to the 
`small citizen', are thinking only of how to benefit 
themselves from this crisis regardless of the cost to the common 
citizenry. One such mercenary scavenging crime is in regards to the 
Microsoft Settlement. Let the settlement stand! Let us go forward 
with all diligence and put all our energies on recovery, and prove 
to the world that we are not the Great Ogre that seems to be the 
consensus in third world nations, but rather the best nation that 
humanity has ever produced!
    Yosh Shimono
    Small citizen



MTC-00006624

From: Avers, Christine E.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Enough is enough! I want to see this over with. Microsoft has 
been a positive force not only in our economy but also in innovation 
and exploitation of computer usage and the internet. The company has 
given much to it`s employees and this country. Let`s not destroy 
that! Let`s not destroy the potential for better things to come as a 
result of the settlement.
    Chris Avers
    Supply Planning Manager
    Specialty Panels
    (770) 221-2568
    [email protected]



MTC-00006625

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:49pm
Subject: States not agreeing with settlement
    Don`t like the result? Sue again. This seems to be the attitude 
of the states not willing to go along with the settlement accepted 
by the DOJ and the remainder of the states. I suspect that most of 
the public is just tired of hearing about this lawsuit and the way 
it has progressed. Let it be over and have microsoft contribute to 
the education of children in the computer age as agreed.



MTC-00006626

From: Doug Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has gone on long enough! Please get this settled for once 
and for all. It is time for all of us to get on with the rest of our 
lives. I believe that the agreed upon settlement is fair and just 
and should be implemented ASAP.



MTC-00006627

From: GEORGE PORZUC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment
    To whom it may concern,
    The settlement with Microsoft is in the public interest. The 
American economy needs this settlement. (It should not have been 
brought in the first place) We do not need more litigation. This 
would only stifles innovation.
    Please don???t let special interests defeat the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    George Porzuc
    5951 Price Road
    Milford, Ohio 45150
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006628

From: Doug Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it now! Lest get on with the rest of our lives.



MTC-00006629

From: John Fris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments regarding the Microsoft settlement go against having 
had to settle anything to begin with. I still feel that this whole 
case was put forward by unhappy competitors who should have put 
their time and effort into coming out with new and improved 
products. If anyone looks at Microsoft`s track record of innovation, 
it is hard to believe that there could be many gripes about pricing 
or unfair competition. In my business and virtually all others, 
innovation and pricing are what put companies on top. To limit this 
natural occurance would make no sense. Please don`t give in to 
unhappy competitors in this or any other case and stop the American 
free enterprise system. Thank you.
    John Fris
    Fris Office Outfitters, Inc.
    616-396-2341



MTC-00006630

From: Carnes Chapin P GS-13 AFOTEC/TSS
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle the case now. Stop listening to the competitors who are 
unable to win in the market place and therefore want the government 
to protect them. No marketplace is as open as the software 
marketplace_as witnessed by the fact that the consumer is 
paying less every year for products that continually improve. Only a 
bureaucrat who has no concept of how business works would believe 
that Microsoft has a monopoly in the software marketplace.
    Patrick Carnes
    Software Consumer



MTC-00006631

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I highly recomend that you settle the Microsoft case as was 
propsed several months ago.
    As the economy has changed, the technology field evolves, palm 
pilots and digital phones prices are very alluring, there is ample 
competititors to Palm Pilot.
    Look no further than what happened to the Office Depot & 
Staples merger that the government said would reduce competition. 
Office Depot is only a portion of it`s old self, Office Max is 
teetering on bankruptcy, and the market value of all three have 
decreased by billions of dollars!
    Let the market determine who they prefer.
    Please quickly settle this matter and let`s move on.
    Sincerely
    Brian Day



MTC-00006632

From: wimlang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the case as planned and do not allow AOL, Sun 
Microsystems and Oracle to throw up more dust. Fair is fair.
    W.G Langenberg.



MTC-00006633

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Thank you for fielding feedback on the unfortunate MICROSOFT 
SETTLEMENT matter.
    The contribution alone achieving the computerized advancements 
made possible by MSFT is self explanatory. We have better and 
quicker access to accomplishments from the performance this 
technology makes possible. Where is MSFT competition coming from 
when they try to stifle the industry that nurtured their existence? 
The cliche, `one hand washes the other and they both wash the 
face', is an understandable example of cooperative team-work 
led by a leader that has proven, continuous progress and

[[Page 24836]]

 profitable accomplishments. The world has benefitted from the more 
advanced society that computerization has brought about. Why is 
competition interfereing with lawsuits, and costs that will slow 
future progress. The future volume cost benefits that will reduce 
prices for increased availability is the American Way.
    Whining and crying is not the answer. When the going gets tough, 
persistence toward improvement should be applied to try to catch up 
with the leader. That`s what competition is, the motivator to offer 
a better mouse trap.
    This greed, envy or ego should be put away because it has 
already gone too far. This is a race which encourages the leader to 
try harder, and, should also encourage the lesser to work harder and 
smarter. Who else has made the investment MSFT continues to plow 
back into the industry? Please bring this interruption to a halt by 
settling the batteling waste of time and expense. It is long over-
due this settlement be finalized and buried.
    Thank you and good luck in bringing



MTC-00006634

From: Brad Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: settlement
    Let`s get on with life. Let the market place take care of 
itself. Seems to me that the big crunch in hi-tech started with the 
assinine assault by the US government on Microsoft. How much damage 
has been done to the various retirement funds in the country? 
Enough!!
    Brad Newell
    141 Jackson Lane
    Port Ludlow, WA 98365
    (360) 437-9151
    [email protected]



MTC-00006635

From: smouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I believe that the settlement is fair and just and that there 
should not be any further litigation. Leave Microsoft alone and let 
the company and the industry get on with its business.
    Sincerely,
    Sandy Adler
    Safram Sphynx
    www.bestweb.net/smouse



MTC-00006636

From: Adda Gogoris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: (no subject)
    pls let the settlement stand and let`s go on with things that 
matter like killing America`s enemies.



MTC-00006637

From: ALFAZUBER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THIS WAS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.THE MARKET SHOULD HANDLE THEIR 
OPPRESSIVE TACTICS. THE COMPETITORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGHT THIS OUT 
WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT HOLDING THEIR HANDS.
    WF ZUBER M.D.



MTC-00006638

From: W A Fahrbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To me, the settlement appears fair and just. In todays technical 
environment why should the courts crush a leader?
    William A. Fahrbach
    P.O. Box 128
    Troutville, VA 24175



MTC-00006639

From: Robert Holladay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT STOP CATERING TO MICROSOFT`S 
COMPETITORS AND GET THIS CASE SETTLED !!!!!
    DR. BOB HOLLADAY
    NAPLES, FL 34108



MTC-00006640

From: HARRY A DINGWALL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel that it is in the best interests of both our country and 
its economy for all parties involved to accept the terms which have 
been agreed upon by the majority of the complainants.
    Donna E. and Harry A. Dingwall, D.V.M.



MTC-00006641

From: Pat Monahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:53pm
Subject: Micrtosoft Settlement
    I am not a Microsoft supporter but I find it utterly ridiculous 
that this case has gone on and on and on. Just when I think the DOJ 
already judged on the subject another month or years is added to the 
case. It seems to me that the Microsoft competitors are complaining 
the loudest and expect the government to help them out when they 
should be out there competing. The sooner this case is closed the 
better off we and the econmy will be. You must see that the 
competitors of MIcrosoft are trying to discredit your decesion. 
Don`t let them do it. If you alter your decision, what will the 
american public think of the judicial system? If I were MIcrosoft, 
I`d move to Canada or some other country. They would more than 
welcome me.



MTC-00006643

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I strongly support the settlement reached between the Justice 
Department and Microsort. It seems fair and allows both parties to 
get on to other more pressing business.The states that have not 
agreed with this settlement have very narrow vested interests and 
are motivated by interests other then fair play.Every time I see 
Attorney General Blumenthal I think he needs to be investigated for 
his interests in this matter. Do the right thing for this economy 
and move on.



MTC-00006644

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    We find the terms of the settlement announced by the US 
Government and Microsoft to be just and fair. Whatever unjust 
policies were perpetuated by Microsoft in the past are well 
addressed in the settlement so as not to be repeated. We feel any 
further judicial proceedings against Microsoft will only cost the 
public as a whole in the long run.
    Sincerely,
    Mark and Barbara Reese



MTC-00006645

From: Robert Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this now as agreed to by Microsoft and DOJ. The hell with 
the individual states injecting their own agenda to drag this out. 
I`m still convinced that the public did not benefit in this anti 
trust case; just a bunch of lawyers screwing up the system to 
increase their billable hours.
    Robert Lee



MTC-00006646

From: Carl Classen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks_
    I hope that the Department of Justice and the States will settle 
the antitrust litigation with Microsoft. The lenght of this process, 
especilly after such a problematic trial with a judge who was proven 
to be less than fair, casts a pall over the potential economic 
rebound America needs and the software advantage we need to 
maintain. Linus is a good alternative to Microsoft and AOL Time 
Warner is certainly a worthy competitor in content and access.
    Thank you for consdiering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Classen personal: [email protected]
    work: [email protected]



MTC-00006647

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This situation is, in my opinion, much to do about nothing 
except an attempt by a few to get the Government to help their 
business because they can`t offer products that are in any way 
superior to those of Microsoft. The buying public is not stupid as 
the Justice Department would have us believe. If there are products 
out there that are superior to those of Microsoft, the buying public 
will respond by buying them. I chose to buy AOL because I like their 
product and have found

[[Page 24837]]

it soperior, in my opinion, to MSN. Yes, I have tried both.
    Our progress and great economy of the past few years is much 
more due to Microsoft and their products than it is of any action of 
Government !!!!!!!!!!!
    Richaard L. Hanscom, Jr.
    Lt. Col., USAF
    239 Maravilla Drive
    Riverside, CA 92507



MTC-00006648

From: Tom (038) Wilma Llewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with proposed settlement of the Department of Justice 
vs. Microsoft Lawsuit.
    Thomas D. Llewellyn
    593 Vintage Dr.
    Elkton, OR 97436



MTC-00006649

From: Jerry Gonzalez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    MSFT has done plenty so..................
    Get off their back!



MTC-00006650

From: Milo D. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this litigation. It would appear that the 
antagonists that remain are competitors and not consumers. It also 
appears that the states within which the competitors reside are the 
remaining dissenters. I operate a small consulting business. My 
computers run the windows operating system; use Internet Explorer 
and Microsoft Office Professional. As a user, I am perfectly happy. 
My clients, across a broad spectrum of industry, all use the same 
software tools. In fact, most of the attorneys with whom I do 
business have gone from Word Perfect to Microsoft Office because it 
is necessary to better communicate and move documents across the 
Internet to clients.
    In my view the remaining dissenters are millionaires, not 
Microsoft millionaires, who cannot stand the heat of competition. 
Any settlement greater than that proposed for Microsoft should be 
equally imposed upon the competition. Everyone will have the same 
code; innovation will disappear, but everyone will be equal. We will 
all lose, especially us consumers.
    Thank you,
    Milo D. Smith
    Milo D. Smith, President_M. D. Smith & Associates, 
Inc.
    18011 Third Avenue S. W., Normandy Park, WA 98166-3733
    Telephone: 206.242.1932_Facsimile: 206.242.3172
    Mobile: 206-972-6552
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00006651

From: Robert A. Weller
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly/Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I believe that the Tunney Act of 1974 provides that citizens can 
comment on anti-trust cases.
    As a technical professional, I assert that it is beyond any 
doubt that Microsoft wields effective monopoly control over several 
classes of computer software crucial to our country`s economic 
security. It is equally evident that this is not in the public`s or 
the government`s best interest.
    Everyone`s interests, including those of Microsoft shareholders, 
will be best served in the long run if the government breaks this 
monopoly by subdividing Microsoft into companies that will have to 
compete in their respective markets on the basis of price and 
performance. The current settlement proposed by Microsoft is an 
arrogant act of defiance of the Court`s finding that, if approved, 
will simply serve to extend the company`s monopoly into one of the 
last market niches were its dominance is not total.
    I urge you, for the good of all citizens and for the security of 
the country, to end the total dependence of our economy upon this 
one company, whose past performance leaves little doubt as to the 
likelihood of true reform from within.
    Robert A. Weller
    1008 Green Hill Cove
    Brentwood, TN 37027
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`ve been a computer user since it first started. I took class 
on wiring the main board to do what you wanted it to do, with key 
punch cards. That`s back in 1967,1968.
    So I`ve been using computers for a while. Every since Windows 98 
took over our computers it turned them into a piece of junk. All 
they do now is crash. When you buy a brand new computer and with in 
an hour of having it, it crashes something`s wrong. I`d love to see 
other programmers build software. It has to run better than what 
he`s doing. This is America and Bill Gates doesn`t have the right to 
be the only one to sell the main software for our computers. They 
were in such a big hurry to get it on the market, Bill Gates and his 
company didn`t care if it worked. He just wanted it out there by the 
first of the year. Trash or not. I say give every man who thinks 
they can a chance to build software for our computers and let us be 
the judge if we want to buy it. We deserve the right of choice.
    Thank You
    Roseann Haley from Indiana



MTC-00006653

From: Albert Silverberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the settlement with Microsoft as is 
presently proposed is fair & equitable to all parties. Further 
litigation [by the 9 states] can only delay the recovery of our 
depressed economy & will be of no benefit to anyone
    Albert H. Silverberg M.D.



MTC-00006654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement should happen as soon as possible for 
the best interest of the public.
    Joan Santucci



MTC-00006655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle the Microsoft case. We are happy with 
Microsoft and all it offers. Please don`t take that away from us.
    Bonnie Helling
    [email protected]



MTC-00006657

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:57pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The ridiculous lawsuit against Microsoft is just another idiotic 
attack on America`s free enterprise system and the sooner we drop 
it, the better. I thought once we got a real President again that 
our Department of Justice would become interested in justice 
again...not prosecuting honest law-abiding citizens.
    Just look where we`ve gotten spending more money prosecuting 
Bill Gates than we have Osama bin Laden! (At least before 9/11). My 
advice to you is to stop this ascinine lawsuit and tell the high 
paid lawyers who are trying to destory the very free enterprise 
system that makes them_and the politicians_the highest 
paid in the world, to get a life. Leave Bill Gates and Microsoft 
alone and all the other businesses that make America 
work_cause if they don`t_you won`t be working either!
    Sincerely,
    Bill Edwards
    Hacked-off American



MTC-00006658

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs and Madams:
    Enough already of this assault on our economy and endless 
litigation. Ratify the proposed settlement agreement with Microsoft 
over the antitrust charges and get on with it.
    Sincerely,
    David Siegel
    1704 Bohland
    St. Paul, MN 55116



MTC-00006659

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it was a complete and total waste of our time and 
money to sue Microsoft. We are not socialists, or communist. When 
one

[[Page 24838]]

person starts a huge business and employs thousands of people, they 
should be respected and valued for their contributions to society. 
Instead, Bill Gates was hounded and chased. For what purpose? What 
did you accomplish? How much of my tax money did you spend on 
chasing an upstanding business man? It is ridiculous. Find something 
useful to do with your time and my money. Chase the real criminals!
    Theresa Waggoner
    Gulf Breeze, FL



MTC-00006660

From: Joel Brazil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It pains me to know that in these uncertain economic times a few 
special interests are attempting to derail the Microsoft settlement 
and prolong the litigation. The last thing America needs is more 
litigation that benefits only a few wealthy Microsoft competitors 
and stifles innovation.
    Please resolve as soon as possible.
    Joel Brazil



MTC-00006661

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:59pm
Subject: We all owe a debt of gratitude to Microsoft.
    I have been following the anti-trust suit diligently since it 
first started. I think it is time for all Americans to stand up and 
PRAISE Microsoft for being the front runner in opening the World to 
everyone with their Windows operating system. I think of the 
Millions of Americans in my age group (50+) with no prior PC skills, 
and how Bill Gates has changed our lives forever. He made everything 
come alive for us and even the most stupid people on the planet can 
now operate a computer with very little difficulty. After watching 
all this company has endured with this frivolous lawsuit, if I were 
Bill Gates, I would pack up and take the company to a 
`friendly nation', and tell America to `kiss my 
ass'. God Bless you Microsoft and I am singing your praises.
    Rosanne Wilson
    Beaverton, OR



MTC-00006662

From: Jack Sperry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft and the Government`s representatives have worked long 
and hard to reach an equitable settlement agreement that is fair and 
in the best interests of consumers and citizens. I want to see that 
settlement agreement stand and not be overturned, or redirected, to 
further the interests of Microsoft`s competitors. Let`s put this 
dispute to rest ASAP so everyone can move on.
    Jack Sperry



MTC-00006663

From: Rik Temmink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, Madam,
    With this message, I would like to voice my support for the 
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and several 
States and Microsoft Corporation.
    Despite the concerns voiced by Microsoft`s competitors and 
certain pressure groups, I believe the proposed settlement provides 
enough substance to correct Microsoft`s anti-competitive behavior, 
while allowing all parties concerned to continue their regular 
activities.
    I believe closure is critical to the success of the US economy, 
and would therefore like the Department of Justice to support the 
proposed settlement.
    Rik Temmink
    7045 34th Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98115



MTC-00006664

From: Russell Johnson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets settle this problem!! To continue is a Threat to the 
Private Enterprise System. The settlement is fair....and should not 
become Unfair!!



MTC-00006665

From: Vincil C. Bishop, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft`s 
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached 
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy.
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. Don`t let 
these special interests defeat the public interests.
    Sincerely,
    Vincil C. Bishop, Jr



MTC-00006666

From: Debbie .
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please, please, please try to settle the Microsoft case ASAP! I 
firmly believe that once this case comes to a close, people will 
start to view things better, and the economy will start to improve. 
It may start small, with improvements in the stock market, or people 
buying computers, but it will get better. Just look at what happens 
when rumors circulate that a settlement is in the works!
    This has gone on way too long!!! Please do your best to help 
everyone reach an agreement so we can put this behind us!
    Thanks.
    Debbie



MTC-00006667

From: David D. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let us get beyond this. The Government as well as other parties 
involved have stated a willingness to settle this once and for all. 
This case has been in litigation to long and the country and the 
people have more pressing needs. Settle this case and move on.
    David Doyt Miller
    03029 Dowty Rd.
    St. Marys, Ohio. 45885



MTC-00006668

From: Sean Callahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interest of the general public to 
just settle this court case. It is in no one`s interest except the 
lawyers to continue to drag this case on. Can the Federal Government 
please decide on the appropriate punishment, implement it, and move 
on. This is just one man`s view. Thank you for your time.
    Sean Callahan
    Gilbert, Arizona



MTC-00006669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Enough , Microsoft is responsible for grat progress in the Real 
World. Let us end this case the way the compromise specifies.
    Cordially,
    WJ Leeder



MTC-00006670

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement will affect some changes within 
Microsoft, but the remedies are frankly too little too late. Had 
these same actions taken place 2-3 years ago I would whole-
heartedly agree with them. Now, however, it does little good to 
force MS to allow someone to easily remove an MS-specific icon when 
practically the whole world is already using MS products. Who will 
remove those products now?
    Sincerely,
    Mike Bryant
    [email protected]



MTC-00006671

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: Settlement
    It appears to me that all charges should be dropped, Microsoft 
has agreed to do what is required, no further action should be 
taken. It also should be required that all states drop their 
charges. All the remaining states are after is the money!!!!! As 
usual the money grubbing lawyers see is more big money as in the 
tobacco settlements. No one has benefitted from that buy the 
lawyers.

[[Page 24839]]

    Please consider the present settlement as final, eliminate 
further law suits by the federal government and all states.
    C.W. O`Neal
    10570 Meadow Glen Way East
    Escondido, Ca 92026



MTC-00006672

From: Don Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the case alleging that Microsoft is a monopoly and is 
harming consumers is without merit. I don`t see any way at all that 
Microsoft has harmed anyone other than its competitors. Microsoft`s 
competitors seem to be the ones who are complaining most loudly.
    In fact, DOJ is ultimately harming consumers by penalizing 
Microsoft. DOJ`s actions undermine the legitimate operation of a 
free economy by injecting personal politics into the market. This 
type of action ultimately will lead to cronyism which mars so many 
other nation`s economies and truly does harm consumers.
    Microsoft may have hurt its competitors using legal and illegal 
means. If there is some instance where its actions with regard to a 
specific competitor is illegal, then let them be punished for that 
if it can be proved.
    Also, if Microsoft has in fact harmed consumers, then why aren`t 
I getting remunerated? You can`t have it both ways!
    Sincerely,
    Don R. Brown, Ph.D.
    CEO, PartNET
    www.part.net
    [email protected] 801-581-1118



MTC-00006673

From: Ken Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice should stop punishing Microsoft. They 
provide excellent products at a low cost and continually advance the 
state of the software art. Microsoft should not be punished for 
innovation and development of quality products.
    Kenneth Larsen



MTC-00006674

From: Scott R. Springman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    I am a concerned, voting citizen who feels that the interests of 
the nation would be ill-served by any delay in settlement of the 
Microsoft issue. I have both Intel and Apple (Motorola) based 
computer systems. I believe that further litigation against 
Microsoft is fruitless, wasteful, and counterproductive. Please do 
not bow to political pressure from special interests. Please settle 
now.
    Sincerely;
    Scott R. Springman, MD
    Professor of Anesthesiology and Surgery
    University of Wisconsin Medical School
    Anesthesiology Department
    600 Highland Ave.
    Madison, WI 53792
    email: [email protected]
    Phone: 608-262-2186
    Fax: 608-263-0575
    UW Anesthesiology Preoperative Clinic Web Site:
    http://www.anesthesia.wisc.edu/Clinic/Index.htm



MTC-00006675

From: Jim Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel very strongly that the settlement reached between the 
DOJ/states and Microsoft is fair to all parties involved and that 
further litigation is counter-productive for both the US economy and 
consumers. I am a retired IT professional having worked in both 
hardware and software design using Microsoft products and services. 
I have always found Microsoft to provide superior products and 
excellent support. As a consumer, I have never felt that I have been 
harmed in any way by their monopoly of the OS market.
    Although I know that the DOJ has the best interests of the 
consumer in mind, I feel that they and the dissenting states are 
bending to pressure being brought by Microsoft`s competitors. If you 
consider the number of hours of development and testing time that 
goes into the release of an operating system like any of the MS 
Windows versions, the selling price is ridiculously low. If they 
were really abusing their monopoly powers, they could be charging 
consumers much more. As for embedding features in the operating 
system, I think the consumer only benefits from this practice. I do 
not know of anyone who is complaining that their operating system 
has too many features!
    In the interest of fair disclosure, I should point out that I 
have been a Microsoft stockholder for nearly ten years. However, I 
invested in Microsoft because I believe they are producing superior 
products and not because I would want them to take advantage of 
their OS monopoly in any way.
    Please end the litigation and let the development community get 
on with the business of producing better and more innovative 
products for all consumers.
    Sincerely,
    James R. Holden
    146 Brookhaven Ct
    Sugar Grove, IL 60554
    (630) 466-0895



MTC-00006676

From: rose sulistio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
308 College creek Drive
Denison,Texas 75020
January 2, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antiiitrust Division
US Deparmnt of Justice
601 D St., NW, suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
    Dear madam;
    This is in reference to the settlement of Microsoft. The 
government has spent so much of the tax payer`s dollars on this case 
and got no where. The only people making money on this case are big 
time lawyers.
    Please put this case behind us and close it immediately. Let us 
move on our lives and encourage competition through better products 
which the public demands. it is without a doubt that Microsoft 
produces better products than it`s competitors and the government 
should be happy for that.
    Lastly, I asked for your consideration in acknowledging that we 
wasted so much money in pursuing this case when there are other 
important issues that the government have to give priority on.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Rose Sulistio



MTC-00006677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    GENTLEMEN
    Why anyone would continue to pursue MIicrosoft`s settlement any 
further is beyond me.Please stop wasting taxpayers money against a 
company that built too good a mousetrap. Please settle this 
negotiation as soon as possible.
    A CONCERNED TAXPAYER
    M.F.DELMOLINO



MTC-00006678

From: gigi broad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm
Subject: Final Settlement
    The matter before the courts is long over due to be settled and 
let Microsoft go forward in there business. It does no one any good 
to continue to hammmer at the company. Its time the country focuses 
on other things and puts this mattter behind us.
    Yours Truly
    Virginia Wallace [ FIN ]



MTC-00006679

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 2, 2002. To whom it may convern at the Department of 
Justice. From Evelyn Gail Pratt, 6155 Plumas Street, #160, Reno, 
NV 89509 USA, (775) 824-4551, a consumer of Microsoft 
products. `I believe that the settlement found in the Court of 
Appeals ruling regarding Microsoft is reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved'. Please contact me if you have any 
questions.
    Sincerely, ([email protected])



MTC-00006680

From: Susan V. Barba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to urge you to please settle the Microsoft case without 
further delay and litigation. As an American consumer, I believe the 
settlement is fair and is to the benefit of the American public. 
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
    Sincerely,
    Susan V. Barba

[[Page 24840]]



MTC-00006681

From: David Brandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I have not supported any of the actions against Microsoft 
Corporation. I work in the computer industry and see plenty 
opportunities for companies to compete with their own products if 
they decide to do so instead of competing through the courts. As for 
the settlement, I am in favor of it versus more actions being 
proposed by the 9 States and Microsoft`s competitors (Sun 
Microsystems, AOL, Nokia, etc).
    Thank you for listening.
    David Brandt
    5257 E. 130th Way
    Thornton, CO 80241.



MTC-00006682

From: Carman B. Bahr, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My personal opinion is that settlement of the Tunney Act is in 
the `public interest'. I do believe that Microsoft has 
contributed much to making the personal computer both usable for the 
common people and business purposes. Prolonging the litigation is 
not in the best interest of the public.
    Carman B. Bahr, MD,
    Emeritus Professor of Medicine
    [email protected]



MTC-00006683

From: Fred Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    In a very few words!
    Settle this mess!
    The American consumer is not complaining here, competitors are! 
If their products were so good they wouldn?t be afraid to compete 
head to head with Microsoft. End this waste of time and money!
    Fred
    Fred Smith
    Fax (805) 647-3439
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    Sharon`s Mary Kay website is www.marykay.com/ssmith6
    Corys website is www.kruseman.com



MTC-00006684

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settlement is good for consumers and in the public`s interest. 
While I don`t necessarily agree with everything MS does, I don`t 
believe further litigation against them is a necessary, or even a 
good thing for the American public, especially at this time.
    Renata De Angelis



MTC-00006685

From: P Huff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After many years of litigation against Microsoft on Antitrust 
charges, a reasonable settlement has been reached that shows that 
Microsoft is working hard to address the concerns of the department 
of justice and the many states that have filed suit against 
Microsoft. Please take this opportunity to settle_continuing 
the suit is bad for the US economy because it hurts the best 
performing NASDAQ stock of 2001 and many companies that rely on 
Microsoft to make their businesses operate, and it`s expensive for 
the people of the United States to continue to pay for ongoing 
litigation. I beg you, please settle this matter.
    Polita Huff
    Kirkland, Wa



MTC-00006686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is hard for me to see why the settlement should be postponed. 
I think it is already too far against Microsoft. Let the markets 
compete for product ownership instead of making Microsoft pay extra 
for its product success.



MTC-00006687

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    SETTLEMENT IT IS TIME TO GET A SETLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT AND MOVE 
ON. THIS LAWSUIT HAS DRUG ON TOO LONG . THIS LAWSUIT AHS HURT MANY, 
MANY AMERICANS IN THEIR RETIREMENT PROGRAMS, INVESTMENTS AND HAS 
HANDCUFFED MICROSOFT WHILE THE DOJ WAS TRYING TO HELP ITS 
COMPETITORS TO NO AVAIL.
    SETTLE AND GET IT OVER.
    MELVIN R MELIN
    56 158TH PL NE
    BELLEVUE, WA 98008



MTC-00006688

From: Joe Krantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interests of the US Government, the 
consumer and the marketplace if the proposed settlement between the 
DOJ, the states and Microsoft is accepted. This matter has been 
under review for a very long time and it is time to move forward in 
the intersts of all.
    Joe Krantz
    7N085 Plymouth Court
    St. Charles, IL 60175



MTC-00006689

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The federal government and nine states reached a comprehensive 
agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in 
the Court of Appeals ruling.
    This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved.
    Thanks
    Steve Skinner (Consumer)



MTC-00006690

From: Bernard Gouss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    AS A HOME COMPUTER USER,I WAS VERY HAPPY TO SEE A REASONABLE 
SETTLEMENT MADE BETWEEN OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND MICROSOFT.LETS 
END IT NOW!!IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR OUR GOVERMENT ,WHO REPRESENTS 
THE PEOPLE OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY,IT CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED 
BY A FEW `SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS'.LETS END LITIGATION, 
AND START SENDING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK .
    RESPECTFULLY
    BERNARD GOUSS



MTC-00006691

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Officials:
    As a former and retired government employee, It behooves me that 
the proposed settlement with Microsoft has not been implemented. 
Languishing the implementation of the proposed settlement is 
impeding our economy and playing into the hands of those who want to 
destroy our great country`s economy. Innovation is not a dirty word. 
Those State Attorney Generals who are dragging their feet are trying 
to make a name for themselves and spotlight themselves at the 
expense of those who are willing to arbitrate.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.
    Lawrence R. Wydock



MTC-00006692

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    In my opinion as a concerned citizen, the Microsoft case should 
be settled. I disagree with the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few 
of Microsoft`s competitors.
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
I personally feel that without Microsoft I would not be enjoying the 
many benefits that have come from that company. I am 72 years of 
age, and Microsoft, in my opinion, has given me the means by which I 
am enjoying my computer. Please do the right thing and end this 
litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Louise O`Roake, Private Citizen



MTC-00006693

From: Geoff Saunders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to voice my opinion of the Microsoft settlement during 
the public comment

[[Page 24841]]

period, as provided for under the Tunney Act.
    I support the proposed settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft 
have negotiated_it is a tough but fair compromise by both 
parties, and it will achieve the government`s aim of protecting 
software consumers.
    After nearly four years this litigation should end with the 
settlement, as negotiated. The litigation has been disruptive to the 
industry, bad for the economy, expensive to taxpayers, damaging to 
investors, and it has hobbled one of America`s_in fact, one of 
the world`s_great companies.
    It is very unfortunate that Microsoft`s competitors are 
aggressively lobbying for sanctions against Microsoft that go beyond 
the settlement and are in the interests only of these competitors, 
not the general public. I urge the DOJ to dismiss this self-serving 
lobbying, and to ratify the settlement as it stands.
    Thank you.
    Geoff Saunders
    Sammamish, WA 98074



MTC-00006694

From: Donald F. Moran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    In the interest of fairness and consumer interests I think it 
would be in everyones benefit to go ahead with the agreement reached 
by Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I think it has gone on 
long enough and it is time to come to a conclusion.
    Sincerely,
    Donald F. Moran



MTC-00006695

From: gigi broad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The matter before the courts needs to be settled its long over 
due .Taking time from other important issues .Microsoft is a good 
company and it serves no one to continue hammering at this issue . I 
am glad Henry Ford did not have to face this or we would still be 
using horse and buggies.
    thank you,
    virgina wallace



MTC-00006696

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft needs the ability to innovate. It is not in our best 
interest to punish success. Please settle this quickly and fairly.
    Billie Johnson



MTC-00006697

From: Bill Snell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a small business owner who depends on the use software from 
Microsoft and other vendors for the efficient operation of my 
business. I support the proposed settlement currently pending before 
the District Court, which imposes tough conditions but is in the 
best interests of the consuming public and the economy.



MTC-00006699

From: TOM (038) SUE PONTIUS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft litigation NOW. prolonging this case 
is much too expensive and unfair. The consumer is being hurt each 
day it continues. Please.
    Tom and Sue Pontius,
    Mariemont, Ohio



MTC-00006700

From: Carolyn Waldo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the innovators innovate! Let the cry babies whine all they 
want!



MTC-00006701

From: Nicholas Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It`s time to end this ridiculous witch hunt against Microsoft. 
Some states Attorneys General, and some state governments, will stop 
at nothing to make a name for themselves and fill their state 
coffers with undeserved money. While most states and the federal 
government are happy with the settlements, the aggressive lobbying 
efforts of a few of Microsofts competitors are also to blame for 
prolonging this unreasonable witch hunt. These competitors are 
trying to gain from additional damage inflicted upon Microsoft.
    Let`s end this debacle now, as the settlement is tough enough, 
while being reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
    Thanks,
    Nicholas Page
    PO Box 76
    Middleton, MA 01949



MTC-00006702

From: Sally Jacobsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not delay this litigation with Microsoft any longer. The 
settlement terms are fair. The only ones who will win with further 
litigation will be the lawyers . . . not the American 
people. Enough is enough!
    Sarah E. `Sally' Jacobsen
    [email protected]



MTC-00006703

From: Dean Stelow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I own a small software development company and have intimate 
knowledge of the software market. I believe the proposed settlement 
is MORE than adequate given the current state of the market. (In 
fact, I believe the settlement goes too far in trying to restrict 
software publishers from designing their products however they see 
fit). There are alternatives to Microsoft products and there always 
have been. If an alternative is not available, a new one can be 
created with NO physical investment (unlike a true monopoly like 
electricity/oil, in which case I can not go out and create new 
petroleum fields).
    Please, let it end already. If you, or any of the other folks 
with sour grapes over Microsoft`s success don`t like Windows, load 
Linux, BSD, etc., etc. and don`t use their products. Its as simple 
as that.
    I won`t get into all of the benefits computer users have seen 
over the last 10 years thanks to a Microsoft `standard'. 
I can say this . . . if not for Windows, my parents and 
millions of other folks out there would not be computing today.
    Thanks,
    Dean Stelow
    Nordev Inc.
    [email protected]
    920.490.0608



MTC-00006704

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settltment
    To the Honorary Members of The Department of Justice,
    We respectably submit to you our wholehearted support for the 
settlement reached in the Microsoft case. We feel it would harm our 
economy further by allowing this case to be extended any longer. In 
our opinion it is a fair, but firm decision by the Court.
    Thank you.
    Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Powell
    15631 Issaquah-Hobart Rd.
    Issaquah, WA. 98027



MTC-00006705

From: Richard Hubbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Those trying to oppose the proposed settlement are using the 
judicial system for political purpose. This is particularly true in 
the case of the attorney general of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, Thomas Reilly. He is the worst attorney general we 
have had in the 47 years I have been able to vote. His record as a 
consumer advocate has been terrible. I find it disgraceful that he 
is arguing that the current settlement is not in the consumers best 
interests when his real purpose is raise campaign funds from 
Microsoft`s competitors in Massachusetts such as IBM (Lotus). Reilly 
is notorious for his involvement in only high visibility cases which 
promote his political career. The best current evidence of this are 
the Microsoft settlement and the sale of the Boston Red Sox. He is 
appealing to local business interest who can contribute to his 
campaign for governor.
    I am a Mac user who has been involved in the technology industry 
all my career. While Microsoft is aggressive in the marketplace, the 
consumer has benefitted from increased performance at lower prices 
whether a PC or Mac customer. Competitors such as IBM(Lotus) and 
AOL(Netscape) are not

[[Page 24842]]

suffering from competition but from poor management or governmental 
meddling. Hundreds of software companies have prospered as a result 
of Micosoft operating systems and applications. The original case 
was a personal vendetta by young lawyers in the DOJ trying to make a 
name for themselves, not public servants looking to protect the 
consumer. The best case in point is Klein. Do you think he ever 
would have gotten his current position with out the visibility of 
the Microsoft case.
    Most antitrust cases brought by the DOJ have resulted in damage 
to the consumer and the industry. Just look at the IBM and ATT 
cases. IBM faltered as a result of energies drained by its prolonged 
battle with the DOJ with no winner and gross damage to stockholders 
and innovation in the industry. The ATT settlement was long held up 
as an example of how the government can successfully restructure an 
industry but not now. Within a very short period of time we have 
seen a long distance market in shambles with companies losing 
billions and a reconsolidation of the local business into a few, 
soon to be two, regional monopolies. Prices for service particularly 
in the local loop have sky rocketted and service has declined. So 
much for the example the DOJ has used for years.
    It is time to move on. Industry is what makes the US economy 
grow not government and certainly not our judicial system. Most 
people are alarmed at how justice in the US has been bought. Don`t 
let the lobbyists buy you through their support of nine politically 
motivated attorneys general. Leave the settlement as is and in 20 
years it will be merely a footnote in the history books.
    Thank you,
    Richard L. Hubbell
    P.O Box 759
    East Dennis, MA 02641
    508 385-8876
    [email protected]



MTC-00006706

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm
Subject: Settle
    I wish to make my opinion known that the DOJ and various states 
should settle the case NOW.
    You`ve wasted enough of my tax money on a baseless case. Settle 
now. Move on.
    Tony Pondel
    729 Junior Terrace
    Chicago, IL 60613



MTC-00006707

From: Wang, Bill
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and 
justifiable. It is for the public interest.
    B. Wang



MTC-00006708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that what is being done to Microsoft is a travesty and 
that the government should ned this ASAP. I think that this case is 
responsible for the drop in technology stocks and the stock market 
as a whole.
    Edwina Lee Lindsay



MTC-00006709

From: Calvin Drown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No more Enough is enough. The states are looking to make a money 
grab like they did with Philip Morris.
    Calvin Drown
    [email protected]



MTC-00006710

From: milo ness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of a settlement. I think it will help the economy 
to improve.
    Milo D. Ness



MTC-00006711

From: Dick Wolff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Friends,
    In my view, we have spent enough time and money on the Microsoft 
issue. Let the market decide whether the company is good for us or 
not by where and how we spend our money. Settle this thing and let 
America`s consumers get on with their business. If you feel the 
justice department has too much money, why not look into AOL and its 
predatory policies?
    Truth is, just stay out of our business.
    Sincerely yours,
    Dick Wolff
    922 W. Cedar St.
    Sandpoint, Idaho 83864-1952



MTC-00006712

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel Microsoft Settlement should take place immediately and 
ALL LITIGATION stopped immediately.
    Sincerely,
    Wilma J. Wiitala



MTC-00006713

From: Randall K. Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete these actions without any further damage to 
Microsoft. I am a retired business owner, all of my manufacturing 
businesses needed to be competitive not controlled. This is America 
home of free enterprise, we have to deal with the World on a global 
basis and please don`t get into places not needing attention.
    Government intervention has not worked in the past and won`t 
work now. Let`s remember the phone company, which now is rebuilding 
what was broken apart. My phone bills are three to four times as 
high as they were. What did we gain? Look at the Airline industry, 
even before 9,11 they were in financial trouble. Now the power 
company, after one year of meddling, my power bills are not 
understandable and up twenty percent.
    You should be worrying about gas stations which raise their gas 
price $ .50 on news (Not facts) about OPEC raising prices that could 
not hit that pump for months.
    How about some Tort reform?
    If you need to control someone, how about the Lobbies?
    How about insurance companies which only provide service to the 
high profit areas in States and let the rest of the State suffer?
    In closing I think there is plenty of work for you folks to do 
that will really benefit The United States Of America and its 
people.
    God Bless
    Randy



MTC-00006714

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement with Microsoft is fair and is in the 
pubics best interest. Why prolong this issue? Let`s get back to 
doing business. There are more important issues, not more litigation 
that will only benefit special interest.



MTC-00006715

From: Thomas Henn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir,
    I`d like voice my thoughts on the MS Settlement that now has 
been going on for sometime. I respect and appreciate what the 
various states have done to protect the public from MS. At the same 
time we as a nation need to move on from this. I believe MS has 
punished and the original settlement on the table is fair and just. 
As a tax payer, I`m not happy that we are wasting good tax dollars 
at this point. The only people benefiting are the legal personnel.
    Cordially,
    Thomas J. Henn
    17365 Caribou Dr
    Monument, CO 80132
    CC:`Henn, Thomas`



MTC-00006716

From: Joe Guarraci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a stockholder can we get a refund for legal costs by this 
unfair lawsuite from the government ??
    Joe Guarraci



MTC-00006717

From: Tom Lakin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Just to let you know about how I feel about the DOJ settlement 
with Microsoft Corp. (MS).

[[Page 24843]]

    First of all, I do not believe MS should have been sued. If they 
created a program that another software company could not get into, 
that`s fine. Take a REAL CLOSE look at Intuit`s Quickbooks programs. 
Now, there is a real rip-off of the public. MS provides programs 
that really help us at a fair price. Not Quickbooks!!!! Quickbooks 
has their system set-up so that people are forced to buy their 
upgrades every year, or sooner, at more than $300.00 EACH. I just 
purchased to MS equivalent MS Money upgrade for $79.00. GO AFTER 
INTUIT.
    I do NOT believe MS was treated fairly. MS should not be 
required to give schools, or any else, free computers. Or anything 
else free. Although I can`t see your computers, I am sure they have 
MS products loaded on them. MS set the industry standards for PC`s. 
They should, in fact, be rewarded!!!!
    Thank you,
    Tom Lakin, EA, MBA



MTC-00006718

From: Jim Alekson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in agreement with the terms of the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement.
    As a consumer of computer hardware and software products, I 
applaud Microsoft for what they have done for the world wide 
computer industry throughout their growth. Without Microsoft, the 
world would not be nearly as progressively connected as it currently 
is. I look forward to continued growth in the industry and see 
Microsoft as a leader in that growth.
    Jim Alekson
    Vice President
    Milliken Development Corporation
    Telephone: (604) 925-2019
    Fax Line: (604) 925-4283
    Cellphone: (604) 603-8160
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00006719

From: Pastorino, Ray
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm
Subject: Tunney Act_Feedback on Settlement
    The proposed settlement should be adopted and we should move on 
with our lives. The amount of waste that goes into the legal 
mechanations is incredible. If this were the oil industry we were 
talking about the Governments posture would I believe be different. 
It has amazed me for several years now how the price of oil can drop 
by 50% and the drop at the consumers pump drops by only 5%. There is 
a certain sort of selectivity here that the government might better 
attend to. Ray Pastorino This message is intended for the sole use 
of the individual to whom it is addressed, and may contain 
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you 
are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or 
distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
message. If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this 
message.



MTC-00006720

From: Patrick Conlan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi, I wanted to take a couple of minutes to message you with my 
take on the DOJ/Microsoft settlement. Although I`m currently a 
Microsoft employee my opinions are my own and not those of my 
employer. Summary: I`m broadly in favor of the settlement, although 
I worry that it might be used by those who despise the value of 
home-grown intellectual capital to attack the assets of Microsoft, 
both to obtain information `for free' and to prevent 
future innovation.
    Before joining Microsoft I worked in Europe for a large 
pharmaceutical company_we were large Microsoft customers as 
well as customers of Sun, Oracle, IBM, Hyperion & DEC. In my 
experience dealing with Microsoft was far far easier that dealing 
with these alternative vendors who seemed to regard any request for 
information as an opportunity to charge extortionate consulting 
fees, wheras Microsoft:
    1/ Published all of its bug fixes & advice on an open and 
free web site
    2/ Published detailed code samples & api documentation on an 
open and free web site
    3/ Built a foodchain of cheaper consultancies and provided 
certification to help us choose quality suppliers
    4/ Had extremely professional product support who did not try to 
sell us anything
    5/ Gave us appropriate volume discounts making the price of 
their products compelling
    It was for these resaons that we moved from IBM`s OS/2, DEC`s 
Pathworks and from Novell`s Netware to the Microsoft 
platform_not any underhand behaviour, and not any forced 
technical decision_they were just an easier company to deal 
with, more professional and open than our other suppliers.
    I think that this should be born in mind when considering the 
remedy to correct behaviour that existed for a short period in time 
around 1995....
    Thank you for your consideration
    Patrick Conlan
    Microsoft SQL Server Development Team
    Redmond, WA
    +1(425)705 7817



MTC-00006721

From: Richard Yochum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Based on all I have read about proposed actions relative to this 
case, it seems that the States that have not agreed to a settlement 
are being unduly influenced by Microsoft competitors.
    I believe Microsoft has helped to keep prices at a reasonable 
level. It seems the States and competitors want to arrange for a 
`playing field' that favors their products.
    The states should bow to the lead of the Federal gov`t and make 
an effort to be profitable in their businesses without blaming their 
lack of success or difficulties on Microsoft. In today`s 
competittive business world, success should be determined in the 
marketplace, not the courtroom!



MTC-00006722

From: Tom Doran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:15pm
Subject: law suit and settlement
    The last time the government got into the picture and 
deregulated and broke up companies that were efficient and 
profitable the whole industry has gone to hell in a hand basket. The 
telephone break up turned into more dollars for the consumer to pay 
and LESS GOOD SERVICE received by the consumer. Plus now if you need 
service and repair you need a degree to find the correct number to 
call and hope that you will within a half days time get to the 
correct party that can be of any assistance. The telephone bill is 
20 pages and you need to spend a hour to figure out who is doing or 
better yet NOT DOING WHAT. The airlines are in the red and costing 
taxpayers billions because of the government deregulation. The 
trucking industry has lost good reliable companies that went out of 
business after the government involvement and deregulation. The 
electric utilities are the next industry to get screwed up. Just 
look at what happened in California and God help everyone else if 
they keep deregulating the power companies. We will all be sitting 
in the dark and freezing our kesters off. IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT 
FIGURED IT OUT, THERE IS AN OLD SAYING IF IT AIN`T BROKE DON`T FIX 
IT. CAUSE EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT STARTS TO FIX THAT AIN`T BROKE 
ROYALLY GETS SCREWED UP. So my advice and sentiment about Microsoft. 
LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE. THEY AIN`T BROKE AND THEY DON`T NEED NO 
FIXING. The company has been innovative, a leader in its field and a 
good solid investment for those who so choose. They will have to 
deal with competition as every other company does in the market 
place. All I see from this whole exercise in futility is that a 
bunch of DAM LAWYERS have gotten rich on legal fees. And a bunch of 
idiot bureaucrats have spent a great deal of my hard earned tax 
dollars justifying their existence and job. The Government could 
save millions by getting rid of the whole bunch of paper pushers who 
have been involved in all this litigation. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE 
DIFFICULTY READING, THE SHORT MESSAGE IS DROP THE LAW SUIT AND LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE. KAPISH.



MTC-00006723

From: William A Horan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a both an investor, and a career-long (30+ years) 
Information Systems Developer/Manager/Executive.
    There is absolutely no question that the enormous contributions 
made by MICROSOFT to the area of PC operating systems and 
applications development have revolutionized the computer and 
information processing industries. No other company

[[Page 24844]]

could have (nor evidenced enough initiative to have) approached the 
significance of innovation produced through the persistence and 
singular efforts of Bill Gates and his crew.
    As an investor, I can only applaud the tremendous stimulus 
Microsoft`s growth record provided to the stock market boom of the 
nineties. Witness the dampening effects that commenced coincident 
with Reno`s assanine assault on one of the true symbols of 
successful American capitalism. Sad to see that `victim 
mentality' has now gained such Federal sympathy in 
compromising America`s competitive spirit.
    I believe that the entire case was a liberal travesty, 
perpetrated to pull the plug on a booming investment climate, by a 
bunch of ne`er-do-well Clinton bureaucrats supporting Greenstein`s 
compulsions to wreck the market... and a select few of America`s 
business champions.
    Drop the B.S. and let`s get America back to the truly 
competitive style tyhat made us a once-great nation.
    Sincerely,
    William A. Horan
    (former) President I.S.I./ MARS Inc.
    Montville, NJ 07047



MTC-00006724

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement to whom it may concern,
    i think it`s a shame that the doj should have a say on how 
microsoft runs its business. they did nothing illegal. drop the case 
immediately. you should be putting all your time into protecting the 
innocent citizen from terrorist attacts, instead of trying to make a 
name for yourself.
    look what you guys are doing to medicine by not allowing them to 
collectivly
    bargan.
    Sincerely,
    michael gentile



MTC-00006725

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm
Subject: microsoft
    settle the law suit . it is fair and let people go back to work 
on new systems
    HAROLD E.WAKE



MTC-00006726

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it`s terrible that Microsoft was involved in this case 
in the first place. It`s a free country, supposedly, and they were 
smart enough to take advantage of the freedoms we have. Why should 
they be penalized. The other companies would have done the same 
thing if they had been smart enough to do it.
    Betty Hall
    Temecula, CA



MTC-00006727

From: Robert Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement..
    USGOV. DOJ:
    Don`t you think it is about time you settled this case once and 
for all? This case `SHOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED', but the 
politians in the Senate (in particular) insisted that you procede 
with this `INJUSTICE to MICROSOFT', and you caved in. 
Look it has gone on long enough, the economy is faltering due to 
mistrust and fear on part of the general public. Why don`t you do 
the right thing and settle this so we can move on in America? The 
last settlement I heard sounded pretty good for everybody but Apple 
Computer (they did not want to lose their stranglehold on the 
education systems use of computors. The heck with them, 
`Settle this oin the basis of the court last reccommendation, 
so we can start renewing our lives here in America.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Taylor
    866 Geneva Ave.
    Toledo OH. 43609-3038



MTC-00006728

From: Andy Elvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm
Subject: I also support the views put forward by Ganesh Prasad
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to add my voice to that of Ganesh Prasad (whose 
submission you may have seen_ if not, it is at this 
link_ http://www.linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-
OP-MS
    I believe that he has put forward a very good case for stronger 
remedies in the case of Department of Justice vs Microsoft. I am 
particularly frustrated with the so-called `bootloader 
clause' , in which Microsoft has had secret agreements with 
OEMs that prevent them from offering consumers the choice of which 
operating system to boot when they start up their computers. Now 
*that* sounds suspicious .....
    I know that I am only one voice among millions, and I`m not an 
American citizen (though I _am_ half-Canadian! ) . I can 
only ask that the views put forward by Ganesh are treated with the 
seriousness that they deserve. I believe he has made a very eloquent 
and persuasive case for strong remedies.
    Very many thanks for your time and consideration! (And have a 
good 2002!)
    Andy



MTC-00006729

From: Pete Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I just want to express my opinion as to what I see as a needless 
persecution of Microsoft Corporation in the last 5 years. Most of 
the arguments in regards to Microsoft`s browser integration with the 
operating system as Microsoft`s way of closing the system to 
competition is incorrect. In light of the recent viruses and DDOS 
attacks, this integration and openess have actually allowed 
Microsoft`s Windows and email system to be more vulnerable. There 
are enough documented APIs out there that more rogue software can be 
developed. In my opinion allowing unrestricted access to all source 
code will make Microsoft more vulnerable to future attacks on its 
Windows Operating System. As to JAVA and other middleware for the 
browser and server environment, they too are susceptible to these 
attacks. A new way needs to be develop to open up the Internet and 
develop applications difficult to hack and launch DDOS attacks. 
Narrowly focusing on the IE Browser and Windows as the way Microsoft 
will dominate the Internet is already proven more a liability to 
being hacked than a Microsoft advantage. Please let Microsoft 
improved and fixed their vulnerabilities unhampered with more 
litigation whose main argument have been proven false more than 5 
years after this antitrust cases were filed. The argument that 
Browser and Internet integration gives Microsoft an upperhand 
against other application developers does not hold water. We now 
know its a double-edge sword. It actually created more jobs and 
companies whose main product is to prevent or contain these virus 
attacks. It gave Microsoft a black-eye because machines were going 
down because of IE and Outlook launched viruses. Please allow 
Microsoft freedom to innovate, fixed and improve its products.
    Respectfully,
    Pete Rodriguez
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006730

From: Stuart Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case asap. And if this settlement 
does not include the holdout States, please encourage them to join 
in the settlement and let`s put this behind us.



MTC-00006731

From: Peter A. Weller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be informed that I firmly support the current settlement 
with Microsoft that has been proposed and agreed upon
    Sincerely yours
    Peter A. Weller
    1398 Edgewood Dr.
    Holland, MI 49424



MTC-00006732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please settle the Microsoft case and move on. It has been long 
enough.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Fane



MTC-00006733

From: Thomas A Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 24845]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I do not beleive that our federal government should ever have 
brought an antitrust lawsuit against the Microsoft Company for 
controlling a large portion of the market because of their product 
superiority. It does not appear to me or anyone else I have talked 
to, to be a monoply. Where wood this country be in the hi-tech world 
without Microsoft. It seems really unfair to me to punish them for 
being so successful in their bussiness. Because of the down turn in 
the bussiness cycle, I also beleive, the sooner we can put this 
nonsense behind us and give credit where credit is do the better we 
all will be.
    Thank You
    Sincerely
    Thomas A WadeGet



MTC-00006734

From: Jeff Erwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:19pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    According to Tom Reilly, one of the 10 state attorneys general 
who have broken with the Justice Department to offer their own 
remedies in the antitrust case of the decade, their proposed fix is 
designed to `end Microsoft`s stranglehold on innovation and 
competition in the personal computer industry.'
    If you actually read the proposals, though, a very different 
message comes through loud and clear: The state AGs want to turn 
Microsoft into a regulated public utility, with about as much 
freedom to innovate as the Minsk Post Office. Indeed, the proposal 
looks like something Oracle, Sun Microsystems and AOL Time Warner 
dreamed up to do to Microsoft_something none of them have 
managed in the marketplace. Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge in 
the antitrust trial, was inclined to break up Microsoft and scatter 
the pieces to the wind. What Microsoft haters love to forget is that 
the federal appeals court reviewing the verdict came to very 
different conclusions. It jettisoned two out of three of Judge 
Jackson`s findings of liability and trimmed the third substantially.
    Justice Department litigators, anxious to hold as much turf as 
they could but realistic about the import of the unanimous appeals 
court decision, subsequently negotiated a settlement that addressed 
every element of liability_and then some.
    But half the state AGs, who had piggybacked on the Justice 
Department case and grown fond of their self-appointed role as David 
to Bill Gates` Goliath, apparently saw no problem in pretending that 
Judge Jackson`s verdict stood.
    You think I`m exaggerating? Consider what the AGs have proposed. 
They want Microsoft to strip Windows down to its skivvies and then 
sell the operating system in every possible state of dress: with 
browser or without, with media player or without, with e-mail 
functionality or without, and so forth. And they want to set the 
prices Microsoft charges for this OS according to somebody`s 
reckoning of how much the company spent to create each feature.
    All this in spite of the fact that the appeals court explicitly 
stated that the burden of proof was on the government to show that 
the costs of integrating new features into the operating system, as 
measured by a reduction in competition, exceeded the benefits to 
consumers in terms of improved functionality.
    The plan would effectively Balkanize Windows, making it 
impossible for independent software developers to use any of the 
newly optional features in the operating system without incurring 
the wrath of customers who inadvertently bought the wrong version of 
Windows. Remember Microsoft`s dispute with Sun over the purity of 
Microsoft`s version of Java? Microsoft settled a private suit with 
Sun in January 2001 by agreeing to stop the development of its own 
versions of Java. Yet the states would require Microsoft to include 
Java with every copy of Windows, effectively making it a common 
carrier for Sun on the order of a pipeline that must deliver other 
companies` oil.
    Then there`s the small matter of disclosing trade secrets. The 
antitrust case, of course, was about operating 
systems_Microsoft`s applications software was barely 
mentioned. Yet the states are demanding that Microsoft license three 
other companies to produce versions of its Office applications suite 
for competing platforms. Microsoft would have to provide the Office 
source code to licensees, and much of the Windows source code as 
well, since Office needs Windows APIs.
    Did I mention oversight? The Justice Department proposal would 
create a technical committee with authority to advise the court on 
enforcement issues. The states want to create a special master, who 
would effectively have veto power over Microsoft`s design and 
marketing decisions.
    The chances are excellent that the state AG`s horror show will 
never make it to Broadway. The new judge in the case_Judge 
Jackson, you`ll recall_was fired for ethical lapses.
    But thanks to the states` initiative, the case will drag on, and 
the state AGs will earn more brownie points from Microsoft`s 
competitors. Who, apart from consumers of software and believers in 
a prudent, consumer-oriented antitrust policy, could ask for 
anything more? Leonard Orland is a professor at the University of 
Connecticut Law School. This was an article he wrote on December 
21st which succinctly addressed the real issues in this case.
    Jeff Erwin
    General Manager
    Network Management Group
    Management Business Group
    Microsoft Corporation
    (425) 705-9400



MTC-00006735

From: Margo Jenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Once and for all leave the most important business in United 
States, Microsoft corportion alone. It is about time they can 
conduct their/our business that benefits the US as well as all the 
rest of the world without somone constantly trying to beat them 
down. WE AS CUSTOMERS HAVE HAD ENOUGH GET OFF THEIR CASE !!!!!!
    Until somone can build a better mouse trap they better shut up!
    Margo Jenson
    Anacortes, WA



MTC-00006736

From: Robert S. (Bob) Duggan, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Let`s get past the Microsoft dialogue and finalize the 
settlement. Further delay is of no benefit to anyone, and it further 
delays the upturn in the national economy.
    Yours for a better economy.
    Robert S. (Bob) Duggan, Jr.
    [email protected]
    1112 Mason Woods Drive
    Atlanta, GA 30329
    [home page] http://pages.prodigy.net/r.duggan
    [genealogy] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/duggan



MTC-00006737

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please settle with Microsoft and do not allow litigation to 
continue any longer. The consumer will be harmed if litigation 
continues. I would hate to see further delays of the shipping of 
free computers to the inner city schools.
    Sincerely,
    Clio Koutzoumis



MTC-00006738

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe for the good of the people and the economy, this 
matter should be settled without further ado.
    I believe further prolongation would only hurt the economy. 
Microsoft has been instrumental in propelling our country forward 
and I don`t think this is the time to reverse the trend.
    Mustafa N. Savliwala



MTC-00006739

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentleman:
    I strongly believe the government should do everything possible 
to settle with Microsoft. Microsoft`s contribution to industry has 
been outstanding. To punish Microsoft is unthinkable. It`s easy to 
compete with Microsoft. It`s called superior technology. Anybody can 
do it. For sure it isn`t the legal system.
    Thank you for hearing my thoughts.
    Paul Schmidt, Jr.
    [email protected]



MTC-00006740

From: Georgene Majors

[[Page 24846]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement agreed to by Microsoft and DOJ is 
more than fair to all parties. I would like to see us move on, it 
would benefit the end consumer and the industry and the economy to 
put this behind us. Further litigation, in my opinion, serves no 
useful purpose.
    Respectfully
    Georgene Majors



MTC-00006741

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my feeling that the government has put Microsoft through a 
legal proceeding that has unfairly penalized them for acting 
properly in our capitalistic society. The main instigators of this 
proceeding were Microsoft`s competitors. I guess they figured that 
if they could not beat Microsoft in the business arena maybe they 
could do it in court. It is now time to drop the litigation and 
accept the settlement offer that has been agreed to by both 
Microsoft and the Federal Government.



MTC-00006742

From: paul_mindrup@ standardandpoors.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attention: Department of Justice,
    Regarding the recent Microsoft Settlement, I would like to state 
publicly that the settlement is fair and serves the public interest.
    Considering all of the facts, this settlement is tough but is 
also reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
    I beleive that this settlement is good for the consumer and that 
opposition to this settlement comes mainly from the competitors of 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Mindrup



MTC-00006743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Once and for all, I think it`s time the governments, federal and 
state, get off the back of Microsoft and let them continue to do 
what they are best at doing and that is innovating and coming up 
with new products. I frankly don`t see them as a threat to the 
consumers. It`s not that they`re the only show in town. There are 
too many cry babies in Silicon Valley.
    Virgil Nerli,
    Flushing, New York



MTC-00006744

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the settlement. Frankly, I don`t think Microsoft 
should be punished. They have created a product which has enabled 
this computer/technology revolution to occur. For years we had 
microchips, computers etc. but it was not until Microsoft build 
their windows software and explorer software that everything was 
able to come together in one workable platform. Please don`t kill 
the goose that laid the golden egg!!!!
    Regards,
    Michael Kirk
    201-678-1941



MTC-00006745

From: Eldon Loewe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft case in its present form; no 
further litigation please.
    Eldon Loewe
    916 NW 115th Circle
    Vancouver, WA 98685
    [email protected]



MTC-00006746

From: EVERETT WILLIAMS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have had a computer since 1983 and like almost everyone else 
have used Microsoft windows. I have always had a choice of browsers, 
all I had to do was download whatever I wanted. I feel that the fact 
that Microsoft offered their browser as part of the windows 
operating system caused a far greater and rapid use of e-mail, 
everyone gained. Enough already.
    E.H. Williams



MTC-00006747

From: Ernie Valenzuela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement:
    Re: settlement:
    I still think the government should leave Microsoft alone,let 
you continue inovating new programs and systems.
    All others can do the same on their own, I am tired of bickering 
and government interference. They should look into the failure of 
Congress to pass the very important bill, on relief for the economy 
before we go down like Japan.
    The Stimullus package, should have been addressed , and not the 
microsoft affair. Is this a free country,? then let the other 
companies do their own research, I am happy with Microsoft as it is.
    Stay Well
    Ernesto Valenzuela, Captain USN Retired



MTC-00006748

From: Barry Kentrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ Representative,
    The Microsoft settlement is needed for the American economy to 
return. This suit was a political action from the start and now is 
the time to correct this error. I recommend the following action:
    1.) Throw the entire suit out!!!
    2.) If #1 is not possible, make the decision as fast and 
soft as possible.
    Microsoft is a company which has done wonders for our country, 
It is time to repay them with your confidence vote.
    Barry Kentrup
    Orange, CA
    Disclaimer: I own no Microsoft stock and am in no other way 
affiliated with this company. I am an honest self-respecting law-
abiding citizen who knows the difference between right and wrong.



MTC-00006749

From: Warren Uppling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The `settlement' seems to be the best for the 
consumer, whom I represent. I think it is time to get back to 
business. Thanks for your time and consideration.
    jwu



MTC-00006750

From: Richard Latimer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am pleased with the tentative settlement reached with 
Microsoft corporation as stands. I would like to get this matter 
behind us as soon as possible so not to hinder future breakthroughs 
in the world of computer electronics.
    Cordially,
    Mr. Richard K. Latimer



MTC-00006751

From: Chuck Brouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:16pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. I for one, being a 
consumer and an IT professional, enjoy and benefit from using 
Microsoft products. This settlement isn`t exactly timely, but 
nevertheless will end a disagreement between the government and 
Microsoft that I personally have seen as ridiculous and a waste of 
the tax payers money.
    Chuck Brouse
    CEB Information Systems, Inc.
    9050 Iron Horse Lane, Suite 108
    Baltimore, MD 21208
    Bus: 410.580.9080
    Fax: 410.580.9082
    www.cebis.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00006752

From: Jennie Jast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    As a concerned citizen and a consumer, I strongly support the 
settlement of US. vs. Microsoft. Please stop special interests group 
from derailing the settlement and wasting taxpayers money. Settle 
the case NOW and tell the 9 state attorneys to stop putting their 
personal ambitions above the people of their states!

[[Page 24847]]

    Let the free market decide Microsoft`s fate.
    Jennie Jastrzembski
    Newport News, VA



MTC-00006753

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    People under free economic systems prosper, people under 
government controlled systems struggle to survive. Government 
intervention in the market place serves corruption, not 
productivity. It is the tax supported government that is too 
powerful, not comsumer supported Microsoft. The entire government 
case against Microsoft should be dismissed.
    Houston W. Rice
    [email protected]



MTC-00006754

From: Donald E. Olsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why don`t you get off there case ?? Give them some more time. 
Having to waste so much energy looking for UNCLE SAM and now the 
states has to be a drain on production. You must realize the longer 
it takes the more money they will have. They can`t even come close 
to filling XBOX orders let alone the other software products that 
are in such demand. My son attends a local community college and he 
says without the help and gifts from Microsoft they would be up 
creek in the information tech side of the school and here they are 
gifting and UNCLE is undercutting. You make no sense you can`t take 
their brains away_-THANK GOD !!//Don & Carol Olsby
    Donald E.Olsby
    CC:David Olsby



MTC-00006755

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am in favor of settling the case against Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement is fair to all parties concerned and should move 
forward.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Beck



MTC-00006756

From: florence howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    Enough is enough, End This Legal Manovering and get on to 
somthing that will benifit the masses rather than just a few.
    Glenn R Howe
    5137 SE Oakland Ave
    Milwaukie, OR 97267



MTC-00006757

From: Deb Dub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    This case has drug on for WAY TOO LONG! Please make sure this 
reaches a settlement soon so we can all move on. And hopefully, the 
economy will be the better for it as well. (Have you noticed that 
things go better whenever a rumored settlement is being discussed?)
    And remind the states on where personal computer technology 
would be if it wasn`t for Microsoft. I`ve used Unix systems and 
would NEVER want something like that at home. It`s not user friendly 
at all!!!
    Thanks for getting this taken care of in a timely fashion.
    Sincerely,
    Debbie Wilcox



MTC-00006758

From: Art Paquette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm
    Please stop stifling the innovation which benefits our country`s 
economy and serves only to dampen the recovery . . .
    Settle this suit with Microsoft and let`s get on with business 
. . .
    A Concerned Citizen and Taxpayer . . .
    Art Paquette



MTC-00006759

From: Gordon Knight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    As an entrepreneur I believe in the freedom to conduct business 
in a manner consistent with civilized practice and the laws of the 
State and Country.
    I consider that Microsoft has done this, yes there may be some 
sour grapes from others not so smart or not so fast, their loss will 
encourage them to try harder and move faster in future that`s free 
enterprise. Its very easy to get overly combative in the heat of 
battle maybe Microsoft is guilty of that but no more. Thanks to 
Microsoft products my business runs much more efficiently today than 
10 years ago. I suggest that the Government busy themselves with 
criminals, tax evaders, terrorists and suchlike and leave 
entrepreneurs and business men to do what they are best at even if 
its highly competitive.
    Sincerely
    Gordon B. Knight



MTC-00006760

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle with Microsoft. The DOJ was wrong in attacking Microsoft 
in the first place. Microsoft did not do anything wrong. They did 
not initiate force against others. They did not commit fraud. They 
were being pursued for offering a product (Internet Explorer) to 
their customers for free. Why is that a crime?
    They were being pursued for negotiating with their customers a 
agreement whereby their software would be included on newly produced 
computers. Why is that a crime?
    Bill Gates was targeted because he was too successful for 
Washington bureaucrats. Antitrust law is an abomination and should 
be abolished. It punishes innovation and success and makes the world 
less competitive not more. It makes products more expensive not 
less.
    You should spend your time pursuing Bin Laden not Bill Gates!
    Logan Darrow



MTC-00006761

From: Alan Goldberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:25pm
Subject: It`s time to settle and move on
    I think it is time for all parties involved in the Microsoft 
case to accept the DOJ settlement and move on. The consumer has not 
been harmed and it is only the lawyers and weak competitors who 
stand to benefit from continuing this case. History has proven that 
the marketplace does more to correct these problems then the courts.
    Alan Goldberg
    Kings Point, NY



MTC-00006762

From: w_engstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs, Instead of being harassed by the U. S. Government, 
Microsoft should be considered as a National Treasure. Its exported 
products help our economy and expand our capabilities. I think that 
the court case against Microsoft was totally unfounded. Whatever 
concessions that Microsoft makes are more than adequate, and in my 
opinion should not even be necessary. While there are those people 
(mainly Microsoft`s competitors) who want to suppress Microsoft, we 
believe that Microsoft provides great products and follows up with 
great support for those products.
    Microsoft`s products are sometimes released with 
`bugs.' However, Microsoft readily provides fixes via 
the Internet as soon as they realize there is a problem. Their 
customer support is outstanding. As an engineer, I recognize that 
few products that hit the marketplace can be perfect, and that it is 
impossible to foresee everything that can go wrong, no matter how 
well you plan. In spite of this, Microsoft does a great job and has 
provided significant support to the technology and economic health 
of the industry and our country.
    William Engstrom
    3110 181 Avenue NE
    Redmond, WA 98052-5934
    PS, I haven`t seen Janet Reno or Joel Klein producing any 
software or anything else of value to the country lately. Thank God 
they are no longer with the Government. The main thing that can be 
said of Joel Klein is that he successfully used the Microsoft suit 
as a stepping stone to a better-paying job. But he left a wake of 
destruction behind him.



