[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:
*�1AHaving 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.
*�1AThis 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.
*�1AAs 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.
*�1AThe 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 Guimara�7Ees 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,
...'�1A'
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/�7Eicicle/
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!�1A' 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/�7Elarrys
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/�7Etstreete
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/�7Ehck/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,
...'�1A'
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,
...'�1A` 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!!!�1A'
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 *�1Absd 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
E�Solutions,
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
�� E L E V E N ��
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/�7Esbrewer/
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/�7Ejfjr
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.'�1A'
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.'�1A` 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.'�1A` 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.'�1A`
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,
`�1A`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/�7Ehsh 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.
*�1AUsers 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.
*�1AMicrosoft`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.
*�1AIf 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:
*�1AAny 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.
*�1AThe 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.
*�1AAny 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: **�1AA 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. **�1AThe 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.
**�1AThe 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:
*�1AAny 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.
*�1AThe 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.
*�1AAny 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.. . .�1Athe 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 why�7E!!
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