MTC-00006763

From: Rich Wray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have a small real estate investment and management business in 
Southern California, and I have been a satisfied user of Microsoft 
products in my business since 1995. I also own a small amount of 
their stock. During the past several years I have followed closely

[[Page 24848]]

the anti-trust trial, and, frankly, I cannot understand the 
governments position against Microsoft, their products and their 
business practices. In my opinion, the only plausible explanation is 
politics. It is the ugly side of our system of government where 
competitors use political contributions to gain access to holders of 
public office and judges in order to gain an advantage against a 
business competitor. For me it is particularly disapointing that the 
primary example of this ugly part of politics is occuring in my home 
state, where Oracle and Sun Microsystems have teamed up with 
Attorney General Bill Lockler for their respective personal gain.
    I know that Microsoft products have been greatly responsible for 
the increase in productivity of individuals and business, especially 
during the past seven years, because in my business we are able to 
accomplish with 3 people what required 6 or more people in the 
1980`s and early 1990`s. The difference is profitability for myself 
and better pay for my employees. We are not technical people, so we 
would not be able to take advantage of computers and the internet 
without the software provided by Microsoft. Also, as Microsoft has 
incorporated more into their operating system, we have been able to 
take even greater advantage of technology. We now regularly use the 
internet in our business to communicate, purchase goods and 
services, and to access information, all without the need to know 
how it works. I for one do not want to revert to a world where these 
capabilities are available only to the technologically advantaged.
    My son is an electrical engineer and, prior to his graduation 
from college, he was not a fan of Microsoft. Like most technology 
people, he prided himself in the ability to use linux and other 
software programs that a technically-challenged person such as 
myself could not use without a great deal of training. Now that he 
is in the business world, he appreciates Microsoft products because 
he now understands the necessity for all people to communicate on 
the internet and to use the power of computers, which non-tecnical 
people would not be able to do without Microsoft or similar 
software. Sun Micro, Oracle, AOL and others could have chosen to 
develop competing technologies to challenge Microsoft`s growing 
dominance, but, instead they have chosen to use their vast resources 
to fund a political challenge instead.
    My understanding of anti-trust law is limited, but I thought 
that the over-riding intent was to protect the consumer. How is the 
consumer protected by restricting his ability to access the internet 
and other technologies by limiting the extent to which such 
abilities can be incorporated into the operating system of their 
computer? Also, how has the consumer been harmed? Anyone who has 
purchased software knows that Microsoft products are not expensive, 
certainly not when compared to other operating systems and business 
software. As for Microsoft`s business practices, most of what I have 
heard has centered on things like volume discounting and controlling 
`shelf space', that is access to the desk top. In my 
opinion, these are normal business practices.
    If Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems and even 
business applications, then it is a de-facto monopoly. The consumer 
has selected Microsoft products overwhelmingly for their 
performance, not for lack of alternatives. The same can be siad for 
AOL. What is the point of the never-ending legal onslaught against 
Microsoft other than for the personal gain of individuals in the 
Federal Justice Department (especially under Clinton), the State`s 
Attorney Generals, the aforementioned Oracle, Sun Microsystems and 
AOL, and every class-action lawyer in the United States anxiously 
awaiting their turn to profit from this legal war on Microsoft. For 
the consumer, what might the award be, some discount coupon on their 
next Microsoft product? Obviously, this legal war on Microsoft is 
not about the consumer at all. Its about politics.
    I do not believe that Microsoft owes anything to anyone for 
their success. However, if Microsoft gives software and re-
conditioned computers to schools, the schools and the children are 
winners. Of course, Microsoft might also be a winner if this means 
that more schools in the future buy Microsoft instead of Apple, or 
more children and their families do the same. The only way to avoid 
this result is to deprive the schools and the children of the 
Microsoft products, or for Apple to improve upon their product. 
Let`s bring this legal warfare to an end. Accept the Microsoft 
settlement. For those tates that choose not to do so, let them 
continue their battle on their own. Maybe the citizens of their 
states will become as disgusted with the costs and the process as am 
I.
    Thank you.
    Rich Wray



MTC-00006764

From: Kenneth Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel strongly that Microsoft has not done damage to other 
companies. Microsoft has been innovative and should not be penalized 
for that. It is time to get this case settled which will also be a 
big help to the economy.
    Sincerely, Verna Jean Jennings, consumer.



MTC-00006765

From: C.W. Schumacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:28pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I feel strongly that the proposed litigation settlement with 
Microsoft should be finalized as presented.
    We`ve had enough litigation.
    Respectfully,
    Carl W. Schumacher
    5655 Lynbrook
    Houston, TX 77056
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00006766

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s get the show on the road and implement the settlement. MS 
is a pioneering entrepreneurial company that has only done great 
things for the Information Technology industry. Let`s not play 
around anymore with those who want to penalize MS for their vision 
and and intelligence.
    .......Remember the 11th of September......
    Michael Rothberg
     APPLIED NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC
     PO Box 6380
    Somerset NJ 08875-6380
     (Cell) (732) 208-7323
    (V) (877) 247-0377
     (V) (732) 247-0377
     (F) (732) 247-0139
     E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00006767

From: Jim STARNES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice Officials:
    I feel that Microsoft Corporation has worked hard at reaching a 
fair settlement over the last year, and all parties should be 
commended on their efforts. However, when you deal in the type of 
businesses that Microsoft does, there are many competitors that may 
not have fairness in mind. I hope that the Department of Justice 
feels confident in the present settlement, and does not allow those 
with `special interests' to derail an agreement that is 
in the public`s best interest.
    Sincerely,
    James W Starnes
    [email protected]



MTC-00006768

From: C Zellmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:28pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Lets close the Microsoft case. It should be settled for the good 
of the country and the good of the Consumers. Thanks ,
    C. Duane Zellmer
    6061 Dundee Drive
    Huntington Beach, Ca.
    92647



MTC-00006769

From: Paul Sanusi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:22pm
Subject: Setle the Case with Microsoft Once and for all
    I will like to see the problem with Microsoft resolved finally. 
This case is dragging the whole economy down. I will like to see 
Microsoft freed , because unnecessary time and energy is being 
wasted. Microsoft could have done more innovations where it not for 
this case. The nation needs better technological innovations . This 
can not be achieved by holding the gun at Microsoft`s head. I am 
suprised that the state of California is not the other states 
willing to resolve this case. California is suppose to be an 
innovative state.



MTC-00006770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I feel the settlement between the federal govenment and 
Microsoft is sufficient. I do not believe it is in the public 
interest for the

[[Page 24849]]

States to make additonal demands upon Microsoft.
    Thank You
    Lester Lehon



MTC-00006771

From: Charles Chambers Sr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When will the government get out of the way of progress. I feel 
that the governments persuit of Microsoft has inhibited progress and 
has contributed to the economic decline in the technology area and 
the economy in general. Please move over and get out of the way.
    Charles R. Chambers



MTC-00006772

From: daley advertising
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen/Ladies,
     Please do not throw any more monkey wrenches in this action. 
Lets get it settled as it stands.
    Everyone seems to forget that this man (Gates) and the Microsoft 
company have been largely responsible for the development of a 
system that has benefited the world and business for the past 15 
years. Before windows, it was impossible to get one piece of 
software to be compatible with another. With the developments of 
windows operating system, the WORLD has benefited greatly.
    He has invented a better mouse trap and the cry babies that 
oppose him and his company will bring the entire industry back to 
the stone age if you allow them to screw up a good thing. Let the 
opposition be as creative and as inventive as Microsoft and let them 
compete that way.....not by having politicians getting involved in 
something they know nothing about.
    Yours truly,
    George F. Daley



MTC-00006773

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:30pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE_THEY HAVEN`T DONE ANYTHING 
WRONG.
    PLEASE LET`S GET THIS OVER WITH.
    SINCERELY,
    MONIQUE SZCZECINSKI



MTC-00006774

From: Elaine Ehrhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This comment is directed to the Department of Justice. This is 
to let you know that I feel that it is in the best interest of all 
concerned that the Department of Justice goes through with the 
settlement that it has reached with Microsoft.
    Thank you for your taking the time to read this message.
    Sincerely,
    Elaine Mirone Ehrhardt



MTC-00006775

From: HENRY KIENZLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement should proceed as it now 
stands. Further litigation merely hampers progress in the computer 
industry, and allows more unscrupulous litigates to further enrich 
themselves at the expense of the public taxpayers.
    This case has already dragged on far too long, and should be 
brought to a swift, fair conclusion.



MTC-00006776

From: Richard T Schroeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is fair and further litigation is a 
total waste of money. We taxpayers are sick and tired of the 
continued playing around and are appalled at how much money has been 
wasted in the past years on this activity. Kindly close the book and 
stop the waste. I for one have worked hard to earn my money and the 
Government throwing it away on this unnecessary pursuit is simply 
grandstanding. It is not the United States money that is being 
wasted, it is mine and the other millions of taxpayers. Stop this 
continued abuse!
    R.T. Schroeder



MTC-00006777

From: Tom Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
     Dear Sirs,
    From the outset of the suit I have felt that the charges were 
more political than fact based and as a user of many of Microsoft`s 
programs I have felt that the software and services were fairly 
priced and technical support was available when ever needed. As far 
as a competitor`s viewpoint sour grapes appear to be obvious. I hope 
the settlement can go forward and allow the competitors to built a 
better mousetrap as opposed to destroying a well founded 
Capitalistic American company.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas F. Collins



MTC-00006778

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    United States of America
    Department of Justice
    To Whom It May Concern
    I strongly believe that the comprehensive agreement reached 
between the federal government and nine states with Microsoft to 
address the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling 
is fair and equitable.
    I strongly believe that the settlement is reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved, and once finalized could provide a small but 
much needed boost to the current economy.
    I believe any further actions against Microsoft would simply be 
for punitive measures by Microsoft competitors.
    The more quickly this can be settled, the better for all parties 
involved!
    Eric Claggett
    Vice President of Operations
    Tinnerman Palnut Engineered Products M
    assillon, Ohio
    Phone: 330.830.7521
    Fax: 330.830.7505
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00006779

From: Hank Flynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a longtime developer of software products for engineers I 
feel that the DOJ anti trust suits have harmed Microsoft and the 
marketplace. Let`s end this countrproductive litigation and let the 
market place do what it does well, sort out winners from losers, 
without political interference.
    Best Regards,
    Hank Flynn



MTC-00006780

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned consumer, I consider the Microsoft settlement 
fair and reasonable. It`s time to bring this litigation to a close. 
Put a stop to the efforts of the special interest groups, who 
apparently are unable to compete effectively in the market place 
without government assistance, and the ego trips of the nine State 
Attorneys General who are trying to extend the litigation and waste 
more of the tax payer`s money.
    Travis Smith
    66 Old Hickory Trail
    Hendersonville, NC 28739



MTC-00006781

From: Steve(u)Lieberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am a proponent of the settlement reached between Microsoft and 
the DOJ. Please end this economically debilitating litigation. I 
firmly believe that to continue the litigation will unnecessarily 
punish Microsoft, provide unjustifiable benefits to Microsoft 
competitors and leave the consumer with less product choice priced 
more expensively. In short, I see no benefits to consumers like 
myself with any further litigation against Microsoft. Please settle 
immediately.
    Steve Lieberman
    Oceanside, CA



MTC-00006782

From: Jeff Stucky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This antitrust suit was not started by consumers and it has done 
an untold amount of damage to our economy. The Microsoft settlement 
is more than fair and needs to be made final.
    Thank You,
    Jeff Stucky

[[Page 24850]]



MTC-00006783

From: Jon Houghton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is both fair and just. Let`s get on to 
more important issues. It`s been tough enough for Microsoft to be as 
innovative as I know they can be with all the actions taken against 
them. DOJ, how about spending more time and money on wiping out the 
criminal drug traffic!
    Jon Houghton
    Pinecrest, FL



MTC-00006784

From: Ernie and Louise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: microsft judgement
    Please leave the Microsoft settlement as is. It is fair.
    Ernest M. Wallent



MTC-00006785

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:34pm
Subject: Be fair to America_the Microsoft settlement is more 
than fair
    Let`s have an end to the badgering of a successful Company. Yes, 
they are aggressive and successful but that is what America is about 
and that is exactly what makes us successful.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Frank Scott
    Journeys End Lane
    Princeton, NJ



MTC-00006786

From: Dale Wierman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:34pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The politically motivated litigation against Microsoft was 
initially not appropriate in my personal judgment, but that is no 
longer the issue. Severe damage to the National economy, and to the 
investment portfolios of countless citizens, has been a direct 
consequence of this morass initiated by statutes not appropriate to 
the technology of this era.
    Our National government has a very definitive role to combat 
terrorism, without continuing action to dismantle an industrial 
leader of the free world. The process and expense of the proposed 
settlement action is much more than appropriate, but should be 
approved to end the endless expenditure of both public and private 
time and effort. Further, it would be most appropriate to penalize 
any State that does not agree to the terms of settlement extended by 
DOJ and Microsoft, and attempts to continue the litigation. There 
are significant issues of National security that need the entire 
focus and effort of the free world without the USA dismantling our 
economic structure internally!
    Thank you for considering our view.
    Dale L. and Jane C. Wierman



MTC-00006787

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: settlement
    I believe Microsoft has a responsibility to society to play fair 
and not intimidate its competitors and potential partners. Microsoft 
should have been divided into two companies. Their attitude has not 
changed and they will be even more powerful in the years to come.
    John Barry



MTC-00006788

From: Neil Bergman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:29pm
    The country has wasted enuff money on this matter. the only ones 
who may be hurt by this settlement are microsoft`s competitors. get 
it done with. the settlement is fair.



MTC-00006789

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Microsoft is an American treasure. Sure they are big, but I 
thought capitalism allowed for competition and not restrictions 
based on the fact that others are not as competetive or successful. 
Microsoft has given back an enormous amount to this country in 
technology, charity and good will, so I believe that they should be 
allowed to operate as they were. Creating restrictions will only 
hamper their development and research.



MTC-00006790

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    settle...period...for msft users, msft investors, and other 
internet software users` well being....settle....



MTC-00006791

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let it be. Let it be. There`s no point in harassing the company 
that has been the most innovative in the computer industry. I am 
content with the settlement as are so many millions of Microsoft 
sympathizers. Since when is success a sin???
    Yours truly,
    Barbara Kosty
    1133 Lagoon View Ct.
    Cardiff, CA 92007



MTC-00006792

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Stop those few from playing games! accept that just settlement, 
considered judgement and wisdom, from my generation that too often 
today is ignored.
    History, sometimes doesn`t get thru to the youngsters, until too 
late.
    God Bless
    Bob Blum



MTC-00006793

From: Thomas Thon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: MS LAWSUITS
    Drop the case and move on..Japan would have given MS a medal of 
honor for accomplishing what they have...The microsoft action was 
politically motivated to get MS to start giving money to 
polliticians..Blackmail, pure and Simple..Now MS is giving money to 
politicians..



MTC-00006794

From: Ron Large
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:36pm
    Please settle the Microsoft suit under the terms agreed to by 
various attorneys general and Microsoft.
    Microsoft`s `monopoly' has enabled millions of 
CONSUMERS to exchange files, share data, etc. Plus, anyone who wants 
to can always buy a Mac and not use Microsoft products. Or they can 
use their existing PC but use Linux (free) and not even install 
Microsoft Windows or any other Microsoft product. I believe the suit 
was not in the consumers` interest at all. Big companies (not as big 
as Microsoft) wanted this suit. They couldn`t win in the 
marketplace, but they devised a way to win in court.
    I do not now nor have I ever worked for Microsoft or any 
software or computer company nor have I ever owned Microsoft stock. 
I simply use a computer several hours each day running my own small 
business.
    Ronald J Large
    Large Profits Fund Raising
    400 Susana Avenue
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277



MTC-00006795

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The above company has the knowledge and ability to continue to 
impact the progress of communications in our country in the future 
as it has in the past and at this time, there should be concern of 
stifling our national progress thru inordinate restrictions that can 
act as a detriment to that development.
    The public welfare extends to that future development more than 
the public welfare in either penalizing Microsoft too harshly in 
sharing information with competitors or in monetary penalties at 
this time. Overall the public has little support for harsh penalties 
and feel the major proponents are simply those companies who are in 
the `me too' welfare line to attempt to share in the 
profit of the research and development success of Microsoft. 
Forsightness on the impact of severe control Vs future US technology 
potential should be the true measurement of any legal decision



MTC-00006796

From: Dennis Aulenbacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:39pm

[[Page 24851]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I am in complete support of the settlement that has been reached 
between the US Government and Microsoft Corporation. All further 
actions should be completely disallowed. The settlement is FAIR.
    Dennis Aulenbacher
    [email protected]



MTC-00006797

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm
Subject: (no subject)
    This is a fair settlement the goverment should move on , don t 
they have anything else to do ?????? They should move on . Stop 
picking on microsoft. !!!!!!



MTC-00006798

From: Robert Dunlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelement
    I encourage the Department of Justice to finalize its settlement 
agreement with Microsoft as expeditiously as possible. The failure 
to finalize the settlement has and will continue to hang over the 
market and will limit the innovation that is required to further 
expand the use of technology throughout the world`s economy.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Dunlap
    18655 West Bernardo Drive, #286
    San Diego, CA 92127



MTC-00006799

From: George Tinker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    This lawsuit was a travesty of justice and a waste of our short 
taxpayer funds. Who is to gain by this? Certainly not software and 
computer users like me, who are looking for easier, faster, less 
troublesome connections.
    Have I received more than I expected? Who are the small parties 
that have been injured, that small outfit that had an extra $1 
BILLION in cash to give to the UN, AOL Time Warner (CNN, Netscape, 
etc.)? I`m sure they`re laughing all the way to the bank (hey, we 
just got the Government, at Taxpayers` expense, to kill our largest 
competitor.)
    This was a bad lawsuit, a clever way for AOL and Sun to kill a 
major competitor, it chews up precious resources, and has harmed 
consumers through stifling of creative thought. Drop or settle. 
There is no more excuse!
    Regards,
    George Tinker
    [email protected]



MTC-00006800

From: Jacques Guenette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough litigation !
    Jacques (Jag) GuI1nette
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00006801

From: Marty Christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the litigation against Microsoft and leave them 
alone. There is no reason for the lawsuit to be extended in way, 
shape or manner. This should now be a dead issue. Too much 
governmental money has already been wasted on this and no more 
should be spent.
    Marty Christensen
    Listen, Inc.
    312-277-4236
    312-207-0102 (fax)



MTC-00006802

From: Grieve, Jim
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice:
    Please add my name to the list of 200,000,000 or so United 
States citizens who are or should be tired of the unfair treatment 
which has been rendered against Microsoft. The company has led the 
way in ensuring that our great country is counted as the most 
technically advanced nation on the face of the earth. It may be true 
that they cut a few corners along the way, making it seem that they 
were not good corporate citizens. But whatever sins they committed 
pale in comparison with the benefits that have accrued to all of us. 
At this point, Microsoft is attempting to make honest restitution 
for those sins in terms of the proposed settlement. Since they are 
comfortable with the settlement, I suggest that it be ratified so 
they can get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    James W. Grieve
    441 North Ashbury Avenue
    Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440



MTC-00006804

From: Peter B. Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The latest roadblock set up by these dissident states is just 
another money grab a la the tobacco settlement. These states would 
still be wallowing in 19th century technology,but for Mr. Gates 
& Co. As a consumer and taxpayer, I think the original 
settlement is fair and just. Lets move on and leave the whiny 
competitors and greedy Attorneys General to fight some other battle.
    Sincerely,
    Peter B. Moss



MTC-00006805

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I want to express my opinion that the REVISED PROPOSED 
SETTLEMENT with Microsoft should stand.



MTC-00006806

From: John Beasley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is more than fair. Resolve this matter now. The consumer 
needs this matter over.
    John Beasley
    1524 So. 51st Kansas City Ks 66106



MTC-00006807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:40pm
Subject: Settlement!
    Don`t you think it time to settle this agreement? There are so 
many of us, the older generation, who know, use and like Microsoft 
as it is; why change it to something that we cannot use?
    It`s time that we got this settled and settled in the best 
interest of the most of it`s user`s, not just a few dissidents! 
Let`s leave it alone now as it is!
    Louemma Jensen
    [email protected]



MTC-00006808

From: Bill Creighton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Microsoft has paid its penalties. It is no longer in my interest 
to furthur pursue this matter or indeed the public`s.
    Every business in America would like to suceed like Microsoft
    Bill Creighton



MTC-00006809

From: Charles Treadwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe the Microsoft/DOJ settlement is a fair one and feel 
the case should be completed.
    Thank you,
    Charles H. Treadwell, Jr
    2057 Bordeaux Lane
    Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-1432



MTC-00006810

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm
Subject: come on!
    Look at who`s going after Microsoft! Apple, who`s guilty of 
almost everything they accuse Microsoft of. If Apple or those 
companies busy designing the Linux operating system don`t have the 
same market penetration as Microsoft, its because these other 
companies make stuff that the market doesn`t like.
    No one is stopping anyone from using products from Microsoft`s 
competitors. Most people choose Microsoft for many reasons. Why 
should folks like Apple, who can`t compete, now be subsidized by 
Microsoft, a company that still has original ideas? Why do all these 
second-rate companies think they should get a share of what 
Microsoft has innovated?
    I paid $11.50 (w/ shipping) to get the Linux operating system. 
Its so clunky & lousy, I won`t even use it. Did Microsoft cause 
this Linux OS to be crummy? NO. I can`t even begin to tell you how 
horrible the Apple computer is. Apple makes their own

[[Page 24852]]

hardware & software, they have total control. Yet they make 
junk, & charge more than Microsoft does for new operating 
systems.
    Let`s have a level playing field. Let`s investigate all the 
other hardware & software companies, too. Its politically 
correct to slam Microsoft. Apple, the dirtiest little company that 
ever was, points to Microsoft and cries foul. Let`s take a good look 
at the whole industry before one company unfairly gets beaten up.



MTC-00006811

From: Andrew Amicon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    Isn`t enough, enough. Get the states off of Microsoft`s back and 
let them get back to running their business. The taxpayers and 
Microsoft have spent enormous amounts of money NOT TO MENTION 
MANAGMENT TIME in getting through this DOJ witch hunt. It`s time to 
move on so Microsoft can innovate again and make the world more 
productive! Throw the 8 state cases out of court and force the 
settlement on them!
    Sincerely,
    Andrew R. Amicon
    CEO
    Medical Technology Resources, LLC



MTC-00006812

From: Jack Pike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs
    Please get this thing settled, I am from California, but its 
obvious that the government authorities here are not listening 
except to those with money to donate to their campaigns. I have no 
connection with Microsoft except to be a long time user of their 
software. If it were not for Microsoft I would hate to think where 
we would be in the computing world. It would be as it was 15 years 
ago with those yuppies in the Silicon Valley in charge, every thing 
to expensive for the common man to afford. Settle as soon as 
possible and use your influence to get the states that are so hungry 
for money to settle also. They do not care about anything but money.
    Jack H Pike



MTC-00006813

From: Jeanne and Joe
To: Microsoft ATR, Lawrence A. Julian
Date: 1/2/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    We feel that the Microsoft case has been in courts much more 
time than necessary. There are so many more important things to work 
on now. Basically it appears that the majority of the groups opposed 
to a settlement consists of business competitors who are jealous of 
Microsoft`s success. They want to control Microsoft and be involved 
in any new procedures that Microsoft will be initiating. It is not 
in the best interest of the public to put such strict controls on 
any company Microsoft has produced many new and useful computer 
programs and it appears that their competitors are very jealous and 
are attempting to tie up the company and prevent normal honest 
competition.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph and Janette Giubbini



MTC-00006814

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, lets get on with other things. The settlement 
is adequate.
    Ed Butler
    4272 NW 54 St.
    Coconut Creek FL 33073



MTC-00006815

From: Dave Janne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I think the time has come to put this behind us, and 
move on. I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair, and 
just.
    Thank you
    L. David Janne
    President
    Steuben Electronics Inc.



MTC-00006816

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please move forward with the proposed settlement! The country 
needs this to come to an end!



MTC-00006817

From: Susan Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to say that I am pleased with the settlement and 
find it fair for all. In my opinion, this long, and costly, 
litigation should never have happened to begin with.
    I am very displeased to see that a few are still trying to 
derail this settlement. This is a terrible waste of time and money 
and could be a direct loss to consumers (who depend on Microsoft for 
the best) and can only result in more negativity that will help to 
cause a further decline of our United States economy. All of this, 
in my opinion, has resulted because of a few people/companies that 
have been jealous of a man who happened to be intelligent, 
innovative, successful and gave back to his country and the world 
with superior products AND donations of HUGE magnitude. And, who, by 
the way, has HELPED our economy. The public, I feel, has had far 
more than enough, the companies and `complainers' have 
had far more than their chance...it`s time to move on!
    Susan Steele
    email:[email protected]



MTC-00006818

From: John Farr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepeople:
    I urge you to wrap up and close this case with Microsoft. For 
many of us, they have been the engine that America has run on for 
the last decade. The individual states are just trying to make 
political hay and reap a windfall from a big company. This does not 
help the economy or the small business that is just trying to go 
about their business and survive.
    I do not work for MS now or ever. I was in the insurance 
business for years and am now a newspaper columnist and community 
activist.
    Thank you.
    John D. Farr
    J. D. Farr `Johnbbq'
    Box 490 525 Pinon Ridge
    Ranchos de Taos, NM 87557
    NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]



MTC-00006819

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Finalize the settlement as soon as possible as my opnion is that 
the US govt should not have involved itself in this whole mess to 
begin with, just to satisfy. This does not look good on the image of 
a free enterprise oriented govt.
     regards
    a tax paying citizen



MTC-00006820

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have written to you before about the Microsoft Settlement. I 
said that I felt that it was a good offer and that I felt that the 
court should except it and put an end to this business. I will take 
this opportune moment to say-so again. We don`t need people causing 
problems right now with the what is going on in this world right 
now.
    Respectfully yours,
    Robert Hodgson



MTC-00006821

From: Wendy Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    I am writing my opinion to request that the Microsoft case be 
settled without further litigation. This case has gone on long 
enough and I believe a fair resolution has already been reached by 
the Court of Appeals. The ruling is good for consumers and the 
sooner this settlement can be resolved the sooner companies can 
return to innovating rather than fighting in court. Our economy 
(which could use a boost) would benefit by new technology.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy J. Sullivan
    5640 Timson Lane
    Alpharetta, GA 30022



MTC-00006822

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Decisions

[[Page 24853]]

    Leave Microsoft alone. We have gotten past bad Clinton politics 
except for a few Clinton (Democratic) followers like Connecticut`s 
AG Blumenthal.
    Paul W. von Hardenberg
    Southbury, CT



MTC-00006823

From: rdm13d
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please get off MSN`s back. If you damage industry leaders you 
damage the USA.
    Robert Mitchell



MTC-00006824

From: William Lenheim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ, agreement with Microsoft although hard, should stand. 
Any additional changes to the settlement via States, DOJ, or other 
sources should be avoided at all cost. Microsoft may not be perfect, 
but they have great products and are on the cutting edge of Software 
development.
    Microsoft is a widely held stock and further harm could be 
accrued by the smaller stock holders should the company be broken up 
or changed in any way. The best way to sum up the matter is 
`Leave Microsoft Alone'!
    By the way I would think that AOL/Time Warner, is more of a 
monopoly than Microsoft ever was.
    Mr. William Lenheim
    [email protected]



MTC-00006825

From: Dr. Kathi Antolak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Ms,
    I have found Microsoft`s products to be excellent over the 
years_and would favor allowing them to advance the field of 
computing without government interference. Please stop using my tax 
dollars against this company that has helped to change the world in 
a positive manner. Please cease and desist from further legal 
actions against Microsoft. I believe it has had a deletory effect 
not only on the computing world but also on our US economy.
    You have my vote. Please get this settled and allow the company 
to continue it`s innovations.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Antolak MD
    2137 NW Cascade View Drive
    Bend, OR 97701



MTC-00006826

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Err... would you guys like get over it already, and leave 
Microsoft alone? I know they are the Dark Side, and a megalo-
monopolistic bastard, but you know what? So are you! (i.e. the Fed 
Govt).
    So, just leave them alone and let the public market sort things 
out. At least there is a choice in who`s / what software people buy. 
Microsoft got to be big via the free market system. Let that system 
sort out their future, not legislation.
    Thanks.
    David Guyton
    [email protected]



MTC-00006827

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I like to add my voice to encourage you to proceed with the 
proposed Microsoft settlement, without further litigation. This will 
be in the interest of not just Microsoft but in the interest of the 
country as a whole, by reducing the cost of further litigation. 
There already is plenty of competition in the software industry. 
There are new companies being founded by smart people all the time.
    As a not very sophisticated computer user, perhaps one of a 
large majority, I definitely like the idea of buying one product 
that will allow me to navigate seemlessly through multiple 
applications. A complete unbundling of the applications will be 
definitely challenging and expensive.
    Thanks for reading.
    Padma Raju, M.D.
    Topeka, KS 60004



MTC-00006828

From: Susan Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I have been following the Microsoft litigation for years and am 
delighted to hear that you are settling this case. I think the 
settlement sounds very fair. And now is not the time to drag our 
greatest American company through the mud. They need to get back to 
business.
    Susan Holden
    Executive Producer and Chief Financial Officer
    Curious Pictures
    http://www.curiouspictures.com



MTC-00006829

From: Steve Franke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The continued litigation of Microsoft is ridiculous. The States 
Attorneys General who are not satisfied with the verdict in the case 
are nothing more than showboating, and trying to collect revenue for 
their states. Enough is enough !!
    Steve Franke
    [email protected]



MTC-00006830

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm
Subject: Settlement
    I taught English in Madagascar in Aug of 2000 and fielded many 
questions about the United States. One of the oddest series of 
questions that were asked pertained to whether Bill Gates was going 
to prison for what he had done at Microsoft.
    It took awhile to explain the difference between civil and 
criminal law and I did my best.
    To the people in Madagascar , if they know of the situation with 
Microsoft, the general belief is that he must be a criminal. While 
this may not be of great moment to the justice department I believe 
that it is unfortunate that the several state justice departments 
wish to prosecute one of America`s great entrepreneurs and that the 
US Justice Dept. took up the case in the first place. It makes the 
US look vindictive and small.
    Bill Gates is not a hero like we have seen in the last few 
months but he is someone whose influence has been of benefit for our 
country.
    Fred Meyer
    2101 E. Bethany Home Rd.
    Phoenix, Az. 85016
    [email protected]



MTC-00006831

From: greg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:47pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    D.O.J
    Let`s get this settled and move on. The only people that 
prolonging this ordeal serves, are the politicians and the lawyers. 
The representatives of the nine states are not concerned about the 
consumer. If they deny this, then make them explain how I, the 
consumer, will benefit from any settlement. Competition and pricing 
are addressed daily . Faster, more efficient computers are sold each 
day at prices lower than the day before!
    Where were these people that are so concerned for Joe Public, 
when Microsoft was perpetrating their only true offense, that being 
the sales and marketing of an inferior product that was able garner 
an approximate 96% share of the market ? NOW THAT`S AMERICAN 
INGENUITY AT ITS CORPORATE BEST!
    Rein in Microsoft and make them play by the rules. But don`t 
penalize them for innovation, or to satisfy the whining wishes of 
the Suns, Oracles, and AOL`s .
    Thank You,
    Greg



MTC-00006832

From: Dean E. Lybyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Microsoft is trying to adhere to all of the 
Government`s stipulations, is it not time for all of these other 
states to stop whining and crying foul and accept a fair settlement. 
I think so.
    Dean E. Lybyer
    ([email protected])



MTC-00006833

From: Effie Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case has gone on long enough and must be settled now.

[[Page 24854]]

    By the long delays and Judge Jackson discussing this settlement 
while still in litigation should have thrown the whole case out as 
it doesn`t seem to me there was a case anyway. It is apparent to me 
that other companies wanted a free ride on the Microsoft programs 
instead of going out and building their own. There must be a fine 
line in defining the two words `De-regulation and 
Antitrust'. We went through the de-regulation with two major 
companies Pacific Gas and Electric and American Telephone and 
Telegraph and life has been a complete hassle for the consumer ever 
since.
    I think Microsoft should have the right to protect and build 
their own programs and they have done an exemplary job of building a 
simplified program that even we seniors can use. It is my opinion 
the Justice Department is concerned for the big money companies 
instead of we, the people. It seems to me that all you have 
accomplished is to destroy the peoples confidence in you and the 
entire stock market because we do not know who these suits will 
strike next. It is my hope this suit needs to be dropped now. Let 
the other companies build their own programs and, if it is better, I 
am sure the public will buy it.
    I have written to the Honorable Bill Lockyer about this case and 
it seems apparent that he is not listening to the consumer. While 
the Department of Justice needs to represent other companies, they 
also need to listen to the consumer as he is the one who is 
purchasing these programs and wants the protection and security that 
has been provided by the Microsoft Corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Effie Robbins



MTC-00006834

From: Bob Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is just fine, and my suggestion would 
be to impose it also on the nine states that have so far not 
accepted it.
    1. Microsoft is guilty, at the most, of being a big company that 
was still acting like a small company.
    2. Microsoft`s competitors are guilty, at the least, of trying 
to accomplish in court what they could not accomplish by competition 
in the marketplace. They are, and always have been, totally free to 
develop their own operating systems, but have generally chosen not 
to because of the high cost of entry, and have instead chosen to 
ride on the back of Microsoft, and then complain when they didn`t 
like the ride.
    3. Microsoft did not harm consumers. Compaq`s VMS operating 
system, for example, costs many times what Windows XP does. And, 
Microsoft by making its software development tools (Visual Basic, 
Visual C++ and so on) available to third party software developers 
at reasonable prices, has done more than any other company to 
encourage and promote development of software by third parties. On 
the other hand, Apple, for example, by limiting the availability of 
it`s development tools and discouraging the manufacture of clones of 
its hardware, has done much to prevent development of Apple-
compatible software by independent software development companies. 
Offhand, I would say that without Bill Gates and Microsoft, there`s 
a good chance you (yes you, who is reading this email) would not 
have a computer on your desk_they would still be too expensive 
for the average person or the average worker.
    Except as a happy user of Microsoft software, I have no 
association whatsoever with Microsoft.
    Bob Day
    Portsmouth, NH
    [email protected]



MTC-00006835

From: Dorothy Winick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlememnt
    I think this settlement should be made for the good of the 
public.
    Dorothy Winick



MTC-00006836

From: Don Cross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern:
    While it is my strong opinion that Microsoft takes liberties 
that it would not have the luxury of taking in a completely 
competitive environment, it is also my opinion that competitors like 
Sun and Apple have had their chance and do nothing with it. Hence to 
do more than the proposed agreement to affect the Microsoft business 
model would hinder the interoperability of computers and their 
software and in my opinion create a more expensive business model 
for all consumers. So leave the settlement as agreed and go ask SUN 
and Apple why they don`t `get competitive'.
    Donald D. Cross
    6704 NW Monticello Terrace
    Parkville, MO 64152



MTC-00006837

From: Lisa Matchette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At this time when our country is struggling to recover from the 
events of September 11 and the current economic recession, it would 
be wise to get this case settled and move on toward regaining a 
strong economic footing. There is no doubt that Microsoft is a very 
important company in this country and that like many of our business 
and industry leaders, it plays a critical role in our economy`s 
strength.
    But that alone is no reason to turn a blind eye to any company`s 
business practices. So, for the past several years the DOJ has 
raised issues that have made Microsoft acutely aware that its 
business dealings with OEMs and other vendors is under intense 
scrutiny. All of this, I believe, has not been taken lightly by 
Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement appears to be reasonable and just. I 
believe that it serves the interests of the public, while still 
upholding the ideals of the free market upon which our capitalist 
system is based.
    At some point, the government needs to bring a fair and measured 
end to this case, and I believe that point is now. The measures 
outlined in the proposed settlement will provide the necessary 
safeguards and guidelines to protect the public interests while 
allowing one of our country`s most successful companies to continue 
contributing to the overall well-being of the economy. Allowing this 
case to drag on is hurting consumers far more than anything 
Microsoft could have done.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.



MTC-00006838

From: Stephen Land
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please record me as strongly supporting the Microsoft Settlement 
reached by the Company and the DOJ. The opposition of a few states 
and some members of Congress is politically driven by competitors of 
Microsoft.
    Stephen Land
    http://www.divorceland.com 



MTC-00006839

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft is still a preditor!
    To the US Dept. of Justice,
    Curiously, Microsoft asked me to contact you in it`s settlement 
in the Tunney Act. I really think Microsoft is a predator and will 
use any and all a means to eliminate or dearly hurt any and all 
Competitors. They have done this for many years. I know.
    I started using Computers in 1980 with Apple Computers. Then as 
the Companies I worked for opted for PC`s and Microsoft S/W, I chose 
PC`s and Microsoft Windows for my Home Computer so that the working 
S/W would be compatible. I soon found out that Netscape was much 
easier and better than Internet Explorer from Microsoft. However, 
having I.E and Netscape on my Computer caused problems and it was 
always due to the Software in Windows and I.E. that was deliberately 
causing problems on Netscape.
    Now (2001 and 2002) Microsoft Windows XP is even more 
restrictive and eliminates many Software programs. It also requires 
that I register my Computers characteristics (identifies my hardware 
and some Software) as a way of preventing owners of Win XP from 
using it on other Computers that they own.
    In the Past, most Software Manufactures would allow a customer 
to use their S/W on two computers if they were not used at the same 
time. Example: I have a Desktop and a Laptop which I want to be 
compatible, and which I do not use at the same time. The only other 
person in my home and Business (Consulting) is my Wife and she hates 
computers and will not use them. I use my laptop mostly while I am 
traveling. The exception to this is when I transfer data (not 
Software) via Laplink from my laptop to my Desktop for backup and 
storage reasons.
    This latest Monopolistic and intrusive action by Microsoft once 
again proves their

[[Page 24855]]

intent to control their customers and to eliminate any other 
Software and Hardware that they do not control.
    I think your committee should reconsider the Settlement with 
Government Controls on their behavior for at least five years.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Adams
    A knowledgeable Microsoft User and Customer, and a Consultant in 
Electronic Equipment and Hardware.
    JADA Consulting
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00006840

From: Edward A. Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the Microsoft Corporation has not broken 
any laws by the design of any of their software and it appears that 
their competitors are the ones guilty of a crime. Please bring about 
a timely and fair judgement that will settle this suit once and for 
all.
    Thank You,
    Edward A. Morris



MTC-00006841

From: Milian, SCMD, SCSM, Rudolph E.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    In 1999 and last year I communicated to public officials about 
the Microsoft antitrust case and its negative impact on the 
advancement of technology that improves efficiency in our daily 
life. For the most part, I received a sympathetic response from them 
and I want to reiterate to you that the case should be settled and 
not further litigated. The settlement that has been agreed to by 
Microsoft, the Federal government and nine states is tough, but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I agree that this 
settlement is good for consumers, the industry and the American 
economy.
    This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the 
opinion of the company I work for but I am expediting communiqui to 
you through this e-mail to register my opinion.
    Rudolph E. Milian, SCMD, SCSM
    Woodcliff Lake, NJ



MTC-00006842

From: dewittclinton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I applaud the U.S. Court`s proposed settlement of 
our goverment`s case against Microsoft.
    It seems to me to be fair to all. I expect the Department of 
Justice will so inform the District Court.
    For the sake of consumers, business(world-wide) and our country 
I urge the District Court to recommend accepting this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    DeWitt Clinton Baker



MTC-00006843

From: andremalin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please let Microsoft do what it does best: writing software.
    The settlement is fair to all parties and should be finalized 
without further delay.
    It is time to move on and for the `poor' competitors 
to do the same: work harder.
    Thank you,
    Andre Malin



MTC-00006844

From: Rick Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Prolonging the litigation further really only benefits the 
lawyers, as usual. Let market forces rule; Microsoft has done right 
by this country. Kenrick L. Day, High School Physics teacher in Fort 
Smith, AR



MTC-00006845

From: designdecor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    AS A CEO OF A MAJOR CORPORATION, I AND MANY OF MY EMPLOYEES HAVE 
BEEN WATCHING THE MICROSOFT ANTI-TRUST CASE UNFOLD. AS THIS 
JUNCTURE, I FEEL THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE TO BRING THE ENTIRE 
PROCEEDINGS TO A SWIFT AND SPEEDY CONCLUSION. HENCEFORTH, AS A 
CONCERNED CITIZEN AND BUSINESS PERSON, I WISH TO EXPRESS THE FACT 
THAT OUR ECONOMY AND ALL UNITED STATES INDUSTRIES NEED TO GET ON 
WITH GROWING. THE SETTLEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED SHOULD BE 
EXECUTED WITH ABSOLUTELY NO FURTHER LITIGATION.
    SINCERELY,
    MARY JANE LUNDSGAARD



MTC-00006846

From: Eric Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should never have been put through this legal ordeal 
in the first place, as they don`t, and never have had, a 
`monopoly' in any real, economic sense of the term. 
However, a corrupt Department of Justice, in collusion with several 
special interests in the computer world, saw fit to punish Microsoft 
for the made-up crime of innovation.
    Since it has come this far, and the only choice remaining is 
between settlement and further litigation, which would only cost 
Microsoft and the American economy greatly, it is clear that 
settlement is the lesser of the two evils.
    Settle now, and end this legal travesty.
    Eric Johnson
    1825 W. Berteau Ave., #2
    Chicago, IL 60613



MTC-00006847

From: John K. Mielke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opinion, and recommend that the DOJ 
accept the Microsoft settlement. In fact the whole action against 
Microsoft was a flagrant abuse of government action against a 
company that was and still is a positive force on the US economy. 
The agressive efforts by Microsoft competitors should tell you who 
started the action.



MTC-00006848

From: ROZJER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    IT IS VITAL THAT THE SETTLLEMENT ALREADY REACHED IS THE ONE TO 
ABIDE BY.



MTC-00006849

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement addresses any prevoius excesses in an 
equitable way.
    It has been forged by adversaries over a long period of time. 
Any litigation to prevent implementation of this settlement will 
serve only to advance the interests of Microsoft`s competitors in an 
unfair way.
    The nation needs a strong software industry, including a strong 
Microsoft.
    The settlement should be put into effect withut further delay.
    Sincerely,
    David S. Wachsman



MTC-00006850

From: Steve Patchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An immediate settlement in the publilc interest is absolutely 
valid in this prolonged and terribly unjust case brought against one 
of our strongest companies. We should be doing everything we can to 
support this innovating company, and its businesses around the 
world.
    For whatever my comments are worth, you now have them. I hope 
they will be heeded.
    Thank you.
    Steve Patchen
    1930 E. Las Tunas Rd.
    Santa Barbara, CA 93103-1746
    805.560.6004



MTC-00006851

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:55pm
Subject: MS settlement
    DOJ: For the good of our country and the economy please 
recognize all that the accomplishments of Microsoft have done for 
everyone who uses a computer.
    It is past time that we recognize the decision of the courts and 
let Microsoft get back to the business of making our computers even 
more efficient. Don`t let a few overzealous DA`s use this case to 
feather their political nests.
    ADAM SLUIS
    [email protected]

[[Page 24856]]



MTC-00006852

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I expect the settlement already agreed upon, will be adequate to 
make the point with MS, without further damaging the company and 
consequently the industry, which is so important to the recovery of 
our country`s economic health. There is a direct correlation between 
the iniation of the Attorneys General (in not even the majority of 
the US)suit and the commencement of the sharp decline of the Stock 
Markets. And that includes the negative impacts on many more 
companies than just MS. Hence, the Recession...in a global scope.
    For MS is Global.
    I agree, if it were just MS that was impacted, I might see a 
slight merit in their claims. But in truth, MS has been the cataylst 
for tremendous growth in Productivity throughout the US and in many 
other parts of the world.
    I, for one appreciate the ubiquity of the Windows capabilities 
and adaptabilities. So many use this as the standard for 
communication between clients and customers, as well as internally. 
The MS software automatically contained in the Operations Systems on 
most computers allows for ready use and training employees to be 
productive in having the time to create solutions to problems rather 
than spend so much time creating tons of paper and doing the many 
manipulations on incompatable software were it not for the 
`magic' of the MS-based software availability.
    MS software is there, imbedded, but one doesn`t have to use it 
if there is another OS that is determined to be more fitting to 
provide the necessary outputs/calculations. Linus, for example.MS is 
not preventing one from selecting other software for software OS 
optimization.
    Then there`s the fantastic waste of our tax dollars being 
expended by both sides to litigate this case. That is counter-
productive. Only ones rewared with this litigation are the Lawyers.
    Let`s settle this equitably and now!
    Phillip M.Connaught
    1409 Chancellor Circle
    Bensalem, PA 19020-3676
    [email protected]



MTC-00006853

From: Guy Avey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please! Lets get of this ridiculous waste of taxpayers money and 
let Microsoft get on with their ability to develop new products. All 
companies have the freedom to compete with MS if they have the 
products to compete. Being the best at what you do is not a 
crime!!!!!!!!!
    Lets Roll!
    Guy R. Avey
    110 Longcroft Road
    Winchester, VA 22602-4438



MTC-00006854

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a longtime personal computer user, with experience 
with Apple and IBM-Compatable PC operating systems, and the 
Internet. As such, I`ve used Microsoft`s products as well as 
products from many other software companies.
    Without reservation, I can assure you that I have personally 
experienced no ill effects from purported anticompetitive behavior 
from Microsoft. Quite the contrary, I feel that the company`s 
products have significantly improved my computing experience at a 
fair economic cost.
    I also have been a longtime investor in technology companies and 
have seen several `generations' of computing 
technologies come and go. I have personally seen no ill effects from 
purported anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft on other 
technology companies. Again, to the contrary, I have seen a lot of 
evidence that Microsoft`s technological innovation coupled with 
their customer focus have driven new technologies to the 
consumer_along the way, creating economic opportunities for 
many competitors of Microsoft.
    Because the company`s actions have always been driven more by 
good business sense, rather than just a focus on cool technology, 
many of the industry pundits have been long-critical that Microsoft 
stifles innovation. This is completely backwards: because the 
company chooses to deliver new products to the consumer only as fast 
as they can be consumed, the overall penetration of personal 
computing technology has been improved, not harmed.
    Overall, I see the current settlement as a fair way for both 
side to get on with more productive matters and let the market 
place_consumers and businesses_drive competition in the 
technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Patrick
    Home:
    1717 30th Avenue W.
    Seattle, WA 98199
    (206) 281-9113
    [email protected]
    This contact information should not be used for marketing 
purposes.



MTC-00006855

From: Joseph Mannix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir,
    I think the proposed settlement is in the best interest of all 
concerned parties.
    It is time to stop bickering and move on!
    Yours truly,
    Joseph R. Mannix



MTC-00006856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Active Listeners:
    This email is in support of Microsoft. Microsoft has been a fair 
and open competitor since the start. It has as many competitiors and 
struggles as every other company out there. COmpanies such as Sun 
Microsystems and Oracle are only looking for less competition to 
allow there companies to grow faster and further. Although I feel no 
agreement should have been made, due to the fact that Microsoft is 
completely innocent of any wrong dueings, I see that Microsoft Is 
being a fair company and at least willing to sacrafise alittle to 
end an unfair conflict upon them. I support Microsoft and say that 
this compromise should be allowed through, and if anything, 
Microsoft she be unchained and allowed to be free on the market 
again, not allowing the greedy competitiors to act like an 
Inquisition upon Microsoft.
    Microsoft has helped out many companies not only to grow but has 
also helped many other companies to be started.
    James Gusman
    CEO/Owner Gettachat & Companies
    www.gettachat.com



MTC-00006857

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THIS LITIGATION IS SETTLED ASAP. 
OUR ENCONOMY IS DEPENDENT UPON IT. I THINK THE INTEREST THAT AGAINST 
IT ARE JUST AS MUCH AT FAULT AS BEN LADEN-THEY ARE TERRORIST. THEY 
ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR OWN INTERESTS. MAKE A BETTER MOUSE 
TRAP AND PEOPLE WILL BUY IT.
    PLEASE SETTLE THIS ASAP. THANKING YOU AND BEST REGARDS.
    [email protected]



MTC-00006858

From: George W. Surline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1-2-02
    Gentlemen
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement and am satisfied with it 
in it`s present form.
    I feel that any additional penalties or restrictions imposed on 
the Microsoft Corporation would be counter productive and not in the 
best interests of the consumers nor the stockholders at this time.
    Very truly yours,
    George W. Surline



MTC-00006859

From: Dick Koch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It is an outrage what Microsoft has been put through the last 4 
years. They make the best software and that is the bottom line. The 
special interest groups are just attempting to make up in litigation 
what they can not do via their products. It`s a shame that it has 
cost so many so much. Why do the best get punished for being the 
best?
    Dick Koch
    Bank of America
    Dir: 301 571 1480
    Fax: 301 571 1490

[[Page 24857]]



MTC-00006860

From: Jack Keilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    ladies and gentlemen, lets get on with our lives. settle this...



MTC-00006861

From: Ed Fitzgerald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    I strongly support the current Microsoft settlement agreement. I 
do not think it is in the consumer`s interest to further delay 
resolution of this case.
    Edward M Fitzgerald
    1357 Opal Street
    San Diego CA 92109-1912
    (858) 488-1187 voice
    (858) 488-2336 fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00006862

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With the problems we have in this nation at this time for heaven 
sake we don`t need more litigation where about the only true winners 
are the lawyers who charge large fees.
    Please accept this settlement as fair to all parties and end 
this horrendously long case.
    Thank you,
    Dorothy Hilton
    Springfield, Missouri



MTC-00006863

From: Brock Luno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear persons,
    I do not think that an Operating System (O/S) needs to do 
anything other than run a computer and its sub-systems. All else is 
applications and should be marketed and installed as such. I believe 
that Microsoft has convinced the majortity that it must bundle its 
products. I do not agree.
    I specifically wish that the O/S and all applications be 
seperated permanently. If tis requires a split in the Microsoft 
organization, so be it. I`m sick and tired of trying to fix fellow 
workers P/Cs with glitches caused by one Microsoft application 
(Outlook, Word, Excel, etc.) stepping on the O/S and crashing the 
machine(s). I can`t get or load alternatives because the market has 
dried up and there are none to speak of. the best has not won my 
business, the biggest has_out of shear dominance on the 
street. I do not have viable choices.
    B. Luno
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006864

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I always believed that the government`s lawsuit against 
Microsoft was politically motivated. There wasn`t (could never be) 
any evidence that consumers were harmed, only competitors.
    MS through its leadership (market share) actually set the 
standards for the industry. I have observed that excessive 
competition does not necessarily benefit the consumer. For example, 
the airline industry. I remember when service was courteous, on-time 
and a passenger didn`t have to wonder if they got a fair price.
    I think that the government should abandon its lawsuit entirely. 
It has been noticed that the attack on MS destroyed millions in 
wealth and was the beginning of the bear market.
    In God we Trust, United We Stand!
    Best Regards,
    Dianne Cutshaw
    Cutshaw Enterprises
    PO Box 297
    Florence, AL35631
    Tel: 1 256 767-8483
    Fax: 1 256 767-8482
    Mobile: 1 256 412-1080
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00006865

From: James H. Copenhaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional, I am convinced that the sooner the 
case with Microsoft is resolved, the better it will be for all of 
us. I thought the basis for the case was weak to begin with and I am 
really convinced that the Clinton administration just couldn`t stand 
to see anyone or anything be as successful as Microsoft was. They 
wanted a chunk of it`s money and went after it. In a major way, I 
think that this case helped fuel the crash of the economy and it`s 
severity in the high tech sector by introducing doubt in investor`s 
minds.
    I`m not going to say that Microsoft was in line, but I think 
that enough is enough. Prohibit the behaviors they were guilty of 
performing, fine them and get on with life. The DOJ needs to worry 
more about Insurance Fraud, Medicare/Medicaid Fraud, Government 
Corruption and a host of other things that have a more negative 
impact on our daily lives than this.
    Thanks
    Jim Copenhaver
    4765 Banner Elk Drive
    Stone Mountain, GA 30083



MTC-00006866

From: Louis Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm
Subject: The feelings of a Retiree, towards the unjust, incredibly 
stupid actions toward the Microsoft miracles...
    At my age of 88 6/12`s years_a 13 year World War 2 veteran 
volunteer_never having asked for any benefits, handouts, 
goodies_I resent very much what I consider unwise decisions of 
the Justice Department of the USA, and of the various States who are 
still blindly, and unjustly clamouring and seeking punishments to 
the Miracle-making-company MICROSOFT.
    Looking at the progress of these, our glorious United States of 
America_without the genious, pioneering research and 
development of this company_which is ALSO the mostest of the 
mostest in giving of their wealth to humanity in the form of 
charitable funds_and to which we should be GRATEFUL , rather 
than CRITICAL, for the new forms of communicatioins and benefits 
that these miserably money-grubbing States Governments are USING and 
punishing.... how blind and ungrateul they are ! ! ! I for one, feel 
VERY GRATEFUL for all the communications benefits that we (unto my 
generation and beyond) have been given by this tremendously 
pioneering company, MICROSOFT_without whom we would still be 
in the `DARKness' of the era prior to my volunteering of 
the year 1940 for the security of our U.S.A.
    I say_`DESIST this travesty of good sense and of 
shouldl-be-gratitude!
    Let these backward STATE Governments go back to GOVERNING and 
minding their own jobs!
    Let`s be FAIR.'
    Louis P. and Blanche Grossman



MTC-00006867

From: Fred Stacey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a shame to continue the Clinton-Gore policy and punish a 
company for its work.
    The federal goverment should investiagate Teddy Kennedy, Tommy 
Dashell (current `leader' against progress) in the 
Senate and the Democrat Party for all their 
activities_especially for killing babies.
    Thank you,
    Fred Stacey
    Louisville, KY 40242
    [email protected]



MTC-00006868

From: Joe Reardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to bring this case to a close. The government and 
Microsoft have come to an agreement.
    That agreement should prevail over all states that were a part 
of the initial class action suit. Individual states should not be 
allowed to disavow the settlement and relitigate.
    Technological advances have left the initial actions and 
complaints so far behind as to render them totally irrelevant in 
today`s environment. Furthermore, it becomes increasingly evident 
that those competitors who were never able to match Microsoft`s 
capabilities, and therefore Microsoft`s market domination, are 
continuing to use the government to aid them in obtaining market 
advantage against the company that earned it through innovation and 
marketing expertise. The CEO of Sun Microsystems best refocus his 
energies on his own company to save it before total collapse. He is 
responsible to the stockholders.
    It is also obvious that competitors are using their state 
governments to proceed with further litigation. The connections are 
clear.
    Finally, AOL is using the litigation to prevent Microsoft`s 
increasing surge into the

[[Page 24858]]

internet market were they presently dominate their competition (and 
customers) more than Microsoft ever did.
    I urge you to end all litigation, enact the agreed upon 
settlement, and cease providing Microsoft competitors with an unfair 
advantage in our free enterprise system.
    Thank you.
    Joe Reardon



MTC-00006869

From: Frank McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm
Subject: MSFT suit
    Gentlemen:
    To continue the law suit against Microsoft would be a travesty 
of justice. MSFT is a crown jewel, and most countries would love to 
have this firm`s HQ. The US cannot afford to continue this law suit.
    Please drop it at once.
    Frank McDonald



MTC-00006870

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe the settlement was fair and that the states that want 
to carry this further in the court system should look back on what 
prompted the action in the first place_Microsoft was unjustly 
tried for being a monopoly when if I remember correctly , a monopoly 
was a firm that providing a service or product and was stopping all 
other firms from providing that product or service_in this 
case nowhere did I see where Microsoft was stopping anyone from 
producing a computer_or anything_as for the software, 
the other companies were not smart enough to design the same 
software and wanted to get in on the act without having to face the 
competition of men who had become design experts such as the 
Microsoft team. The only way the special interest group can compete 
with microsoft is to destroy the company by breaking it up. Let 
these other companies come up with software as good as that which is 
now being produced and the people who have computers will use that 
product.



MTC-00006871

From: herb cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have had the good fortune to be told how to let you know how I 
feel about the courts decision regarding Microsoft`s competitive 
behaviour in the marketplace. It is my strong belief that lesser 
capable competitors have attempted to use the courts to cheat this 
great inovator of its rightly earned markets and customers. The 
decision of the court is more than fair and just to microsofts 
competitors. In my view the court has been too liberal and has 
punished microsoft for being too successful! This company with its 
investment in research has made computers and all that goes with 
this tool more useful and increasingly less expensive to the general 
public and is probably more responsible for the `new 
economy' than any other force in the marketplace. Huge numbers 
of jobs have been created because of this company`s success nad to 
do further harm to it would not serve the public interest at al!
    Sincerely yours,
    Herbert L. Cohen



MTC-00006872

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/2/02 4:59pm
Subject: Dear Officials,
    Dear Officials,
    Lets setttle the Microsoft case, so that we can go on with 
business. This is taking way too long and costing loads of $$$$$$. 
Also I do not believe that Microsoft should reveal their source code 
to competitors in that this should be protected under the patent 
law. However, I do see a need for companies to work together instead 
of compete with one another. This will be a big challenge...what do 
you think?
    Carolyn Gong



MTC-00006873

From: Monica Laugee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should stand. No more litigation.
    Monica



MTC-00006874

From: Dale Mabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would ask the settlement as recently handed down and be 
finalized rather than embarking on further litigation .Its in the 
best interest of consumers as well as the national economy to stop 
further litigation on the case.
    Thank you
    Dale Mabe
    POB 1327
    Montreat NC 28757



MTC-00006875

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:00pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the government came up with a fair settlement for both 
the competitors and Microsoft. The States that don`t want to settle: 
it is not the people it is only the attorneys that want to drag this 
on through the courts.
    Our country is going through tough times, so lets settle this 
and get on with the important things, as we all know that Microsoft 
has helped the economy and many charities, throughout the life of 
the company. We need more people like Bill Gates.
    Fred Yates
    5526 Salish Road
    Blaine Wa. 98230



MTC-00006876

From: Margaret Lindsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Yellow StationeryThis proposed settlement is more than fair. The 
public interest will best be served by ending the litigation now. I 
am an ordinary citizen and consumer, and Microsoft has my support.
    Margie Lindsey
    9176 Rocky Cannon Road
    Cordova, Tennessee 38018



MTC-00006877

From: Stephen Wyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm
Subject: microsoft-tunney commentary
    [email protected]
    Renata B. Hesse,
    Quick intro:
    I`ve been a PC tech (desk side & Help Desk/telephone), PC 
installer & user since 1986. So, I`ve accumulated some technical 
expertise about PCs.
    In 1998 I shopped around for a home PC. No PC OEM (Original 
Equipment Manufacturer) would sell me a PC without an Operating 
System (OS). No PC OEM would sell me a PC with the LINUX OS 
installed. The only OS that I could get installed on any new PC was 
one of the latest versions of Microsoft Windows (NT or 95). My wife 
and I both used Windows NT at work, so that was the option we chose.
    My wife is a veteran of Microsoft`s OSs and would not even 
consider buying an Apple computer using the MAC OS. I could not 
convince my wife that all the blood, sweat & tears she spent 
learning Microsoft`s OSs wouldn`t be wasted. She wouldn`t even go 
down to KINKOs and lease the use of a MAC for an hour to see how 
easy an Apple computer was to own & operate (Summa Cum Laude 
from Rice University and an MBA from UT; she`s quite astute 
normally).
    Finally we selected Gateway as the OEM, and purchased a PC. The 
PC could only be ordered with Microsoft`s Internet Explorer (IE) as 
the Web browser, so that`s what we ordered. When the PC was 
installed at the house I used it to go to Gateway`s web site and 
used the link (provided on Gateway`s web site) to go to Netscape`s 
web site for the purpose of downloading, then installing Netscape`s 
web browser.
    Successfully linked to Netscape`s site and downloaded the 
browser, twice. Each time I installed the new browser PC system 
errors started to happen and escalated till finally the `blue 
screen of death' appeared. I had to do a low level format 
(wipe out all the software installed on the PC`s fixed disk drive), 
and reload all the PCs original software to recover the computer to 
operational status. I now access the World Wide Web via IE 
exclusively, because it isn`t worth the hassle to do otherwise.
    Recently my wife tried to get an upgrade to the OSs Service 
Pack, so that we could get the 128-bit encryption option used for PC 
banking via the Internet. Three times my wife ordered the software 
upgrade (prepaid by credit card each time), but the upgrade never 
came (it was never billed or shipped by Microsoft).
    Microsoft was only a few months from shipping it`s new OS 
(Windows XP) and couldn`t be bothered to sell an upgrade to Windows 
NT 4.0`s Service Pack. The first release of anything 
`new' from Microsoft is always a technical nightmare of 
discovering

[[Page 24859]]

errors that should have been fixed before the software was brought 
to market. Therefore, we quickly went to a local retail outlet and 
purchased the Windows 2000 OS. `2000' had been on the 
market long enough to get most of the `bugs' worked out, 
and had the 128-bit encryption we sought.
    To sum things up:
    (1) The Microsoft monopoly has been an enormous pain in the 
backside to this household of PC consumers.
    (2) To have the Department of Justice, and some of the 19 
state`s Attorneys General, win their anti-trust case against 
Microsoft then just roll over and settle for no real punishment is 
disappointing and seriously aggravating!
    (3) If excepted as proposed the Consent Decree almost guarantees 
the anti-trust suit will start again.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Wyman
    Network Specialist
    TxDOT
    [email protected]



MTC-00006878

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Gentlemen:
    I am familiar with settlement terms worked out between 
Microsoft, the Government, the nine states ratifying. I think the 
settlement terms are fair and in the public interest.
    Thank You:
    Robert B. Hurley
    11 Chapin Circle
    Myrtle Beach, SC 29572



MTC-00006879

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    ALTHOUGH I WILL TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 
SHERMAN ANTI TRUST ACT OF 1932_I FEAR THAT A SIGNIFICANT PART 
OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT EVERYTHING ORIGINATED IN 1932_THE YEAR 
OF MY BIRTH_IS AGING AND RUSTING LIKE ME AND NEEDS TO BE 
REFURBISHED. IN 1932 MUCH OF THE U.S. SENTIMENT WAS ISOLATIONIST AND 
BUSINESSES COULD EXPECT SOME PROTECTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE 
FREE TRADE ECONOMY PROMOTED BY THE U.S._OUR INDUSTRY MUST 
COMPETE WITH STATE SPONSORED INDUSTRIES OF OUR MAJOR ECONOMIC 
COMPETITORS. WHEN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SPENDS FORTUNES 
FEEDING THE EGOS OF U,S, COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT_TO THE 
EXTENT THAT TWENTY GREED INSPIRED ATTORNIES GENERAL. SOUGHT TO 
PARTICIPATE IN A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT AND 9 HAVE REJECTED A PAINFULLY 
CONSTRUCTED SETTLEMENT_THEY ALSO SUPPLY AMMUNITIION TO FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES WITH TOTALLY SELF INTERESTED MOTIVES. IF THE SHERMAN ACT 
ANYWHERE DEFINES THE CONSUMER AS THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL 
USER_THE OWNER OF A PC OR THE EMPLOYEE WHO USES A P/C ON HIS/
HER JOB_I DEFY ANYONE TO PROVE THAT MICROSOFT HURT THEM IN ANY 
WAY. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THE MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES OF MICROSOFT WERE 
BENEFICIAL TO THE U.S.ECONOMY AND THE INDIVIDUAL USERS.
    IF YOU READ THE COMMENTS ON INTERNET SITES, MICROSOFT CRITICS 
ARE COMPETITORS OR TECHNOCRATS WITH UNSATISFIED EGOS BECAUSE FOR 
REASONS CLEARLY STATED AS FACTS IN THE SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT 
AGREEMENT_THROUGH MUCH OF THE WORLD WIDE GROWTH OF THE 
COMPUTER INDUSTRY ANY SERIOUS THREAT TO THE MICROSOFT FOUNDATIONAL 
MONOPOLY WOULD HAVE GREATLY CONSTRICTED INDUSTRY GROWTH BY 
INCREASING THE RISK OF PERIPHERAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN UNCERTAIN 
MARKETPLACE.
    IF YOU COULD ACCDURATELY MEASURE THE DOLLAR SIGNIFICANCE OF 
MICROSOFT`S MONOPOLISTIC LEADERSHIP N THE INDUSTRY_I QUESTION 
WHETHER ANY COMPETITOR ACTUALLY SUSTAINED ANY DAMAGE FROM MICROSOFT 
CONDUCT. WHAT I CLAIM IS THAT MICROSOFT MAXIMIZED THE GROWTH OF THE 
INDUSTRY TO THE POINT THAT ALMOST EVERY PARTICIPANT DID BETTER THAN 
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD MICROSOFT BEEN SLUGGING IT OUT WITH SUN AND 
NETSCAPE.
    FRANKLY THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT WAS LIMITED BY THE SKILL AND 
BUDGET OF USERS_NOT THE CHOICE AND INGENUITY OF OPPORTUNITIES 
OFFERED. HAD THERE BEEN A CORNOCOPIA OF CHOICES, A LARGE PART OF THE 
MARKETPLACE WOULD HAVE DRIED UP AND DISAPPEARED UE TO UNCERTAINTY 
ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO 
ADJUST TO EXCESSIVE CHANGE.
    IF THE WORLD HAD NOT STANDARDIZED ON DOS AND WINDOWS_THEN 
MICROSOFT OFFICE_THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPUTERIZED 
OPERATIONS IN BUSINESS WOULD BE MUCH LESS THAN IT IS_ AND 
DRAMATICALLY SO OUTSIDE THE U.S. IF THE NETSCAPE BATTLE WITH WINDOWS 
EXPLORER HAD CONTINUED_THE NUMBER OF INTERNET USERS WOULD BE 
DRAMATICALLY REDUCED TODAY AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IN E BUSINESS AND 
.COM WOUL;D HAVE MADE A LO5T LESS MONEY.
    THE RULES OF FAIR PLAY CODIFIED IN 1932 SIMPLY DON`T PROTECT THE 
CONSUMER IN 2002_EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY. EVEN 
YOUR PROPOSED REMEDY COULD CAUSE A LOT OF TROUBLE AND TURMOIL. 
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS LEARN TO USE COMPUTERS IN THEIR JOBS AND THEN 
BUY ONE FOR THEIR HOME AND FAMILY CONVENIENCE. IF YOU FORCE 
MICROSOFT TO HELP MIDDLEWEAR DEVELOPERS_YOU MAKE IT POSSIBLE 
FOR EMPLOYEES TO ADD MIDDLEWEAR TO CORPORATE COMPUTERS THAT 
EVENTUALLY IF NOT IMMEDIATELY WILL BECOME SECURITY, OPERATIONAL AND 
LABOR PROBLEMS.
    THINK ABOUT WHO WILL BE THE BIGGEST VICTIM_THE AMERICAN 
TAXPAYER FOOTING THE BILL FOR ALL THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CREATING 
CHAOS ON GOVERNMENT NETWORKS SPREADING COMPETITION ON PUBLIC 
PROPERTY.
    SOME TECHNICAL AREAS ARE BECOMING SO COMPLEX THAT THEY ALMOST 
DEFY CONTROL AND DIRECTION FROM PEOPLE NOT SKILLED IN THE PARTICULAR 
SCIENCE.. I SUSPECT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GRANT THEM JUDGEMENT 
BY THEIR PEERS.
    HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF MICROSOFT, I SUSPECT THE REAL USER OF A 
PERSONAL COMPUITER AND THE AVERAGE SMALL BUSINESS USER CONSIDERS 
MICROSOFT A HERO AND HAS LITTLE OR NO INTEREST IN THE WHINING OF SUN 
OR NETSCAPE. AS LONG AS MICROSOFT HAS ACCEPTED THE SETTLEMENT 
AGREEMENT, I SEE NO VIRTUE OR REWARD IN REOPENING A CAN OF WORMS THE 
GOVERNMENT REALLY IS NOT EQUIPPED OR,CAPABLE OF RESOLVING. IF WHAT 
WAS GOOD FOR GENERAL MOTORS ,WAS EVER GOOD FOR THE NATION, THE 
SENTIMENT APPLIES IN SPADES TO BILL GATES AND MICROSOFT.



MTC-00006880

From: Fitzgerald, Dan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm
Subject: comments on trial
    The nine states are asking for the correct remedy. MS has 
stalled enough ( 3 years ) on this case and damaged enough 
businesses and consumers. Impose the remedies the states are 
currently asking for. Resources must be put in place to scrutinize 
the company`s behaviour.
    Daniel Fitzgerald
    [email protected]



MTC-00006882

From: Robert Neely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is more than adequate. I 
am unaware of ANY proof that even one consumer has been damaged by 
MS business practices. The entire charge is brought by jealous 
competitors who gained the attention of congressmen.



MTC-00006883

From: Bert Rathkamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can not understand why in the first place the US government 
went after Microsoft. What has Microsoft done for the user and our 
country? Given us a good product that is upgradeable. Given us a 
good product at a reasonable price. Given us a product that has 
stability. Given us good support. Given us the leading role in 
computers world wide. Given

[[Page 24860]]

us a offset in world wide trade balance. Given us many new jobs for 
US citizens.
    If some one really had a better product then everyone would use 
it. Seem funny the foreign cars makers with the help of the US 
government invaded our shores and sent lots of money back home with 
you blessing. Look what happened to the US automobile companies over 
the years under more federal laws and law suits. Yes, DOJ you are 
out to kill another industry to make sure the USA can finish second 
or worse.
    Just leave Microsoft alone, you have done enough damage.
    Henry Rathkamp
    12 Hickory View Lane
    Milford, Ohio 45150



MTC-00006884

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Prolonging this litigation will be harmful to the economy, 
unfair to Microsoft, and boring to the public. Settle now!



MTC-00006885

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Being a small stock owner, we wish this suit to be settled 
immediately. The states that are still sueing should rethink what 
they are doing to the economy. It is not the time to be making more 
problems. Let the company do its job, and get on with business. This 
has been a wonderful company for the economy, and to its 
shareholders.



MTC-00006886

From: Iyaz Ahmed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    I just wanted to send my opnion in this case. I think its high 
time that all the states sign off on the deal struck between DOJ and 
MS. This is the time to bring our country back to its glory days and 
stop it from moving further down the recession road. I think the 9 
other states are trying to settle more of their private squabbles 
with MS . I really doubt that they have any interest in the consumer 
who actually gain a lot from the deal with DOJ and MS.
    Hope my voice would be heard. Thanks a lot.
    iyaz



MTC-00006887

From: alan malnak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I have been following the litigation involving Microsoft since 
the inception of the legal action.
    The Government and nine states have come to an agreement to 
resolve the case.
    It is not difficult to see why several states object to the 
settlement. These states are acting on behalf of Microsoft 
competitors. It is ridiculous to assume that a Company would be 
forced to turn over to its competitors source material that could, 
in effect, emasculate the company. Would someone suggest that this 
happen to Coca Cola. If they gave out the recipe for its product 
they would have to go out of business.
    It would not be appropriate to order a company that has spent 
millions of dollars to improve the entire computer industry to turn 
over to its competitors the information.
    It is interesting to note that each time a legal action is taken 
against Microsoft the effect is felt on the entire stock market. The 
litigation has hurt many retired persons who have pensions that are 
invested in Microsoft stock to some degree.
    Despite the fact that the Court found that Microsoft had been 
guilty of something, is the consumer complaining ? I have been using 
Microsoft programs for many years and I do not want any money. I 
feel that I have the advantage of a superior company providing me 
with superior products. I am old enough to remember when the cry was 
to break up the telephone company. I ask, has your telephone service 
gotten any better ? Has your telephone service gotten any cheaper.
    The final thought that I have is that I read that Senator Lahey 
recently made the statement that he wanted to review the Microsoft 
settlement with the Judge. It seems to me that here is something 
called the separation of branches of the government. What right does 
a Senator have to interfere with a Court ? It would seem that the 
good Senator has forgotten the branch of government he participates 
in. But again, who knows what goes on in Washington.



MTC-00006888

From: Vernon Schulthes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to get this case settled as was proposed by the 
Justice Department recently. It would seem to me that the nine 
states who are opposed to the settlement should be told that the 
case must be settled.
    The case has had a big impact on many companies and with the 
eventual settlement being implemented it would help stabilize the 
high tech market.
    As a user of Microsoft products and many other computer software 
I would like to see this cased settled for the betterment of the 
United States markets.
    Sincerely yours,
    Vernon F. Schulthes
    P.O. Box 3 Eureka, IL 61530-0003
    Phone 309-467-4890
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00006889

From: Bill Michel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement of the Anti- Trust Suit 
against Microsoft. I don`t believe it goes far enough, and I don`t 
believe that it can be adequately enforced.
    Microsoft is a tremendous monopoly, and its power, not only in 
the software arena, but in the media arena are immense. I don`t 
think that Microsoft`s track record lend it any credibility when it 
comes to believing that they will be faithful to the terms of the 
settlement. I believe that a structural solution, such as the 
separation of the operating system and application development 
components of Microsoft Corp. makes more sense.
    Yours truly,
    Bill Michel
    131 Ortega Ave.
    Mountain View, CA
    94040
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006890

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
    It would seem that the present presented judgement is fair and 
should be used to close this case. I donot agree with the laxity of 
judgements where attorneys continually attempt to further thei fees 
by prolonging a case.
    W. E. Formwalt
    One Jingle Shell Lane
    Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29926-1958
    843 681 2218



MTC-00006891

From: Bill Yerkes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice,
    I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is a 
great day, as a Microsoft product consumer, to finally see the 
GOVERNMENT settling this case. It is finally time to let the market 
players compete, and some will win and some will lose. I just did a 
count of my software, and I use Word Perfect instead of MS Word. 
However, I like the Microsoft browser better than my two others I 
have bought and used. I still use Lotus for my spread sheets 
although I have Excel and others. I do not agree with the idea that 
Microsoft eliminates other options. What you have here is a bunch of 
lawyers out to make big money like the OJ Simpson bunch. Time to 
stop.
    Agree and get on with life.
    Bill Yerkes
    912 Olive St.
    Santa Barbara, CA 93101
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00006892

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    We are at a critical time since September 11, 2001. We must go 
forward to show the world that we are about building our country up 
and not tearing it down. I fully agree with President Bush that the 
DOJ should settle with Microsoft. I understand that some competing 
company`s would find it in their interests to punish Microsoft 
further than it has been punished, but I truely feel that this is a 
time for unity, and a time to settle and go forward.
    Thank you,

[[Page 24861]]

    Harold Weisberg
    From the desk of Harold W.



MTC-00006893

From: Elliot Shell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to go on record as strongly opposing severe sanctions 
against Microsoft. I believe, as do many of my colleagues and 
business associates, that most of Microsoft`s problems stem from its 
success and creativity.
    Microsoft`s long history (more than two decades is a long time 
in the computer industry) of recruiting the best and the brightest 
has paid significant dividends. The inability of Microsoft`s 
competitors to effectively compete in the marketplace largely 
resulted in the call for government help in the form of the 
antitrust actions.
    While I do understand that Microsoft has undoubtedly been guilty 
of technical violation of certain antitrust rules, I believe that 
the proposed sanctions go far beyond what is fair and appropriate. 
Especially in these times of serious economic challenges, it would 
be unbecoming of the United States to unduly punish one of our most 
successful and innovative businesses.
    I think we should instead be encouraging and applauding such 
attributes.
    Elliot Shell



MTC-00006894

From: rod taber, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    My main concern re the Microsoft case is that Microsoft be 
prohibited from:
    1. Installing dubious or extraneous software that is impossible 
or difficult to remove from a computer system. This includes 
medallions that advertise or entice the purchaser to buy or try 
subscriptions to services not wanted. It very irritating to spend 
hours removing third party entreaties to CNN, Disney, etc. If I want 
to subscribe to something I should make an active effort. NO PUSH 
ADVERTISING!
    2. Microsoft should be prohibited from searching a user`s 
computer for information, serial numbers, etc. What is on my machine 
is mine. Microsoft has no business combing my machine.
    I request that if these provisions are not in the settlement 
that they be added. For example, the settlement should read: 
Microsoft agrees to place any entreaties not relevant to every user 
on an accessory CD so that a user can choose to install them or not 
to install them.
    Microsoft also agrees to stop investigating user machines for 
information relevant to software installed on said machine.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment. These issues are of 
the utmost importance to keep Microsoft from determining every 
single aspect of our machines` usage.
    best regards,
    rod taber, Ph.D. (computer science)
    la vale, md 301.722.0818



MTC-00006895

From: Edward P Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a concerned, tax paying, voting citizen I submit my 
recommendation that the settlement between the Department of 
Justice, the nine States and Microsoft be endorsed and the case 
brought to a conclusion.
    I believe closure to be in the public interest, speaking as a 
student of history and a member of the `public` .
    Sincerely,
    Edward Preston Fischer M.D.
    900 Sunbrook Drive
    Duncansville, PA 16635
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00006896

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam
    After having read as much as possible of the litigation reports 
in the newspapers and observing news reports on TV, it is my clear 
opinion that the settlement now proposed is fair, reasonable and 
should be confirmed by the Federal Court.
    We are disappointed that the State of Kansas (our home state) 
has elected out of the settlement agreement, and feel that their 
actions are not in the best interest of the public. Microsoft has 
done an outstanding service in developing its various programs, and, 
because of their operating platform program for the computer, we all 
have computers that can talk to each other, and our work is mobile 
from one computer to another. For one who, as I am, basically 
ignorant of computer functions, but use a computer daily to perform 
work in my profession, Microsoft was the lifesaver and I will be 
forever grateful to them for having a product that allowed me to do 
my work, and be able to communicate and share work product with 
others in my profession. In the early days you could not do that 
with the systems then in operation, and I specifically refer to 
Apple computers where you had to buy only from them, and you could 
not comunicate with any other brand of computer. Talk about a 
monolopy! They had one, but lost it to Microsoft. Wonder why they 
are now complaining.
    In any event, we believe that this litigation should be over. As 
a consumer, I feel my rights have been protected to the extreme in 
this instance. We hope the court approves the settlement, and urge 
you to support that position.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts.
    Sincerely
    Benjamin and Etta Farney
    8597 Hauser Ct.
    Lenexa, Kansas 66215



MTC-00006897

From: Loyd Corwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In my opinion the pending Microsoft Settlement is fair and in 
the public interest.
    Respectfully,
    Loyd Corwin



MTC-00006898

From: Donna Mae Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlemnent
    Donna Mae Johnson
    Maple Knoll Farm
    340 County Road 19
    Maple Plain, MN 55359-9654
    (763)479-1727
    Please let us small people be heard. settle the Microsoft suit 
now. No more delays and further court action. !!!!!!!
    Donna Mae Johnson



MTC-00006899

From: Harry Summers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough litigation! You have a settlement. Implement it.



MTC-00006900

From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Look!! I see the score as 41-9. Even Daschle would put 
this to a vote in the Senate and end it. This fiasco needs to be put 
to bed and let the DOJ get on to more serious work. It`s time to 
allow this great company to continue innovating and keep the U.S.A 
#1 in the world.



MTC-00006901

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:08pm
Subject: My input
    I think it is absolutely ridicules the Government & a few of 
the states are draging this out. They ought to be dealling with the 
war instead of handicapping ligament progress in the USA.
    Lela Omta



MTC-00006902

From: Laurie Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:16pm
Subject: Accept the settlement
    This has gone on long enough. I supported Microsoft in the 
hearing phase and I still do. It is not wrong to make a profit and 
to create software faster and better than the competition. Those 
that whine that life is not fair, need to put their energies to 
developing software that people actually care about. I as a taxpayer 
do not care to support their cry baby status another day. Perhaps 
the DOJ should sue all of us who have a unique product and actually 
make a profit doing a great service?
    Laurie Mitchell, Director
    EventForce, Inc.



MTC-00006903

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 24862]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time the US government and states close the suit now in 
progress. Our economy is taking a beating and our tax money can be 
better utilized than harasing a company that is doing a reasonable 
job. Richard Reece ([email protected])



MTC-00006904

From: George C.Glasemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!!!
    I hope that the US Government has taken enough out of the hide 
of Microsoft. Without their years of research, I doubt I would be 
able to contact you in this method.
    The settlement that I have read about seems to be `enough 
already'. Lets put our Government`s money and time into 
fighting FOREIGN terrorists and not our locally and publically owned 
companies.
    Thank you for your attention.
    George C Glasemann



MTC-00006905

From: Robert Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement!



MTC-00006906

From: frank morello
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 5:09pm
Subject: Miocrosoft Settlement
    As a Microsoft user and shareholder I feel that the proposed 
settlement should proceed without delay. You have attempted to 
derail a thriving business at a time in our countries history where 
we need more thriving businesses, not less. Sure Microsoft`s 
competitors are going to want them punished..why?? Because they 
deliver quality products that are customer friendly at a very 
competitive price, and the competition cannot come close to matching 
them!!! So why not look at the companies that charge 
$500-2,000 for their programs and get off Microsoft`s case!!!
    Protect the consumer, not the competitors,
    Frank Morello



MTC-00006907

From: Dan Kathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I strongly urge a rapid settlement to this issue. I believe it 
is the best interest of the consumer and our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Dan kathan



MTC-00006908

From: Donna Longton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the travesty of the actions against Microsoft. The 
settlement that has been reached should be punitive enough for the 
most vindictive of Microsoft`s competitors. This whole fiasco, from 
start to finish, has never been in the best interests of the 
industry, the economy, or the consumer. Rather, it has been about 
the best interests of the aforementioned competitors. They would 
like the Federal government to fight their battles for them, rather 
than compete on an even playing field.



MTC-00006909

From: Mudit Kumar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    I have been in the technology field for over twenty years. If I 
look back, we have come a LONG way in terms of what I, as a 
consumer, am able to do and use the technology for. Microsoft has a 
big part in this success for our daily quality of life. I am sure 
other consumers feels the same.
    It is my belief that technologies companies must be left alone, 
and this settlement with states provides proper coverage for any 
potential abuse. Let the market, the consumers and the quality of 
products developed by the companies be the real judge of true 
competition and the technology innovations.
    Cheers!
    Mudit Kumar
    Phone: (972)221-6351 (Home)
    Email: [email protected]
    Dallas, Texas



MTC-00006910

From: art bowles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please, lets appaud Microsoft for providing consumers with soft 
ware that made computer use easy for the average person using a 
computer. I believe that the settlement has extended to far away 
from the consumer and now we are trying to help the competitor. Let 
them(the competitors) design and make a better product and the 
consumer will reward them..
    Pauline Bowles



MTC-00006911

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    DOJ:
    STOP THE LITIGATION, THE `BUSINESS OF AMERICA IS 
BUSINESS'
    MICHAEL WOLKOW



MTC-00006912

From: Barb Ekiss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a consumer PC user. I have depended on Microsoft products 
for years. I urge you to bring this case to a close now. The 
additional remedies requested by the dissenting states represent a 
`wish list' put together by disgruntled and unsuccessful 
competitors of Microsoft. These companies represent their own 
special interests. They do not represent consumers loke me.
    Thank you.



MTC-00006913

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    GENTLEMEN:
    MY OPINION IS TO LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. I THINK THIS TRIAL IS A 
WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
    HARRY CROWS



MTC-00006914

From: bojr1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    Do not delay or change the settlement of the Micorsoft Case. 
Microsoft has had to put up with the likes of the original judge 
(Pennel?) and his antics. He was a discrace with his public 
outbursts against Microsoft_it was very obvious early on in 
the case that he should have been removed because of his public 
statements that were indicative of his prijudice. He was also a 
discrace to the judicial process as well to all other judges.
    Let`s not muck up the economy any more, now. Did anyone notice 
that the economy began declining with the chilling effect becoming 
more apparent in the Government`s proscecution of Micorsoft? When 
the original judgement came down, the economy took a nosedive, 
worsened only by the events of September 11, 2001.
    Let`s put the Microsoft people back to work where they can 
continue to contribute to our tomorrow_a prosperous tomorrow 
led by Microsoft_and say `to hell with you, Osam bin Laden`.
    Sincerely,
    george umbright, Jr.



MTC-00006915

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle the Microsoft case and stop penalizing an innovative 
company who personifies Capitalism and the inventive and creative 
genius and spirit that made, and continues to make, the United 
States a great nation.



MTC-00006916

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why can`t concerned interests leave good enough ALONE? Years 
ago, Microsoft had an idea. They invested money and time to make the 
idea work. It works so well that almost all computers use it. It is 
the standard of the industry. I`d rather pay the fee for the program 
than have a system that doesn`t work.
    It`s no bargain if it`s cheap but doesn`t work.
    The American economic and entiprenurel system works to reward 
hard work and innovation.

[[Page 24863]]

    I do not think that Microsoft should be crippled any further. 
LEAVE IT ALONE!
    Yours truly,
    Ernst H. Linnemann



MTC-00006917

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    MICROSOFT HAS PRESENTED TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO USE A COMPUTER WITHOUT A LOT OF EFFORT OR KNOWLEDGE 
OR VERY EXPENSIVE LESSONS THAT I FEEL THEIR COMPETITORS ARE 
INTERESTED IN PROMOTING. WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO STOP THE QUALITY 
OF THEIR PRODUCTS & SERVICE? MICROSOFT MAKES A GOOD PRODUCT THAT 
A PERSON LIKE MY SELF (62 YEARS OLD) CAN TURN ON, AND OPERATE.
    TRY DOING THAT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER COMPUTER PRODUCTS. PLEASE 
DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE THINGS MICROSOFT MADE POSSIBLE. I 
DON`T CARE IF THEIRS PRODUCT CONTROLS THE MARKET. IT WORKS, IS CHEAP 
AND MAKES MY LIFE MUCH MORE SIMPLER. I REALLY WONDER HOW WE EVER GOT 
ALONG WITHOUT THEM.
    WHY WOULD I USE ANYTHING ELSE? THEIR PRODUCTS ARE EASY TO 
UNDERSTAND AND THEY WORK RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.
    BEST REGARDS,
    JAMES. F. SCHIMKE
    [email protected]
    206-546-4454



MTC-00006918

From: T. R. MADISON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Wednesday, 2 January, 2002 @ 5:06PM EST
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I wish to comment on the litigation now wending its way through 
the Department of Justice.
    I agree that Microsoft might be considered a monopoly, but I 
believe they became such by having the best products and best 
customer service available. If it hadn`t been for Microsoft, 
Microsoft Windows, and the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser, I 
doubt that I would have ever become a user of a computer nor have 
had access to the Internet.
    When I got my first computer it came prepackaged with the 
Netscape browser and I found that just about impossible to master. I 
then learned that I could download Microsoft`s Internet Explorer 
browser... which I did.
    Finding it so much better than Netscape, I made Microsoft`s IE 
my default browser. That was my choice; no one forced me to do so! 
When Windows 98 was released I upgraded to that system and was 
delighted to find that Microsoft`s Internet Explorer was included. 
Had I wanted to have Netscape, I could have downloaded that of my 
own free will (I did not) and Windows 98 could operate with that as 
the default browser. Microsoft did not prevent me from using 
Netscape with their Windows 98 OS if I had so chosen.
    As a retired person and one who is not to be considered wealthy, 
I do have an investment in Microsoft through the ownership of 
shares. To say I have been financially hurt by this litigation would 
be putting it mildly.
    I sincerely hope that the Department of Justice will find for 
Microsoft and absolve them of wrongdoing. I don`t see that they have 
done anything wrong; they are simply following the capitalist 
system....which I thought the United States espoused to the fullest.
    I hope you will consider my thoughts as this litigation 
progresses. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Toby R. Madison
    7502 NW 47th Way
    Gainesville, Florida 32653-1176
    Telephone: (352) 337-9460
    Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
    CC:T R Madison



MTC-00006919

From: Tony Berejka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The extensive use of computer technology demands that all 
systems communicate with each other.
    Having been around when all we had was Fortran and only 
corporate IBM 360`s, Microsoft should have been praised for bringing 
forth a common computer language and systems that benefit the user, 
the consumer. Without Microsoft`s efforts, there would have been no 
evolution into the widespread use of PC`s and other small systems. 
The DOJ suit should have never been launched in the first place and 
is anti-technology and against the societal benefits of computer 
networking.
    Tony Berejka



MTC-00006920

From: Cavalier Service
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    In my opinion, Microsoft has done no wrong. Microsoft is a 
successful, innovative and aggressive company. The liberal politics 
and policies of the Clinton Administration are gone. Our government 
needs to leave good, solid companies like Microsoft work their 
magic. The settlement is fair to the public and the company. Let 
Microsoft get back to the business they know best, and quit annoying 
them with unjustified legal proceedings.
    Daniel C. Lesseg
    General Manager
    Cavalier Ford, Inc.



MTC-00006921

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Setttlement
    I feel the settlement already reached by the Justice Department 
is adequate.
    Request your favorable considerations.
    Billy Powell



MTC-00006922

From: Larry Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I hope the law suit against microsoft will soon be settled. The 
economy will suffer more if it isnt. We have been punished enough 
through all of this, if you look back a couple of years ago the 
ecomomy started to go south the same time that the DOJ went after 
them. Lets get it over with and on with the recovery. thank you,
    Larry Moe



MTC-00006923

From: Andrew Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Mr./Ms. Representative of the 
Department of Justice;
    I would like to see the Microsoft Corporation settle it`s time 
in court close on the Tunney Act. My decision is not based on the 
fact that I am shareholder of MSFT, but because I have used 
computers for years. Both at home & at work. This is costing our 
economy & country time & money. Plus companies are afraid to 
update operating systems over irrelevent discussions.
    Thank you
    Andrew Paul Thompson
    Chicago, Illinois



MTC-00006924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm
Subject: Gates Settlement
    It is about time this comes to an end. Bill Gates is doing the 
right thing in settling this dispute. Give the guy a 
break_those that are still trying to drag this on_I say 
to them_Get Real! They are just jealous_let them work 
their buns off like Gates and stop being crybabies! Thanks for 
listening.



MTC-00006925

From: Edward-Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Recently a friend copied me on a memo he sent to you about how 
`American' and `Right' the Microsoft Corp. 
activities have been in the past. To help set the record straight, I 
was forced to deal with Microsoft while they were squelching all 
their competition in the software industry during my working years 
in the electronics industry. I found them to be arrogant totally 
insensitive to complaints regarding their products or practices.
    Unfortunately, the fruits of their labors were more than evident 
at the last Comdex show in Las Vegas (whoops, excuse me... The 
Microsoft Show!). Only sw vendors developing products compatible 
with Microsoft were present... and others seeking to be bought out 
by Microsoft. It is unfortunate that the Justice Dept. and several 
states attorneys did not get them convicted of monopolistic 
practices sooner. American industry freedom is one thing...Microsoft 
activities are quite another... Consider this

[[Page 24864]]

email a vote in support of your continued pressure on this 
overzealous industry giant.
    Ed Keller



MTC-00006926

From: ED NOSKOWSKI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is time to settle the case against Microsoft. Enough Tax 
payer money has been wasted. Please bring accept the Tunney Act 
Agreement and settle this case finally.
    Thank you,
    Ed Noskowski



MTC-00006927

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s get this case settled and move on with more pressing 
issues at hand.
    Thanks for your consideration
    Phil de Jong



MTC-00006928

From: Al Hentges
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring this matter to a conclusion without further delay 
and waste of taxpayer money. Enough is enough. This has gone on far 
too long and should never have been an anti trust issue in the first 
place. It is time to do the right thing, ignore Microsofts 
competetors, and think about the good of our country.
    Al J. Hentges
    A Fed up Taxpayer



MTC-00006929

From: Louis Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, 88 6/12`s years of age, 13 of which were spent volunteering 
in the world war 2 comflict, 1940-53_feel adamantly that 
the past and present injustice given to a tremendously great 
company, Microsoft, by the dept. of Justice, and presently by those 
few relentlessly ungrateful States_WHY? How could ANYONE feel 
other than GRATITUDE for the fine pioneering and creatful job done 
by Microsoft in this brand new field of Communications???? Would the 
harrassing officials now still seeking punishment to these 
`Pioneers' rather go back to the ERA w/out Internet, 
EMails that THEY gladly use, and would they rather go back to the 
1940 days???
    No, they are USING the benefits, and are ABUSING the creators. 
WHY?? I, my wife, all my friends (users gladly of the benefits from 
the computers and programs created by Microsoft,) feel that the Dept 
of Justice, and of the `still suiing unsatisfied States 
Govts.' should CEASE AND DESIST'_and let this fine 
company alone, and allow them to continue their pioneering and 
creating. I have NO personal connections to the company, except that 
I use, and enjoy, the fruits of their creativeness_the 
Internet is beyond my Aged Mental Capacity, but I do use and enjoy 
their EMAIL benefits. These oipinions of mine, my wife, and my 
friends are Sincerely and completely person.
    Thank you
    I hope you are listening????????
    Louis P. and Blanche GROSSMAN



MTC-00006930

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm
Subject: anti trust
    after 5 years its time to stop this nonsense. a deal is done now 
lets get on with life.



MTC-00006931

From: Michael J. Schroeder
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It would appear that some of the states, emboldened by their win 
over the tobacco industry and the huge cash this brought them, see 
Microsoft`s $ 36 billion in cash reserves as a potentially similar 
windfall. The differences, of course, couldn`t be more stark.
    Micosoft and other technology companies should be viewed more 
like pharmaceutical companies, all of which spend billions on 
research and development of new cures, treatments, drugs and other 
products that neither individuals nor governments could or should 
develop on their own. The risks taken by the shareholders of these 
companies must be weighed fairly in relation to the benefits 
received by consumers as a whole. Technology companies, particularly 
those that are successful in developing new, widely applicable 
products, should not be penalized to the point of discouraging new 
R&D spending and creating fear that the benefits of that R&D 
will accrue, many times unfairly, to their competitors.
    Antitrust laws should protect the consumer and not weak, poorly 
managed competitors. Moreover, such laws should never be used as a 
means for political shenanigans by intransigent state lawmakers and 
regulators.
    It`s time to move forward. Let`s settle this once and for all, 
now.
    Michael J. Schroeder
    Microsoft Shareholder



MTC-00006932

From: Clyde and Jean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:17pm
    In april of 2000 the talks between and MS and the government 
fell through and MS`s stock price fell and kept on falling. The rest 
of the market went along and the economy followed. If further 
restrictions are placed on MS is doesn`t take much imagination to 
predict what it will eventually do to the economy.
    Something about this whole thing reminds me of the old story 
about the goose and the golden eggs.
    Clyde Dahlin
    dahlin+AEA-olynet.com



MTC-00006933

From: Doris J. Lafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a fair settlement and time to get on with business.



MTC-00006934

From: John R. Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was happy to see the settlement reached. We don`t need our 
ecomomy`s engines under attact by the governments.
    Because the settlement with Microsoft was reached between 
consenting parties, and the economy needs some certainty, please let 
the agreement stand and don`t help the greedy state attornies 
general that want to derail it.
    John Newell



MTC-00006935

From: Giuseppe Del Vecchio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    Let it be known that Microsoft is not a trust. The company works 
in a way that is best for the innovation of science and 
technologies, as I understand it_it is not a male monopoly. 
Rather, the said company those all it can do to buoy innovation. 
This would constitute it being a valid scientific company.
    Thank you for time and prudence in the laws relating to trusts.
    Respectively yours,
    Giuseppe Del Vecchio



MTC-00006936

From: jorge godoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I`m writing to you in these critical times for all of us. Just a 
few days ago I sold my last fifty shares of a dot com company that I 
bought at more than $30.00 a share. (sold at $1.60 ).
    I can complaint much; I have my health, my family and my job. 
But I failed to understand why a company that has done so much, not 
only for the American economy but, for individuals. Is being 
penalized for innovation and give us good products like Microsoft.
    Please settle this case with Microsoft, and find something more 
productive to do with your time. America deserves it!
    Jorge Godoy.



MTC-00006937

From: Eileen R McGuire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:18pm
Subject: Stop Harassing Microsoft
    USA needs innovative businesses that make a difference to us 
regular citizens in a way that we can afford to be productive 
people.
    Eileen McGuire



MTC-00006938

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:

[[Page 24865]]

    Microsoft should be left alone.
    Microsoft should be able to recover its` economic damages that 
government officials have inflicted upon the corporation.
    I am ashamed that our government has wasted taxpayer dollars to 
prosecute Microsoft.
    Jerry Orn
    North Canton, Ohio



MTC-00006939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Thank goodness the Microsoft case is settled. Please do not 
litigate any further.
    I am pleased with settlement as a consumer.
    Harriet G. Dockstader
    328 West 77th St, Apt 4
    New York, NY 10024-6833



MTC-00006940

From: Gracie Abraldes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:20pm
Subject: Settlement opinion
    ** Confidential **
    The government should have never been involved in this lawsuit. 
It is shame that the government can be directed by individual 
interests. The United States Government is the only government in 
the world to penalize you for being successful.
    This settlement is the best thing of a wrong situation. Since 
this lawsuit should have never brought forward, at least this 
settlement will end it all.
    Do nothing else, this lawsuit should finish now.
    Grace Abraldes
    [email protected]
    PS: As a consumer I have never felt that Microsoft was taking 
advantage of me, they were very easy to deal when I call them and 
they always listen to what I wanted in the new programs. That is 
more than I can say about other companies of which the government is 
doing nothing about.
    Have a wonderful day
    Grace



MTC-00006942

From: R. Cannefax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My understanding is that a agreement had been reached to between 
Microsoft the Federal Government and a number of individual States. 
It appears the settlement was a fair means to resolve a problem 
which I and many other still do not clearly understand. A big 
portion of the computer users throughout the world are Microsoft 
software users. Microsoft developed and continues to enhance and 
improve on the basic operating system used in PCs and in most 
laptops.
    Why they have a competitive edge is tied to the risk they took 
at the very onset of their venture and further tied to continuous 
improvement of their product, exceptional marketing and arrangements 
with manufacturers to put their software on many new PCs. Has 
competition been stifled? I think not. Those who desire to compete 
can find ways to do so effectively. Those who don`t should be 
allowed to quietly go out of business. As an operator of a small 
search engine, I could begin trying to make a case with my elected 
officials that AOL or Yahoo! had a competitive advantage and one of 
them may be operating as a monopoly, forcing me to not be able to 
compete effectively in an open market case. Sure, I could make that 
case as could a number of other smaller search engines, but I do not 
feel that such an issue is in the best interest of the general 
public. The AOL product is inferior and problem fraught, yet they 
have the majority of the Internet business in respect to search 
engines services, ISP services and e-mail.
    All that said, I would like to make the point that I am opposed 
to the Microsoft case being reopened and drug through the courts. We 
are in a time of national, if not global financial unrest and I do 
not think such action is to the benefit of the general public. I 
believe the special interest groups need to take a back seat to the 
current economic conditions and let Microsoft move forward. 
Realistically, could we deal with another 500,000 or more layoffs? 
Could it be those who are pushing for reopening the Microsoft case 
are just trying to hang on to their positions in order to avoid 
what`s taking place across the US and globally, a general reduction 
in force.
    I propose we let Microsoft move forward, use their talented, 
highly paid staff to produce software solutions that will make 
computers even easier for my wife and her friends to use and lets 
keep the cost of this battle in check.
    Please feel free to reply to this e-mail should you have any 
questions, concerns or comments.
    Thank you,
    Raymond Cannefax
    President & COO
    eCom Only, Inc.



MTC-00006943

From: lillian ingram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sincerely hope that this affair with Microsoft can be completed 
as pending. The whole thing amounts to the competition wanting 
Microsoft to share their Research and Development advances with 
Netscape, AOL and the rest of the Free Riders. Not surprising that 
we had more than enough sleazy lawyers ready to milk the cow.
    Thanks for listening,
    Ralph and Lillian Ingram,
    E-mail [email protected].



MTC-00006944

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The states and individual competitors of Microsoft are wasting 
my taxpayer dollars looking out for their own special interests. 
Please go ahead with the settlement and stop the needless dollars 
being spent on attorney bills rehashing once again the interests of 
those individual companies and states surrporting those companies.
    Ray Osman



MTC-00006945

From: Vic Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:22pm
Subject: microsoft setttlement
     all bill gates did for me was to give me an operating system i 
could understand and afford. when one of his competitors comes along 
with a better mousetrap i`ll buy it.till then leave americas number 
one entrepreneur alone. let his competitors shut him down not the us 
goverment.
     vic shackelford



MTC-00006946

From: Zikria Syed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    Just wanted to share some thoughts on the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement between the company and the US Government. I believe that 
it is a great step in the right direction and attempts to put 
meaningful constraints on the company without attempting to destroy 
it. Your current policy is consistent with the principles of free 
economy and entrepreneur spirit of the United States. Microsoft is a 
source of pride and stregth for the US and a symbol of American 
leadership worldwide. It is one of the most successful companies of 
the current generation and has done an unbelievable amount of good 
to the american and global economy.
    In conclusion, I fully sport the settlement effort between DOJ 
and Microsoft.
    Best Regards,
    Zikria Syed
    999 S. Wisteria Dr.,
    Malvern, PA 19355



MTC-00006947

From: Sumner Kibbe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Secretary Ashcroft,
    As one who spent five decades working in American industry and 
now a retiree who was fortunate enough to settle on the coast of 
Maine, I urge your support of the agreement reached between the 
United States Government, a majority of the contesting States and 
Microsoft Corporation. Prolonging this silly and incredibly 
expensive litigation can only continue to harm our Country`s economy 
and further suppress future Bill Gates from creating new jobs and a 
stronger economic climate. It is indeed time to turn our 
Government`s priority to punishing our enemies and not those who 
practice free enterprise. Let`s turn off the trial lawyers 
`feeding frenzy'. I request that you forward my comments 
to the District Court considering this case.
    Respectfully yours,
    Sumner E. Kibbe
    43 Horn Cove Road
    Southport, Maine 04576
    cc: Senator Susan M Collins Citizens for a Sound Economy
    CC:CSE Capitol Connect website

[[Page 24866]]



MTC-00006948

From: Dick Humphrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just wanted to express my concerns on special interest groups 
attempting to disrupt the settlement of the on-going law suit that 
Microsoft is going through. It is time to wrap this up and get on 
with it. Microsoft makes a very good product with lots of support 
services that are benefiting many personal and business lives to 
make efficiencies in our lives. They should not be stifled by 
preventing them from being creative and implementing new 
improvements into their software systems that will make things 
easier for the general public. Other companies bundle services, why 
should Microsoft be prevented from doing it.
    I am asking for your support to get on with this law suit and 
get it settled so we can get some positive movement in the software/
computer industry.
    Dick Humphrey
    Littleton, CO 80122



MTC-00006949

From: JOYCE GRAUMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I would like, as a interested citizen to see this issue end. I 
think that Microsoft has made amends and will honor their agreement. 
The country cannot afford to waste time. Microsoft is the glue of 
the internet stocks on the market. It will hurt all of the market, 
as it already has, if it is allowed to continue. The Democrats are 
determined to hold back the economy to win elections and I am tired 
of lawyers trying to make a killing and dragging this thing out. 
Microsoft, when the lawsuit began, was not considered a monopoly. 
Since then, instead of destroying their good work these other states 
are going to have to get over it. They are trying for the deep 
pocket to balance their budgets. How many of the states going after 
Microsoft are Republicans.? I think Orin Hatch is disgusting. I have 
heard that he has a son who is a lawyer working in his state and is 
involved in making a name for himself as well. Orin Hatch needs to 
go. I have again said my piece. I vote to END the states beef! I 
vote independent, however this is a big issue to me and many 
people....I have been a Republican. I am pleased with George Bush 
and the Justice Dept. so far. We are Watching!!!!!!!!
    Joyce Grauman



MTC-00006950

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am not sure what is settlement is actually. I just know for 
sure it is an unfair charge made in the first place. The government 
is on the wrong track in trying to break up Microsoft. Ma Bell 
suffered under the same mentality and we know how bad that was. 
Microsoft is no more a monopoly that many of the large companies in 
this country today. It is a good company and they sell their 
products fair value. Leave them alone.
    [email protected]



MTC-00006951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please stop the litigation and let the economy get on with 
itself.
    Jim Landfield
    Tel 703-734-0840
    FAX 703-790-9049



MTC-00006952

From: wally rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let us end this prolonged litigation prompted by Micosoft`s 
competitors and not in the best interest of the consumer NOW.....
    Thank you,
    Wally Rasmussen
    14531 Cascade DR SE
    Snohomish, WA 98296



MTC-00006953

From: Chris Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am sending this to make my opinions known regarding the 
antitrust settlement regarding Microsoft. I personally feel that the 
current settlement is just and fair to all parties. I also feel that 
the continuation of this only hurts not only the participants but 
the economy as a whole. When you have a trial of this magnitude 
unresolved it effects the economy by the fact that no decision is 
finally rendered. I personally agree taht there has been some wrong 
doing by Microsoft and that the current resolution is appropriate. 
To further delay this case and to prolong it will only add more 
uncertainty. My other comment is that if they had the marketshare 
and capacity to do so would they not have also bundled their 
respective web browsers in their software. In the free enterprise 
system I believe that the strong should survive and not be penalized 
for ingenuity and innovation. The free market should determine who 
can and will survive.
    Thank you,
    Mr. Chris R Hall
    1310 Packerland Dr Apt A7
    Green Bay, WI 54304



MTC-00006954

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to let you know how I feel about the Microsoft 
antitrust case. Nine states have already negotiated a settlement 
with Microsoft and the Federal Government should follow suit. There 
is no need to continue spending money that could be better spent in 
getting our economy back in order. Put simply, letting Microsoft do 
their business will help the technology industry and the entire 
economy. Microsoft has done so much for our country and pursuing 
futher litigation will onlly punish their efforts.
    I am retired and use computers very regularly. Like so many 
Americans, I would be lost without Microsoft. Their products are 
very easy to learn and use and they`ve brought technology into the 
hands of everyday people. Bill Gates created a virtually new 
industry back in the 1980`s and today I think we owe it to him for 
making the technology industry what it is today. He and his company 
made some very smart business solutions and other companies are just 
jealous of their success. I urge you to please stop this charade and 
allow Microsoft to concentrate on their business. Please don`t draw 
this suit out further by holding a Judiciary hearing to investigate. 
Let Microsoft get back to business and everyone else get on with 
their lives.
    Sincerely
    Russell C. Yannello



MTC-00006955

From: Lon Warneke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept my request to settle in this matter according to 
the Court of Appeals ruling. I trust you will determine it is 
extremely fair and thus in the `public interest.' The 
time is right for the consumer to realize benefit and begin to move 
forward.
    Thank You.



MTC-00006956

From: Clayton B`Hymer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    The litigation against the Microsoft company is unwarranted and 
an abuse of the United States legal system. Microsoft became the 
leading software manufacturer not because of monopolistic 
tendencies, but from offering a superior product and meeting the 
customers needs. If anyone wanted to use an alternative operating 
system for a personal computer, they could and can choose from 
Linux, IBM`s ill conceived OS2, or Apple. Microsoft got to the point 
were they are because their operating system is superior, less prone 
to crashes and meets the needs of the consumer. The other products 
listed do not meet the higher standards of Microsoft. I am a 
computer contract worker; I have used the products listed above and 
Microsoft`s Windows, although not perfect, is better. Microsoft`s 
internet explorer was always more stable and rugged than Netscape`s 
products.
    I am angry that my tax dollars are being abused and wasted 
prosecuting a company that gained success in the market place from a 
superior product. I see this as nothing more than an extortion 
attempt by lawyers, and the state and federal government.
    The settlement agreement, itself, is another disgrace of the 
abuse of the law. If Microsoft had truly been abusive to its 
customers, overcharged, or exhibited Monolopolistic behavior, then 
computer owner`s suffered the lost. Instead, the state governments 
and the federal government is extorting Microsoft to provide 
computers and software to the public schools. This in nothing but 
socialism/

[[Page 24867]]

communism, not Justice! Since when did redistribution of wealth 
enter into compensation of a separate class of non-litigants.
    That is my opinion. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Clayton B`Hymer



MTC-00006957

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft
    pleaser let microsoft alone this is a good company and need the 
free to work right and you people do not know how to run a company 
like Microsoft. way do you people wake up and see the real world . 
and the world that you think is right. it take money to do that . i 
do not think any for the people that are to bring microsoft down can 
not do it in the free marker so there want to do it with the law . i 
think you lawer are the lone one make money on this so the more in 
go on the more money you make. Microsoft is a good company and is 
the back bone for the new world and need to run right.



MTC-00006958

From: Peter (038) Dolly van Hengel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe it is ludricous that we have to go thru all this 
litigation that will benefit no one other than some complainers. the 
economy requires quick action and settlement to do away with the 
uncertainty. Also the consumer wants to move on. there is not much 
choice anyway and so far nobody has been harmed.
    pls move on and stop the litigation nonsence: it is costly and 
will bring no long term benefit.
    peter van hengel



MTC-00006959

From: rabhill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm
Subject: MSFT Settlement
    RE: DOJ Settlement with Microsoft.
    I, as a long term user(1980) of Apple and PC machines with all 
types of software, fully support the recent DOJ settlement.
    During my latter part of career years from 1985 ish until 1995 
my company favored the use of Apple and I used same for my personal 
computing. In 1998 I switched to PC`s and windows. With this 
background I can emphatically say that the Windows systems 
(Software+Hardware) are vastly superior to Apple system in Cost, 
Reliability and general performance.
    I categorically challenge anyone to show me where the world 
would be better off without Microsoft and their products. In the 
early 80`s I recall what the world was like when there were 10 
different Word processors, Database managers, and Spreadsheet 
software, and the difficulties with incompatible packages. The PC 
has thrived because of Microsoft not in spite of them. I was also an 
internet and AOL user in the early 90`s and recall trying to get a 
decent browser. AOL did not and still does not provides a 
competitive service. As a taxpayer it would be in my interests to 
spend some DOJ time seriously
    reviewing how AOL/Netscape attempt to prevent competition.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Hill
    33601 Capstan Drive
    Dana Point, CA 92629
    949-443-2349
    [email protected]



MTC-00006960

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm
Subject: get it over with now and move on to something else
    leave microsoft alone and let them make our lives fast and 
easier when doing business and living our lives.
    there must be something else the governement can be doing or do 
you guys like to send our money the wrong way



MTC-00006961

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I think the settlement exonerating MicroSoft from wrongdoing was 
long overdue. In my opinion, the Department of Justice action was 
never more than a witch hunt instigated in collusion with MicroSoft 
competitors who also happened to be prominent contributors to the 
previous Clinton Administration (what a surprise). I am glad that 
the Bush Administration has recognized the impropriety of the 
previous regime`s actions, and has decided to close this frivolous 
suit as rapidly as possible.
    Sincerely yours,
    Wolf Bock
    22373 Enoch Road
    Leonardtown, MD 20650



MTC-00006962

From: geaves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm
    It is past the time for those who brought this ill-considered 
suit to consider their folly and end it for once and for all. It is 
a judicial embarrassment, beginning with over-aggressive government 
prosecutors to a wholly biased judge. In these critical times for 
our country, the Microsoft case stands out as one of the most biased 
litigations in the 1990`s. That was some decade_a President 
who flaunted the Constitution to Atty. Gen. Reno who lost her 
moorings (if, indeed, she ever had any).
    J. Beales



MTC-00006963

From: Michael Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interest of all concerned that the 
charges against Microsoft be dropped immeadiately.
    MA



MTC-00006964

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully suggest that it is time for the Government to 
settle the Microsoft Issue along the lines that have been outlined 
by the DOJ and accepted by Microsoft. This settlement provides much 
heretofor private Microsoft information to competitors and others 
while permitting continued innovation by Microsoft.
    Microsoft`s products allow all of us_whether technology-
oriented or gray-haired grammies_to access the wonder provided 
by the company`s technology made simple for public use. The fact 
that so many prefer Microsoft software means that we all are able to 
communicate with each other without having to have special 
connections, etc. This is a Benefit which all of us are able to 
enjoy.
    I live in Microsoft country [not too far from its Redmond 
facilities]. The State of Washington is suffering one of the highest 
levels of unemployment in the United States. We need the stability 
of a healthy Microsoft. And our Counry and around the World, 
millions of ordinary citizens need the products Microsoft has 
developed so that we may enjoy instant communication, run our 
businesses from our homes and visit education and other sites on the 
internet.
    We`d all like to be First and Best but always, there is someone 
or some company that is. Bringing down the First and Best doesn`t 
provide any glory to those trying so hard to prove that they should 
have been first and best_but weren`t and aren`t. Let`s get 
this long-running case finished so everyone can go back to getting 
our Country out of its malais. That takes every hand and every 
thinker and innovater wherever they may be in the United States.
    Thank you for listening.
    Phyllis Bergsman,
    Kirkland, WA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006965

From: jimsue199
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We need Microsoft_request that DOJ play fair with the 
settlement_don`t destroy Microsoft.
    Thank you
    JIM BENSON
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00006966

From: Patricia Schlinkmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE SETTLE THE MICROSOFT DISPUTE IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT. IT IS 
MY OPINION THEY BUILT A `BETTER MOUSETRAP' AND BECAUSE 
OF THAT SHOULD BE FREE TO MARKET AS THEY SEE FIT. THE GOVERNMENT 
SHOULD STAY OUT OF FREE ENTERPRISE. I SEE NO MONOPOLY.....
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
    PATRICIA H. SCHLINKMAN
    3401 HIGHWAY 90 EAST,

[[Page 24868]]

    SCHULENBURG, TX. 78956



MTC-00006967

From: Owen Paulus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case. Continued litigation is not a 
benefit to the country in the current economic climate. The 
settlement appears to be fair, and should allow the company and its 
competitors to settle their differences in the 
marketplace_instead of the courts.
    Thank you,
    Owen Paulus



MTC-00006968

From: Michael Brothers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the time has come for the long litigation against 
Microsoft to end.
    Companies that have delivered as much innovation as Microsoft 
are an asset to our country and our economy .
    Thank you,
    Mike Brothers
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00006969

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:31pm
Subject: Goverment interfearance
    Less government will fix almost anything.
    Frank Fox, Wilton



MTC-00006970

From: Larry Weidner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm
    I think the Microsoft case should be settled without any further 
litigation.
    L. Weidner, Consumer



MTC-00006971

From: hcmcdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a 73 year old man, and my wife and I depend upon my 
computer to connect with the world_the whole world. I am in 
touch with my old workmates, my children and my grandchildren. Also, 
I can find out everything I want to know through MSN.com. I know 
there are lots of smart people that can do everything with 
computers, but if it weren`t for Microsoft and Windows, I would just 
be lost and not in touch with anyone or anything. I feel empowered 
by my computer, and I don`t feel that I paid too much for anything. 
I love the simple world of Microsoft. Everything works, and I don`t 
have to experience the stress of installing a new program. If 
something would not work on install, I don`t know what I would do, 
as I can`t understand complicated instructions. I have many friends 
that feel the same way, although some of my friends have kids that 
can do everything on computers, but they are the luck ones.
    Please, don`t put Microsoft out of business, because some of the 
other companies are mad at them.
    Regards, Henry



MTC-00006972

From: Jim Crofoot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I understand that you are taking public comments concerning this 
subject. The following are mine.
    During the past fifteen years I have been closely involved with 
five different companies that were introducing technology to 
agriculture for the benefit of producers and the environment. Two of 
these companies were developing software for this market. Both our 
market surveys and the customer proved to us that in computer 
software you need to have a dominant operating system.
    The consumer will chose the dominant system because it is 
dominant and means the best compatibility with those that they want 
to connect. Developers must choose the dominant system so that their 
product is compatible to the greatest possible market. In our 
opinion the rapid increase of technology during the late 80` and 
90`s would not have been achieved if during that time we had three 
or five companies with similar operating systems and market share as 
Windows.
    As both a consumer, user and developer I appreciate the role of 
the Dept. of Justice. However I believe most markets unless 
completely regulated by government will be driven by the products 
and their value. Those completely regulated have shown little or no 
innovation. From what I have read about this case, it seems that 
MicroSoft requirement for hardware maufactures to install Windows 
for a better price may harmful but if this was done though the 
contract as a part of volume pricing I would say that it is 
beneficial.
    My main comment is SETTLE THIS CASE. The industry, the US and 
the world are not being served by endless litigation.
    As far as I can tell the only parties that have or will gain 
from this case have been the attorneys. Even MicroSoft competitors 
have been hurt by the uncertainty of this case and what the future 
holds. I have yet to hear how the states that are parties to this 
case have been damaged. I live to west of Iowa and work with 
producers in both IA and NE. I can`t see that residents of IA have 
been damaged by MicroSoft. The motive for their action appears to be 
something other than advancing technology.
    Thanks for your time, you know how to reach me if you wish.



MTC-00006973

From: Lois Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement as agreed to is a good 
settlement.
    No further litigation is necessary or needed. No need to prolong 
this any longer. This is good for the consumer and the company even 
though the company might want it better.
    Thank you
    L. Bailey



MTC-00006974

From: fran symms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To follow freedom in America, please dismiss the case against 
Microsoft...Our government should NOT punish success.
    Fran Symms



MTC-00006975

From: JAMES PHELAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm
Subject: Continued harrasment of Microsoft
    I would stronly recommend that the civil actions suggested by 
the 9 holdout states be terminated and Microsoft Corporation be 
allowed to continue to inovate and add to our countries prosperity 
and defense.
    The Federal actions taken to date against this company are a 
sufficient remedy for any past corporate transgressions.
    James D. Phelan
    3060 6th Ave. # 30
    San Diego, Calif. 92103-5854



MTC-00006976

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its such a shame that nine of the states and the Federal 
Government have reached an agreement on how to proceed but nine 
greedy states even want more. It`s like looting a business after 
they have already been broken into.
    Microsoft has done so much for the consumer. They have built the 
best product. It`s called competition. If competition is unfair then 
we are nothing but a socialistic country.
    Please advise the holdout states to compete with their products 
and back off attacking (looting) Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Carlson



MTC-00006977

From: carefree-cowboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 3, 2002
    Dear Sirs:
    The last thing our American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest and 
derail the settlement. The Microsoft case needs to be settled NOW!
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Thompson
    P.O. Box 5135
    Carefree, AZ 85377



MTC-00006978

From: Wfrank38
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Affair
    It is time to leave Microsoft alone. The settlement seems fair 
to me and many of my neighbors.

[[Page 24869]]

    Thanks,
    William M Franklin
    124 Arrowhead
    Comanche, TX. 76442
    [email protected]



MTC-00006979

From: Edward J. Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Why is it that the DOJ has agreed to the settlement but now 
certain states do not like it? Have those statescontributed money 
for the prosecution of the cases or was it all funded by the Federal 
Government. Iwould also guess that the states that are holding out 
have a large present of Microsoft competitorsin their states.In 
addition, the competitors appear to be looking for the states to 
make it easier for them to compete_what happened to the FREE 
MARKET?
    Let`s get this over with before we have another MA BELL fiasco!
    Edward J. Murphy



MTC-00006980

From: Ronald Soussa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please end the litigation and accept the settlement that the 
Federal Government has already reached with Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Ronald S. Soussa, SIOR
    Delaware Hudson Realty Group, Inc.
    239 New Road, Building A
    Parsippany, NJ 07054-4294
    Phone (973) 575-6080, Fax (973) 575-4590
    [email protected]
    www.delawarehudson.com



MTC-00006981

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    To My Elected Officials:
    I favor the reasonable settlement of the DOJ and states lawsuits 
against the Microsoft Corporation that does not breakup the company, 
that allows them to continue their innovative ideas and production 
of software and does not restrict their marketing concepts.
    Thank you for your favorable actions concerning this issue.
    A Concerned Voting Citizen,
    Lawrence Aloian



MTC-00006982

From: WIN B ENDERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is more than fair and should finally put this 
litigation to an end. Its about time that Microsoft competitors 
compete in the marketplace and not in the courtrooms.
    win enders
    seabeck, wa.



MTC-00006983

From: Roy Knecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    The settlement is overdue. Please proceed with it.
    Roy Knecht
    403 san Jose Drive
    Winter Haven, Florida 33884



MTC-00006984

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern at the DOJ
    Please settle the Microsoft suite quickly. We consumers do not 
need further litigation that stifles innovation.
    It is no coincidence that the downward spiral to the technical 
stockmarket came in the wake of the decision to break up Microsoft. 
Thousands of retirees pension funds and charitable funds have 
suffered terrible losses due to this decision.
    Settle quickly and let innovation and competition work freely.
    Sincerely yours,
    Martha Schroeder
    TJ Group Americas, Inc.
    15770 North Dallas Parkway Suite 403
    Dallas, TX 75248
    Phone: (972) 980-8032 x4474
    Fax: (972) 980--4574
    [email protected]



MTC-00006985

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to express my opinion about the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft.
    I feel that it is our government`s job to see that innovative 
companies suchas Microsoft, which has done so much for our country 
and its people, be ableto continue its efforts and not be burdened 
by frivolous law suits.
    Frank J. Altomari
    5810 Spinnaker Loop
    Lady Lake, FL 32159
    352-750-1111



MTC-00006986

From: Jacquelyn A. Frink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Brian & Jacquelyn Frink
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am writing to voice my support of the Department of Justice 
settlement ofthe Microsoft matter. The settlement is fair and 
reasonable for allparties. As a consumer and taxpayer I applaud the 
settlement decision.
    Jacquelyn A. Frink
    16 Premier Ct.
    Chico, CA 95928



MTC-00006987

From: Janet L. Grummitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Who It May Concern:
    Let this settlement stand. Let`s get on with the business of 
making better computer products. Microsoft can help the US remain 
#1 in 2002.
    Sincerely,
    Janet and David Grummitt



MTC-00006988

From: Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm
Subject: Settlement
    Relaxed Mickey
    Simply put, it was one of four policies of the Clinton 
administration that killed the spirit of free enterprise during a 
productove period.
    Bill Hoffman



MTC-00006989

From: Keith Nealy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft only furthers their 
monopoly by enabling them, as a `punishment,' to enter 
and dominate the educational market, which is pretty much the only 
one left that they don`t control. This is a complete surrender to 
Microsoft and is far from the public interest. Their past behavior 
proves that without strict enforcement and breakup they will 
continue to bully and coerce competitors.
    I can`t imagine many alternatives that would be more favorable 
to Microsoft. Far from punishing them for their practices, it 
ensures their continuance.
    I strongly object to it and consider the government to have 
failed in its regulatory responsibility in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Nealy
    1540 Linden Street
    Alameda, CA 94501-3264



MTC-00006990

From: chris tarr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    I feel that the nine State`s currently suing Micrososft should 
abandone their case for the best interests of our country and free 
enterprise.
    This lawsuit has been a setback for innovation and technology 
markets. I further believe it was one of the factors leading to us 
to the recession we are in now.
    Do not penalize a business for being successful.
    Chris Tarr
    1111 Stone Church Rd
    Waterloo, NY 13165



MTC-00006991

From: Sharon Solheim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing about the Microsoft Settlement.
    Years ago, when Microsoft stole the Norton Speed Disk utility 
(renamed Defrag), and settled out of court I thought they got what 
they deserved. This settlement is another case where they`ll be 
getting what they deserve.

[[Page 24870]]

    Ironically I think Microsoft products, as a whole, are the 
foundation of business computing and I use them often. That does not 
mean that their business practices are best for everyone.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Regester
    610 Wallis Ave.
    Delavan WI 53115
    262-728-0249



MTC-00006992

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached by the federal government and nine states 
regarding the long litigation with Microsoft is fair and will 
benefit not only Microsoft but The United States and the whole world 
. Any country would be proud with an industry which has elevated the 
name og the United States for the oustanding achievement on a field 
of primary importance for the progress of all industies probably 
without exception.
    Respectfully,
    Carmen Estaba and Victor Estaba, M.D.



MTC-00006993

From: terry benshoof
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:36pm
Subject: 
    TO MY GOVERNMENT, WHILE I APPRECIATE LOOKING OUT FOR MY BEST 
INTERESTS, I DO NOT LIKE OTHERS TO WASTE MY MONEY. MICROSOFT`S 
COMPETITORS HAVE NOT SHOWN THEIR ABILITY TO COMPETE ON A LARGER 
SCALE. THEY HAVE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE OTHER PEOPLE`S MONEY FOR 
THEIR BENEFIT. BRING THIS TO A CONCLUSION.
    TERRY BENSHOOF



MTC-00006994

From: Ed Litizzette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    We are sick and tired of the ongoing litigation between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft.
    Forget about it!!!! Get over it!!! I think the taxpayers have 
shelled out enough of my tax money.
    Ed and Sharon Litizzette
    [email protected] www.windamere.com



MTC-00006995

From: jaymedin Medin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is the American way to be the best you can be.This country 
has wasted enough money on this.If other companies can`t compete 
because their products aren`t as good then so be it.It`s common 
business practice to surround yourself with the best people you can 
to do the job and this is what Microsoft has done.I think this 
country had best start paying more attention to what is really 
important like the whole country is on the brink of financial 
fallout and no one wants to admit it.Put this to rest and start 
taking care of the important issues.
    Join the world`s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
    http://www.hotmail.com



MTC-00006996

From: Michael Schwartz
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Mr. Foer,
    Please fwd this email to Mr. Hawker.
    I just read an article at the following link:
    http://www.eweek.com/article/0%2C3658%2Cs%253D701% 
2526a%253D20391%2C00.asp and noticed the following quote (in-line 
with paragraph) by Norman Hawker: From the perspective of tough-
remedy advocates, however, restoring competition to the marketplace 
necessarily means examining the position of competitors. 
`Right now, we have one single institution that`s directing 
what will happen in the future, and that`s Microsoft,' AAI`s 
Hawker said. `Antitrust law is about protecting and promoting 
competition, and you cannot have competition without competitors.
    That is an absolutely pathetic claim. This only drives a self-
fulfilling prophecy that is aimed at `settling on 
mediocrity.' Hawker`s statement does nothing but enstill a 
`bandwagon type of fear (i.e., hysteria)' into the 
average consumer. If his statement is true, why didn`t the MS X-Box 
put Sony Playstation and Nintendo Game Cube out of business. The 
introduction of the X-Box will only make the other game companies 
strive to make better products. To claim that MS will stifle future, 
yet-to-be-developed technologies is so lame. Norman would say 
something like `MS can`t deploy a VOIP network because they 
might succeed at it and take away business from other companies 
doing the same thing.' Norman seemingly advocates a 
perspective that my parents worked to enstill when raising my 
brother and I, namely `Don`t compare yourself with those who 
don`t excel just so that you look better. Raise the bar and compare 
youself with the top students in your classes.' Limiting 
Microsoft`s future technology endeavors by some force of law will 
only remove the incentive for other companies to make high-quality 
products in the concerened technology.
    If the AAI puts their money where their advocations lie, then: 
1. AAI supporters never use any Windows OS. They only use Macs or 
Linux or Solaris or some other non-ubiquitous OS. 2. AAI supporters 
never use MSIE for surfing the web; rather they use Opera or 
Netscape Navigator (which is now junk since AOL took over; why don`t 
you sue AOL for the crap they generate and the IE-based browser they 
deploy), 3. AAI supporters never use MS Office, rather they only use 
Lotus Suite, WordPerfect, or Star Office. 4. AAI supporters never 
use HotMail or MSN; I don`t even dare list the endless 
`other' competing options available on free email and 
portal web sites. If any of the above (1,2, or 3) are 
`false' from an AAI perspective, then the AAI advocates 
are solely in the witch hunt against MS for personal gain, such as 
receiving AAI contributions from any number of plaintiff companies 
or states.
    I am confident MS will prevail in the long run. Although some of 
thier software is buggy, at least the average consumer doesn`t need 
a computer science degree to use it effectively and it usually 
always works as expected.
    Regards,
    Mike Schwartz



MTC-00006997

From: Paul Kapler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm
Subject: Miceosoft Settlement
    Please settle this action immediately.
    Paul and Sharon Kapler



MTC-00006998

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I, AS HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS ARE OUTRAGED AT THE 
CONDUCT OF THE CLINTON/DOJ CONDUCT ON THIS MSFT ISSUE. I AM A STOCK 
HOLDER OF MANY HIGH TECH STOCKS AND FEEL MSFT IS BEING UNDULY 
CHARGED AS A RESULT OF CLINTON ERA POLITICS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK 
BILL GATES AND CO. WE ARE BEHIND YOU.
    LYNN S. CONEY
    ARLINGTON, WA.



MTC-00006999

From: Bill Eaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern (and it should concern all of us): Please 
let the settlement agreed upon by the Justice Department and the 
nine states stand without further litigation. While Microsoft may 
have had some questionable practices, those have been recognized and 
dealt with. It concerns me greatly that competitors who have not 
been as innovative continue to try and use the judicial system to 
replace and/or augment their own marketing efforts. I have 
tremendous faith in the American free-enterprise system and it`s 
ability to police itself on most matters. This is not the time in 
our history to be stifling creativity and innovation in the name of 
a `level playing field'. Business rarely is that, and we 
cannot afford to suppress our strongest companies for the sake of a 
few. By the way, for the record, I hold stock in some of Microsoft`s 
competitors, and still feel strongly that `enough is 
enough'.
    Thank you.
    William L. Eaton



MTC-00007000

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see the Microsoft case settled.The proposed 
agreement seems fair enough....and we all have plenty of other

[[Page 24871]]

things to do these days.The people against the agreement seem to be 
vindictive... enough is enough.....
    W.F. Highland



MTC-00007001

From: Frank Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a thirty-year veteran of the information technology industry 
I know how difficult it is produce great software with broad vision 
and scope that works well with the products of thousands of hardware 
and software vendors. Microsoft has done this far better than any 
other vendor. No one else is close. That is clearly terrific for 
consumers, and for thousands of other vendors, though perhaps not 
for Sun, Oracle, et al. It seems to me that the Justice Department 
settlement is tough but fair, and I am delighted as a citizen of 
Illinois that my Attorney General is for the settlement, just as I 
was pleased that he did not support the breakup. I am amazed that 
the attorneys general of the other states believe that their 
proposal will be a benefit to consumers. Confiscating Microsoft`s 
intellectual property and disincenting it will in no way to lead to 
consumer benefit.
    Frank Smith
    770 Rosewood Avenue
    Winnetka, IL 60093



MTC-00007002

From: WES HAGER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:41pm
Subject: Please leave Microsoft alone.
    Please leave Microsoft alone.



MTC-00007003

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I don`t think it`s in the public`s interest to continue 
litigation of the lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft 
Corporation has been, and will continue to be an innovator in 
technology if it is allowed to continue its business without 
spending undo revenue in its defense from a few disgruntled 
competitors. The public`s interest would be better served by 
allowing businesses to survive in the old free market fashion, i.e., 
innovation, development and marketing. The best product wins, 
remember?
    Linda Wiley



MTC-00007004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to bring the Microsoft settlement to an end. Finalize 
the settlement so users like myself can benefit from new software 
from Microsoft. They have created a user world where everyone can 
talk to each other and software can be used by all. My business can 
communicate with customers who use Microsoft spreadsheets and 
databases because of the compatibility Microsoft has provided.
    Having spent 40 years in the computer industry I have been 
appalled at the actions taken by our government to impede the 
progress brought to that industry by Microsoft. Clearly directed by 
its arch enemies, the imposed policies are not intended to benefit 
the computer users but rather to enhance the fortunes of the few 
other very large software companies that have tried to compete with 
Microsoft and failed. Before Micrposoft the industry was a mixture 
of hardware and software with no interchangeability between either. 
Software from an IBM system didnt run on a machine made by Digital 
Equipment, and vice-versa. Microsoft brought software compatibility 
to the PC world and in doing so enabled muli-millions of users 
access to all PC`s. This promoted an avalanche of applications which 
can run on any PC because of the Operating System flexibility 
provided by Microsoft.
    Historically, Sun Microsystems destroyed its major competitor, 
Apollo Systems, with predatory pricing policies, so that HP had to 
rescue Apollo with a takeover. Now Mr. McNealy arrogantly uses our 
government as a surrogate to try to destroy Microsoft because he 
cant touch them in fair competition. The law suit has gone too far 
already. Finalize the settlement agreement and let the industry go 
forward so users like myself can get back to business and get the 
best benefit possible from Microsoft`s ingenuity and determination.
    I realize this is a long message, but one final thought. If 
Microsoft were located in California the suit would never had 
happened because the Silicon Valley $$ and political pressures would 
have killed it long ago. They are all jealous of Gates. They hate 
him because of his success, yes, and his drive to be the best and 
the richest. And thats what this country is supposed to be about. 
They just havent had his drive or his intelligence.



MTC-00007005

From: Dennis Vetica
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:43pm
Subject: leave them alone
    you guys spent more money trying get bill gates then bin laden. 
two guys start a company and do good things, create jobs, and make 
it so that even I can get on a computer. You know not that long ago, 
the computer industry started, and we were #1. Then Japan took 
over, and it looked pretty bad for us. Then some companies like 
intel, microsoft, came alive, and we are #1 again. I guess if 
you want to give up our computer business to foreign countries like 
almost every other industy, like cars, shoes, t.v.s, radios, 
stereos, dvd, vhs, cassette, hand tools, you can even find american 
flags that say, made in china.........sad, sad day you guys should 
be ashamed of yourselves. Leave our companies alone, if you would 
have spent that money on economic stimulus, instead of chasing bill 
gates, just think how much revenue would have been created.thanks, 
dennis vetica



MTC-00007006

From: earl vanderwalker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:43pm
Subject: Fair Settlement
    Its time this has been put to rest. Only the greedy and self 
serving want to see this continue. Enough is enough!!!



MTC-00007007

From: Wayne Tanaka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle immediately and let the free enterprise system 
dictate the economic systems and keep litigation to a minimum.
    Wayne Tanaka
    201 Merchant St. Suite 2200
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2929
    808-537-4591 ext. 208
    808-537-6696 (fax)
    Registered representative of and securities offered through MML 
Investors Services, Inc.
    Supervisory Office:
    1414 Main St.
    Springfield, MA 01144-1013.
     (413) 737-8400



MTC-00007008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive that the settlement should `stand' and no 
further litigation be allowed. From what I have read, the settlement 
is a fair one and further litigation would only benefit the many 
lawyers in- volved fighting this settlement.
    Barbara Brandeis Alotis
    613 Fearrington Post
    Pittsboro, NC 27312
    [email protected],



MTC-00007009

From: Fred Apperson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft and Govt.
    I have been using the Netscape browser until about a year ago. I 
still do not know why the trouble between whoever and Microsoft. 
Please why not get on with life and leave them alone. I had the 
choice of using what I wanted. For years I used Netscape. I chose 
someone else.
    Thank You
    Fred Apperson



MTC-00007010

From: 73543.2341
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Please finalize the settlement you have reached with Microsoft. 
It`s fair and good for consumers and the economy. Any additional 
litigation is a complete waste of $$ and resources and will not 
benefit consumers in any way.
    Thanks very much for your consideration,
    Scott Schneider



MTC-00007011

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,

[[Page 24872]]

    I just want to have my input in regard to the settlement between 
Microsoft Vs USDOJ. Sure Microsoft is a Monopoly but it is a good 
monopoly. They make computing easy and give us access to the 
Internet. The ones that are against Microsoft are companies that 
cannot compete with them. Every software on my computer is made by 
Microsoft. Why Microsoft? Because they offer software that are 
better than other companies. There are options that other consumers 
can choose. I use AOL for my Internet provider not MSN even though 
their icon is on the computer. I use Quickens instead of Microsoft 
Money, etc. Like I say there are other products that consumers can 
choose. If you really want to pick a fight, I think the US 
government should try a Monopoly case against the cable industry. 
There are no competition there and the rates are just getting to 
outrageous.



MTC-00007012

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    The original case was about browsers. Browsers have come and 
gone. In this fast moving world , it seems if you are wasting time 
and tax payer`s money. Get this over with and quit looking for 
something that is not there.
    John Harris
    6234 Kingshire Rd
    Grand Blanc, MI 48439
    [email protected]



MTC-00007013

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I dont consider Microsoft a monopoly. I am against the antitrust 
lawsuits.
    This is just another example of a company jealous of the success 
of another.
    William L Ross
    Omaha, NE



MTC-00007014

From: Norm Swent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:46pm
Subject: MIROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    lET`S ALL GET ON WITH IT! A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED AND 
AGREED TO! THIS SUIT HAS COST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS, BOTH IN ACTUAL COSTS AND IN ITS NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE 
AMERICAN ECONOMY. AS A TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER/USER OF COMPUTER 
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, I AM OK WITH THE AGREEMENT. SIGN OFF ON IT AND 
MOVE ON!
    NORM SWENT



MTC-00007015

From: Anthony C. Cherby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the insanity. Settle the Microsoft case. As an IT 
professional, and a taxpayer, it really aggravates me to think of 
all the money the Clinton Justice Department wasted. The moral of 
the story to my way of thinking is this: a world-class corporation 
would be wiser to locate in some other country.
    State attorneys general are attorneys_soak the plaintiff 
regardless of the facts. Money talks, and makes the district safe 
for reelection.
    Is Microsoft an innocent victim? Of course not. They merely are 
better at doing the business of America_business.
    Save the moral nonsense. Certain governmental civil servants 
went after Microsoft in order to make the reputations of certain 
governmental civil servants_themselves_apparatchiks like 
Joel Klein. People like him are good at using other peoples` money 
to screw the general public. Add David Boies to the mixture and you 
have solved the mystery concerning why we have so many lawyer jokes. 
Of course, other cast members like Janet Reno and Judge Pinhead 
Jackson make the people at Microsoft look like geniuses and saints.
    And then there`s Netscape. Tell you what. Sit down at a computer 
and use both Netscape and Internet Explorer to complete the same 
tasks on the Internet. Then compare the results in terms of ease of 
use, speed, accuracy, etc., etc. Conclusion: Netscape is now and 
forever has been an inferior product. That is not Gates`s fault. Yet 
the US Government took sides with Netscape and other minor players, 
and swallowed the nonsense that MS in some way harmed them. How 
about some old fashioned capitalism?
    In my opinion, the settlement is unfair to Microsoft. They 
should merely have been fined heavily. Break them up? Sophomoric 
nonsense. So, please _- for the sake of all of us who know 
better _-
    Settle now!
    Anthony C. Cherby
    Medford, New Jersey



MTC-00007016

From: Dominick Lembo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT IS NOT ONLY FAIR BUT VERY GENEROUS OF 
MICROSOFT. THIS IS A COMPANY WHO HAS BEEN A VICTIM OF A CONSPIRACY 
AMONG SOME COMPETITORS WHO ALSO MADE GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
CERTAIN ELECTED OFFICE HOLDERS TO INFLUENCE THEIR THINKING AND 
ACTIONS. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS WRONG AND MICROSOFT HAS BEEN A 
VICTIM OF A HORRIBLE CRIME.
    I STRONGLY URGE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DROP ALL CHARGES 
AGAINST MICROSOFT. IF THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEN, AT THE VERY LEAST, 
THEY SHOULD PUSH STRONGLY TO GET THIS SETTLEMENT THROUGH THE COURTS. 
THE COURTS SHOULD ALSO BE EMBARRASSED BY A JUDGE WHO DISPLAYED SUCH 
OBVIOUS BIAS HE NORMALLY WOULD BE FIRED (IF HE WORKED IN THE PRIVATE 
SECTOR). ONCE AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT IS A VERY FAIR OFFER FROM 
MICROSOFT AND SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.



MTC-00007017

From: Sharrie Dyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. I am a senior citizen who needs a 
job and am worried about the economy; meanwhile, you seem consumed 
by harassing Microsoft. At my age I realize what matters and what 
doesn`t. The economy matters_harassing Microsoft does not.



MTC-00007018

From: Paul Castle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I believe it in the best interests of the United States to 
finalize the Microsoft Settlement. I believe that the sanctions and 
costs placed upon Microsoft are fair and just. It appears that a few 
individuals or companies wish for the case to go on for purely 
selfish reasons that are not of benefit to Microsoft product users. 
Microsoft has developed products and fairly marketed them in my 
opinion for over 20 years. I have seem my own efficiency increase 
tremendously since using Microsoft software for business and 
personal purposes. The cost is affordable, and the the company is 
constantly striving to offer better products. Microsoft is in an 
incredibly competitive business. The company has tried entry into 
several areas where it just has not been successful because of 
stronger competition. I believe that much of this litigation is 
caused by companies that are afraid of competing with Microsoft, and 
cause harm to Microsoft product users by keeping the company 
distracted from product development that helps literally everybody 
in the United States.



MTC-00007019

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has been punished enough. I think it is time to 
`move on'. Using one of my son`s (a U.S. Marine) 
favorite lines_`Just Deal with it.'
    John Weis



MTC-00007020

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear DOJ
    I favor the current settlement with Microsoft and don`t think 
the states that are still protesting should hold up the settlement. 
I like Microsoft`s position. What a great way to help our children 
learn.
    Larry Sur



MTC-00007021

From: Karen Wass
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Re: The anti-trust case.....Please let the market determine the 
success or failure of Microsoft and it`s competition.

[[Page 24873]]

    We as a economic world do not have enough information on how all 
of this will shake out. The world of computer platform design 
systems and function are still in the R&D stage. Microsoft, or 
any other company, should not be restricted from developing or 
forced to compete with any other like company at this time



MTC-00007022

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    SETTLE THE MICROSOFT CASE NOW!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING 
OF?
    ANTHONY GUADAGNO
    STATEN ISLAND NY



MTC-00007023

From: Michael Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR,bfoer@ 
antitrustinstitute.org@inetgw,...
Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Mr. Foer of AAI, et. al.,
    NOTE TO ALL: This is a repeat sending to for two reasons: (1) 
Added `DOES NOT' in the second paragraph. (2) Added the 
author of the article to the recipient list, (3) Added `of 
AAI, et. al.' in salutation. Please fwd this email to Mr. 
Hawker of AAI.
    I just read an article at the following link: http://
www.eweek.com/article/0%2C3658%2Cs%253D701% 2526a%253D20391%2C00.asp 
and noticed the following quote (in-line with paragraph) by Norman 
Hawker: From the perspective of tough-remedy advocates, however, 
restoring competition to the marketplace necessarily means examining 
the position of competitors. `Right now, we have one single 
institution that`s directing what will happen in the future, and 
that`s Microsoft,' AAI`s Hawker said. `Antitrust law is 
about protecting and promoting competition, and you cannot have 
competition without competitors.
    That is an absolutely pathetic claim. This only drives a self-
fulfilling prophecy that is aimed at `settling on 
mediocrity.' Hawker`s statement does nothing but enstill a 
`bandwagon type of fear (i.e., hysteria)' into the 
average consumer. If his statement is true, why didn`t the MS X-Box 
put Sony Playstation and Nintendo Game Cube out of business. The 
introduction of the X-Box will only make the other game companies 
strive to make better products. To claim that MS will stifle future, 
yet-to-be-developed technologies is so lame. Norman would say 
something like `MS can`t deploy a VOIP network because they 
might succeed at it and take away business from other companies 
doing the same thing.' Norman seemingly DOES NOT advocate a 
perspective that my parents worked to enstill when raising my 
brother and I, namely `Don`t compare yourself with those who 
don`t excel just so that you look better. Raise the bar and compare 
youself with the top students in your classes.' Limiting 
Microsoft`s future technology endeavors by some force of law will 
only remove the incentive for other companies to make high-quality 
products in the concerened technology. If the AAI puts their money 
where their advocations lie, then: 1. AAI supporters never use any 
Windows OS. They only use Macs or Linux or Solaris or some other 
non-ubiquitous OS. 2. AAI supporters never use MSIE for surfing the 
web; rather they use Opera or Netscape Navigator (which is now junk 
since AOL took over; why don`t you sue AOL for the crap they 
generate and the IE-based browser they deploy), 3. AAI supporters 
never use MS Office, rather they only use Lotus Suite, WordPerfect, 
or Star Office. 4. AAI supporters never use HotMail or MSN; I don`t 
even dare list the endless `other' competing options 
available on free email and portal web sites. If any of the above 
(1,2, or 3) are `false' from an AAI perspective, then 
the AAI advocates are solely in the witch hunt against MS for 
personal gain, such as receiving AAI contributions from any number 
of plaintiff companies or states.
    I am confident MS will prevail in the long run. Although some of 
thier software is buggy, at least the average consumer doesn`t need 
a computer science degree to use it effectively and it usually 
always works as expected.
    Regards,
    Mike Schwartz



MTC-00007024

From: rockas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the 9 states that are objecting to the settlement should 
accept what the justice department has proposed.
    Thank you



MTC-00007025

From: William Hickey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In our opinion Microsoft has been pursued by the Clinton DOJ at 
the behest of AOL and Netscape, et al, and has suffered from 
restraint of legal trade. Enough is enough. The Tunney Act 
settlement now proposed should be implemented and Microsoft allowed 
to come out from under the legal cloud resume business.
    The pros and cons of learned legal debate have been given, 
examined and considered to death and are no further interest to us. 
Get on with it, let Microsoft get on with it and let our country get 
on with it while we still have a business where we have a lead over 
the world.
    William G. Hickey. Ph.D.
    Joyce V. Hickey.



MTC-00007026

From: Nancy George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    I am a self-employed developer implementing IBM and Microsoft 
applications. I find the prospect of punishing Microsoft`s success 
the chilling result of a politically motivated witch-hunt, spurred 
on by competitors who won`t release their own products to open 
systems standards. Windows is not the only PC operating system. IBM 
used to offer OS2; it was not widely adopted because it was over-
priced, IBM spent $0 introducing OS2 to developers, and consumers 
choose not to buy it. There is the MAC and Linux. And much of the 
new software being developed is WEB based.
    Windows popularity is due to the fact that it is what people 
want. People choose Windows. To a great extent, the acceptance and 
implementation of computers and the resulting productivity gains our 
economy has enjoyed, are a direct result of Microsoft products. When 
the first PCs were introduced, IBM did not want them to compete with 
IBM business computers. So they priced PCs out of reach of the 
average person. Microsoft`s vision was to make them affordable and 
drive down the cost of computing so everyone would have a PC. IBM is 
still 8 times the size of Microsoft and could have competed in the 
PC market. They choose not to.
    Microsoft drives innovation. I remember a few years ago, my 
project was held-up for 18 months because IBM and other vendors 
wouldn`t participate in open standards definition. Finally Microsoft 
got fed up, and released a standard with the understanding that if 
the broader community ever got their act together, Microsoft would 
rework Windows to conform to the open standard. The idea of not 
bundling new features into Windows is completely ridiculous. When I 
started my career, multiplication and division were SEPARATE 
PRODUCTS not included in the operating system. Applying the no 
bundling standard would mean the Windows operating system could not 
include multiplication and division because a third party offered 
the product. And what about graphics, e-mailing from Word, embedding 
or linking documents, launching a WEB page from a document ... the 
list could be pages long!
    Instead of vilifying Microsoft for improving their products, why 
don`t you charge Sun Microsystems for refusing to release Java to an 
open standards board? Why not go after AOL for refusing to allow 
access to their brand of messaging ... a condition of the merger 
with CNN? Why not recognize that the lawyers fighting Microsoft are 
provided by those very same competitors who want to over-price and 
under-develop their own offerings? Why not chastise IBM for spending 
1/50th of what Microsoft budgets for developer training? Settle this 
matter with as little impact to Microsoft software as possible. The 
remedy should affect business practices only.
    Regards
    Nancy George



MTC-00007027

From: Tom Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are very much in favor of the settlement reached be finalized 
so that all parties can move on.
    Tom Riley, Cindy Riley, Jeff Allen
    16 Central Way
    Kirkland, Wa 98033



MTC-00007028

From: L Kasden

[[Page 24874]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For God sake, please settle this case and move on. The economy 
stinks, we are at war, and nobody cares about this case except for 
Microsoft`s competitors who could not beat them fair and square in 
the market. Please remember, the stock markets started crashing as 
soon as Judged Jackson announced his ill advised verdict.
    Thank you.
    Lowell Kasden



MTC-00007029

From: Flora Donivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have never quite understood how Microsoft hurt consumers even 
before the DOJ brought suit against the company. No matter what 
programs were bundled with Windows consumers got a bargain. I have 
used Windows as long as the OS has been around and it has been an 
easy and dependable one. Windows and Microsoft programs have brough 
millions if not billions of dollars into the US to offset our 
balance of payments. When the decision was announced by the DOJ that 
the case was decided against Microsoft, the entire stock market 
crashed. That ought to be some sort of indicator of how important 
the computer industry and Microsoft are to our economy.
    I urge settlement of this longstanding and disruptive lawsuit.
    Flora L. Donivan



MTC-00007030

From: Dan Larkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm
    I`ve tried to cancel this spam for several months. You indicate 
that you don`t recognize my e-mail address, (funny !) it`s the same 
one that you send the stuff on. Please cancal my subscription.
    DAN LARKIN



MTC-00007031

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is long since time to put this travesty of justice behind us. 
This case is nothing more than a money grab by the government, the 
attorneys, and Microsoft`s compeditors! End it. Dismiss what`s left, 
or throw out the whole case!
    Richard K. Nielsen
    4135 Meadow Wood Drive
    El Dorado Hills, CA 95762



MTC-00007032

From: jolene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don`t know the details of the settlement, but I do know that 
MS has a quality product that I have enjoyed using for years. 
Obviously I want to continue using this product at a fair consumer 
price. I have yet to find an example of how the government has 
helped the consumer with litigation. Please do not turn this into 
another mess like was created when AT&T was forced to break up. 
Our telephone system hasn`t been the same since. Keep it simple and 
beneficial to the average person.
    Thank You,
    Jolene N. Cazzola



MTC-00007033

From: Greg McGuinness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please put an end to the madness of this case. It is very clear 
to me that the Attorney Generals for the states that have not yet 
settled are doing so for political reasons. They are enjoying their 
time in the sun and are trying to get a `tobacco' 
settlement fee from Microsoft to justify to their constituents that 
they are working hard. It`s also clear that they must not be 
spending much time in their own state since they`re constantly on 
television from Washington, DC This is just a ploy by the State AG`s 
to stay in the limelight long enough to get free publicity for their 
run for governor.
    I`ve yet to hear any plausible or measurable way that consumers 
have been harmed except quotes from competitors (Oracle, Sun, AOL, 
and IBM) that things would have been so much better. Well, it seems 
better for the competitors, not consumers. Microsoft has done a 
great job bringing a quality product that consumers want at a 
reasonable price. Having worked in Information Technology for almost 
20 years, I remember the days when IBM charged $495 for DOS, Lotus 
charged $495 for 1-2-3, and Word Perfect charged $495 
for it`s product. I can now get a great machine, preloaded with 
Windows, a Word Processor, some games, AOL, and a slew of other 
things from companies other than Microsoft, for under $1000. Please 
don`t punish a company for giving consumers what they want and don`t 
listen to the whiners who complain about Microsoft`s tactics. They 
play fair and square and have negotiated a fair settlement for 
everyone.Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://
explorer.msn.com



MTC-00007034

From: Kevin N
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the DOJ should settle and move as our nation has more 
serious problems (ie. Terrorism), the settlement is fair and should 
be implemented quickly.
    thanks
    Steve Chan



MTC-00007035

From: Henriette Goldstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement agreed upon by the United States and 
Microsoft is a very fair settlement and we do not need more 
litigation. . It is a very good settlement for the United States and 
Microsoft and everyone involved. I am sure this settlement will help 
the economy and the consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Henriette Goldstein



MTC-00007036

From: John Knutson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the current Microsoft settlement : This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. We agree 
that this settlement is good for us, the industry and the American 
economy.
    Please allow this settlement to be inacted, unaltered, thus 
allowing business and consumers to resume building and buying 
America`s great leading edge technology.
    Sincerely,
    John Knutson and Marcia Koehler
    1895 N. Placita El Zacate
    Tucson, AZ 85749
    (We are consumers and stockholders of Microsoft and Sun 
Microsystems, among many other technologies)
    CC:John R Knutson



MTC-00007037

From: nmmr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:52pm
Subject: Court
    Please stop the harrassment and continued stupid suits against 
innovation...which the Microsoft case is. Let the unsuccessful 
businesses fail and let those with innovation and new things which 
benefit all of us continue. There are much more important issues to 
be worked on than that. It is getting to the place that if one is 
successful, they need to be punished. That is not how America has 
worked in the past.
    N.M. Rademacher
    [email protected]



MTC-00007038

From: frank cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:45pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    This should not have ever gone to court. Micosoft, has done 
nothing wrong. If they had given money to Clintons run then he 
(Clinton) would not have gone after Bill Gates. Sorry state that 
hard working people like Bill Gates, has to go through this.......
    Frank & Debbie Cobb



MTC-00007039

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe the time for settlement of this litigation is 
NOW. Agreement is fair and acceptable to MS and nine states. Finish 
this litigation and let innovation move on to bigger and more useful 
products at reasonable prices. Continued litigation only benefits 
the lawyers and is detrimental to consumers.
    Scott Wilson
    6227 Greeley Blvd
    Springfield, VA 22152



MTC-00007040

From: Aaron Messing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft litigation

[[Page 24875]]

    To whom it may concern:
    I believe the anti-trust actions against Microsoft are the most 
ill-advised, ill-conceived, waste of government resources. The 
litigation is against the best interests of the general public which 
have benefited from the products directly and indirectly from the 
contributions to efficiency of our economy brought about by the 
desktop computer.
    Millions and millions of citizens have suffered great financial 
hardships directly and indirectly from the government attacks on 
Microsoft. Not only losses in the values of pension plans and other 
investments but in a great loss of momentum in our economy in the 
retardation of new products. For every single vendor that claims 
injury from Microsoft there are hundreds that owe a debt of 
gratitude for its open architecture and willingness to provide 
opportunities for other businesses to compliment Microsoft`s 
products and run applications on their operating systems. Microsoft 
has been most successful because of its open architecture and the 
contrast with Apple and IBM who tried to keep it all for themselves 
is very startling.
    The consumers of the world voted for Microsoft with their 
dollars spent purchasing the products. That is economic democracy. 
The litigation by the government is a reversal of that process.
    Very truly yours,
    Aaron Messing
    West Orange, NJ



MTC-00007041

From: William R. Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm
Subject: Approve the settlement with Microsoft Gentlemen:
    I fully approve the settlement between the Federal Government, 
the attorney generals of 9 states and Microsoft. Let`s close this 
case once and for all. It has gone on long enough and there is 
nothing further to be gained by continued litigation.
    Sincerely,
    William R. Hahn
    Ph. 310 442-9923
    FAX 310 442-6422
    Mobile 310 600-6239



MTC-00007042

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am glad the DJ settled with Microsoft. Microsoft is a good, 
innovative company and needs to put this litigation behind it and 
march forward. I am disappointed that there are nine other states 
that have not yet settled.
    Jay Sondhi



MTC-00007043

From: Robert Chrusciel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don`t believe MSFT should have to pay any settlement. If the 
company (Msft) came up with the ideas & the knowhow, why should 
we penalize them for that. If another company came up with a 
similiar program than pure competition would handle any price 
problems. It is no different if I invented a substitute for oil 
& wanted to charge a high price. However, since a settlement has 
been reached, I think it is VERY FAIR.
    R S Chrusciel
    Retired Texaco Employee (37 yrs)
    13618 Lesota Ct
    Cypress Tx 77429-6396
    281-655-5553



MTC-00007044

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please let microsoft use their resources to create more 
advancements which will aid the users to create more jobs.this is 
what the bureaucrates talk about but actually prevent the efficient 
use of resources.accept the settlement and `lets 
roll`_thanks_charles schaffstall



MTC-00007045

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am writing as a concerned consumer who feels that once again 
the Government has gotten involved in something that has nothing to 
do with them. We hear of monopoly on the part of Microsoft,yet I am 
confused as to when it became monoploy instead of competition 
between like businesses. If other companies fail to compete on the 
same level as Microsoft because they don`t have the funds or the 
management in place to do so it is not a monopoly.It is smart 
business! I use to own a heating company that was not the largest in 
the area and certainly was not the smallest however did it mean the 
companies who were larger had a monopoly over us and we over the 
smaller companies. I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Why don`t 
you go after Qwest,after all they are the phone carrier for my area 
and I cannot choose anyone else to provide me service because of 
this.There service is horrible and I spend 2 or 3 days every other 
month without phone service because they just cannot seem to find a 
permanent repair to fix the problem. How about A T & T Broadband 
who provides my cable. They are the only company in my area 
therefore I am stuck with them because no one else is allowed to 
provide me coverage. That is my idea of a monopoly pure and simple.
    It is time to settle this ridiculous lawsuit that the Clinton 
Administration started,stop wasting the tax payers money and be done 
with it. I recommend the Courts agree with the settlement that has 
been proposed.
    Thank You
    Patricia Rice
    P.O. Box 70212
    Bellevue, Wa. 98007



MTC-00007046

From: Harlene or Ernest Weiss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I firmly believe that it is in the public interest to settle the 
Microsoft Case as it is presently structured. Any further delays 
would benefit neither the Government, States, or the general public.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Very truly yours,
    Harlene R. Weiss
    2616 Fairway Drive
    York, PA 17402



MTC-00007047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is imperative that the settlement of this case be one that 
actually benefits consumers. We have lived for so long with Microsft 
piously describing everything that benefits them as good for all of 
us, everything that damamges them as bad for us that many many 
people seem to equate Microsoft`s success with America`s. But they 
are not the same. I have heard many people say no one was harmed by 
Microsoft`s anti-trust actions, and today`s computers are wonderful, 
and many other glowing pro-MS comments. But how can we measure what 
might have been, but is not? How can we know what has never seen the 
light of day because one company has effectively squelched all 
competitors?
    Well, we can know a little, or at least imagine and extrapolate. 
I am a user of WordPerfect. Have been and will continue to be until 
the company is finally and completely crushed by Microsoft. It is, 
in my opinion, a far more innovative, more useful, and more 
intelligently designed product. It has many loyal users, who revere 
its flexibility and its `Reveal Codes'. I suspect there 
are currently other products like it all over, which can barely see 
the light of day because no one will use them, or other products 
that did once exist but do no more as they could not get out of 
Microsoft`s illegal wrestling hold. It is impossible to know what 
history would have been like without the competition-strangling 
behaviors of Microsoft. But I can`t help but believe we have lost a 
lot of innovation, a lot of unusual ideas, a lot of surprises. 
WordPerfect, a superior product, has been crushed by Microsoft`s 
illegal behavior. But there is another issue as well....I have few 
WordPerfect resources available to me, e.g. training, user guides, 
etc. There is no market. I`d like more info, more tools, more 
options, but if I choose to use an alternate product, I`m on my own. 
AT&T was a monopoly, the owner of the finest phone system in the 
world. The monoloply withered, and there are hundreds of new 
products, prices unimaginable in 1983, and services AT&T would 
never have needed to offer. They are the perfect example of why 
monopolies_even apparently `good' ones_are 
not allowed. No one knew about the many products developed since 
divestiture, but who is sorry that AT&T was broken up? Not a 
single consumer...though they may pine for the easy days of one 
phone bill, they all love the cheaper rates and better services, the 
multiple choices, the array of options.
    I write HTML for a living, and think about good pages that 
download quickly. I have seen a few lines of text and a few small 
images turned into a thirty MB HTML page

[[Page 24876]]

by Miscrosoft Word. 30 MB that must be stored on some server, 
shipped through the Internet, downloaded across a phone line and 
opened in my browser. But as Word is the standard HTML writing tool 
in many environments, I have been punished by pages that take 100 
times as long as they should to download. This wastes everyone`s 
time and resources. No matter how cheap storage, backup, and 
bandwidth become, they are not free. Nor is the extra time required 
to download these products.
    The computer companies, bullied, coerced, threatened, and 
punished by Microsoft, ship mediocre tools and dare anyone to use 
anyting else. They will not help you if you attempt an unstandard 
installation. They will not help you if try a different OS. To get 
support, you stay with what they ship. And to do that, you forego 
alternatives and become hooked into the Microsoft talons. We have 
all suffered as those with different ideas have had no place to 
release them, it is as if the libraries were owned by one publisher. 
That is wrong in any system, and doubly wrong when that publisher 
has done their best, as documented in the record, to prevent anyone 
else from being allowed into the library. The PC may replace the 
library in some vital ways; do we really want to force all 
publishers to kowtow to one? That is in the interest of no citizen.
    James C. Clark
    14500 E 37 St
    Independence, Mo 64055



MTC-00007048

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I really get tired of goofy law suits. I think it`s time for all 
this to get settled and go on with business. How much do people and 
States want anyway?



MTC-00007049

From: Robert Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft
    DOJ,
    As I watch all the crybabies and the dumb states that`s out to 
make Microsoft a so called Monopoly. I would think you let the 
people of USA make a vote on this. I like Bill Gates, I love his 
software and 97% of us all used it, as I am useding it as I type 
this email, as you will receive this email with Microsoft help 
somewhere on somebody`s mail server. I own a Chevrolet and nobody 
made me buy it, if I wanted a Ford, I have it. Same as Software, I 
want Microsoft and don`t want Linux. The other day I was in a 
OfficeMax and did not see the first software add on for Linux.
    If the DOJ would start paying people to write software for Linux 
for free, Microsoft will not make it, and look at all the Tax 
dollars that go out the Window for the Irs Take my Vote and leave 
Microsoft to US we the American People we will make then are brake 
them.
    Thanks
    Robert Bass



MTC-00007050

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle with Microsoft as soon as possible. It is my 
feeling that the Justice Dept should never have gone after Microsoft 
in the first place. I have always felt that Judge was wrong to find 
Micrsoft guilty of anything.
    It`s a hell of a note when superior brain power is persecuted 
and prosecuted by the US government.
    Peter S Hanson



MTC-00007051

From: Tom Schifanella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time the Microsoft issue be settled as per the recent 
agreement among all the parties. The country needs a healthy 
Microsoft but some of their more strident competitors would rather 
drag a settlement dispute out for as long as possible wanting the 
courts to solve problems of their own making. Please let us settle 
the issue so Microsoft can continue to give the public exciting new 
products.
    Tom Schifanella



MTC-00007052

From: Samuel Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel very strongly that the Tunney Act is fair and in the 
public interest. It is my opinion that any more litigation on the 
Microsoft Settlement would be a waste of taxpayers` money and 
damaging to the spirit of free enterprise and innovation, which is 
vital to the health of the USA.
    Samuel Lewis
    [email protected]
    EarthLink: It`s your Internet.



MTC-00007053

From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Janesville, WI January 2, 
2002
    Dear Sirs,
    I am an American citizen with about 30 years in the computer 
industry. What happens in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust case 
affects me professionally as well as personally, since I am a fairly 
heavy user of computer software and technology. I would like to 
comment on the settlement jointly proposed by the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. To be blunt, I believe the proposal is a 
dishonest one that sells out the public interest. I will explain 
why, and offer some guidelines for a fairer remedy. While the 
following comments were originally written and forwarded to you by 
Ganesh Prasad, an Australian citizen, I feel Mr. Prasad`s views are 
so important that they should be heard. As an American citizen, I am 
asking you to hear them.
    * 1. Microsoft`s main crime (not bundling, but the /prevention/ 
of bundling) has had lasting anti-competitive effects that the 
settlement should address but doesn`t *
    The argument that has most often been used against Microsoft is 
the `bundling' one, the allegation that Microsoft 
bundled its browser (and now its media player and instant messaging 
software) with its operating system. By doing so, it leveraged its 
monopoly in operating systems to enter other markets. Though this is 
a classic antitrust argument, people who believe in a free market 
are not convinced because the remedy does not sound right from the 
standpoint of the consumer interest. Consumers enjoy greater 
convenience, not less, when extra software is bundled with the 
operating system they buy. That is why the harsher remedy proposed 
by some of the states is also wrong. Forcing Microsoft to unbundle 
such software needlessly inconveniences the consumer. It also takes 
away from Microsoft`s legitimate right to decide what goes into its 
products and puts the courts in the avoidable position of having to 
define the scope of technologies such as operating systems when they 
are not technically qualified to do so. The only parties that are 
benefitted by such a remedy are competitors. Doesn`t this add 
credibility to Microsoft`s claim that its competitors are 
inefficient and require government intervention to survive?
    However, the prosecution has failed from the start to argue this 
point with the right emphasis. What Microsoft did that seriously 
disadvantaged the consumer was not so much bundling /its own/ 
browser with its operating system, but preventing computer resellers 
(OEMs) from offering consumers a choice by bundling /competing/ 
browsers such as Netscape Navigator. Microsoft threatened OEMs such 
as Compaq with the withdrawal of their Windows 95 license if they 
dared to bundle Netscape Navigator with the PCs they sold. Given the 
overwhelming dominance of Windows 95 in the operating system market 
at that time, a withdrawal of that license could have bankrupted 
even an OEM as large as Compaq. The threat was credible and secured 
the compliance of all OEMs. So certainly, Microsoft did leverage its 
monopoly in operating systems to gain entry into the browser market, 
and it did so both through the relatively benign means of bundling 
its own browser, and by the decidedly illegal means of preventing 
consumers from sampling the wares of its competitors. Any free 
market advocate can readily see the consumer harm in this latter 
action of Microsoft`s, but the prosecution has damaged its own case 
by not emphasising this enough.
    Microsoft has also had secret agreements with OEMs that prevent 
them from offering consumers the choice of which operating system to 
boot when they start up their computers. This is often known as the 
`bootloader clause' Microsoft abused its monopoly in 
operating systems by threatening OEMs and blocking, /at the source/, 
the entry of other operating systems into the market. Consumers have 
had no opportunity to know about or sample competing operating 
systems. In other words, Microsoft abused its operating system 
monopoly to maintain that monopoly, which is another violation of 
antitrust law. The fact that no OEM except IBM dared to testify 
against Microsoft during the trial is itself

[[Page 24877]]

proof of Microsoft`s terror tactics. Their silence speaks louder 
than any testimony.
    Microsoft`s history is full of such anti-competition and anti-
consumer actions. Bristol Technology won a case against Microsoft 
(over Microsoft`s sudden withdrawal of support for their Unix 
interoperation software Wind/U) but was awarded a laughably poor 
compensation of one dollar. Caldera had a strong case against 
Microsoft (over the illegal way in which Microsoft used Windows 3.1 
to force consumers to buy MS-DOS rather than Caldera`s DR-DOS) but 
its silence was bought through an out-of-court settlement. The 
consumer has been the ultimate loser in all these cases because 
Microsoft`s actions removed competitive choice and interoperation 
options.
    The DoJ`s proposed settlement shows an awareness of these abuses 
and aims to prevent their recurrence, but it needs to be far 
stronger and bolder. The damage to the industry has been done 
systematically, over more than a decade, and significant /network 
externalities/ have been created that work to perpetuate the 
Microsoft monopoly. How can this damage be reversed by a mere 
forward-looking arrangement? Consumers and Microsoft`s competitors 
now face nearly insurmountable /market/ hurdles to creating a viable 
alternative computing environment, even though /technically/ good 
alternatives are available. Even if Microsoft`s abuses are halted, 
the structural and systemic forces they have created over the past 
decade will continue to work in their favour. At a time when 
consumers look to the government to right these historical wrongs, 
the settlement that the government proposes is inexplicably 
defeatist. It resigns consumers to the status quo! One would imagine 
that a prosecution that has had its argument upheld by two courts 
would have the momentum, confidence and real power to broker a deal 
that restores genuine choice to the consumer, not step lightly 
around an entrenched monopoly that was the problem to start with.
    * 2. A criminal should not be allowed to keep his ill-gotten 
gains * Microsoft`s monopoly profits are the direct result of these 
and other illegally anti-competitive tactics.
    The antitrust case established that the absence of competition 
emboldened Microsoft into charging $89 for Windows instead of $49. 
In other words, consumers paid extra merely because of a monopoly 
that was being illegally maintained. Four eminent economists filed 
an /amicus curiae/ brief during the remedies phase of the trial in 
which they showed that Microsoft`s rate of return on invested 
capital was 88%, while the average in other industries was about 
13%! [See www.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus/homepage/
Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf ] Microsoft 
could never have made such huge profits without its illegal 
maintenance and extension of its monopoly, and therefore a major 
part of its current wealth is /illegally earned/. There is 
absolutely nothing in the proposed settlement that addresses the 
issue of these ill-gotten gains, or how these will be reimbursed to 
the public from whose pockets they came. This simple omission easily 
amounts to billions of dollars, and by itself makes the settlement a 
sellout of the public interest, even without an assessment of its 
other shortcomings.
    * 3. Ill-gotten gains should not be allowed to influence the 
outcome of this case * It is disturbing to read that many states are 
settling because they are running out of funds to pursue the case 
further as they would like to. Meanwhile, Microsoft, with its multi-
billion dollar war chest, has no such constraints. They can outlast 
all their opponents. The world is learning the cynical lesson that 
the American justice system is a mere extension of the free 
market_you get as much justice as you can afford to pay for. 
What happened to the principle (so successfully applied in the A1 
Capone case) that criminals should not be able to use their ill-
gotten gains to pay for their legal defence? Wouldn`t a scrupulous 
application of that principle prevent the distortion we see here? If 
a convicted abusive monopolist has more funds than its prosecutors,-
and that fact is forcing them to settle, can`t the monopolist`s 
funds be frozen, or can it not be made to pay the legal costs of its 
prosecutors? A simple ruling along those lines might see Microsoft 
scrambling to agree to a fairer settlement, one that will better 
safeguard the freedom of the consumer.
    * 4. There is no attempt at punishment for wrongdoing * Though 
it has been established that Microsoft has repeatedly broken the 
law, the settlement only defines mechanisms to prevent future 
wrongdoing. What about punishment for past wrongdoing? Are murderers 
let off scot free with mere provisions to prevent future murders? 
What kind of example does this set? And what confidence does this 
inspire in the American justice system? Any remedy must include 
appropriate punishment.
    * 5. The economy is being used as a bogeyman to prevent 
punishment * It is being argued that in the current difficult 
economic climate, Microsoft should not be broken up or otherwise 
punished, because that will in turn affect the rest of the economy 
(through a fall in the stockmarket index, a delay in the recovery of 
hardware sales, more unemployment and hardship, etc.). On the 
contrary, the lessons of Economics are that monopolies are always 
bad. They reduce efficiency, innovation and economic activity. In 
other words, Microsoft`s monopoly has /already/ affected the economy 
adversely. An end to the Microsoft monopoly may result in some 
churn, but that churn will be the ferment of genuine innovation from 
the rest of the industry. The impact on the stockmarket from a fall 
in Microsoft`s share price will be more than offset by the rising 
stocks of independent software companies that can operate without 
fear of a monopolist`s wrath. A decisive curbing of Microsoft`s 
stifling influence will create more confidence in the rule of law, 
generate more jobs and help the economy. Therefore, it is dishonest 
and self-serving on the part of the DoJ to suggest that this 
settlement proposal is the best one from the viewpoint of the 
economy. Moreover, the state of the economy should not determine 
whether or not a crime should be punished. It takes a statesmanlike 
judge to see beyond the petty posturing and to do the right and wise 
thing.
    * Guidelines for a fair remedy: *
    Any remedy in a case that has been so clear-cut in its findings 
must be more assertive in its defence of consumer interests. 
Regardless of specifics, such a remedy must address the following:
    1. *Recurrence:* Microsoft must not be able to continue to abuse 
its monopoly the way it has in the past.
    2. *Reimbursement:* Microsoft has no right to retain the excess 
profits it has earned as a result of its illegal actions. This money 
should be repaid to the consumer.
    3. *Reparations:* As Microsoft is responsible for the current 
uncompetitive market in operating systems and related applications, 
it must underwrite efforts to restore competition and consumer 
choice. The rest of the market should not have to pay to recover 
from Microsoft`s abuses.
    4. *Reference:* Microsoft must pay punitive damages over and 
above its reimbursement and reparations obligations, to serve as a 
warning to deter future monopolists. The remedy must in no case send 
out a signal that a large enough violator can get off lightly. 
Future tax dollars can be saved by discouraging abuses instead of 
having to prosecute them. The DoJ is supposed to be acting on behalf 
of the consumer, and they must pursue a remedy that addresses all 
the above issues.
    For example, a remedy that required Microsoft, among other 
things, to only sell through channels that offer at least one other 
operating system, could address the reparations issue and break the 
structural forces perpetuating their monopoly (If an OEM requires 
training to support another operating system, Microsoft may be 
forced to subsidise such training). The proposed settlement goes 
partway towards addressing the issue of recurrence, but does so only 
half-heartedly because it creates significant exceptions and 
loopholes for Microsoft to take advantage of. It completely ignores 
the other three issues. An impression is created that the DoJ is 
more sensitive to Microsoft`s interests than to the interests of 
consumers who have been systematically robbed of both their choices 
and their money. Therefore this proposed settlement must be rejected 
as not being in the public interest. * History will be the judge *
    After the immediate tumult over this case dies down, there will 
be a dispassionate analysis of all aspects of the Microsoft 
phenomenon in the computer industry, and the roles of all players 
will be dissected. It seems fairly certain that the Department of 
Justice will be likened to a champion boxer who was paid to throw 
his fight. Judge Jackson will probably be faulted for his many 
indiscretions, but it may be remembered that his analysis was on the 
mark, and his verdict fearless. The appeals court will probably be 
remembered as being fair though it started with a reputation for 
being consistently lenient towards Microsoft. What will Judge 
Kollar-Kotelly be remembered for? Will she be known as the one who 
meekly accepted an agreement that sold out the public interest, 
because it was politically expedient to do so? Or will she be 
remembered as the

[[Page 24878]]

person who braved the prevailing political winds to do the right 
thing and restore balance to a corrupted system?
    The world is watching to see what she will do.
    Regards,
    Richard H. Phillips [email protected]
    Inspired and Created from website posting at
    http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-
OP-MS by: Ganesh Prasad [email protected] 

    Copyright (c) 2002 Ganesh Prasad.
    Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this 
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, 
Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software 
Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no 
Back-Cover Texts.
    A copy of the license is available at http://www.gnu.org/
copyleft/fdl.html.



MTC-00007054

From: Paul Ermerins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this senseless court case against Microsoft. 
The nine dissenting states need to accept the agreement that 
Microsoft and the DOJ have hammered out. It is plain to see when 
reading news from a variety of sources that these states are being 
pushed on by Microsoft`s competition. If this case is about how 
Microsoft has supposedly harmed the consumer, then Microsoft`s 
competition has no place in this lawsuit. Please quickly end this 
mockery of court proceedings and allow the economy to rebound and 
Microsoft to do what they do best_produce software that has 
not only pushed the economy and technology-based business to 
prosperity, but has also given the consumer decent operating systems 
and applications.
    Paul Ermerins
    [email protected]



MTC-00007055

From: jwwestlund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I strongly oppose any further litigation of Microsoft. Please 
let the ruling stand as it is at present and do not pursue further 
litigation.
    Thank you.
    J. Westlund
    Eureka, CA



MTC-00007056

From: Brad Borland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I am strongly in support of the DOJ and states settlement with 
MSFT, and hope that it will be advanced with that conclusion in 
mind. This settlement will benefit every American, whether he be a 
consumer, investor or beneficiary of a profit sharing or pension 
plan. Lets move ahead on this one.
    Brad Borland
    Seattle



MTC-00007057

From: Richard Dekany
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed DOJ settlement of the antitrust case against 
Microsoft, Inc. is, in my opinion, not in the public interest. By 
allowing the fundamental tool of monopoly power to remain intact and 
under Microsoft`s control, namely the ability to unfairly exchange 
privileged information between it`s operating system and 
productivity software units, no real competition will be possible. I 
strongly suggest that the proposed DOJ settlement be dismissed and 
that Judge Kollar-Kotelly direct the DOJ to pursue more substantive 
remedy for the illegal monopolistist actions of Microsoft, Inc.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Dekany
    Notice: The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and do 
not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer.



MTC-00007058

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The punishment of microsoft for its alleged 
`monopoly' on certain softwear should NOT be further 
exercised and the governmental powers in charge of this so-called 
prosecution should turn about and proclaim microsoft absolved of any 
further blame or any further prosecution for alleged 
`monopoly' and an end to the entire incident should be 
proclaimed by the governmental agencies involved. Other firms who 
claim that their rights have been impinged on should proceed forward 
with their own attempts at computer softwear innovations and get on 
with their own lives. The American way is to innovate and compete. 
Having Big Brother intercede is no more than mere whining to what 
some consider to be authority and usurption of other peoples` work 
in the innovative area of computers.



MTC-00007059

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:02pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen and consumer, interested in the current 
condition of our U. S. economy, I would like to see the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement be finalized at the up coming hearing as being 
in the best interest of our country. Then the USDOJ can get on with 
more important matters.
    I also very much resent the fact that the recent Clinton 
Administration and the DOJ spent more of our US tax dollars on the 
pursuit of Bill Gates than they did on the pursuit of ben-Laden.
    After all, what Mr. Gates and Microsoft did was add billions to 
our economy and millions of American jobs, while ben-Laden was 
blowing up American Embassies and US Ships.
    Come on now, Justice Department, don`t you have more important 
things to do? I urge you to make the settlement with Microsoft final 
now...
    Regards,
    Allen D. Rich
    CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]@ine...



MTC-00007060

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm
Subject: [email protected]
    Enough already with this antitrust movement. Bill Gates has put 
America back on top of race for power and given probably over 2 
million jobs to people in this country, and all the come latelys are 
crying. This needs to end and the government needs to find other 
places to use the money toward the greater good not the enhancement 
of a few not so good men.
    Thanks for the sound board.
    Eleanor Agnelli



MTC-00007061

From: customer service
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Dept. of Justice,
    I have read about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. 
I think it is fair and should be allowed to proceed. It would have 
an extremely deleterious effect on the economy to break up Microsoft 
or to otherwise penalize the firm. It is not coincidence that the 
collapse of the stock market started when the government started its 
ill-conceived case against Microsoft and that the stock market 
started to pick up when the DOJ announced a settlement. What has 
been really strange in the government`s treatment of this case is 
that while claiming Microsoft is a monopoly, the government 
continued to use Windows and other Microsoft products in almost all 
government offices. There are alternatives and all the government 
would need to do to reduce Microsoft`s part of the market is for all 
government offices to start using Apple operating systems or Lynux.
    Thank you for finally ending the ill-conceived law suite against 
Microsoft.
    Peter Christ
    Crystal Records Inc.
    28818 NE Hancock Rd
    Camas, WA 98607
    phone 360-834-7022, fax 360-834-9680
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00007062

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I believe the government should close the lawsuit against 
Microsoft. I would like the government to tell me what company in 
these United States has done more for industry and the public then 
Microsoft. Any one with any brains knows that Microsoft`s 
competition are nothing but cry babies. If the shoe was on the other 
foot they would be drowning in their own water. As a tax payer 
enough is enough.

[[Page 24879]]

    Julian H. Yudin



MTC-00007063

From: Kenneth(Ken) Dean Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:03pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I support this!
    Kenneth Dean Parker, PROBE SCIENTIFIC,
    2109 Pinehurst Court,
    El Cerrito, CA 94530-1879
    01/02/2002.



MTC-00007064

From: Bryan Hoots
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to voice my opinion that the final judgment shall stand 
in the anti-trust case against Microsoft. While I believe that this 
judgment crushes the principal of capitalism and deflates ones 
desire to innovate and achieve in business, its is easier to digest 
that many other settlements that have previously been offered.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan R. Hoots



MTC-00007065

From: Richard Stastny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am of the opinion that the settlement between Microsoft Corp. 
and the DOJ is fair and just. I believe that it is the best interest 
of the consumer and industry to get on with business and put this 
issue to rest.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Stastny
    7109 Colada Ct.
    Dallas, TX 75248
    972-233-6466
    [email protected]



MTC-00007066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read that there is an uncertainty about the 
appropriateness of the terms of the settlement with Microsoft and 
that public feedback is desired. Although, I think the company 
misbehaved, I am fully satisfied that the settlement reached is an 
equitable one and I, for one, am hopeful that is now concluded and 
things can proceed accordingly.
    I am not a Microsoft employee nor am I affiliated with the 
company in any way.



MTC-00007067

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The provisions that the hold-out states, including my own state 
of California, are not directed toward a fair and reasonable 
settlement of the case against Microsoft. Instead, they blatantly 
provide unfair advantages to software companies in their own states. 
A review of the provisions these states wants against the product 
offering of the companies they favor, will reveal that the bulk of 
the provisions have nothing to do with the Windows or Office 
programs which are the core for any statement that Microsoft has a 
monopoly which and that they have unfairly taken advantage of that 
monopoly.
    I am not a stockholder nor am I an employee of Microsoft. My 
position against further punishment of Microsoft is that I firmly 
believe that the ability of business to communicate using standard 
programs has been a major contributor to the major growth that 
occurred during the 1980`s and 1990`s. Microsoft Office was chosen 
by most businesses as a standard, against a competition that was 
fragmented, with one company providing text programs, another 
providing spreadsheets, another providing presentations. Although 
the competitor`s had very good products, they were not integrated. 
Microsoft had the vision to do the job right, but is now being 
punished. It is my view that the case against Microsoft has been for 
political gain, and that the merits of the case against Microsoft 
are weak. It has already been established that the initial case 
against Microsoft was highly prejudiced. Further prejudice against 
this great contributor to American business is not justified.
    Bernard E. Nelson
    1469 Blake St.
    Orange, CA, 92867



MTC-00007068

From: Mike(u)Haucke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
From: Michael J. Haucke
    I am very pleased with the (proposed) settlement in the 
Microsoft lawsuit. I believe that the public interest is best served 
to finalize the settlement AS IS. We need to move on and let 
competitors compete for our business.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Haucke
    7601 CTH O
    Two Rivers WI 54241-9039
    (920) 793-8809



MTC-00007069

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies:
    Not knowing who is in charge of all the particulars having to do 
with the Microsoft Settlement, I cannot direct this email to one 
particular person. I feel that I should state my feelings having to 
do with Microsoft and the settlement they have made with the justice 
department. It is a shame on the judicial system, that they would 
allow special interest groups to supersede what the government has 
already agreed to. What does the group want other then money, most 
of the suing companies, and states are in need of financial aid, due 
to the economy, and their own greed? They feel Microsoft has made to 
much money, and has profited by their products. As a Microsoft user, 
and stock holder, and American citizen, I am proud to be an owner of 
Microsoft.
    They employ many people and they take care of their employees. 
Some employees are unhappy, so they are suing, did they not make 
good wage`s when employed? How long will the government allow all 
these people to keep Microsoft in bondage of law suits? They have 
made proposals to settle, but to no avail. Our country has suffered 
a terrible blow to our citizens and to the economy, by settling with 
Microsoft and looking ahead, you can get on with the more important 
issues of the country. This has been going on long enough. With the 
lawyers being the only winners in this suit. Thanking you for 
allowing me to express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Carole Hudson



MTC-00007070

From: Dave Hoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Settle as negotiated_Microsoft has been inappropriately 
penalized already_Don`t reopen this thing!!!!!!!!!!
    Dave Hoff, Owner
    Hoffco Inc.
    Wood Lake, MN.



MTC-00007071

From: William Northrup Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please leave the current microsoft settlement in place. I don`t 
believe any purpose is served by any further interference in private 
enterprise in this matter.
    Thank you.
    William H. Northrup Jr
    120 Whitehall Road
    Hooksett NH 03106
    [email protected]
    603 625-8621



MTC-00007072

From: murphyjf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ
    A few `special interests' are attempting to use this 
review period to derail the settlement and prolong this litigation 
even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last thing the 
American economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a 
`few wealthy competitors' and `stifles' 
innovation.
    I as a consumer overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for 
consumers, the industry and the American economy. Please get the 
Microsoft Settlement completed ASAP.
    For your consideration.
    John F. Murphy
    2201 168th AVE. NE
    Bellevue, WA 98008-2432



MTC-00007073

From: Ted Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not stop innovation in America. I support the freedom 
to innovate!!!!

[[Page 24880]]

    Ted Freeman



MTC-00007074

From: Dino Carubia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Microsoft has the moral and legal right to dispose of its 
property as it sees fit as long as it does not commit fraud or 
physically harm anyone. Absolutely nobody is forced to buy Microsoft 
products. People are free to also buy OS/2, Macintosh or even obtain 
a free operating system (Linux) if they wish. IBM had OS/2 as a 
multitasking operating system at least 1 year prior to the release 
of Windows95 and Windows NT. Microsoft should not be punished for 
IBM`s incompetence in marketing OS/2 to the general public or to 
other businesses. Apple also had a competitive advantage in being 
first to market in the personal computer market in the late 70`s and 
not only did they fail in their marketing they also charge much 
higher prices and insist that you must also buy their hardware as 
well as their software.
    The anti-trust laws are IMMORAL because they are not objective. 
If the same standards inherent in anti-trust were to be applied to 
individuals (as opposed to corporations) we would effectively be 
living in a totalitarian society where anyone could be dragged into 
court for the crime of being successful.
    Perhaps your time in the Justice Department would be better 
served catching terrorists and real criminals instead of harassing 
corporations that provide consumers with value and thousands of 
Americans with jobs.
    Regards,
    Dino Carubia
    Regards,
    Dino Carubia



MTC-00007075

From: Step Ol(00E9) Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Citizens:
    I am kept informed by Microsoft Company of the developments in 
their case. They tell me that a settlement, a fair if tough 
settlement could be imminent if the people of this Great Country 
voice their opinions in sufficient numbers. I have been benefiting 
for years from the great software this Company has invented. Some of 
it is timeless and all of it is innovative. I have many friends who 
use AOL. I personally use Lotus SmartSuite. But my all time boon has 
been The Microsoft Bookshelf. I still have and use the 1992 edition. 
Remarkable what they have done. Please! Let`s get this settlement 
passed and working for concerned citizens. Yes I own stock in 
Microsoft. I am not writing for that reason alone. I want AOL and 
Lotus and Microsoft to prosper and for all of them to be able to 
innovate to the max. When Microsoft tells me the proposed settlement 
is fair, then I believe them for the same reason I believe the 
material in the various editions of the Microsoft 
Bookshelf_they (the people at Microsoft) are dedicated to the 
truth. Thank you for your ears and eyes and good luck with your 
decision.
    Step Ol Williamson [email protected]



MTC-00007076

From: Matthew M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I can only talk from my own experience of Microsoft software. I 
have found that in general it is of poor quality compared with the 
alternatives, yet the company insists on pushing through 
incompatible standards which the rest of the world is forced to 
adopt; this reduces variety and choice in the marketplace, and is 
certainly NOT in the interests of consumers. While I respect that 
Microsoft is a commercial entity, with the purpose of generating 
profit, it still seems to be harmful for consumers. A recent example 
is Microsoft disallowing foreign browsers from accessing their 
Hotmail web-based email service. Microsoft Windows fails to adhere 
to many standards, which tends to cause problems in real 
environments. And yet thier products are branded as 
`Standard', `Stable' and 
`Secure'? Especially secure. Since a discovery of a 
fatal flaw in the security of thier `Most Secure Windows 
Yet' this should be taken with a pinch of salt. At very least, 
this is a trade description violation.
    Regards,
    Matthew MacLeod



MTC-00007078

From: siN.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am not sure any pair of eyes will ever scan over this email, 
but I believe helping Microsoft in any way I can is imperative. I am 
17 years of age, a senior in High School, and a computer 
user_a Windows user, an Intellieye User, an Xbox owner, Office 
User, Natural Keyboard owner, and sidewinder force feedback user. I 
am dialing up to the internet with MSN. It may seem like they 
dominate the market by my actually owning these products, yet I 
actually choose to use these products. I purchased all of the above, 
despite having 98 already installed on my computer I now use ME, yet 
my other system has XP installed. Without these innovative products 
being released to the general public there would be no change, or 
dynamics in the world of computing. You cannot rely on other 
manufacturers producing an operating system *half* as reliable or 
for lack of the use of the word_GOOD. Microsoft buyer for life 
here..keep `em together! I am willing to testify at will, or at any 
account do most things to support Microsoft.
    Contact Info is below:
    Many Thanks, regards
    Aidan Gray
    27901 Altamont Circle
    Los Altos Hills
    CA, 94022
    (650) 823-1294/(650) 559-9457



MTC-00007079

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Congressman
    In the interest of a sounder economy PLEASE accept the newest 
terms to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Robert e Pearce
    5404 Via Maria,
    Yorba Linda Ca. 92886
    [email protected]



MTC-00007080

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is important that during this period of slow economic growth, 
that government focus its energy in a positive manner and stop 
spending tax payer money to continue its overzealous attack of 
Microsoft. The public watches congresses special interest treatment 
of professional baseball and fails to understand the legal monopoly 
that congress has continued to allow to thrive. Conversely, my 
family and friends, as well as many stock holders and Microsoft 
product users, view your treatment of Microsoft as an unjustly 
prejudiced and a targeted sham. Any validity of the original case 
has long since past, as Microsoft has updated and advanced its 
systems and software. Please take this opportunity to settle this 
case without any additional penalty or damage to Microsoft, the 
company is a true US success story.
    Sincerely,
    Stuart A. Hayman, MS
    28 Macy Road
    Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
    (914) 923-6119



MTC-00007081

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice:
    Speaking for myself as a user of software provided by Microsoft, 
I am angry that time and money has been spent pursuing punishment of 
a company that has done so much for the advance of technology in 
this country. STOP spending time and money trying to allow 
competitors of MSFT to have an advantage. We would still be in the 
dark ages if we had waited on the people who want to punish MSFT to 
develop useable software. Let us send commendations for service to 
our country in sales in the USA and for the export dollars they 
bring to America. Allow MSFT to continue to grow wealth for our 
nation, and to make progress more easy for the rest of us.
    Professionally,
    Franklin J. Kay, PhD



MTC-00007082

From: Rick Lauder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Let Microsoft do it`s business without intervention.



MTC-00007083

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 24881]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the settlement the DOJ has reached with Microsoft 
is a fair one. My feelings are: enough is enough. Leave Microsoft 
alone now. The DOJ has more important things to be doing in light of 
the terrorism activities. I have not been hurt by Microsoft, and I 
don`t think you would find a consumer who thinks they have been 
hurt. The only ones that feel hurt are the competitors. Let them 
make a better product and the consumers will flock to them, as they 
should.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Cicero



MTC-00007084

From: Larry Guzik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:12pm
Subject: My opinion
    I have been using Microsoft products for the last 20 years. At 
no time have ever felt that I was being ripped off by them. In fact 
if anything I have felt the opposite. Considering all the 
functionality you can get with a $100 investment in W2K (upgrade) 
for example anybody would be crazy not to buy it. The only people 
that are complaining are Microsoft competitors and people that have 
always gotten everything for free and do not want to pay for 
anything. I personally think that Microsoft has paid a heck of a lot 
in unnecessary legal expenses on this issue so far and they should 
not incur any more charges of any kind.
    This is my opinion.
    Thank you for reading this.
    Larry Guzik
    Spring, Texas 77379



MTC-00007085

From: Andre Gous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This email is sent by a concerned citizen re the proposed 
settlement. I am in favor of it, but please read on. Without reading 
every word, I have reviewed the document at http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/ms-settle.htm with special focus on the ominous phrases of 
`Microsoft shall not retaliate against' and 
`Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:' As 
a businessman, software developer, US citizen, and capitalist, I 
believe that we need a strong, limited government to protect the 
citizens` rights. Of course, a government can fail to do so by 
shirking its tasks, but (ironically) also by overstepping its bounds 
and being overzealous. It is my opinion, based on my observations 
and my political principles, as well as some excellent arguments 
which I`ve read in that regard, that the Antitrust portion of the 
DOJ has done exactly that, and then some ... inflicting injustice, 
in the name of justice, a.k.a. destroying capitalism in the name of 
capitalism. As such, I find it hard to support the proposed 
settlement, since I have a problem with it on principle .... but I 
will support it on the sole basis that Microsoft Corporation 
considers this to be preferable to more litigation yet. I gather 
that Microsoft is faced with a `lesser of two evils' 
option, and on that basis, I support them in their decision to go 
with the settlement. For that reason, I also urge you to go along 
with it.
    The remainder of this email presumes that you`re acting merely 
on behalf of US citizens which are pushing you to constrict 
Microsoft, and that you don`t have a personal ax to grind. If the 
latter is the case, you`re acting inappropriately. To the extent 
that you`re faced with a complaint-driven democracy, please consider 
my email as one complaint-vote in the other direction, meaning I am 
pushing for a situation where people and companies are free to 
negotiate conditions for the sale of the products which they own 
(e.g., by having created them.) I understand that my objection 
strikes at the very root of your premises in the Microsoft case, and 
that is indeed my intent.
    I concede that anti-trust has a legitimate function in 
government, but only to the extent that it seeks out and destroys 
inappropriate monopolies and unfair competition, where the 
definition of `inappropriate' is not based on a howl of 
complaints, but on non-socialistic economic theory, For example, I 
live in a county where there`s a county-owned phone system. The 
county has instituted a public transportation system which I am 
taxed to fund, and which competes with private transportation 
businesses. I drive on a nationalized roads system. My wife is a 
travel agent who sees first-hand the complacency which comes from 
the welfare mentality generated by government funding for 
organizations like Amtrak.
    If I saw you dismantling government-supported or government-
mandated unfair competition, at the city, county, state and federal 
level, then I`d be cheering you on, and would consider you champions 
for justice, fairness and freedom, in an exact sense. Presumably, 
you chose this line of work because you thought you could make the 
world a better place. However, many of the worst injustices in 
history started with that intent. You have a grave responsibility to 
look far beyond the obvious, and to seek out valid principles of 
good government. (If you tell me the address to choose, I will mail 
you a complimentary copy of Ayn Rand`s `Capitalism_the 
unknown ideal'.) From every action I`ve seen you take, you`re 
headed in the wrong direction. You`re demonizing Microsoft, who 
should instead be left alone or commended for all the valuable 
products they`ve created.
    I consider your direction as fundamentally misguided, and I look 
forward to the day when your charter limits you to dismantle only 
socialist constructs, and when the next group of `I`m whining 
for conditions which I`m too lame to achieve in negotiation' 
constituents knock on your door, I want you to be empowered enough 
to be able to tell them to get lost, to take responsibility for 
their position in the market, and to leave you alone, since you have 
more important things to do ... the greatest country in the history 
of mankind needs you. You should be protecting its core values, not 
dismantling them.
    Sincerely,
    Andre Gous
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,Pat Newton,Sue 
Gous,bkk...



MTC-00007086

From: Allan B. Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement as proposed.
    Thanks
    Allan B. Wilson



MTC-00007088

From: Linda Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has done more for the United States economy and 
families in the last 20 years than any other company I know not to 
mention their goodwill endowments. I am in favor of a special 
recognition award for the company myself. Computers can 
`talk' to each other, the software makes it easy for end 
users and the company produces great products that are competitively 
priced. Hooray for Microsoft! I vote for no penalty.
    Thank you.
    Linda Quick, Connecticut



MTC-00007089

From: Woody Miraglia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sir or Madam:
    As an IT manager at a medium-sized company, I wanted to express 
my incredible unhappiness at the proposed settlement against 
Microsoft. It is amazing that my government`s concern about economic 
recovery is allowed to take precedence over the obviously illegal 
actions of this arrogant organization. When I was growing up and 
made a mistake, my mom would give me a warning first before 
punishing me. If I made the same mistake again, then I would get 
grounded. Well, the United States has already given Microsoft more 
than its fair share of chances, and Microsoft has laughed them off 
then continued on its merry way. And why shouldn`t they? How did 
they get the perpetual `get-out-of-jail-free-card?' 
Oh... that`s right, it must be about money.
    I am very disappointed in the Justice Department and the 
Attorneys General. I can only hold out hope that my state, 
California, won`t capitulate too.
    A disappointed citizen,
    Woody Miraglia
    San Francisco, CA.



MTC-00007090

From: Mary Jo Marrese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE PUT TO BED. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. 
MICROSOFT IS CAPABLE OF BIGGER AND BETTER AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO 
MOVE FORWARD.
    MJMARRESE

[[Page 24882]]



MTC-00007091

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/02/02
    Department of Justice:
    Give Microsoft a break and get on to other business. We have 
heard enough and the settlement is more than adequate.
    Bill Sautter
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007092

From: edward clucas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Sirs: please do not further reduce my retirement funds by acting 
negativly towards microsoft in the coming decision. I remain a loyal 
american and am a firm believer in the fair market system .I am a 
college educated 53 year old that works in a boat yard as a mechanic 
, excuse me to be politicly correct a technition. I am very well 
read an am fully aware of the case before justice.I do belive that 
the effort expended on this case may have been utilized. I remain 
respectfully,
    Edward W. Clucas



MTC-00007093

From: Roger Barbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I feel that the settlement for Microsoft is fair to all parties, 
and should settle this matter. I don`t feel that after nearly four 
years in working toward a solution that further litigation is 
warranted. Additional court efforts would prove more costly, be 
adverse to the industry, and possibly have negative effects on the 
American economy. My feeling is to get this matter over with. I 
believe it is healthy to promote innovation by companies, which can 
result in advances that may not result otherwise. Microsoft has 
always been innovative, and has given us much to be thankful for in 
the tech industry. Unfortunately, others, including some of their 
competition do not agree.
    Thank you for allowing my input.
    Roger E. Barbo



MTC-00007094

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I WISH TO GIVE MY COMPLETE SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSED MICROSOFT 
SETTLEMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS FAIR AND IN 
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER AND THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.
    R. O. BESTEDA



MTC-00007095

From: Louise Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is in the `public 
interest.' Unfortunately, a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest. 
The argument that says consumers need a choice is utterly without 
merit. For those few people who don`t wish to use Microsoft 
products, they are free to remove them and install something else. 
The fact that I no longer need to be a `mechanic` to assemble and 
use my computer means that I can do more and enjoy it...
    Louise Stanley
    5933 Pennyroyal Drive
    Pollock Pines, CA 95726-9006
    530-647-9047
    [email protected]



MTC-00007096

From: Lenore Stamper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an individual software consumer. I am disgusted by those 
who continue to hound Microsoft. I don`t own any of their stock so I 
have no other interest than fairness. The settlement worked out is 
just fine.
    To me states are trying to profit at MY EXPENSE.
    Sincerely,
    Lenore Stamper
    10016 Regal Park Lane, #121
    Dallas, TX 75230-5528



MTC-00007097

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. It is time to bring 
this case to a close. The proposed settlement is fair.
    Elfie Monroe,
    735 N 94 th St,
    Seattle WA 98103



MTC-00007098

From: Larry Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Hang em High!
    I have followed this public issue rather closely for a number of 
years, being an `IT Professional' for a Fortune 500 
company. In my opinion, the settlement lets them off entirely too 
easily given the clearly established willful transgressions of law 
at the time.
    Reply-To: `Finflash1-2-02' 
Finflash1-2-02.UM.A.1154.142@ 
commpartners.unitymail.net
`MSFIN@ Microsoft.com' [email protected] 
`larrybutler@ boatnerd.com' 
[email protected]
    DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement.
    A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
    To cancel your subscription to this newsletter, read the 
directions at the bottom of this message.
    For nearly four years, your voice has been instrumental in the 
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned 
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether 
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite 
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft`s competitors, 
the Federal government and nine states finally reached a 
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy.
    However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is 
more important than ever.
    The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the `public 
interest.' Unfortunately, a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Between now and January 28th, it is critical that the Department 
of Justice hears from you about the Microsoft settlement. The 
Department of Justice will then take all public comments and 
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District 
Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the 
Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th. 
Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the 
government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today 
to ensure your voice is heard.
    Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of 
the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment 
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
    Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.
    To cancel your subscription to this newsletter, please go to the 
following website: http://www.freetoinnovate.com/_utilities/
unsubscribe.asp



MTC-00007099

From: Sam Ungle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get off Microsoft`s back. Theirs is the best, easiest to 
use and most competitively priced software on the market_so 
what`s the problem? Why don`t you focus on something that 
matters_like the war on terrorism or the economy.



MTC-00007100

From: Carlos Treyes

[[Page 24883]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm
Subject: micros0ft case
    I think it should be settled once and for all since nine states 
have already agreed to improve the economy this new year.
    carlos treyes
    Shelton, WA



MTC-00007101

From: Henry M Watanabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsolft Settlement
    This has gone on long enough. Please settle this case as you 
have indicated.



MTC-00007102

From: Ilze T.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Comments on Microsoft Settlement:
    The DOJ should leave Microsoft and other great innovative 
companies alone. Where would we be today if Bill Gates had not 
configured the Basic computer language. Only a small elite group 
would work with computers.
    Why should Gates and other people/companies with brains, guts, 
and innovative ideas be punished just because their competition did 
not come up with the idea first. Microsoft has made it possible for 
me and my child to be computer literate at an affordable price. What 
has SunMicro done for me? I have no idea.
    If the DOJ smashes Gates and company, why should anyone want to 
take a chance and create something innovative? (Look at Sweden) 
Let`s keep the American free enterprise system just that_free.
    Microsoft has not harmed the general public. Its competitors 
might have been harmed because they did not come up with 
(Microsoft`s) idea first. This whole situation sounds like the 
competitors are sore losers looking for a way to get Microsoft`s 
brain. Let the competitors create their own brain child, that the 
general public wants. If you make something the public wants, they 
will buy it. If SunMicro can`t come up with new innovative products 
for the public, tough.
    If Microsoft wants to give poor schools computers and software, 
go for it. How else will these kids get to be computer literate. I 
don`t see SunMicro giving any schools anything.
    Sincerely,
    Ilze Tomsevics



MTC-00007103

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Please, no more litigation. Settle this case now. The people 
have had enough of this case. In view of what happened on September 
11th, we Have `Bigger Fish to Fry.' Microsoft has been 
thru enough, and in actuality, these litigators and lobbyist are 
stopping the tech industry from moving forward.
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00007104

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the stip.
    Settle the case. The US Govt has WASTED enough time energy and 
money already. I would not like to think of what and how my computer 
would be without `Windows'.
    DOJ_go catch some criminals.



MTC-00007105

From: Jack Leary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the DOJ and Microsoft sat down and negotiated a 
settlement that was amenable to not only both sides of the lawsuit 
and that would also ensure that no harm would come to consumers, but 
that also appoints a neutral third party to monitor Microsoft`s 
business practices. Now it is time to let Microsoft, the government, 
and the country get on with the rest of their business. It is 
irresponsible to drag this out any further than it already has. 
Let`s close this chapter and get on with life.



MTC-00007106

From: ELIZABETH WIGGINS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We should be thanking Microsoft, not punishing.
    Elizabeth B. Wiggins, CPA/ABV (Beth)
    BKD-Houston
    1360 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 1900
    Houston, TX 77056



MTC-00007107

From: ANNA BELLE AMBROSEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want to add my voice to the thousands who feel that the 
settlement reached with Microsoft should stand. I use their services 
on my home computer and the system I have access to at work, is 
Windows-based.
    Microsoft has been singled out, in my opinion, for undue 
litigation. They are one of the reasons Americans are the most 
productive workers in the world. We should recognize the outstanding 
contribution they have made to our success in recent years.
    Anna Belle Ambrosen
    18102 Shiloh Church Road
    Beaverdam, VA 23015
    [email protected]



MTC-00007108

From: Fred Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Dear Sirs:
    In my opinion the Tunney Act covering the Microsoft settlement 
is fair, equitable and in the public`s best interest. I think this 
law should stand, all the litigators should go chase other fire 
engines and our country should get back to building up our economy 
instead of tearing it down.
    We should not attack corporations based on the fact that they 
have been successful and others can`t compete. We should let the 
best continue to innovate and, unshackled, push the frontiers of 
technology for the betterment of all people.
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely yours,
    Fred C. Benson



MTC-00007109

From: Gerald Mohlenbrok
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsaft Settlement
    It is my understanding that the DOJ vs Microsoft case will soon 
be settled and finalized. I believe it to be a fair and equitable 
settlement and I urge you to take every measure to ensure that it is 
finalized in a timely fashion, and without any further delay tactics 
instigated by Microsoft competitors and their expensive legal teams. 
In these uncertain economic times, any further delay would be costly 
to the nation as a whole, and would certainly not benefit anyone 
other than a select few.
    Thank you for considering my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Mohlenbrok



MTC-00007110

From: James M. Brumley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Just wanted to make my two cents heard on the Microsoft case. It 
seems so un-American to attack an entity for being better than the 
competition and winning. I thought we were a nation of winners not 
whiners. The government has been bamboozled by special interest 
groups that I beleive have caused much of the recent Tech recession. 
Let`s get on with life and get the economy running strong once 
again.
    Thank you,
    James Brumley,
    Captain, Medical Service Corps
    Commanding



MTC-00007111

From: ryan atchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. P.S. Microsoft is the best software 
maker. And that is why everyone buys it. That does not make them a 
monopoly.



MTC-00007112

From: Ray Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:21pm
Subject: DOJ Settlement
    It is the opinion of this voting household that enough of the 
tax payer`s money has been spent in litigation of the anti-trust 
suit against Microsoft Corp. We therefore urge you to accept the 
settlement of one of the most wasteful witchhunts of our time and 
let us get on to better times. Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Paul

[[Page 24884]]



MTC-00007113

From: Elson Bettner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The settlement is good for all, fair for all. Let life move 
ahead. I believe this whole thing has been a waste of taxpayers` 
money from day one. Greed and jealousy have been the plaintiffs` 
motivators, they couldn`t stand to see one man/company do so well 
doing what the USA was/is/will be built on: initiative, hard work, 
and FREEDOM TO SUCCEED.
    Sincerely
    Elson Bettner



MTC-00007114

From: Robert W Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Sirs:
    I am an American veteran and served my country during early 
60`s. I wore the colors of my Country proudly. I am a life member of 
the VFW. I am presently retired from the Department of Defense. I am 
also employed as a School bus driver.
    As I have observed the actions of our Federal Government over 
the past several months in the anti-trust suit against Microsoft 
many thoughts come to mind: Why not go after some real Monopolys 
such as the NEA and Federal school system, to name just one?
    This action by our Justice Department leaves me with the feeling 
of `Being very glad to be an American, but I`m not so proud of 
it.'
    Microsoft has contributed more to our country`s economy and well 
being than all the opponents put together. Why are we attacking 
them??
    Sincerely,
    Robert W. Nelson



MTC-00007115

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgment
    It`s too bad that in the United States of America someone in the 
government thinks that a private company has too much power and 
takes it upon themselves to quell the success of a forward moving 
inventive people helping companies such as Microsoft.
    I am a 58 year old veteran, been married to the same lady for 35 
years and my adult children love me as I do them. Life hasn`t been 
all that good to me. I was a beaten battered unloved child, and 
everything comes very hard to me. I`ve been unemployed since August 
01 and am a two time cancer survivor.
    BUT. . . . If I were Bill Gates and some little 
person trying to show power tried to stop my company. I would have 
taken the billions of dollars, shut down the program and said 
`You figure it out'!
    One thing for certain. Success attracts whiners and people 
calling unfair and foul. If everyone in this country were given one 
million dollars, half of the people would complain about 
it. . . . Please let Microsoft continue doing what 
they do best. . Allowing people like myself to at least use a 
computer and keep up with the times.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely Cary A. Johnson
    Federal Way, WA.



MTC-00007116

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The Microsoft settlement is fair. I support its adoption.
    Rich Blott



MTC-00007117

From: hlpowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement in an excellent compromise in my 
opinion. I have been concerned for some time with the politics of 
what appears an attempt to punish success and reward both 
competitors and politicians by splitting the spoils of a broken 
Microsoft. I worked with a competitor of Microsoft for 30 years and 
was always impressed with their willingness and ability to 
consistently improve their products and invest in innovative 
development while my company and many others would bail out instead 
of competing with Microsoft products. I personally give Microsoft 
much of the credit for the affordable personal systems that exist 
today. I know for my 30 years in the industry, that the same 
competitors that want to punish Microsoft for making things 
functional and affordable, making them cuts their big markups to 
compete, are the greedy companies that would have kept the price of 
personal systems out of range for most of the consumers that have 
benefited from the aggressive development, investment and pricing 
that Microsoft brought to the industry.
    Microsoft has provided a personal system that no other of the 
greedy companies who were mad because Microsoft was successful with 
using the leverage of volume to provide rich affordable personal 
systems that their competitors had to sacrifice some margins to 
compete with and many of them simple hold grudges for the challenges 
they did not meet well. I know that my employer was one of them. 
Without Microsoft we would still be using command oriented systems 
that the home market couldn?t use well or afford.
    Please do not punish success through innovative, usable and 
affordable products brought to us by Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Harry L. Powell



MTC-00007118

From: Robert Teisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i think that microsoft settlement was reasonable and proper and 
should be done-and-overwith and let the company go on without being 
badgered, as there progress is important to the economy and free 
enterprise (simply put)
    Thank you,
    Dr. Robert Teisch



MTC-00007119

From: Bob Holert
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I would like to encourage you to finalize the Microsoft 
Settlement as agreed to by the nine states and the Federal 
government. Additonal time and expense seeking other remedies is not 
in the best interests of the public, the states involved, the 
Federal government or consumers. Those parties who seek to continue 
this litigation do not have any of the the aforementioned entities 
in mind but continue to seek remedies which are not fair to all 
parties.
    This litigation has come at considerable expense to the 
government and the economy. The cost to US world-wide technology 
leadership continues to escalate, again not in the best interests of 
technology US based leaders, employees of those companies or our 
economy. Those states who choose to continue the fight should do so 
at their own risk and expense since most have business bias or 
politics as the basis for their battle, not economic fairness and 
reality. I hope you would agree this country has far more important 
issues to address.
    I appreciate your consideration of the opinion I have voiced and 
implore you to finalize this settlement.
    Best Wishes,
    Bob Holert
    President
    Houser Martin Morris
    110 110th Ave NE, Suite 503
    Bellevue, WA 98004



MTC-00007120

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a veteran, patriot, taxpayer, and an American. My family 
all votes and is involved in caucus work and efforts to improve our 
homes, communities and our nation. I must recommend that you accept 
the Microsoft settlement as is.
    Do it immediately. The settlement will be a benefit to the 
nation, it will place dollars where they help the most, in the hands 
of the people. In short it will result in people helping people. Our 
nation was doing great until those greedy companies decided to sue 
Microsoft. Why? Because they thought like communists or socialists 
of the past that Microsoft had too much money and they should be 
forced to give to those who had less. Those companies and the states 
that joined them in the lawsuits should have gotten nothing. If they 
want to earn more money, let them earn it the old fashioned way, 
work for it or invent a better mouse trap.
    The companies and states that refused to accept the settlement 
offer should get nothing, the rest of America should refuse to 
patronize their states and they should be classed as un-American, 
not for trying to beg

[[Page 24885]]

for a buck but because of all the damage to the American economy 
this past year as their efforts resulted in devastation of the 
entire computer industry because of the apparent fear of what would 
happen to Microsoft.
    Then when the companies and states had a chance to help America 
and settle, their greed would not let them settle. Now they want 
more time, more of our dollars paying legal costs, while the real 
America waits for a good pay check and a job like they had before 
the lawsuits in the first place.
    Do your job, help America, enforce the settlement.
    Thanks,
    Richard B. Radke
    12432 Juanita Dr
    NE Kirkland, WA 98034
    [email protected]



MTC-00007121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: Enough is enough. The Microsoft case has drug on for 
over four years, and now nine states want to prolong matters. As a 
computer user, I have been helped by Microsoft`s inovation and 
creation of a standard platform. It seems one of the few U.S. 
industries that is on top of its game and not in the hopper (must I 
remind you of the US auto industry, big steel, the railroads, 
Boeing, etc., etc., etc.). Let`s get on with the settlement that DOJ 
and Microsoft agreed to and stop these idiot states from trying to 
remedy an issue that simply does not exist.
    Yours truly,
    David Hendricks
    [email protected]



MTC-00007122

From: Denoy, David
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 6:33pm
Subject: Let the Settlement Stand
    As an IT professional who has willingly embraced the MS paradigm 
BECAUSE of the interoperability it affords me, I want this nightmare 
of persecution to end! It makes for a difficult planning/assessment 
and deployment of MS technology when we don`t know if the products 
are going to be gutted and if we`ll have to uninstall versions in 
order to appease a small bunch of unsuccessful competitors who wish 
to retain their high priced market shares (Sun and Oracle). In case 
no one has noticed, there are a number of market niches that MS has 
wisely stayed out of, allowing other technologies. If the world is 
so afflicted by the dominance of MS, why haven`t there been massive 
shifts over to Linux, if cost is a consideration? O/S was touted as 
having several superior features and yet developers never produced 
the applications necessary to make that O/S a success. We select the 
products we need based on how they serve our needs, not by 
publisher. When I buy a book by a favorite author, I am not at all 
concerned with who the publisher is . . . I read the book 
because of the author!



MTC-00007123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:27pm
Subject: comments on settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement, and the court should approve it 
as presented.
    While the Court has no authority to modify the setttlement, I am 
concerned that the Court may be attempting to do just that by 
suggesting that it will not approve it unless Microsoft agrees to 
pay the $1 billion education amount in cash. The $1 billion 
payment_in the form of computing materials provided to 
schools_will be a signficant leg up for many poorer schools 
across the country; thus, the settlement will benefit the 
`public' directly in a very real way I doubt that 
requiring the $1 billion to be paid in cash would end up having the 
same public interest benefit.
    Settlement is also in the public interest because the Microsoft 
litigation has been a drag on the U.S. economy since the case was 
filed. Certainly there have been other factors at play since the 
litigation was filed, but the continuing litigation and the 
uncertainty that it has created throughout the technology sector 
have clearly been important factors in the country`s continuing 
recession. It is important to ensure that Microsoft plays by the 
rules, but it is also important that the rules be written at some 
point in time, which is what this settlement does. Unfortunately, 
because some states have chosen to continue litigating against 
Microsoft, it is likely the drag of the Microsoft litigation on the 
economy will continue, although one would hope to a lesser extent.
    Peter Mounsey,
    Denver, CO



MTC-00007124

From: Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    Please LEAVE Microsoft Alone!. I have used their products for 
years, and I am totally satisfied with them, and the assistance they 
provide regarding their products when I ask for it. I truly 
appreciate you looking out for me as a consumer, but I must tell you 
that Microsoft has done nothing but good things for me, and I see no 
reason why another software company could not be competitive with 
them if they so choose to, other than the fact that they have been 
left in the dust!
    Thank you,
    Gerald T. Cox
    Traverse City, MI



MTC-00007125

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Now that the Justice Department has spent untold millions of 
taxpayer dollars harassing Microsoft and has finally reached a 
settlement it is time to move on. It appears to me that the Justice 
Department would have better things to do with its time and money, 
like fighting terrorists who want to destroy America, than 
attempting to destroy an innovative company like Microsoft that has 
contributed mightily to the American economic engine over the past 
decade.
    Sincerely,
    Nolan Sieg
    [email protected]



MTC-00007126

From: Flo Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to subject litigation, I have never agreed that 
Microsoft owed anybody anything. Microsoft does exactly what ever 
other software giant does. They try to get you to use their 
products. AOL does exactly that. They have such a monopoly on 
accessing the internet it is ridiculous. You can`t even get to an 
internet site without having to go to an AOL site first. They put 
their software in vendors packages and when you install software, 
AOL gets installed whether you want it or not. This is true of many 
companies. It`s called, marketing. I think whatever happens with 
this litigation against Microsoft that it is minor. They are what 
made tech America what it is today. From DOS to windows, it`s the 
American Way.
    Florence Bradley



MTC-00007127

From: Richard(038)Lois Chandler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice Dept. With the world in a recession and the local 
economy here in the Seattle area tanked, the last thing we need is 
more lidigation against MS so the trial lawyers make a ton of money 
and a few states can hope to get some free money for their 
treasurers. Lets remember that the consumers have never had a 
problem with MS products. This legal suit was never about the 
publics complaint with MS. They have just been too sucsessfull for 
some of their compeditors. . . . Lets get it over and 
start to improve the tech sector now. . . .
    R.A. Chandler
    [email protected]



MTC-00007128

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please go ahead with the goverment settlement as soon as 
possible.



MTC-00007130

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle and let Microsoft get back to what it does 
best_stimulating the economy!
    Jody Cofoid



MTC-00007131

From: Linda N. Chiappetta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement should be done as soon as 
possible. I believe it would be good for the economy. I think it was 
no coincidence between the decline in the stock market and the DOJ 
battle last year. I think it would hurt the consumer not to settle. 
I

[[Page 24886]]

think Microsoft should have been praised for being one of the first 
software companies. Bill Gates is a genius in my eyes and deserves 
credit for his contribution.
    L. Chiappetta
    6629 Raleigh St.
    Hollywood, FL 33024



MTC-00007132

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am happy with the settlement that has been reached with 
Microsoft. I think the public would be far worse off if there were 
too many operating systems. The choice of software would be too 
limited.
    Thank you,
    John Rutter
    64 W Jeffrey Lane
    Des Plaines, IL 60018



MTC-00007133

From: John Yuh-Chung Wang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is really good for public. Microsoft can focus 
again to improve its products, which eventually benefit majority of 
the public. I also foresee Microsoft`s Windows product will continue 
to dominant in the PC arena. It`s good to put some monitoring 
systems in place that Microsoft will be reminded its obligations and 
responsibilities. This will greatly benefit the public. Overall, I 
support the settlement and appraise the steps taken by the 
department of justice.
    *Please note the new office phone number below*
    Tks ! JW
    (425) 706-8556 (o)
    (425) 785-8891 (c)
    http://www.microsoft.com/MSpress



MTC-00007134

From: Ross Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is quite reasonable and the rest of the 
crazy states should get on board and stop beating up on an American 
icon.
    Ross Hunter
    8208 Overlake Drive W
    Medina, WA 98039



MTC-00007135

From: Dan Dunaway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear wealth re-distributors in the Department of Justice and in 
rogue states, I do not know the details of the decisions which have 
gone against MicroSoft. Nor do I understand why you and your ilk 
have attempted to punish the high-tech industry created by Microsoft 
with never-ending (and limitless) litigation (paid for by the tax 
payers) which destroys rather than builds.
    I do not need to know those details to recognize criminal 
extortion by the Federal Government. It is shameful that an 
enterprise such as Microsoft and a businessman such as Bill Gates, 
et al are being punished for their hard work and vision, presumably 
so you can loot their coffers for the benefit of society`s dregs and 
non-contributors. Do you think we can`t see what you are doing?
    You people should read Ayn Rand`s novel `Atlas 
Shrugged'. Your actions are merely a cheap replay of her 
brilliant scenario which truly depicts the brilliance of giants like 
Bill Gates and the mean-spirited thievery by government bureaucrats 
disguised as `social justice.' Your actions disgust me!
    Sincerely,
    Daniel H. Dunaway
    St. Louis, Missouri 63146



MTC-00007136

From: Shirley Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:31pm
Subject: Litigation
    Didn`t understand whether to send this to you & you would 
forward to Rep. Kay Granger Texas or what. I do not have her email 
to info. Are they back in session? They take more time off than 
schools & should use time to help our USA hungry children than 
keep up the litigation time against You.
    If they helped less fortunate Americans, like you do, it would 
benefit us all U.S. citizens.
    If more info needed let me know. Thanks for your ear.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley Adams



MTC-00007137

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please go ahead with the settlement. The government has spent 
far more money of this case than is reasonable. The other companies 
just want Microsoft broken up so they can have more of the pie. They 
don`t deserve it. Spend the money on the security of this country 
and to help NYC get as far back to normal as they can.



MTC-00007138

From: William D. Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a home computer user, I was appalled when Microsoft was 
initially directed to split. Whatever the policies of Microwave 
were, they did not hurt the consumer. In a period of great inovative 
expansion, the competition was very intense. Many companies did 
well, some failed, but Microsoft continued to offer new solutions at 
afforadble prices. Isn`t that what `free enterprise is 
supposed to do?'
    Therefore I was pleased to see a final settlement that required 
certain chages in the Microsoft Company poicies, but allowed the 
company to continue in a way that will provide new invations in the 
future.
    William D. Peterson



MTC-00007139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
    This is a trivial issue since it only affects people who buy a 
computer once every 3 or 4 years. The largest monopoly in the 
history of our country that costs everyone in the US every day of 
every year is the health care business.
    DO SOMETHING!



MTC-00007140

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement should be accepted. This 
company, which has enriched stockholders and raised the productive 
capacity of this country and the world, should not be punished for 
its success. Ideally the whole case should be dismissed, but at the 
very least I urge the acceptance of the settlement and dropping the 
harassment of a company that does so much good. Its competitors are 
seeking unfair advantage by having the government force their 
limitations on Microsoft, while Microsoft has never had any power 
to, nor tried to, forcibly keep its competitors from succeeding.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Zeigerson
    216 Walnut Street
    Garwood, NJ 07027
    (908) 654-3496
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007141

From: bernie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly the proposed mcrosoft settlement as it was made. The 
A. G`s from the states that dont agree want a `freebie' 
like the anti-smokers. I`ve had and used Microsoft products for many 
years and believe that the competitors that want to smash it have no 
complaints because anything that they offered wasn`t what the users 
wanted.
    Sincerely yours
    Bernard Borow @ [email protected]



MTC-00007142

From: Richman, David
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It is a shame that our Government wastes so much time, energy 
and money on such frivolous matters as this. Microsoft has created 
for our citizenry, both directly and through a trickle-down effect, 
a virtually immeasurable amount of wealth, productivity, employment 
and cause to pursue entrepreneurial aspirations. Limiting 
Microsoft`s pursuit of providing shareholders_and for that 
matter the public at large, the full effect of the Company`s best 
efforts is at best poor government. I feel that our society should 
remain one that is both Capitalistic and Democratic to its core. 
This means that sometimes the labors of some give them advantages 
over others. To take away Microsoft`s ability to labor to its 
fullest muddles the core of our society. We will look back someday 
and realize it was a mistake.

[[Page 24887]]

    Wouldn`t it be wonderful if those that so vocally call upon the 
Constitution as justification for twisted action held those 
unbendable words in higher esteem?
    David Richman
    [email protected]



MTC-00007143

From: Addison Hawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I understand that comments on the proposed settlement of the 
Department of Justice vs Microsoft lawsuit are in order. This being 
the case_Please believe that those of us trying to get the 
best value out of our computers on a daily basis for both business 
and personal benefit are in wholeharted support of bring this legal 
action to a close. A solution is long over due abd even if the 
proposed settlement is not in the best interest of all (Meaning each 
individual) it certainly is a compromise that is in the best 
interest of the `Total Community of Operating System 
Users'. Continued delay will only add to the untimate cost of 
the settlement which in the end result will then at some point be 
paid by the USERS. Enough is enough, let`s get both the government 
(DOJ) and Microsoft back to work on productive activity aimed at the 
future.
    Thank you for listening.
    Sincerely,
    Addison Hawley
    [email protected]



MTC-00007144

From: gene schnelz
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I heartily concur with the settlement as proposed. It is a must 
for our economy!



MTC-00007145

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:36pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I believe the settlement should be honored.
    Yours Truly,
    Jack Naparstek
    [email protected]



MTC-00007146

From: LELAND C DAVIS, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:37pm
Subject: Settlement-Microsoft
    To Whom it May Concern: I certainly hope that the agreement on 
the the above issue that has tentatively been agreed upon comes to 
fruition. As far as I`m concerned the matter has been debated in 
full and now must be finalized. The American public deserves and 
desires to end this confrontation.
    LELAND `LEE' DAVIS. Jr.



MTC-00007147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:39pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The `current' Court of Appeals Ruling is reasonable 
and fair to all parties involved and should stand.
    Edward & Alice Thebo
    2 Fen Court
    Savannah, GA 31411
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007148

From: John Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To further chastize the innovative goose[Microsoft] that has 
laid so many golden eggs,instigated and promulgated by a few worthy 
and not so worthy competitors and their lobbyists,legal and 
otherwise,would be,in my opinion, tantamount to a national disaster 
of our cherished environment of creativity.
    John R. Carter,M.D.Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer 
download : http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00007149

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I feel that it is time for the Government to patch things up 
with Microsoft. This problem that the Government created and then 
put the blame on Microsoft has done nothing but make my stocks go 
under the door mat. Please accept this settlement and lets move 
forward in 2002.
    Joe Bowyer



MTC-00007150

From: Larry J.Schexnaydre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m of firm belief that the settlement of the litigation against 
Microsoft was fair and equitable to all parties involved any more 
litigation would be very harmful to the economy and our Country .
    Larry J. Schexnaydre
    160 Murray Hill Dr.
    Destrehan,La.70047



MTC-00007151

From: David Felske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: MS settlement
    I agree that settlement now is best for consumers, industry and 
our economy. Please end this litigation.
    Sincerely,
    David E. Felske
    22532 N Sonora Lane
    Sun City West,AZ 85375



MTC-00007152

From: Richard Saul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: settle with Microsoft



MTC-00007153

From: Hazel (038) Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Just a note to say that as taxpayers we hope that the suit 
against Microsoft can be settled quickly and expeditiously. It would 
help not only investor confidence in the markets, but would send a 
clear message that entrepreneurs should feel free to continue to 
take business risks in this country and not offshore.
    Some states will hold out forever if it puts more $$ in their 
coffers. Please lets get this problem off our backs and get on with 
being free in America.
    Mike and Hazel Pearce
    Silverdale WA. 98383



MTC-00007154

From: Chris Schwarz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel your should go very easy on Microsoft and settle this 
case. Any further litigation/punitive damages toward Microsoft would 
only slow down the technology growth sector and would further slow 
down the world as a whole. They have been instrumental in creating 
technology innovations and developing the use of the internet.
    AOL would not be where it is today if Microsoft had not been 
around.
    There would not be millions of computer users.
    Libraries would not have internet resources.
    We are at a turning point in history and only you can do the 
right thing. Chris



MTC-00007155

From: Wesley Lum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think this issue has dragged on for too long. I hope that you 
are considering the current marketplace, and view practices of other 
companies such as AOL Time Warner, in the same light_in fact, 
I`m more worried about their domination of the Media industry than 
Microsoft. Please allow the settlement to go through, in today`s 
EXTREMELY competetive marketplace, this trial has already hurt 
Microsoft a lot. Let`s bring a close to events from 2001.
    wesley c. lum
    [email protected]
    http://www2.hawaii.edu/wlum



MTC-00007156

From: Bruno Sartirana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I found the Microsoft Settlement fair and in the best interest 
of both consumers and the computer industry. I hope that the States 
that have not agreed yet will settle on the same terms and stop 
wasting public money to the sole benefit of special interest groups. 
I speak as both a consumer and a service provider that appreciates 
the innovation and low prices only offered by Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 24888]]

    Bruno Sartirana
    President
    Apogeo, Inc.
    Software Consulting
    19925 Stevens Creek Blvd.
    Cupertino, CA 95014
    Tel: 408-725-7504
    Fax: 408-734-1657
    Web: www.apogeo.com
    Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00007157

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I think the settlement agreed on by the justice department and 
nine of the states is fair . I also think it would be good to go 
ahead and settle this and move on.
    Cebron R. Morris



MTC-00007158

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams;
    Please note that I support Microsoft`s position in the antitrust 
case.
    Joseph Sapienza
    Park Ridge, IL



MTC-00007159

From: William Storey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:40pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    TWIMC:
    Having watched this case for years, I thought you should know 
that I support the settlement, and oppose all efforts by the states, 
particularly the AG`s from Connecticut and California (my home 
state), to levy additional penalties on Microsoft.
    I think the case was a farce from the start, and nothing more 
than an attempt by Sun Microsystems and others to get the government 
to defeat a company they could not beat in the free market. The 
sooner this case is ended, the better.
    Sincerely,
    William L. Storey



MTC-00007160

From: Larry Pitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to cast my vote for the recommended settlement of the 
Microsoft company and I personally do recommend any further 
litigation. Forward March.
    L Pitts



MTC-00007161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    A reasonable settlement has finally been found. After all the 
time and money put towards this effort, I believe we are all at a 
place where we need to settle this case and start focusing on 
building a strong and safe America for the future.
    I applaud the intense push for settlement. When pushed hard 
enough, it`s amazing what both sides can do together.
    Thank You,
    Bridget Bakken



MTC-00007162

From: J. Cashwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom this Concerns,
    My personal opinion of the suit against Microsoft is that it 
should have never happened! As a consumer I have a choice to buy or 
not to buy a company`s product. I have a lot of Microsoft software 
and until another company can prove to me that their software is 
superior to Microsoft`s and easier to integrate and use, I will 
continue to use Microsoft products. Microsoft has an overwhelming 
following and thus market share because they produce and support a 
superior product. I have tried the `competitions' 
software and was not impressed when compared to Microsoft software. 
If a company wants a hefty chunk of the market and has to compete 
with an industry leader then they better make a product that is far 
superior and more affordable than the industry leader`s product 
until they have unseated the leader and afterwards they had better 
keep the standards up. The `bundled' software did not 
force me to use anything I didn`t want to use. I could install and 
run another companies software if I felt the need. If anything, the 
bundled software was more convenient to me as a consumer. I believe 
there are a few bottoms that need spanking for starting this mess to 
begin with and Microsoft is not one of them. It reminds me of the 
spoiled kid on the playground running to Mom crying because little 
Johnny is faster and smarter when playing tag. In this case, Mom 
(the government) should have never gotten involved and should have 
left it up to the kids (the companies) and their friends (the 
consumers) to work it out on the playground. This country was built 
to support free enterprise and now we have a major step towards the 
government having too much control where it doesn`t belong. Give the 
consumer credit! If we don`t like something, we aren`t going to 
support/buy the company`s products. I won`t even get into the fact 
that there have been so many technological advancements since this 
suit started. I`m in favor of no action against Microsoft, but since 
that is an unrealistic expectation, I`m in favor of extreme leniency 
in terms of a settlement with Microsoft and therefore consider what 
is tabled to be the strongest action that should be exercised 
against Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    Judy Cashwell



MTC-00007163

From: Malik Nash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The terms of the proposed settlement as they currently exist are 
far too lenient to provide an effective remedy to monopolistic 
practices by Microsoft. It completely fails to address the most 
egregious abuses committed by Microsoft. It leaves intact the most 
serious liabilities that competitors face when confronted with the 
Microsoft monopoly:
    1. The inability of PC makers to fully customize the default 
appearance of the Windows `desktop' as well as the 
configuration of so-called `middleware' components.
    2. The inability of independent software developers to obtain 
information on Microsoft APIs in a timely manner, and without 
entering into licensing agreements that would make it financially 
infeasible to develop products that are compatible with Windows.
    3. The inability of small developers to feature their products 
on the Windows desktop. In sum, Microsoft has exercised monopoly 
power not through the configuration of its own operating system, but 
rather through the domination of distribution channels, by using a 
combination of licensing arrangements, pricing schemes and discounts 
that are explicitly designed to prevent competing products from 
coming to market. Now, the Justice Department proposes to become 
complicit in Microsoft`s abusive practices and perpetuate the 
company`s ability to obfuscate and evade the law, leaving consumers 
and businesses with no reasonable prospect of seeing choice restored 
to the marketplace. Acceptance of the proposed settlement would be 
an unconscionable capitulation to unrestrained greed. I urge the 
Justice Department to uphold it`s trust, and create an effective 
solution that will restore fair competition.
    Sincerely,
    Otha M. Nash
    Columbia, SC



MTC-00007164

From: Ruth Lorenz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    For the good of our country and the economy, I believe it is 
time to move forward and approve the settlement agreed upon by all 
parties. Let us not drag this on any longer in the courts. We need 
to concentrate on building up the economy and strengthening our 
country for the future of our children and grandchildren.
    Sincerely,
    R. Lorenz



MTC-00007165

From: Tony Sabbadini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Department of Justice,
    Thank you for showing concern for the American consumer with 
regard to the Microsoft Anti-trust case. As a consumer, however, I 
feel that by opposing the recent settlement between Microsoft and 
the US DOJ, one lengthens an already costly trial and

[[Page 24889]]

casts more uncertainty over our economy. The settlement addresses 
the most important issue that originally brought about the anti-
trust case: Microsoft`s bullying of the original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs). Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft can 
no longer punish (by raising prices) the OEMs for offering competing 
software vendors` products on the Windows Desktop. To make sure 
Microsoft acquiesces, three on-site compliance agents will monitor 
the company closely. These steps have a net effect of offering the 
consumer more choice. Thankfully, the settlement does not place any 
bundling restrictions on Microsoft. Although many criticize this 
Microsoft practice (primarily competitors...), bundling gives the 
software customer seamless integration and a lower total cost of 
ownership. If Microsoft has done anything to benefit the software 
customer, it has created a platform universally available across the 
world at a relatively low price. I urge the adoption of the 
settlement.
    Thank you,
    Tony Sabbadini
    (650) 345-9551



MTC-00007166

From: David Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen, The lawsuit was initiated far too early in the life 
of a new company-Microsoft. The company has grown rapidly and has 
gained substantial marketshare but at the same time it created vast 
numbers of job and enterprise opportunities for others. And 
competition was beginning to rise up against Microsoft. If the 
company had been left alone natural competitive forces probably 
arisen evened the playing field. In any event enough damage has now 
been done to Microsoft and to the economy. Lets put it behind us and 
wind up the affair.
    David L. Samders
    [email protected]



MTC-00007167

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the Microsoft antitrust suit should be settled in its 
present form. We were told the break up of Microsoft would increase 
competition and improve the prospects of other companies in the tech 
area. It is interesting to note that, based on the stock market, it 
has had absolutely the opposite effect. Judge Jackson`s decision, 
when announced, caused the market to go down not up. Let`s conclude 
this matter now. It will help the economy recover.
    Jim Lowell



MTC-00007168

From: Patrick Halstead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the documents related to the settlement, and 
would like to comment that I strongly favor a settlement in the 
Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Halstead
    Kirkland, WA 98033
    425 739 9447



MTC-00007169

From: Gregory Markow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gregory Markow
    114 Giffords Lane
    Staten Island, New York 10308
    631-831-6438
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been employed in the Information Technology industry for 
just over two decades. Prior to Microsoft Windows and Office 
becoming popular, the industry was dominated by another company who 
delivered excellent products and services. It was a company that 
epitomized the ???Made in America??? slogan even before it became 
fashionable. That company was and still is a great company. It was 
also the subject of an antitrust suit before such suits were seen as 
sources of income and revenue by litigants and their 
representatives. That company is named IBM and it agreed to operate 
under a consent decree for its good and the good of America.
    I am also a Microsoft shareholder. I am an expert in the 
industry and elected to purchase Microsoft shares because I saw in 
Microsoft a company that embodied the spirit of American innovation 
and business leadership. I admire the companies??? leadership and 
their commitment to constantly providing more product capabilities 
at a good value-for-dollar.
    Microsoft???s products became predominant in the industry not 
because of an abuse of market share but because Microsoft provided 
the best products. I personally worked with almost all of the IBM 
mainframe operating systems and products. I also personally worked 
with almost all the various Unix and PC operating systems, 
development tools and desktop products. Microsoft consistently 
provided products that met or exceeded industry expectations.
    I believe that the States are being motivated by the possibility 
of large settlements similar to those of the Tobacco industry. The 
Microsoft competitors who are trying to extract a harsher penalty 
are those who cannot compete in the market and therefore must resort 
to the government and the courts. I was a Unix systems programmer 
and I must tell you that Windows was always and is today far easier 
to work with and configure than any Sun configuration; take a look 
at the cost difference between Sun administrators and Windows 2000 
administrators. You will find that everything in the Sun Solaris 
market space to be more expensive. I was also an Oracle database 
designer. We used to joke about Oracle. We said that Oracle ran on 
everything but did not run well on anything. Oracle gained market 
share because it had little competition in its market space. I would 
offer that the companies who are lobbying against a Microsoft 
settlement are all suffering from Gates envy. The CEO???s of Sun and 
Oracle disgust me by their petty words and actions; I am also an 
Oracle shareholder. Microsoft is a great company and it is also a 
monopoly. The DOJ should apply restrictions and monitor the company 
so that it cannot use its monopoly position to gain unfair 
advantage. Microsoft does have the right to compete aggressively. 
This is after all, America.
    It is also interesting to note that because Microsoft is the 
current legal target of the aforementioned competitors that they and 
the DOJ are neglecting another monopoly company; IBM. IBM has no 
competition in the mainframe market space. Such competition ended 
with the demise of Amdahl. I would offer that both Sun and Oracle 
are beginning to take note of IBM because of the inroads that it is 
making into their market share. I would also suggest that they will 
shortly come crying to the DOJ and stating that IBM is competing 
unfairly.
    Truthfully, these are all great American companies. It shames me 
to watch them fight like children and then call their parents, the 
Government, when they fairly loose.
    Microsoft deserves this settlement. America deserves this 
settlement. We need to maintain our preeminent position in the 
Global marketplace.
    Thank you all for your hard work and perseverance. You have made 
me proud, once again, to be an American!
    Gregory Markow



MTC-00007170

From: Doug Tilden_MTC Corp
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As user of Microsoft enterprise products, a shareholder in 
Microsoft and an American who is very concerned with the directions 
that this case has taken, I urge that the settlement of this case be 
accomplished.



MTC-00007171

From: Don Farrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs & Madams,
    As a teacher trying to help others benefit from the use of the 
computer I was very frustrated in the 60s, 70s and 80s by the many 
different languages and programs. Each was useful in its own 
way_but it was extremely difficult to pass information from 
one language or program to another.
    To compound the issue, each computer manufacturer tried to 
differentiate itself by issuing its own combination of default 
software. It was as if each private college tried to differentiate 
itself by teaching in it`s own unique language. Each college could 
produce useful work within its own people but the useful work would 
not benefit many because of the difficulty sharing with those beyond 
a limited confine.
    I am most impressed with Microsoft`s attemps to provide a wide 
set of software that can pass information between its parts. I also 
understand how useful it is for Microsoft to impress on computer 
manufacturers a set of software standards if that manufacturer is 
going to include Microsoft software.
    For the good of computer users I hope that the current antitrust 
case can be settled in

[[Page 24890]]

such a way that Microsoft can continue its work of making software 
and computers compatible.
    Don Farrand [email protected]
    CC:Don Farrand



MTC-00007172

From: Robert Irvine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ
    I have been a customer of Microsoft products since 1995. If it 
were not for their software and help in that was given me, I could 
not have started and maintained my home business. It is time to 
settle this case and do something more productive.
    Sincerely,
    Robert H Irvine
    1014 Centre School Way
    West Chester, PA 19382-7659
    Phone: 610-696-7486
    E_mail: [email protected]



MTC-00007173

From: Ron Sargent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    Please settle this outrageous Microsoft lawsuit as soon as 
possible! Microsoft is one of the best companys that has ever been 
created in the history of the world and has been responsible for 
more wealth in the hands of the working man than any other. We in 
the Pacific Northwest love our company and want to see it proceed 
with new and innovative products without any more interference from 
Government! If government is so worried about monopolys dominating 
the Free Market Place then I suggest you take a closer look at the 
U.S. Post Office or the Department of Education and clean up their 
acts before you attack a successful company such as Microsoft. Long 
live Bill Gates! He is my hero!
    Ron Sargent
    [email protected]
    P.O. Box 1397
    Elma, Wa. 98541-1397
    1-360-482-6305



MTC-00007174

From: Robert Furry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    As a concerned citizen and head of a small company computerized 
Information System, I feel that a settlement with Microsoft would be 
in the best interests of the consumer. We use Microsoft products, as 
well as others, to handle our day-to-day operations. It seems that 
as long as the litigation stretches out, we are at a standstill for 
better and better software products.
    It will cost us not only valuable time not spent on development, 
but also increased tax dollars to litigate as well as increased 
costs for future Microsoft products. We, as consumers, are in a no 
win situation faced with additional costs from both ends.
    To a large extent, the federal government has standardized on 
Microsoft`s Software as the choice for word processing, operating 
systems, spreadsheet applications, etc. used in conducting its 
business. The decisions formulated by government purchasing 
departments to buy Microsoft products were based on performance and 
price. Now, to say Microsoft has caused harm by providing better and 
cheaper products sounds more political than pragmatic. Thank you for 
considering my views.
    Robert W. Furry
    470 Leventry Road
    Johnstown, PA 15904



MTC-00007175

From: Charles E. Rothera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a teacher, taxpayer and member of the USAR for 15+ years, I 
am not happy with the way the Microsoft suit has been handled. I 
also am sure this problem has had a negative effect on the value of 
our young daughter`s stock in Microsoft. This court battle must end 
and it seems to me after reading many pages of the complaint, that a 
few jelous companies have been trying to destroy the innovative 
leader that Microsoft has been to the detriment of stockholders and 
consumers like us.
    Thank you for your time,
    Charles Rothera



MTC-00007176

From: jabien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:47pm
Subject: I appreciate the chance to voice my opinion on the 
Microsoft case.
    My feeling is that we have come t I appreciate the chance to 
voice my opinion on the Microsoft case. My feeling is that we have 
come to a sad affair in this country when a few companies in 
California can influence congress and the justice department of 
Clinton administration. What that was all about anyway besides 
saying if you can not compete on your own merit go and collect 
flavors from local politicians. So here we are 3+years down the 
road, we are still going over the same old tired ground. The cartoon 
that showed the boys from California running to big government to 
solve they short coming, had it right. Personally I was never forced 
into using any part of a Microsoft product I did no want to used. I 
can down load any system from the net, that I please. I know enough 
about my computer that I can delete any object on it that I find 
objectable. I am certainly no computer expert. So if I can do it, 
anyone can. I also find it highly laughable that the AJ`s in the 
remaining states are fighting for what they call the general public 
interest. It would certainly be interesting to see the tax payer 
bill that has been run up in the name of so called consumer 
interest. Personally I would like to see my taxes used in a more 
responsible why. I feel right now in this time of more important 
issues that seems to be a case of much to do about nothing other 
certain lawyers ego`s and let justice turn a blind eye. Let `s get 
on with what important in the U.S. Let the Justice department 
agreement with Microsoft stand and put the tax payer dollar go 
towards more important issues.John A. Bien



MTC-00007177

From: David Gayvert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Ma`am:
    I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed 
settlement of the alleged anti-trust case against Microsoft. It is 
clear that the public interest will be served by putting this most 
unjust lawsuit to to rest.
    It is critical to note that the action against Microsoft was not 
initiated in response to any significant complaint by consumers at 
large, but by Microsoft competitors who seek to gain in the courts 
what they cannot in the marketplace. It is advanced by government 
officials who seek to enlarge their reputations, and in many cases 
to fatten their state treasuries at Microsoft`s expense. This 
cynical approach to promoting `competition' in fact 
erodes consumer and investor confidence in free markets and those 
who excel in them. Microsoft may indeed employ aggressive business 
practises, but at the end of the day, they earned their dominance in 
the industry by providing what people want. No one held a gun to my 
head when I purchased Windows 98 or MS Office, nor have I been 
prevented from using Netscape as my default web browser in lieu of 
Explorer.
    Real justice would require dropping completely the federal case 
against Microsoft and reimbursing it for the cost of defending 
itself against this most prejudiced of actions. As that is not a 
practical option, I reiterate my support for adoption of the 
proposed settlement of the case.
    Sincerely,
    David Gayvert
    1775 Regents Park Road
    Crofton, MD 21114



MTC-00007178

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that Microsoft Has done no more than what other companys 
do, Microsoft shouldn`t be hasseled anyfuther. Without Microsoft 
where would computers be. I fear that if microsoft was broken down 
than this will cause a globel effect, Inculding slowing the growth 
of IT as it is today.
    For any copyright laws that have been broken by MS than Yes fine 
them, but leave them alone for creating a good product. They need 
the money to make it work better...
    Mark Dyer
    ICQ#: 2964071
    Current ICQ status:
    
    * Home Tel#: 03 5444322 Mobile Tel#: 027 4115426
    * SMS: +27831422964071 / +64274115426



MTC-00007179

From: Charles E. Rothera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a teacher, taxpayer and member of the USAR for 15+ years, I 
am not happy with the

[[Page 24891]]

way the Microsoft suit has been handled. I also am sure this problem 
has had a negative effect on the value of our young daughter`s stock 
in Microsoft. This court battle must end and it seems to me after 
reading many pages of the complaint, that a few jealous companies 
have been trying to destroy the innovative leader that Microsoft has 
been to the detriment of stockholders and consumers like us.
    Thank you for your time,
    Charles Rothera



MTC-00007180

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentleman,
    The subject of the DOJ and Microsoft settlement should be put to 
rest. It is in the best interest of the public to do so now and let 
us all get on with the business of rebuilding this country. As a 
consumer I feel it is in the best interest for all concerned to do 
so. It`s time this countries justice departments should turn their 
interests towards fighting true evil and not self serving themselves 
with political bandwagon type of behavior. Get on with the businness 
of business and do it now.
    Captain Don Sherwood, AWA ret.



MTC-00007181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:50pm
Subject: Mcrosoft Settlement
    I hope that the settlement agreement being reached with 
Microsoft can be used as a way to correct an unfair antitrust 
ruling. I have always found Microsoft and it`s products to be fairly 
priced and innovative. I have never felt compelled to use them due 
to lack of competition. I feel that Sun and others are using unfair 
lobbying in a sour grapes attempt to sway the DOJ. I believe in free 
and open markets whereby the strongest survive. Minimal goverment 
interference in business keeps innovation alive. Please keep this in 
mind during your negotiations so that the next guy inventing 
something in his garage can proceed without fear.
    Michael J Baney



MTC-00007182

From: Z.G. Liang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:51pm
Subject: good settlement



MTC-00007183

From: Lou Incantalupo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please conclude the settlement of the Microsoft case ASAP to 
save taxpayers additional cost of litigation.
    Thank you,
    Louis Incantalupo



MTC-00007184

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    dear sirs please, to more litigation of microsoft. i believe the 
government settlement is just and fair. enough is enough. phillip 
and barbara gendreau



MTC-00007185

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This settlement is fair to all. PLEASE NO MORE LITIGATION ! Let 
us get on with our life. consumer: Don J. Buesen



MTC-00007186

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From A. Pozzuoli Clifton, NJ E mail, [email protected] 
Message. I feel that the settlement is fair and balanced. Microsoft 
did do the engineering and research, therefore they should be 
entitiled to the rewards. Tell the competitors to do their own 
homework.



MTC-00007187

From: William Wassinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone.
    I like the fact they bundle things in. It makes things very easy 
for me. It would be like buying a car then having to go find an 
engine then a transmission and so on.
    Let them do there job and you go catch terrorists.
    William R. Wassinger
    Rt. 2 Box 2012
    Wister, Ok 74966.



MTC-00007188

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Government Officials:
    Please quickly settle the Microsoft government lawsuit and let 
Microsoft get back to their business of providing consumers, such as 
myself, with outstanding software products.
    In my opinion, there never was an antitrust problem with 
Microsoft_beyond the politics of incompetence and total lack 
of understanding of the dynamics of business. Microsoft has provided 
consumers with outstanding products at a fair price. That is why 
their market share is high. That is also the basis of competition in 
a free market economy.
    It is time to let Microsoft get back to their business of 
developing excellent software products_without government 
interference. Consumers have generally benefited by Microsoft`s 
aggressive stance in the marketplace, and it time to finally resolve 
this issue. Microsoft`s marketplace strength globally is in my 
opinion an asset to the US, which should not be aided by government, 
but neither should its progress be impeded through legalistic 
harassment.
    William Impey



MTC-00007189

From: Z.G. Liang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm
Subject: good settlement
    DOJ:
    The settlement of the case is good, I totally agree with the 
settlement. It is good for all cosumers and the economy in the USA.
    Zhiguo Liang



MTC-00007190

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not spend more of my tax dollars disrupting Microsoft. 
Settle this issue.



MTC-00007191

From: Louis Hapeshis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the setttlement was fair. This country has much more to 
be concerned about than restricting the innovation of a comapany 
like Microsoft. Microsoft has totally changed our way of life for 
the better, and should be allowed to continue their innovation for 
the benefit of all.
    Louis G. Hapeshis, III



MTC-00007192

From: Stephen Bubanovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe that the Microsoft case should be settled now without 
further litigation. Microsoft has sufficient penalties in the 
settlement and further litigation would not be helpful to the 
industry, the consumer or stockholders.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen P. Bubanovich
    Home:
    16052 Baywood Lane
    Granger, IN 46530
    Voice: 219-277-8304
    Fax: 219-247-1241
    Mobile: 219-286-5258
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00007193

From: Sylvia Sur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that the Department of Justice is going to accept this 
settlement and move away from looking at Microsoft as the enemy to 
seeing Microsoft as the company that made computing affordable and 
accessible to all.
    I have some anti Microsoft friends who complain about the prices 
of software from companies like Quark Express, or Adobe who own 
their market niches and where Microsoft has no competitive entry 
products. The competitive software sells for $600 on the average 
street price.
    Whereas Microsoft sells the operating system and a whole host of 
applications for less than half that. Any one of these MS products 
could be sold for a lot more money.
    In short, if the Microsoft haters got their dream and managed to 
destroy this company, we would all pay more for software.

[[Page 24892]]

    And there are no usable competitive operating systems around. 
Have you looked at Linux, or BeOS or UNIX lately for ease of use? 
Most computers nowadays can be configured easily with more than one 
operating system. I do not see anyone doing this in spite of how 
easy it would be to have a machine that runs Windows and UNIX say. 
The other OS are really for computer experts to install and use. For 
most people, Windows is the easiest and most capable thing there is.
    Please let us honor this settlement and end this ongoing battle 
with one of the great companies in the USA. We have all suffered a 
lot financial loss in our 401K plans with what happened to the stock 
price of MS. The supposed savings from this lawsuit will never come 
close to restoring 1% of that loss.
    Sylvia Sur
    2177 Kenilworth Ave
    Los Angeles, CA 90039



MTC-00007194

From: terry clear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The entire case against Microsoft should be dropped. Microsoft 
has not harmed any person or company or state. All are free to use 
Microsoft`s products or those of their competitors. My employer uses 
Netscape Navigator as the company browser.
    Any person or company is free to create and market superior 
products. Let them do so. No person, company, or state has been 
harmed by Microsoft. Drop the entire case.



MTC-00007195

From: Orie Kelm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Settlement between the US Government and Microsoft appears 
proper to me. There should be no further action taken against 
Microsoft. Microsoft has not harmed me (the consumer) in its 
marketing policies and I appreciate the development of an operating 
system and internet browser that works well together. I am old 
enough to remember the old CPM operating system and I do not want to 
go back to that wilderness where everyone had a different system and 
could not interchange information easily. Enough is enough and no 
further action should be taken.
    The only people profiting from further action are the 
competitors who have pressured the politicians to harass Microsoft, 
rather than developing a better system. The Government has outlined 
the procedures Microsoft must follow and has installed a costly 
monitoring organization to keep watch. That is more than enough!!
    Orie Kelm
    216 Timberland Cir
    Kingsport, Tn 37664



MTC-00007196

From: wendy willson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:56pm
Subject: Settlement, PLEASE!!!!
    To Whom It May Concern @ the DOJ;
    This settlement with Microsoft IS fair and just. Please put an 
end to this endless litigation and let the FREE market operate as it 
was meant to.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy L. Willson (a Microsoft shareholder and, probably like 
you, a Microsoft-products user!) P.S. Incidentally, with Windows XP, 
I have had no problem what-so-ever using Realnetworks` products nor 
Corel Wordperfect. I have seen no conflict or `usurping of 
power' at all. They fixed it (those problems with Windows 98) 
and I can configure my computer any way I like. Case closed!!



MTC-00007197

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The government has alraedy done enough damage to Microsoft and 
other industries, in plain English, lay off!!! Go on sabbatical for 
@ 10 years and leave the populace alone with your greed for 
dollars at any cost. You`re obtrusive enough with your par-tisan 
politics and disregard for the country as it stands now. Please, 
STOP!



MTC-00007198

From: Norman Leathers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It is about time to get on with more important government 
business than dragging the law suite against Microsoft though the 
courts any longer at great expense to the people of this country for 
the benefit of lawyers and special interest groups. At least 
Microsoft has provided a standard of quality that other firms only 
dream of and the standards established by Microsoft have made the 
business of operating computers between computers much easier. If 
the government wants to spend some money they can start with all the 
hard things they never want to face up to: education, health care, 
retirement etc. Let Microsoft pay its fine as established and get on 
with it.



MTC-00007199

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies,
    Lets settle this once and for all. Its time to move on. The 
proposed settlement should be accepted by all parties just the way 
it is.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Thompson



MTC-00007200

From: Fletch (038) Jerry Burrus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In our opinion Microsoft, with it`s magnificent innovative 
techniques, is responsible for the United States being the leader in 
the new technical age. Please do all you can to settle this painful 
excercise in industrial jealousy. We must somehow get this 
disgraceful matter behind us and laud new techniques and innovations 
rather than punish them.
    Fletcher and Jerry Burrus
    7332-B- Huntsmen Circle
    Anchorage, Ak 99518
    (907)344-5020



MTC-00007201

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the settlement that has been ironed out go through. I 
think enough time has been wasted on this. Let settle and move on. 
We need to get back to fair competition and innovation.
    Thank you,
    Cheri Dial
    Schaumburg, IL



MTC-00007202

From: robertmanning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wednesday, January 2, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to say that it is time to settle the Microsoft 
affair. I believe that they have been unfairly hit upon and it is 
time to settle this affair and move on. I do think that the 
settlement as proposed is fair but the sad part is that this whole 
thing should never have happened. America cannot lose its creativity 
and innovation. We must not punish those that prosper just because 
they have prospered. I think that a bad thing has been done by this 
whole affair and hope it will not stop other smart people from 
acting on their own inventions and bright ideas.
    Sincerely,
    Betty Manning
    Houston, Texas



MTC-00007203

From: Kim S. Frazho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft case will lay to rest 
an issue that has been granted too much time and money already. It 
will better serve the public as well as industry if the case is 
closed and we move on to help get the country back on it feet again. 
With the events of 11 September still very fresh in our minds, let`s 
move past this problem and start working on other more important 
issues facing our economy, industry and the nation. Further 
litigation will only pour good money (and energy) after bad.
    Please settle the case and start fighting those who will bring 
down our society rather than one who has gone to great lengths to 
make it better.
    Let`s think of Microsoft as we do our country...It isn`t 
perfect, but it`s better than the rest.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions, I can only 
hope they will do some small good.
    Kim Frazho
    105 Michigan Ave.
    Houghton Lake, MI 48629 989.366.6000



MTC-00007204

From: niewijk

[[Page 24893]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I would like the U.S. Department of justice to know my opinion 
on the the Microsoft case. I am a business owner myself, having run 
our family business for 43 years. I know what it is like for 
competitors to `cry foul' and spend their time chipping 
away at the integrity of my business rather than producing a 
`better mousetrap'. Let`s not let the same thing happen 
to the tech industry that happened to the U.S. automakers in the 
late seventies and early eighties. Let`s let the `mop 
flop' where it will in this technology war.
    PLEASE LET THE BEST COMPANIES COMPETE!!!
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE! IF THESE `WHINERS' CAN`T 
STAND THE HEAT, THEY NEED TO GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN. THANK YOU FOR 
THE OPPORTUNITY.
    Sincerely, David Niewiek
    PARIS MOTORS INC.
    GRAND RAPIDS MI 49548
    6162925008



MTC-00007205

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DOJ: In my opinion, it is time for us to get on with business. 
Microsoft should never have been indicted in the first place. Yes, 
they are tough, agressive competitors. But the witch hunt which was 
begun during the Clinton Administration was political, and was 
precipitated by a couple of cry babies named Larry Ellison and Scott 
McNealy. I am a share holder in Microsoft, Oracle, and Sun 
Microsystems. While Gates and Ballmer continue to innovate and look 
to the future, Ellison and McNealy wallow in self pity. One need 
only look at their annual reports and stock prices to see who`s on 
the right track. Intense competition is the American way. Let the 
judgement stand, counsel the nine renegade states to get aboard with 
the rest of our country, and let`s encourage the technology industry 
to do what they do best_innovate. It is an injustice to hold 
the world`s economies hostage_to any degree_to this ill-
found litigation which was based on feeble claims by Ellison and 
McNealy, and carried out_but never proven_by litigators 
influenced by personal agendas, and an industry vendetta. I 
encourage you to close the books on this case (no pun intended, as I 
believe Steve Case was the third proponent of this misdirected 
prosecution!). Thanks for your consideration. Peter C. Pallette, 01/
02/02
    CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00007206

From: ROBERT YOUNG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As taxpayers we would like you to stop dragging this Microsoft 
legal action on and on.
    Why can`t you let a company in America be a success? All this 
back and forth in court all these years and it probably makes the 
difference of almost nothing to the consumer_they don`t care 
about it_they just want to have Microsoft left alone.
    Microsoft does so much good, keeps so many people employed and 
you just need to stop making their lives misery and everyone else 
around the company feel that their government wants to persecute 
people for their success. Find something else to do and let 
Microsoft go on doing what they do best_prove that America has 
the brightest brains and ideas and can lead the world.
    Robert and Linda Young



MTC-00007207

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a taxpayer and consumer, i urge you to push for the agreed 
settlement with Microsoft and not let the 9 rogue states continue to 
waste the taxpayers money
    sincerely,
    Michael Smith



MTC-00007208

From: Scott Stadelhofer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do everything possible to finish and resolve favorably 
for the shareholders of Microsoft the case against Microsoft. Too 
much is at stake in the U.S. economy to delay it any further.
    Thank-you.
    Scott R. Stadelhofer
    [email protected]
    703-641-9177



MTC-00007209

From: Steve Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft judgement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    As a private citizen, and user of Microsoft products, I`d like 
to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft case. As a consumer, I 
believe that Micrsoft has not harmed me one bit. Quite the contrary, 
Microsoft has been extremely beneficial to me in my personal and 
professional life. To carry on bullying this national treasure would 
certainly be an injustice to the American people. The settlement is 
very fair, and this should be the end of it. Many of the companies 
that started this whole mess would not even have existed if it were 
not for the inovations provided by Microsoft. Microsoft both 
directly and indirectly are responisible for the fantastic increase 
in US technology and the jobs it has brought to millions.
    During this time of economic uncertainty, we need to put this 
behind us (and allow Micrsooft to do the same) so we can concentrate 
on things that are more important.
    Regards,
    Steve Cohen
    46 Oakridge Dr.
    Williamsville, NY 14221
    716-689-8270



MTC-00007210

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement should be finalized without 
further action, hearings, or anything else. In these trying times we 
need to get back to business.
    Ann Bilan
    P. O. Box 463
    Lakewood, CA 90714



MTC-00007211

From: jsb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern: It is time to settle the microsoft case 
in the interest of the country, the consumer, and the world. 
Microsoft is providing real and badly needed jobs to our citizens. 
Please settle this case now. Thank you.



MTC-00007213

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sir,
    I am asking the Department of Justice to get the Microsoft issue 
settled as quickly as possible. This whole thing has taken way too 
long and is not only not good for Microsoft, but not good for the 
economy in general. The economy is slow enough right now and waiting 
for major cases to be settled only makes things worse.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Felman
    217 S. Lang Ave
    Pittsburgh, PA 15208



MTC-00007214

From: Cost-Research
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more for the world economy and the way we 
work than any other company in history, and now you want to punish 
them. This reminds me of the old kids game King of the Mountain. 
Once you see someone on top you try to knock them off it makes you 
popular, and that is what the DOJ is trying to do. These great 
lawyers are not doing this for the best of the people. They are 
doing this for very selfish reasons, they are doing this to:
    1. Make a name for them self`s so that later in private practice 
can say yes `I took on Microsoft'.
    2. Help a few cry baby companies that can`t compete in the 
market place and don`t amount to a hill of beans.
    3. Make money for themselves now, and for the future.
    4. Get their name publicized.
    If Microsoft was as bad as some of the lawyers are trying to 
make them out to be, all the states would have joined the legal 
action. As it turned out some did not join because Microsoft is an 
OK company, others walked away in mid stream, others feel they have 
taken this as for as they should. How

[[Page 24894]]

can you not draw any other conclusion? What makes some state 
attorney generals think that their state is better than other 
states? The only reason they want to keep legal action going is to 
keep their name out there. They are not doing it for me or anyone I 
know.
    It is too bad that a handful of lawyers can create this kind of 
mess under the protection of our legal system umbrella. A simple 
vote of all the United States attorney generals which would have 
represented all the people could have solved the problem. As it is 
now just a handful of lawyers can keep this thing going for their 
own benefit.
    The small dollar price we all paid for being able to work under 
one world wide standard is nothing short of amazing. Anybody that 
feels they been over charged for the operating system is not in 
touch with reality. Before Microsoft became Microsoft they could 
have come the all the US citizens and said, for a donation of 
$200.00 we will write a universally compatible computer program and 
people would have donated to get this wonderful technology. When 
computers fist started we had a number of operating systems, none 
compatible with each other. You had to buy programs and operating 
systems to match, which was a nightmare.
    We learned from the television industry which today has multiple 
systems, none compatible which each other. Try sending a video 
camera tape or VCR tape to Europe, it will not work. The same 
applies to other parts of the world. But today you can write and 
send a computer program or e-mail to any part of the world and it 
works. You can down load computer programs to and from any part of 
the world and it works and the DOJ is messing with this. Not even 
Netscape browser is compatible with many downloads. Many programmers 
will not even write websites to include Netscape because it quirky. 
Anyway I think we should leave Microsoft alone and let them invent 
new technologies rather than having to battle over what they can or 
cannot invent.
    Cost Research Corporation
    2608 Second Ave. #307
    Seattle, WA 98121
    Phone 425-313-0506
    Fax 425-557-6431
    Website: www.costresearch.com



MTC-00007215

From: Jim Laurel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed by the DOJ is adequate, especially 
considering that the issues behind this case are ancient history by 
the standards of the technology industry. The industry has already 
self-corrected.
    While desktop operating systems will always be important, they 
are no longer the only way to access computing resources, as users 
increasingly rely on PDAs, mobile phones and other devices to 
communicate.
    In these uncertain economic times, it makes no sense at all to 
continue persecuting one of the great companies the US has ever 
produced. Windows is a world standard and let`s not forget that it 
is also an AMERICAN standard.
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly should discourage the dissenting States 
from pursuing the expansion of sanctions against Microsoft and put 
an end to this case as quickly as possible. We do not need the 
ongoing uncertainty in the tech sector.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Laurel
    22600 NE 142nd Place
    Woodinville, WA 98072



MTC-00007216

From: The Intimidator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 7:03pm
Subject: Enough
    An agreement has been made and this should be put to rest. I 
still do not understand how the government is trying to punish a 
company for using good business strageies to furthur it`s products. 
Put this to rest and use the money you are wasting to good use where 
it is needed.



MTC-00007217

From: Harvey I. Salwen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Madams:
    I have been using computers since 1980 and clearly remember the 
chaos that existed in those days. Every application required its own 
operating system.
    At one time, I had seven operating systems.
    Microsoft brought order, compatibility, and economy to PCs. It 
is time for you to respect the adequate settlement that has already 
been proposed and let Microsoft get back to its business plan. Any 
further protractions on your part will become a total waste of your 
time and my money.
    Sincerely,
    Harvey I. Salwen
    817 Brushtown Road
    Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437



MTC-00007218

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft suit. 
Frankly, as a consumer of computer software for 20 years, I have 
welcomed Microsoft`s role in establishing standards for the industry 
and providing software products that work at prices that have been 
very reasonable. I do not feel that I have been harmed or damaged in 
any way by the way Microsoft has conducted its business.
    In the early days of home computing, much of the software was 
shareware that was written and distributed by individuals or small 
companies. In most cases these programs could not be integrated with 
other computer applications. As a result, it was necessary to leave 
one program before entering another. Because of the absence of any 
standards, data often had to be entered multiple times to feed the 
various software applications. If the industry had remained in this 
condition, home computing would never have grown and developed into 
the major industry it is today. Thus, in my view, Microsoft`s role 
has been far more beneficial than harmful. I believe it is vitally 
important to the computing industry and to the U. S. economy as a 
whole to bring this suit to a conclusion.
    John `Jack' A. Mitchell III
    1897 Beach Avenue
    Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
    Telephone: 904-242-8264



MTC-00007219

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop wasting taxpayer money, time and effort weakening 
one of the strongest industries in the USA. The net result of this 
whole inquisition will be a lot of small investors and taxpayers 
paying a big legal bill with no measurable benefit to anyone except 
the law firms and attorneys pursuing the case. Please look at all 
the external, credible threats to this country and not focus on 
weakening one of our few strong companies.



MTC-00007220

From: Paul L. Hoon
To: Microsoft
Date: 1/2/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    In regards to the Microsoft settlement, please take my opinion 
into consideration. I sincerely believe that this settlement is 
about as fair as it will ever get. I can guarantee that I personally 
will never purchase anything from those competitors that are causing 
all the ` stink`. I am also strictly against those 
States, (including my state of California) whose Attorneys General 
are helping to break up a company that has hired thousands upon 
thousands of employees, who help to operate Microsoft which is a 
great company with one of the best, if not THE best computer 
operating systems. Sincerely, Paul L. Hoon



MTC-00007221

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Let`s focus on getting America 
stronger..not weaker. Kindest regards, John
    Kelly Minneapolis, MN



MTC-00007222

From: Lucian Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlrmentt
    Please settle this case soon as possiable.
    _Lucian Robinson
    [email protected]
    _EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.



MTC-00007223

From: Dad
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/2/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Opinion,
    After 35 years in the Hi-tech business I am getting real tired 
of `want-a-be' companies doing whatever is possible to 
destroy Microsoft and place themselves in a position to gain on 
Microsoft`s losses.

[[Page 24895]]

    The settlement should not be time-constrained. Most of 
Microsoft`s objective`s have been and continue to be in the best 
interest of the consumer. They are one of the most agressive, 
creative companies in the history of Hi-Tech. They could stand to 
improve their pricing and licensing policies and related costs but 
should be commended for their approach towards the integration of 
multiple applications on a common platform. This is good for the 
consumer.
    Although Microsoft doesn`t do everything according to the law, 
they have been enormous contributors to standardization. Those that 
oppose them should spend more time `creating' products 
that contribute towards their growth rather than spending money 
looking for a quick `get-rich' scheme.
    How pathetic it is that when one needs someone to fail in order 
to allow them to succeed.
    Jim Krug Jr



MTC-00007224

From: john breyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mirosoft was the greatest driver for economic growth; it made 
computers available to everybody i the world helping the US and 
global economy. The big beneficiay has been the consumer while the 
competition tried and continues to try to derail such progress at 
the average people` expense. It is time to settle along the proposed 
terms so we can resume economic growth. It is not in the interest of 
the US and the average consumer to prolong this litigation. John 
Breyer, average consumer.



MTC-00007225

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Settlement
    I hope that you will let this settlement go through so that the 
issue is over. The economy needs resolution of the problem, so we 
can get on with business. This has gone on too long, and has 
probably had a lot to do with the economy downturn.
    Virginia Rood



MTC-00007226

From: etasullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle the microsoft case. In this time of economic 
uncertainty, the last thing we want is for some states and companies 
to drag out this case ... The argument that these states and 
companies make that prices would be cheaper only for microsoft 
dominating the field is bogus. Microsoft has made windows easy to 
use for the non tech person like me ...
    Margaret sullivan.



MTC-00007227

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Complaint
    DOJ_January 2, 2002
    If you can recall, about the time you took Microsoft to court is 
when the stock market went to hell. You`ve had enough time to 
investigate their actions so now lets get into the penalty phase. 
Microsoft has erred, but it has helped the United States and the 
World get into the new computer world. Without Microsoft, it may 
have been another 20 years in finding somebody to get it started. 
That name might have been IBM!
    Sincerely
    Len Tralmer
    CEO & President
    Mastercraft Images



MTC-00007228

From: Frank Montuoro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:11pm
Subject: We like
    Microsoft Settlement
    Frank Montuoro



MTC-00007229

From: Randle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    As a taxpayer, I am sick and tired of this MY government using 
taxpayer funds to harass innovative companies that offer a quality 
product to consumers. The Justice Department has spent more money 
over the past few years trying to destroy Bill Gates than they have 
trying to bring terrorists to justice.
    Why does government always try to punish the businesses that 
work hard, create product, and become successful? Instead, maybe 
they should take a few pages from Mr. Gates policy manual and try 
being productive.
    Gail Randle
    Geronimo, Texas



MTC-00007230

From: Jo Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    Please consider the consumer and get this monkey off the back of 
Microsoft.... they have been the recipient of unfair and biased 
influences from jealous competitors and greedy lawyers. The proposed 
settlement takes care of the situation. Please do not drag on and 
on.
    Joan Hawkins Berg
    a satisfied Microsoft cutomer who uses Netscape Navigator on 
Windows 98.



MTC-00007231

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:12pm
Subject: Re: Vote
    I very much agree that the litigation against Microsoft should 
be ended immediatly I feel that a lot of politics are involved and 
this should never of gone to litigation. We live within a few miles 
of Microsoft Headquarters and it has been a great boost to the 
economy. Not only here in the great Northwest but to the whole 
country.
    I have been a holder of Microsoft stock since 2/25/88.
    Please don`t let this drag on any longer. We need strong 
companies in our country. Don`t let jealousy rule!!!!!!!!
    Signed
    Martha and Edward Hammond



MTC-00007232

From: Morton M Vogel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is ludicrous to me as average person that this litigation is 
still continuing. When the US government is satisfied that Microsoft 
will do and perform in the specified way in the future, why should a 
handful be allowed to continue to impede any finalization of this 
matter. Instead of pumping money and effort back in to the economy, 
the government will continue to expend dollars (really needed else 
where in the economy) as will Microsoft.
    The only people who truly benefit by this continuous ad museum 
litigation are the lawyers. who deem this as their annuity. Perhaps 
if limits on legal costs were invoked, settlements will be arrived 
at a speedy rate. We also see certain states trying to exercise 
their muscle.
    It seem to me that the last time states refused to follow the 
federal government_dire events followed_are we to relive 
1861??? The time to finalize this entire matter is NOW. Our minds, 
efforts and money should be directed to getting the economy moving 
forward in both the public and private sectors.



MTC-00007233

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    01/02/02
    Ignore the special interests, get on with the agreed settlement. 
I don`t own any Microsoft stock or have any financial interest in 
the company or affiliated companies.
    I`m tired of whiney special interests running this country. The 
nature of computers, internet and allied industries is such that 
Microsoft or any other `big names' may not be viable 
within ten years.
    No one is served by prolonging this process.
    Very Truly Yours,
    Stephen A. Sevenich
    1241 S. Webster Ave.
    Green Bay, WI 54301-3008
    (920)-433-0970



MTC-00007234

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:13pm
Subject: The Injustice of the Microsoft Case
    To: The Department Of Justice
    I want the government to know that I feel that the original case 
against microsoft is a major injustice. I feel that competative 
technology companies that are only interested in improveing their 
market share by any means possibe and government officials who will 
do anything to get their name in the news have taken advantage of 
Microsoft and the justice system for their own advantage. I believe 
that if all the facts were known, that instead of Microsoft being

[[Page 24896]]

dumped on, that these competative companies and the government 
should be paying penalities to Microsoft. I think that we all owe 
Microsoft a great deal for being innovative and provided a service 
which helps us all. I admire Microsoft for being willing to accept 
some penality just to close out a case which had little merit in the 
first place in my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    James Roberts



MTC-00007235

From: eric riss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    The Microsoft settlement should proceed and this long case 
should finally be settled. The last thing we need is more 
litigation.
    Eric Riss, Ph.D.



MTC-00007236

From: Gordon (038) Dorothy Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:16pm
Subject: microsoft setlement
    I support Microsoft 100% and feel the government is complety 
wrong in trying to destrory the company.
    Gordon H. Day, Lodi, Calif



MTC-00007237

From: Marge310 Lawlor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:15pm
Subject: Settlement of Case
    I was happy to hear that finally, the Government and Microsoft 
had come to a decision to settle the case against Microsoft. I don`t 
know what the reason is behind some of the states that feel that 
they should receive more than they are being offered.
    I feel that this was a mischievous act by the previous 
administration to help Microsoft competitors. I never really felt 
that there was a case against Microsoft; since all the information I 
heard about it was untrue. Unless there was something more going on 
than the government or Microsoft would talk about. I just don`t 
understand and I hope that this administration has come to a 
rational conclusion and finally will end this ridiculous lawsuit.
    Thank you for your at least listening to an individual voter.
    Margaret M. Lawlor
    5617 South Homan Avenue
    Chicago, IL 606029



MTC-00007238

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:15pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SETTLE THIS CASE AGAINST 
MICROSOFT, IT HAS GONE ON FAR TOO LONG, AND BELIEVE A SETTLEMENT IS 
NECESSARY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY AND THE CONSUMER..
    THANK YOU
    AGNES GILBERTI



MTC-00007239

From: Elaine Mintz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let this settlement take place. It has dragged on for too 
long and we are sick of it. The problems with the dot coms all 
started after Microsoft was attacked and has spiraled downward since 
then. The dotcoms collapsed and too many people are now without 
work. The economy is in sad shape. Then September 11 happened and 
that made it worse. We the American people need to see this over 
with and let life go on. Microsoft has its faults but they are not 
guilty of all the accusations of which they have been and continue 
to be accused. The government needs a scapegoat and they have chosen 
them since they stand out like such a bright star.
    Elaine Mintz



MTC-00007240

From: Charles Perrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Government,
    Please drop the case against Microsoft. And use your influence 
to get the states to drop their actions as well.
    I have worked in high tech for 30 years. Microsoft is a great 
contributor to the user community and to the US economy. It is a 
terrible misuse of taxpayer money to pursue this case. This case was 
brought by jealous competitors, envious industry executives, gun-
for-hire lawyers and ambitious, overzealous government politicos.
    It is bad enough, the damage this case has already caused our 
economy and Microsoft, but every day of continuance nourishes 
European anti-American shakedown hacks, who, along with those 
certain American states, plot further extortion from Microsoft.
    DOJ has cost consumers millions in this case to date. Microsoft 
would have used the money wasted defending itself to have delivered 
more products/features at lower prices.
    I look forward to your earliest remedy by ending the case and 
admonishing publicly the hyped charges, demagoguery and witch-hunt 
misuse of the judiciary by Microsoft competitors (Sun, Netscape/AOL, 
Novell) and their willing state and federal accomplices (Boxer, 
Feinstein, Hatch, Boyes).
    Thank you,
    Charles Perrell
    Los Altos, CA 94024



MTC-00007241

From: elisabeth evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please lety the settlement stand and lets go on to newer and 
more inovations. Thanks, Elisabeth Evans



MTC-00007242

From: Dutchers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies:
    The time has come to settle the Microsoft Anti-trust case. 
Prolonging now will only bring more special interest groups out of 
the woodwork who apparently can`t stand the thought of direct 
competition.
    You and Microsoft have reached a settlement. Move on with it. 
Don`t permit a continuing platform for a few State AGs to 
pontificate that they are Saviors of the poor competitors like 
little ol AOL and Netscape. Don`t forget the consumer who will 
benefit from a quick settlement.
    Don Franklin
    Vaughn, Wash.



MTC-00007243

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please stop the stupidity.... Let`s get the settlement completed 
and get the show on the road. I have followed the proceedings for 
years and cannot believe you have allowed a few destroy what is good 
for so many. The only people left in the argument are those states 
that feel they have high tech companies they need to protect. Why 
should politics get involved with free enterprise?



MTC-00007244

From: lee roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:29pm
Subject: microsoft settllement
    i wish thdeptartmant of justice would get off of bill gates` 
back. he puts out a fine product. why don`t you go after guys like 
BILL CLINTON, now there IS a crook!@!!!!
    thank you very much



MTC-00007245

From: Duc Le
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I`d like to speak my opinion on the settlement. I share the 
views of Microsoft that a settlement is good for consumers, now more 
than ever before. This serves the public interests and consumers, 
and there is no need to prolong this litigation that benefits only a 
few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    The industry and the American economy wants a stable and healthy 
competition, not lawsuits. Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Hai-Duc Le
    21511 73rd Place W. #1
    Edmonds, WA 98026



MTC-00007246

From: Sandy Woolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion both as a consumer and a stockholder that it is 
not in the interest of the public and the economy that the Microsoft 
case should be further litigated. Special interests within these 
states still looking for more litigation have no reason not to 
accept the current settlement. It`s time to move forward and 
consider the public good.
    Sincerely yours,
    Sandra Woolf
    Spring Valley NY 10977

[[Page 24897]]



MTC-00007247

From: H. Benjamin Loseth, D.D.S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft and our court system has spent enough time, money and 
effort on this ill-gotten issue. Our economy needs companies that 
innovate and develop products and services, and the people employed 
by them. They support their families and pay taxes. Settle this case 
and move on to the important issues facing this country.
    H. Benjamin Loseth, D.D.S.
    Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
    [email protected]



MTC-00007248

From: Jim Baxter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a developer, nor an interested party. I am a systems 
administrator working with MS`s products daily. I have watched this 
company`s tactics worsen with each passing year.
    Please do not let them off with just a slap on the wrists again. 
This is one company that has proven time and again their intention 
to do whatever they want in pursuit of total dominance of the 
industry. Please, break the OS away from the applications groups.
    Leave IE with the OS if you have to, the problem isn`t IE, the 
core problem is that Microsoft writes everything, the operating 
system, the development tools, and the office applications. They 
have a vertical monopoly that they abuse to stifle innovation, crush 
competition, and dominate every market, no mater how small.
    If only you had broken the OS and development tools away from 
the applications division years ago when you had the chance.
    Please, do something significant to them.
    Jim Baxter



MTC-00007249

From: Frank Montuoro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:21pm
Subject: Frank Montuoro
    We Like Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00007250

From: Rotruck, Allen R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement reached by the Federal Government 
and nine states is more than adequate to address the ruling of the 
Court of Appeals. I feel that a few competitors have used the 
government to try to bring down their competition. Enough, please 
settle this and let Microsoft go on with their business, let the 
competition earn their position in the industry, don`t let the 
government take away from one company and split it up with their 
competition. Thank you for your consideration.
    Allen R. Rotruck, Director
    Electronic Parts Co., Inc.
    2620 Rhode Island St. NE
    Albuquerque, NM 87110-4699
    Phone 505-293-6161
    FAX 505-299-3174
    [email protected]



MTC-00007251

From: Elahi, Bijan (RDM)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US consumer and a user of Microsoft software. I believe 
Microsoft`s innovations and good software has contributed greatly to 
the productivity of the USA and the world. I hope that the DOJ 
quickly concludes the Microsoft settlement and ends this nonsense 
drain on this company`s resources.
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Just get it done_fast.
    Bijan Elahi
    425-376-1317



MTC-00007252

From: Norman Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft/Justice Dept. Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    My family was very pleased that the Justice Dept. and Microsoft 
reached agreement on the issues which surrounded the suit against 
Microsoft more than three years ago. We are very distressed and 
disturbed that several of the competitive computer companies want to 
continue this lawsuit in order to extract every last drop of blood 
that they can out of Microsoft, and at the same time feather their 
own nests. They have encouraged nine of the states attornies general 
to continue this pursuit, and, unfortunately, some of these 
gentlemen, including Blumenthal of Connecticut and Miller of Iowa 
are not altogether altruistic in their desire to garner headlines 
for themselves.
    We would urge you to do all in your power and with your 
authority to bring this suit against Microsoft to a successful 
conclusion so that both Microsoft and its competitors can return to 
the job of producing the quality of products and services that we 
Americans want and need.. This have been a major distraction which 
has had its price, and to allow this small group of disgruntled 
organizations to continue this outrageous pursuit is beyond reason. 
Especially Sun Products & Oracle have both suffered major losses 
in evaluation of their stock partially as a result of this continued 
stalemate, and bringing down Microsoft will not do a thing to 
improve their lot in life. Only they can do that by paying more 
attention to their own R & D, and less to what other companies 
are doing.
    It has been said that `Politics is the art of looking for 
trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and 
applying the wrong remedies.'
    I am afraid that in this case this saying applies.
    Respectfully,
    Norman & Isabella Chapman
    CC:Norman Chapman (E-mail)



MTC-00007253

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm
Subject: (no subject)
    We need an engine to pull us out of this recession. Don`t impose 
sanctions that will cripple this excellent company. It appears that 
the government (Justice Depaartment) was acturlly an instrument of 
Microsoft`s competitors. Even after the government settled, the 
states (instruments of Microsoft`s competitors) wants to prolong 
this case. Lets move on



MTC-00007254

From: Alan R. Williams DVM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to ask that the Microsoft settlement be finished as 
soon as possible. Why is it necessary to drag this out? The time and 
money spent on addressing this issue is a total waste. Isn`t there 
something more important to spend our tax dollar$ on than addressing 
an issue that is no longer relevant?
    Please do us all a favor and settle this lawsuit ASAP. Let 
Microsoft get on with it`s business and address some issues that 
have some real relevance.
    Thank you alan
    Alan R. Williams DVM
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Home of the Tulip Festival



MTC-00007255

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;
    The settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. Please let the settlement stand and stop all of this 
useless and unfair persecution and litigation by greedy and profit 
hungry companies who are and have been consumed by bitterness over 
Microsoft`s success. Let the settlement stand!
    Thank you for your attention to this E Mail.
    Walter E Grauman



MTC-00007256

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ_
    Drop this case against MSFT, now! You people get something else 
to amuse yourself with. You and your State Attorneys General co-
conspirators have dragged this silly case on long enough. There is a 
settlement. The lawyers have had their snout in the trough long 
enough. Now, go after some things that really matter, i.e., for 
starters, Enron and Arther Anderson and their White House oil, gas, 
and power plotters; Cheney and his secret oil executives cabal; the 
files of previous administrations buried by Executive

[[Page 24898]]

Order. That ought to keep you out of the weight room for a while.
    G.D.Patterson



MTC-00007257

From: Beth Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm
Subject: I feel that the DOJ has been unjust to Microsoft since the 
beginning of their investigation. There I feel that the DOJ has been 
unjust to Microsoft since the beginning of their investigation. 
There are options if people do not want to use Microsoft products. 
Bill Gates tried to give some type of standardization to an industry 
which desperately needed it and was persecuted because a few 
companies could not do what he did. My opinion is to leave him 
alone.



MTC-00007258

From: jbonin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:25pm
Subject: economy
    the last thing america economy needs is more litigation



MTC-00007259

From: Tom Witte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let Microsoft get away with their illegal actions. 
Please insure they are given TIMELY, appropriate punishment. 
Something that corrects the problem, not the recent `let us take` 
education market for punishment.
    Do something you can be proud of. Something that makes the US a 
better place.
    Thanks
    Tom Witte



MTC-00007260

From: Kim Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement December 2, 2002
    To Department Of Justice.
    I`m very satisfied with the settlement between Microsoft and US 
Department Of Justice. The following is the main reason. As a US 
citizen is my duty to try my best to provide any information that is 
good for our country.
    I reviewed all documents related to the Microsoft and US DOJ 
case: Including `Complaint (5/18/1998)', 
`Stipulation (11/06/2001)', and `Competitive 
Impact Statement (11/15/2001)'.
    In the settlement package `Stipulation'.
    Page 4 III. Prohibited Conduct.
    Page 10 IV . Compliance and Enforcement Procedures.
    Page 17 V. Termination.
    Page 18 VI. Definition.
    Page 21 VII. Further Element.
    VIII. Third Party Rights.
    The Department Of Justice gave Microsoft a very strong order, 
more stronger than the competition complainted about. I`m very happy 
that Microsoft agrees to this final settlement.
    Sincerely
    KIM L PETERSON



MTC-00007261

From: Hans Huang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR DOJ: Please settle the Microsoft case and move forward,,,it 
is good for consumers, good for economy, good for innovatins.....The 
opposition companies such as Oracle, Sun Micro should spen their 
enery writing codes instead of law suit.... Hans Huang
    EVERY DAY IS A GOOD DAY
    Hans Huang, Executive QA Pgm Mgr, APQA
    IBM APSC; 3-2-31 Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan;
    Tel: 81-3-5572-2606; Fax: 
81-3-5572-2448
    Internet: [email protected] or [email protected]



MTC-00007262

From: be(u)an
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Honorable Judges:
    It appears after reading the documentation provided that the 
settlement is fair and reasonable to the consumer. It appears that 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft software products will be available to 
the consumers through various means when purchasing a computer.
    I support the Settlement that has been proposed. Anita C. Young 
,168 East 54th Street, Elmwood Park, NJ 07407



MTC-00007263

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have watched the proceedings against Microsoft now for nearly 
four years. All parties have had the chance to present evidence and 
have their say on how Microsoft has damaged them or helped them in 
terms of antitrust concerns. Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts 
of a few of Microsoft`s competitors, the Government and nine states 
have finally reached a comprehensive agreement. The settlement is 
reasonable and fair to all parties. I, as a consumer, agree that the 
settlement is good for me and I believe the agreement is also good 
for the industry and the American economy. Let`s wrap it up and move 
on!
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Berg
    29333 SE 64th St
    Issaquah, WA 98027



MTC-00007264

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Lets try and regulate the airlines 
instead



MTC-00007265

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Can`t you just leave Microsoft alone. Try naming just one other 
company that has put out so much software that almost everyone can 
aford it. Now you are tring to stop themfrom giving us even more for 
our dollar.
    Fred Sparrevohn



MTC-00007266

From: berkjen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my express opinion that further punitive action toward 
Microsoft would not be of any benefit to our country`s citizens and 
consumers. Microsoft and it`s products have attributed greatly to 
the progress of technology, to our country`s economy, to the way 
companies do business today, to the lifestyles of our citizens and 
the quality of education of our children and college students.
    It is also my opinion that the lawsuit against Microsoft has 
actually harmed our economy. I believe further punitive measures 
could actually hold back the growth of technology and hinder the 
consumer in the long run.
    I appreciate this opportunity to express my opinion on the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Inez M. Jensen



MTC-00007267

From: ROBERT BRUCE MASON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:32pm
Subject: Ongoing Case Against Microsoft
    I am a holder of 500 shares of Microsoft, but I do not submit 
this letter as a disgruntled stockholder, but as a concerned 
citizen. To set the record straight I also own stock in 45 other 
companies some, such as Sun Microsystems and AOL Time Warner, are 
Microsoft competitors. To be a competitor is one thing, but to use 
our political system (read that as Federal and State Government`s) 
to put down a competitor is surely a different matter. It has to be 
clear to everyone involved in this mockery of justice that states 
housing Microsoft competitors are being used (that is their Federal 
and State elected representatives) by these competitors to 
accomplish what they couldn`t do to compete. I hate to see a very 
successful business being persecuted because of their success. The 
money being wasted on government and private lawyers is disgraceful 
and angers me both as a stockholder and a taxpayer. We should be 
more interested in having more companies pushing technological 
advances and creating employment for our citizens than tearing down 
a company that has and continues to do just that. Obviously the 
current Judge and half the states believe a just punishment has been 
determined, please put an end to having private industry using the 
government to accomplish what they can`t do in head-to-head 
competition.
    Please put this case to an end, I for one am tired of supporting 
lawyers.
    Thank you for allowing us common citizens a chance to express 
our views on this matter. I expect that`s one of the reasons I spent 
over 30 years with the Marine Corps.

[[Page 24899]]

    Semper Fidelis,
    Bob Mason ([email protected])



MTC-00007268

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    The Administration`s support of the free enterprise system is 
laudable. Please continue in that direction and support a good-
spirited Microsoft settlement. The entire settlement options have 
come down to ego v ego. Use your enlightenment, Mr. AG, and direct 
your position away from bureaucratic character assasination. Mr. 
Ashcroft is a good guy, and Gates et al are also good guys. You all 
deserve credit for guiding America along a reasonable path.
    Sincerely,
    Lyon Hesse
    US Citizen & Hi Tech Supporter



MTC-00007269

From: Jay Contorer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:30pm
Subject: settlement
    Gentlemen:
    My feeling is this litigation has gone far enough. No one has 
ever been hurt by Mircosoft. They have in fact done a great service 
to the computer industry and to the users by their standardization 
of operating systems, creating order from the chaos that existed in 
this important area of computer use. I think it might be possible 
that the litigation urged by its competitors started the recession 
we are now facing. Enough is enough. The settlement is fair and 
should be finalized asap in my view.
    Sincerely,
    Jay Contorer



MTC-00007270

From: Karen Lonergan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to voice my thoughts on the pending Microsoft settlement 
with the DOJ. As someone who has used both Microsoft and it`s 
competitor`s software for years, I think the pending settlement is 
more than fair, and I encourage you to expedite this settlement as 
quickly as possible. As a consumer, I have always had a choice at 
which software products I could buy, and have frequently made that 
choice. I will also say, that after using many of the competitors 
software, I more frequently am choosing Microsoft, simply because 
they offer superior products for my needs. Their price is worth 
their weight in gold, and I find the pricing nominal compared to the 
increased productivity that is delivered to me.
    Those points aside, please settle this case as quickly as 
possible. THere are much bigger and better uses of the DOJ`s 
resources, than perpetuating this case.
    Regards,
    Karen Lonergan



MTC-00007271

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This misguided suit has gone on way too long. The people 
supporting it are only whining and need to be shut down. There is no 
way that the internet and computing in general would ever have got 
off the ground if not for Microsoft. While Microsoft may not be 
everyone`s favorite solution, let the computer elites come up with a 
better one that people will buy. In other words, let them build a 
better mouse trap or shut up!



MTC-00007272

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:34pm
Subject: microsoft
    Please stop the litigation and do not stifle innovation. Yours 
is only an exercise in futility. The lawyers are the only ones to 
profit. Remember we are at war and we need all the new technological 
advances that Microsoft can invent for us to lead into the future. 
thanks



MTC-00007273

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:33pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please keep the terms of the settlement and let us move on. To 
tie up our own tech giant in these times is nothing unamerican and a 
step back into disharmony.
    Dr ravi Patel



MTC-00007274

From: Roger McVicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement is in the best interest of the 
industry, the country and the citizens who have invested in not only 
Microsoft but in other companies of the Tech Sector which all have 
been effected by the protracted litigation. Approve the settlement 
and lets all get on with life and other more pressing issues. The 
Government has spent enough on this issue and there is a resolution 
in place. Roger McVicker



MTC-00007275

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I thought this matter would have been settled months ago. Get 
off Microsoft`s and the stock holders back unless you want it to go 
the way of Enron.
    John C. Scully
    2677 Park Brown Road
    Harrington, DE., 19952
    (302) 284-3785



MTC-00007276

From: Eric (038) Velena Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this mess! We have a company- Microsoft- who 
represents what this country was built on. Innovation!!! They did 
good and now the government has to stomp them down. The consumer 
loves their products. Please settle this case post-haste and let 
American ingenuity live on.
    A taxpaying voter-
    Jon `Eric' Jensen
    409 N. Edgewwod Dr.
    Coffeyville, KS 67337
    (620) 251-8766



MTC-00007277

From: Ruth Hartsook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am emailing to state my thoughts and support regarding the 
Microsoft settlement. I support this settlement and am hoping that 
there will be no chance that this litigation will be prolonged in 
any way. The last thing the American economy needs is more 
litigation that stifles innovation or diminishes our chances for 
economic recovery. Please understand that we, as a society, are 
concerned with greater issues than the battle against a great 
American company such as Microsoft. In my work in education I see 
the many contributions Microsoft makes to our youth, and therefore 
to our nation`s future and only hope. In these troubled times I 
believe most in our nation do not even recognize this settlement as 
an issue, and many are questioning whether it ever should have. Let 
us but this behind us.
    Please let this settlement come to completion. Let us focus 
collectively on real issues for our nation`s economic growth and 
genuine security.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth Moore Hartsook
    Instructional Technology Specialist
    Davidson County Schools
    Lexington, NC



MTC-00007278

From: Michael Fu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Michael Fu
    6 Shadowbrook Lane
    Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
    Dear Sir/Madame;
    After reading through the related documents to the settlement, 
I`d like to share some of my thoughts. To begin, I am a Microsoft 
stock holder. I also hold shares of some other technology companies. 
I bought Microsoft because of its unqiue (monopoly like) position in 
its industry. However, I also bought Microsoft stocks because I like 
its products. There are some features which Microsoft pushed hard on 
its operating system which I would rather not have. But in general, 
comparing to the other services, AOL, AT&T, Cable, Utilities, I 
like the Microsoft products best.
    Now, the main reason I am writing this letter. I am in agreement 
for most of the proposals except for `Java' and 
`Netscape' clauses. I am for Microsoft because I don`t 
think these parts of the case were brought by the right group of 
people. They were not for consumer, but for the competitors of 
Microsoft. The major proponents of this case are Sun, Oracle, AOL, 
and former NetScape.

[[Page 24900]]

I have used all of their products extensively. Some of their 
products are very good, but definitely not cost effective for the 
majority. They lost their market share to Microsoft not because of 
Microsoft monopoly but because of their strategies were not accepted 
by the consumer. The consumer would not want to pay several times 
more for his computing systems. By the way, on one hand these 
competitors are suing Microsoft for its monopoly, on the other, they 
try very hard to be the next Microsoft! I believe strongly, Sun, 
Oracle and their accomplices are not for consumer in general. 
Consumers would be hurt even worse. Also, there is no such thing as 
impeding technology innovations. As we have seen, most of the 
tehnologies of late 90s were hype and doomed to fail. The few that 
remain will stand regardless of Microsoft or not. It`s the nature of 
capitalistic market.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael



MTC-00007279

From: Everett Snelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is imperative that a settlement is made now. Do not hamper 
innovation. There is no evidence that the public has been hurt. 
Please settle now!
    Everett Snelson



MTC-00007280

From: Raj Sharma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    I have tried to follow the Microsoft court battle and am 
suprised it wasn`t thrown out of court!
    Microsoft stand accused of `bundling' software. 
However, I think that it was a great idea. As the owner of a 
technical support company, i appreicate the fact that the majority 
of users cannot install, configure or use a web browser. Micrsoft 
has helped the general public by provding this service. If Microsoft 
were `bundling' Netscape with Windows, I would be quite 
upset as my peers and I agree that Netscape is a far inferior 
product. Microsoft are giving me a pre-installed web browser which 
integrated into my operating system to provide me greater 
functionality.
    I thought the law was there to protect my interests, obviously 
the Americal Judical System has decided to join the Micrsoft bashing 
campaign!
    Best wishes to Microsoft
    Raj Sharma
    [email protected]



MTC-00007281

From: john kuzminski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:38pm
Subject: re:settlement
    I am in favor of microsoft settling their suit
    dianne koehler



MTC-00007282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think enough damage has been done to Microsoft already. It is 
time to get this case over and let all parties concerned get on with 
other matters affecting our economy. Microsoft has developed 
products that are generally well liked by it`s customers and should 
not be penalized for simply developing better products than it`s 
competitors.



MTC-00007283

From: Dwight (038) Jan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:39pm
Subject: Fw: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Original Message
From: Dwight & Jan
To: mocrosoft.atr@usdojgov
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: Fw: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Original Message
From: Dwight & Jan
To: department of justice
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I`m normally proud of my state of California in the way it used 
to handle its political affairs. But not anymore, with the present 
Governor and Attorney General dumb dumb Bill Lockyer, all they can 
think of is the next election, forget the taxpayers and normal way 
of doing business.
    The settlement that was offered and accepted by the rest of the 
states, except those like California, should have been accepted and 
close that door once and for all. How can the government expect a 
business like Microsoft to survive if they have to divulge their 
secrets that keeps them ahead of their competition. That is not good 
common sense, let`s get back to basics and put an end to all these 
political games.
    The first step would be to not allow Microsoft competitors to 
voice their opinions,.since they are prejudiced. The second step 
would be to listen to the consumers since they are the ones most 
affected by your decision.
    I sincerely hope you can make a difference and do the right 
thing. Any questions call me at (530)533-5954 or email me.
    Yours truly,
    Janet Lantsberger



MTC-00007284

From: Mike Goodejohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this e-mail as a concerned consumer in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. Even though I question why this case was 
ever brought against Microsoft in the first case, I believe that the 
government in its best interest must obtain some sort of concession 
from Microsoft and therefore think the settlement proposed is fair 
and will finally allow Microsoft to move forward.
    As a consumer, I would like the government to explain how I have 
been hurt by Microsoft. I am an older individual and was not exposed 
to a computer until 1990. When I purchased my first computer and 
wanted to access the internet, I was told I needed to purchase a 
browser but later learned that it was included in the Windows 
operating system. An operating system which is a standard for the 
computer industry and makes it a more simple environment to operate 
in.
    Look at who is funding and spearheading the attacks on 
Microsoft; Oracle and Sun Microsystems. Why do you think they have 
lobbied so much. If you can`t beat them in a free economy then have 
the government go after them. If Larry Ellison and Scott McNeely 
would focus on their own businesses and provide products that 
consumers want at a reasonable cost, rather than looking to the 
government to penalize innovation, their companies would be much 
better off and in a better competitive position.
    Where else in the world can I purchase an operating system for 
around $75-$100 with so many other programs and functions 
included. I think the consumer wins. If Microsoft didn`t bundle 
other programs in it`s Windows operating system, how much would the 
consumer have to pay for a comparable system.
    If California and Iowa want to continue their litigation, maybe 
the government should suggest a settlement to them that would not 
allow Microsoft to sell any of its products in the those two states 
or to any of their residents. How long would it take for the 
residents of those two states to raise the roof on their Attorney 
General?
    Michael L Goodejohn
    20741 S.E. 3rd Way
    Sammamish, WA 98074



MTC-00007285

From: Ken McSwain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever it may concern:
    I strongly agree that the Microsoft Settlement is fair to all 
involved. I urge you to do all in your power to put this matter 
behind us and don`t let special interest groups sabotage the 
agreement. I firmly believe that this suit was a major factor in the 
decline of the Stock Market beginning in March of 2000. The 
resulting loss of capital by all who hold stocks in retirement funds 
are the real losers in the entire matter and the settlement should 
be implemented with all deliberate speed.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth McSwain
    719 Kleewood Drive
    FULTON MO 65251
    (573) 642-0606



MTC-00007286

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    The settlement that you negotoated with Microsoft is in the best 
interest of our country. The proof is that 9 of the states have 
signed off and the other 9 are only trying to make individual 
political gains for them selves. The AG`S as we all know are 
political animals and are just looking for votes in their states. 
Don`t change the agreement.

[[Page 24901]]

    Elliot Silverman



MTC-00007287

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am an ordinary stockholder of Microsoft and have been 
following the settlement efforts of the company. I believe that the 
settlement under review is reasonable and would like to add my 
support by writing this.
    Best regards,
    Antje E. Huck



MTC-00007288

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i believe that microsoft has done nothing wrong. i believe the 
special interests and competitors of microsoft have their own 
interest at heart and not the general public, who from what i can 
tell have gained from the products that microsoft produces.
    NO fines should be levied against a great company and a great 
inovator like bill gates. lets spend more time and money on the 
terrorists and criminals.
    jim zimmer
    27823 184th Ct SE
    KENT
    WA 98042



MTC-00007289

From: Candace Brenneke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lawsuit needs to be settled a.s.a.p. futher delays are not 
necessary. This has lasted longer then it should have already. I see 
no advantage to continue for competition or microsoft. Government 
intervention only cost money and time for all parties.
    Richard Brenneke



MTC-00007290

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement in the Microsoft Case should be settled 
as it was set by the court.
    Lois Smith
    636 Lake Shore Drive
    Pasadena, MD. 21122



MTC-00007291

From: Gary Louis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the present settlement should stand, even though I think 
it was too punitive towards Microsoft. I think consumers have plenty 
of choices because of Microsoft and any further litigation is a 
waste of time and money and stifles creativity!
    Gary Louis
    Arcadia, CA 91006
    [email protected]



MTC-00007292

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    subject settlement is fair and should be accepted by all 
parties. Special interests are not concerned with consumers 
interests. End this matter now.



MTC-00007293

From: Jeffrey Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe enough time and resources have gone into the effort 
spent prosecuting Microsoft. This is the time to ratify the 
settlement. Those states that are protesting this agreement are just 
grandstanding for the sake of the companyies that compete with 
Microsoft. This proposed settlement is fair. Lets get it done!



MTC-00007294

From: Klaus Meyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my expressed wish that the settlement between the 
government and 9 States on one hand and Microsoft be ratified. I 
view it as fair and it is about time that we put this case behind 
us. It is further my hope and wish that the other 9 States not part 
of the agreement join the government.
    Although I am a resident of Redmond, where the Microsoft 
headquarters are, I am not an employee or otherwise connected with 
Microsoft. I have always failed to see how the consumers have been 
hurt by Microsoft`s operation. They are a stellar corporation and an 
excellent corporate neighbor.
    Sincerely,
    Klaus and Nancy Meyn
    6305-159th Place NE
    Redmond, WA 98052



MTC-00007295

From: Martin Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:46pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement from Orlando
    To the Department of Justice:
    I have followed this action, and I feel that the nine sates that 
are mounting a separate settlement effort, are on an agenda to line 
their pockets with false hopes of income. It seems that dissent will 
always be a part of any settlement, and we must move forward to 
quickly finish this case, and move on.
    Please implement the terms of the settlement, and minimize the 
expense of the on-going litigation from Florida.
    Martin Collins



MTC-00007296

From: Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I was pleased to note that the Department of Justice had finally 
decided that there was no profit in persecuting Microsoft any 
further and has tentatively accepted a settlement that, while still 
not fair to Microsoft, will at least end the legal battles and allow 
them to continue to innovate the PC industry. I honestly feel that 
it is unfair that Microsoft will be forced to allow its competitors 
to see the code for their products. To me, that looks a bit like 
industrial espionage, you try to see what the competition is doing 
and find a way to use it and make it better. In fact, Microsoft got 
sued a few years ago by a little company called Stac for using a 
similar compression algorithm in a disk compression utility.
    Thank you for finally showing some good sense and letting this 
thing die.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Tait
    Duvall, WA



MTC-00007297

From: Jack Heeger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to urge the settlement of the Microsoft case. As a 
consumer, I still fail to see how I have been hurt by Microsoft. 
Instead, I do feel that as a consumer I have been hurt by the 
constant attacks on Microsoft during the past few years by a few 
competitors who apparently cannot compete in the marketplace but 
instead must rely on government to help them, and in doing so, have 
stifled innovation.
    Please settle this case and allow us all to move on. Once this 
is settled, the high tech industry can begin to innovate again and a 
company can build a better product without fear of being sued and 
consumers will reap the benefits. The economy needs a boost. The 
settlement of this case will help give that boost.
    Jack J. Heeger
    15 Hall Court
    Napa, CA 94558
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00007298

From: Sudeep Bharati
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jan 2nd 2002
    I fully support the US DOJ and Microsoft settlement of the anti-
trust case. It is time to end this litigation. I don`t believe the 
prolonged court proceedings will produce any thing drastically 
different than the current settlement. I think the current 
settlement is fair. It will let Microsoft innovate and also send a 
message to its competitors that even companies with dominant market 
share have right to improve and innovate their products.
    I recently read the penalties that are being sought by the non-
settling states and I just cannot understand most of their demands. 
These demands seem to imply that they won on all points in the 
appeals court which was not the case and they are not pursuing those 
aspects any longer. I just cannot imagine how that kind of relief 
can be won in the courts given the appeals court verdict.
    Thanks for the opportunity to let me give my comments on this 
important subject matter.
    Sudeep Bharati
    3272 165th PL NE
    Bellevue WA 98008

[[Page 24902]]

    http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00007299

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
    DOJ,
    Haven`t you got more legitimate cases to spend our taxpayers 
money on? Get off Microsoft`s back. Bill Gates has done more for 
this country`s economy, provided more technical innovation, and 
donated more to charity than all the democrats combined for the past 
20 years.
    Larry Herbst



MTC-00007300

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I want to let you know that it is my opinion that the Microsoft 
Corporation should not be punished by the government.
    Thank you,
    Frank Nalbone


MTC-00007301

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This entire process has been a waste of time and taxpayers 
money. America is (or is supposed to) be the land of opportunity. 
Microsoft made a better widget. Has always been innovative in 
product development, and doesn`t deserve to be treated as it has 
been. Every time the government involves themselves in processes 
such as this, it is for the sole purpose of distraction from so many 
other, more critical situations existing today. Time spent on these 
would be much more appropriate. It wasn`t too long ago that the 
Federal Government divided up the most dependable, successful 
telephone system. Look at that positive outcome!!. Mexico has a 
better telephone system than we do. Ours is fragmented at best. The 
fact that Microsoft Corporation has been able to maintain, and 
further enhance software and systems in a poor financial market as 
we are experiencing is to their credit. The Federal Government 
should settle this situation and get on with correcting problems and 
situations which threaten our very existence.



MTC-00007302

From: Bob Brandenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Legal action against Microsoft has gone far enough. Further 
action is a waste of tax dollars and contrary to the best interests 
of the national and world economy. Only self serving parties with 
special interests want it to continue. Please confirm the settlement 
and let all parties concern themselves with more productive 
activities.
    Bob Brandenburg
    13115 Pleasant Place
    Nurnsville, MN 55337



MTC-00007303

From: Paul D. Weatherford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:50pm
Subject: *Don`t just slap the hands of a Monopolizer.'
    If the judgment passed on Microsoft had contained an adequate 
penalty maybe you would not have so many states desiring to apply 
stricter standards than what were imposed.
    Their software is intrusive on the average buyer. They control 
the software even after it has been sold to the customer who should 
have rights to implement for his use without checking for 
Microsoft`s approval. I am forced to take much of their software 
because they control the manufacturers which include their software 
without a choice among the manufacturers. The manufacturers are 
blackmailed into accepting Microsoft software because of their 
monopoly of the operating system. There is a lot of other software 
out there I had rather have a choice of, but I am forced to accept 
what the manufacturer sends me because they are also coerced to 
follow Microsoft`s demand or lose the operating system used on 
computers which they have monopolized in the market. There are 
elements in their operating system software that forces you to use 
because it is included. There are programs from other software 
manufacturers that just will not because they have been excluded 
from the possibility of competing with Microsoft. I have used Lotus 
SmartSuite for a number of years, but the advent of Windows XP 
prevents me from using my old software. So, I was forced to buy new 
Lotus SmartSuite which will work on the old Windows ME operating 
system. If you want the benefit of a better operating system, you 
are forced to buy new software.
    I have Windows Office Professional which I received with my new 
computer in March 2001, but all of my documents are under Lotus 
SmartSuite. So, I had to partition my 60 Gig hard drive and put 
Windows XP on one drive and Windows ME on the other. Otherwise, 
Windows XP would have made a plethora of my software obsolete. 
Software is not cheap, as if Microsoft cared about the final 
customer. No judgment against Microsoft would be too harsh against 
such a selfish company.
    Maybe you have heard of Microsofts` largess to our schools. They 
gave them old machines_not current technology. The schools 
have to do upgrades of these computers to enable them to work for 
the benefit of students in the classroom. What a farce. No doubt 
they are taking a big tax write-off for their charitable donation.



MTC-00007304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We agree that the Microsoft Settlement should be final. 
Microsoft has accepted the settlement as tough but fair. Any more 
litigation is a waste of monies and only serves greedy lawyers and 
companies who want something for nothing.
    Robert and Myrta Convery
    1610 N Pine St
    Post Falls, ID 83854



MTC-00007305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a concerned citizen I have read many news stories about the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. I think the settlement terms are 
very generous and this case should be settled. It serves no public 
interest to continue to drag this out. Enough is enough, settle and 
lets get on with far more important business.
    Vikki mcIlwain



MTC-00007306

From: David Bernstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:50pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    Please, in the interests of our economy and justice let the 
current agreement between Microsoft, The Federal Government, and the 
nine states stand as final. The agreement is fine, and there need 
not be any further litigation on the Microsoft settlement.
    David Bernstein
    Mercer Island, Washington



MTC-00007307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the suit against Microsoft along the lines that 
was previously agreed to by most of the states and the Federal 
government. This has been going on too long. A final settlement 
could jump start the stock market and confidence.
    Albert Steinhart_
    Lake Worth, Florida
    [email protected]



MTC-00007308

From: Lee Foropoulos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:51pm
Subject: You`ll are some money wasting bufoons
    I personally am glad you have finally settled your landmark 
antitrust case with Microsoft. Maybe now you`ll can find something 
more important to waste our tax money on. Next time you take a 
software vender to court why don`t you guys try and pick one that 
isn`t responsible for PCs going mainstream. DOS was weak. Netscape 
sucks. And without windows you and the rest of your outdated 
colleges wouldn`t even no where to begin to check your email. Tell 
you what next time you decide to attempt to prosecute a software 
vender go and take some programming classes and learn the ancient 
stuff people used in the past to code in. When your done go try out 
some of Microsofts software developement tools. Then go write a 
fully functioning application using something lam like Cobol or 
Fortran, without the win32 APIs and sell it ( yeah right).
    I would imagine a lot of consumers complain about Microsoft too. 
Unfortunatly the majority of these individuals went to

[[Page 24903]]

some wholesale club and bought what they thought was a good deal. In 
fact it resembled a computer and it had windows on it. Unfortunantly 
it was obsolete and barely had the power to run half the software 
preinstalled on it including Windows without locking up. So they 
blame Microsoft; and are tremedously at error in doing so. They 
should have bought a real computer.
    If I was to state a negative claim against Microsoft it would be 
their new method of tech support $35 per incident. Thats their 
business though in my opinion. I would imagine they have people that 
don`t know anything about PCs bugging them nonstop every day all 
day. I`m sure that for $35 an incident people are gonna be less 
prone to call Microsoft and say `Hey Man!? I think I broke the 
internet!!!!'. The down side is that even well educated 
Windows pros are at some point going to find an annoying bug our 
have an incident that maybe not so much requires but would sure be 
nice to talk to the software manufacturer about. But for $35 per 
incident I`ll back up my data format C:-bs 
and start from scratch any day of the week over calling them.
    I personally think the entire tech industry will feel your wrath 
tenfold anytime you toy with Microsoft. Without Microsoft there 
might as well be no tech industry. You guys should follow old wise 
proverbs like `If It Aint Broke Don`t Fix It.'
    Lee Foropoulos
    [email protected]



MTC-00007309

From: David Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I am here to voice my opinions about Microsoft. I`ve been in the 
IT (Information Technology) Industry for over 23 years. I am here to 
applaud the job Microsoft has done in standardizing the Industry. 
Prior to Microsoft, you had OS/2, Apple, and dozens of flavors of 
UNIX. The result was few application software and hardware verndors 
per flavor of operating system, resulting in very over inflated 
prices. (Note: apple and UNIX software and hardware is still much 
more expensive then comparable PC products.) With the advent of 
Windows, application software and related hardware prices came down 
significantly. Consumers benefited more then at any other time in 
the entire history of the industry. I say that Microsoft deserves 
anything it can reasonably get for accomplishing this feat.
    To want to purposely break up the Windows standard is in my 
opinion: INSANE. It will mean higher prices for niche products that 
support non-standard, non-critical-mass operating systems (at least 
until a competitor creates another monopoly operating system). So my 
opinion is that anything you do to break the Windows standard is BAD 
for the CONSUMER and good for Microsoft competitors ONLY.
    Thanks for reading my opinion ...



MTC-00007310

From: Ursula W. Foust
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop any further litigation. The settlement is fair and just for 
both parties.
    Ursula Foust



MTC-00007311

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement See attached.



MTC-00007311 0001

    January 2, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to urge you to quickly finalize the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The settlement has 
prevented Microsoft from focusing on technology for long enough, and 
it is time for the company to move on.
    This settlement provides for reasonable restrictions on 
Microsoft and allows for proper government and industry oversight. 
Microsoft will share access to its software code, and provide 
documentation on the internal workings of the Windows operating 
system. Additionally, Microsoft will change its marketing and 
licensing practices to allow its competitors more of a chance in the 
market.
    In the three years since this antitrust case began, Microsoft 
has been besieged by lawyers, preventing the company from performing 
its primary duty of producing quality software. Please see that this 
ceases to be the case; please finalize the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Herzfeld



MTC-00007311_0002



MTC-00007312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that Microsoft should be left alone to conduct its 
business as it sees fit. This country is a free enterprise country 
and just because they are more successful, they should not be 
penalized for being so good. Had the Clinton Admn. not started 
picking on Microsoft because one of Clinton`s best friends was a 
powerful figure in a competing company, none of this would have 
happened.
    Millie Jones



MTC-00007313

From: Charles McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ:
    This is a joke. Companies should have the freedom to do business 
as they see fit. The DOJ and all the plaintiffs need to get a life. 
If you want to compete with Microsoft, then get your ass off the 
couch and do your homework. Bill Gates built a company with hard 
work and innovations that have helped the American people and the 
economy. Not to mention all the money he has given to charities. 
Back off and direct your energy towards a company like Enron, who 
stole from millions of hard working people.
    Sincerely,
    Charles W. McDonald



MTC-00007314

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe the settlement under the Tunney Act is a fair 
settlement. Please put our names on the approval list and I hope 
that the Attorneys General of the States, including ours, 
California, withdraw their objections. Most people in this nation 
want this matter behind us and we feel that the only people not in 
favor of the settlement are trying to bring person politics into it 
and their back pockets and not interested in what is good for the 
country.
    Sincerely,
    James R. and Eileen Davis
    Diamond Bar, CA



MTC-00007315

From: Gary Harmatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:54pm
Subject: Mircosoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    It is my firm belief that the current settlement with Microsoft 
is fair and just. To peruse this any further will be a waste of time 
and tax payers` money.
    In advance, thank for what you do and your kind attention.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Harmatz



MTC-00007316

From: Kaylie Utter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:48pm
Subject: It is very important to settle the Microsoft case in my 
opinion. This has dragged on far too long.
    It is very important to settle the Microsoft case in my opinion. 
This has dragged on far too long. It seems that Microsoft has been 
under a unique attack against its creativity in bringing products 
and functionality to the American consumer.
    If Microsoft is such a monopoly, please tell me what government 
granted it and how it has hurt the public. In the early days of 
computers, no two were alike. Custom programming was the norm. 
Microsoft opened a whole new world of communications and 
capabilities for small business to compete against both big and 
other small business because of the affordable and compatible 
computing power put on the desktop. Mainframes were no longer 
required and I hold Microsoft responsible as much as any other 
organization for that great boon to the planet. They should be 
allowed to continue to serve American and world consumers unshackled 
or at least out from under the burden of government intrusion. It`s 
called competition. And that competition has brought the greatest 
new age of communication the world has ever known.
    If the new definition of monopoly is being the market leader, 
then perhaps you should

[[Page 24904]]

consider pursuing Cisco Systems for controlling an estimated 95% of 
the software market running internet servers. Or what about AOL-Time 
Warner. Are they not the largest ISP by far. Heavens, where was the 
DOJ when that happened.
    Please settle and let Microsoft get on with creativity in 
computing.
    Kaylie Utter
    Bozeman, Montana



MTC-00007317

From: patricia mcclain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I feel that the action against Mircosoft should be finished. The 
issues have been corrected. Please settle this so everyone can 
benefit from the new products and ideas developed by free 
enterprise.
    Thank you.
    Patricia McClain



MTC-00007318

From: Don Kelley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    Please stop this unjust prosecution of one of America`s finest 
companies (e.g. Microsoft). Accept the settlement offer.
    Don



MTC-00007319

From: Chris H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I cannot stress enough the importance of keeping the Microsoft 
company intact and my disgust at their competitors for using the 
government as a weapon to tear apart the company at the expense of 
destroying the industry and the public faith. Any further action 
against Microsoft sets a bad precedence in the business community at 
large. The companies that have set this in motion are using the term 
`Monopoly' to describe Microsoft`s success and blaming 
them for their own failures.
    On a personal level this really hits home. I have been trying to 
start my career in the IT industry for a few months now. It`s has 
been tough just trying to land an interview let alone trying to find 
a company that`s hiring entry level programmers. Microsoft is at the 
top of their game and most, if not all schools, teach their students 
using Microsoft technologies. Why do they do this? Is it because of 
their so-called `Monopoly' power? I think not. It is 
because Microsoft has become the industry standard and the base of 
the IT industry. Most businesses use Microsoft technologies in their 
day to day business transactions. Why is this, a 
`Monopoly' again? The answer is no! Microsoft has 
consistently provided todays companies with quality and innovative 
products year after year. There are alternatives to using Microsoft 
products out there. Anyone in the IT business knows this and most 
chose not to use them. Is this choice based on the perceived, 
`Monopoly'? No, it is because what Microsoft offers is a 
better product. What happens when you keep chipping away at the 
foundation or base of a building? Eventually the whole building 
comes crashing down! Do this to the base, foundation if you will, of 
the IT industry and so too would the whole IT industry and the 
American economy! Please do not let this happen!
    Sincerely,
    Chris Higgins
    [email protected]



MTC-00007320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:55pm
Subject: (no subject)
    To Whom It May Concern:
    My Wife And I are in agreement with the settlement already 
worked out with Microsoft. We don`t feel they were guilty of 
monopoly to begin with.



MTC-00007321

From: Joseph A Coyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The long awaited settlement of this case is within reach. Now is 
not the time to let it slip away. As a small user out here in the 
real world, and from that perspective, I see Microsoft as a 
benevolent dictatorship. Yes they dominate the industry but, every 
time they take on a new market, that market improves. And for me, 
that`s a good thing. Like it or not, Microsoft is the engine that 
drives the industry. They are the push (and in all too many cases 
the pull). Their competitors are holding the industry back. Through 
lack of imagination and energy, they sit on ideas and innovations. 
Through complacency, they fail to hear the wakeup call until it`s 
too late. No wonder they are frightened when they see Microsoft 
coming.
    Joseph A Coyle
    535 Franklin Circle
    Harleysville, PA 19438-2362
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00007322

From: Harlan F. Hobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen. . . . .
    I strongly urge the DOJ and the various State Attorneys General 
to settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible. A quick settlement 
will help the economy move forward.
    Thank you;
    Harlan F. Hobbs



MTC-00007323

From: Shelley Blumberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    `844 Beechwood Drive, Havertown, Pennsylvania, 
19083'
    January 2, 2001
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am pleased that a settlement has finally been reached in the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. This legal battle has gone on long 
enough and has caused an increase in wasteful spending in state 
budgets and the misuse of American tax dollars.
    Even though the settlement goes further than what Microsoft 
would have liked, it feels that settling the case now is the best 
thing to do to help the industry and economy move forward. The 
settlement is fair and reasonable, and was arrived at after 
extensive negotiations with a court appointed mediator.
    We have spent enough time and financial resources on this legal 
battle. Microsoft needs to stop litigating and resume innovating. 
Thank you for helping to make this settlement happen.
    Sincerely,
    Shelley Blumberg
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00007324

From: Bob Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At this critical time for our country, with all the political 
and economic uncertainty, I urge you to actively continue the 
settlement efforts in this litigation.
    Thank You
    Robert Jennings



MTC-00007325

From: Joseph Sirianni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Let`s please settle the Microsoft case and not subject them to 
further litigation.
    Joe Sirianni



MTC-00007326

From: manhar nandani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I have read the settlement between DOJ and Microsoft and I think 
its a great settlement for everybody. We should put this issue 
behind and get on with our life and let Microsoft be the most 
innovative company in the world so that everybody benefits from the 
greatest software at reasonble price without being a monopolist.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
    Manhar Nandani



MTC-00007327

From: Earle Burger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm
Subject: SETTLE THE CASE
    Let`s settle the case and stop punishing a company for being 
entrepreneurial.
    Earle Burger
    HR Consultant



MTC-00007328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:59pm

[[Page 24905]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long time stockholder of Microsoft and I think this whole 
case was a farce and a waste of time and money. I do not agree with 
the settlement situation; however, to get this whole thing ended I 
think it should be done as fast as possible. Let`s get the US back 
on the road to productivity and OUT OF THE COURT SYSTEM. Stop this 
insanity now.
    Lori Hearshman
    PO Box 35834
    Des Moines, IA 50315



MTC-00007329

From: Erik N. Funk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Please record this citizen`s comment as one strongly in favor of 
rapid, reasonable settlement of the Microsoft saga. We`ve spent 
enough non-value adding energy on the case. Microsoft is ready to 
make a substantial donation to educational 
institutions. . . let`s PLEASE move on.
    Thanks for your attention and interest in better government that 
costs less.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Funk



MTC-00007330

From: Sanford Gruskin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    2 January 2002
    United States Department of Justice,
    In regards to the Microsoft settlement, I would like to express 
my views as consumer, senior citizen and most importantly as a U.S. 
citizen during a time demanding unity not diversity amoung our 
people.
    I was raised in the midwestern states in a middle class family. 
I was brought up to believe in the American Way, namely built a good 
product, capture market share and be praised for success.
    We seem to have developed into an environment where success is a 
forbidden word. Microsoft has developed a good product that is user 
friendly_much the same senerio as Henry Ford and the Model T. 
It is within the reach of the average American both in the skills 
required to use it and the cost of the product.
    Lets get on with our tecnology, allow the case to be settled, 
and wait for the next best product to take over the helm. The last 
thing we need in our society at this time is more litigation.
    Sanford Gruskin
    726 Mill Walk NW
    Atlanta, GA 30327



MTC-00007331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    See attached.
    January 2, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to urge you to quickly finalize the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The settlement has 
prevented Microsoft from focusing on technology for long enough, and 
it is time for the company to move on.
    This settlement provides for reasonable restrictions on 
Microsoft and allows for proper government and industry oversight. 
Microsoft will share access to its software code, and provide 
documentation on the internal workings of the Windows operating 
system. Additionally, Microsoft will change its marketing and 
licensing practices to allow its competitors more of a chance in the 
market.
    In the three years since this antitrust case began, Microsoft 
has been besieged by lawyers, preventing the company from performing 
its primary duty of producing quality software. Please see that this 
ceases to be the case; please finalize the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Herzfeld



MTC-00007332

From: Donald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not now nor have I ever been in favor of the government 
telling Microsoft how to run its business. I think you should drop 
the whole thing.
    Microsoft has made a lot of money for itself and others. It 
continues to make money and has been directly responsible for untold 
thousands of jobs around the world.
    If you just have a need to sue, try the US Government. They take 
from the public, waste huge amounts of cash and when they run out 
they just take more while giving themselves raises and the best 
benefit package in the world. All the while they don`t make money, 
no, not even close, we`re trillions in the hole. If anything you 
should ask Bill Gates for advice on turning our Country around.
    Let me make one other thing clear. I do not now, nor have I ever 
owned Microsoft stock. I do however believe that our government 
that`s supposed to be, `by the people, for the people' 
has turned `on the very people who make this country 
great'. You people tried the same thing on IBM, then Bill 
Gates dropped out of school and proved your whole case to be a 
farce. We have even more choices today than we had then but you and 
other people like you still cry foul. Only when you can put your own 
house in order will I even start to listen.
    I`m a registered voter who does not listen to what the 
politicians say, I watch what they do and I vote every chance I get.
    Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.



MTC-00007333

From: Michael Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:01pm
Subject:
    I seriously disagree with the anti-trust agreement that you are 
I seriously disagree with the anti-trust agreement that you are 
making with Microsoft. I hope that you will reconsider. Everything 
that can be said about the problems with the debate has been said. 
It is your responsibility to ensure a competitive market.
    Do your job, split up Microsoft. There is no reason to go easy 
on them. Microsoft only makes this country look bad.
    Michael Becker
    CTO Jumping Jack Web
    ACM Member
    Student Drexel University



MTC-00007334

From: Bruce Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I received an e-mail note from Microsoft`s MSFIN project 
soliciting any comment to the DOJ on the proposed settlement. This 
is the first time I have responded to their efforts to keep the 
using public informed of the issues facing them and the plaintiffs 
in this suit. My opinion is that there were some anti-competitive 
efforts made by Microsoft that bordered on using their virtual 
monopoly position in some software for their suppression of 
potential rivals. Nevertheless, I think their business, which is so 
very far removed from a commodity business (oil, foodstuffs, wood 
products, etc.), is so transitory in nature that innovation has to 
be respected and rewarded as rapidly as possible, since another 
better solution could emerge in such a short time that market share 
could mean nothing in the space of a few years. I also feel that the 
enactment of the settlement will bring an end to the chill on 
innovation that the prior administrations very zealous pursuit of 
this company has blown over the software industry while waiting for 
a resolution.
    Thank you,
    Bruce C. Hoffman
    17 Grandin Terrace
    Annandale, NJ 08801



MTC-00007335 \1\

From: Don Kelley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
8013 Hauser Drive
Lenexa, Kansas 66215
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Considering all the issues and problems the federal government 
is dealing with, I have wondered why so much of the government`s 
attention has been directed towards Bill Gates and Microsoft. Why 
punish a man and a company that has been key in the technological 
revolution that benefits so many people? Microsoft will disclose 
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows, making it 
much easier for its competitors to compete. This disclosure will 
make it possible for competitors to remove certain Microsoft 
programs from the Windows system and replace them with software from 
a different source. Additionally, Microsoft will change

[[Page 24906]]

the coding in such a way that Windows will not suffer any reduction 
in performance when working with non-Microsoft programs.
    The decision of the Department of Justice is fair to those 
parties who brought the lawsuit against Microsoft in the first 
place. I support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jana Kelley



MTC-00007336

From: Mike Ernest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This private citizen wants the settlement over as quick as 
possible. I do agree with Apple contention that the proposed 
settlement by MS could upset what balance exists in the educational 
market. This should be watched very carefully.
    Michael V. Ernest, Sr.
    2014 Rockwell Avenue
    Catonsville, Maryland 21228-4218
    Tele: (410)-747-1437
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00007337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept of Justice:
    You should be ashamed of yourself using taxpayers money to 
persecute Microsoft! They, almost single handedly, are responsible 
for an unprecedented boost to the American economy in the 1990s. No 
one, including the government, came to their start-up and offered 
financial assistance; they did it on their own! Now, you wish to 
penalize them for their success, even though they took ALL the 
initial risks and weathered all of the growing pains of any start-up 
company. Have any of you calculated how well your retirement 
investments did in the 90s as a result of Microsoft`s bold 
innovations? What about the quality enhancements to your workplace? 
Get this over with! Leave Microsoft alone! Let other companies use 
the same innovations to try to compete with Microsoft, just as 
Microsoft did to compete with the pre-existing giants (IBM, HP, and 
others).
    Michael Norgard,
    Plano, Texas



MTC-00007338

From: james arnstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:03pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Case
    Dear Sir,
    I think that after 4 years Microsoft has paid its dues and 
should return to `business as usual.' It seems the 9 
states that have not agreed to settle their disputes with Microsoft 
will never be satisfied with any decision short of breaking up 
Microsoft in their own petty ways. To allow a `stripped 
down' version of Windows to be available, would be like buying 
a Mercedes with just the shell and the motor and allowing some other 
company to build the remaining components of the car. The nine 
states are acting in their own self interest and at the expense of 
the consumer and Microsoft. They need to get on with the 
`lives.'
    James Arnstein



MTC-00007339

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully agree that the agreement reached is fair. This 
litigation has gone on far too long. It is fair to all concerned and 
should be settled now.
    Louis R. Mc Donald



MTC-00007340

From: Martin Runyan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to support the settlement that has been reached 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. I believe it to be a balanced and 
fair solution to a difficult problem. I am also writing to encourage 
a speedy conclusion to this matter. I believe our economy will be 
seriously harmed if this issue continues to burden our technology 
sector with uncertainty and doubt.
    Martin E. Runyan
    Nokomis, Florida



MTC-00007342

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ folks,
    I would like to express my opinion re the case against Microsoft 
and the settlement you and some states have reached. First of all, I 
do not think the case was justified in the first place. It doesn`t 
seem to me that Microsoft is guilty of anything beyond trying to 
build better products that would most efficiently serve the vast 
bulk of computer users. The settlement you reached with Microsoft is 
far far better than your original weird ideas about breaking up the 
company.
    I am not a lawyer but it seems very strange to me that state 
Attorneys General have anything to say about antitrust law. The nine 
non-conforming Attorney Generals should go back to dealing with 
state matters. The competitors of Microsoft who are asking for the 
government to make their life easier by punishing Microsoft should 
compete in the marketplace and not by lobbying you and Congress.
    It is time to put this ill-advised venture behind us and move 
on.
    Sincerely,
    David A. Smith
    20342 Ayoub Lane
    Hagerstown, MD 21742



MTC-00007343

From: Karen Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For heavens sake, please settle this dispute with Microsoft and 
do not let special interest groups derail the settlement.
    Microsoft has done nothing but help the consumer in every way. 
To hurt Microsoft any more is to hurt the consumer.
    Please let the settlement stand that has been agreed to.
    Sincerely
    Karen Bradley



MTC-00007344

From: John M. Cantey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SETTLE ALL CLAIMS NOW!



MTC-00007345

From: ROBERT WOLFE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be allowed to do as it pleases.



MTC-00007346

From: g-mon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement...
    I feel a settlement to the DOJ`s harrasment of Microsoft Corp. 
is long overdue. The nine states `holding out' on the 
agreement are blatantly trying to position themselves so they can 
extract more `tribute' from MS in the future.



MTC-00007347

From: Josef Wernli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough! There has been a time to voice grievances in 
court, there has been a time to reach a settlement and now there is 
time to move on. Litigation is not for giving competitors free entry 
and an edge in the market place which instead they should earn with 
a better mousetrap to the benefit of consumers.
    I urge you to use your good judgement and powers to put a final 
end to this litigation and force competition to Microsoft to come up 
with better software.
    Sincerely,
    Josef Wernli
    4825 Forest Avenue S.E.
    Mercer Island, WA 98040



MTC-00007348

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
    We have been shareholders of Microsoft for many years. The 
government has been unfair to Microsoft, which is the greatest 
company in America. We want you to settle the lawsuit and to have 
the Tunney Act to be enacted.
    Kevin and Marjorie Kelly
    1335 N. Astor Street, #3A
    Chicago, IL 60610



MTC-00007349

From: Peggy Marvelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It is imperative that the government settle this issue....it is 
taking up our dollars and we have more important things to be 
concentrating on! I hate to think where we would be without the 
vision of Microsoft!!

[[Page 24907]]

    Peggy & Jerry Marvelle



MTC-00007350

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement...
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I have always thought that certain competitors of Microsoft were 
really trying to make life difficult and `yes' it is all 
about money. I also believe that it`s time to stop this war and let 
Microsoft get back to doing the things it does best_or, I 
should say, better than anyone else. Some people have hoped to hurt 
Microsoft_it`s time for them to get a life and let it be. I 
feel that some are jealous of the fact that Microsoft was able to 
bring so much to businesses and consumers, alike. Microsoft is 
really only responsible for the millions of computors now enjoyed by 
so many and their compeditors only wish they could have done as 
well. Then there is also a huge amount of funds and software donated 
to many in need. Do we owe Bill Gates a humanitarian 
award_`YES'...
    No Settlement Required
    HML



MTC-00007351

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:11pm
Subject: microsoft states suit
    Dear Sirs;
    I am mortified by the behavior of individual states suits, 
particularly the Attorney General of Connecticut. I saw an 
appearance he made on CNBC and was amazed at the blatant arrogance 
of this so called official. After the government settled the suit, 
how is it possible to continue legal harrassment of Microsoft? What 
is the motive? Greed? Notoriety? Both? The legal system is seriously 
flawed to permit such continued abuse of the system. No wonder 
lawyers have no respect.
    Carl Oettinger M.D.



MTC-00007352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Not being a computer expert it is my understanding that 
Microsoft`s software enables novices like me to easily access the 
information they desire via the computer and the Internet by making 
all the different systems work easily together. If the competitor 
had a better product I sincerely believe that the public would had 
demanded it through the power of the marketplace. There are a lot of 
large companies in the world and they are not able to stifle 
competition, if anything competition makes one more perceptive to 
the needs of their customers and bring about innovative ideas. This 
is the American way of doing business. The companies that are crying 
foul are not little upstarts but major competitors. If the public 
chose Microsoft`s product over theirs they just have to go back to 
the drawing board. I am tired of lawyers making a fortune at the 
expense of J. Q. Public. I think this case should be settled and 
that the time to do so is NOW.
    Esther Tolan



MTC-00007353

From: Cathy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the agreement should stand & this case should be 
closed...enough is enough...freedom to innovate is what this country 
is about & we need innovation now more than ever!
    Cathy L. Mills
    Pleasant Prairie, WI, USA



MTC-00007354

From: twickers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is unnecessary to prolong this case against Microsoft. The 
settlement is fair and reasonable and it would be a waste of 
taxpayer funds to continue to litigate. Those who press to continue 
the litigation appear to be competitors seeking to use the federal 
government as a weapon to further their own ends. Justice has been 
done and has been seen to be done.
    Patrick Harden,
    Annandale, Virginia.



MTC-00007355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:11pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft Suir Quickly.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:00:05 +0000
    Dear Sir: I am concerned about a quick settlement of the 
Microsoft Case. I feel this should never been entered into our 
Judicial System. I have bought and own some `high tech' 
stocks which have suffered because of this lawsuit. I feel the 
quicker this suit is settled our entire markets system will move in 
a positive way. Hope so anyway. I feel Bill Gates made a mistake 
when he bragged he didn`t give to a PAC. Had he taken several 
million to Washington DC and passed it around among the politicians 
this suit would never been filed. Our entire country has suffered 
because of an attempt to strangle free enterprise and creative 
development by Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    C. Edward Bass, Woodway,
    TX



MTC-00007356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft in this settlement. Please complete it.
    Richard S Hoover
    15405 91st Ave SE
    Snohomish, WA 98296



MTC-00007357

From: Steven H. Steinberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    It is time to settle this mess. The terms which have been worked 
out by the Justice Dept. and half of the States is fine. The other 
states can stop representing Microsoft`s competition and settle. It 
is fair and just. Let`s move on.
    Steven H. Steinberg
    10005 Ivybridge Circle
    Louisville, KY 40241
    [email protected]



MTC-00007358

From: Collins, Ned
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should not kill successful companies, leave that 
to the marketplace. Settle this thing so companies can innovate, 
Microsoft and their competitors, without worry that the government 
will smash them if they are too successful.
    Ned Collins,
    tax payer



MTC-00007359

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s get this thing settled! Frankly I thought the suit was 
ridiculous in the first place. My opinion is that the states that 
brought suit were the ones who had companies within their boundaries 
that did not have the innovative ability to keep up with Microsoft 
so they compete by bringing law suits to slow down a company that 
does. With the economy the way it is this country doesn`t need 
anything else to inhibit it. It is entirely possible that these 
suits brought by the Justice Department and the states played a big 
part in creating the recession we are now in. Microsoft has 
apparently agreed to the proposed settlement (which is unfair to 
Microsoft anyway) so lets settle it. Consumers have not been hurt by 
Microsoft`s practices but I believe they have been hurt by this law 
suit.
    Garnett Arcand



MTC-00007360

From: Jack Fenchel
To: Microsoft Monopoly, Attorney General
Date: 1/2/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Constitution< Article > 1 >Section > 10, >1, The 
Constitution, is very clear and prohibits S.A.G`s, from using 
certain powers by impairing Microsoft, Contracts. >Constitution 
of the United States.< >Section (10) 1, States Prohibited from 
exercise of certain Powers<
    Hal Stratton, a former Attorney General, of New Mexico, says 
States, should think carefully before they branch out beyond their 
traditional functions. Could this be the reason Microsoft, wants a 
delay?
    Thank you, God Bless America,
    Jack Fenchel,
    185 Friendship Rd.
    Beaver Falls Pa. 15010



MTC-00007361

From: Marv Norman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:15pm

[[Page 24908]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is the public`s best interest to settle the DOJ/
Microsoft lawsuit. A few politically motivated Attorney General`s 
are pushing the case in their own interests and a few Microsoft 
competitors are trying to use the DOJ to help them compete in the 
market place. This case has gone on too long and should be settled 
as quickly as possible. The DOJ should not be involved in the open 
competitive market. Microsoft has developed very significant 
software and the cost to the individual consumer is very reasonable. 
I personally continue to be amazed at the power of the Windows 
software and the very low price we have to pay to obtain the 
product. I also have no interest in `open' software that 
anyone can change. I want to know that I can open letters and 
spreadsheets and rely upon the programs working correctly. I also 
have no interest in having the Windows operating system separated 
from my internet browser. I want them to work together and I want to 
be able to call one company if there is a problem.
    Please ignore Microsoft`s competitors in this issue and also 
please ignore the nine Attorney General`s who are trying to promote 
themselves politically. This case has been decided on a legal basis 
and the remedies agreed upon should be implemented so that the 
involved people can apply their efforts to improving the current 
economic situation rather than continuing to `waste' 
time rehashing the same issues.
    I am not a Microsoft shareholder so I have no economic bias. I 
believe in the capitalistic market place and the power of 
competition.
    Best regards,
    Marv Norman



MTC-00007362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    One can look at the stock market crash and time it from the 
beginning of the Justice Department`s public attempt to dismantle 
Microsoft. By the time you are done torturing this company Aol/Time 
Warner will be a larger monopoly. The local environment will 
disappear with time. Please stop wasting taxpayer`s money and allow 
the technology sector to flourish. Accept the settlement. Let`s move 
on.
    Richard J. Greco



MTC-00007363

From: JOHN (038) SUSAN DE WOLF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is Enough! Please settle this suit and let Microsoft get 
on with their business and their competitors get back to developing 
competitive software. The competition to Microsoft is spending too 
much time constraining Microsoft who has made computers widely used 
by a large portion of our population.
    John T. DeWolf
    [email protected]



MTC-00007364

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:16pm
Subject: re: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my strong desire to see the US 
government case against Microsoft settled as quickly as possible, 
and in accordance with the DOJ`s most recent settlement. To allow 
the nine holdout states to inflict any more damage on what arguably 
has been the engine for the phenomenal growth of the high tech 
industry would be a travesty, and wholly unwarranted. The 
marketplace is unforgiving to undercapitalized or less innovative 
companies. Virtually every industry started out as somebody`s idea, 
only to be improved upon and bettered by somebody else. This is true 
of Microsoft as well. As you can see I am using AOL to send this 
message. I, like many others used to use lotus 123 but discontinued 
as Microsoft excel surpassed it in functionality. I assure you that 
had lotus continued to improve as rapidly as Microsoft, they would 
be dominant. Moreover, I followed the case throughout and was amazed 
at the ignorance of the trial judge. A non user of high tech 
products cannot possibly determine how easy, or difficult it is to 
install other software, especially when that software is superior. 
As to monopoly, I can only imagine the chaos that would surround 
multiple operating systems. Eventually, the market would force one 
to be superior. Changing systems is not as easy as buying a 
different car.
    For full disclosure, I own Microsoft stock but also have owned 
Oracle, Cisco and other high tech stocks, including some of the 
competitors that have fueled the drive to cripple Microsoft. 
Unfortunately, the overly ambitious attorney`s generals of the 
holdout states (Iowa and my home state of Connecticut are the worst 
offenders) have viewed this as an opportunity to increase their own 
profiles for purely political reasons. I find it appalling that this 
case continues to drag on. Worse still is the naked grab by the 
European Union`s Mario Monti to bring the same charges to further 
cripple this great company that has done so much good for the USA.
    The precedents being set here will be felt, unfortunately, for 
years to come unless the DOJ, once and for all, ends this now. I 
urge you to let stand the current settlement offer to be put into 
effect and tolerate no further action against Microsoft.
    Thank you very much for your consideration in allowing this 
citizen to express his views.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph W. Kearney



MTC-00007365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
    The last thing this country needs is more litigation by the 
govt. It seems like a personal vendatta. Let the best products 
prosper, and remember that there are a zillion software companies 
and start-ups.
    J. Pool



MTC-00007366

From: Rosemary Brant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:19pm
Subject: settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I do believe the settlement already reached with microsoft, 
though tough ,is fair and reasonable. I see no further need to 
debate these issues. It is only punishing the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Rosemary Brant
    New Orleans, LA



MTC-00007367

From: George G. Morano, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case quickly. The last thing we need is more 
litigation to keep the lawyers `fat' especially in these 
uncertain economic times. Please get the economy rolling by ending 
this case.
    Margie Morano
    Cincinnati, OH



MTC-00007368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am very satisfied with the settlement offer made by Microsoft.



MTC-00007369

From: Keith Saville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    To those concerned_Lets get out of Microsoft`s hair. Just 
because they have worked hard made good money, donated a lot of 
money as well computer programs, some of you are still jealous of 
what they have done and want more out of them. Give the other states 
30 days to accept or they will lose out altogether.
    I am a small entrepreneur that went out and started a business 
back in 1985 and with-stood all the laughs and people making fun of 
me. Now those same people are jealous and complain how I have it 
made. They did not see the 16hr days I put in for about 12yrs to get 
where I am.
    I`m sure Bill did the same thing, and many business places 
snickered at him. Now they are upset and want a part of his 
prosperity for nothing. So let him go, he earned every penny he has 
made. He pays some nice taxes. He gives to a lot of places. He`s not 
on drugs, so leave him alone.
    Yours truly
    Keith F. Saville
    Grafton, ND 58237



MTC-00007370

From: DONALD ALLEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I followed this case closely, with a question in my mind at all 
times. I couldn`t understand why a few States were taking the 
company with the greatest brilliant minds, all

[[Page 24909]]

with an innovative and understanding look into the future, to court! 
I know a little about monopolies, and how they do try to eliminate 
competition, but in the history of Microsoft, how many avenues of 
further research into new areas were created by their brilliance? 
Many new companies exist today, due to Microsoft.
    The deciscion was as fair as the courts could allow without 
admitting they were wrong for allowing this case to begin!
    Donald D. Allen
    Oakdale Cal.



MTC-00007371

From: Jeanne Velie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the government is persecuting Microsoft. If the 
government has so much money to spend prosecuting Microsoft because 
they think it is a monopoly, why don`t they go after the Power and 
Light Companies, Cable Companies and Municipal Water Plants in the 
Midwest also??? We have but one choice for either_and every 
year their costs go up_(if public, they call for a public 
hearing (of which no one shows up, because they know it won`t 
matter)) they get a raise... Why don`t they have to cut costs like 
everyone else? Why is it that these kind of companies can be the 
sole provider in the area and raise rates and the government doesn`t 
intervene there, but spends millions going after a company like 
Microsoft???
    I think if the Federal Government has that much extra money, 
they should send it down to the State and Local Governments to 
relieve the little person`s tax burden and stop spending it going 
after Microsoft...
    A concerned citizen



MTC-00007372

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like the chance to voice my opinion on the DOJ vs 
Microsoft case. I feel that this is a frivolous case. That the 
government could have spent their money wisely going after a real 
issue. I feel that Microsoft is being picked on just because they 
are the industry leaders. They should be free to innovate because 
that`s supposed to be the American way. However, the federal 
government always seems to step on the toes of progress. Bill Gates 
and Microsoft are what makes computing easy for the everyday 
consumer...Windows is a wonderful thing....Just because they pack 
their browser and other features is irrelevant. The consumer can 
always opt to change to other software. The consumer knows what he 
is getting when he/she buys it...Stop picking on microsoft...As far 
as I am concerned, The judge that overheard the case should be 
removed from the bench for making such an ignorant decision and 
speaking out when he shouldn`t have...Total incompetence....Let 
Microsoft be the innovator`s that they are and the personal 
computing experience will always be great.



MTC-00007373

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is absolutely no question that CA`s continued attack on 
Microsoft is a political ploy which the politicians will persue 
hoping that it can be used in some way to distract the voters from 
the unbelievable fiscal mess they have gotten the State into. As a 
senior citizen who has paid his dues and has profound respect for 
those who `bust their hump' to develop something great. 
Because of their success they become the target of specious law 
suits by political hacks trying to make a name for themselves. I am 
better off and so is the Country because Microsoft had the 
initiative to forge ahead in the computer industry_maybe these 
protagonists would rather China or Japan had taken this leadership 
role. Please press forward with a settlement that is not a 
prejudicial judgement against American initiative.
    D.S. Duerson



MTC-00007374

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case and allow Microsoft to continue its 
innovations in the computer software arena. We don`t need more 
litigation!!! We believe this settlement is equitable to all 
parties.
    Shelley Cohen



MTC-00007375

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How about getting off Microsoft`s back. Cant the Government 
stand people working hard to better us all. This type innovation is 
one of the things this country is all about. Microsoft has had to 
spend millions defending themselves for this useless legal action. 
This money could have been better spent in research, education etc.
    Thanks
    Bob Houdek



MTC-00007376

From: Victor Oekerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a small consumer, I feel that the settlement accepted by all 
parties of this date should be unanimously accepted by all 
jurisdictions and all States. If not, I feel that further prolonging 
by representatives of microsoft competitors with special intrests 
and representatives of other Federal Agencies with special interests 
will cost small consumer users too much money and will raise our 
operating costs too much.
    Yours truly,
    Victor E. Oekerman



MTC-00007377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It is my opinion that the proposed settlement be finalized 
quickly.
    Gloria Rudetsky



MTC-00007378

From: William Crowder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm
Subject: HEARINGS CONCERING MICROSOFT
    I am writing to the Department of Justice asking that Microsoft 
settlement with the majority of the states be extended to the ones 
holding out for further penalties. There is nothing to be gained 
from penalizing Microsoft as the company has already agreed to a 
settlement which will be beneficial to a large segment of the 
country. Just because Microsoft has been innovative, successful, and 
has advanced the world of computers far beyond what one would have 
realized a decade ago, the company should not be punished.. It has 
been successful and should be allowed to continue to innovate 
without interference from the U.S. government. Microsoft and 
companies its size are a stimulus to the economy creating hundreds 
of jobs. I urge the Department of Justice to settle the case without 
further hearings and let a successful company continue to innovate. 
Signed: William W. Crowder, PH.D. 629 NORTH STREET, LAFAYETTE, IN 
47901



MTC-00007379

From: JAMES KRALIK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern, sirs
    I do not want the government interfering with private business 
period. Get off of Microsoft`s back and do your job which is to 
protect us from foreign invasion NOT harass companies which employ 
thousands of people.
    Please and Thank you
    J.S. Kralik



MTC-00007380

From: Eugene Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a user of Microsoft technology for 18 years in the 
development of military applications as well as for my own personal 
needs. As an extensive consumer of Microsoft products I have never 
once felt that the company`s business practices were financially 
detrimental to me. As a consumer the DOJ settlement seems to me to 
be a fair disposition of the issues involved. Further penalizing 
Microsoft, as their competitors and the few remaining states wish to 
do, is neither in the interest of the U.S. economy nor the 
consumers.
    Eugene S. Gordon
    E-Mail Address: [email protected]



MTC-00007381

From: joanne reiss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:25pm

[[Page 24910]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put an end to this litigation by accepting the agreement 
reached by nine states and the Federal Government. I believe the 
settlement is fair and in the best interest of consumers like 
myself. Microsoft has done nothing but help the consumer by making 
computing more accessible and easier to use. Not only has this 
lawsuit hurt the economy but it in no way represents fairly the 
opinion of consumers. Tell the competitors to stop whining and get 
on with their business. Personally I feel that the start of this 
ridiculous lawsuit was the beginning of the spiral downward of our 
stock market and economy.
    Joanne Reiss



MTC-00007382

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE..LET US SETTLE IT ALL UP WITH AND FOR MICROSOFT AND THE 
PUBLIC..THANK YOU MOZELLE SIMS



MTC-00007383

From: D (038) J Murdach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:28pm
Subject: Gentlemen: Please approve the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft . It is in the best interests of
    Gentlemen: Please approve the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
. It is in the best interests of the country. David Murdach at 
[email protected]



MTC-00007385

From: Craig Goddard
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/2/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Like I said before, my business suffered the most when it looked 
like the DOJ was going to split Microsoft into two companies.
    Since the lastest good news that the Federal Gov`t was not going 
to break up Microsoft, has my company began to prosper.
    I sincerely believe that my business will really take off after 
the nine states settle. Whatever it takes!!
    Thank you
    Craig Goddard Sr. Developer
    Goddard Professional Software
    Engaged in Designing and Developing Web, Distributed & 
Desktop Business Solutions
    [email protected]
    http://www.goddard01.com 
    



MTC-00007386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We agree with the settlement
    George and Burdena Pasenelli
    13926 212th Dr. NE
    Woodinville WA 98072



MTC-00007387

From: Linda Kluthe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    It is my opinion that the Microsoft Corporation has suffered 
enough from all the harrassment that the government has done for the 
past few years. In the meantime, its competitors have laughed and 
gone ahead to profit while Microsoft was diverting its energies into 
fighting the litigation. Please assist Microsoft to settle all 
lawsuits in the fastest way possible, and allow them to be free to 
develop new software and hardware that will continue to keep the 
United States superior in our computer technology.
    Do not punish or fine Microsoft anymore. As a consumer, I am 
happy with the advanced Microsoft technology that I have available 
to me. I want more advancements from Microsoft_do not handicap 
them anymore.
    Sincerely, Linda Kluthe, 351 4th St., Scotland, SD 57059



MTC-00007388

From: Randy De Graaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get on with it and settle the case for the good of everyone. I 
love Their software and quit bowing to the pressures of the others 
in the industry that appartently only want BIG GOVERNMENT to 
intervene every time they can`t compete because of their own 
inability.
    Thanks
    Randy



MTC-00007389

From: romeosumadi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    As a desk top software user, I am supportive of the DOJ`s 
settlement with Microsoft. I am eager to purchase my new desktop 
computer but unsure if further litigation will render my purchase 
inadequate, when future software upgrades become necessary.
    I am afraid also of the heavy handedness of the numerous 
governmental regulations that can spill over the entire software 
industry, thereby limiting innovations and my choice to purchase 
software that is compatible with my existing systems that I already 
use for my small private business. Just because few states can 
benefit few large corporations by their attempt to inhibit 
Microsoft, as is the case in my own state of Massachussetts, 
shamefully. We in the private sector should also be heard just as 
well. Our message is `litigation enriches the few at the 
expense of small businesses' .
    Sincerely,
    Samer Sumadi
    Search Tech Inds.



MTC-00007390

From: William Greensides
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hope that all goes well for you!!
    Bill Greensides



MTC-00007391

From: Milton Mechlowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:31pm
Subject: Settle the case
    It is about time that the case against MICROSOFT BE SETTLED ONCE 
AND FORALL so that Microsoft can go on with its bussiness.
    Milton Mechlowitz



MTC-00007392

From: Donn Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ & Microsoft Settlement Judge, It will be appreciated if 
you will think more of our faltering U.S. economy instead of the 
nine states attorneys general who are running for political office 
by using the Microsoft Settlement as a means to obtain more media 
attention. Try to give these kinds of productive corporations, that 
are making positive contributions to our exports and balance of 
payments, a break, and let the politicians muddle along in their 
element.
    Thank you,
    Donn R Davis



MTC-00007393

From: Marc Lapsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Concerned,
    Microsoft has lead us to point of no return! With the tools 
given to us by microsoft, we have enhanced the way we live and 
communicate. `Let freedom ring' Innovation is what has 
taken us to the frontiers of our freedom. Why must we punish fore 
what we cherish?
    Absolute power corrupts, I agree! How about giving me a choice 
in my phone and cable TV, before you bark at the dog that feeds you.
    Marc Lapsley
    Bellevue, Washington



MTC-00007394

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:33pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Stop wasting time and settle as agreed with Microsoft; our 
safety and security require your complete undivided attention during 
these times that are lives are filled with fear from terrorism, not 
fear from antitrust interests.
    John J. Imperial
    140 S.E. Fifth Avenue
    Boca Raton, Florida 33432



MTC-00007395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To whom it may concern-
    I feel the settlement for this case that is currently being made 
is fair and just for all parties. Please let the current ruling 
stand. It is time we put this case behind us and let businesses 
continue to innovate so that our

[[Page 24911]]

 country can continue to be the great nation that it is.
    Yours Truly
    Jeff Conner



MTC-00007396

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s dispense with further litigation in this case, and get 
about the business of trying to recover from current recession. 
Thinking back, it was about the time of DOJ antitrust suit that 
economy showed signs of weakening. Enough is enough...and we`ve had 
enough. Thank you for consideration of my views. Tom M. Graham
    5570 Starry Rd.
    Bellingham WA 98226



MTC-00007397

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i am so tired of these companies who do not put their money or 
assets into R & D and instead , want a company who has done just 
that to `give' them their programs so that they can 
either sell more computers or sell more software that doesn`t even 
compare to what microsoft produces. They don`t want to pay out their 
profits in excellent salaries to gain the workers they need to 
design new programs so that they can compete in the marketplace. I 
am tired, as a taxpayer, of the government and our courts allowing 
this nonsense to go on and on and we are paying for it along with 
their salaries. Find the terrorists instead. How about that as a 
good job for the justice dept. or at least start to amass the people 
needed to prosecute them. Use our government funds to prosecute them 
instead of Bill Gates. Most consumers would agree with me. You all 
know that Bill Gates certainly does not want your job or that of the 
President or Vice President of the United States. I believe The 
Justice Dept. is afraid of Bill Gates. Can`t imagine whyï¿½7E!!
    He`s not interested in the kind of power that the justice 
department thinks is the ultimate power. He`s more interested in a 
power (ful) computer and software. AS A TOOL and his products have 
begun to change the way the humans on the planet work. Let this 
company continue to produce top quality products. Isn`t that what 
American Business is all about? Stop these other states cold in 
their tracks. they are only being paid or favors returned from the 
companies that are wanting Bill Gates and his company`s position in 
business. Maybe they ought to put their money where their mouth is. 
What have they done lately for humanity?
    The court has already spoken. Who ARE these people to want more 
than what has already been given up.? Why don`t these poor companies 
just close their doors. They`re not doing much of anything else 
except whining and crying in order to gain the courts sympathy as 
well as some other company`s sympathies.
    They would be hard pressed to produce like Microsoft, since they 
don`t really reinvest their moneys in research and development I am 
very firmly committed to seeing the Anti Trust laws changed. they 
are out of date, and not reasonable today. This whole case , 
unfortunately for microsoft to be put down, has been the impetus to 
cause this necessary change. why doesn`t the justice dept. and those 
other whining states work on that and put some effort along with 
their dollars to see that the Anti-Trust laws are changed. Now that 
would really be something........



MTC-00007398

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please drop all charges against Microsoft and allow them to 
continue to provide goods and services for the general public. The 
company has a long history on innovations in technology and their 
competitors should not be allowed to cry `foul' just 
because they can`t keep up.
    Sincerely,
    Jay Ferguson
    Dallas, Texas



MTC-00007399

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I`m in favor of the settlement arranged by the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. Furthermore, I feel the states that are 
holding out are mistaken and, in particular, that Mr. Blumenthal 
from CT. is serving his own political ambition for national 
notoriety.
    Morton D,. Fisher
    Fairfield CT



MTC-00007400

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Microsoft Settlement as it now stands is fair to 
all parties & should be settled once and for all...no further 
hearings should be necessary.
    Donald R Haug
    2912 23 Ave So
    Fargo ND 58103
    [email protected]



MTC-00007401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ, I think the settlement with Microsoft was unfair to 
Microsoft, but Microsoft agrees and you agree I strongly feel it 
should be accepted by all parties. I live in California and this is 
one state that the Atorney General will not go along with the 
settlement. It is well known that he has ties with the companies who 
started the complaints with Microsoft and now is paying a political 
debt. I personally feel that many people benefited from Microsofts 
practices. Many companies just started with the intention of being 
purchased by a large company like Microsoft. Is Microsoft really a 
bully, I do not think so. Is there any difference between Microsoft 
and the United States? I sincerely hope all states are forced by the 
DOJ to accept the settlement since you are supposed to be the 
speaker for the US. Lets get this mess over and not let politics 
continue this on and on and on.
    Thank you



MTC-00007402

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Settle the dispute. Leave Microsoft alone.
    Cheryl L Alderson



MTC-00007403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I have been employed in the technology 
business for over thirty years as a result I wish to express my 
disappointment in the governments continual pursuit of Microsoft. 
Please put an end to the legal action. Microsoft has been a model of 
innovation and creating technology that is affordable to so many 
people.
    Thanks for this opportunity to express my opinion!



MTC-00007405

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is hard for me to believe that some State Attorney Generals 
are still clinging to the hope of a BIG kill in the Microsoft 
Settlement. Every time I see them on TV, you immediately know by 
their voice and looks that they are after personal gratification and 
notoriety rather than for the good of the people. It is very clear 
that this United States of America does not need any more 
deterioration of our economy by these companies and individuals. I 
thought a settlement had been reached by the majority. The majority 
should rule.
    Let these Attorney Generals go after the illegal immigrates that 
are still in this country and help out our Federal Government in 
getting rid of the people that have caused us great harm.
    James W. Baker
    543 Silver Pass
    Ocala, Fl 34472



MTC-00007406

From: Walter Barzal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I`ve actively used a computer since 1989 and feel that Microsoft 
products have provided value over the years. I think I know when I`m 
being ripped-off, i.e. cable companies and the lack of competition 
and chose in that industry, and I just do not feel like I`ve been 
cheated by Microsoft.



MTC-00007407

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm

[[Page 24912]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir,
    I believe the current settlement with Microsoft is just and in 
the best interest of the public. It is time to put this case to 
rest. Microsoft should be allowed to continue its great work.
    Best regards,
    John D. Klemm



MTC-00007408

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I have followed this suit with utter amazement. I have watched 
over the decades as companies with robust R&D programs have 
shrunk, withered away and died. Microsoft is not only an important 
company for our economy but an important aspect of our national 
security. I had thought that with the Berlin Wall down that 
government crypto Socialism would fade away but with this law suit 
it is live and well. Bell Labs is almost dead, Motorola in the tank, 
and Universities are being asked to do industrial R&D for free 
while basic science is ignored. Get off Microsoft`s case. Settle up 
and tell the States to so too. Enough of this nonsense. We have a 
war against terrorism to fought and an economic war for survival 
after that.
    Microsoft is a case of a bunch of 30-somethings being stupid. 
Treat it this way and let us get on with things.
    Lucian Russell, Ph.D.
    Harvard 1965
    NYU 1969
    Bell Labs
    Former Chief Scientist of CSC`s Virginia Technology Center
    Former Director of Argonne National Labs Advanced Computer 
Applications Center.



MTC-00007409

From: W. Roger Gehman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    Let`s bring this fiasco to a quick end. Microsoft has 
contributed so very much to the digital age we live in, and this 
court case was unjustified to begin with. There are certainly many 
more serious problems facing the US and its citizens, including the 
war on terrorism, and re-establishing the health of our economy. 
Companies provide jobs, but cannot operate sucessfully, when hounded 
by the federal government interfering in their day to day 
operations.
    Warren R. Gehman
    126 Park Avenue
    Mount Joy, PA 17552



MTC-00007410

From: Les Speiler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:41pm
Subject: Settlement
    The millions and millions of dollars that were wasted on this 
suit and the `BLUE STAINED DRESS' should have been spent 
on trying to prevent the events of 9/11, illness cure, etc.. There 
really isn`t anything else to say except `GOD BLESS 
AMERICA' and learn from our mistakes.
    Teresa D. Day



MTC-00007411

From: Steve Orr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let`s get this issue settled Now!! To prolong the settlement is 
not in the best interests of the public. Some people are trying to 
sabotage a good company that builds products we like.
    Thank you, Steve Orr



MTC-00007412

From: Richard S. Sternberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What unadulterated poppycock in the Microsoft-written 
`alert' below! I certainly hope the Court is aware that 
Microsoft is placing words in the mouths of their self-created 
support groups.
    I have no clients who have retained me to represent them on this 
issue, and I am speaking only for myself as a citizen, but I am 
firmly of the view that the proposed settlement will have serious 
and permanent detrimental effects on computer innovation. After 
proving monopoly and predatory practices, the DOJ recognizes 
partisanship and concedes the day, seeking to give Court sanction to 
the most predatory example of monopolization in U.S. history. The 
record demonstrates a predatory product thief which takes advantage 
of the glacial pace of American justice to solidify its market 
seizures. Worst, the effect of involving the Courts in the process 
of monopolization will to create a technique that will exceed the 
imaginations of Rockefeller or the the other robber barons` 
brilliant greed. Even after the effect of this settlement becomes 
apparent with the elimination of competitors, divestiture may be 
blocked by res judicata. Sadly, Microsoft will be in a better 
position than if they had won the trial on monopolization or if DOJ 
had been disbanded before it wasted millions proving monopolization. 
In a mistaken moment of national unity inspired by a terrifying 
terrorist act, the DOJ seeks to end this dispute. This resolution 
will cost America far, far more than the cost of a couple of WTC 
towers. I truly hope that the Court will reject the settlement.
    _ Richard S. Sternberg, Esquire
    [email protected]
    Metropolitan Washington Law Consortium, PLLC
    Managing Principal/CEO
    http://MWLC.org/
    A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
    For nearly four years, your voice has been instrumental in the 
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned 
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether 
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite 
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsofts competitors, 
the federal government and nine states finally reached a 
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy.
    However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is 
more important than ever. The law (officially called the Tunney Act) 
requires a public comment period between now and January 28th after 
which the District Court will determine whether the settlement is in 
the public interest. Unfortunately, a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Dont let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Between now and January 28th, it is critical that the Department 
of Justice hears from you about the Microsoft settlement. The 
Department of Justice will then take all public comments and 
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District 
Court to consider. Please send your comments directly to the 
Department of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28th. 
Whatever your view of the settlement, it is critical that the 
government hears directly from consumers. Please take action today 
to ensure your voice is heard.
    Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of 
the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment 
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at:
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.
    htm
    Thanks for taking the time to make a difference.



MTC-00007413

From: Yvonne Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern; In these uncertain economic times, 
further litigation regarding the settlement with Microsoft will only 
make the lawyers wealthier & take down a very important & 
needed company! Do we need all these companies going out of business 
due to prolonged & unnecessary legal haggling???
    I trust that you will act in a responsible manner & let the 
settlement stand!!
    Thank you,
    Yvonne R. Bamford



MTC-00007414

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    Dear sirs,
    This is a comment time for consumers to comment on the 
settlement of the Microsoft case. As a tax payers we resent the huge 
amounts of money being spent on this

[[Page 24913]]

settlement. I resent the time away from business in difficult 
economic times that it demands from Microsoft. I want it settled as 
soon as possible.
    Consumers need Microsoft products. We use them and need them. 
Please put an end to this case as soon as possible. Of course 
competitors want to punish their competition. Let us not fall into 
that trap.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn and Gary Rands
    15523 S. E. 46th Way
    Bellevue, WA 98006
    [email protected]



MTC-00007415

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Department of Justice
    I just want to express my opinion re: States vs. Microsoft. 
Attorney of states suing are only wasting time and taxpayers money. 
Microsoft is entitled to innovate and profit from their skills. The 
economy demands that these frivolous lawsuits be finished. Many of 
us older folks are benefited from the ease of logging on with 
Microsoft. Let`s get on with the show.
    Erwin Anderson
    Seattle



MTC-00007416

From: dave cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm
Subject: DOJ
    I want the DOJ to settle with Microsoft so that Msft can 
continue to innovate. This will also help to clear up a big cloud 
over our economy.



MTC-00007417

From: Lowell Jacobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw It is clear 
to me and to everyone I have talk with that the nine remaining 
states in the Settlement have personal vendettas against Microsoft. 
I have never seen such hatred from the likes of Larry Ellison and 
Scott McNealy and, to be honest, the Attorneys General remaining are 
only supporting companies such as Oracle and SunW, companies that 
cannot beat MSFT in the market place so they take it to the courts 
to do their dirtywork. What a shame. I strongly support MSFT in this 
case because I believe they are the greatest company in America and 
the world. They do a lot of good for our world and help us to make 
sense out of it. Furthermore, they provide great products at 
reasonable_cheap, really_prices. I guess that Scott and 
Larry are just poor losers. Is that what American enterprise is all 
about. No, I don`t think so. All I can finally say is that if these 
remaining attorneys general are my spokespersons for fairness in the 
market place, we are all going to be in a lot of trouble. Get off 
your `high horses', guys. A vast proportion of Americans 
totally disagree with you.
    Lowell Jacobson
    Las Vegas, Nevada and Tokyo, Japan



MTC-00007418

From: Nick Corrado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The federal government and nine states recently reached a 
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. As a 
consumer, I feel that this settlement is good for me, the industry 
and the American economy. I urge you to abide by this settlement.
    Nick Corrado



MTC-00007419

From: stephen errico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    this settlement is good. for the good of the country and the 
economy leave microsoft alone!



MTC-00007420

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/2/02 8:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I support the settlement and feel the goverment has better 
things to do,



MTC-00007421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As an American and knowledgeable computer user, I feel the suit 
against Microsoft unfounded and should be dismissed. This issue 
originally began due to MS competing with Netscape at a time when 
Netscpape had a 90+% monoply in the internet browser business and 
was changing $60 dollars for the Netscape and you had to pay a 
subcription. Began competing with Netscape and gave away its browser 
to the comsumer.The American consumer benefited by reducing prices 
and both Netscape and MS now give away their browsers to the 
consumer.
    As for as MS forcing consumers to use Internet Explorer. Nothing 
could be farther from the trueth. I used Netscape prior to IE and 
used it after I obtained IE. I even paid Netscape for their software 
and subscriptions after obtaining the free IE. At no time has 
Windows or IE prevented me from using Netscape. In fact you can load 
both browsers on any IBM compatible computer and run them 
indepentent of eachother and run multiple windows of each 
simultaneously. If the computer consumer failed to realize this, its 
not MS`s fault.
    MS may be a shrewed competitor, but that is what America is 
about. If you look at the cost of computers, MS`s software and 
computer software in general I cannot fathom how anyone can say MS 
has hurt business or the consumer. If you want to look into a 
monoply, check Apple out. Apple never opened their operating system 
to the public, where MS did.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Smith



MTC-00007422

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemant
    I think that the settlement is fair. It is my belief that 
Microsoft is in no way harmeful to the consumer.
    Thank You,
    Joshua Michelman



MTC-00007423

From: Barry Stangl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this case with Microsoft. A settlement has been 
announced and we need to put it behind us. Do not let it drag on.
    _- Barry Stangl
    _- [email protected]
    _- EarthLink: It`s your Internet.



MTC-00007424

From: NY...NY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:50pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It is time to settle the anti-trust case against Microsoft. This 
pro-long legal procedure that certain competitors and state justice 
departments are implementing to this case has only helped to slow 
down the growth of technology innovation.



MTC-00007425

From: carson mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:51pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    doj, the microsoft settlement needs to be approved by the judge 
as its more than fair for me a user of software products, all this 
cost and time in court is damaging to america as that time and money 
desperately needs to be invested in keeping the global business and 
software lead here in george washington`s america so we can service 
our massive debt load and keep an angel eye on our trade deficit as 
it will be less likely we will sell off to much of our great country 
through our trade deficit if microsoft and the governments can get 
on to more productive work. otherwise we will lose america`s global 
lead to euroupe and the euro. you`ve taken this to far already, 
thanks,carson mitchell-a very concerned american co-owner!



MTC-00007426

From: Roselma L. Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please end this case, I am so tired of hearing about it.... 
thank you so much,
    Roselma Quinn



MTC-00007427

From: Kurt Erensoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    In 1992, I was laid off from my job at Liberty Mutual Insurance 
Company. I had at

[[Page 24914]]

that time, on my own initative and spending many long hours at home 
after work hours, developed for Liberty Mutual several insurance 
rate-quotation applications which served Liberty Mutual`s sales 
force very well in more than a dozen states. I lost my job at 
Liberty Mutual because my product was in direct competition with the 
IS Department`s mainframe software, and it felt threatened by a PC 
product produced outside its realm. The full force of the power of 
the IS Department was brought to bear against me, and I was laid off 
23 days before I was eligible for full retirement benefits_23 
days before I reached age 55.
    Having had my fill of corporate ingratitude, I started my own 
software company. At that time, Microsoft`s Quick Basic was 
available to me at almost no cost to develop my applications, and 
during the last 10 years Microsoft has provided to me a number of 
programming tools, which gave me the chance to prosper as a small 
software developer. I owe much to Microsoft, as do my software users 
who do not have the slightest idea of the role Microsoft has played 
in providing sophisticated programming software at such a low cost 
to the developer.
    To me, who has experienced the backlash of producing a 
successful product, there are some clear similarities between my 
losing my job and the type of punishment Microsoft`s competitors 
would like to mete out to Microsoft. I was punished and Microsoft 
stands to be punished solely on account of our success. In my case, 
the price paid was limited to only me and Liberty Mutual`s sale 
force. In the case of Microsoft, the whole community of PC users is 
at risk at paying a price, and a heavy one it will be.
    Thank you,
    Kurt Erensoy
    [email protected]
    EZ-RATER Systems
    http://www.ezrater.com



MTC-00007428

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get Government out of our free enterprise system and have 
Government focus on what it needs to do for America. Protect us from 
terrorism instead of trying to persecute one of America`s finest 
companies.
    Don Kollmansberger



MTC-00007429

From: JOHN R TKACH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The microsoft settlement is good for everyone except the 
competitors that want something for nothing. Good work.
    John R. Tkach



MTC-00007430

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case and move on to catching and 
prosecuting the real bad guys in this world.
    Michelle Primm
    Cascade Auto Group Ltd



MTC-00007431

From: Al Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I am a big fan of Microsoft products. I have found them to be of 
excellent quality and fairly priced. Even more important is their 
support. My experience with other software has been less than 
satisfactory. Microsoft, on the other hand, has been very helpful 
every time I have needed assistance. Their willingness to keep their 
products in use and up-to-date, often without additional cost is 
remarkable. Please do not penalize Microsoft for building a better 
mousetrap!
    Respectfully,
    Albert C. Turner
    28101 SW Mohave Terrace
    Wilsonville, Oregon 97070-9257
    [email protected]



MTC-00007432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    SETTLE NOW AS IT SERVES MANY PUBLIC INTERESTS. Litigation only 
serves the attorneys and special interests. Let us help and educate 
our youth with little cost to the taxpayers. Our federal dollars 
should be used for HOMELAND SECURITY !!! God bless America and 
capitalism.
    Let competition and innovation be the driving forces and not 
special interests.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007434

From: lange-ho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:54pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to accept the 
settlement offered by Microsoft for the good of all consumers and 
for the good of the economy as a whole.
    Sincerely, Gary C. Lange, a concerned citizen and consumer. 2903 
N.E. 37th Place, Yarrow Point, Wa. 98004



MTC-00007435

From: Casey Ceponis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If Micrsoft gets away with this, and on the present course, it 
seems that way, the average citizen will not help but think he`s 
been abandoned by the Megopolis of Microsoft and their `apparent` 
influence over Government. I believe the average guy will apply the 
rule of what`s reasonable from this and loose respect for the lawful 
settlement of such issues. this will be an irreversible trend and 
things such as piracy will mushroom. Don`t reward them for clearly 
breaking the law!!
    Casey Ceponis
    240 Hampton Ct.
    Palatine, IL 60067



MTC-00007436

From: Rex Bloom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments on the Microsoft Case:
    If Microsoft believes that they are not a Monopoly in the OS 
industry, then some investors (or microsoft themselves) should put 
up some money and invest in a new company to develop a competing OS. 
(like BEos tried to do). This new company would create a NEW Os and 
then we could determine if a monoply exists.
    Rex ([email protected])



MTC-00007437

From: Joseph F Donahue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    This case should have been settled years ago.



MTC-00007438

From: Barry McColeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I appreciate the chance to let my voice be heard. I am very 
happy with the proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I 
feel that this case never should have been brought but in the 
interests of both parties I feel that the proposed resolution is 
fair to both sides. Thank you again for letting me voice my opinion.
    Barry McColeman



MTC-00007439

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has been going on long enough. Settle the case now before 
you hurt our economy further. Microsoft and the country have been 
punished enough let`s it get it over for the good of all.



MTC-00007440

From: Carmine Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement was unjust. Microsoft has been 
treated unfairly and innovation will be stopped if government 
activities continue. You broke up Ma-Bell and my phone bill 
increased 400%. Is this your help for Microsoft, going to give me 
the same justice if so, NO Thanks!



MTC-00007441

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 8:59pm
Subject: Litigation
    As a concerned citizen of the on-going litigation, I say enough 
is enough. We are choking ourselves and our country`s welfare by the 
trial lawyers, who to me are the ones benefiting from this 
litigation. It`s just plain simple fact that we are killing our 
country`s progress with numerous and unreasonable lawsuits. We 
wasted a lot of resources and energy to a point to being 
unproductive. This

[[Page 24915]]

is the last thing we need during this time of economic crisis.



MTC-00007442

From: E. R.James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The following is a copy of an email that I sent to our 
California Attorney General. When I read in the paper that Oracle 
had given him $20,000 for his election I was quite bothered because 
I just don`t agree with the states that are still out there trying 
to get more from MS then already agreed to by the DOJ. I`ll quote a 
little from the San Diego Union dated 11/11/01. `But Lockyer 
has a built-in bias against the software maker, which still remains 
one of America`s five most-admired companies, according to Fortune 
magazine.'
    Ernie James
    [email protected]
    Sir:
    I had no intention of writing this message, but, when I found 
out that you had a genuine conflict of interest in the Microsoft 
case and you are willing to spend up to and maybe more than 
$4,000,000 of our money to `get` Microsoft, I was astounded. To 
think that Oracle has bought you for a mere $20,000 is a shock to 
say the least.
    If the Federal Government could reasonably settle the matter, 
why won`t Oracle and Sun Microsystems?
    You owe the people of California an explanation of why you 
should not recuse yourself from further action in this legal matter.
    E. R. James



MTC-00007443

From: Dennis Librandi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Microsoft built the better mouse trap and a few companies are 
crying because they did not. I have a choice of OS to use. Settle 
and move on to bigger fish like GE (GE Medical Systems holds a gun 
to the head of every hospital in the country when it comes to their 
service_now that is antitrust at its finest).
    Dennis C. Librandi
    3108 Blakeney Court
    Clemmons, NC 27012
    (336) 712-9331



MTC-00007444

From: Richard W Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it`s about time to stop spending the taxpayers money to 
satisfy a few whining competitors of Microsoft. If these people want 
to compete, let them write some better software or build some better 
hardware, then they too, can be sued by some of their competitors 
for doing a better job.....Enough is enough.......Richard W. Carr



MTC-00007445

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Department of Justice,
    Please settle the Microsoft Antitrust Suit as soon as possible. 
I also would like you to put some Federal pressure on the states 
that are choosing not to be a part of the settlement. Their choice 
to pursue further litigation is not what our country and it`s 
citizenry need. I work for the telecommunications industry and went 
through the AT&T breakup. The industry has been in chaos ever 
since. If the Microsoft settlement is not approved, then you can 
expect the choice of a Microsoft divestiture to create the same 
effect on the computer industry. I implore the Justice Department to 
vote for an immediate settlement and to encourage all the states to 
do the same.
    Thank you for your time, and God bless America.
    Kevin Smith
    [email protected]



MTC-00007446

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair. We need to get on with business.
    Mariann Fisher



MTC-00007447

From: Bob Bernard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We feel the settlement is fair and should stand !
    Bob & Sally Bernard



MTC-00007448

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Let freedom ring and let`s get our country back on track with 
more important things than shooting another corporation in the foot! 
May be they, you the Government, should go after the alcohol 
companies, they seem to kill a-lot of people every year!???
    Sincerely,
    Joseph John Fields



MTC-00007449

From: Ben Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I firmly agree that this case should be settled now. It`s a 
disgrace that any company is penalized for being very innovative and 
progressive. If you can`t compete, then get out of the game. In 
sports the #1 team always wins and this is never decided by a 
bunch of money hungry lawyers.
    golfbum77



MTC-00007450

From: Amelia Blyden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The Department of Justice
    As an interested and concerned citizen, I am pleased that the 
federal government and nine states finally reached a comprehensive 
agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in 
the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is tough, but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I agree that settlement 
is good for consumers, the industry and the American economy.
    Amelia E. Blyden



MTC-00007451

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I believe it is in the best interest for our country and for all 
concerned parties that this settlement concludes at the earliest 
time possible. To continue litigation, would only serve a few select 
individuals and companies. It is not in the best interest for the 
american public or for business to continue this, as it has been 
decided by the courts and by several states to conclude this 
antitrust suit.
    Thanks, Arthur Kindred [email protected]



MTC-00007452

From: lange-ho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:06pm
Subject: Micresoft Settlement
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to accept Microsoft`s 
proposal for the good of the consumer and for the good of the 
economy. sincerely, Gary C. Lange, a concerned citizen.
    9210 N.E. 37th Place, Yarrow Point, Wa. 98004



MTC-00007453

From: Redmund Sum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I am very pleased with the Department of Justice`s change of 
stance on the Microsoft Antitrust case. The previous posture of the 
DOJ, prior to the Appeals Court ruling was blatantly anti-business 
and anti-consumer and merely served the interest of Microsofts 
competitors, and in my view, the resume of the federal prosecutors 
and state attorney generals and their lawyers.
    Not a legal professional myself, I would think that the 
Governments job is to make sure that competition is possible, but 
not to guarantee that any competitor, or group of competitors, is 
successful, or even viable. Success and failure should be determined 
by the buying decisions of computing public.
    Respectfully,
    Redmund Sum



MTC-00007454

From: Jeff Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will be brief as I expect you have more than a little bit of 
correspondence to review.
    Please accept the proposed settlement as being in the public 
interest. *Microsoft (and

[[Page 24916]]

its stockholders) have already been punished terribly. The 75% loss 
to shareholder value caused by the initial judgment preceded all of 
the dot com problems (perhaps even triggered them). This loss 
represents tens of billions of dollars- certainly more than any 
reasonable fine.
    *It seems that the only states that didn`t join in on the 
settlement are those that have significant potential upside if fines 
are levied against Microsoft (Utah and California are the most 
notable since Utah is the home of Novell and California is the home 
of Oracle, Sun and others). I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who 
stated that a democracy will fail as soon as its constituents 
realize they can vote money in to their individual pockets.
    *The forced release of Microsoft`s source code and other 
intellectual property would be nothing less than robbery. It seems 
extremely odd to me that any company would be expected to make a 
product that works with products from another company. I don`t see 
Ford being forced to provide detailed specifications of the bolts 
they use to allow BMW to make replacement steering wheels for the 
Taurus.
    *Netscape`s success in the market place (as demonstrated by 
AOL`s purchase of them for an amount in excess of a billion dollars 
as well as by number of downloads) clearly demonstrates that 
innovation is possible even when Microsoft is a dominant player in 
the market. AOL has over 100 million users, their Instant Messaging 
product has a considerably higher user count that Microsoft`s 
product and yet these companies still cry foul.
    *Sun`s Scott McNealy has gone on record as saying he is happy to 
use the legal system for competitive advantage against Microsoft. To 
allow that is to suggest that the checks and balances we have in 
place are merely window dressing for corporate agenda`s and other 
politicking.
    *Windows XP demonstrates clear innovations in areas of usability 
(help messages in clear English, task oriented support, context 
sensitivity), stability, recoverability (system state restore, user 
migration, system file protection) as well as the innovations with 
middleware. It is on the whole of these merits_not on 
predatory practices_that Microsoft receives accolades on their 
product and solid market share.
    Please let us move on from this- for the sake of the 
stockholders, the users in general and all of us who do not want to 
see the self-righteous, indignant few demonstrate that it is easier 
to litigate and lobby than to make a better product of their own and 
in so doing prevent a real innovator from continuing to provide 
quality product.
    Thank you in advance for what I am certain will be a fair 
judgment based on all relevant facts.
    Yours truly,
    Jeffrey S. Williams, MBA/TM



MTC-00007455

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:07pm
Subject: MICRSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear sirs.
    In my opinion MS should not be found guilty of any crime. 
Without their enginuity this country would be years behind where we 
are now.
    I feel the case should be settled without sanctions which upset 
the companies function,
    Sincerely
    John G Citti



MTC-00007456

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled without further litigation. 
Our economy is suffering because of all of this.



MTC-00007457

From: Ruthanna Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly think that the Microsoft settlement was harsher than 
it should have been ... but we will live with it. Please do all you 
can to ensure that M/S is able to continue their innovations in the 
future_as a computer professional since 1963 I am aware of the 
advantage that has been delivered to users through their 
developments.
    Ruthanna Wolf
    Whittier, CA



MTC-00007458

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft suit. It has gone on long enough. 
Thank you.
    Dale Petty. Microsoft stockholder.



MTC-00007459

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please hurry this settlement along. As a small business owner 
for 40 years, and having to learn and try to work through numerous 
obsolete computers and programs, including an IBM system 32 and 
other languages that could only work on their own companies 
hardware, talk about tying and unfair business practices. Thank Bill 
Gates and friends for getting one language adopted so we could buy 
any machine and any program we wanted too, for work or at home.
    Thank You
    Paul DeTray.



MTC-00007460

From: Russ Strilowich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It`s time we all move on with this issue. The settlement reached 
between the government and Microsoft is more than fair and for the 
publics welfare. To prolong this matter any longer can only hurt all 
parties involved.
    Russ Strilowich



MTC-00007461

From: Mark Blackham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this lawsuit by accepting the settlement with 
microsoft. this is a fair and equitable way to end the dispute. it 
also allows microsoft to continue to conduct its business. thanks.
    Mark Blackham



MTC-00007462

From: Kim Newlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this is a very fair settlement and now we can go on 
with our lives. I believe this has been a hindrance to our economy 
by holding back Microsoft. Thanks for a chance to comment.
    Kim Newlin



MTC-00007463

From: Rodney M. Wren, II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe enough is enough. The anti-Microsoft case has gone 
long enough and cost me enough money to try, both in taxes and money 
paid to Microsoft for their defense. The whole question is one of 
competence. No other company has come anywhere close to producing 
quality software that Microsoft has. I have tested other operating 
systems (Unix, Linux and OS2) none compare. I have used other office 
products (Lotus 1-2-3, Wordstar, Wordperfect and Star 
Office), again none compare. I have used other Web browsers 
(Netscape, Juno and AOL), a third time none compare.
    I believe I have made my case.
    Rodney M. Wren, II
    17621 S.E. 30th Avenue
    Summerfield, FL 34491-7519
    Land: (352) 307-9616
    Cell: (352) 207-5547
    Fax: (352) 245-8278
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007464

From: Norman Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:10pm
Subject: To anyone concerned:
    To anyone concerned:
    A number of us here in St. Cloud, Mn. feel Bill Gates is the 
Patron Saint of Computers. Before Windows, if you had a computer it 
was almost impossible to find someone to assist you with a computer 
problem. Now, with the majority of computer users using Windows, 
help is often just a question away, by phone or in person. And that 
Windows is priced today at inflation adjusted prices, less that when 
first introduced.
    Those of us that help in the Computer Lab at the Senior Center, 
here in St. Cloud, often comment about life before Windows and how 
much easier it is now for us because Windows incorporates many 
applications and that those applications work well together. We say, 
`many cheers for Microsoft.'
    Regards,
    Norm Meyer

[[Page 24917]]



MTC-00007465

From: Cindy Rotblat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Bravo! Finally a decision has been reached! The last thing the 
American economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few 
wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. I support the the recent 
decision which was handed down to Microsoft.
    Cindy Rotblat
    Cindy Rotblat
    NIE Coordinator
    The Journal-Standard
    P.O. 330
    Freeport, Illinois 61032
    (815) 232-0141
    [email protected]



MTC-00007466

From: Marlin E. Parbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am writing to you in regards to whether the Microsoft case, 
should be settled, or further litigated. I think it should be 
settled and be done with! Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of 
a few of Microsoft`s competitors, the federal government and nine 
states finally reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to 
address the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. 
This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for 
them, the industry and the American economy.
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and/or lawyers, and stifles 
innovation. If someone out there thinks that there is or ought to be 
a better operating system or software, let them get off their duffs 
and write the code for it, instead of trying to ride the coat tails 
of a successful corporation.
    Don`t let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    I would venture an opinion that the 9 states that are hanging 
out, are more jealous than anything else, or have other special 
interests, directing their actions to prolong the settlement. Let`s 
get this over and let the economy start a recovery.
    I don`t remember as a consumer, contacting an attorney to 
represent me in this law suit and they are saying that they are 
protecting the consumer. I say `HOG WASH'!! If we didn`t 
like what Microsoft was doing, we would vote with our wallets, and 
not buy.
    I think we all out to sue Ford for not letting us get Chevrolet 
equipment in our new car or vice versa. You can imagine all the law 
suits that could ensue, as they have a monopoly on what things go in 
our vehicles. What about cable internet? I have only one choice 
where I live, why not multiple choices.
    Please do prove the `age old adage' of `Common 
Sense isn`t Common' and settle the suit.
    Thank you for listening!
    Marlin E. Parbs



MTC-00007467

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft has done nothing 
wrong_only used smart business practices. I think the states 
are wrong to pursue the `punishment:' of Microsoft. I 
think consumers will benefit from what Microsoft is doing. The 
states are wasting our money by pusuing action against them. It is 
TIME to let go
    Elaine Leib
    37789 Medjool Ave]
    Palm Desert, CA 92211



MTC-00007468

From: Robert Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Greetings,
    As a data processing professional who has been in the field for 
over 30 years, I maintain that these charges should have never been 
brought against Microsoft. Their success is due to the quality of 
their products, and companies who could not meet their excellence, 
such as Sun Microsystems, and especially Oracle, have spent great 
sums of money to harm Microsoft.
    I dare say that if Oracle or Sun had their e-mail exposed the 
way that Microsoft did, the Microsoft `evidence' would 
look comparatively timid.
    The only purpose that damages against Microsoft can possibly 
serve is to raise the prices of their excellent software, and their 
integration methods, which are much like those in use by IBM and Sun 
Microsystems.
    Your actions could set our endeavors back, as well as every 
other company in the United States, and cost us a great deal of 
money over time.
    Please do not harm Microsoft. Please do not punish them for 
being the best of breed.
    Bob Nelson
    Adventek, Inc.
    Jacksonville, Florida 32207



MTC-00007469

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like the Microsoft Issue settled as soon as possible. I 
do not think it should be dragged on any longer. Finish it.



MTC-00007470

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my belief that the Microsoft case should be settled with 
the federal government and all of the states involved. It is a 
tough, but good, settlement that is in the best interests of all 
concerned and especially beneficial to the consumer.
    It is time to celebrate the survival of innovation and realize 
the benefits to everyone, especially future generations. Thank you 
for considering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn
    H. Moore
    [email protected]



MTC-00007471

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:12pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am tired of the department of justice trying to ruin a great 
American company. You have reached a fair settlement_its time 
the attorney general tell the states to settle their further claims. 
Its bad for business and bad for America.
    Richard Commerford
    4744 NW 96 Drive
    Coral Springs Fl 33076



MTC-00007472

From: Paul White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to go on record as favoring the Microsoft Settlement as 
it now stands.
    Paul D. White
    8761 E Briarwood Blvd
    Englewood, CO 80112
    01/02/02



MTC-00007473

From: Jeff Dennison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case is more than adequate and should be completed and closed as 
soon as possible.
    Regards, Jeff Dennison



MTC-00007474

From: Gail Kroon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs: It is time that this judgment is settled for the good of 
the economy and the country. The settlement is a fair one.
    Francis and Gail Kroon



MTC-00007475

From: Dr Whom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please settle with Microsoft and go after some real criminals.
    Thank you, Monty Johnson



MTC-00007476

From: A(038)H van Wyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please ensure that this issue is settled swiftly. I do not think 
that prolonging matters will serve my well in my capacity as a 
consumer in these uncertain times. I urge you to implement the 
settlement as it stands as a fair and reasonable measure.
    Thank you

[[Page 24918]]

    Andre van Wyk
    St. Pierre



MTC-00007477

From: Dale Caughey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Several Attorneys Generals are acting as agents for AOL and Sun 
Microsystems. They seek to establish an uneven field tilted their 
way.
    Mr Ashcroft should crack his whip and exert his influence to 
disrail this effort. This is a federal matter, and states have no 
power in these matters, so it would seem.
    I use AOL everyday, but, let`s get on with it. If SUN and AOL 
are feeling the heat, have their AG tell them to make better 
products.
    Dale Caughey



MTC-00007478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in support of the settlement. I would appreciate 
ALL states and the Federal Government stop this harassment of an 
American Company. I do NOT understand why anyone would try to hinder 
Microsoft from adding free enhancements in their operating system. 
It seems as though the State and Federal Governments would rather 
have the consumer pay for everything. I can assure you that when a 
software designer creates a better operating system than Microsoft, 
I will be the first in line to purchase the product.
    Allen Niesyto



MTC-00007479

From: tony corrado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm
Subject: The continued persecution of Microsoft
    Will you please end this wasting of public monies!!! enough is 
enough!!! Settle this and be done with it ... Spend your time more 
wisely, protecting the country from the Evil Doers, end their money 
laundering, Protect the country!!! Stop bothering Microsoft about 
this, It`s gone on long enough!!! Tony
    Corrado 74-19 260th st Glen Oaks, ny 11004



MTC-00007480

From: don sawhill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe it is important to settle the Microsoft case in order 
that the company may get back to business. If successful businesses 
are dragged into court by their less successful competitors simply 
because of envy, America`s businesses will all suffer. Please let 
the greedy state attorneys general
    Know that they must accept the federal decision and allow 
businesses to continue to provide the best products which we 
consumers will gladly purchase.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Don Sawhill
    [email protected]



MTC-00007481

From: Pat and Gene Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. It is rediculous that this pursuit of 
Microsoft is still going on. It does nothing for anyone except 
lawyers and should be stopped now!
    P.A. Keller



MTC-00007482

From: rcw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this now! The entire suit was crazy to begin 
with.!



MTC-00007484

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 9:20pm
Subject: The Merrimac Coup
    The Merrimac Coup was described in a recent Bridge column in the 
Los Angeles Times. Basically designed as a way to prevent escape, 
the US Navy sunk one of their ships, the Merrimac, in a Spanish 
harbor, preventing Spanish ships from leaving.
    The Merrimac telephone exchange was located in Chicago on the 
near North Side around Central and North Avenues. The White Cap 
Company, where my father was employed, had a main telephone number 
of ME-7-2000, before 3 digit area codes, digital ESS 
systems, and other telecommunications advancements were implemented.
    The White Cap Company was acquired by Continental Can years ago, 
leaving most of the White Family management in place, providing 
Continental board member privileges to Robert White, president of 
White Cap. Stock & cash payments to the family may have been 
invested with others in land & other assets. I believe the 
Irish-American origin White family has been honored in the LA Times 
and parent Chicago Tribune Corporation via the Sports pages and 
others in coded messages for years.
    Most recently, with the changing of the Irish football coaching 
guard at Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, and the preceding resume 
fiasco with Notre Dame`s one week coach (former San Diego assistant 
coach), the Tribune / Times editors have been working overtime on 
creative writing endeavours. The coded messages in the Bridge column 
may provide a strategy for family / corporate assets interested in 
repositioning themselves. `Sinking' the Merrimac may be 
a quasi-governmental or PAC investment code, defining a 
`scuttle' of a disposable piece of the fleet in order to 
keep opposing forces at or in their `bay', preventing 
those opposing forces from attacking other areas.
    The Irish roots of Microsoft`s family and leader, Bill Gates, 
may also be related to the issues presented in this and previous 
communications.



MTC-00007485

From: Dave and Nancy Haverstock, PC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please understand that Microsoft is like the English Language. I 
expect any program valuable to my work to sync with my Microsoft 
products. I use the Microsoft operating system, Microsoft data base 
systems and other programs in my professional life. If other 
programs I use do not sync with Microsoft, they might as well be 
written in Greek.
    Microsoft is not a monopoly or a bully. They are the inventors 
of a system that works for business in the USA. It is like living in 
a strange foreign country to think that they would be under scrutiny 
for their innovation and originality. Back off!!
    `Mr. & Mrs. Real Estate'
    The Haverstocks
    RE/MAX Integrity
    4710 Village Plaza Loop #200
    541-342-1210 or 888-281-6344
    Fax: 686-9297 Cell: 521-0211
    [email protected]
    www.DaveNancy.com



MTC-00007486

From: Vivian R. Maines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Department of Justice RE: Microsoft 
Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
Leave things as is! NO MORE LITIGATION.
    Plus, I`m all for freedom to innovate and without penalty! For 
out of such comes the happy consumer!!!
    Vivian R. Maines
    16919 S.E. 5th St.
    Vancouver WA 98684
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007487

From: Tom Dupre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft
    1335 East 23rd Place
    Yuma, Arizona 85365
    January 2, 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 with the 
settlement that was reached in the antitrust dispute between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice in early November. This 
settlement is a little harsh on Microsoft, but there is nothing that 
can be done about that now. Let us put this issue to rest and move 
on.
    Microsoft has been responsible for many positive actions, and I 
see no need to punish a company that conducts itself in that way. 
They have created scholarships for college students, made computers 
all over the world

[[Page 24919]]

compatible with each other, and donated millions upon millions of 
dollars to various charities. Let us not forget that they have 
completely revolutionized the technology industry and have provided 
jobs to thousands and thousands of people across the globe. Let the 
settlement stand so Microsoft can continue helping people and the 
economy.
    Thank you for your time and consideration, and again, please 
allow the
    Microsoft settlement to stand.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Dupre
    P.S. Thanks for standing strong on our second amendment rights 
as well. As a conservative Republican, I am proud of the job both 
you and the rest of President Bush`s administration have done and 
will continue to do on behalf of our nation.



MTC-00007488

From: Verlene P. Cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long-time user of Microsoft products. I do not support 
any additional litigation and review involving the current case 
against Microsoft. In my viewpoint, Microsoft does not act as a 
monopoly and has not kept other entrants out of the field. I work at 
a college that requires that Netscape be used by all employees and 
faculty. I access other computers at libraries and other locations 
that also use Netscape. Additional time, review, and/or litigation 
does not serve the public interest. Let`s put this behind us and 
move forward.
    Verlene P. Cobb
    4481 Gin Plantation Drive
    Snellville, GA 30039
    770-860-0161
    [email protected]



MTC-00007489

From: Belinda K Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough ? and the current settlement is more than 
enough, so just end this now move on to deal issues that really need 
attention. We`re tired of time, etc. being wasted because of the 
sour grape/jealous attitudes of all the other companies who wish 
they were Microsoft.
    belinda k. bailey
    pisgah forest, nc 28768



MTC-00007490

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It really is time to settle this thing. I personally have never 
felt wronged by microsoft. Every morning when I turn my computer on 
to check my schedule I am thankful that Microsoft software is there 
to get me organized. I think word is the best word processing 
software I have ever used and I have used a few.
    Instead of persecuting one of Americas finest enterprises I 
think our geniuses in the Justice department should be awarding 
Microsoft a medal of honor for singlehandedly providing the software 
that keeps American business functioning efficiently.
    Why is it that America always punishes its best and subsidizes 
its worst. If you are sucessful the IRS taxes you to death if you 
are stupid and get knocked up the government steps in and subsidizes 
your stupidity.
    What are we thinking. I guess we`re not and that`s the problem.
    All I can say is three cheers for Microsoft. If the justice dept 
can`t do its thing in 4 years its time for them to fold the tent and 
go home and let honest business men tend their store.
    Thank you, Microsoft



MTC-00007491

From: MIKE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a short note to say I think the government has made a mess 
out of the Microsoft case. First, I think Microsoft has provided a 
valuable service to the consumer bringing together a line of 
products that work together. This certainly wasn`t the case in the 
mid 1980`s when there were vast incompatibilities between word 
processing, spreadsheet, and other software on the market. 
Microsoft`s products work together very weel. I can import and 
export objects between files, and get things done. The consumer 
recognizes that and buys those products. Second, I don`t think 
Microsoft did anything wrong, and certainly not anything that other 
companies have been doing for years trying to establish and keep 
their market. They are the premier business paradigm in the 
US_and we`re trying to crush it. It doesn`t make sense. Close 
the case.



MTC-00007492

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen and business owner I have been appalled 
at the government`s prosecution of this frivilous case. The average 
American has disagreed with the government, look at the AT&T 
break-up for an example of the potential long-term harm. It appears 
that this break-up could result in harm to the telecommunications 
industry after all.
    I oppose further prosecution of the Microsoft case and urge 
settling this case. I have voiced my opinion also to Congressman 
Rick Boucher D-VA directly as well. As an interesting fact, at 
a Q and A session of our local chamber of commerce, I requested a 
message to Mr. Clinton be delivered. This was to have `hands 
off Microsoft' in the defense of innovation. The entire 
Chamber of Commerce (100+ businesses on hand) applauded the comment 
and urgerd the congressman to deliver the message.
    Stacy Martin
    Virginia



MTC-00007493

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:27pm
Subject: (no subject)
    To whom it may concern:
    The Microsoft settlement has taken place, let it be. Since when 
do we kill our best companies. Let the settlement stand and lets go 
on with life.
    Ronald V. Strobel



MTC-00007494

From: charles lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THE BICKERING AND IT IS TIME TO SETTLE 
THIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER LAWYER WEALTH GATHERING.
    CHARLES LEE
    MASCOUTAH, IL 62258



MTC-00007496

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:29pm
Subject: Response for Government
    To who it may concern:
    I regret that Microsoft has to settle with the government at 
all. Somehow our government has not figured out yet that Microsoft 
has lead America`s productivity gains for the last 20 years. Most 
American companies are aggressive in order to compete. I as a 
consumer do not feel in the least bit that I somehow have been 
cheated or have paid unfair prices for the goods I have received. I 
understand that standardization is a critical element in computing 
and Microsoft has lead the way for developers and computer users 
around the world. I am totally satisfied and look forward to their 
future innovations and products.
    What ever settlement the government feels it must reach sould be 
slight and sould not inhibit innovators for doing what they do 
best... create great products and jobs and massive commerce for this 
country. Please do not loose sight of all the benefits that this 
nation has enjoyed as a direct result of Microsoft innovations and 
efforts to date.
    Anything other than this acknowledgement is irresponsible and 
dangerous to this country`s future.
    Joseph N. DeNardo
    Small business Owner
    M.S. Public Management and Policy



MTC-00007497

From: RICHARD LANGLOIS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:28pm
Subject: microsoft
    I would like to say that Bill Gates is getting the short end of 
the situation here. Everyone says he monopolized Microsoft. It`s not 
our fault or Mr. Gates fault that he invented his system and its 
better than anyone elses. I feel that everyone should look at the 
donations he has made over the years and congadulate him on the good 
he has done and what he has contributed to the technology industry 
instead of this so-called negative news about this genious. He`s a 
human being like us and as far as I`m concerned he`s a very good 
american citizen and the greatest inventor of technology. There`s 
more important things going on in this world that need adressed 
beside this. Get everyones money back from

[[Page 24920]]

ENRON who got ripped off and get the men ivolved and put them in 
prison for life and concentrate on our WAR EFFORTS OVERSEA.
    RICHARD G. LANGLOIS



MTC-00007498

From: Monte E. Rudd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If it ain`t broke don`t fix it!!! Leave Microsoft alone!!! 
Microsoft has done more for the people of America, in 5 seconds, 
than all municipal, county, state, and federal government agencies 
have since the signing of the United States Constitution!!! So, 
BACK-OFF!!!
    Monte & Barbara Rudd & Family
    3685 W. 3650 S.
    Hooper, Ut. 84315-9330



MTC-00007499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am in favor of ending any further litigation concerning the 
Microsoft case. The terms reached seem fair and equitable to the 
consumer and to Microsoft. I believe that it is my best interest to 
halt any further expenditure of tax payer money in pursuit of any 
other judgments against Microsoft.
    Kind Regards
    James and Ethel Friar



MTC-00007500

From: Tulita Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam:
    I would hope that by now the DOJ understands the nature of the 
suits brought against Micrsoft. They were designed to break a 
company not because of monopoly but because someone designed and 
brought to fruition an exceptional series of products. Those 
creations brought out jealousy.
    America has always been about building a `better mousetrap`. 
Please settle this nonsense so that Microsoft can continue to do the 
things it does well. For what it is worth, I use both Micrsoft and 
Apple operating systems; each has its merits, and, as a teacher, I`m 
grateful to have access to both.
    Sincerely,
    Tulita P. Owen
    3677 Guernsey Avenue
    Memphis, TN 38122



MTC-00007501

From: DELBERT BLACK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:28pm
Subject: Settlement, Microsoft
    The settlement was probably fair, but I`m not sure that there 
should of been any charges to begin with.
    This nation is so much better off with what Microsoft has done 
in the software area. We as a nation should not try and stop 
progress, and let a foreign nation get ahead of us. I feel that the 
only thing that should of happened was Microsoft be told to stop 
using certain tactics. The thought of breaking up the company was 
politically motivated, and a lack of concern for this nation.
    Thanks for taking time to read this.
    Del Black
    P.S. A company that has hurt a lot of people and has a monopoly 
is Tyson Chicken they have broke a lot of chicken farmers. That is a 
company that should be broken up, they have done nothing to help 
this country.



MTC-00007502

From: Susan Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    settlement is a good option. Microsoft is a good 
company_they put customers #1. Through work I was in a PUP 
program and had previously purchased a Microsoft product at the 
normal retail price. The Office Package I ordered thru the pup was 
less than that price but included the software I had purchased. 
Microsoft refunded the product I had purschased retail saying' 
our motto is to keep our customers happy'. Other companies 
should learn from Microsoft. Where would personal computers be today 
if not for the integration and ease of use Microsoft has provided.



MTC-00007503

From: Ray Stanke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My concern is NOT having a proper standard to operate a computer 
properly. I believe the 9 diehard reps that want Microsoft`s blood 
are dangerous people and vindictive. The settlement as proposed 
should stand as is.
    I went through the period of non-standard computer accessories, 
as well as computers, and I, as a consumer, had a difficult time to 
decipher and follow what was good, what would work with what, and so 
on. We should not go back to that era. Microsoft product is some of 
the best available, and while there is some competition that may 
SEEM better, in fact, the product just doesn`t come up to the same 
standard that MS does.
    Go with the settlement!!
    Thank you!



MTC-00007504

From: Girard F. Oberrender Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs,
    The present settlement is sufficiently severe and does not need 
to be adjusted. Further extension of this case, with its historic 
overtones of political interference by the federal administration on 
behalf of a few corporations against a competitor, will just 
exacerbate a faulty precedence in our successful free market system.
    Our present recession can be timed with the initial decision in 
this case. The attack on our country on September 11, 2001 
spotlights the necessity of focusing our energies and our production 
on more fundamental and urgent directions.
    To potentially award the States choosing to continue their 
litigations would emphasize rewarding the greedy rather than the 
hurt. Such an award would encourage more Government action against 
successful corporations. These corporations have taken, within the 
last generation, the economic leadership from the socialist Germans 
and the state-run Japanese We must restrain the deadening hand of 
government from controlling our businesses.
    Let the judgment stand and close the case.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Girard F. Oberrender Jr. retired engineer, business manager and 
veteran.



MTC-00007506

From: Jim Albright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case per the last agreement. The 
government clearly does not understand how important it is to settle 
this case for the technology market as a whole and for all 
consumers. Standardization is mandatory for business to interact 
with each other.
    Jim Albright
    J Albright & Associates
    Authorized NxTrend Mod Providers
    Voice: (800) 349-0875
    Fax: (303) 665-0843
    E-mail: [email protected]
    web site: www.jalbright-colorado.com



MTC-00007507

From: Howard Lucy Jew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The recent terms of the DOJ-Microsoft settlement are fair and 
just. We need to attend to urgent matters like economic stimulus, 
fight against Terrorists, and tax relief for all taxpayers, not 
litigation and nonproductive pursuits. Howard & Lucy Jew, 
Houston, TX



MTC-00007509

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microssoft Settlement
    I want to express my support for the terms of the settlement 
reached between the DOJ and Microsoft. I have been continally 
concerned that Microsoft`s competitors have engaged in 
anticompetitive acts continuously and have been consistently 
pursuing Microsoft through the DOJ in unjustified and 
anticompetitive ways. It is time for the DOJ to listen to the people 
and not to wealthy corporate terrorists that only pursue their own 
greedy aims. I personally use Microsoft products, want them to 
package increasing content and provide integration among their 
products. Their competitors would do better to focus their 
activities on creating better software products that I would feel 
comfortable buying.
    Karl F. Schmitt
    17310 Sylvester Rd SW
    Burien, WA 98166



MTC-00007510

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm

[[Page 24921]]

Subject: (no subject)
    IT`S ABOUT TIME,,THIS MATTER BE SETTLED,,,ONCE & FOR 
ALL,,,PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE TROUBLE,,FOR CO. THAT WORKS TO IMPROVE 
LIFE FOR ALL,,,,IF YOU DON`T PAY,,YOU DON`T PLAY,,& THATS THE 
WAY LIFE IS..SO PLEASE LET THIS GREAT CO, GO ON,,IF OTHERS CAN`T 
KEEP UP,,JOIN [email protected]



MTC-00007511

From: Bruce Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm
Subject: microsoft settltment settlement
    YES YES YES SETTLEMENT TERMS ARE FAIR, PLEASE CONCLUDE THE 
MATTER.
    BO GRIFFIN



MTC-00007512

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I think it is time that we end this hassle. The litigation does 
not need to go on any longer.
    We need to settle and get on with life. There has been enough of 
late to distract us from our every day lives.
    sincerely
    J.c. Otto



MTC-00007513

From: submarina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    stop messing around with microsoft, leave them alone. The 
problems we are having now with the stock-market and the last years 
is all your and clintons fault. let them go they are helping us



MTC-00007514

From: patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello
    Please expedite this extravagant attorney parade to its 
inevitable conclusion ASAP.
    Do you guys think for one moment our real competitors, the 
Japanese, the Chinese, the Europeans, would waste any time trying to 
destroy one of their most successful companies the way we let the 
parasitic lawyers trash American firms like Microsoft?
    Please stop wasting our time and money with this show. Microsoft 
has helped the world become standardized and productiive.
    Go chase real criminals, like the international drug syndicates 
ruining our childrens opportunities to even use Microsoft`s 
products. Go chase the importers who are slowly destroying American 
productive manufacturing jobs. Do somthing that really helps the 
country, not just the attorneys.
    The `Justice' department just makes me angry.
    Yours Truly,
    Patrick J. Driscoll P.E.



MTC-00007515

From: Paul Ondell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Department of Justice
    I believe the Microsoft settlement should be accepted. It is 
more than what was needed and the States rejecting the offer are 
only doing so for there own Political benefit and not for the 
benefit of National Interest or in the best Interest of the National 
Economy. Paul Ondell



MTC-00007516

From: rtalarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft ....
    To whom it may concern,
    In my opinion punishing Microsoft can only stymie other hitech 
companies in America from doing innovative work in the future. 
America should be proud of what Microsoft has contributed to the 
world. Microsoft has greatly helped America become the leader in 
computer technology.
    Many other competitors are envious of this contribution both 
here and abroad. Lets not destroy in what we have created. Lets move 
forward , for the battle to be won will be, to keep America the 
Leader in advanced of technology.
    Thank you,
    Robert Talarczyk



MTC-00007517

From: Carol Leiby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If it were not for the standards established by Microsoft the 
economy would not be thriving as much as it is today. The progress 
of our nation over the last decade is largely due to standards made 
possible by the common platform on computers. It is a waste of time 
and money for states to argue their isolated cases any further. I 
encourage you to bring all of these outstanding cases to a quick 
close.
    Carol Leiby



MTC-00007518

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:40pm
Subject: (no subject)
    In favor or the REDUCED liberty found in the Court of Appeals 
ruling. Lets not waste any more of our taxpayer Nonie,
    NORM STORDAHL
    F 1100 AVE
    MARION IA 52302



MTC-00007519

From: Dale Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO MORE LITIGATION!!!!!
    PLEASE LET`S SETTLE THIS SUIT AND GET ON WITH OUR LIVES!! THE 
COMPANIES AGAINST MICROSOFT ARE P.O.`D BECAUSE MICROSOFT HAS A GREAT 
PRODUCT AND THEY WANT TO LATCH ON FOR A FREE RIDE. THE MAJORITY OF 
PEOPLE USING COMPUTERS AGREE!!!
    I CERTAINLY WOULDN`T EVEN CONSIDER BUYING ANY PRODUCT FROM THE 
COMPANIES THAT ARE TRYING TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING FROM 
MICROSOFT.
    HMMM...`TRYING TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING', SOUNDS 
TO ME LIKE SOME KIND OF RADICAL LEFT WING SCHEME THAT IS JUST THE 
TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
    I VOTE TO `BUTT OUT AND LEAVE `EM ALONE'.
    DALE DANIELS
    3911 WEST 36TH
    KENNEWICK, WA. 99337



MTC-00007520

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:41pm
Subject: my opinion
    I think that there are far more important things than the gov`t 
chasing after a corporation that has done more for the USA, and all 
people who use computers. I think that Microsoft is up there with 
edision....if not for the remarkable strides that it made in the 
past decade and more, most people would still be non computer 
user`s.
    And I feel that the offer that was made to give computers and 
software to schools was a great offer, and should be taken.
    Corrado Petrella
    6 cowdrey street
    yonkers ny 10701



MTC-00007521

From: Mark Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The value to me, a consumer, of Microsoft Windows products is 
many fold the couple of hundred dollars cost to buy the product. It 
is nuts to want to break up this company. Please let them be.
    Mark Murphy



MTC-00007522

From: Rickie Hopkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Personally I think the goverment`s case is a load of bull!
    If it wasn`t for Microsoft, I, along with probably several 
thousand others, would not have even bought a PC. It`s because of 
windows that I even bought my PC and still have it with several 
upgrades. While I may not fully understand what the whole deal may 
or not be involved, then I look at the fact that if the other 
software or hardware dosen`t work well with Windows then I didn`t 
need it to begin with.
    While we`re at it, how the US goverment isn`t raising HELL with 
AOL????????? If you use AOL then you cannot use Internet Explorer or 
Outlook Express. Personally I have no use for AOL in any shape, 
form, or fashion. I may never figure out everything on my PC, But I 
will forever be A Microsoft supporter by buying and using products 
that are supported by Microsoft and Bill Gates.

[[Page 24922]]

    Hang In There
    [email protected]



MTC-00007523

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    It is very apparent that the efforts to dismantle and punish 
Microsoft was motivated by jealous political factors. Microsfot has 
been responsible for the spread of comput- er use through its 
innovative and cost-effective products.
    We strongly support Mocrosoft, and urge that any punitive action 
be stopped. Have no idea what you hear in Washington, but down here, 
all I hear is how unjust it was to endeavor to curtail Microsfot.
    Hope that the Justice Department will drop the case as is.
    Sincerely,
    A. Brisolara
    P.O. Box 7321
    Metairie, LA
    70010-7321



MTC-00007524

From: Mert Urness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We consider it to be in the best interests of all citizens of 
the U.S. that the current Microsoft judgements are totally 
sufficient. We furthur believe that no future litigation is 
necessary, nor should any such be undertaken.
    Respectfully yours,
    Merton L. Urness
    Patricia A. Urness



MTC-00007525

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time this matter was settled and no more Gov money wasted. 
The settlement is a fair one even though it gouges Microsoft in my 
opinion. It is ludicrous that we spent more on this suit than we did 
on antiterrorist activities.



MTC-00007526

From: Jeffery R. Moser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    Please do whatever is necessary to settle the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case. This has gone on long enough.
    Jeff Moser
    403 Patriot Place
    Hillsborough, NC 27278
    (919)-956-4276



MTC-00007527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Why don`t we get wise and stop feeding the lawyers, and start to 
move forward with innovation and new developments? That`s the 
backbone of freedom, and freedom is America. Let`s not be envious of 
a business which has developed some of the most advance technology 
in the history of the world, but instead lets us praise their 
ability and creativity. That`s what is making America such a great 
country. Recent events prove that the rest of the world envy our 
ability to innovate and create. Microsoft, IBM, GE, INTEL, etc., are 
among others, some of the great innovators and creators of this 
world.



MTC-00007528

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm
Subject: Lay off
    Lets look at the accomplishments that Microsoft has brought to 
this nation and their contribution to American business our people 
and the world.
    LEAVE THEM ALONE. DONT PUNISH SUCCESS.
    American Business Man of Fifty Three Years.



MTC-00007529

From: Harlas M Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whome it may concern
    Im not real smart about the ins & outs of the legal ins 
& outs, but it seems to me that if you made something & put 
it on the market & people liked it, & you made a pile of 
money with it that should be good for everybody, but it seems to me 
some body else in the same kind of busness is tring to infringe on 
the other mans success becouse he could not make his product as good 
as the other. if Im right thinking that in a free market country it 
should be up to this other guy to try & upgrade his product, but 
it looks like all these folks are tring to put microsoft out of the 
running altogeather. it is my feelings that the courts have settled 
this should have ended the whole thing. I cannot see what claim any 
state could have against this company or any company unless the 
states are in the computer busness. thank you for reading this 
email. hopefully you will make a fair decision for all partys 
sincerly harlas m. harris
    [email protected]



MTC-00007530

From: david blanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    miscrosoft have done no wrong leave the company along they are 
only doing their job. king david



MTC-00007531

From: David Garner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to put this case to rest. How the U.S. Government 
could possibly pursue this case in the first place is beyond me. 
Think about what you are doing. Is this the reward for being a 
successful company? It is blatenly obvious that the states that have 
not signed on to this deal are the states where Microsoft`s 
competitors are located. It is vital for the economy and the IT 
industry to get this case behind the country.



MTC-00007532

From: Cornelius H. Kafka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Madam:
    I wanted to simply go on record as supporting the Microsoft 
settlement. Bringing this to a closure was long overdue and I`m 
pleased that DOJ finally brought closure.
    Sincerely,
    Cornelius Kafka
    83 Walbridge Hill Road
    Tolland, CT 06084
    Cornelius H. Kafka
    [email protected]
    +1 (860) 872 2310



MTC-00007533

From: John Leipprandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:47pm
Subject: Time to settle with Microsoft
    This settlement program has been going on for a long time, why 
not settle now? It looks like it is fair to all involved.
    Johm Leipprandt
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007534

From: Greg Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hope you guys get this Microsoft farce all settled with what you 
agreed to and leave well enough alone. It was a case only jealous 
Microsoft competitors and idealistic Justice Dept. lawyers wanted to 
pursue.
    Enough is enough. Go with the agreed settlement.
    Greg Bryant



MTC-00007535

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement should be accepted by the Dept.of 
Justice. Microsoft should be allowed to get back to inovating and 
producing soft wear without government harassment.



MTC-00007536

From: Jan Norman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Settle with Microsoft. This case has gone on too long and it`s 
time to focus our energy on more pressing issues that matter.
    Jan Norman



MTC-00007537

From: Chap Vail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:51pm
Subject: Settlement
    Give it up. Where would this country be without Microsoft and 
the creative genius.



MTC-00007538

From: Butch Wulftange

[[Page 24923]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:51pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am 100% for the negoiated settlement between MSFT and the US 
Govt. as currently presented.
    Any further changes should not be allowed. I believe in the free 
market system and believe that any amendments to the current 
settlement should benefit Microsoft. William Wulftange
    (775)853-8225



MTC-00007539

From: sue white
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    What the Government is telling me is down with private 
enterprise. I am very disappointed in the decision of the Supreme 
Court. I feel they have overstepped their boundaries and the 
Constitution. In simple language, they are telling me as a business 
owner, be careful as big brother is watching you.
    Sincerely,
    Sue White



MTC-00007540

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:52pm
Subject: Re: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement
    As a shareholder and a consumer of Microsoft products, I feel 
that the matter should be put behind us and move on. All the good 
that Microsoft has done over the years in providing reasonably 
priced software has gone a long away in our having a strong economy 
for the past ten years. If we could get this matter behind us there 
is a good chance we could rebound from the present recession we are 
in. The settlement would be very good for everyone. The issue has 
been become mute due to the advancements in the industry. To 
continue the litigation is to only prolong the economic recovery. 
The tech stocks look to Microsoft`s stock and respond accordingly. 
So let`s just move on.
    Thank You
    Tom & Sandee Kane



MTC-00007541

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please stop this useless attack on Microsoft. It is time to move 
on and allow one of the greatest companies in the history of the 
world to go about its own buisiness. That buisiness is supplying 
computer users with the finest internet and computer related 
services IN THE WORLD.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Bailey



MTC-00007542

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my believe that Microsoft has paid it`s fair share in this 
settlement, and that the Department of Justice should allow 
Microsoft to live by the rules of the agreement. I do not believe 
that Microsoft should be broken up into smaller companies. I do 
believe that Microsoft has put out a good product for a fair price, 
and they should continue to do so. So, please let the settlement 
stand as it is and lets get on with our business of making this a 
better country to live in. God Bless America
    Respectfully Yours
    John
    J. Rossetti



MTC-00007543

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please settle with microsoft as the settlement now stands. I 
think that pursuing this issue is a big waste of money for both the 
government and microsoft. Enough is enough.
    Thanks
    Lucy Logan
    Tempe Arizona



MTC-00007544

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I would like to express a few thoughts regarding the current 
action with the Microsoft Corporation. I live in the Northwest, 
about 25 miles from Microsoft, and have followed the action against 
Microsoft. I am bewildered that so much has been spent on this 
action. The time, effort and money could have been better used for 
real criminals. As stated, I am from the Northwest and we are 
experiencing a tragic response to the September 11th disaster in the 
form of Corporate Layoffs. I fear that if more pressure is put on 
Microsoft, it`s employees will find themselves in the same situation 
as the Boeing and the Airline employees that are having to start 
over with a new career.
    Inovation is still on of our nations greatest assets. Bill Gates 
may be the richest man in the world, but he is also one of the most 
creative. This creativity benefits the nation and the world. Lets 
not stiffle these opportunities. I am not very worldly, but do 
wonder how many other countries have a company that has done so much 
world wide, and is so well represented in product sales throughout 
the world. How many companies in other countries are there that are 
being subsidized such as Airbus? Microsoft probably contributes more 
than Airbus makes.
    Microsoft has accepted the proposed settlement. Let them move on 
and continuce to benefit you and me.
    Respectfully
    Dennis R. McNamara



MTC-00007545

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are satisfied with the settlement, and suggest it is time to 
move on.
    The Maloney Family
    58 Overlook Road
    Hardy, Va 24101



MTC-00007546

From: Ron.Kasik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I`ve observed this litigation long enough. With the passage of 
time, the initial `technical arguments' in the case are 
moot. Let`s settle this case quickly. This is not the time to thwart 
innovation and put additional strangleholds on technology 
advancement. Here the US Government is involved in litigation, yet 
in nearly all of its RFPs, you require PC`s that run Microsoft SW.
    Ron Kasik
    [email protected]
    (281) 251-9283



MTC-00007547

From: john Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:58pm
Subject: I am a consumer and I think the Microsoft settlement is 
fair to the I am a consumer and I think the Microsoft settlement is 
fair to the consumer. enough said
    John W Davis



MTC-00007548

From: Drica47 A. Rashid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:58pm
Subject: Support for the Settlement
    When American industry is losing it`s competitiveness in the 
world, America has in Microsoft the best export engine there is. 
Microsoft has the biggest market capitalisatiion in the world 
because of its merits and potential. The Government should encourage 
Microsoft`s growth instead of putting obstacles in its way.
    Bill Gates has shown to be unselfish and philanthropic with his 
fortune. He deserves better.



MTC-00007549

From: Jamie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    With all that has happened this year it seems more important 
than ever to settle this inane case against Microsoft. The federal 
government and states should be spending their precious resources on 
helping the economy recover, aiding the working poor and unemployed 
and figuring out a way to provide health insurance to the millions 
of Americans who lack it.
    Right now the state of Florida is cutting budgets for education 
and other important social needs while some fat cat lawyers and 
glory hound politicians are wasting the taxpayers money by trying to 
drag out this case.



MTC-00007550

From: Raymond Eveland
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24924]]

Date: 1/2/02 9:59pm
Subject: Settlement
    It is about time to resolve this issue. Microsoft has added more 
to this country`s well-being than any company you can name. The 
technology that they initiated changed our lives for the better, The 
tactics that they allegedly perused should not be punishable by the 
political wishes of their cry baby competitors.
    End this with the least additional cost to Microsoft and our 
economy.



MTC-00007551

From: Miladin Aleksic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Simple logic tells us that the basic principle of Capitalizm, as 
we all know, is that the fittest survives. The comprehensive 
agreement reched between the federal government, nine states and 
Microsoft is reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I agree 
that settlement is good for consummers, the industry, and the 
American economy. Further litigation can create more damages and 
nothig else. Therefore, let Microsoft work as it did before.
    A word to Microsoft competitors_American motto says: 
`Shape up or ship out'. It is that simple.
    Thank you



MTC-00007552

From: Fred Bushnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    II feel our Department of Justice has done its duty in this 
Microsoft case. It is time to move on. Spend my money devising 
clever ways to combat terrorists_then implement them.
    I have used Microsoft products since the 1980s and feel I have 
received fair value for money spent. That is a comment I cannot make 
about how our minions in Washington give away large sums to farmers 
as payment not to produce.
    I am a physician, MD, and estimate at best I have been paid for 
two-thirds of my professional services but do not cry to our federal 
government to get involved. Do not get involved because some 
businesses are financially successful.
    J. Fred Bushnell, MD
    CC:Microsoft Outlook Express Team



MTC-00007553

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    After a great deal of legal expense, which in my opinion was 
totally unnecessary as these cases against Microsoft were patently 
without merit, a law has been enacted which mediates a settlement 
between Microsoft and the so-called agrieved parties.
    As an interested party in this dispute, being a Microsoft user, 
I believe the new law is the best result that could be expected from 
this dispute_and I wish to record my vote in support of it.
    David J Willson
    Las Vegas NV 89122-7222
    Tel. (702) 458 1574
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007554

From: min zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/ Madam,
    I hate to west my time when I speak to a unqualified Microsoft 
technical support personal on the phone. And I also do not like 
Microsoft unqualified WINDOW product which it often occurred as I am 
using it in my career.
    But Microsoft as a industry leader from U.S., I would like to 
keep it to be stronger and more compatible. The legal penalty shall 
not be the mean to limit the development of the Microsoft to go 
forward. The law should provide the power to help any one who are 
willing to go forward by a reasonable mean for our technology. 
Otherwise our country will lose the technical leader and that will 
lead us a big slowdown on our path.
    Regards,



MTC-00007555

From: Norman Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let the settlement proceed as planned. I don`t believe Microsoft 
was in the wrong, anyway. Noone sued Ford for making its own parts 
to ensure the function of the car. Why can`t Microsoft integrate the 
software to insure all parts run well? All that aside, get this over 
with.
    Norman Meyer, Vero Beach, Fl.



MTC-00007556

From: Bill Block
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe no harm to consumers has occurred because of 
Microsoft`s position in the computer industry. On the contrary, 
Microsoft is responsible for making personal computers widely 
available to consumers.
    I would like to see the DOJ end this case as quickly as 
possible.
    Bill Block
    Phone: (281) 482-6849 Internet: http://www.wtblock.com/
    Cell: (713) 899-2488 E-mail: [email protected]
    NetMeeting Family Resume W. T. Block Historian



MTC-00007557

From: BEANS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    THE GOVERNMENTS LAWSUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT`S WAS A SHAM FROM THE 
VERY BEGINNING! WHEN COMPUTERS FIRST STARTED TO GET POPULAR EVERYONE 
SCREAMED FOR A STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM. MICROSOFT CAME THROUGH! 
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION PUSHED THIS SUIT FOR THEIR HATE FOR 
ACHIEVEMENT. YOU ARE ONLY CREATING MORE HATE FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 
AVERAGE JOE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT MICROSOFT, IT WAS MICROSOFT`S 
COMPETITION THAT WAS PUSHING FOR THE LAWSUIT!
    AS FOR THE SETTLEMENT I THINK IT`S IRONIC THAT THE COMPANY WILL 
BE GIVING AWAY COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO SCHOOLS AND CHARITIES NOW THEIR 
EVEN MORE ENTRENCHED IN THE SYSTEM!!! I LOVE IT FRANK ROSS RUSSEL 
508 W. COBBS CREEK PKWY YEADON, PENNSYLVANIA 19018 
610-622-6770



MTC-00007558

From: Jon C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:05pm
    The settlement is good for American, the industry and the 
American economy.



MTC-00007559

From: Harry Bridges
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the settlement of the Microsoft case as quickly as 
possible is in the best interests of consumers and the United 
States.
    Harry T. Bridges
    6718 New Hope Drive
    Springfield, VA 22151



MTC-00007560

From: Clayton L. Christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:57pm
Subject: Settlement
    Settlement should be accepted_No more litigation
    Sincerely
    Clayton Christense, 3010 Leona Drive
    Storm Lake, IA 50588



MTC-00007561

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the settlement is just and should proceed. Let`s put 
this issue to bed.
    Yours truly, Neal Bonelli



MTC-00007562

From: clifton l/jean smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft. It 
provides safeguards yet does not destroy creativity and initiative. 
It is time this action be put behind us in order that the public, 
Microsoft employees and investors may establish a basis for future 
actions with reasonable certainty. I applaud the terms of the 
proposal. Clifton L. Smith, 15 Fairway Drive, Englewood, FL 34223



MTC-00007563

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Enough of the politics already!! This antitrust suit, which 
should never have been

[[Page 24925]]

brought in the first place, should be settled immediately. You have 
the settlement before you. Please unserstand that, in the interest 
of fairness to Microsoft, and allowing Microsoft to get on about 
it`s business, I want you to accept the proposed settlement.
    Other software companies are hoping you`ll drag this thing out 
in court, thus detracting Microsoft from progressing with future 
software packages and operating system improvements. These other 
companies could not fairly compete with Microsoft because they do 
not have the innovation, foresite or expertise of Microsoft 
personnel. These other companies could only go to their homestate 
Attorneys General and have them file this, the most frivilous of 
lawsuits.
    It is my wish that you get past this suit and get on to more 
meaningful cases that will truly protect the interests of US 
citizens. With everything that`s going on in the world, you should 
focus on bringing REAL terrorists to justice and quit picking on 
companies that have innovation and expertise to carry out their 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Ogden
    Concerned and Angry Citizen



MTC-00007564

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:09pm
Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement
    I support the terms of the Microsoft Settlement versus continued 
litigation. Do the right thing and let`s settle this and move on. 
These comments are in accordance with the Tunney Act.
    Thank you.
    Patricia W. Ross



MTC-00007565

From: JOHN A. MENART
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    Dear Sir;
    I am not the least bit happy with the settlement as it stands. 
Bill Gates and his organization, need to made to answer to all 
customers, not just some schools. He should be made to provide funds 
in the way of U.S. currency, that should be made available for 
customers, or if too big of a logistical problem, to school 
districts, to be spent as they feel fit, so long as it directly 
benefits the students. It should not be given to the already 
overpaid teachers, using the excuse that higher wages or bonuses 
will enable them to teach better. The fine should also be increased, 
as with the amount it is now, Bill and his band of renegades, are 
laughing at the Judicial System, as if it is a joke. We had a very 
good monopoly in this country, that was destroyed, (Western 
Electric/Bell System) ever since the poor customers have been raped. 
Microsoft is a monopoly that should be destroyed for the good of the 
people, and the industry. You need to re-think this Microsoft Fiasco 
and hit Microsoft hard and fast. Less only will allow the cancer/
monopoly to grow.
    Respectfully,
    John A. Menart



MTC-00007566

From: BERNARD MARGOLIUS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We support the proposed settlement as is. The tech field should 
give a vote of confidence to msft. We believe that this company is 
directly responsible for the success of most of those who are 
opposing them. Success should not be penalized by less succesfull 
competitors.



MTC-00007567

From: Ken Shaner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Cease this senseless litigation against Microsoft Corporation. 
It was totally unfounded to begin with. Private entrepreneur 
functions have been the backbone of our great country since its 
conception and, in spite of the typical liberal mindset, will 
continue to be. The cost to the American taxpayer of any further 
litigation should be the responsibility of Janet Reno and William J. 
Clinton. This could only be a plus to their legacies.
    Shaner



MTC-00007568

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It MayConcern:-
    I think the courts settled the Microsoft case and we should get 
on with our lives. The states that want to delay to try to get more 
are preventing our economy from recovering. Bah to them.
    Sincerely,
    Eloyce C. Mailman



MTC-00007569

From: Kim Van Winkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice:
    Thank you for your decision to settle the Microsoft case. I 
think this whole thing has been very hard for consumers who rely on 
Microsoft products. I am very happy this is the end of it. Thank you 
again.
    Kim Van Winkle
    19062 21st Ave NE
    Lake Forest Park, WA 98155



MTC-00007570

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:12pm
Subject: DOJ Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It has become very important for the DOJ and Microsoft to settle 
fairly and move on. I feel that the litagation has stiffled the 
advancement of the entire technological community. Let the best 
company win in the business arena. The public will buy the products 
that are the best on the market at the fairest prices.
    Over the holiday I gave my wife a new printer/scanner/copier. 
After spending 20 hours trying to set it up, we returned the produce 
feeling that the item was defective. But the event reminded me how 
cumbersome it was to set up a computer system 15 years ago. 
Microsoft and windows have made using a computer a joy. Please don`t 
stiffle the company any longer.
    Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Kozy DDS



MTC-00007571

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:12pm
Subject: Waste of effort and money
    If the politicians were spending their own money_instead 
of the taxpayers` _the attach on MSFT would have ended a long 
time ago. The only winners are lawyers. The only loosers are 
taxpayers.
    Please stop beating up on MSFT and reallocate the same time and 
effort and money to the fight against terrorists!
    The risk or threat or danger to our economy, job market, and 
culture is NOT Microsoft. So get wise_stop being so short-
sighted_admit that it`s over_and recognize that your 
succes fighting the war on terrorism is much more important to your 
careers and the welfare of those you are supposed to represent and a 
much more appropriate allocation of taxpayer dollars. From a 
taxpayer, citizen, computer user who knows he has never been damaged 
or inhibited by MSFT`s products or dominance in the marketplace 
because the marketplace has always given him the right to choose.



MTC-00007572

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm
Subject: settlement
    I think the proposed settlement will fail to protect consumers 
from Microsoft`s malicious business pracitices. There will likely be 
less choice available to consumers, and as a result innovation will 
lag behind the pace we have seen in recent years. The support for 
these assertions is demonstrated by the lack of freedom of major 
Computer Vendors (Compaq, IBM, HP, Dell, etc...) to modify Windows 
Operating system installations in any meaningful manner. For 
example, Java was clearly broken in Windows XP as a result of 
Microsoft business strategies to try to stifle this thriving area in 
innovation. By a) forcing Microsoft to fix their Java problem (i.e. 
including a J2EE compliant SDK in the OS) or b) Allowing major 
vendors to provide this fix on their own without potentially 
incurring punishments from Microsoft_this monopolistic attack 
on consumers could be somewhat mitigated. As the proposed settlement 
is currently written_the injustice is only strengthened. I 
don`t imagine the Judge will read my comments, as I understand from 
Lawyers I know that most Judges seem to look at the Tunney act as an 
annoying formality, rather than an important requirement_but 
in the event that someone will read this and examine the issue in 
depth_I have taken the time to submit this comment.
    Thanks,
    John Brown

[[Page 24926]]

    Computer Specialist
    Washington, DC



MTC-00007573

From: Alice Mariano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To whom it may concern,
    This Microsoft litigation have dragged on for so long, we are so 
frustrated at the money being spent for this just because a few 
wealthy competitors would not give up until they see Microsoft 
fails. It has been settled by the DOJ, and that is the best news we 
got for so long, and now this 9 or so states wanted to prolong this 
case for more wasted money and at the same time stock market and the 
economy being affected. We think this is merely political and the 
sooner this gets settled the better for the market, the economy, and 
us the consumers.
    Microsoft is a huge company that have done wonderful 
technological innovations that have benefited consumers, so why 
should they be punished for this? They have also been a big donors 
to many schools and many charities. It`s just unfair. Microsoft is a 
great American company that have the respect and gratitude of the 
world. USA as a whole should be proud of this company instead of 
pushing them backwards by limiting their innovative ideas. There`s 
no anti trust here, just anti Microsoft. It`s about time that this 
government step into the right direction, which the last Clinton 
Administration failed to do. Settlement is a must for the sake of 
the failing economy, and the future of technology as a whole, and 
the continued US dominance of the world`s greatest innovations and 
ideas.
    We hope the DOJ will stay firm in their decision of this long 
awaited settlement. We can only hope this letter will be read and 
counted. Thank you!
    Sincerely,
    Ramon and Alice Mariano
    6586 153rd Ave. S.E.
    Bellevue, WA 98006



MTC-00007574

From: Hashim Salim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm
Subject: Enough is enough. To whom it may concern.
    Get it over with. Stop the dragging and the waste of time and 
money.
    Enough is enough.
    Hashim Salim



MTC-00007575

From: Richard Hillger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The present settlement is fair. Prolonging the litigation only 
increases the costs which are eventually borne by the public either 
by higher taxes or increased prices. We never under any 
circumstances get anything back or enjoy any advantage.
    Federal horsepower significantly outperforms state 
horsepower_-if the Feds are happy, the states posturing is 
just window dressing to impress a gullible constituency (and spend 
more money!).
    I have been in the computer business for over 30 years and have 
never heard anyone complain that Microsoft has taken unfair 
advantage on a personal basis. And obviously, the benefits have been 
`awesome' as my kids would say.
    On a technical basis, there might be better ways of skinning a 
cat_but who cares?_if they have merit, they will 
eventually surface, and in the meantime we are enjoying a rather 
marvelous electronic age. Keep the present settlement and lets get 
on with business.
    Richard E Hillger



MTC-00007576

From: Erik Odegard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:14pm
Subject: In Favor of the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I support Microsoft`s right to innovate, and I would 
respectfully urge you to work towards a quick settlement of the US 
vs. Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Odegard
    [email protected]



MTC-00007577

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Setellment
    I believe it is time for the Justice Department to bring this 
case to a close. The country and the industry needs to get on with 
the business of developing commerce and putting the American people 
back to work.
    Sincerely,
    T.P. Germino, Jr.



MTC-00007578

From: jane ashbrenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is in the best interest of the 
public. Further litigation of this matter would only benefit the 
attorneys and not the public.
    Jane Ashbrenner



MTC-00007579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:16pm
Subject: settle
    please settle the case and go after enron. scmpar242@AOL



MTC-00007580

From: Ken Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft is #1.........
    Microsoft is #1.........



MTC-00007581

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
    The Microsoft settlement was a huge penalty to a company that 
has done more for the U. S. economy and for communication than any 
other in our great history. I do not understand why some people 
evidently think they should be punished more than what has already 
being done to Microsoft. Our economy started faltering when it was 
shown that the government was destroying the country`s greatest 
asset. Please let this fair settlement stand which might let us come 
out of this recession.
    Sincerely,
    Cleve B Denny



MTC-00007582

From: kowalczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this case once and for all and let the brains in the 
most powerful company, that ever existed, go forward bringing new 
technologies and advances.
    Thank you,
    Elizabeth Kowalczyk



MTC-00007583

From: Arthur Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft is a truly transparent 
cash grab by a bunch of government lawyers, backed up by Microsoft`s 
whining competitors, trying to make names for themselves. However, 
if this will settle the case once and for all and get the government 
out of the software business, get on with it.
    Arthur Thompson
    Shelton, WA



MTC-00007584

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The settlement is ok and I hope it will stop there and not let 
some other issues arise due to envy of another Company ! Microsoft 
should not have to put with any more suits. They have proved their 
merit
    Sincerely.
    J Harby



MTC-00007585

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear sirs, Why dont you let Microsoft get on with there 
business. I have a few shairs that I am a looser , money wise. I am 
not alone. Paid $115.00 to $160.a share Which makes me a looser on 
quite a few shares. Sold some for $60.& took the loss off my 
taxes. Thats no way to get out of the resession.
    Lets move on with america.
    Russ Norris
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007586

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To use the phrase `Enough Already.' The total waste 
of money by the government, causing Microsoft to have to waste 
millions of their money has got to stop and now! What

[[Page 24927]]

happened to free enterprise and competition? This was a set back for 
free enterprise in the very tough field of technology. Who ever can 
build a better mouse trap deserves to win. Every kind of business is 
going to win sometime and lose sometime. So let it be with 
Microsoft.
    James A. Gunn [email protected]



MTC-00007587

From: Roscoe Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I, as a consumer am upset that the Government even prosecuted 
Microsoft. Because everyone knows that the Government did the work 
that Microsoft`s competitors couldn`t do. Microsoft is a superior 
product and I refuse to use any other. But now they have to share 
their innovations with their competitors. Next the Government will 
be telling them that they have to share their profits, also.



MTC-00007588

From: Steve Windham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to voice my opinion on the Microsoft Settlement.
    I support Microsoft in this on-going debacle the U.S. government 
(and a few computer companies) has launched. Please finish this 
farce and let business go back to business...making money for 
investors and developing products for consumers.



MTC-00007589

From: John Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe the agreed upon settlement between Microsoft, the 
U.S. Government, and nine states is fair and in the public interest. 
Further litigation is too punitive and not necessary. We have had 
many choices in software over the past ten years, OS 2, Apple, 
Linux, and others. We have chosen Microsoft because we liked it the 
best and have been very satisfied.
    John & Mary Ellen Murphy



MTC-00007590

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:24pm
Subject: Re: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement
    To the Dept. of Justice,
    I believe that it is in the best interest of the public, 
Microsoft, and the country to settle the case against Microsoft.
    Robert Chapman
    Nashville, TN.



MTC-00007591

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe the settlement reached with Microsoft is fair to all 
parties. In fact, I think Netscape was given more than it deserved. 
If we stifle innovation in the electronic and high tech fields, the 
American public will be the real losers. I therefore urge the 
Department of Justice and the contesting states to settle this 
matter immediately. I think certain lawyers in the Justice 
Department held a personal bias against Bill Gates and this vendetta 
has greatly damaged our economy. We need a rapid settlement to boost 
our economy and get people in the high tech industry back to work.
    Sincerely.
    Betty M. Holcombe



MTC-00007592

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:25pm
Subject: Please settle now
    I have to say this case was wrong from the start. Now that the 
economy isn`t doing that well, we really need to settle the Tunney 
Act. So, dear government please settle now, it will help the 
economy. Thank You.



MTC-00007593

From: Emil Mirsepasy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlment
    I am in favour of the DOJ` s settlement.



MTC-00007594

From: J Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an ordinary citizen, I`d like to express my views on the 
Microsoft Settlement. The issues which were raised and settled by 
the government have ended the need for more litigation or other 
remedies. With the economy in such a terrible state and with so many 
worse things going on, those 9 states that want to pursue Microsoft 
to a greater degree of punishment should find something else to do 
with their time and the taxpayers` money. The companies they are 
trying to protect should put more energy into producing something 
worthwhile and creating a better U.S. rather than destroying it by 
continuing litigation that simply reduces the economic vitality of 
Microsoft and the U.S.
    It is truly a shame when a company that creates innovative 
products, like Microsoft, gets sued and pursued by everyone else who 
can`t seem to do the same innovative things. Those other companies` 
inability to attract and keep the best and the brightest workforce 
is part of the problem. The sour grapes, whining, and continued 
attacks only continue to downgrade those companies like Microsoft 
who are successful. If those other companies had technology that 
could do the job as well, they`d have had no problem competing. They 
never listened to the needs of the consumer and now complain that we 
don`t want to buy what they have to sell.
    The public now has access to technology like never before and 
can communicate, work and pursue a quality of life because a company 
like Microsoft sought to bring better and better innovation into the 
marketplace. Moreover, Microsoft treats employees well and through 
its gifts to education creates jobs and better educated citizens. 
The Foundation that Bill Gate and his wife has created has done a 
great deal for education and children. It`s too bad some of those 
special interests_companies that the 9 states are protecting 
couldn`t do as much. It`s time to end all this stuff and let the 
innovative companies innovate!!
    After all, innovation is what has made the United States the 
great country that it is.



MTC-00007595

From: Brian West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I BELIVE THAT THE GOVERMENT SHOULD GET OFF THE BACK OF 
MICROSOFT! THEY ARE DOING NOTHING MORE THEN FOLLOWING THE AMERICAN 
DREAM!!! MICROSOFT HAS A GOOD PRODUCT AT A FAIR PRICE, AND I FOR ONE 
LIKE THERE SOFTWARE.
    LET THE AMERICAN DREAM LIVE!
    BRIAN WEST



MTC-00007596

From: etmusgrove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:26pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    The law suit against MS should be settled right now.
    It has been going on for entirely to long , and should never 
have been brought in the first place.. If all of these other 
companies are/were being hurt, why didn`t they bring the suit? and 
why wasn`t it handled by a reasonable judge, not some clown doing 
someone elses dirty work.
    Is this another case of the government doing what is best for 
the people, like with AT&T. All that did was make everyone in 
the country pay about 5 times as much for telephone service, and of 
course allow the gov`t to collect alot more in taxes...Do what is 
really best for the consumer and get this thing settled.
    Is there any single company or orgganization that has done as 
much for the american people and the economy of this country. Settle 
and lets get on with the prosparity of the country.
    Earle T. Musgrove....



MTC-00007598

From: William Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:29pm
Subject: Put an end to this
    Dear Department of justice: Please let`s end the litigation with 
Microsoft. Enough is enough. How long does this have to last? The 
lawyers are all making a lo t of money and we have certainly had 
enough of this.



MTC-00007599

From: Kristen Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:32pm
Subject: Settlement
    While it is clear that some actions by Microsoft created 
diffficult conditions for competitors within the market, the 
evolution of competiing operating systems and internet based 
applications, as well as the remedies in the settlement serve the 
public interest. Further penalties that could weaken

[[Page 24928]]

 Microsoft and provide openings for foreign competitors to exploit 
are unwarranted and unwise.
    Regards
    Greg Turner



MTC-00007601

From: Jean Fonner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:32pm
Subject: Gentlemen:
    Gentlemen:
    Please complete the Microsoft settlement and let this Company 
return to its work of developing and producing new ideas and 
electronics that will help both the government and the citizens of 
the world. Thank you.
    Jean B. Fonner



MTC-00007602

From: Thomas Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice ([email protected]) I 
appreciate the chance to give feedback on the Microsoft/DOJ 
settlement.
    I believe the settlement is as fair as it can be for both sides. 
The remedies in terms of financial `punishment' is 
really unimportant_what is more important is the independent 
team of `watch-dogs' that will look over Microsoft`s 
shoulder to ensure fair business practices for the future.
    Microsoft are creating products that we all benefit from (what 
would modern life be without computers, Windows, Word, Excel, etc.). 
Look at all the industries that has benefited from Microsoft`s 
success (Hewlett-Packard_personal printers), AOL & 
Netscape was dependent on Windows` success, etc, etc.
    It is important to the U.S. Economy that we look forward. Let`s 
settle the case_put measures in place (the independent watch-
dogs) to ensure that Microsoft complies with the rules & 
regulations of this country_ and let Microsoft continue to 
create new products that can help the economy to recover instead of 
punishing one of the country`s most successful companies.
    I support the settlement that DOJ and Microsoft reached last 
year.
    Thomas Nielsen
    431 Kirkland Ave.
    Kirkland, WA



MTC-00007603

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    This whole Microsoft case is nothing but a witch hunt by the 
biggest witch_Reno. The whole thing should be thrown out and 
let businesses compete. Why should the courts eleminate competition 
for selected few in the computer software business when power 
companies, automobile, tobacco, liquor, drug, food, chicken and on 
and on have no restrictions on growth, competition, or advertising. 
Let the man run his company.
    Sincerely,
    Orlin D. Hall



MTC-00007604

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:36pm
Subject: settlement
    The faster this situation is resolved, the better off the 
country and our economy will recover.



MTC-00007605

From: jeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From a consumer`s viewpoint this lawsuit was the dumbest waste 
of time and money ever by the DOJ.
    While I realize it was someone else at the helm, I don`t see why 
it wasn`t thrown out once Judge Jackson`s bias was revealed. It`s 
not that MS has never done anything unethical but bundling a free 
browser that happened to be better than its rival`s was not 
unethical, and the crybabies who brought the suit forward do not do 
business any differently than MS.
    If the schools are the beneficiary of this travesty, PLEASE tune 
out Apple`s whining. Better than 75% of the businesses in this 
country use IBM-style machines, not Apple, and it`s far better for 
kids to be learning software that businesses actually use.
    Jessica E Harris
    1020 S 21st Street
    Mesa AZ 85204
    480-926-8950



MTC-00007606

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE, PLEASE SETTLE WITH MICROSOFT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I FEEL 
THEY ARE UNFAIRLY TARGETTED FOR THEIR INNOVATIVE APPROACH. THEY ARE 
FAR AHEAD OF EVERYONE ELSE, AND THAT IS WHY THIS WITCHHUNT IS BEING 
PURSUED BY THEIR COMPETITORS.
    SINCERELY,
    DORIS KLEGA



MTC-00007607

From: Chrys Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department Officials:
    I understand that from now until January 28th, you have a public 
comment period concerning the settlement with Microsoft.
    I, for one, think that the settlement is fair. Let it stand as 
is and don`t drag this think on any further.
    Personnally, I think the overall computer industry is being hurt 
by the inability to settle this thing in a timely and just manner.
    Let the Tunney Act settle this once and for all, and let`s get 
on with the business of this country.
    Sincerely,
    Crystal R. Steele
    1563 Cedar Dale Ln
    Lancaster, SC 29720
    803.285.3483



MTC-00007608

From: Tim McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my judgment it is time to move on and bring the Microsoft 
legal battles to an end.



MTC-00007609

From: Doug Hayashi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Most of my comments on this topic can be see at:
    http://www.nsxfiles.com/
pulp_letter_to_doj.htm
    I wrote it a couple of years ago, but the arguments are the 
same. Remember.......companies have to add new features to their 
product, or else there is no reason for them to exist...
    -Doug



MTC-00007610

From: Robert Angrisano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long-time user of Microsoft technology both at home and 
at work. I`ve never felt that Microsoft has ever done anything but 
helped grow the computer industry in a positive way.
    Microsoft`s technology allows my business to do thing we never 
could have done without their great products and services. I`ve 
never felt I was taken advantage of or that they used their dominate 
position in the market to prohibit the growth of the industry. I 
receive more benefit today at a lower price than I ever have in 27 
years of business.
    Please take the handcuffs off this great American company. Stop 
being influenced by a small group of well financed competitors 
crying `foul'. They had the chance to win my business, 
but failed to do so due to high prices and poor functionality.
    We need more companies like Microsoft Corporation.
    Thanks
    Robert Angrisano
    President,
    M.A.N. Resources Inc.
    www.manresources.com



MTC-00007611

From: Michael A. Mehring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very concerned about the prolonged investigation of 
Microsoft and its impact on our economy. I a
    m very concerned that Microsoft`s is being unfairly litigated 
against by its competitors through our government. As a consumer, I 
am very concerned that increasing litigation with increase the cost 
of software. I am concerned that this is not a fair treatment of a 
very important company to our productivity and economy. I can`t see 
how the consumer benefits by not allowing Microsoft to integrate 
features. The BIGGEST problem I have with software is lack of

[[Page 24929]]

integration. Prior to Microsoft, there was very little software 
integration. I am not happy with my tax dollars being used to 
litigate against one of America`s great companies. As a tax payer, I 
am very unhappy that the government is using my money to litigate 
against a very great company. Thank
    you for listening.
    Concerned Citizen, Consumer, Tax Payer.
    Michael A. Mehring



MTC-00007612

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very happy with the settlement. It would be a big mistake 
to break up Microsoft. The great technological advances and products 
offered by Microsoft are an asset to our national economy and should 
NOT be stifled by jealous or socialist critics.
    Christopher Stillie



MTC-00007613

From: Alfonso Finocchiaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Clinton Administration spent millions of taxpayers` dollars 
to go after one of the greatest companies of all times. It`s about 
time that the settlement close this sad story once and for all.
    Alfonso Finocchiaro



MTC-00007614

From: Chuck Cable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: The remaining states should settle as has the DOJ and 
the other states including my home state Ohio..It is in the public 
interest. In a trust, the offender raises prices which is what 
Microsoft did not do....MS has superior products that are 
realistically priced and I feel that no one has been gouged....In 
fact without Windows, I don`t think we`d have an internet and no one 
would be communicating and doing the multitude of things that we all 
do...AND the idea that Oracle, Sun Micro, etc. should be compensated 
is ridiculous. MS is not guilty but if it was, it would be consumers 
that would be compensated_-certainly not the sore loser 
companies that are crying for dollars that MS legitimately earned 
with superior products at reasonable prices...The District Court 
should immediately settle in favor of
    Microsoft....
    Charles V. Cable
    19615 Tanbark Ln
    Strongsville,
    OH 44149-1431
    440.238.3296



MTC-00007615

From: Jerry Stark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments relating to the Tunney Act:
    I speak the voice of a one person business operating in the 
black only because Microsoft products that work exceptionally well 
exist: I believe that much of the consideration afforded Microsoft 
was more a vendetta on the part of its competitors and perhaps a 
little jealousy. I fear a government that acts to stifle free 
enterprise.
    I also am in the camp of believers that the American economy 
started SOUTH with the start of the Microsoft litigation.
    I hope that the government would consider that the impediments 
placed on Microsoft should also be placed on the 20 competitors.
    I wonder if this action will become another government fiasco 
like the one that exists as a result of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996. The telecom sector in America is reeling. The government 
has a history of not fully understanding the implications of their 
actions.
    Do you have any concept of the number of businesses large and 
small that depend on Microsoft? They depend on Microsoft because of 
good smart business practices, not because of unfair practices.
    Will you enforce these rules to the absolute ruin of American 
Industry? I caution you to use great retraint. The American economy 
is continually looking for a competitor for Microsoft. It is the 
ultimate brass ring. Be careful not to interfere with that. Be 
careful not to interfere with Microsoft. Do NOT mortally wound 
Microsoft.
    The reality is, as an end user, I have never felt put upon by 
Microsoft. I am sick of people who can`t see that Mr. Gates and 
Microsoft have done more for the American economy than Bill Clinton 
and the Fed combined. Now the government stands to hurt that 
enterprise. Please be fair in your application of these judgments. 
Remember, America depends on Microsoft.
    My livelihood depends on Microsoft!!!! I use their products 
everyday in my consulting business. So do my clients. So do their 
clients. I bet you do too!!
    Jerry Stark
    Owner
    Stark TECHnology Presentation Services
    Richardson, TX
    [email protected]



MTC-00007616

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this litigation and let Microsoft proceed with 
creating jobs and technological advancement for the US economy. The 
US Justice Dept. has already wasted too much money and time on this 
issue. Let`s support our American economy and put an end to the 
lawyers who want to prolong this litigation.



MTC-00007617

From: Dr. Robert Ingram. Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:45pm
Subject: [email protected]
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    Stop the UADOJ/Anti-trust law terrorists from further acts of 
government institutionalized robbery of Microsoft Corporation.
    The Antitrust laws_an unenforceable, uncompliable, 
unjudicable mess of contradictions_have for decades kept 
American businessmen under a silent, growing reign of terror. Yet 
these laws were created and, to this day are upheld by the 
`conservatives,' as a grim monument to their lack of 
political philosophy, of economic knowledge and of any concern with 
principles. Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from 
the momnent he goes into business, no matter what he does. For 
instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge too 
high,he can be prosecurted for monopoly or for a successful 
`intent to monopolize' if he charges prices lower then 
those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for `unfair 
competition' or `restraint of trade' and if he 
charges the same prices as his competitors , he can be prosecuted 
for `collusion' or conspiracy.' Ther is only one 
difference in the legal treatment accorded to a crominal or to a 
businessman: the criminal`s rights are protected much more securely 
and objectively than the businessman`s. The alleged purpose of the 
Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on 
the socialist fallacy that a free, unregulated market will 
inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies, But, in 
fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established 
by means of free trade on a free market.
    Every coervice monopoly was created by government intervention 
into the economy: by special privilidges, such as franchises or 
subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, 
by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I 
refer you to the works of the best economists.). The Antitrust laws 
were the classic example of a moral inversion prevalent in the 
history of capitalism: an example of teh victims, the businessmen, 
takeing the blame for the evils caused by the government, and the 
government using its own guilt as justification for acquiring wider 
powers, on the prestext of `correcting' the evils.
    [There is only one] meaning and purpose these laws could have, 
whether their authors intended it or not: the penalizing of ability 
for being ability, the penalizing of success for being success, and 
the sacrifice of productive genius to the demands of envious 
mediocrity. So said Ms. Ayn Rand and so say my wife and I.
    Bill Gates and his team made it to the top using his genius and 
that of the brain team he put together. He should be viewed as a 
modern hero having made available software processes that have 
changed the way we live, accumulate and process knowledge.
    The first step that should be take is to abolish/repeal the 
Antitrust laws in their entirety on the basis of being inimical to 
the very concept upon which our Constitution system of government is 
founded. Just because some mental midgets not up to Bill Gates 
standards are unable to compete in the international marketplace is 
no reason to cutoff the arms, legs and labotomize Bill Gates such 
that mediocrities and incompetents can steal a part of his company 
or their earnings `sub pretexto juris', `sub 
calore juris'... i.e., those who cannot compete in a free 
market system should not be in that

[[Page 24930]]

business, and should seek other areas where they have the level of 
brainpower to make it on their own money and effort and not parasite 
off of the successful.
    Antitrust laws delenda est!
    ROBERT INGRAM POWELL
    DR. ROBERT INGRAM POWELL, Ph.D.
    [email protected]
    760-245-2355
    P.O. Box 2371
    Silver Lakes Community
    Helendale, California
    92342 USA



MTC-00007618

From: rmangum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Does not the Department of Justice have anything better to do? 
Why waste taxpayer`s money trying to destroy a tax paying business?
    The Federal government tried for 13 years to put IBM out of 
business, and wound up loosing. There are plenty of real crooks out 
there to chase!
    Roy W. Mangum
    3650 Westcliff Dr
    Hood River, OR 97031
    [email protected]



MTC-00007619

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern, Please stop wasting time & taxpayer 
money on this frivolous action that would only benefit the lawyers 
and the wealthy. The normal individual cictizen wants this settled 
and over with, so get it it done!
    Thank You
    James A. Georgakis



MTC-00007620

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please ratify the Microsoft settlement. The decision made by the 
Justice Department is fair and satisfactory. Any prolonged 
litigation will only benefit those special interests, who wish to 
punish Microsoft unfairly. Please feel free to contact me if you 
need any further comments.
    Thanks,
    Kelly Castleberry III



MTC-00007621

From: thomas clatterbuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement with Microsoft should be completed 
promptly. I also believe that the charges of Judge Thomas P. Jackson 
were improperly charged and that many of our current economic 
problems were caused by his actions,
    Prompt closure of the court will help return our economy to 
normal.
    Thank you for your assistance.
    Sincerely,
    T. R. Clatterbuck



MTC-00007622

From: Tim Ambrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:48pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To whom it may concern,
    We support Microsoft. Please end this for the good of the 
country and the world!
    It is obvious that Microsoft is trying their hardest to stop 
this endless persuit against them.
    Please be fair to them. I promise you the entire country is 
ready.
    Very sincerely yours,
    Tim Ambrose



MTC-00007623

From: Marinus Overwyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Microsoft user I find it abhorrent that you are using 
taxpayer dollars in this suit. I believe your energies and tax 
monies would be better utilized chasing terrorists, we are at WAR!.
    Mr. M. Overwyk



MTC-00007624

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is not a monopoly and should not be judged as one. 
They are business people and risk takers. It took a tremendous 
amount of capital to develop Windows and other programs. If other 
software manufacturers feel captive, they are welcome to write and 
support their own operating systems. This case should be settled 
without further litigation.
    Russel D. Hiller III, CCIM
    R. D. Hiller Co.
    P.O. Box 3621
    Albuquerque, NM 87190-3621
    Office 505.238.4168
    Fax 505.265.1635
    [email protected]



MTC-00007625

From: Steven Ramirez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the madness and let this case be SETTLED. I don`t 
care if the California attorney general is trying to further his 
career at Microsoft`s expense. Enough is enough_it`s time to 
MOVE ON!
    Steven Ramirez



MTC-00007626

From: The Petzall`s
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I firmly believe that it is in the best interest of technology 
and therefore this country, as the leader of technological 
innovation, that the Microsoft case be settled. Microsoft should not 
be penalized because the competition suffered from tunnel vision and 
could not see the broader horizons available. The comoputer industry 
went through several generations of word processing programs: 
Wordstar, pfs, Word perfect and finally standardized the industry 
with Word. This greatly enhances the ability of everyone to 
integrate systems and reduce wasted efforts in trying to gain 
compatability. If you want to penalize someone, how about Exxon and 
their unsettled case in Alaska?



MTC-00007627

From: suncitian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I believe the Microsoft case should be settled not prolonged. It 
is important for the consumer, the industry and the economy!!
    Mrs. Joanne Casebere
    11153 W. Palmeras Dr.
    Sun City, AZ 85373
    [email protected]



MTC-00007629

From: george corcoran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Should Be Enough
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Enough is enough.
    Hopefully that familiar phase will catch on with the powers that 
be so that Microsoft can be left alone with this much too long court 
action finally coming to an end.
    If it were just the economy that would suffer from more 
deliberation, that should be enough to call an end to Microsoft`s 
trial. But it is more than that.
    I look on it as similar to abortion where a life is snuffed out 
that might have been the person that would have grown up to find the 
cure for cancer or some other equally important cure or innovation.
    When Microsoft is made to buckle under, excessively, and not 
allowed to continue to innovate and invent as they did before all 
this complaining started slowing them down, then what wonderful 
creative works might never be known? We do not need to know the 
answer to that. Thus, enough is enough. Give them some slack now. 
It`s over.
    Sincerely,
    George J. Corcoran
    Commander, USNR-RET
